QEM is widely regarded as a plausible bridge from NISQ devices to FTQC. Yet the empirical studies used to assess the effectiveness of QEM techniques on concrete problems have received comparatively little scrutiny with respect to the validity of their conclusions. We systematically review 81 recent QEM papers using an eight-criterion framework covering statistical rigour, reproducibility, and reporting quality. Among the applicable papers, only 15 (25%) use inferential methods, while 25 (42%) report uncertainty only descriptively, without testing whether the claimed effects are statistically supported. To demonstrate the consequences of these omissions, we use ZNE as a representative and widely used case study and identify two compounding sources of artefacts in current QEM benchmarks. First, we observe parameter sensitivity: in a 132-configuration sweep, implicitly assumed choices such as scale factors, extrapolation method, and hardware calibration are not merely incidental but active, with variations changing conclusions from statistically significant improvement to statistically significant degradation. Second, we identify a drift-induced effectiveness illusion: in a 72-hour longitudinal study on real hardware, temporal drift alone can make the same ZNE configuration exhibit an effect size more than three times as large, depending solely on when it is executed, and also drastically reduces the effective number of independent observations. These findings do not imply that QEM methods are intrinsically unsound; rather, they show that current evaluation practice can make mitigation performance appear more robust than the evidence warrants. We therefore propose minimum reporting standards for QEM evaluations, including explicit parameter documentation, robustness checks, longitudinal drift assessment, and inferential statistical testing with effect-size reporting.
Comments
10 pages excluding references, 8 Figures, 3 Tables, Accepted for publication at IEEE Quantum Week (QCE) 2026
QEM is widely regarded as a plausible bridge from NISQ devices to FTQC. Yet the empirical studies used to assess the effectiveness of QEM techniques on concrete problems have received comparatively little scrutiny with respect to the validity of their conclusions. We systematically review 81 recent QEM papers using an eight-criterion framework covering statistical rigour, reproducibility, and reporting quality. Among the applicable papers, only 15 (25%) use inferential methods, while 25 (42%) report uncertainty only descriptively, without testing whether the claimed effects are statistically supported. To demonstrate the consequences of these omissions, we use ZNE as a representative and widely used case study and identify two compounding sources of artefacts in current QEM benchmarks. First, we observe parameter sensitivity: in a 132-configuration sweep, implicitly assumed choices such as scale factors, extrapolation method, and hardware calibration are not merely incidental but active, with variations changing conclusions from statistically significant improvement to statistically significant degradation. Second, we identify a drift-induced effectiveness illusion: in a 72-hour longitudinal study on real hardware, temporal drift alone can make the same ZNE configuration exhibit an effect size more than three times as large, depending solely on when it is executed, and also drastically reduces the effective number of independent observations. These findings do not imply that QEM methods are intrinsically unsound; rather, they show that current evaluation practice can make mitigation performance appear more robust than the evidence warrants. We therefore propose minimum reporting standards for QEM evaluations, including explicit parameter documentation, robustness checks, longitudinal drift assessment, and inferential statistical testing with effect-size reporting.
Reliable benchmarking of Quantum Error Mitigation (QEM) requires distinguishing genuine improvements from artefacts of the post-processing arithmetic. In this paper, we expose a failure mode in Richardson Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE), a widely used technique routinely (and often implicitly) relied upon in benchmarks and experiments. When noise amplification operates beyond usable signals - a regime that is quickly reached on current hardware for non-trivial circuits - we show that the extrapolation no longer reflects the underlying physics, but collapses into a fixed rescaling of a single noisy measurement, producing a bogus apparent improvement that is independent of noise amplification. This poses a rarely considered threat to the validity of many empirical evaluations in quantum computing.
Measurements on real hardware (IQM Euro-Q-Exa) confirm this collapse with ordinary folding alone: as circuit depth erodes the signal, the reported estimate decouples from the truth and overshoots the ideal by up to 21%. We further introduce a matched-cost "garbage-folding" negative control that carries no usable signal yet reports a larger apparent improvement than genuine folding - showing that the magnitude of an improvement is not evidence of its correctness - alongside a zero-cost check flagging the artefact from data a benchmark already holds. We distil both into a short reporting checklist for ZNE benchmarks.
We present a simple, malleable and low-overhead approach for improving generic biased quantum error mitigation (QEM) methods, achieving up to 15% fidelity improvements over standard QEM on 100-qubit circuits with up to 2000 entangling gates. We do so by constructing verifiable benchmark circuits which mirror the application circuit's native-gate structure and thus noise profile. These circuits can be used to benchmark and mitigate the bias of the underlying error mitigation method, requiring only the application circuit and hardware native gate set. We present two methods for generating benchmark circuits; one is agnostic to the target hardware at the expense of a small overhead of single-qubit gates, while the other is specific to the IBM superconducting hardware and has no gate overhead. As a corollary, we introduce benchmarked-noise zero-noise extrapolation (bnZNE) as a simple adaptation of zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE), one of the most popular error mitigation methods. We consider as an example the bias-mitigated ZNE and bnZNE of Trotterized Hamiltonian simulations, observing that our approaches outperform standard ZNE using both small-scale classical simulations and 100-qubit utility-scale experiments on the IBM superconducting hardware. We consider the measurement of both single-site observables as well as two-site correlations along a one-dimensional qubit chain. We also provide a software package for implementing the error mitigation techniques used in this research.
Abstract Quantum computing has recently emerged as a novel paradigm for solving problems otherwise intractable on classical computers, yet the practical progress of quantum computers is severely impacted by noise, decoherence, and imperfect gate operations in Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices. Specific to IBM Quantum hardware, imperfections due to readout error, gate errors, and device drift, which depends on time, resolves limits for the accuracy of outputs from our algorithms. The mitigation strategies currently used, for example, Measurement Error Mitigation (MEM), Zero Noise Extrapolation (ZNE), and Clifford Data Regression (CDR), offer improvement over raw, unmitigated outputs, but they are static and not dynamic; the reduction of noise in within an NISQ device is temporal and can vary in patterns that are non-zero. In addition to this, using the conventional methods provides inconsistent and suboptimal results.This study will provide enhanced reliability with respect to performing quantum computation on IBM Quantum hardware with a unique mitigation framework that is adaptive and computationally efficient for a high-fidelity output. The problem taken on here is the failure of existing error mitigation strategies to provide adaptive noise compensation, as they assume a statically-distributed error, despite the performance-related characteristics already being documented in regards to calibration drift and variation over time.To achieve this, we propose a Hybrid Adaptive Error Mitigation (HAEM) approach that includes baseline measurement error mitigation and an additional correction layer that utilizes realtime calibration information, along with lightweight machine learning models. The approach can be broken down into three steps: (i) perform standard measurement error mitigation to reduce classical readout noise, (ii) execute compact calibration circuits, such as Bell states, GHZ states and Clifford benchmarks to capture then current error profile of the device, and (iii) use a lightweight machine learning model (having been trained on historical and newest calibration data) to dynamically change the mitigation weights applied for the target quantum algorithm. All implementation is done using Qiskit Runtime to ensure low-latency execution, and we completed experiments on both Qiskit Aer noisy simulators and IBM Quantum devices.Initial results suggest HAEM improved the outputs of quantum algorithms' fidelity compared to the unmitigated runs and the baseline measurement error mitigation (MEM) runs. On the noisy simulators, HAEM increased fidelity from a raw performance of 0.65 to 0.87, nearly a 34% improvement. In fairer hardware-like scenarios, fidelity-on-average was persistently 12% better than MEM, with nearly equal time duration for the additional adaptive measurements. The adaptive aspect of HAEM consistently supported subsequent calibration cycles of the device and was effective to continue providing fidelity improvements despite the static mitigation performance degrading.To sum up, the proposed HAEM framework is a modern and viable alternative for error mitigation which brings together the benefits of baseline approaches with corrections that are driven by fixed-function error-corrective, adaptive learning. As both learning-based and standard baseline approaches can only achieve fixed levels of performance, HAEM, through its use of noise mitigation both at execution time and through correlating it with standard data, provides a route towards reliable quantum computations on current IBM hardware. HAEM also presents a contribution to the NISQ error-resilient landscape, and however it is intended that it will continue to improve future applications of hybrid workflows of quantum and classical computation where error mitigation and resilience is important.
Quantum error mitigation (QEM) and quantum error correction (QEC) are two research areas that are often considered as distinct entities, and the problem of combining the two approaches in a non-trivial way has only recently started to be explored. In this paper, we explore a paradigm at the intersection of the two, based on the error mitigation technique of Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE), that uses the distance of an error correcting code as a noise parameter. This is distinct from some alternative approaches, as QEC is here used as a subroutine inside the QEM framework, while other proposals use QEM as a subroutine inside QEC experiments. Intuitively, we exploit the fact that a reduction in the physical noise level is analogous to an increase in the code distance, as both of them result in a decrease in the logical error rate. As such, the extrapolation to zero noise in the case of ZNE becomes comparable to the extrapolation to infinite distance in the case of this method. We describe how to calculate expectation values from a fault-tolerant computation, and we gain some analytical intuition for our ansatz choice. We explore the performance of the considered method to reduce the errors in a range of expectation values for a realistic circuit-level noise model and realistic device imperfections on the rotated surface code, and we particularly show that the performance of the method holds even in the case of non-stabiliser input states.
Quantum error mitigation (QEM) bridges the gap between today's noisy NISQ hardware and fault-tolerant quantum computing by reducing the effect of hardware errors on expectation value estimates without the qubit overhead of full quantum error correction. This paper proposes the Quantum Error Mitigation Design (QEMD) framework, a systematic evaluation of six QEM techniques across four circuit families on IBM Quantum Eagle and IonQ Forte: Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE), Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC), Clifford Data Regression (CDR), Symmetry Verification (SV), Dynamical Decoupling (DD), and a novel Adaptive Ensemble Mitigation (AEM) combining ZNE and CDR with context-aware technique selection. QEMD finds: ZNE 3-point Richardson provides the best cost-performance trade-off for QAOA and VQE circuits (4.8x overhead, 28.4pp error reduction); PEC provides the highest accuracy but at 48x shot overhead -- practical only for n <= 12; DD reduces coherence-limited errors by 18.4% on IonQ Forte at zero shot overhead; AEM outperforms all individual techniques by 6.4pp at 8.4x overhead. QEMD provides a decision guide mapping circuit type, qubit count, and shot budget to optimal QEM technique selection.
In the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era, quantum error mitigation will be a necessary tool to extract useful performance out of quantum devices. However, there is a big gap between the noise models often assumed by error mitigation techniques and the actual noise on quantum devices. As a consequence, there arises a gap between the theoretical expectations of the techniques and their everyday performance. Cloud users of quantum devices in particular, who often take the devices as they are, feel this gap the most. How should they parametrize their uncertainty in the usefulness of these techniques and be able to make judgement calls between resources required to implement error mitigation and the accuracy required at the algorithmic level? To answer the first question, we introduce hypothesis testing within the framework of quantum error mitigation and for the second question, we propose an inclusive figure of merit that accounts for both resource requirement and mitigation efficiency of an error mitigation implementation. The figure of merit is useful to weigh the trade-offs between the scalability and accuracy of various error mitigation methods. Finally, using the hypothesis testing and the figure of merit, we experimentally evaluate 16 error mitigation pipelines composed of singular methods such as zero noise extrapolation, randomized compilation, measurement error mitigation, dynamical decoupling, and mitigation with estimation circuits. In total our data involved running 275,640 circuits on two IBM quantum computers.