Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 62 references

Universal magic state concentration

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Six copies of any unknown pure non-stabilizer qubit state are necessary and sufficient to distill one exact CCZ state, with optimal success probability set by the linearized order-three stabilizer Rényi entropy.

desk verdict A clean, well-proved six-copy threshold for exact CCZ concentration from unknown pure magic states, with M3^lin as the operational success probability; worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13376 v1 pith:TCNI6M4Y submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph

Jacopo Rizzo , Lorenzo Leone This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P45 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Pp
keywords magicstateconcentrationCCZstabilizerRényientropyexactdistillationCliffordgroupsymmetricsubspaceuniversalquantumcomputation
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 states are the non-Clifford resources that lift stabilizer circuits to universality, but standard distillation assumes prior knowledge of the input, such as a noise model or proximity to a target. This paper shows that for pure qubit states this assumption can be dropped: a fixed protocol built from Clifford gates, Pauli measurements, and classical feedforward converts six copies of any unknown non-stabilizer state $|\psi\rangle$ into one exact three-qubit controlled-controlled-Z (CCZ) magic state, with success probability $\tfrac{1}{3} M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$. Six copies are also necessary: no universal stabilizer protocol can produce any fixed non-stabilizer output from five or fewer copies. The linearized order-three stabilizer Rényi entropy $M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}$ thus acquires a concrete operational meaning: it sets the optimal probability of concentration at the minimal block size, and it controls the state dependence of any protocol up to nine input copies. If the claim is right, every pure non-stabilizer qubit state enables universal quantum computation by exact CCZ injection with one fixed procedure, the only unknown being the overhead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stabilizer-orthogonal symmetric subspace $M_k$, defined as the subspace of $k$-qubit symmetric states orthogonal to $|s\rangle^{\otimes k}$ for every single-qubit stabilizer state $|s\rangle$. In the polynomial representation of the symmetric subspace, a state lies in $M_k$ exactly when its associated degree-$k$ homogeneous polynomial vanishes on the six vertices of the single-qubit stabilizer octahedron; the minimal obstruction is $f_6(a,b)=ab(a^4-b^4)$, and the identity $M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)=6|f_6(a,b)|^2$ ties the entropy to this geometry. The protocols measure $X^{\otimes k}$ and $Z^{\otimes k}$ and postselect on syndromes that project onto $M_k$. For $k=6$, $M_6$ is one-dimensional, so the postselected state is independent of the input; a short chain of Pauli measurements and Clifford corrections converts that unique state into $|\mathrm{CCZ}\rangle$ with probability $2/3$, giving the overall factor $1/3$. Clifford invariance of $M_k$ is what makes the protocol universal and state-independent.

What would settle it

To settle the claim, one can compute the full Clifford commutant on the symmetric subspace $M_k$ for $6\le k\le 9$ and check whether any operator besides the projector $\Pi_{M_k}$ commutes with all Clifford unitaries; finding one would break the claimed bound. Alternatively, run the six-copy protocol on a known non-stabilizer state and test whether the acceptance frequency equals $\tfrac{1}{3}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$ as the input is varied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a sharp six-copy threshold for exact universal magic-state concentration. For every pure non-stabilizer qubit state $|\psi\rangle$, there is a single stabilizer protocol $\Lambda_6$ that consumes $|\psi\rangle^{\otimes 6}$ and, on success, outputs an exact $|\mathrm{CCZ}\rangle$ state; the success probability is $\Pr_{\Lambda_6}(\psi^{\otimes 6}\to\mathrm{CCZ}) = \tfrac{1}{3}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$. Among all universal six-copy stabilizer protocols that output CCZ, this probability is optimal, and for $k<6$ no protocol succeeds. The same entropy governs the broader landscape: for $6\le k\le 9$, the success probability of exact conversion into any fixed non-stabilizer state is at most $\tfrac{7(k-5)}{2(k+1)}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$, so the linear scaling in $M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}$ is best possible in that range. An eight-copy protocol doubles the six-copy probability to $\tfrac{2}{3}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$. As a corollary, a fixed stabilizer procedure turns any unknown pure non-stabilizer qubit state into universal quantum computation through exact CCZ injection, with only the overhead depending on the state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Clifford group's action on the relevant symmetric subspaces has no hidden extra symmetries for six to nine copies; if such hidden structure existed, the claimed $M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}$ upper bounds could be circumvented, though the six-copy impossibility below six is proved separately and would survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single fixed stabilizer protocol makes every pure non-stabilizer qubit state sufficient for universal quantum computation by exact CCZ injection; repetition supplies CCZ states at finite expected cost.
  • With access to one T-state catalyst, the six- and eight-copy protocols yield exact catalytic conversions to two T states, with success probabilities $\tfrac{1}{3}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$ and $\tfrac{2}{3}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$.
  • Block repetition of the eight-copy protocol achieves asymptotic concentration rates at least $\tfrac{1}{12}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$ for CCZ and $\tfrac{1}{6}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$ for catalytic T; the matching upper bound shows this scaling is optimal up to logarithmic factors.
  • The linearized order-three stabilizer Rényi entropy becomes an operationally defined quantity: the optimal probability of extracting one exact CCZ state from six unknown copies.
  • The same measurement structure applies to any mixed state supported on the symmetric subspace for $k=6,8$, producing an exact CCZ state on success with probability proportional to the state's weight on $M_k$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own claims, the subspace geometry suggests that no seven-copy block can improve on the six-copy success probability, while at ten copies new Clifford-invariant operators should enter and may unlock success probabilities not tied solely to $M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}$.
  • A natural testable extension is to qudits: replacing $f_6$ by the lowest-degree polynomial vanishing on the local stabilizer octahedron would predict the minimal copy number in each dimension, and the protocol's success probability should be governed by the corresponding stabilizer entropy.
  • On near-term hardware, the protocol's accepted branch is essentially a stabilizer test, so the predicted acceptance probability $\tfrac{1}{3}M_3^{\mathrm{lin}}(\psi)$ can be checked by Pauli expectation measurements without tomography of the input state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies exact magic state concentration: a fixed stabilizer protocol that, given k copies of an unknown pure non-stabilizer qubit state, outputs an exact target magic state with state-dependent success probability. The main result is that for the CCZ target, six copies are necessary and sufficient. The authors give an explicit six-copy protocol with success probability M3^lin(psi)/3, prove that this is optimal among all universal six-copy protocols, and show that fewer copies give zero success probability. They also construct an eight-copy protocol with success probability 2M3^lin(psi)/3 and prove a general upper bound for 6 <= k <= 9 showing that the success probability for any fixed non-stabilizer target is at most a constant times M3^lin(psi). Block repetition gives asymptotic rates R(psi -> CCZ) >= M3^lin/12, and an upper bound R <= C M3^lin log(1/M3^lin) with C < 1.81, so the scaling is optimal up to logarithmic factors. A corollary is that any unknown pure non-stabilizer qubit state enables universal quantum computation by exact CCZ injection with a fixed protocol.

Significance. The result is significant because it gives an exact operational interpretation to the linearized order-three stabilizer Renyi entropy as the optimal success probability at the minimal copy number, and it establishes a qualitative difference between CCZ and T targets: exact T-state concentration is known to be obstructed, whereas exact CCZ concentration is possible from any non-stabilizer pure state. The proofs are explicit and checkable, with parameter-free derivations: the overlap identity (B9), the reduction of the eight-copy filter to a Krawtchouk polynomial calculation (B38)-(B46), and the reduction of the optimality theorem to a detailed analysis of the state |A6> in Theorem 12. The central formulas express the success probability through the previously defined monotone M3^lin with no fitting parameters. The paper also strengthens Reichardt's universality result by removing the state-dependent adaptation of the protocol, replacing it with a fixed stabilizer procedure whose only state dependence is the success probability.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (7)] The operator Omega-tilde_6 is called a projector, but on the full six-qubit Hilbert space it is not idempotent; it becomes a projector only when restricted to the symmetric subspace, as is clear from the appendix. This should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion in the proof sketch.
  2. [Appendix C.1, Lemma 11] The inequality P2(zeta) >= 2/3 for any single-qubit pure state is used without proof or citation; it follows directly from the Bloch-sphere constraint x^2+y^2+z^2=1, but a brief justification would make the appendix more self-contained.
  3. [Appendix C.2, Prop. 3] The step invoking the Clifford 3-design is terse: the intertwining relation (C36) is what transfers the commutant statement from Sym^{k-6}(C^2) to M_k, and making this explicit would help the reader verify the bound for k=9.
  4. [Main text, after Eq. (2)] The statement that 0 <= M3^lin(psi) <= 4/9 for a single qubit, with equality at the Bravyi-Kitaev T-type states, is stated without derivation or reference; a short argument or citation would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to fitting or definitional identity. The success probability of the six-copy protocol is computed explicitly from the Born rule: the first Pauli measurement projects onto the one-dimensional subspace M6, with probability 3|f6(a,b)|^2 = M3^lin(psi)/2 (Appendix B1, Eqs. (B9)-(B10)), and the subsequent extraction of |CCZ> from |A6> is shown to succeed with probability 2/3 by an explicit stabilizer circuit (Eqs. (B11)-(B14)). The relation M3^lin(psi)=6|f6(a,b)|^2 is proved, not assumed, in Appendix A3 (Eq. (A29)). The optimality upper bound for k=6 (Theorem 12) is obtained by showing any successful branch has c_r(a,b)=gamma_r f6(a,b) because it must vanish on the six stabilizer rays, then bounding Pr(A6->chi)<=2/3 via Lemma 11 using the independent properties of the auxiliary states eta and chi (Lemmas 8-10). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction. The upper bound for 6<=k<=9 (Proposition 1/3) uses the standard external theorem that Clifford groups are unitary 3-designs [47], and even if that secondary bound were weakened, the six-copy threshold, the optimal six-copy success probability, and the universality corollary would be unaffected. Self-citations to [31]-[33] define the stabilizer Rényi entropy and provide context, but the load-bearing arguments reproduce the needed identities directly or cite external, independently checkable results (Zhu's 3-design theorem, Gidney-Fowler catalytic conversion, Shi universality). The manuscript also honestly flags what remains open (optimality at eight copies). There is no exhibited reduction of a claimed prediction to its own input; the central claims stand on explicit computation and externally grounded theorems.

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

The central claims depend on no fitted parameters and introduce no invented entities. They rest on the standard stabilizer formalism, the symmetric-subspace polynomial isomorphism (proved in the paper), and two imported results: the Clifford 3-design property (Ref [47]) used for the k <= 9 upper bound, and the regularized relative entropy of magic of CCZ (Ref [43]) used for the asymptotic upper bound. The pure-state assumption is an explicitly stated domain restriction.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The single-qubit Clifford group is a unitary 3-design (Ref [47]); used to identify the Clifford commutant on Sym_m(C^2), m <= 3, with the trivial algebra so that A_k = lambda_k Pi_Mk.
    Invoked in Appendix C2 to derive the k <= 9 upper bound; correctness of this bound is load-bearing for the optimal scaling up to nine copies claim.
  • standard math The regularized relative entropy of magic of the CCZ state equals log2(16/9), and asymptotic conversion rates are bounded by the ratio D^inf_M(rho)/D^inf_M(sigma) (Ref [43]).
    Used in Appendix D to prove Proposition 2; if this additivity or bound were false, the claimed asymptotic upper bound R(psi -> CCZ) <= C M3^lin log2(1/M3^lin) would not hold.
  • standard math Stabilizer operations acting on a stabilizer state produce a stabilizer state on every branch; hence an exact non-stabilizer output forces branch amplitudes to vanish on stabilizer inputs.
    Used throughout (Theorem 12 and Lemma 3) to restrict branch Kraus operators to M_k; this is the foundation of the polynomial argument.
  • domain assumption The input is an unknown pure single-qubit state and the k copies are identical, so the input lies in the symmetric subspace and can be represented by a degree-k homogeneous polynomial in (a,b).
    The problem is defined for pure states only; this assumption underlies the definition of M_k and the vanishing-polynomial characterization. The authors explicitly note that mixed-state worst-case success vanishes (Refs [11,12]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal magic state concentration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCNI6M4Y

@misc{pith2026260813376,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal magic state concentration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCNI6M4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13376}
}
abstract

