arxiv: 2604.08663 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Every Little Thing Heat Does Is Magic

Rafael A. Mac\^edo , A. de Oliveira Junior , Naim E. Comar , Luna Lima Keller , Jonatan Bohr Brask , Lucas C. C\'eleri , Rafael Chaves

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum magicstabilizer statesthermodynamic witnessesnon-stabilizernessheat exchangequantum criticalityenergy measurements

0 comments

The pith

Quantum magic can be certified using only average-energy or heat-exchange measurements.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces thermodynamic witnesses that detect non-stabilizer states, known as magic, without full tomography. It defines the stabilizer ground-state energy as the lowest energy any stabilizer state can reach, so any lower energy immediately certifies magic. When energy measurements alone are inconclusive, the authors derive bounds on the heat a state can exchange with a thermal ancilla; every stabilizer state obeys these bounds, and their violation proves magic is present. The approach is shown to work in small systems where energy fails but heat succeeds, and in the transverse-field Ising chain where the stabilizer gap is largest at the critical point.

Core claim

The authors show that stabilizer states obey strict limits on their average energy and on the heat they exchange with a thermal ancilla. The stabilizer ground-state energy is the minimum energy over all stabilizer states, and the stabilizer gap is its separation from the true ground-state energy. Crossing this gap certifies magic. Heat exchange supplies a nonlinear witness that succeeds even when energy measurements remain inconclusive. Both witnesses are verified on few-body examples and on the transverse-field Ising chain, where the gap reaches its maximum value at the quantum critical point.

What carries the argument

The stabilizer ground-state energy, defined as the lowest energy any stabilizer state can achieve, together with bounds on heat exchanged with a thermal ancilla that are satisfied only by stabilizer states.

If this is right

Any state whose average energy lies below the stabilizer ground-state energy is necessarily non-stabilizer.
Heat-exchange bounds detect magic in cases where average-energy measurements alone are inconclusive.
In the transverse-field Ising chain the stabilizer gap reaches its largest value at the quantum critical point.
The witnesses apply directly to both few-qubit systems and many-body chains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

These witnesses could allow experimental teams to verify magic resources with far fewer measurements than tomography requires.
The link between the stabilizer gap and quantum criticality hints that similar thermodynamic tests may apply near other phase transitions.
The heat bounds could be extended to open-system dynamics to handle realistic noise in quantum hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The stabilizer ground-state energy can be computed or bounded for the system, and the ancilla remains in a known Gibbs state whose temperature is independent of the system.

What would settle it

Prepare a state known to be stabilizer, measure its average energy, and check whether the value lies strictly above the computed stabilizer ground-state energy, or exchange heat with a thermal ancilla and verify that the exchanged heat remains inside the derived stabilizer bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08663 by A. de Oliveira Junior, Jonatan Bohr Brask, Lucas C. C\'eleri, Luna Lima Keller, Naim E. Comar, Rafael A. Mac\^edo, Rafael Chaves.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: shows the heat exchanged with the environment as a function of time for different values of λ, for β = 1.5 and ϵ = g = 1. As λ increases, the heat curve moves upwards, capturing the loss of nonstabilizerness along the family. The dashed horizontal line marks the stabilizer heat threshold for this fixed energy. Heat values below this threshold certify nonstabilizerness, so the yellow region corresponds to … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

How can one certify that an unknown quantum state possesses magic without resorting to full state tomography? We address this question by introducing two thermodynamic witnesses that rely solely on energy and heat measurements. First, we define the stabilizer ground-state energy as the lowest energy achievable by any stabilizer state, and the stabilizer gap as the separation between this value and the true ground-state energy. Any state whose energy lies below the stabilizer ground-state energy is therefore necessarily nonstabilizer. This leads to a direct witness of magic using only average-energy measurements. To overcome the limitations when direct energy measurements are inconclusive, we further develop a nonlinear witness based on heat exchange with a thermal ancilla. Specifically, we derive fundamental bounds on heat that are satisfied by all stabilizer states; therefore, their violation certifies the presence of magic. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through several examples, ranging from few-body systems where heat exchange reveals nonstabilizerness even when energy measurements alone fail, to the transverse-field Ising chain, where the stabilizer gap becomes maximal at the quantum critical point.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives energy-threshold and heat-exchange witnesses for magic that avoid tomography, but both require independent access to the stabilizer ground-state energy and a calibrated thermal ancilla whose temperature is known without reference to the unknown state.

read the letter

The core idea is straightforward: define the lowest energy any stabilizer state can reach for a given Hamiltonian, call that the stabilizer ground-state energy, and note that anything lower must be magic. They add a second witness based on how much heat a state exchanges with a thermal ancilla, claiming stabilizer states obey certain bounds that magic states can break. The TFIM example is the clearest part; the stabilizer gap reaches its maximum exactly at the critical point, and heat exchange catches magic in small systems where average energy alone is inconclusive. Those are concrete, checkable claims and the paper supplies explicit calculations for them. The derivations for the heat bounds are presented as general, which is the main novelty relative to Wigner-function or entropy-based witnesses. The examples are small enough that the numbers can be verified by hand or small numerics, and the authors do not hide the fact that the witnesses are inconclusive when the measured energy sits above the stabilizer threshold. The soft spots are exactly where the stress-test note flags them. For arbitrary Hamiltonians the stabilizer ground-state energy is not known to be efficiently computable or even tightly boundable, so the first witness reduces to a comparison against an unknown reference. The ancilla must remain in a Gibbs state at a temperature fixed independently of the system; any back-action or calibration drift breaks the bound. The paper demonstrates the witnesses on few-body cases and the exactly solvable TFIM, but does not supply a general method to obtain the reference values for larger or non-integrable systems. That limits the immediate experimental reach. Readers working on resource theories or small-scale quantum simulators will find the framing useful and the examples worth checking. The work is coherent on its own terms and engages the relevant literature without circularity, so it deserves a full referee process even if the practical scope turns out narrower than the abstract suggests. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces two thermodynamic witnesses for quantum magic (non-stabilizerness). The first compares a state's average energy to the stabilizer ground-state energy (minimum energy over all stabilizer states) and the stabilizer gap to the true ground state; energies below the stabilizer GSE certify magic. The second derives bounds on heat exchanged with a thermal ancilla that all stabilizer states obey, with violations certifying magic. These are demonstrated on few-body systems (where heat detects magic when energy alone fails) and the transverse-field Ising model, where the stabilizer gap is maximal at the quantum critical point.

Significance. If the derivations are sound and the reference quantities (stabilizer GSE and ancilla temperature) can be obtained independently, the witnesses offer an efficient, tomography-free method to certify magic using only energy and heat measurements. This could be practically useful in quantum computing experiments and many-body simulations. The reported connection between maximal stabilizer gap and criticality in the TFIM is a potentially interesting link between magic and phase transitions.

major comments (2)

[§2 (energy witness)] The energy witness in the abstract and §2 relies on comparing to the stabilizer GSE, but the manuscript provides no general method or algorithm to compute or tightly bound this quantity for arbitrary Hamiltonians (only exactly solvable cases like the TFIM are shown); without this, the witness cannot be applied beyond the examples.
[§3 (heat witness)] The heat bounds (abstract and §3) assume an ancilla in a known Gibbs state at temperature calibrated independently of the system; the manuscript does not supply a calibration procedure or robustness analysis against deviations from this assumption, which is load-bearing for the nonlinear witness to function as claimed.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract asserts the derivations without equations; adding the key bound expressions (e.g., the explicit heat inequalities for stabilizer states) would improve clarity even if the full proofs are in the main text.
[§2] Notation for the stabilizer gap and GSE should be defined with a clear equation number on first use to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the true ground-state energy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2 (energy witness)] The energy witness in the abstract and §2 relies on comparing to the stabilizer GSE, but the manuscript provides no general method or algorithm to compute or tightly bound this quantity for arbitrary Hamiltonians (only exactly solvable cases like the TFIM are shown); without this, the witness cannot be applied beyond the examples.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not present a general algorithm for computing the stabilizer ground-state energy (GSE) for arbitrary Hamiltonians. The GSE is defined as the minimum energy over the finite set of all stabilizer states. For few-qubit systems, it is directly computable by enumeration. For structured models such as the transverse-field Ising chain, it admits an exact closed-form expression, as used in the paper. We will revise the text to include an explicit discussion of these computational approaches, noting that the energy witness applies whenever the GSE can be obtained independently (e.g., via exact methods for integrable systems or variational optimization over stabilizer states). This clarification will better specify the practical scope of the witness without claiming a universal solver. revision: yes
Referee: [§3 (heat witness)] The heat bounds (abstract and §3) assume an ancilla in a known Gibbs state at temperature calibrated independently of the system; the manuscript does not supply a calibration procedure or robustness analysis against deviations from this assumption, which is load-bearing for the nonlinear witness to function as claimed.

