Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

OQRAM: Oblivious Quantum Random Access Memory for Securing Delegated Quantum Queries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Delegated quantum memory queries can hide the client’s address state and data without full blind quantum computing.

desk verdict Solid protocol abstraction for private delegated QRAM, with a real but fixable gap in the qPRP hybrid reduction that undercuts the stated multi-query amortization bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27171 v1 pith:72VGRSHZ submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Shifan Xu , Yizhuo Tan , Yongshan Ding , Jakub Szefer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords obliviousQRAMdelegatedquantumqueryqPRPone-timepadIND-qCPAbucket-brigadedecoychecksblindcomputing
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

Many quantum algorithms need coherent lookup into a large classical database. When that lookup is outsourced to a remote QRAM server, the server normally sees a quantum superposition of addresses that can leak the algorithm’s private state. This paper defines oblivious QRAM: the client encrypts and secretly reshuffles the database offline, then online masks each coherent address so the server only ever touches protected physical locations and ciphertexts. A qPRP-based mask lets one layout serve multiple queries before a refresh; a qOTP-based mask gives stronger single-query hiding at the cost of refreshing every time. Decy checks give probabilistic detection if the server tampers. The point for a sympathetic reader is practical: a lightweight client keeps only about as many qubits as the query itself, quantum communication stays linear in the address and bus size rather than the whole memory, and privacy for the query interface does not require blinding an entire delegated computation.

What carries the argument

Encrypted shuffled layout plus coherent address masking: offline the client places qIND-qCPA ciphertexts at secret physical addresses (qPRP permutation or qOTP XOR shift); online the client applies U_π Z_z (or X_x Z_z), the server runs ordinary QRAM on the protected layout, and the client unmasks and decrypts. A two-round query-use-unquery cleans an arbitrary bus; decoys test O²=I or known answers against malice.

What would settle it

Exhibit a quantum polynomial-time attack that, within the paper’s allowed epoch length t < O(N^{1/12}), recovers logical address structure or plaintext beyond the stated leakage from the protected address registers and encrypted layout—or show the seven-round Feistel round-function instantiation fails as a strong qPRP under bidirectional quantum queries at those parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Oblivious QRAM realizes the ideal coherent QRAM lookup while an honest-but-curious server’s view is simulatable from small public leakage—database size, ciphertext length, that a lookup occurred, and (for multi-query qPRP epochs) only the unlabeled dephased address weights—under strong qPRP and qIND-qCPA assumptions, or with information-theoretic address hiding via fresh qOTP and per-query refresh. Online quantum communication is Θ(n+m+τ), not Θ(N) as when blinding a full QRAM circuit.

Load-bearing premise

Multi-query reuse and the claimed refresh savings rest on treating a concrete seven-round Feistel construction as a strong quantum-secure pseudorandom permutation against a server that sees coherent queries, with epochs short enough that the distinguishing bound still holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Private delegated QRAM becomes a stand-alone cloud primitive instead of requiring full blind quantum computation for every memory access.
  • Client online quantum workspace stays O(n+m+ancilla) while the server keeps standard Θ(N) bucket-brigade QRAM scaling.
  • Quantum communication per query drops exponentially versus blinding the whole QRAM (Θ(n+m+τ) vs Θ(N)).
  • qPRP epochs amortize classical layout upload over multiple queries; qOTP trades that for information-theoretic single-query address hiding.
  • Decoy rounds give cheat-sensitive detection of invasive probing, wrong lookup, or coherence breaking, not full verifiability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Algorithm designers who already express work in the query model could treat OQRAM as a drop-in private oracle if refresh schedules match their query volume.
  • Sparse database updates inside a live qPRP epoch may fit classical ORAM-style patches better than full rebuild, which the deployment section only sketches.
  • If strong qPRP instantiations remain expensive in coherent depth, practical deployments may default to qOTP single-query mode until better quantum-friendly permutations exist.
  • End-to-end privacy for a larger algorithm still needs composition arguments the paper does not supply beyond the QRAM interface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Oblivious QRAM (OQRAM), a cryptographic abstraction for privacy-preserving delegated coherent QRAM queries. A lightweight client outsources an encrypted, secretly shuffled database layout and protects each online address state by coherent masking—either a qPRP plus Z-padding (multi-query epochs) or a fresh qOTP (single-query). The server runs ordinary bucket-brigade QRAM on the protected layout; the client unmasks and decrypts. Security is argued by hybrid reductions to strong qPRP and qIND-qCPA (or information-theoretic qOTP address hiding), with decoy query–unquery checks for cheat-sensitive malicious-server detection. Resource claims emphasize Θ(n+m+τ) online quantum communication versus Θ(N) for blinding a full QRAM under UBQC, modest client workspace, and amortized classical refresh when a qPRP layout is reused for t < O(N^{1/12}) queries.

Significance. If the security reductions and amortization hold, the work cleanly fills a gap between classical ORAM / private query and full blind quantum computation: a query-specific primitive that preserves coherent superposition access while keeping client quantum resources near the address and bus registers and cutting quantum communication exponentially relative to circuit-level blinding of QRAM. The protocol split (offline layout refresh vs online masking), the explicit leakage profiles LqPRP and LqOTP, the two-round query-use-unquery wrapper, and the comparison to UBQC are useful contributions for delegated quantum algorithm design. Strengths include standard hybrid structure with appendices spelling out state evolution and proof steps, and an honest scoping of decoys as cheat-sensitive rather than fully verifiable. The result is significant for cloud quantum architectures only insofar as the qPRP multi-query reduction and refresh bound are made rigorous under the server’s actual view (layout plus coherent queries).

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3, Lemma 8, Thm. 10, Lem. 11, App. D.1, §7.1] Lemma 8, Theorem 10, Lemma 11, and Appendix D.1: the address-hiding hybrid replaces the keyed qPRP π by a uniform random permutation with loss ε_addr(q_addr,λ) drawn from the seven-round Feistel bound O(q³/N^{1/4}) (Thm. 2 / Sec. 2.2), then caps the epoch at t < O(N^{1/12}) (Sec. 7.1). The stated reduction only argues that a distinguisher yields a qPRP adversary “by using its oracle to generate the protected address registers.” In the real experiment the server also holds the full layout C_π[j]=Enc(D[π^{-1}(j)]). A black-box simulation that materializes a π-consistent layout needs N inverse evaluations, so q∼N and the cited Feistel advantage is vacuous. Appendix D.1 keeps this order (replace π in H1 before dummy-encrypting N blocks in H4). Reordering—qIND-qCPA/dummy layout first, so the stored blocks are π-independent and only t coherent address queries remain—or an explicit low-query si
  2. [§6.3.1 Theorem 10, Hybrid H3–H5] Theorem 10’s ideal leakage LqPRP includes the full dephased amplitude multiset {|α_x|² : x∈{0,1}^n}. The text notes that reconstructing this over N addresses needs ~Ω̃(N) copies and that t < N^{1/12} stays “far below the reconstruction regime,” but the theorem statement still treats the entire multiset as allowed leakage after one query. For a single protected query the server sees one diagonal sample in a hidden basis, not the multiset. The leakage profile and simulator in H3–H5 should be tightened to what is actually implied (e.g., one shuffled computational-basis sample, or an explicit multi-copy tomography bound), otherwise the “simulatable from L” claim overstates single-query leakage.
  3. [§5.2, §6.5 Proposition 15] Section 5.2 and Proposition 15 give only a generic cheat-sensitivity bound (1−pη)^T with η left as an assumption on the attack family. The inversion decoy tests O²_C★=I and is acknowledged not to certify plaintext correctness; known-answer decoys cover only basis addresses. For the malicious-server contribution to be load-bearing alongside the honest-but-curious theorems, the paper should either derive η for concrete deviation classes (wrong cell, partial measure-and-reprepare, entangling probe) under the protected interface, or clearly demote malicious robustness to a heuristic extension so the main claim rests on the honest-but-curious results alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Thm. 10, Thm. 13, §5] Typographical errors: “single qery” in Theorems 10 and 13 titles; “V ARIANTS” in Section 5 heading; inconsistent C★ vs C_π/C_x notation in places.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is helpful but dense; a short caption walk-through of one amplitude through mask → QRAM → unmask → decrypt would improve readability.
  3. [Table 1, App. E.1] Table 1 lists client depth with d_A(log q_A)² factors from a reversible arithmetic model that allows multi-qubit Toffoli, fanout, and mid-circuit feedforward (App. E.1). Flag this as an accounting convention in the main-text table caption so readers do not treat the depths as standard two-qubit gate counts.
  4. [§1] Related-work placement of quantum PIR / quantum private query is adequate but could more sharply separate “classical record retrieval” from “coherent unitary QRAM” in one sentence of the introduction for non-cryptographers.
  5. [§4.4, Abstract] Sec. 4.4 correctly warns that the randomness suffix |r_i⟩ is branch-dependent garbage; consider cross-referencing this limitation in the abstract’s “coherent query” claim so readers expect the two-round uncompute for clean oracles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: privacy and resource claims reduce to external crypto assumptions and hybrid arguments, not to self-defined or fitted targets.

full rationale

OQRAM’s load-bearing claims are protocol constructions plus standard cryptographic reductions (strong qPRP / qIND-qCPA or qOTP) and hybrid simulatability of the server view from an explicitly stated leakage profile. Those assumptions and distinguishing bounds are imported from external literature (Feistel/qPRP, qIND-qCPA, QOTP, BQC comparison), not defined in terms of the paper’s own privacy conclusion. Leakage sets LqPRP and LqOTP and the epoch cap t < O(N^{1/12}) are parameters of the security statement, not quantities fitted to data and then re-presented as predictions. Self-citations concern QRAM architecture/context and are not used as uniqueness theorems or as the sole support for address hiding. Any gap about whether the Feistel advantage remains meaningful once the full permuted layout is in the server’s view is a correctness/reduction issue, not circularity by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained relative to its stated external assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The result is a constructive crypto protocol: it stands on standard quantum circuit model plus assumed quantum-secure PRP/PRF/encryption and an honest-or-malicious server interface. No experimental fits. Load-bearing modeling choices are the client/server qubit asymmetry, bucket-brigade cost model, Feistel qPRP instantiation, qIND-qCPA encryption via qPRP on m+τ bits, and decoy i.i.d. sampling.

free parameters (4)
  • qPRP epoch length t = t < O(N^{1/12}) (suggested)
    Number of protected queries per shuffled layout; chosen as a security parameter with suggested bound t < O(N^{1/12}) from qPRP distinguishing advantage, trading leakage and classical refresh cost.
  • decoy probability p_decoy (p_dec)
    Client-chosen rate of hidden test queries; directly sets detection exponent (1 - p η)^T and amortized communication 1/(1-p_dec).
  • encryption randomness length τ
    Expands plaintext blocks for qIND-qCPA; also creates branch-dependent garbage that forces two-round uncompute for clean oracles.
  • Feistel/qPRF ring parameters (d_A, q_A, d_E, q_E)
    Implementation parameters that drive client depth/workspace in Table 1; not fixed by a uniqueness theorem in the paper.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Strong quantum-secure PRP security of the address and encryption permutations (seven-round balanced Feistel with quantum-secure round functions) in the bidirectional quantum query model.
    Definition 1, Theorem 2; used for Lemmas 8–11 and single/multi-query privacy.
  • domain assumption qIND-qCPA security of Enc_K(D;r) = π'_K(D∥r) for the outsourced blocks.
    Definition 3, Theorem 4; database confidentiality hybrids (Lemma 9, Theorems 10 and 13).
  • domain assumption Standard quantum circuit / QRAM model: server implements coherent XOR-loading oracle over N = 2^n cells; quantum registers sent to the server are physically accessible to it.
    Sections 2.1 and 3.1; defines the attack surface the protocol must hide logically rather than physically.
  • domain assumption Bucket-brigade QRAM resource scaling Θ(N) qubits and depth Θ(n+m+τ) for protected lookups.
    Section 7 and Appendix E; underpins comparison to local QRAM and UBQC.
  • domain assumption Classical channels are authenticated; public leakage may include N, query counts, refresh timing, and abort bits.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.3 leakage profile.
  • ad hoc to paper Decoy rounds are hidden and i.i.d. with rejection probability ≥ η when attacked, yielding bound (1-pη)^T.
    Proposition 15 and Section 5.2; models cheat-sensitivity rather than full verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Reversible arithmetic depth model for coherent Feistel/qPRF (Toffoli/fanout/feedforward allowed) used in client cost table.
    Appendix E.1 accounting convention for Table 1 depths.
invented entities (2)
  • Oblivious QRAM (OQRAM) abstraction
    purpose: Name the security goal and interface for privacy-preserving delegated coherent QRAM distinct from full BQC and classical ORAM.
    Central object of the paper; a protocol abstraction rather than a physical entity. Falsifiable only as a security definition/construction package.
  • Protected shuffled layouts C_π / C_x with coherent address masking (qPRP+Z or qOTP)
    purpose: Concrete mechanism linking offline encrypted placement to online hidden physical addresses.
    Standard crypto composition presented as the OQRAM baseline; no external empirical handle beyond the security game.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OQRAM: Oblivious Quantum Random Access Memory for Securing Delegated Quantum Queries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72VGRSHZ

@misc{pith2026260727171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OQRAM: Oblivious Quantum Random Access Memory for Securing Delegated Quantum Queries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72VGRSHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27171}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum query is a basic subroutine in many quantum algorithms, and Quantum Random Access Memory (QRAM) provides a natural way to realize such coherent query access. In delegated settings, however, a standard QRAM query interface can expose sensitive information to the server. This paper introduces oblivious QRAM, a cryptographic abstraction for privacy-preserving delegated coherent query access. The protocol consists of an offline refresh phase and an online protected query phase. The database is stored in an encrypted and shuffled layout, and each query is protected by coherent address masking using either a quantum-secure pseudorandom permutation (qPRP) based method or a quantum one-time pad (qOTP) based method. In the adopted client model, the online protection adds only modest quantum overhead beyond the query register, avoiding the exponential quantum resources that would otherwise be required by an equivalent local QRAM construction. The qPRP-based variant also supports multi-query use by distributing database refresh across multiple queries to reduce classical communication. To address malicious servers, decoy checks are further incorporated to strengthen privacy protection and enable probabilistic tampering detection. Compared with fully blind quantum computing, this framework provides a lighter abstraction tailored to private delegated QRAM access, significantly reducing quantum resource requirements on both the client and server sides and achieving an exponential reduction in quantum communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Delegated quantum query with a bucket-brigade [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System model for secure quantum query. A trusted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the qPRP-based OQRAM protocol. In the offline refresh phase, the client encrypts each database block, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Private quan- tum channels

    Andris Ambainis, Michele Mosca, Alain Tapp, and Ronald de Wolf. Private quan- tum channels. InProceedings of the 41st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 547–553, 2000

    2000

  2. [2]

    Optorama: optimal oblivious ram

    Gilad Asharov, Ilan Komargodski, Wei-Kai Lin, Kartik Nayak, and Elaine Shi. Optorama: optimal oblivious ram. InAdvances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2020, pages 221–251. Springer, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    SPRING: Fast pseudorandom functions from rounded ring products

    Abhishek Banerjee, Hai Brenner, Gaëtan Leurent, Chris Peikert, and Alon Rosen. SPRING: Fast pseudorandom functions from rounded ring products. InFast Software Encryption, volume 8424 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 38–57. Springer, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Pseudorandom functions and lattices

    Abhishek Banerjee, Chris Peikert, and Alon Rosen. Pseudorandom functions and lattices. InAdvances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2012, volume 7237 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 719–737. Springer, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    Quantum lower bounds by polynomials.Journal of the ACM, 48(4):778–797, 2001

    Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials.Journal of the ACM, 48(4):778–797, 2001

    2001

  6. [6]

    Secure signatures and chosen ciphertext security in a quantum computing world

    Dan Boneh and Mark Zhandry. Secure signatures and chosen ciphertext security in a quantum computing world. InAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2013, volume 8043 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 361–379. Springer, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Towards practical secure delegated quantum computing with semi-classical light.Quantum, 9:1943, 2025

    Boris Bourdoncle, Pierre-Emmanuel Emeriau, Paul Hilaire, Shane Mansfield, Luka Music, and Stephen Wein. Towards practical secure delegated quantum computing with semi-classical light.Quantum, 9:1943, 2025

    1943

  8. [8]

    (leveled) fully homo- morphic encryption without bootstrapping.ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (TOCT), 6(3):1–36, 2014

    Zvika Brakerski, Craig Gentry, and Vinod Vaikuntanathan. (leveled) fully homo- morphic encryption without bootstrapping.ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (TOCT), 6(3):1–36, 2014

    2014

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Delegating private quantum computations.Canadian Journal of Physics, 93(9):941–946, 2015

    Anne Broadbent. Delegating private quantum computations.Canadian Journal of Physics, 93(9):941–946, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Universal blind quantum computation

    Anne Broadbent, Joseph Fitzsimons, and Elham Kashefi. Universal blind quantum computation. In2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 517–526. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Compressed permutation oracles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18586, 2025

    Joseph Carolan. Compressed permutation oracles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18586, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Andrew M. Childs. Secure assisted quantum computation.Quantum Information and Computation, 5(6):456–466, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Childs, Richard Cleve, Enrico Deotto, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel A

    Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Enrico Deotto, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel A. Spielman. Exponential algorithmic speedup by a quantum walk. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 59–68, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Tfhe: Fast fully homomorphic encryption over the torus: I

