Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Two-qutrit magic peaks at ln(81/17), pattern suggests universal formula

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 17:30 UTC pith:4AXJUUWH

load-bearing objection Solid qutrit result with explicit analytical work; global optimality claim leans on numerical search; the all-prime-d conjecture is a three-point extrapolation. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07197 v1 pith:4AXJUUWH submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph cs.ET

Analytical Landscape of Maximal Magic for Two-Qutrit States and Beyond

Marco Knipfer , Alexander Roman , Katia Matcheva , Konstantin T. Matchev This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.ET PACS 03.67.Mn03.65.Ud
keywords magicstabilizer Rényi entropyqutritmutually unbiased basesWeyl-Heisenberg covariancePareto frontierentanglementSchmidt decomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper maps the boundary of how much magic (a quantum resource that makes classical simulation hard) a two-qutrit state can carry at a fixed level of entanglement. The central result is an exact value for the maximum achievable stabilizer Rényi entropy M₂ = ln(81/17) ≈ 1.561 for two qutrits, which tightens a prior theoretical upper bound of ln 5 ≈ 1.609. This maximum is attained at eighteen distinct points in the Schmidt-coefficient simplex, falling into three permutation-equivalent families of six, and the maximizing states turn out to be Weyl–Heisenberg-covariant fiducial states for mutually unbiased bases. The authors derive closed-form polynomial expressions for the minimal stabilizer purity in the neighborhood of each maximum, verify the analogous result for two ququints (d = 5) numerically, and conjecture that for any prime dimension d the maximal two-qudit magic is ln[d⁴/(2d² − 1)], a formula that reproduces the known qubit, qutrit, and ququint values.

Core claim

The maximal stabilizer Rényi entropy for a system of two qutrits is exactly ln(81/17), achieved at eighteen degenerate maxima whose states are Weyl–Heisenberg-covariant MUB fiducials, and this pattern motivates the conjecture max(M₂) = ln[d⁴/(2d² − 1)] for any prime d.

What carries the argument

The stabilizer purity Π₂ = (1/9) Σ |⟨ψ|Pₐ|ψ⟩|⁴ over all 81 Pauli strings for two qutrits, minimized over local unitaries at fixed Schmidt spectrum λ; the key structural insight is that at each maximum the purity evaluates to 17/81 because the MUB-fiducial structure forces d²−1 Pauli expectation values to zero and the remaining d⁴−d² to exactly 1/d⁴, yielding the general formula 1 + (d⁴−d²)/d⁴ = (2d²−1)/d⁴.

Load-bearing premise

The conjecture that max(M₂) = ln[d⁴/(2d²−1)] for all prime d rests on the assumption that the maximizing state is always a Weyl–Heisenberg-covariant fiducial for mutually unbiased bases, which has been verified only for d = 2, 3, and 5. If for some larger prime the maximizing state lacks this MUB structure, or if the required MUBs do not exist, the formula would not apply.

What would settle it

Find a prime d > 5 for which either the maximal two-qudit magic exceeds ln[d⁴/(2d²−1)] or the maximizing state is not a WH-covariant MUB fiducial.

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

If this is right

  • The conjectured formula ln[d⁴/(2d²−1)] gives a concrete, testable target for the maximal magic of any prime-d two-qudit system, directly constraining the resource budget available for quantum advantage in higher-dimensional platforms.
  • The identification of WH-covariant MUB fiducials as maximal-magic states links the resource-theoretic optimization of nonstabilizerness to the long-standing finite-geometry problem of constructing complete sets of mutually unbiased bases, suggesting that progress on either problem feeds the other.
  • The piecewise-analytical structure of the Pareto surface, with three distinct polynomial branches meeting at degenerate maxima, provides a template for understanding how local-unitary orbits tile the entanglement–magic frontier in dimensions beyond qubits.
  • The compact reformulation of minimal magic as a function of I-concurrence and negativity offers a directly computable lower bound on nonlocal nonstabilizerness for two-qutrit states, useful for diagnosing the classical simulation cost of qutrit circuits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the conjecture holds for all prime d, then the gap between the naive bound ln[d²(1 + (d²−1)/(d²+1))] and the true maximum widens with d, meaning prior bounds become increasingly loose for higher-dimensional systems and the corrected formula would be essential for accurate resource accounting.
  • The dependence on WH-covariant MUB fiducials means the conjecture could fail at a prime d where complete sets of MUBs of the required covariance type do not exist; since complete MUB existence is open for composite and some prime-power dimensions, the formula's domain of validity may be narrower than 'all prime d.'
  • The proliferation of maxima from 2 (qubits) to 18 (qutrits) to at least 6 families (ququints) suggests the topology of the magic landscape grows richer with d, which could complicate the search for optimal states even if the peak value follows a simple formula.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the Pareto frontiers of magic (stabilizer Rényi entropy M₂) and entanglement for bipartite qudit systems, focusing on two qutrits (d=3) and extending to two ququints (d=5). For two qutrits, the Schmidt spectrum has two independent parameters, promoting the one-dimensional Pareto curves of the two-qubit case to two-dimensional surfaces over the Schmidt simplex. The authors rederive the lower frontier (minimal magic) as a compact function of I-concurrence and negativity, with maximum ln 2. For the upper frontier, they find the maximal magic M₂ = ln(81/17) ≈ 1.561, achieved at eighteen maxima in three permutation-equivalent families. They provide explicit analytical purity polynomials valid near each maximum and identify the maximizing states as Weyl-Heisenberg-covariant fiducial states for mutually unbiased bases (MUBs). Based on this MUB structure, they conjecture the general formula max(M₂) = ln[d⁴/(2d²−1)] for prime d, verified for d=2,3,5.

Significance. The paper makes a concrete contribution by tightening the maximal-magic bound for two qutrits from ln 5 to ln(81/17) and providing explicit analytical purity polynomials (Eqs. 41, 46, 50-54) whose minima are verified to be 17/81 at the stated Schmidt coefficients. The connection between maximizing states and WH-covariant MUB fiducials is a notable structural insight that yields a falsifiable conjecture (Eq. 59) for all prime d. The lower-frontier reformulation (Eq. 32) is clean and useful. The cross-checking between numerical optimization (Appendix A) and frozen-unitary analytical expressions is methodologically sound.

major comments (1)
  1. §III.B and abstract: The claim that the maximal magic is 'determined' to be ln(81/17) is stronger than what the proof structure supports. The analytical work proves achievability (the purity polynomials reach 17/81 at the stated maxima) but global optimality rests on numerical optimization over a non-convex 18-parameter landscape (Appendix A: Adam optimizer, 250-600 steps, multiple random seeds). The authors are transparent that the analytical expressions are exact only near the maxima (§III.C, residuals up to 0.07 elsewhere), but the language 'we determine' in the abstract and §III.B overstates the rigor. A simple Cauchy-Schwarz bound gives Π₂ ≥ 2/(d²+1) = 1/5 for d=3, which is below 17/81 ≈ 0.210, so elementary inequalities do not close the gap. The authors should either soften the claim to 'we find numerically and verify analytically at the maxima' or provide an analytical lower bound
minor comments (6)
  1. Eq. (59) and §IV: The conjecture that max(M₂) = ln[d⁴/(2d²−1)] for all prime d assumes the maximizing state is always a WH-covariant MUB fiducial. The existence of complete MUB sets is itself an open problem for general d. This caveat should be stated explicitly.
  2. Table I: The helper functions N_{-++}, N_{+-+}, N_{++-} (Eq. 36) are listed but their physical significance beyond bookkeeping is not explained. A brief motivation would help the reader.
  3. §III.B.3, Eqs. (51)-(54): The coefficients in P⁽³⁾ and Q_{ij} are given numerically (e.g., 0.264612), unlike P⁽¹⁾ and P⁽²⁾ which have exact rational forms. Can exact forms be provided, or at least the source of these numbers clarified?
  4. Figure 7: The 0.01 threshold for 'agreement' is about 0.6% of the global maximum, which is reasonable, but the residuals near corners reach 0.07 (~4.5%). The text should note that the analytical envelope is a lower bound everywhere, with the gap quantified.
  5. The abstract states 'eighteen distinct maxima categorized into three families of six permutation-equivalent spectra.' Table I lists three maxima; the 6-fold degeneracy from permutations is mentioned in the text but could be made more explicit in the table caption.
  6. Reference [6] (Robin and Savage, 2026) appears to be a review cited for the non-local magic concept; the year 2026 suggests a preprint. Ensure citation completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found; derivation chain is self-contained with minor self-citation for methodology context.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is substantially self-contained. The stabilizer purity Π₂ is defined from first principles (eq. 20: sum over 81 Pauli string expectations to the 4th power, divided by 9). The Schmidt decomposition parametrization (eqs. 5-6) and entanglement measures (eqs. 9-14) are standard definitions, not circularly linked to the magic measure. For the qutrit result, the analytical purity polynomials P^(i)(λ) (eqs. 41, 46, 50-54) are computed by substituting explicit unitary matrices (eqs. 38-39, 44-45) into the definition of Π₂ — this is a direct calculation, not a fit renamed as prediction. The minimum value 17/81 is verified algebraically at each maximum by evaluating the polynomial. The conjecture eq. (59) is derived conditionally: IF the maximizing state is a WH-covariant MUB fiducial, THEN the purity decomposes as 1 + (d²−1)·0 + (d⁴−d²)·(1/d⁴) = (2d²−1)/d⁴. This is a parameter-free conditional argument, not a circular derivation. The conjecture that the maximizing state always has this structure is supported by three data points (d=2,3,5) but is explicitly labeled as a conjecture, not proven. The self-citation to Ref [12] (overlapping authors) is for the two-qubit Pareto frontier methodology and context, and is not load-bearing for the central qutrit claim — the qutrit derivation stands on its own explicit calculations. The lower frontier result (eq. 32) is a legitimate coordinate reparametrization of eq. (31) from Ref [11] (external authors) in terms of C and N, not a renaming of a known result as new. The main vulnerability of the paper is that global optimality of ln(81/17) rests on numerical optimization over a non-convex landscape (Appendix A), but this is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity: the analytical work proves achievability, and the numerical search provides evidence (not proof) of global optimality. No step in the chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. All objects (Schmidt coefficients, Pauli operators, WH group, MUBs) are standard in quantum information. The conjecture relies on standard mathematical structures (MUBs, WH group) whose existence for general prime d is an open problem, but the paper does not invent new objects to fill gaps.

axioms (4)
  • standard math The stabilizer Rényi entropy M₂ = −ln Π₂ with Π₂ defined by eq. (20) is a valid measure of magic.
    This is the standard definition from Ref. [15], used throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption The maximal-magic states for two qutrits are Weyl-Heisenberg-covariant fiducial states for mutually unbiased bases.
    Verified numerically for d=2,3,5 but assumed without proof in the general conjecture (Section IV, eq. 59). This is the load-bearing assumption for the conjecture.
  • domain assumption Complete sets of WH-covariant MUBs exist for all prime dimensions d.
    The conjecture eq. (59) implicitly requires this. The existence of complete MUB sets is an open problem in finite quantum geometry (Refs. [31,32]). The paper does not address this gap.
  • ad hoc to paper The three analytical branches M₂⁽¹⁾, M₂⁽²⁾, M₂⁽³⁾ capture all global maxima of the magic landscape.
    Section III.C acknowledges residuals up to 0.07 in regions away from the maxima, but claims these are not additional global maxima. This is supported numerically but not proven analytically.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 26676 in / 3004 out tokens · 303024 ms · 2026-07-09T17:30:59.589204+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Achieving a genuine quantum advantage relies on two distinct non-classical resources that restrict efficient classical simulation: entanglement and magic (nonstabilizerness). We investigate the interplay between these resources by characterizing the Pareto frontiers of extreme magic at fixed entanglement for systems of two qutrits ($d=3$) and two ququints ($d=5$). Unlike the case of two qubits, the Schmidt spectrum for two qutrits features two independent entanglement parameters, resulting in two-dimensional Pareto surfaces. For the lower frontier, we recast the minimal magic as a compact function of concurrence and negativity, with a maximal value of $\ln 2$. For the upper frontier, we determine the maximal stabilizer R\'enyi entropy to be $M_2 = \ln(81/17) \approx 1.561$, which tightens the previous theoretical bound of $\ln 5\approx 1.609$ and improves on earlier numerical estimates. The maximum magic is achieved at eighteen distinct maxima categorized into three families of six permutation-equivalent spectra. We provide analytical expressions for the maximal magic in the neighborhood of each maximum and for the corresponding maximally magical states which turn out to be Weyl-Heisenberg-covariant fiducial states for mutually unbiased bases. Finally, numerical analysis of two ququints ($d=5$) reveals six permutation-inequivalent maxima with a peak magic value of $M_2 = \ln(625/49) \approx 2.546$. Based on these findings, we conjecture that the maximal magic for a bipartite system of two qudits with prime dimension $d$ is given by $\ln [ d^4 / (2d^2 - 1) ]$, which reproduces the previously known value for qubits, as well as the values derived here for qutrits and ququints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07197 by Alexander Roman, Katia Matcheva, Konstantin T. Matchev, Marco Knipfer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The G-concurrence (left) and the I-concurrence (right) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The Schmidt coefficients (27) as a function of the I-concurrence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plots of the minimal magic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same as Figure 3, but for the numerically optimized maximal magic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The maximal magic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The same as Figures 3 and 4, but for the analytic function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The difference (58) between the numerically obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Those functions are given in eqs. (43), (47), and (55) and are plotted in Figure 5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Maximum magic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The same as Figure 8, but for a constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The same as Figures 8 and 9, but for a trajectory of constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The same as Figure 10, but for a trajectory of constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Construction of the maximal magic as the upper envelope of fixed-unitary curves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 18 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The first maximum:G 3 = 1/3 17

    work page

  2. [2]

