pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.15464 · v2 · pith:YZGXZITMnew · submitted 2026-06-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

Certified Finite-Shot Operating Windows for Virtual Distillation and Symmetry Verification

Vicenzo Scavino Alfaro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 03:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error mitigationvirtual distillationsymmetry verificationfinite-shot analysismean-squared erroroperating windowstrichotomyerror mitigation comparison
0
0 comments X

The pith

Finite-shot mean-squared-error laws with explicit remainders create certified operating windows that classify comparisons of virtual distillation and symmetry verification as ties, dominance, or tradeoffs.

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

The paper proves mean-squared-error laws for virtual distillation and symmetry verification, each with explicit non-asymptotic remainders that remain valid under finite sampling. These laws separate bias and variance sources for each method and induce a trichotomy that decides whether one method uniformly wins, they tie, or a certified crossing window exists where advantage switches. Real quantum experiments operate with finite shots, estimator instabilities, and per-shot costs, so comparisons based only on infinite-shot bias leave the decisive resource windows uncharted. The resulting regime statements keep coefficient validation separate from device evidence and include a self-consistency test.

Core claim

For each method we prove a mean-squared-error law with explicit non-asymptotic remainders. For VD, the law exposes quotient-estimator bias, denominator-driven variance, and a concentration certificate for when the denominator is statistically resolved. For SV, it separates the residual bias from undetectable errors from the sampling penalty set by the acceptance probability. These laws induce a selection trichotomy: a two-method comparison is a tie, a uniform dominance relation, or a genuine tradeoff with a certified crossing window and a self-consistency test.

What carries the argument

The mean-squared-error laws with explicit non-asymptotic remainders that induce the selection trichotomy for finite-shot method comparisons.

If this is right

  • A two-method comparison is classified as a tie, a uniform dominance relation, or a genuine tradeoff with a certified crossing window and self-consistency test.
  • Exact white-box experiments confirm the predicted p to the minus two operating-window scale with fitted exponent minus 1.97 and 300 out of 300 sign agreement.
  • Gate-level simulation and archived IBM hardware runs show that idealized VD windows exist but realistic interferometry overhead and denominator instability move them outside the tested resource range.
  • Calibrated SV exhibits lower mean-squared error than VD in the tested QAOA instances under device conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same finite-shot MSE framework could be applied to compare additional error-mitigation techniques beyond VD and SV.
  • Device-specific recalibration of the crossing windows may be needed when hardware noise profiles differ from the tested QAOA instances.
  • The self-consistency test embedded in the trichotomy offers a practical way to flag when finite-shot assumptions break before committing resources.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-squared-error laws with explicit non-asymptotic remainders are provable and induce the trichotomy in finite-shot regimes.

What would settle it

White-box experiments that fail to recover the predicted p to the minus two operating-window scale or that show fewer than 300 out of 300 sign agreements in a pre-specified analysis would falsify the claimed laws.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.15464 by Vicenzo Scavino Alfaro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Level 1 coverage audit for the P1 leading VD MSE coefficient. The horizontal intervals are b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Level 1 quotient-law and c-coefficient diagnostics from the amended v2 run. Left: E1 MSE versus 1/B for the primary instance used in the figure, illustrating the VD quotient curvature. Right: E2 separates the nonzero VD quotient-bias slope from the SV slope centered near zero. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Level 1 first-order bias-floor checks from the amended v2 run. The measured white-box slopes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Level 1 denominator-concentration diagnostic from the amended v2 run. The bad-denominator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Level 1 crossing diagnostic from the amended v2 run. The shaded region is the fitted-remainder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative Level 2 operating-window curve for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Level 2 denominator concentration in the E5/P7 device-simulation layer. The plot shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Level 3 hardware MSE at B = 8192 from archived ibm_marrakesh analyses. The y-axis is logarithmic. The n = 8 VD point is annotated as denominator blow-up, not as an ordinary comparable MSE bar. instances and one n = 8 instance on ibm_marrakesh. In the n = 8 case, the M = 2 VD circuit requires a 17-qubit compiled circuit with depth 3192, and the readout-mitigated denominator is extremely small; the quotient … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum error mitigation methods are often compared through infinite-shot bias, but real experiments are decided by finite sampling budgets, estimator instabilities, and per-shot resource costs. We develop a certified finite-shot operating-window theory for comparing virtual distillation (VD) and symmetry verification (SV). For each method we prove a mean-squared-error law with explicit non-asymptotic remainders. For VD, the law exposes quotient-estimator bias, denominator-driven variance, and a concentration certificate for when the denominator is statistically resolved. For SV, it separates the residual bias from undetectable errors from the sampling penalty set by the acceptance probability. These laws induce a selection trichotomy: a two-method comparison is a tie, a uniform dominance relation, or a genuine tradeoff with a certified crossing window and a self-consistency test. Exact white-box experiments confirm the predicted $p^{-2}$ operating-window scale with fitted exponent $-1.97$ and show $300/300$ sign agreement in a pre-specified analysis; the single strict all-instance criterion not met is reported with its calibration analysis. Gate-level simulation and archived IBM hardware runs then test the windows under device conditions: idealized VD windows exist, but realistic interferometry overhead and denominator instability move them outside the tested resource range, while calibrated SV has lower MSE in the tested QAOA instances. The result is a regime statement, not a universal ranking: certified operating windows explain when mitigation advantages should appear or disappear, and keep coefficient-level validation separate from noisy-device evidence.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a certified finite-shot operating-window theory for comparing virtual distillation (VD) and symmetry verification (SV). For each method it proves a mean-squared-error law with explicit non-asymptotic remainders; these laws induce a selection trichotomy (tie, uniform dominance, or genuine tradeoff with certified crossing window and self-consistency test). White-box experiments confirm the predicted p^{-2} scaling (fitted exponent -1.97) with 300/300 sign agreement in a pre-specified analysis; gate-level simulations and archived IBM hardware runs then test the windows under device conditions, yielding context-dependent regime statements rather than a universal ranking.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies a rigorous, non-asymptotic framework that moves error-mitigation comparisons from infinite-shot bias to finite-shot certified operating windows, directly addressing practical sampling budgets and per-shot costs. The explicit remainders, concentration certificates, self-consistency tests, and reproducible white-box plus device experiments constitute clear strengths that enable falsifiable regime predictions.

