Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Quantum Indistinguishable Obfuscation via Quantum Circuit Equivalence

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that quantum indistinguishability obfuscation for general circuits can be built from quantum circuit equivalence, subpath-sum transformations, and a polynomial probability test.

desk verdict The obfuscation proof collapses at the first hybrid, but the path-sum equivalence checker behind it is real and worth a look. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12297 v1 pith:CZKXUMC2 submitted 2024-11-19 quant-ph

Yuanjing Zhang , Tao Shang , Kun Zhang , Chenyi Zhang , Haohua Du , Xueyi Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6894A6081P94 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Dd
keywords quantumindistinguishabilityobfuscationcircuitequivalencesubpathsumpolynomialidentitytestingdelegatedcomputingCliffordtwirlcopyprotection
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

QceQiO, a new scheme, aims to obfuscate any quantum implementation of a classical function by rewriting it as a subpath sum and then inserting identity-equivalent subpath loops that preserve function while altering circuit structure. The paper claims this yields quantum indistinguishability obfuscation (QiO) for general circuits, breaking past restrictions to limited gate sets or trivial functions and avoiding the exponential security loss of exhaustive equivalence checking. Equivalence of the original and obfuscated circuits is verified probabilistically through a Schwartz-Zippel-based polynomial identity test on phase polynomials, which also bounds the distinguisher. Security is argued in the quantum random oracle model via Clifford twirl and an admissible oracle lemma, though the proof rests on an averaging step over unitaries that is not a valid physical operation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the subpath sum SP of a quantum circuit: a compact path-integral-style description listing input variables, phase polynomials, and output basis vectors, along with the unitary operator it induces. Two circuits are delta-subpath-equivalent when they agree everywhere except a small replaced region whose subpath-sum operators are equivalent. The obfuscator uses identity-equivalent subpath loops as incremental units, applying one half to the quantum state and inserting the other half as gates into the circuit, so each step preserves functionality while changing the representation. The proof's load-bearing tools are the Clifford twirl (averaging over the Clifford group to depolarize the adversary's deviation) and the admissible oracle lemma (lifting security from one oracle query to many), plus the Schwartz-Zippel lemma, which turns functional-equivalence checking into a polynomial identity test and bounds the probability of false equivalence.

What would settle it

For any two distinct unitary matrices U1 and U2, compute (U1+U2)/2 and test unitarity; the result will generally fail, falsifying the 'closed under average operations' claim used in Hybrid 1 of the proof. A second check: obfuscate the same circuit twice with different identity-loop insertions and run a distinguisher to see whether the insertion pattern leaks; if it does, the obfuscation fails to hide circuit structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 3, is that the two quantum implementations of a classical function f, after obfuscation by QceQiO, are computationally indistinguishable in the quantum random oracle model. The construction defines an obfuscator that maps a quantum implementation to a new pair by repeatedly applying halves of identity-subpath loops: half to the state, half to the circuit. Two circuits are said to be delta-subpath-equivalent if they share identical subpath sums outside a polynomial-size region and have equivalent subpath-sum operators inside it. By chaining a polynomial number of such incremental transformations, any two equivalent implementations are shown to converge to indistinguishable obfuscations. The paper further claims this is the first general-purpose QiO construction, meaning it works for universal quantum circuits rather than restricted classes.

Load-bearing premise

The security proof assumes that the average of all possible unitary operators is itself a legitimate unitary operation, so the challenger can 'apply the average of all possible unitary units' to the state; since the average of distinct unitaries is generally not unitary, and averaging over an uncountable set is not a physical quantum channel, this step is not valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If QceQiO is sound, general-purpose quantum indistinguishability obfuscation exists in the quantum random oracle model without additional cryptographic assumptions.
  • Obfuscated quantum circuits would become usable in delegated computing while protecting the logical structure of proprietary algorithms.
  • The polynomial identity test replaces exhaustive input enumeration, turning exponential security loss into a polynomial failure probability.
  • The subpath-sum representation also gives a memory-efficient way to store and verify circuits, with complexity O(n+h) rather than O(2^n).
  • The scheme could serve as a building block for quantum functional encryption and quantum copy protection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Even if the averaging step is repaired, the construction's security would still need a proof that identity-subpath insertions hide the circuit's structure; inserting loops at arbitrary points might leave detectable traces.
  • A natural test is to run QceQiO on two circuits that differ only by a known loop and check whether any polynomial-time adversary can recover which loop was inserted.
  • If the equivalence result holds, the same subpath-sum identity test could be reused as a standalone tool for quantum circuit equivalence checking in optimization and verification pipelines.
  • The paper's security model (quantum random oracle) is strong; transferring the result to the plain model would require removing the Haar-random oracle dependence.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QceQiO, a scheme for quantum indistinguishability obfuscation (QiO) of general quantum circuits. The construction represents quantum circuits as subpath sums, inserts identity-equivalent subpaths ('loops') into the circuit and its input state, and claims that two obfuscated implementations of the same classical function are computationally indistinguishable in the quantum random oracle model. The main theoretical result is Theorem 3, whose proof proceeds through Hybrids 0–4 using a Clifford-twirl argument, an admissible-oracle lemma, and a Schwartz–Zippel-based probability test. Section 5 reports runtime and equivalence-checking benchmarks for several quantum circuits.

Significance. If Theorem 3 were sound, the paper would present the first general-purpose QiO construction from no cryptographic assumptions, resolving a central open question in quantum cryptography. The paper's path-sum formalism and the benchmarked equivalence-checking tool (Section 5) are potentially useful engineering contributions. However, the central security proof is invalid: the averaging operation in Hybrid 1 is not a physical quantum operation, the Clifford-twirl lemma is applied to the wrong ensemble, and Lemma 4 assumes exactly the indistinguishability property that is to be proved. The construction itself, which adds identity-equivalent subpaths in the clear, does not hide the original circuit structure. I therefore cannot regard the main claim as supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Hybrid 1] The definition |Ψ1⟩ = (1/|Ct|) Σ_{C∈C} C(|ψb⟩⊗|flag⟩) is not a valid quantum operation. There is no uniform probability distribution over the uncountable set of all t-qubit unitaries for which |Ct| is finite, and the set of unitary matrices is not closed under averaging: (I+X)/2 is not unitary. The assertion that 'the set of unitary units is closed under average operations' is therefore false. Since this averaging is the first substantive step of the proof and is used to define the state seen by the adversary in Hybrid 1, Lemma 2 and hence Theorem 3 are unsupported at this point.
  2. [Section 4.2, Lemmas 2 and 3] Lemma 3 (Clifford twirl) is valid only for a finite average over the Clifford group C_n, but the state in Hybrid 1 is defined as an average over all unitary units, not over the Clifford group. The proof of Lemma 2 replaces the challenger's average with a Clifford-group average without justification. Moreover, the oracle operation in the proof is described as 'the reversal of the Clifford applied by the challenger', yet the quantum random oracle in Definition 9 selects a Haar-random unitary U_k independently of the challenger's choice; there is no mechanism for the oracle to know and invert the specific C used by the challenger. Thus the claimed transfer from an arbitrary adversary's attack to the Clifford-twirl bound does not follow.
  3. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4] Lemma 4 asserts that the distribution D_ΔSP over identity-equivalent subpaths is 'statistically indistinguishable from the identity effect of U and U† pairs' and that the statistical distance is 'at most negligible in λ'. This is precisely the indistinguishability property that Theorem 3 must prove: the obfuscator adds identity-equivalent subpaths, and the security claim is that these additions hide the underlying circuit. The proof does not derive this fact from Theorem 2, which only bounds the probability that two phase polynomials agree at a random point (Schwartz–Zippel), nor from any other stated assumption. The argument is therefore circular and does not establish that Hybrid 1 and Hybrid 2 are indistinguishable to a quantum adversary.
  4. [Section 3.3, Definition 8, Steps 2–3] The construction inserts half of an identity-equivalent subpath into the input state and the other half into the circuit, yielding C' = U_{ΔSP_i/2}(C⊗I^λ) and ρ' = U_{ΔSP_i/2}(ρ⊗|flag⟩). No proof is given that the composed implementation (ρ', C') is functionally equivalent to (ρ, C); this would require U_{ΔSP_i/2} C U_{ΔSP_i/2} = C (up to global phase) for the chosen halves, which is not shown and need not hold for arbitrary identity-equivalent subpaths. Furthermore, even if functional equivalence held, the identity-equivalent subpaths are inserted as explicit, recognizable gate sequences in the description of C'. An adversary can remove these identity subpaths in polynomial time and recover the original circuit C, so the construction does not hide the circuit structure. The security proof never addresses the information contained in the obfuscated circuit description itself; it analyzes only oracle interactions.
  5. [Section 5] The benchmarks in Section 5 measure runtime and equivalence verification of circuits before and after the QceQiO transformation. They demonstrate only that the equivalence checker can determine that the transformed circuit is functionally equivalent to the original (or that a randomly modified circuit is not). They do not test indistinguishability against any adversary, nor do they measure whether the original circuit structure can be recovered from the obfuscated circuit. These experiments therefore do not provide evidence for the security claim of Theorem 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'proprietary' for 'propriety' in the abstract, 'Researchs' in Table 1, and 'wel compare' in Section 5. The paper would benefit from a careful language edit.
  2. [Section 4.2] The symbol C_t is used both for the set of all t-qubit unitary operations and later for the Clifford group, which is confusing. The paper should use distinct notation, e.g., U(2^t) for the unitary group and C_t for the Clifford group.
  3. [Section 3.4, Theorem 2] The Schwartz–Zippel lemma is applied to polynomials over C with a finite subset R⊂C, but the phase polynomials ϕ∈DM[x,y] are not explicitly defined over a field where the bound d/|R| holds with a finite |R|; the relationship between the complex field and the chosen finite set should be clarified.
  4. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4] The statement 'the statistical distance between these probabilities is governed by the distance between D_ΔSP and the identity path distribution I(U_rand)' is vague: I(U_rand) is not defined, and no distance measure is specified.
  5. [Section 1, Table 1] Table 1 lists 'Our Work' as having 'Polynomial' security loss, but no formal definition of security loss is given, and the comparison with exponential security loss in prior work is not quantified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Theorem 3's security proof assumes the indistinguishability it must prove: Lemma 4 defines D_ΔSP as identity-equivalent subpaths and then asserts they are statistically indistinguishable from random U-U† pairs, with no derivation except a polynomial-equality test that does not imply distributional closeness.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Definition 4 (Equivalent Quantum Implementation of f)]
    "Definition 4. (Equivalent Quantum Implementation of f): Let n,m ∈ N, f : {0,1}^n→{0,1}^m, (ρ0,C0) and (ρ1,C1) be two equivalent quantum implementations of f, |Pr [D (ρ0,C0) = 1]− Pr [D (ρ1,C1) = 1]|≤ negl(λ)"

    The definition of 'equivalent quantum implementations' is stated directly as the condition that no distinguisher D can tell the two implementations apart. That is the computational-indistinguishability goal of QceQiO and the conclusion of Theorem 3. Defining the antecedent 'equivalent' in terms of the target security property means any later invocation of equivalence imports the conclusion by definition rather than by proof.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.2, Lemma 4 (Hybrid 2 proof)]
    "The distribution D_ΔSP is defined over the set of paths ΔSP such that U_ΔSP is functionally equivalent to the identity. This requirement ensures that the replacement of U and U† with ΔSP does not alter the adversary's ability to distinguish Hybrid 1 from Hybrid 2. ... Because the paths in ΔSP are sampled from D_ΔSP, which is statistically indistinguishable from the identity effect of U and U† pairs, the adversary's probability of distinguishing the modified implementation from the original Hybrid 1 remains negligible."

    The decisive step of the security proof is the transition from Hybrid 1 to Hybrid 2. The proof asserts that identity-equivalent subpaths sampled from D_ΔSP are statistically indistinguishable from random U-U† pairs. This is exactly the indistinguishability property that QceQiO is supposed to establish. The construction only enforces that ΔSP is a subpath of the identity, which gives functional equivalence, not distributional closeness to Haar-random U-U† pairs; and Theorem 2's Schwartz-Zippel test checks equality of phase polynomials, not indistinguishability of the two distributions. Thus the hybrid gap is assumed rather than derived.

full rationale

This paper does not fit parameters and does not rely on load-bearing self-citations; the benchmarks in Section 5 validate circuit equivalence checking, not obfuscation security. The central problem is in the proof of Theorem 3. Lemma 4 defines the adversarial distribution D_ΔSP as identity-equivalent paths and then assumes that sampling from it is statistically indistinguishable from the U-U† pairs used in Hybrid 1. That assertion is the indistinguishability claim under proof, so the main security argument is circular. Separately, Hybrid 1's claim that one can 'apply the average of all possible unitary units C' because 'the set of unitary units is closed under average operations' is false as a matter of quantum mechanics: there is no uniform average over the uncountable unitary group and the average of two unitaries is not generally unitary, so Lemma 2 and the Clifford-twirl reduction do not apply. That is a correctness failure rather than a circularity, but it reinforces that Theorem 3 is unsupported. Overall, the construction itself has independent content, but the central indistinguishability theorem reduces to an assumption of its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unproven modeling assumptions: the applicability of polynomial identity testing to all quantum circuits, the validity of averaging over all unitaries in the security proof, and the indistinguishability of identity-subpath insertions. The first and third are essentially the security guarantee restated, while the second is a formal error. None of these are supported by the paper.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Schwartz-Zippel lemma
    Used in Theorem 2 to bound the error probability of the polynomial identity test on phase polynomials.
  • domain assumption Quantum random oracle model
    Security of Theorem 3 is claimed in the quantum random oracle model, an idealized model whose physical realizability is not established.
  • standard math Clifford twirl (Lemma 3 from Aharonov et al. [26])
    Used in Lemma 2 to argue that cross Pauli terms vanish when averaged over the Clifford group.
  • standard math Admissible oracle lemma (from Gunn et al. [27])
    Used in Lemmas 5 and 6 to extend single-query security to many queries.
  • ad hoc to paper Arbitrary quantum circuits can be represented by low-degree phase polynomials over a finite field
    The subpath sum definition and the probability test assume polynomial phase functions; the paper admits non-polynomial forms and hand-waves by subdividing into smaller segments, which is not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The uniform average over all unitaries is a valid physical operation and the set of unitaries is closed under averaging
    Hybrid 1 in Section 4.2 uses this to justify replacing a random unitary by an average; the average of two unitaries is generally not unitary, and an uncountable uniform average is not physically meaningful.
  • ad hoc to paper The identity-subpath distribution D_deltaSP is statistically indistinguishable from Haar-random U-U-dagger pairs
    Lemma 4 assumes this indistinguishability, which is essentially the security property the theorem must prove.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Indistinguishable Obfuscation via Quantum Circuit Equivalence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZKXUMC2

@misc{pith2026241112297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Indistinguishable Obfuscation via Quantum Circuit Equivalence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZKXUMC2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12297}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing solutions are increasingly deployed in commercial environments through delegated computing, especially one of the most critical issues is to guarantee the confidentiality and proprietary of quantum implementations. Since the proposal of general-purpose indistinguishability obfuscation (iO) and functional encryption schemes, iO has emerged as a seemingly versatile cryptography primitive. Existing research on quantum indistinguishable obfuscation (QiO) primarily focuses on task-oriented, lacking solutions to general quantum computing. In this paper, we propose a scheme for constructing QiO via the equivalence of quantum circuits. It introduces the concept of quantum subpath sum equivalence, demonstrating that indistinguishability between two quantum circuits can be achieved by incremental changes in quantum subpaths. The restriction of security loss is solved by reducing the distinguisher to polynomial probability test. The scheme obfuscates the quantum implementation of classical functions in a path-sum specification, ensuring the indistinguishability between different quantum implementations. The results demonstrate the feasibility of indistinguishability obfuscation for general circuits and provide novel insights on intellectual property protection and secure delegated quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Identity gate In and n-qubits gate U In graphical representation, the n-qubits gate that does not apply any operation to qubits is known as an identity gate, typically denoted by In, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum Paths and Fluctuations in the Feyn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Framework of quantum indistinguishable obfuscation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3-qubits quantum Fourier transform circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic diagram illustrating the paths taken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic diagram illustrating the paths taken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic diagram illustrating the paths taken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An intuitive representation of semantic trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Construction of QceQiO Definition 8. (Construction of QceQiO): Two quantum circuit clusters {C 1 λ }λ∈N and {C 2 λ }λ∈N are considered obfuscatable if there exists a poly￾nomial ℓ = ℓ(n) and a function B = O(logn) such that, for any positive integer n, there are ℓ ≥ 2…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Circuits for Benchmarks one. Dashed boxes in figure represent randomly generated sets of Toffoli gates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Runtime graph for all test circuits. Each data point represents the average of 5 runs, and random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the (im)possibility of obfuscating pro- grams

    Boaz Barak, Oded Goldreich, Russell Impagliazzo, Steven Rudich, Amit Sa- hai, Salil Vadhan, and Ke Yang. “On the (im)possibility of obfuscating pro- grams”. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2001/069 (2001). https://eprint.iacr. org/2001/069

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Candidate indistinguishability ob- fuscation and functional encryption for all circuits

    Sanjam Garg, Craig Gentry, Shai Halevi, Mariana Raykova, Amit Sahai, and Brent Waters. “Candidate indistinguishability ob- fuscation and functional encryption for all circuits”. In 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Sympo- sium on Foundations of Computer Science. Pages 40–49. (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Multiparty key exchange efficient traitor tracing and more from indistinguishability obfuscation

    Dan Boneh and Mark Zhandry. “Multiparty key exchange efficient traitor tracing and more from indistinguishability obfuscation”. InAdvances inCryptology–CRYPTO 2014. Pages 480–499. (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    How to use indistinguishability obfuscation: Deni- able encryption, and more

    Amit Sahai and Brent Waters. “How to use indistinguishability obfuscation: Deni- able encryption, and more”. SIAM Jour- nal on Computing 50, 857–908 (2021). arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1030108

    work page doi:10.1137/15m1030108 2021

  5. [5]

    Watermarking cryptographic ca- pabilities

    Aloni Cohen, Justin Holmgren, Ryo Nishi- maki, Vinod Vaikuntanathan, and Daniel Wichs. “Watermarking cryptographic ca- pabilities”. In Proceedings of the Forty- Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on The- ory of Computing. Pages 1115–1127. STOC ’16New York, NY, USA (2016). Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    On quan- tum obfuscation

    Gorjan Alagic and Bill Fefferman. “On quan- tum obfuscation” (2016). arXiv:1602.01771

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Impossibility of quantum virtual black-box obfuscation of classical circuits

    Gorjan Alagic, Zvika Brakerski, Yfke Dulek, and Christian Schaffner. “Impossibility of quantum virtual black-box obfuscation of classical circuits”. In Advances in Cryptol- ogy - CRYPTO 2021: 41st Annual Inter- national Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO 2021, Virtual Event, August 16–20, 2021, Proceedings, Part I. Pages 497–525. Berlin, Heidelberg (2021). Spr...

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    On the obfuscatability of quantum point functions

    Tao Shang, Ran-Yi-Liu Chen, and Jian-Wei Liu. “On the obfuscatability of quantum point functions”. Quantum Information Pro- cessing 18, 1–16 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Instantiation of quantum point obfuscation

    Yuanjing Zhang, Tao Shang, Ranyiliu Chen, and Jianwei Liu. “Instantiation of quantum point obfuscation”. Quantum Information Processing21 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Con- structions for quantum indistinguishability obfuscation

    Anne Broadbent and Raza Ali Kazmi. “Con- structions for quantum indistinguishability obfuscation”. In Progress in Cryptology - LATINCRYPT2021: 7thInternationalCon- ference on Cryptology and Information Se- curity in Latin America, Bogotá, Colom- bia, October 6–8, 2021, Proceed...

    2021

  3. [11]

    In- distinguishability Obfuscation of Null Quan- tum Circuits and Applications

    James Bartusek and Giulio Malavolta. “In- distinguishability Obfuscation of Null Quan- tum Circuits and Applications”. In Mark Braverman, editor, 13th Innovations in The- oreticalComputerScienceConference(ITCS 2022). Volume 215 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informati...

    2022

  4. [12]

    A multi-valued quantum fully homo- morphic encryption scheme

    Yuanjing Zhang, Tao Shang, and Jianwei Liu. “A multi-valued quantum fully homo- morphic encryption scheme”. Quantum In- formation Processing20 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    New approaches for quantum copy-protection

    Scott Aaronson, Jiahui Liu, Qipeng Liu, Mark Zhandry, and Ruizhe Zhang. “New approaches for quantum copy-protection”. In Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2021: 41st Annual International Cryptology Conference, CRYPTO 2021, Virtual Event, August 16–20, 2021, Proceedings, Part I. ...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Ob- fuscation of pseudo-deterministic quantum circuits

