Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Quantifying Nonstabilizerness of Codeword-Stabilized Codes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The magic of a codeword-stabilized code is fixed by a classical code statistic

desk verdict The central dictionary is correct and the paper deserves a careful read, but the headline claims about 'most magical codes' and the gate tradeoff are tied to the flat code state, not the code-space capacity, and the paper says so itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.22017 v1 pith:SXEM3ELR submitted 2026-08-22 quant-ph

Yuan Liu , Ke-Mi Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6894B60
keywords nonstabilizernesscodeword-stabilizedcodesstabilizerRényientropySidonsetsadditivecombinatoricstransversalgatesKerdockquantummagic
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

The paper claims a complete quantitative theory of nonstabilizerness for codeword-stabilized (CWS) codes, and the whole theory hangs on one classical number: how often codewords coincide after translation. This matters because non-Clifford, non-stabilizer codes are the main route to transversal non-Clifford gates for fault-tolerant quantum computing, and no quantitative handle on a code's magic had existed. The paper shows that the magic of the code state is $M_2 = 4k - \log_2 E^{(1)}(C)$, where $E^{(1)}(C)$ counts parallelograms in the binary code; from there, Sidon sets (sets whose nonzero pairwise differences are all distinct) are the most magical, no code state exceeds $2k$ bits, coset closure leaves magic unchanged, and Kerdock codes have exact closed-form values. If the dictionary is right, searching for magic-rich codes becomes a classical counting problem in additive combinatorics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the difference multiplicity $A(x) = |C\cap(C\oplus x)|$ and its fourth moment, the parallelogram energy $E^{(1)}(C) = \sum_x E(C\cap(C\oplus x))$. The formula $M_2 = 4k - \log_2 E^{(1)}(C)$ is the machinery: it converts the nonstabilizerness of the quantum code state into a classical count of affine 2-planes (parallelograms) contained in $C$. All the results follow from this identity by energy inequalities for Sidon extremality, scaling under coset closure for invariance, the layer structure of the Kerdock set for exact values, and the period subgroup $P(C)=\{x:A(x)=m\}$ for the transversal-gate classification.

What would settle it

Take any small CWS code with a non-Sidon classical code, compute $M_2$ directly by exhausting all $4^n$ Pauli strings in the definition, then compute $E^{(1)}(C)$ by counting affine 2-planes and compare with $4k - \log_2 E^{(1)}(C)$; a single mismatch would refute the dictionary. For the benchmark reading, construct the phase-optimized state of an affine code and check whether its magic exceeds the flat code state by about $k$ bits, as the paper predicts, while the code state itself is a stabilizer state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a codeword-stabilized code $(G,C)$, the nonstabilizerness of the code state $|C\rangle = 2^{-k/2}\sum_{w\in C} Z^w|G\rangle$ is exactly $M_2(|C\rangle) = 4k - \log_2 E^{(1)}(C)$, with $E^{(1)}(C)$ the parallelogram energy of the classical binary code $C$. The graph $G$ and physical length $n$ decouple through a Clifford rotation, so $C$ alone carries the resource. The rest of the paper unpacks this identity: minimizing $E^{(1)}(C)$ over codes gives Sidon sets as the unique maximizers, minimizing the weighted energy over states of the code space gives the capacity, coset closure invariance makes magic a quotient property, and the period subgroup $P(C)$ controls transversal diagonal gates. The authors present the identity as exact and the consequences as holding for every CWS code of the stated sizes.

Load-bearing premise

The paper counts a code's magic as the magic of its flat code state $|C\rangle$, not of the most magical state in the code space, and it explicitly flags this as a benchmark; the capacity can exceed the benchmark, by about $k$ bits for affine codes, so the extremal and gate statements are tied to that benchmark choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the identity holds, every CWS code state carries less than $2k$ bits of nonstabilizerness, independent of physical length $n$, and equality is attained exactly by Sidon codes whenever a Sidon set of the required size exists.
  • Coset closure preserves $M_2$, so non-stabilizer codes exist with arbitrarily many logical qubits and constant nonstabilizerness as $k$ grows.
  • A diagonal transversal gate that is non-Clifford on $t$ logical coordinates forces $M_2(C)\le 2(k-t)$, so a code cannot be simultaneously rich in magic and rich in transversal non-Clifford power.
  • The standard Kerdock codes have closed-form $M_2 = 3(m-1)-\log_2(7\cdot 2^{m-1}-6)$, with the Nordstrom-Robinson code giving $9-\log_2 50 \approx 3.356$.
  • For Sidon code states the stabilizer extent is pinned to within a factor $\sqrt{7}$ of the lower bound from $M_2$, giving constant-factor estimates of classical simulation cost and the required number of $T$ gates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gap between the flat code state and the code-space capacity is bounded for Sidon codes but unbounded for affine codes, so any operational claim about a code's magic should specify whether it refers to the benchmark state or to the worst-case state of the code space.
  • Maximal magic requires Sidon sets, which in $F_2^n$ exist only for $k\le \lfloor n/2\rfloor$; this suggests a physical-overhead floor of roughly twice the logical qubit count for a magic-maximal code, a corollary the paper does not single out.
  • The dictionary extends to weighted subset states through the same fourth-moment identity, so the same parallelogram count should control nonstabilizerness of arbitrary superpositions over a classical code, not only the flat uniform state.
  • Because $E^{(1)}(C)$ is a classical counting problem, randomized sampling or Bell-difference estimation of Pauli fourth moments could test the formula directly on small devices without full state tomography.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quantitative theory of nonstabilizerness for codeword-stabilized (CWS) quantum codes. The central result is a dictionary, Eq. (15): for the uniform code state |C> of a CWS code with classical code C of size 2^k, the second-order stabilizer Rényi entropy is M2(|C>) = 4k - log2 E^(1)(C), where E^(1)(C) is the parallelogram energy of C. From this dictionary the paper derives: Theorem 1 (Sidon sets maximize M2(|C>), with the universal bound M2 < 2k), Theorem 4 (coset-closure invariance of M2), Lemma 3 and Theorem 5 (Kerdock sets are Sidon, giving closed-form M2 values for Kerdock and Nordstrom–Robinson codes), Theorem 3 (encoding-cost lower bounds via stabilizer extent), and Theorems 6–7 (classification of diagonal transversal gates and the gate–nonstabilizerness tradeoff M2 <= 2(k-t)). The paper also defines and analyzes the code-space capacity M2max(C), the Choi-state value, higher Rényi orders, and includes a verification ledger in Appendix G.

Significance. If the dictionary is correct, this is a substantial advance: it converts a quantum resource question into a classical additive-combinatorics problem, yields exact values for entire nonlinear code families of unbounded block length, and gives a quantitative form of the Bravyi–König intuition. The paper's strengths are explicit and checkable: Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 are derived with no free parameters, Lemma 3 contains a nontrivial and apparently correct proof that Kerdock sets are Sidon, the numerical ledger in Appendix G independently confirms the main formulas, and the framework reproduces known Dicke- and hypergraph-state results. The main caveat, acknowledged in the text, is that the headline 'magic of a code' is defined as M2 of the flat benchmark code state |C>, not the code-space capacity; the paper itself shows the two can differ by an unbounded amount for affine codes and that the capacity violates the Theorem 7 tradeoff.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. II.A; Sec. V.B] The abstract and title use the unqualified phrase 'a code's nonstabilizerness,' but throughout the paper the quantity being quantified is M2(|C>), the flat uniform code state, not the code-space capacity M2max(C) defined in Eq. (22). This distinction is load-bearing for the headline claims: Proposition 1 shows that for affine codes M2max can exceed M2(|C>) by roughly k bits, and the paragraph after Theorem 7 explicitly states that M2max(C) <= 2(k-t) is false. The paper is transparent about this in Sec. II.A and Sec. V.B, but the abstract currently risks being read as making statements about the code space. I recommend that the abstract and the statement of Theorem 7 explicitly say 'code-state nonstabilizerness' or otherwise qualify the benchmark dependence.
  2. [Sec. III.A.1; Appendix D] Theorem 1 correctly identifies Sidon sets as the exact maximizers when Sidon sets of the required size exist. However, the abstract's phrase 'the most magical codes are exactly the Sidon sets whenever a Sidon set of the required size exists' may be read as solving the full extremal problem. In the unsaturated regime, where no Sidon set exists, the exact maximizer is left open; Appendix D states that the exact optimum beyond the half-space regime n=k+1 remains open. This is not a defect of Theorem 1, but it should be made explicit in the main text near the abstract's claim so that readers do not overstate the scope of the extremal solution.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The notation E(C∩(C⊕x)) is used before the additive energy E(S) of an arbitrary subset S is formally defined for subsets other than C; please add a sentence defining E(S) for a general subset S.
  2. [Sec. IV.B] The sentence 'Theorem 5 is directly obtain via the Sidon property' contains a grammatical error ('obtain' should be 'obtained').
  3. [Appendix D, Table II] The status column for the k=5 and k=6 rows says 'lower bound' and 'upper bound' without specifying which quantity is bounded. Since the table reports E^(1) and M2, please clarify that the displayed E^(1) is a lower bound and the resulting M2 is an upper bound, or vice versa, as appropriate.
  4. [Sec. V.B] The caveat that M2max(C) <= 2(k-t) is false is important and currently appears only after the proof of Theorem 7. Consider moving a one-sentence version into the theorem statement itself so the benchmark-specific nature of the tradeoff is visible to a reader who reads only the theorem.
  5. [Fig. 2] In the right panel, the phrase 'no parallelogram' is correct for a Sidon 4-set in F_2^3, but a casual reader might misread it as 'no additive quadruples.' Consider writing 'no nondegenerate affine parallelogram' to avoid confusion.
  6. [Sec. IV.B] The Kerdock closed form is proved for the standard trace-defined Kerdock construction; the paper notes that non-desarguesian Kantor-type constructions remain open. This qualification is good and should be preserved in any future summary of the result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity in the central dictionary; the only self-citation is background, and the benchmark-dependence of 'code magic' is explicitly acknowledged, not hidden.

full rationale

The central identity, Eq. (15), M2(|C>) = 4k − log2 E^(1)(C), is derived rather than assumed: Lemma 1 removes the graph by a Clifford conjugation, and Lemma 2 computes M2, defined independently in Eq. (7), from the classical layer/parallelogram quantities of Eqs. (8)-(10) via Parseval. There is no fitted parameter and no quantity is redefined as the answer it is supposed to predict. The Sidon extremal bound, coset invariance, Kerdock values, and gate tradeoff all follow from this identity and from elementary combinatorics; the Kerdock-sidonness is proved in Lemma 3 rather than imported. The paper is transparent that |C> is a benchmark, not the most magical code-space state (Sec. II A), and Sec. V.B explicitly states that the capacity Mmax2(C) does not satisfy Mmax2(C) ≤ 2(k−t), giving the affine-code counterexample; this is an acknowledged interpretive limitation, not a circular step. The only self-citation, [55], appears in the background phrase 'Choi–Jamiołkowski state encodes the full action of the encoding isometry [53–55]' and is not load-bearing for any theorem. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. I therefore assign score 1 only for the non-load-bearing self-citation, with no circular step identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is parameter-free: no numbers are fit to data. It rests on imported theorems: properties of SRE as a monotone and Clifford invariant, graph-state facts, stabilizer-extent bounds with unknown constant c, Vizing's theorem, existence of Sidon sets from the cube-map construction, and the standard Kerdock-set property of nondegenerate pairwise differences. The benchmark reading of |C> is a modeling choice, not a theorem. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption SRE M2 is Clifford-invariant, zero on stabilizer states, and a monotone under stabilizer operations.
    Imported from Refs. [17,32]; this is what lets Lemma 1 turn encoded-state magic into subset-state magic and what gives the T-gate and simulation cost readings.
  • domain assumption Each codeword Z^w |G> is a stabilizer state.
    Standard graph-state fact from Refs. [42-44]; implies all nonstabilizerness of the code state lives in the superposition, justifying the code-state measure.
  • domain assumption log2 xi and log2 chi are lower-bounded by M2/2, and Clifford+T circuits with t non-Clifford gates increase stabilizer rank by at most c^t.
    From Refs. [17,32,56-58]; the constant c is left unspecified, so Theorem 3's T-gate lower bound is up to an O(1) constant.
  • standard math Vizing's theorem: the edge-chromatic number of a graph is at most Delta(G)+1.
    Used in Lemma 1 to make the decoupling Clifford circuit constant-depth for bounded-degree graphs.
  • standard math Sidon sets of size 2^k exist in F_2^n for k <= floor(n/2), e.g., the graph of x -> (x,x^3).
    Assumed from additive combinatorics [40]; needed for the exact attainability of the extremal bound.
  • domain assumption The standard Kerdock set K_m, via the alternating forms B_a of Eq. (50), has pairwise nondegenerate differences B_a + B_b for a != b.
    Imported from Kerdock-set literature [63,67]; Lemma 3 turns this into the Sidon property used by Theorem 5. If a Kerdock construction lacks this property, the closed form may fail.
  • domain assumption The uniform code state |C> is the representative whose M2 defines 'the nonstabilizerness of the code'.
    A modeling choice flagged in Sec. II A; without it, the capacity M2max(C) gives different values, and the gate tradeoff of Theorem 7 does not hold for the capacity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying Nonstabilizerness of Codeword-Stabilized Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXEM3ELR

