Abstract
This paper constructs efficient non-interactive arguments for correct evaluation of arithmetic and boolean circuits with proof size O(d) group elements, where d is the multiplicative depth of the circuit, under falsifiable assumptions. This is achieved by combining techniques from SNARKs and QA-NIZK arguments of membership in linear spaces. The first construction is very efficient (the proof size is \(\approx 4d\) group elements and the verification cost is \(\approx 4d\) pairings and \(O(n+n'+d)\) exponentiations, where n is the size of the input and \(n'\) of the output) but one type of attack can only be ruled out assuming the knowledge soundness of QA-NIZK arguments of membership in linear spaces. We give an alternative construction which replaces this assumption with a decisional assumption in bilinear groups at the cost of approximately doubling the proof size. The construction for boolean circuits can be made zero-knowledge with Groth-Sahai proofs, resulting in a NIZK argument for circuit satisfiability based on falsifiable assumptions in bilinear groups of proof size \(O(n+d)\).
Our main technical tool is what we call an “argument of knowledge transfer”. Given a commitment \(C_1\) and an opening x, such an argument allows to prove that some other commitment \(C_2\) opens to f(x), for some function f, even if \(C_2\) is not extractable. We construct very short, constant-size, pairing-based arguments of knowledge transfer with constant-time verification for any linear function and also for Hadamard products. These allow to transfer the knowledge of the input to lower levels of the circuit.
A. González—This author was supported in part by the French ANR ALAMBIC project (ANR-16-CE39-0006).
C. Ràfols—The research leading to this article was supported by a Marie Curie “UPF Fellows” Postdoctoral Grant and by Project RTI2018-102112-B-I00 (AEI/FEDER, UE).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Essentially the only such commitment known is bit to bit encryption, e.g. Groth-Sahai commitments to bits.
- 2.
Note that using the celebrated recent results of Peikert and Shiehian [35] this scheme can be based solely on the LWE assumption.
- 3.
There’s the technicality that a verifier running in time sub-linear in the circuit size can not even read the circuit, which is part of the input of the universal circuit. For this reason, they restricted the circuits to be log space uniform boolean cicuits.
- 4.
For the distribution \(\mathcal {M}^{\top }\) used in Sect. 5 this assumption is equivalent to the m-DLog assumption.
- 5.
- 6.
We can assume w.l.o.g. that the crs for the linear knowledge transfer associated to \(\mathbf {{M}}_i,\mathbf {{N}}_i,\mathbf {{P}}_i\) includes \(\{[s_j]_{1,2}\}_{j=1}^{N-1},[s_j^N]\), as this does not compromise security.
References
Danezis, G., Fournet, C., Groth, J., Kohlweiss, M.: Square span programs with applications to succinct NIZK arguments. In: Sarkar, P., Iwata, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8873, pp. 532–550. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45611-8_28
Daza, V., González, A., Pindado, Z., Ràfols, C., Silva, J.: Shorter quadratic QA-NIZK proofs. In: Lin, D., Sako, K. (eds.) PKC 2019, Part I. LNCS, vol. 11442, pp. 314–343. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17253-4_11
Escala, A., Groth, J.: Fine-tuning Groth-Sahai proofs. In: Krawczyk, H. (ed.) PKC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8383, pp. 630–649. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54631-0_36
Escala, A., Herold, G., Kiltz, E., Ràfols, C., Villar, J.L.: An algebraic framework for Diffie-Hellman assumptions. J. Cryptol. 30(1), 242–288 (2017)
Fauzi, P., Lipmaa, H., Siim, J., Zając, M.: An efficient pairing-based shuffle argument. In: Takagi, T., Peyrin, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10625, pp. 97–127. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70697-9_4
Ferrara, A.L., Green, M., Hohenberger, S., Pedersen, M.Ø.: Practical short signature batch verification. In: Fischlin, M. (ed.) CT-RSA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5473, pp. 309–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00862-7_21
Gennaro, R., Gentry, C., Parno, B.: Non-interactive verifiable computing: outsourcing computation to untrusted workers. In: Rabin, T. (ed.) CRYPTO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6223, pp. 465–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_25
Gennaro, R., Gentry, C., Parno, B., Raykova, M.: Quadratic span programs and succinct NIZKs without PCPs. In: Johansson, T., Nguyen, P.Q. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7881, pp. 626–645. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38348-9_37
Gentry, C.: Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In: Mitzenmacher, M. (ed.) 41st ACM STOC, pp. 169–178. ACM Press, May/June (2009)
Gentry, C., Groth, J., Ishai, Y., Peikert, C., Sahai, A., Smith, A.D.: Using fully homomorphic hybrid encryption to minimize non-interative zero-knowledge proofs. J. Cryptol. 28(4), 820–843 (2015)
Gentry, C., Wichs, D.: Separating succinct non-interactive arguments from all falsifiable assumptions. In: Fortnow, L., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.) 43rd ACM STOC, pp. 99–108. ACM Press, June 2011
Ghadafi, E., Groth, J.: Towards a classification of non-interactive computational assumptions in cyclic groups. In: Takagi, T., Peyrin, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10625, pp. 66–96. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70697-9_3
Goldwasser, S., Kalai, Y.T., Rothblum, G.N.: Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles. In: Ladner, R.E., Dwork, C. (eds.) 40th ACM STOC, pp. 113–122. ACM Press, May 2008
González, A., Hevia, A., Ràfols, C.: QA-NIZK arguments in asymmetric groups: new tools and new constructions. In: Iwata, T., Cheon, J.H. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2015, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9452, pp. 605–629. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48797-6_25
Groth, J.: Short pairing-based non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments. In: Abe, M. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6477, pp. 321–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17373-8_19
Groth, J.: On the size of pairing-based non-interactive arguments. In: Fischlin, M., Coron, J.-S. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9666, pp. 305–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_11
Groth, J., Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A.: New techniques for noninteractive zero-knowledge. J. ACM 59(3), 11 (2012)
Groth, J., Sahai, A.: Efficient noninteractive proof systems for bilinear groups. SIAM J. Comput. 41(5), 1193–1232 (2012)
Herold, G., Hoffmann, M., Klooß, M., Ràfols, C., Rupp, A.: New techniques for structural batch verification in bilinear groups with applications to groth-sahai proofs. In: Thuraisingham, B.M., Evans, D., Malkin, T., Xu, D. (eds.) ACM CCS 2017, pp. 1547–1564. ACM Press, October/November (2017)
Jutla, C.S., Roy, A.: Shorter quasi-adaptive NIZK proofs for linear subspaces. In: Sako, K., Sarkar, P. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8269, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-42033-7_1
Jutla, C.S., Roy, A.: Switching lemma for bilinear tests and constant-size NIZK proofs for linear subspaces. In: Garay, J.A., Gennaro, R. (eds.) CRYPTO 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8617, pp. 295–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44381-1_17
Kalai, Y., Paneth, O., Yang, L.: On publicly verifiable delegation from standard assumptions. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2018/776 (2018). https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/776
Kalai, Y.T., Raz, R., Rothblum, R.D.: How to delegate computations: the power of no-signaling proofs. In: Shmoys, D.B. (ed.) 46th ACM STOC, pp. 485–494. ACM Press, May/June (2014)
Katsumata, S., Nishimaki, R., Yamada, S., Yamakawa, T.: Exploring constructions of compact NIZKs from various assumptions. In: Boldyreva, A., Micciancio, D. (eds.) CRYPTO 2019. Part III, volume 11694 of LNCS, pp. 639–669. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26954-8_21
Kiltz, E., Wee, H.: Quasi-adaptive NIZK for linear subspaces revisited. In: Oswald, E., Fischlin, M. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9057, pp. 101–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46803-6_4
Libert, B., Peters, T., Joye, M., Yung, M.: Non-malleability from malleability: simulation-sound quasi-adaptive NIZK proofs and CCA2-secure encryption from homomorphic signatures. In: Nguyen, P.Q., Oswald, E. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8441, pp. 514–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55220-5_29
Libert, B., Peters, T., Yung, M.: Short group signatures via structure-preserving signatures: standard model security from simple assumptions. In: Gennaro, R., Robshaw, M. (eds.) CRYPTO 2015, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9216, pp. 296–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48000-7_15
Lipmaa, H.: Progression-free sets and sublinear pairing-based non-interactive zero-knowledge arguments. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 169–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28914-9_10
Lund, C., Fortnow, L., Karloff, H.J., Nisan, N.: Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. In: 31st FOCS, pp. 2–10. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1990
Maller, M., Kohlweiss, M., Bowe, S., Meiklejohn, S.: Sonic: zero-knowledge snarks from linear-size universal and updateable structured reference string. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/099 (2019). http://eprint.iacr.org/2019/099
Morillo, P., Ràfols, C., Villar, J.L.: The kernel matrix diffie-hellman assumption. In: Cheon, J.H., Takagi, T. (eds.) ASIACRYPT 2016, Part I. LNCS, vol. 10031, pp. 729–758. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53887-6_27
Naor, M.: On cryptographic assumptions and challenges. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 96–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45146-4_6
Paneth, O., Rothblum, G.N.: On Zero-testable homomorphic encryption and publicly verifiable non-interactive arguments. In: Kalai, Y., Reyzin, L. (eds.) TCC 2017, Part II. LNCS, vol. 10678, pp. 283–315. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70503-3_9
Parno, B., Howell, J., Gentry, C., Raykova, M.: Pinocchio: nearly practical verifiable computation. In: 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 238–252. IEEE Computer Society Press, May 2013
Peikert, C., Shiehian, S.: Noninteractive zero knowledge for NP from (plain) learning with errors. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/158 (2019). https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/158
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 International Association for Cryptologic Research
About this paper
Cite this paper
González, A., Ràfols, C. (2019). Shorter Pairing-Based Arguments Under Standard Assumptions. In: Galbraith, S., Moriai, S. (eds) Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2019. ASIACRYPT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11923. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34618-8_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34618-8_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34617-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34618-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)