    Ilaria Chillotti, Nicolas Gama, Mariya Georgieva, and Malika Izabachène. Tfhe: Fast fully homomorphic encryption over the torus: I. chillotti et al.Journal of Cryptology, 33(1):34–91, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Private information retrieval.Journal of the ACM, 45(6):965–981, 1998

    Benny Chor, Oded Goldreich, Eyal Kushilevitz, and Madhu Sudan. Private information retrieval.Journal of the ACM, 45(6):965–981, 1998

    1998

  8. [16]

    Searchable symmetric encryption: Improved definitions and efficient constructions

    Reza Curtmola, Juan Garay, Seny Kamara, and Rafail Ostrovsky. Searchable symmetric encryption: Improved definitions and efficient constructions. InPro- ceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 79–88, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Fitzsimons

    Joseph F. Fitzsimons. Private quantum computation: An introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols.npj Quantum Information, 3(1):23, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Semantic security and indistinguishability in the quantum world

    Tommaso Gagliardoni, Andreas Hülsing, and Christian Schaffner. Semantic security and indistinguishability in the quantum world. InAnnual international cryptology conference, pages 60–89. Springer, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Orams in a quantum world

    Tommaso Gagliardoni, Nikolaos P Karvelas, and Stefan Katzenbeisser. Orams in a quantum world. InInternational Workshop on Post-Quantum Cryptography, pages 406–425. Springer, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices

    Craig Gentry. Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. InProceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 169–178, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Architectures for a quantum random access memory.Physical Review A, 78(5):052310, 2008

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Architectures for a quantum random access memory.Physical Review A, 78(5):052310, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Quantum private queries

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum private queries. Physical Review Letters, 100(23):230502, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Quantum random access memory.Physical review letters, 100(16):160501, 2008

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum random access memory.Physical review letters, 100(16):160501, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Towards a theory of software protection and simulation by oblivious RAMs

    Oded Goldreich. Towards a theory of software protection and simulation by oblivious RAMs. InProceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 182–194, 1987

    1987

  17. [25]

    Software protection and simulation on oblivious rams.Journal of the ACM, 43(3):431–473, 1996

    Oded Goldreich and Rafail Ostrovsky. Software protection and simulation on oblivious rams.Journal of the ACM, 43(3):431–473, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 212–219, 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states

    Jeongwan Haah, Aram W Harrow, Zhengfeng Ji, Xiaodi Wu, and Nengkun Yu. Sample-optimal tomography of quantum states. InProceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 913–925, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Access pattern disclosure on searchable encryption: Ramification, attack and mitigation

    Mohammad Saiful Islam, Mehmet Kuzu, and Murat Kantarcioglu. Access pattern disclosure on searchable encryption: Ramification, attack and mitigation. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Practical private database queries based on a quantum-key-distribution protocol.Physical Review A, 83(2):022301, 2011

    Markus Jakobi, Christoph Simon, Nicolas Gisin, Cyril Branciard, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Nino Walenta, and Hugo Zbinden. Practical private database queries based on a quantum-key-distribution protocol.Physical Review A, 83(2):022301, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Generic attacks on secure outsourced databases

    Georgios Kellaris, George Kollios, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam O’Neill. Generic attacks on secure outsourced databases. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 1329–1340, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Quantum symmetrically-private infor- mation retrieval.Information Processing Letters, 90(3):109–114, 2004

    Iordanis Kerenidis and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum symmetrically-private infor- mation retrieval.Information Processing Letters, 90(3):109–114, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Robust and efficient verification of graph states in blind measurement-based quantum computation.npj Quantum Information, 9:115, 2023

    Zihao Li, Huangjun Zhu, and Masahito Hayashi. Robust and efficient verification of graph states in blind measurement-based quantum computation.npj Quantum Information, 9:115, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    How to construct pseudorandom permuta- tions from pseudorandom functions.SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(2):373–386, 1988

    Michael Luby and Charles Rackoff. How to construct pseudorandom permuta- tions from pseudorandom functions.SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(2):373–386, 1988

    1988

  26. [34]

    On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings.Journal of the ACM, 60(6):43:1–43:35, 2013

    Vadim Lyubashevsky, Chris Peikert, and Oded Regev. On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings.Journal of the ACM, 60(6):43:1–43:35, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Oblix: An efficient oblivious search index

