pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.15243 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-17 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.IT· math.IT

Quantum Voting Protocol for Centralized and Distributed Voting Based on Phase-Flip Counting

Ali Emre Aydin , Ammar Daskin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.ITmath.IT
keywords quantum votingphase-flip operationsentanglementsuperpositionanonymous votingquantum protocolsdecentralized voting
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quantum voting protocol encodes each vote as a controlled phase flip on entangled candidate states and extracts totals by measuring the candidate register alone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a method that uses superposition to anonymize votes and entanglement to block double voting in both single-machine and distributed quantum settings. Voters apply phase-flip gates conditioned on their identity register to a shared entangled state of candidate qubits. The final measurement of the candidate register directly yields the vote counts without any classical iteration or decryption step. Small analytical cases with four or eight voters and numerical runs that include depolarizing noise and dishonest-voter attacks confirm that the probabilities remain exact and the security properties hold under the modeled conditions.

Core claim

Votes are encoded via phase-flip operations on entangled candidate states controlled by voter identity registers; tallying reduces to a single measurement of the candidate register. The same mechanism supports a distributed model in which entanglement-based verification replaces classical communication for security checks. Analytical examples for four voters with two candidates and eight voters with three candidates, together with simulations under ideal, noisy, and adversarial conditions, demonstrate exact probability preservation and statistical consistency with theoretical bounds.

What carries the argument

Phase-flip counting performed by controlled-Z gates acting on an entangled candidate register, with each voter's identity register serving as the control that imprints their vote as a relative phase.

If this is right

  • Vote totals are obtained in one round of quantum measurement rather than iterative classical counting.
  • Individual voter identities remain hidden because superposition erases which voter contributed which phase.
  • Double voting is blocked because the entanglement structure ties each phase flip to a unique identity register.
  • Only Hadamard and controlled-Z gates are required per voter, keeping gate depth linear in the number of voters.
  • The distributed extension replaces classical tally servers with entanglement verification, reducing trust assumptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If reliable long-distance entanglement distribution becomes available, the same circuit could support fully remote voting without a central quantum server.
  • The phase-flip counting idea might extend to other collective decision tasks where a single quantum measurement replaces multiple classical summations.
  • Scaling the protocol to dozens of candidates would require checking whether the measurement statistics remain distinguishable under realistic noise levels.

Load-bearing premise

Entanglement between voter identity registers and candidate states can be created, distributed, and maintained long enough to complete the voting and measurement steps even when noise and attacks are present.

What would settle it

Prepare the eight-voter three-candidate entangled state, apply the prescribed phase flips, then measure the candidate register repeatedly under 5 percent depolarizing noise; if the observed outcome frequencies deviate from the exact vote counts predicted by the ideal circuit by more than the sampling error bound, the protocol's noise robustness claim is false.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15243 by Ali Emre Aydin, Ammar Daskin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Voting circuit illustrated for the example-1 where there are 4 voters and 2 candidates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a quantum voting protocol that uses superposition and entanglement to enable secure, anonymous voting in both centralized and distributed settings. Votes are encoded via phase-flip operations on entangled candidate states, controlled by voter identity registers. Tallying is performed directly by measuring the candidate register, eliminating the need for iterative classical counting. The protocol is described for a centralized single-machine model and extended to a distributed quantum channel model with entanglement-based verification for enhanced security. Its efficiency relies on basic quantum gates (Hadamard and controlled-Z) and the ability to extract vote counts from quantum measurements. Practical validation is provided through analytical examples (4 voters with 2 candidates and 8 voters with 3 candidates) as well as numerical experiments that simulate ideal conditions, depolarizing noise, dishonest voter attacks, and sampling convergence. The results confirm exact probability preservation, robustness against errors, and statistical behavior consistent with theoretical bounds. The protocol ensures voter anonymity via superposition, prevents double-voting through entanglement mechanisms, and offers favorable complexity for large-scale elections.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a quantum voting protocol that encodes votes via phase-flip operations on entangled candidate states controlled by voter identity registers, enabling direct measurement-based tallying. It describes both a centralized single-machine model and a distributed quantum-channel extension with entanglement verification. Validation consists of analytical examples for 4 voters/2 candidates and 8 voters/3 candidates plus numerical simulations under ideal conditions, depolarizing noise, dishonest attacks, and sampling convergence, claiming anonymity via superposition, double-voting prevention via entanglement, and favorable complexity.

Significance. If the entanglement integrity and attack resistance hold, the direct-tallying approach and dual centralized/distributed formulations could offer efficiency gains over classical post-processing in quantum-secure voting. The provision of both analytical examples and simulations across ideal, noisy, and adversarial regimes is a constructive element that allows concrete verification of probability preservation in the reported small-system regimes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical Experiments] Numerical Experiments section: simulations are confined to 4 voters/2 candidates and 8 voters/3 candidates under depolarizing noise and basic attacks; these do not establish that the voter-candidate entanglement remains intact against correlated errors or partial-tracing attacks that could decouple registers without detection, which is required for the central claims of double-voting prevention and anonymity in the distributed model.
  2. [Distributed Quantum Channel Model] Distributed model description: the protocol relies on reliable creation, distribution, and preservation of entanglement between voter and candidate registers under the simulated channel noise, yet no general error bounds, fidelity thresholds, or scaling analysis with voter number are supplied to support extrapolation beyond the small cases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'favorable complexity for large-scale elections' is stated without an explicit asymptotic gate-count or communication scaling with number of voters or candidates.
  2. [Protocol Description] Notation for phase-flip operators and controlled-Z gates could be clarified with explicit circuit diagrams or matrix representations in the protocol section to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications on the protocol design and indicating revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without overstating the current results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Experiments] Numerical Experiments section: simulations are confined to 4 voters/2 candidates and 8 voters/3 candidates under depolarizing noise and basic attacks; these do not establish that the voter-candidate entanglement remains intact against correlated errors or partial-tracing attacks that could decouple registers without detection, which is required for the central claims of double-voting prevention and anonymity in the distributed model.

    Authors: The numerical experiments are indeed limited to the specified small instances and noise models to illustrate exact probability preservation and basic attack resistance. The core claims of double-voting prevention and anonymity rest on the analytical construction: voter identity registers control phase flips on entangled candidate states, with measurement of the candidate register directly yielding tallies. Entanglement verification in the distributed model is intended to detect decoupling. We acknowledge that the simulations do not exhaustively cover correlated errors or partial-tracing attacks. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Numerical Experiments section discussing these attack classes, including a theoretical argument that partial tracing on the voter register would collapse the superposition required for anonymity and invalidate the controlled-phase mechanism for tallying. This constitutes a partial revision, as a comprehensive numerical study of arbitrary correlated noise lies beyond the present scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Distributed Quantum Channel Model] Distributed model description: the protocol relies on reliable creation, distribution, and preservation of entanglement between voter and candidate registers under the simulated channel noise, yet no general error bounds, fidelity thresholds, or scaling analysis with voter number are supplied to support extrapolation beyond the small cases.

    Authors: The distributed model incorporates entanglement verification steps to monitor channel integrity under the assumed noise. Simulations for the small cases confirm that vote probabilities remain consistent with the ideal analytical results under depolarizing noise. We agree that explicit general error bounds, fidelity thresholds, and scaling with voter number are not derived. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short subsection after the distributed-model description that (i) derives a simple fidelity threshold from the depolarizing parameter for which the verification succeeds with high probability and (ii) provides a qualitative scaling argument based on the linear growth of controlled-Z gates and the constant-time measurement tally. A full quantitative scaling analysis under general noise models is not supplied here and would constitute future work; the current treatment supports the protocol for the regimes examined. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: protocol constructed from standard quantum operations with independent validation

full rationale

The paper defines a voting protocol via superposition for anonymity and entanglement for double-voting prevention, using basic gates (Hadamard, controlled-Z) and direct measurement tallying. Analytical examples (4 voters/2 candidates, 8 voters/3 candidates) and numerical simulations under noise/attacks are presented as direct computations that preserve probabilities, without any fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional equations, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation rests on standard quantum mechanics and explicit state evolution rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol draws on standard quantum information assumptions without introducing new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond basic gate operations and measurement postulates.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Superposition and entanglement can be maintained and manipulated with basic gates to encode and protect vote information.
    Invoked throughout the protocol description as the foundation for anonymity and double-vote prevention.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5711 in / 1266 out tokens · 39024 ms · 2026-05-18T06:54:53.803333+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Quantum protocols for anonymous voting and surveying,

    J. A. Vaccaro, J. Spring, and A. Chefles, “Quantum protocols for anonymous voting and surveying,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 75, no. 1, p. 012333, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Towards quantum-based privacy and voting,

    M. Hillery, M. Ziman, V . Bu ˇzek, and M. Bielikov ´a, “Towards quantum-based privacy and voting,”Physics Letters A, vol. 349, no. 1-4, pp. 75–81, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Quantum anonymous voting with anonymity check,

    D. Horoshko and S. Kilin, “Quantum anonymous voting with anonymity check,”Physics Letters A, vol. 375, no. 12, pp. 1172–1175, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Self-tallying quantum anonymous voting,

    Q. Wang, C. Yu, F. Gao, H. Qi, and Q. Wen, “Self-tallying quantum anonymous voting,”Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 2, p. 022333, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Quantum bell states-based anonymous voting with anonymity trace,

    Q. Wang, J. Liu, Y . Li, C. Yu, and S. Pan, “Quantum bell states-based anonymous voting with anonymity trace,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 142, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Quantum voting using superdense coding,

    P. Wilson and M. Garcia, “Quantum voting using superdense coding,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, p. 035002, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Quantum voting via conjugate coding,

    M. Johnson and R. Williams, “Quantum voting via conjugate coding,”Physical Review A, vol. 105, p. 032401, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Coherent state quantum voting without quantum memory,

    K. Davis and L. Thompson, “Coherent state quantum voting without quantum memory,”Optics Express, vol. 29, pp. 21 045–21 058, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    A simple voting protocol on quantum blockchain,

    X. Sun, Q. Wang, P. Kulicki, and M. Sopek, “A simple voting protocol on quantum blockchain,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 275–281, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Quantum voting with blockchain integration,

    J. Smith and A. Brown, “Quantum voting with blockchain integration,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 22, pp. 45–62, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Quantum protocol for electronic voting without election authorities,

    F. Centrone, E. Diamanti, and I. Kerenidis, “Quantum protocol for electronic voting without election authorities,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 014005, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Experimental quantum voting using photonic ghz states,

    F. Marcellino, T. Taher, M. Wu, T. Brydges, and R. Thew, “Experimental quantum voting using photonic ghz states,” inQuantum 2.0. Optica Publishing Group, 2025, pp. QM3B–7

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    A quantum-secure voting framework using qkd, dual-key symmetric encryption, and verifiable receipts,

    T. M. Mahmoud and N. Kaabouch, “A quantum-secure voting framework using qkd, dual-key symmetric encryption, and verifiable receipts,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03489, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum signature-based e-voting protocols,

    H. Chen and S. Martinez, “Quantum signature-based e-voting protocols,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 1–12, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Quantum anonymous voting protocol based on single-particle,

    J.-S. Liu, Y .-C. Li, Q.-L. Wang, M. Hu, and Z.-C. Zhang, “Quantum anonymous voting protocol based on single-particle,”Physica Scripta, vol. 96, no. 8, p. 085101, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    An efficient two-party quantum private comparison protocol with decoy photons and two-photon entanglement,

    Y .-G. Yang and Q.-Y . Wen, “An efficient two-party quantum private comparison protocol with decoy photons and two-photon entanglement,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 42, no. 5, p. 055305, 2009

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    An efficient protocol for the private comparison of equal information based on the triplet entangled state and single-particle measurement,

    X.-B. Chen, G. Xu, X.-X. Niu, Q.-Y . Wen, and Y .-X. Yang, “An efficient protocol for the private comparison of equal information based on the triplet entangled state and single-particle measurement,”Optics communications, vol. 283, no. 7, pp. 1561–1565, 2010

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Experimental anonymous quantum conferencing,

    J. W. Webb, J. Ho, F. Grasselli, G. Murta, A. Pickston, A. Ulibarrena, and A. Fedrizzi, “Experimental anonymous quantum conferencing,” Optica, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 872–875, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    A survey of quantum internet protocols from a layered perspective,

    Y . Li, H. Zhang, C. Zhang, T. Huang, and F. R. Yu, “A survey of quantum internet protocols from a layered perspective,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1606–1634, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    Quantum key distribution: a networking perspective,

    M. Mehic, M. Niemiec, S. Rass, J. Ma, M. Peev, A. Aguado, V . Martin, S. Schauer, A. Poppe, C. Pacheret al., “Quantum key distribution: a networking perspective,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1–41, 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

    A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Zhang, C. Ruanet al., “Deepseek-v3 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Private ai-assisted communication,

    DeepSeek Chat, “Private ai-assisted communication,” October 2025, conversation with DeepSeek AI system

    work page 2025