Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Quantum magic unifies spins, bosons, and fermions via boundary entropy

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-07 16:09 UTC pith:7GBMY6WC

load-bearing objection Unified MRE measure for spins/bosons/fermions with BCFT derivation of universal term; numerics are small but the analytics carry the paper. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05343 v1 pith:7GBMY6WC submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

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

Ryota Matsuda , Masahiro Hoshino , Yuto Ashida This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el PACS 03.67.Mn11.25.Hf71.10.Pm
keywords quantumuniversalboundaryfermionsmany-bodynon-gaussianityanalysisbosons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper introduces the magic Renyi entropy (MRE), a single measure that quantifies the computational resource content of quantum many-body states regardless of whether the underlying degrees of freedom are spins, bosons, or fermions. For spins, the MRE reduces to the known stabilizer Renyi entropy, which measures nonstabilizerness. For bosons and fermions, it measures non-Gaussianity. The central claim is that when a one-dimensional quantum system is at a critical point described by a conformal field theory, the universal, size-independent contribution to the MRE is exactly the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy, a known quantity characterizing conformal boundary conditions. The authors construct the MRE via a convolution operation: multiple copies of a quantum state are mixed by a unitary, most copies are discarded, and the purity of the remaining copy is measured. Free states (stabilizer states for spins, Gaussian states for bosons and fermions) remain pure under this operation; resourceful states become mixed. Rewriting this construction as a Euclidean path integral on replicated copies of the system, the convolution becomes a boundary condition in a folded geometry. The resulting boundary entropy directly gives the universal term in the MRE. The paper then applies this framework to interacting spinless fermions described by a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid. It shows that non-Gaussianity (deviation from the free-fermion point K=1) continuously renormalizes the boundary entropy through the identity channel of the bulk-boundary operator product expansion, yielding a perturbative formula s = (3/2)gamma^2 + O(gamma^4) where gamma = (K-1)/(K+1). Beyond a critical interaction strength, a relevant nonidentity boundary operator is generated, driving a boundary phase transition at K=1/3 and K=3. Exact-diagonalization numerics confirm the perturbative formula near K=1, the duality under K to 1/K, and locate the transition at K approximately 3.05, close to the predicted K=3.

Core claim

The universal contribution to quantum magic in one-dimensional critical many-body states is governed by the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy of a conformal boundary condition induced by a convolution operation on replicated states. This holds uniformly across spins, bosons, and fermions, and non-Gaussianity in fermionic systems can either continuously renormalize this entropy or drive a boundary phase transition at specific interaction strengths.

What carries the argument

The magic Renyi entropy (MRE) is defined by mixing n copies of a quantum state via a convolution unitary, discarding n-1 copies, and measuring the purity loss of the remaining copy. When recast as a replicated Euclidean path integral and folded, the convolution becomes a boundary condition whose Affleck-Ludwig g-factor determines the universal, size-independent term of the MRE. For fermions in the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, the bulk-boundary OPE of the exactly marginal perturbation induced by convolution determines whether the boundary is stable (only identity and irrelevant channels) or undergoes a transition (relevant nonidentity channel generated).

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the rotated bulk Hamiltonian, which contains inter-replica couplings generated by the convolution unitary, lies on the same conformal manifold as the original decoupled theory, so that the boundary CFT machinery applies. If the rotated Hamiltonian flows to a different bulk universality class, the boundary entropy analysis breaks down.

What would settle it

If exact-diagonalization or other numerical methods at larger system sizes showed that the universal constant s does not follow the predicted (3/2)gamma^2 scaling near K=1, or that no boundary transition occurs near K=3, the central field-theoretical predictions would be falsified. Alternatively, if the conformal invariance of the boundary condition were found to be broken by the inter-replica couplings in the rotated bulk, the identification of s with the Affleck-Ludwig g-factor would fail.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The MRE provides a common language for comparing computational resource content across different physical platforms, enabling direct quantitative comparison of magic in spin-chain experiments, bosonic continuous-variable systems, and fermionic condensed-matter systems.
  • Boundary phase transitions in the MRE at K=1/3 and K=3 represent a new class of critical phenomena intrinsic to quantum computational resources, distinct from conventional entanglement-driven or symmetry-breaking transitions.
  • The connection between convolution-based free-state testing and boundary CFT data suggests that other resource-theoretic quantities defined through similar replica-mixing operations may also admit universal field-theoretical descriptions at criticality.
  • The framework can be applied to other critical fermionic systems, including the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, where non-Gaussianity measured by the MRE may reveal aspects of quantum magic complementary to those captured by spin-based nonstabilizerness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper introduces the magic Renyi entropy (MRE), a unified measure of quantum computational resources (nonstabilizerness for spins, non-Gaussianity for bosons/fermions) based on convolution of replicated states. The authors formulate the MRE within a Euclidean path-integral framework and show that, at one-dimensional critical points, its universal size-independent contribution is determined by the Affleck-Ludward boundary entropy (g-factor) of a conformal boundary condition in the replicated theory. As a concrete application, they analyze the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) of interacting spinless fermions: they derive perturbatively that the universal constant s = (3/2)gamma^2 + O(gamma^4) near the free-fermion point (K=1), predict boundary phase transitions at K=1/3 and K=3 via a bulk-boundary OPE analysis, and confirm these predictions with exact diagonalization (finding K_c ~ 3.05 vs. the predicted 3). The paper also proves key resource-theoretic properties (faithfulness, additivity, monotonicity under Gaussian protocols for bosons) and extends the qubit/qudit MRE equivalence with the SRE to general coprime (n,d).

