Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

On the stabilizer complexity of Hawking radiation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hawking radiation is classically simple before the Page time and exponentially complex after it, this paper claims, with a universal formula linking the transition to entropy.

desk verdict The PSSY part is solid and worth engaging; the dynamical-model and python's-lunch parts are explicitly speculative and rest on an unproven resummation assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18967 v2 pith:CGCNJGGS submitted 2025-10-21 hep-th quant-ph

Ritam Basu , Onkar Parrikar , Suprakash Paul , Harshit Rajgadia This is my paper
classification hep-thquant-ph
keywords WignernegativitystabilizercomplexityHawkingradiationPagetransitionPSSYmodelreplicawormholespython'slunchquantummagic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the Wigner negativity of Hawking radiation—a measure of magic, or stabilizer complexity, and hence of the cost of classical simulation—is O(1) before the Page transition and exponentially large after it. It derives a universal, basis-independent formula for the ensemble-averaged negativity in the PSSY model of an evaporating black hole: N = erf(√r) + e^{−r}/√(π r), with r = e^{S2}/(2D), depending only on the radiation's second Rényi entropy and Hilbert-space dimension. The same late-time formula emerges from a dynamical model where the black hole couples to a bath through random interactions, after an early-time 'negativity shock' decays. If correct, the radiation is efficiently classically simulable before the Page time and hard to simulate afterward, giving a concrete computational-complexity signature of the Page transition. The paper also proposes a geometric version for general holographic states, connecting exponentially large stabilizer complexity to a python's lunch in the entanglement wedge.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the discrete Wigner function with phase-point operators A(q,p), for which Tr(A^n) equals 1 for odd n and D for even n. Wigner negativity N = Σ|W| is computed by writing the absolute value as an integral representation |W| = lim_{ε→0} ∫ (dz/2πi)(2z/(z²+ε²)) W e^{izW}, then expanding e^{izW} and resumming over saddles of the gravitational path integral. In the PSSY model the saddles factorize into irreducible j-boundary wormholes with amplitudes D_j = (j−1)! e^{S0} Z_j Tr(A^j), which exponentiate into a Gaussian form; in the dynamical model the analogous role is played by Haar-averaged diagrams over a rotated basis, with Weingarten functions factorizing in the large-D limit. T

What would settle it

Exactly evaluate the PSSY or dynamical-model Wigner negativity at small D (say D = 5–7) without the large-D factorized Weingarten/Haar approximation, and compare the full integral to N = erf(√r) + e^{−r}/√(π r); a deviation exceeding the claimed 1/(D e^{S0}) variance would disprove the universal curve.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ensemble-averaged Wigner negativity of the radiation state obeys a single universal curve as a function of e^{S2}/(2D). Before the Page transition (large r) the negativity approaches 1, meaning the radiation is essentially a stabilizer state; after it (small r) the negativity grows as sqrt(2D/(π e^{S2})) = sqrt(2/π) exp((S_max − S2)/2), which is exponentially large. The result is independent of the computational basis because the gravitational path integral only involves traces Tr(A^n) of phase-point operators, and replica wormholes—dominated by two-boundary wormholes past the Page point—naturally resum the moments. The same late-time formula is reproduced b

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that O(1/D²) corrections from Weingarten functions can be dropped even after the exponential resummation over all moments—an assumption the paper states explicitly without proof—and the holographic extension additionally assumes D ≈ exp(A(γ_out)/4G_N) and exp(−S_B2) ≈ exp(−A(γ_min)/4G_N).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Before the Page time the radiation has O(1) stabilizer complexity, so stabilizer circuits can prepare it and classical simulation is efficient; after the Page time the complexity is exponential, so simulation becomes hard without magic resources.
  • The universal formula depends only on the second Rényi entropy and the Hilbert-space dimension, and is basis independent for bases chosen without knowledge of the black hole microstate, making the transition a robust information-theoretic diagnostic.
  • In the PSSY model, the exponential negativity past the Page point is carried by two-boundary replica wormholes, so Wigner negativity provides a direct observable of replica-wormhole dominance.
  • In the dynamical model, the early-time negativity spike is a transient from the coupling, followed by decoherence; the late-time value reproduces the gravity result, suggesting the equilibrium formula holds for generic chaotic interactions.
  • For general holographic states, the proposed geometric formula implies that a python's lunch in the entanglement wedge entails exponentially large stabilizer complexity of the boundary density matrix.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same (erf + exponential) curve may be a universal signature of random-matrix and fixed-area states, plausibly extending to other magic monotones whose moments factorize through traces of phase-point operators.
  • Because the formula is governed by the ratio D/e^{S2}, the growth of negativity in an actual evaporation history should be a smooth ramp determined by the competition between these scales, distinct from the sharp 'negativity shock' transient in the dynamical model.
  • A testable extension: for a radiation bath made of many local qudits with a tensor-product phase space, basis-averaged negativity should still follow the universal formula, predicting that the non-stabilizerness is robust under local basis changes.
  • The holographic proposal ties boundary-state magic to the outermost-vs-minimal extremal-surface gap rather than the bulge surface, sharply distinguishing stabilizer complexity from the bulk-reconstruction complexity conjectured by the python's lunch, and suggesting that computing the magic of the Petz recovery map would be a decisive test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies Wigner negativity as a measure of stabilizer complexity in toy models of evaporating black holes. In the PSSY model, the authors use the gravitational path integral and an integral representation of |W| to derive an interpolating formula N = erf(sqrt(r)) + exp(-r)/sqrt(pi r), with r = e^{S2}/(2D), which is O(1) before the Page transition and exponentially large afterwards. They then study a dynamical model with a random-matrix coupling between the black hole and the bath, obtaining a sharp early-time spike of negativity and a late-time equilibrium value that matches the PSSY formula. Finally, they propose a geometric formula for Wigner negativity in general holographic states and argue that a python's lunch implies exponentially large stabilizer complexity.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant step: it gives a concrete, computable magic monotone that jumps at the Page transition, and it suggests a universal basis-independent dependence only on D and S2. The PSSY derivation is clean, the resummation is explicit, and the numerical checks in Figs. 7 and 9 give nontrivial support. The dynamical model and the holographic proposal are more speculative, and the paper openly labels the key assumptions. However, two load-bearing issues need attention: the unproven neglect of O(1/D^2) Weingarten corrections in the resummation of Sec. 4.3, and a sign/consistency error in the central holographic formula Eq. (5.8). These do not invalidate the PSSY result but must be fixed before the broader claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4.58)] The dynamical-model result rests on the large-D factorization of Weingarten functions and on dropping O(1/D^2) corrections inside the exponential resummation. The paper explicitly says in Sec. 4.3: 'we will simply assume that the O(1/D^2) corrections can be ignored, without any further justification.' This is load-bearing because Eq. (4.58) exponentiates the D_n constructed from factorized Weingarten functions, and the s-integration samples a range that grows when the Gaussian width is broad. Numerical agreement at D_R=101, D_B=50-200 (Fig. 9) is encouraging but does not control the resummed effect of non-factorized terms. Please provide a parametric bound on the neglected terms or a direct numerical test that includes the leading non-factorized correction.
  2. [§5, Eq. (5.8)] As printed, Eq. (5.8) defines r = exp((A(γ_out)-A(γ_min))/(4G_N)) with positive sign. For a python's lunch Δ>0, this gives large r, and the formula N = erf(√r)+e^{-r}/√(π r) tends to 1, not to the exponentially large value stated in Eq. (5.10) and in the abstract. Consistency with the Haar-averaged formula Eq. (5.2) and with the RTN calculation in Appendix D requires r = exp(-(A(γ_out)-A(γ_min))/(4G_N)) up to the factor 1/2 in Eq. (5.2). This sign/consistency error in the central holographic formula must be corrected.
  3. [App. C, q=0 case] The appendix shows that for q=0 the Gaussian approximation fails at early times: the quartic coefficient in Eq. (4.58) is O(1) while cubic and higher odd coefficients are only 1/D-suppressed. The paper then states that this failure 'can at most give an O(1) correction' without a derivation. Since the early-time negativity shock is one of the main dynamical claims, a concrete bound or a direct non-Gaussian evaluation is needed to ensure the uncaptured q=0 contribution cannot be parametrically large.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1] The restriction to odd prime D is a technical assumption; a physical radiation bath could be even-dimensional. A sentence on the expected modification for even D would be useful.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (4.30)] The replacement and the combinatorial factors in the diagrammatic resummation are intricate; an explicit small-n example (e.g., n=2 or 3) would help the reader verify the logic.
  3. [Figs. 7 and 9] The numerical checks are for a microcanonical ensemble / GUE at modest D. Please state the convergence criterion and, if possible, show a larger-D point to support the large-D approximations.
  4. [Eq. (5.7)] The identifications D~exp(A(γ_out)/4G_N) and exp(S_B2)~exp(A(γ_min)/4G_N) are natural in fixed-area/RTN states, but the mapping to the single-tensor calculation of Appendix D is not spelled out; in particular, the roles of d_B and d_{\bar B} there should be matched to γ_out and γ_min explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the central formula (3.36) is a parameter-free function of S2 and D; the O(1/D^2) truncation in Sec. 4.3 is an explicit approximation and correctness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained. In Sec. 3, the Wigner negativity is obtained by inserting the integral representation of |W|, resumming the gravitational saddle expansion, truncating at quadratic order in the large-D scaling limit, and evaluating the resulting Gaussian integral exactly; the output (3.36) is a parameter-free function of S2 and D. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction: the numerical comparison in Fig. 7 and the fluctuation estimate in App. B check the formula against independently computed microcanonical values. The same is true in Sec. 4, where the Haar-resummed formula is expressed in terms of the dynamical invariants S0, g, and the second Rényi entropy, and the late-time value (4.74) matches the PSSY result because equilibrium values are inserted, not because the result was assumed in advance. The only self-citation, [48], supplies the diagrammatic/Haar-integration technique and provides the pure-state limit check; it is methodology rather than an unverified premise that forces the target result. Sec. 4.3 does contain an explicitly unproven assumption—neglect of O(1/D^2) Weingarten corrections in a resummation over all moments—and Sec. 5 is framed as a proposal ('we propose', 'we will argue') with identifications D ~ e^{A(γout)/4G_N} and e^{-S_B2} ~ e^{-A(γmin)/4G_N} assumed rather than derived. These are load-bearing caveats and should be weighed as correctness or rigor risks, but they are not circular reductions: no equation of the paper reduces the target negativity to the input by construction, and no fitted constant is presented as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is parameter-free in S2 and D for the PSSY model. The main hand-chosen inputs are the holographic identifications in Sec. 5 (D and e^{-S_B2} identified with extremal-surface areas), plus the admitted large-D factorization assumption in Sec. 4.3. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Hilbert space truncation D for boundary subregion B = D ~ exp(A(gamma_out)/(4 G_N))
    Ad hoc identification in Sec. 5 (eq. 5.7) needed to make the Wigner negativity finite and to connect to RTN/fixed-area states; no derivation from AdS/CFT.
  • Second Renyi entropy identification = exp(-S_B2) ~ exp(-A(gamma_min)/(4 G_N))
    Sec. 5 assumes fixed-area/RTN flat entanglement spectrum to replace e^{-S_B2} by the minimal-extremal-surface area; this is the step that produces the python's lunch formula (5.10).
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Discrete Wigner function/phase-point operator algebra for odd prime D, including Tr(A^k)=1 (k odd), D (k even) (Sec. 2.1, eq. 3.28)
    Background from [38]; used throughout for the Wigner negativity calculations.
  • standard math Wigner negativity is a magic monotone and measures stabilizer complexity / classical simulation cost (Sec. 2.2)
    Assumed from [36,37,45] and used to interpret all results.
  • domain assumption JT gravity path integral computes ensemble-averaged boundary quantities in a double-scaled random matrix theory, with disc amplitudes Z_n of eq. (3.9) (Sec. 3.1)
    Foundation of the PSSY calculation; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The entangled state (3.10) with EOW brane states represents the late-time equilibrium of an evaporating black hole coupled to a bath (Sec. 3.1)
    Taken from PSSY [7]; the entire evaporation setup depends on it.
  • domain assumption Only disk-level bulk topologies contribute; handles are suppressed by e^{-S0} (Sec. 3.3)
    Used to resum the gravitational saddles in eqs. (3.25)-(3.30).
  • domain assumption O_R, the bath operator coupling to the black hole, is a random matrix from a unitarily invariant ensemble in the computational basis (Sec. 4.1)
    This converts the dynamical problem into an ensemble average; not justified microscopically.
  • ad hoc to paper At large D, Weingarten functions factorize and O(1/D^2) corrections can be dropped in the resummation over all moments (Sec. 4.3)
    Explicitly admitted: 'we will simply assume... without any further justification'; validated only a posteriori by numerics.
  • ad hoc to paper For general holographic states, the Wigner negativity is computed by Haar-averaging within fixed-area sectors and identifying D and e^{-S_B2} with extremal-surface areas (Sec. 5, eq. 5.7)
    This is the proposal that yields eqs. (5.8)/(5.10); no derivation from AdS/CFT.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian approximation for the q=0 sector is valid at late times and its early-time failure contributes only O(1) (App. C)
    Used to obtain eqs. (4.71) and (4.73); the early-time failure is acknowledged but its O(1) bound is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the stabilizer complexity of Hawking radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGCNJGGS

@misc{pith2026251018967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the stabilizer complexity of Hawking radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGCNJGGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18967}
}
abstract

We study the complexity of Hawking radiation for an evaporating black hole from the perspective of the stabilizer theory of quantum computation. Specifically, we calculate Wigner negativity -- a magic monotone which can be interpreted as a measure of the stabilizer complexity, or equivalently, the complexity of classical simulation -- in various toy models for evaporating black holes. We first calculate the Wigner negativity of Hawking radiation in the PSSY model directly using the gravitational path integral, and show that the negativity is $O(1)$ before the Page transition, but becomes exponentially large past the Page transition. We also derive a universal, information theoretic formula for the negativity which interpolates between the two extremes. We then study the Wigner negativity of radiation in a dynamical model of black hole evaporation. In this case, the negativity shows a sharp spike at early times resulting from the coupling between the black hole and the radiation system, but at late times when the system settles down, we find that the negativity satisfies the same universal formula as in the PSSY model. Finally, we also propose a geometric formula for Wigner negativity in general holographic states using intuition from fixed area states and random tensor networks, and argue that a python's lunch in the entanglement wedge implies a stabilizer complexity which is exponentially large in $\frac{1}{8G_N}$ times the difference between the areas corresponding to the outermost and minimal extremal surfaces.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Fortuity and Complexity in a Simple Quark Model

    hep-th 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In a toy qubit model of quarks, BRST cohomology designates baryons as fortuitous and mesons as monotone, with the former displaying super-exponential complexity and the latter power-law complexity in the Veneziano limit.

  2. Wigner negativity in Krylov space and emergent semiclassicality

    hep-th 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Wigner negativity in Krylov space stays O(1) or grows as t^{1/2} (without Hilbert-space scaling) in 2d CFTs, one-cut matrix models, and double-scaled SYK, indicating emergent semiclassicality.

  3. Fortuity and Complexity in a Simple Quark Model

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a toy qubit model of quarks, baryons are fortuitous with exponential counting and super-exponential complexity while mesons are monotone with polynomial counting and power-law complexity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [48]

    R. Basu, P. Chowdhury, A. Ganguly, S. Nath, O. Parrikar and S. Paul,Wigner negativity, random matrices and gravity,2506.02110

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Hawking,Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse,Phys

    S.W. Hawking,Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse,Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 2460

    1976

  3. [2]

    Page,Information in black hole radiation,Phys

    D.N. Page,Information in black hole radiation,Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 3743

    1993

  4. [3]

    Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,JHEP09 (2020) 002 [1905.08255]

    G. Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,JHEP09 (2020) 002 [1905.08255]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Almheiri, N

    A. Almheiri, N. Engelhardt, D. Marolf and H. Maxfield,The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole,JHEP12(2019) 063 [1905.08762]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena and Y. Zhao,The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry,JHEP03(2020) 149 [1908.10996]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan and J. Maldacena,Islands outside the horizon,1910.11077

    arXiv 1910

  8. [7]

    Penington, S.H

    G. Penington, S.H. Shenker, D. Stanford and Z. Yang,Replica wormholes and the black hole interior,JHEP03(2022) 205 [1911.11977]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian and A. Tajdini,Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,JHEP05(2020) 013 [1911.12333]. – 51 –

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian and A. Tajdini,The entropy of Hawking radiation,Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021) 035002 [2006.06872]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Headrick, V.E

    M. Headrick, V.E. Hubeny, A. Lawrence and M. Rangamani,Causality & holographic entanglement entropy,JHEP12(2014) 162 [1408.6300]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Czech, J.L

    B. Czech, J.L. Karczmarek, F. Nogueira and M. Van Raamsdonk,The Gravity Dual of a Density Matrix,Class. Quant. Grav.29(2012) 155009 [1204.1330]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong and D. Harlow,Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,JHEP04(2015) 163 [1411.7041]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow and A.C. Wall,Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 021601 [1601.05416]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,Commun

    D. Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,Commun. Math. Phys.354(2017) 865 [1607.03901]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Faulkner and A

    T. Faulkner and A. Lewkowycz,Bulk locality from modular flow,JHEP07(2017) 151 [1704.05464]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cotler, P

    J. Cotler, P. Hayden, G. Penington, G. Salton, B. Swingle and M. Walter,Entanglement wedge reconstruction via universal recovery channels,Phys. Rev. X9(2019) 031011

    2019

  10. [17]

    Balasubramanian, D

    V. Balasubramanian, D. Marolf and M. Rozali,Information Recovery From Black Holes,Gen. Rel. Grav.38(2006) 1529 [hep-th/0604045]

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Raju,Is Holography Implicit in Canonical Gravity?,Int

    S. Raju,Is Holography Implicit in Canonical Gravity?,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28(2019) 1944011 [1903.11073]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Chowdhury, O

    C. Chowdhury, O. Papadoulaki and S. Raju,A physical protocol for observers near the boundary to obtain bulk information in quantum gravity,SciPost Phys.10(2021) 106 [2008.01740]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Harlow and P

    D. Harlow and P. Hayden,Quantum Computation vs. Firewalls,JHEP06(2013) 085 [1301.4504]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Brown, H

    A.R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, G. Penington and L. Susskind,The Python’s Lunch: geometric obstructions to decoding Hawking radiation,JHEP08(2020) 121 [1912.00228]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    I.H. Kim, E. Tang and J. Preskill,The ghost in the radiation: robust encodings of the black hole interior (invited paper),JHEP06(2020) 031 [2003.05451]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Akers, N

    C. Akers, N. Engelhardt, D. Harlow, G. Penington and S. Vardhan,The black hole interior from non-isometric codes and complexity,JHEP06(2024) 155 [2207.06536]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Yang and N

    L. Yang and N. Engelhardt,The complexity of learning (pseudo)random dynamics of black holes and other chaotic systems,JHEP03(2025) 153 [2302.11013]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Balasubramanian, A

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Kar, C. Li and O. Parrikar,Quantum error correction in the black hole interior,JHEP07(2023) 189 [2203.01961]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Balasubramanian, A

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Kar, C. Li, O. Parrikar and H. Rajgadia,Quantum error correction from complexity in Brownian SYK,JHEP08(2023) 071 [2301.07108]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Engelhardt, G

    N. Engelhardt, G. Penington and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,A world without pythons would be so simple,Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) 234001 [2102.07774]. – 52 –

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Engelhardt, G

    N. Engelhardt, G. Penington and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,Finding pythons in unexpected places,Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022) 094002 [2105.09316]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A. May, S. Pasterski, C. Waddell and M. Xu,Cryptographic tests of the python ’s lunch conjecture,2411.10527

  23. [30]

    Arora, M

    G. Arora, M. Headrick, A. Lawrence, M. Sasieta and C. Wolfe,Geometric surprises in the Python ’s lunch conjecture,SciPost Phys.16(2024) 152 [2401.06678]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Engelhardt, G

    N. Engelhardt, G. Penington and A. Shahbazi-Moghaddam,Twice upon a time: timelike-separated quantum extremal surfaces,JHEP01(2024) 033 [2308.16226]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Gottesman,The heisenberg representation of quantum computers, 1998

    D. Gottesman,The heisenberg representation of quantum computers, 1998

    1998

  26. [33]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman,Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,Phys. Rev. A70 (2004) 052328 [quant-ph/0406196]

    2004 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Mari and J

    A. Mari and J. Eisert,Positive wigner functions render classical simulation of quantum computation efficient,Physical Review Letters109(2012)

    2012

  28. [35]

    Bravyi and A

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

    2005

  29. [36]

    Veitch, C

    V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross and J. Emerson,Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,New Journal of Physics14(2012) 113011

    2012

  30. [37]

    Veitch, S.A.H

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

    2014

  31. [38]

    Wootters,A wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics,Annals of Physics176(1987) 1

    W.K. Wootters,A wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics,Annals of Physics176(1987) 1

    1987

  32. [39]

    Leonhardt,Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function,Phys

    U. Leonhardt,Quantum-state tomography and discrete wigner function,Phys. Rev. Lett.74 (1995) 4101

    1995

  33. [40]

    Heiss and S

    S. Heiss and S. Weigert,Discrete moyal-type representations for a spin,Phys. Rev. A63(2000) 012105

    2000

  34. [41]

    Miquel, J.P

    C. Miquel, J.P. Paz and M. Saraceno,Quantum computers in phase space,Phys. Rev. A65 (2002) 062309

    2002

  35. [42]

    Gibbons, M.J

    K.S. Gibbons, M.J. Hoffman and W.K. Wootters,Discrete phase space based on finite fields, Physical Review A70(2004)

    2004

  36. [43]

    Gross,Hudson ’s theorem for finite-dimensional quantum systems,Journal of Mathematical Physics47(2006)

    D. Gross,Hudson ’s theorem for finite-dimensional quantum systems,Journal of Mathematical Physics47(2006)

    2006

  37. [44]

    Cormick, E.F

    C. Cormick, E.F. Galv˜ ao, D. Gottesman, J.P. Paz and A.O. Pittenger,Classicality in discrete wigner functions,Phys. Rev. A73(2006) 012301

    2006

  38. [45]

    Pashayan, J.J

    H. Pashayan, J.J. Wallman and S.D. Bartlett,Estimating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities,Physical Review Letters115(2015)

    2015

  39. [46]

    Wigner,On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium,Phys

    E. Wigner,On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium,Phys. Rev.40(1932) 749

    1932

  40. [47]

    Wang, M.M

    X. Wang, M.M. Wilde and Y. Su,Quantifying the magic of quantum channels,New Journal of Physics21(2019) 103002. – 53 –

    2019

  41. [49]

    Hostens, J

    E. Hostens, J. Dehaene and B.D. Moor,Stabilizer states and Clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimensions and modular arithmetic,Phys. Rev. A71(2005) 042315 [quant-ph/0408190]

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    White, C

    C.D. White, C. Cao and B. Swingle,Conformal field theories are magical,Phys. Rev. B103 (2021) 075145 [2007.01303]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter,Many-Body Quantum Magic,PRX Quantum3(2022) 020333 [2010.13817]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky and P. Sierant,Pauli Spectrum and Magic of Typical Quantum Many-Body States,2312.11631

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Fliss,Knots, links, and long-range magic,JHEP04(2021) 090 [2011.01962]

    J.R. Fliss,Knots, links, and long-range magic,JHEP04(2021) 090 [2011.01962]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K. Goto, T. Nosaka and M. Nozaki,Probing chaos by magic monotones,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 126009

    2022

  47. [55]

    Leone, S.F.E

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

    2021

  48. [56]

    Niroula, C.D

    P. Niroula, C.D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe et al.,Phase transition in magic with random quantum circuits,2304.10481

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zhang and Y

    Y. Zhang and Y. Gu,Quantum magic dynamics in random circuits,2410.21128

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Oliviero, L

    S.F.E. Oliviero, L. Leone, S. Lloyd and A. Hamma,Unscrambling Quantum Information with Clifford Decoders,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 080402 [2212.11337]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cao,Non-trivial area operators require non-local magic,JHEP11(2024) 105 [2306.14996]

    C. Cao,Non-trivial area operators require non-local magic,JHEP11(2024) 105 [2306.14996]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    C. Cao, G. Cheng, A. Hamma, L. Leone, W. Munizzi and S.F.E. Oliviero,Gravitational back-reaction is magical,2403.07056

  53. [61]

    R. Basu, A. Ganguly, S. Nath and O. Parrikar,Complexity growth and the Krylov-Wigner function,Journal of High Energy Physics2024(2024) 264 [2402.13694]

    2024

  54. [62]

    Vidal,Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations,Phys

    G. Vidal,Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations,Phys. Rev. Lett.91(2003) 147902 [quant-ph/0301063]

    2003 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Nielsen,A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds, 2005

    M.A. Nielsen,A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds, 2005

    2005

  56. [64]

    Nielsen, M.R

    M.A. Nielsen, M.R. Dowling, M. Gu and A.C. Doherty,Quantum computation as geometry, Science311(2006) 1133–1135

    2006

  57. [65]

    Susskind,Entanglement is not enough,Fortsch

    L. Susskind,Entanglement is not enough,Fortsch. Phys.64(2016) 49 [1411.0690]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Susskind,Computational complexity and black hole horizons, 2014

    L. Susskind,Computational complexity and black hole horizons, 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    Jefferson and R.C

    R.A. Jefferson and R.C. Myers,Circuit complexity in quantum field theory,Journal of High Energy Physics2017(2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Chapman, M.P

    S. Chapman, M.P. Heller, H. Marrochio and F. Pastawski,Toward a definition of complexity for quantum field theory states,Physical Review Letters120(2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Brown and L

    A.R. Brown and L. Susskind,Second law of quantum complexity,Physical Review D97(2018) . – 54 –

    2018

  62. [70]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. Decross, A. Kar and O. Parrikar,Quantum Complexity of Time Evolution with Chaotic Hamiltonians,JHEP01(2020) 134 [1905.05765]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. DeCross, A. Kar, Y.C. Li and O. Parrikar,Complexity growth in integrable and chaotic models,JHEP07(2021) 011 [2101.02209]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso and M.B. Plenio,Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Reviews of Modern Physics89(2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 046007 [2202.06957]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Nandy, A.S

    P. Nandy, A.S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Mart ´ ınez-Azcona, A. Dymarsky and A. del Campo, Quantum dynamics in Krylov space: Methods and applications,Phys. Rept.1125-1128(2025) 1 [2405.09628]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Baiguera, V

    S. Baiguera, V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M.P. Heller et al., Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science, 2503.10753

  68. [76]

    Saad, S.H

    P. Saad, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,JT gravity as a matrix integral,1903.11115

    1903 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Hamilton, D.N

    A. Hamilton, D.N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz and D.A. Lowe,Holographic representation of local bulk operators,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 066009 [hep-th/0606141]

    2006 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Engelhardt and A.C

    N. Engelhardt and A.C. Wall,Coarse Graining Holographic Black Holes,JHEP05(2019) 160 [1806.01281]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Chandra and T

    J. Chandra and T. Hartman,Coarse graining pure states in AdS/CFT,JHEP10(2023) 030 [2206.03414]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Hayden, S

    P. Hayden, S. Nezami, X.-L. Qi, N. Thomas, M. Walter and Z. Yang,Holographic duality from random tensor networks,JHEP11(2016) 009 [1601.01694]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Chandra and T

    J. Chandra and T. Hartman,Toward random tensor networks and holographic codes in CFT, JHEP05(2023) 109 [2302.02446]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Geng, L.-Y

    H. Geng, L.-Y. Hung and Y. Jiang,It from ETH: Multi-interval Entanglement and Replica Wormholes from Large-cBCFT Ensemble,2505.20385

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    N. Bao, H. Geng and Y. Jiang,Ryu-Takayanagi Formula for Multi-Boundary Black Holes from 2D Large-cCFT Ensemble,2504.12388

  76. [84]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow and D. Marolf,Flat entanglement spectra in fixed-area states of quantum gravity,JHEP10(2019) 240 [1811.05382]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Akers and P

    C. Akers and P. Rath,Holographic Renyi Entropy from Quantum Error Correction,JHEP05 (2019) 052 [1811.05171]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Caputa, J

    P. Caputa, J. Kruthoff and O. Parrikar,Building Tensor Networks for Holographic States, JHEP05(2021) 009 [2012.05247]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Parrikar, H

    O. Parrikar, H. Rajgadia, V. Singh and J. Sorce,Relational bulk reconstruction from modular flow,JHEP07(2024) 138 [2403.02377]. – 55 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.