Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Spreading of Magic Resource under Unitary Clifford Dynamics

Mircea Bejan1,2,*, Pieter W. Claeys3,4, and Jiangtian Yao4,†

  • *Contact author: mircea.bejan@kcl.ac.uk
  • †Contact author: jyao@pks.mpg.de

Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 180402 – Published 26 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tzn2-h5nk

Abstract

Nonstabilizerness, or quantum magic resource, presents a valuable resource in quantum error correction and computation. We study the dynamics of locally injected nonstabilizerness in unitary Clifford circuits, where the total nonstabilizerness is conserved. However, the absence of physical observables quantifying nonstabilizerness precludes a direct microscopic or hydrodynamic description of its local distribution and dynamics. Using insights from stabilizer quantum error correcting codes, we rigorously show that the spatial distribution of nonstabilizerness can be inferred from a canonical representation of low-magic states, dubbed the bipartite magic gauge. Moreover, we propose two operationally relevant magic length scales. We numerically establish that, at early times, both length scales grow ballistically at distinct velocities set by the entanglement velocity, after which nonstabilizerness delocalizes. Our Letter sheds light on the spatiotemporal structure of quantum resources and complexity in many-body dynamics, opening up avenues for investigating their transport properties and further connections with quantum error correction.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (115)

  1. P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995).
  2. A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1098 (1996).
  3. A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996).
  4. D. Gottesman, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052.
  5. S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, arXiv:quant-ph/9811052.
  6. D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001).
  7. N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, PRX Quantum 2, 040101 (2021).
  8. B. Eastin and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110502 (2009).
  9. B. Zeng, A. Cross, and I. L. Chuang, arXiv:0706.1382.
  10. S. Bravyi and R. König, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170503 (2013).
  11. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005).
  12. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  13. S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021043 (2016).
  14. S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016).
  15. S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Quantum 3, 181 (2019).
  16. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008).
  17. G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  18. G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004).
  19. I. L. Markov and Y. Shi, SIAM J. Comput. 38, 963 (2008).
  20. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, in Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’11 (2011), pp. 333–342, 10.1145/1993636.1993682.
  21. M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, Mauro E. Morales, and Z. Zimborás, PRX Quantum 3, 020328 (2022).
  22. B. Dias and R. König, Quantum 8, 1350 (2024).
  23. B. Dias and R. König, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042402 (2024).
  24. S. Zhou, Z.-C. Yang, A. Hamma, and C. Chamon, SciPost Phys. 9, 087 (2020).
  25. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum 5, 453 (2021).
  26. J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, F. Hernández, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, PRX Quantum 4, 010311 (2023).
  27. J. Choi et al., Nature (London) 613, 468 (2023).
  28. W. W. Ho and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 060601 (2022).
  29. P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Quantum 6, 738 (2022).
  30. M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, PRX Quantum 4, 030322 (2023).
  31. C. Liu, Q. C. Huang, and W. W. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 260401 (2024).
  32. C. Vairogs and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L022069 (2025).
  33. M. Fava, J. Kurchan, and S. Pappalardi, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011031 (2025).
  34. C. Liu, M. Ippoliti, and W. W. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 100404 (2026).
  35. M. Bejan, B. Béri, and M. McGinley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 020401 (2025).
  36. H. Lóio, G. Lami, L. Leone, M. McGinley, X. Turkeshi, and J. D. Nardis, arXiv:2510.13950.
  37. Z. Webb, Quantum Inf. Comput. 16, 1379 (2016.
  38. H. Zhu, R. Kueng, M. Grassl, and D. Gross, arXiv:1609.08172.
  39. Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, PRX Quantum 3, 020333 (2022).
  40. T. D. Ellison, K. Kato, Z.-W. Liu, and T. H. Hsieh, Quantum 5, 612 (2021).
  41. F. Wei and Z.-W. Liu, arXiv:2503.04566.
  42. P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dalmonte, PRX Quantum 4, 040317 (2023).
  43. P. S. Tarabunga and C. Castelnovo, Quantum 8, 1347 (2024).
  44. M. Collura, J. D. Nardis, V. Alba, and G. Lami, Quantum 10, 2036 (2026).
  45. D. A. Korbany, M. J. Gullans, and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 160404 (2025).
  46. G. C. Santra, J. Mildenberger, E. Ballini, A. Bottarelli, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, arXiv:2510.07385.
  47. P. R. N. Falcão, P. Sierant, J. Zakrzewski, and E. Tirrito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 240404 (2025).
  48. Salvatore F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042426 (2022).
  49. C. D. White, C. J. Cao, and B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. B 103, 075145 (2021).
  50. C. Cao, G. Cheng, A. Hamma, L. Leone, W. Munizzi, and S. F. E. Oliviero, PRX Quantum 6, 040375 (2025).
  51. M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dalmonte, SciPost Phys. 18, 165 (2025).
  52. M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Phys. Rev. X 16, 011037 (2026).
  53. R. Smith, Z. Papić, and A. Hallam, Phys. Rev. B 111, 245148 (2025).
  54. J. Hartse, L. Fidkowski, and N. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 060402 (2025).
  55. A. Sil and S. S. Roy, Phys. Rev. B 114, 024312 (2026).
  56. M. Bejan, C. McLauchlan, and B. Béri, PRX Quantum 5, 030332 (2024).
  57. G. E. Fux, E. Tirrito, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042030 (2024).
  58. E. Tirrito, L. Lumia, A. Paviglianiti, G. Lami, A. Silva, X. Turkeshi, and M. Collura, arXiv:2507.07179.
  59. F. B. Trigueros and J. A. M. Guzmán, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 240602 (2026).
  60. A. Scocco, W.-K. Mok, L. Aolita, M. Collura, and T. Haug, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 013217 (2026).
  61. P. S. Tarabunga and E. Tirrito, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 166 (2025).
  62. A. Gu, Salvatore F. Oliviero, and L. Leone, PRX Quantum 6, 020324 (2025).
  63. C. Wang, Z.-C. Yang, T. Zhou, and X. Chen, arXiv:2507.10688.
  64. Y. Zhang and Y. Gu, npj Quantum Inf. 12, 87 (2026).
  65. Y. Zhang, S. Vijay, Y. Gu, and Y. Bao, PRX Quantum 7, 010344 (2026).
  66. Z.-Y. Hou, C. Cao, and Z.-C. Yang, npj Quantum Inf. 12, 113 (2026).
  67. A. Russomanno, G. Passarelli, D. Rossini, and P. Lucignano, Phys. Rev. B 112, 064312 (2025).
  68. G. Passarelli, P. Lucignano, D. Rossini, and A. Russomanno, Quantum 9, 1653 (2025).
  69. G. C. Santra, A. Windey, S. Bandyopadhyay, A. Legramandi, and P. Hauke, arXiv:2505.09707.
  70. T. Rakovszky, S. Gopalakrishnan, S. A. Parameswaran, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125115 (2019).
  71. N. D. Varikuti, S. Bandyopadhyay, and P. Hauke, Quantum 10, 2017 (2026).
  72. M. Mezei and D. Stanford, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2017) 065.
  73. A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017).
  74. C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021013 (2018).
  75. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021033 (2019).
  76. X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Nat. Commun. 16, 2575 (2025).
  77. E. Tirrito, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, arXiv:2412.10229.
  78. E. Tirrito, P. S. Tarabunga, D. S. Bhakuni, M. Dalmonte, P. Sierant, and X. Turkeshi, arXiv:2506.12133.
  79. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010).
  80. J. Yao and P. W. Claeys, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043077 (2024).
  81. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/tzn2-h5nk for the proofs of Theorem 1 (including a BMG algorithm), equivalent and extended operational definitions of magic resources, and locality bounds on the LML; a discussion of the interplay between entanglement growth and operator spreading, and a review of their corresponding velocities in identity-doped Clifford circuits; a connection between the shape of the Pauli spectrum and the SRE; additional numerical results on the typical MLMI length, identity-doped dual-unitary Clifford circuits, the overlap of MLMIs, and system size independence of the spreading rates. Includes Refs. [56,73,74,80,82–87].
  82. S. Bravyi, D. Fattal, and D. Gottesman, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 47, 062106 (2006).
  83. K. M. R. Audenaert and M. B. Plenio, New J. Phys. 7, 170 (2005).
  84. G. M. Sommers, D. A. Huse, and M. J. Gullans, PRX Quantum 4, 030313 (2023).
  85. V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031057 (2018).
  86. B. Bertini, P. W. Claeys, and T. Prosen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 98, 025001 (2026).
  87. G. E. Crooks, Gates states and circuits, https://threeplusone.com/pubs/on-gates.pdf (2020).
  88. D. Gottesman, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006.
  89. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050402 (2022).
  90. M. Howard and E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 090501 (2017).
  91. The Pauli spectrum is defined in terms of a basis of L-qubit Pauli operators. Such a basis is formed by all Hermitian Pauli strings P with phase +1.

  92. This notion of magic is relevant to active quantum error correction and monitored quantum dynamics, where a key question related to the complexity of classically simulating the dynamics is which measurements reduce the amount of magic in a state [56].

  93. C. K. Koç and S. N. Arachchige, J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 13, 118 (1991).
  94. Focusing on contiguous systems also naturally leads to interesting connections between magic length scales for projectively destroyable magic resource and the linear and contiguous code distances of QECC [95, 96].

  95. S. Bravyi and B. Terhal, New J. Phys. 11, 043029 (2009).
  96. M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041020 (2020).
  97. Here, by generators, we mean both the logical and stabilizer generators of, for example, ρ from Eq. (2).

  98. We can relabel the logicals X¯,Y¯, and Z¯ as needed, provided they follow the su(2) anticommutation rules; the prefactors a± depend on the non-Clifford gate used to produce |ψ⟩, but for suitably chosen Z¯ and Y¯, they satisfy |a±|≠0, ensuring that M˜2(ρA)>0 and R(ρA)>1 for a subsystem A where at least one logical can be reduced. The specific values of |a±| set the values of “full” [case (i)] and “partial” [cases (iv),(v)] NS. See also Supplemental Material [81].

  99. For intermediate times, the data from Fig. 3 is consistent with a growth rate of FLEOM given by ∂tW∼4vE/3. We attribute the distinct intermediate-time growth of W(t) to a combination of effects due to boundary conditions and shrinking of large logicals, as detailed in [81].

  100. A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018).
  101. N. J. Cerf and R. Cleve, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1721 (1997).
  102. B. Schumacher and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2629 (1996).
  103. S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1613 (1997).
  104. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3217 (1997).
  105. K. Aziz, H. Pan, M. J. Gullans, and J. H. Pixley, arXiv:2508.20252.
  106. C. Cao, G. Cheng, and T. Zhou, arXiv:2510.06318.
  107. M. P. A. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 335 (2023).
  108. J. A. Montañà López and P. Kos, J. Phys. A 57, 475301 (2024).
  109. P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, PRX Quantum 7, 010302 (2026).
  110. S. Aditya, A. Summer, P. Sierant, and X. Turkeshi, arXiv:2509.22176.
  111. J. Cotler, X. Han, X.-L. Qi, and Z. Yang, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2019) 042.
  112. S. Maity and R. Hamazaki, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 013324 (2026).
  113. D. Lee and B. Yoshida, arXiv:2402.00145.
  114. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  115. M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kliuchnikov, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 035009 (2020).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation