Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 116 references

Clifford operations cannot universally disentangle even a single qubit from a non-Clifford rotation; entanglement cooling in tensor networks works only from stabilizer inputs, and beyond that magic accumulates at a rate set by the rotation

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:43 UTC pith:3FYVTAM2

load-bearing objection Theorem III.1 is the real contribution, but the proof in Appendix B has a gap for non-stabilizer equatorial inputs; otherwise the paper is solid and worth refereeing. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.15942 v2 pith:3FYVTAM2 submitted 2026-02-17 quant-ph

Limits of Clifford Disentangling in Tensor Network States

Sergi Masot-Llima , Piotr Sierant , Paolo Stornati , Artur Garcia-Saez This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P45 PACS 03.67.Lx03.65.Ud
keywords Clifford tensor networksentanglement coolingstabilizer statesmagic / non-stabilizernessClifford groupmatrix product statesT-gatesentanglement entropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether Clifford operations — cheap, classically simulable circuits — can be used to strip entanglement out of quantum states before compressing them with tensor networks, a strategy known as entanglement cooling. It proves a hard limit: a Clifford disentangler can universally separate a single qubit from the rest of a state only if that qubit is a stabilizer state. For a genuinely non-Clifford rotation acting on any other input, no fixed Clifford unitary can always restore separability, so the known exact cooling protocol is essentially the only one of its kind. The paper also maps how entanglement grows when cooling fails: with a finite number of non-Clifford gates, cooling works perfectly at low density, degrades linearly in an intermediate regime, and saturates near the entropy of Haar-random states; the cost per gate scales with the rotation angle, which keeps small-angle circuits efficiently simulable much deeper into the circuit. This matters because it draws the boundary of when hybrid Clifford-tensor-network simulation is classically efficient.

Core claim

The central result is Theorem III.1. For a state of the form (αI+βP1...Pn)|Ψ>|φ_n>, produced by conjugating a single-qubit non-Clifford rotation into a global Pauli rotation, a unitary U that makes the last qubit separable for arbitrary θ and |Ψ> is Clifford if and only if |φ_n> is a stabilizer state. In other words, the exact entanglement cooling protocol — which up to now was known to work when the target qubit sits in a stabilizer eigenstate — cannot be generalized to arbitrary single-qubit inputs by any Clifford operation. The impossibility is shown by decomposing U in a basis tied to the input qubit, forcing a purity condition, and then demonstrating that the resulting U maps some stabi

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the conjugated Pauli rotation R_C = e^{-iθP1...Pn} = αI+βP1...Pn, together with the exact entanglement cooling decomposition: when one qubit is in a stabilizer eigenstate, the global rotation factorizes into a local rotation plus a cascade of controlled-Pauli gates that can be absorbed into the Clifford frame. The no-go proof's engine is a decomposition of the putative disentangler U = U1⊗|ω><φ_n| + U2⊗|bar ω><bar φ_n| and the purity of the traced-out output, which forces U2 = U1 P_B (up to signs) when U must work for all |Ψ>. Substituting this structure on a product stabilizer state produces a superposition with magic coefficients, which a Clifford gate cannot create

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing requirement is that a single fixed Clifford unitary must disentangle the last qubit for every possible state |Ψ> of the remaining qubits, and the statement is intended for genuinely non-Clifford rotation angles — at Clifford angles the rotation itself would be a Clifford disentangler, so the theorem as written has an edge case.

What would settle it

Run an exhaustive search over all Clifford unitaries on a small system (n ≤ 5): if any U makes the last qubit separable for a non-stabilizer |φ_n> and all |Ψ> in a spanning set, the theorem is false; the theorem predicts no such U exists. For the edge case, take θ=π/2 and |φ_n> any qubit — the rotation itself is Clifford and trivially disentangles, which would contradict the theorem as literally written.

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

If this is right

  • When the number of non-Clifford gates is below the system size, the 2-local heuristic converges to the exact cooling protocol and the state can be represented with bounded bond dimension, so Clifford+T circuits of linear depth are classically simulable in this ansatz.
  • In the intermediate regime (between N and 2N gates), entanglement grows at a rate set by the rotation angle; each non-Clifford gate adds a roughly fixed amount of entropy.
  • Beyond 2N gates the entropy saturates near the finite-size Haar-random bound, and further cooling yields no advantage — cooling does not rescue deep circuits.
  • Because the growth rate scales linearly with the rotation angle, circuits with small-angle rotations are efficiently simulable to a depth proportional to 1/θ rather than to the raw gate count.
  • Increasing the locality of the search to 3-qubit Clifford gates, or increasing sweep depth, does not improve cooling in the tested regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If universality of the disentangler is dropped, state-specific Clifford disentanglers are not ruled out; constructing them efficiently for classically described states is an open direction the paper leaves explicit.
  • The same purity-argument style may apply to any efficiently simulable gate set beyond Clifford, suggesting a resource-theoretic threshold for 'cooling' that depends only on the algebra of the gate set.
  • The linear-in-angle growth rate gives a natural continuous measure of 'magic cost per rotation' for tensor networks, potentially linking entanglement cooling to stabilizer Rényi entropies or other magic monotones.
  • For variational quantum algorithms with small rotation angles, the practical consequence may be that classical simulation remains feasible at circuit depths much larger than current gate-count estimates suggest — worth testing on specific variational ansätze.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the power and limits of Clifford disentangling in Clifford-augmented tensor networks. Numerically, it identifies three regimes for Clifford+T circuits under local entanglement cooling: exact disentangling for T<N, linear entanglement growth for N<T<2N, and saturation near the Haar-random entropy bound for T≥2N, with the growth rate scaling linearly with the rotation angle. The central theoretical claim, Theorem III.1, is a no-go statement: if a unitary U universally disentangles one qubit from the state produced by a non-Clifford rotation R_C, then U is Clifford if and only if the input qubit state is a stabilizer state. The proof is given in Appendix B and relies on a decomposition of U and a purity analysis of the reduced density matrix of the last qubit.

Significance. If the no-go theorem holds after the necessary corrections, it is a valuable conceptual result: it sharply delimits when exact Clifford entanglement cooling can be generalized beyond stabilizer inputs, and it explains the breakdown observed numerically. The numerical study of k-local heuristics, including the reduction of the C_2 and C_3 search spaces and the angle-dependent resource growth, is useful and timely for Clifford-augmented tensor network simulations. The paper also gives a clear constructive account of the exact cooling protocol of Ref. [74] and provides reproducible code in the sTN library. These strengths make the paper potentially publishable, but the central theorem as currently stated and proved is not yet sound.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III C, Theorem III.1, Eq. (5)] The theorem is false as stated because it does not exclude Clifford rotation angles. For θ=π/2, R=e^{-iθP_1...P_n}=-iP_1...P_n is itself a Clifford unitary. Then for any |ϕ_n⟩, the Clifford unitary U=R^† satisfies U R |Ψ⟩|ϕ_n⟩ = |Ψ⟩|ϕ_n⟩, which has the required separable form, even when |ϕ_n⟩ is non-stabilizer. This directly contradicts the 'if and only if' claim. The proof itself later excludes the case |β|^2=1, and the surrounding text says 'non-Clifford rotation,' so the theorem statement should be amended to explicitly require R to be non-Clifford, e.g., 0<|sin θ|<1.
  2. [App. B.2, Eq. (B27)] The step proving that U_f is non-Clifford has a gap for equatorial non-stabilizer inputs. The paper claims the purity lower bound P=1/2 is reached only at x=π/4, which is then equated with |ϕ_n⟩ being a stabilizer state. This is false: take |ϕ_n⟩=(|0⟩+e^{iη}|1⟩)/√2 with η not a multiple of π/2. Then |μ|=|ν|=1/√2, so x=π/4, but |ϕ_n⟩ is not a stabilizer. If P_n=Z, then γ=0, and Eq. (B27) gives P=1/2 exactly, for any non-Clifford rotation angle. Since a stabilizer state can also have a maximally mixed single-qubit reduced state, P=1/2 does not rule out a stabilizer output. The written proof therefore does not establish that U_f is non-Clifford in this case. A repair must use the relative phase η, for example by showing that the output is a superposition with non-stabilizer coefficients in a stabilizer basis. This is a load-bearing gap in the central no-go proof, distinct from the acknowled
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. B, Eq. (B5)] The Gram-Schmidt denominator should be sqrt(1-|<Ω1|Ω2>|^2), not sqrt(1+<Ω1|Ω2>^2). The trace evaluation in Eq. (B6) should be rederived with the correct normalization; the zero condition at Eq. (B7) may survive, but the formula as written is mathematically incorrect.
  2. [App. B, Eqs. (B13)-(B19)] The notation for the Pauli string is inconsistent: P, P_B, and P_n are used interchangeably in places. In particular, Eq. (B18) as written has an operator-order mismatch with the final U_f in Eq. (B19). The proof should be rewritten with a consistent convention, e.g., always using P_B for the action on the first N-1 qubits.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 8] The claim that the entropy growth rate scales linearly with the rotation angle is presented visually. Adding fitted slopes or quantitative scaling analysis with error bars would strengthen this claim.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption repeats 'N = 6 N = 6' and 'N = 8 N = 8'; duplicate labels should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the no-go proof is a self-contained derivation from stated assumptions, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

