pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.26497 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Certification and Classification of Linear Quantum Error Mitigation Methods

Zach Blunden-Codd , Mohamed Tamaazousti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error mitigationlinear methodscharacterizationcertificationtaxonomyscalabilityefficiencystochastic noise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accurate characterization of quantum noise determines how efficiently linear error mitigation works as hardware improves.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops quantitative metrics for comparing linear quantum error mitigation methods while accounting for ongoing reductions in logical error rates. These metrics support qualitative criteria such as scalability, efficiency, and robustness to imperfections, which are combined into application-specific certifications. The authors also supply a taxonomy that classifies linear methods according to their features and requirements. They illustrate the framework by constructing a mitigation strategy for hardware affected by stochastic noise or rotational errors. The central finding is that accurate and precise characterization of the noise is the dominant factor for achieving efficient mitigation.

Core claim

We develop a set of quantitative metrics that account for continual improvements in logical gate quality. We use these metrics to define qualitative criteria such as scalability, efficiency, and robustness to characterised imperfections in the mitigation implementation, which we combine into application-specific certifications. We provide a taxonomy of linear mitigation methods, characterising them by their features and requirements. We then produce and evaluate a mitigation strategy targeted at mitigating the outputs of hardware suffering from stochastic noise and/or rotational errors, finding that the most significant determinant of efficient mitigation is accurate and precise characteri

What carries the argument

Application-specific certifications built from quantitative metrics for improving logical gate quality combined with qualitative criteria of scalability, efficiency, and robustness, together with a taxonomy of linear mitigation methods.

If this is right

  • Mitigation methods can be systematically selected or combined for a given piece of hardware once its noise is characterised.
  • Strategies that remain robust when the mitigation implementation itself contains small errors will retain value longer.
  • The taxonomy makes it possible to match methods to specific noise types such as stochastic or rotational errors.
  • Complete mitigation strategies can be assembled from multiple methods plus compilation procedures to cover all relevant errors on characterised hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Prioritising better noise characterisation tools may deliver larger gains than developing additional mitigation algorithms alone.
  • The same certification approach could later be extended to assess combinations of mitigation with quantum error correction.
  • Experimental tests on current devices with varying characterisation precision would directly check whether the predicted efficiency rankings hold.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed quantitative metrics and qualitative criteria can be meaningfully combined into application-specific certifications that remain valid and useful as logical gate quality continues to improve over time.

What would settle it

Finding a linear mitigation method that delivers high efficiency on hardware whose noise is only roughly or inaccurately characterised, or observing that the certifications no longer correctly predict which methods perform best once logical error rates fall well below present levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26497 by Mohamed Tamaazousti, Zach Blunden-Codd.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Taxonomy of the mitigation methods in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Runtime scaling (Eq. (140)) versus bias (Eq. (138)) for a circuit (Sec. 5.3.1) with stochastic noise (see Secs 3.3 and 5.3.2) with noise amplitude p “ eSN 2NG , where NG “ 18NS is the number of gates. The vertical black lines show the bias before mitigation, horizontal lines are the sampling costs of unbiased methods, and each point represents a different order of mitigation (NM). The methods from [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Runtime scaling (Eq. (140)) versus bias (Eq. (138)) for a circuit (Sec. 5.3.1) with stochastic noise (see Secs 3.3 and 5.3.2) with noise amplitude p “ eSN 2NG , where NG “ 18NS is the number of gates. The vertical black lines show the bias before mitigation, horizontal lines are the sampling costs of unbiased methods, and each point represents a different order of mitigation (NM). The methods from [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Runtime scaling (Eq. (140)) versus bias (Eq. (138)) for a circuit (Sec. 5.3.1) with rotational errors (see Secs 3.4 and 5.3.2) with noise amplitude ϕ “ eRE NG , where NG “ 18NS is the number of gates. The vertical black lines show the bias before mitigation, horizontal lines are the sampling costs of unbiased methods, and each point represents a different order of mitigation (NM). The methods from [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Runtime scaling (Eq. (140)) versus bias (Eq. (138)) for a circuit (Sec. 5.3.1) with rotational errors (see Secs 3.4 and 5.3.2) with noise amplitude ϕ “ eRE NG , where NG “ 18NS is the number of gates. The vertical black lines show the bias before mitigation, horizontal lines are the sampling costs of unbiased methods, and each point represents a different order of mitigation (NM). The methods from [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Runtime scaling (Eq. (140)) versus bias (Eq. (138)) after local cancellation (LC) for a circuit (Sec. 5.3.1) with rotational errors (see Secs 3.4 and 5.3.2) with noise amplitude ϕ “ eRE NG , where NG “ 18NS is the number of gates. The vertical black lines show the bias before mitigation (the one with stars is after we apply LC but before subsequent mitigation methods), horizontal lines are the sampling cos… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Runtime scaling (Eq. (140)) versus bias (Eq. (138)) after local cancellation (LC) for a circuit (Sec. 5.3.1) with rotational errors (see Secs 3.4 and 5.3.2) with noise amplitude ϕ “ eRE NG , where NG “ 18NS is the number of gates. The vertical black lines show the bias before mitigation (the one with stars is after we apply LC), horizontal lines are the sampling costs of unbiased methods, and each point re… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Numerous mitigation methods exist for quantum noise suppression, making it challenging to identify the optimum approach for a specific application; especially as ongoing advances in hardware tuning and error correction are expected to reduce logical error rates. In order to facilitate the future-proof application-dependent comparison of mitigation methods, we develop a set of quantitative metrics that account for continual improvements in logical gate quality. We use these metrics to define qualitative criteria (e.g. scalability, efficiency, and robustness to characterised imperfections in the mitigation implementation), which we combine into application-specific certifications. We then provide a taxonomy of linear mitigation methods, characterising them by their features and requirements. Finally, we use our framework to produce and evaluate a mitigation strategy. A mitigation strategy is a collections of mitigation methods and compilation procedures designed to mitigate all relevant errors for a given piece of characterised hardware. Our example mitigation strategy is targeted at mitigating the outputs of hardware suffering from stochastic noise and/or rotational errors. We find the most significant determinant of efficient mitigation is accurate and precise characterisation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops quantitative metrics for scalability, efficiency, and robustness of linear quantum error mitigation methods that incorporate continual improvements in logical gate quality. These metrics are combined into application-specific certifications. A taxonomy classifies linear mitigation methods according to their features and requirements. An example mitigation strategy is constructed for hardware subject to stochastic noise and/or rotational errors, with the conclusion that accurate and precise characterisation is the dominant factor for efficient mitigation.

Significance. If the metrics are rigorously defined and the certifications remain valid under improving hardware, the framework could assist practitioners in selecting mitigation approaches as logical error rates decrease. The taxonomy organises existing techniques and the example strategy illustrates practical use. Credit is due for attempting to address future hardware improvements explicitly rather than assuming fixed noise levels.

major comments (2)
  1. [Metrics and certification definitions] The section defining the quantitative metrics and combined certification: no derivation, limiting-case analysis, or numerical check is supplied for the behaviour of the certification score as the logical error rate ε_L → 0 while characterisation precision remains fixed. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the certifications are future-proof and remain decision-relevant as logical gate quality improves.
  2. [Example mitigation strategy] The evaluation of the example mitigation strategy: the manuscript states that accurate characterisation is the most significant determinant but provides no quantitative comparison, baseline results, or sensitivity analysis showing how the certification score changes with characterisation error. Without these, the finding cannot be assessed as supported rather than circular with the chosen metrics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract claims the metrics 'account for continual improvements' but does not preview the explicit functional dependence on logical error rate; adding one sentence would improve clarity.
  2. [Taxonomy section] Notation for characterised noise parameters and mitigation overhead is introduced without a consolidated table; a summary table would aid readers comparing methods in the taxonomy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have identified opportunities to strengthen the presentation of our framework. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section defining the quantitative metrics and combined certification: no derivation, limiting-case analysis, or numerical check is supplied for the behaviour of the certification score as the logical error rate ε_L → 0 while characterisation precision remains fixed. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the certifications are future-proof and remain decision-relevant as logical gate quality improves.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit limiting-case analysis is necessary to fully support the claim that the certifications remain decision-relevant as logical error rates improve. The metrics were constructed so that the certification score depends on the interplay between mitigated error and fixed characterisation precision, but we did not derive the ε_L → 0 limit in the original manuscript. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection containing (i) an analytical derivation showing that the score converges to a value governed solely by characterisation precision for any linear mitigation method, and (ii) a numerical check with representative parameter values to illustrate the limiting behaviour. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The evaluation of the example mitigation strategy: the manuscript states that accurate characterisation is the most significant determinant but provides no quantitative comparison, baseline results, or sensitivity analysis showing how the certification score changes with characterisation error. Without these, the finding cannot be assessed as supported rather than circular with the chosen metrics.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the statement identifying accurate characterisation as the dominant factor requires quantitative backing beyond the qualitative application of the metrics. The original example demonstrates use of the framework but does not vary characterisation error or compare against baselines. We will add a sensitivity analysis in the revised manuscript: we will recompute certification scores while systematically increasing characterisation error, include baseline results for the unmitigated case and at least one alternative linear method, and present the results in a table or figure to show the relative impact of characterisation precision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: framework metrics are defined independently and applied to produce the characterization finding

full rationale

The paper introduces new quantitative metrics that incorporate logical gate quality improvements, defines qualitative criteria from them, and combines these into certifications before applying the framework to an example mitigation strategy for stochastic/rotational noise. The conclusion that accurate characterization is the dominant factor follows from this evaluation rather than any quoted reduction of a prediction to a fitted input or self-citation chain. No equation or step is exhibited that makes the certification score or taxonomy equivalent to its own definitions by construction. The derivation remains self-contained against the stated benchmarks of scalability, efficiency, and robustness.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the abstract; the work appears to rest on standard assumptions about quantum noise models and hardware characterization that are not detailed here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5699 in / 1058 out tokens · 26082 ms · 2026-05-18T03:07:34.239369+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Classification and certification of quantum error mitigation methods: Extended edition

    Z J. Blunden-Codd. “Classification and certification of quantum error mitigation methods: Extended edition”. unpublished (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Lecture notes for ph219/cs219: Quantum information chapter 3

    John Preskill. “Lecture notes for ph219/cs219: Quantum information chapter 3”. http://theory.caltech.edu/˜preskill/ph219/chap3_15.pdf(2018). [Online; accessed 14-November-2022]

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Quantum error miti- gation,

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J. Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R. McClean, and Thomas E. O’Brien. “Quantum error mitigation” (2023). arXiv:2210.00921

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation

    Suguru Endo, Zhenyu Cai, Simon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation”. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan90, 032001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Computationally efficient zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate-error mitigation

    Vincent R. Pascuzzi, Andre He, Christian W. Bauer, Wibe A. de Jong, and Benjamin Nachman. “Computationally efficient zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate-error mitigation”. Phys. Rev. A105, 042406 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation

    Ryuji Takagi, Suguru Endo, Shintaro Minagawa, and Mile Gu. “Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation”. npj Quantum Information8, 114 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A practical framework for quantum error mitigation.arXiv, (arXiv:2110.05389 [quant-ph]), Octo- ber 2021

    Zhenyu Cai. “A practical framework for quantum error mitigation” (2023). arXiv:2110.05389

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas. “High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits”. Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold”. Nature638, 920–926 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers

    Marco Fellous-Asiani, Jing Chai, Yvain Thonnart, Hui Ng, Robert Whitney, and A. Auff` eves. “Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full-stack quantum computers”. PRX Quantum4(2023). 60

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices

    B´ alint Koczor. “Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices”. Phys. Rev. X11, 031057 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation

    William J. Huggins, Sam McArdle, Thomas E. O’Brien, Joonho Lee, Nicholas C. Rubin, Sergio Boixo, K. Birgitta Whaley, Ryan Babbush, and Jarrod R. McClean. “Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation”. Phys. Rev. X11, 041036 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Qubit-efficient exponential suppression of errors

    Piotr Czarnik, Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. “Qubit-efficient exponential suppression of errors” (2021). arXiv:2102.06056

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications

    Suguru Endo, Simon C. Benjamin, and Ying Li. “Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications”. Phys. Rev. X8, 031027 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Generalized quantum subspace expansion

    Nobuyuki Yoshioka, Hideaki Hakoshima, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Yuuki Tokunaga, Yasunari Suzuki, and Suguru Endo. “Generalized quantum subspace expansion”. Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 020502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gambetta. “Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits”. Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 180509 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Introduction to quantum gate set tomography

    Daniel Greenbaum. “Introduction to quantum gate set tomography” (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Extending quantum probabilistic error cancellation by noise scaling

    Andrea Mari, Nathan Shammah, and William J. Zeng. “Extending quantum probabilistic error cancellation by noise scaling”. Phys. Rev. A104, 052607 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor

    Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor”. Nature567, 491–495 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values

    Youngseok Kim, Christopher J. Wood, Theodore J. Yoder, Seth T. Merkel, Jay M. Gambetta, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala. “Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values”. Nature Physics 19, 752–759 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Hidden inverses: Coherent error cancellation at the circuit level

    Bichen Zhang, Swarnadeep Majumder, Pak Hong Leung, Stephen Crain, Ye Wang, Chao Fang, Dripto M. Debroy, Jungsang Kim, and Kenneth R. Brown. “Hidden inverses: Coherent error cancellation at the circuit level”. Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 034074 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Quantum error mitigation by hidden inverses protocol in superconducting quantum devices

    V Leyton-Ortega, S Majumder, and R C Pooser. “Quantum error mitigation by hidden inverses protocol in superconducting quantum devices”. Quantum Science and Technology8, 014008 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization

    Ying Li and Simon C. Benjamin. “Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization”. Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Efficiently improving the performance of noisy quantum computers,

    Samuele Ferracin, Akel Hashim, Jean-Loup Ville, Ravi Naik, Arnaud Carignan-Dugas, Hammam Qassim, Alexis Morvan, David I. Santiago, Irfan Siddiqi, and Joel J. Wallman. “Efficiently improving the performance of noisy quantum computers” (2022). arXiv:2201.10672

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors

    Ewout van den Berg, Zlatko K. Minev, Abhinav Kandala, and Kristan Temme. “Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors”. Nature Physics19, 1116–1121 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Optimization of richardson extrapolation for quantum error mitigation

    Michael Krebsbach, Bj¨ orn Trauzettel, and Alessio Calzona. “Optimization of richardson extrapolation for quantum error mitigation”. Phys. Rev. A106, 062436 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    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). Pages 306–316. (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    A silicon-based surface code quantum computer

    Joe O’Gorman, Naomi H. Nickerson, Philipp Ross, John JL Morton, and Simon C. 61 Benjamin. “A silicon-based surface code quantum computer”. npj Quantum Information2, 15019 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Sandu Popescu, Benjamin Schumacher, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels”. Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722–725 (1996)

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction”. Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824–3851 (1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Threshold Analysis

    E. Knill. “Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computation: Threshold analysis” (2004). arXiv:quant-ph/0404104

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling

    Joel J. Wallman and Joseph Emerson. “Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling”. Phys. Rev. A94, 052325 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Reducing errors with circuit gauge selection

    Jarrod Ryan McClean, Sergio Boixo Castrillo, Craig Gidney, and Vadim Smelyanskiy. “Reducing errors with circuit gauge selection” (2022). US Patent App. 17/777,708

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation with identity insertions

    Andre He, Benjamin Nachman, Wibe A. de Jong, and Christian W. Bauer. “Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation with identity insertions”. Phys. Rev. A102, 012426 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Quasiprobability decompositions with reduced sampling overhead

    Christophe Piveteau, David Sutter, and Stefan Woerner. “Quasiprobability decompositions with reduced sampling overhead”. npj Quantum Information8, 12 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Multi-exponential error extrapolation and combining error mitigation techniques for nisq applications

    Zhenyu Cai. “Multi-exponential error extrapolation and combining error mitigation techniques for nisq applications”. npj Quantum Information7, 80 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Universal quantum circuit for n-qubit quantum gate: A programmable quantum gate

    P. B. M. Sousa and R. V. Ramos. “Universal quantum circuit for n-qubit quantum gate: A programmable quantum gate”. Quantum Info. Comput.7, 228–242 (2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Quantum teleportation and efficient process verification with superconducting circuits

    Lars Steffen. “Quantum teleportation and efficient process verification with superconducting circuits”. PhD thesis. ETH Zurich. (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    The theory of open quantum systems

    H.P. Breuer and F. Petruccione. “The theory of open quantum systems”. Oxford University Press. (2002). url:https://books.google.fr/books?id=0Yx5VzaMYm8C

    work page 2002

  40. [40]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond”. Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Self-consistent quantum process tomography

    Seth T. Merkel, Jay M. Gambetta, John A. Smolin, Stefano Poletto, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Blake R. Johnson, Colm A. Ryan, and Matthias Steffen. “Self-consistent quantum process tomography”. Phys. Rev. A87, 062119 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Mitigating measurement errors in multiqubit experiments

    Sergey Bravyi, Sarah Sheldon, Abhinav Kandala, David C. Mckay, and Jay M. Gambetta. “Mitigating measurement errors in multiqubit experiments”. Physical Review A103(2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Mathematica, Version 13.0

    Wolfram Research, Inc. “Mathematica, Version 13.0”. Champaign, IL, 2023

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Resource efficient zero noise extrapolation with identity insertions

    Andre He, Benjamin Nachman, Wibe A. de Jong, and Christian W. Bauer. “Resource efficient zero noise extrapolation with identity insertions” (2020). arXiv:2003.04941v1. 62 Appendix Appendices A Glossary of Terms 64 B Worked Example: IISM:NA 66 B.1 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 B.2 Circuit . . . . . ....

    work page arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    We assume a uniform noise model, which means every gate has an identical noise channel

    work page

  46. [46]

    We assume that the noise-free components of all gates commute with their error channels, a requirement for most methods using identity insertion

    work page

  47. [47]

    We assume that the noisy inverse gate has the same error channel as the noisy gate it is the (near) inverse of, a requirement for most methods using identity insertion

    work page

  48. [48]

    We use a single qubit dephasing error as our noise channel for illustrative purposes, but clearly this would not be appropriate for two qubit gates

    work page

  49. [49]

    P i) is given by: εO “ ˇˇˇ @ ˜O D ´ A ˆO Eˇˇˇ,(B.214) where: A ˆO E “Tr

    We assume there are no SPAM (state preparation and measurement) errors, as our mitigation methods are designed to mitigate gates, there are other procedures for mitigating measurements [42]. B.4 Noise Model Characterisation We assume a dephasing noise channel with noise amplitude (error probability)0ďxď1: Epρq “ p1´xqρ`xZρZ,(B.198) whereZis a Pauli Z oper...

    work page 2002