- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Hardness of measuring magic resource

Roy J. Garcia1,*, Gaurav Bhole1,2,3,†, Kaifeng Bu1,‡, Liyuan Chen1,4,§, Haribabu Arthanari2,3,∥, and Arthur Jaffe1,¶

  • *Contact author: roygarcia@g.harvard.edu
  • †Contact author: gaurav_bhole@fas.harvard.edu
  • ‡Contact author: kfbu@fas.harvard.edu
  • §Contact author: liyuanchen@fas.harvard.edu
  • ∥Contact author: hari_arthanari@hms.harvard.edu
  • Contact author: jaffe@g.harvard.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 033271 – Published 23 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/qcqv-3ym8

Abstract

Quantum computers promise to solve computational problems significantly faster than classical computers. These “speedups” are achieved by utilizing a resource known as magic resource. Measuring the amount of magic resource used by a device allows us to quantify its potential computational power. Without this property, quantum computers are no faster than classical computers. Whether magic resource can be accurately measured on large-scale quantum computers has remained an open problem. To address this question, we introduce Pauli instability as a measure of magic resource and experimentally measure it on the IBM Eagle quantum processor. We show that sufficiently small quantities of magic resource can be measured efficiently. We also prove that measuring large (i.e., extensive) quantities of magic resource with our measure is intractable. Our results lead us to surmise that magic resource may be difficult to measure when a quantum computer provides a speedup. We find that one of the most sought-after properties in quantum computation is only partially accessible to experiments. We support our conclusions with both theoretical and experimental evidence. Our work illustrates the capabilities and limitations encountered when studying the power of quantum computers.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (84)

  1. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  2. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  3. T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O'Brien, Quantum computers, Nature (London) 464, 45 (2010).
  4. Y. Cao, J. Romero, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery, IBM J. Res. Dev. 62, 6:1 (2018).
  5. P. S. Emani, J. Warrell, A. Anticevic, S. Bekiranov, M. Gandal, M. J. McConnell, G. Sapiro, A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. T. Baker, M. Bastiani, J. D. Murray, S. N. Sotiropoulos, J. Taylor, G. Senthil, T. Lehner, M. B. Gerstein, and A. W. Harrow, Quantum computing at the frontiers of biological sciences, Nat. Methods 18, 701 (2021).
  6. B. P. Lanyon, J. D. Whitfield, G. G. Gillett, M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, I. Kassal, J. D. Biamonte, M. Mohseni, B. J. Powell, M. Barbieri, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. G. White, Towards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer, Nat. Chem. 2, 106 (2010).
  7. Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev. 119, 10856 (2019).
  8. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  9. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997) .
  10. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017).
  11. P. Rebentrost, B. Gupt, and T. R. Bromley, Quantum computational finance: Monte Carlo pricing of financial derivatives, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022321 (2018).
  12. D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, in Proceedings of the XXII International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (International Press of Boston Inc., Tasmania, Australia, 1998), pp. 32–43.
  13. M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, and D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy, Proc. R. Soc. London A 467, 459 (2010).
  14. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, in Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '11 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2011), pp. 333–342.
  15. H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and J. R. McClean, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science 376, 1182 (2022).
  16. M. Yoganathan, R. Jozsa, and S. Strelchuk, Quantum advantage of unitary Clifford circuits with magic state inputs, Proc. R. Soc. London A 475, 20180427 (2019).
  17. J. Preskill, Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier, in Rapporteur Talk at the 25th Solvay Conference on Physics, Brussels (World Scientific, 2012).
  18. A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Quantum computational supremacy, Nature (London) 549, 203 (2017).
  19. F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  20. H.-S. Zhong et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  21. V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New J. Phys. 16, 013009 (2014).
  22. M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 090501 (2017).
  23. S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Measuring magic on a quantum processor, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 148 (2022).
  24. A. Gu, L. Leone, S. Ghosh, J. Eisert, S. F. Yelin, and Y. Quek, Pseudomagic quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210602 (2024).
  25. N. Bansal, W.-K. Mok, K. Bharti, D. E. Koh, and T. Haug, Pseudorandom density matrices, PRX Quantum 6, 020322 (2025).
  26. S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Trading classical and quantum computational resources, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021043 (2016).
  27. J. R. Seddon and E. T. Campbell, Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations, Proc. R. Soc. London A 475, 20190251 (2019).
  28. X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Quantifying the magic of quantum channels, New J. Phys. 21, 103002 (2019).
  29. H. Pashayan, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, Estimating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 070501 (2015).
  30. 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).
  31. 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).
  32. K. Bu and D. E. Koh, Efficient classical simulation of Clifford circuits with nonstabilizer input states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170502 (2019).
  33. K. Bu and D. E. Koh, Classical simulation of quantum circuits by half Gauss sums, Commun. Math. Phys. 390, 471 (2022).
  34. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005).
  35. X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Efficiently computable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 090505 (2020).
  36. S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052329 (2012).
  37. J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, D. Poulin, and D. Wecker, Magic state distillation with low space overhead and optimal asymptotic input count, Quantum 1, 31 (2017).
  38. D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations, Nature (London) 402, 390 (1999).
  39. E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices, Nature (London) 434, 39 (2005).
  40. E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature (London) 549, 172 (2017).
  41. K. Bu, D. E. Koh, L. Li, Q. Luo, and Y. Zhang, Statistical complexity of quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062431 (2022).
  42. K. Bu, R. J. Garcia, A. Jaffe, D. E. Koh, and L. Li, Complexity of quantum circuits via sensitivity, magic, and coherence, Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 161 (2024).
  43. X. Mi et al., Information scrambling in quantum circuits, Science 374, 1479 (2021).
  44. T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable measures of magic resource for quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 010301 (2023).
  45. H. Hamaguchi, K. Hamada, and N. Yoshioka, Handbook for quantifying robustness of magic, Quantum 8, 1461 (2024).
  46. R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Resource theory of quantum scrambling, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2217031120 (2023).
  47. T. Haug, S. Lee, and M. S. Kim, Efficient quantum algorithms for stabilizer entropies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 240602 (2024).
  48. D. Bluvstein et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature (London) 626, 58 (2024).
  49. D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature (London) 604, 451 (2022).
  50. K. Wright et al., Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 5464 (2019).
  51. M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010).
  52. Namely, I(⊗i=1nTki)=kln(4/3), where kj∈{0,1} and ∑j=1nkj=k.
  53. R. Fan, P. Zhang, H. Shen, and H. Zhai, Out-of-time-order correlation for many-body localization, Sci. Bull. 62, 707 (2017).
  54. Certain stabilizer Rényi entropies do not satisfy this condition [83].
  55. Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum 3, 020333 (2022).
  56. T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035148 (2023).
  57. L. Chen, R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Magic of random matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174207 (2024).
  58. X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spectrum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many-body states, Phys. Rev. B 111, 054301 (2025).
  59. X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spreading in random quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 16, 2575 (2025).
  60. K. Bu, W. Gu, and A. Jaffe, Stabilizer testing and magic entropy via quantum Fourier analysis, Commun. Math. Phys. 406, 236 (2025).
  61. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer Rényi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050402 (2022).
  62. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/qcqv-3ym8 for proofs of all theorems.
  63. T. Haug, K. Bharti, and D. E. Koh, Pseudorandom unitaries are neither real nor sparse nor noise-robust, Quantum 9, 1759 (2025).
  64. P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Bañuls, and M. Dalmonte, Nonstabilizerness via matrix product states in the Pauli basis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010601 (2024).
  65. G. Lami and M. Collura, Unveiling the stabilizer group of a matrix product state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010602 (2024).
  66. B. Swingle, G. Bentsen, M. Schleier-Smith, and P. Hayden, Measuring the scrambling of quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 94, 040302 (2016).
  67. B. Vermersch, A. Elben, L. M. Sieberer, N. Y. Yao, and P. Zoller, Probing scrambling using statistical correlations between randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021061 (2019).
  68. A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The randomized measurement toolbox, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 9 (2023).
  69. K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, T. Schuster, N. M. Linke, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, Verified quantum information scrambling, Nature (London) 567, 61 (2019).
  70. M. S. Blok, V. V. Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O'Brien, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum information scrambling on a superconducting qutrit processor, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021010 (2021).
  71. R. J. Garcia, Y. Zhou, and A. Jaffe, Quantum scrambling with classical shadows, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033155 (2021).
  72. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  73. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  74. E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019).
  75. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
  76. R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature (London) 528, 77 (2015).
  77. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).
  78. R. J. Garcia, C. Zhao, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Barren plateaus from learning scramblers with local cost functions, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2023) 090.
  79. I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolutional neural networks, Nat. Phys. 15, 1273 (2019).
  80. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021).
  81. M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. García-Martín, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes, Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? Nat. Commun. 16, 7907 (2025).
  82. M. Hinsche, M. Ioannou, A. Nietner, J. Haferkamp, Y. Quek, D. Hangleiter, J.-P. Seifert, J. Eisert, and R. Sweke, One T gate makes distribution learning hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 240602 (2023).
  83. T. Haug, L. Aolita, and M. Kim, Probing quantum complexity via universal saturation of stabilizer entropies, Quantum 9, 1801 (2025).
  84. https://github.com/royjgarcia/Hardness-of-Measuring-Magic.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 033271– Published 23 September, 2025
  • Received 20 November 2024
  • Accepted 20 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation