Progression-Free Sets and Sublinear Pairing-Based Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Arguments

  • Helger Lipmaa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7194)

Abstract

In 2010, Groth constructed the only previously known sublinear-communication NIZK circuit satisfiability argument in the common reference string model. We optimize Groth’s argument by, in particular, reducing both the CRS length and the prover’s computational complexity from quadratic to quasilinear in the circuit size. We also use a (presumably) weaker security assumption, and have tighter security reductions. Our main contribution is to show that the complexity of Groth’s basic arguments is dominated by the quadratic number of monomials in certain polynomials. We collapse the number of monomials to quasilinear by using a recent construction of progression-free sets.

Keywords

Additive combinatorics bilinear pairings circuit satisfiability non-interactive zero-knowledge progression-free sets 

References

  1. 1.
    Abe, M., Fehr, S.: Perfect NIZK with Adaptive Soundness. In: Vadhan, S.P. (ed.) TCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4392, pp. 118–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barreto, P.S.L.M., Naehrig, M.: Pairing-Friendly Elliptic Curves of Prime Order. In: Preneel, B., Tavares, S. (eds.) SAC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3897, pp. 319–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behrend, F.A.: On the Sets of Integers Which Contain No Three in Arithmetic Progression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 32(12), 331–332 (1946)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum, M., Feldman, P., Micali, S.: Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge and Its Applications. In: STOC 1988, pp. 103–112. ACM Press (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourgain, J.: On Triples in Arithmetic Progression. Geom. Funct. Anal. 9(5), 968–984 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaabouni, R., Lipmaa, H., Shelat, A.: Additive Combinatorics and Discrete Logarithm Based Range Protocols. In: Steinfeld, R., Hawkes, P. (eds.) ACISP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6168, pp. 336–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaabouni, R., Lipmaa, H., Zhang, B.: A Non-Interactive Range Proof with Constant Communication. In: Keromytis, A. (ed.) FC 2012. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheon, J.H.: Security Analysis of the Strong Diffie-Hellman Problem. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elkin, M.: An Improved Construction of Progression-Free Sets. Israeli J. Math. 184, 93–128 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gentry, C.: Fully Homomorphic Encryption Using Ideal Lattices. In: Mitzenmacher, M. (ed.) STOC 2009, pp. 169–178. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gentry, C., Wichs, D.: Separating Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments from All Falsifiable Assumptions. In: Vadhan, S. (ed.) STOC 2011, pp. 99–108. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golle, P., Jarecki, S., Mironov, I.: Cryptographic Primitives Enforcing Communication and Storage Complexity. In: Blaze, M. (ed.) FC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2357, pp. 120–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green, B., Wolf, J.: A Note on Elkin’s Improvement of Behrend’s Construction. In: Chudnovsky, D., Chudnovsky, G. (eds.) Additive Number Theory, pp. 141–144. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groth, J.: Linear Algebra with Sub-linear Zero-Knowledge Arguments. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 192–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Groth, J.: Minimizing Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs Using Fully Homomorphic Encryption. Tech. Rep. 2011/012, IACR (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groth, J., Sahai, A.: Efficient Non-interactive Proof Systems for Bilinear Groups. In: Smart, N.P. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 415–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hess, F., Smart, N.P., Vercauteren, F.: The Eta Pairing Revisited. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52(10), 4595–4602 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Hoeij, M., Novocin, A.: Gradual Sub-lattice Reduction and a New Complexity for Factoring Polynomials. In: López-Ortiz, A. (ed.) LATIN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6034, pp. 539–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lipmaa, H.: Progression-Free Sets and Sublinear Pairing-Based Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Arguments. Tech. Rep. 2011/009, IACR (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lipmaa, H., Zhang, B.: A More Efficient Computationally Sound Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Shuffle Argument. Tech. Rep. 2011/394, IACR (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Micali, S.: CS Proofs. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) FOCS 1994, pp. 436–453. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moser, L.: An Application of Generating Series. Mathematics Magazine 35(1), 37–38 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanders, T.: On Roth’s Theorem on Progressions. Ann. Math. 174(1), 619–636 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tao, T., Vu, V.: Additive Combinatorics. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helger Lipmaa
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of TartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations