def example_ckks_basics():
print("Example: CKKS Basics");
#In this example we demonstrate evaluating a polynomial function
#
# PI*x^3 + 0.4*x + 1
#
#on encrypted floating-point input data x for a set of 4096 equidistant points
#in the interval [0, 1]. This example demonstrates many of the main features
#of the CKKS scheme, but also the challenges in using it.
#
# We start by setting up the CKKS scheme.
parms = EncryptionParameters(scheme_type.CKKS)
#We saw in `2_encoders.cpp' that multiplication in CKKS causes scales
#in ciphertexts to grow. The scale of any ciphertext must not get too close
#to the total size of coeff_modulus, or else the ciphertext simply runs out of
#room to store the scaled-up plaintext. The CKKS scheme provides a `rescale'
#functionality that can reduce the scale, and stabilize the scale expansion.
#
#Rescaling is a kind of modulus switch operation (recall `3_levels.cpp').
#As modulus switching, it removes the last of the primes from coeff_modulus,
#but as a side-effect it scales down the ciphertext by the removed prime.
#Usually we want to have perfect control over how the scales are changed,
#which is why for the CKKS scheme it is more common to use carefully selected
#primes for the coeff_modulus.
#
#More precisely, suppose that the scale in a CKKS ciphertext is S, and the
#last prime in the current coeff_modulus (for the ciphertext) is P. Rescaling
#to the next level changes the scale to S/P, and removes the prime P from the
#coeff_modulus, as usual in modulus switching. The number of primes limits
#how many rescalings can be done, and thus limits the multiplicative depth of
#the computation.
#
#It is possible to choose the initial scale freely. One good strategy can be
#to is to set the initial scale S and primes P_i in the coeff_modulus to be
#very close to each other. If ciphertexts have scale S before multiplication,
#they have scale S^2 after multiplication, and S^2/P_i after rescaling. If all
#P_i are close to S, then S^2/P_i is close to S again. This way we stabilize the
#scales to be close to S throughout the computation. Generally, for a circuit
#of depth D, we need to rescale D times, i.e., we need to be able to remove D
#primes from the coefficient modulus. Once we have only one prime left in the
#coeff_modulus, the remaining prime must be larger than S by a few bits to
#preserve the pre-decimal-point value of the plaintext.
#
#Therefore, a generally good strategy is to choose parameters for the CKKS
#scheme as follows:
#
# (1) Choose a 60-bit prime as the first prime in coeff_modulus. This will
# give the highest precision when decrypting;
# (2) Choose another 60-bit prime as the last element of coeff_modulus, as
# this will be used as the special prime and should be as large as the
# largest of the other primes;
# (3) Choose the intermediate primes to be close to each other.
#
#We use CoeffModulus::Create to generate primes of the appropriate size. Note
#that our coeff_modulus is 200 bits total, which is below the bound for our
#poly_modulus_degree: CoeffModulus::MaxBitCount(8192) returns 218.
poly_modulus_degree = 8192
parms.set_poly_modulus_degree(poly_modulus_degree)
parms.set_coeff_modulus(CoeffModulus.Create(
poly_modulus_degree, IntVector([60, 40, 40, 60])))
#We choose the initial scale to be 2^40. At the last level, this leaves us
#60-40=20 bits of precision before the decimal point, and enough (roughly
#10-20 bits) of precision after the decimal point. Since our intermediate
#primes are 40 bits (in fact, they are very close to 2^40), we can achieve
#scale stabilization as described above.
scale = 2.0**40
context = SEALContext.Create(parms)
print_parameters(context)
keygen = KeyGenerator(context)
public_key = keygen.public_key()
secret_key = keygen.secret_key()
relin_keys = keygen.relin_keys()
encryptor = Encryptor(context, public_key)
evaluator = Evaluator(context)
decryptor = Decryptor(context, secret_key)
encoder = CKKSEncoder(context)
slot_count = encoder.slot_count()
print("Number of slots: {}".format(slot_count))
step_size = 1.0 / (slot_count - 1)
input = DoubleVector(list(map(lambda x: x*step_size, range(0, slot_count))))
print("Input vector: ")
print_vector(input)
print("Evaluating polynomial PI*x^3 + 0.4x + 1 ...")
#We create plaintexts for PI, 0.4, and 1 using an overload of CKKSEncoder::encode
#that encodes the given floating-point value to every slot in the vector.
plain_coeff3 = Plaintext()
plain_coeff1 = Plaintext()
plain_coeff0 = Plaintext()
encoder.encode(3.14159265, scale, plain_coeff3)
encoder.encode(0.4, scale, plain_coeff1)
encoder.encode(1.0, scale, plain_coeff0)
x_plain = Plaintext()
print("Encode input vectors.")
encoder.encode(input, scale, x_plain)
x1_encrypted = Ciphertext()
encryptor.encrypt(x_plain, x1_encrypted)
#To compute x^3 we first compute x^2 and relinearize. However, the scale has
#now grown to 2^80.
x3_encrypted = Ciphertext()
print("Compute x^2 and relinearize:")
evaluator.square(x1_encrypted, x3_encrypted)
evaluator.relinearize_inplace(x3_encrypted, relin_keys)
print(" + Scale of x^2 before rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x3_encrypted.scale())))
#Now rescale; in addition to a modulus switch, the scale is reduced down by
#a factor equal to the prime that was switched away (40-bit prime). Hence, the
#new scale should be close to 2^40. Note, however, that the scale is not equal
#to 2^40: this is because the 40-bit prime is only close to 2^40.
print("Rescale x^2.")
evaluator.rescale_to_next_inplace(x3_encrypted)
print(" + Scale of x^2 after rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x3_encrypted.scale())))
#Now x3_encrypted is at a different level than x1_encrypted, which prevents us
#from multiplying them to compute x^3. We could simply switch x1_encrypted to
#the next parameters in the modulus switching chain. However, since we still
#need to multiply the x^3 term with PI (plain_coeff3), we instead compute PI*x
#first and multiply that with x^2 to obtain PI*x^3. To this end, we compute
#PI*x and rescale it back from scale 2^80 to something close to 2^40.
print("Compute and rescale PI*x.")
x1_encrypted_coeff3 = Ciphertext()
evaluator.multiply_plain(x1_encrypted, plain_coeff3, x1_encrypted_coeff3)
print(" + Scale of PI*x before rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x1_encrypted_coeff3.scale())))
evaluator.rescale_to_next_inplace(x1_encrypted_coeff3)
print(" + Scale of PI*x after rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x1_encrypted_coeff3.scale())))
#Since x3_encrypted and x1_encrypted_coeff3 have the same exact scale and use
#the same encryption parameters, we can multiply them together. We write the
#result to x3_encrypted, relinearize, and rescale. Note that again the scale
#is something close to 2^40, but not exactly 2^40 due to yet another scaling
#by a prime. We are down to the last level in the modulus switching chain.
print("Compute, relinearize, and rescale (PI*x)*x^2.")
evaluator.multiply_inplace(x3_encrypted, x1_encrypted_coeff3)
evaluator.relinearize_inplace(x3_encrypted, relin_keys)
print(" + Scale of PI*x^3 before rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x3_encrypted.scale())))
evaluator.rescale_to_next_inplace(x3_encrypted)
print(" + Scale of PI*x^3 after rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x3_encrypted.scale())))
#Next we compute the degree one term. All this requires is one multiply_plain
#with plain_coeff1. We overwrite x1_encrypted with the result.
print("Compute and rescale 0.4*x.")
evaluator.multiply_plain_inplace(x1_encrypted, plain_coeff1)
print(" + Scale of 0.4*x before rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x1_encrypted.scale())))
evaluator.rescale_to_next_inplace(x1_encrypted)
print(" + Scale of 0.4*x after rescale: {} bits".format(log2(x1_encrypted.scale())))
#Now we would hope to compute the sum of all three terms. However, there is
#a serious problem: the encryption parameters used by all three terms are
#different due to modulus switching from rescaling.
#
#Encrypted addition and subtraction require that the scales of the inputs are
#the same, and also that the encryption parameters (parms_id) match. If there
#is a mismatch, Evaluator will throw an exception.
print("Parameters used by all three terms are different.")
print(" + Modulus chain index for x3_encrypted: {}".format(
context.get_context_data(x3_encrypted.parms_id()).chain_index()))
print(" + Modulus chain index for x1_encrypted: {}".format(
context.get_context_data(x1_encrypted.parms_id()).chain_index()))
print(" + Modulus chain index for plain_coeff0: {}".format(
context.get_context_data(plain_coeff0.parms_id()).chain_index()))
#Let us carefully consider what the scales are at this point. We denote the
#primes in coeff_modulus as P_0, P_1, P_2, P_3, in this order. P_3 is used as
#the special modulus and is not involved in rescalings. After the computations
#above the scales in ciphertexts are:
#
# - Product x^2 has scale 2^80 and is at level 2;
# - Product PI*x has scale 2^80 and is at level 2;
# - We rescaled both down to scale 2^80/P_2 and level 1;
# - Product PI*x^3 has scale (2^80/P_2)^2;
# - We rescaled it down to scale (2^80/P_2)^2/P_1 and level 0;
# - Product 0.4*x has scale 2^80;
# - We rescaled it down to scale 2^80/P_2 and level 1;
# - The contant term 1 has scale 2^40 and is at level 2.
#
#Although the scales of all three terms are approximately 2^40, their exact
#values are different, hence they cannot be added together.
print("The exact scales of all three terms are different:")
print(" + Exact scale in PI*x^3: {0:0.10f}".format(x3_encrypted.scale()))
print(" + Exact scale in 0.4*x: {0:0.10f}".format(x1_encrypted.scale()))
print(" + Exact scale in 1: {0:0.10f}".format(plain_coeff0.scale()))
#There are many ways to fix this problem. Since P_2 and P_1 are really close
#to 2^40, we can simply "lie" to Microsoft SEAL and set the scales to be the
#same. For example, changing the scale of PI*x^3 to 2^40 simply means that we
#scale the value of PI*x^3 by 2^120/(P_2^2*P_1), which is very close to 1.
#This should not result in any noticeable error.
#
#Another option would be to encode 1 with scale 2^80/P_2, do a multiply_plain
#with 0.4*x, and finally rescale. In this case we would need to additionally
#make sure to encode 1 with appropriate encryption parameters (parms_id).
#
#In this example we will use the first (simplest) approach and simply change
#the scale of PI*x^3 and 0.4*x to 2^40.
print("Normalize scales to 2^40.")
x3_encrypted.set_scale(2.0**40)
x1_encrypted.set_scale(2.0**40)
#We still have a problem with mismatching encryption parameters. This is easy
#to fix by using traditional modulus switching (no rescaling). CKKS supports
#modulus switching just like the BFV scheme, allowing us to switch away parts
#of the coefficient modulus when it is simply not needed.
print("Normalize encryption parameters to the lowest level.")
last_parms_id = x3_encrypted.parms_id()
evaluator.mod_switch_to_inplace(x1_encrypted, last_parms_id)
evaluator.mod_switch_to_inplace(plain_coeff0, last_parms_id)
#All three ciphertexts are now compatible and can be added.
print("Compute PI*x^3 + 0.4*x + 1.")
encrypted_result = Ciphertext()
evaluator.add(x3_encrypted, x1_encrypted, encrypted_result)
evaluator.add_plain_inplace(encrypted_result, plain_coeff0)
#First print the true result.
plain_result = Plaintext()
print("Decrypt and decode PI*x^3 + 0.4x + 1.")
print(" + Expected result:")
true_result = DoubleVector(list(map(lambda x: (3.14159265 * x * x + 0.4)* x + 1, input)))
print_vector(true_result)
#Decrypt, decode, and print the result.
decryptor.decrypt(encrypted_result, plain_result)
result = DoubleVector()
encoder.decode(plain_result, result)
print(" + Computed result ...... Correct.")
print_vector(result)
def example_integer_encoder():
print("Example: Encoders / Integer Encoder")
#[IntegerEncoder] (For BFV scheme only)
#
#The IntegerEncoder encodes integers to BFV plaintext polynomials as follows.
#First, a binary expansion of the integer is computed. Next, a polynomial is
#created with the bits as coefficients. For example, the integer
#
# 26 = 2^4 + 2^3 + 2^1
#
#is encoded as the polynomial 1x^4 + 1x^3 + 1x^1. Conversely, plaintext
#polynomials are decoded by evaluating them at x=2. For negative numbers the
#IntegerEncoder simply stores all coefficients as either 0 or -1, where -1 is
#represented by the unsigned integer plain_modulus - 1 in memory.
#
#Since encrypted computations operate on the polynomials rather than on the
#encoded integers themselves, the polynomial coefficients will grow in the
#course of such computations. For example, computing the sum of the encrypted
#encoded integer 26 with itself will result in an encrypted polynomial with
#larger coefficients: 2x^4 + 2x^3 + 2x^1. Squaring the encrypted encoded
#integer 26 results also in increased coefficients due to cross-terms, namely,
#
# (2x^4 + 2x^3 + 2x^1)^2 = 1x^8 + 2x^7 + 1x^6 + 2x^5 + 2x^4 + 1x^2;
#
#further computations will quickly increase the coefficients much more.
#Decoding will still work correctly in this case (evaluating the polynomial
#at x=2), but since the coefficients of plaintext polynomials are really
#integers modulo plain_modulus, implicit reduction modulo plain_modulus may
#yield unexpected results. For example, adding 1x^4 + 1x^3 + 1x^1 to itself
#plain_modulus many times will result in the constant polynomial 0, which is
#clearly not equal to 26 * plain_modulus. It can be difficult to predict when
#such overflow will take place especially when computing several sequential
#multiplications.
#
#The IntegerEncoder is easy to understand and use for simple computations,
#and can be a good tool to experiment with for users new to Microsoft SEAL.
#However, advanced users will probably prefer more efficient approaches,
#such as the BatchEncoder or the CKKSEncoder.
parms = EncryptionParameters(scheme_type.BFV)
poly_modulus_degree = 4096
parms.set_poly_modulus_degree(poly_modulus_degree)
parms.set_coeff_modulus(CoeffModulus.BFVDefault(poly_modulus_degree))
#There is no hidden logic behind our choice of the plain_modulus. The only
#thing that matters is that the plaintext polynomial coefficients will not
#exceed this value at any point during our computation; otherwise the result
#will be incorrect.
parms.set_plain_modulus(512)
context = SEALContext.Create(parms)
print_parameters(context)
keygen = KeyGenerator(context)
public_key = keygen.public_key()
secret_key = keygen.secret_key()
encryptor = Encryptor(context, public_key)
evaluator = Evaluator(context)
decryptor = Decryptor(context, secret_key)
#We create an IntegerEncoder.
encoder = IntegerEncoder(context)
#First, we encode two integers as plaintext polynomials. Note that encoding
#is not encryption: at this point nothing is encrypted.
value1 = 5
plain1 = encoder.encode(value1)
print("Encode {} as polynomial {} (plain1), ".format(
value1, plain1.to_string()))
value2 = -7
plain2 = encoder.encode(value2)
print(" encode {} as polynomial {} (plain2)".format(
value2, plain2.to_string()))
#Now we can encrypt the plaintext polynomials.
encrypted1 = Ciphertext()
encrypted2 = Ciphertext()
print("Encrypt plain1 to encrypted1 and plain2 to encrypted2.")
encryptor.encrypt(plain1, encrypted1)
encryptor.encrypt(plain2, encrypted2)
print(" + Noise budget in encrypted1: {} bits".format(
decryptor.invariant_noise_budget(encrypted1)))
print(" + Noise budget in encrypted2: {} bits".format(
decryptor.invariant_noise_budget(encrypted2)))
#As a simple example, we compute (-encrypted1 + encrypted2) * encrypted2.
encryptor.encrypt(plain2, encrypted2)
encrypted_result = Ciphertext()
print(
"Compute encrypted_result = (-encrypted1 + encrypted2) * encrypted2.")
evaluator.negate(encrypted1, encrypted_result)
evaluator.add_inplace(encrypted_result, encrypted2)
evaluator.multiply_inplace(encrypted_result, encrypted2)
print(" + Noise budget in encrypted_result: {} bits".format(
decryptor.invariant_noise_budget(encrypted_result)))
plain_result = Plaintext()
print("Decrypt encrypted_result to plain_result.")
decryptor.decrypt(encrypted_result, plain_result)
#Print the result plaintext polynomial. The coefficients are not even close
#to exceeding our plain_modulus, 512.
print(" + Plaintext polynomial: {}".format(plain_result.to_string()))
#Decode to obtain an integer result.
print("Decode plain_result.")
print(" + Decoded integer: {} ...... Correct.".format(
encoder.decode_int32(plain_result)))
