# Field Multiplication

A key operation is field multiplication in a prime field, ie: computing \$C = AB mod P\$, where P is a 377-bit prime number, and \$A\$ and \$B\$ are both elements of the prime field (ie: \$0 ≤ A < P\$, A is an unsigned integer).

Our field multiplication component has important properties:

• it’s fully pipelined - in other words, it has a throughput of one per cycle
• \$P\$ is known at compile time
• \$A\$ and \$B\$ are known at runtime

## Computing \$A × B\$

The FPGA part we were working with contains DSP slices, where each slice is capable of performing an unsigned 27 x 16 multiplication. While there are 6,800 DSP slices in the FPGA part, we can only use around 3,000 of them when accounting for the area of the AWS shell and general routing congestion.

Implementing a 377-by-377 multiplication naively with long multiplication (also known as the high school multiplication algorithm) would take up \$ceil(377/17) × ceil(377/26) = 330\$ DSPs just to produce partial results! We need 7 field multiplications to perform point addition, each of which requires 3 377-bit multiplications. This would require \$330 × 3 × 7 = 6,930\$ DSP slices, which is way above our budget!

We have instead implemented the Karatsuba-Ofman Multiplication Algorithm, which requires fewer multipliers.

The key idea of the algorithm is to reexpress the overall multiplication as smaller multiplications recursively, and reuse results.

For example, to multiply \$x\$ and \$y\$, firstly express \$x\$ and \$y\$ as follows:

\[x = 2^{W/2}x_1 + x_0\] \[y = 2^{W/2}y_1 + y_0\]

where \$x_1, y_1 < 2^{W/2}\$, \$x_0, y_0 < 2^{W/2}\$ and \$W\$ is the number of bits to represent \$x\$ and \$y\$. Since we’re “splitting” the numbers as parts of powers of two, this is simply a bit select (which is free in hardware!)

\[x_1 = select\_bits(x_1, W - 1, W / 2)\] \[x_0 = select\_bits(x_1, W / 2 - 1, 0)\]

We break the computation into several stages:

\[a = x_1 + x_0\] \[b = y_1 + y_0\]

2) Recursive partial multiplication

Then, the sub-multiplications, which are simply smaller Karatsuba-Ofman multiplications (up to a base case, which we’ll touch on later).

\[z_2 = x_1 × y_0\] \[z_0 = x_0 × y_0\] \[m_1 = a × b\]

\[z_1 = (m_1 - m_2) - z_2 - z_0\]

\[xy = 2^{2W}z_2 + 2^{W}z_1 + z0\]

The Karatsuba Ofman algorithm is a recursive algorithm, so we have the freedom to choose the width where we fall back to a vanilla multiplication with DSP slices. In practice, we experimentally found that the base case of W <= 26 works best (it maps to exactly 2 DSP slices to compute a multiplication of 2 numbers).

As it turns out, for 377-bit multiplications in the prime field, we only require 4 levels of recursion to arrive to a base case of 22-bit multipliers. This translates to requiring only 162 DSP slices. This is much more realistic than the 330 multipliers required from long multiplication.

All the operations in the field multiplication are fully pipelined. This means we can work out the exact latency of this component. In our work, we had parameters to tune the amount of pipelining in each of the pre, middle and post adder stages. This allowed us to easily experiment with various multiplier design points.

## Barrett Reduction

When computing multiplications in modular arithmetic, we will necessarily need to reduce our products within the modulus—in other words, given \$A ⋅ B = q ⋅ P + r\$, where \$q, r\$ are integers and \$r∈[0,P-1]\$, we wish to find \$r\$. In the most general case, performing this reduction requires us to divide the product by \$P\$, which is very expensive on FPGAs (because often, the best way to do this is to simply long divide). However, in our specific case, we know that \$P\$ is a fixed constant, so we can do better. We implement Barrett Reduction, an efficient modular reduction algorithm, with several optimizations (discussed below).

The idea of the Barrett Reduction algorithm is to take the product \$A ⋅ B\$ and approximate \$c\$ based on 2 main stages.

### Stage 1: Coarse Approximation

We wish to compute \$q = ⌊{ AB } / P⌋\$. Let \$n = ⌊ \log_2P ⌋\$ be the number of bits needed to represent \$P\$.

For the coarse approximation, we can approximate \$q\$ by approximating \$1/P\$ as \$⌊2^{2n}/P⌋/2^{2n}\$. In other words, we take the \$2n\$ most significant bits of \$1/P\$ and use them as an approximation. Letting \$c = ⌊2^{2n}/P⌋ < 2^{n+1}\$, our first approximation for \$q\$ is given by \$q′ = ⌊{ AB ⋅ c } / 2^{2n}⌋\$.

However, note that this still requires a \$2n\$-by-\$n\$ multiplication—because our Karatsuba multiplier described above only works over equal-width operands, this creates an inefficient multiplication. So, we perform a second approximation in order to reduce the width of the numbers being multiplied - \$q′′ = ⌊⌊ { AB } / 2^n ⌋ ⋅{c / 2^{n}}⌋\$. To compute \$q′′\$, we perform two multiplications: first we compute \$ AB \$, and then we multiply the top \$n\$ bits of the result by \$c\$ (an \$n+1\$-digit number) and take the top \$n\$ bits of the result.

Overall, for stage 1 of Barrett’s Algorithm, we compute \$q′′\$, and then compute \$r′ = AB - q′′P\$. We can show with some bounding arguments that \$0 ≤ q - q′′ ≤ 3\$, so we know that the approximate remainder \$r′\$ is within 3 multiples of \$P\$ from the true remainder \$r\$.

### Stage 2: Fine Approximation

Suppose that the approximation from Stage 1 has an error of \$e\$, so \$0 ≤ q - q′′ ≤ e\$. (Above, we showed a coarse reduction scheme that gives \$e=3\$, but we can tune this using optimizations discussed below).

In the standard implementation of Barrett reduction, the coarse approximation stage is followed by a fine approximation stage in which we compute \$r′ - mP\$ for \$ m∈[0,e] \$ and pick the result that is within the range \$[0, P-1]\$. As \$e\$ gets large, this naive implementation becomes very expensive, so we show an optimized implementation based on BRAM lookups below.

This is the most basic form of Barrett reduction, but we extend it with further optimizations.

## LSB Multiplication

In the discussion above, the subtraction at the end of Stage 1 only requires the least significant \$n+2\$ bits (because the error is at most \$3P\$). As a result, we can use a truncated LSB multiplier to compute \$q′′P\$ instead of a full multiplier. This follows from the Karatsuba multiplication formulation by just dropping the high order term (\$z_2\$). Further, we can recursively apply this idea to build an LSB-truncated Karatsuba multiplier.

## Approximate MSB Multiplication

In the discussion above, we only keep the \$n\$ most-significant bits of \$⌊ { AB } / 2^n ⌋ ⋅c\$. Instead of using a full multiplier to perform this computation, we can use an approximate MSB-truncated multiplier and propagate the error into the overall error bounds in the coarse reduction stage of Barrett reduction.

In particular, in the truncated MSB multiplier, we recursively drop the lowest-order term (\$z_0\$) from the Karatsuba formulation, keeping careful track of the error propagated through the product. The more aggressively we split the product (i.e., the wider the product \$z_0\$ that we drop), the more error is introduced into the approximation.

For further reading on Barrett reduction and truncated multipliers, please refer to this work by Xavier.

## BRAM Reduction

From the MSB approximation, we essentially get a knob which lets us trade-off the coarseness of Barrett reduction with the resource usage of its constituent multipliers. Even when pipelined, if \$e\$ is large, the fine reduction scheme presented above requires many stages of shifts and subtractions to choose the final reduced remainder. Instead, we use a BRAM lookup to reduce this to a 2-stage pipeline that can reduce a very wide error.

In particular, we design a module which can reduce any input \$r′∈[0, {2^e}P)\$ to an equivalent value modulo \$P\$ in the range \$[0, p)\$ with just two subtraction stages, for any integer \$e\$.

We do this by precomputing and loading a ROM \$R\$ with \$2^e\$ entries. We set \$R = 0\$. Then, for \$i≥1\$, entry \$R[i]\$ holds the final \$n\$ bits of the largest multiple of \$p\$ that has \$i-1\$ as its \$e\$-bit prefix when written with \$e+n\$ bits. In particular,

\[R[i] = ⌊{(i-1) ⋅ 2^n} / {p} ⌋ (\mod 2^{n})\]

Then, given an input \$r′∈[0, {2^e}P)\$ with \$e+n\$ bits, we can look up it’s \$e\$-bit prefix in the ROM and subtract the resulting value from the \$n\$-bit suffix of our input value:

\[r′[n-1:0] - R[r′[e-1+n:n]]\]

(Note that we only need to use the lower \$n\$ bits because we know what the higher bits are by construction) Then, when the lookup index is nonzero, we have to invert the MSB of the signed result to get an unsigned reduction \$r′′\$ to the range \$[0,3p)\$.

After this, we do one more subtraction stage where we just multiplex between \${r′′, r′′-p, r′′-2p}\$ to choose the final result.

This idea was inspired by work by Langhammer and Pasca.

## Multiplication by Constant

The LSB and Approximate MSB Multiplication routines above involve heavy multiplication by constants. In our work, we represent the constant in non-adjacent form (NAF) form. If the constant has a Hamming weight in NAF larger than a certain threshold, we use DSP slices. Otherwise, it is implemented using long multiplication with LUTs.

## Other Things We Tried

We experimented with several other things in implementing the field multipliers. Here are some things that didn’t work well enough to make it into the final implementation:

Hybrid LUT / Multipliers In computing the `A * B`, we’ve solely relied on DSP slices. This is suboptimal, since we use 2 slices of 26x17 multipliers just to compute 22x22! We could use a hybrid of DSP and LUTs to perform the 22x22 multiplication to save 1 DSP per base-case multiplier. However, we found our primary bottleneck to largely be in LUT routing congestion, so we ended up being more liberal in our DSP usage.

Radix 3 Splitting We experimented with radix-3 splitting (meaning splitting \$ x = 2^{2/3 W}x_2 + 2^{1/3 W}x_1 + x_0 \$). While it has slightly lower latency, since it requires less levels, we found that it has a higher resource usage. Given the point adder latency didn’t matter too much, we didn’t investigate this further.