minor comments (3)
  1. §3 (VD MSE law): the concentration certificate for the denominator is stated to resolve statistical instability, but the transition from the non-asymptotic remainder to the operating-window boundary is not accompanied by an explicit numerical threshold or pseudocode; adding this would improve reproducibility.
  2. Table 1 / Figure 3: the hardware-run panels report that idealized VD windows move outside the tested resource range due to interferometry overhead, yet the precise overhead factor and its propagation into the MSE law are not tabulated; a short supplementary table would clarify the shift.
  3. The single strict all-instance criterion not met is noted with its calibration analysis, but the main text does not state the numerical value of that criterion or the calibration tolerance used; explicit inclusion would strengthen the transparency claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our work on certified finite-shot operating windows for virtual distillation and symmetry verification. The significance assessment correctly highlights the non-asymptotic framework, explicit remainders, and reproducible experiments. We note the recommendation for minor revision; with no specific major comments provided in the report, we will incorporate any editorial or minor clarifications in the revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central derivation proves explicit non-asymptotic MSE laws for VD and SV from the definitions of their estimators (quotient bias and denominator variance for VD; residual bias versus acceptance probability for SV). These laws analytically induce the trichotomy of tie, dominance, or certified crossing window without reference to fitted parameters or experimental outcomes. White-box experiments are used only for post-hoc confirmation of the predicted p^{-2} scaling (with separate fitted exponent reported as validation metric) and sign agreement counts; the laws are not obtained by fitting or self-definition. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in the argument structure. The result is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5793 in / 1008 out tokens · 41586 ms · 2026-06-27T03:47:18.683022+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien. Quantum error mitigation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95:045005,

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005

  3. [3]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Physical Review Letters, 119:180509, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 2017

  4. [4]

    Li \ and\ author S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin. Efficient variational quantum simulator in- corporating active error minimization.Physical Review X, 7:021050, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.021050 2017

  5. [5]

    Endo , author S

    S.Endo, S.C.Benjamin, andY.Li. Practicalquantumerrormitigationfornear-future applications.Physical Review X, 8:031027, 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031027 2018

  6. [6]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien. Low-cost er- ror mitigation by symmetry verification.Physical Review A, 98:062339, 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062339

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062339 2018

  7. [7]

    McArdle, X

    S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. Benjamin. Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation. Physical Review Letters, 122:180501, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.180501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.180501 2019

  8. [8]

    Czarnik, A

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. Error mitigation with Clifford quantum-circuit data.Quantum, 5:592, 2021. doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592 2021

  9. [9]

    A. Lowe, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. Uni- fied approach to data-driven quantum error mitigation.Physical Review Research, 3:033098, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033098

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033098 2021

  10. [10]

    Babbush, and J

    W.J.Huggins, S.McArdle, T.E.O’Brien, J.Lee, N.C.Rubin, S.Boixo, K.B.Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean. Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation. Physical Review X, 11:041036, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.041036 2021

  11. [11]

    B. Koczor. Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices.Physical Review X, 11:031057, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.11.031057

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.031057 2021

  12. [12]

    Huo and Y

    M. Huo and Y. Li. Dual-state purification for practical quantum error mitigation. Physical Review A, 105:022427, 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022427

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022427 2022

  13. [13]

    Hakoshima, S

    H. Hakoshima, S. Endo, K. Yamamoto, Y. Matsuzaki, and N. Yoshioka. Localized virtual purification.Physical Review Letters, 133:080601, 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.080601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.080601 2024

  14. [14]

    X. Yuan, B. Regula, R. Takagi, and M. Gu. Virtual quantum resource distillation. Physical Review Letters, 132:050203, 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.050203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.050203 2024

  15. [15]

    Bultrini, M

    D. Bultrini, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. Unifying and benchmarking state-of-the-art quantum error mitigation tech- niques.Quantum, 7:1034, 2023. doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-06-1034. 33

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-06-1034 2023

  16. [16]

    A. Ijaz, C. Huerta Alderete, F. Sauvage, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and M. L. Goh. More buck-per-shot: Why learning trumps mitigation in noisy quantum sensing.Materials Today Quantum, 6:100042, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.mtquan.2025.100042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mtquan.2025.100042 2025

  17. [17]

    B. Koczor. The dominant eigenvector of a noisy quantum state.New Journal of Physics, 23:123047, 2021. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac37ae

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac37ae 2021

  18. [18]

    Sagastizabal, X

    R. Sagastizabal, X. Bonet-Monroig, M. Singh, M. A. Rol, C. C. Bultink, X. Fu, C. H. Price, V. P. Ostroukh, N. Muthusubramanian, A. Bruno, M. Beekman, N. Haider, T. E. O’Brien, and L. DiCarlo. Experimental error mitigation via symmetry verifica- tion in a variational quantum eigensolver.Physical Review A, 100:010302(R), 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.100.010302

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.010302 2019

  19. [19]

    Kakkar, J

    A. Kakkar, J. Larson, A. Galda, and R. Shaydulin. Characterizing error mit- igation by symmetry verification in QAOA. In2022 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 306–316, 2022. doi:10.1109/QCE53715.2022.00086

    work page doi:10.1109/qce53715.2022.00086 2022

  20. [20]

    Z. Cai. Quantum error mitigation using symmetry expansion.Quantum, 5:548, 2021. doi:10.22331/q-2021-09-21-548

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-09-21-548 2021

  21. [21]

    Y. S. Teo, S. Shin, H. Kwon, S.-H. Lee, and H. Jeong. Virtual distillation with noise dilution.Physical Review A, 107:022608, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.022608

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.107.022608 2023

  22. [22]

    Vikstal, G

    P. Vikstal, G. Ferrini, and S. Puri. Study of noise in virtual distillation circuits for quantum error mitigation.Quantum, 8:1441, 2024. doi:10.22331/q-2024-08-14-1441

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-08-14-1441 2024

  23. [23]

    T. E. O’Brien et al. Purification-based quantum error mitigation of pair-correlated electron simulations.Nature Physics, 19:1787–1792, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41567-023- 02240-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-023- 2023

  24. [24]

    Demarty, B

    M. Demarty, B. Yang, K. Hammam, and P. Besserve. Error-mitigation aware benchmarking strategy for quantum optimization problems. arXiv:2601.18680, 2026. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.18680

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18680 2026

  25. [25]

    Seksaria and A

    M. Seksaria and A. Prabhakar. Estimating shots and variance on noisy quantum circuits. arXiv:2501.03194, 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.03194

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.03194 2025

  26. [26]

    Niroula, S

    P. Niroula, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. J. Gullans. Error mitigation thresholds in noisy random quantum circuits.Physical Review B, 112:024206, 2025. doi:10.1103/qsmz- 9kkh

    work page doi:10.1103/qsmz- 2025

  27. [27]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    A. Javadi-Abhari et al. Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv:2405.08810, 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024

  28. [28]

    F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimboras, and M. Oszmaniec. Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography. Quantum, 4:257, 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-04-24-257

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-04-24-257 2020

  29. [29]

    and Gambetta, Jay M

    S. Bravyi, S. Sheldon, A. Kandala, D. C. McKay, and J. M. Gambetta. Mitigating measurement errors in multiqubit experiments.Physical Review A, 103:042605, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042605

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.042605 2021

  30. [30]

    W. G. Cochran.Sampling Techniques. Wiley, 3rd edition, 1977. ISBN 978-0-471- 16240-7

    1977

  31. [31]

    Understanding the User Experience of Customer Service Chatbots: What Can We Learn from Customer Satisfaction Surveys?Chatbot Re- search and Design (CONVERSATIONS 2020)

    T. Kato.Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators. Springer, 1995. doi:10.1007/978- 3-642-66282-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 1995

  32. [32]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson.Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2013. ISBN 978-0-521-83940-2

    2013

  33. [33]

    M´ ezard and A

    S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, and P. Massart.Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymp- totic Theory of Independence. Oxford University Press, 2013.doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199535255.001.0001. 34

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof: 2013

  34. [34]

    A. K. Ekert, C. M. Alves, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek. Direct estimations of linear and nonlinear functionals of a quantum state.Physical Review Letters, 88:217901, 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.217901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.217901 2002

  35. [35]

    Nature Physics , volume =

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme. Probabilistic error can- cellation with sparse Pauli–Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors.Nature Physics, 19:1116–1121, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02042-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02042-2 2023

  36. [36]

    Takagi, S

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu. Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation.npj Quantum Information, 8:114, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00618-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00618-z 2022

  37. [37]

    Takagi, H

    R. Takagi, H. Tajima, and M. Gu. Universal sampling lower bounds for quantum error mitigation.Physical Review Letters, 131:210602, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.210602 2023

  38. [38]

    Tsubouchi, T

    K. Tsubouchi, T. Sagawa, and N. Yoshioka. Universal cost bound of quantum error mitigation based on quantum estimation theory.Physical Review Letters, 131:210601,

  39. [39]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.210601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.210601

  40. [40]

    Y. Quek, D. Stilck França, S. Khatri, J. J. Meyer, and J. Eisert. Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation.Nature Physics, 20:1648–1658,

  41. [41]

    doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02536-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02536-7

  42. [42]

    L. Le Cam. Convergence of estimates under dimensionality restrictions.The Annals of Statistics, 1:38–53, 1973. doi:10.1214/aos/1193342380

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1193342380 1973

  43. [43]

    A. B. Tsybakov.Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation. Springer, 2009. doi:10.1007/b13794

    work page doi:10.1007/b13794 2009

  44. [44]

    A. W. van der Vaart.Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, 1998. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802256

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802256 1998

  45. [45]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm. arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.4028 2014

  46. [46]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2):34, 2019

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’Gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, and R. Biswas. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12:34, 2019. doi:10.3390/a12020034

    work page doi:10.3390/a12020034 2019

  47. [47]

    B. A. Nosek, C. R. Ebersole, A. C. DeHaven, and D. T. Mellor. The preregistration revolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115:2600–2606, 2018. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114. doi:10.1002/pst.291

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 2018

  48. [48]

    H. Akaike. A new look at the statistical model identification.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19:716–723, 1974. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  49. [49]

    K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson.Model Selection and Multimodel Infer- ence: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer, 2nd edition, 2002. doi:10.1007/b97636

    work page doi:10.1007/b97636 2002

  50. [50]

    D. J. Schuirmann. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.Journal of Pharma- cokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 15:657–680, 1987. doi:10.1007/BF01068419

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01068419 1987

  51. [51]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng. Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 306–316, 2020. doi:10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00045

    work page doi:10.1109/qce49297.2020.00045 2020

  52. [52]

    , month = may, year =

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani.An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1993. doi:10.1201/9780429246593. 35 A Quotient delta-method template Let(U s,Vs)B s=1 be i.i.d. with means(u,v),v >0, and covariance matrix Σ = ( σ2 U σUV σUV σ2 V ) .(A.1) Let ˆu=B −1∑ sUs, ˆv=B −1∑ sVs, and ˆθ=ˆu/ˆv. Withθ=u/v, Eˆθ=θ+θσ2 V−σUV Bv2 +RE(B),(A.2) Var(ˆθ) ...

    work page doi:10.1201/9780429246593 1993

  53. [53]

    selected

    Hence |cVD,2| B =|µVD,2|σ2 D D2 2B ≤1−D2 2 D2 2B < 0.09 B < 4 R.(C.27) The remaining expectation remainder is controlled by Equation (E.4): Asector E,VD,2 B2 < 3.1×103 (106)2 <3.1×10−9.(C.28) For the denominator event, Equation (E.10) givesBden,2≤31 log(2×106)< 4.5×102 at failure probability10−6, while hereB = 106; hence the exponentially small denominato...