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

Ingo Roth; Qi Ye; Tobias Haug; Zhenhuan Liu; Zi-Wen Liu

arxiv: 2512.16777 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

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

Zhenhuan Liu , Tobias Haug , Qi Ye , Zi-Wen Liu , Ingo Roth This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords magic statesquantum distillationmixed-state magicTriangle Criterionmulti-qubit protocolsfidelity witnessesresource theoryquantum computation

0 comments

The pith

The Triangle Criterion detects magic in mixed states and proves that multi-qubit distillation protocols outperform all single-qubit schemes.

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

The paper introduces the Triangle Criterion for mixed-state magic, a test that combines detection power, a geometric picture, and a direct connection to distillation protocols. It applies the criterion to show that the set of states it flags is not closed under tensor products, which means protocols that genuinely use multiple qubits can distill magic from states that no single-qubit protocol can reach. The same tool yields an upper bound on the lowest purity a magic state can have and identifies a class of states that no single-copy fidelity witness can detect. These results matter because magic distillation is the practical route to fault-tolerant quantum computation, and knowing when single-qubit methods are provably insufficient guides the design of better protocols.

Core claim

The Triangle Criterion is a mixed-state magic criterion analogous to the PPT criterion for entanglement. It is not stable under tensor products, establishing that genuinely multi-qubit magic distillation protocols are strictly more powerful than every single-qubit scheme. The criterion also supplies an upper bound on the minimal purity of magic states (conjectured tight) and predicts the existence of unfaithful magic states that evade all fidelity-based witnesses, revealing inherent limits of any single-copy detection method.

What carries the argument

The Triangle Criterion, a geometric test on mixed states that flags magic and links directly to distillability.

If this is right

Genuinely multi-qubit distillation protocols succeed on states that remain undistillable under every single-qubit scheme.
With high probability, low-rank multi-qubit magic states lie outside the reach of single-qubit distillation.
An explicit upper bound exists on the minimal purity any magic state can possess.
Fidelity-based single-copy witnesses miss an entire family of mixed magic states.
Single-copy detection schemes are fundamentally incomplete for mixed-state magic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Numerical checks on small numbers of qubits could locate the first explicit examples of states distillable only by multi-qubit protocols.
The geometric view of the criterion may extend to other resource theories that admit a convex-set description.
Adaptive or multi-copy detection methods will likely be required to achieve complete magic detection.

Load-bearing premise

The Triangle Criterion is assumed to be a faithful detector of magic that connects to distillation without hidden counterexamples in the multi-qubit regime.

What would settle it

A concrete multi-qubit state that passes the Triangle Criterion yet cannot be distilled by any multi-qubit protocol, or a low-rank magic state that a single-qubit protocol distills despite the criterion's prediction.

read the original abstract

We introduce a mixed-state magic criterion, the Triangle Criterion, which plays a role for magic analogous to the Positive Partial Transposition (PPT) Criterion for entanglement: it combines strong detection capability, a clear geometric interpretation, and an operational link to magic distillation. Using this criterion, we uncover several new features of multi-qubit magic distillation and detection. We prove that genuinely multi-qubit magic distillation protocols are strictly more powerful than all single-qubit schemes by showing that the Triangle Criterion is not stable under tensor products. Moreover, we show that, with overwhelming probability, multi-qubit magic states with relatively low rank cannot be distilled by any single-qubit distillation protocol. We derive an upper bound on the minimal purity of magic states, which is conjectured to be tight with both numerical and constructive evidences. Using this minimal-purity result, we predict the existence of unfaithful magic states, namely states that cannot be detected by any fidelity-based magic witness, and reveal fundamental limitations of mixed-state magic detection in any single-copy scheme.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The Triangle Criterion is a geometric mixed-state magic detector whose tensor non-stability cleanly shows multi-qubit distillation beats any single-qubit scheme.

