pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.12518 · v3 · submitted 2025-04-16 · 🪐 quant-ph

A trace distance-based geometric analysis of the stabilizer polytope for few-qubit systems

Alberto B. P. Junior , Santiago Zamora , Rafael A. Mac\^edo , Tailan S. Sarubi , Joab M. Varela , Gabriel W. C. Rocha , Darlan A. Moreira , Rafael Chaves This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 19:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords non-stabilizernesstrace distancestabilizer polytopefew-qubit systemsentanglementFannes inequalityquantum resources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Trace distance to the stabilizer polytope quantifies non-stabilizerness in few-qubit systems and concentrates with entanglement.

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

The paper maps the geometry of the stabilizer polytope in systems with a small number of qubits by treating the trace distance from a given state to the nearest stabilizer state as a measure of non-stabilizerness. Random sampling of both pure and mixed states reveals the typical spread of this resource and permits direct comparisons with entanglement and other quantifiers. An explicit analytical formula is supplied for the distance-based measure, the bounding inequalities of the polytope are identified as Bell-like statements, and a general concentration theorem links the size of non-stabilizerness to the amount of entanglement through Fannes' inequality.

Core claim

The trace distance from an arbitrary state to the convex hull of stabilizer states supplies an analytically tractable geometric quantifier of non-stabilizerness; when this distance is sampled over few-qubit pure and mixed states it exhibits a concentration relation with entanglement that follows from Fannes' inequality, while the facets of the polytope correspond to Bell-like inequalities.

What carries the argument

Trace distance from a quantum state to the convex set of stabilizer states, which geometrically measures how far the state lies outside the classically simulable region.

If this is right

  • An explicit closed-form expression exists for the trace-distance quantifier of non-stabilizerness in few-qubit systems.
  • The facets of the stabilizer polytope are in one-to-one correspondence with Bell-like inequalities.
  • Non-stabilizerness and entanglement become tightly related by concentration once Fannes' inequality is applied to the trace-distance measure.
  • Typical values of non-stabilizerness for randomly chosen pure and mixed states can be read off from the sampled distributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Experiments on current few-qubit hardware could use trace-distance estimates to decide whether a prepared state already contains enough non-stabilizerness to escape classical simulation.
  • The same geometric picture may extend to magic-state distillation protocols restricted to small numbers of qubits.
  • If the concentration result survives to larger qubit numbers, it would imply that entanglement alone is often a sufficient proxy for non-stabilizerness in practical device characterization.

Load-bearing premise

Random sampling of quantum states gives a representative picture of the overall distribution of non-stabilizerness for pure and mixed states in few-qubit systems.

What would settle it

A large-scale numerical check that finds no statistical correlation between the trace-distance values and the entanglement values predicted by Fannes' inequality across thousands of randomly chosen few-qubit states would falsify the claimed concentration result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12518 by Alberto B. P. Junior, Darlan A. Moreira, Gabriel W. C. Rocha, Joab M. Varela, Rafael A. Mac\^edo, Rafael Chaves, Santiago Zamora, Tailan S. Sarubi.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A heat-map of the NTD of the Bloch sphere surface. For qubits, the operators Aq can be obtained as fol￾lows: {D0,1, D1,0, D1,1} = {Z, X, Y } , (10) as defined by Eq. (1). Note that these operators depend on the projectors of the operators. As an example, we write here one of the eight operators: A (0,0,0) = −I + |0⟩ ⟨0| + |+⟩ ⟨+| + |i⟩ ⟨i| , (11) where |0⟩, |+⟩, |i⟩ are the eigenvectors with eigenvalues +1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: NTD histograms of 360,000 randomly sampled pure (blue) and mixed (orange) states for (a) 1-qubit, (b) 2- qubit, and (c) 3-qubit systems. proxy for the resilience of quantum states against classi￾cal simulability. The NTD inherits all the well-known properties of the trace distance operation [53], such as its contractiveness under CPTP maps, its invariability under unitary trans￾formations, and its convexit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tight lower bound of M(ρ) restricted to a value I 3 i (ρ) for i = 1, 2. In this figure, we show how the numerical approach allows to get an analytical expression for the SDP [see Eq. (28)]. The dots are the numerical result of the SDP by restricting the states to satisfy a certain value of the wit￾nesses I 3 given by Eq. (17) (black dots) and Eq. (18) (green dots). We show the corresponding fitting in the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An avocado-like geometry, representing a far￾away non-stabilizer state close to the facets of the stabilizer polytope. In this pictorial example, we show how |T⟩ ⊗2 can be the furthest away state from the stabilizer polytope as quantified by the trace distance NTD, but there exist points on the border of the set of quantum states whose distances to the closest blue facet (dfb ) and red facet (dfr ), are la… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Critical depolarization probability for pure states versus: (a) RoM and (b) NTD, using uniformly ran￾dom quantum states; (c) RoM and (d) NTD, using biased random quantum states. For each case (1, 2 or 3 qubits), 1,900,000 states were sampled. C. Robustness to Noise To understand the noise resilience of the non￾stabilizerness of a quantum state, we investigate the de￾polarization probability at which a pure… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Non-stabilizerness by Trace Distance versus (a) Robustness of Magic and (b) Stabilizer Rényi Entropy (α = 2) for randomly sampled 1-, 2-, and 3-qubit pure states. A total of 360,000 pure states were sampled for each qubit. Using the same pure-state dataset as above, we also compared the NTD with two other non-stabilizerness measures: RoM and the stabilizer Rényi Entropy. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Local critical depolarization probability for pure states versus: (a) RoM and (b) NTD, using uniformly ran￾dom quantum states; (c) RoM and (d) NTD, using biased random quantum states. For each case (1, 2 or 3 qubits), 1,900,000 states were sampled. V. NON-STABILIZERNESS AND ENTANGLEMENT A. Non-stabilizerness versus entangle￾ment in randomly sampled pure states To gain further insight into the relationship … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Entanglement Entropy vs. Non-stabilizerness by Trace Distance for 2-qubit pure states, using (a) a uni￾form random generator and (b) a biased random generator (described in Section IV C). For each plot, 2,000,000 states were generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NTD vs. Mean Entropy for 3-qubit pure states obtained using (a) a uniform random state genera￾tor (2,200,000 states), (b) a biased random state generator (1,200,000 states), (c) walks on the hypersphere from each polytope vertex to a Hoggar state (1,081,080 states), and (d) all states combined, showing the most complete rela￾tionship between NTD and Mean Entropy. Lemma V.1 (Fannes-Audenaert inequality). L… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Non-stabilizerness is a fundamental resource for quantum computational advantage, differentiating classically simulable circuits from those capable of universal quantum computation. Recently, non-stabilizerness has been shown to be relevant for a few qubit systems. In this work, we investigate the geometry of the stabilizer polytope in few-qubit quantum systems, using the trace distance to the stabilizer set to quantify non-stabilizerness. By randomly sampling quantum states, we analyze the distribution of non-stabilizerness for both pure and mixed states and compare the trace distance with other non-stabilizerness measures, as well as entanglement. Additionally, we give an analytical expression for the introduced quantifier, classify Bell-like inequalities corresponding to the facets of the stabilizer polytope, and establish a general concentration result connecting non-stabilizerness and entanglement via Fannes' inequality. Our findings provide new insights into the geometric structure of non-stabilizerness and its role in small-scale quantum systems, offering a deeper understanding of the interplay between quantum resources

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the geometry of the stabilizer polytope for few-qubit systems by quantifying non-stabilizerness via the trace distance to the nearest stabilizer state. It reports results from random sampling of pure and mixed states, compares the trace-distance quantifier to other non-stabilizerness measures and to entanglement, supplies an analytical expression for the quantifier, classifies Bell-like inequalities associated with the polytope facets, and derives a general concentration result that links non-stabilizerness and entanglement through Fannes' inequality.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, the work supplies a concrete geometric picture of non-stabilizerness in small systems together with an explicit analytical formula and a resource-interplay result; these elements would be useful for characterizing quantum advantage in few-qubit regimes. The provision of an analytical expression and the facet classification constitute clear strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [section establishing the concentration result] In the derivation of the concentration result (the paragraph that invokes Fannes' inequality to bound |S(ρ) − S(σ)| by a function of D(ρ, σ) where σ is the closest stabilizer state), the argument does not establish that the minimizing σ preserves the marginals of ρ. Because entanglement is extracted from the reduced states ρ_A while non-stabilizerness is defined via inf D(ρ, S), the entropy bound on the full system does not automatically control the entanglement difference on subsystems. This marginal-preservation step is required for the claimed general concentration to hold for both pure and mixed states.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods / sampling subsection] The sampling procedure (number of states drawn, distribution over pure versus mixed states, and any convergence diagnostics) should be stated explicitly in the methods section so that the reported distributions can be reproduced.
  2. Figure captions should indicate the number of qubits and the precise definition of the plotted quantity (e.g., whether the trace distance is normalized).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for highlighting this subtlety in the derivation of the concentration result. We address the concern below and will revise the relevant section accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the derivation of the concentration result (the paragraph that invokes Fannes' inequality to bound |S(ρ) − S(σ)| by a function of D(ρ, σ) where σ is the closest stabilizer state), the argument does not establish that the minimizing σ preserves the marginals of ρ. Because entanglement is extracted from the reduced states ρ_A while non-stabilizerness is defined via inf D(ρ, S), the entropy bound on the full system does not automatically control the entanglement difference on subsystems. This marginal-preservation step is required for the claimed general concentration to hold for both pure and mixed states.

    Authors: We agree that the original paragraph did not explicitly address the relation between the marginals of ρ and those of the minimizing σ. However, the trace distance is contractive under partial trace, so D(ρ_A, σ_A) ≤ D(ρ, σ) holds for any reduced subsystem A. Consequently, Fannes' inequality applies directly to the reduced states: |S(ρ_A) − S(σ_A)| is bounded by a function of D(ρ_A, σ_A) and hence by the same function of D(ρ, σ). This controls the difference in entanglement entropies without requiring exact marginal preservation. We will revise the section to insert this contraction argument and to state the bound explicitly for both pure and mixed states, thereby making the general concentration result rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines non-stabilizerness via infimum trace distance to the stabilizer polytope and applies Fannes' inequality to relate it to entanglement entropy differences. This is a direct application of a standard inequality to the defined quantity and does not reduce the result to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain by construction. Random sampling is used only for numerical distribution analysis, not to derive the analytical expression or concentration bound. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior self-work in the provided sections. The central claims remain independent of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the approach appears to rest on standard quantum information assumptions such as the definition of the stabilizer polytope and the validity of Fannes' inequality.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5748 in / 1166 out tokens · 64084 ms · 2026-05-22T19:26:04.711746+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Triangle Criterion: a mixed-state magic criterion with applications in distillation and detection

    quant-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The Triangle Criterion detects mixed-state magic, proves multi-qubit distillation is strictly stronger than single-qubit schemes, and identifies a purity bound plus undetectable unfaithful magic states.

  2. Trading athermality for nonstabiliserness

    quant-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Thermal operations can generate nonstabiliser states from stabilizer states, with an analytic characterization for qubits and a general trade-off between attainable nonstabiliserness and initial free energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Each operatorDx,z is an element of the Pauli groupPd,1 defined in Eq

    1 qudit For ad-dimensional system, the stabilizer polytope P STAB d,1 can be easily defined by itsH-representation through the following set of inequalities [44]: P STAB d,1 ={ρ:Tr(ρA q)≥0,q∈Z d+1 d },(6) whereZ d = 0,1, ..., d−1, andA q =−I d +Pd+1 j=1 Πqj j withΠ qj j denoting the projector onto the eigenvector cor- responding to the eigenvalueωqj of th...

    work page

  2. [2]

    For qubits, the operatorsA q can be obtained as fol- lows: {D0,1, D1,0, D1,1}={Z, X, Y},(10) as defined by Eq

    1 qubit Figure 2:A heat-map of the NTD of the Bloch sphere surface. For qubits, the operatorsA q can be obtained as fol- lows: {D0,1, D1,0, D1,1}={Z, X, Y},(10) as defined by Eq. (1). Note that these operators depend on the projectors of the operators. As an example, we write here one of the eight operators: A(0,0,0) =−I+|0⟩ ⟨0|+|+⟩ ⟨+|+|i⟩ ⟨i|,(11) where...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (6) depend on the projectors of the operators: {D0,1, D1,0, D1,1, D1,2},(15) defined by Eq

    1-qutrit For3dimensional systems, the operatorsA q in Eq. (6) depend on the projectors of the operators: {D0,1, D1,0, D1,1, D1,2},(15) defined by Eq. (1). In this situation, there are81in- equalities sinceq∈Z 4

    work page

  4. [4]

    However, by expressing: ρ= 2X i,j=0 ⟨D† i,j⟩ 3 Di,j ,(16) one can describe the facets of the polytope in terms of the operatorsD i,j (similarly to the1-qubit case)

    Writing them analytically does not give much insight into the geometry of the polytope. However, by expressing: ρ= 2X i,j=0 ⟨D† i,j⟩ 3 Di,j ,(16) one can describe the facets of the polytope in terms of the operatorsD i,j (similarly to the1-qubit case). With this representation, one can map the inequalities to ma- trices and work with them numerically. We ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Begin by performing a facet enu- meration using the LRS software [47, 48], which produces a raw output of22,320inequalities, along with the con- dition⟨I⟩= 1

    2-qubits For 2-qubits, the facets of the stabilizer polytope can be obtained as follows. Begin by performing a facet enu- meration using the LRS software [47, 48], which produces a raw output of22,320inequalities, along with the con- dition⟨I⟩= 1. For two-qubit systems, the definition in Eq. (8) no longer applies. Instead, we refer to Ref. [49], where the...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Non-stabilizerness by Trace Distance We define the NTD ofρas the minimum distance from ρto the stabilizer polytopeP STAB d,n : M(ρ) = min σ∈P ST AB d,n T(ρ, σ) = min σ∈P ST AB d,n 1 2 ∥ρ−σ∥ 1 .(28) By considering Eq. (4), the numerical problem of deter- miningM(ρ)for a givenρcan be expressed as the fol- lowing semi-definite program (SDP) [52]: min p=(pS)S...

    work page

  7. [9]

    Convexity:M( P i piρi)≤ P i piM(ρi), forp i ≥0 andP i pi = 1

    work page

  8. [10]

    These properties ensure that the NTD is a well- behaved resource monotone, consistent with the frame- work of quantum resource theories

    Invariance under Clifford Unitaries:M(CρC †) = M(ρ), for any Clifford unitaryC. These properties ensure that the NTD is a well- behaved resource monotone, consistent with the frame- work of quantum resource theories. The proofs for each statement are provided in Appendix A. In the next sec- tion, we use the NTD measure to analyze the distribution of non-s...

    work page

  9. [11]

    In that context, the robustness of a quan- tum state quantifies how much separable noise can be introduced to the system to transform the state into a separable one

    Robustness of Magic The development of the resource theory of non- stabilizerness can be approached similarly to the well- established resource theory of entanglement, particularly concerning the robustness of entanglement, as investi- gated in [54]. In that context, the robustness of a quan- tum state quantifies how much separable noise can be introduced...

    work page

  10. [12]

    Rényi demonstrated that by imposing five intu- itive conditions on functionals defined over a probability space, one uniquely identifies Shannon entropy

    Stabilizer Rényi entropies In his influential 1961 work, Alfréd Rényi, building on prior contributions by Feinstein and Fadeev, presented an axiomatic framework for deriving Shannon entropy [55]. Rényi demonstrated that by imposing five intu- itive conditions on functionals defined over a probability space, one uniquely identifies Shannon entropy. By re- ...

    work page 1961

  11. [13]

    2-qubits The first result concerns the classification for the en- tanglement structure of2-qubits, already analyzed in 8 Ref. [63]. It is shown that there are twoLUclasses: [STAB2,2]LC = [|00⟩]LC , 1√ 2(|00⟩+|11⟩) LC , (36) meaning that every single stabilizer state can be written as: (C1 ⊗C 2)|00⟩or(C 1 ⊗C 2) 1√ 2(|00⟩+|11⟩).(37) That is, either is a sta...

    work page

  12. [14]

    There are five entanglement classes: [STAB2,3]LC = ( [|000⟩]LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|110⟩) LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|101⟩) LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|011⟩) LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|111⟩) LC )

    3-qubits The situation becomes slightly richer for3-qubits, as discussed in [64]. There are five entanglement classes: [STAB2,3]LC = ( [|000⟩]LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|110⟩) LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|101⟩) LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|011⟩) LC , 1√ 2(|000⟩+|111⟩) LC ) . (38) The first class corresponds to separable states, the last to the3-qubit GHZ state, and the other three all corr...

    work page

  13. [15]

    iso-non-stabilizerness

    Analytical expression for the NTD of one qubit. In this section, we obtain explicitly an analytical ex- pression for our measure of non-stabilizerness defined through the trace distance in Eq. (28). The program (29) uses theV-representation of the polytope, but here we reformulate it in itsH-representation because this will al- low us to relate the distan...

    work page

  14. [16]

    The process is similar forA0

    =c , E1(−X+E 2XE4 +E 3XE7)⪰0, E1(X+E 2XE4 −E 3XE7)⪰0, Tr(XAi 9)≥0,∀i= 1, ...,8, X⪰0, whereE i is the block matrix with identity in thei-th position andAi 9, is the block matrix with theAi operator in the ninth entry. The process is similar forA0

    work page

  15. [17]

    AllZi are positive semi-definite, andzi ≥0

    From this, it is straightforward to construct the Lagrangian: L= 1 2Tr(E5X)−y 1[Tr(XE9)−1] −y 2[Tr(XE1)−1]−y 3[c−Tr(XA 0 1)] −Tr[Z 1E1(−X+E 2XE4 +E 3XE7)] −Tr[Z 2E1(X+E 2XE4 −E 3XE7)] − 7X i=0 z3+iTr(XAi q)−Tr(Z 1X),(43) wherey i, zi andZ i are the associated dual variables cor- responding to the dual program of the SDP (42). AllZi are positive semi-defin...

    work page

  16. [18]

    Now we relate the violation of the witnesses Eq

    NTD of one qutrit. Now we relate the violation of the witnesses Eq. (17) and Eq. (18) to the NTD for a qutrit. The dimension of the problem is large enough to make the analytical approach intractable. Therefore, we use a numerical ap- proach in which we perform an analogous optimization to the SDP (40), but now restrictingσ∈P ST AB 3,1 and considering the...

    work page

  17. [19]

    Forbrevity, we omit the analysis as the method is identical to the one previously described

    Other insights for 2 qbits The previous technique extends to the two-qubit case, whichfeatures8equivalenceclassesoffacets. Forbrevity, we omit the analysis as the method is identical to the one previously described. Instead, we present the following results. To assess the detection capability of these facets, we sampled10 6 mixed states from the Hilbert-S...

    work page

  18. [20]

    For the 3-qubit case, a full facet enumeration is in- tractable

    For instance, for the first inequality, the optimal parameters for the state achieving maximal violation are given by θ1 ≈ −1.57,θ 2 ≈0.78,θ 3 = 7.48×10 −9,ϕ 1 ≈ −0.40, ϕ2 ≈ −1.19, andϕ 3 ≈ −0.17. For the 3-qubit case, a full facet enumeration is in- tractable. Nevertheless, we can still gain insight by ana- lyzing lower-dimensional projections. The first...

    work page

  19. [21]

    A total of 360,000 pure states were sampled for each qubit

    for randomly sampled 1-, 2-, and 3-qubit pure states. A total of 360,000 pure states were sampled for each qubit. Using the same pure-state dataset as above, we also compared the NTD with two other non-stabilizerness measures: RoM and the stabilizer Rényi Entropy. As shown in Fig. 7, the behavior of the NTD in relation to RoM and the stabilizer Rényi Entr...

    work page 2020

  20. [22]

    Faithfulness:M(ρ) = 0, if and only ifρis stabi- lizer, otherwise,M(ρ)>0,

    work page

  21. [23]

    Monotonicity: for all trace-preserving stabilizer channelsε,M(ε(ρ))≤ M(ρ),

    work page

  22. [24]

    Convexity:M(P i piρi)≤ P i piM(ρi), forp i ≥0 andP i pi = 1

    work page

  23. [25]

    Proof.Their demonstrations are the following:

    Invariance under Clifford Unitaries:M(CρC †) = M(ρ), for any Clifford unitaryC. Proof.Their demonstrations are the following:

    work page

  24. [26]

    If the stateρlies inside the stabilizer polytope,ρ∈ P STAB d,n , then there existsσ=ρ∈P STAB d,n such that ρ−σ= 0, meaning thatM(ρ) = 0

    Notice that NTD is faithful by definition. If the stateρlies inside the stabilizer polytope,ρ∈ P STAB d,n , then there existsσ=ρ∈P STAB d,n such that ρ−σ= 0, meaning thatM(ρ) = 0. If the stateρis non-stabilizer, then for anyσ∈P STAB d,n ρ−σ≥0, implyingM(ρ)>0

    work page

  25. [27]

    For any trace-preserving sta- bilizer channelε, M(ε(ρ)) = min σ∈P ST AB d,n T(ε(ρ), σ).(A1) Asεis a stabilizer channel,ε(σ)is a stabilizer state forσ∈P STAB d,n

    The NTD monotonicity follows from the contrac- tiveness of the trace distance under CPTP maps demonstrated in [53]. For any trace-preserving sta- bilizer channelε, M(ε(ρ)) = min σ∈P ST AB d,n T(ε(ρ), σ).(A1) Asεis a stabilizer channel,ε(σ)is a stabilizer state forσ∈P STAB d,n . This means that{ε(σ)|σ∈P STAB d,n } is some subset of the stabilizer polytope,...

    work page

  26. [28]

    The NTD convexity follows directly from the trace distance convexity in its first input [53]

    work page

  27. [29]

    Appendix B: Concentration proper- ties of low non-stabilizer states’ proofs In this Appendix, we provide the proof for Theorem V.2 from section VB

    In turn, the NTD invariance under Clifford uni- taries is a direct consequence of the trace distance invarianceunderunitaries[53]: givenaClifforduni- taryC, we have that M(CρC †) = min σ∈P ST AB d,n T(CρC †, σ).(A5) Recalling that the stabilizer set is invariant un- der Clifford unitaries, that is, ifσ∈P STAB d,n then CσC † ∈P STAB d,n , it follows that m...

    work page

  28. [30]

    The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]. 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [31]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Dissertation (ph.d.), California Institute of Tech- nology (1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Dissertation (ph.d.), California Institute of Tech- nology (1997)

    work page 1997

  30. [32]

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

    work page 2004

  31. [33]

    Aaronson and D

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

    work page 2004

  32. [34]

    S.BravyiandA.Kitaev,Universalquantumcomputation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [35]

    Bravyi and D

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

    work page 2016

  34. [36]

    Howard and E

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

    work page 2017

  35. [37]

    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)

    work page 2014

  36. [38]

    O. Hahn, A. Ferraro, L. Hultquist, G. Ferrini, and L.García-Álvarez,Quantifyingqubitmagicresourcewith Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill encoding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 210502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [39]

    X.Wang, M.M.Wilde,andY.Su,Efficientlycomputable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [40]

    Hamaguchi, K

    H. Hamaguchi, K. Hamada, and N. Yoshioka, Handbook for Quantifying Robustness of Magic, Quantum8, 1461 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [41]

    Haug and M

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

    work page 2023

  40. [42]

    Cepollaro, S

    S. Cepollaro, S. Cusumano, A. Hamma, G. L. Giudice, and J. Odavic, Harvesting stabilizer entropy and non- locality from a quantum field (2025), arXiv:2412.11918 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [43]

    C. Cao, G. Cheng, A. Hamma, L. Leone, W. Munizzi, and S. Oliviero, Gravitational back-reaction is magical, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07056 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [45]

    Pashayan, J

    H. Pashayan, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, Esti- mating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 070501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [46]

    Delfosse, C

    N. Delfosse, C. Okay, J. Bermejo-Vega, D. E. Browne, and R. Raussendorf, Equivalence between contextuality and negativity of the wigner function for qudits, New Journal of Physics19, 123024 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [47]

    Heimendahl,The Stabilizer Polytope and Contextu- ality for Qubit Systems, Master’s thesis, University of Cologne (2019), supervised by Frank Vallentin and David Gross

    A. Heimendahl,The Stabilizer Polytope and Contextu- ality for Qubit Systems, Master’s thesis, University of Cologne (2019), supervised by Frank Vallentin and David Gross

    work page 2019

  45. [48]

    Zurel, C

    M. Zurel, C. Okay, R. Raussendorf, and A. Heimendahl, Hidden variable model for quantum computation with magic states on qudits of any dimension, Quantum8, 1323 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [49]

    Leone, S

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

    work page 2022

  47. [50]

    T. Haug, S. Lee, and M. S. Kim, Efficient quantum al- gorithms for stabilizer entropies, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 240602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [51]

    Liu and A

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

    work page 2022

  49. [52]

    Haug and L

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

    work page 2023

  50. [53]

    V. Obst, A. Heimendahl, T. Singal, and D. Gross, Wigner’s theorem for stabilizer states and quantum designs, Journal of Mathematical Physics65, 112202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [54]

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

    work page 2024

  52. [55]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spread- ing inrandom quantum circuits, NatureCommunications 16, 2575 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [56]

    Howard and J

    M. Howard and J. Vala, Nonlocality as a benchmark for universal quantum computation in ising anyon topologi- cal quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A85, 022304 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [57]

    Howard, Maximum nonlocality and minimum un- certainty using magic states, Phys

    M. Howard, Maximum nonlocality and minimum un- certainty using magic states, Phys. Rev. A91, 042103 (2015)

    work page 2015

  55. [58]

    U. I. Meyer, I. Šupić, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Qudit clauser-horne-shimony-holt inequality and nonlo- cality from wigner negativity (2025), arXiv:2405.14367 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [59]

    Certifying nonstabilizerness in quantum processors

    R. Wagner, F. C. R. Peres, E. Z. Cruzeiro, and E. F. Galvão, Certifying nonstabilizerness in quantum proces- sors (2024), arXiv:2404.16107 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [60]

    R. A. Macedo, P. Andriolo, S. Zamora, D. Poderini, and R. Chaves, Witnessing magic with bell inequalities (2025), arXiv:2503.18734 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [61]

    Iannotti, G

    D. Iannotti, G. Esposito, L. C. Venuti, and A. Hamma, Entanglement and stabilizer entropies of random bi- partite pure quantum states (2025), arXiv:2501.19261 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [62]

    Cusumano, L

    S. Cusumano, L. C. Venuti, S. Cepollaro, G. Espos- ito, D. Iannotti, B. Jasser, J. O. c, M. Viscardi, and A. Hamma, Non-stabilizerness and violations of chsh in- equalities (2025), arXiv:2504.03351 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [63]

    Dowling, K

    N. Dowling, K. Modi, and G. A. L. White, Bridging en- tanglement and magic resources through operator space (2025), arXiv:2501.18679 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [64]

    Zamora, R

    S. Zamora, R. A. Macedo, T. S. Sarubi, M. Alves, D. Poderini, and R. Chaves, Prepare-and-magic: Semi- device independent magic certification in the prepare- and-measure scenario, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02226 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [65]

    Vairogs and B

    C. Vairogs and B. Yan, Extracting randomness from magic quantum states, Physical Review Research7, L022069 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [66]

    S. G. A. Brito, B. Amaral, and R. Chaves, Quantifying bell nonlocality with the trace distance, Phys. Rev. A97, 022111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  64. [67]

    Zyczkowski and H.-J

    K. Zyczkowski and H.-J. Sommers, Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General34, 7111 (2001)

    work page 2001

  65. [68]

    M.J.Hall,Randomquantumcorrelationsanddensityop- erator distributions, Physics Letters A242, 123 (1998)

    work page 1998

  66. [69]

    Fannes, A continuity property of the entropy density for spin lattice systems, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics31, 291 (1973)

    M. Fannes, A continuity property of the entropy density for spin lattice systems, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics31, 291 (1973)

    work page 1973

  67. [70]

    Gross, Hudson’s theorem for finite-dimensional quan- tum systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics47, 122107 (2006)

    D. Gross, Hudson’s theorem for finite-dimensional quan- tum systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics47, 122107 (2006)

    work page 2006

  68. [71]

    Gross, Non-negative wigner functions in prime dimen- sions, Applied Physics B86, 367 (2007)

    D. Gross, Non-negative wigner functions in prime dimen- sions, Applied Physics B86, 367 (2007)

    work page 2007

  69. [72]

    E.Hostens, J.Dehaene,andB.DeMoor,Stabilizerstates 20 and clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimen- sions and modular arithmetic, Phys. Rev. A71, 042315 (2005)

    work page 2005

  70. [73]

    M.Howard, J.Wallman, V.Veitch,andJ.Emerson,Con- textuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation, Nature510, 351 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [74]

    Heinrich and D

    M. Heinrich and D. Gross, Robustness of Magic and Symmetries of the Stabiliser Polytope, Quantum3, 132 (2019)

    work page 2019

  72. [75]

    Prakash, A

    S. Prakash, A. Jain, B. Kapur, and S. Seth, Normal form for single-qutrit clifford+Toperators and synthesis of single-qutrit gates, Phys. Rev. A98, 032304 (2018)

    work page 2018

  73. [76]

    Avis, lrs Homepage,http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/ ~avis/C/lrs.html(2001), School of Computer Science, McGill University, Canada

    D. Avis, lrs Homepage,http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/ ~avis/C/lrs.html(2001), School of Computer Science, McGill University, Canada

    work page 2001

  74. [77]

    D. Avis, K. Fukuda, and S. Picozzi, On canonical repre- sentations of convex polyhedra, inMathematical software (World Scientific, 2002) pp. 350–360

    work page 2002

  75. [78]

    A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, J. A. Smolin, M. Ware, J. Strand, B. L. T. Plourde, and M. Steffen, Process verification of two-qubit quantum gates by randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A87, 030301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  76. [79]

    B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality by state distilla- tion, Quantum Inf. Comput.9, 1030 (2006)

    work page 2006

  77. [80]

    Ipek and C

    S. Ipek and C. Okay, The degenerate vertices of the2-qubitλ-polytope and their update rules (2023), arXiv:2312.10734 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [81]

    Skrzypczyk and D

    P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti,Semidefinite Program- ming in Quantum Information Science, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2023)

    work page 2053

  79. [82]

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

    work page 2010

  80. [83]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Robustness of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A59, 141 (1999)

    work page 1999

Showing first 80 references.