pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17515 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

Robustness Evaluation of Hybrid Quantum Neural Networks under Noise Models via System-Level Error Mitigation

Jesse Roberta Mingue Njiki , Nouhaila Innan , Alberto Marchisio , Muhammad Kashif , Jean-Michel Dricot , Muhammad Shafique This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords hybrid quantum neural networksnoise modelserror mitigationquantum machine learningNISQ devicesrobustness evaluationdecoherence effectsphase damping
0
0 comments X

The pith

The effectiveness of error mitigation in hybrid quantum neural networks varies significantly depending on the type and intensity of noise present.

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

This paper evaluates how different types of quantum noise affect the performance of hybrid quantum neural networks and tests several error mitigation techniques. It finds that the networks handle some noise types like phase flips better than others like strong depolarizing noise. The mitigation methods provide only modest improvements that also depend on the specific noise conditions. These insights are important because quantum devices suffer from various errors, and understanding which strategies work when can guide better designs for practical use.

Core claim

Experiments on a classification task reveal that hybrid quantum neural networks maintain comparatively strong performance under phase-flip and phase-damping noise, while showing substantial degradation under high depolarizing and amplitude-damping noise. The benefits of mitigation strategies such as zero-noise extrapolation, dynamical decoupling, and layerwise extrapolation generally follow the same degradation patterns as the baseline, with probabilistic error cancellation offering limited gains only in low-noise depolarizing regimes. This indicates that noise impact and mitigation success are highly dependent on the noise model and its strength.

What carries the argument

The system-level integration of error mitigation techniques into the end-to-end training of hybrid quantum neural networks, tested across five representative noise channels.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations of noise effects and mitigation techniques accurately reflect the dominant errors and overheads that would occur on actual noisy quantum hardware.

What would settle it

Running the same hybrid quantum neural network circuits on physical quantum processors and observing performance levels under amplitude-damping noise that match the mitigated simulations rather than the degraded baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17515 by Alberto Marchisio, Jean-Michel Dricot, Jesse Roberta Mingue Njiki, Muhammad Kashif, Muhammad Shafique, Nouhaila Innan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Motivational analysis illustrating the behavior of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: General architecture of QNNs, illustrating data encoding, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the proposed methodology for benchmarking QNN robustness under noise. The framework considers five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Baseline QNN validation accuracy without mitigation $ !        $ !        [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation accuracy comparison for PEC and baseline                                          ! [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) represent a promising direction within Quantum Machine Learning (QML), yet their realization on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices remains constrained by decoherence, gate imperfections, crosstalk, and readout errors. This study provides a systematic evaluation of noise effects and mitigation strategies in hybrid quantum neural networks (HQNNs). Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE), Digital Dynamical Decoupling (DDD), and Layerwise Richardson Extrapolation (LRE) are integrated into end-to-end QNN training pipelines developed with PennyLane, simulated under Qiskit Aer noise models, and integrated with the Mitiq framework, while Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC) is evaluated separately under depolarizing noise due to its computational cost. Experiments conducted on the Iris dataset with five representative noise channels show that the impact of noise and the effect of mitigation are strongly dependent on the noise model and its strength. The model maintains comparatively strong performance under phase-flip and phase-damping noise, while substantial degradation is observed under high depolarizing and amplitude-damping noise. Across the evaluated mitigation methods, the observed benefits remain limited and noise-dependent: ZNE, DDD, and LRE generally follow the same degradation trends as the unmitigated baseline, while PEC shows limited gains only in the low-noise depolarizing regime. These findings highlight the need for context-specific mitigation strategies to improve the robustness of QNNs in practical NISQ settings.

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 paper conducts a simulation study of hybrid quantum neural networks (HQNNs) on the Iris dataset using PennyLane and Qiskit Aer. It evaluates performance degradation under five noise channels (phase-flip, phase-damping, depolarizing, amplitude-damping, and others) at varying strengths, and tests the efficacy of system-level error mitigation via Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE), Digital Dynamical Decoupling (DDD), Layerwise Richardson Extrapolation (LRE) integrated in the training loop, and Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC) evaluated separately under depolarizing noise using Mitiq. The central empirical claim is that both the severity of noise impact and the (limited) benefits of mitigation are strongly dependent on the noise model and its strength, with comparatively robust accuracy retained under phase-flip and phase-damping but substantial drops under high depolarizing and amplitude-damping noise; mitigation gains are described as small and context-specific.

Significance. If the reported simulation trends hold under more realistic conditions, the work would supply useful empirical evidence that current mitigation techniques offer only modest, noise-model-dependent improvements for QNNs, thereby supporting calls for hardware-specific mitigation design rather than generic application. The reliance on open-source frameworks (PennyLane, Qiskit Aer, Mitiq) is a positive for reproducibility. However, the simulation-only scope and use of independent-channel noise models reduce the immediate practical impact, as the ordering of noise robustness and the small mitigation gains may not generalize to real NISQ devices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §5] Abstract (final sentence) and §5 (Conclusions): The statement that the results 'highlight the need for context-specific mitigation strategies to improve the robustness of QNNs in practical NISQ settings' is not supported by the evidence presented. All experiments use idealized, independent error channels from Qiskit Aer; no analysis, additional simulations, or discussion addresses how crosstalk, spectator errors, or non-Markovian dynamics (absent from the chosen models) would affect the observed performance ordering across noise types or the limited mitigation gains. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the paper's applied claim.
  2. [§4] §4 (Numerical Experiments) and associated figures/tables: No error bars, standard deviations across random seeds, or statistical tests (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA on accuracy differences) are reported for the performance trends under each noise model and mitigation method. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed 'strong dependence' on noise model is statistically distinguishable from run-to-run variation, weakening the central empirical result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Methodology): The description of how ZNE, DDD, and LRE are inserted into the end-to-end PennyLane training pipeline lacks explicit pseudocode or a diagram showing the modified forward/backward pass; this would improve clarity for readers attempting to reproduce the integration.
  2. [Abstract and §4] The abstract states that 'five representative noise channels' are used, but the main text should explicitly list them with the precise Qiskit Aer channel parameters (e.g., error probabilities) in a table for each strength level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve its rigor and precision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §5] Abstract (final sentence) and §5 (Conclusions): The statement that the results 'highlight the need for context-specific mitigation strategies to improve the robustness of QNNs in practical NISQ settings' is not supported by the evidence presented. All experiments use idealized, independent error channels from Qiskit Aer; no analysis, additional simulations, or discussion addresses how crosstalk, spectator errors, or non-Markovian dynamics (absent from the chosen models) would affect the observed performance ordering across noise types or the limited mitigation gains. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the paper's applied claim.

    Authors: We agree that the experiments rely on idealized independent noise channels in simulation and do not model crosstalk, spectator errors, or non-Markovian dynamics. The observed variation in noise impact and mitigation efficacy is demonstrated strictly within these standard models. We will revise the abstract and §5 to state that the results highlight the need for context-specific mitigation strategies based on the simulated noise models, while explicitly noting the limitations of the idealized channels and the value of future real-device validation. This removes the unsupported extrapolation to practical NISQ settings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical Experiments) and associated figures/tables: No error bars, standard deviations across random seeds, or statistical tests (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA on accuracy differences) are reported for the performance trends under each noise model and mitigation method. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed 'strong dependence' on noise model is statistically distinguishable from run-to-run variation, weakening the central empirical result.

    Authors: We acknowledge that statistical variability measures are essential for assessing the reliability of the trends. The reported simulations used fixed seeds for exact reproducibility, but we will re-execute the experiments across multiple random seeds, add standard deviation error bars to all relevant figures and tables, and include a short discussion confirming that the noise-model dependence remains consistent across runs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical simulation results independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper conducts numerical experiments on hybrid QNNs using Qiskit Aer noise models, PennyLane training, and Mitiq mitigation on the Iris dataset. No closed-form derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present in the reported claims. Performance metrics under different noise channels (phase-flip, depolarizing, etc.) are direct simulation outputs, not quantities defined by the authors' own choices or equations that reduce to inputs by construction. The study is self-contained against external benchmarks like standard noise models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the chosen simulator noise models and mitigation implementations are representative. No new physical axioms or invented entities are introduced; the work is purely empirical.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5587 in / 1308 out tokens · 67341 ms · 2026-05-10T05:29:55.801560+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Towards Fair Benchmarking of Quantum Transfer Learning for Visual Classification

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces a unified benchmarking methodology for quantum transfer learning in visual classification tasks, finding that no single method dominates and performance varies with dataset, encoding, and circuit design.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A survey on quantum machine learning: Current trends, challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead,

    K. Zaman, A. Marchisio, M. A. Hanif, and M. Shafique, “A survey on quantum machine learning: Current trends, challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10315, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective,

    C. Ciliberto, M. Herbster, A. D. Ialongo, M. Pontil, A. Rocchetto, S. Severini, and L. Wossnig, “Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective,”Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 474, no. 2209, p. 20170551, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    A review of quantum neural networks: Methods, models, dilemmas,

    R. Zhao and S. Wang, “A review of quantum neural networks: Methods, models, dilemmas,”Engineering Reports, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Demonstrating quantum advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks for model capacity,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “Demonstrating quantum advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks for model capacity,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC), 2022, pp. 36–44

    2022

  5. [5]

    A primer on quantum machine learning,

    S. Y . Chang and M. Cerezo, “A primer on quantum machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15969, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Computational advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks: Myth or reality?

    M. Kashif, A. Marchisio, and M. Shafique, “Computational advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks: Myth or reality?” in2025 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–7

    2025

  7. [7]

    Next- generation quantum neural networks: Enhancing efficiency, security, and privacy,

    N. Innan, M. Kashif, A. Marchisio, M. Bennai, and M. Shafique, “Next- generation quantum neural networks: Enhancing efficiency, security, and privacy,” in2025 IEEE 31st International Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System Design (IOLTS). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–4

    2025

  8. [8]

    A survey and tutorial on security and resilience of quantum computing,

    A. A. Saki, M. Alam, K. Phalak, A. Suresh, R. O. Topaloglu, and S. Ghosh, “A survey and tutorial on security and resilience of quantum computing,” in2021 IEEE European Test Symposium (ETS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–10

    2021

  9. [9]

    Benchmarking quantum computers and the impact of quantum noise,

    S. Resch and U. R. Karpuzcu, “Benchmarking quantum computers and the impact of quantum noise,”ACM Computing Surveys, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    A comparative analysis and noise robustness evaluation in quantum neural networks,

    T. Ahmed, M. Kashif, A. Marchisio, and M. Shafique, “A comparative analysis and noise robustness evaluation in quantum neural networks,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 33654, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Investigating the effect of noise on the training performance of hybrid quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif, E. Sychiuco, and M. Shafique, “Investigating the effect of noise on the training performance of hybrid quantum neural networks,” in2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  12. [12]

    Noisy hqnns: A comprehensive analysis of noise robustness in hybrid quantum neural networks,

    T. Ahmed, A. Marchisio, M. Kashif, and M. Shafique, “Noisy hqnns: A comprehensive analysis of noise robustness in hybrid quantum neural networks,” in2025 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–10

    2025

  13. [13]

    Quantum error mitigation,

    Z. Caiet al., “Quantum error mitigation,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 045005, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Benchmarking noisy intermediate scale quantum error mitigation strate- gies for ground state preparation of the hcl molecule,

    T. Weaving, A. Ralli, W. M. Kirby, P. J. Love, S. Succi, and P. V . Coveney, “Benchmarking noisy intermediate scale quantum error mitigation strate- gies for ground state preparation of the hcl molecule,”Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 043054, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Design space exploration of hybrid quantum–classical neural networks,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “Design space exploration of hybrid quantum–classical neural networks,”Electronics, vol. 10, no. 23, p. 2980, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Comparative performance analysis of quantum machine learning architectures for credit card fraud detection,

