Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

E-LoQ: Enhanced Locking for Quantum Circuit IP Protection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read E-LoQ locks quantum circuits by encoding an entire n-bit key onto a single ancilla qubit, so wrong keys corrupt outputs while the correct key restores the original circuit with under 1% average fidelity loss.

desk verdict A genuinely new encoding trick for quantum circuit locking, but the paper's headline security claim is not supported by the evidence it provides. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17101 v2 pith:2SWH5PNZ submitted 2024-12-22 quant-ph cs.CR

Yuntao Liu , Jayden John , Qian Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CR
keywords quantumcircuitlockinglogicIPprotectionH-maskingkeyqubitobfuscationuntrustedcompilerfidelitydegradation
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 proposes E-LoQ, a method for keeping quantum circuit designs secret when compilation is outsourced to an untrusted third party. The core idea is to lock the circuit with a key that lives on a single additional qubit, instead of one qubit per key bit as in earlier work. The key qubit controls a mix of real and dummy gates, so a wrong key scrambles the output distribution while the correct key lets the user remove the locking and recover the original circuit. Benchmarks show strong functional concealment and an average fidelity loss under 1% after unlocking.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is H-masking: every key-controlled gate is preceded by a Hadamard gate on the single key qubit, so the circuit as sent to the compiler reveals no key value. Decryption replaces those H gates with Pauli-X gates at positions determined by the key transitions, producing the |0> or |1> control state that activates the real gates and leaves the dummy gates idle. This turns an n-bit key into a time-ordered sequence of states on one qubit, which is the object that carries the argument, and it is what lets the method claim higher security per qubit than prior one-qubit-per-bit locking.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take a locked circuit, remove each controlled gate one at a time, and check which resulting circuits are consistent with a plausible original design; if an automated tool can label the dummy gates correctly with accuracy clearly above 50% across many random keys, the claimed security collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an n-bit structural key can be folded into one key qubit without weakening the lock. During encryption, a Hadamard gate is placed on the key qubit before every key-controlled gate, hiding the key from the compiler; the locked circuit contains both real controlled gates (active when the control is |1>) and dummy controlled gates (identity when the control is |0>). During decryption, the Hadamard gates are replaced by Pauli-X gates according to the key bit sequence, toggling the qubit to the correct control state, after which the controlled gates are simplified away. The authors report that this achieves high divergence between locked and original output distributions (total variation and Hamming variation distances close to 1, degree of functional corruption near -1) and that the post-unlocking circuit loses less than 1% fidelity on average compared with the original.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme's security rests on the assumption that an attacker reading the locked circuit cannot tell which controlled gates are real (key bit 1) and which are dummy (key bit 0), so the key cannot be recovered from the circuit's structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Key length no longer costs qubits: a single ancilla qubit can carry an arbitrarily long key, removing the main practical obstacle to locking circuits on current hardware.
  • Wrong keys give an attacker no information: output distributions under wrong keys are nearly flat or anti-correlated with the original, so key guessing succeeds only at chance level.
  • The locking overhead is temporary: after compilation and correct decryption, the key qubit and dummy gates are simplified away, leaving a circuit essentially identical in depth and gate count to the original.
  • The method is not limited to one gate family: the authors demonstrate locking with CNOT-based real and dummy gates on arithmetic benchmarks and with controlled-H gates on circuits such as Grover's algorithm.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the security guarantee is only as strong as the structural indistinguishability of real and dummy gates; the paper leaves a quantitative structural leakage metric for future work, so the effective key space may be much smaller than the nominal 2^n if such a distinguisher exists.
  • Editorial inference: the gate-count increase in the locked circuit equals the number of dummy gates, which equals the number of 0 bits in the key; an adversary with a good estimate of the original circuit size could infer the key's Hamming weight and possibly target the search.
  • Editorial inference: the fidelity result comes from noise-inclusive simulation on a hardware-like backend; real-device runs could show larger degradation, and the under-1% figure should be read as a simulation-based estimate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes E-LoQ, a quantum circuit locking technique that encodes an n-bit key onto a single key qubit. Encryption converts a randomly chosen subset of original gates into controlled gates (real, key bit 1) and inserts dummy controlled gates (key bit 0), with a Hadamard gate on the key qubit before each controlled gate ("H-masking"). After compilation, the designer removes the H gates, inserts Pauli-X gates according to the key to set the key qubit state, and simplifies the circuit. The authors evaluate functional corruption with Total Variation Distance (TVD), Hamming Variation Distance (HVD), and Degree of Functional Corruption (DFC), and they report overhead and fidelity results on RevLib benchmarks simulated with Qiskit's FakeValencia noise model. The central claims are that E-LoQ conceals the original circuit function (wrong keys corrupt outputs) and achieves higher security than one-qubit-per-key locking.

Significance. If the security claim were established, E-LoQ would be a useful contribution to quantum circuit IP protection: the functional-correctness argument is clean, the single-qubit key encoding is more qubit-efficient than prior work, and the overhead experiments (Table III) suggest only small fidelity penalties. The benchmark results do support the functional-corruption claims: TVD/HVD values are high for altered circuits and DFC values drop near -1. However, the security claim is not currently supported. The scheme's resistance to reverse engineering rests on the unverified assumption that real and dummy controlled gates are structurally indistinguishable, and the key-guessing metric in Eq. (4) is circular because it requires knowledge of kcorrect. The paper is a reasonable systems/design contribution but does not yet meet the security-evaluation bar expected for a claimed locking scheme.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VII (Discussion and Future Work)] The central security claim—that an attacker cannot recover the key from the locked circuit—depends on the assumption that dummy controlled gates are structurally indistinguishable from real controlled gates. This assumption is load-bearing because the key is exactly the binary labeling of the controlled gates. Section VII states, "In our future work, we will develop a quantitative structural leakage metric for structural information leakage," which admits that no such metric is currently provided. Since dummy gates are inserted at arbitrary positions and chosen from a restricted set (CNOT or controlled-H) while real gates are conversions of existing gates, features such as target-qubit degree, position in the dataflow, and consistency with known reversible-circuit patterns may separate the two classes. The manuscript should either provide a concrete structural-leakage analysis (e.g., a distinguishing test or a classifier experiment on the locked circuits) or explicitly weaken the security claims to avoid overstatement.
  2. [Section VI-E, Eq. (4)] The guessRate metric in Eq. (4) compares the output of each candidate key with the output under kcorrect, which the attacker is assumed not to know. The experiment in Figure 9 therefore demonstrates only that incorrect keys produce different outputs from the correct key; it does not demonstrate resilience to any key-recovery attack. To substantiate the statement in Section VII that E-LoQ is "resilient to key guessing attacks," the paper must define an explicit attacker model (e.g., the untrusted compiler with access to the locked netlist, with or without a query oracle) and evaluate a concrete attack algorithm, such as structural analysis, SAT-style key recovery, or simulation-based distinguishing. Without such an attack model, the security analysis is circular by construction.
  3. [Section IV-A] The claim that "H-masking" prevents the compiler from simplifying away the locked structure is asserted without evidence: the paper states that H gates are placed "to maximally obfuscate the key, decorrelate adjacent key bits, and prevent the key-controlled gates from being simplified by the compiler," but no compiler attack or robustness test is provided. Since the untrusted compiler is the adversary, its optimization passes (e.g., gate cancellation, commutation, unitary synthesis) are exactly the tools that could identify and remove the H gates or the controlled-gate structure. The authors should test E-LoQ under realistic compilation passes on the benchmark circuits and show that the locked structure survives, or provide a formal argument for why simplification is impossible.
  4. [Section I and Section VII] The claimed security advantage over prior work [8] is not quantified. The abstract and introduction state that E-LoQ "achieves higher security levels," but the only supporting evidence is the key-space size (2^n with a single qubit). Key length alone is not a security metric if structural leakage can collapse the effective key space, and the comparison ignores that the decryption process itself reveals information about the key to anyone who observes it. The paper should either quantify the security gain under the concrete attack model requested above or reframe the contribution as a functional/overhead improvement rather than an unconditional increase in security.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: "demonstrat" should be "demonstrate."
  2. [Figure 6 caption] Typo: "origianl" should be "original"; also "citcuit" appears in the caption text and should be corrected.
  3. [Section VI-B] Typo: "H hates" should be "H gates"; "session VI-C" should be "Section VI-C."
  4. [Table III] The column header "accuracy after" is incomplete; it should specify "accuracy after alteration." The fidelity-change values for mini ALU (1.02%), 4mod5 (1.06%), and 1-bit adder (1.65%) exceed 1%, while the text says changes are "typically remaining under 1%." Clarify whether the abstract's "average fidelity degradation of less than 1%" refers to the mean across circuits rather than each individual circuit.
  5. [Eq. (3)] The DFC formula is ambiguous: "Count | correct − Count | incorrect" does not specify whether the second term is the count of the most frequent incorrect outcome or the total count of all incorrect outcomes. Use a clear mathematical expression, e.g., DFC = (count_correct − count_max_incorrect)/N.
  6. [Section IV-A] The initialization of the key qubit qk is not stated. The decryption example toggles qk with X gates starting from an implicit state; specify whether qk is initialized to |0> and how the first X gate relates to that initial state.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the locking/unlocking correctness is self-consistent by construction, and the security metrics are legitimate evaluations rather than fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for what it actually derives. The correctness condition Circ = Dec(Enc(Circ, k), k) is established by the construction itself: real key-controlled gates are controlled by |1> and reproduce the original gate, while dummy gates are controlled by |0> and act as identity, so the correct key restores the original function. This is a designed functional equivalence, not a circular prediction. The quality metrics (TVD, HVD, DFC) compare locked-circuit output distributions against the original circuit's output, which is an independent reference available from the benchmark. The guessRate metric in Eq. (4) compares each guessed key's output with the output under k_correct; although k_correct is used as the reference, this is an evaluation oracle used by the defender to quantify how distinguishable wrong keys are from the correct key, not an assumption that the attacker knows k_correct. No fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation; the cited works by overlapping authors are background references on classical logic locking and do not supply the paper's central security premise. The paper's claim of low structural leakage rests on an unverified empirical assumption that real and dummy controlled gates are structurally indistinguishable, but the paper itself states that a quantitative structural leakage metric is future work, making this an open correctness/security risk rather than a circular derivation. The central functional locking result is independent of that assumption and is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the scheme uses standard qubits and gates. The 'key qubit' is an ancilla, not a new entity. The free parameters are design choices that affect security but are not supported by analysis.

free parameters (3)
  • key length n = 3 to 6 (benchmarks)
    The security claim scales with 2^n, but experiments only test n=3 (ALU) and n=6 (example); no study of how n affects attack difficulty.
  • choice of gates to convert = randomly selected (seed not given)
    Encryption randomly selects n1 gates to convert; without a seed or distribution, the effective obfuscation and structural leakage cannot be reproduced or measured.
  • gate type for dummy insertion = CNOT for RevLib, controlled-H for Grover
    The gate type is chosen per circuit family to reduce structural leakage; this heuristic is untested and could itself leak information about the original circuit.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Quantum gates are unitary and measurement projects onto basis states
    Used throughout Section II-B; standard.
  • domain assumption The untrusted compiler cannot access the correct key or the unlocked circuit
    Threat model in Section III; reasonable but unproven. If the compiler observes the unlocked circuit, the key is exposed.
  • ad hoc to paper H-masking prevents the compiler from simplifying away the locked structure
    Section IV-A1 states this without proof; an optimizing compiler could potentially cancel H gates or merge controlled operations, which would break the decryption.
  • ad hoc to paper Dummy controlled gates are structurally indistinguishable from real ones
    Section VII claims lower structural leakage but defers a quantitative metric; the security proof depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of E-LoQ: Enhanced Locking for Quantum Circuit IP Protection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SWH5PNZ

@misc{pith2026241217101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: E-LoQ: Enhanced Locking for Quantum Circuit IP Protection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SWH5PNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17101}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, quantum computing has started to demonstrate superior efficiency to classical computing. In quantum computing, quantum circuits that implement specific quantum algorithms are usually not directly executable on quantum computer hardware. Quantum circuit compilers decompose high-level quantum gates into the hardware's native gates and optimize the circuits for accuracy and performance. However, untrusted quantum compilers risk stealing original quantum designs (quantum circuits), leading to the theft of sensitive intellectual property (IP). In classical computing, logic locking is a family of techniques to secure integrated circuit (ICs) designs against reverse engineering and IP piracy. This technique involves inserting a keyed value into the circuit, ensuring the correct output is achieved only with the correct key. To address similar issues in quantum circuit protection, we propose an enhanced locking technique for quantum circuits (E-LoQ) where multiple key bits can be condensed into one key qubit. Compared to previous work that used one qubit for each key bit, our approach achieves higher security levels. We have demonstrated the practicality of our method through experiments on a set of benchmark quantum circuits. The effectiveness of E-LoQ was measured by assessing the divergence distance from the original circuit. Our results demonstrate that E-LoQ effectively conceals the function of the original quantum circuit, with an average fidelity degradation of less than 1%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of logic locking on classical circuits, On the left, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bloch sphere representation of qubit; Poles represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circuit representation of multi-qubit gates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The untrusted compiler threat model. During the compilation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall defense flow using E-LoQ. Under this framework, the untrusted compiler only has access to the locked circuit which does not [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of E-LoQ. The original circuit in (a) is locked with a 6-bit key 100101 to get the locked citcuit (b). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Variation Distance (VD) of benchmark circuits: Both Total VD and Hamming VD are calculated and shown respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Degree of Functional Corruption (DFC) values for selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Key guessing rate on 1-bit ALU circuit; the X-axis displays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Quantum logic locking for security,