Magic plays a dual role in quantum computation: it promotes stabilizer dynamics from efficient classical simulability to universality, but it presents a central challenge for fault tolerance, since non-stabilizer operations are harder to protect against noise. Magic state distillation addresses this issue; however, existing protocols typically assume prior structure in the input, such as proximity to the target or a specified noise model. Here we introduce universal magic state concentration: a fixed stabilizer protocol that converts a few copies of an unknown pure non-stabilizer qubit state into an exact target magic state. Motivated by the obstruction to exact $T$-state concentration, we show that $\mathrm{CCZ}$ states behave fundamentally differently. Six input copies are necessary and sufficient to distill one exact $\mathrm{CCZ}$ state, with an optimal success probability determined by the linearized order-three stabilizer R\'enyi entropy $M^{\mathrm{lin}}_3$. Beyond this, we show that $M^{\mathrm{lin}}_3$ governs the optimal state dependence of any protocol up to nine input copies, and we showcase an eight-copy protocol with improved success probability. Furthermore, block repetition of our protocols yields asymptotic distillation rates that achieve optimal scaling up to logarithmic factors. As a corollary, any unknown pure qubit magic state suffices for universal quantum computation via exact $\mathrm{CCZ}$ injection. Together, these results identify the stabilizer R\'enyi entropy as a fundamental operational quantity in magic state distillation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1998

  2. [3]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A71, 10.1103/physreva.71.022316 (2005)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.71.022316 2005

  3. [4]

    Gottesman, An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation (2009), arXiv:0904.2557 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation (2009), arXiv:0904.2557 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [6]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Physical Review A86, 10.1103/physreva.86.052329 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86.052329 2012

  5. [7]

    Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    2019

  6. [8]

    B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality from magic states distil- lation applied to css codes, Quantum Information Processing4, 251–264 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [9]

    B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality by state distillation (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0608085 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [10]

    E. T. Campbell and D. E. Browne, Bound states for magic state distillation in fault-tolerant quantum computation, Physical Re- view Letters104, 10.1103/physrevlett.104.030503 (2010)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.030503 2010

Show all 62 references
  1. [12]

    Fang and Z.-W

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, No-go theorems for quantum resource purification: New approach and channel theory, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/prxquantum.3.010337 (2022)

    2022 doi

  2. [13]

    A. M. Meier, B. Eastin, and E. Knill, Magic-state distillation with the four-qubit code (2012), arXiv:1204.4221 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [14]

    Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.042305 (2013)

    C. Jones, Multilevel distillation of magic states for quantum computing, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.042305 (2013)

    2013 doi

  4. [16]

    Krishna and J.-P

    A. Krishna and J.-P. Tillich, Towards low overhead magic state distillation, Physical Review Letters123, 10.1103/phys- revlett.123.070507 (2019)

    2019 doi

  5. [17]

    Golowich and V

    L. Golowich and V . Guruswami, Asymptotically good quantum codes with transversal non-clifford gates (2024), arXiv:2408.09254 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [18]

    Wills, M.-H

    A. Wills, M.-H. Hsieh, and H. Yamasaki, Constant-overhead magic state distillation (2024), arXiv:2408.07764 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [19]

    Eastin, Distilling one-qubit magic states into toffoli states, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.032321 (2013)

    B. Eastin, Distilling one-qubit magic states into toffoli states, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.032321 (2013). 6

    2013 doi

  8. [20]

    Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant tof- foli gate, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.022328 (2013)

    C. Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant tof- foli gate, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.022328 (2013)

    2013 doi

  9. [21]

    E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Unifying gate synthesis and magic state distillation, Physical Review Letters118, 10.1103/physrevlett.118.060501 (2017)

    2017 doi

  10. [22]

    Haah and M

    J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, Codes and protocols for distilling T, controlled-S, and Toffoli gates, Quantum2, 71 (2018)

    2018

  11. [23]

    also yields the corresponding success probabilities for catalytic T -state concentration (Corollary 1). We further show that the role of M lin 3 is structural: up to nine input copies, the success probability of conversion into any fixed non-stabilizer output necessarily scale...

  12. [24]

    Gidney and A

    C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed |CCZ⟩ →2|T⟩ transformation, Quantum3, 135 (2019)

    2019

  13. [25]

    Itogawa, Y

    T. Itogawa, Y . Takada, Y . Hirano, and K. Fujii, Efficient magic state distillation by zero-level distillation, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/thxx-njr6 (2025)

    2025 doi

  14. [26]

    Gidney, N

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state cultiva- tion: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [27]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 10.1103/revmodphys.91.025001 (2019)

    2019 doi

  16. [28]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing, Physical Review Letters118, 10.1103/physrevlett.118.090501 (2017)

    2017 doi

  17. [29]

    Veitch, S

    V . Veitch, S. A. Hamed Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emer- son, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New Journal of Physics16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  18. [30]

    Hayashi and K

    M. Hayashi and K. Matsumoto, Universal distortion-free entan- glement concentration (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0209030 [quant- ph]

    2002 arXiv

  19. [31]

    L. Lami, B. Regula, and R. Takagi, Universal quantum resource distillation via composite generalised quantum stein’s lemma (2026), arXiv:2605.15174 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [32]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer r´enyi entropy, Physical Review Letters128, 10.1103/physrevlett.128.050402 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [33]

    Leone and L

    L. Leone and L. Bittel, Stabilizer entropies are monotones for magic-state resource theory, Physical Review A110, 10.1103/physreva.110.l040403 (2024)

    2024 doi

  22. [34]

    Bittel and L

    L. Bittel and L. Leone, Operational interpretation of the stabilizer entropy, Quantum10, 2069 (2026)

    2026

  23. [35]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Magic-state resource theory for the ground state of the transverse-field ising model, Physical Review A106, 10.1103/physreva.106.042426 (2022)

    2022 doi

  24. [36]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dalmonte, Many-body magic via pauli-markov chains—from criticality to gauge theories, PRX Quantum4, 10.1103/prxquantum.4.040317 (2023)

    2023 doi

  25. [37]

    Lami and M

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

    2023

  26. [38]

    P. S. Tarabunga and C. Castelnovo, Magic in generalized rokhsar- kivelson wavefunctions, Quantum8, 1347 (2024)

    2024

  27. [39]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spectrum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many-body states, Physical Review B111, 10.1103/physrevb.111.054301 (2025)

    2025 doi

  28. [40]

    Y .-M. Ding, Z. Wang, and Z. Yan, Evaluating many-body stabi- lizer r´enyi entropy by sampling reduced pauli strings: singulari- ties, volume law, and nonlocal magic (2025), arXiv:2501.12146 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Shi, Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0205115 [quant-ph]

    Y . Shi, Both toffoli and controlled-not need little help to do universal quantum computation (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0205115 [quant-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  30. [42]

    Beverland, E

    M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V . Kliuchnikov, Lower bounds on the non-clifford resources for quantum com- putations, Quantum Science and Technology5, 035009 (2020)

    2020

  31. [43]

    Gross, S

    D. Gross, S. Nezami, and M. Walter, Schur–weyl duality for the clifford group with applications: Property testing, a robust hudson theorem, and de finetti representations, Communications in Mathematical Physics385, 1325–1393 (2021)

    2021

  32. [44]

    Rubboli, R

    R. Rubboli, R. Takagi, and M. Tomamichel, Mixed-state addi- tivity properties of magic monotones based on quantum relative entropies for single-qubit states and beyond, Quantum8, 1492 (2024)

    2024

  33. [45]

    Horodecki and J

    M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, (quantumness in the context of) resource theories, International Journal of Modern Physics B 27, 1345019 (2012)

    2012

  34. [46]

    M. M. Wilde,Quantum Information Theory(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2016)

    2016

  35. [47]

    F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane,The Theory of Error- Correcting Codes(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977)

    1977

  36. [48]

    Zhu, Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Physi- cal Review A96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062336 (2017)

    H. Zhu, Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Physi- cal Review A96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062336 (2017). 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL A. Preliminaries 7

    2017 doi

  37. [49]

    Stabilizer formalism 7

  38. [50]

    Magic state concentration protocols 8

  39. [51]

    Six- and eight-copy achievability 11

    Linearized order-three stabilizer R ´enyi entropy 9 B. Six- and eight-copy achievability 11

  40. [52]

    Six-copy protocol 12

  41. [53]

    Six- and eight-copy upper bounds 17

    Eight-copy protocol 14 C. Six- and eight-copy upper bounds 17

  42. [54]

    Optimality whenk= 6 17

  43. [55]

    Asymptotic upper bound 23 Appendix A: Preliminaries

    Optimal scaling inM lin 3 up tok= 9 21 D. Asymptotic upper bound 23 Appendix A: Preliminaries

  44. [56]

    A more detailed overview can be found in Ref

    Stabilizer formalism In this section, we briefly summarize the stabilizer formalism. A more detailed overview can be found in Ref. [ 4]. In the manuscript, the n-qubit Pauli group Pn is composed of all n-fold tensor products of I, X, Y, Zwith phases ±1,±i . We also denote with...

