Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 40 references

On the generic structures of the protocols for quantum auction and quantum summation and their relation

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum auction primitives reduce to repeated summation oracle calls on indicator functions.

desk verdict The paper reduces auction primitives to summation-oracle calls on indicators and embeds summation inside auctions, with cost comparisons and a numerical hardware check. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.27693 v1 pith:GMJ7CMM7 submitted 2026-06-26 quant-ph

Kabir Sandhu , Sandeep Mishra , Anirban Pathak This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumauctionsummationsecuremulti-partycomputationoracleindicatorfunctionssealed-bidprotocolsunification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper shows that the main tasks in quantum sealed-bid auctions—estimating revenue, finding the maximum bid, and determining the winner—can each be performed by calling a summation oracle multiple times on indicator functions that mark whether bids meet certain thresholds. The same summation primitive can be placed inside auction protocols as a helper routine, so the two families of protocols are not independent but share a common building block. Because the reductions are protocol-agnostic, they apply to both gate-based and photonic hardware and allow direct cost comparisons between auction and summation implementations. A proof-of-concept numerical run on IBM and optical hardware confirms the reductions work on present-day devices. Readers interested in secure multi-party computation therefore gain a single primitive that can generate both auction and summation protocols without separate designs.

What carries the argument

Summation oracle invoked repeatedly on indicator functions that encode bid thresholds or conditions.

What would settle it

An explicit protocol run in which performing an auction via repeated summation oracle calls leaks more private bid information or consumes more qubits and gates than a purpose-built auction protocol on the same hardware.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core auction primitives including revenue estimation, maximum bid identification, and winner determination can be reduced to repeated invocations of a summation oracle acting on suitably defined indicator functions. Conversely, summation protocols can be naturally embedded as auxiliary subroutines within auction frameworks, establishing summation as a unifying primitive underlying a broad class of auction mechanisms. Computational, communication and memory costs of these reductions are analyzed and compared with representative existing protocols, revealing additional overhead when summation tasks are implemented through auction protocols.

Load-bearing premise

Repeated calls to the summation oracle on indicator functions introduce no extra security leaks or overhead beyond those already present in standalone auction or summation protocols.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing summation protocol can be inserted directly into an auction framework as a subroutine.
  • Auction mechanisms can be assembled by defining appropriate indicator functions and invoking the summation oracle a fixed number of times.
  • Cost metrics for communication, memory, and computation become comparable across the two families once both are expressed in terms of summation-oracle calls.
  • The same reductions apply without change to gate-based circuits and to photonic implementations.
  • Numerical validation on IBM and optical hardware shows the equivalence is realizable with current devices.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Other secure multi-party tasks such as secure voting or stable matching may also reduce to the same summation oracle once suitable indicator functions are identified.
  • A modular library could treat the summation oracle as the single trusted primitive and generate auction, summation, and related protocols from it.
  • Hardware experiments could now focus on optimizing the indicator-function encoding rather than designing entirely new auction circuits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper identifies structural symmetries between existing quantum auction and quantum summation protocols in secure multi-party computation. It claims that core auction primitives (revenue estimation, maximum bid identification, winner determination) reduce to repeated summation-oracle calls on suitably defined indicator functions, that summation protocols embed naturally as subroutines in auction frameworks (making summation a unifying primitive), that the reductions are protocol-agnostic across computational models, that computational/communication/memory costs have been analyzed and compared to representative existing protocols, and that a proof-of-concept numerical/experimental validation of a two-bidder sealed-bid auction has been performed on IBM and optical quantum hardware.

Significance. If the claimed reductions are rigorously defined and the cost comparisons hold, the work would provide a useful unifying lens for quantum SMC, potentially allowing protocol reuse and optimization across auction and summation tasks. The protocol-agnostic framing and the attempt at hardware validation are positive features that could strengthen the result if the supporting derivations and data were present.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that auction primitives 'can be reduced to repeated invocations of a summation oracle acting on suitably defined indicator functions' is asserted without any definition of the indicator functions, any explicit reduction mapping, any equation showing the equivalence, or any proof sketch. This absence makes the core technical contribution impossible to evaluate from the provided text.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'computational, communication and memory costs of these reductions are analyzed and compared' is made, yet no specific cost expressions, tables, or quantitative comparisons appear. Without these, the claim that the reductions are advantageous or that summation is unifying cannot be assessed.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: A 'proof-of-concept experimental realization (numerical validation)' on IBM/optical hardware is asserted to show the equivalence is 'experimentally verifiable,' but no circuit description, input/output data, success metrics, or comparison to the claimed reduction is supplied. This leaves the experimental support for the central claim unsubstantiated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, noting that the full manuscript contains the supporting details while agreeing to strengthen the abstract for clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that auction primitives 'can be reduced to repeated invocations of a summation oracle acting on suitably defined indicator functions' is asserted without any definition of the indicator functions, any explicit reduction mapping, any equation showing the equivalence, or any proof sketch. This absence makes the core technical contribution impossible to evaluate from the provided text.

    Authors: The abstract provides a high-level overview. The full manuscript defines the indicator functions (e.g., I(b_i ≥ k) for bid value b_i and threshold k), gives explicit reduction mappings from auction primitives (revenue estimation, max-bid identification, winner determination) to repeated summation-oracle calls, presents the equivalence equations, and includes proof sketches in Sections 3 and 4. We will revise the abstract to include a concise definition of the indicator function and explicit section references. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'computational, communication and memory costs of these reductions are analyzed and compared' is made, yet no specific cost expressions, tables, or quantitative comparisons appear. Without these, the claim that the reductions are advantageous or that summation is unifying cannot be assessed.

    Authors: Section 5 derives the cost expressions for the reductions (computational, communication, and memory) and compares them to representative protocols; Table 2 summarizes the quantitative results showing the overhead of using auction protocols for summation. We will revise the abstract to reference Section 5 and Table 2 and note the key comparative findings. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: A 'proof-of-concept experimental realization (numerical validation)' on IBM/optical hardware is asserted to show the equivalence is 'experimentally verifiable,' but no circuit description, input/output data, success metrics, or comparison to the claimed reduction is supplied. This leaves the experimental support for the central claim unsubstantiated.

    Authors: The experimental section supplies the two-bidder circuit descriptions, raw input/output data from IBM and optical runs, success probabilities, and direct comparison to the reduction. We will revise the abstract to mention the hardware platforms used and the principal validation metrics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper identifies structural symmetries between quantum auction and summation protocols, claiming that auction primitives (revenue estimation, max bid identification, winner determination) reduce to repeated summation-oracle calls on indicator functions, with the converse embedding also possible. This is framed as a protocol-agnostic unification with cost analysis and experimental validation on IBM hardware. No quoted equations, self-citations, or fitted parameters in the provided text reduce the central reductions to definitions or inputs by construction; the claimed equivalences are presented as derived from existing independent protocols rather than self-referential. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; standard quantum computing assumptions are implicitly used but not stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the generic structures of the protocols for quantum auction and quantum summation and their relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GMJ7CMM7

@misc{pith2026260627693,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the generic structures of the protocols for quantum auction and quantum summation and their relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GMJ7CMM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.27693}
}
read the original abstract

Secure multi-party computation (SMC) addresses the problem of jointly computing global functions of private inputs while revealing minimal information about individual data. Two prominent examples of SMC tasks are sealed-bid auction and secure multi-party summation. Existing schemes for quantum auction and quantum summation have largely been developed independently, motivated by distinct applications and employing different computational primitives. In this work, structural symmetries in existing protocols for quantum auction and quantum summation are identified. In particular, it is established that the core auction primitives including revenue estimation, maximum bid identification, and winner determination can be reduced to repeated invocations of a summation oracle acting on suitably defined indicator functions. Conversely, summation protocols can be naturally embedded as auxiliary subroutines within auction frameworks, establishing summation as a unifying primitive underlying a broad class of auction mechanisms. Further, computational, communication and memory costs of these reductions are analyzed and compared with some of the representative existing protocols. The analysis has revealed that the process of implementing summation tasks through currently known auction protocols leads to additional overhead associated with bid-space exploration and winner determination. The proposed framework is protocol-agnostic and applicable across diverse computational models, including gate-based and photonic implementations. Finally, a proof-of-concept experimental realization (numerical validation) of a two-bidder sealed-bid auction using IBM (optical quantum) hardware is demonstrated to establish that the claimed equivalence is not merely formal but experimentally verifiable with the available hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27693 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) General structure of the existing schemes for secure Quantum Summation with illustration of the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Photonic realization of the quantum summation primitive for two bidders. A single horizontally polarized photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Strawberry Fields simulation of the proposed two-bidder photonic summation circuit. The simulation was performed for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Quantum circuit executed on IBM Quantum hardware. A Hadamard gate prepares the bidder superposition, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Measurement statistics obtained from IBM Quantum hardware using 10 000 shots. The observed probability of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grover’s search algorithm applied to the oracle forg, yielding a winning bidder indexi ∗ inO( √ N) oracle queries, or

  2. [2]

    Thus, both the maximum bid and the identity of a corresponding winner can be obtained using threshold-based summation queries together with a standard search procedure

    Classical post-processing when the number of bidders is sufficiently small. Thus, both the maximum bid and the identity of a corresponding winner can be obtained using threshold-based summation queries together with a standard search procedure. The general relationship between quantum summation and sealed-bid quantum auction protocols is illustrated in Fi...

  3. [3]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Advances in quantum cryptography,

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ot- taviani,et al., “Advances in quantum cryptography,”Advances in optics and photonics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1012–1236, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 26, p. 1484–1509, Oct. 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” 1996

    1996

  7. [7]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily´ en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, G. Salton, S. Wang, and F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao,Quantum Algorithms: A Survey of Applications and End-to-end Complexities. Cambridge University Press, Apr. 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Quantum cryptography: Key distribution and beyond,

    A. Shenoy-Hejamadi, A. Pathak, and S. Radhakrishna, “Quantum cryptography: Key distribution and beyond,”Quanta, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–47, 2017

    2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Security in quantum cryptography,

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, “Security in quantum cryptography,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 94, no. 2, p. 025008, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Secure multi-party quantum computation,

    C. Cr´ epeau, D. Gottesman, and A. Smith, “Secure multi-party quantum computation,” inProceedings of the thiry-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 643–652, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    How to play any mental game,

    S. Micali, O. Goldreich, and A. Wigderson, “How to play any mental game,” inProceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, STOC, pp. 218–229, ACM New York, 1987

    1987

  4. [12]

    Protocols for secure computations,

    A. C. Yao, “Protocols for secure computations,” in23rd annual symposium on foundations of computer science (sfcs 1982), pp. 160–164, IEEE, 1982

    1982

  5. [13]

    Secure multiparty computation,

    Y. Lindell, “Secure multiparty computation,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 86–96, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Quantum sealed-bid auction without a trusted third party,

    R.-H. Shi, “Quantum sealed-bid auction without a trusted third party,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 4221–4231, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Quantum sealed-bid auction using a modified scheme for multiparty circular quantum key agreement,

    R. D. Sharma, K. Thapliyal, and A. Pathak, “Quantum sealed-bid auction using a modified scheme for multiparty circular quantum key agreement,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 16, no. 7, p. 169, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Quantum and semi-quantum sealed-bid auction: vulnerabilities and advan- tages,

    P. Asagodu, K. Thapliyal, and A. Pathak, “Quantum and semi-quantum sealed-bid auction: vulnerabilities and advan- tages,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 185, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    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, vol. 75, p. 012333, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    Protocols for quantum binary voting,

    K. Thapliyal, R. D. Sharma, and A. Pathak, “Protocols for quantum binary voting,”International Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 15, no. 01, p. 1750007, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Experimental realization of quantum anonymous veto protocols using ibm quantum computer: S. kumar, a. pathak,

    S. Kumar and A. Pathak, “Experimental realization of quantum anonymous veto protocols using ibm quantum computer: S. kumar, a. pathak,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 21, no. 9, p. 311, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Quantum anonymous veto protocol,

