Entanglement manipulation and magic area-laws

Rafael A. Macedo; Rafael Chaves

REVIEW

Entanglement manipulation and magic area-laws

Rafael A. Macedo, Rafael Chaves

Quantum Physics · Submitted 6 Oct 2026 · 66 references

Pith's verdict: A correct one-way witness dressed up as a dichotomy, and a hardness theorem that should own its pseudorandomness dependence; the appendix math that matters is right.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 7, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.08727 (version 1)

Pith IDEPEB5INT, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationRafael A. Macedo, Rafael Chaves. "Entanglement manipulation and magic area-laws." arXiv:2610.08727 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPEB5INT

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: the genuinely new pieces are real and mostly check out. Lemma 3's closed-form subsystem magic formula with the O(4^nu n^3) algorithm, Lemma 7's sphere-packing embedding that makes the MD ensembles area-law in D>=2, Lemma 4 (M2tilde <= nu), and the stabilizer-regime notion of Definition 4 are all new. Theorem 2 follows cleanly from Lemma 4 plus Definition 3, and I re-derived it: in the ED direction, nu = o(S), the area law gives S = O(|dA|), so M2tilde = o(|dA|). Correct as stated.

The problem is packaging. The abstract and intro (b38, b6) sell Theorem 2 as a two-way dichotomy: "magic-dominated states exhibit a faster-than-area growth." Only the witness direction is proven, and the converse is false: take an area-law state with a sparse spread of ~log n T-gates inside otherwise stabilizer entanglement. It is MD (S = O(nu)) for any large cut, yet M2tilde = o(|dA|) whenever |dA| = omega(log n). The theorem's formal statement is honestly one-way; the abstract overstates it. Required fix, not a structural failure.

On Theorem 1, I partly disagree with your stress-test. The parameter-regime worry does not clearly land: with nu = Theta(log^c n) and |S| = exp(log^{c'} n), c' < c, you get 2^nu/|S| superpolynomial, which is exactly the exponential smallness regime [59] needs. And padding with |0> is an isometry, which preserves m-copy trace distance, so the sparse embedding should not by itself destroy pseudorandomness. The narrower point stands: App. B is explicitly a sketch, the theorem statement reads as unconditional, and it never flags its dependence on [23]'s Theorem 10 and on subset-phase-state pseudorandomness. That dependence must be declared and the reduction either filled in or weakened to a conditional claim.

The typicality premise (gapped ground states have extensive magic) rests on numerics plus the App. C random-MPS argument, which the authors themselves call hard to make precise. Honest, and I do not hold it against them. The citation pattern is healthy: [23], [57], [59] are independent author sets and the imported results are load-bearing but real.

Every appendix proof I checked is internally consistent: Lemma 4's bound, Lemma 7's boundary estimate via Bollobas-Leader, Lemma 3's reduction at A=[n], Proposition 8's nullity growth. Theorem 1's conditional status, not its internal math, is what a referee must probe. This deserves serious peer review with a major-revision path: fix the abstract, flag Theorem 1's assumptions, expand the reduction. For anyone working on magic area laws or the ED/MD split, this is useful work. Recommend: engage.

Referee report

Significance

If correct, the paper delivers a clean, falsifiable dichotomy: within area-law states, the asymptotic complexity of entanglement manipulation is governed by the scaling of subsystem non-stabilizerness. Theorem 2 is a genuine structural result whose proof is short and checkable (Lemma 4 + Definition 3), and Lemma 7's new sparse-embedding argument with its isoperimetric boundary estimates is sound and independently verifiable. The paper is unusually transparent about its premises: the alpha = 0 (Schmidt-rank) area law is declared an explicit assumption (Sec. IIA), the D = 1 case is acknowledged as avoiding the hardness claim, and the typicality of extensive magic in ground states is labeled as hard to make precise. The main risk is the headline no-go (Theorem 1), which is gated by imported results from [23], [57], and [59] applied through a compressed proof; that gate needs explicit verification before the main claim can be considered established.

Major objections (3)

[App. B, proof of Theorem 1, Eq. (B17)] The impossibility conclusion rests on a single asserted bound, ||E_{psi~Eg,S,nu} psi^{otimes m} - E_{psi~EHaar(nu)} psi^{otimes m}||_1 <= o(1/poly(n)) for all m = O(poly n), attributed to [59] at the parameter choices of Proposition 5 (nu = Theta(log^c n), |S| = Theta(exp log^{c'} n), c' in (1,c)). The manuscript should identify the precise theorem of [59] being invoked and verify two things: (i) that the trace-distance bound holds uniformly over the copy counts m used by the hypothetical entanglement-manipulation protocol in the reduction (not merely for some m), and (ii) that the regime nu = Theta(log^c n), |S| = Theta(exp log^{c'} n) satisfies that theorem's stated hypotheses. As written, the step is a one-sentence assertion in a load-bearing position. Note that the zero-padding used in Eqs. (B1)-(B2) is transparent (tensoring with |0>^{otimes(n-nu)} preserves the m-copy trace distance exactly), so the embedding itself does not distort the distinguisher; the uniformity and parameter-regime match are the genuine bottlenecks.
[Theorem 1 statement] The theorem quantifies over 'all area-law MD states satisfying S(psi_A) = omega(log n)' without restricting the spatial dimension D, but the proof (Lemma 7 and Corollary 1) requires D >= 2, and the manuscript itself notes in Sec. IIIA that D = 1 'apparently avoids the hardness result' since 1D MPS are MD yet admit efficient entanglement protocols. As stated, the theorem is stronger than what is proven. The statement should be restricted to D >= 2 area-law states, or the proof extended, with the D = 1 scope made explicit in the theorem rather than only in the discussion. The authors acknowledge this: “An interesting point to make is thatD=1 apparently avoids the hardness result.”
[App. B, reduction to Proposition 5] For Proposition 5, item 2's implication (existence of a protocol implies a distinguisher) to fire, the embedded ensembles must satisfy S(psi_A) = omega(log n) and be MD on the specific bipartitions the hypothetical protocol is guaranteed to handle. The manuscript asserts the ensembles are MD (Proposition 5, item 1) but does not explicitly construct the cuts or verify the entropy condition. In particular, a cut A that contains the entire support Q of the nu-qubit state gives S(psi_A) = 0 (the state is pure inside A), so the relevant cuts must split Q nontrivially with |A cap Q| = omega(log n); such cuts exist (e.g., |A cap Q| = Theta(nu) = Theta(log^c n), c > 1) but the verification should be written down, along with the area-law check S(psi_A) = O(|dA|) for those cuts. Since Definition 3 also requires min{|A|,|A_bar|} = omega(log n), the choice of cuts must be made explicit.

Minor objections (6)

[Abstract] The abstract contains the duplicate article in 'exhibit a a faster-than-area growth'; please fix.
[Sec. II, footnote 1] The Bachmann-Landau footnote defines f = Theta(g) as 'f=O(g) & f=Omega(n)'; the second clause should read f = Omega(g).
[Theorem 1, item (2)] The phrasing 'distills a vanishing fraction of Bell pairs, with M+/S(psi_A) >= c > 0' is self-contradictory; the proof shows that a constant fraction (M+/S = Omega(1)) cannot be distilled, i.e., only M+/S = o(1) is possible. Please align the statement with the proof.
[App. C] The text states the ground space can be represented as an MPS 'of sublinear bond dimension' but then sets chi = O(n), which is linear; in addition the cited bounds [29,31,32] give subexponential (not necessarily linear) bond dimensions. The displayed parameter chi = O(n) and the 'sublinear' claim should be reconciled with the cited results.
[Lemma 3, App. D3] The formula for M2tilde(psi_A) in Eq. (13) is asserted 'for any A', but it requires the index set I to be nonempty; when no operator h_i P survives the partial trace (all delta_i = 0, e.g., a cluster-type stabilizer state reduced to a single qubit), the ratio is 0/0. The degenerate cases have M2tilde = 0 and do not affect Theorems 1-2, but the lemma statement should be qualified.
[Lemma 5, Sec. IV and App. D5] The conclusion that psi' 'is also ED and area-law' is derived from S(psi'_A) = Theta(S(psi_A)), which only preserves the von Neumann entropy scaling; the full all-alpha area law of Definition 2 (in particular the alpha = 0 exact Schmidt-rank bound) does not follow from the stabilizer-regime definition. The claim should be restricted to the von Neumann-entropy part or Definition 4 amended.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Area-law quantum states inherit the entanglement-dominated versus magic-dominated split: entanglement-dominated states obey a magic area law and admit efficient entanglement manipulation, while magic-dominated area-law states remain…

The reading

Quantum ground states of local Hamiltonians have entanglement that grows only with the boundary of the probed region, but their magic (non-stabilizerness) typically grows with volume, and this paper claims the two behaviours sort area-law states into two computationally opposite classes. Entanglement-dominated (ED) area-law states obey an area law for magic, $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)=O(|\partial A|)$, and admit efficient protocols for estimating, distilling, and diluting entanglement. Magic-dominated (MD) area-law states show subsystem magic growing faster than the boundary, $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)=\omega(|\partial A|)$, and remain provably hard to manipulate even though their entanglement is still boundary-localized. The paper introduces the stabilizer regime — states connected by $t=o(\log n)$-doped finite-depth circuits that preserve entropy scaling — as the restricted phase where both area laws hold and efficient processing is possible. The practical stake is which ground states, stabilizer codes included, keep their structure usable for quantum information tasks like decoding.

What carries the argument

Three objects carry the argument. The measure $\tilde M_2(\psi)\equiv M_2(\psi)-S_2(\psi)$, the entropy-subtracted stabilizer R\'enyi entropy, vanishes exactly on (not necessarily full-rank) stabilizer states, so for a subsystem it measures how much local magic leaks in. The nullity $\nu(\psi)$, which counts how many Pauli operators stabilize a state, supplies the bound $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)\le\nu(\psi)$ (Lemma 4): because ED means entanglement dominates nullity, the bound converts the ED/MD ordering directly into an area-law statement for magic. The $\ell$-sparse embedding (Proposition 7 and Lemma 7) is the mechanism that makes the hardness result area-law: a greedy sphere-packing algorithm places polylog-many magic-carrying qubits at mutual distance $\ell$ on the $D$-dimensional lattice, and the discrete isoperimetric inequality of Ref. [60] guarantees every region's intersection with the embedded qubits is bounded by its boundary, so the embedded ensembles are genuinely area-law while remaining magic-dominated.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that restricting the entanglement-dominated (ED) versus magic-dominated (MD) classification of quantum states to area-law states does not erase the dichotomy: the ED/MD split is inherited wholesale. Theorem 1 states that no single state-agnostic, sample-efficient protocol can estimate $S(\psi_A)$ to within $1/3$ relative error, distill a constant fraction $M_+/S(\psi_A)\ge c>0$ of Bell pairs, or dilute with constant overhead $M_-/S(\psi_A)\le C$, uniformly over all area-law MD states with $S(\psi_A)=\omega(\log n)$. The mechanism is an $\ell$-sparse embedding: magic-carrying ensembles are placed on the lattice by a sphere-packing algorithm so that their entanglement is localized to the boundary of any region while their magic content is untouched, turning the hardness proof of Ref. [23] into a hardness proof for area-law states. Theorem 2 claims the dichotomy is witnessed by the entropy-subtracted stabilizer R\'enyi entropy of subsystems: ED area-law states satisfy $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)=O(|\partial A|)$, and $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)=\omega(|\partial A|)$ implies MD. The stabilizer regime is then defined as the class of area-law states connected by $t=o(\log n)$-doped finite-depth circuits that preserve entropy scaling, and Lemma 5 shows it preserves both area laws and the ED property.

Load-bearing premise

Theorem 1 is conditional on two imported results the theorem statement does not flag: the reduction in Proposition 5 (drawing on Theorem 10 of Ref. [23] and Lemma S6 of Ref. [57]) that any efficient protocol on MD states would distinguish subset phase states from Haar-random states, and the pseudorandomness of those ensembles from Ref. [59]; if either fails, the impossibility claim collapses, and the narrative that typical gapped ground states are magic-dominated rests on numerics plus a random-matrix-product-state typicality argument the paper itself labels as hard to make precise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because Proposition 1 links extensive stabilizer R\'enyi entropy to magic domination, ground states with volume-law magic — the numerically typical case in one dimension — are magic-dominated, so their entanglement is not efficiently extractable, distillable, or dilutable even though it obeys an area law.
Subregion $\tilde M_2$ becomes an order-parameter-like witness: measuring a faster-than-area growth in $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)$ certifies magic domination, giving a cheaper probe of the ED/MD transition than running any of the three entanglement-manipulation tasks.
Adding $p=o(\log n)$ Pauli perturbations to a geometrically local stabilizer Hamiltonian keeps the ground state inside the stabilizer regime (nullity grows by at most $p$), so both area laws survive; once the perturbation count becomes extensive the ground state leaves the regime and loses efficient manipulation.
In one dimension the hardness barrier does not apply: matrix product states are magic-dominated yet admit efficient protocols, so the ED/MD separation is dimension-sensitive and the theorem's construction requires $D\ge2$.
Topological stabilizer codes such as the toric code have area-law ED structure at their fixed point, but generic in-phase perturbations push them towards MD, meaning the transition is observable within a single quantum phase.

Reading between the lines

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

If the theorems hold, phase stability alone should not certify information-processing usability: a topologically ordered ground state can remain in its quantum phase while losing the stabilizer structure that standard decoders rely on, so magic stability becomes a separate engineering quantity.
The area-law MD states built for Theorem 1 are sparse embeddings that the authors acknowledge need not be ground states of any local Hamiltonian; a testable question is whether genuine local Hamiltonians with extensive magic show the same hardness or whether ground-state structure restores some manipulation leverage.
A numerical scan of $\tilde M_2(\psi_A)$ across the phase diagram of the perturbed stabilizer models in Eq. (17) should exhibit a crossover from $O(|\partial A|)$ to $\omega(|\partial A|)$ scaling, which would map the ED/MD boundary without running entanglement protocols and could be compared against the actual complexity of estimation, distillation, and dilution.
The ED/MD split of area-law states likely transfers to any setting where the area law is an emergent constraint rather than a ground-state property, such as monitored circuits, since the paper's theorems use only the information-theoretic constraint.

Original abstract

Physical many-body quantum systems typically interact locally, giving rise to ground states where entanglement grows with the area of the region being probed. Beyond entanglement, non-stabilizerness (or "magic") has been established as another crucial resource linked to quantum complexity and the properties of error-correcting states. Unlike entanglement, non-stabilizerness typically behaves with a volume-law scaling in ground states, indicating inherent computational complexity. In this work, we show that under a recent classification of quantum states, area-law states split into two distinct classes. Entanglement-dominated states obey an area-law for non-stabilizerness and admit efficient quantum algorithms for entanglement manipulation. Conversely, magic-dominated states exhibit a a faster-than-area growth of subsystem non-stabilizerness and require non-efficient algorithms for entanglement manipulation tasks. Within this context, we introduce the concept of the stabilizer regime, a restricted quantum phase that admits efficient entanglement manipulation and hosts area laws for both magic and entanglement.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-07: 1 request, 5,603 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.15 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.40 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Physical many-body quantum systems typically interact locally, giving rise to ground states where entanglement grows with the area of the region being probed. Beyond entanglement, non-stabilizerness (or "magic") has been established as another crucial resource linked to quantum complexity and the properties of error-correcting states. Unlike entanglement, non-stabilizerness typically behaves with a volume-law scaling in ground states, indicating inherent computational complexity. In this work, we show that under a recent classification of quantum states, area-law states split into two distinct classes. Entanglement-dominated states obey an area-law for non-stabilizerness and admit efficient quantum algorithms for entanglement manipulation. Conversely, magic-dominated states exhibit a a faster-than-area growth of subsystem non-stabilizerness and require non-efficient algorithms for entanglement manipulation tasks. Within this context, we introduce the concept of the stabilizer regime, a restricted quantum phase that admits efficient entanglement manipulation and hosts area laws for both magic and entanglement.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Physical many-body quantum systems typically interact locally, giving rise to ground states where entanglement grows with the area of the region being probed.	background 1.00	0.04	0.02	asserted 0.93
s1	Beyond entanglement, non-stabilizerness (or "magic") has been established as another crucial resource linked to quantum complexity and the properties of error-correcting states.	background 1.00	0.06	0.03	asserted 1.00
s2	Unlike entanglement, non-stabilizerness typically behaves with a volume-law scaling in ground states, indicating inherent computational complexity.	background 0.99	0.07	0.04	asserted 0.58
s3	In this work, we show that under a recent classification of quantum states, area-law states split into two distinct classes.	contribution 0.66	0.79	0.20	asserted 1.00
s4	Entanglement-dominated states obey an area-law for non-stabilizerness and admit efficient quantum algorithms for entanglement manipulation.	result 0.99	0.83	0.27	asserted 1.00
s5	Conversely, magic-dominated states exhibit a a faster-than-area growth of subsystem non-stabilizerness and require non-efficient algorithms for entanglement manipulation tasks.	result 0.98	0.82	0.23	asserted 1.00
s6	Within this context, we introduce the concept of the stabilizer regime, a restricted quantum phase that admits efficient entanglement manipulation and hosts area laws for both magic and entanglement.	contribution 0.99	0.88	0.34	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.91.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Area-law states, illustrated at the bottom as quantum states with entanglement bounded by the perimeter of a subsystem

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The three information-theoretic tasks on which entanglement-dominated states admit quantum algorithms that are both time- and

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2610.08727 by the authors.

References

Works cited (66)

[59]

S. Aaronson, A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, U. Vazi- rani, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00747 (2022)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[23]

A. Gu, S. F. Oliviero, and L. Leone, PRX Quantum6, 020324 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[57]

A. Gu, L. Leone, S. Ghosh, J. Eisert, S. F. Yelin, and Y . Quek, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210602 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[1]

D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[2]

S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1148 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[3]

P. Hayden, D. W. Leung, and A. Winter, Commun. Math. Phys. 265, 95 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[4]

A. A. Mele, Quantum8, 1340 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[5]

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[6]

B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, X.-G. Wen,et al.,Quantum information meets quantum matter(Springer, 2019)

View on Pith 2019
[7]

X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[8]

S. Baiguera, V . Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M. P. Heller, and N. Y . Halpern, Physics Reports 1159, 1 (2026), quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science

View on Pith 2026
[9]

D. Gottesman, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[10]

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

View on Pith 2004
[11]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

View on Pith 2010
[12]

V . Veitch, S. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014)

View on Pith 2014
[13]

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

View on Pith 2017
[14]

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[15]

L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050402 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[16]

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

View on Pith 2024
[17]

T. Haug and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. B107, 035148 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[18]

P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Ba ˜nuls, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010601 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[19]

M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dal- monte, SciPost Phys.18, 165 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[20]

S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A106, 042426 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[21]

M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tir- rito, Phys. Rev. B110, 045101 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[22]

A. Y . Kitaev, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[24]

M. B. Hastings and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B72, 045141 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[25]

S. Bachmann, S. Michalakis, B. Nachtergaele, and R. Sims, Commun. Math. Phys.309, 835 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[26]

M. Born and V . Fock, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik51, 165 (1928)

View on Pith 1928
[27]

A. Coser and D. P ´erez-Garc´ıa, Quantum3, 174 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[28]

A. R ´enyi, inProceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1: contribu- tions to the theory of statistics, V ol. 4 (University of California Press, 1961) pp. 547–562

View on Pith 1961
[29]

M. B. Hastings, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2007(08), P08024

View on Pith 2007
[30]

F. G. Brand˜ao and M. Horodecki, Nature physics9, 721 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[31]

I. Arad, Z. Landau, and U. Vazirani, Phys. Rev. B85, 195145 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[32]

I. Arad, A. Kitaev, Z. Landau, and U. Vazirani, arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.1162 (2013)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[33]

A. Anshu, I. Arad, and D. Gosset, inProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (2022) pp. 12–18. 9

View on Pith 2022
[34]

Y . Ge and J. Eisert, New Journal of Physics18, 083026 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[35]

R. Vasseur, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17258 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[36]

M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V . Kliuchnikov, Quantum Science and Technology5, 035009 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[37]

L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, Y . Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum5, 453 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[38]

D. Fattal, T. S. Cubitt, Y . Yamamoto, S. Bravyi, and I. L. Chuang, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0406168 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[39]

A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A71, 022315 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[40]

L. Chen, R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. B109, 174207 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[41]

B. Zeng and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B91, 125121 (2015)

View on Pith 2015
[42]

M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y .-K. Liu, Nature communications1, 149 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[43]

G. Esposito, M. Viscardi, and A. Hamma, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.29443 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[44]

A. Gu, S. F. E. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Phys. Rev. A110, 062427 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[45]

S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and S. Micha- lakis, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 093512 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3490195/14759707/093512 1 online.pdf

View on Pith doi:10.1063/1.3490195/14759707/093512 2010
[46]

H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 910 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[47]

R. Raussendorf, S. Bravyi, and J. Harrington, Phys. Rev. A71, 062313 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[48]

D. V . Else, I. Schwarz, S. D. Bartlett, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 240505 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[49]

S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 050503 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[50]

E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[51]

S. Sang, Y . Zou, and T. H. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. X14, 031044 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[52]

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[53]

Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[54]

R. ´A. Macˆedo,Quantum codes, phases&magic, Ph.D. thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (2026)

View on Pith 2026
[55]

D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

View on Pith 1997
[56]

D. Gottesman, Textbook manuscript preprint (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[58]

L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Quantum8, 1361 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[60]

B. Bollob ´as and I. Leader, Combinatorica11, 299 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[61]

Y . Huang, arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.0327 (2014)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[62]

X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Nature Communications 16, 2575 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[63]

T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein,In- troduction to Algorithms, 4th ed. (MIT press, 2022). Appendix A: A brief review of stabilizer resource theory and non-stabilizer measures We will review the basics of stabilizer resource theory [12, 55, 56], by highlighting the concepts that will be necessary for our work. We will review the re...

View on Pith 2022
[64]

They are additive: For any other m qubit stateσ, f(ψ⊗σ)=f(ψ)+f(σ)

View on Pith
[65]

The R´ enyi entropies forms an hierarchy, Mα(ψ)<M α′(ψ)for anyψifα>α ′. Furthermore, for pure states, Mα(ψ)≤ν(ψ)

View on Pith
[66]

The SRE lower bounds the T gate count of pure states: If t(ψ)is the minimum number of T gates to prepareψ= |ψ⟩⟨ψ| from a stabilizer state, Mα(ψ)≤t(ψ). Some further properties are listed in the Supplemental Material of [57]. Notice that the definition of ˜M2 is such to construct a faithful measure for the ˜stabn resource theory. It captures subsystem non-s...

View on Pith

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [59]

S. Aaronson, A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, U. Vazi- rani, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00747 (2022)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [23]

A. Gu, S. F. Oliviero, and L. Leone, PRX Quantum6, 020324 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[3] [57]

A. Gu, L. Leone, S. Ghosh, J. Eisert, S. F. Yelin, and Y . Quek, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210602 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[4] [1]

D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[5] [2]

S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1148 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[6] [3]

P. Hayden, D. W. Leung, and A. Winter, Commun. Math. Phys. 265, 95 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[7] [4]

A. A. Mele, Quantum8, 1340 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[8] [5]

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[9] [6]

B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, X.-G. Wen,et al.,Quantum information meets quantum matter(Springer, 2019)

View on Pith 2019

[10] [7]

X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[11] [8]

S. Baiguera, V . Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M. P. Heller, and N. Y . Halpern, Physics Reports 1159, 1 (2026), quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science

View on Pith 2026

[12] [9]

D. Gottesman, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[13] [10]

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

View on Pith 2004

[14] [11]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

View on Pith 2010

[15] [12]

V . Veitch, S. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014)

View on Pith 2014

[16] [13]

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

View on Pith 2017

[17] [14]

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[18] [15]

L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050402 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[19] [16]

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

View on Pith 2024

[20] [17]

T. Haug and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. B107, 035148 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[21] [18]

P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Ba ˜nuls, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010601 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[22] [19]

M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dal- monte, SciPost Phys.18, 165 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[23] [20]

S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A106, 042426 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[24] [21]

M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tir- rito, Phys. Rev. B110, 045101 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[25] [22]

A. Y . Kitaev, Annals of physics303, 2 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[26] [24]

M. B. Hastings and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B72, 045141 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[27] [25]

S. Bachmann, S. Michalakis, B. Nachtergaele, and R. Sims, Commun. Math. Phys.309, 835 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[28] [26]

M. Born and V . Fock, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik51, 165 (1928)

View on Pith 1928

[29] [27]

A. Coser and D. P ´erez-Garc´ıa, Quantum3, 174 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[30] [28]

A. R ´enyi, inProceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1: contribu- tions to the theory of statistics, V ol. 4 (University of California Press, 1961) pp. 547–562

View on Pith 1961

[31] [29]

M. B. Hastings, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2007(08), P08024

View on Pith 2007

[32] [30]

F. G. Brand˜ao and M. Horodecki, Nature physics9, 721 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[33] [31]

I. Arad, Z. Landau, and U. Vazirani, Phys. Rev. B85, 195145 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[34] [32]

I. Arad, A. Kitaev, Z. Landau, and U. Vazirani, arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.1162 (2013)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[35] [33]

A. Anshu, I. Arad, and D. Gosset, inProceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (2022) pp. 12–18. 9

View on Pith 2022

[36] [34]

Y . Ge and J. Eisert, New Journal of Physics18, 083026 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[37] [35]

R. Vasseur, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17258 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[38] [36]

M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V . Kliuchnikov, Quantum Science and Technology5, 035009 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[39] [37]

L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, Y . Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum5, 453 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[40] [38]

D. Fattal, T. S. Cubitt, Y . Yamamoto, S. Bravyi, and I. L. Chuang, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0406168 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[41] [39]

A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A71, 022315 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[42] [40]

L. Chen, R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. B109, 174207 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[43] [41]

B. Zeng and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B91, 125121 (2015)

View on Pith 2015

[44] [42]

M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y .-K. Liu, Nature communications1, 149 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[45] [43]

G. Esposito, M. Viscardi, and A. Hamma, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.29443 (2026)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[46] [44]

A. Gu, S. F. E. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Phys. Rev. A110, 062427 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[47] [45]

S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and S. Micha- lakis, Journal of Mathematical Physics51, 093512 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3490195/14759707/093512 1 online.pdf

View on Pith doi:10.1063/1.3490195/14759707/093512 2010

[48] [46]

H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 910 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[49] [47]

R. Raussendorf, S. Bravyi, and J. Harrington, Phys. Rev. A71, 062313 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[50] [48]

D. V . Else, I. Schwarz, S. D. Bartlett, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 240505 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[51] [49]

S. Bravyi, D. Poulin, and B. Terhal, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 050503 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[52] [50]

E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[53] [51]

S. Sang, Y . Zou, and T. H. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. X14, 031044 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[54] [52]

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[55] [53]

Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[56] [54]

R. ´A. Macˆedo,Quantum codes, phases&magic, Ph.D. thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (2026)

View on Pith 2026

[57] [55]

D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

View on Pith 1997

[58] [56]

D. Gottesman, Textbook manuscript preprint (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[59] [58]

L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Quantum8, 1361 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[60] [60]

B. Bollob ´as and I. Leader, Combinatorica11, 299 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[61] [61]

Y . Huang, arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.0327 (2014)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[62] [62]

X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Nature Communications 16, 2575 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[63] [63]

T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein,In- troduction to Algorithms, 4th ed. (MIT press, 2022). Appendix A: A brief review of stabilizer resource theory and non-stabilizer measures We will review the basics of stabilizer resource theory [12, 55, 56], by highlighting the concepts that will be necessary for our work. We will review the re...

View on Pith 2022

[64] [64]

They are additive: For any other m qubit stateσ, f(ψ⊗σ)=f(ψ)+f(σ)

View on Pith

[65] [65]

The R´ enyi entropies forms an hierarchy, Mα(ψ)<M α′(ψ)for anyψifα>α ′. Furthermore, for pure states, Mα(ψ)≤ν(ψ)

View on Pith

[66] [66]

The SRE lower bounds the T gate count of pure states: If t(ψ)is the minimum number of T gates to prepareψ= |ψ⟩⟨ψ| from a stabilizer state, Mα(ψ)≤t(ψ). Some further properties are listed in the Supplemental Material of [57]. Notice that the definition of ˜M2 is such to construct a faithful measure for the ˜stabn resource theory. It captures subsystem non-s...

View on Pith