Authors: We acknowledge that the heat witness derivation presupposes an ancilla prepared in a known Gibbs state whose temperature is set independently. The current manuscript focuses on the theoretical bounds under this assumption. We will add a short subsection outlining a calibration procedure (e.g., independent thermalization and energy measurement of the ancilla prior to interaction) and a basic robustness analysis showing that the witness remains valid for small temperature deviations in the few-body and TFIM examples. These additions will make the practical requirements explicit while preserving the core theoretical contribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: witnesses follow directly from explicit definitions and derivations

full rationale

The paper defines the stabilizer ground-state energy as the explicit minimum of the Hamiltonian expectation value over the convex set of stabilizer states, then shows that any state with lower average energy cannot be stabilizer. Heat bounds are stated to be derived from properties satisfied by all stabilizer states. Neither step reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, a self-citation chain, or an ansatz imported from prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain is self-contained against the stated definitions and does not invoke load-bearing external results that themselves depend on the target claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces two new defined quantities (stabilizer ground-state energy and stabilizer gap) and relies on the standard stabilizer formalism plus the assumption of a thermal ancilla. No free parameters are fitted; the invented entities are the witnesses themselves.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Stabilizer states form a convex set whose minimum energy can be defined for any Hamiltonian.
Invoked when defining the stabilizer ground-state energy as the lowest energy achievable by any stabilizer state.
domain assumption The ancilla is prepared in a known Gibbs state at fixed temperature.
Required for the heat-exchange bounds to be well-defined and for the nonlinear witness to apply.

invented entities (2)

stabilizer ground-state energy no independent evidence
purpose: Reference threshold below which any state must be non-stabilizer.
New definition introduced to turn average-energy measurement into a magic witness.
stabilizer gap no independent evidence
purpose: Quantifies separation between true ground energy and stabilizer minimum.
New quantity whose maximum at criticality is reported as an observation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1458 out tokens · 46761 ms · 2026-05-10T17:15:29.017509+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Proof.(1) holds because STAB n ⊆ S(H), so the minimum over all states cannot exceed the minimum over stabilizer states

if H is a stabilizer Hamiltonian [Eq.(6)], then δSTAB(H)=0. Proof.(1) holds because STAB n ⊆ S(H), so the minimum over all states cannot exceed the minimum over stabilizer states. For (2), ifδ STAB(H)=0 thenE STAB(H)=E gs(H), and by compactness some stabilizer state achieves this value, hence it lies in the ground eigenspace. Conversely, if a sta- bilizer...
[2]

opti- mal thermometers of magic

H(λ)has a unique ground state |ψ(λ)⟩ that is not a sta- bilizer state; 2.δ STAB(H(λ))>0. Proof.For sufficiently small|λ|the ground state remains unique with the energies and the eigenprojectorP(λ)= FIG. 2.Stabilizer-gap for the perturbed Bell Hamiltonian. Com- parison of the true ground-state energyE gs[HΦ+(ε)] and the stabi- lizer ground-state energyE ST...