    R. O. Topaloglu, “Quantum logic locking for security,” MDPI Multidis- ciplinary Scientific Journal , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 411–420, 2023

    2023

  2. [1]

    Potential of quantum com- puting for drug discovery,

    Y . Cao, J. Romero, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Potential of quantum com- puting for drug discovery,” IBM Journal of Research and Development , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 6–1, 2018

    2018

  3. [2]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science,

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science,” Chemical Re- views, vol. 120, no. 22, pp. 12 685–12 717, 2020

    2020

  4. [3]

    Toward pricing financial derivatives with an ibm quantum computer,

    A. Martin, B. Candelas, ´A. Rodr ´ıguez-Rozas, J. D. Mart ´ın-Guerrero, X. Chen, L. Lamata, R. Or ´us, E. Solano, and M. Sanz, “Toward pricing financial derivatives with an ibm quantum computer,” Physical Review Research, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 013167, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Ibm quantum breaks the 100-qubit processor barrier,

    J. Chow, O. Dial, and J. Gambetta, “Ibm quantum breaks the 100-qubit processor barrier,” IBM Research Blog , vol. 2, 2021

    2021

  6. [5]

    Cloud based qc with amazon braket,

    C. Gonzalez, “Cloud based qc with amazon braket,” Digitale Welt, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 14–17, 2021

    2021

  7. [6]

    Quantum programming on azure quantum—an open source tool for quantum developers,

    K. Prateek and S. Maity, “Quantum programming on azure quantum—an open source tool for quantum developers,” in Quantum Computing: A Shift from Bits to Qubits . Springer, 2023, pp. 283–309

    2023

  8. [7]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” 2024

    2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Keynote: A disquisition on logic locking,

    A. Chakraborty, N. G. Jayasankaran, Y . Liu, J. Rajendran, O. Sinanoglu, A. Srivastava, Y . Xie, M. Yasin, and M. Zuzak, “Keynote: A disquisition on logic locking,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 39, pp. 1952–1972, October 2020

    1952

  2. [10]

    Epic: Ending piracy of integrated circuits,

    J. A. Roy, F. Koushanfar, and I. L. Markov, “Epic: Ending piracy of integrated circuits,” in Proceedings of the conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe . ACM, 2008, pp. 1069–1074

    2008

  3. [11]

    Robust and attack resilient logic locking with a high application-level impact,

    Y . Liu, M. Zuzak, Y . Xie, A. Chakraborty, and A. Srivastava, “Robust and attack resilient logic locking with a high application-level impact,” ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems (JETC) , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1–22, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Evaluating the security of logic encryption algorithms,

    P. Subramanyan, S. Ray, and S. Malik, “Evaluating the security of logic encryption algorithms,” in Hardware Oriented Security and Trust (HOST), 2015 IEEE International Symposium on . IEEE, 2015, pp. 137–143

    2015

  5. [13]

    Appsat: Approximately deobfuscating integrated circuits,

    K. Shamsi, M. Li, T. Meade, Z. Zhao, D. Z. Pan, and Y . Jin, “Appsat: Approximately deobfuscating integrated circuits,” in 2017 IEEE Inter- national Symposium on Hardware Oriented Security and Trust (HOST) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 95–100

    2017

  6. [14]

    Double dip: Re-evaluating security of logic encryption algorithms,

    Y . Shen and H. Zhou, “Double dip: Re-evaluating security of logic encryption algorithms,” in Proceedings of the on Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI 2017 . ACM, 2017, pp. 179–184

    2017

  7. [15]

    Evaluating the security of delay-locked circuits,

    A. Chakraborty, Y . Liu, and A. Srivastava, “Evaluating the security of delay-locked circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 608–619, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    A combined logical and physical attack on logic obfuscation,

    M. Zuzak, Y . Liu, I. McDaniel, and A. Srivastava, “A combined logical and physical attack on logic obfuscation,” in Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design , 2022, pp. 1–9

    2022

  9. [17]

    Logic locking for secure outsourced chip fabrication: A new attack and provably secure defense mechanism,

    M. E. Massad, J. Zhang, S. Garg, and M. V . Tripunitara, “Logic locking for secure outsourced chip fabrication: A new attack and provably secure defense mechanism,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.10187 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Trojannet: Detecting trojans in quantum circuits using machine learning,

    S. Das and S. Ghosh, “Trojannet: Detecting trojans in quantum circuits using machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16701 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hardware trojans in quantum circuits, their impacts, and defense,

    R. Roy, S. Das, and S. Ghosh, “Hardware trojans in quantum circuits, their impacts, and defense,” in 2024 25th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  12. [20]

    Analysis of crosstalk in nisq devices and security implications in multi-programming regime,

    A. Ash-Saki, M. Alam, and S. Ghosh, “Analysis of crosstalk in nisq devices and security implications in multi-programming regime,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design , 2020, pp. 25–30

    2020

  13. [21]

    Exploration of power side-channel vulnerabilities in quantum computer controllers,

    C. Xu, F. Erata, and J. Szefer, “Exploration of power side-channel vulnerabilities in quantum computer controllers,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2023, pp. 579–593

    2023

  14. [22]

    Hardware architecture for a quantum computer trusted execution envi- ronment,

    T. Trochatos, C. Xu, S. Deshpande, Y . Lu, Y . Ding, and J. Szefer, “Hardware architecture for a quantum computer trusted execution envi- ronment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03897 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Multi-stage watermarking for quantum circuits,

    M. Yang, X. Guo, and L. Jiang, “Multi-stage watermarking for quantum circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18038 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mapping the patent landscape of quantum technologies: Patenting trends, innovation and policy implica- tions,

    M. Aboy, T. Minssen, and M. Kop, “Mapping the patent landscape of quantum technologies: Patenting trends, innovation and policy implica- tions,” IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competi- tion Law, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 853–882, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Randomized reversible gate-based obfus- cation for secured compilation of quantum circuit,

    S. Das and S. Ghosh, “Randomized reversible gate-based obfus- cation for secured compilation of quantum circuit,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01133, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Short paper: A quantum circuit obfuscation methodology for security and privacy,

    A. Suresh, A. A. Saki, M. Alam, R. Onur Topaloglu, and S. Ghosh, “Short paper: A quantum circuit obfuscation methodology for security and privacy,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Hardware and Architectural Support for Security and Privacy , 2021, pp. 1–5

    2021

  19. [27]

    Split compilation for security of quantum circuits,

    A. A. Saki, A. Suresh, R. O. Topaloglu, and S. Ghosh, “Split compilation for security of quantum circuits,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  20. [28]

    An open- source, industrial-strength optimizing compiler for quantum programs,

    R. S. Smith, E. C. Peterson, M. G. Skilbeck, and E. J. Davis, “An open- source, industrial-strength optimizing compiler for quantum programs,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 5, no. 4, p. 044001, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Automating the comparison of quantum compilers for quantum circuits,

    M. Salm, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, B. Weder, and K. Wild, “Automating the comparison of quantum compilers for quantum circuits,” in Sympo- sium and Summer School on Service-Oriented Computing . Springer, 2021, pp. 64–80

    2021

  22. [30]

    t— ket¿: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices,

    S. Sivarajah, S. Dilkes, A. Cowtan, W. Simmons, A. Edgington, and R. Duncan, “t— ket¿: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 014003, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Cirq: A python framework for creating, editing, and invoking quantum circuits

    A. Hancock, A. Garcia, J. Shedenhelm, J. Cowen, and C. Carey, “Cirq: A python framework for creating, editing, and invoking quantum circuits.”

  24. [32]

    Revlib: An online resource for reversible functions and reversible circuits,

    R. Wille, D. Große, L. Teuber, G. W. Dueck, and R. Drechsler, “Revlib: An online resource for reversible functions and reversible circuits,” in 38th International Symposium on Multiple Valued Logic (ismvl 2008) . IEEE, 2008, pp. 220–225

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.