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.
Comments
Accepted for a 5-minute short oral presentation at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Secure and Trustworthy Quantum Machine Learning (SaTQuML). Revised public author version
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.
Abstract Variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) are limited by device noise, and error mitigation is the standard remedy on near-term hardware. Choosing a mitigation method for deployment requires comparing its true cost, yet the usual comparison hides it: it fixes the number of shots per circuit execution, while the methods differ sharply in how many executions they need per estimate. Zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) needs three to five, Clifford data regression (CDR) more than thirty per target circuit, and a trained neural model exactly one; ZNE's accuracy further rests on a noise-scaling assumption that real devices violate. Inside a variational loop that evaluates thousands of parameter settings, it is this execution multiplicity, not the accuracy at unlimited shots, that decides which method is affordable. Our premise is that the comparison that matters is at equal total shot budget per evaluation point. We present budget-conditioned neural error mitigation (NEM): one network corrects a single shot-limited measurement from circuit and device features, conditioned on the shot-noise scale so that one model serves every budget. We evaluate every method—including each ZNE fold point and each CDR training circuit—under a protocol that spends the same total shots per evaluation point. Under it, NEM is the most accurate method at every budget under coherent miscalibration (reducing error by 72–81%), and the only method that beats unmitigated execution at budgets up to 2^14 shots under stochastic device noise (11–20%); under miscalibration CDR is also positive but overtakes NEM only at 2^16 shots, at 32x the per-evaluation cost. We further characterize when extrapolation fails: under control-offset miscalibration, folding ZNE returns a worse answer than no mitigation on 38–63% of instances in simulation, and on up to 88% on a real IBM Heron processor. On that processor, fine-tuning the model on a small on-device set—120 circuits with classically computed labels—narrows the simulation-to-hardware gap, recovering a 39% error reduction on held-out device instances from the same calibration epoch. Improvements hold from 4 to 20 qubits. Budget-aware accounting, we argue, is the comparison that matters for deployment.
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.
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.
Variational Quantum Eigensolvers (VQE) promise molecular ground-state energies on today's noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) processors, but device noise biases the estimated energy severely — under a device-calibrated noise model, the hydrogen molecule's energy error grows from 0.000 mHa (noiseless) to 303.6 mHa (noisy), roughly 190× the "chemical accuracy" threshold of 1.6 mHa that computational chemistry requires. Error-mitigation techniques repair such biases in software, but published results usually report each technique in isolation, making it impossible to know which mitigation to buy with a fixed shot budget. This work answers that question with a controlled comparison. Under identical circuits, noise profiles and shot budgets, I measure the bias and variance of four estimator stacks — raw sampling, twirled-readout extinction (TREX-style calibrated readout inversion), zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE), and ZNE+TREX — across independent random seeds. Three findings emerge. (1) ZNE is a bias–variance tradeoff, not a free lunch: a 7-point Richardson extrapolant reduces the deterministic bias 3200-fold (303.6 → 0.094 mHa) but amplifies statistical noise by a measured factor of up to 25× per run, while TREX removes readout bias with no variance penalty. (2) ZNE has a finite operating window in circuit depth: error recovery falls 99.97% → 99.1% → 95.5% as CX count grows 56 → 112 → 168, and is exhausted entirely for a 1616-CX lithium-hydride circuit at near-term error rates. (3) A noise-bias-tailored repetition code corrects the dominant error axis with logical error rates matching theory (3p², 10p³, 35p⁴ for distances 3, 5, 7) at strictly linear gate overhead (gates = 6d − 6). The results reframe mitigation selection as budget allocation on an empirically measured bias–variance frontier and provide open-source tooling to reproduce every number.
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.
Error mitigation is essential for unlocking the full potential of quantum algorithms and accelerating the timeline toward quantum advantage. As quantum hardware progresses to push the boundaries of classical simulation, efficient and robust error mitigation methods are becoming increasingly important for producing accurate and reliable outputs. However, existing error-mitigation approaches face a fundamental tradeoff between practical performance and reliability: heuristic methods such as zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) enjoy faster runtime but lack accuracy guarantees, while rigorous techniques such as probabilistic error cancellation (PEC) provide unbiased estimates at prohibitive computational cost. We introduce a characterization-based, rigorously-grounded quantum error mitigation and error suppression framework (QESEM) that resolves this tradeoff by leveraging the accuracy guarantees of quasi-probabilistic mitigation with dramatically reduced overhead. We explain the innovative methods underlying QESEM and demonstrate its capabilities in the largest utility-scale error mitigation experiment based on an unbiased method. This experiment simulates the kicked transverse field Ising model with far-from-Clifford parameters on an IBM Heron device. We further validate QESEM's versatility across arbitrary quantum circuits and devices through high-accuracy error-mitigated molecular VQE circuits executed on IBM Heron and IonQ trapped-ion devices. Compared with multiple variants of the widely used zero-noise extrapolation method, QESEM consistently achieves higher accuracy while avoiding the prohibitive runtime overhead associated with PEC. These results mark a significant step forward in accuracy and reliability for running quantum circuits on current devices across diverse applications. Finally, we provide projections of QESEM's performance on near-term devices toward quantum advantage.