@misc{pith2026260822017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying Nonstabilizerness of Codeword-Stabilized Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXEM3ELR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.22017}
}
abstract

Fault-tolerant quantum computation requires non-Clifford gates, which stabilizer codes cannot supply transversally. Non-stabilizer codes are the natural place to look for them, yet no quantitative theory of the nonstabilizerness (or magic) carried by such a code has existed. We develop one for codeword-stabilized (CWS) codes and show that the key quantity is classical: a code's nonstabilizerness is fixed by how its codewords collide under translation, a question that belongs to additive combinatorics. We show that the most magical codes are exactly the Sidon sets whenever a Sidon set of the required size exists, whose pairwise differences are all distinct. No code carries more than twice its number of logical qubits of nonstabilizerness however large it is physically. Furthermore, the same reduction gives structural and operational results. Nonstabilizerness is unchanged by coset closure, which yields non-stabilizer codes with arbitrarily many logical qubits and constant nonstabilizerness as the number of logical qubits grows. A diagonal transversal gate with $k$ logic qubits that is non-Clifford on $t$ coordinates forces the code's nonstabilizerness to be at most $2(k-t)$; thus the nonstabilizerness also bounds the non-Clifford gates needed to build the code and the cost of classically simulating it. Finally, entire families become exactly computable, and we obtain closed-form values for the Kerdock codes. Together these results turn the search for magic-rich codes and transversal non-Clifford gates into classical counting problems, which can be approached with standard tools from additive combinatorics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.22017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A CWS code is specified by a graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Extremes. Left: affine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Coset invariance of nonstabilizerness. In the drawn example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The layer/spectrum contrast behind the gate– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The code-state maximum A setC⊂F n 2 is a Sidon set [47, 48] if all its nonzero pairwise differences are distinct, equivalentlyA(x)∈ {0,2}for everyx̸= 0. For a Sidon set of sizem= 2 k the two energiesE(C) andE (1)(C) are explicit: each of the m 2 distinct differences contributes a layer of two elements with energy 8, so E(C) = 3m 2−2m, E(1)(C) =E(C) + 8 m ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Let VC := span Zw|G⟩|w∈C (21) be the code space, and define its nonstabilizerness capac- ity, the subspace stabilizer entropy of Ref

