Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Magical entanglement — the part of bipartite entanglement that survives every Clifford simplification — separates nonstabilizer states into a weak, state-dependent T-magic regime and a typical, self-averaging W-magic regime.

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

2026-08-01 15:32 UTC pith:5ZISAV7K

load-bearing objection The Clifford-orbit framework is a real contribution, but the headline T/W crossover is built on unverified numerics and an unproven link between the M(k) circuit families and the T/W classes. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18400 v1 pith:5ZISAV7K submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Magic-protected entanglement and Clifford-irreducible structure in magic state space

Alejandro Borda Kuhlmann , Julian Rincon This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 81P4081P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Mn03.67.Lx
keywords magical entanglementClifford orbitmagic-protected entanglementnonstabilizernessT-magic statesW-magic statesentanglement spectrumself-averaging
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 sets out to show that the right state-level organizing principle for magic states is not how much nonstabilizerness a state contains, but how much of its bipartite entanglement survives optimal Clifford simplification. It defines magical entanglement as the minimum entanglement over the state's Clifford orbit, so a nonzero value signals correlations that cannot be attributed to stabilizer operations alone. Based on this quantity, the paper separates nonstabilizer states into a T-magic regime, where local non-Clifford gates coexist with entanglement but leave only a weak, state-dependent protected component, and a W-magic regime, where nonstabilizerness and entanglement are tied irreducibly and the protected fraction becomes typical, self-averaging, and Haar-like. The numerical evidence comes from random circuits with one, two, and three layers of local magic interleaved with Clifford evolution, showing a crossover from broad near-Gaussian fluctuations to concentrated Dirac-like behavior. If the picture holds, magical entanglement gives a concrete way to identify which magic resources genuinely protect quantum correlations from Clifford-based classical simulation.

Core claim

The paper introduces magical entanglement, MS_AB(|ψ⟩)=min_{C∈C_n} S_AB(C|ψ⟩), the least bipartite entanglement reachable by applying any n-qubit Clifford circuit to the state. MS is Clifford-invariant, vanishes exactly when some Clifford image of the state is a product state across the cut, and is always ≤ the original entanglement. The discovery is that this single orbit-level quantity separates nonstabilizer states into two regimes: T-magic states, whose non-Clifford resources are local and whose protected entanglement is bounded by the number of non-Clifford gates and typically small; and W-magic states, whose nonstabilizerness cannot be compressed into local gates and whose entanglement

What carries the argument

The central object is the Clifford orbit O_{C_n}(|ψ⟩) and its minimized entanglement. The definition builds on the ν-compressible decomposition — any nonstabilizer unitary U can be factored as C_2(V_ℓ⊗I_{n−ℓ})C_1 with a single nonstabilizer block V_ℓ — which yields the T-magic/W-magic classification depending on whether the block is a product of local gates or contains a multi-qubit non-Clifford gate. Alongside the scalar MS, the paper defines an MS canonical form, MS spectrum, and MS rank (minimizing Clifford image in Schmidt form). These objects carry the argument: they turn the abstract group action into concrete orbit invariants and give the numerical ensembles a target to compute.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical crossover rests on the assumption that the heuristic search over Clifford circuits actually finds the least-entangled image of each state; the algorithm itself only certifies an upper bound, so a search bias between ensembles could fake the regime split.

What would settle it

Enumerate or certify the exact Clifford-orbit minimum for small systems (e.g., n=4–6) for states sampled from M(1), M(2), and M(3), and compare the dMS distributions to the heuristic estimates. If the exact M(1) distribution becomes as concentrated as M(3), while the exact M(3) distribution stays concentrated, the claimed T/W separation is an artifact of incomplete optimization rather than a property of state space.

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

If this is right

  • MS is constant on each Clifford orbit and vanishes exactly for states that are Clifford-equivalent to a product state; hence stabilizer states, GHZ states, and product states of single-qubit magic states all have MS=0.
  • For any one-layer T-magic circuit built from Pauli-rotation gates, MS ≤ k, where k is the number of active non-Clifford gates; protected entanglement is therefore weak and bounded, not extensive.
  • Nonstabilizer hypergraph states satisfy the 'fundamental property of W-magic': no Clifford circuit can map them to a total product state, so MS>0 for every bipartition where the hyperedge size ≥3.
  • In the W-magic regime the normalized protected fraction dMS≈MS/S approaches 1 for typical long states, meaning an order-one fraction of bipartite entanglement is Clifford-irreducible, with large deviations suppressed.
  • The layer-ensemble statistics give a practical signature: M(1) is broad and near-Gaussian, M(2) and M(3) are concentrated and strongly self-averaging, so the layer count itself acts as a witness of the regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference — If the T/W separation holds for the ensembles, the layer count in a random-Clifford plus local-magic architecture becomes a control knob for quantum computational hardness: one layer leaves the entanglement Clifford-removable, while two or more layers lock a self-averaging protected component, consistent with the single-T versus multiple-T distinction in entanglement-spectrum
  • Editorial inference — A testable extension is to measure dMS on few-qubit hardware by preparing M(1) and M(3) states, applying a random Clifford search via classical optimization, and checking the distribution of residual entropy; the crossover should be visible at n≈8–12.
  • Editorial inference — The MS spectrum and rank, being finer than the scalar MS, suggest a hierarchy inside each Clifford orbit; one could classify magic states by majorization of their MS spectra, paralleling entanglement transformations under Clifford-free operations.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines magical entanglement MS_AB(|ψ⟩)=min_{C∈C_n} S_AB(C|ψ⟩), the bipartite entanglement that survives Clifford-orbit minimization, and develops a framework of Clifford-orbit invariants (MS canonical form, spectra, ranks). It introduces a regime classification of nonstabilizer states into T-magic (one layer of local nonstabilizer gates sandwiched by Cliffords) and W-magic (nonlocal nonstabilizer block in the ν-compressible decomposition), and claims that T-magic states have weak, state-dependent protected entanglement, whereas W-magic states are typically strongly self-averaging with dMS≈1. Formal results include basic properties of MS (Clifford invariance, product-state zero, entanglement upper bound), a bound MS≤k for 1-layer Pauli-rotation circuits (Prop. II.5), and orbit-characterization statements (Sec. III). Numerical experiments on reduced architecture families M(1), M(2), M(3) are presented as evidence of a T-to-W crossover. Analytical support for the 'fundamental property of W-magic' is given for Haar-random and hypergraph states, with numerical evidence for Dicke states.

Significance. If the crossover claim were rigorously established, MS would provide a genuinely new orbit-level diagnostic that organizes magic state space and complements existing entanglement-magic measures. The formal part of the paper (Props. II.1–II.5, III.1) is mostly clean, the definition is natural, and the authors are transparent that their numerical routine returns an upper bound. However, the central quantitative conclusion—that typical W-magic states have dMS≈1 with Haar-like concentration—rests entirely on unverified heuristic optimization, and the T/W classification itself has unresolved definitional ambiguities. As it stands, the paper is a promising framework whose headline regime separation is not yet supported by the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV / App. D / Remark IV.1] The central crossover claim rests on the algorithm of App. D, which the authors themselves state 'returns an upper bound on the exact value: the lowest entropy found over the explored subset of the Clifford group.' The observed separation—broad M(1) vs. concentrated M(2)/M(3)—is exactly what one would expect if the heuristic minimization finds near-optimal values for M(1) but systematically fails to reduce S_AB for M(2)/M(3), leaving dMS close to the unminimized value whose fluctuations are self-averaging. No calibration is provided on states with analytically known MS (e.g., product states and GHZ with MS=0, magic-infused GHZ with MS=0, or the M(1) states covered by Prop. II.5). No convergence diagnostics, exact small-n benchmarks, or comparison with alternative optimization methods are reported. Given this, Remark IV.1's assertion that typical W-magic states have dMS≈1 is an extrapolat
  2. [Definitions II.2–II.3] The T/W classification assumes that the ν-compressible decomposition of a state is unambiguous: M_T and M_W are called complementary, but the paper never shows that a state cannot admit both a local and a nonlocal compressed block. If both exist, the class of the state is undefined. Please specify whether T-magic is defined by existence of a local compressed form (so W-magic is its negation only if none exists) and prove or cite uniqueness of the relevant decomposition. The phrase 'its ν-compressible decomposition' suggests a canonical object that is not established.
  3. [App. F.1, Theorem F.1] The proof of Theorem F.1 reduces to the single-hyperedge case by asserting that 'the remaining hyperedge gates can be absorbed into the surrounding Clifford and local factors for the purpose of testing whether a total product representative exists.' This is not valid when other hyperedges have size ≥3, because those C_e gates are non-Clifford and do not generally commute with arbitrary local factors. The argument as written only covers hypergraphs with exactly one nonstabilizer hyperedge. Please provide a complete proof for general nonstabilizer hypergraph states or restrict the statement accordingly.
  4. [Sec. IV / Notation II.1] The ensembles M(k) are not shown to be reliable proxies for the T/W classes. The paper itself notes that M(k) families 'are not intrinsic, disjoint state classes.' A state sampled from M(2) or M(3) may or may not lie in M_W, and no diagnostic is reported to verify the class of the sampled states. Consequently, the numerical crossover (Sec. IV) is a statement about layer count in random circuits, not directly about the T/M_W classification. The extrapolation to T-magic vs. W-magic behavior in the abstract and Remark IV.1 is therefore a hypothesis, not a consequence of the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. D] The parameter calibration is described only qualitatively ('calibrated empirically'). Please report a sensitivity analysis of the key hyperparameters and, ideally, release code to enable reproducibility of the numerical claims.
  2. [Sec. II.A] The statement that W states have 'Schmidt data incompatible with a Clifford reduction to a product state' is asserted without proof or citation. The later Dicke-state discussion gives numerical evidence but no analytical proof for W_n; please clarify the status of this claim.
  3. [Def. II.1] MS is defined for any bipartite entanglement measure S_AB, but the paper later fixes the entanglement entropy. Please state explicitly whether MS is a single quantity or a family parameterized by the measure, and note how the regime claims depend on this choice.
  4. [Fig. 2] The caption refers to 'PDF(MS)' while the text analyzes both MS and dMS. Please clarify which quantity is plotted and ensure the figure labels match the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the MS definition, Proposition II.5, and orbit invariants are derived from independent inputs; the numerical upper-bound caveat is a validation limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central definition MS(|ψ⟩)=min_{C∈C_n} S_AB(C|ψ⟩) is not defined in terms of the conclusions; Proposition II.5 is a genuine proof from the CTC decomposition, and the Sec. III orbit invariants follow from the definition and elementary group closure. The T/W classification is imported from an external ν-compressible theorem (Ref. [18]) and then applied to architecture families; the paper explicitly says M(k) are "not intrinsic, disjoint state classes," so the numerical M(1) vs M(k≥2) separation is an empirical probe rather than a definitional identity. The only self-citation ([31]) supports a standard universality claim already referenced to [30], so it is not load-bearing. The serious weakness is the numerical estimate: App. D states the algorithm "returns an upper bound on the exact value: the lowest entropy found over the explored subset of the Clifford group," so the dMS≈1 values for M(2)/M(3) may overestimate the true MS if the search fails to find low-entropy Clifford representatives. That is an optimization-validity/correctness issue, not a circularity: no target quantity is fitted, no equation is equal by construction to the claimed crossover, and Remark IV.1's extrapolation from M(k) to the intrinsic W-magic class is an unproved generalization rather than a tautology. Accordingly no circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The conceptual additions (MS, canonical form, T/W classes) are definitions, not particles or forces. The main external inputs are Ref [18]'s compression theorem and Ref [43,45]'s hypergraph criterion; several paper-specific assumptions enter without proof.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law exponents γ for dMS moments = M(1) mean γ=0.45(69); M(2) variance γ=6.87(61), Fano γ=7.56(52); M(3) variance γ=12.0(15), Fano γ=12.3(15)
    Fitted over n=7-12; used to support weak vs strong self-averaging. Descriptive, not part of MS definition.
  • MS-search hyperparameters (n_rest, N_steps, N_rep, α, p_cross, etc.) = Example set for n=8 in App. D (n_rest=40, N_steps=4000, N_rep=5, α=3.20, p_cross=0.72); otherwise calibrated empirically
    Chosen by hand; they control how close the reported upper bound is to true MS.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption ν-compressible representation theorem (Ref [18]): any n-qubit unitary with stabilizer nullity ν can be written U=C2(V_ℓ⊗I)C1 with ν/2≤ℓ≤ν
    Every n-qubit unitary with stabilizer nullity ν can be written C2(V_ℓ⊗I)C1 with ν/2≤ℓ≤ν; used in Def II.2/II.3.
  • standard math Stabilizer states are Clifford-equivalent to product states across any fixed cut
    Used in Prop II.4 and examples (GHZ, cluster states).
  • ad hoc to paper M_T and M_W are complementary (decomposition independence)
    Assumed in Section II.B; not proved for non-unique ν-compressible decompositions.
  • ad hoc to paper W states satisfy MS>0
    Asserted in Section II.A; no derivation or machine-checked certificate.
  • ad hoc to paper M(k) ensembles with k≥2 are representative of the W-magic class
    Used to convert architecture-level numerics into statements about T/W regimes (Section IV).
  • domain assumption Hypergraph nonstabilizer criterion (Prop F.2): stabilizer iff all hyperedges have size ≤2
    Cited from [43,45]; used in Theorem F.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Extra nonstabilizer hyperedges can be absorbed into Clifford/local factors in the proof of Theorem F.1
    The reduction to a single CCZ obstruction is stated without a full argument for hypergraphs with several size≥3 hyperedges.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23853 in / 30180 out tokens · 254202 ms · 2026-08-01T15:32:19.246166+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a Clifford-orbit framework for studying magic-protected entanglement, which we refer to as magical entanglement: the part of bipartite entanglement that remains after optimal stabilizer simplification. This construction leverages residual entanglement under Clifford reduction as a state-level organizing principle for magic state space. It defines canonical representatives, spectra, and ranks that characterize the Clifford-irreducible structure of a state. We identify two regimes of the magic-entanglement interplay. In the $T$-magic regime, local nonstabilizer resources can coexist with entanglement, but the protected component remains weak and state-dependent. In the $W$-magic regime, by contrast, entanglement is Clifford-irreducibly tied to nonstabilizerness, producing typical, strongly self-averaging behavior. Analytical examples and random-circuit numerics support a crossover from broad $T$-magic fluctuations to concentrated, Haar-like $W$-magic behavior. These results identify magical entanglement as an orbit-level diagnostic of how nonstabilizerness protects quantum correlations against Clifford reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18400 by Alejandro Borda Kuhlmann, Julian Rincon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. General CTC architecture for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Kernel density estimates of the empirical MS prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Moment analysis for the positive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Circuit representation of the fundamental property of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Normal Q-Q diagnostics for the standardized posi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Histogram-based probability density function (PDF) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.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

53 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    GHZ states.The GHZ family represents one of the two nonequivalent classes of genuine tripartite entangle- ment under stochastic local operations and classical com- munication

    Prototypical states We consider here additional examples illustrating how MS distinguishes entanglement that is Clifford-removable from entanglement that remains tied to nonstabilizer structure. GHZ states.The GHZ family represents one of the two nonequivalent classes of genuine tripartite entangle- ment under stochastic local operations and classical com...

  2. [2]

    Analogously, we callUaCToperator ifU= (U 1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Un)C

    More MS properties Notation B.1.We callUaTCoperator ifU=C(U 1 ⊗ · · · ⊗Un), for local unitariesU j ∈U(2)andC∈C n. Analogously, we callUaCToperator ifU= (U 1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Un)C. A state is called aTCstate if it can be written as U|0⟩ ⊗n for someTCoperatorU. Proposition B.1.The following holds: (i)For any|ψ⟩ ∈TC,MS(|ψ⟩) = 0. (ii)For any|ψ⟩ ∈M T , there exists a...

  3. [3]

    Hence MS(U|ψ⟩) = 0

    Then U|ψ⟩= ˜C1 |0⟩⊗n , which is a stabilizer state. Hence MS(U|ψ⟩) = 0. (iii) Assume|ψ⟩satisfies the fundamental property of W-magic in Definition V.1. Then no Clifford op- eration can disentangle|ψ⟩to a product state. By Proposition II.1, this is equivalent to MS(|ψ⟩)>0. (iv) LetU= (U 1 ⊗ · · · ⊗Un)Cbe a CT operator. Since local unitaries do not change b...

  4. [4]

    , n})be a set of hyperedges, where eache∈E is a subset of qubits

    Nonstabilizer hypergraph states Definition F.1(Hypergraph states [42, 43]).LetE⊆ P({1, . . . , n})be a set of hyperedges, where eache∈E is a subset of qubits. Then-qubit hypergraph (HG) state associated withEis defined by |HG⟩= Y e∈E Ce |+⟩⊗n . HereC e denotes the multi-controlled phase gate sup- ported on the qubits in the hyperedgee. Explicitly, if e={e...

  5. [5]

    We use them as a second class of examples sup- porting the fundamental property ofW-magic

    Dicke states Dicke states, which includeWstates, combine permutation-symmetric entanglement with nonstabilizer structure. We use them as a second class of examples sup- porting the fundamental property ofW-magic. Although we do not provide a general proof, previous Clifford-orbit computations and our numerical searches indicate that no Clifford operation ...

  6. [6]

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, inGroup22: Proceedings of the XXII In- ternational Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999) pp. 32–43, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406196

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. T. Campbell, Application of a re- source theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing, Physical Review Letters118, 090501 (2017), arXiv:1609.07488 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022), arXiv:2010.13817 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Phys- ical and Engineering Sciences459, 2011–2032 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0201143 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Dowling, K

    N. Dowling, K. Modi, and G. A. L. White, Bridg- ing entanglement and magic resources within opera- tor space, Physical Review Letters135, 160201 (2025), arXiv:2501.18679 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Andreadakis and P

    F. Andreadakis and P. Zanardi, An exact link be- tween nonlocal nonstabilizerness and operator entan- glement, Physical Review A113, L010404 (2026), arXiv:2504.09360 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Qian and J

    D. Qian and J. Wang, Quantum nonlocal nonsta- bilizerness, Physical Review A111, 052443 (2025), arXiv:2502.06393 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New Journal of Physics16, 013009 (2014), arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low- rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum3, 181 (2019), arXiv:1808.00128 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Beverland, E

    M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kliuch- nikov, Lower bounds on the non-Clifford resources for quantum computations, Quantum Science and Technol- ogy5, 035009 (2020), arXiv:1904.01124 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabi- lizer R´ enyi entropy, Physical Review Letters128, 050402 (2022), arXiv:2106.12587 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and non- stabilizerness monotones, Quantum7, 1092 (2023), arXiv:2303.10152 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Bittel and L

    L. Bittel and L. Leone, Operational interpretation of the stabilizer entropy, Quantum10, 2069 (2026), arXiv:arXiv:2507.22883 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2069

  20. [20]

    Rubboli, R

    R. Rubboli, R. Takagi, and M. Tomamichel, Mixed-state additivity properties of magic monotones based on quan- tum relative entropies for single-qubit states and beyond, Quantum8, 1492 (2024), arXiv:2307.08258 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, A. Hamma, J. Eisert, and L. Bit- tel, Non-Clifford cost of random unitaries, PRX Quan- tum7(2026), arXiv:2505.10110 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    K. Bu, A. Jaffe, and Z. Wei, Magic class and the convo- lution group (2024), arXiv:2402.05780 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    A. Gu, S. F. Oliviero, and L. Leone, Magic-induced computational separation in entanglement theory, PRX Quantum6(2025), arXiv:2403.19610 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Iannotti, G

    D. Iannotti, G. Esposito, L. Campos Venuti, and A. Hamma, Entanglement and stabilizer entropies of ran- dom bipartite pure quantum states, Quantum9, 1797 (2025), arXiv:2501.19261 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Tirrito, P

    E. Tirrito, P. S. Tarabunga, G. Lami, T. Chanda, L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, M. Dalmonte, M. Collura, and A. Hamma, Quantifying non-stabilizerness through entanglement spectrum flatness, Physical Review A109, L040401 (2024), arXiv:2304.01175 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    A. Gu, L. Leone, S. Ghosh, J. Eisert, S. F. Yelin, and Y. Quek, Pseudomagic quantum states, Physical Review Letters132, 210602 (2024), arXiv:2308.16228 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    D. A. Korbany, M. J. Gullans, and L. Piroli, Long-range nonstabilizerness and phases of matter, Physical Review Letters135, 160404 (2025), arXiv:2502.19504 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Zhang and Y

    Y. Zhang and Y. Zhang, Classical simulability of quan- tum circuits with shallow magic depth, PRX Quantum 6, 010337 (2025), arXiv:2409.13809 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting density ma- trix renormalization group with Clifford circuits, Physi- cal Review Letters133, 190402 (2024), arXiv:2405.09217 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Masot-Llima and A

    S. Masot-Llima and A. Garcia-Saez, Stabilizer tensor net- works: Universal quantum simulator on a basis of stabi- lizer states, Physical Review Letters133, 230601 (2024), arXiv:2403.08724 [quant-ph]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Qian, and M. Qin, Nonstabilizerness entan- glement entropy: A measure of hardness in the classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with tensor network states, Physical Review A112, 012425 (2025), arXiv:2409.16895 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dalmonte, Stabilizer disentangling of confor- mal field theories, SciPost Physics18, 165 (2025), arXiv:2411.11720 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    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 Physics15 (2023), arXiv:2209.10541 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Jiang and X

    J. Jiang and X. Wang, Lower bound for theTcount via unitary stabilizer nullity, Physical Review Applied19, 034052 (2023), arXiv:2103.09999 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  36. [36]

    Borda, J

    A. Borda, J. Rinc´ on, and C. Galindo, Quantum univer- sality in composite systems: A trichotomy of Clifford re- sources (2026), arXiv:2512.20787 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Optimiza- tion by simulated annealing, Science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  38. [38]

    V. A. Cicirello, Variable annealing length and paral- lelism in simulated annealing, inProceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Combinatorial Search (SoCS 2017), Vol. 8 (AAAI Press, 2017) pp. 2–10, arXiv:1709.02877 [cs.NE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    S. Zhou, Z. Yang, A. Hamma, and C. Chamon, Single Tgate in a Clifford circuit drives transition to univer- sal entanglement spectrum statistics, SciPost Physics9 (2020), arXiv:1906.01079 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Szombathy, A

    D. Szombathy, A. Valli, C. P. Moca, L. Farkas, and G. Zar´ and, Asymptotically independent fluctuations of stabilizer R´ enyi entropy and entanglement in random unitary circuits, Physical Review Research7, 043072 (2025), arXiv:2501.11489 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Li and F

    H. Li and F. D. M. Haldane, Entanglement spectrum as a generalization of entanglement entropy: Identification of topological order in non-abelian fractional quantum Hall effect states, Physical Review Letters101, 010504 (2008), arXiv:0805.0332

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    M. A. Nielsen, Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations, Physical Review Letters83, 436 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9811053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  43. [43]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the vi- ability of universal quantum computation using telepor- tation and single-qubit operations, Nature402, 390–393 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9908010 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  44. [44]

    S. X. Cui, D. Gottesman, and A. Krishna, Diagonal gates in the Clifford hierarchy, Physical Review A95(2017), arXiv:1608.06596 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, and I. L. Chuang, Semi-Clifford oper- ations, structure ofC k hierarchy, and gate complexity for fault-tolerant quantum computation, Physical Review A 77, 042313 (2008), arXiv:0712.2084 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Selinger, Generators and relations forn-qubit Clifford operators, Logical Methods in Computer ScienceV ol- ume 11, Issue 2(2015), arXiv:1310.6813 [quant-ph]

    P. Selinger, Generators and relations forn-qubit Clifford operators, Logical Methods in Computer ScienceV ol- ume 11, Issue 2(2015), arXiv:1310.6813 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Rossi, M

    M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Quantum hypergraph states, New Journal of Physics15, 113022 (2013), arXiv:1211.5554 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Salem, Quantum hypergraph states: A review (2025), arXiv:2512.02955 [quant-ph]

    V. Salem, Quantum hypergraph states: A review (2025), arXiv:2512.02955 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    J. Chen, Y. Yan, and Y. Zhou, Magic of quan- tum hypergraph states, Quantum8, 1351 (2024), arXiv:arXiv:2308.01886 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Poderini, D

    D. Poderini, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Quantum hy- pergraph states: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 89, 066001 (2026), arXiv:2603.10917 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  52. [52]

    B¨ artschi and S

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic prepara- tion of Dicke states, inFundamentals of Computation Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11651 (Springer International Publishing, 2019) p. 126–139, arXiv:1904.07358 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Munizzi and H

    W. Munizzi and H. J. Schnitzer, Entropy cones and en- tanglement evolution for dicke states, Physical Review A 109, 012405 (2024), arXiv:2306.13146 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024