    The second maximum:G= 0 19

    work page

  3. [3]

    Validity Range of the Analytical Formulas for Maximal Magic 23 IV

    The third maximum:G 3 = 1/9 20 C. Validity Range of the Analytical Formulas for Maximal Magic 23 IV. Generalization Beyond Qutrits 26 A. A System of Two Ququints 27 V. Conclusions 28 Acknowledgments 30 A. Numerical optimization 30 References 32 I. INTRODUCTION The difficulty of simulating a quantum system on classical hardware is governed by vari- ous qua...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The minimization in (22) fixes the values ofφ A andφ B, rendering the coefficientsC αβγ into numerical constants. After reorganizing terms according to parity, Π (min) 2 can always be written as Π(min) 2 (λ0, λ1, λ2) =P 4(λ0, λ1, λ2) + p λ0λ1 Q01(λ0, λ1, λ2) + p λ1λ2 Q12(λ0, λ1, λ2) + p λ0λ2 Q02(λ0, λ1, λ2),(24) 10 FIG. 1. The G-concurrence (left) and the...

    work page

  5. [5]

    For con- creteness, let us start with the specific permutationλ (1) 0 =λ (1) max,λ (1) 1 =λ (1) mid, andλ (1) 2 =λ (1) min

    The first maximum:G 3 = 1/3 The states which give the first maximum have a very specific structure: their local uni- tariesUandVdepend on the Schmidt coefficients at the maximum themselves. For con- creteness, let us start with the specific permutationλ (1) 0 =λ (1) max,λ (1) 1 =λ (1) mid, andλ (1) 2 =λ (1) min. As an illustration, one such state is given...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Our result improves on the previous bound of ln 5≈1.609 given by (1) and on the numerically derived result of ln(2 2.23379)≈1.548 quoted in Ref

    Correspondingly, as shown in Table I, the largest value of the maximal magicf (1) =−lnP (1) is ln 81 17 ≈1.561 and is obtained also atλ=λ (1). Our result improves on the previous bound of ln 5≈1.609 given by (1) and on the numerically derived result of ln(2 2.23379)≈1.548 quoted in Ref. [22]. 18 FIG. 5. The maximal magicM (i) 2 ,i= 1,2,3, given by the cor...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The second maximum:G= 0 The states which give the second maximum shown in Table I have a similar structure. One specific state at the maximum is U(λ (1)) =   q λ(1) 0 e−120◦ i q λ(1) 2 e60◦ i q λ(1) 1 e−120◦ i q λ(1) 2 e−60◦ i q λ(1) 1 e120◦ i q λ(1) 0 e120◦ i q λ(1) 1 q λ(1) 0 − q λ(1) 2   ,(44) V † =   −1√ 6 1√ 6 e60◦ i √ 2√ 3 1√ 3 1√ 3 e...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Consequently, any well-defined measure of magic (or non-stabilizerness) must be a monotone that is invariant under Clifford transformations

    The third maximum:G 3 = 1/9 In the resource theory of magic, Clifford unitaries constitute the set of free operations. Consequently, any well-defined measure of magic (or non-stabilizerness) must be a monotone that is invariant under Clifford transformations. Having found one maximum ofM 2, we can easily obtain the others by acting with Clifford operators...

    work page

  9. [9]

    HEP AmSC IDA Pilot: Knowledge Extraction

    for the qubit case, we have checked that the states discussed above which maximizeM 2 are WH-covariant MUB fiducial states [27–30], generalizing the analogous result connecting maximal magic to symmetric informationally complete (SIC) fiducial states [17]. We can use this observation to generalize the initial result (1) to the case of any primed. max(M2) ...