    The code-space capacity We now maximizeM 2 over the code space rather than over codes. Let VC := span Zw|G⟩|w∈C (21) be the code space, and define its nonstabilizerness capac- ity, the subspace stabilizer entropy of Ref. [50], Mmax 2 (C) := max |ψ⟩∈VC M2(|ψ⟩).(22) 6 affineC(stabilizer code) 00 10 01 11 parallelograms everywhere E(1) = 2 4k ⇒M 2 = 0 Sidon ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Kerdock set

    The benchmark and its stability The following proposition locates the code state within its code space and justifies the reading ofM 2(|C⟩) as a benchmark. Proposition 2.For every code, among the phase-flat states|ψ⟩=m −1/2P w∈C eiϕw|w⟩the code state|C⟩min- imizesM 2: M2(|ψ⟩)≥M 2(|C⟩),(29) with equality if and only if, on every difference layerSx = C∩(C⊕x...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The same coset-closure argument applies to the Delsarte–Goethals codes DG(m,r), which are unions of cosets of RM(1,m) with pairwise coset differences of rank ≥m−2(r−1) [62, 63]

    hasM 2 = 9−log 2 50≈3.356, and asm→∞the nonstabilizerness densityM 2/k→1 while the physical densityM 2/n→0. The same coset-closure argument applies to the Delsarte–Goethals codes DG(m,r), which are unions of cosets of RM(1,m) with pairwise coset differences of rank ≥m−2(r−1) [62, 63]. Forr=m/2 one recovers the Kerdock code and the closed form above; forr<...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The weighted dictionary of Lemma 2 lifts to every order by the same derivation

    IfCis affine, thenS x isCor empty,E α(C) =m 2α−1, andE (α−1)(C) =m 2α, soM α = 0 for allα, as re- quired of a stabilizer state. The weighted dictionary of Lemma 2 lifts to every order by the same derivation. Withf x(w) = ψw⊕xψw as there, define the weighted order-2αlayer energy Eψ α (Sx) := X w(1),...,w(α)∈Sx w′(1),...,w′(α)∈SxL iw(i)=L jw′(j) αY i=1 fx(w...

    work page

  6. [6]

    TheK(4) row further verifiesP(K(4)) = RM(1,4): all 32 affine translations preserve the code, the fifteen hyperplane in- dicators 1H are periods while no point indicatore i is, so by Theorem 6 the diagonal transversal gates are exactly the Pauli gates{Z z|z∈RM(1,4)}. The stability checks of Proposition 3 are likewise numerical: the amplitude vertex weight ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Jacoby, Y

    S. Jacoby, Y. Vaknin, A. Retzker, and A. L. Grimsmo, Magic state injection with erasure qubits, PRX Quantum 6, 040323 (2025)

    2025

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Daguerre, R

    L. Daguerre, R. Blume-Kohout, N. C. Brown, D. Hayes, and I. H. Kim, Experimental demonstration of high- fidelity logical magic states from code switching, Phys. Rev. X15, 041008 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Sales Rodriguez, J

    P. Sales Rodriguez, J. M. Robinson, P. N. Jepsen, Z. He, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, K.-H. Wu, J. Campo, K. Bagnall, M. Kwon,et al., Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation, Nature645, 620 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    R. S. Gupta, N. Sundaresan, T. Alexander, C. J. Wood, S. T. Merkel, M. B. Healy, M. Hillenbrand, T. Jochym- O’Connor, J. R. Wootton, T. J. Yoder,et al., Encoding a magic state with beyond break-even fidelity, Nature625, 259 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    S.-u. Lee, M. Yuan, S. Chen, K. Tsubouchi, and L. Jiang, Efficient benchmarking of logical magic state, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 050602 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    A. C. Nakhl, B. Harper, M. West, N. Dowling, M. Sev- ior, T. Quella, and M. Usman, Stabilizer tensor networks with magic state injection, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 190602 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Chitambar and G

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

    2019

  7. [15]

    Eastin and E

    B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the via- bility of universal quantum computation using teleporta- tion and single-qubit operations, Nature402, 390 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    Bravyi and R

    S. Bravyi and R. K¨ onig, Classification of topologically protected gates for local stabilizer codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170503 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Kobayashi, G

