Enhancing Quantum Expectation Values via Exponential Error Suppression and CVaR Optimization

Reuben Blake Tate; Stephan Eidenbenz; Touheed Anwar Atif

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 18 references

Enhancing Quantum Expectation Values via Exponential Error Suppression and CVaR Optimization

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining virtual channel purification with CVaR yields provable two-sided bounds on noisy quantum expectation values, and the bounds tighten as the purification order increases.

desk verdict Good idea, wrong CVaR definition: the central theorem fails as stated, though the fix is straightforward. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18513 v1 pith:DXDHU6TX submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph

Touheed Anwar Atif , Reuben Blake Tate , Stephan Eidenbenz This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumerrormitigationvirtualchannelpurificationconditionalvalue-at-riskexpectationvalueestimationPaulinoiseCliffordgatesdepolarizingexponentialsuppression

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

This paper tries to establish that Virtual Channel Purification (VCP), a technique that suppresses noise by fusing several noisy copies of a channel, can be upgraded from a state-fidelity tool into a certified estimator of expectation values when combined with Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR), a tail-sensitive risk measure. The proof shows that, for any observable diagonal in the computational basis and any noise channel whose identity component dominates, the CVaR of the purified noisy samples brackets the noiseless expectation value from both sides, and the bracket tightens as the purification order grows. The results extend to multilayer circuits and to the realistic situation where the purification circuit's own swap network is noisy, provided the purified gates are Clifford and all noise is Pauli. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a general error-mitigation guarantee with explicit, computable error bars for a broad class of near-term quantum computations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the comparison lemma for CVaR (Lemma 2), which turns two-sided domination between probability distributions—$P_X/C_1 \le P_{X_1}$ and $P_X/C_2 \le P_{X_2} \le (C_1/C_2)P_{X_1}$—into a four-term inequality chain linking the CVaRs of the two noisy distributions to the expectation of the ideal one. The paper applies this lemma to VCP by proving that the measurement distribution of the order-$L$ purified state dominates the ideal distribution by $\alpha_L$ and is dominated by the noisy distribution by $\alpha_L/p_0$, using the identity-dominance assumption $p_0 \ge p_i$. In the noisy-swap setting, the second key object is the effective Pauli channel $E_\mu$ of Theorem 7, whose identity weight $\mu_0$ is a ratio of sums over Pauli-conjugation events; Theorem 9 reduces the whole guarantee to checking $\mu_0 \ge q_0$ and $\mu_i/\mu_0 \le q_i/q_0$.

What would settle it

Take a single-qubit gate with a coherent over-rotation error (rotation by $\theta+\varepsilon$ instead of $\theta$), skip twirling, run order-2 VCP, and sample the expectation of a computational-basis observable; if the CVaR pair at level $\alpha_2$ fails to contain the noiseless value, the identity-dominance/Pauli assumption behind Theorem 3 is violated, and the predicted bracket would be invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an ordering of CVaR values (Theorem 3): for an observable $O$ diagonal in the computational basis, with $X_{\text{noisy}}$ the noisy sample, $X_{\text{vcp}}^L$ the order-$L$ VCP-purified sample, and $X$ the noiseless sample, one has $\operatorname{CVaR}_{p_0}[X_{\text{noisy}}] \le \operatorname{CVaR}_{\alpha_L}[X_{\text{vcp}}^L] \le \mathbb{E}[X] \le \overline{\operatorname{CVaR}}_{\alpha_L}[X_{\text{vcp}}^L] \le \overline{\operatorname{CVaR}}_{p_0}[X_{\text{noisy}}]$, with $\alpha_L = p_0^L / \sum_i p_i^L$. Thus the two CVaR values of the purified distribution sandwich the true mean, and the purified bracket is no wider than the unmitigated noisy bracket. Theorem 4 shows that increasing the order from $L$ to $M$ strictly tightens the bracket, and Theorem 5 extends the result to layered circuits when the per-layer noise ratios satisfy a product condition. For a noisy swap network, Theorem 7 derives the effective Pauli channel $E_\mu$ whose coefficients $\mu_k$ are convolutions of swap-noise and circuit-noise Pauli probabilities, and Theorem 9 states that whenever $\mu_0 \ge q_0$ and $\mu_i/\mu_0 \le q_i/q_0$, the same bracketing guarantee holds for the noisy purification protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the noise is a Pauli channel with a dominant identity component ($p_0 \ge p_i$) and, for the noisy-swap results, that the purified gates are Clifford so that conjugation preserves the Pauli form; if either fails, the distributional inequalities behind the bracket can break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any diagonal observable, running order-$L$ VCP and reporting the CVaR pair at level $\alpha_L$ gives certified error bars that contain the noiseless expectation, with no need to know the noiseless state or the full error profile beyond the Pauli weights $p_i$.
Increasing the purification order from $L$ to $M$ strictly tightens the bracket, so the method offers an exponential-in-order suppression of the distance between the two CVaR bounds.
In multilayer circuits, the bracket tightens whenever the product condition $\prod_i (p_{i,j_i}/p_{i,0})^{m_i-l_i} \le 1$ holds; in particular, raising every layer's order to at least the order of another setting always helps.
For depolarizing noise on 2-qubit gates, the noisy-swap analysis gives an explicit parameter region—$q_l(p) \le q \le q_u(p)$ with $p \le 0.56425$—inside which VCP+CVaR beats the unmitigated circuit, and a region outside which it does not.
The effective-channel condition $\mu_0 \ge q_0$ with $\mu_i/\mu_0 \le q_i/q_0$ provides a concrete, protocol-level test one can run on estimated Pauli error rates to decide whether noisy purification is worthwhile.

Reading between the lines

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

The CVaR comparison lemma depends only on distribution domination, so it likely transfers to other error-mitigation schemes that resample or reweight noisy circuits—such as quasiprobability sampling or post-selected variants—whenever their reweighting factors satisfy the same ratio bounds.
The Clifford-and-Pauli assumption in the noisy-swap analysis suggests a concrete practical recipe: use randomized compiling or Pauli twirling to convert arbitrary gate noise into Pauli noise before applying VCP, and restrict purification to Clifford subcircuits; the bounds in Theorem 9 would then indicate the maximum tolerable swap noise.
The depolarizing example implies a strong, testable prediction: for a fixed swap-noise strength $p$, increasing the Clifford gate error $q$ beyond $q_u(p)$ destroys the advantage of noisy VCP; an experiment measuring the CVaR bracket width against $q$ could confirm the predicted phase boundary.
The bracket interpretation suggests using the CVaR pair as an empirical error bar: the gap between the two CVaR values is a direct, computable measure of residual noise after purification, and can drive adaptive selection of the purification order.

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

Colleague, you should know this paper's central inequality chain is invalid as written because Definition 1's CVaR formula is not the standard tail CVaR for discrete distributions. The stress-test example is correct: with X=0 w.p. 0.5 and X=1 w.p. 0.5, α=0.8, the formula gives 0.625 > E[X]=0.5, violating the CVaR≤E[X] step in Lemma 2. Since Lemma 2 underpins Theorems 3-5 and 9, the main claims do not hold under the stated definition. The good news: swapping in the usual integral definition (or the correct discrete tail formula) makes the example work and likely preserves all the theorems, pending a careful check.

What is genuinely new here: combining VCP with CVaR, the comparison lemma for two distributions (Lemma 2, once fixed), and the effective-channel formula for noisy CSwap gates (Theorem 7, Eq. 10) are a real step beyond [13] and [16]. The theorem on higher-order purification tightening the bracket is practically useful. I also like the depolarizing-noise example: it gives explicit (p,q) regions where noisy VCP wins. That part is reproducible.

Soft spots, in proportion. The abstract's promise of 'any quantum observable' overreaches; the theorems only cover observables diagonal in the computational basis. The Clifford-gate assumption in Section III.C is stated, but it means the noisy-swap results don't apply to non-Clifford unitaries without twirling. The proofs of Theorems 5 and 8 are omitted with a hand-wave. And there is the definitional error: the proof of Lemma 2 explicitly says the case F(x_α)=α is treated and the general case follows, but that is exactly where the definition fails. That is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic one.

Bottom line: this is a paper with a sound core idea and a fixable but currently fatal error in the main lemma. It deserves a serious referee, but only after the authors correct the CVaR definition and re-verify the chain. I would not cite it in its present form.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework combining Virtual Channel Purification (VCP) with Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) to bound and improve expectation values computed from noisy quantum circuits. Lemma 2 gives sufficient conditions under which CVaR values of two distributions bracket the expectation of a third, and Theorems 3-5 apply it to VCP for observables diagonal in the computational basis, asserting that CVaR at level alpha_L = p_0^L / sum_i p_i^L brackets the noiseless expectation E[X] with the bracket tightening as the purification order L grows; Theorems 7-9 treat the case of a noisy swap network, deriving the effective channel for Clifford gates under Pauli noise (Eqs. (10) and (12)) and characterizing a parameter region where VCP still helps; Section IV works out depolarizing-noise examples, including bounds on the number n of IID gates (Eq. (17)). The central advertised claim that VCP plus CVaR guarantees improved expectation values for any quantum observable is not supported: Theorem 3 is restricted to computational-basis-diagonal observables, the noisy-swap results assume Clifford gates and Pauli noise, and, more seriously, Definition 1's CVaR formula is incorrect, so Lemma 2 and the entire inequality chain are false as printed; a concrete counterexample is given in the major comments. The manuscript is well organized and the Pauli-channel algebra in Appendix D checks out, but the main results require correction.

Significance. If the CVaR definition is corrected and Lemma 2 is re-proved with proper atom handling, the framework would be a genuinely useful analytical tool: the bounds in Theorems 3-5 are parameter-free in the sense that they depend only on the known noise-profile probabilities p_i (no fitted constants), they are explicit (alpha_L in closed form), and the noisy-swap analysis yields concrete closed-form effective channels (Eqs. (10), (12)) and a falsifiable predicted advantage region in Section IV.A (q_l(p) <= q <= min{q_u(p),1}, p <= 0.56425) together with gate-count bounds (Eq. (17)). The paper does not provide code or machine-checked proofs, and the proofs are conventional analytic derivations with one currently invalid step in Lemma 2. The stress-test counterexample is valid and lands squarely on Definition 1: as printed, the central chain CVaR_{p0}[X_noisy] <= CVaR_{alpha_L}[X_vcp] <= E[X] is false, so the contribution cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (2)

[Definition 1 (Section II.B); Lemma 2] The definition of lower CVaR in Definition 1 is not the standard tail CVaR, and the central inequality CVaR_alpha[X] <= E[X] that Lemma 2 and all subsequent theorems rely on is false under the printed formula. The second term should be x_alpha(alpha - P(X <= x_alpha))/alpha (the Acerbi-Tasche atom correction), not x_alpha(1 - P(X <= x_alpha)). As a counterexample to Lemma 2 that satisfies all of its hypotheses, take X, X1, X2 supported on {0,1} with P(0)=P(1)=1/2, C1=5/4, C2=17/16; then alpha1=0.8, alpha2=16/17, and the printed definition gives CVaR_{0.8}[X1]=5/8=0.625 > CVaR_{16/17}[X2]=17/32=0.53125 > E[X]=1/2, contradicting the conclusion CVaR_{alpha1}[X1] <= CVaR_{alpha2}[X2] <= E[X]. This translates to a valid instance of Theorem 3: N=1, rho0=I/2, U=I, O=|1><1|, E=0.8*Id+0.2*X(.)X, L=2, for which X_noisy and X_vcp both have the fair 0/1 distribution, p0=0.8, and alpha_L=16/17. The internal inconsistency is visible already in Definition 1: the simplification claimed for F_X(x_alpha)=alpha ('CVaR simplifies to E[X|X<=x_alpha]') does not follow from the written formula, which would give E[X|X<=x_alpha]+x_alpha(1-alpha); even in the continuous case this extra term can push the printed value above E[X] (e.g., X uniform on [0,1] at alpha=0.9 gives 0.54 > 0.5). The proof of Lemma 2 in Appendix A treats only the case F_X(x_alpha)=alpha and dismisses the general case; the counterexample shows that the general case fails exactly at the atom term. The paper should adopt the standard definition, re-prove Lemma 2 with proper handling of atoms, and re-verify Theorems 3-5 and 9, whose proofs all invoke the CVaR_alpha <= E[X] step; with the standard formula the counterexample restores the expected chain (0.375 <= 0.46875 <= 0.5), so a repair is plausible, but the results are not valid as printed.
[Abstract; Theorem 3; Section III.C] The advertised scope in the abstract, which promises 'guarantees improved expectation values for any quantum observable', is not supported by the theorems. Theorem 3 (and its proof in Appendix B) applies only to observables O diagonal in the computational basis, and the 'extension to H' added in the proof covers only Hamiltonians that are diagonal in that basis; no argument is given for general observables, and the proof technique, which lower-bounds the diagonal matrix elements <z|rho|z> of the state, does not extend to off-diagonal observables. The noisy-swap results (Theorems 7-9) are in addition conditional on the Clifford-plus-Pauli-noise assumptions stated at the start of Section III.C: Eqs. (7)-(8) preserve the Pauli form of the CSwap noise only when the purified gate is Clifford and all noise is twirled to Pauli. To match the theorems, the abstract and the Section V conclusions should be restricted to computational-basis-diagonal observables under Pauli (or incoherent) noise, or the missing generalization should be supplied.

minor comments (8)

[Lemma 2; Theorems 3, 4, 5, 9; Eqs. (2)-(4), (6), (13)] The upper CVaR symbol has lost its overline throughout, so the printed chains such as 'CVaR_{alpha2}[X2] <= E[X] <= CVaR_{alpha2}[X2]' use one symbol for two different objects; restore the overlines introduced in Definition 1.
[Appendix A] The second case of the proof of Lemma 2 is again introduced with 'we consider the case when x*_1 <= x0'; it should read x*_1 > x0.
[Theorem 3, Eq. (3)] The final relation is missing: 'CVaR_{alpha_L}[X^L_vcp] CVaR_{p0}[X_noisy]' should presumably read '<= CVaR_bar_{alpha_L}[X^L_vcp] <= CVaR_bar_{p0}[X_noisy]'.
[Theorem 8] In the definition of mu^{(M)}_k, the index k appears both as a free index on the left and as the summation index in the denominator; rename one of the two indices.
[Sections IV.A, IV.B; Figure 3] The text derives the advantage region as 0 <= p <= p_l, but Section IV.B states 'we need p >= p_l', and Figure 3's caption uses 'p_u' where the text defines p_l; align these conditions and the threshold notation.
[Appendix E] The first equation of the proof of Theorem 9 contains a stray superscript L in 'mu^L_0'.
[Theorem 5] The composition order of the unitaries is ambiguous: rho = U_1 o U_2 o ... o U_k(rho0) versus rho_tilde(l) = U_E^{(l1)} o ... o U_E^{(lk)}(rho); state explicitly which unitary is applied first.
[Remark 6; Section IV] There are several typos: 'yeilds' should be 'yields', and 'we discussion the practical implications' should be 'we discuss the practical implications'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VCP-CVaR bounds follow from the stated noise-model assumptions and a general CVaR lemma, without fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: Lemma 2 supplies a general CVaR comparison under distribution inequalities (1); Theorems 3-5 instantiate those inequalities from the VCP reweighting formulas alpha_L = p0^L / sum_i p_i^L and the dominance assumption p0 >= p_i; Theorem 7 computes the effective Pauli channel when CSwap noise is conjugated through Clifford gates; Theorem 9 applies Lemma 2 again under explicitly stated conditions mu0 >= q0 and mu_i/mu0 <= q_i/q0. At no point is a parameter fitted to a target expectation; p_i and q_i are model inputs, and the depolarizing examples solve the closed-form expression for mu0(p,q) rather than calibrating it. The only overlapping-author citation is [16, Lemma 1], used for the standard CVaR <= E <= CVaR inequality; that lemma is a general parameter-free result about CVaR, not a VCP-specific conclusion, so under the review rules it is independent support and does not create circularity. The skeptic's Definition-1 atom-at-quantile counterexample concerns mathematical correctness of the CVaR formula as stated, not circularity: the claimed reduction is not 'definition of X in terms of Y' or 'fitted input renamed prediction'. Omitted proofs of Theorems 5 and 8 are completeness issues, not circular steps.

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

The central result rests on Pauli noise models and the Clifford/diagonal-observable restrictions; no new entities or fitted constants are introduced. Depolarizing parameters p and q in Section IV are model inputs, not fitted to data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The noise channel E acting on the ideal unitary is a Pauli channel with identity-dominant probabilities p0 >= p_i for all i.
Invoked in Section II.A to define E^{(M)} and throughout Theorems 3-5; justifies comparing measurement distributions via Lemma 2.
domain assumption The observable O is diagonal in the computational basis, and the promised extension to a general 'H' is never provided.
Theorem 3 proof uses projections onto z basis and a mapping h; without this restriction the distribution inequalities are not established.
domain assumption In the noisy-swap analysis, each unitary to purify is a Clifford gate so conjugation preserves the Pauli form of the swap noise (Eq. (7)-(8)).
Section III.C states 'with the Clifford assumption'; without it the effective channel E_mu may not be Pauli and Theorem 9's conditions are not justified.
domain assumption The ancilla register used in VCP is not corrupted by noise, and the CSwap noise is Pauli on 2N qubits.
Appendix D assumes the ideal |+> ancilla and computes <X tensor O> with no ancilla noise term.
domain assumption Pauli twirling can convert general incoherent noise to Pauli noise without changing expectation values.
The introduction asserts this is valid in most practical scenarios; the bounds do not cover coherent errors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Quantum Expectation Values via Exponential Error Suppression and CVaR Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXDHU6TX

@misc{pith2026250118513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Quantum Expectation Values via Exponential Error Suppression and CVaR Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXDHU6TX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18513}
}

read the original abstract

Precise quantum expectation values are crucial for quantum algorithm development, but noise in real-world systems can degrade these estimations. While quantum error correction is resource-intensive, error mitigation strategies offer a practical alternative. This paper presents a framework that combines Virtual Channel Purification (VCP) technique with Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) optimization to improve expectation value estimations in noisy quantum circuits. Our contributions are twofold: first, we derive conditions to compare CVaR values from different probability distributions, offering insights into the reliability of quantum estimations under noise. Second, we apply this framework to VCP, providing analytical bounds that establish its effectiveness in improving expectation values, both when the overhead VCP circuit is ideal (error-free) and when it adds additional noise. By introducing CVaR into the analysis of VCP, we offer a general noise-characterization method that guarantees improved expectation values for any quantum observable. We demonstrate the practical utility of our approach with numerical examples, highlighting how our bounds guide VCP implementation in noisy quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18513 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** VCP circuit of order-2 in presence of Noisy Swap gates with their noise modeled by ES. The objective is to purify the Clifford gates with each having noise EC . where α⃗l := Qk i=1 p li i0 Qk i=1 P4N −1 j=0 p li ij . Proof. The proof follows from similar arguments as the proof of Theorem 4, so is omitted for brevity. Remark 6. If ⃗l and ⃗m are such that mi ≥ li for all i ∈ [1, k], then, we can assert that the ineq… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The result of conjugating the Pauli-noise of the CSwap gate with the Clifford C. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ratio of µ0 to q0 for different values of the parameters p and q. The plot shows the ratio µ0/q0 as a function of p and q. The red and blue dashed curves are the plots for ql(p) and qu(p) as a function of p. Moreover, on the curve, we have the ratio as 1 or µ0 = q0. The curve divides the plot into two regions: the upper region (above the curve) where ql(p) ≤ q ≤ qu(p) and 0 ≤ p ≤ pu, and thus the ratio exceeds one, … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Lower and upper bounds on n for different values of p with varying q. The solid lines represent the lower bounds for each value of p, while the upper bounds are marked with circle markers, with no connecting lines. Each bound (lower and upper) is color-coded according …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[13]

Virtual channel purification,

Z. Liu, X. Zhang, Y .-Y . Fei, and Z. Cai, “Virtual channel purification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07866 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[16]

Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples,

S. V . Barron, D. J. Egger, E. Pelofske, A. Bärtschi, S. Eidenbenz, M. Lehmkuehler, and S. Woerner, “Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples,” Nature Computational Science , pp. 1–11, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014

2014
[2]

A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

arXiv 2014
[3]

Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms,

D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, “Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms,” Physical Review A, vol. 92, no. 4, p. 042303, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

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
[6]

D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun, Quantum error correction. Cambridge university press, 2013

2013

Show all 18 references

[7]

Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction,

J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, “Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 030305, 2021

2021
[8]

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
[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]

Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

Y . Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y . Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme et al., “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” Nature, vol. 618, no. 7965, pp. 500–505, 2023

2023
[11]

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
[12]

Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices,

B. Koczor, “Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices,” Physical Review X , vol. 11, no. 3, p. 031057, 2021

2021
[14]

On the coherence of expected shortfall,

C. Acerbi and D. Tasche, “On the coherence of expected shortfall,” Journal of banking & finance , vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1487–1503, 2002

2002
[15]

Improving variational quantum optimization using cvar,

P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner, “Improving variational quantum optimization using cvar,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 256, 2020

2020
[17]

The dominant eigenvector of a noisy quantum state,

B. Koczor, “The dominant eigenvector of a noisy quantum state,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 23, no. 12, p. 123047, 2021

2021
[18]

Random quantum circuits transform local noise into global white noise,

A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. Brandão, “Random quantum circuits transform local noise into global white noise,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 405, no. 3, p. 78, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Virtual channel purification,

Z. Liu, X. Zhang, Y .-Y . Fei, and Z. Cai, “Virtual channel purification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07866 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [16]

Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples,

S. V . Barron, D. J. Egger, E. Pelofske, A. Bärtschi, S. Eidenbenz, M. Lehmkuehler, and S. Woerner, “Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples,” Nature Computational Science , pp. 1–11, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [1]

A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014

2014

[4] [2]

A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

arXiv 2014

[5] [3]

Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms,

D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, “Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms,” Physical Review A, vol. 92, no. 4, p. 042303, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [4]

The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [5]

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

[8] [6]

D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun, Quantum error correction. Cambridge university press, 2013

2013