Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Claim against Measurement: Statistical Artefacts in Quantum Error Mitigation Benchmarks

Dominik Köster, Wolfgang Mauerer

Published Jul 24, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This repository contains all scripts, data, and plotting code to reproduce the experiments and figures presented in the paper: Claim against Measurement: Statistical Artefacts in Quantum Error Mitigation Benchmarks (QCE 2026)
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.21538273

Related papers

Benchmarking Error Mitigation: Artefactual Improvements in Zero-Noise Extrapolation

Dominik Köster, Wolfgang Mauerer

This repository contains all scripts, data, and plotting code to reproduce the experiments and figures presented in the paper: Benchmarking Error Mitigation: Artefactual Improvements in Zero-Noise Extrapolation (QuBench 2026 @ QCE 2026)

•Jul 24, 2026•0 citations

Works on My QPU: Reproducibility in Quantum Computing Research

Dominik Köster, Maja Franz, Benjamin Zec +3 more

This repository contains all scripts, data, and plotting code to reproduce the experiments and figures presented in the paper: Works on My QPU: Reproducibility in Quantum Computing Research (QCE 2026)

•Jul 24, 2026•0 citations

Reliable high-accuracy error mitigation for utility-scale quantum circuits

Qedma quantum computing

The python scripts load the data from the json files and plot them as they are pressented in the manuscript

•Apr 11, 2026•0 citations

Data repository of the paper "Exponential quantum advantage for learning signals with a single qubit"

Ishaan Kannan, Sridhar Prabhu, Saeed A. Khan +7 more

This data repository contains the information necessary to reproduce the main results of the paper “Exponential quantum advantage for learning signals with a single qubit”. The repository contains both the data required to generate the figures of the main manuscript and the supplemental material, as well as source code for running the experiments and simulations presented in the paper. There are two main folders: experiment_code (which contains all experimental scripts to calibrate device and run the protocols presented in the paper) and simulation_code (which contains simulation details of the dark matter and communication detection tasks) The data folder contains experimental raw and processed data generated. The figures folder contains all the plots presented in the manuscript.

•Aug 12, 2026•0 citations

Claim against Measurement: Statistical Artefacts in Quantum Error Mitigation Benchmarks

Dominik Köster, Wolfgang Mauerer

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.

quant-pharXiv:2605.29872•May 29, 2026•0 citations

Graphical structures for design and verification of quantum error correction

Nicholas Chancellor, A Kissinger, S Zohren +2 more

•Sep 22, 2023•0 citations
This data repository contains the information necessary to reproduce the main results of the paper “Exponential quantum advantage for learning signals with a single qubit”. The repository contains both the data required to generate the figures of the main manuscript and the supplemental material, as well as source code for running the experiments and simulations presented in the paper. There are two main folders: experiment_code (which contains all experimental scripts to calibrate device and run the protocols presented in the paper) and simulation_code (which contains simulation details of the dark matter and communication detection tasks) The data folder contains experimental raw and processed data generated. The figures folder contains all the plots presented in the manuscript.
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.