Score:0

Definition of Circuit Depth in Homomorphic Encryption

tr flag

I am currently trying to get a grasp of homomorphic encryption and are working through the paper by Armknecht et al. (2015): https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1192 which gives a nice overview and clear definitions.

The only thing I stumble across is the definition of the "depth of a Circuit". The paper defines the set of Circuits C as

We begin with a space P = {0, 1}, which we call the plaintext space, and a family F of functions from tuples of plaintexts to P. We can express such a function as a Boolean circuit on its inputs. If we denote this circuit by C, we use ordinary function notation C(m1, m2, . . . , mn) to denote the evaluation of the circuit on the tuple (m1, m2, . . . , mn).

Later on it defines a levelled homomorphic scheme (Definition 8) as

A C–evaluation scheme (Gen, Enc, Eval, Dec) is called a levelled homomorphic scheme if it takes an auxiliary input α = d to Gen which specifies the maximum depth of circuits that can be evaluated. Further requirements are correctness, compactness and that the length of the evaluation output does not depend on d.

This introduces the notion of the Circuit depth.

My questions here are

  1. So does Circuit here mean an arbitrary combination of the elementary logical circuits (and, or, xor, not)?
  2. Is the circuit depth than considered the (minimal?) number of (elementary?) circuits combined in sequence?

or stated otherwise:

What are the exact definition of a Circuit, a Boolean Circuit and Circuit depths?

Thanks already in advance!

kelalaka avatar
in flag
These two questions may cover your questions [FHE: What is the difference between multiplicative depth and multiplicative level?](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/q/72982/18298) [Representing a function as FHE circuit](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/q/63781/18298)
mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.