Weakly Supervised Quantum Error Mitigation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Supervised approaches to quantum error mitigation learn a map from noisy circuit outputs to ideal ones, and therefore require the ideal outputs. Producing those ideal outputs demands noiseless classical simulation, whose cost grows exponentially with system size, so supervision is unavailable in exactly the regime where mitigation matters most. We ask whether cheap, individually unreliable signals drawn from circuit structure and hardware calibration can take the place of ideal labels. We assemble sixteen heuristic labeling functions (stabilizer and parity constraints, relaxation and readout characteristics, local depth, gate counts, and neighboring activity), reconcile their disagreements with a probabilistic label model, and read the resulting per-qubit error probabilities as a readout channel whose inverse mitigates the measured distribution. No ideal output enters the training path. On 147,000 five-qubit circuits executed on two IBM devices, the method removes 24.3% (Algiers) and 28.8% (Hanoi) of the Kullback-Leibler divergence to the ideal distribution, against 15.4% and 21.5% for the strongest published analytical baseline, a margin that holds on both devices and lies far outside its bootstrap interval. Supervised neural models trained on ideal distributions remain stronger where such labels exist, and we quantify that gap rather than setting it aside; the method's claim is to the regime where they do not, since the labels they require cannot be computed for the circuits mitigation is needed for. The codes will be released shortly.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.
Builds on
10 of 44 references.
References · 10
- 2016Making Deep Neural Networks Robust to Label Noise: a Loss Correction Approachcited by 663
- 2020Learning from Noisy Labels with Deep Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 580
- 2016Data Programming: Creating Large Training Sets, Quicklycited by 246
- 2018Training Complex Models with Multi-Task Weak Supervisioncited by 106
- 2020Fast and Three-rious: Speeding Up Weak Supervision with Triplet Methodscited by 98
- 2021WRENCH: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Weak Supervisioncited by 95
- 2014Spectral Methods meet EM: A Provably Optimal Algorithm for Crowdsourcingcited by 63
- 2017Learning the Structure of Generative Models without Labeled Datacited by 50
- 2023Machine Learning for Practical Quantum Error Mitigationcited by 20
- 2021Neural Error Mitigation of Near-Term Quantum Simulationscited by 15
Built on by
Not cited yet.