Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

specs: circuit architecture, memory, continuations #1457

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Mar 18, 2025

Conversation

Golovanov399
Copy link
Contributor

@Golovanov399 Golovanov399 commented Mar 15, 2025

Write the specs for the circuit and memory

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

@Golovanov399 Golovanov399 marked this pull request as ready for review March 17, 2025 21:43
In the following, we will refer to a circuit as a collection of AIR matrices (also referred to as chips) of possibly
different heights, which may communicate with one another over buses using a log-up permutation argument. We refer to
messages sent to such a bus as [interactions](https://github.com/openvm-org/stark-backend/tree/main/crates/stark-backend/src/interaction).
In the following, we will refer to a circuit as a collection of chips that communicate with one another over buses using a LogUp permutation argument. We refer to messages sent to such a bus as [interactions](https://github.com/openvm-org/stark-backend/blob/main/docs/interactions.md). Every _chip_ is an entity responsible for a certain operation (or set of operations), and it has an AIR to check the correctness of its execution.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

technically, in the backend we used "interaction" to refer to the "for every row, send ..." constraint/rule. But we do also colloquially use interaction to kind of refer to the message. I couldn't find a good way to really distinguish this, and here when you say refer to mesages -> interaction, it is technically still correct in a sense. so no change required

Copy link
Contributor

@jonathanpwang jonathanpwang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jonathanpwang jonathanpwang merged commit e52083c into main Mar 18, 2025
17 checks passed
@jonathanpwang jonathanpwang deleted the specs/circuit-architecture-and-continuations branch March 18, 2025 08:43
Copy link

group app.proof_time_ms app.cycles app.cells_used leaf.proof_time_ms leaf.cycles leaf.cells_used
verify_fibair (+2 [+0.2%]) 1,241 334,023 17,901,531 - - -
fibonacci_program (+55 [+2.1%]) 2,735 1,500,096 51,485,167 - - -
regex_program (-213 [-2.7%]) 7,757 4,140,164 167,389,450 - - -
ecrecover_program (+51 [+3.6%]) 1,476 295,181 15,586,346 - - -
pairing (+76 [+1.6%]) 4,777 1,711,640 92,585,975 - - -

Commit: 4be954c

Benchmark Workflow

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants