The Exponential Deviation Induced by Quantum Readout Error Mitigation

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.08687
• Title: The Exponential Deviation Induced by Quantum Readout Error Mitigation
• Authors: Yibin Guo, Yi Fan, Pei Liu, Shoukuan Zhao, Yirong Jin, Xiaoxia Cai, Xiongzhi Zeng, Zhenyu Li, Wengang Zhang, Hai-Feng Yu
• Classification: quant-ph
• Publication Date: October 9, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08687

Abstract

This paper investigates systematic issues in quantum readout error mitigation (QREM) techniques widely employed in noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices. The authors discover that conventional QREM methods based on inverting measurement error matrices introduce systematic errors that grow exponentially with the number of qubits. This error stems from the fundamental difficulty in distinguishing state preparation and measurement (SPAM) errors, resulting in the introduction of additional initialization errors while mitigating readout errors. The study demonstrates that this bias significantly overestimates the fidelity of large-scale entangled states and severely impacts mainstream quantum algorithms such as the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) and quantum time evolution.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Context

In the current NISQ era, quantum devices inevitably suffer from various noise sources, including state preparation errors, measurement errors, and gate operation errors. Among these, the impact of SPAM errors grows exponentially with system scale, becoming a critical factor limiting quantum computing performance.

Core Problem

Traditional QREM methods are based on Bayesian statistics, correcting readout errors through inversion of the measurement error matrix. However, this approach assumes that state preparation errors are negligible relative to the readout process, which is not always valid in practical applications. Since SPAM errors are fundamentally indistinguishable in principle, QREM inadvertently introduces additional initialization errors while correcting readout errors.

Research Motivation

1. Scalability Challenge: As quantum processor scale increases, the impact of these mixed errors becomes significant
2. Algorithm Reliability: Need to assess the practical impact of QREM on mainstream quantum algorithms
3. Practical Boundaries: Determine acceptable upper bounds for state preparation error rates at given system scales

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Analysis: First systematic analysis of exponential-level systematic errors introduced by conventional QREM methods
2. Impact Quantification: Proves that large-scale entangled state fidelity is significantly overestimated
3. Algorithm Assessment: Demonstrates severe deviations in VQE and quantum time evolution algorithms in the presence of initialization errors
4. Safety Boundaries: Calculates acceptable upper bounds for state preparation error rates at given qubit scales
5. Practical Guidance: Provides practical recommendations for error control in future quantum computing applications

Methodology Details

Problem Formulation

SPAM Error Model

For an n-qubit system, the experimentally measured readout probability distribution satisfies:

p_noisy = M * p_ideal

where M is a 2^n × 2^n readout error matrix.

When considering independent readout errors, matrix M can be written in tensor form:

M = ⊗_{i=1}^n M_i = ⊗_{i=1}^n [[1-δ_{0,i}, δ_{0,i}], [δ_{1,i}, 1-δ_{1,i}]]

Mitigation Matrix Derivation

Considering initialization errors, the mitigation matrix Λ_i for each qubit must satisfy:

[[1, 0], [0, 1]] = Λ_i * M_i * [[1-q_i, q_i], [q_i, 1-q_i]]

The mitigation matrix for the entire system is:

Λ = ⊗_{i=1}^n Λ_i = ⊗_{i=1}^n [[(1-q_i)/(1-2q_i), -q_i/(1-2q_i)], [-q_i/(1-2q_i), (1-q_i)/(1-2q_i)]] * M_i^{-1}

Error Analysis Framework

Entangled State Fidelity Overestimation

Using graph states as an example, the ideal expectation value of stabilizer P = S_0S_2 is:

⟨P⟩ = Tr(ρ_noisy * P) = (1-2q)^2

After applying QREM, the expectation value becomes:

⟨P⟩_QREM = (1-2q)^2 / (1-2q)^3 = 1/(1-2q) > 1

This leads to systematic overestimation of fidelity.

Generalized Error Formula

For observables measuring k qubits, the relative error is:

Δ = (⟨P⟩_QREM - ⟨P⟩_real) / ⟨P⟩_real = (1-2q)^{-k} - 1

Under small error approximation: Δ ≈ 2kq

Experimental Setup

Entangled State Experiments

• Test Objects: One-dimensional graph states, fully connected graph states, GHZ states
• Scale Range: 2-50 qubits
• Error Parameters: Initialization error rate q = 0.001-0.1
• Evaluation Method: Stabilizer expectation value measurement and fidelity estimation

Quantum Chemistry Algorithm Experiments

VQE Experiments

• Molecular System: One-dimensional equally-spaced hydrogen chain
• Bond Length: 1.0 Å
• Qubits: 4-32
• Ansatz: Symmetric UCCSD ansatz
• Optimizer: BOBYQA gradient-free optimizer

Quantum Time Evolution Experiments

• Molecule: Hydrogen molecule (H-H bond length 2.0 Å)
• Basis Set: cc-pVTZ
• Active Space: 2-16 orbitals (corresponding to 4-32 qubits)
• Method: Trotter decomposition
• Transformation: Jordan-Wigner fermionic-to-qubit mapping

