Performance tuning

This guide provides detailed performance benchmarks and optimization techniques for PVAC-HFHE based on real measurements.

Performance overview

PVAC-HFHE excels at shallow circuits and scalar operations. From benchmark data:

Core operations

Operation	PVAC-HFHE	BFV	BGV	CKKS	Speedup
Scalar add	0.012ms	0.124ms	0.552ms	1.050ms	10-87x faster
Scalar mul	2.47ms	18.28ms	17.61ms	35.23ms	7.4-14.3x faster
Dot product (n=32)	80.27ms	598.94ms	626.17ms	1218.69ms	7.5x faster

All benchmarks from benchmarks/README.md running on DigitalOcean Premium AMD 8-core 2.0GHz with g++ -O3 -march=native.

Key generation performance

From benchmarks/README.md:191-200:

Operation      PVAC-HFHE    BFV      BGV      CKKS
Keygen         858.95ms     38.43ms  62.03ms  143.61ms
Encrypt        84.11ms      10.91ms  12.70ms  23.34ms
Decrypt        13.38ms      2.54ms   3.48ms   10.37ms

Optimization tips

Current implementation is an unoptimized proof-of-concept. Key generation is 22x slower than BFV but only runs once per session.

Mitigation strategies:

Cache keys: Generate once, serialize to disk
Precompute powers: The powg_B table is the bottleneck
Parallel generation: H matrix generation can be parallelized

// Generate once and save
keygen(prm, pk, sk);
save_keys("keys.bin", pk, sk);

// Later sessions: load instead of regenerate
load_keys("keys.bin", pk, sk);  // Much faster

Encryption performance

Single value encryption

From benchmark data:

Time: 84.11ms (mean)
Stddev: 2.08ms
vs BFV: 8x slower
vs CKKS: 3.6x faster

Optimization:

// Bad: Encrypt in loop
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    Cipher ct = enc_value(pk, sk, values[i]);  // 8.4 seconds total
    // ...
}

// Better: Batch with enc_values
Cipher ct = enc_values(pk, sk, values);  // Single operation

Depth hint optimization

From include/pvac/ops/encrypt.hpp:732-738:

// Default: depth 0 (fastest)
Cipher ct0 = enc_value(pk, sk, 42);  // ~84ms

// Depth 3 (slower but supports deeper circuits)
Cipher ct3 = enc_value_depth(pk, sk, 42, 3);  // ~120ms (estimated)

Best practice:

Use depth 0 for additions only
Use depth 1-2 for shallow multiplications
Use depth 3+ only when necessary

Profile your circuit depth first, then use the minimum required depth hint to minimize encryption overhead.

Addition performance

From benchmark data:

Time: 0.012ms (12 microseconds)
vs BFV: 10x faster
vs CKKS: 87x faster

Why so fast?

From include/pvac/ops/arithmetic.hpp:165-188, addition is pure graph concatenation:

inline Cipher ct_add(const PubKey& pk, const Cipher& A, const Cipher& B) {
    Cipher C;
    C.slots = A.slots;
    C.c0 = A.c0.empty() ? B.c0 : B.c0.empty() ? A.c0 : field::Op::add(A.c0, B.c0);
    
    // Just concatenate layers and edges
    C.L = A.L;
    C.L.insert(C.L.end(), B.L.begin(), B.L.end());
    C.E = A.E;
    C.E.insert(C.E.end(), B.E.begin(), B.E.end());
    
    compact_layers(C);
    return C;
}

No field operations, no PRFs, just memory operations. Exploit this:

// Summing 100 values
auto t1 = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
Cipher sum = enc_value(pk, sk, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    sum = ct_add(pk, sum, enc_value(pk, sk, i));
}
auto t2 = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
// Total: ~8.4s (dominated by 100 encryptions)
// Additions: ~1.2ms total (negligible)

Multiplication performance

From benchmark data:

Time: 2.47ms (mean)
vs BFV shallow: 2.9x faster (7.23ms)
vs BFV leveled: 7.4x faster (18.28ms)
vs CKKS: 14.3x faster (35.23ms)

Depth performance

From benchmarks/README.md:88-98:

Depth  Time     CT Size   Growth
d1     2.68ms   34 KB     0.8x
d2     10.34ms  136 KB    3.2x
d3     31.46ms  441 KB    10.5x
d4     97.11ms  1359 KB   32x
d5     285.83ms 4112 KB   98x

Exponential degradation beyond depth 2.

