Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Magic transition in monitored free fermion dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Monitored free-fermion circuits exhibit a magic delocalization transition that mirrors the entanglement transition.

desk verdict The magic-transition claim is undercut by the paper's own Appendix A; the SRE dynamics results are the solid part. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10688 v1 pith:5PEY2HXW submitted 2025-07-14 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Cheng Wang , Zhi-Cheng Yang , Tianci Zhou , Xiao Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords stabilizerRényientropymagictransitionmonitoredfreefermioncircuitsmeasurement-inducedentanglementGaussianstatesbipartitemutualinformationnon-stabilizernessperfectsampling
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

Magic, the non-Cliffordness of a quantum state, is a resource as important as entanglement for quantum computation, but it is usually measured by a total count that hides spatial structure. This paper studies random free-fermion circuits with measurements in 1+1 dimensions, where a known measurement-induced transition separates a critical phase with logarithmic entanglement from an area-law phase. It claims that although the total stabilizer Rényi entropy stays extensive (volume-law) on both sides of that transition, the structure of magic undergoes its own delocalization transition: the bipartite stabilizer mutual information scales logarithmically with system size in the critical phase and saturates to a finite constant in the area-law phase, exactly mirroring the entanglement entropy. The paper also finds that magic approaches its steady state slowly, with a saturation time linear in system size in the critical phase, much slower than in generic random unitary circuits. If correct, this gives a magic-based order parameter for measurement-induced criticality and ties a quantum-computing resource to the entanglement transition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stabilizer Rényi entropy $M_\alpha(\rho)$, defined as the Rényi-$\alpha$ entropy of the squared Pauli-string expectation values of the state; it vanishes on stabilizer states and measures non-Cliffordness. The paper's diagnostic for non-local magic is the bipartite stabilizer mutual information $I_\alpha = \pm(M_A + M_{\bar A} - M_{A\cup\bar A})$, with the sign fixed by Eq. (4) so that $I_\alpha\ge0$ in the regimes studied; this combination cancels local magic and isolates magic supported jointly across a subsystem and its complement. The computation runs on a perfect-sampling algorithm that generates Majorana strings bit by bit using the chain rule of probability, with each marginal given by a determinant identity from the Gaussian covariance matrix, making SRE and BSMI computable in polynomial time for systems up to about one hundred sites. The circuits are random brickwork free-fermion unitary gates combined with local Z-basis projective or weak measurements, which preserve Gaussianity and realize the known entanglement phase transition.

What would settle it

Plot the bipartite stabilizer mutual information against the entanglement entropy $S_A$ for the same trajectories across the transition. If $I_1$ and $I_2$ collapse onto a single function of $S_A$ (in particular $I\approx 2S_A$, as the paper's random-state formulas suggest), the magic transition is not independent; if the collapse fails, BSMI carries information beyond entanglement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a magic localization-delocalization transition that occurs at the same measurement rate as the entanglement transition in monitored free-fermion circuits. Using the stabilizer Rényi entropy (SRE) as the magic measure and a perfect-sampling algorithm that draws Majorana strings from the Gaussian state's covariance matrix, the authors compute both the total SRE and the bipartite stabilizer mutual information (BSMI) for circuits with projective and weak local Z measurements. The total SRE remains extensive in both phases, but the BSMI grows as $\log L$ in the critical phase and saturates to a finite O(1) constant in the area-law phase; for two disjoint intervals in the critical phase, the BSMI collapses onto a function of the cross ratio with power-law exponents roughly $0.75$ for $I_1$ and $0.93$ for $I_2$. Dynamically, the SRE deviation from its steady state collapses as a function of $t/L$, giving a saturation time $O(L)$ in the critical phase and $O(L\log L)$ under purely unitary free-fermion evolution, in contrast to the $O(\log L)$ saturation seen in generic random unitary circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sign convention in Eq. (4) makes the bipartite stabilizer mutual information a meaningful independent measure of non-local magic; if the random-state relation $I\approx 2S_A$ holds for the simulated states, the observed log-versus-constant scaling would simply restate the entanglement transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Total stabilizer Rényi entropy is extensive in both phases, so the measurement-induced transition is invisible to total magic and requires a nonlocal diagnostic such as BSMI.
  • The bipartite stabilizer mutual information acts as an order parameter for the concurrent magic transition: $\log L$ scaling in the critical phase and a finite constant in the area-law phase, with the transition point matching the entanglement transition.
  • In the critical phase, nonlocal magic encodes universal data: the BSMI of two disjoint intervals collapses onto a function of the cross ratio, with exponents roughly $0.75$ for $I_1$ and $0.93$ for $I_2$.
  • Magic relaxation is parametrically slower in free-fermion circuits than in generic random unitary circuits, with saturation time $O(L)$ in the critical phase and $O(L\log L)$ under purely unitary evolution.
  • Projective and weak measurements qualitatively reproduce the same steady-state and dynamic scaling, so the magic delocalization transition is robust to the measurement protocol.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own random-state formulas imply $M_1\approx N+S$ and $M_2\approx (N-S)/(\alpha-1)$, so both $I_1$ and $I_2$ reduce to about $2S_A$; if that reduction holds for the simulated Gaussian states, the BSMI scaling would be inherited from the entanglement entropy rather than an independent magic phenomenon.
  • A direct test would normalize BSMI by the entanglement entropy $S_A$ across the transition: a constant ratio would mean BSMI is a derived quantity, whereas a ratio that changes at the critical point would establish magic delocalization as an independent order parameter.
  • Because magic is the resource that makes a state costly for stabilizer-circuit simulation, a magic delocalization transition suggests that the classical simulation cost of monitored free-fermion states changes qualitatively at the entanglement transition even though the states remain Gaussian and efficiently representable.
  • The cross-ratio collapse of BSMI suggests that nonlocal magic in the critical phase may be captured by the same conformal field theory that describes the entanglement criticality; identifying the CFT quantity that yields the observed exponents would connect magic to universal data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stabilizer Rényi entropy (SRE) and a bipartite stabilizer mutual information (BSMI) in 1+1D random free-fermion circuits with projective or weak measurements. Using a perfect sampling algorithm for Gaussian states, it reports that the total SRE remains extensive in both the critical and area-law phases, while the BSMI scales logarithmically in the critical phase and saturates to an O(1) constant in the area-law phase, mirroring the entanglement entropy. The paper interprets this as a magic delocalization transition concurrent with the entanglement transition. It also analyzes the dynamics of SRE, claiming a slower, universal relaxation (with saturation time ~ L) in the critical phase compared to generic random circuits.

Significance. The paper's strengths include a clean implementation of a perfect sampling algorithm for the SRE of fermionic Gaussian states, enabling computations up to L=64, and a concrete dynamical observation of slow magic saturation in free-fermion circuits (Sec. III B). If the central interpretive claim were established, the paper would offer an interesting perspective on non-local magic in monitored many-body systems. However, the central claim currently rests on the BSMI scaling, and the paper's own Appendix A implies that for states with a Gaussian Pauli spectrum, BSMI is approximately twice the entanglement entropy. Unless the authors demonstrate that this reduction fails for their steady states, the BSMI transition is not evidence for a distinct magic transition, but rather a restatement of the entanglement transition.

major comments (3)
  1. [II (Eq. (4)) and Appendix A] Appendix A derives, for a Gaussian Pauli spectrum, the asymptotic formulas M1 ≈ N + S and M2 ≈ N − S in the regime N − S ≫ 1. Applying these to a bipartite pure state and substituting into Eq. (4) gives I1 ≈ 2S_A and I2 ≈ 2S_A, where S_A is the (second Rényi) entanglement entropy of subsystem A. Since the sign convention in Eq. (4) is itself justified in the main text by the Appendix A results, the paper cannot dismiss this relation as irrelevant. The observed logarithmic-to-constant scaling of BSMI is then exactly the scaling of 2S_A, so the central claim that BSMI reveals a distinct magic delocalization transition is not established. The authors must test whether the relations M1(A) ≈ N_A + S_A and M2(A) ≈ N_A − S_A hold for the actual Gaussian steady states, or directly compare I1 and I2 with 2S_A on the same data. Without such a test, the BSMI transition is a restatement of the entanglement transition.
  2. [III A, Figs. 1, 3, 6] The scaling claims—logarithmic vs. constant BSMI and the apparent transition between them—rest on data for L ≤ 64 with no reported sample counts, error bars, or quantitative fits. The perfect sampling algorithm is stochastic, and the distinction between log L and (log L)^2 scaling, which the authors themselves flag in footnote [37] as numerically difficult, is central to the interpretation if Iα ≈ 2S_A. The paper should provide error estimates, specify the number of samples, and perform fits with confidence intervals (e.g., for the effective scaling exponent as a function of measurement rate) to support the phase-transition claim.
  3. [III B, Fig. 4] The dynamical collapse ∆M(t)/L vs. t/L and the inferred saturation time tsat ∼ O(L log L) or O(L) are based on a few system sizes and no error bars. The paper itself states in Sec. III B that the late-time exponential decay cannot be numerically confirmed; this weakens the claim of a universal relaxation form. The authors should either provide the data with uncertainties and a clear goodness-of-fit measure for the collapse, or temper the universal-form claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption of Fig. 8 repeats '(b) Non-unitary dynamics of I1 with projective measurements'; the last panel label should be (d).
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The sign convention in Eq. (4) is presented as adopted for the studied regimes; it would be clearer to state explicitly that the non-negativity is empirical and not guaranteed by a subadditivity property.
  3. [App. A] In Appendix A, S denotes the log-purity (second Rényi entropy) of the reduced density matrix; the main text uses S_A for entanglement entropy. Please unify the notation to avoid confusion in the reduction Iα ≈ 2S_A.
  4. [Sec. III A, Eq. (30)] The cross-ratio collapse in Fig. 3(d) is computed with the modified SRE in Eq. (30) that samples only fermionic operators in A and B; the text should state clearly that the collapse applies to this modified quantity, not to the standard BSMI defined in Eq. (4).
  5. [Sec. II A] The description of the perfect sampler would benefit from stating the number of samples used in each simulation and the statistical uncertainty of Mα estimates.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Under the paper's own App. A formulas, BSMI equals 2S_A, so the reported log-to-O(1) crossover is the entanglement crossover relabeled as a magic delocalization transition.

  1. renaming known result [Appendix A (Eqs. A6-A8) combined with Eq. (4) in Sec. II; Figs. 1(c,d), 3(b,c)]
    "However, based on the results of random states and the observations of the circuits studied in this work (App. A), we adopt the following sign convention Iα ≡ ( M A α + M ¯A α − M A∪ ¯A α , α ≤ 1 ; −M A α − M ¯A α + M A∪ ¯A α , α ≥ 2 ) . ... For α ≤ 1, the SRE scales as Mα ≈ N + S ... For α ≥ 2, the SRE scales as Mα ≈ (N −S)/(α−1), decreasing with increasing purity."

    For a pure bipartition, App. A gives M1(A)≈N_A+S_A, M1(B)≈N_B+S_A, M1(AB)≈N; Eq. (4) then yields I1≈2S_A. Similarly M2(A)≈N_A−S_A, M2(B)≈N_B−S_A, M2(AB)≈N, so the α≥2 branch gives I2≈2S_A. Thus, under the Gaussian Pauli-spectrum assumption App. A itself invokes and uses to choose the sign in Eq. (4), the BSMI is twice the entanglement entropy. The log-to-O(1) crossover in Figs. 1(c,d) and 3(b,c) is therefore the known entanglement scaling relabeled as a magic-localization transition. The paper never tests M1(A)≈N_A+S_A or I1≈2S_A on its simulated circuit states, so this reduction is not excluded and the claimed independent magic-delocalization diagnostic is not established.

full rationale

The numerical core of the paper—perfect sampling of SRE for fermionic Gaussian states and the observed O(L) or O(L log L) relaxation dynamics—is self-contained and not circular. The circularity is confined to the central interpretive claim that BSMI diagnoses a delocalization of magic distinct from entanglement. The paper's own App. A random-state formulas (M1≈N+S, M2≈N−S for α≥2) imply, when inserted into Eq. (4), that I1≈2S_A and I2≈2S_A for any pure bipartition whose Pauli spectrum obeys the Gaussian Ansatz. The sign convention in Eq. (4) is expressly chosen using those same random-state results, so the subsequent observation that BSMI follows the EE scaling (log L in the critical phase, O(1) in the area-law phase) is not independent evidence of a magic delocalization transition. The paper does not check whether the reduction holds for its monitored free-fermion states; if it does, the main conclusion reduces to the known entanglement transition. No separate load-bearing self-citation was found: Refs. [13] and [26] are prior work by an author but the entanglement criticality is also established by many independent works, and the sampling algorithm is externally supported by Refs. [24]. A score of 6 reflects a partial circularity: the BSMI prediction reduces by construction under the paper's own assumptions, while the sampling and dynamics results remain independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a new diagnostic, BSMI, whose interpretation depends on the sign convention in Eq. (4) and on the random-state relation in App. A. Under that relation, I_alpha approximately equals 2S_A, so the scaling transition is inherited from entanglement. No new physical entity is introduced. The listed free parameters are fitted exponents extracted from numerical data.

free parameters (4)
  • Unitary relaxation rate a1 = 5.11
    Fitted exponential decay in Delta M1(t)/L approximately exp(-5.11 t/L) in Fig. 4(a).
  • Unitary relaxation rate a2 = 5.97
    Fitted exponential decay for M2 in Fig. 7(a).
  • Cross-ratio power nu1 = 0.75
    Fitted power I1(eta) approximately eta^0.75 for disjoint regions in Fig. 3(d).
  • Cross-ratio power nu2 = 0.93
    Fitted power I2(eta) approximately eta^0.93 in Fig. 6(d).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian states remain Gaussian under quadratic gates and Gaussian or projective measurements.
    Used throughout Sec. II A and III; standard property of fermionic Gaussian states.
  • ad hoc to paper The SMI sign convention in Eq. (4) is a valid diagnostic and is non-negative in the studied regimes.
    The sign is chosen by hand for alpha >= 2 and is not derived from the resource theory; the resulting observable tracks entanglement entropy under the paper's own random-state formula.
  • domain assumption The Pauli spectrum of a state is well approximated by a Gaussian with delta peaks at plus or minus 1, parameterized by purity S.
    Used in App. A to derive M_alpha(S); validated numerically only for Haar random states, not for free fermion Gaussian states.
  • domain assumption The beta=0.1 weak-measurement dynamics are in the critical phase.
    Assumed from prior results [13] and used in Fig. 4(c,d) to interpret the linear-time relaxation as critical behavior.
  • domain assumption Entanglement in the critical phase has logarithmic, or possibly (log L)^2, scaling.
    Taken from prior literature; footnote 37 acknowledges the logarithmic correction is hard to resolve numerically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magic transition in monitored free fermion dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PEY2HXW

@misc{pith2026250710688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magic transition in monitored free fermion dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PEY2HXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10688}
}
abstract

We investigate magic and its connection to entanglement in 1+1 dimensional random free fermion circuits, with a focus on hybrid free fermion dynamics that can exhibit an entanglement phase transition. To quantify magic, we use the Stabilizer R\'enyi Entropy (SRE), which we compute numerically via a perfect sampling algorithm. We show that although the SRE remains extensive as the system transitions from a critical phase to an area-law (disentangled) phase, the structure of magic itself undergoes a delocalization phase transition. This transition is characterized using the bipartite stabilizer mutual information, which exhibits the same scaling behavior as entanglement entropy: logarithmic scaling in the critical phase and a finite constant in the area-law phase. Additionally, we explore the dynamics of SRE. While the total SRE becomes extensive in $O(1)$ time, we find that in the critical phase, the relaxation time to the steady-state value is parameterically longer than that in generic random circuits. The relaxation follows a universal form, with a relaxation time that grows linearly with the system size, providing further evidence for the critical nature of the phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10688 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. SRE and BSMI of steady states generated by unitary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Unitary free-fermion circuits with random weak mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The SRE and SMI of the steady state generated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The dynamics of SRE and SMI under purely uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The averaged SRE with R´enyi index (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows M2 and I2 for steady states of hybrid free￾fermion circuits with weak measurements. Their phase￾dependent scaling mirrors the first-order behavior pre￾sented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Unitary dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Computational Resources and Conformal Field Theory: Unifying Spins, Bosons, and Fermions

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A unified Magic Rényi Entropy measure for spins, bosons, and fermions is shown to have a universal critical contribution determined by the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy.

  2. Connecting Magic Dynamics in Thermofield Double States to Spectral Form Factors

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For chaotic all-to-all systems, the stabilizer Rényi entropy of thermofield double states is set by the spectral form factor and saturates through a first-order dynamical transition.

  3. Spectral signatures of nonstabilizerness and criticality in infinite matrix product states

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The stabilizer Rényi entropy of an infinite matrix product state decomposes into bulk, boundary, and exponentially decaying parts, and the associated 'magic correlation length' diverges at criticality with a different...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    However, this logarithmic correction is diffi- cult to resolve numerically for both quantities

    Strictly speaking, the entanglement entropy scales as (log L)2 and it is possible that the BSMI follows the same scaling [14]. However, this logarithmic correction is diffi- cult to resolve numerically for both quantities

    work page

  2. [1]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  3. [2]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Na- ture 416, 608 (2002)

    2002

  4. [3]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  5. [4]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, Chaos in quantum channels, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 4 (2016)

    2016

  6. [5]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  7. [6]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Operator spreading in random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and nonstabi- lizerness monotones, Quantum 7, 1092 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Zhang and Y

    Y. Zhang and Y. Gu, Quantum magic dynamics in ran- dom circuits (2024), arXiv:2410.21128 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. A. Monta˜ n` a L´ opez and P. Kos, Exact solution of long- range stabilizer r´ enyi entropy in the dual-unitary xxz model*, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 57, 475301 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Bastianello and P

