You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, we specify a single folding factor for all FRI layers. Out of supported folding factors (4, 8, 16), it seems like 8 results in the smallest proof in most situations. However, it might be possible to optimize this even further by using different folding factors across different layers. I wouldn't expect the impact to be huge - but getting something around 5% proof size reduction may be possible.
One way to go about this is to deterministically create a schedule of folding factors based on extended domain size, and field element size, and hash function digest size. This schedule can then be provided as an input to FRI prover/verifier.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now, we specify a single folding factor for all FRI layers. Out of supported folding factors (4, 8, 16), it seems like 8 results in the smallest proof in most situations. However, it might be possible to optimize this even further by using different folding factors across different layers. I wouldn't expect the impact to be huge - but getting something around 5% proof size reduction may be possible.
One way to go about this is to deterministically create a schedule of folding factors based on extended domain size, and field element size, and hash function digest size. This schedule can then be provided as an input to FRI prover/verifier.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: