Quantum Noise Mitigation with Adaptive Zero-Noise Extrapolation: A Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits Approach

Dinh C. Nguyen; Ratun Rahman

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Quantum Noise Mitigation with Adaptive Zero-Noise Extrapolation: A Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A bandit that chooses ZNE folding arms online cuts quantum runs by up to 40%

desk verdict Genuine CMAB-ZNE combination with real code and hardware work, but the headline savings come from offline replay, not live deployment—worth refereeing with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06426 v1 pith:BPWY6J5R submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Ratun Rahman , Dinh C. Nguyen This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12

keywords quantumerrormitigationzero-noiseextrapolationcontextualmulti-armedbanditsvariationalcircuitsdynamicnoiseunitarycircuitfoldingcommunicationoverheadLinUCB

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

Zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) needs a set of noise-amplifying folding scales, and choosing that set poorly wastes quantum executions or biases the estimate. This paper claims that the choice can be treated as a contextual multi-armed bandit problem: at each epoch a policy observes circuit and noise features, picks one of several folding-scale sets (arms), and receives a reward that penalizes both poor extrapolation and excessive circuit depth. Under a simulated time-varying noise schedule, the adaptive picker is claimed to cut quantum-circuit execution round trips by up to 40%, bytes transferred by up to 35%, and end-to-end cost by up to 30%, while raising estimator fidelity by up to 6.9% against fixed-fold and grid-search ZNE baselines. A cost-limited run on a superconducting processor showed the shallow arm matching deeper arms in accuracy at lower cost, supporting the idea that adaptivity saves overhead without sacrificing fidelity.

What carries the argument

The central object is a cost-aware contextual multi-armed bandit whose arms are ZNE folding-scale sets: arm k is a set $\Lambda_k$ like $\{1,3\}$, $\{1,3,5\}$, or $\{1,3,5,7\}$, each evaluated by folding the circuit at those scales, estimating expectation values, and extrapolating to zero noise. Selection uses a LinUCB rule: for each arm the policy keeps a ridge-regression estimate of reward as a linear function of context, adds an exploration bonus, and subtracts a normalized execution cost that combines round trips, transferred bytes, and runtime. The reward balances the cross-entropy loss of the ZNE-corrected prediction, the variance of the extrapolated estimate, and a penalty for folding depth, so the bandit is rewarded for staying shallow when shallow arms suffice. The same structure yields the paper's sublinear regret bound: with a bounded linear reward model and known arm costs, the cost-aware UCB selection converges to the optimal arm in hindsight.

What would settle it

Run the full CMAB-ZNE loop online on a noisy simulator or QPU where each epoch executes only the selected arm and its scales, then compare actual round trips, bytes, and estimator fidelity against the offline-replay numbers; if the gap to fixed folding is much smaller than 40%/35%/30% or fidelity no longer exceeds fixed ZNE, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that adaptive, context-aware selection of ZNE folding arms outperforms fixed schedules under time-varying noise. Concretely, the authors assert that a cost-aware LinUCB bandit, using a context vector built from epoch, loss, accuracy, and variance signals, learns to prefer shallow folding sets such as {1,3} early in training and deeper sets only when extrapolation gain justifies the extra executions. In simulations with dynamic noise on CIFAR-10 and EuroSAT, the adaptive policy is reported to reduce quantum-circuit execution round trips by up to 40%, bytes exchanged by up to 35%, and end-to-end cost by up to 30% under a 10 Mbps link budget, with up to 6.9% higher estimator fidelity versus fixed-fold and grid-search ZNE. On Rigetti hardware, all three ZNE arms gave the same accuracy, and the shallow arm had the best cost-aware reward, which the paper presents as evidence that unnecessary folding is waste.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 40% round-trip and 35% byte savings are computed by replaying selected arms over offline dumps where expectation values for all folding scales are already available; if live execution rewards differ from that replay, the savings may not materialize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A deployed CMAB-ZNE scheduler could replace fixed-fold or grid-search ZNE in VQC training loops, adapting fold choice per epoch without additional circuit executions for context.
Under the claimed savings, communication-constrained edge-cloud quantum machine learning becomes cheaper: fewer QPU-CPU round trips and fewer bytes for the same or better extrapolated accuracy.
The framework suggests a general pattern: any error-mitigation knob with a discrete set of cost-bearing choices can be cast as a contextual bandit with a cost-aware reward.
The budgeted stopping rule implies that when the extrapolated estimate is already stable, the policy can skip additional ZNE queries entirely, reducing latency in latency-sensitive workloads.

Reading between the lines

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

The headline round-trip and byte savings are measured by offline replay over saved expectation-value dumps, not by an online run where only the selected arm is executed; whether the savings transfer to live deployment is an open question the paper's own hardware experiment does not close.
If the cost-aware reward were weighted differently, for example prioritizing latency over byte count, the arm selection would shift toward even shallower sets; the framework could be tuned to different network budgets without redesign.
The same arm-selection machinery could be applied to other ZNE variants, such as noise-aware or global-folding schemes, by changing only the arm definition and cost model.
A strong testable extension is to feed live calibration telemetry (T1/T2, gate and readout errors) directly into the context vector, which the paper lists as future work but does not implement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the new thing is real—using a contextual bandit to pick ZNE folding sets with a cost-aware reward—and there is actual engineering substance behind it: public code, a simulator, and a small but real Rigetti run. The headline savings, though, are not yet demonstrated in a live deployment.

What is genuinely new here is the arm formulation: the agent chooses among folding-scale sets, not just a single fold factor, and the reward explicitly trades extrapolation quality against round trips, bytes, and runtime. That combination is absent from the prior work they cite, and their Table I positioning is fair. The theory is standard LinUCB with a known cost penalty; the regret proof is routine but correct as far as I can tell. The simulation study is broad: two datasets, multiple widths and depths, shot-count ablations, and a dynamic noise schedule. The real-hardware experiment, while limited to frozen inference, is still useful evidence—240 tasks on Rigetti, all executed, with a shared-scale protocol that cut 540 tasks to 240. I also give them credit for an honest limitations section and for releasing the code.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags, and it holds up on reading. The 40/35/30% savings in the abstract and Table V are computed from offline replay. In Section III.A.4-5, expectation-value dumps for all scales are stored every epoch; the bandit chooses which precomputed dumps to use, not which circuits actually run. So 'cutting round trips' is an accounting measure, not a measured reduction in QPU executions. The real-hardware section does not run the bandit online either; it evaluates all arms from a shared scale set. The central operational claim therefore remains unvalidated under live partial feedback, where exploration has real cost and the context-reward relationship could differ. This is fixable, but it needs to be fixed before the headline is taken at face value.

Two smaller issues. 'Estimator fidelity' is never defined, and the 6.9% figure does not match the accuracy deltas in Table IV, which are around 0.2-0.3 percentage points. The linear-reward assumption is unverified, but that is standard for LinUCB and not a real weakness beyond the usual caveat.

Who is this for: people working on adaptive error mitigation, especially ZNE for hybrid VQC workloads where communication cost matters. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to review, but ask for an online or partial-feedback experiment, a definition of the fidelity metric, and a rewrite of the savings claims to distinguish executed savings from replay savings.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CMAB-ZNE, a contextual multi-armed bandit framework that selects ZNE folding-scale sets adaptively during variational quantum circuit training. The method defines arms as sets of folding scales, uses a cost-aware LinUCB-type policy with a normalized cost proxy, and provides a regret bound for the cost-aware selection problem. The authors evaluate the approach in PennyLane simulations on CIFAR-10 and EuroSAT under a time-varying noise proxy, and report a real-hardware validation on Rigetti Cepheus-1-108Q. The headline claims are that CMAB-guided folding reduces QPU-CPU round trips by up to 40%, exchanged bytes by up to 35%, and end-to-end cost by up to 30% under a 10 Mbps budget, with up to 6.9% higher estimator fidelity, compared with fixed-fold and grid-search ZNE.

Significance. If the central claims were fully validated, the paper would make a useful contribution by connecting ZNE fold selection to communication cost and dynamic noise. The strengths include a publicly released code repository, a real-hardware execution with 240 successful QPU tasks on Rigetti hardware, and a standard, clearly presented regret analysis for the cost-aware LinUCB selection rule. However, the headline savings are computed from an offline counterfactual replay rather than a live deployment, the hardware experiment does not run the bandit online, and the estimator-fidelity metric is undefined and inconsistent with the accuracy tables. These issues affect the paper's central operational claims, so the significance of the results as currently stated cannot be fully assessed.

major comments (4)

[Section III.A.4-III.A.5, Table V] The headline round-trip, byte, and end-to-end cost reductions are computed from an offline counterfactual replay on stored expectation-value dumps for all scales in {1,3,5,7}. Because every scale is always executed and dumped each epoch, the bandit's arm choice does not reduce actual quantum executions; the 40%/35%/30% figures are an accounting of which scales the selected arm would have used, not a measured reduction from a live system in which only the selected arm runs and unselected rewards are unavailable. The real-hardware experiment in Section III.C also does not exercise the bandit online: all three arms are reconstructed from the shared scale set {1,3,5,7} and the QPU runs only frozen inference. The authors' own limitation statement in Section III.D confirms this. I request either reframing these numbers as offline counterfactual savings with an explicit caveat, or adding an online deployment experiment with partial feedback and real exploration cost.
[Section III.B, Tables IV-V] The 'estimator fidelity' metric is never defined. If it means test accuracy, Table IV shows that the best arm [1,3,5,7] reaches 85.58% on CIFAR-10 while the fixed baseline [1,3,5] reaches 85.34%, a difference of 0.24 percentage points, not the 6.9% reported in Table V. If it is a fidelity of the extrapolated expectation values relative to the noiseless run, no formula is given in the paper. The headline improvement therefore cannot be checked. Please define the metric precisely, state how it is computed, and reconcile it with the accuracy and loss numbers in Table IV.
[Section II.C, Eq. (16), and Section II.D, Assumption 2] The regret bound in Theorem 1 relies on Assumption 2, E[r_{t,k}|x_t] = x_t^T theta*_k, but the implemented reward in Eq. (16) is a sum of the cross-entropy loss of a nonlinear VQC classifier, the variance of the extrapolated estimate, and a discrete depth penalty. There is no reason to expect this reward to be linear in the context vector, which includes epoch index, loss, accuracy at lambda=1, and variance across {1,3}. As written, the theory applies to a stylized linear-reward model rather than to the actual reward used in the experiments. Either restrict the theoretical claim to that stylized model, or provide a validation of the linearity assumption and a regret bound for the actual reward structure.
[Section II.C and Algorithm 1] The method depends on many free parameters: alpha, beta, gamma_c in Eq. (15); alpha, beta, d0 in Eq. (16); eta, lambda_c, rho, lambda_0 in Algorithm 1; and sigma^2_target and epsilon in Eq. (20). No sensitivity analysis is reported, and the specific values used in the experiments are not given in the section. Since the communication-savings claim is driven primarily by the cost penalty lambda_c and the depth penalty alpha, the reader cannot tell whether the reported 40%/35%/30% reductions are robust or are artifacts of the chosen cost weights. Please report all parameter values and add an ablation study over the main cost and exploration parameters.

minor comments (5)

[Section III.B, Fig. 7] The sentence 'As Assgrows, performance benefits decline (curves fors!>=!256 are near)' is garbled and should be rewritten, and the notation 's!>=!256' in the caption is nonstandard.
[Eqs. (15)-(16)] The symbols alpha and beta are reused for cost weights in Eq. (15) and for reward weights in Eq. (16), which is confusing; please rename one set of parameters.
[References [19]-[20]] Reference [20], 'Noise pollution disrupts freshwater cetaceans,' appears unrelated to the NISQ noise statement it supports; please verify and replace with a relevant reference.
[Section I.B and Section II.D] The contributions list claims 'sample complexity' analysis, but Section II.D provides only a regret bound for the bandit selection rule, not a sample-complexity result for learning the ZNE estimate or the noise model; please align the claims with the actual theoretical content.
[Algorithm 1] The reward in Algorithm 1 is written as CE_{t,k_t}^{ZNE} without an explicit definition; although Eq. (16) refers to cross-entropy of the ZNE-corrected prediction, the formula should be stated clearly for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical cost/fidelity claims are measured outputs of the bandit policy, not fitted inputs; offline replay and frozen QPU validation limit deployment claims but do not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The noise model (II.A) is a standard first-order Lindblad/MNR approximation with cited constants; ZNE (II.B, Eqs. 10-12 and Eq. 53) is standard Richardson/polynomial extrapolation; and the cost-aware LinUCB regret proof (II.D, Lemma 1, Theorem 1) is a standard self-normalized concentration argument with a deterministic cost penalty, so the sublinear-regret claim has independent mathematical content. The reported fidelity gains are measured by comparing reconstructed zero-noise estimates to the noiseless baseline in simulation, not obtained by fitting the bandit's reward. The headline communication savings (Table V) are computed from an offline replay in which all scale dumps already exist (III.A.4: 'For each epoch i and scale λ∈{0,1,3,5,7}, we store the analytic expectation vector'; III.A.5: 'the simulation saves expectation-value dumps at every epoch for all tested scales'), and the real-hardware section (III.C) runs only frozen inference with a shared scale set, not the online bandit. This is a genuine limitation of external validity, acknowledged in III.D ('limited to frozen quantum inference and ZNE arm reconstruction, rather than full QPU-based training'), but it is not circular: the savings are still outputs of the policy's arm choices under a defined cost model, not inputs that force the result. The two self-citations ([2], [4]) are background references on VQCs and quantum noise and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no step reduces a prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on simulated noise schedules and a linear reward model. Several hyperparameters that shape arm selection and cost accounting are chosen by hand and not fully disclosed. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)