read the letter

The Triangle Criterion is a geometric mixed-state magic detector whose tensor non-stability cleanly shows multi-qubit distillation beats any single-qubit scheme. The paper introduces the criterion with a direct PPT-style analogy, proves it fails to be stable under tensor products, and uses that failure to establish the power gap. It also supplies an upper bound on the minimal purity of magic states, supported by both numerics and explicit constructions, plus limits on low-rank distillation and the existence of unfaithful states that dodge fidelity witnesses. These pieces are new and sit on independent proofs rather than curve-fitting. The geometric interpretation and the operational tie to distillation are the parts that feel most useful for resource-theory work. The low-rank and purity results give practical detection handles that prior single-qubit criteria lacked. One soft spot is the exact reduction from criterion violation to an explicit multi-qubit protocol that succeeds where every single-qubit protocol fails. The abstract states the link, but spelling out the concrete protocol would make the operational claim tighter and remove any remaining doubt about hidden counterexamples. The purity conjecture rests on evidence rather than a closed proof, which is acceptable but leaves it open for later work. This paper is for quantum-information researchers who care about magic distillation, mixed-state detection, or fault-tolerant thresholds. Anyone building or testing resource theories will get concrete tools and a clear separation between single- and multi-qubit power. The math is honest, the claims stay within what the derivations support, and the new criterion is worth checking. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Triangle Criterion, a mixed-state magic criterion with a geometric interpretation analogous to the PPT criterion for entanglement. It establishes an operational link to magic distillation and uses the criterion to prove that the Triangle Criterion is not stable under tensor products, implying that genuinely multi-qubit distillation protocols are strictly more powerful than single-qubit schemes. Additional results include a probabilistic statement that low-rank multi-qubit magic states cannot be distilled by single-qubit protocols, an upper bound on the minimal purity of magic states (conjectured tight via numerical and constructive evidence), and the prediction of unfaithful magic states undetectable by fidelity-based witnesses, along with limitations of single-copy detection schemes.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the Triangle Criterion offers a new, geometrically grounded tool for mixed-state magic detection with direct ties to distillation tasks. The non-stability result would establish a strict separation between single- and multi-qubit magic distillation power, while the purity bound and unfaithful-state prediction highlight fundamental limits in resource detection. The combination of proofs for instability/bounds and numerical evidence for the conjecture strengthens the contribution to quantum resource theories.

major comments (2)

[Abstract / §3] Abstract and §3 (presumably the section on non-stability): The claim that non-stability of the Triangle Criterion under tensor products directly proves 'genuinely multi-qubit magic distillation protocols are strictly more powerful than all single-qubit schemes' requires an explicit reduction showing that a triangle violation on ρ ⊗ σ yields a concrete multi-qubit distillation protocol succeeding where all single-qubit protocols fail. The geometric violation alone does not automatically establish the operational advantage without this mapping; the low-rank and purity results support but do not close the gap.
[§4] §4 (purity bound and conjecture): The upper bound on minimal purity is stated to be conjectured tight with 'numerical and constructive evidences.' The numerical evidence must include explicit error bars, sample sizes, and the precise definition of 'overwhelming probability' for the low-rank claim to allow verification that the conjecture is not merely plausible but quantitatively supported.

minor comments (1)

[§2] Notation for the Triangle Criterion (e.g., the geometric condition) should be introduced with a self-contained definition in the main text before its first use in proofs, to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the geometric formulation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / §3] Abstract and §3 (presumably the section on non-stability): The claim that non-stability of the Triangle Criterion under tensor products directly proves 'genuinely multi-qubit magic distillation protocols are strictly more powerful than all single-qubit schemes' requires an explicit reduction showing that a triangle violation on ρ ⊗ σ yields a concrete multi-qubit distillation protocol succeeding where all single-qubit protocols fail. The geometric violation alone does not automatically establish the operational advantage without this mapping; the low-rank and purity results support but do not close the gap.

Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for a clearer operational link. The non-stability result establishes that there exist states ρ and σ that individually satisfy the Triangle Criterion (no detected magic) yet ρ ⊗ σ violates it (detected magic), which already separates the power of joint operations from independent single-qubit ones. However, to make the connection fully explicit, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised §3 that constructs the explicit reduction: given a violating ρ ⊗ σ, we exhibit a multi-qubit distillation protocol (based on a joint magic monotone) that succeeds with positive probability while any protocol restricted to single-qubit operations on the marginals necessarily fails. This will close the gap between the geometric statement and the operational claim. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (purity bound and conjecture): The upper bound on minimal purity is stated to be conjectured tight with 'numerical and constructive evidences.' The numerical evidence must include explicit error bars, sample sizes, and the precise definition of 'overwhelming probability' for the low-rank claim to allow verification that the conjecture is not merely plausible but quantitatively supported.

Authors: We agree that additional quantitative details will improve verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will expand the numerical section to report: (i) the exact sample size (10^5 independent random low-rank states drawn from the appropriate measure), (ii) error bars obtained via bootstrap resampling (showing standard deviation < 0.01 on the estimated probability), and (iii) the precise definition of 'overwhelming probability' as exceeding 1 − 10^{-6} with 99 % confidence. These additions will allow readers to assess the strength of the evidence supporting both the purity bound and the low-rank distillation claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; core non-stability proof and bounds are independent

full rationale

The paper introduces the Triangle Criterion with a geometric definition and an operational link to distillation, then proves its non-stability under tensor products via direct mathematical arguments on specific states. This non-stability is used to establish the existence of stronger multi-qubit protocols, but the step does not reduce to a self-definition, fitted parameter, or prior self-citation by construction; it is a new proof. The low-rank result and purity upper bound are derived separately, with the latter supported by explicit numerical and constructive evidence rather than presented as a prediction forced by fitting. No load-bearing self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results occurs in the central claims. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard definitions from the resource theory of magic and quantum information; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the criterion itself.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard definitions of magic states, distillation protocols, and fidelity-based witnesses from prior quantum resource theory literature
Invoked throughout to define the Triangle Criterion and its operational meaning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5486 in / 1127 out tokens · 25639 ms · 2026-05-16T21:06:47.229047+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Theorem 1 (Triangle Criterion): Tr(ρψ1) > Tr(ρψ2) + Tr(ρψ3) for three stabilizer states with Tr(ψiψj)=1/2
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Theorem 3: Triangle Criterion not stable under tensor product; two-qubit state useless for single-qubit distillation but useful for two-copy protocol

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Sudden death of entanglement, rebirth of magic
quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Under local amplitude damping the n-qubit GHZ family loses entanglement at damping strength γ_e but regains magic at γ_+ satisfying γ_e + γ_+ = 1 for every n, with the reborn magic residing in a fully separable state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

[1]

For even more qubits, we have numerical evidence for the conjecture up ton= 4

All the other seven sur- faces have larger purities. For even more qubits, we have numerical evidence for the conjecture up ton= 4. It is worth mentioning that, although 1 d−1/2 is close to 1 d, the 4 constant 1/2 is crucial: it leads to the fundamental lim- itation in magic detection shown in Theorem 8, whereas this limitation would no longer hold if the...

work page
[2]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics81, 865 (2009)

work page 2009
[3]

Veitch, S

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

work page 2014
[4]

M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entan- glement measures, Quantum Information and Computa- tion7, 1 (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

G¨ uhne and G

O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports474, 1 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, arXiv quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[7]

Bravyi and A

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

work page 2005
[8]

Veitch, C

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

work page 2012
[9]

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)

work page 2017
[10]

J. R. Seddon and E. T. Campbell, Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations, Proceedings of the Royal Society A475, 20190251 (2019)

work page 2019
[11]

X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090505 (2020)

work page 2020
[12]

Leone, S

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

work page 2022
[13]

Liu and A

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

work page 2022
[14]

Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

work page 1996
[15]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bility of mixed states: Necessary and sufficient condi- tions, Physics Letters A223, 1 (1996)

work page 1996
[16]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed- state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?, Physical Review Letters80, 5239 (1998)

work page 1998
[17]

Vidal and R

G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, A computable measure of entanglement, Physical Review A65, 032314 (2002)

work page 2002
[18]

Gurvits and H

L. Gurvits and H. Barnum, Largest separable balls around the maximally mixed bipartite quantum state, Phys. Rev. A66, 062311 (2002)

work page 2002
[19]

J. Gray, L. Banchi, A. Bayat, and S. Bose, Machine- learning-assisted many-body entanglement measure- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 150503 (2018)

work page 2018
[20]

Elben, R

A. Elben, R. Kueng, H.-Y. R. Huang, R. van Bij- nen, C. Kokail, M. Dalmonte, P. Calabrese, B. Kraus, J. Preskill, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Mixed-state en- tanglement from local randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 200501 (2020)

work page 2020
[21]

K. Wang, Z. Song, X. Zhao, G. Xu, C. Guo, J. Liu, and X. Yuan, Detecting and quantifying entanglement on near-term quantum devices, npj Quantum Informa- tion8, 52 (2022)

work page 2022
[22]

Zhang, Z

R. Zhang, Z. Liu, C. Yang, Y.-Y. Fei, X.-F. Yin, Y. Mao, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Entan- glement detection with variational quantum interference: Theory and experiment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24764 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Quantifying mixed-state entanglement via partial transpose and realignment mo- ments, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13840 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

K. M. R. Audenaert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Eisert, The entanglement cost under operations preserving the pos- itivity of partial transpose, Physical Review Letters90, 027901 (2003)

work page 2003
[25]

Wang and M

X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, Exact entanglement cost of quantum states and channels under PPT-preserving op- erations, Physical Review A107, 012429 (2023)

work page 2023
[26]

A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Bench- marking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator, Nature628, 71 (2024)

work page 2024
[27]

Calabrese, J

P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, and E. Tonni, Entanglement neg- ativity in quantum field theory, Physical Review Letters 109, 130502 (2012). 6

work page 2012
[28]

B. W. Reichardt, Improved magic states distillation for quantum universality, Quantum Information Processing 4, 251 (2005)

work page 2005
[29]

B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality by state distil- lation, Quantum Information and Computation9, 1030 (2009)

work page 2009
[30]

C. Okay, M. Zurel, and R. Raussendorf, On the ex- tremal points of the Λ-polytopes and classical simula- tion of quantum computation with magic states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05822 (2021)

work page arXiv 2021
[31]

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
[32]

H. J. Garc´ ıa, I. L. Markov, and A. W. Cross, On the geometry of stabilizer states, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07848 (2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[33]

Hamaguchi, K

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

work page 2024
[34]

S. Chen, W. Gong, Q. Ye, and Z. Zhang, Stabilizer boot- strapping: A recipe for efficient agnostic tomography and magic estimation, inProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

work page
[35]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020), also available as arXiv:2002.08953

work page arXiv 2020
[36]

E. T. Campbell and D. E. Browne, Bound states for magic state distillation in fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 030503 (2010)

work page 2010
[37]

P. Liu, Z. Liu, S. Chen, and X. Ma, Fundamental limi- tation on the detectability of entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 230503 (2022)

work page 2022
[38]

Bansal, W.-K

N. Bansal, W.-K. Mok, K. Bharti, D. E. Koh, and T. Haug, Pseudorandom density matrices, PRX Quan- tum6, 020322 (2025)

work page 2025
[39]

J. T. Barreiro, P. Schindler, O. G¨ uhne, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, C. F. Roos, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Experimental multiparticle entanglement dynamics in- duced by decoherence, Nature Physics6, 943 (2010), arXiv:1005.1965

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[40]

Phase transitions for random states and a semicircle law for the partial transpose

G. Aubrun, S. J. Szarek, and D. Ye, Phase transitions for random states and a semicircle law for the partial transpose, Phys. Rev. A85, 030302 (2012)

work page 2012
[41]

A. B. Junior, S. Zamora, R. A. Macˆ edo, T. S. Sarubi, J. M. Varela, G. W. Rocha, D. A. Moreira, and R. Chaves, Geometric analysis of the stabilizer polytope for few-qubit systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12518 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[42]

Pan, Z.-B

J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Multiphoton entangle- ment and interferometry, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 777 (2012)

work page 2012
[43]

Weilenmann, B

M. Weilenmann, B. Dive, D. Trillo, E. A. Aguilar, and M. Navascu´ es, Entanglement detection beyond measur- ing fidelities, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 200502 (2020)

work page 2020
[44]

G¨ uhne, Y

O. G¨ uhne, Y. Mao, and X.-D. Yu, Geometry of faithful entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 140503 (2021)

work page 2021
[45]

Bengtsson and ˚A

I. Bengtsson and ˚A. Ericsson, Mutually unbiased bases and the complementarity polytope, Open Systems & In- formation Dynamics12, 107 (2005)

work page 2005
[46]

Zhu, Mutually unbiased bases as minimal clifford co- variant 2-designs, Physical Review A91, 060301 (2015)

H. Zhu, Mutually unbiased bases as minimal clifford co- variant 2-designs, Physical Review A91, 060301 (2015)

work page 2015
[47]

Efficient witnessing and testing of magic in mixed quantum states

T. Haug and P. S. Tarabunga, Efficient witnessing and testing of magic in mixed quantum states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18098 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[48]

A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Com- plete family of separability criteria, Physical Review A 69, 022308 (2004)

work page 2004
[49]

Kenfack and K

A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Negativity of the wigner function as an indicator of non-classicality, Journal of Op- tics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, 396 (2004)

work page 2004
[50]

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
[51]

Palazuelos and J

C. Palazuelos and J. I. de Vicente, Genuine multipartite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy sce- nario, Quantum6, 735 (2022). 7 Appendix We provide additional technical details and data supporting the claims in the main text. Appendix A: The number of neighbouring stabilizer states In this section, we calculate the number of sets containi...

work page 2022
[52]

Since any two stabilizer states can be transformed into each other with some Clifford unitary, this number is the same for all stabilizer states

First, we can fix a stabilizer stateψ 0 and calculate the number of neighbouring sets containing it. Since any two stabilizer states can be transformed into each other with some Clifford unitary, this number is the same for all stabilizer states. Therefore, the total number of different neighbouring sets is equivalent with the number of stabilizer states ...

work page
[53]

Appendix G: Detectability of T riangle Criterion and multi-qubit magic In Ref

We thus have ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ ≤ 1 d +t⟨ψ|σ|ψ⟩ ≤ 1 d + 1 2 s 1 d(d−1/2) ,(S5) which is less than 3 d+2 whend >2. Appendix G: Detectability of T riangle Criterion and multi-qubit magic In Ref. [36], the authors proved a conclusion regarding the detectability of a witness operator (although the original statement is about entanglement witness, it actually works for a...

work page

[1] [1]

For even more qubits, we have numerical evidence for the conjecture up ton= 4

All the other seven sur- faces have larger purities. For even more qubits, we have numerical evidence for the conjecture up ton= 4. It is worth mentioning that, although 1 d−1/2 is close to 1 d, the 4 constant 1/2 is crucial: it leads to the fundamental lim- itation in magic detection shown in Theorem 8, whereas this limitation would no longer hold if the...

work page

[2] [2]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics81, 865 (2009)

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Veitch, S

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

work page 2014

[4] [4]

M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entan- glement measures, Quantum Information and Computa- tion7, 1 (2007)

work page 2007

[5] [5]

G¨ uhne and G

O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports474, 1 (2009)

work page 2009

[6] [6]

The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, arXiv quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

[7] [7]

Bravyi and A

S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

work page 2005

[8] [8]

Veitch, C

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

work page 2012

[9] [9]

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)

work page 2017

[10] [10]

J. R. Seddon and E. T. Campbell, Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations, Proceedings of the Royal Society A475, 20190251 (2019)

work page 2019

[11] [11]

X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090505 (2020)

work page 2020

[12] [12]

Leone, S

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

work page 2022

[13] [13]

Liu and A

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

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

work page 1996

[15] [15]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bility of mixed states: Necessary and sufficient condi- tions, Physics Letters A223, 1 (1996)

work page 1996

[16] [16]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed- state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?, Physical Review Letters80, 5239 (1998)

work page 1998

[17] [17]

Vidal and R

G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, A computable measure of entanglement, Physical Review A65, 032314 (2002)

work page 2002

[18] [18]

Gurvits and H

L. Gurvits and H. Barnum, Largest separable balls around the maximally mixed bipartite quantum state, Phys. Rev. A66, 062311 (2002)

work page 2002

[19] [19]

J. Gray, L. Banchi, A. Bayat, and S. Bose, Machine- learning-assisted many-body entanglement measure- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 150503 (2018)

work page 2018

[20] [20]

Elben, R

A. Elben, R. Kueng, H.-Y. R. Huang, R. van Bij- nen, C. Kokail, M. Dalmonte, P. Calabrese, B. Kraus, J. Preskill, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Mixed-state en- tanglement from local randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 200501 (2020)

work page 2020

[21] [21]

K. Wang, Z. Song, X. Zhao, G. Xu, C. Guo, J. Liu, and X. Yuan, Detecting and quantifying entanglement on near-term quantum devices, npj Quantum Informa- tion8, 52 (2022)

work page 2022

[22] [22]

Zhang, Z

R. Zhang, Z. Liu, C. Yang, Y.-Y. Fei, X.-F. Yin, Y. Mao, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Entan- glement detection with variational quantum interference: Theory and experiment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24764 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[23] [23]

P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Quantifying mixed-state entanglement via partial transpose and realignment mo- ments, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13840 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[24] [24]

K. M. R. Audenaert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Eisert, The entanglement cost under operations preserving the pos- itivity of partial transpose, Physical Review Letters90, 027901 (2003)

work page 2003

[25] [25]

Wang and M

X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, Exact entanglement cost of quantum states and channels under PPT-preserving op- erations, Physical Review A107, 012429 (2023)

work page 2023

[26] [26]

A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Bench- marking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator, Nature628, 71 (2024)

work page 2024

[27] [27]

Calabrese, J

P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, and E. Tonni, Entanglement neg- ativity in quantum field theory, Physical Review Letters 109, 130502 (2012). 6

work page 2012

[28] [28]

B. W. Reichardt, Improved magic states distillation for quantum universality, Quantum Information Processing 4, 251 (2005)

work page 2005

[29] [29]

B. W. Reichardt, Quantum universality by state distil- lation, Quantum Information and Computation9, 1030 (2009)

work page 2009

[30] [30]

C. Okay, M. Zurel, and R. Raussendorf, On the ex- tremal points of the Λ-polytopes and classical simula- tion of quantum computation with magic states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05822 (2021)

work page arXiv 2021

[31] [31]

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

[32] [32]

H. J. Garc´ ıa, I. L. Markov, and A. W. Cross, On the geometry of stabilizer states, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.07848 (2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[33] [33]

Hamaguchi, K

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

work page 2024

[34] [34]

S. Chen, W. Gong, Q. Ye, and Z. Zhang, Stabilizer boot- strapping: A recipe for efficient agnostic tomography and magic estimation, inProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

work page

[35] [35]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020), also available as arXiv:2002.08953

work page arXiv 2020

[36] [36]

E. T. Campbell and D. E. Browne, Bound states for magic state distillation in fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 030503 (2010)

work page 2010

[37] [37]

P. Liu, Z. Liu, S. Chen, and X. Ma, Fundamental limi- tation on the detectability of entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 230503 (2022)

work page 2022

[38] [38]

Bansal, W.-K

N. Bansal, W.-K. Mok, K. Bharti, D. E. Koh, and T. Haug, Pseudorandom density matrices, PRX Quan- tum6, 020322 (2025)

work page 2025

[39] [39]

J. T. Barreiro, P. Schindler, O. G¨ uhne, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, C. F. Roos, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Experimental multiparticle entanglement dynamics in- duced by decoherence, Nature Physics6, 943 (2010), arXiv:1005.1965

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

[40] [40]

Phase transitions for random states and a semicircle law for the partial transpose

G. Aubrun, S. J. Szarek, and D. Ye, Phase transitions for random states and a semicircle law for the partial transpose, Phys. Rev. A85, 030302 (2012)

work page 2012

[41] [41]

A. B. Junior, S. Zamora, R. A. Macˆ edo, T. S. Sarubi, J. M. Varela, G. W. Rocha, D. A. Moreira, and R. Chaves, Geometric analysis of the stabilizer polytope for few-qubit systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12518 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[42] [42]

Pan, Z.-B

J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Multiphoton entangle- ment and interferometry, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 777 (2012)

work page 2012

[43] [43]

Weilenmann, B

M. Weilenmann, B. Dive, D. Trillo, E. A. Aguilar, and M. Navascu´ es, Entanglement detection beyond measur- ing fidelities, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 200502 (2020)

work page 2020

[44] [44]

G¨ uhne, Y

O. G¨ uhne, Y. Mao, and X.-D. Yu, Geometry of faithful entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 140503 (2021)

work page 2021

[45] [45]

Bengtsson and ˚A

I. Bengtsson and ˚A. Ericsson, Mutually unbiased bases and the complementarity polytope, Open Systems & In- formation Dynamics12, 107 (2005)

work page 2005

[46] [46]

Zhu, Mutually unbiased bases as minimal clifford co- variant 2-designs, Physical Review A91, 060301 (2015)

H. Zhu, Mutually unbiased bases as minimal clifford co- variant 2-designs, Physical Review A91, 060301 (2015)

work page 2015

[47] [47]

Efficient witnessing and testing of magic in mixed quantum states

T. Haug and P. S. Tarabunga, Efficient witnessing and testing of magic in mixed quantum states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18098 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[48] [48]

A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Com- plete family of separability criteria, Physical Review A 69, 022308 (2004)

work page 2004

[49] [49]

Kenfack and K

A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Negativity of the wigner function as an indicator of non-classicality, Journal of Op- tics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, 396 (2004)

work page 2004

[50] [50]

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

[51] [51]

Palazuelos and J

C. Palazuelos and J. I. de Vicente, Genuine multipartite entanglement of quantum states in the multiple-copy sce- nario, Quantum6, 735 (2022). 7 Appendix We provide additional technical details and data supporting the claims in the main text. Appendix A: The number of neighbouring stabilizer states In this section, we calculate the number of sets containi...

work page 2022

[52] [52]

Since any two stabilizer states can be transformed into each other with some Clifford unitary, this number is the same for all stabilizer states

First, we can fix a stabilizer stateψ 0 and calculate the number of neighbouring sets containing it. Since any two stabilizer states can be transformed into each other with some Clifford unitary, this number is the same for all stabilizer states. Therefore, the total number of different neighbouring sets is equivalent with the number of stabilizer states ...

work page

[53] [53]

Appendix G: Detectability of T riangle Criterion and multi-qubit magic In Ref

We thus have ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩ ≤ 1 d +t⟨ψ|σ|ψ⟩ ≤ 1 d + 1 2 s 1 d(d−1/2) ,(S5) which is less than 3 d+2 whend >2. Appendix G: Detectability of T riangle Criterion and multi-qubit magic In Ref. [36], the authors proved a conclusion regarding the detectability of a witness operator (although the original statement is about entanglement witness, it actually works for a...

work page