Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Decision Kernels for Quantum Error Mitigation: Why Accuracy Gains Need Not Improve Downstream Decisions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Accuracy gains from quantum error mitigation need not improve the downstream decisions those estimates are used to make.

desk verdict Solid structural paper: residual gap law + physical pullback kernel is the real contribution; Gaussian operational claims are scoped honestly and the experiments refuse to overclaim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02888 v1 pith:7LSRZA2M submitted 2026-07-03 quant-ph

Vicenzo Scavino This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumerrormitigationdecisionkernelresidualgaplawfinite-shotestimationquotientspaceClifforddataregressionprobabilisticcancellationQAOA
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

Quantum error mitigation is almost always scored by how close estimated expectation values are to the truth. Many near-term workflows, however, only use those values to choose something: the best parameter, a top-k set, an optimizer step, or a phase label. Those choices depend on gaps between values, not on absolute levels, so they live in a quotient space that ignores global shifts. The paper builds a finite-shot theory around that fact. The minimal object that fully determines every shift-invariant decision is the residual gap law; under Gaussian shot noise it is summarized by effective margins and a decision kernel that is the pullback of shared device noise through the mitigation map. Because that kernel is physically constrained, a method can cut mean-squared error while leaving the decision unchanged or worse. Simulations of Clifford-data regression and probabilistic error cancellation show the split, and decision-aware selection often keeps the raw estimator. The practical reading is to compare mitigation methods by residual gap geometry, not by accuracy alone.

What carries the argument

The decision kernel Σ_m = L K_m L^⊤, the gap-space pullback of residual covariance through a contrast map L whose kernel is the all-ones vector. It, together with the effective margins, is the second-order Gaussian object that determines argmin, ranking, top-k, and related finite gap decisions, and it is confined to the physical family generated by device noise and the mitigation map.

What would settle it

Find a finite-shot QEM regime in which a method that strictly improves residual gap margins and decision-kernel geometry still loses on the downstream decision to a method that only improves ambient mean-squared error, under the same total shot budget and the same shift-invariant decision rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Estimator accuracy and decision reliability are controlled by different objects. For shift-invariant downstream tasks the minimal decision-complete object is the residual gap law of the mitigated landscape; in Gaussian finite-shot regimes that law is summarized by the effective margin–kernel pair induced by the gap map applied to residual bias and covariance. The decision kernel is not free: it is the pullback of shared physical device noise through the mitigation map. Accuracy-oriented mitigation can therefore reduce ambient mean-squared error while leaving decisions flat or worse, so methods should be selected through residual gap geometry rather than expectation-value accuracy alone.

Load-bearing premise

The operational risk formulas and the shot-level converse rest on a local Gaussian approximation to residual gap noise under fixed non-adaptive shot allocation; a full non-asymptotic bridge from multinomial counts and a measurement-independent quantum bound are left open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QEM method rankings should be produced in gap space; accuracy rankings can invert decision rankings.
  • Positive-affine Clifford-data regression can improve MSE while remaining decision-flat, so retaining the raw estimator can be optimal.
  • Probabilistic error cancellation can lower MSE yet raise decision risk through sampling overhead.
  • Critical-band estimation of residual margins and the decision kernel is enough for operational method selection.
  • Under ranking-preserving noise the decision-aware choice is often to decline mitigation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Any variational or combinatorial workflow that ends in an argmin, ranking, or top-k filter inherits the same ambient-versus-gap mismatch, not only quantum error mitigation.
  • Shot budgets and mitigation maps could be co-designed to minimize gap-kernel risk rather than ambient MSE, treating the decision kernel as the design objective.
  • Readout and device-calibration pipelines that inject common-mode or positive-affine residuals will look accurate under MSE while leaving decisions untouched.
  • A natural next test is whether the same gap-kernel selector improves decisions under adaptive allocation or fixed-confidence stopping, which the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that expectation-value accuracy (MSE) and reliability of shift-invariant downstream decisions (argmin, ranking, top-k, etc.) are controlled by different objects. For such decisions the minimal decision-complete object is the residual gap law L(LE_m); in Gaussian finite-shot regimes this reduces to the effective margin–kernel pair (μ_m, Σ_m)=(Δ+La_m, L K_m L^⊤), where Σ_m is the pullback of shared physical device noise through the mitigation map. The authors prove quotient factorization, gap-law sufficiency (including a Blackwell form), a marginal no-go for MSE/pointwise benchmarks, a QEM pullback restriction, Gaussian risk and large-deviation formulas, and a fixed-allocation shot-level converse. Finite-shot Qiskit Aer QAOA-MaxCut simulations show constructible accuracy–decision separation (positive-affine CDR is decision-flat while improving MSE; PEC can improve MSE while worsening decision risk via overhead). Decision-aware selection modestly reduces static held-out failure relative to MSE selection, often by retaining Raw, but does not meet the pre-set practical threshold or the dynamic success target. Pre-registered device-noise and hardware micro-cell stress tests are reported with carefully limited claims.

Significance. If the structural results hold—as they appear to under standard measure-theoretic and Gaussian LDP tools—the paper cleanly separates ambient accuracy benchmarks from decision reliability for a large class of near-term quantum workflows. The QEM-specific content is the restricted pullback geometry of the decision kernel, which is absent from generic ranking-and-selection models and explains why MSE rankings and decision rankings can invert. Strengths include: explicit theorems with proofs or deferred proofs; a linear-pullback realizable no-go witness; pre-registered endpoints and falsification criteria; public hash-locked reproduction package; and honest reporting of non-passes (static reduction 0.1146 < 0.15; dynamic target not reached; hardware decision-direction criterion not met). The operational message—compare methods in residual gap geometry, and sometimes keep Raw—is actionable and proportionate to the evaluated regimes. The main limitation is that finite-shot risk formulas and method orderings are controlled inside a Gaussian/LAN surrogate plus declared Aer noise models, with a full multinomial-to-Gaussian rare-event bridge left open.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 7 (Prop. 7.1–7.2, Thm. 7.4) and Limitations: the operational risk Rm(B)=1−Φ_d(√B μ_m; Σ_m), the diagonal exponent I_m=min_i μ_i²/(2Σ_ii), and the method-ordering claims used in §12 rest on a local Gaussian/LAN gap surrogate with fixed non-adaptive allocation. The manuscript correctly marks a full multinomial-to-Gaussian large-deviation bridge as open. For the operational implication in the abstract and conclusion (“select QEM methods through residual gap geometry”), please fence more sharply which claims are theorem-level (gap-law completeness, pullback identity, marginal no-go) versus surrogate-level (finite-shot risk ranking and Algorithm 1), and state explicitly that large-B ordering is controlled only inside the surrogate plus the declared Aer models unless the rare-event bridge is supplied.
  2. Section 12, Table 5 and the static/dynamic endpoints: P4 fails the pre-set practical threshold (relative reduction 0.1146 < 0.15) and P5 fails the aggregate success target 0.80; the decision-aware selector often retains Raw. The abstract and §14 still recommend selecting through residual gap geometry “in the evaluated regimes.” That recommendation is defensible as a diagnostic practice, but the manuscript should avoid any residual implication of an established aggregate decision benefit. Please align the abstract’s operational sentence and the conclusion with Table 5’s not-pass rows so that the positive claim is limited to constructible accuracy–decision separation, pullback ordering, and modest/sub-threshold static improvement under ranking-preserving noise.
  3. Theorem 9.1 / Corollary 9.2: the shot-level converse is fixed-allocation, classical-information, and (in the Gaussian corollary) equal-covariance local-minimax. That is appropriate and carefully scoped, but §1 and the contribution list present it alongside the structural core as one of the “seven main results.” Please ensure the introduction and result hierarchy do not over-weight this converse relative to the decision-representation theorems (3.3, 4.2, 4.5, 5.2, 6.1), and restate in the main text (not only Limitations) that it is not a measurement-independent quantum-Fisher or adaptive fixed-confidence bound.
minor comments (6)
  1. Figure 1 and the pipeline notation (E_m → LE_m → (μ_m,Σ_m) → R_m(D)) are clear; consider adding a one-line caption note that MSE stops at the ambient residual field so readers scanning figures alone see the mismatch.
  2. Notation for per-unit vs finite-budget kernels (K_m vs K_m^{(B)}, Σ_m vs Σ_m^{(B)}) is careful but dense; a short notation table early in §3 would reduce cognitive load.
  3. Related work: Demarty et al. [10] is well positioned; a sentence on how virtual distillation [7] and symmetry verification [45] fit (or do not fit) the pullback picture would help completeness without changing the claim.
  4. Algorithm 1 uses plug-in Gaussian risk; cross-reference Prop. 7.2 and the critical-band selection warning (selection bias) in the algorithm caption so implementers do not estimate C and Σ on the same data.
  5. Typos/style: “Vicenzo” vs common “Vincenzo” is author choice; ensure consistent hyphenation of “decision-aware” and “finite-shot” throughout; check “Cramér–Wold” accent consistency.
  6. Appendix D hardware micro-cell: the re-selection amendment is properly sealed; a one-sentence pointer in the main §12 hardware paragraph to the held-out generalization error (0.095) would help readers who skip the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: decision object and pullback geometry are derived from shift-invariance and linear algebra; empirical claims are tested against held-out data with pre-set criteria that sometimes fail.

full rationale

The load-bearing spine is definitional mathematics, not a fit or self-citation chain. Quotient factorization (Thm 3.3) and gap-law minimality (Thms 4.2, 4.5) follow from shift-invariance of finite decisions; the marginal no-go (Thm 5.2) is an explicit two-covariance counterexample; the QEM pullback (Thm 6.1) is the standard covariance transformation K_m = M C_dev M^⊤ under linear or delta-method maps. Gaussian risk, exponents, and the fixed-allocation converse are derived under stated surrogates with open non-asymptotic bridges marked as limitations, not smuggled uniqueness claims. There are no load-bearing self-citations (independent first paper; external tools only). CDR decision-flatness under positive-affine maps is an identity the paper states explicitly (μ_CDR = a μ_Raw, Σ_CDR = a² Σ_Raw ⇒ GRI equal) and uses as a mechanism witness, not a fitted “prediction.” Pullback ordering and GRI calibration are checked on held-out Aer instances; pre-registered practical thresholds (0.15 relative reduction, aggregate P_succ ≥ 0.80) are evaluation gates that the paper reports as not fully met. Hardware micro-cell fails its stricter decision-direction criterion by design of the language rule. Nothing reduces the central claim to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The theory rests on standard finite-dimensional probability and decision theory plus domain modeling of QEM as maps on shared device noise. Free parameters are evaluation thresholds and simulation design choices, not constants fitted to force the structural theorems. Invented entities are definitional objects (decision quotient, decision kernel, residual gap law) rather than new physical particles or forces.

free parameters (4)
  • Practical relative failure-reduction threshold 0.15
    Pre-specified success bar for static decision-aware selection; not derived from theory and used to declare P4 not-pass at the practical threshold.
  • Gaussian risk calibration tolerance τ_R = 0.05
    Pre-set tolerance for sample-mean GRI vs empirical failure; evaluation hyperparameter for P3.
  • Dynamic aggregate success target 0.80
    Pre-specified shots-to-success endpoint; not forced by the gap-law theory.
  • Shot budgets, instance pools, and noise-model parameters (e.g. depolarizing/device fake backend)
    Simulation design choices that define the evaluated regimes; structural theorems do not depend on specific numeric budgets, but empirical method orderings do.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Downstream decisions of interest are finite and shift-invariant (invariant under adding a constant to all landscape values).
    Assumption underlying Theorem 3.3 and the entire quotient construction; excludes tasks that need absolute energy scales.
  • domain assumption Finite-shot residual gap noise admits a local Gaussian/LAN approximation with 1/B covariance scaling under fixed allocation fractions.
    Used for Gaussian risk, exponents, and operational scores in Section 7; paper notes CLT alone does not preserve exp(-BI) rare-event rates without further LD assumptions.
  • domain assumption Mitigation maps are fixed linear maps or first-order-linearized maps with L2 remainder o(B^{-1}) (delta-method pullback).
    Theorem 6.1; learned maps treated conditionally on fitted map fixed.
  • domain assumption Shot-level converse uses fixed non-adaptive allocation and classical product KL on a fixed primitive measurement family (not adaptive, not measurement-optimized quantum Fisher).
    Theorem 9.1 and Limitations (i)–(ii); scopes the converse away from universal quantum lower bounds.
  • standard math Standard tools: multivariate CLT/Berry–Esseen for convex sets, Gaussian LDP, Blackwell comparison, Bretagnolle–Huber, Slepian comparison under equal marginals.
    Background probability results cited and applied in proofs and appendices.
  • domain assumption Unique reference optimum (or ε-optimal set for tolerant extension) on a finite candidate landscape.
    Assumption 3.1 and Appendix I; organizes argmin margins Δ_i > 0.
invented entities (3)
  • Decision kernel Σ_m = L K_m L^⊤ independent evidence
    purpose: Second-order Gaussian summary of residual gap geometry for decision risk.
    Definitional pullback object; not a new physical field. Independent evidence via simulation pullback ordering and hardware covariance match attempt.
  • Residual gap law L(LE_m) as minimal decision-complete object independent evidence
    purpose: Identify what any lossless decision-aware QEM benchmark must retain.
    Representation-theoretic/decision-theoretic construct derived from shift-invariant gap decisions.
  • Operational scores DRI/GRI/GVS and decision-aware selector (Algorithm 1)
    purpose: Turn gap geometry into method selection diagnostics.
    Engineering summaries of the theory; validated only within declared simulation regimes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decision Kernels for Quantum Error Mitigation: Why Accuracy Gains Need Not Improve Downstream Decisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LSRZA2M

@misc{pith2026260702888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decision Kernels for Quantum Error Mitigation: Why Accuracy Gains Need Not Improve Downstream Decisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LSRZA2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02888}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum error mitigation (QEM) is usually benchmarked by expectation-value accuracy, but many near-term workflows use those values only to make downstream choices such as argmin selection, ranking, top-k filtering, optimizer-step acceptance, or phase labeling. This creates a structural mismatch: accuracy is measured in the ambient landscape space, whereas shift-invariant decisions depend only on gaps. We develop a quotient-space theory of finite-shot QEM for downstream decisions. The minimal decision-complete object is the residual gap law; in Gaussian finite-shot regimes it is summarized by effective margins and a decision kernel. The QEM-specific point is that this kernel is not free: it is the pullback of shared physical device noise through the mitigation map. We prove quotient factorization, gap-law minimality, a marginal no-go theorem, a QEM pullback theorem, Gaussian decision-risk formulas, and a fixed-allocation shot-level converse. Finite-shot Qiskit Aer simulations demonstrate the predicted divergence in the evaluated regimes. Clifford-data regression can be decision-flat while improving mean-squared error, and probabilistic error cancellation can improve accuracy while worsening decision risk through sampling overhead. Decision-aware selection modestly reduces static held-out failure relative to accuracy-based selection, often by retaining Raw, but the dynamic success target is not reached. Pre-registered stress tests under a calibrated device-noise model and on a hardware micro-cell probe robustness beyond these regimes. The operational implication in the evaluated regimes is to select QEM methods through residual gap geometry, not from expectation-value accuracy alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02888 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The paper follows this pipeline from left to right. MSE stops at the ambient residual field; decision-aware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic quotient factorization. A shift-invariant finite decision is constant on energy-shift orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic QEM pullback restriction. The decision kernel is the pullback of physical primitive noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analytic schematic phase boundary for Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pullback validation on held-out instances. The analytic pullback predicts the ordering of active method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy–decision separation. CDR reduces MSE by large factors while its GRI curve is exactly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Static held-out effect binned by ideal decision margin (terciles). The decision-aware selector reduces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamic shots-to-success evaluation. Neither selector reaches aggregate success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Preliminary full-vs-diagonal covariance check. The full covariance changes the magnitude of Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits,

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits,”Physical Review Letters119, 180509 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 2017

  2. [2]

    Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications,

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, “Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications,”Physical Review X8, 031027 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031027 2018

  3. [3]

    Quantum Error Mitigation,

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, “Quantum Error Mitigation,”Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 2023

  4. [4]

    Learning-Based Quantum Error Mitigation,

    A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y. Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, “Learning-Based Quantum Error Mitigation,”PRX Quantum2, 040330 (2021). doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040330

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040330 2021

  5. [5]

    Unified ap- proach to data-driven quantum error mitigation,

    A. Lowe, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Unified ap- proach to data-driven quantum error mitigation,”Physical Review Research3, 033098 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033098

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033098 2021

  6. [6]

    Unifying and benchmarking state-of-the-art quantum error mitigation techniques,

    D. Bultrini, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Unifying and benchmarking state-of-the-art quantum error mitigation techniques,”Quantum 7, 1034 (2023). doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-06-1034

    doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-06-1034 2023

  7. [7]

    Virtual Distillation for Quantum Error Mitigation,

    W. J. Huggins, S. McArdle, T. E. O’Brien, J. Lee, N. C. Rubin, S. Boixo, K. B. Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, “Virtual Distillation for Quantum Error Mitigation,”Physical Review X11, 041036 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041036

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.041036 2021

  8. [8]

    Bounding the Systematic Error in Quantum Error Mitigation due to Model Violation,

    L. C. G. Govia et al., “Bounding the Systematic Error in Quantum Error Mitigation due to Model Violation,”PRX Quantum6, 010354 (2025). doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010354

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010354 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Robust Design Under Uncertainty in Quantum Error Mitigation,

    M. Prodius, P. Czarnik, M. McKerns, A. T. Sornborger, and L. Cincio, “Robust Design Under Uncertainty in Quantum Error Mitigation,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering7, 1–13 (2026), doi:10.1109/TQE.2026.3680641

    2026 doi

  2. [10]

    Error-mitigation aware benchmarking strategy for quantum optimization problems,

    M. Demarty, B. Yang, K. Hammam, and P. Besserve, “Error-mitigation aware benchmarking strategy for quantum optimization problems,” arXiv:2601.18680 (2026)

    2026

  3. [11]

    Fundamental limits of quantum error mitiga- tion,

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, “Fundamental limits of quantum error mitiga- tion,”npj Quantum Information8, 114 (2022). doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00618-z

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Universal Sampling Lower Bounds for Quantum Error Mit- igation,

    R. Takagi, H. Tajima, and M. Gu, “Universal Sampling Lower Bounds for Quantum Error Mit- igation,”Physical Review Letters131, 210602 (2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210602. 39

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Universal Cost Bound of Quantum Error Miti- gation Based on Quantum Estimation Theory,

    K. Tsubouchi, T. Sagawa, and N. Yoshioka, “Universal Cost Bound of Quantum Error Miti- gation Based on Quantum Estimation Theory,”Physical Review Letters131, 210601 (2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210601

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,

    Y. Quek, D. Stilck Franca, S. Khatri, J. J. Meyer, and J. Eisert, “Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation,”Nature Physics20, 1648–1658 (2024). doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02536-7

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Equivalent Comparisons of Experiments,

    D. Blackwell, “Equivalent Comparisons of Experiments,”The Annals of Mathematical Statis- tics24, 265–272 (1953). doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729032

    1953 doi

  8. [16]

    Torgersen,Comparison of Statistical Experiments, Cambridge University Press (1991)

    E. Torgersen,Comparison of Statistical Experiments, Cambridge University Press (1991). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511666353

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    A Single-Sample Multiple Decision Procedure for Ranking Means of Normal Populations with Known Variances,

    R. E. Bechhofer, “A Single-Sample Multiple Decision Procedure for Ranking Means of Normal Populations with Known Variances,”The Annals of Mathematical Statistics25, 16–39 (1954). doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728845

    1954 doi

  10. [18]

    S. S. Gupta and S. Panchapakesan,Multiple Decision Procedures: Theory and Methodology of Selecting and Ranking Populations, Wiley (1979)

    1979

  11. [19]

    Optimal Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidence,

    A. Garivier and E. Kaufmann, “Optimal Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidence,” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research49, 998–1027 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Best-Arm Identification in Correlated Multi-Armed Bandits,

    S. Gupta, G. Joshi, and O. Yagan, “Best-Arm Identification in Correlated Multi-Armed Bandits,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory2, 549–563 (2021). doi:10.1109/JSAIT.2021.3082028

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Covariance Adaptive Best Arm Identi- fication,

    E. M. Saad, G. Blanchard, and N. Verzelen, “Covariance Adaptive Best Arm Identi- fication,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 73287–73298 (2023). doi:10.52202/075280-3204

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Optimal Best-arm Identification in Linear Bandits,