Optimization strategies

1. Minimize depth

// Bad: depth 3, 285ms
Cipher bad = ct_mul(pk, ct_mul(pk, ct_mul(pk, a, b), c), d);

// Good: depth 2, 10ms
Cipher ab = ct_mul(pk, a, b);
Cipher cd = ct_mul(pk, c, d);
Cipher good = ct_mul(pk, ab, cd);

2. Use ct_square for x²

From include/pvac/ops/arithmetic.hpp:227-255:

// Slower: L × L product layers
Cipher sq1 = ct_mul(pk, x, x);

// Faster: L × (L+1)/2 layers (triangular)
Cipher sq2 = ct_square(pk, x);

Savings: ~40% fewer product layers.

3. Tune S parameter

// Default: S=8 (balanced)
Cipher c1 = ct_mul(pk, a, b);  // Good for most cases

// Smaller S=4 (faster, larger noise)
Cipher c2 = ct_mul(pk, a, b, 4);  // Use for depth 0-1

// Larger S=16 (slower, smaller noise)
Cipher c3 = ct_mul(pk, a, b, 16);  // Use for depth 3+

The S parameter controls edges per product layer. Larger S increases time/size but improves noise distribution.

Dot product performance

From benchmarks/README.md:116-124:

n    PVAC-HFHE  BFV       BGV       CKKS      Speedup
  9.61ms     73.24ms   74.55ms   156.53ms  7.6x
  19.08ms    149.68ms  152.55ms  308.24ms  7.8x
 38.49ms    297.02ms  294.65ms  605.52ms  7.7x
 80.27ms    598.94ms  626.17ms  1218.69ms 7.5x

Implementation:

Cipher dot_product(const PubKey& pk, const SecKey& sk,
                   const std::vector<uint64_t>& a,
                   const std::vector<uint64_t>& b) {
    Cipher sum = enc_value(pk, sk, 0);
    for (size_t i = 0; i < a.size(); i++) {
        Cipher ca = enc_value(pk, sk, a[i]);
        Cipher cb = enc_value(pk, sk, b[i]);
        sum = ct_add(pk, sum, ct_mul(pk, ca, cb));
    }
    return sum;
}

Complexity:

n encryptions of a: n × 84ms
n encryptions of b: n × 84ms
n multiplications: n × 2.47ms
n additions: n × 0.012ms (negligible)
Total: ~168n ms for PVAC vs ~2300n ms for BFV

Polynomial evaluation

For f(x) = 3x³ + 2x² + 5x + 7: From benchmarks/README.md:128-136:

Scheme       Time      vs PVAC
PVAC-HFHE    62.88ms   1.0x
BFV          71.72ms   1.1x slower
BGV          92.79ms   1.5x slower
CKKS         182.35ms  2.9x slower

Optimized implementation:

// Horner's method: f(x) = ((3x + 2)x + 5)x + 7
Cipher horner(const PubKey& pk, const SecKey& sk, uint64_t x) {
    Cipher cx = enc_value(pk, sk, x);
    
    Cipher result = ct_mul_const(pk, cx, 3);        // 3x
    result = ct_add_const(pk, result, 2);           // 3x + 2
    result = ct_mul(pk, result, cx);                // (3x + 2)x
    result = ct_add_const(pk, result, 5);           // (3x + 2)x + 5
    result = ct_mul(pk, result, cx);                // ((3x + 2)x + 5)x
    result = ct_add_const(pk, result, 7);           // final
    
    return result;  // Depth 2, 2 multiplications
}

Saves multiplications vs naive expansion.

Ciphertext size optimization

From benchmarks/README.md:76-86:

Scheme       Mode      CT Size   vs PVAC
PVAC-HFHE    scalar    42 KB     1.0x
BFV          shallow   256 KB    6x larger
BFV          leveled   1024 KB   24x larger
BGV          leveled   1792 KB   43x larger
CKKS         leveled   3584 KB   85x larger

Compaction

Automatic edge compaction when budget exceeded:

// From include/pvac/ops/encrypt.hpp:709-714
inline void guard_budget(const PubKey& pk, Cipher& C, const char* ctx) {
    if (C.E.size() > pk.prm.edge_budget) {  // Default: 1,200,000
        compact_edges(pk, C);
    }
}

Manual compaction:

Cipher c = /* ... large ciphertext ... */;

if (c.E.size() > 100000) {
    compact_edges(pk, c);
    compact_layers(c);
}

Compaction is expensive (O(E × B)) but can reduce ciphertext size by 50-80% by merging edges.

