arxiv: 2605.05256 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Error Mitigation in Dynamic Circuits for Hamiltonian Simulation

Siyuan Niu, Sumeet Shirgure

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords dynamic quantum circuitserror mitigationdynamical decouplingzero-noise extrapolationHamiltonian simulationmid-circuit measurementsIsing modelHeisenberg model

0 comments

The pith

Combining dynamical decoupling and zero-noise extrapolation mitigates errors from mid-circuit measurements in dynamic circuits, improving ground state estimation fidelity by at least 60 percent.

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

Dynamic quantum circuits use mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations to cut resource requirements in algorithms such as Hamiltonian simulation, yet these features add new error sources from faulty measurements and decoherence during idle periods. The paper tests whether dynamical decoupling can suppress decoherence and crosstalk in those idle windows while zero-noise extrapolation handles the remaining measurement and gate errors. Experiments on IBM hardware for the Ising and Heisenberg models show the combined method restores substantial performance. This matters because dynamic circuits are building blocks for scalable protocols like quantum error correction, where unmitigated errors would erase their resource-saving advantages.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that a combination of dynamical decoupling and zero-noise extrapolation effectively mitigates the errors introduced during mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations, as well as the errors arising from faulty measurements. This approach yields a fidelity improvement of at least 60% in ground state estimation and reduces observed error of time-evolved states by up to 99% for the Ising model and up to 20% for the Heisenberg model, as verified through experiments on IBM quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The synergistic use of dynamical decoupling to suppress decoherence during idle windows from mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward delays, paired with zero-noise extrapolation to extrapolate away residual measurement and other errors.

If this is right

Ground-state estimation of the Heisenberg model achieves at least 60 percent higher fidelity with the combined mitigation.
Time-evolved states of the Ising model exhibit error reductions of up to 99 percent.
Time-evolved states of the Heisenberg model exhibit error reductions of up to 20 percent.
Dynamic circuits become practically usable for Hamiltonian simulation tasks despite hardware noise in mid-circuit operations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar mitigation strategies could extend the viability of dynamic circuits to quantum error correction protocols that depend on frequent mid-circuit measurements.
Applying the same techniques to larger qubit counts or different physical models would test whether the error reductions scale beyond the studied cases.
Conditional logic operations in other dynamic circuit algorithms might benefit from analogous idle-time protection and extrapolation methods.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative improvements observed on the specific IBM hardware and for the chosen Ising and Heisenberg instances will generalize to other dynamic-circuit applications and remain stable under different noise profiles or larger system sizes.

What would settle it

Repeating the dynamic-circuit Hamiltonian simulations and ground-state estimations on a different quantum hardware platform using the same DD plus ZNE combination and finding no comparable fidelity gains or error reductions would falsify the claimed effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05256 by Siyuan Niu, Sumeet Shirgure.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (a) Hardware efficient ansatz with two entangling layers. Each Pauli rotation has a dedicated parameter view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Inverse of the entangler needed in the Hardware view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: 3(a) A "brickwork" circuit for a Trotter step in Heisenberg Hamiltonian simulation. The structure for the Ising view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Percentage improvements in energy gap for Heisenberg model ground state estimation. view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Percentage improvements in energy gap for Ising model ground state estimation. view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Percentage improvements in the energy difference after time evolution for Heisenberg model 6(a) and Ising model 6(b). view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Dynamic quantum circuits integrate mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations to enable real-time classical processing and conditional quantum logic. These capabilities are central to key quantum protocols such as quantum error correction, and have recently demonstrated significant potential for reducing quantum resources, including circuit depth and gate count, across a range of applications. However, executing dynamic circuits on real quantum hardware introduces a critical trade-off: while resource requirements decrease, circuit fidelity degrades due to high error rates of mid-circuit measurements, as well as the decoherence errors accumulated during the extended idle periods introduced by both mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations. In this paper, we systematically investigate the impact of standard error mitigation techniques on dynamic circuit applications pertaining to Hamiltonian simulation and ground state estimation of physically relevant systems like the Heisenberg model. We explore dynamical decoupling (DD) as a strategy to suppress decoherence and crosstalk errors during idle windows introduced by mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward delays, and also examine error mitigation via zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE). Through experiments conducted on IBM quantum hardware, we benchmark effective combinations of these strategies that maximize the practical benefits of dynamic quantum circuits in these applications. We demonstrate that a combination of DD and ZNE is effective in mitigating the errors introduced during mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations, as well as the errors arising from faulty measurements. This approach yields a fidelity improvement of at least 60% in ground state estimation and reduces observed error of time-evolved states by up to 99% for the Ising model and up to 20% for the Heisenberg model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DD+ZNE gives measurable fidelity gains on small Ising/Heisenberg dynamic circuits on one IBM backend, but the numbers are tied to those specific small instances and lack scaling or cross-hardware checks.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper tests dynamical decoupling plus zero-noise extrapolation on dynamic circuits for Hamiltonian simulation and ground-state estimation, and reports concrete fidelity lifts on IBM hardware: at least 60% better ground-state estimates and error reductions up to 99% for the Ising model and 20% for Heisenberg. They focus on the extra decoherence and measurement errors that come from mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward delays, and show that the two mitigation methods together help more than either alone in their setups. That is the useful part. Dynamic circuits are increasingly used to cut resources, but the added idle time and measurement noise have been a practical barrier, so hardware numbers on how to push back against those errors are worth having. The experiments are on real devices rather than simulation, which gives the results some weight for people who care about near-term hardware. The soft spots are straightforward. Everything is limited to small system sizes on a single backend, with no scaling curves or tests on other hardware or noise profiles. The abstract states the percentage improvements but does not give baselines, shot counts, exact ZNE extrapolation details, or error bars, so it is difficult to judge how stable the gains are without the full methods and data. If the improvements turn out to be specific to the tested depths and noise spectrum, the headline numbers will not travel far. This is the kind of targeted benchmarking paper that researchers working on error mitigation for dynamic circuits or Hamiltonian simulation will want to read. A reader looking for practical recipes on current hardware can extract the combinations that worked here and try them in their own circuits. It is not a foundational methods paper, but the experimental angle is honest and the claims are checkable. I would send it to peer review. The topic is relevant, the hardware data is there, and reviewers can ask for the missing controls and details without the work being fundamentally broken.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates error mitigation in dynamic quantum circuits for Hamiltonian simulation and ground state estimation. It explores dynamical decoupling (DD) to suppress decoherence during mid-circuit measurement and feed-forward idle periods, combined with zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE), and reports experimental results on IBM hardware showing that the DD+ZNE combination yields at least 60% fidelity improvement in ground state estimation while reducing observed errors by up to 99% for the Ising model and 20% for the Heisenberg model.

Significance. If the reported gains prove robust under variation of system size, noise spectrum, and hardware, the work would meaningfully advance practical deployment of dynamic circuits by directly addressing the fidelity penalty from mid-circuit measurements and classical feed-forward delays. The experimental benchmarking of a concrete DD+ZNE protocol on physically relevant models provides a useful data point for the community, though the absence of scaling or cross-platform controls limits immediate broader impact.

major comments (3)

Abstract: the headline quantitative claims (≥60% fidelity lift, 99%/20% error reductions) are presented without any accompanying information on shot counts, statistical uncertainties, exact baselines, or the functional form of the ZNE extrapolation; this directly affects the ability to judge whether the central experimental result is statistically supported.
Experimental section (results on Ising/Heisenberg instances): the study reports gains only for small fixed system sizes on a single IBM backend and contains no scaling analysis with qubit number or circuit depth, nor any cross-hardware or noise-profile variation; this makes the general assertion that DD+ZNE “is effective in mitigating the errors introduced during mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations” rest on an untested extrapolation.
Methods description: no explicit specification is given for the DD pulse sequences employed during the extended idle windows or for the noise-scaling factors and extrapolation functions used in ZNE, preventing assessment of whether the protocol is tailored to the dynamic-circuit setting or simply transplanted from static-circuit literature.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: the phrase “reduces observed error of time-evolved states” should be replaced by a concrete metric (e.g., trace distance to ideal evolution or infidelity) to avoid ambiguity.
Figure captions and text: ensure all hardware calibration dates, qubit layouts, and gate-error rates at the time of the runs are reported so that the noise environment can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and completeness while maintaining the integrity of our reported results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: the headline quantitative claims (≥60% fidelity lift, 99%/20% error reductions) are presented without any accompanying information on shot counts, statistical uncertainties, exact baselines, or the functional form of the ZNE extrapolation; this directly affects the ability to judge whether the central experimental result is statistically supported.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional supporting information to contextualize the quantitative claims. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate brief references to the shot counts employed, associated statistical uncertainties, the specific baselines used for comparison, and the functional form of the ZNE extrapolation. These details are already present in the main text and supplementary material; we will ensure they are summarized in the abstract to allow readers to better evaluate the statistical support for the reported improvements. revision: yes
Referee: Experimental section (results on Ising/Heisenberg instances): the study reports gains only for small fixed system sizes on a single IBM backend and contains no scaling analysis with qubit number or circuit depth, nor any cross-hardware or noise-profile variation; this makes the general assertion that DD+ZNE “is effective in mitigating the errors introduced during mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations” rest on an untested extrapolation.

Authors: We acknowledge the limitation that our experimental demonstrations are confined to small system sizes on a single IBM backend, without a dedicated scaling study or cross-platform validation. We will add a new subsection in the discussion to explicitly address these scope limitations, qualify our claims to apply specifically to the tested instances of the Ising and Heisenberg models, and note that broader generalization would require further investigation. At the same time, the consistent error reductions observed across the two models and multiple circuit configurations provide direct evidence of effectiveness for dynamic circuits in the reported regime, even if the results do not constitute a full scaling analysis. revision: partial
Referee: Methods description: no explicit specification is given for the DD pulse sequences employed during the extended idle windows or for the noise-scaling factors and extrapolation functions used in ZNE, preventing assessment of whether the protocol is tailored to the dynamic-circuit setting or simply transplanted from static-circuit literature.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. In the revised methods section, we will provide explicit specifications for the DD pulse sequences applied during the idle periods created by mid-circuit measurements and feed-forward operations, as well as the precise noise-scaling factors and extrapolation functions used in ZNE. We will also clarify the adaptations made to account for the dynamic-circuit features, such as the timing of decoupling pulses relative to measurement and classical feed-forward delays, to demonstrate that the protocol is tailored rather than directly transplanted from static-circuit work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental benchmarking with no derivations or predictions

full rationale

The manuscript is an experimental study that applies dynamical decoupling and zero-noise extrapolation to dynamic circuits on IBM hardware, reporting measured fidelity gains for small Ising and Heisenberg instances. No mathematical derivations, first-principles predictions, or parameter-fitting chains are described that could reduce to their own inputs. The work contains no self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations of the kinds enumerated in the analysis criteria. As an empirical benchmarking paper, it falls under the default expectation of no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental study; it relies on standard assumptions of quantum mechanics and the noise model of superconducting qubits but introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond the two mitigation techniques already established in the literature.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the validity of the device noise model for IBM superconducting qubits
Implicit throughout; required for interpreting measurement outcomes and error mitigation efficacy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5571 in / 1177 out tokens · 36235 ms · 2026-05-08T18:29:28.461983+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Cost.FunctionalEquation (J = ½(x+x⁻¹)−1) washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
the noise is scaled by a factor λ (where λ = 1 is the base hardware noise) ... 𝜆= 1 + 2𝑘

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Faisal Alam and Bryan K Clark. 2024. Learning dynamic quantum circuits for efficient state preparation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09030(2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[2]

Elisa Bäumer, David Sutter, and Stefan Woerner. 2025. Approximate Quan- tum Fourier Transform in Logarithmic Depth on a Line.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20832(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Elisa Bäumer, Vinay Tripathi, Alireza Seif, Daniel Lidar, and Derek S Wang. 2024. Quantum Fourier transform using dynamic circuits.Physical review letters133, 15 (2024), 150602

2024
[4]

Elisa Bäumer, Vinay Tripathi, Derek S Wang, Patrick Rall, Edward H Chen, Swarnadeep Majumder, Alireza Seif, and Zlatko K Minev. 2024. Efficient long- range entanglement using dynamic circuits.PRX Quantum5, 3 (2024), 030339

2024
[5]

Elisa Bäumer and Stefan Woerner. 2025. Measurement-based long-range entan- gling gates in constant depth.Physical Review Research7, 2 (2025), 023120

2025
[6]

Todd A Brun. 2019. Quantum error correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03672 (2019). 6 Error Mitigation in Dynamic Circuits for Hamiltonian Simulation

work page arXiv 2019
[7]

Harry Buhrman, Marten Folkertsma, Bruno Loff, and Niels MP Neumann. 2024. State preparation by shallow circuits using feed forward.Quantum8 (2024), 1552

2024
[8]

Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Caroline Tornow, Diego Ristè, Stefan Woerner, Maika Takita, and Daniel J Egger. 2024. Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication.Nature636, 8041 (2024), 75–79

2024
[9]

Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021), 625–644

2021
[10]

Andrew M Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu
[11]

Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling.Physical Review X11, 1 (2021), 011020

2021
[12]

Roland C Farrell, Nikita A Zemlevskiy, Marc Illa, and John Preskill. 2025. Digital quantum simulations of scattering in quantum field theories using W states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03111(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Tudor Giurgica-Tiron, Yousef Hindy, Ryan LaRose, Andrea Mari, and William J Zeng. 2020. Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation. In 2020 IEEE international conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE). IEEE, 306–316

2020
[14]

Daniel Gottesman and Isaac L Chuang. 1999. Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations. Nature402, 6760 (1999), 390–393

1999
[15]

Riddhi S Gupta, Ewout Van Den Berg, Maika Takita, Diego Riste, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala. 2024. Probabilistic error cancellation for dynamic quantum circuits.Physical Review A109, 6 (2024), 062617

2024
[16]

Daniel Hothem, Jordan Hines, Charles Baldwin, Dan Gresh, Robin Blume-Kohout, and Timothy Proctor. 2025. Measuring error rates of mid-circuit measurements. Nature Communications16, 1 (2025), 5761

2025
[17]

Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. 2017. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature549, 7671 (2017), 242–246

2017
[18]

Jin Ming Koh, Dax Enshan Koh, and Jayne Thompson. 2026. Readout error mitigation for mid-circuit measurements and feedforward.PRX Quantum7, 1 (2026), 010317

2026
[19]

Daniel A Lidar. 2014. Review of Decoherence-Free Subspaces, Noiseless Subsys- tems, and Dynamical Decoupling.Quantum information and computation for chemistry(2014), 295–354

2014
[20]

Siyuan Niu, Efekan Kokcu, Anupam Mitra, Aaron Szasz, Akel Hashim, Justin Kalloor, Wibe Albert de Jong, Costin Iancu, and Ed Younis. 2024. AC/DC: Automated Compilation for Dynamic Circuits. arXiv:2412.07969 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07969

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Siyuan Niu and Aida Todri-Sanial. 2022. Effects of dynamical decoupling and pulse-level optimizations on ibm quantum computers.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering3 (2022), 1–10

2022
[22]

Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. 2014. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature communications5, 1 (2014), 4213

2014
[23]

Lukas Postler, Sascha Heu𝛽en, Ivan Pogorelov, Manuel Rispler, Thomas Feld- ker, Michael Meth, Christian D Marciniak, Roman Stricker, Martin Ringbauer, Rainer Blatt, et al. 2022. Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations.Nature605, 7911 (2022), 675–680

2022
[24]

Joschka Roffe. 2019. Quantum error correction: an introductory guide.Contem- porary Physics60, 3 (2019), 226–245

2019
[25]

Sumeet Shirgure, Efekan Kökcü, Anupam Mitra, Wibe Albert de Jong, Costin Iancu, and Siyuan Niu. 2026. Characterizing and Benchmarking Dynamic Quan- tum Circuits. arXiv:2604.03360 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03360

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[26]

Kevin C Smith, Eleanor Crane, Nathan Wiebe, and SM Girvin. 2023. Deterministic constant-depth preparation of the AKLT state on a quantum processor using fusion measurements.PRX Quantum4, 2 (2023), 020315

2023
[27]

Kevin C Smith, Abid Khan, Bryan K Clark, Steven M Girvin, and Tzu-Chieh Wei. 2024. Constant-depth preparation of matrix product states with adaptive quantum circuits.PRX Quantum5, 3 (2024), 030344

2024
[28]

Alexandre M Souza, Gonzalo A Alvarez, and Dieter Suter. 2011. Robust dynamical decoupling for quantum computing and quantum memory.Physical review letters 106, 24 (2011), 240501

2011
[29]

Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M Gambetta. 2017. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Physical review letters119, 18 (2017), 180509

2017
[30]

Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. 2022. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports986 (2022), 1–128

2022
[31]

Christopher Tong, Liran Shirizly, Edward H Chen, Derek S Wang, and Bibek Pokharel. 2026. Learning error suppression strategies for dynamic quantum circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.18734(2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[32]

Hale F Trotter. 1959. On the product of semi-groups of operators.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.10, 4 (1959), 545–551

1959
[33]

Lorenza Viola and Seth Lloyd. 1998. Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems.Physical Review A58, 4 (1998), 2733

1998
[34]

Hyeonjun Yeo, Ha Eum Kim, IlKwon Sohn, and Kabgyun Jeong. 2025. Reduc- ing circuit depth in quantum state preparation for quantum simulation using measurements and feedforward.Physical Review Applied23, 5 (2025), 054066

2025
[35]

Wei Zi, Junhong Nie, and Xiaoming Sun. 2025. Constant-depth quantum circuits for arbitrary quantum state preparation via measurement and feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16208(2025). 7

work page arXiv 2025