Abstract:The widespread adoption of machine learning (ML) in various critical applications, from healthcare to autonomous systems, has raised significant concerns about privacy, accountability, and trustworthiness. To address these concerns, recent research has focused on developing zero-knowledge machine learning (zkML) techniques that enable the verification of various aspects of ML models without revealing sensitive information. Recent advances in zkML have substantially improved efficiency; however, these efforts have primarily optimized the process of proving ML computations correct, often overlooking the substantial overhead associated with verifying the necessary commitments to the model and data. To address this gap, this paper introduces two new Commit-and-Prove SNARK (CP-SNARK) constructions (Apollo and Artemis) that effectively address the emerging challenge of commitment verification in zkML pipelines. Apollo operates on KZG commitments and requires white-box use of the underlying proof system, whereas Artemis is compatible with any homomorphic polynomial commitment and only makes black-box use of the proof system. As a result, Artemis is compatible with state-of-the-art proof systems without trusted setup. We present the first implementation of these CP-SNARKs, evaluate their performance on a diverse set of ML models, and show substantial improvements over existing methods, achieving significant reductions in prover costs and maintaining efficiency even for large-scale models. For example, for the VGG model, we reduce the overhead associated with commitment checks from 11.5x to 1.2x. Our results suggest that these contributions can move zkML towards practical deployment, particularly in scenarios involving large and complex ML models.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### The Problem Addressed by the Paper
The paper "Artemis: Efficient Commit-and-Prove SNARKs for zkML" aims to address a significant performance bottleneck in zero-knowledge machine learning (zkML), specifically the overhead of model commitment verification. Although existing zkML technologies have made significant progress in proving the correctness of machine learning (ML) computations, these methods often overlook the substantial overhead associated with model and data commitments. This results in commitment verification becoming a significant bottleneck in practical applications, especially when dealing with large-scale and complex models.
### Background
With the widespread application of machine learning in various critical fields, from healthcare to autonomous driving systems, issues of privacy, accountability, and trustworthiness have become increasingly prominent. To address these issues, researchers have begun developing zero-knowledge machine learning (zkML) technologies that can verify various aspects of ML models without revealing sensitive information. While recent advancements have significantly improved the efficiency of zkML, these efforts have primarily focused on optimizing the proving process, neglecting the overhead of verifying commitments.
### Specific Problems
1. **Commitment Verification Overhead**: Existing zkML methods have significant performance overhead when verifying model and data commitments. For example, for large models, existing commitment consistency checks can occupy more than 90% of the total verification time.
2. **Limitations of Existing Methods**: Most existing zkML research focuses on improving the efficiency of proving ML computations, with less attention to the consistency verification of model commitments. This leads to commitment verification becoming a significant bottleneck in practical applications, especially when dealing with large-scale models.
### Solutions
To address the above issues, the paper proposes two new Commit-and-Prove SNARK (CP-SNARK) constructions, namely Apollo and Artemis.
1. **Apollo**:
- **Features**: Based on a LegoSNARK-style construction, suitable for Plonk and KZG-style commitments.
- **Advantages**: By optimizing the alignment process between internal witness commitments and external commitments, it significantly reduces the prover's overhead. For example, for the MobileNet model, Apollo requires only 1 linking proof, whereas Lunar requires 20 shifts and 20 linking proofs.
- **Limitations**: Relies on specific arithmetization and commitment mechanisms, requiring a trusted setup.
2. **Artemis**:
- **Features**: Supports any homomorphic polynomial commitment and uses the underlying proving system in a black-box manner. Therefore, it is compatible with the latest proving systems that do not require a trusted setup, such as Halo2.
- **Advantages**: By efficiently verifying the consistency of commitments within the SNARK, it significantly reduces the verification overhead. Experimental results show that Artemis outperforms existing methods on various ML models, especially when dealing with large-scale models.
- **Limitations**: Although more general, it may not be as efficient as Apollo in certain cases.
### Conclusion
By introducing Apollo and Artemis, the paper provides effective solutions to the commitment verification overhead problem in zkML. These contributions not only improve the performance of zkML but also make zkML technology more feasible in practical applications, especially when dealing with large-scale and complex models.