Quantum error mitigation estimates expectation values that are often used to select or rank candidates. We study how estimation accuracy, decision risk and sampling cost are related in these tasks. The joint law of residual differences determines the risk of a shift-invariant decision; in Gaussian regimes, effective margins and their covariance provide a computable representation. This connects mitigation maps, shared measurement records and shot allocation, and yields an extrapolation design criterion under certified margins.
Finite-shot QAOA-MaxCut controls illustrate two forms of this relationship: a positive affine CDR correction reduces mean-squared error while preserving rankings, whereas signed PEC sampling reduces mean-squared error and increases selection failures at equal evaluation cost. A retrospective, oracle-assisted study of 48 landscapes compares Gaussian-risk and MSE-based method selection using separate fitting, selection and evaluation samples. At the primary total shot budget, with learning amortized over 20 decisions per landscape, failure rates are $0.3083$ for Gaussian-risk selection, $0.4719$ for MSE selection and $0.2333$ for unmitigated estimation. These comparisons describe how uncertainty in candidate differences and the allocation of measurements between learning and evaluation jointly enter the assessment of mitigation.
Quantum error mitigation estimates expectation values that are often used to select or rank candidates. We study how estimation accuracy, decision risk and sampling cost are related in these tasks. The joint law of residual differences determines the risk of a shift-invariant decision; in Gaussian regimes, effective margins and their covariance provide a computable representation. This connects mitigation maps, shared measurement records and shot allocation, and yields an extrapolation design criterion under certified margins.
Finite-shot QAOA-MaxCut controls illustrate two forms of this relationship: a positive affine CDR correction reduces mean-squared error while preserving rankings, whereas signed PEC sampling reduces mean-squared error and increases selection failures at equal evaluation cost. A retrospective, oracle-assisted study of 48 landscapes compares Gaussian-risk and MSE-based method selection using separate fitting, selection and evaluation samples. At the primary total shot budget, with learning amortized over 20 decisions per landscape, failure rates are 0.3083 for Gaussian-risk selection, 0.4719 for MSE selection and 0.2333 for unmitigated estimation. These comparisons describe how uncertainty in candidate differences and the allocation of measurements between learning and evaluation jointly enter the assessment of mitigation.
Zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) is usually validated by the accuracy of mitigated observables, yet variational quantum optimization uses those observables to select parameters. We ask whether, and by how much, an accuracy gain from ZNE coincides with a worse decision. In depth-one simulations of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) for MaxCut on four to six qubits, each sampled 120×120 landscape yields both its mean-squared error (MSE) and the ideal regret of its selected grid minimum, comparing Richardson orders one to three with unmitigated estimation at the same total shot budget per grid point. In an exploratory screen of 675 conditions, whose per-point random seeds collide, a familywise (Holm) analysis retains only four of 540 replication conditions as showing both directional MSE improvement and regret increase. A frozen confirmation with 100 fresh paired repetitions per condition reproduces all four: median MSE improvements of 7.65-73.09% accompany median normalized regret increases of only 0.0031-0.0073. We distinguish a bias route, in which residual bias reorders the mean landscape, from a variance route, in which Richardson weights amplify finite-shot noise. Exact first and second moments on a bounded control grid find no bias-route reversal: mitigated mean landscapes preserve the ideal minima, and ZNE can more than halve expected MSE, yet finite-shot selections incur higher mean regret. Decision losses that survive strict testing are few and small in this benchmark, but reproducible and not revealed by aggregate MSE. We present a paired benchmark and recommend reporting decision regret alongside estimation error when mitigation is assessed for optimization. Results concern simulated exhaustive grids, not hardware or optimizer loops.
Error mitigation is expected to turn noisy quantum measurements into more useful estimates. We show that it can instead amplify error. Under control-offset miscalibration, the evaluated unconstrained zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) estimators are worse than no mitigation on 38-63% of simulated instances and produce extreme tail errors. A small IBM Heron study finds worsening on 80-88% of 18 instances across two depths, with mean error 3.0-4.1 times the raw error. In simulation, the median changes little, so median-only monitoring misses the failures. We then compare methods at the same online shot budget per evaluation and report offline training cost separately. After that cost is amortized, a budget-conditioned neural corrector occupies the low-budget end of the simulated accuracy-cost frontier and falls back to the raw estimate when an ensemble disagrees; its hardware transfer remains unsuccessful. Finally, we treat provider-reported calibration as an input that is not bound to the execution-time device state. A white-box projected-gradient stress test on this metadata increases the corrector's error 8.1 times within the feature ranges used for training and evades the disagreement monitor on half of the worsened cases. Together, the results connect budget-aware evaluation, tail risk, and calibration integrity in near-term quantum learning pipelines.
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.
We experimentally study error mitigation and finite-shot sampling on superconducting quantum hardware under a constrained execution budget. The study combines calibration-aware qubit selection, circuit-depth scaling, zero-noise extrapolation, dynamical decoupling, readout-error mitigation, and repeated-shot estimation on an IBM Quantum processor. Experiments are organized across ideal simulation, noise-model simulation, and physical-device execution to separate sampling uncertainty from device-induced error. We investigate how mitigation performance changes with circuit depth, effective noise scale, qubit connectivity, and measurement budget, and quantify accuracy using expectation-value error, mean-squared error, statistical uncertainty, and mitigation gain. A fixed hardware-execution budget is used to evaluate shot allocation strategies and repeated measurements without relying on unlimited sampling. The resulting analysis provides a hardware-aware characterization of when mitigation improves expectation-value estimation and when finite-shot fluctuations offset the benefit of additional mitigation overhead. The implementation uses contemporary Qiskit and IBM Quantum Runtime workflows and is designed to provide reproducible experimental evidence for error-mitigation studies on current quantum processors.
Zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) reduces the bias of noisy quantum-circuit measurements, but Richardson coefficients and shot splitting increase their statistical error. This paper determines the noise strength at which Richardson ZNE starts to lower the mean-squared error relative to the unmitigated estimator at a fixed shot budget B. The boundary is set by the balance between the leading squared-bias improvement and the leading excess-variance penalty: depending on the variance exponent of the measurement, it shrinks with B, becomes a budget threshold, or disappears. For fixed Richardson extrapolation with linear leading bias, the Richardson order and the shot allocation change only constants; the boundary exponent is set by the measured observable and protocol. Deterministic stabilizer measurements and nonzero-variance Hamiltonian or variational-energy measurements have boundaries that shrink as B−1 and B−1/2, and for finite-outcome shot measurements these two classes are the only ones. Qiskit Aer simulations of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) circuits reproduce this separation, and on IBM Quantum hardware ZNE lowers the mean-squared error at equal budget in 75 of 101 instances.
How much does the noisy measurement add to learned quantum error mitigation? An accuracy table cannot say, because a model handed circuit structure can score well without reading the measurement at all. QEMScore adds the comparison that can. Each simulated circuit carries an exact ideal answer. The learned mitigator is scored beside a capacity-matched control, a model just as flexible that reads the same circuit description but never the measurement. Each method's measurement spend is accounted and not equalized. We run a controlled campaign on simulated circuits and reanalyze two published learned mitigators, Q-LEAR and QRAFT, from their released hardware data. Three findings stand out. First, under familiar within-family conditions (S0) evaluated across two spin-chain families and three seeds, continuous couplings identify the target, and the control that never reads the measurement matches 87.7 to 100.5 percent of the mitigator's gain over an affine fit to the circuit description. A plain polynomial in the coupling parameters, fitted after the campaign, beats the mitigator on all six evaluations, reflecting the selected learners' capacity. Second, for these selected learners, matching most of the gain is not matching the accuracy: on five of six evaluations the mitigator removes 19.5 to 74.5 percent of the error the capacity-matched control leaves, a learner-specific gap rather than a measurement requirement. Third, on released hardware data where descriptors only partially identify queries, the findings differ: flexible models of the descriptors show negligible mean gain over affine fits in Q-LEAR, and measurement inputs carry predictive gains in both Q-LEAR and QRAFT. These comparisons reflect representation- and protocol-specific behavior rather than an isolated cross-regime difference. A learned mitigator's accuracy should therefore be reported beside such controls.