Estimating Coherent Contributions to the Error Profile Using Cycle Error Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitigation and calibration schemes are central to maximize the computational reach of today's Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware, but these schemes are often specialized to exclusively address either coherent or decoherent error sources. Quantifying the two types of errors hence constitutes a desirable feature when it comes to benchmarking error suppression tools. In this paper, we present a scalable and cycle-centric methodology for obtaining a detailed estimate of the coherent contribution to the error profile of a hard computing cycle. The protocol that we suggest is based on Cycle Error Reconstruction (CER), also known as K-body Noise Reconstruction (KNR). This protocol is similar to Cycle Benchmarking (CB) in that it provides a cycle-centric diagnostic based on Pauli fidelity estimation \cite{erhard2019characterizing}. We introduce an additional hyper-parameter in CER by allowing the hard cycles to be folded multiple times before being subject to Pauli twirling. Performing CER for different values of our added hyper-parameter allows estimating the coherent error contributions through a generalization of the fidelity decay formula. We confirm the accuracy of our method through numerical simulations on a quantum simulator, and perform proof-of-concept experiments on three IBM chips, namely ibmq_guadalupe , ibmq_manila , and ibmq_montreal . In all three experiments, we measure substantial coherent errors biased in Z.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".