    R. Kobayashi, G. Zhu, and P.-S. Hsin, Clifford hierar- chy stabilizer codes: Transversal non-Clifford gates and magic states, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 250802 (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    Wills, M.-H

    A. Wills, M.-H. Hsieh, and H. Yamasaki, Constant- overhead magic state distillation, Nat. Phys.21, 1842 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Cross, G

    A. Cross, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and B. Zeng, Codeword stabilized quantum codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory55, 433 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Chuang, A

    I. Chuang, A. Cross, G. Smith, J. Smolin, and B. Zeng, Codeword stabilized quantum codes: Algorithm and structure, J. Math. Phys.50, 042109 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Bravyi and A

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

    2005

  15. [23]

    Leone, S

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

    2022

  16. [24]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Dehaene and B

    J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over GF(2), Phys. Rev. A68, 042318 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error- correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    U. S. Kapshikar, The diagonal distance of CWS codes (2021), arXiv:2107.11286 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable measures of magic re- source for quantum computers, PRX Quantum4, 010301 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Odavi´ c, T

    J. Odavi´ c, T. Haug, G. Torre, A. Hamma, F. Franchini, and S. M. Giampaolo, Complexity of frustration: A new source of non-local non-stabilizerness, SciPost Phys.15, 131 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    A. G. Catalano, J. Odavi´ c, G. Torre, A. Hamma, F. Fran- chini, and S. M. Giampaolo, Magic phase transition and non-local complexity in generalized W state, SciPost Phys. Core8, 078 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    L.-Y.-N. Liu, S. Yi, and J. Cui, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy for translation-invariant matrix product states, Phys. Rev. A113, 062414 (2026)

    2026

  24. [32]

    J. Chen, Y. Yan, and Y. Zhou, Magic of quantum hyper- graph states, Quantum8, 1351 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    L. Chen, R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Magic of random matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B109, 174207 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Wang and Y

    Y. Wang and Y. Li, Stabilizer R´ enyi entropy on qudits, Quantum Inf. Process.22, 444 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Passarelli, R

    G. Passarelli, R. Fazio, and P. Lucignano, Nonstabilizer- ness of permutationally invariant systems, Phys. Rev. A 21 110, 022436 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Wei and Z.-W

    F. Wei and Z.-W. Liu, Long-range nonstabilizerness and quantum codes, phases, and complexity (2026), arXiv:2503.04566 [quant-ph]

    2026

  29. [37]

    D. A. Korbany, M. J. Gullans, and L. Piroli, Long-range nonstabilizerness and phases of matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 160404 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Leone and L

    L. Leone and L. Bittel, Stabilizer entropies are mono- tones for magic-state resource theory, Phys. Rev. A110, L040403 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Rall, Signed quantum weight enumerators characterize qubit magic state distillation (2017), arXiv:1702.06990 [quant-ph]

    P. Rall, Signed quantum weight enumerators characterize qubit magic state distillation (2017), arXiv:1702.06990 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C. Cao, M. J. Gullans, B. Lackey, and Z. Wang, Quan- tum Lego expansion pack: Enumerators from tensor net- works, PRX Quantum5, 030313 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sierant, J

    P. Sierant, J. Vall` es-Muns, and A. Garcia-Saez, Comput- ing quantum magic of state vectors, Quantum10, 2059 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    Zhang, Z

    C. Zhang, Z. Wu, S. Huang, and B. Zeng, Transver- sal gates in nonadditive quantum codes (2025), arXiv:2504.20847 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kubischta and I

    E. Kubischta and I. Teixeira, Family of quantum codes with exotic transversal gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240601 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    J. T. Anderson and T. Jochym-O’Connor, Classification of transversal gates in qubit stabilizer codes, Quantum Inf. Comput.16, 771 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Dasu and S

    S. Dasu and S. Burton, A classification of transver- sal Clifford gates for qubit stabilizer codes (2025), arXiv:2507.10519 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Czerwinski and A

