Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Stabilizer Tensor Networks with Magic State Injection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 MAST augments stabilizer tensor networks with magic state injection, claiming polynomial-time classical simulation of random T-doped Clifford circuits with up to N T-gates for expectation values.

desk verdict A genuinely useful and plausible simulation method whose numerical evidence is solid, but whose main scaling claim rests on a heuristic tableau-structure assumption that the paper does not prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12482 v2 pith:RYOBFBXH submitted 2024-11-19 quant-ph

Azar C. Nakhl , Ben Harper , Maxwell West , Neil Dowling , Martin Sevior , Thomas Quella , Muhammad Usman This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords stabilizertensornetworksmagicstateinjectionclassicalsimulationofquantumcircuitsT-dopedCliffordHiddenBitShiftcircuitbonddimensionnon-Cliffordoperationsmatrixproductstates
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

This paper tries to show that a hybrid classical simulator combining stabilizer tableaux with matrix product states can be made dramatically stronger by moving all non-Clifford operations into magic-state injection gadgets, leaving only final projective measurements as the hard step. If the argument is right, random Clifford circuits doped with up to about N T-gates, a regime generally believed to be classically hard, can have expectation values computed in polynomial time, and the Hidden Bit Shift benchmark can be pushed to 4000 qubits and 320 T-gates. The reason is structural: in the stabilizer tableau of such circuits, the magic-register columns contain random X entries with probability close to 1/2, and the data-register rows that would entangle the tensor network are almost always hit first, so the projections do not grow the bond dimension. The paper also identifies a regime transition beyond t approximately N where the bond dimension begins to grow exponentially, although MAST still outperforms standard STN for a range of depths.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stabilizer tableau kept alongside the matrix product state, together with the magic-state injection gadget that replaces each T-gate. The paper's scaling argument rests on the block form of the tableau before projection: the upper-right block (magic-register columns in data-register rows) has independent X entries with probability close to 1/2, the lower-left block is identity, and the lower-right block is diagonal X with identity off-diagonal rows. When a magic-register observable is projected, the first anticommuting destabilizer row lies in the data-register rows with probability 1 - $2^{{-(N-w)}}$ after w projections, so the projection operator simplifies to a non-entangling operation on the unentangled |0>^N register. This keeps the bond dimension bounded as long as t is less than N.