    James Bartusek, Fuyuki Kitagawa, Ryo Nishimaki, and Takashi Yamakawa. “Ob- fuscation of pseudo-deterministic quantum circuits”. In Proceedings of the 55th An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting. Pages 1567–1578. STOC 2023New York, NY,USA(2023).AssociationforCom- putin...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Universal quantum obfuscation for quantum non-linear functions

    Chuyue Pan, Tao Shang, and Yuanjing Zhang. “Universal quantum obfuscation for quantum non-linear functions”. Frontiers in Physics10 (2023)

    2023

  8. [17]

    Candidate indistinguishabil- ity obfuscation and functional encryp- tion for all circuits

    Sanjam Garg, Craig Gentry, Shai Halevi, Mariana Raykova, Amit Sahai, and Brent Waters. “Candidate indistinguishabil- ity obfuscation and functional encryp- tion for all circuits”. SIAM Jour- nal on Computing 45, 882–929 (2016). arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/14095772X

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    How to use quantum indistinguishability obfusca- tion

    Andrea Coladangelo and Sam Gunn. “How to use quantum indistinguishability obfusca- tion”. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Pages 1003–1008. STOC 2024New York, NY, USA (2024). Association for Comput- ing Machinery

    2024

  10. [19]

    On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs

    Boaz Barak, Oded Goldreich, Russell Im- pagliazzo, Steven Rudich, Amit Sahai, Salil Vadhan, and Ke Yang. “On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs”. J. ACM59 (2012)

    2012

  11. [20]

    Quantum complexity theory

    Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani. “Quantum complexity theory”. In Proceed- ings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Sym- posium on Theory of Computing. Pages 11–

  12. [21]

    Association for Computing Machinery

    STOC ’93New York, NY, USA (1993). Association for Computing Machinery

    1993

  13. [22]

    Indis- tinguishability obfuscation via mathematical proofs of equivalence

    Abhishek Jain and Zhengzhong Jin. “Indis- tinguishability obfuscation via mathematical proofs of equivalence”. In 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Com- puter Science (FOCS). Pages 1023–1034. (2022)

    2022

  14. [23]

    Towards large- scale functional verification of uni- versal quantum circuits

    Matthew Amy. “Towards large- scale functional verification of uni- versal quantum circuits”. CoRR abs/1805.06908, 1–21 (2018). url:https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 29163119

    2018 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Quantum circuits and low-degree polynomials over F2

    Ashley Montanaro. “Quantum circuits and low-degree polynomials over F2”. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 084002 (2017)

    2017

  16. [25]

    Synthesizing quantum-circuit optimizers

    Amanda Xu, Abtin Molavi, Lauren Pick, Swamit Tannu, and Aws Albarghouthi. “Synthesizing quantum-circuit optimizers”. Proc. ACM Program. Lang.7 (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    Randomized algorithms

    Rajeev Motwani and Prabhakar Ragha- van. “Randomized algorithms”. SIGACT News 26, 48–50 (1995). url: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 6160675

    1995

  18. [27]

    Interactive proofs for quantum computations

    Dorit Aharonov, Michael Ben-Or, Elad Eban, and Urmila Mahadev. “Interactive proofs for quantum computations” (2017). arXiv:1704.04487

    2017 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Commitments to quantum states

    Sam Gunn, Nathan Ju, Fermi Ma, and Mark Zhandry. “Commitments to quantum states”. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Pages 1579–1588. STOC 2023New York, NY, USA (2023). Association for Comput- ing Machinery

    2023

  20. [29]

    Quan- tum money from hidden subspaces

    Scott Aaronson and Paul Christiano. “Quan- tum money from hidden subspaces”. In Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Comput- ing. Pages 41–60. STOC ’12New York, NY, USA (2012). Association for Computing Ma- chinery

    2012

  21. [30]

    Verification of quantum computation: An overview of ex- isting approaches

    Alexandru Gheorghiu, Theodoros Kapourni- otis, and Elham Kashefi. “Verification of quantum computation: An overview of ex- isting approaches”. Theor. Comp. Sys. 63, 715–808 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Equivalence checking of quantum cir- cuits with the zx-calculus

    Tom Peham, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. “Equivalence checking of quantum cir- cuits with the zx-calculus”. IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems12, 662–675 (2022). 21

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.