    I. Czerwinski and A. Pott, Sidon sets, sum-free sets and linear codes, Adv. Math. Commun.18, 549 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    T. Can, N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, and H. D. Pfis- ter, Kerdock codes determine unitary 2-designs, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory66, 6104 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Persistent entangle- ment in arrays of interacting particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Multiparty entan- glement in graph states, Phys. Rev. A69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    Diestel,Graph Theory, 5th ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017) pp

    R. Diestel,Graph Theory, 5th ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017) pp. XVIII, 428, with 119 b/w illustrations

    2017

  44. [52]

    Xiao and S

    Z. Xiao and S. Ryu, Exponentially accelerated sampling of Pauli strings for nonstabilizerness, Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 070402 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Sidon, Ein satz ¨ uber trigonometrische polynome und seine anwendung in der theorie der fourier-reihen, Math

    S. Sidon, Ein satz ¨ uber trigonometrische polynome und seine anwendung in der theorie der fourier-reihen, Math. Ann.106, 536 (1932)

    1932

  46. [54]

    Babai and V

    L. Babai and V. T. S´ os, Sidon sets in groups and induced subgraphs of cayley graphs, Europ. J. Combinatorics6, 101 (1985)

    1985

  47. [55]

    Szombathy, A

    D. Szombathy, A. Valli, C. u. u. u. u. P. m. c. Moca, L. Farkas, and G. Zar´ and, Asymptotically independent fluctuations of stabilizer r´ enyi entropy and entanglement in random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043072 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Cepollaro, G

    S. Cepollaro, G. Cuffaro, M. B. Weiss, S. Cusumano, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Stabilizer entropy of subspaces (2025), arXiv:2512.23013 [quant-ph]

    2025

  49. [57]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Maximal magic for two-qubit states, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 015035 (2026)

    2026

  50. [58]

    Cuffaro and C

    G. Cuffaro and C. A. Fuchs, Quantum states with max- imal magic (2024), arXiv:2412.21083 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    M. M. Wilde,Quantum Information Theory, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Y. Liu, L. Lin, and K.-M. Xu, Why some quantum states cannot be recovered (2026), arXiv:2607.21240 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Trading classical and quantum computational resources, Phys. Rev. X6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and R. K¨ onig, Quantum advantage with shallow circuits, Science362, 308 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum com- puting, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Fang and Z.-W

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, No-go theorems for quantum re- source purification, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 060405 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Fang and Z.-W

    K. Fang and Z.-W. Liu, No-go theorems for quantum resource purification: New approach and channel theory, PRX Quantum3, 010337 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Kerdock, A class of low-rate nonlinear binary codes, Information and Control20, 182 (1972)

    A. Kerdock, A class of low-rate nonlinear binary codes, Information and Control20, 182 (1972)

    1972

  60. [68]

    Hammons, P

    A. Hammons, P. Kumar, A. Calderbank, N. Sloane, and P. Sole, TheZ 4-linearity of Kerdock, Preparata, Goethals, and related codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 40, 301 (1994)

    1994

  61. [69]

    A. R. Calderbank, P. Cameron, W. Kantor, and J. Sei- del,Z 4-Kerdock codes, orthogonal spreads, and extremal Euclidean line-sets, Proc. London Math. Soc.75(1997)

    1997

  62. [70]

    C. Carlet, Boolean functions for cryptography and error- correcting codes, inBoolean Models and Methods in Mathematics, Computer Science, and Engineering, En- cyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, edited by Y. Crama and P. L. Hammer (Cambridge University Press, 2010)...

    2010

  63. [71]

    A. W. Nordstrom and J. P. Robinson, An optimum non- linear code, Information and Control11, 613 (1967)

    1967

  64. [72]

    E. Abbe, A. Shpilka, and M. Ye, Reed–Muller codes: Theory and algorithms, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory67, 3251 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Dempwolff and W

    U. Dempwolff and W. M. Kantor, Orthogonal dual hy- perovals, symplectic spreads, and orthogonal spreads, J. Algebraic Combin.41, 83 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    S. Chen, W. Gong, Q. Ye, and Z. Zhang, Stabilizer boot- strapping: A recipe for efficient agnostic tomography and magic estimation, inProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.