, when we say an algorithm **supports** or **can handle** a component, we mean that the cost of the component is $\leq 1$, although the protocols can be applied to any component possibly inefficiently.

Efficiency of Stabilizer Propagation
------------------------------------

For a self-contained description of stabilizer propagation see [@bennink; @resource; @seddon]. Just as the algorithms in section II decompose input states into a weighted sum of Pauli matrices, stabilizer propagation decomposes input states into a weighted sum of stabilizer states. A sampling process identical to equations and results in the number of samples required to be proportional to the square of the following normalization constant:

The **robustness of magic** $\mathcal{R}(\rho)$ of an $n$-qubit state $\rho$ is the outcome of a convex optimization program over real vectors $\vec q$: $$\mathcal{R}(\rho) = \min_{\vec q} \sum_i \lvert q_i \rvert \text{ s.t. } \rho = \sum_i q_i \ket{\phi_i} \bra{\phi_i} \text{ and } \sum_i q_i = 1,$$

where $\{\ket{\phi_i}\}$ are the $n$-qubit stabilizer states.

When $\mathcal{R}(\rho) = 1$ (the minimum value) then $\rho$ is a **stabilizer mixture**, since then the vector $\vec q$ is a probability distribution.

Due to the sheer number of stabilizer states, evaluating $\mathcal{R}(\rho)$ for even small $n$ is very expensive. As stated in [@bennink], evaluating the cost function for 3-qubit unitaries is impractical, although the performance can be improved for diagonal gates [@seddon].

The performance of stabilizer propagation gives a lens for the non-Cliffordness of channels, studied extensively in [@seddon]. In the appendix, we expand on this work by modifying the protocol to support all **postselective channels** which include all trace preserving channels and all ‘reasonable’ non-trace-preserving channels. There, we prove the following theorem:\

\[thm:stabprop\] Let $\Lambda$ be a postselective channel and let $\bar\phi_\Lambda$ be the channel’s normalized Choi state. $\Lambda$ does not increase the number of samples required for
, when we say an algorithm * * supports * * or * * can handle * * a component, we think of that the monetary value of the component is $ \leq 1 $, although the protocols can be applied to any part possibly inefficiently. 

 Efficiency of Stabilizer Propagation 
 ------------------------------------ 

 For a self - contained description of stabilizer propagation see [ @bennink; @resource; @seddon ]. merely as the algorithms in section II disintegrate stimulation states into a leaden sum of Pauli matrices, stabilizer propagation decomposes stimulation states into a weighted sum of stabilizer states. A sampling procedure identical to equations and results in the number of sample required to be proportional to the square of the following standardization constant: 

 The * * robustness of magic * * $ \mathcal{R}(\rho)$ of an $ n$-qubit country $ \rho$ is the outcome of a convex optimization program over real vector $ \vec q$: $ $ \mathcal{R}(\rho) = \min_{\vec q } \sum_i \lvert q_i \rvert \text { s.t. } \rho = \sum_i q_i \ket{\phi_i } \bra{\phi_i } \text { and } \sum_i q_i = 1,$$ 

 where $ \{\ket{\phi_i}\}$ are the $ n$-qubit stabilizer states. 

 When $ \mathcal{R}(\rho) = 1 $ (the minimum value) then $ \rho$ is a * * stabilizer mixture * *, since then the vector $ \vec q$ is a probability distribution. 

 Due to the sheer number of stabilizer country, evaluating $ \mathcal{R}(\rho)$ for even small $ n$ is very expensive. As stated in [ @bennink ], evaluating the cost function for 3 - qubit unitaries is impractical, although the performance can be improved for diagonal gate [ @seddon ]. 

 The performance of stabilizer propagation feed a lens for the non - Cliffordness of groove, studied extensively in [ @seddon ]. In the appendix, we expand on this work by change the protocol to support all * * postselective channels * * which include all trace preserve channels and all ‘ reasonable ’ non - trace - preserving channels. There, we prove the succeed theorem:\ 

 \[thm: stabprop\ ] Let $ \Lambda$ be a postselective channel and let $ \bar\phi_\Lambda$ be the channel ’s anneal Choi state. $ \Lambda$ does not increase the act of samples required for
, whfn we say an algorithm **smpports** or **can hcbdle** a compohent, we oean that the cost of the colpinent is $\leq 1$, although the orotocols can be qpplmed to any compoisnt possibly jkeffieixntly.

Efficiency of Stabilhzer Propagatimn
------------------------------------

Wox a self-contained description of stafilizer pgopagation see [@benmynk; @dvsiurce; @seddon]. Just as the algodithms pn section II decpmpose input states into a weihhted sum of Pauli matrices, sjzbijuzer propagagion decomkoves input atates into a weighted sum of sgabilnzer states. A salkling procesw idegtical to eqmstions and rexults in the nmmber of samples required to ue proportional to tre square oy the following normaoizatiot cotstavr:

Thd **rkbnsthess ov megic** $\mathcam{R}(\rho)$ of an $n$-qubit state $\rho$ ix eye outcome of a condev optimization program over real vectorv $\vsc q$: $$\mathcal{R}(\rho) = \min_{\vex q} \sum_i \lvert q_i \rvett \text{ s.t. } \rho = \sum_i q_i \ket{\phi_i} \bra{\phi_i} \text{ and } \sum_i q_i = 1,$$

wherx $\{\yet{\khl_l}\}$ ard tje $n$-qubit stabilizer states.

When $\mathcal{R}(\rho) = 1$ (fht mpnimum value) then $\rho$ is a **syahikyzer mixture**, rince cgeh the vector $\vec q$ is a ptobabioity distwibuyion.

Due to the sheer number of stabilizvr srates, evaluating $\mcthcal{R}(\rho)$ fur efen skall $n$ is very expensivz. As sfated in [@bejnink], evamjating the cost wunbtiot for 3-qubit unitaries is iipracticao, alchough tfe pgrformagce can be improved for diagonal gwtes [@degdon].

The pegformance of stabilizer propagavmon gives a lgns fog the non-Eliffovdness of channqls, studied exjensively in [@sdddon]. In tge appeidix, we expagd on this wosn by modifyiig the prjtocil ti suppofg all **postselevtive chauuels** whicy include all tracc prersrving channels ane all ‘reasonablr’ nun-twabe-pceserdhng channels. Thefe, dr proxe the folliding theorem:\

\[thm:stabprop\] Net $\Mambda$ be a postsekegtive chabnel and let $\bar\phi_\Lakbda$ be the channep’s nocmalizxd Choo sjate. $\Lambda$ does not increase tge number of samples reqtiree for
, when we say an algorithm **supports** handle** component, we that the cost 1$, the protocols can applied to any possibly inefficiently. Efficiency of Stabilizer Propagation For a self-contained description of stabilizer propagation see [@bennink; @resource; @seddon]. Just as algorithms in section II decompose input states into a weighted sum of Pauli stabilizer decomposes states a weighted sum of stabilizer states. A sampling process identical to equations and results in the of samples required to be proportional to the of the following normalization The **robustness of magic** $\mathcal{R}(\rho)$ an state $\rho$ the of convex optimization program real vectors $\vec q$: $$\mathcal{R}(\rho) = \min_{\vec q} \sum_i \lvert q_i \rvert \text{ s.t. } \rho = q_i \ket{\phi_i} and } q_i 1,$$ $\{\ket{\phi_i}\}$ are the states. When $\mathcal{R}(\rho) = 1$ (the $\rho$ is a **stabilizer mixture**, since then the $\vec q$ a probability distribution. Due to the number of stabilizer states, evaluating $\mathcal{R}(\rho)$ for even $n$ is very expensive. As stated in [@bennink], evaluating the cost function for 3-qubit unitaries although the performance can improved for diagonal [@seddon]. performance stabilizer gives a for the non-Cliffordness of channels, studied extensively in [@seddon]. In the we expand on this work by modifying the protocol to **postselective which include all preserving channels and all non-trace-preserving There, we prove the \[thm:stabprop\] $\Lambda$ channel let be the channel’s normalized state. $\Lambda$ does not increase number of samples required
, when we say an algorithm **suppoRts** or **can haNdle** a ComPonEnT, we mEan tHat the cost of thE CompOnent is $\leq 1$, although the pRotocOlS Can bE ApPlied To any coMPoNENt pOsSiBly InEFfIcienTly.

efficieNcy of StabiLizEr propagation
------------------------------------

FOR a Self-contaiNed Description oF stAbilizEr ProPAgatiOn sEe [@benNink; @reSOurce; @sEddon]. Just As THe algoRIthms in SECtIon Ii decompose input stATeS Into a weighted sUm of PaUlI MaTRIceS, stAbilizer prOpAgatiON decompOSeS INPut STates into a weiGhted sum of sTAbiLizer sTaTes. a SampliNg proCeSS idEntical to eqUatiOns and resUlts in THe numbeR Of samplEs requIreD to Be prOPoRtIonAl TO thE SqUarE Of tHe followInG nOrmalIzatION COnstAnt:

the **rObustNess of magic** $\maThcAl{R}(\rHO)$ of An $n$-quBit stAte $\rHo$ Is the OutcomE of a cOnVex optimization ProgRam over reAl vEcTorS $\vEc q$: $$\maTHcal{R}(\rHo) = \mIn_{\vEc q} \sum_i \Lvert q_i \RVerT \tEXT{ S.t. } \Rho = \sum_i q_i \ket{\phi_i} \brA{\pHI_I} \tExt{ and } \suM_i q_i = 1,$$

whERe $\{\KeT{\Phi_i}\}$ are tHe $N$-quBit sTABilizEr stATeS.

When $\matHcal{R}(\rHO) = 1$ (tHe Minimum VaLue) theN $\rHo$ iS a **sTabilIZer mIxture**, Since theN the vECtor $\vec q$ is a proBAbility distriBUtION.

DUE to tHe sHeer number oF staBIlizEr stATeS, evALuatiNg $\matHcAL{R}(\RHo)$ for even small $n$ is veRy ExpensIve. As Stated in [@benniNk], evaluatiNG THe cost fuNctiON fOR 3-qubit unitarieS is imPractical, aLThough thE perfOrmance cAn be improVED for diagOnaL gaTes [@SedDON].

THe performance OF StabIlIzer proPagAtion giVes A leNs fOr tHe Non-CliffoRdness of ChAnNeLs, StuDied eXTensivelY iN [@seDdOn]. IN the aPPendix, We expAnd oN tHiS WorK by modiFYiNG The pRoToCol tO suPpOrt alL **posTSelEctive cHannels** whIch INcluDe AlL trace pReserving chanNeLs and all ‘reAsOnaBle’ non-TRAce-preseRving channels. There, we proVE the folLowIng thEoreM:\

\[thm:stabpRop\] let $\LamBda$ BE a postSelectIve chAnNel AND let $\bAR\PhI_\LaMbDa$ be the chaNNEl’s NormaLiZed CHoi statE. $\Lambda$ does not incrEAse The number of saMplEs reQUIrEd fOR
, when we say an algorithm  **support s** o r * *ca nhand le**  a component,w e me an that the cost of th e com po n enti s$\leq  1$, al t ho u g h t he  p rot oc o ls  canbeapplied  to any co mpo ne nt possiblyi ne fficiently .
Efficiency o f S tabili ze r P r opaga tio n
--- ------ - ------ --------- -- - ------ - -

Fora se lf-c ontained descript i on of stabilizerpropag at i on s ee[@b ennink; @r es ource ;  @seddo n ]. J u sta s the algorit hms in sect i onII dec om pos e  input  stat es int o a weighte d su m of Paul i matr i ces, st a bilizer  propa gat ion  dec o mp os esin p uts ta tes int o a weig ht ed  sumof s t a b i lize r s tate s. Asampling proc ess  ide n tic al to  equa tion sand r esults  in t he  number of samp lesrequiredtobe  pr op ortio n al tothe  sq uare of  the fo l low in g n or malization constan t: Th e **robu stness of  m a gic** $\ ma thc al{R } ( \rho) $ of an  $n$-qub it sta t e$\ rho$ is  t he out co meofa con v ex o ptimiz ation pr ogram over real vect o rs $\vec q$:$ $\ m a th c al{R }(\ rho) = \min _{\v e c q}  \su m _i  \l v ert q _i \r ve r t\ text{ s.t. } \rho =  \ sum_iq_i \ ket{\phi_i} \ bra{\phi_i } \ text{ an d }\ su m _i q_i = 1,$$
wher e $\{\ket{ \ phi_i}\} $ are  the $n$ -qubit st a b ilizer s tat es. 

W hen $ \m athcal{R}(\rh o )  = 1 $(the mi nim um valu e)the n $ \rh o$  is a **s tabilize rmi xt ur e** , sin c e then t he  ve ct or$\vec q$ isa pro babi li ty dis tributi o n. Dueto  t he s hee rnumbe r of sta bilizer  states,eva l uati ng  $ \mathca l{R}(\rho)$ f or  even smal l$n$  is ve r y  expensi ve. As stated in [@benn i nk], ev alu ating  the  cost fun cti on for  3- q ubit u nitari es is  i mpr a c tical , al tho ug h the perf o r man ce ca nbe i mproved  for diagonal gate s  [@ seddon].

The  pe rfor m a nc e o f  s t abi li z erp r opagation gives  a lens fo rt he  non-Cliff o rdn es s of ch annels,  stud i ed exte nsively i n [@seddo n] . In t heappendix,we expan d on this workb ymodif yin g thepr oto col t o supp o rtall * *posts el ective  chan ne ls** whi ch include all trace pr eservi ng ch ann els and a ll‘ rea sonable’non- trace-pres erv ing  chan nel s . The re,w epro v e the  fol l owing the o re m:\ \[ thm:stabpro p \ ]  Le t $\L amb d a$ bea po stselective chann e l and let $\ba r\ph i _ \La mbd a $ be  t he channel’s n orm al i z ed Choist ate. $\Lamb da$ does  n o t inc reasethe nu mber of s am p les re quir edfor
, when_we say_an algorithm **supports** or_**can handle**_a_component, we_mean_that the cost_of the component_is $\leq 1$, although_the protocols can_be_applied to any component possibly inefficiently.

Efficiency of Stabilizer Propagation
------------------------------------

For a self-contained description of stabilizer_propagation_see [@bennink;_@resource;_@seddon]._Just as the algorithms in_section II decompose input states_into a_weighted sum of Pauli matrices, stabilizer propagation decomposes_input_states into a_weighted sum of stabilizer states. A sampling process identical_to equations and results in the_number of samples_required_to_be proportional to the_square of the following normalization constant:

The_**robustness of magic** $\mathcal{R}(\rho)$ of an_$n$-qubit state $\rho$ is the outcome of_a convex optimization program over real_vectors $\vec q$: $$\mathcal{R}(\rho) =_\min_{\vec q}_\sum_i \lvert q_i \rvert \text{_s.t. } \rho_= \sum_i_q_i \ket{\phi_i} \bra{\phi_i}_\text{ and } \sum_i q_i =_1,$$

where $\{\ket{\phi_i}\}$ are_the $n$-qubit stabilizer states.

When $\mathcal{R}(\rho) =_1$_(the minimum value)_then_$\rho$_is a_**stabilizer mixture**, since_then_the vector_$\vec_q$ is a probability distribution.

Due to_the_sheer number of stabilizer states, evaluating $\mathcal{R}(\rho)$_for even small $n$_is_very expensive. As stated_in [@bennink], evaluating the cost_function for 3-qubit unitaries is impractical,_although the_performance can_be improved for diagonal gates [@seddon].

The performance of stabilizer propagation gives_a lens for the non-Cliffordness of_channels, studied extensively in_[@seddon]. In_the_appendix, we expand_on_this work_by modifying the protocol to support all_**postselective channels**_which include all trace preserving channels_and all ‘reasonable’ non-trace-preserving_channels._There, we prove the following theorem:\

\[thm:stabprop\]_Let $\Lambda$ be a postselective channel_and let $\bar\phi_\Lambda$ be the_channel’s_normalized_Choi state. $\Lambda$ does not_increase the number of samples required_for