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Quantum Resource Theories

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019), arXiv:1806.06107 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Gottesman,The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers, arXiv:quant- ph/9807006

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, in22nd Interna- tional Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1998) pp. 32–43, arXiv:quant- ph/9807006

    work page arXiv 1998

  12. [12]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum compu- tation using teleportation and single-qubit operations, Nature402, 390 (1999), arXiv:quant- ph/9908010

    work page arXiv 1999

  13. [13]

    Improved Simulation of Stabilizer Circuits

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0406196. 32

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    Universal Quantum Computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum Complexity and New Directions in Nuclear Physics and High-Energy Physics Phenomenology (2026), arXiv:2604.26376 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Entanglement and Stabilizer entropies of random bipartite pure quantum states

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Quantum Non-Local Nonstabilizerness

    D. Qian and J. Wang, Quantum nonlocal nonstabilizerness, Phys. Rev. A111, 052443 (2025), arXiv:2502.06393 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Maximal magic for two-qubit states, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 015035 (2026), arXiv:2502.17550 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Mittal and Y.-P

    V. Mittal and Y.-P. Huang, Quantum magic in discrete-time quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 013124 (2026), arXiv:2506.17783 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Busoni, J

    G. Busoni, J. Gargalionis, E. N. V. Wallace, and M. J. White, Analytic formulae for non-local magic in bipartite systems of qutrits and ququints (2026), arXiv:2603.09155 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Roman, M

    A. Roman, M. Knipfer, J. S. Neto, K. T. Matchev, K. Matcheva, and S. Gleyzer, The Pareto Frontiers of Magic and Entanglement: The Case of Two Qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.24902 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Entanglement of a Pair of Quantum Bits

    S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9703041

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9709029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [24]

    Stabilizer R\'enyi entropy

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer R´ enyi Entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022), arXiv:2106.12587 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Wang and Y

    Y. Wang and Y. Li, Stabilizer R´ enyi entropy on qudits, Quant. Inf. Proc.22, 444 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Quantum States with Maximal Magic

    G. Cuffaro and C. A. Fuchs, Quantum States with Maximal Magic (2024), arXiv:2412.21083 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Extremal Magic States from Symmetric Lattices

    M. Ohta and K. Sakurai, Extremal Magic States from Symmetric Lattices (2025), arXiv:2506.11725 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Erew and M

    M. Erew and M. Goldstein, Extremizing Measures of Magic on Pure States by Clifford- stabilizer States (2025), arXiv:2512.19657 [quant-ph]. 33

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nature Phys.18, 1053 (2022), arXiv:2109.06903 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    ˙Zyczkowski, P

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Volume of the set of separable states, Phys. Rev. A58, 883 (1998)

    work page 1998

  31. [31]

    Quantum Magic and Computational Complexity in the Neutrino Sector

    I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum magic and computational com- plexity in the neutrino sector, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023228 (2025), arXiv:2411.04203 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Mixed State Entanglement of Assistance and the Generalized Concurrence

    G. Gour, Mixed State Entanglement of Assistance and the Generalized Concurrence, Phys. Rev. A72, 042318 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0506229

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [33]

    Distribution of G-concurrence of random pure states

    V. Cappellini, H.-J. Sommers, and K. Zyczkowski, Distribution of G-concurrence of random pure states, Phys. Rev. A74, 062322 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0605251

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    Rungta, V

    P. Rungta, V. Buˇ zek, C. M. Caves, M. Hillery, and G. J. Milburn, Universal state inver- sion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions, Phys. Rev. A64, 042315 (2001), arXiv:quant- ph/0102040

    work page arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    A computable measure of entanglement

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0102117

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [36]

    Orbits of mutually unbiased bases

    K. Blanchfield, Orbits of mutually unbiased bases, J. Phys. A47, 135303 (2014), arXiv:1310.4684 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Feng and S

    L. Feng and S. Luo, Group frames via magic states with applications to SIC-POVMs and MUBs, Commun. Theor. Phys.77, 015102 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    I. D. Ivonovic, Geometrical description of quantal state determination, J. Phys. A14, 3241 (1981)

    work page 1981

  39. [39]

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased mea- surements, Annals of Physics191, 363 (1989)

    work page 1989

  40. [40]

    ZAUNER, Quantum designs: Foundations of a noncommutative de- sign theory, International Journal of Quantum Information09, 445 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749911006776

    G. ZAUNER, Quantum designs: Foundations of a noncommutative de- sign theory, International Journal of Quantum Information09, 445 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749911006776

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749911006776 2011

  41. [41]

    D. M. Appleby, Symmetric informationally complete–positive operator valued measures and the extended Clifford group, J. Math. Phys.46, 052107 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0412001. 34

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005