    Y. Jedra and A. Proutiere, “Optimal Best-arm Identification in Linear Bandits,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33(2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    On the Existence of a Complexity in Fixed Budget Bandit Identification,

    R. Degenne, “On the Existence of a Complexity in Fixed Budget Bandit Identification,”Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research195, 1131–1154 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    The One-Sided Barrier Problem for Gaussian Noise,

    D. Slepian, “The One-Sided Barrier Problem for Gaussian Noise,”Bell System Technical Journal41, 463–501 (1962). doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1962.tb02419.x

    1962 doi

  17. [25]

    Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions,

    Z. Sidak, “Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions,”Journal of the American Statistical Association62, 626–633 (1967). doi:10.1080/01621459.1967.10482935

    1967 doi

  18. [26]

    A reduction formula for normal multivariate integrals,

    R. L. Plackett, “A reduction formula for normal multivariate integrals,”Biometrika41, 351– 360 (1954). doi:10.1093/biomet/41.3-4.351

    1954 doi

  19. [27]

    Ledoux and M

    M. Ledoux and M. Talagrand,Probability in Banach Spaces: Isoperimetry and Processes, Springer (1991). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20212-4

    1991 doi

  20. [28]

    Comparison and anti-concentration bounds for maxima of Gaussian random vectors,

    V. Chernozhukov, D. Chetverikov, and K. Kato, “Comparison and anti-concentration bounds for maxima of Gaussian random vectors,”Probability Theory and Related Fields162, 47–70 (2015). doi:10.1007/s00440-014-0565-9

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Boucheron, G

    S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, and P. Massart,Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence, Oxford University Press (2013). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535255.001.0001

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Sci- ence, Cambridge University Press (2018)

    R. Vershynin,High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Sci- ence, Cambridge University Press (2018). doi:10.1017/9781108231596

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Concentration inequalities and moment bounds for sample covariance operators,

    V. Koltchinskii and K. Lounici, “Concentration inequalities and moment bounds for sample covariance operators,”Bernoulli23, 110–133 (2017). doi:10.3150/15-BEJ730

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    On the dependence of the Berry–Esseen bound on dimension,

    V. Bentkus, “On the dependence of the Berry–Esseen bound on dimension,”Journal of Sta- tistical Planning and Inference113, 385–402 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0378-3758(02)00094-0. 40

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    Estimation des densit´ es: risque minimax,

    J. Bretagnolle and C. Huber, “Estimation des densit´ es: risque minimax,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete47, 119–137 (1979). doi:10.1007/BF00535278

    1979 doi

  26. [34]

    A. B. Tsybakov,Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation, Springer (2009). doi:10.1007/b13794

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    Dembo and O

    A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni,Large Deviations Techniques and Applications, 2nd ed., Springer (1998). doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5320-4

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    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, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Error mitigation with Clifford quantum- circuit data,

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, “Error mitigation with Clifford quantum- circuit data,”Quantum5, 592 (2021). doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    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 Physics19, 1116– 1121 (2023). doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02042-2

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Corcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,”Nature567, 491–495 (2019). doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1040-7

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Digital zero noise extrapo- lation for quantum error mitigation,

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, “Digital zero noise extrapo- lation for quantum error mitigation,”IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 306–316 (2020). doi:10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00045

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, “Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization,”Physical Review X7, 021050 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021050

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Mitiq: A software package for error mitigation on noisy quantum computers,

    R. LaRose, A. Mari, et al., “Mitiq: A software package for error mitigation on noisy quantum computers,”Quantum6, 774 (2022). doi:10.22331/q-2022-08-11-774

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Mitigat- ing measurement errors in multiqubit experiments,

    S. Bravyi, S. Sheldon, A. Kandala, D. C. McKay, and J. M. Gambetta, “Mitigat- ing measurement errors in multiqubit experiments,”Phys. Rev. A103, 042605 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042605

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification,

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien, “Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification,”Phys. Rev. A98, 062339 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062339

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    The preregistration revolu- tion,

    B. A. Nosek, C. R. Ebersole, A. C. DeHaven, and D. T. Mellor, “The preregistration revolu- tion,”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA115, 2600–2606 (2018). doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114. A Estimation and stability guarantees The following results justify the operational diagnostics in Sec...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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