  45. [57]

    H,CNOT and S := diag(1, i)generate the n-qubit Clifford group

    We denote by Cn :={U∈ U(2 n) :UP nU † =P n} the n-qubit Clifford group, by H the Hadamard gate, by CNOTi→j the controlled-NOT gate with control qubit i and target qubit j, and by S the phase gate. H,CNOT and S := diag(1, i)generate the n-qubit Clifford group. We say that two s...

  46. [58]

    Our definitions follow the respective versions in entanglement theory [29]

    Magic state concentration protocols In this section we formally define the finite-copy exact magic state concentration task, as well as its asymptotic extension. Our definitions follow the respective versions in entanglement theory [29]. We start with the finite-copy task. Def...

  47. [59]

    Linearized order-three stabilizer R ´enyi entropy In the manuscript, we will consider stabilizer protocols acting on multiple copies of a fixed single-qubit state|ψ⟩=a|0⟩+b|1⟩ , witha, b∈Cand|a| 2 +|b| 2 = 1. In the following, we will make use of the simple Clifford-unitary eq...

  48. [60]

    Six-copy protocol We hereby describe in more detail the six-copy universal magic state concentration protocol sketched in Theorem 1 in the main text. Schematically, the process is a chain of Stabilizer measurements and Clifford unitaries mapping |ψ⟩⊗6 − → |A6⟩ − → { |G4⟩,| G4⟩...

  49. [61]

    We first prove the following

    Eight-copy protocol We start by definingq X :=a 2 −b 2, qY :=a 2 +b 2, qZ := 2ab. We first prove the following. Lemma 6(structure ofM 8).The states |R0⟩ := r 7 8 |D8 1⟩ −1√ 8 |D8 5⟩,|R 1⟩ := D8 2 − |D8 6⟩√ 2 ,|R 2⟩ := 1√ 8 |D8 3⟩ − r 7 8 |D8 7⟩,(B18) form an orthonormal basis ...

  50. [62]

    We first prove a few preliminary lemmas

    Optimality whenk= 6 In this section we show that the protocol we derived fork= 6 achieves in fact optimal success probability among allCCZ exact magic state concentration protocols acting on 6 input copies (see Definition 1). We first prove a few preliminary lemmas. The follow...

  51. [63]

    Hence the magnitudes are 1×1,135×1/3 and the rest zero

    Since this is a single linear constraint, the solution space has dimension 3, hence it contains 8 vectors, therefore counting both x, zwe get 24 + (24 −1)2 3 = 136. Hence the magnitudes are 1×1,135×1/3 and the rest zero. HenceP 2(η) = 2−4 1 + 135 34 = 1/6. This proves also (ii...

  52. [64]

    Following the same reasoning as in Lemma 9 we get, for x, z∈F 3 2 ⟨Wa⟩χ = ix·z 4 X y∈T,y+x∈T (−1)z·y .(C11) For x̸= 0 , the six pairwise nonzero differences are e1, e2, e3, e1 +e 2, e1 +e 3, e2 +e 3. For each, we have a unique pair x, x+y, and the outcome is nonzero exactly wh...

  53. [65]

    Furthermore, it cannot be fundamentally improved for any target non-stabilizer state, thus not necessarily only forCCZ

    Optimal scaling inM lin 3 up tok= 9 In this section, we show that the scaling in M lin 3 is effectively optimal up to k= 9 pure qubit-state input copies. Furthermore, it cannot be fundamentally improved for any target non-stabilizer state, thus not necessarily only forCCZ. Pro...

  54. [66]

    Then q M lin 3 (ψ) ≤ 1−s 1−s 4 = 1 (1 +s)(1 +s 2) (D17) ≤ 1 (1 + 1/ √ 3)(1 + 1/3) = 3(3− √ 3) 8 .(D18) Thus, setting for simplicityγ := 3(3− √ 3) 8 , we haveq≤γM lin 3 (ψ)

    Moreover,M lin 3 (ψ)≥ 1−s4 2 . Then q M lin 3 (ψ) ≤ 1−s 1−s 4 = 1 (1 +s)(1 +s 2) (D17) ≤ 1 (1 + 1/ √ 3)(1 + 1/3) = 3(3− √ 3) 8 .(D18) Thus, setting for simplicityγ := 3(3− √ 3) 8 , we haveq≤γM lin 3 (ψ). Now using that h2(q)≤qlog 2 e q ,(D19) and the fact thatq7→qlog 2(e/q)is ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.