    M. El Alami, N. Innan, M. Shafique, and M. Bennai, “Comparative performance analysis of quantum machine learning architectures for credit card fraud detection,”Applied Intelligence, vol. 56, no. 3, p. 83, 2026

    2026

  17. [17]

    The power of quantum neural networks,

    A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, “The power of quantum neural networks,”Nature computational science, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 403–409, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    Quantum machine learning,

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017

    2017

  19. [19]

    Resource allocation optimization in 5g networks using variational quantum regressor,

    P. Pathak, V . Oad, A. Prajapati, and N. Innan, “Resource allocation optimization in 5g networks using variational quantum regressor,” in 2024 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 101–105

    2024

  20. [20]

    Qnn-vrcs: A quantum neural network for vehicle road cooperation systems,

    N. Innan, B. K. Behera, S. Al-Kuwari, and A. Farouk, “Qnn-vrcs: A quantum neural network for vehicle road cooperation systems,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Sentiqnf: A novel approach to sentiment analysis using quantum algorithms and neuro-fuzzy systems,

    K. Dave, N. Innan, B. K. Behera, Z. Mumtaz, S. Al-Kuwari, and A. Farouk, “Sentiqnf: A novel approach to sentiment analysis using quantum algorithms and neuro-fuzzy systems,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Quantum bayesian networks for machine learning in oil-spill detection,

    O. I. Siddiqui, N. Innan, A. Marchisio, M. Bennai, and M. Shafique, “Quantum bayesian networks for machine learning in oil-spill detection,” in2025 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2025, pp. 1–8

    2025

  23. [23]

    Fedqnn: Federated learning using quantum neural networks,

    N. Innan, M. A.-Z. Khan, A. Marchisio, M. Shafique, and M. Bennai, “Fedqnn: Federated learning using quantum neural networks,” in2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2024, pp. 1–9

    2024

  24. [24]

    Financial fraud detection using quantum graph neural networks,

    N. Innan, A. Sawaika, A. Dhor, S. Dutta, S. Thota, H. Gokal, N. Patel, M. A.-Z. Khan, I. Theodonis, and M. Bennai, “Financial fraud detection using quantum graph neural networks,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 7, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Quantum state tomography using quantum machine learning,

    N. Innan, O. I. Siddiqui, S. Arora, T. Ghosh, Y . P. Ko c ¸ak, D. Paragas, A. A. O. Galib, M. A.-Z. Khan, and M. Bennai, “Quantum state tomography using quantum machine learning,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 28, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    HQNN-FSP: A hybrid classical- quantum neural network for regression-based financial stock market prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15403, 2025

    P. K. Choudhary, N. Innan, M. Shafique, and R. Singh, “HQNN-FSP: A hybrid classical-quantum neural network for regression-based financial stock market prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15403, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Optimizing low-energy carbon iiot systems with quantum algorithms: Performance evaluation and noise robustness,

    K. Dave, N. Innan, B. K. Behera, S. Mumtaz, S. Al-Kuwari, and A. Farouk, “Optimizing low-energy carbon iiot systems with quantum algorithms: Performance evaluation and noise robustness,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 17, pp. 34 653–34 662, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Quiet-sr: Quantum image enhancement transformer for single image super-resolution,

    S. Dutta, N. Innan, K. Najafi, S. B. Yahia, and M. Shafique, “Quiet- sr: Quantum image enhancement transformer for single image super- resolution,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08759, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Qfnn-ffd: Quantum federated neural network for financial fraud detection,

    N. Innan, A. Marchisio, M. Bennai, and M. Shafique, “Qfnn-ffd: Quantum federated neural network for financial fraud detection,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). IEEE, 2025, pp. 41–47

    2025

  30. [30]

    Lep-qnn: Loan eligibility prediction using quantum neural networks,

    N. Innan, A. Marchisio, M. Bennai, and M. Shafique, “Lep-qnn: Loan eligibility prediction using quantum neural networks,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1864–1872

