Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Extension of Clifford Data Regression Methods for Quantum Error Mitigation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes two new feature maps for Clifford Data Regression—inserting an extra unitary between circuit halves, and adding noise-scaled variants—and shows they reduce root mean square error in numerical simulations.

desk verdict Useful empirical extension of CDR with a broken motivational argument in Sec 3.3 that a careful revision can fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16653 v1 pith:E4KOTSHY submitted 2024-11-25 quant-ph

Jordi Pérez-Guijarro , Alba Pagès-Zamora , Javier R. Fonollosa This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68
keywords Clifforddataregressionquantumerrormitigationzero-noiseextrapolationfeaturemapsRademachercomplexitynear-Cliffordcircuitsexpectationvalueestimationgatefolding
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 aims to make Clifford Data Regression (CDR) more accurate by feeding it richer feature vectors, not just the noisy expectation value of the original circuit. It introduces two feature maps: one that evaluates powers of the target circuit, and one that splits the circuit into two halves and inserts a known unitary between them. The insertion map, alone or combined with zero-noise extrapolation, is shown numerically to reduce root mean square error relative to classical CDR and ZNE-based CDR in three-qubit experiments. The paper also derives a Rademacher-complexity bound on the estimation bias and information-theoretic lower bounds on the required resources.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the feature vectors themselves: the geometric map $\phi(U) = [1, \phi(\tilde U), \phi(\tilde U^2), \ldots, \phi(\tilde U^J)]^T$ and the insertion map $\phi(U) = [1, \phi(\tilde U_2 \tilde V^{t_1} \tilde U_1), \ldots, \phi(\tilde U_2 \tilde V^{t_J} \tilde U_1)]^T$, where $\tilde{\cdot}$ denotes the noisy implementation. These feature maps turn the estimator into an affine combination of noisy measurements of perturbed circuits. The theoretical analysis rides on two tools: the decomposition of single-qubit rotations into Clifford channels, which lets the noisy feature values of $U$ be expressed as a weighted sum of feature values of near-Clifford circuits, and a Rademacher-complexity generalization bound that controls the difference between expectation over the training distribution and the finite training sample.

What would settle it

Train $\alpha$ on near-Clifford circuits, then compute the noiseless interpolation error $|f(U) - \alpha^T \phi_\infty(U)|$ for many target circuits with the same gate layout but widely separated rotation angles; if this error grows systematically as the angles move away from the training distribution, the claimed $U$-independence of the learned coefficients is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the insertion feature map and its noise-scaled variant, insertion-ZNE, improve the accuracy of Clifford Data Regression. For a target unitary $U$, the circuit is split as $U = U_2 U_1$ and perturbed circuits $U_2 V^{t} U_1$ are measured, with $V$ a fixed tensor product of single-qubit rotations and $t$ a real parameter; because $V^t$ is implemented by changing rotation angles, the enlarged circuits do not grow with $t$. The coefficients of the linear estimator are learned by ridge regression on near-Clifford circuits with the same gate layout. The paper reports that these insertion-based feature maps outperform classical CDR, the geometric feature map, and a ZNE-based feature map in the tested 3-qubit circuits, and that the bias term is bounded by $N(\theta)\sqrt{J+1}/\sqrt{S}$ plus a training-error term, so the expected error decays roughly as $1/\sqrt{S}$ and $1/\sqrt{N}$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on one learned coefficient vector transferring from near-Clifford training circuits to the target circuit $U$, on the grounds that the frequencies of the inserted gate $V$ do not depend on $U$; the $U$-dependent overlap coefficients that also appear in the expansion are what would break this transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the 3-qubit random-circuit experiments, the insertion and insertion-ZNE feature maps reduce root mean square error compared with classical CDR and ZNE-based CDR for the tested noise levels and feature-map sizes.
  • The bias of the learned estimator is bounded by $N(\theta)\sqrt{J+1}/\sqrt{S}$ plus the training error, so increasing the training set size $S$ or the number of samples $N$ lowers the expected error, with an optimal intermediate size for the feature map.
  • The straightforward implementation of the insertion method has complexity $O(SNJ\ell + n^2\ell S + J^3)$, about a factor $J$ more than classical CDR; a kernel-trick variant reduces this when $J \gg S$.
  • The information-theoretic analysis implies a trade-off: at least one of $J$, $S$, and $N$ must grow as $(1-p)^{-1/3}$ (or $(1-p)^{-2d/3}$ for depth-$d$ circuits) as depolarizing noise increases.
  • The insertion-ZNE variant is reported to be more resilient to finite sampling than the ZNE-based method, which degrades noticeably when the number of samples $N$ is limited.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's stated justification for transferability—that the expansion coefficients are independent of $U$ because the frequency set $\Omega(V)$ depends only on $V$—does not account for the $U$-dependent Fourier coefficients that appear in the expansion of Eq. (18); if those coefficients matter, the learned $\alpha$ may be sensitive to which target circuit is being estimated.
  • The performance of the insertion method likely depends on where $U$ is split and on the choice of inserted unitary $V$; the paper fixes one split and $V = R_X(\pi/8)\otimes I\otimes I$, so testing other splits and rotations is a natural next step.
  • Because the method learns a linear combination of noisy expectation values, its success on circuits far outside the near-Clifford training distribution remains an open question; a stress test with circuits whose rotation angles are deliberately far from those used in training would clarify the limits of transfer.
  • The same insertion idea could be extended to non-Clifford training circuits if classical simulation remains tractable, or to nonlinear post-processing of the feature vector, as the paper itself suggests as future work.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two new feature maps for Clifford Data Regression (CDR) quantum error mitigation: a geometric feature map that uses powers of the noisy circuit, and an insertion feature map that inserts a known unitary V^t into the target circuit, together with a noise-scaled variant (insertion-ZNE). The authors analyze the computational complexity of the resulting estimators, prove a generalization bound based on Rademacher complexity (Theorem 1), and derive an information-theoretic lower bound on the required resources (Theorem 2). They support the proposals with numerical experiments on random 3-qubit circuits and on QFT circuits, reporting reduced root mean square error relative to classical CDR and ZNE-based CDR.

Significance. The empirical finding that the insertion and insertion-ZNE feature maps reduce RMSE relative to classical CDR and ZNE-based CDR, especially in the finite-sample regime, is potentially useful for practical error mitigation. The paper also contributes formal results: Theorem 1 provides a concrete generalization bound with explicit scaling in S, J, and N, and Theorem 2 gives a resource trade-off that goes beyond generic impossibility bounds. The complexity analysis in Table 1 is a useful practical guide. However, the theoretical motivation for the insertion method contains a false claim about U-independence of the expansion coefficients, and a similar conflation appears in the justification of the geometric feature map, so the theoretical narrative needs repair before the results can be accepted as presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (18)] The claim that the coefficients in the linear combination for the insertion feature map are independent of U because the frequencies belong to Ω(V) is false. Expanding Eq. (18) in the eigenbasis of V gives coefficients of the form ⟨0|U1†|v_q⟩⟨v_q|U2†OU2|v_p⟩⟨v_p|U1|0⟩, which explicitly depend on both U1 and U2. This invalidates the stated justification for learning a single coefficient vector α on training circuits with different U1 and U2 and applying it to the target U. The paper should either provide a correct invariance argument or replace this motivation with the generalization bound of Theorem 1, which does not rely on U-independence of the coefficients.
  2. [Section 3.2, after Proposition 1] The same conflation of frequency independence with coefficient independence occurs in the support for the geometric feature map. Proposition 1 guarantees that g(t,U) can be approximated by a Fourier series with frequencies {±q/p}, but the optimal coefficients c_q depend on U through the eigenbasis overlaps ⟨0|u_i⟩. Therefore the statement that replacing Ω(U) by a U-independent frequency set implies 'there exists a set of coefficients such that f(U) ≈ ... for all circuits on the training set' is not justified. The theoretical support for the geometric feature map should be restated to avoid claiming a single coefficient set works for all U.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'fullfill' in Section 2.1, 'an the' in Section 3, and missing commas between the blocks of the vector in Eq. (19).
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (28)] The use of '≈O' is nonstandard; the asymptotic statement should be written as '= O(...)' or the approximation sign alone.
  3. [Appendix E, Figure 9 caption] The caption refers to 'Figure 1b' when describing the outlier threshold; this should be 'Figure 9b'.
  4. [Theorem 1] The quantity N(θ) is used in the bound before its definition in Eq. (27); the definition should be introduced before or with the theorem statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the fitted coefficients are learned on separate Clifford training circuits and evaluated on held-out test circuits; the theoretical bounds follow from stated noise assumptions, not from the target values.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, no circular step is present. The training procedure (Section 2, Eq. (6)) fits alpha on separate Clifford/near-Clifford circuits Wi with classically computed labels f(Wi), and the reported errors (Eq. (34)) are evaluated on held-out testing circuits Ui with labels f(Ui); none of the test labels enter the regression, so the RMSE reductions in Figures 1-4 and 6 are genuine empirical claims rather than fitted-input predictions. Theorem 1 (Eq. (26)) is a Rademacher-complexity generalization bound: it upper-bounds the test error by the empirical training error plus a term of order ceil(||alpha||_2) ||O||_2 N(theta) sqrt(J+1)/sqrt(S), and its proof (Appendix D) follows from the stated same-channel noise assumption, the Clifford-decomposition identities (8)-(10), and Lemma 4; no stated assumption includes the target f(U) values, and no self-citation is load-bearing. Theorem 2 is an information-theoretic lower bound following the standard Fano/Holevo argument. The only substantive defect is non-circular: Section 3.3 claims that in the expansion of (18) "the coefficients in this combination are independent of the unitary U, since the set Omega(V) depends only on the unitary V"; this is false, because the coefficients additionally contain overlaps such as <0|U1^dag|v_p> and <v_p|U2^dag O U2|v_q>, which depend on U1 and U2. That is a mathematical error in the theoretical motivation, not a reduction of the paper's results to their inputs, and it does not affect the independence of the numerical benchmarks.

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

The central claim rests on the standard CDR generalization assumption, the noise-model assumptions for the bounds and simulations, and an incorrect assertion about coefficient independence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • V angle (theta) = pi/8
    The inserted unitary V = RX(pi/8) x I x I is chosen by hand; the paper does not study how performance depends on this angle.
  • Insertion powers t_i = i-1 for i=1..J
    The sequence of insertion exponents is fixed to linear integer steps; no optimization is reported.
  • Number of noise levels J2 = 3 or 6
    For the insertion-ZNE map, J2 is set to 3 or 6 in the experiments.
  • Regularization mu = 1e-2, 1e-3, 1e-6
    Ridge regularization parameter swept over three values; results are reported for each.
  • Number of fixed rotations in training set = 7
    In Section 5, seven rotations are randomly selected to remain unchanged when building training circuits; this choice is a hyperparameter.
  • Circuit split point for insertion = unspecified
    The split of U into U1 and U2 is not described; this is an implicit free parameter of the insertion method.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Noise on each gate can be modeled by a fixed quantum channel (same N for all 1-qubit gates in Theorem 1; depolarizing channel on CNOTs in simulations).
    Used in Theorem 1 (Section 4.2) and in all numerical experiments (Section 5). Real device noise may be non-Markovian and gate-dependent.
  • domain assumption Training circuits W_i share the gate layout of U and experience similar noise.
    Core CDR assumption, stated in Section 2.1; necessary for the learned alpha to transfer to U.
  • standard math Gottesman-Knill theorem allows efficient classical computation of f(W_i).
    Used in Section 2.1 and complexity analysis (Section 4.1).
  • standard math Jackson's theorem on Fourier approximation of Lipschitz periodic functions.
    Used in proof of Proposition 1 (Appendix B).
  • standard math Fano's inequality, Holevo's theorem, and data processing inequality.
    Used in proof of Theorem 2 (Appendix F).
  • ad hoc to paper The assertion that the coefficients in the insertion feature combination are independent of U.
    Stated in Section 3.3 after Eq. (18); this is false, as the coefficients depend on U1 and U2, so this 'assumption' is an unsupported and incorrect premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extension of Clifford Data Regression Methods for Quantum Error Mitigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4KOTSHY

@misc{pith2026241116653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extension of Clifford Data Regression Methods for Quantum Error Mitigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4KOTSHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16653}
}
read the original abstract

To address the challenge posed by noise in real quantum devices, quantum error mitigation techniques play a crucial role. These techniques are resource-efficient, making them suitable for implementation in noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices, unlike the more resource-intensive quantum error correction codes. A notable example of such a technique is Clifford Data Regression, which employs a supervised learning approach. This work investigates two variants of this technique, both of which introduce a non-trivial set of gates into the original circuit. The first variant uses multiple copies of the original circuit, while the second adds a layer of single-qubit rotations. Different characteristics of these methods are analyzed theoretically, such as their complexity, or the scaling of the error with various parameters. Additionally, the performance of these methods is evaluated through numerical experiments, demonstrating a reduction in root mean square error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Root mean square error of ˆf(U) for different values of J and various methods. Figures (a), (b), and (c) differ only in the regularization parameter used, with µ set to 10−2 , 10−3 , and 10−6 , respectively. The solid lines represent the case where N = 1000 samples are used, and the dashed lines represent the ideal case where expected values are used for the computation of the feature maps. The performance of the pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the root mean square error of different CDR methods as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of the estimation error for the different CDR methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the performance of different CDR methods as the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Substitution of the control phase shift gate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the estimation performed by the different methods studied for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the average error for two ZNE-based methods as the feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Figure (a) shows functions g(t, U), g(t, Y ), and the approximation presented in Proposition 1. Figure (b) depicts the circuit implementation of the unitary U. Proof. Let Y := P2 n i=1 e j2π ⌊pωi⌋ p |ui⟩ ⟨ui |, where |ui⟩ denotes the i th eigenvector of U and ωi denote…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: For Figure (a), ∆(U) is depicted for different values of S, with all non-Clifford gates substituted. In Figure (b), ∆(U) is shown for the same range of S, but with 6 non-Clifford gates left unsubstituted. In both figures, we observe that ∆(U) decreases with S approxima…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: In Figure (a) the expected value of ∆(U) is displayed for different values of J. Figure (b) presents a plot of E[∥α∥2 √ J + 1] across various values of J. Figures 10a and 10b are obtained through simulation of 103 random circuits, using the same parameters as in [PIT…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    Peter W Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,” Physical review A , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. R2493, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Reliable quantum computers,

    John Preskill, “Reliable quantum computers,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 454, no. 1969, pp. 385–410, 1998

    work page 1969

  3. [3]

    Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,

    A Yu Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction,” Russian Mathematical Surveys, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1191, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    Daniel Gottesman, “Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation,” Physical Re- view A , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 127, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Quantum error mitigation as a universal error reduction technique: Applications from the nisq to the fault-tolerant quantum computing eras,

    Yasunari Suzuki, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, and Yuuki Tokunaga, “Quantum error mitigation as a universal error reduction technique: Applications from the nisq to the fault-tolerant quantum computing eras,” PRX Quantum , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 010345, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Error mitigation for universal gates on encoded qubits,

    Christophe Piveteau, David Sutter, Sergey Bravyi, Jay M Gambetta, and Kristan Temme, “Error mitigation for universal gates on encoded qubits,” Physical review letters, vol. 127, no. 20, pp. 200505, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Power of data in quantum ma- chine learning,

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Masoud Mohseni, Ryan Babbush, Sergio Boixo, Hartmut Neven, and Jarrod R McClean, “Power of data in quantum ma- chine learning,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 2631, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,” Physical review letters , vol. 119, no. 18, pp. 180509, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Prob- abilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli-lindblad models on noisy quantum pro- cessors,

    Ewout van den Berg, Zlatko K Minev, Abhinav Kandala, and Kristan Temme, “Prob- abilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli-lindblad models on noisy quantum pro- cessors,” arXiv e-prints , pp. arXiv–2201, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Locality and error mitigation of quantum circuits,

    Minh C Tran, Kunal Sharma, and Kristan Temme, “Locality and error mitigation of quantum circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06496 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incor- porating active error minimization,

    Ying Li and Simon C Benjamin, “Efficient variational quantum simulator incor- porating active error minimization,” Physical Review X , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 021050, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Learning-based quantum error mitigation,

    Armands Strikis, Dayue Qin, Yanzhu Chen, Simon C Benjamin, and Ying Li, “Learning-based quantum error mitigation,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 040330, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Error miti- gation with clifford quantum-circuit data,

    Piotr Czarnik, Andrew Arrasmith, Patrick J Coles, and Lukasz Cincio, “Error miti- gation with clifford quantum-circuit data,” Quantum, vol. 5, pp. 592, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Improving the efficiency of learning-based error mitigation,

    Piotr Czarnik, Michael McKerns, Andrew T Sornborger, and Lukasz Cincio, “Improving the efficiency of learning-based error mitigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07109, 2022. 19

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,

    Daniel Gottesman, “The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006, 1998

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Unified approach to data-driven quantum error mitiga- tion,

    Angus Lowe, Max Hunter Gordon, Piotr Czarnik, Andrew Arrasmith, Patrick J Coles, and Lukasz Cincio, “Unified approach to data-driven quantum error mitiga- tion,” Physical Review Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 033098, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,

    Wassily Hoeffding, “Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,” The collected works of Wassily Hoeffding , pp. 409–426, 1994

    1994

  10. [18]

    Unbiased simulation of near-clifford quantum circuits,

    Ryan S Bennink, Erik M Ferragut, Travis S Humble, Jason A Laska, James J Nutaro, Mark G Pleszkoch, and Raphael C Pooser, “Unbiased simulation of near-clifford quantum circuits,” Physical Review A , vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 062337, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,

    Tudor Giurgica-Tiron, Yousef Hindy, Ryan LaRose, Andrea Mari, and William J Zeng, “Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 306–316

    2020

  12. [20]

    Re- source efficient zero noise extrapolation with identity insertions,

    Andre He, Benjamin Nachman, Wibe A de Jong, and Christian W Bauer, “Re- source efficient zero noise extrapolation with identity insertions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04941, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” Physical Review A , vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 052328, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,

    Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset, “Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates,” Physical review letters , vol. 116, no. 25, pp. 250501, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,

    Sergey Bravyi, Dan Browne, Padraic Calpin, Earl Campbell, David Gosset, and Mark Howard, “Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions,” Quantum, vol. 3, pp. 181, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions,

    Don Coppersmith and Shmuel Winograd, “Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions,” Journal of Symbolic Computation , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 251–280, 1990, Computational algebraic complexity editorial

    1990

  17. [25]

    John Shawe-Taylor and Nello Cristianini, Kernel methods for pattern analysis , Cam- bridge university press, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning,

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill, “Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 126, no. 19, pp. 190505, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Universal sampling lower bounds for quantum error mitigation,

    Ryuji Takagi, Hiroyasu Tajima, and Mile Gu, “Universal sampling lower bounds for quantum error mitigation,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 131, no. 21, pp. 210602, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,

    Yihui Quek, Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, Sumeet Khatri, Johannes Jakob Meyer, and Jens Eisert, “Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11505 , 2022. 20

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation,

    Ryuji Takagi, Suguru Endo, Shintaro Minagawa, and Mile Gu, “Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 114, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,

    Haoran Liao, Derek S Wang, Iskandar Sitdikov, Ciro Salcedo, Alireza Seif, and Zlatko K Minev, “Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17368, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation, Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Mark M Wilde, Quantum information theory , Cambridge university press, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    11, American Mathematical Soc., 1930

    Dunham Jackson, The theory of approximation , vol. 11, American Mathematical Soc., 1930

    1930

  26. [34]

    Mehryar Mohri, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Ameet Talwalkar, Foundations of ma- chine learning, MIT press, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    On contraction coeffi- cients, partial orders and approximation of capacities for quantum channels,

    Christoph Hirche, Cambyse Rouz´ e, and Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, “On contraction coeffi- cients, partial orders and approximation of capacities for quantum channels,” Quan- tum, vol. 6, pp. 862, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Quantum reverse hypercon- tractivity: its tensorization and application to strong converses,

    Salman Beigi, Nilanjana Datta, and Cambyse Rouz´ e, “Quantum reverse hypercon- tractivity: its tensorization and application to strong converses,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 376, pp. 753–794, 2020. Appendices A Implementation of the ZNE-based method As prese...

    2020

  29. [37]

    21 Figure 7: Comparison of the average error for two ZNE-based methods as the feature map size varies

    This figure compares the two implementations by plotting the average error across 1000 testing circuits. 21 Figure 7: Comparison of the average error for two ZNE-based methods as the feature map size varies. The testing circuits are randomly generated and consist of 30 gates o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.