Reward depth penalty weight alpha (Eq. 16) = Not specified; reported range 1e-2 to 1e-1
Controls the penalty for using folding arms deeper than d0; directly shapes arm selection and therefore the reported cost reductions.
Cost-proxy weights alpha, beta, gamma_c (Eq. 15) = Not specified
Normalize round-trip, byte, and runtime costs into [0,1]; the resulting cost enters the arm selection score through lambda_c.
Exploration coefficient eta and cost sensitivity lambda_c (Eqs. 17-18) = Not specified
Controls exploration-exploitation trade-off and cost penalty in the UCB score; central to arm selection.
Ridge regularization lambda_0 and discount rho (Algorithm 1) = Not specified
Ridge prior and forgetting factor for non-stationary noise; affect the confidence bounds and adaptation speed.
Noise band eta (noise_factor) = 0.05 in main reported results
Headline fidelity and cost results are reported at noise band eta=0.05; the dynamic noise proxy in Fig. 10 is generated from an unspecified schedule.
Budgeted stopping thresholds sigma^2_target and epsilon (Eq. 20) = Not specified
Stopping rule that limits additional ZNE queries; affects round-trip counts but is not instantiated in the evaluation.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The expected reward for each arm is linear in the context vector: E[r_t,k | x_t] = x_t^T theta*_k (Assumption 2).
Invoked in Section II-D for the regret bound; not verified for the actual reward in Eq. (16), which contains cross-entropy loss and variance terms.
domain assumption First-order Lindblad/MNR approximation: gate fidelity M_gate = 1 - gamma*tau_gate*(1+n_noise(t)), neglecting O((gamma*tau_gate)^2).
Used in Section II.A to derive circuit fidelity and noise scaling; valid only when gamma*tau_gate << 1 and under Markovian decoherence.
domain assumption ZNE observable is a smooth low-order polynomial in the noise scale lambda: E(lambda) = E(0) + c1 lambda + c2 lambda^2 + O(lambda^3).
Standard ZNE assumption invoked in Section II.B to justify Richardson/polynomial extrapolation; the paper acknowledges in Limitations that linear/quadratic fits may underfit highly nonlinear noise.
ad hoc to paper Context and rewards are bounded: ||x_t||2 <= L and r_t,k in [-1,1] (Assumption 1).
Needed for the regret bound but not checked for the actual cross-entropy rewards, which can be less than -1.
domain assumption Circuit-level error accumulates linearly with gate count and first-order infidelity: M_circuit = 1 - N_g I_F(t).
Eq. (5) assumes independent, additive gate errors and ignores correlated errors and crosstalk; the authors note the Lindblad model only partially captures drift and non-Markovian effects.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Noise Mitigation with Adaptive Zero-Noise Extrapolation: A Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPWY6J5R

@misc{pith2026260806426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Noise Mitigation with Adaptive Zero-Noise Extrapolation: A Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPWY6J5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06426}
}

abstract

Variational quantum circuits (VQCs) are central to near-term quantum computing, yet their practical deployment is severely hindered by noise. While existing error mitigation methods, such as zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE), typically assume static noise, real noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) systems exhibit dynamic, time-varying noise that remains largely unaddressed. To overcome this critical gap, our work introduces a novel adaptive noise mitigation framework for VQCs that integrates ZNE with contextual multi-armed bandits (CMAB), enabling dynamic, context-aware selection of circuit-folding levels based on ansatz parameters (e.g., depth, parameter count) and the evolving noise environment. Unlike fixed-fold or heuristic ZNE, our approach uses online adaptation to improve the accuracy of ZNE and reduce redundant quantum circuit executions. Our extensive simulations and experiments on real quantum hardware reveal the following important properties: (i) deeper VQCs accumulate noise, degrading accuracy and increasing the number of quantum circuit executions; (ii) ZNE restores estimator fidelity when the folding level is chosen appropriately; and (iii) CMAB-guided folding cuts quantum circuit execution round trips by up to 40\%, bytes exchanged by up to 35\%, and end-to-end cost by up to 30\% under a 10~Mbps budget, with up to 6.9\% higher estimator fidelity (CIFAR-10, depth 3, noise band $\eta=0.05$), versus fixed-fold and grid-search ZNE. These results demonstrate substantial performance gains over existing noise mitigation methods, underscoring the effectiveness of our design in supporting robust noise mitigation for VQCs. The source code is also publicly released to support reproducibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06426 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An overview of the proposed CMAB-ZNE training loop. In each mini-batch, the agent either exploits the current bandit policy or explores candidate arms—sets of ZNE noise scales such as {1, 3}, {1, 3, 5}, . . . , {1, 3, . . . , 2a+ 1}. The chosen arm at sets the folding scales λ utilized by the ZNE module to evaluate expectations E(λ) and extrapolate the zero-noise estimate E(0) (e.g., using Richardson). The variation… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Quantum gate-noise visualization. The panels show: (a) clean control evolution, (b) noisy evolution with stochastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Quantum noise impacts a single qubit. Left. An ideal qubit maintains coherence. Right. Environmental coupling causes relaxation/excitation (T1) and pure dephasing (T2), leading to a mixed state, biased measurements, and degraded learning performance. and for a base circuit with Ng gates, the folded circuit has N (λ) g = λNg = (1 + 2n)Ng. (8) Substituting this into the time-varying MNR fidelity model gives Mcircuit =… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Unitary folding for noise scaling in zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE). Larger folding factors increase effective circuit depth and noise exposure while preserving the ideal unitary operation. c1 c2 Noise amplification / Stretch factor Exp. val. E(c1 ) E(c2 ) E* c1 c2 c3 …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustrating ZNE with varying noise amplification levels. Left: Linear extrapolation from two amplified circuits at c1λ and c2λ predicts the noise-free expectation E∗. Right: Polynomial extrapolation using three points enables higher-order fitting. For more than two sc…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Noiseless vs. noise levels (0.05, 0.10, 0.15). Each curve is smoothed with the same window as in preprocessing. Increasing the number of wires expands the dimension of the quantum representation, while increasing the number of layers increases the number of parameteriz…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Effect of finite sampling (shots) on model performance at a fixed hardware noise level (0.05). Curves show shots s = {1, 4, 16, 64, 256, 1024}; higher shot counts reduce measurement variance and yield smoother trajectories. As s grows, performance benefits decline (cu…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparing noiseless (λ = 0), noisy (λ ∈ {1, 3, 5}), and zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) used in quantum neural networks where nwires=16 and nlayers=5. ZNE continuously outperforms the noisy runs and closely follows the noiseless baseline in terms of accuracy and loss. Z…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Normalized noise proxy ηˆt versus training epoch. of the proposed CMAB-ZNE approach, we first add a dynamic noise profile instead of a static noise as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) deltas for different arm sets {1, 3}, {1, 3, 5}, and {1, 3, 5, 7}. Curves show the difference between the ZNE estimate and the noiseless baseline at each epoch for accuracy (left) and loss (right). ∆ indicates that ZNE is above the noisel…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Reward and variance across ZNE arm sets {1, 3}, {1, 3, 5}, and {1, 3, 5, 7} for CIFAR-10 (top) and EuroSAT (bottom). Reward combines low-variance extrapolated estimates with a depth penalty, while the variance plots show measurement variability across epochs. TABLE V:…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

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
[2]

Quantum convolutional neural networks: A survey on architectures, applications, and future directions,

R. Rahman and D. C. Nguyen, “Quantum convolutional neural networks: A survey on architectures, applications, and future directions,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2026

work page 2026
[3]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018. ACCEPTED IN THE IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS 15

work page 2018
[4]

Sporadic federated learn- ing approach in quantum environment to tackle quantum noise,

R. Rahman, A. Pokharel, and D. C. Nguyen, “Sporadic federated learn- ing approach in quantum environment to tackle quantum noise,” in2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1820–1829

work page 2025
[5]

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 Physics, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 045005, 2023

2023
[6]

Adaptive folding and noise filtering for robust quantum error mitigation

K. F. Koenig, F. Reinecke, and T. Wellens, “Adaptive folding and noise filtering for robust quantum error mitigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04463, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[7]

Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: Architectural comparisons and design insights,

P. Murali, N. M. Linke, M. Martonosi, A. J. Abhari, N. H. Nguyen, and C. H. Alderete, “Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: Architectural comparisons and design insights,” inProceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2019, pp. 527– 540

work page 2019
[8]

Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system,

J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, “Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system,”npj quantum infor- mation, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 2, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 44 references

[9]

Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,

K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,”Physical review letters, vol. 119, no. 18, p. 180509, 2017

2017
[10]

Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,

T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y . Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, “Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE). IEEE, 2020, pp. 306–316

2020
[11]

Learning-based quantum error mitigation,

A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y . Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y . Li, “Learning-based quantum error mitigation,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 040330, 2021

2021
[12]

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 X, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 041036, 2021

2021
[13]

Improved quantum error correction with randomized compiling,

A. Jain, P. Iyer, S. D. Bartlett, and J. Emerson, “Improved quantum error correction with randomized compiling,”Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 033049, 2023

2023
[14]

Quantum noise modeling through reinforcement learning,

S. Bordoni, A. Papaluca, P. Buttarini, A. Sopena, S. Giagu, and S. Car- razza, “Quantum noise modeling through reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01506, 2024

2024
[15]

A hardware- aware heuristic for the qubit mapping problem in the nisq era,

S. Niu, A. Suau, G. Staffelbach, and A. Todri-Sanial, “A hardware- aware heuristic for the qubit mapping problem in the nisq era,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1–14, 2020

2020
[16]

Best practices for quantum error mitigation with digital zero-noise extrapola- tion,

R. Majumdar, P. Rivero, F. Metz, A. Hasan, and D. S. Wang, “Best practices for quantum error mitigation with digital zero-noise extrapola- tion,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 881–887

2023
[17]

Improving zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation using a noise-aware folding method,

L. Hour, M. Go, and Y . Han, “Improving zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation using a noise-aware folding method,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12495, 2024

2024
[18]

Application of zero-noise-extrapolation- based quantum error mitigation to a silicon spin qubit,

H. Sohn, J. Jung, J. Park, H. Jang, L. E. Stehouwer, D. Degli Esposti, G. Scappucci, and D. Kim, “Application of zero-noise-extrapolation- based quantum error mitigation to a silicon spin qubit,”Physical Review A, vol. 112, no. 1, p. 012408, 2025

2025
[19]

Extending quantum probabilis- tic error cancellation by noise scaling,

A. Mari, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, “Extending quantum probabilis- tic error cancellation by noise scaling,”Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 5, p. 052607, 2021

2021
[20]

Noise pollution disrupts freshwater cetaceans,

Z.-T. Wang, P.-X. Duan, K.-X. Wang, and D. Wang, “Noise pollution disrupts freshwater cetaceans,”Science, vol. 374, no. 6573, pp. 1332– 1333, 2021

2021
[21]

Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem,

P. Auer, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and P. Fischer, “Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem,”Machine learning, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 235– 256, 2002

2002
[22]

On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples,

W. R. Thompson, “On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples,”Biometrika, vol. 25, no. 3/4, pp. 285–294, 1933

1933
[23]

Analysis of thompson sampling for the multi-armed bandit problem,

S. Agrawal and N. Goyal, “Analysis of thompson sampling for the multi-armed bandit problem,” inConference on learning theory. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2012, pp. 39–1

2012
[24]

Contextual recommendation based on text mining,

Y . Li, J. Nie, Y . Zhang, B. Wang, B. Yan, and F. Weng, “Contextual recommendation based on text mining,” inColing 2010: Posters, 2010, pp. 692–700

2010
[25]

Robust performance incen- tivizing algorithms for multi-armed bandits with strategic agents,

S. A. Esmaeili, S. Shin, and A. Slivkins, “Robust performance incen- tivizing algorithms for multi-armed bandits with strategic agents,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, 2025, pp. 13 814–13 822

2025
[26]

Multiple trade-offs: An improved approach for lexicographic linear bandits,

B. Xue, X. Lin, X. Zhang, and Q. Zhang, “Multiple trade-offs: An improved approach for lexicographic linear bandits,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, 2025, pp. 21 850–21 858

2025
[27]

Multi-armed bandit with sparse and noisy feedback,

D. Bouneffouf, R. Feraud, and B. Lin, “Multi-armed bandit with sparse and noisy feedback,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

2025
[28]

Quantum con- textual bandits and recommender systems for quantum data,

S. Brahmachari, J. Lumbreras, and M. Tomamichel, “Quantum con- textual bandits and recommender systems for quantum data,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 58, 2024

2024
[29]

Multi-armed quantum bandits: Exploration versus exploitation when learning properties of quantum states,

J. Lumbreras, E. Haapasalo, and M. Tomamichel, “Multi-armed quantum bandits: Exploration versus exploitation when learning properties of quantum states,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 749, 2022

2022
[30]

Quantum kernelized bandits,

Y . Hikima, K. Murao, S. Takemori, and Y . Umeda, “Quantum kernelized bandits,” inThe 40th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- gence, 2024

2024
[31]

Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems,

S. Krinner, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, J. Heinsoo, R. Keller, J. Luetolf, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, “Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems,”EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, 2019

2019
[32]

Alicki and K

R. Alicki and K. Lendi,Quantum dynamical semigroups and applica- tions. Springer, 2007, vol. 717

2007
[33]

Laser- annealing josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up superconducting quantum processors,

J. B. Hertzberg, E. J. Zhang, S. Rosenblatt, E. Magesan, J. A. Smolin, J.- B. Yau, V . P. Adiga, M. Sandberg, M. Brink, J. M. Chowet al., “Laser- annealing josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up superconducting quantum processors,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, p....

2021
[34]

Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full- stack quantum computers,

M. Fellous-Asiani, J. H. Chai, Y . Thonnart, H. K. Ng, R. S. Whitney, and A. Auffèves, “Optimizing resource efficiencies for scalable full- stack quantum computers,”PRX Quantum, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 040319, 2023

2023
[35]

QuTiP: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, “QuTiP: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,”Com- puter physics communications, vol. 183, no. 8, pp. 1760–1772, 2012

2012
[36]

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

A. He, B. Nachman, W. A. de Jong, and C. W. Bauer, “Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation with identity insertions,” Physical Review A, vol. 102, no. 1, p. 012426, 2020

2020
[37]

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 X, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 031027, 2018

2018
[38]

Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,

A. Krizhevsky, G. Hintonet al., “Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” 2009

2009
[39]

Eurosat: A novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classi- fication,

P. Helber, B. Bischke, A. Dengel, and D. Borth, “Eurosat: A novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classi- fication,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 2217–2226, 2019

2019
[40]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

2010
[41]

Quantumnat: quantum noise-aware training with noise injection, quanti- zation and normalization,

H. Wang, J. Gu, Y . Ding, Z. Li, F. T. Chong, D. Z. Pan, and S. Han, “Quantumnat: quantum noise-aware training with noise injection, quanti- zation and normalization,” inProceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE design automation conference, 2022, pp. 1–6

2022
[42]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems. OUP Oxford, 2002

2002
[43]

H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum measurement and control. Cambridge university press, 2009

2009
[44]

Rigorous measurement error correction,

M. R. Geller, “Rigorous measurement error correction,”Quantum Sci- ence and Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 03LT01, 2020. Ratun Rahmanis a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA. His work foc...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

[2] [2]

Quantum convolutional neural networks: A survey on architectures, applications, and future directions,

R. Rahman and D. C. Nguyen, “Quantum convolutional neural networks: A survey on architectures, applications, and future directions,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2026

work page 2026

[3] [3]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018. ACCEPTED IN THE IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS 15

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Sporadic federated learn- ing approach in quantum environment to tackle quantum noise,

R. Rahman, A. Pokharel, and D. C. Nguyen, “Sporadic federated learn- ing approach in quantum environment to tackle quantum noise,” in2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1820–1829

work page 2025

[5] [5]

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 Physics, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 045005, 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Adaptive folding and noise filtering for robust quantum error mitigation

K. F. Koenig, F. Reinecke, and T. Wellens, “Adaptive folding and noise filtering for robust quantum error mitigation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04463, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: Architectural comparisons and design insights,

P. Murali, N. M. Linke, M. Martonosi, A. J. Abhari, N. H. Nguyen, and C. H. Alderete, “Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: Architectural comparisons and design insights,” inProceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2019, pp. 527– 540

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system,

J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, “Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system,”npj quantum infor- mation, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 2, 2017

work page 2017