2024
[3]

D. F. V . James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

2001
[4]

Banaszek, M

K. Banaszek, M. Cramer, and D. Gross, New J. Phys.15, 125020 (2013)

2013
[5]

Gross, Y .-K

D. Gross, Y .-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 150401 (2010)

2010
[6]

Aaronson, inProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’18 (ACM, 2018) p

S. Aaronson, inProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’18 (ACM, 2018) p. 325–338

2018
[7]

Huang, R

H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Nature Physics16, 1050–1057 (2020)

2020
[8]

Koutn ´y, L

D. Koutn ´y, L. Motka, Z. c. v. Hradil, J.Reh ´acek, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto, Phys. Rev. A106, 012409 (2022)

2022
[9]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

2009
[10]

Gottesman, arXiv:9705052 (1997)

D. Gottesman, arXiv:9705052 (1997)

1997
[11]

Aharonov and M

D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, inProceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC ’97, STOC ’97 (ACM Press, 1997) p. 176–188

1997
[12]

Gottesman, arXiv:9807006 (1998)

D. Gottesman, arXiv:9807006 (1998)

1998
[13]

Aaronson and D

S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

2004
[14]

Peres, Phys

A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

1996
[15]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Physics Letters A223, 1–8 (1996)

1996
[16]

W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

1998
[17]

W. K. Wootters, Quantum Inf. Comput.1, 27 (2001)

2001
[18]

D. Bruß, J. Math. Phys.43, 4237 (2002)

2002
[19]

M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

2005
[20]

B. M. Terhal, Linear Algebra Its Appl.323, 61 (2001)

2001
[21]

Lewenstein, B

M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A62, 052310 (2000)

2000
[22]

G ¨uhne and G

O. G ¨uhne and G. T´oth, Phys. Rep.474, 1 (2009)

2009
[23]

Veitch, S

V . Veitch, S. A. Hamed Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emer- son, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014)

2014
[24]

Howard and E

M. Howard and E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 090501 (2017)

2017
[25]

Leone and L

L. Leone and L. Bittel, Phys. Rev. A110, L040403 (2024)

2024
[26]

Leone, S

L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A107, 022429 (2023). 14

2023
[27]

Tirrito, P

E. Tirrito, P. S. Tarabunga, G. Lami, T. Chanda, L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, M. Dalmonte, M. Collura, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A109, L040401 (2024)

2024
[28]

Certifying nonstabilizerness in quantum processors

R. Wagner, F. C. R. Peres, E. Z. Cruzeiro, and E. F. Galv ˜ao, arXiv:2404.16107 (2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[29]

R. A. Mac ˆedo, P. Andriolo, S. Zamora, D. Poderini, and R. Chaves, Phys. Rev. A112, L050401 (2025)

2025
[30]

Warmuz, E

K. Warmuz, E. Dokudowiec, C. Radhakrishnan, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 010203 (2025)

2025
[31]

J. M. Varela, L. L. Keller, A. de Oliveira Junior, D. A. Moreira, R. Chaves, and R. A. Macˆedo, arXiv:2602.18939 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[32]

Leone, J

L. Leone, J. Eisert, and S. F. E. Oliviero, arXiv:2602.22330 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[33]

Zamora, R

S. Zamora, R. A. Mac ˆedo, T. S. Sarubi, M. Alves, D. Poderini, and R. Chaves, Phys. Rev. A112, 042410 (2025)

2025
[34]

T ´oth, Phys

G. T ´oth, Phys. Rev. A71, 010301 (2005)

2005
[35]

T ´oth and O

G. T ´oth and O. G¨uhne, Appl. Phys. B82, 237–241 (2005)

2005
[36]

G ¨uhne, G

O. G ¨uhne, G. T ´oth, and H. J. Briegel, New J. Phys.7, 229 (2005)

2005
[37]

L.-A. Wu, S. Bandyopadhyay, M. S. Sarandy, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A72, 032309 (2005)

2005
[38]

G ¨uhne and G

O. G ¨uhne and G. T´oth, Phys. Rev. A73, 052319 (2006)

2006
[39]

M. R. Dowling, A. C. Doherty, and S. D. Bartlett, Phys. Rev. A 70, 062113 (2004)

2004
[40]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

2019
[41]

Zurel, C

M. Zurel, C. Okay, and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260404 (2020)

2020
[42]