Significance. The paper makes a substantial contribution by providing the first unified field-theoretical framework for quantum magic across spins, bosons, and fermions. The derivation of the universal MRE constant from the Affleck-Ludward g-factor is a parameter-free result: the perturbative formula s = (3/2)gamma^2 is derived analytically from BCFT data and then compared against independent numerics, not fitted. The systematic bulk-boundary OPE analysis (Appendix D) that predicts the boundary transitions at K=1/3 and K=3 is a falsifiable, non-trivial prediction. The proof of monotonicity under adaptive bosonic Gaussian protocols (Theorem 11 in Appendix A) and the qudit MRE-SRE equivalence (Appendix B) are additional strengths. The cancellation of gamma^2 L/beta terms in the perturbative calculation (Sec. VI.C, Eq. 151) provides a strong internal consistency check. The main limitation is the small system sizes (L <= 14) used for numerical verification, which leaves the non-perturbative regime and the boundary transition location only qualitatively confirmed.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. VI.E, Eqs. (165)-(169): The numerical verification uses very small system sizes (L = 8, 10, 12 for the three-point fits; L1, L2, L3 = 12, 10, 8 for the crossing analysis). At these sizes, subleading corrections to the scaling form M = mL - s + d/L (i.e., 1/L^2 and higher-order terms) could be significant and may shift both the extracted s values and the crossing point K_c. The agreement K_c ~ 3.05 vs. 3 is encouraging but could be fortuitous given the finite-size effects. The authors should discuss the potential impact of these corrections more explicitly and, if possible, provide an estimate of the systematic error. This is load-bearing because the numerical confirmation of the boundary transition is a central claim of the paper.
  2. Sec. V.B, footnote [81]: The assumption that H_0, H_R, and H_R^rot lie on the same conformal manifold is verified for the TLL but stated as an unverified assumption for the broader class of density-density models in Sec. V. While the paper is appropriately scoped to the TLL for its detailed results, the general framework in Sec. V is presented as applicable to this broader class. The authors should clarify the scope of their general claims: are the results of Sec. V (the three scenarios for boundary RG flows) presented as general principles that should hold when the conformal-manifold condition is met, or are they claimed to hold for all density-density models? A brief clarifying statement would strengthen the presentation.
minor comments (7)
  1. Fig. 5 caption: The notation s(K, L_0) is introduced in the text but the figure caption could benefit from explicitly stating that the plotted quantity is the fitted universal constant at central size L_0.
  2. Eq. (110): The expressions for v and K are given in terms of arccos(V/2t). It would help the reader to note that these follow from the standard Bethe ansatz solution of the model (109), or to cite the relevant reference.
  3. Sec. VI.E: The boundary conditions for ED are stated as antiperiodic (periodic) when N = L/2 is even (odd). It would be useful to briefly explain why this choice is made (presumably to avoid degeneracies and access the ground state in the NS sector).
  4. Appendix F, Eq. (F3): The gluing matrix G is an 8x8 matrix. For readability, it may help to indicate the block structure (e.g., that it decomposes into 4x4 blocks) more explicitly in the text.
  5. Sec. III.C, Eq. (56): The bosonic MRE is written as a phase-space integral. It may be worth noting that this integral may require regularization for certain states, or stating the class of states for which it is well-defined.
  6. Typo in Sec. VI.C, Eq. (147): The expression uses both E_2(q) and vartheta_3(q); the notation should be consistent with standard conventions (e.g., specifying whether E_2 is the normalized or unnormalized Eisenstein series).
  7. Sec. VII (Outlook): The discussion of the SYK model as a future direction is interesting but somewhat speculative. A brief mention of what specific non-Gaussianity signature the MRE might reveal in the SYK model would make this outlook more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies the central results of the paper and raises two substantive points: (1) the potential impact of subleading finite-size corrections on the numerical extraction of the universal constant s and the boundary transition point K_c, and (2) the scope of the general framework in Sec. V regarding the conformal-manifold assumption. Both points are well-taken, and we will address them in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Sec. VI.E, Eqs. (165)-(169): The numerical verification uses very small system sizes (L = 8, 10, 12 for the three-point fits; L1, L2, L3 = 12, 10, 8 for the crossing analysis). At these sizes, subleading corrections to the scaling form M = mL - s + d/L (i.e., 1/L^2 and higher-order terms) could be significant and may shift both the extracted s values and the crossing point K_c. The agreement K_c ~ 3.05 vs. 3 is encouraging but could be fortuitous given the finite-size effects. The authors should discuss the potential impact of these corrections more explicitly and, if possible, provide an estimate of the systematic error.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern. We agree that at the system sizes accessible to exact diagonalization (L <= 14), subleading 1/L^2 corrections to the scaling form M = mL - s + d/L can be non-negligible and may shift both the extracted s values and the crossing point K_c. We will revise the manuscript to discuss this limitation more explicitly. Specifically, we will add a paragraph in Sec. VI.E acknowledging that: (i) the 1/L^2 and higher-order corrections are not included in the three-point fit, and their omission introduces a systematic error that is difficult to quantify at these sizes; (ii) the agreement K_c ~ 3.05 vs. the predicted K_c = 3 is encouraging and consistent with the field-theoretical prediction, but we cannot rule out that finite-size effects shift the crossing point; (iii) the perturbative formula s = (3/2)gamma^2 is confirmed most robustly near K = 1, where the universal constant is largest relative to the finite-size corrections, and the agreement there provides the strongest numerical support for the theory. We will also note that the duality collapse in Fig. 6 (using L = 10, 12, 14) provides an additional consistency check that is less sensitive to the absolute value of s. We emphasize that the central analytical results — the perturbative formula, the boundary stability criterion, and the predicted transition points — are derived from BCFT data and do not depend on the numerics. The numerics serve as a qualitative confirmation, and we will make this framing clearer in the revised text. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Sec. V.B, footnote [81]: The assumption that H_0, H_R, and H_R^rot lie on the same conformal manifold is verified for the TLL but stated as an unverified assumption for the broader class of density-density models in Sec. V. While the paper is appropriately scoped to the TLL for its detailed results, the general framework in Sec. V is presented as applicable to this broader class. The authors should clarify the scope of their general claims: are the results of Sec. V (the three scenarios for boundary RG flows) presented as general principles that should hold when the conformal-manifold condition is met, or are they claimed to hold for all density-density models? A brief clarifying statement would strengthen the presentation.