What would settle it

On a 100-qubit random T-doped Clifford circuit with t equal to 100, write out the stabilizer tableau before any projection and, for each magic-register column, count how often the first row that anticommutes with Z_i is a data-register row. If that probability is not close to 1 - $2^{{-(N-w)}}$ after w projections, or if the X-entry probability in the upper-right block is not near 1/2, then the claimed O(poly(N)) cost is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that injecting magic states rather than applying T-gates directly makes the Stabilizer Tensor Network protocol efficient for circuits with extensive non-Clifford content. In MAST, each T-gate is replaced by a gadget that prepares an ancilla magic state, applies Clifford operations, and defers the final projective measurement to the end of the circuit; the paper argues that for random T-doped N-qubit Clifford circuits with t less than or approximately N, the final projections act on the magic register in a way that does not increase the MPS bond dimension, giving an average bond dimension bounded by 3 and an overall cost of O(poly(N)) for expectation values. The paper demonstrates this numerically for random circuits up to 200 qubits and reports efficient simulation of the Hidden Bit Shift circuit with 4000 qubits and 320 T-gates, as well as 160 T-gates on 40 qubits. The authors also show that MAST is largely insensitive to the choice of CCZ decomposition, unlike standard STN.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, before any magic-state projections, the stabilizer tableau of a random T-doped Clifford circuit has the block form where the upper-right block contains independent X entries with probability close to 1/2 and the lower-left block is identity; if the actual circuit ensemble produces different tableau statistics, the first anticommuting row need not lie in the magic register and the claimed polynomial scaling collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For random T-doped Clifford circuits with t <= N, MAST keeps the average MPS bond dimension bounded and computes expectation values with polynomial classical resources, demonstrated up to 200 qubits.
  • In the intermediate regime N < t < 1.5N, MAST's bond dimension grows exponentially but remains far below the maximal 2^{N/2} reached by STN, so MAST still significantly outperforms STN and standard MPS methods.
  • For the Hidden Bit Shift circuit, MAST efficiently simulates 4000 qubits with 320 T-gates and 40 qubits with 160 T-gates, exceeding the 64 T-gates on 40 qubits reported for earlier extended stabilizer methods.
  • MAST's simulation cost is nearly independent of whether a CCZ gate is decomposed into 4 T-gates with ancillas or 7 T-gates without ancillas, whereas STN's cost depends strongly on that decomposition.
  • When sampling w bits from a circuit with t < N T-gates, MAST scales as O(exp(w)), which is more efficient than stabilizer-based sampling in the regime where w is much smaller than t, and sampling from low-entanglement final states does not increase bond dimension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is that any circuit family whose pre-projection stabilizer tableau keeps the magic-register columns sparse in the data rows should be efficiently simulable by MAST; structured circuits such as QAOA layers could be probed for this property.
  • If the scaling holds, the practical reach of MAST is narrower than full classical simulation of quantum advantage, because it targets expectation values rather than outcome distributions; sampling remains expensive when the number of sampled bits w approaches t.
  • The sharp bond-dimension transition near t approximately N suggests a protocol-specific simulability phase transition, and locating it for other circuit ensembles could yield a quantitative resource measure linking magic, entanglement, and classical simulation cost.
  • Projection ordering is a free algorithmic choice in MAST; the random-circuit observation that pairing projections from the middle of the ancilla register outward keeps bond dimension near 2 indicates that measurement scheduling can be as important as the circuit itself.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MAST, a variant of the Stabilizer Tensor Network (STN) protocol in which non-Clifford T gates are replaced by magic-state injection gadgets and the associated measurements are postponed until the end of the circuit. The central claim is that for random T-doped N-qubit Clifford circuits with t less than or comparable to N T-gates, the simulation cost of MAST is O(poly(N)), whereas the ordinary STN cost grows exponentially. Numerical evidence is reported for random circuits up to N=200 and for the Hidden Bit Shift circuit up to 4000 qubits and 320 T-gates, with bounded MAST bond dimension. Appendix C provides a probabilistic argument intended to explain the polynomial scaling in the t less than or comparable to N regime.

Significance. If the scaling claim were rigorously established, this would be a substantial extension of classical simulation methods for highly entangled circuits with an extensive number of non-Clifford operations. The paper has notable strengths: it releases an implementation, reports concrete benchmarks on two circuit families, and makes falsifiable numerical predictions. The 4000-qubit Hidden Bit Shift demonstration is impressive even if it relies on a known polynomial-time simulation result. However, the theoretical argument in Appendix C is heuristic and depends on an unproven structural assumption about the stabilizer tableau. The absence of fitted parameters in the numerical curves is a strength, but the explanatory model in Figure 5 partly assumes the mechanism it is meant to establish. The central O(poly(N)) claim is therefore not yet proven, although the numerical evidence makes it plausible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Fig. 4] The entire scaling argument rests on the asserted block structure of the stabilizer tableau before projection: upper-right entries independently equal to X with probability near 1/2, lower-left entries all identity, and lower-right diagonal X. The text justifies this with one sentence: "operations on the data register only modify the left half of the tableau, while magic state injection operations only add X terms to the right half of the tableau." This is not a derivation. In particular, the CNOT gates inside the magic-state injection gadget couple the data and magic registers, so they update both halves of the tableau. The claim that the lower-left quadrant is identity is especially suspicious: a CNOT from a data qubit to a magic ancilla updates the ancilla stabilizer row by multiplying it with the data row, which generally creates non-identity entries in the lower-left block. Since the probability that the first anticommuting row lies in the magic register is the load-bearing step, this structure needs either a rigorous proof or a direct numerical check of the actual tableau statistics.
  2. [Appendix C.2, Eq. (C3)] The probability p(n) = 2^{n-1}/(2^n - 1) is computed for a uniformly random Clifford tableau. The MAST tableau, however, is not uniformly random: it is produced by interleaving uniformly random data-register Cliffords with injection CNOTs, and it is subsequently modified by projection updates that replace a stabilizer row with the measured operator Z_i. The statement that multiplying two random binary strings preserves the X statistics is asserted without proof. The probability model in Appendix C therefore does not apply in an obvious way to the ensemble that is actually simulated. The authors should either prove that the relevant subtableaux are uniformly random in the required sense or verify the X-probabilities numerically on the actual tableau ensemble.
  3. [Appendix C, text after Eq. (C2)] The appendix concludes that MAST is efficient in the t less than or comparable to N regime, but it does not state the full worst-case complexity as a function of N, t, and bond dimension. The abstract claims O(poly(N)) cost. Even granting the assumed tableau structure, the argument bounds the bond dimension and discusses the location of the first anticommuting row; it does not assemble these ingredients into a formal complexity statement that accounts for all projections and tensor-network contractions. This is not merely a presentation issue: the claimed polynomial scaling is the central quantitative result, so the paper should either state and prove a precise theorem or explicitly separate the proven upper bound from the numerical evidence.
  4. [Fig. 2(b)-(c) and Fig. 5] The numerical validation is averaged over 1000 random instances with no reported error bars or distribution. A bounded average bond dimension can be dominated by easy instances, and the curves alone do not directly test the Fig. 4 tableau structure. The model in Fig. 5 assumes that bond dimension increases only through the chi=2 to chi=4 mechanism, which is the same mechanism the numerics are meant to confirm; this is a circularity risk. Reporting the variance or quantiles of the bond dimension, and separately checking the empirical X-probabilities in the upper-right tableau block, would substantially strengthen the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8(a) caption] The caption says the second decomposition uses "4 T-gates with no extra ancillas," but Appendix D and the surrounding text describe the ancilla-free decomposition as using 7 T-gates. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3(b) and Appendix E] For the 4000-qubit Hidden Bit Shift result, only bond dimension is reported, not runtime or operation count. Since the circuit has O(N) gates, bounded bond dimension does not by itself imply a practically small runtime; a wall-clock time or FLOP count for the largest case would make the claim "efficiently simulate" more concrete.
  3. [Results and Discussion, Random Circuits] The text states that replacing T-gates with arbitrary Rz(theta) rotations results in an identical bond-dimension distribution. This is plausible, but the coefficients of the gate decomposition change, and numerical stability can differ; the sentence should be phrased as an empirical observation for the tested instances rather than a general statement.
  4. [Appendix C.2] The notation n is used for the number of qubits in the symplectic probability argument, while N is used for the data-register size elsewhere. Clarify the relationship between n and N (e.g., whether n is the total number of qubits or the size of the relevant subtableau) to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central scaling claim rests on direct simulations and standard uniform-Clifford statistics, with the Appendix C block-structure argument being an unproven (but not circular) explanatory premise.

full rationale

The core result—that MAST keeps bounded bond dimension for random T-doped Clifford circuits with t≲N—is established by running a concrete algorithm (public code in [54]) on standard benchmark circuits; no free parameter is fitted to the claimed bond-dimension scaling, and the comparisons against STN and MPS are external benchmarks. The analytic scaling argument in Appendix C does rely on the asserted block structure of Figure 4: "This form may be found by observing that operations on the data register only modify the left half of the tableau, while magic state injection operations only add X terms to the right half of the tableau." That assertion is not rigorously proven, and the subsequent use of the uniform-Clifford entry probability p = 2^{n-1}/(2^n - 1) from Ref. [58] assumes this block structure. This is a gap in the derivation and a verification risk, but it is not a circular reduction: the polynomial-cost conclusion is not used to define the block-structure premise, and no equation reduces to itself by construction. The Figure 5 model, "assuming that the only process in which the bond-dimension increases is by going from χ=2 to χ=4," is explicitly an explanatory post-diction; matching the observed curves is an in-sample consistency check rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to the authors' prior work are contextual and not load-bearing, while the load-bearing references (STN [28], uniform-Clifford construction [39,58], and the hidden-shift polynomial-time result [48]) are external. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs, so the paper is not significantly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core result rests on the STN representation from [28], standard stabilizer tableau algebra, uniform Clifford statistics, and two paper-specific structural assumptions (Fig. 4 tableau block form and favorable projection order). No numerical parameters were fitted to produce the curves, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The STN representation |ψ> = Σ_i ν_i D_i |ϕ> spans all N-qubit states (Eq. B1).
    Taken from the cited STN protocol [28]; the span property is stated in Appendix B.
  • standard math Uniform random Clifford tableau elements are X or Y with probability 2^{n-1}/(2^n-1).
    Derived via transitivity of Sp(2n,F2) in Appendix C2, Eq. C3, using [58]; used to estimate the probability that a magic-register projection anticommutes with a data-register row.
  • domain assumption For random T-doped Clifford circuits, the pre-projection tableau has the block structure of Fig. 4, with upper-right X entries at probability ~1/2 and lower-left identity entries.
    Stated as an observation in Appendix C; the O(poly(N)) bond-dimension bound depends on this structure, and it is not proven for the specific Qiskit sampling procedure.
  • domain assumption Measurements in magic state injection can be predetermined and delayed to the end of the circuit while preserving the simulated evolution.
    Standard magic state teleportation is invoked, but the paper does not prove that choosing a fixed outcome and delaying projection preserves expectation values for arbitrary circuits; it is an assumption.
  • standard math The CCZ gate decompositions in Appendix D (Figs. 6 and 7) are exact up to Clifford corrections.
    These decompositions are taken from Refs. [13,57] and are used in the Hidden Bit Shift benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stabilizer Tensor Networks with Magic State Injection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYOBFBXH

@misc{pith2026241112482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stabilizer Tensor Networks with Magic State Injection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYOBFBXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12482}
}
abstract

This work augments the recently introduced Stabilizer Tensor Network (STN) protocol with magic state injection, reporting a new framework with significantly enhanced ability to simulate circuits with an extensive number of non-Clifford operations. Specifically, for random $T$-doped $N$-qubit Clifford circuits the computational cost of circuits prepared with magic state injection scales as $\mathcal{O}(\text{poly}(N))$ when the circuit has $t \lesssim N$ $T$-gates compared to an exponential scaling for the STN approach, which is demonstrated in systems of up to $200$ qubits. In the case of the Hidden Bit Shift circuit, a paradigmatic benchmarking system for extended stabilizer methods with a tunable amount of magic, we report that our magic state injected STN framework can efficiently simulate $4000$ qubits and $320$ $T$-gates. These findings provide a promising outlook for the use of this protocol in the classical modelling of quantum circuits that are conventionally difficult to simulate efficiently.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magic state injection consists of local operations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) A schematic illustration of random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Hidden Bit Shift Circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The structure of the stabilizer tableau in MAST after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The expected bond-dimension for an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. A Toffoli gate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A standard Toffoli gate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Simulation cost of the Hidden Bit Shift circuit on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Adaptive Multi-Backend Simulation of Near-Clifford Quantum Circuits via Spatial Stabilizer-Frame Partitioning

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quipu-Cut exactly simulates Clifford+T amplitudes via multilevel qubit bipartition, stabilizer-frame leaves, adaptive dense fallback, and a cost-model partition selector that beats cut-count heuristics on structured w...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. Dang, C. D. Hill, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Optimising Matrix Product State Simulations of Shor’s Algorithm, Quantum 3, 116 (2019), arXiv:1712.07311 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    M. T. West, J. Heredge, M. Sevior, and M. Usman, Prov- ably Trainable Rotationally Equivariant Quantum Ma- chine Learning, PRX Quantum 5, 030320 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    M. T. West, S. M. Erfani, C. Leckie, M. Sevior, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and M. Usman, Benchmarking adversarially robust quantum machine learning at scale, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023186 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    J. Chen, E. Stoudenmire, and S. R. White, Quantum Fourier Transform has Small Entanglement, PRX Quan- tum 4, 040318 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A. C. Nakhl, T. Quella, and M. Usman, Calibrating the role of entanglement in variational quantum circuits, Physical Review A 109, 032413 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Niedermeier, J

    M. Niedermeier, J. L. Lado, and C. Flindt, Simulating the quantum Fourier transform, Grover’s algorithm, and the quantum counting algorithm with limited entangle- ment using tensor networks, Physical Review Research 6, 033325 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low- rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum 3, 181 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    M. L. Goh, M. Larocca, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and F. Sauvage, Lie-algebraic classical simulations for variational quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01432 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quan- tum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Tindall, M

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Efficient Tensor Network Simulation of IBM’s Eagle Kicked Ising Experiment, PRX Quantum 5, 010308 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically es- timating observables of noiseless quantum circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01706 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, talk at, in International Conference on Group Theoretic Methods in Physics(Citeseer, 1998)

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, talk at, in International Conference on Group Theoretic Methods in Physics(Citeseer, 1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Dominated by Clifford Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum 5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum 5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Pashayan, O

    H. Pashayan, O. Reardon-Smith, K. Korzekwa, and S. D. Bartlett, Fast estimation of outcome probabilities for quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 3, 020361 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    X. Xu, S. Benjamin, J. Sun, X. Yuan, and P. Zhang, A Herculean task: Classical simulation of quantum com- puters (2023), arXiv:2302.08880 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. Lami, T. Haug, and J. D. Nardis, Quantum State Designs with Clifford Enhanced Matrix Product States (2024), arXiv:2404.18751 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lami and M

    G. Lami and M. Collura, Learning the stabilizer group of a Matrix Product State (2024), arXiv:2401.16481 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, and M. Collura, Hybrid Stabilizer Matrix Product Operator, Physical Review Letters 133, 150604 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Clifford Circuits Aug- mented Time-Dependent Variational Principle (2024), arXiv:2407.03202 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tirrito, Nonstabilizerness versus entanglement in matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045101 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and M. Dal- monte, Nonstabilizerness via Matrix Product States in the Pauli Basis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010601 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and X. Turkeshi, Magic of the Heisenberg Picture, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16047 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.16047 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Paviglianiti, G

    A. Paviglianiti, G. Lami, M. Collura, and A. Silva, Es- timating Non-Stabilizerness Dynamics Without Simulat- ing It (2024), arXiv:2405.06054 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting Density Matrix Renormalization Group with Clifford Circuits (2024), arXiv:2405.09217 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Qian, and M. Qin, Non-stabilizerness En- tanglement Entropy: a measure of hardness in the clas- sical simulation of quantum many-body systems (2024), arXiv:2409.16895 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Masot-Llima and A

    S. Masot-Llima and A. Garcia-Saez, Stabilizer tensor net- works: Universal quantum simulator on a basis of stabi- lizer states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 230601 (2024). 6

    2024

  21. [29]

    A. G. Fowler and C. Gidney, Low overhead quantum com- putation using lattice surgery (2019), arXiv:1808.06709 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Reardon-Smith, M

    O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, Im- proved simulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations, Quantum 8, 1549 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    True and A

    S. True and A. Hamma, Transitions in Entanglement Complexity in Random Circuits, Quantum 6, 818 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Learn- ing t-doped stabilizer states, Quantum 8, 1361 (2024), arXiv:2305.15398 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Roetteler, Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear Boolean functions (2009), arXiv:0811.3208 [quant-ph]

    M. Roetteler, Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear Boolean functions (2009), arXiv:0811.3208 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kissinger, J

    A. Kissinger, J. v. d. Wetering, and R. Vilmart, Classical simulation of quantum circuits with partial and graphi- cal stabiliser decompositions, LIPIcs, Volume 232, TQC 2022 232, 5:1 (2022), arXiv:2202.09202 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kissinger and J

    A. Kissinger and J. Van De Wetering, Simulating quan- tum circuits with ZX-calculus reduced stabiliser decom- positions, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 044001 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved Simulation of Stabilizer Circuits (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0406196

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dupont, N

    M. Dupont, N. Didier, M. J. Hodson, J. E. Moore, and M. J. Reagor, Entanglement perspective on the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Physical Review A 106, 022423 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Maslov, Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the Clifford group, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 67, 4546 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Eisert, Entanglement and tensor network states (2013), arXiv:1308.3318 [quant-ph]

    J. Eisert, Entanglement and tensor network states (2013), arXiv:1308.3318 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, and D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 467, 459 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum Chaos is Quantum, Quantum 5, 453 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, S. Lloyd, and A. Hamma, Learning efficient decoders for quasichaotic quantum scramblers, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022429 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, S. Lloyd, and A. Hamma, Un- scrambling quantum information with clifford decoders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 080402 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    A. Gu, S. F. E. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Magic-induced computational separation in entanglement theory (2024), arXiv:2403.19610 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. A. Mele, A. Angrisani, S. Ghosh, S. Khatri, J. Eis- ert, D. S. Fran¸ ca, and Y. Quek, Noise-induced shallow circuits and absence of barren plateaus, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13927 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Amy and L

    M. Amy and L. S. Stinchcombe, Polynomial-Time Clas- sical Simulation of Hidden Shift Circuits via Confluent Rewriting of Symbolic Sums (2024), arXiv:2408.02778 [quant-ph]