    Pratyush Mishra, Rishabh Poddar, Jerry Chen, Alessandro Chiesa, and Raluca Ada Popa. Oblix: An efficient oblivious search index. InProceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 279–296, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O’Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. InProceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 899– 912, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Goodrich, Roberto Tamassia, and Eli Upfal

    Olga Ohrimenko, Michael T. Goodrich, Roberto Tamassia, and Eli Upfal. The melbourne shuffle: Improving oblivious storage in the cloud. InAutomata, Languages, and Programming, volume 8573 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 556–567. Springer, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    CacheShuffle: A family of oblivious shuffles

    Sarvar Patel, Giuseppe Persiano, and Kevin Yeo. CacheShuffle: A family of oblivious shuffles. In45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, volume 107 ofLeibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, pages 161:1–161:13. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-...

    2018

  32. [40]

    Fletcher, Albert Kwon, Emil Stefanov, Elaine Shi, Marten van Dijk, and Srinivas Devadas

    Ling Ren, Christopher W. Fletcher, Albert Kwon, Emil Stefanov, Elaine Shi, Marten van Dijk, and Srinivas Devadas. Constants count: Practical improvements to oblivious RAM. InProceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 415–430, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Fletcher

    Sajin Sasy, Sergey Gorbunov, and Christopher W. Fletcher. ZeroTrace: Oblivious memory primitives from Intel SGX. InProceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Ruffle: Rapid 3-party shuffle protocols.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2023(3):24–42, 2023

    Pranav Shriram A, Nishat Koti, Varsha Bhat Kukkala, Arpita Patra, Bhavish Raj Gopal, and Somya Sangal. Ruffle: Rapid 3-party shuffle protocols.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2023(3):24–42, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Daniel R. Simon. On the power of quantum computation.SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1474–1483, 1997

    1997

  36. [44]

    Practical techniques for searches on encrypted data

    Dawn Xiaodong Song, David Wagner, and Adrian Perrig. Practical techniques for searches on encrypted data. InProceedings of the 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 44–55, 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    Secret- shared shuffle with malicious security

    Xiangfu Song, Dong Yin, Jianli Bai, Changyu Dong, and Ee-Chien Chang. Secret- shared shuffle with malicious security. InProceedings of the Network and Dis- tributed System Security Symposium, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Fletcher, Ling Ren, Xiangyao Yu, and Srinivas Devadas

    Emil Stefanov, Marten van Dijk, Elaine Shi, Christopher W. Fletcher, Ling Ren, Xiangyao Yu, and Srinivas Devadas. Path ORAM: An extremely simple oblivious RAM protocol. InProceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 299–310, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    Pro-oram: Constant latency read-only oblivious ram, 2018

    Shruti Tople, Yaoqi Jia, and Prateek Saxena. Pro-oram: Constant latency read-only oblivious ram, 2018. Cryptology ePrint Archive

    2018

  40. [48]

    Cleland, and Liang Jiang

    Zhaoyou Wang, Hong Qiao, Andrew N. Cleland, and Liang Jiang. Quantum random access memory with transmon-controlled phonon routing.Physical Review Letters, 134(21):210601, 2025. Anonymous Author(s)

    2025

  41. [49]

    D. K. Weiss, Shifan Xu, Shruti Puri, Yongshan Ding, and S. M. Girvin. Faulty tow- ers: Recovering a functioning quantum random access memory in the presence of defective routers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15612, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Quantum random access memory archi- tectures using 3d superconducting cavities.PRX Quantum, 5(2):020312, 2024

    DK Weiss, Shruti Puri, and SM Girvin. Quantum random access memory archi- tectures using 3d superconducting cavities.PRX Quantum, 5(2):020312, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Systems architecture for quantum random access memory

    Shifan Xu, Connor T Hann, Ben Foxman, Steven M Girvin, and Yongshan Ding. Systems architecture for quantum random access memory. InProceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pages 526–538, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Fat-tree QRAM: A high-bandwidth shared quantum random access memory for parallel queries

    Shifan Xu, Alvin Lu, and Yongshan Ding. Fat-tree QRAM: A high-bandwidth shared quantum random access memory for parallel queries. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2, ASPLOS ’...

    2025

  45. [53]

    A note on quantum-secure prps.Quantum, 9:1696, 2025

    Mark Zhandry. A note on quantum-secure prps.Quantum, 9:1696, 2025. A OPEN SCIENCE This paper is primarily a theoretical and analytical contribution. The proposed protocols, threat models, security arguments, and resource estimates are fully described in the paper. The submissi...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.