    Authors: We agree that the scope of the general claims in Sec. V should be stated more precisely. The intention is that the three scenarios for boundary RG flows (Sec. V.B) are presented as general principles that apply when the conformal-manifold condition is met — that is, when H_0, H_R, and H_R^rot lie on the same conformal manifold. This condition is verified for the TLL (Sec. VI) but is not established for the broader class of density-density models in general. We will add a clarifying statement at the beginning of Sec. V.B making explicit that the three scenarios are conditional on the conformal-manifold assumption, and that the detailed results of the paper (perturbative calculations, boundary transition predictions) are derived specifically for the TLL where this assumption is verified. This scoping is already implicit in the structure of the paper but should be stated more directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the universal constant is derived from BCFT data and compared against independent numerics.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the universal contribution to the MRE is given by the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy, $s_n = (1/(n-1)) ln g_J$. This is derived from first principles by rewriting the MRE as a replicated Euclidean path integral (Eq. 84-86), folding it into a boundary CFT problem (Eq. 88-90), and identifying the universal constant with the $g$-factor (Eq. 91-94). For the TLL application, the $g$-factor is computed analytically via perturbation theory in $gamma = (K-1)/(K+1)$, yielding $g_J = 1 + (3/2)gamma^2 + O(gamma^4)$ (Eq. 153) and $s = (3/2)gamma^2 + O(gamma^4)$ (Eq. 154). The TLL parameter $K$ is an input from the microscopic model (Eq. 110), not a fitted constant. The perturbative formula is then compared against independent exact-diagonalization calculations (Figs. 5-7), which extract $s$ by fitting numerical data to a scaling form $M = mL - s + d/L$ (Eq. 165). The numerical results agree with the analytical prediction without the prediction being forced by the fit. Self-citations (e.g., to Refs. [43, 44, 56-60, 78, 79]) are used to import definitions, convolution constructions, or prior SRE results, but the load-bearing BCFT derivation and the TLL perturbative calculation are self-contained within this paper. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated particles. The MRE is a constructed measure from known operations (convolution, partial trace, purity), and the field-theoretical objects (boundary states, g-factors) are standard BCFT constructs.

free parameters (3)
  • TLL parameter K
    K is determined by the microscopic interaction strength V/t (Eq. 110), not a free parameter fitted to the MRE data. It is an input to the low-energy theory.
  • Convolution angle ζ = π/4 (balanced)
    The choice of convolution unitary is a free parameter of the construction, though the paper shows results for general ζ (Eq. 157).
  • Nonuniversal line contribution m_n
    The slope m_n in M_n = m_n L - s_n is nonuniversal and fitted from numerical data, but it is not the central claim; the universal constant s_n is.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption H_0, H_R, and H^rot_R lie on the same conformal manifold.
    Invoked in Sec. V.B (Ref. [81]) to ensure the rotated bulk theory remains a CFT described by the same fixed point as H_0, allowing the BCFT analysis to proceed.
  • domain assumption The bulk-boundary OPE of the exactly marginal perturbation generates boundary operators whose scaling dimensions can be computed from the zero-mode charge lattice.
    Used in Sec. V.D and Appendix D to determine boundary stability and predict the transition at K=1/3,3.
  • domain assumption The boundary RG flow equation (108) captures the finite-size scaling of the boundary entropy near the transition.
    Used in Sec. VI.E to derive the finite-size crossing formula (167) for locating K_c numerically.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 57663 in / 2495 out tokens · 229166 ms · 2026-07-07T16:09:41.859790+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Characterizing a quantum state through the lens of quantum resources provides an information-theoretic perspective on many-body systems. While quantum entanglement serves as the paradigmatic example of a quantum resource, recent studies have shown that quantum magic, a resource for universal quantum computation, can capture aspects of many-body states complementary to those described by entanglement. For instance, in spin systems, conformal field theory (CFT) analysis of the stabilizer R\'enyi entropy has revealed universal features of nonstabilizerness that are qualitatively distinct from entanglement. In bosonic and fermionic systems, however, a comparable formulation for their computational resource, non-Gaussianity, has yet to be established. In this work, we introduce a unified measure, the magic R\'enyi entropy (MRE), to quantify computational resources in spins, bosons, and fermions on an equal footing. This allows us to reveal common universal aspects of nonstabilizerness and non-Gaussianity in critical many-body states. In particular, our CFT analysis shows that the universal contribution to the MRE appears as the size-independent term determined by the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy. We find that non-Gaussianity can continuously renormalize this universal contribution or drive a boundary phase transition through bulk-induced boundary renormalization-group flows. As a concrete demonstration, we present a detailed CFT analysis of non-Gaussianity in interacting spinless fermions described by the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, showing boundary transitions at the Luttinger parameters $K=1/3$ and $K=3$. We perform numerical calculations that confirm our field-theoretical predictions. These results provide a unified field-theoretical understanding of many-body magic across spins, bosons, and fermions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05343 by Masahiro Hoshino, Ryota Matsuda, Yuto Ashida.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Summary of the main results. (a) Unified structure of the quantum computational resources for spins, bosons, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic illustration of quantum convolution. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Folding representations of the thermal partition func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Euclidean path-integral representation of the MRE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , we see that the data points collapse on a single curve, except for the region close to the bulk transition point |γ| = 1/3 (i.e., K = 1/2), where a substantial finite-size effect is expected. Thus, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) The universal constant term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Finite-size scaling for locating the boundary phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nonlocal nonstabilizerness for slightly entangled quantum many-body states

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Nonlocal stabilizer Rényi entropy equals the SRE of the descending-order Schmidt reference state, enabling direct spectral evaluation for slightly entangled many-body systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 23 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Faithfulness:N C(ρ)≥0, with equality holding if and only ifρis a Gaussian state

    work page

  2. [2]

    Channel monotonicity:N C(Φ(ρ))≤N C(ρ) under a Gaussian channel Φ

    work page

  3. [3]

    Again, note that the invariance under a Gaussian unitary Ufollows from monotonicity

    Additivity:N C(ρ⊗σ) =N C(ρ) +N C(σ). Again, note that the invariance under a Gaussian unitary Ufollows from monotonicity. For notational simplicity, throughout this section we redefine the fermionic displacement operator as exp rTu =D f(2u), thereby changing the definition of the characteristic function. HereD f(u) is the original displacement operator us...

    work page

  4. [4]

    To this end we factor out a beam splitter from the convolution unitary and exploit its properties

    VanishingN C implies a Gaussian state Here we prove the nontrivial part of the faithfulness statement, namely that a state satisfyingN C(ρ) = 0 is Gaussian. To this end we factor out a beam splitter from the convolution unitary and exploit its properties. We extend the two-replica beam splitterU(ζ) of Eq. (51) to one acting on replicasrandsamong thenrepli...

    work page

  5. [5]

    This will be used below to prove the key properties of the MRE

    Commutation of the convolution unitary with Gaussian channels We next show that the convolution unitary commutes with Gaussian channels acting on each replica. This will be used below to prove the key properties of the MRE. Definition 5.A bosonicL-mode toL-mode Gaussian channel ΦX,Y,r 0 acts on the characteristic function as [60] χΦ(ρ)(u) =e − 1 4 uT ¯Yu−...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Faithfulness.—We begin by proving the faithfulness

    Proofs of the key properties We now assemble the results above to prove faithful- ness, monotonicity, and additivity. Faithfulness.—We begin by proving the faithfulness. We first note thatN C(ρ)≥0 follows if the mea- sure of correlation is non-negative. Next we show that NC(ρG) = 0 for Gaussian statesρ G. Because the bosonic and fermionic Gaussian charact...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Proof of monotonicity under an adaptive bosonic Gaussian protocol Here we prove monotonicity under an adaptive Gaus- sian protocol for the bosonic MRE withn≥2 when the convolution unitary is chosen to be the Helmert Gaussian unitary. This extends the pure-to-pure Gaussian-channel monotonicity proved above to deterministic pure-to-pure adaptive Gaussian pr...

    work page

  8. [8]

    ,Ψαn) = Z dy1 dy′ 1 trR1 [ρ(y1, y′ 1)ρ(y′ 1, y1)]

