Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Symmetry-Accelerated Classical Simulation of Clifford-Dominated Circuits

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For real, diagonal, and real-diagonal unitaries, the stabilizer extent—the minimal ℓ₁-norm squared of a Clifford decomposition—is exactly the restricted optimization over the corresponding Clifford subgroups, unlocking optimal decomposition

desk verdict The real-unitary case of the main theorem is not proved as written—the Appendix C 'set a=0' claim is false—but the diagonal/real-diagonal core and the numerics justify a full referee pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18977 v2 pith:HLTO3CCH submitted 2025-10-21 quant-ph

Giulio Camillo , Filipa C. R. Peres , Markus Heinrich , Juani Bermejo-Vega This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Ac
keywords stabilizerextentCliffordgroupsymmetryreductionclassicalsimulationmagicresourcetheoryquantumFouriertransformmeasurement-basedcomputationhypergraphstates
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 proves that if a unitary is real, diagonal, or both, its stabilizer extent can be computed by optimizing only over the real, diagonal, or real-diagonal Clifford subgroups without losing optimality. This collapses a superexponentially large optimization problem into a tractable one, allowing optimal decompositions of unitaries on up to seven qubits on a laptop—previously the ceiling was two qubits. The payoff is dramatic: a 16-qubit quantum Fourier transform block becomes classically simulable about 10⁷⁴ times faster than via the Clifford+T-compiled circuit, and any measurement-based computation on a Union Jack lattice with Pauli measurements gains an exponential runtime improvement. The proof rests on a structural claim about how Clifford unitaries look in their Choi-state parametrization, which the paper states but does not fully prove.

What carries the argument

The engine is Lemma 1, which bounds the G-symmetric stabilizer extent of the projection of a single Clifford term. Its proof uses the Choi-state parametrization of Clifford unitaries: every Clifford C is encoded as a stabilizer state C⊗1|φ⁺⟩ with an affine subspace W, a quadratic form q, and linear forms a,b. The paper asserts that restricting to real/diagonal Cliffords truncates W and q but leaves a,b free, so that each projected term becomes a convex combination of subgroup Cliffords. A second tool, weak symmetry reduction (Lemma 2), exploits additional symmetries such as qubit permutations by projecting the search set onto orbits, cutting the number of terms by orders of magnitude (for si

What would settle it

Compute the true stabilizer extent of a small real or diagonal unitary (e.g., a four-qubit multi-controlled phase gate) by solving the full-Clifford second-order cone program and compare it with the extent restricted to the real or diagonal subgroup; equality must hold for every instance. Alternatively, enumerate all Clifford unitaries on two or three qubits and check whether setting a=0 in their Choi-state parametrization always produces another valid Clifford unitary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for G equal to the complex-conjugation group, the diagonal-Pauli group, or their product, any G-invariant unitary U satisfies ξ(U) = ξ_G(U), meaning the stabilizer extent computed over the full Clifford group equals the extent computed over only the G-invariant Cliffords (real, diagonal, or real-diagonal). The proof takes an optimal expansion U = Σ x_C C and shows, via Lemma 1, that the G-projection of each term x_C C can itself be expanded over the subgroup with ℓ₁-norm at most |x_C|. Summing these bounds gives ξ_G(U) ≤ ξ(U), and the reverse inequality is automatic. This yields the first optimal stabilizer-extent decompositions for multi-qubit unitaries up to

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on an unproven structural claim in Appendix C: that the Choi-state parametrization of a Clifford unitary can be restricted to real/diagonal subgroups by zeroing out the linear phase terms a and b while still yielding valid Clifford unitaries—if this fails, Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optimal stabilizer-extent decompositions become computable for real, diagonal, and real-diagonal unitaries on up to seven qubits on consumer hardware.
  • Sum-over-Cliffords simulation of QFT blocks speeds up by factors up to ~8.8×10⁷⁴ for a 16-qubit circuit compared with Clifford+T-synthesized versions.
  • Classical simulation of any measurement-based quantum computation on a Union Jack lattice with Pauli measurements gains an exponential speedup, O(2^{1.2451n}).
  • T-count lower bounds for synthesizing multi-controlled-phase gates improve: CS needs at least 3 T gates, CCZ at least 4, and C³Z, C³S, C⁴Z, C⁴S at least 6.
  • Strict submultiplicativity of the stabilizer extent is observed for QFT blocks, so jointly decomposing gate blocks yields far cheaper simulations than gate-by-gate decomposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's link between diagonal unitaries and equatorial stabilizer states suggests that state-based stabilizer-extent solvers, which already handle ~10 qubits, could be adapted to compute unitary extents and push beyond the seven-qubit limit reported here.
  • The fSim counterexample shows strong symmetry reduction is not a general principle for arbitrary symmetry groups; classifying exactly which subgroups admit it is a concrete open problem that this paper poses.
  • The headline speedups rely on numerical linear-programming solutions being exact to five decimals; a certification pass or exact rational solver would turn the seven-qubit numbers into rigorous bounds.
  • Because the method exploits only the final unitary's symmetry, it applies to any symmetric gate block regardless of internal compilation, suggesting it could combine naturally with recompilation and circuit-optimization routines.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stabilizer extent of unitaries and proves a 'strong symmetry reduction': for real, diagonal, and real-diagonal unitaries, the optimal decomposition into Clifford unitaries can be restricted to the corresponding real, diagonal, or real-diagonal Clifford subgroups without increasing the ℓ1-norm. This is formalized as Theorem 1, with the central engine being Lemma 1, whose proof is deferred to Appendix C. The authors combine this with a 'weak symmetry reduction' for additional invariances, enabling numerical computation of stabilizer extents for up to seven qubits, and they apply the results to multi-controlled-phase gates, QFT simulation, hypergraph states, and Union-Jack-lattice MBQC, reporting large exponential improvements in simulation cost. The paper includes an open-source implementation and validation against known extents from Bravyi et al.

Significance. If the theorem is fully established, the work is significant: it substantially extends the size of unitaries for which stabilizer extents can be computed exactly and demonstrates concrete classical-simulation speedups. The diagonal and real-diagonal cases are likely correct and already support most of the numerical and application claims; the code, reproducibility, and benchmarking against known values are clear strengths. However, the real case is currently not proven, so the full statement of Theorem 1 and the associated abstract/introduction claims overreach. The paper's value is contingent on repairing or restricting the real-case proof.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix C, after Eq. (C3)] The assertion that 'the matrix C′ obtained by setting a=0 is another valid Clifford unitary' is false. For the one-qubit Clifford C=SHS = 1/√2 [[1,i],[i,1]], the Choi state in the convention of Eq. (C2) is 1/2(|00⟩+i|10⟩+i|01⟩+|11⟩), i.e. W=Z_2^2, s=1, a=(1,1), q=b=0. Setting a=0 gives C′=J/√2, a rank-1 matrix that is not unitary and therefore not Clifford. Lemma 4, case 1b/2b, explicitly identifies C′=η+κ as this a=0 matrix and concludes it is a real Clifford; that conclusion is unsupported. Hence Lemma 1 for G=K_n and the real part of Theorem 1 are not proved as written. The counterexample does not by itself disprove Lemma 1 (ξ_{K_n}(I/√2)=1/2≤1), so a repaired proof or a restriction of the theorem to G∈{Z_n,K_n×Z_n} is needed.
  2. [Appendix C, final paragraph] The 'phase-convention reduction' asserts without proof that any optimal decomposition can be chosen to contain only Cliffords from Cn, the subset fixed by Eq. (C3). This is used in the proof of Lemmas 3–5. It is a missing step, not a mere formality, because the global-phase ambiguity ω_8^k C changes the decomposition coefficients and the ℓ1 norm; a proof or reference is needed before the lemmas can be accepted.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)–(C3)] The phrase 'the exponent of i is meant to be evaluated modulo two' is confusing: under this convention i^2=1, which is nonstandard and should be stated explicitly with an example. This is also relevant to the counterexample above.
  2. [Table I(c), n=7 row] The entries for C^6P(θ_max) and θ_max are missing. If the computation could not be performed, this should be stated in the caption or text.
  3. [Fig. 2] The color maps in Fig. 2 should include a colorbar or numeric scale; currently the extent of the ratios is not quantitatively readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central proof is self-contained and benchmarked externally; self-citations are non-essential.

full rationale

The paper's main claim, Theorem 1, is derived from Lemma 1, whose proof is built on the standard stabilizer-state parametrization (Refs. [77,78]) and the Choi-state form of Clifford unitaries. The result is then benchmarked externally: the authors state 'We verified our code by computing the stabilizer extent of T⊗k ... and comparing the results against the known theoretical values by Bravyi et al. [13].' No parameter is fitted to force the theorem, and the simulation speedups are forward consequences of the computed extents rather than fitted predictions labeled as results. The only self-references are the authors' own GitHub repository [27], a code artifact, and non-load-bearing citations such as [22] for an 'analogous strategy' and the outlook citations [61-63]; none of these supplies the proof of Theorem 1. The skeptical concern about Appendix C's 'set a=0' claim is a mathematical-correctness issue about a specific asserted step, not a circularity: the step does not assume the theorem's conclusion, and even if the proof has a gap, the derivation chain is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. Under the stated rules, a broken or unproved lemma is a correctness risk, not circularity, and the manuscript's own fSim counterexample only delimits the scope of the theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core theorem is parameter-free: the optimization problems are exact minimizations over Clifford subgroups, and the paper's numerical outputs are verified against known values where they exist. The only genuinely fitted numbers are the interpolated maxima angles θ_max(n) in Table I(c). Load-bearing premises are standard background (stabilizer-state form, state-extent multiplicativity) plus two stated-but-unproved structural claims in Appendix C. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • θ_max(n): rotation angle maximizing ξ(C^{n−1}P(θ)) = 0.6476π (n=3), 0.7048π (n=4), 0.7288π (n=5), 0.7397π (n=6)
    In Table I(c) and Fig. 3, θ_max and the associated ξ values are obtained by interpolation from grid-evaluated curves ('obtained by interpolation of the values used to construct the curves in Fig. 3'), i.e., fitted to the authors' own computed data. These are reported outputs, not inputs to the central theorem.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Every stabilizer state has the computational-basis form (C1) and every Clifford unitary is described by the Choi-state parametrization (C2)-(C3).
    Appendix C (opening); standard facts cited to [77,78]. The exhaustive form of the parametrization is essential to Lemmas 3–5.
  • domain assumption In the parametrization (C3), the linear part (a,b) is decoupled from validity: setting a = 0 yields another valid Clifford unitary (C′ is a real Clifford).
    Appendix C, paragraph after Eq. (C3); stated as 'straightforward to verify' with no proof given; used to construct the bounded-norm decompositions in Lemma 4 (Cases 1b, 2a) and Lemma 5.
  • domain assumption Any optimal decomposition can be restricted to Cliffords from the canonical phase set Cn by grouping global phases, at no increase in ℓ1-norm.
    Appendix C, phase-convention paragraph; valid by triangle inequality but asserted, and relied upon by the reformulation of the extent problem in the proof of Theorem 1.
  • standard math Stabilizer extent is multiplicative for tensor products of ≤3-qubit states (Eq. 1), giving ξ(T^⊗k) = cos(π/8)^{−2k}.
    Sec. II.A, cited to [13]; sets the baseline costs for the Clifford+T-synthesized QFT comparisons in Sec. IV.C.
  • domain assumption Weak-simulation runtime of the sum-over-Cliffords method scales quadratically in the ℓ1-norm of the decomposition.
    Sec. II.A, cited to [13]; converts extent values into runtime claims (Secs. IV.C–IV.D), including the 10^74 QFT factor and the O(2^{1.2451n}) Union Jack speedup.
  • domain assumption Union Jack lattice universality for MBQC with Pauli measurements, and the stated per-cell extent of the yellow 5-qubit cell.
    Sec. IV.D.2; universality cited to [35]; the per-cell extent 2.56000 is the authors' own computation from Table III — the resulting exponents 2^{0.4150n} and 2^{1.6601n} are asserted, not derived, in the provided text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-Accelerated Classical Simulation of Clifford-Dominated Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLTO3CCH

@misc{pith2026251018977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-Accelerated Classical Simulation of Clifford-Dominated Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLTO3CCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18977}
}
read the original abstract

Classical simulation of quantum circuits plays a crucial role in validating quantum hardware and delineating the boundaries of quantum advantage. Among the most effective simulation techniques are those based on the stabilizer extent, which quantifies the overhead of representing non-Clifford operations as linear combinations of Clifford unitaries. However, finding optimal decompositions rapidly becomes intractable as it constitutes a superexponentially large optimization problem. In this work, we exploit symmetries in the computation of the stabilizer extent, proving that for real, diagonal, and real-diagonal unitaries, the optimization can be restricted to the corresponding subgroups of the Clifford group without loss of optimality. This ``strong symmetry reduction'' drastically reduces computational cost, enabling optimal decompositions of unitaries on up to seven qubits using a standard laptop -- far beyond previous two-qubit limits. Additionally, we employ a ``weak symmetry reduction'' method that leverages additional invariances to shrink the search space further. Applying these results, we demonstrate exponential runtime improvements in classical simulations of quantum Fourier transform circuits and measurement-based quantum computations on the Union Jack lattice, as well as new insights into the nonstabilizer properties of multicontrolled phase gates and unitaries generating hypergraph states. Our findings establish symmetry exploitation as a powerful route to scale classical simulation techniques and deepen the resource-theoretic understanding of quantum advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b) provides a clear visualization of the results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From Pauli Strings to Quantum Dynamics: A Unified Characterization

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Develops an invariant-based framework connecting Pauli Lie algebras to transvection-generated Clifford subgroups for quantum reachability and dynamics analysis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Namely, up 8 n Gate ξ 1 Z 1 2 CZ 1 3 CCZ 1.77778 4 C 3Z 2.25000 5 C 4Z 2.50694 6 C 5Z 2.64063 7 C 6Z 2.70877 (a) Cn−1Z gates

    (Sub)Multiplicativity of the stabilizer extent under tensor product and composition We numerically tested the (sub)multiplicativity of the stabilizer extent under tensor products and multiplica- tivity holds for all the tested instances. Namely, up 8 n Gate ξ 1 Z 1 2 CZ 1 3 CCZ 1.77778 4 C 3Z 2.25000 5 C 4Z 2.50694 6 C 5Z 2.64063 7 C 6Z 2.70877 (a) Cn−1Z ...

  2. [2]

    Because these gates are real-diagonal 9 Ci sets used during optimization Min

    The role of entanglement We now study how entanglement impacts the value of the squared ℓ1-norm of an optimal decomposition vector of C n−1Z gates. Because these gates are real-diagonal 9 Ci sets used during optimization Min. ℓ1-norm squared C0 or C3 6.25000 C1 or C2 4.00000 C0 ∪ C2 or C1 ∪ C3 4.00000 C0 ∪ C3 4.00000 C0 ∪ C1 or C2 ∪ C3 2.56000 C1 ∪ C2 2.2...

  3. [3]

    Statements concerning gate synthesis Combining Proposition 2 with the enhanced ability to calculate the stabilizer extent of unitaries, we im- prove our capacity to lower bound the number of T gates needed to synthesize a given unitary. Fig. 3 allows us to immediately identify what is the minimum number of T gates that are needed for synthesizing each gat...

  4. [4]

    Because the number of hyper- graphs of five vertices is extremely large, we focus on the study of k-uniform hypergraphs, that is, hypergraphs whose hyperedges have fixed order k

    Characterization of k-uniform hypergraph states Here, we leverage our results to compute the stabi- lizer extent of the unitaries generating five-qubit hyper- graph quantum states. Because the number of hyper- graphs of five vertices is extremely large, we focus on the study of k-uniform hypergraphs, that is, hypergraphs whose hyperedges have fixed order ...

  5. [5]

    9 is known to be universal for MBQC with Pauli measurements [35]

    Speeding up the classical simulation of (universal) measurement-based quantum computation The Union Jack lattice depicted in Fig. 9 is known to be universal for MBQC with Pauli measurements [35]. Thus, any quantum computation can be written as a circuit on n qubits initialized in the state |+⟩⊗n, fol- lowed by the application of the magic and entangling u...

    2024

  6. [6]

    By definition ξ(AB) ≤ ∥z∥2 1 and we can upperbound ∥z∥1 as follows: ∥z∥1 = X K∈Cn X C∈Cn xCyC†K ! ≤ X K,C∈Cn |xCyC†K| = ∥x∥1∥y∥1

    Next, we take the product of these two matrices AB = X C,C ′∈Cn xCyC′CC ′ = X K∈Cn X C∈Cn xCyC†K ! K = X K∈Cn zKK . By definition ξ(AB) ≤ ∥z∥2 1 and we can upperbound ∥z∥1 as follows: ∥z∥1 = X K∈Cn X C∈Cn xCyC†K ! ≤ X K,C∈Cn |xCyC†K| = ∥x∥1∥y∥1 . 16 Hence, ξ(AB) ≤ ξ(A)ξ(B) . Submultiplicativity with respect to tensor products is fairly straightforward to ...

  7. [7]

    By definition ξ(A ⊗ B) ≤ P C∈Cn P C′∈Cn′ |xCyC′| 2 = ξ(A)ξ(B)

    Considering their tensor product, we note that: A ⊗ B = X C∈Cn X C′∈Cn′ xCyC′(C ⊗ C ′) . By definition ξ(A ⊗ B) ≤ P C∈Cn P C′∈Cn′ |xCyC′| 2 = ξ(A)ξ(B) . Showing that ξ(A ⊗ B) = ξ(B ⊗ A) uses property (ii). Namely, there is always a suitable swapping operation, which we denote SW AP ∈ Cn+m, so that SW AP(A ⊗ B)SW AP = (B ⊗ A). Hence, by property (ii), ξ(A ...

  8. [8]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

    2019

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandra, A. Bengtsson, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movassagh, A. Asfaw, L. T. a. N. Brandao, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. Anderson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Beguˇ si´ c, J

    T. Beguˇ si´ c, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Science Advances 10, 10.1126/sciadv.adk4321 (2024)

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Tindall, M

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Efficient Tensor Network Simulation of IBM’s Eagle Kicked Ising Experiment, PRX Quantum 5, 010308 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705052 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]. 24 FIG. 11. Selection of simple graphs of five vertices and the stabilizer extent of the corresponding unitaries generated by associat...

    1997 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. Nebe, E. M. Rains, and N. J. A. Sloane, The Invariants of the Clifford Groups, Designs, Codes and Cryptography 24, 99 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Trading Classical and Quantum Computational Resources, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Dominated by Clifford Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a Resource Theory for Magic States to Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum 3, 181 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    J. R. Seddon, B. Regula, H. Pashayan, Y. Ouyang, and E. T. Campbell, Quantifying Quantum Speedups: Improved Classical Simulation From Tighter Magic Monotones, PRX Quantum 2, 010345 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Qassim, J

    H. Qassim, J. J. Wallman, and J. Emerson, Clifford recompilation for faster classical simulation of quantum circuits, Quantum 3, 170 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Pashayan, O

    H. Pashayan, O. Reardon-Smith, K. Korzekwa, and S. D. Bartlett, Fast estimation of outcome probabilities for quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 3, 020361 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Qassim, H

    H. Qassim, H. Pashayan, and D. Gosset, Improved upper bounds on the stabilizer rank of magic states, Quantum 5, 606 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Heimendahl, F

    A. Heimendahl, F. Montealegre-Mora, F. Vallentin, and D. Gross, Stabilizer extent is not multiplicative, Quantum 5, 400 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Beverland, E

    M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kliuchnikov, Lower bounds on the non-Clifford resources for quantum computations, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 035009 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    de Silva, M

    N. de Silva, M. Yin, and S. Strelchuk, Bases for optimising stabiliser decompositions of quantum states, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 045004 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Hamaguchi, K

    H. Hamaguchi, K. Hamada, N. Marumo, and N. Yoshioka, Faster computation of nonstabilizerness, Physical Review Applied 23, 014069 (2025), publisher: American Physical Society

    2025

  21. [29]

    Heinrich and D

    M. Heinrich and D. Gross, Robustness of Magic and Symmetries of the Stabiliser Polytope, Quantum 3, 132 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum Simulation of Electronic Structure with Linear Depth and Connectivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    L. G. Valiant, Quantum Circuits That Can Be Simulated Classically in Polynomial Time, SIAM Journal on Computing 31, 1229 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539700377025

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin,...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Koenig and J

    R. Koenig and J. A. Smolin, How to efficiently select an arbitrary clifford group element, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, 122202 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Camillo, Symmetric Stabilizer Extent for Unitaries , https://github.com/Giuhcs/Symmetric_Stabilizer_Extent_ for_Unitaries (2025)

    G. Camillo, Symmetric Stabilizer Extent for Unitaries , https://github.com/Giuhcs/Symmetric_Stabilizer_Extent_ for_Unitaries (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Rengaswamy, R

    N. Rengaswamy, R. Calderbank, H. D. Pfister, and S. Kadhe, Synthesis of logical clifford operators via symplectic geometry, in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, 2018) pp. 791–795

    2018

  28. [36]

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    D. E. Browne, Efficient classical simulation of the quantum fourier transform, New Journal of Physics 9, 146 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Y. Nam, Y. Su, and D. Maslov, Approximate quantum fourier transform with o(n log(n)) t gates, npj Quantum Information 6, 26 (2020), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  31. [39]

    Gheorghiu, M

    V. Gheorghiu, M. Mosca, and P. Mukhopadhyay, T-count and T-depth of any multi-qubit unitary, npj Quantum Informa- tion 8, 141 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Rossi, M

    M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Quantum hypergraph states, New Journal of Physics 15, 113022 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Miller and A

    J. Miller and A. Miyake, Hierarchy of universal entanglement in 2d measurement-based quantum computation, npj Quan- tum Information 2, 10.1038/npjqi.2016.36 (2016)

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Takeuchi, T

    Y. Takeuchi, T. Morimae, and M. Hayashi, Quantum computational universality of hypergraph states with pauli-X and Z basis measurements, Scientific Reports 9, 10.1038/s41598-019-49968-3 (2019)

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    D. W. Lyons, N. P. Gibbons, M. A. Peters, D. J. Upchurch, S. N. Walck, and E. W. Wertz, Local Pauli stabilizers of symmetric hypergraph states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 245303 (2017). 26

    2017

  37. [45]

    G. Zhu, T. Jochym-O’Connor, and A. Dua, Topological Order, Quantum Codes, and Quantum Computation on Fractal Geometries, PRX Quantum 3, 030338 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    S. Lu, X. Gao, and L.-M. Duan, Efficient representation of topologically ordered states with restricted Boltzmann machines, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155136 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Gachechiladze, C

    M. Gachechiladze, C. Budroni, and O. G¨ uhne, Extreme Violation of Local Realism in Quantum Hypergraph States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 070401 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Shettell and D

    N. Shettell and D. Markham, Graph States as a Resource for Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110502 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    G¨ uhne, M

    O. G¨ uhne, M. Cuquet, F. E. S. Steinhoff, T. Moroder, M. Rossi, D. Bruß, B. Kraus, and C. Macchiavello, Entanglement and nonclassical properties of hypergraph states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 335303 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Li, X. Chen, C. Zhai, Y. Zheng, Y. Chi, Y. Li, Q. He, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Demonstration of hypergraph- state quantum information processing, Nature Communications 15, 10.1038/s41467-024-46830-7 (2024)

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-Body Quantum Magic, PRX Quantum 3, 020333 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Zhou and A

    Y. Zhou and A. Hamma, Entanglement of random hypergraph states, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012410 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Sarkar, S

    R. Sarkar, S. Dutta, S. Banerjee, and P. K. Panigrahi, Phase squeezing of quantum hypergraph states, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 54, 135501 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    J. Chen, Y. Yan, and Y. Zhou, Magic of quantum hypergraph states, Quantum 8, 1351 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations, Physical review letters 117, 080501 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Ni and M

    X. Ni and M. van den Nest, Commuting quantum circuits: efficiently classical simulations versus hardness results, Quant. Inf. Comput. 13, 0054 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Vandaele, Quantum binary field multiplication with subquadratic toffoli gate count and low space-time cost (2025), arXiv:2501.16136 [quant-ph]

    V. Vandaele, Quantum binary field multiplication with subquadratic toffoli gate count and low space-time cost (2025), arXiv:2501.16136 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    F. Liu, T. Fan, G. Shu, C. Zhang, W. Wang, X. Qi, X. Zhu, H. Yang, and Y. Fei, Applications of the CCZS gate in quantum circuit synthesis, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 035057 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Schauss, Quantum simulation of transverse Ising models with Rydberg atoms, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 023001 (2018)

    P. Schauss, Quantum simulation of transverse Ising models with Rydberg atoms, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 023001 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Li, Y.-K

    B.-W. Li, Y.-K. Wu, Q.-X. Mei, R. Yao, W.-Q. Lian, M.-L. Cai, Y. Wang, B.-X. Qi, L. Yao, L. He, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Probing critical behavior of long-range transverse-field ising model through quantum kibble-zurek mechanism, PRX Quantum 4, 010302 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    M. L. Baez, M. Goihl, J. Haferkamp, J. Bermejo-Vega, M. Gluza, and J. Eisert, Dynamical structure factors of dynamical quantum simulators, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 26123 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Islam, E

    R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, K. Kim, S. Korenblit, C. Noh, H. Carmichael, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C.-C. Joseph Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Onset of a quantum phase transition with a trapped ion quantum simulator, Nature Communications 2, 377 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum spin dynamics and entanglement generation with hundreds of trapped ions, Science 352, 1297 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Horsman, A

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New Journal of Physics 14, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Bermejo-Vega and M

    J. Bermejo-Vega and M. Van Den Nest, Classical simulations of Abelian-group normalizer circuits with intermediate measurements, Quantum Info. Comput. 14 (2014), arXiv:1210.3637 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bermejo-Vega, C

    J. Bermejo-Vega, C. Y.-Y. Lin, and M. Van Den Nest, Normalizer circuits and a Gottesman-Knill theorem for infinite- dimensional systems, Quantum Info. Comput. 16, 361 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Bermejo-Vega, Normalizer circuits and quantum computation, CoRR abs/1611.09274 (2016), arXiv:1611.09274

    J. Bermejo-Vega, Normalizer circuits and quantum computation, CoRR abs/1611.09274 (2016), arXiv:1611.09274

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    D. V. Else, Symmetry-Protected Phases for Measurement-Based Quantum Computation, Physical Review Letters 108, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240505 (2012)

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    Raussendorf, Computationally Universal Phase of Quantum Matter, Physical Review Letters 122, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.122.090501 (2019)

    R. Raussendorf, Computationally Universal Phase of Quantum Matter, Physical Review Letters 122, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.122.090501 (2019)

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    D. T. Stephen, H. P. Nautrup, J. Bermejo-Vega, J. Eisert, and R. Raussendorf, Subsystem symmetries, quantum cellular automata, and computational phases of quantum matter, Quantum 3, 142 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Abramsky and A

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality, New Journal of Physics 13, 113036 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    Abramsky, R

    S. Abramsky, R. S. Barbosa, K. Kishida, R. Lal, and S. Mansfield, Contextuality, Cohomology and Paradox, LIPIcs, Volume 41, CSL 2015 41, 211 (2015), arXiv:1502.03097 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Raussendorf, C

    R. Raussendorf, C. Okay, M. Zurel, and P. Feldmann, The role of cohomology in quantum computation with magic states, Quantum 7, 979 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    F. C. R. Peres and E. F. Galv˜ ao, Quantum circuit compilation and hybrid computation using Pauli-based computation, Quantum 7, 1126 (2023). 27

    2023

  70. [78]

    Mansfield, Quantum Advantage from Sequential-Transformation Contextuality, Physical Review Letters 121, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230401 (2018)

    S. Mansfield, Quantum Advantage from Sequential-Transformation Contextuality, Physical Review Letters 121, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230401 (2018)

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Emeriau, Quantum Advantage in Information Retrieval, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020307 (2022)

    P.-E. Emeriau, Quantum Advantage in Information Retrieval, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020307 (2022)

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements, Physical Review A 71, 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052108 (2005)

    2005 doi

  73. [81]

    Schmid, Contextual Advantage for State Discrimination, Physical Review X 8, 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011015 (2018)

    D. Schmid, Contextual Advantage for State Discrimination, Physical Review X 8, 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011015 (2018)

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    Budroni, G

    C. Budroni, G. Fagundes, and M. Kleinmann, Memory cost of temporal correlations, New Journal of Physics 21, 093018 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    C. Budroni, Contextuality, memory cost and non-classicality for sequential measurements, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 377, 20190141 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Gross and M

    D. Gross and M. Van den Nest, The LU-LC conjecture, diagonal local operations and quadratic forms over GF(2), Quant. Inf. Comput. 8, 0263 (2008)

    2008

  77. [85]

    Dehaene and B

    J. Dehaene and B. De Moor, Clifford group, stabilizer states, and linear and quadratic operations over gf(2), Phys. Rev. A 68, 042318 (2003)

    2003

  78. [86]

    Heinrich, On stabiliser techniques and their application to simulation and certification of quantum devices , Ph.D

    M. Heinrich, On stabiliser techniques and their application to simulation and certification of quantum devices , Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at zu K¨ oln (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    Stein et al

    W. Stein et al. , Sage Mathematics Software (Version x.y.z) , The Sage Development Team (YYYY), http://www.sagemath.org

  80. [88]

    S. K. Lam, A. Pitrou, and S. Seibert, Numba: a llvm-based python jit compiler, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC , LL VM ’15 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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