    2025

  31. [31]

    Quantum vs. classical machine learning: A benchmark study for financial prediction,

    R. Ahmad, M. Kashif, N. Innan, and M. Shafique, “Quantum vs. classical machine learning: A benchmark study for financial prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03802, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Recent developments and applications in quantum neural network: A review,

    S. K. Jeswal and S. Chakraverty, “Recent developments and applications in quantum neural network: A review,”Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2018

    2018

  33. [33]

    The disparate impact of noise on quantum learning algorithms,

    A. Angrisani, “The disparate impact of noise on quantum learning algorithms,” Ph.D. dissertation, Sorbonne Universit ´e, 2023, doctoral dis- sertation. [Online]. Available: https://theses.hal.science/tel-04511706v1

    2023

  34. [34]

    Resqnets: a residual approach for mitigating barren plateaus in quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “Resqnets: a residual approach for mitigating barren plateaus in quantum neural networks,”EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    The impact of cost function globality and locality in hybrid quantum neural networks on nisq devices,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “The impact of cost function globality and locality in hybrid quantum neural networks on nisq devices,”Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 015004, 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    Deep quanvolutional neural networks with enhanced trainability and gradient propagation,

    M. Kashif and M. Shafique, “Deep quanvolutional neural networks with enhanced trainability and gradient propagation,”Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 21764, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Investigating different barren plateaus mitigation strategies in variational quantum eigensolver,

    M. Atallah, N. Innan, M. Kashif, and M. Shafique, “Investigating different barren plateaus mitigation strategies in variational quantum eigensolver,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.11171, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Hqnet: Harnessing quantum noise for effective training of quantum neural networks in nisq era,

    M. Kashif and M. Shafique, “Hqnet: Harnessing quantum noise for effective training of quantum neural networks in nisq era,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Artificial Intelligence (QAI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 387–394

    2025

  39. [39]

    Nrqnn: The role of observable selection in noise-resilient quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif and M. Shafique, “Nrqnn: The role of observable selection in noise-resilient quantum neural networks,” inWorld Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering & Applied Computing. Springer, 2024, pp. 116–131

    2024

  40. [40]

    Quantum error mitigation by layerwise richardson extrapolation,

    R. Vincent and M. Andrea, “Quantum error mitigation by layerwise richardson extrapolation,”Physical Review A, vol. 110, no. 6, p. 062420, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Optimization of richardson extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,

    K. Michael, T. Bj ¨orn, and C. Alessio, “Optimization of richardson extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,”Physical Review A, vol. 106, p. 062436, 2022

    2022

  42. [42]

    Quantum computing and its implications for cybersecurity: A comprehensive review of emerging threats and defenses,

    S. Khan, K. Palani, M. Goswami, and M. S. Arafath, “Quantum computing and its implications for cybersecurity: A comprehensive review of emerging threats and defenses,”Nanotechnology Perceptions, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    G.-T. Tudor, H. Yousef, L. Ryan, M. Andrea, and Z. W. J., “Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10921, 2021

    work page arXiv 2005

  44. [44]

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

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, “Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors,”Nature physics, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1116–1121, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey,

    N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Lidar, “Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 064027, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    Synergistic dynamical decoupling and circuit design for enhanced algorithm performance on near-term quantum devices,

    Y . Ji and I. Polian, “Synergistic dynamical decoupling and circuit design for enhanced algorithm performance on near-term quantum devices,” Entropy, vol. 26, no. 7, p. 586, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    UCI machine learning repository,

    D. Dua and C. Graff, “UCI machine learning repository,” 2019. [Online]. Available: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

    2019

  48. [48]

    Mitiq documentation: A python toolkit for quantum error mitigation,

    U. Fund and Contributors, “Mitiq documentation: A python toolkit for quantum error mitigation,” https://mitiq.readthedocs.io/en/stable/, 2025, accessed: 2025-07-03

    2025