    = Z dyc trR1c [|Θ(y1,y c)⟩⟨Θ(y′ 1,y c)|],(A47) leading to νn(Ψα1 , . . . ,Ψαn) = Z dy1 dy′ 1 trR1 [ρ(y1, y′ 1)ρ(y′ 1, y1)]. (A48) Substituting Eq. (A47) into Eq. (A48), and using |tr(AB)| ≤ ∥A∥ 2∥B∥2 and Eq. (A46), we find νn(Ψα1 , . . . ,Ψαn)≤ν n(φ)I,(A49) where the integral factor is I ≡ Z dy1 dy′ 1 dyc dzc × q w(y1,y c)w(y′ 1,y c)w(y′ 1,z c)w(y1,z c),(...

    work page

  9. [9]

    The inner product between coherent states is ⟨α2|α1⟩= exp h − 1 2 α∗ 2 ·α2 − 1 2 α∗ 1 ·α1 +α ∗ 2 ·α1 i ,(C2) whereα ∗ ·β≡ P i α∗ i βi

    Liouville coherent states To begin with, we define the coherent states for both bosons and fermions as the displacement of the vacuum, |α⟩=D(α)|0⟩ ⊗L .(C1) Here,D(α) is eitherD b(α) with complex vectorαor Df(α) with complex Grassmann vectorα. The inner product between coherent states is ⟨α2|α1⟩= exp h − 1 2 α∗ 2 ·α2 − 1 2 α∗ 1 ·α1 +α ∗ 2 ·α1 i ,(C2) where...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Trotter decomposition We discretize the imaginary-time interval [0, β/2] into Nslices of widthε=β/(2N) and insert the completeness relation (C5) between successive Trotter factors. Writing Has a normal-ordered function of the elementary oper- ators,H=H(a †,a), the standard coherent-state matrix element gives ⟨ ⟨αk, ˜αk|e −εH ⊗e −ε ˜H |αk−1, ˜αk−1⟩ ⟩ =e −ε...

    work page

  11. [11]

    (C10) with the conventional single-line path integral, we relabel the auxiliary fields as a contin- uation of the original ones along an extended time axis k= 0,1,

    Folding to a single time axis To compare Eq. (C10) with the conventional single-line path integral, we relabel the auxiliary fields as a contin- uation of the original ones along an extended time axis k= 0,1, . . . ,2N+ 1. For both statistics, define (αN+k ,α ∗ N+k )≡(η ˜α∗ N+1−k , ˜αN+1−k ),(C11) fork= 1,2, . . . , N+ 1. The signηis the unique choice tha...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Continuum limit and the sewing condition After taking the limitN→ ∞withkε→τ∈[0, β], Eqs. (C15) and (C16) become the continuum action and (anti)periodic boundary condition of the ordinary single- replica partition function onτ∈[0, β], while the rela- beling (C11) encodes how the auxiliary fields ( ˜α, ˜α∗)(τ) are stitched to the original ones (α,α ∗)(τ). C...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Com- bining these results withλ= K−1/K 4π ≃ γ π , we finally obtain Eq. (147). Appendix H: Extension to arbitrary rotation angle The perturbative analysis can be extended to the case of a general mixing angleζ. Under the unitary, the cur- rent densities rotate as J z χ →cos (2ζ)J z χ + sin (2ζ)J x χ .(H1) At leading order inγ, the effects of this change a...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Chitambar and G

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

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Amico, R

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

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio,Colloquium : Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary trans- formation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave function renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen,Quan- tum Information Meets Quantum Matter: From Quan- tum Entanglement to Topological Phases of Many-Body Systems(Springer, New York, 2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- Induced Phase Transitions in the Dynamics of Entan- glement, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from the anti–de Sitter Space/Conformal Field Theory Correspondence, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Nature416, 608 (2002)

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Entanglement in a simple quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. A66, 032110 (2002)

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Entan- glement in Quantum Critical Phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 227902 (2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Holzhey, F

    C. Holzhey, F. Larsen, and F. Wilczek, Geometric and renormalized entropy in conformal field theory, Nucl. Phys. B424, 443 (1994)

    work page 1994

  25. [25]