Theorem III.1 is derived from an explicit block decomposition of the disentangling unitary, the purity constraint imposed by the assumed separability of the output, and the known characterization that a single-qubit reduced density matrix of a stabilizer state has purity either 1 or 1/2. These ingredients are either proven in the paper or cited to independent, non-overlapping sources ([113,114] for stabilizer-state purity, [74] for the constructive converse direction). The self-citations in the paper ([65] for the CTN simulation equations, [87] for the software library) provide background and tooling but are not load-bearing for the central no-go claim or for the numerical regime analysis, which uses an ensemble model with no fitted parameters whose output is then reported. The paper explicitly acknowledges the universality limitation of its no-go statement in Appendix B (“we do not rule out that for very specific states there is something that we can do”), which confines rather than circularizes the claim. Any concern about the edge case of non-stabilizer equatorial states in the purity argument is a potential mathematical gap, not a reduction of the conclusion to the assumptions; it does not constitute circularity under the stated criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The theoretical no-go proof uses only standard linear algebra and stabilizer facts; numerical results use a random doped-Clifford ensemble but no fitted parameters or invented entities.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Any unitary U can be decomposed as U = U1⊗|ω><ϕ_n| + U2⊗|ω̄><ϕ̄_n| for any input state |ϕ_n> and a suitable output basis (Eq. B1).
    Used in Appendix B to analyze the output of U; this is a block decomposition of a unitary in a Schmidt-like basis.
  • domain assumption The reduced density matrix of any single qubit of a stabilizer state is either pure or maximally mixed.
    Invoked in the simplified and general proofs to show the output cannot be a stabilizer state; standard stabilizer-formalism fact.
  • domain assumption Random Clifford layers interspersed with T gates form a representative model of non-Clifford resource accumulation (doped Clifford circuits).
    Numerical study uses this ensemble; conclusions about regimes are tied to this model.
  • domain assumption The exact entanglement cooling protocol from [74] is correct and constructive.
    Used for the converse direction of Theorem III.1 and for the numerical comparison in the T<N regime.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21163 in / 20026 out tokens · 178027 ms · 2026-08-02T22:43:45.603351+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Tensor network methods leverage the limited entanglement of quantum states to efficiently simulate many-body systems. Alternatively, Clifford circuits provide a framework for handling highly entangled stabilizer states, which have low magic and are thus also classically tractable. Clifford tensor networks combine the benefits of both approaches, exploiting Clifford circuits to reduce the classical complexity of the tensor network description of states, with promising effects on simulation approaches. We study the disentangling power of Clifford transformations acting on tensor networks, with a particular emphasis on entanglement cooling strategies. We identify regimes where exact or heuristic Clifford disentanglers are effective, explain the link between the two approaches, and characterize their breakdown as non-Clifford resources accumulate. Additionally, we prove that, beyond stabilizer settings, no Clifford operation can universally disentangle even a single qubit from an arbitrary non-Clifford rotation. Our results clarify both the capabilities and fundamental limitations of Clifford-based simulation methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15942 by Artur Garcia-Saez, Paolo Stornati, Piotr Sierant, Sergi Masot-Llima.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Simulations with Clifford enhanced TN (MPS in the example). In a), we can find a Clifford unitary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Heuristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Progression of the maximal entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between the average (solid lines) entan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Entanglement structure of the TN in a CTN after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Entropy of the equipartition of an CTN as the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Fidelity over the inverse of bond dimension, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Growth of entropy per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Outcome of commuting a Pauli operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Example of the exact disentangling procedure. An arbitrary rotation, which has magic, is mapped to a global rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen, and U. Sen, Ultracold atomic gases in optical lattices: mimicking condensed matter physics and be- yond, Advances in Physics56, 243 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation, Nature Physics8, 264 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Altmanet al., Quantum simulators: Architectures and opportunities, PRX Quantum2, 017003 (2021)

    E. Altmanet al., Quantum simulators: Architectures and opportunities, PRX Quantum2, 017003 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, The physical implementation of quantum computation, Fortschritte der Physik48, 771 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: an overview, npj Quantum Information2, 15023 (2016)

    A. Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: an overview, npj Quantum Information2, 15023 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.- C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Preskill, Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier (2012), arXiv:1203.5813 [quant-ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier (2012), arXiv:1203.5813 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pear- son, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advan- tage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Waintal, The quantum house of cards, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2313269120 (2024), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2313269120

    X. Waintal, The quantum house of cards, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2313269120 (2024), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2313269120

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2313269120 2024

  12. [12]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  13. [13]

    Amico, R

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

    2008

  14. [15]

    M. B. Hastings, An area law for one-dimensional quan- tum systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2007, P08024 (2007)

    2007

  15. [16]

    Eisert, M

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

    2010

  16. [17]

    Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016), quan- tum entanglement in condensed matter systems

    N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016), quan- tum entanglement in condensed matter systems

    2016

  17. [18]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  18. [19]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Na- ture Physics17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  19. [20]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing, Reports on Progress in Physics 88, 026502 (2025). 10

    2025

  20. [21]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly en- tangled quantum computations, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly en- tangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 147902 (2003)

    2003

  21. [22]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Ma- trix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  22. [23]

    Verstraete, V

    F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin sys- tems, Adv. Phys.57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  23. [24]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys.349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  24. [25]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and opti- mization with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  25. [26]

    Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat

    R. Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 538 (2019)

    2019

  26. [27]

    S.-J. Ran, E. Tirrito, C. Peng, X. Chen, L. Tagliacozzo, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein,Tensor network contractions: methods and applications to quantum many-body sys- tems(SpringerOpen, 2020)

    2020

  27. [28]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Tensor network algorithms: A route map, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 173–191 (2023)

    2023

  28. [29]

    Smith and D

    G. Smith and D. Leung, Typical entanglement of stabi- lizer states, Phys. Rev. A74, 062314 (2006)

    2006

  29. [30]

    Dahlsten and M

    O. Dahlsten and M. B. Plenio, Exact entanglement probability distribution of bi-partite randomised stabi- lizer states (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0511119 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [31]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  31. [32]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  32. [33]

    Chitambar and G

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

    2019

  33. [34]

    Veitch, S

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

    2014

  34. [35]

    Heimendahl, M

    A. Heimendahl, M. Heinrich, and D. Gross, The ax- iomatic and the operational approaches to resource the- ories of magic do not coincide, Journal of Mathematical Physics63, 112201 (2022)

    2022

  35. [36]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and nonsta- bilizerness monotones, Quantum7, 1092 (2023)

    2023

  36. [37]

    Leone, S

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

    2022

  37. [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

  38. [39]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B107, 035148 (2023)

    2023

  39. [40]

    Lami and M

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

    2023

  40. [41]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dal- monte, Many-body magic via pauli-markov chains— from criticality to gauge theories, PRX Quantum4, 040317 (2023)

    2023

  41. [42]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and M. Dal- monte, Nonstabilizerness via matrix product states in the pauli basis, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010601 (2024)

    2024

  42. [43]

    L.-Y.-N. Liu, S. Yi, and J. Cui, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy for translation-invariant matrix product states (2025), arXiv:2508.03534 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    P. S. Tarabunga, Critical behaviors of non-stabilizerness in quantum spin chains, Quantum8, 1413 (2024)

    2024

  44. [45]

    Sierant, J

    P. Sierant, J. Vall` es-Muns, and A. Garcia-Saez, Computing quantum magic of state vectors (2026), arXiv:2601.07824 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [46]

    Xiao and S

    Z. Xiao and S. Ryu, Exponentially accelerated sam- pling of pauli strings for nonstabilizerness (2026), arXiv:2601.00761 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [47]

    Huang, H.-Z

    X. Huang, H.-Z. Li, and J.-X. Zhong, A fast and exact approach for stabilizer r´ enyi entropy via the xor-fwht algorithm (2026), arXiv:2512.24685 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [48]

    P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Efficient mutual magic and magic capacity with matrix product states, SciPost Phys.19, 085 (2025)

    2025

  48. [49]

    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

  49. [50]

    P. R. N. Falc˜ ao, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, E. Tirrito, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Dalmonte, Nonstabilizerness in u(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. B111, L081102 (2025)

    2025

  50. [51]

    Hoshino, M

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Stabi- lizer r´ enyi entropy and conformal field theory (2025), arXiv:2503.13599 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    Timsina, Y.-M

    H. Timsina, Y.-M. Ding, E. Tirrito, P. S. Tarabunga, B.- B. Mao, M. Collura, Z. Yan, and M. Dalmonte, Robust- ness of nonstabilizerness in the quantum ising chain via quantum monte carlo tomography, Phys. Rev. B112, 165135 (2025)

    2025

  52. [53]

    Turkeshi, E

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

    2025

  53. [54]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spec- trum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many- body states, Phys. Rev. B111, 054301 (2025)

    2025

  54. [55]

    Tirrito, X

    E. Tirrito, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Anticoncen- tration and nonstabilizerness spreading under ergodic quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220401 (2025)

    2025

  55. [56]

    P. R. N. Falc˜ ao, P. Sierant, J. Zakrzewski, and E. Tir- rito, Nonstabilizerness dynamics in many-body localized systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 240404 (2025)

    2025

  56. [57]

    Aditya, A

    S. Aditya, A. Summer, P. Sierant, and X. Turkeshi, Mpemba effects in quantum complexity (2025), arXiv:2509.22176 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    Aditya, X

    S. Aditya, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Growth and spreading of quantum resources under random circuit dynamics (2025), arXiv:2512.14827 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Magni and X

    B. Magni and X. Turkeshi, Quantum Complexity and Chaos in Many-Qudit Doped Clifford Circuits, Quan- tum9, 1956 (2025)

    1956

  59. [60]

    Magni, A

    B. Magni, A. Christopoulos, A. De Luca, and X. Turkeshi, Anticoncentration in clifford circuits and beyond: From random tensor networks to pseudomagic states, Phys. Rev. X15, 031071 (2025)

    2025

  60. [61]

    Magni, M

    B. Magni, M. Heinrich, L. Leone, and X. Turkeshi, An- ticoncentration and state design of doped real clifford circuits and tensor networks (2025), arXiv:2512.15880 [quant-ph]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    Bravyi, G

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

    2016

  62. [63]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  63. [64]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gos- set, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum3, 181 (2019)

    2019

  64. [65]

    Masot-Llima and A

    S. Masot-Llima and A. Garcia-Saez, Stabilizer tensor networks: Universal quantum simulator on a basis of stabilizer states, Physical Review Letters133, 230601 (2024)

    2024

  65. [66]

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

    2025

  66. [67]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, and M. Collura, Hybrid sta- bilizer matrix product operator, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150604 (2024)

    2024

  67. [68]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tirrito, Nonstabilizerness versus entanglement in matrix product states, Physical Review B110, 045101 (2024)

    2024

  68. [69]

    G. Lami, T. Haug, and J. De Nardis, Quantum state designs with clifford-enhanced matrix product states, PRX Quantum6, 010345 (2025)

    2025

  69. [70]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  70. [71]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting den- sity matrix renormalization group with clifford cir- cuits, Physical Review Letters133, 10.1103/phys- revlett.133.190402 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2024

  71. [72]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, G. Lami, J. De Nardis, and M. Collura, Clifford dressed time-dependent variational principle, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 150403 (2025)

    2025

  72. [73]

    C. Fan, X. Qian, H.-C. Zhang, R.-Z. Huang, M. Qin, and T. Xiang, Disentangling critical quantum spin chains with clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. B111, 085121 (2025)

    2025

  73. [74]

    G. E. Fux, B. B´ eri, R. Fazio, and E. Tirrito, Disentan- gling magic states with classically simulable quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 260605 (2025)

    2025

  74. [75]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dalmonte, Stabilizer disentangling of conformal field theories, SciPost Phys.18, 165 (2025)

    2025

  75. [76]

    Liu and B

    Z. Liu and B. K. Clark, Classical simulability of clif- ford+t circuits with clifford-augmented matrix product states (2025), arXiv:2412.17209 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [77]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Learning t-doped stabilizer states, Quantum8, 1361 (2024)

    2024

  77. [78]

    Hoshino and Y

    M. Hoshino and Y. Ashida, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy en- codes fusion rules of topological defects and boundaries (2025), arXiv:2507.10656 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  78. [79]

    A. Gu, S. F. E. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Doped stabilizer states in many-body physics and where to find them, Phys. Rev. A110, 062427 (2024)

    2024

  79. [80]

    J. Sun, L. Cheng, and S.-X. Zhang, Stabilizer ground states for simulating quantum many-body physics: the- ory, algorithms, and applications, Quantum9, 1782 (2025)

    2025

  80. [81]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and X. Turkeshi, Magic resources of the heisenberg picture, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050401 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.