Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

This paper proves that conventional quantum readout error mitigation, which folds state-preparation errors into the readout calibration, systematically overestimates stabilizer-state fidelities by an exponentially growing factor and can cre

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:42 UTC pith:45YF5OHR

load-bearing objection Correct and important core result, but the 'all stabilizer states' proof is advertised, not delivered. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.08687 v5 pith:45YF5OHR submitted 2025-10-09 quant-ph

False Positives Raised by Quantum Readout Error Mitigation

Yibin Guo , Yi Fan , Pei Liu , Shoukuan Zhao , Yirong Jin , Xiaoxia Cai , Xiongzhi Zeng , Zhenyu Li
show 2 more authors
Wengang Zhang Hai-Feng Yu
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum readout error mitigationstate preparation and measurement errorsinitialization errorstabilizer state fidelityfalse positives in entanglement characterizationvariational quantum eigensolverquantum time evolutionNISQ error mitigation
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.

Quantum readout error mitigation (QREM), a standard correction applied to NISQ-device measurement data, is usually calibrated by preparing known states and inverting the observed error matrix. This paper argues that when state-preparation (initialization) errors are present, that calibration conflates them with measurement errors, so the correction over-amplifies every single-qubit measurement by a factor 1/(1−2q). The paper proves that for all stabilizer states—graph states, GHZ states, and other states defined by commuting Pauli observables—this produces a fake fidelity that grows exponentially with qubit number, can exceed 1, and can reach 0.5 even when the actual fidelity is much lower, meaning entanglement characterization can report false positives. The same bias appears in variational quantum eigensolver energies and quantum time evolution, where it grows with system size and can mask other circuit errors. The paper closes with an upper bound on the tolerable initialization error rate, roughly q ≲ 1/[2(n−1)] per qubit for a target relative error.

Core claim

The central claim is a proof: when the QREM calibration matrix is built from states contaminated by the same initialization error that later enters the computation, the corrected expectation value of a Pauli stabilizer is not the true value but the true value amplified by (1−2q)^{-w}, where w is the weight of the stabilizer. Concretely, the true fidelity of an n-qubit stabilizer state is F = 2^{-n} Σ_k λ_k, where λ_k = ∏_i (1−2q_i)^{bit_i(k)}; after conventional QREM it becomes F̃ = 2^{-n} Σ_k λ_k/λ_{b_k}. Because each stabilizer of weight w carries a factor 1/λ = (1−2q)^{-w}, the corrected fidelity grows exponentially with n and can exceed 1 for graph states, GHZ states, star graphs, fully

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QREM correction matrix Λ built from the SPAM calibration: Λ = ⊗_i 1/(1−2q_i) [[1−q_i, −q_i],[−q_i, 1−q_i]] M_i^{-1}. Because Λ contains the inverse of the initialization bit-flip channel, applying it to any measured expectation multiplies that qubit by (1−2q_i)^{-1}. For stabilizer-state fidelity, the paper tracks how the diagonal coefficients λ_k of the noisy initial state map through the Clifford preparation circuit to the stabilizers, yielding the ratio-symmetric identity F̃ = 2^{-n} Σ λ_k/λ_{b_k}. The difference between F and F̃ is governed by the exponent t = (number of Z operators in A_k) − (number of Z operators in A_{b_k}), which grows with the stabiliz

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the initialization error being exactly the same single-qubit incoherent bit-flip channel during QREM calibration and during the circuit, and remaining a bit-flip after every gate; if the real initialization error leaks population, rotates coherently, or differs between calibration and running, the exponential amplification and the derived bound do not apply.

What would settle it

Prepare an n-qubit stabilizer state whose initialization error rate q can be independently measured, then run conventional QREM. The paper predicts the corrected fidelity equals 2^{-n} Σ_k λ_k/λ_{b_k}, which for a weight-w stabilizer is the uncorrected value times (1−2q)^{-w}; if measurements show no such amplification, or the corrected fidelity does not grow with w and n as predicted, the central claim fails. Equivalently, a direct comparison of QREM-corrected and SPAM-free fidelities over a range of n would settle it.

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

If this is right

  • Reported fidelities of large-scale graph and GHZ states obtained with conventional QREM should be treated as upper bounds, not reliable estimates; the overestimation is exponential in qubit number and can produce values above 1 or 0.5 when the true fidelity is far lower.
  • For stabilizer-based verification, the fake fidelity F̃ = 2^{-n} Σ λ_k/λ_{b_k} gives a quantitative prediction of the bias for any given initialization error rate and state topology.
  • VQE and time-evolution results worsen with qubit count and, in the Trotter case, with more Trotter steps, so error mitigation cannot be assumed to be neutral in algorithm benchmarks.
  • The derived bound q ≲ ε/[2(n−1)] sets a concrete target for qubit reset and initialization fidelity: at 100 qubits, keeping the QREM-induced relative error below 10% requires a per-qubit initialization error below 0.05% (if the first-order approximation holds).
  • The proof covers all stabilizer states, so the false-positive risk applies generally to stabilizer-based entanglement certification, not only to the specific graph states simulated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same conflation mechanism should affect any readout-correction scheme whose calibration states are prepared with the same faulty initialization, not just the specific matrix-inversion method analyzed here, because the bias enters through the calibration data.
  • A practical diagnostic follows from the identity: measuring the same stabilizer with and without a SPAM-separated characterization should show a gap growing as (1−2q)^{-w}; such a two-point measurement would directly test the predicted amplification and measure the effective q.
  • If the central claim holds, previously reported large-scale entanglement demonstrations that relied on conventional QREM may need re-checking with a SPAM-free reference; the paper's bound provides a way to estimate whether a given result falls in the false-positive regime.
  • The worst-case bound assumes a single stabilizer that involves all qubits; real experiments with sparse stabilizers will show weaker bias, so the bound is conservative but also means the effect can be masked by averaging over many stabilizers.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies conventional quantum readout error mitigation (QREM) in the presence of initialization errors that are conflated with measurement errors during calibration. It argues that the QREM correction amplifies the initialization-error contribution in measured Pauli observables by factors of the form 1/(1-2q)^w, leading to overestimated stabilizer-state fidelities that grow exponentially with qubit number, and that this can cause false-positive entanglement characterization. The paper also presents numerical simulations of VQE and time-evolution energies under this bias, and proposes an upper bound on the tolerable initialization error rate. The formal derivation is given in Appendices A and B, where the Pauli-basis formalism is introduced and exact dynamic-programming solutions are provided for four families of graph/GHZ states.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the effect is practically important: QREM is a standard tool on current NISQ devices, and the paper identifies a systematic bias that can dominate as qubit counts grow, even for small initialization error rates. The algebraic derivation in Appendix A is clear and correctly shows the 1/(1-2q) amplification for single-qubit and two-qubit observables under the stated noise model. The exact DP solutions for several entangled-state families provide concrete quantitative evidence. However, the paper's broad claim that the effect is proved for all stabilizer states, and its proposed safety bound, are not fully supported as written; the main gap is a missing general proof and an unproven worst-case assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Appendix B, Eq. (B5)] The abstract's claim that the effect is 'proved' to cause severe fidelity overestimation for all stabilizer states is not established by the manuscript. Appendix B derives the general formulas F = (1/2^n) Σ_k λ_k and F̃ = (1/2^n) Σ_k λ_k/λ_{b_k} in Eq. (B5), but the subsequent analysis only solves four specific families (linear graph, star graph, fully-connected graph, linear GHZ) using the recurrences in Eqs. (B6)–(B13). No theorem or argument is given showing F̃ ≥ F, let alone exponential growth, for an arbitrary stabilizer state. Since the title and abstract generalize from these examples to the entire stabilizer class, this is load-bearing. A termwise inequality λ_k/λ_{b_k} ≥ λ_k may be easy to prove because λ_{b_k} ≤ 1, but the paper does not supply that proof; alternatively, the claims should be narrowed to the families actually analyzed.
  2. [Safety bounds for QREM; Fig. 4] The safety bound relies on the assertion that the worst-case observable is 'one stabilizer generator and involves all the qubits.' No proof is provided that this observable maximizes the relative deviation Δ over all observables or over all stabilizer states. The subsequent bound Δ ≈ 2(n−1)q and Fig. 4 are therefore not rigorously established as an upper bound. This is load-bearing for the paper's stated practical conclusion about tolerable initialization error rates. A proof or an explicit optimization over the Pauli-observable space is needed before the bound can be used as claimed.
  3. [Eq. (2), Eq. (A3), Appendix B] The derivation assumes a specific noise model: initialization errors are independent, incoherent single-qubit bit-flip channels, identical during QREM calibration and during the actual circuit, and the entangling-state preparation circuit is Clifford. Real initialization errors may include leakage, coherent rotation errors, and drift between calibration and experiment; in those cases the λ_b factors and the amplification 1/(1−2q)^w do not directly apply. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, if the practical claim is intended for real devices, provide a robustness argument or a numerical test. This does not invalidate the algebraic result within the stated model, but it limits the scope of the more general statements in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B11)] The definition of the binomial coefficient C_n^m appears garbled: it should be n!/[m!(n−m)!], not (m−n)!/(m!n!). The notation C_t^n in the same equation is also inconsistent with the defined C_n^m.
  2. [Title; Appendix A heading] The manuscript title differs from the posted arXiv title, and the Appendix A header misspells 'Quantum' as 'Qauntum'. Please harmonize these.
  3. [Fig. 1] The 'square graph' and '2-cluster tensor' data in Fig. 1(a) are not covered by the Appendix B recurrences. A sentence describing how these points were computed would improve reproducibility and clarify the scope of the exact DP results.
  4. [Fig. 4] The ordinate of Fig. 4 is not explicitly defined in the caption. Please state whether the plotted quantity is the relative error Δ defined in the text and give the exact formula used to generate the contours.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the fidelity-overestimation result is a direct analytic consequence of the stated QREM calibration model, with no fitted inputs or self-citation chain doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The key formulas, F = (1/2^n) Σ λ_k and F̃ = (1/2^n) Σ λ_k/λ_{b_k} (Eq. B5), follow by direct linear algebra from the stated noise model: Eq. A3 postulates that the QREM matrix Λ_i inverts the product of the measurement matrix M_i and the initialization bit-flip matrix, and Eq. A4 then explicitly yields the (1−2q_i)^{-1} amplification factor. No parameter is fitted to the target conclusion; the initialization error rate q is an assumed simulation parameter, not extracted from the fidelity data being 'predicted'. The cited fact that QREM multiplies Pauli coefficients by 1/λ_k (ref. [37]) is an independent published result, and the paper also rederives it in Appendix A, so it is not a load-bearing self-citation. The only self-citation is the Q2Chemistry package [51] used for the VQE/QTE numerical illustrations; those simulations are supporting examples, not the basis of the analytical claim, and the same package is standard numerical tooling rather than a source of the paper's main result. The note added [36] even acknowledges independent concurrent work, further indicating the result is not being imported from the authors' own prior claims. The paper does have a rigor gap: the abstract claims a proof 'for all stabilizer states', while Appendix B only provides exact solutions for four families and a DP method, with no explicit general theorem that F̃ ≥ F or that the gap is exponential for arbitrary stabilizer states. However, that is a completeness/correctness issue, not circularity: the missing general argument is not assumed as an input, and no equation reduces the conclusion to the hypothesis. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no free parameters. It relies on a standard bit-flip SPAM model, perfect calibration/inversion assumptions, and an ad hoc worst-case observable for the bound. The exponential growth follows from the structure of the assumed noise model, not from fitted data.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Initialization errors are modeled as independent, incoherent bit-flip errors with rate q_i on each qubit, applied to the initial state before the circuit (Appendix A, Eq. A2–A3).
    This is the noise model from which all amplification formulas are derived. Real initialization errors could be coherent or correlated, which would change the formulas.
  • domain assumption The same initialization error channel is present during QREM calibration and is perfectly captured by the measured calibration matrix (Eq. A3).
    The calibration matrix is assumed to be exactly M·Q; if calibration-state preparation differs from circuit-time initialization, the derived correction matrix Λ would differ.
  • domain assumption QREM calibration perfectly characterizes the measurement error matrix M and its inverse is applied without statistical error.
    Finite sampling during calibration would introduce additional noise that could mask or alter the systematic bias.
  • domain assumption For the analytical fidelity derivations, state-preparation circuits (entangling gates) are assumed perfect (Appendix B).
    The exponential overestimation is derived for perfect circuits; Fig. 1(b,c) adds gate errors numerically, but the clean analytic claim depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The worst-case observable for the safety bound is a single stabilizer generator involving all qubits; no proof is given that this is the worst case over all observables (Safety Bounds section).
    This is an ad hoc choice used to derive the upper bound; the paper does not justify it as the true worst case.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14894 in / 18277 out tokens · 152225 ms · 2026-08-04T10:42:36.650884+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum readout error mitigation is essential for noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices to achieve reliable data. The conventional approaches, conflating initialization errors with measurement errors, not only suppress the influence of measurement errors, but also strengthen that of initialization errors, which is a systematic bias grows exponentially with the qubit number. Here, we have proved that this effect causes severe fidelity overestimation for all stabilizer states and might lead to false positives in large-scale entangled state characterization. Similarly, the results from algorithms like the variational quantum eigensolver and time evolution also deviate negatively, and cover up other errors in the quantum circuit. These findings highlight the critical need for rigorous benchmarking and careful management of initialization errors. Consequently, we establish an upper bound for the tolerable initialization error rate to ensure effective error mitigation at a given system scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08687 by Hai-Feng Yu, Pei Liu, Shoukuan Zhao, Wengang Zhang, Xiaoxia Cai, Xiongzhi Zeng, Yibin Guo, Yi Fan, Yirong Jin, Zhenyu Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.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

54 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke,et al., Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error miti- gation for short-depth quantum circuits, Physical review letters119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Van Den Berg, Z

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Na- ture physics19, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Shen and L

    C. Shen and L. Duan, Correcting detection errors in quantum state engineering through data processing, New Journal of Physics14, 053053 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Zhong, H.-S

    Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, K. Satzinger, M.-H. Chou, A. Bi- enfait, C. Conner, ´E. Dumur, J. Grebel, G. Peairs, R. Povey,et al., Violating bell’s inequality with remotely connected superconducting qubits, Nature Physics15, 741 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimbor´ as, and M. Oszmaniec, Mit- igation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography, Quantum4, 257 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gambetta, Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers, PRX Quantum2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    G. J. Mooney, G. A. White, C. D. Hill, and L. C. Hollenberg, Generation and verification of 27-qubit greenberger-horne-zeilinger states in a superconducting quantum computer, Journal of Physics Communications 5, 095004 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    S. Cao, B. Wu, F. Chen, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Ye, C. Zha, H. Qian, C. Ying, S. Guo,et al., Generation of genuine entanglement up to 51 superconducting qubits, Nature 619, 738 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    S. Guo, J. Sun, H. Qian, M. Gong, Y. Zhang, F. Chen, Y. Ye, Y. Wu, S. Cao, K. Liu,et al., Experimental quantum computational chemistry with optimized uni- tary coupled cluster ansatz, Nature Physics20, 1240 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    J. Song, S. Yang, P. Liu, H.-L. Zhang, G.-M. Xue, Z.- Y. Mi, W.-G. Zhang, F. Yan, Y.-R. Jin, and H.-F. Yu, Realization of high-fidelity perfect entanglers between re- mote superconducting quantum processors, Physical Re- view Letters135, 050603 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Jiang, J

    T. Jiang, J. Cai, J. Huang, N. Zhou, Y. Zhang, J. Bei, G. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen,et al., Genera- tion of 95-qubit genuine entanglement and verification of symmetry-protected topological phases, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01978 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross,et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth,et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of meth- ods and best practices, Physics Reports986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio,et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. Sawaya,et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chemical reviews119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    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,et al., Towards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer, Nature chemistry2, 106 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Re- views of Modern Physics92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  22. [23]

    M. B. Hastings, D. Wecker, B. Bauer, and M. Troyer, Improving quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry, arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.1539 (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [24]

    B. D. Jones, D. R. White, G. O. O’Brien, J. A. Clark, and E. T. Campbell, Optimising trotter-suzuki decompo- sitions for quantum simulation using evolutionary strate- gies, inProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(2019) pp. 1223–1231

    2019

  24. [25]

    Avtandilyan and W

    A. Avtandilyan and W. Pogosov, Optimal-order trotter- suzuki decomposition for quantum simulation on noisy quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01131 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [26]

    R. S. Sarkar, S. Chakraborty, and B. Adhikari, Scalable quantum circuits for exponential of pauli strings and hamiltonian simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13605 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [27]

    Tranter, P

    A. Tranter, P. J. Love, F. Mintert, N. Wiebe, and P. V. Coveney, Ordering of trotterization: Impact on errors in quantum simulation of electronic structure, Entropy21, 1218 (2019)

    2019

  27. [28]

    J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Sim- ulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quan- tum computers, Molecular Physics109, 735 (2011)

    2011

  28. [29]

    X. Yang, X. Nie, Y. Ji, T. Xin, D. Lu, and J. Li, Improved quantum computing with higher-order trotter decompo- sition, Physical Review A106, 042401 (2022)

    2022

  29. [30]

    E. H. Chen, G.-Y. Zhu, R. Verresen, A. Seif, E. B¨ aumer, D. Layden, N. Tantivasadakarn, G. Zhu, S. Sheldon, A. Vishwanath,et al., Nishimori transition across the error threshold for constant-depth quantum circuits, Na- 6 ture Physics21, 161 (2025)

    2025

  30. [31]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct fidelity estima- tion from few pauli measurements, Physical review letters 106, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  31. [32]

    Fontana, N

    E. Fontana, N. Fitzpatrick, D. M. Ramo, R. Duncan, and I. Rungger, Evaluating the noise resilience of vari- ational quantum algorithms, Physical Review A104, 022403 (2021)

    2021

  32. [33]

    Murch, U

    K. Murch, U. Vool, D. Zhou, S. Weber, S. Girvin, and I. Siddiqi, Cavity-assisted quantum bath engineering, Physical Review Letters109, 183602 (2012)

    2012

  33. [34]

    R. U. Jader P. Santos, Drift-resilient mid-circuit measure- ment and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11270 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    E. H. Chen, S. Chen, L. E. Fischer, A. Eddins, L. C. Govia, B. Mitchell, A. He, Y. Kim, L. Jiang, and A. Seif, Disambiguating pauli noise in quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22629 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    M. Q. Khan, L. M. Norris, and L. Viola, Separate and ef- ficient characterization of state-preparation and measure- ment errors using single-qubit operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19448 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    Van Den Berg, Z

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, Model- free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values, Physical Review A105, 032620 (2022)

    2022

  37. [38]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  38. [39]

    Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in fock space

    W. Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in fock space. i. the universal wave and energy operators, The Journal of Chemical Physics77, 3081 (1982)

    1982

  39. [40]

    R. J. Bartlett, S. A. Kucharski, and J. Noga, Alternative coupled-cluster ans¨ atze ii. the unitary coupled-cluster method, Chemical physics letters155, 133 (1989)

    1989

  40. [41]

    A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett, New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory, International journal of quantum chemistry106, 3393 (2006)

    2006

  41. [42]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  42. [43]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  43. [44]

    Tranter, P

    A. Tranter, P. J. Love, F. Mintert, and P. V. Coveney, A comparison of the bravyi–kitaev and jordan–wigner transformations for the quantum simulation of quantum chemistry, Journal of chemical theory and computation 14, 5617 (2018)

    2018

  44. [45]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The bravyi- kitaev transformation for quantum computation of elec- tronic structure, The Journal of chemical physics137 (2012)

    2012

  45. [46]

    H. R. Grimsley, D. Claudino, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Is the trotterized uccsd ansatz chem- ically well-defined?, Journal of chemical theory and com- putation16, 1 (2019)

    2019

  46. [47]

    Babbush, J

    R. Babbush, J. McClean, D. Wecker, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and N. Wiebe, Chemical basis of trotter-suzuki errors in quantum chemistry simulation, Physical Review A91, 022311 (2015)

    2015

  47. [48]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma,et al., Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  48. [49]

    C. Cao, J. Hu, W. Zhang, X. Xu, D. Chen, F. Yu, J. Li, H.-S. Hu, D. Lv, and M.-H. Yung, Progress toward larger molecular simulation on a quantum computer: Simulat- ing a system with up to 28 qubits accelerated by point- group symmetry, Physical Review A105, 062452 (2022)

    2022

  49. [50]

    Cartis, J

    C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau, and L. Roberts, Im- proving the flexibility and robustness of model-based derivative-free optimization solvers, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS)45, 1 (2019)

    2019

  50. [51]

    Y. Fan, J. Liu, X. Zeng, Z. Xu, H. Shang, Z. Li, and J. Yang, Q 2 chemistry: A quantum computa- tion platform for quantum chemistry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10978 (2022). 7 Appendix A: An introduction to the conventional Qauntum Readout Error Mitigation (QREM) For ann-qubit system, the experimentally measured probability distribution can be treated clas...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [52]

    S1 (a), the mapping of{A k} → {Bk}is Bk = n−1Y i=0 aiB2i ,whereB 2i =    XZII· · ·I, i= 0, II· · ·IZXZII· · ·I,0< i < n−1 withXacted on theQi, II· · ·IZX, i=n−1

    The linear graph state Considering thenqubit systemQ 0, Q1,· · ·, Qn−1 with its topology structure showed in FIG. S1 (a), the mapping of{A k} → {Bk}is Bk = n−1Y i=0 aiB2i ,whereB 2i =    XZII· · ·I, i= 0, II· · ·IZXZII· · ·I,0< i < n−1 withXacted on theQi, II· · ·IZX, i=n−1. (B6) 10 Linear GS Q0 Q1 Qn−2 Qn−1 Qn · · ·I · · ·X · · ·Z · · ·Y with · · ·Z...

  52. [53]

    S1 (b), B2i = ( XZZ· · ·Z, i= 0, ZII· · ·IXII· · ·I,0< i≤n−1 withXacted on theQ i

    The star graph state For the mapping{A k} → {Bk}in the star-like GS showed in FIG. S1 (b), B2i = ( XZZ· · ·Z, i= 0, ZII· · ·IXII· · ·I,0< i≤n−1 withXacted on theQ i. (B8) 11 Similar but different from the linear GS, we classify{B k}into three categories based on the first Pauli operator, {I· · · }(s= 0),{Z· · · }(s= 1), and{X· · ·, Y· · · }(s= 2). The sta...

  53. [54]

    The fully-connect graph state For the fully-connect GS, this special GS has a very strong symmetry,B 2i =ZZ· · ·ZXZZ· · ·Zwith only theX acted on theQ i. It is noticed that only two type of{B k}is allowed, Bk = ( Y a0 Y a1 · · ·Yan−1 ,even number ofZinA k, Z 1−a0 X a0 Z 1−a1 X a1 · · · Z 1−an−1 X an−1 ,odd number ofZinA k, (B10) according to Eq. (B1). The...

  54. [55]

    Thus, B2i = ( XX· · ·X, i= 0, II· · ·IZZII· · ·I,0< i≤n−1 withZacted on theQ i−1 andQ i

    The linear GHZ state The quantum circuit for a linear GHZ state generates entanglement sequentially, starting from qubitQ 0 and propagating it to each subsequent qubit in the chain. Thus, B2i = ( XX· · ·X, i= 0, II· · ·IZZII· · ·I,0< i≤n−1 withZacted on theQ i−1 andQ i. (B12) At this stage, we classify{B k}into three categories,{· · ·I}(s= 0),{· · ·Z}(s= ...