Technical Implementation

• Numerical Simulation: Tensor network formalism
• Quantum Circuits: Q2Chemistry package
• Molecular Integrals: PySCF calculations

Experimental Results

Entangled State Fidelity Overestimation

Main Findings

1. Exponential Growth Trend: Fidelity overestimation grows exponentially with qubit number
2. Topology Dependence: Different entangled state topologies lead to varying degrees of overestimation
   • One-dimensional graph states: Relatively small overestimation
   • Fully connected graph states: Most severe overestimation
   • GHZ states: Moderate overestimation

Specific Results

• 10-qubit one-dimensional graph state with q=1%: fidelity overestimated by approximately 15%
• 20-qubit fully connected graph state with q=1%: fidelity overestimated by over 100%

VQE Algorithm Performance

Energy Error Analysis

1. Linear Scaling: At q=0.001, absolute energy error exhibits approximately linear relationship with qubit number
2. Accelerated Deterioration: At q=0.06, energy error growth exceeds linear, showing accelerated deterioration
3. Optimization Limitations: Classical optimization layers can partially compensate for small initialization errors but have critical boundaries

Quantitative Results

• 8-qubit system, q=0.001: energy error ~10^{-4} Hartree
• 16-qubit system, q=0.001: energy error ~10^{-3} Hartree
• 32-qubit system, q=0.06: energy error >10^{-2} Hartree

Quantum Time Evolution

Error Characteristics

1. Trotter Error: Decreases with increasing Trotter steps (consistent with theoretical expectations)
2. Total Energy Error: Diverges with increasing qubit number and Trotter steps
3. QREM Amplification Effect: Total error significantly exceeds Trotter error, particularly for large qubit numbers

Key Observations

• 32 qubits, Ns=4: total error one order of magnitude larger than Trotter error
• QREM amplifies state preparation defects while mitigating measurement errors

Safety Boundary Analysis

Theoretical Derivation

In the worst case (such as stabilizer generators of fully connected graph states), measurement results are amplified by a factor of (1-2q)^{-n}.

Relative Error Formula

Δ = (1-2q)^{-n} - 1

Practical Recommendations

To keep QREM-induced errors within acceptable ranges, the paper provides safety boundaries for different precision requirements:

• 0.1 Precision: Allows higher initialization error rates
• 0.01 Precision: Requires moderate error control
• 0.001 Precision: Demands strict error suppression

Related Work

QREM Technology Development

• Conventional methods based on Bayesian statistics
• Scalable measurement error mitigation techniques
• Post-processing methods using detector tomography

SPAM Error Research

• Theoretical analysis of state preparation and measurement errors
• Entangled state fidelity estimation methods
• Quantum state tomography techniques

Quantum Algorithm Error Analysis

• Noise robustness studies of VQE algorithms
• Trotter error analysis for quantum time evolution
• Comparative impact of coherent vs. stochastic errors

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Systematic Problem: Conventional QREM methods exhibit fundamental systematic bias
2. Exponential Deterioration: Errors grow exponentially with system scale, limiting scalability
3. Algorithm Impact: Reliability of mainstream quantum algorithm results is severely affected
4. Practical Boundaries: Provides error control guidance for different application scenarios

Limitations

1. Idealized Assumptions: Some analyses assume independent and identically distributed initialization errors
2. Classical Simulation: Large-scale experiments limited by classical simulation capabilities
3. Algorithm-Specific: Primarily focuses on VQE and time evolution, not covering all quantum algorithms

Future Directions

1. Precise Qubit Reset: Develop more accurate qubit reset techniques
2. Self-Consistent Calibration: Develop self-consistent characterization and mitigation methods
3. Algorithm Design: Design quantum algorithms more robust to SPAM errors

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Important Problem: Identifies and quantifies fundamental issues in QREM techniques
2. Theoretical Rigor: Provides complete mathematical derivations and error analysis framework
3. Practical Value: Offers important error control guidance for quantum computing experiments
4. Comprehensive Assessment: Covers broad applications from fundamental entangled states to practical quantum algorithms

Weaknesses

1. Limited Solutions: Primarily identifies problems with relatively limited proposed solutions
2. Experimental Verification: Lacks verification experiments on real quantum hardware
3. Generality: Some conclusions may be specific to superconducting qubit platforms

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides important theoretical insights for quantum error mitigation field
2. Practical Guidance: Offers direct guidance for experimental design on NISQ devices
3. Technology Advancement: May promote development of more precise qubit initialization techniques

Applicable Scenarios

• Error analysis and control for NISQ devices
• Reliability assessment of large-scale quantum algorithms
• Benchmarking for quantum advantage experiments
• Improved design of quantum error mitigation techniques

References

The paper cites 59 related references covering multiple important areas including quantum error mitigation, NISQ algorithms, and quantum chemistry calculations, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Summary: This paper reveals an important but previously overlooked systematic problem in quantum computing, with significant implications for quantum computing experiments in the NISQ era. While primarily problem-identification work, its theoretical analysis is in-depth and experimental evaluation comprehensive, pointing the direction for future technical improvements.