    2024

  41. [49]

    G. E. Fux, B. B´ eri, R. Fazio, and E. Tirrito, Disentan- gling unitary dynamics with classically simulable quan- tum circuits (2024), arXiv:2410.09001 [quant-ph]

    2024

  42. [50]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications 5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Qassim, H

    H. Qassim, H. Pashayan, and D. Gosset, Improved upper bounds on the stabilizer rank of magic states, Quantum 5, 606 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    com/aristaeus/mast (2025)

    Harper, B, Nakhl, Azar C., Magic State Injection Aug- mented Stabilizer Tensor Networks, https://github. com/aristaeus/mast (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  48. [56]

    Or´ us, A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  50. [58]

    Koenig and J

    R. Koenig and J. A. Smolin, How to effi- ciently select an arbitrary clifford group el- ement, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, 122202 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4903507/15975983/122202 1 online.pdf. Appendix A: Stabilizer state and Matr...

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    More precisely, the stabilizer group S is defined to be the maximal subgroup of the Pauli group P over N qubits such that S |ϕ⟩ = |ϕ⟩ for all S ∈ S

    Stabilizer states Stabilizer states |ϕ⟩ are distinguished states that can be completely characterized by specifying an associated stabilizer group S [55]. More precisely, the stabilizer group S is defined to be the maximal subgroup of the Pauli group P over N qubits such that ...

  52. [60]

    For a 2-level system (qubits) whose Hilbert space is spanned by the basis states |s⟩ where s is a bi- nary string representation of some number 1,

    Matrix Product States Matrix Product States (MPS) are a tensor network representation of one-dimensional many body quantum systems. For a 2-level system (qubits) whose Hilbert space is spanned by the basis states |s⟩ where s is a bi- nary string representation of some number 1...

  53. [61]

    Recall that Clifford conjugation is the update rule for a stabilizer tableau simulator [12], so updating the tableau of |ϕ⟩ is sufficient to update Dˆı as well

    Clifford Operations To apply a Clifford operation C to the state |ψ⟩, we conjugate the operator Dˆı by C C |ψ⟩ = C X i νiDˆı |ϕ⟩ = X i νiCC −1 ˜DˆıC |ϕ⟩ = X i νi ˜Dˆı ˜|ϕ⟩ where ˜Dˆı = CDˆıC −1. Recall that Clifford conjugation is the update rule for a stabilizer tableau simul...

  54. [62]

    Non-Clifford Operations To perform a non-Clifford operation U , first one must find a decomposition of the following form U = X i ciD ˆdi Sˆsi (B3) where ci are complex coefficients, and ˆdi and ˆsi are boolean vectors that like ˆı pick out (de)stabilizer rows. These can be fo...

  55. [63]

    O = αDˆaSˆb

    Expectation V alues To determine expectation values of some operator O one must determine the decomposition in the form of Equation (B3), noting that for Pauli expectation val- ues this can always be done with a single term, i.e. O = αDˆaSˆb. Given this one can find the expect...

  56. [64]

    This results in the fol- lowing outcome, 1 + pO 2 |ψ⟩ = 1 2 2N X i=1 ci(Dˆı + αp(−1)ˆa·ˆıDˆı·ˆb) |ϕ⟩

    Projection Given an expectation value, as determined above, one may perform a projective measurement by performing the computation 1+pO 2 |ψ⟩ where p is the measurement outcome selected based off ⟨O⟩. This results in the fol- lowing outcome, 1 + pO 2 |ψ⟩ = 1 2 2N X i=1 ci(Dˆı ...

  57. [65]

    The operator we seek to project is O = Zi where N ≤ i < N+ t

    The operator decomposition for T-doped Cliffords For the T -doped Cliffords found in the main body of this work, the computational complexity arises purely from the projection of the magic register, and as such we will restrict ourselves to analysis of this regime only. The op...

  58. [66]

    We begin by noting that an arbitrary element of the Clifford group is equivalent to an element from the sym- plectic group Sp(2 n, F2) and an element from the Pauli group [58]

    Probability of Si,j containing an X Here we argue that the probability pi,j(n) that a stabi- lizer tableau element Si,j of a uniformly random sampled Clifford is X or Y is 2n−1 2n−1 . We begin by noting that an arbitrary element of the Clifford group is equivalent to an elemen...

Pith tools

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