    Pasquale Calabrese and John Cardy, Entanglement en- tropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech.2004, P06002 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 504005 (2009)

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Entanglement Entropy across the Superfluid-Insulator Transition: A Signature of Bosonic Criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 190401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Entanglement area law in interacting bosons: from Bose-Hubbard, $\phi$4, and beyond

    D. Kim and T. Kuwahara, Entanglement area law in in- teracting bosons: From Bose-Hubbard,φ 4, and beyond, arXiv:2411.02157 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    M. M. Wolf, Violation of the Entropic Area Law for Fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010404 (2006)

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    Gioev and I

    D. Gioev and I. Klich, Entanglement Entropy of Fermions in Any Dimension and the Widom Conjec- ture, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 100503 (2006)

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-Body Quantum Magic, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quan- tum Computers, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  33. [33]

    S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Efficient Classical Simulation of Continuous Variable Quantum Information Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 097904 (2002)

    work page 2002

  34. [34]

    L. G. Valiant, Quantum Circuits That Can Be Simu- lated Classically in Polynomial Time, SIAM J. Comput. 31, 1229 (2002). 37

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A65, 032325 (2002)

    work page 2002

  36. [36]

    Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 (2004)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  37. [37]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  38. [38]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum Computation over Continuous Variables, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1784 (1999)

    work page 1999

  39. [39]

    Hebenstreit, R

    M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All Pure Fermionic Non-Gaussian States Are Magic States for Matchgate Computations, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 080503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Leone, S

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

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dal- monte, Many-Body Magic Via Pauli-Markov Chains— From Criticality to Gauge Theories, PRX Quantum4, 040317 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    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)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Lami and M

    G. Lami and M. Collura, Nonstabilizerness via Perfect Pauli Sampling of Matrix Product States, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 180401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Entanglement and Stabilizer entropies of random bipartite pure quantum states

    D. Iannotti, G. Esposito, L. C. Venuti, and A. Hamma, Entanglement and Stabilizer entropies of random bi- partite pure quantum states, Quantum9, 1797 (2025), arXiv:2501.19261

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    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, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 475301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    E. A. R. Trino and M. A. Rajabpour, Stabilizer- Shannon Renyi Equivalence: Exact Results for Quan- tum Critical Chains, arXiv:2509.10700 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, Phase transition in magic with random quantum circuits, Nat. Phys.20, 1786 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    C. P. Moca, D. Sticlet, and B. D´ ora, Non-stabilizerness as a Diagnostic of Criticality and Exceptional Points in Non-Hermitian Spin Chains, arXiv:2510.17248 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    K. Goto, T. Nosaka, and M. Nozaki, Probing chaos by magic monotones, Phys. Rev. D106, 126009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Bera and M

    S. Bera and M. Schir` o, Non-stabilizerness of Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model, SciPost Phys.19, 159 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Jasser, J

    B. Jasser, J. Odavi´ c, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy and entanglement complexity in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B112, 174204 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. Zhou, and N. Sun, Stabilizer R´ enyi Entropy and Its Transition in the Coupled Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 080201 (2026)

    work page 2026

  53. [53]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spreading in random quantum circuits, Nat. Commun.16, 2575 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Tirrito, X

    E. Tirrito, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Anticoncen- tration and Nonstabilizerness Spreading under Ergodic Quantum Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    C. D. White, C. Cao, and B. Swingle, Conformal field theories are magical, Phys. Rev. B103, 075145 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Hoshino, M

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Stabilizer R´ enyi Entropy and Conformal Field Theory, Phys. Rev. X16, 011037 (2026)

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

    Hoshino and Y

    M. Hoshino and Y. Ashida, Stabilizer R´ enyi En- tropy Encodes Fusion Rules of Topological Defects and Boundaries, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 080402 (2026)

    work page 2026

  58. [58]

    Sierant, P

    P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic Magic Resources of Quantum Many-Body Systems, PRX Quantum7, 010302 (2026)

    work page 2026

  59. [59]