    A. Bastianello and P. Calabrese, Spreading of entangle- ment and correlations after a quench with intertwined quasiparticles, SciPost Phys. 5, 033 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    X. Chen, Y. Li, M. P. A. Fisher, and A. Lucas, Emergent conformal symmetry in nonunitary random dynamics of free fermions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033017 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    M. Fava, L. Piroli, T. Swann, D. Bernard, and A. Nahum, Nonlinear sigma models for monitored dynamics of free fermions, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041045 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    M. Fava, L. Piroli, D. Bernard, and A. Nahum, Monitored fermions with conserved u(1) charge, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043246 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    H. Guo, M. S. Foster, C.-M. Jian, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Field theory of monitored, interacting fermion dynamics with charge conservation (2025), arXiv:2410.07317 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Alberton, M

    O. Alberton, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Entanglement transition in a monitored free-fermion chain: From ex- tended criticality to area law, Physical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.170602 (2021)

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    Zhang, S.-K

    P. Zhang, S.-K. Jian, C. Liu, and X. Chen, Emergent replica conformal symmetry in non-hermitian syk chains, Quantum 5, 579 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. De Luca, Entanglement in a fermion chain under continuous monitoring, SciPost Physics 7, 10.21468/scipostphys.7.2.024 (2019)

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum zeno effect and the many-body entanglement transition, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Physical Review X 9, 10.1103/physrevx.9.031009 (2019)

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Collura, J

    M. Collura, J. D. Nardis, V. Alba, and G. Lami, The quantum magic of fermionic gaussian states (2024), arXiv:2412.05367 [quant-ph]

    2024

  16. [25]

    P. S. Tarabunga and E. Tirrito, Magic transition in measurement-only circuits (2024), arXiv:2407.15939 [quant-ph]

    2024

  17. [26]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, A. W. W. Ludwig, and M. P. A. Fisher, Conformal invariance and quantum nonlocality in critical hybrid circuits, Physical Review B 104, 10.1103/phys- revb.104.104305 (2021)

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. Hamed Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New Journal of Physics 16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  19. [28]

    Z.-Y. Hou, C. Cao, and Z.-C. Yang, Stabilizer entan- glement as a magic highway (2025), arXiv:2503.20873 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Viscardi, M

    M. Viscardi, M. Dalmonte, A. Hamma, and E. Tirrito, In- terplay of entanglement structures and stabilizer entropy in spin models (2025), arXiv:2503.08620 [quant-ph]

    2025

  21. [30]

    C. Cao, G. Cheng, A. Hamma, L. Leone, W. Munizzi, and S. F. E. Oliviero, Gravitational back-reaction is magical (2025), arXiv:2403.07056 [hep-th]

    2025

  22. [31]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035148 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dal- monte, Many-body magic via pauli-markov chains—from criticality to gauge theories, PRX Quantum 4, 040317 (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    Lami and M

    G. Lami and M. Collura, Nonstabilizerness via perfect pauli sampling of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 180401 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Liu and B

    Z. Liu and B. K. Clark, Non-equilibrium quantum monte carlo algorithm for stabilizer renyi entropy in spin sys- tems (2024), arXiv:2405.19577 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Ravindranath, Z.-C

    V. Ravindranath, Z.-C. Yang, and X. Chen, Free fermions under adaptive quantum dynamics, Quantum 9, 1685 (2025)

    2025

  27. [36]

    Ravindranath and X

    V. Ravindranath and X. Chen, Robust oscillations and edge modes in nonunitary floquet systems, Physi- cal Review Letters 130, 10.1103/physrevlett.130.230402 (2023)

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spread- ing in random quantum circuits (2024), arXiv:2407.03929 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Hoshino, M

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Stabi- lizer r´ enyi entropy and conformal field theory (2025), arXiv:2503.13599 [quant-ph]

    2025

  30. [40]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Universal behavior be- yond multifractality of wave functions at measurement- induced phase transitions, Physical Review Letters 128, 10.1103/physrevlett.128.130605 (2022)

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    Bejan, C

    M. Bejan, C. McLauchlan, and B. B´ eri, Dynamical magic transitions in monitored clifford+t circuits, PRX Quan- tum 5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.030332 (2024)

    2024 doi

  32. [42]

    Tirrito, L

    E. Tirrito, L. Lumia, A. Paviglianiti, G. Lami, A. Silva, X. Turkeshi, and M. Collura, Magic phase transitions in monitored gaussian fermions (2025), arXiv:2507.07179 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spec- trum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many- body states, Phys. Rev. B 111, 054301 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.