Palhares, S

A. Palhares, S. Zamora, R. A. Mac ˆedo, T. S. Sarubi, J. M. Varela, G. W. Rocha, D. A. Moreira, and R. Chaves, Physics Letters A576, 131417 (2026)

2026
[43]

G. Gour, M. P. M ¨uller, V . Narasimhachar, R. W. Spekkens, and N. Yunger Halpern, Physics Reports583, 1–58 (2015)

2015
[44]

Lostaglio, Rep

M. Lostaglio, Rep. Prog. Phys.82, 114001 (2019)

2019
[45]

de Oliveira Junior, J

A. de Oliveira Junior, J. Czartowski, K.˙Zyczkowski, and K. Ko- rzekwa, Phys. Rev. E106, 064109 (2022)

2022
[46]

Janzing, P

D. Janzing, P. Wocjan, R. Zeier, R. Geiss, and T. Beth, Int. J. Theor. Phys.39, 2717 (2000)

2000
[47]

Horodecki and J

M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, Nat. Commun.4, 2059 (2013)

2059
[48]

Lipka-Bartosik, G

P. Lipka-Bartosik, G. F. Diotallevi, and P. Bakhshinezhad, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 140402 (2024)

2024
[49]

de Oliveira Junior, J

A. de Oliveira Junior, J. B. Brask, and P. Lipka-Bartosik, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 050401 (2025)

2025
[50]

Czartowski and A

J. Czartowski and A. de Oliveira Junior, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033203 (2024)

2024
[51]

F. G. S. L. Brand˜ao, M. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, J. M. Renes, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 250404 (2013)

2013
[52]

Lipka-Bartosik, H

P. Lipka-Bartosik, H. Wilming, and N. H. Y . Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025005 (2024)

2024
[53]

Datta, T

C. Datta, T. Varun Kondra, M. Miller, and A. Streltsov, Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 116002 (2023)

2023
[54]

Kato and T

T. Kato and T. Katåo,Perturbation theory for linear operators, V ol. 132 (Springer, 1966)

1966
[55]

A. Y . Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and quantum computation, 47 (American Mathematical Soc., 2002)

2002
[56]

J. Sun, L. Cheng, and S.-X. Zhang, Quantum9, 1782 (2025)

2025
[57]

Gokhale, O

P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y . Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, arXiv:1907.13623 (2019)

work page arXiv 1907
[58]

Chapman and S

A. Chapman and S. T. Flammia, Quantum4, 278 (2020)

2020
[59]

R. L. Mann, S. J. Elman, D. R. Wood, and A. Chapman, inPro- ceedings A, V ol. 481 (The Royal Society, 2025) p. 20240671

2025
[60]

Z.-P. Xu, J. Wang, Q. Ye, G. Koßmann, R. Schwonnek, and A. Winter, arXiv:2511.13531 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

S. Lamm, C. Schulz, D. Strash, R. Williger, and H. Zhang, in 2019 proceedings of the twenty-first workshop on algorithm en- gineering and experiments (alenex)(SIAM, 2019) pp. 144–158

2019
[62]

J. E. Hopcroft and R. M. Karp, SIAM Journal on computing2, 225 (1973)

1973
[63]

Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

2011
[64]

Wei and Z.-W

F. Wei and Z.-W. Liu, arXiv:2503.04566 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

C. D. White, C. Cao, and B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. B103, 075145 (2021)

2021
[66]

Tavis and F

M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev.170, 379 (1968)

1968
[67]

Koukoulekidis and D

N. Koukoulekidis and D. Jennings, npj Quantum Inf.8(2022)

2022
[68]

de Oliveira Junior, R

A. de Oliveira Junior, R. A. Macedo, J. Czartowski, J. B. Brask, and R. Chaves, arXiv:2511.13839 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[69]

F. B. Trigueros and J. A. M. Guzm ´an, arXiv:2506.18976 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[70]

F. G. S. L. Brand˜ao, M. Horodecki, N. H. Y . Ng, J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 3275 (2015)

2015
[71]

Shiraishi and R

N. Shiraishi and R. Takagi, arXiv:2510.05642 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[72]

Lipka-Bartosik, M

P. Lipka-Bartosik, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 040401 (2023). Appendix A: Heat-based witness for nonstabilizerness In this appendix, we recall the main arguments leading to the expression for the optimal heat exchange. Rather than re- producing the full technical proof, our aim is to convey the key conceptual steps and physica...

2023
[73]

The global evolution is governed by an energy-preserving unitaryUsatisfying [U,H S+H M+H E]=0, which maps the initial uncorrelated stateρS ⊗ρ M ⊗γ E to a correlated stateη SME

The optimal heat exchange problem We consider a systemSwith HamiltonianH S, an environmentEprepared in the Gibbs stateγ E(β) at inverse temperatureβ, and a quantum memoryM. The global evolution is governed by an energy-preserving unitaryUsatisfying [U,H S+H M+H E]=0, which maps the initial uncorrelated stateρS ⊗ρ M ⊗γ E to a correlated stateη SME. The onl...
[74]

LetS=STAB 1 and consider a systemSdescribed by a traceless, unit-gap HamiltonianH S =h·σwith spectrum{±1}

Single-qubit witness We now apply the framework developed in the previous sections to the single-qubit case, construct a heat-based witness for nonstabilizerness, and prove Theorem 4 and Corollary 5. LetS=STAB 1 and consider a systemSdescribed by a traceless, unit-gap HamiltonianH S =h·σwith spectrum{±1}. 16 FIG. 8.Free energy&heat-based witness. (a) None...
[75]

(A10) into the equationF β[γ(x⋆)]= F⋆ β (STAB1|E0) to determinex ⋆, and then insert into Eq

Equation (A13) then yields∥r∥ max 2 (0)= 1√ 2 and S STAB1|E0 min =H 2  1+ 1√ 2 2  .(A15) 17 Finally, we substitute the maximum stabilizer free energyF ⋆ β (STAB1|E0) from Eq. (A10) into the equationF β[γ(x⋆)]= F⋆ β (STAB1|E0) to determinex ⋆, and then insert into Eq. (A7) to obtain the heat-based stabilizer bound: Q(STAB1|E0)∈ h QSTAB1|E0 ...
[76]

Note that: (1) since⟨S∩P(H)⟩ ⊆S, it follows that⟨Q⟩ ∩P(H)=Q

ConsiderS∈STAB(H), and letS7→Q=S∩P(H)⊆P(H) be the action of the map. Note that: (1) since⟨S∩P(H)⟩ ⊆S, it follows that⟨Q⟩ ∩P(H)=Q. (2) Since⟨Q⟩ ⊆S,−1<⟨Q⟩. Hence, we haveQ∈C[P(H)]
[77]

Hence, ESTAB(H)=min S∈STAB(H) ⟨S| H |S⟩ =min Q∈C[P(H)] − X P∈Q wP  =−max Q∈C[P(H)] X P∈Q wP ,(B9) where we have used Eq

It is energy-preserving, due to the property that if two stabilizer groups have the same intersection withP(H), they have the same energy. Hence, ESTAB(H)=min S∈STAB(H) ⟨S| H |S⟩ =min Q∈C[P(H)] − X P∈Q wP  =−max Q∈C[P(H)] X P∈Q wP ,(B9) where we have used Eq. (B6). To finish the proof, we need to show maximality. But this follows from the ...
[78]

LetQ∈C max[P(H)]. Then, the corresponding vertex set must be independent, sinceQis commuting, and also maximal, since maximality as a closed commuting subset does also correspond to maximality as a independent set in the graph G1,···,ℓ
[79]

GivenQ∈I max(G1,···,ℓ ), we know that (1)−1<⟨Q⟩, sinceQ⊆gen(S j), and thus⟨Q⟩ ⊆S j, and (2) it is also closed, due to independence: Since every stabilizer group{S j}ℓ j=1 cannot be generated as a product of other ones, notice that, by decomposingQ=⊔ ℓ j=1Q j: ⟨Q⟩ ∩P(H)= * ℓG j=1 Q j + ∩P(H)= ℓG j=1 ⟨Q j⟩ ∩P(H)= ℓG j=1 Q j ∩P(H)= ℓG j=1 Q j =Q.(D3) Then, E...