    Crew, Y.-L

    S. Crew, Y.-L. Li, H.-H. Li, and P.-Y. Chang, Magic entropy in hybrid spin-boson systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 89, 027602 (2026)

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    Magic for Hybrid Boson-Fermion Systems: A Grassmann Phase-Space Approach

    M. Sarkis, P. Martinez-Azcona, and A. Tkatchenko, Magic for Hybrid Boson-Fermion Systems: A Grass- mann Phase-Space Approach, arXiv:2509.05264 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    G. C. Santra, J. Mildenberger, E. Ballini, A. Bottarelli, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, Quantum Resources in Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories: Nonstabiliz- erness, Multipartite Entanglement, and Fermionic Non- Gaussianity, arXiv:2510.07385 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    F. Ares, S. Murciano, and P. Calabrese, Non-Gaussianity of random quantum states, arXiv:2605.18986 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    P. R. N. Falc˜ ao, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Sierant, Fermionic magic resources in disordered quantum spin chains, arXiv:2602.00245 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    R. L. Hudson, When is the wigner quasi-probability den- sity non-negative?, Rep. Math. Phys.6, 249 (1974)

    work page 1974

  65. [65]

    Soto and P

    F. Soto and P. Claverie, When is the Wigner function of multidimensional systems nonnegative?, J. Math. Phys. 24, 97 (1983)

    work page 1983

  66. [66]

    Gross, Hudson’s theorem for finite-dimensional quan- tum systems, J

    D. Gross, Hudson’s theorem for finite-dimensional quan- tum systems, J. Math. Phys.47, 122107 (2006)

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    Bauer and S

    A. Bauer and S. Lloyd, Quadratic tensors as a unifi- cation of Clifford, Gaussian, and free-fermion physics, arXiv:2601.15396 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    B. Kang, C. Zhao, Z. Liu, X. Gao, and S. Choi, 2D Quon Language: Unifying Framework for Cliffords, Match- gates, and Beyond, arXiv:2505.06336 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Stabilizer Testing and Magic Entropy via Quantum Fourier Analysis, Com- mun. Math. Phys.406, 236 (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Efficient Measurement of Bosonic Non-Gaussianity

    K. Bu and B. Li, Efficient Measurement of Bosonic Non- Gaussianity, arXiv:2507.10272 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Fermionic Gaussian Testing and Non-Gaussian Measures via Convolution

    X. Lyu and K. Bu, Fermionic Gaussian Test- ing and Non-Gaussian Measures via Convolution, arXiv:2409.08180 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Measuring Non-Gaussian Magic in Fermions: Convolution, Entropy, and the Violation of Wick's Theorem and the Matchgate Identity

    L. Coffman, G. Smith, and X. Gao, Measuring Non- Gaussian Magic in Fermions: Convolution, Entropy, and the Violation of Wick’s Theorem and the Match- gate Identity, arXiv:2501.06179 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Measuring non-Gaussianity with Correlation

    O. Hahn and R. Takagi, Measuring non-Gaussianity with Correlation, arXiv:2508.19890 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    C. D. Cushen and R. L. Hudson, A quantum-mechanical central limit theorem, J. Appl. Probab.8, 454 (1971)

    work page 1971

  75. [75]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Quantum entropy and central limit theorem, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.120, e2304589120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Discrete Quantum Gaus- sians and Central Limit Theorem, arXiv:2302.08423 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Central Limit Theorem for Bosonic Quantum Channels

    H. Mehrabi, L. Lami, and M. M. Wilde, Cen- tral Limit Theorem for Bosonic Quantum Channels, arXiv:2605.16782 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    ground-state degeneracy

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig, Universal noninteger 38 “ground-state degeneracy” in critical quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 161 (1991)

    work page 1991

  79. [79]

    F. D. M. Haldane, ’Luttinger liquid theory’ of one- dimensional quantum fluids. I. Properties of the Lut- tinger model and their extension to the general 1D inter- acting spinless Fermi gas, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 14, 2585 (1981)

    work page 1981

  80. [80]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, New York, 2004)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, New York, 2004)

    work page 2004

Showing first 80 references.