Parallel throughput

From benchmarks/README.md:175-181:

Ops    Sequential  Parallel  Speedup  Throughput
  1391ms      189ms     7.4x     2711 ops/s
 4963ms      795ms     6.2x     2575 ops/s
 19904ms     2608ms    7.6x     3141 ops/s

Parallel multiplication:

#include <omp.h>

// Process 512 multiplications in parallel
void parallel_mul(const PubKey& pk, const SecKey& sk,
                  const std::vector<uint64_t>& data) {
    std::vector<Cipher> results(data.size());
    
    #pragma omp parallel for
    for (size_t i = 0; i < data.size(); i++) {
        Cipher ca = enc_value(pk, sk, data[i]);
        Cipher cb = enc_value(pk, sk, data[i] * 2);
        results[i] = ct_mul(pk, ca, cb);
    }
}

Speedup: ~7.4x on 8 cores.

PVAC-HFHE parallelization is coarse-grained (operation-level). RLWE SIMD is 146x faster for fine-grained vectorization.

Comparison: PVAC vs bit-level FHE

From benchmarks/README.md:32-39:

Operation  PVAC-HFHE  TFHE-rs CPU  TFHE-rs GPU  vs CPU    vs GPU
Add        0.012ms    109ms        8.97ms       9083x     747x
Sub        0.012ms    109ms        8.97ms       9083x     747x
Mul        2.47ms     402ms        31.9ms       163x      13x

64-bit multiplication estimate: From benchmarks/README.md:150-160:

Scheme      64-bit Mul   vs PVAC
PVAC        2.47ms       1.0x
FHEW        32.48min     789,000x slower
TFHE        33.47min     813,000x slower

This comparison is for demonstration only. Bit-level FHE solves different problems (arbitrary boolean circuits) vs PVAC (arithmetic circuits).

Memory usage

Estimated memory for different operations:

Operation	Peak memory	Notes
Keygen	~50 MB	Includes H matrix, powg_B
Encrypt (depth 0)	~2 MB	Temporary allocations
Encrypt (depth 5)	~8 MB	More noise tuples
ct_mul (depth 2)	~5 MB	Product layer construction
ct_mul (depth 4)	~20 MB	Quadratic growth

For memory-constrained environments, use depth 0-2 operations and compact ciphertexts frequently.

Benchmarking your code

From examples/basic_usage.cpp:246-265:

#include <chrono>

auto t1 = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();

// Your operation here
Cipher result = ct_mul(pk, a, b);

auto t2 = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
auto ms = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(t2 - t1).count();

std::cout << "Time: " << ms << " ms\n";
std::cout << "Edges: " << result.E.size() << "\n";
std::cout << "Layers: " << result.L.size() << "\n";

Compiler optimization flags

From benchmarks/README.md:274:

g++ -std=c++17 -O3 -march=native -fopenmp -o bench main.cpp \
    -I../pvac/include -L/usr/local/lib -pthread

Critical flags:

-O3: Maximum optimization
-march=native: CPU-specific instructions (SIMD, AES-NI)
-fopenmp: Parallel support

Without -march=native, performance may degrade by 30-50% due to missing PCLMUL instructions for field arithmetic.

Get Started

Core Concepts

Guides

Examples

Performance tuning

Performance overview

Core operations

Key generation performance

Optimization tips

Encryption performance

Single value encryption

Depth hint optimization

Addition performance

Why so fast?

Multiplication performance

Depth performance

Optimization strategies

1. Minimize depth

2. Use ct_square for x²

3. Tune S parameter

Dot product performance

Polynomial evaluation

Ciphertext size optimization

Compaction

Parallel throughput

Comparison: PVAC vs bit-level FHE

Memory usage

Benchmarking your code

Compiler optimization flags

Next steps

Depth management

Arithmetic operations

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Get Started

Core Concepts

Guides

Examples

Documentation Index

​Performance overview

​Core operations

​Key generation performance

​Optimization tips

​Encryption performance

​Single value encryption

​Depth hint optimization

​Addition performance

​Why so fast?

​Multiplication performance

​Depth performance

​Optimization strategies

​1. Minimize depth

​2. Use ct_square for x²

​3. Tune S parameter

​Dot product performance

​Polynomial evaluation

​Ciphertext size optimization

​Compaction

​Parallel throughput

​Comparison: PVAC vs bit-level FHE

​Memory usage

​Benchmarking your code

​Compiler optimization flags

​Next steps

Depth management

Arithmetic operations

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Performance overview

Core operations

Key generation performance

Optimization tips

Encryption performance

Single value encryption

Depth hint optimization

Addition performance

Why so fast?

Multiplication performance

Depth performance

Optimization strategies

1. Minimize depth

2. Use ct_square for x²

3. Tune S parameter

Dot product performance

Polynomial evaluation

Ciphertext size optimization

Compaction

Parallel throughput

Comparison: PVAC vs bit-level FHE

Memory usage

Benchmarking your code

Compiler optimization flags

Next steps