Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Replacing high-noise nodes with classical simulations can make zero-noise extrapolation's sampling variance fall exponentially in the Richardson order.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 01:34 UTC pith:UM4ZCCJW

load-bearing objection The variance-reduction formula is correct and verified, but the exponential claim is coefficient-level only; the missing scaling analysis of the bias term means the practical MSE advantage at large n is unestablished. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25746 v1 pith:UM4ZCCJW submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph

Classically Augmented Zero-Noise Extrapolation

Timon Scheiber This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum error mitigationzero-noise extrapolationRichardson extrapolationhybrid quantum-classicalclassical simulation biasPauli propagationsampling overheadvariance reduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that a major bottleneck of Richardson-based zero-noise extrapolation—the sampling-variance blow-up that grows with the number of nodes—can be shifted, in part, to a classical computer. The proposed method, Classically Augmented Zero-Noise Extrapolation (CA-ZNE), replaces the highest-noise quantum nodes with classical Pauli-propagation estimates that have near-zero sampling variance but introduce a deterministic simulation bias. Under optimal shot allocation and equal per-node variances, the variance reduction is shown to equal the square of the ratio of Richardson weight sums over the retained quantum nodes and all nodes; for linearly spaced nodes this ratio decays exponentially with the Richardson order because the weights are binomial coefficients. If the classical bias is kept small relative to the variance it removes, CA-ZNE's mean-squared error is below standard ZNE's, and the numerical demonstrations on two spin-model simulations confirm the predicted variance ratio and show MSE gains.

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that CA-ZNE reallocates the sampling-variance bottleneck of ZNE into a controlled classical-bias budget: the variance ratio between CA-ZNE and standard ZNE, under optimal shot allocation and equal per-node observable variances, is R = (Σ_{j=0}^{c-1}|γ_j| / Σ_{i=0}^{n-1}|γ_i|)^2, where the γ are Richardson interpolation weights and c is the number of quantum nodes. Because the weights for linear node spacing x_j = 1 + j are binomial, |γ_j| = binom(n, j+1), the denominator is 2^n − 1 while the numerator grows only polynomially for fixed c, so R decays exponentially in n. The paper further shows that the bias of the augmented estimator decomposes into the

What carries the argument

The central object is the Richardson-extrapolation weight set {γ_i}, the Lagrange coefficients that map noisy expectation values at amplified noise levels to the zero-noise estimate. CA-ZNE's mechanism is to zero out the sampling contribution of the high-noise nodes by replacing them with deterministic classical estimates, then redistribute the freed shot budget among the remaining quantum nodes; the identity carrying the argument is the variance-reduction ratio R = (Σ_{j<c}|γ_j| / Σ_{i<n}|γ_i|)^2. For linear spacing the weights become binomial coefficients, which turns the calculation of R into a binomial-identity problem and yields the exponential reduction. The companion piece is the bias

Load-bearing premise

The classical estimates at the replaced high-noise nodes must be accurate enough—after being multiplied by the same Richardson weights—that the bias they add does not outweigh the variance they remove; the paper's demonstrations use only modest extrapolation orders and do not analyze how the bias bound scales as the order grows.

What would settle it

Compute the mean-squared error of CA-ZNE versus standard ZNE for a fixed observable as the Richardson order n increases at a fixed classical truncation budget. The coefficient-level formula predicts R ~ (binom(n,c)/(2^n−1))^2, an exponential variance reduction; but if the measured MSE stops improving or worsens because the weighted truncation-bias term Σ_{i≥c} binom(n,i+1) e^{−ν x_i(l+1)} does not decay with n (which it cannot for bounded linear spacing and fixed l), then the practical advantage claimed for large n fails even though the coefficient-level ratio is correct.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For linearly spaced noise levels, CA-ZNE can convert ZNE's exponential sampling overhead into exponential variance reduction at fixed cutoff, making linear spacing competitive with Chebyshev spacings in sampling cost.
  • The coefficient-level variance reduction is circuit-independent and depends only on node spacing and cutoff, so the same formula applies across circuits; circuit dependence enters through the attainable classical bias and cutoff location.
  • CA-ZNE improves MSE only when the weighted classical truncation bias is smaller than the variance it eliminates; increasing the classical truncation budget is the practical lever for reaching this regime.
  • For Chebyshev-type node spacings the variance reduction is more modest but still practically relevant, reaching one to four orders of magnitude for Chebyshev roots at higher orders.
  • The method creates a concrete division of labor: quantum hardware is needed for the low-noise nodes where high-weight Pauli signals remain visible, while high-noise nodes, where such signals are exponentially suppressed, can be delegated to classical simulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A necessary follow-up is a scaling analysis of the bias term: with a fixed classical truncation threshold, the bias contribution weighted by the Richardson coefficients can grow like 2^n for bounded linear spacing, so the exponential variance reduction may not translate to exponential MSE reduction at large n unless the truncation threshold grows with n.
  • The same logic suggests a sharp criterion for when CA-ZNE is useful: observables dominated by low-weight Pauli terms at high noise will be classically simulable there, while observables with significant high-weight contributions will produce large simulation bias; this can be tested by varying the Pauli-weight distribution of the observable.
  • The freed shot budget need not simply reduce variance; it could be redirected to more sophisticated mitigation at the remaining quantum nodes, such as partial probabilistic error cancellation, an extension the paper names as promising.
  • The result also implies that the node spacings optimal for standard ZNE are not necessarily optimal for CA-ZNE; spacing optimization in the augmented setting is a natural extension.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Classically Augmented Zero-Noise Extrapolation (CA-ZNE), in which the high-noise nodes of a Richardson extrapolation are replaced by deterministic classical estimates obtained from truncated Pauli propagation. Under optimal shot allocation and equal per-node variances, the variance of the augmented estimator relative to standard ZNE is shown to be R = (Σ_{j<c}|γ_j| / Σ_{i<n}|γ_i|)^2 (Eq. 13). For linear node spacings the interpolation weights are binomially distributed, so for fixed cutoff c the ratio R decays exponentially in the Richardson order n (Appendix C). The variance-reduction formula is validated numerically on a transverse-field Ising model (analytic R=0.444 versus measured R=0.445) and on a Schwinger-model benchmark, and MSE improvements are demonstrated when the classical truncation bias is small. The paper is careful to call the exponential reduction 'coefficient-level' in the abstract and to warn that the method reallocates variance into classical bias.

Significance. If the end-to-end advantage held, CA-ZNE would be a practically valuable method for reducing the sampling overhead of ZNE, especially for linear node spacings where ordinary ZNE overhead grows exponentially. The derivation of the variance-reduction ratio is clean, the Monte Carlo check is convincing, and the numerical experiments support the coefficient-level claims. The paper also makes a useful conceptual point: node spacings optimized for standard ZNE need not remain optimal when zero-variance classical anchor points are available. The central gap is that the exponential variance reduction is only a coefficient-level statement; the bias bound that controls the actual MSE is not shown to remain small as the Richardson order grows. Because the paper's practical promise depends on this bias-variance tradeoff, the current evidence is not sufficient for the full claim as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III C, Eq. (23); Sec. IV.D] The bias term in Eq. (23) is not analyzed under the linear spacing actually used in the scaling study. For linear nodes on [1,B], the weights satisfy |γ_i| ∝ binom(n-1,i)/(1+h i) (see Appendix C), so Σ_{i=c}^{n-1}|γ_i| grows like 2^n. Since all x_i ≥ 1, the simulation-bias term in Eq. (23) is at most √(d+1)||O||_F e^{-ν_eff(l+1)} Σ_{i=c}^{n-1}|γ_i|, which for fixed truncation threshold l grows exponentially with n. Thus the same Richardson weights that produce the exponential variance reduction also multiply the classical bias, and the paper does not provide a scaling analysis showing how l (or another truncation parameter) must grow with n to keep the squared bias below the variance. The numerical demonstrations use only n=4 or 5 nodes, and Figs. 7 and 8 plot R and Λ² only, not MSE or classical cost. This is load-bearing for the practical claim that CA-ZNE 'can be exponential' as an end
  2. [Sec. IV.A and IV.B; Fig. 5] The numerical truncation is performed with Qiskit's max_terms parameter, which the paper states is not identical to the weight threshold l appearing in Eqs. (22)-(23). The theoretical bound is therefore used only as motivation, and the empirical bias curves in Fig. 5 are not connected quantitatively to the bound. Consequently the required condition 'when the truncation bias is sufficiently small' is not tied to a controllable parameter in a way that would let a user predict when CA-ZNE will improve over ZNE. Please provide either a quantitative mapping from max_terms (or an analogous resource parameter) to the bias bound, or an empirical scaling law that can be used as a cutoff-selection criterion.
  3. [Sec. VI; Sec. V] The conclusion states that 'the classical estimates must become increasingly accurate as more nodes ... are offloaded,' and Sec. V notes that the required Pauli-propagation run-times can be 'impractical despite being formally quasi-polynomial.' These admissions correctly identify the bias-variance-cost tradeoff, but they also highlight that the paper does not quantify it. The abstract's qualifier 'coefficient-level' is appropriate, but the introduction and conclusion present the reduction as a practical advantage ('reduction in sampling overhead can reach several orders of magnitude in favorable regimes'). To support the stronger reading, the paper needs an end-to-end MSE analysis that includes the bias and classical cost as functions of n, c, and the truncation threshold, not only the variance ratio.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract/Title] The spelling is inconsistent: 'Classically Augmented' in the title and abstract but 'Classically-Augmented' in the section heading. Please unify.
  2. [Eq. (7) and surrounding text] The symbol σ_{O,i} is used before being defined; define it explicitly when the per-node variances are introduced.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eq. (23)] In Eq. (23) the bias is written as Bias[\hat f_aug] but the bound is on the absolute expectation; clearer notation would be |E[\hat f_aug]-⟨O⟩_0|. Also define δ_i before Eq. (B3).
  4. [Fig. 6] Figure 6 contains corrupted glyphs (e.g., '/uni00000013...'), suggesting a font-embedding problem. Please regenerate the figure.
  5. [Data availability] The statement 'All data ... available from the author upon reasonable request' is weaker than the reproducibility standard typical for this field. Consider releasing the simulation scripts and data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the variance-reduction ratio is derived algebraically from definitions and independent interpolation-weight identities, validated by Monte Carlo, with all load-bearing bias and simulation bounds imported from external sources.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Equation (13) follows from Eq. (9)'s optimal shot allocation and Eq. (11)'s zero-variance classical-node assumption: with N_i proportional to |γ_i| over the c quantum nodes, the variance is (Σ_{j<c}|γ_j|)^2 σ²/N_shots, so the ratio to standard ZNE is the square of the coefficient-sum ratio. This is a direct algebraic identity, not a fit. Appendix C's exponential scaling uses the standard identity for linear spacing |γ_j| = binom(n, j+1) (Eq. C4), credited to external Ref. [23], and the binomial theorem (C6); the Monte Carlo check (R = 0.445 measured vs 0.444 analytic) is an independent numerical confirmation, not an input to the derivation. The bias bound Eq. (23) and the Pauli-propagation algorithm are imported from external Ref. [30] with stated assumptions, and Appendix A derives the SPL-to-depolarizing bound from definitions. The only self-citation, Ref. [24], appears in a related-work list and is not load-bearing. The paper's own caveats (Secs V and VI: classical estimates must become increasingly accurate; some runtimes may be impractical) flag a practical bias/resource limitation, but they do not make any derived prediction an input. Therefore no circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method relies on design choices (cutoff c, node spacing, truncation budget) and on imported bounds from earlier work (Schuster et al., Mohammadipour & Li). The main unproven ingredient is the scaling of the classical bias with n, which determines whether the exponential variance reduction translates into a practical MSE improvement.

free parameters (3)
  • cutoff index c = 2-3 in experiments; varied in scaling study
    Number of quantum nodes; chosen by user; determines how much weight is offloaded and is central to the variance reduction and bias.
  • Pauli-propagation truncation budget (max_terms / weight cutoff l) = 10^2 to 10^5 retained Pauli terms
    Controls classical bias; in theory l is the weight cutoff, in numerics max_terms; the paper states the two are not identical, so the numerical bias is only empirically related to the theoretical bound.
  • node spacing parameters (step h, interval bound B, Chebyshev x_1) = B=5 in scaling study, [1,3] in Schwinger model, linear step h chosen to cover interval
    Design choices that set the Lagrange weights; not fitted to data but are free choices on which the variance reduction and bias depend.
axioms (8)
  • standard math The noisy expectation-value curve g(x)=⟨O⟩_{λ0 x} is n-times differentiable and the standard polynomial interpolation error formula applies.
    Used in Eq. (B2) to bound extrapolation bias; standard for smooth functions.
  • domain assumption Per-node sampling variances are equal: σ_{O,i}=σ_O.
    Adopted in Sec II to derive optimal shot allocation and closed-form R; the paper explicitly acknowledges this simplifying assumption.
  • domain assumption Sampling estimates across different noise nodes are statistically independent.
    Needed for the variance sum in Eq. (7); standard for independently allocated shot budgets.
  • domain assumption The classical simulator is deterministic with negligible numerical variance, so its only error is the bias δ_i.
    Central to the claim that Var[O_class_i]≈0 in Sec III.
  • domain assumption The classical bias bound of Ref [30] holds: |δ_i| ≤ e^{-ν_i(l+1)}√(d+1)||O||_F in root-mean-square over an ensemble of input states.
    Imported from [30]; not a worst-case guarantee, and the paper notes this limitation.
  • domain assumption The SPL noise model sufficiently approximates the device noise; noise-model mismatch is neglected.
    Acknowledged in Sec III A as a limitation; the numerics use the same noise model in both classical and quantum parts, so mismatch is not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical Pauli-propagation truncation (max_terms) behaves like the weight cutoff l in the theoretical bound.
    The paper states max_terms is not identical to l and uses the bound only as motivation; the numerical bias-vs-budget behavior is interpreted empirically.
  • domain assumption The amplified noise levels remain below the signal-retaining floor of Ref [39].
    CA-ZNE cannot prevent the noise-floor failure; the method assumes nodes are in [1,B] before expectation values collapse.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17883 in / 13563 out tokens · 139768 ms · 2026-08-01T01:34:49.345500+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a hybrid quantum-classical approach to quantum error mitigation. We propose Classically Augmented Zero-Noise Extrapolation, a hybrid error-mitigation method in which high-noise Richardson extrapolation nodes are replaced by classically simulated estimates. These classical nodes have negligible sampling variance but introduce deterministic simulation bias. We derive the resulting variance reduction under optimal shot allocation and show that, for linear node spacings and fixed index cutoff, the coefficient-level reduction can be exponential. We validate the prediction numerically using Pauli-propagation simulations and demonstrate a reduction in mean-squared error when the truncation bias is sufficiently small.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25746 by Timon Scheiber.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic of CA-ZNE. Standard ZNE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Illustration of the crossover condition between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Graphical representation of the three node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Obtained histogram by performing 15 000 runs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Convergence of CA-ZNE with the Pauli-truncation budget for the transverse-field Ising model. The x-axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Time dynamics of the particle number of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Variance-reduction factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Sampling overhead Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Distribution of the interpolation weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Same data as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The SPL channel is diagonal in the Pauli basis, so each Pauli operatorPis an eigenoperator ofNwith eigenvalue (cf

    Interaction with SPL noise Pauli propagation is particularly well suited for simu- lating the SPL noise model because of its simple action on Pauli observables. The SPL channel is diagonal in the Pauli basis, so each Pauli operatorPis an eigenoperator ofNwith eigenvalue (cf. Eq. (18)) N(P) =e −2 P k∈K λk⟨P,Pk⟩ P,(30) where⟨P, P k⟩denotes the symplectic in...

  2. [2]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Chemical Reviews120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Babbush, R

    R. Babbush, R. King, S. Boixo, W. Huggins, T. Khattar, G. H. Low, J. R. McClean, T. O’Brien, and N. C. Rubin, PRX Quantum7, 020101 (2026)

    2026

  4. [4]

    Santagati, A

    R. Santagati, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Babbush, M. Deg- roote, L. Gonz´ alez, E. Kyoseva, N. Moll, M. Oppel, R. M. Parrish, N. C. Rubin,et al., Nature Physics20, 549 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides,et al., Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. Mandr` a, A. Bengts- son, P. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Erickson, I. Droz- dov,et al., Nature634, 328 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kan´ asz-Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Nature545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme,et al., Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Tindall, M

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, PRX Quantum5, 010308 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    M. S. Rudolph, E. Fontana, Z. Holmes, and L. Cincio, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09109 (2023), 10.48550/arXiv.2308.09109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.09109 2023

  11. [11]

    Yamamoto, Y

    K. Yamamoto, Y. Kikuchi, D. Amaro, B. Criger, S. Dilkes, C. Ryan-Anderson, A. Tranter, J. M. Dreil- ing, D. Gresh, C. Foltz,et al., PRX Quantum7, 020319 (2026)

    2026

  12. [12]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical review letters119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Van Den Berg, Z

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Nature physics19, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Czarnik, A

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, Quantum5, 592 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    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, Physical Review X11, 041036 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Koczor, Physical Review X11, 031057 (2021)

    B. Koczor, Physical Review X11, 031057 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. X8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review X7, 021050 12 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, in2020 IEEE international conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE)(IEEE,

  22. [22]

    Majumdar, P

    R. Majumdar, P. Rivero, F. Metz, A. Hasan, and D. S. Wang, in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quan- tum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1 (IEEE,

  23. [23]

    A. He, B. Nachman, W. A. de Jong, and C. W. Bauer, Physical Review A102, 012426 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    Mohammadipour and X

    P. Mohammadipour and X. Li, Quantum9, 1909 (2025)

    1909

  25. [25]

    Scheiber, P

    T. Scheiber, P. Haubenwallner, and M. Heller, Quantum 9, 1840 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Filippov, M

    S. Filippov, M. Leahy, M. A. Rossi, and G. Garc ´ ıa- P´ erez, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11740 (2023), 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11740

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.11740 2023

  27. [27]

    Majumder, J

    S. Majumder, J. Garrison, L. Luo, B. Mitchell, M. Amico, A. Seif, M. Tran, K. Sharma, E. Berg, Z. Minev,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14485 (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2603.14485

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.14485 2026

  28. [28]

    Krebsbach, B

    M. Krebsbach, B. Trauzettel, and A. Calzona, Physical Review A106, 062436 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Cai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05389 (2021), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.05389

    Z. Cai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05389 (2021), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.05389

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.05389 2021

  30. [30]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. A. Mele, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, PRX Quantum7, 020313 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, Physical Review X15, 041018 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Malekakhlagh, A

    M. Malekakhlagh, A. Seif, D. Puzzuoli, L. C. Govia, and E. van den Berg, npj Quantum Information11, 191 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Better Pauli Channel Learning with Maximum Likelihood Estimation

    D. Belkin, F. Alam, M. Thibodeau, A. Seif, E. v. d. Berg, and B. K. Clark, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04096 (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2606.04096

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.04096 2026

  34. [34]

    P. W. Shor, inProceedings of 37th conference on founda- tions of computer science(IEEE, 1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  35. [35]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, inProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(ACM, 1997) pp. 176–188

    1997

  36. [36]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, inProceedings of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, 1996) pp. 46–55

    1996

  37. [37]

    Pauli prop,

    Qiskit Addons Team, “Pauli prop,”https://github. com/Qiskit/pauli-prop(2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y. Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21606

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.21606 2025

  39. [39]

    LaRose, A

    R. LaRose, A. Mari, S. Kaiser, P. J. Karalekas, A. A. Alves, P. Czarnik, M. E. Mandouh, M. H. Gordon, Y. Hindy, A. Robertson, P. Thakre, M. Wahl, D. Samuel, R. Mistri, M. Tremblay, N. Gardner, N. T. Stemen, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Quantum6, 774 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Benchmarking Error Mitigation: Artefactual Improvements in Zero-Noise Extrapolation

    D. K¨ oster and W. Mauerer, (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2607.09360, arXiv:2607.09360 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.09360 2026

  41. [41]

    Y. Kim, C. J. Wood, T. J. Yoder, S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature Physics 19, 752 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    P. G. Hoel and A. Levine, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics35, 1553 (1964)

    1964

  43. [43]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller,et al., Nature534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    R. R. Ferguson, L. Dellantonio, A. A. Balushi, K. Jansen, W. D¨ ur, and C. A. Muschik, Physical review letters126, 220501 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Cai, npj Quantum Information7, 80 (2021)

    Z. Cai, npj Quantum Information7, 80 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Zen- trum f¨ ur Angewandtes Quantencomputing

    A. Mari, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Physical Review A104, 052607 (2021). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the research project “Zen- trum f¨ ur Angewandtes Quantencomputing” (ZAQC), funded by the Hessian Ministry for Digital Strategy and Innovation and the Hessian Ministry of Higher Educa- tion, Research and the Arts. The author would like to ...

    2021