Is a zk-SNARK the hash of a Linear Interactive Proof? zk-SNARK researcher Eran Tromer came up with the following workflow when describing how these proofs are created:



What I am struggling to understand is how a LIP becomes a zk-SNARK. Is the SNARK a hash of the LIP? 

I would appreciate any help, or recommendations for reading materials.
The above figure illustrates the steps that one needs to take to design a zk-SNARK for an arithmetic circuit (computation). As you know, SNARK stands for Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARgument of Knowledge.

So to design a zk-SNARKs form LIP, first one needs to convert a LIP to a Linear Non-Interactive Proof (LNIP) system that can be done in two models including Random Oracle (RO) model and Common Reference String (CRS) model. In the RO model, one uses a hash function to remove the challenge phase (by taking hash of first message in a LIP) in a LIP, and in the CRS model there is a pre-processing (setup) phase which a third trusted party generates some common public parameters that prover and verifier use them to generate and verify a proof.

Once you converted a LIP to a LNIP, you can construct a (succinct) non-interactive argument of knowledge. A nice example can be found in https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/260 which contains the state-of-the-art QAP-based zk-SNARK. 

I would recommend to look at Pinocchio zk-SNARK as well.