    R. Rahaman and G. Kar, “Quantum anonymous veto protocol,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.00592, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum anonymous veto: a set of new protocols,

    S. Mishra, K. Thapliyal, A. Parakh, and A. Pathak, “Quantum anonymous veto: a set of new protocols,”EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 14, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Quantum protocols for secure multi-party summation,

    Z. Ji, H. Zhang, H. Wang, F. Wu, J. Jia, and W. Wu, “Quantum protocols for secure multi-party summation,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 168, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Secure multi-party quantum summation based on quantum fourier transform,

    H.-Y. Yang and T.-Y. Ye, “Secure multi-party quantum summation based on quantum fourier transform,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 129, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Secure multiparty quantum computation for summation and multipli- cation,

    R.-h. Shi, Y. Mu, H. Zhong, J. Cui, and S. Zhang, “Secure multiparty quantum computation for summation and multipli- cation,”Scientific reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 19655, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Quantum e-commerce: a comparative study of possible protocols for online shopping and other tasks related to e-commerce: K. thapliyal, a. pathak,

    K. Thapliyal and A. Pathak, “Quantum e-commerce: a comparative study of possible protocols for online shopping and other tasks related to e-commerce: K. thapliyal, a. pathak,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 191, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Quantum and semi-quantum lottery: strategies and advantages,

    S. Mishra and A. Pathak, “Quantum and semi-quantum lottery: strategies and advantages,”Quantum Information Pro- cessing, vol. 22, no. 7, p. 290, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Secure multi-party computation,

    O. Goldreich, “Secure multi-party computation,”Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–150, 2009. 17

    2009

  20. [28]

    Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation,

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, “Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation,”Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 305, pp. 53–74, 2002

    2002

  21. [29]

    Iterative quantum amplitude estimation,

    D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, “Iterative quantum amplitude estimation,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 52, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Quantum secure multi-party summation based on grover’s search algorithm,

    X. Zhang, S. Lin, and G.-D. Guo, “Quantum secure multi-party summation based on grover’s search algorithm,”Interna- tional Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 3711–3721, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Quantum secure multi-party computational geometry based on multi-party summation and multiplication,

    Z. Dou, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, J. Bi, X. Chen, and L. Li, “Quantum secure multi-party computational geometry based on multi-party summation and multiplication,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 025023, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Secure multiparty quantum computation for summation and data sorting: X. li et al.,

    X. Li, Y. Xiong, and C. Zhang, “Secure multiparty quantum computation for summation and data sorting: X. li et al.,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 23, no. 9, p. 321, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A new hybrid protocol that simultaneously achieves quantum multiparty summation and ranking,

    Y. Zhang, Y. Yao, H. Sun, K. Zhang, and T. Song, “A new hybrid protocol that simultaneously achieves quantum multiparty summation and ranking,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 2400078, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    A novel quantum multiparty summation protocol based on a cooperative random number mechanism,

    K. Zhang, Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, H. Liu, T. Song, and G. Du, “A novel quantum multiparty summation protocol based on a cooperative random number mechanism,”EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 57, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas,Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, 2 ed., 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Secure multiparty computation,

    Y. Lindell, “Secure multiparty computation,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 86–96, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Strawberry fields: A software platform for photonic quantum computing,

    N. Killoran, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, V. Bergholm, M. Amy, and C. Weedbrook, “Strawberry fields: A software platform for photonic quantum computing,”Quantum, vol. 3, p. 129, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Applications of near-term photonic quantum computers: Software and algorithms,

    T. R. Bromley, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, N. Quesada, J. Bergholm, and C. Weedbrook, “Applications of near-term photonic quantum computers: Software and algorithms,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 034010, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

    Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” 2025.https://www.ibm.com/quantum/ qiskit

    2025

  32. [40]

    Quantum auctions using adiabatic evolution: The corrupt auctioneer and circuit implementations,

    S. Guha, T. Hogg, D. Fattal, T. Spiller, and R. G. Beausoleil, “Quantum auctions using adiabatic evolution: The corrupt auctioneer and circuit implementations,”International Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 6, no. 04, pp. 815–839, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.