Taking Proof-Based Verified Computation a Few Steps Closer to Practicality

By Srinath T. V. Setty, Victor Vu, Nikhil Panpalia, Benjamin Braun, Andrew Justin Blumberg, Michael Walfish. 2012

195 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Pinocchio: Nearly Practical Verifiable Computation (2013, methodology): “Setty et al. produced a second line of PCP-based systems called Pepper [27] and Ginger [28].”
Verifying computations with state (2013, neutral): “To briefly compare the performance of Zaatar and Pinocchio, Pinocchio has superior amortization behavior (see above) but higher proving and setup costs (and hence higher cross-over points), by constant factors.”
A Hybrid Architecture for Interactive Verifiable Computation (2013, methodology): “An exception to the previous paragraph is that it is sometimes infeasible to run with Ginger; in those cases (we will note them), we estimate costs using a model from [46], parameterized with microbenchmark results from [44, §5.”
Scalable Zero Knowledge Via Cycles of Elliptic Curves (2014, background): “And not just in principle: much research has been devoted to improve the efficiency and functionality of circuit generators in practice [9,12,17,82,92,106].”
Doubly-Efficient zkSNARKs Without Trusted Setup (2018, methodology): “[21], as well as implementations and refinements in the non-ZK context [29, 91–93].”
Verifiable differential privacy (2015, background): “Another line of work [41–43, 47] combines the interactive arguments of Ishai et al.”
Verifiable ASICs (2016, background): “We discuss non-recurring costs (engineering, creating photolithographic masks, etc.) in Section 9.”
Efficient RAM and control flow in verifiable outsourced computation (2015, background): “The principal costs are the setup work and the prover’s work to generate the certificate.”
Succinct Non-Interactive Zero Knowledge for a von Neumann Architecture (2014, methodology): “An efficiency comparison with other non-universal circuit generators [66, 64, 56, 27] is not well-defined.”
A Survey of Verifiable Computation (2017, background): “However, there are still some drawbacks in the above schemes [10, 21, 67].”
Scalable Zero Knowledge with No Trusted Setup (2019, methodology): “The ﬁrst implementation of a QSP based system is called Pinocchio [63], with subsequent implementations including libSNARK [19, 68] which is used in the Zerocash and Zcash™ implementations; additional implementations appear in [70, 73, 72, 71, 24, 79, 37, 82].”
Resolving the conflict between generality and plausibility in verified computation (2013, background): “2) ρlin, ρ: number of linearity tests, number of PCP repetitions ` = 3ρlin + 2: number of (high-order) PCP queries in Ginger [53] e, d: cost of encrypting, decrypting an element in F (§5.”
Quadratic Span Programs and Succinct NIZKs without PCPs (2013, background): “We find that QAPs outperform QSPs, and that Pinocchio significantly outperforms state-of-the-art systems [16, 40] based on PCPs [2, 25, 30].”
Secure Computation on Floating Point Numbers (2013, background): “Also of interest, Setty et al. [40] developed GINGER, a system for verification of outsourced computation, including support for (limited) operations on floating point numbers.”