Rohan S. Kumar

Rohan S. Kumar, Takahiro Tsunoda, Sophia H. Xue et al.

Near-term quantum workloads demand error management, yet the two lightest-weight techniques, Quantum Error Detection (QED) and Probabilistic Error Cancellation (PEC), have complementary cost profiles whose joint architectural design space remains unexplored. QED encodes logical qubits and discards error-flagged runs, filtering noise with low qubit overhead but leaving residual errors; PEC can correct these in software, but at exponential cost in noise strength. If QED efficiently reduces per-gate noise, PEC's cost savings can outweigh QED's discard overhead; realizing this, however, requires solving two system-level design challenges. First, the \textit{QED interval} -- how often detection cycles are inserted -- is a tunable architectural parameter governing the cost-accuracy tradeoff. We derive an efficiency condition and show that the canonical one-cycle-per-gate frequency does not achieve break-even in any code we evaluate, while optimized intervals on high-rate Iceberg codes do. Second, we discover that naive PEC+QED integration \textit{degrades} accuracy below the QED-only baseline. The root cause is a transient error profile in the first detection cycle that corrupts PEC's noise model. We develop \textit{steady-state extraction}, a co-designed characterization protocol that isolates steady-state error behavior, reducing estimation bias by up to $10.2\times$. On a $[[6,4,2]]$ Iceberg code running QAOA ($p{=}4$--$8$) with a fixed shot budget, PEC+QED achieves $2$--$11\times$ lower absolute error and up to $31\times$ lower MSE versus PEC on physical qubits, with per-interval savings compounding over interval depth.

Kaitlin Gili, Rohan S. Kumar, Mykolas Sveistrys et al.

Recent work has demonstrated the utility of introducing non-linearity through repeat-until-success (RUS) sub-routines into quantum circuits for generative modeling. As a follow-up to this work, we investigate two questions of relevance to the quantum algorithms and machine learning communities: Does introducing this form of non-linearity make the learning model classically simulatable due to the deferred measurement principle? And does introducing this form of non-linearity make the overall model's training more unstable? With respect to the first question, we demonstrate that the RUS sub-routines do not allow us to trivially map this quantum model to a classical one, whereas a model without RUS sub-circuits containing mid-circuit measurements could be mapped to a classical Bayesian network due to the deferred measurement principle of quantum mechanics. This strongly suggests that the proposed form of non-linearity makes the model classically in-efficient to simulate. In the pursuit of the second question, we train larger models than previously shown on three different probability distributions, one continuous and two discrete, and compare the training performance across multiple random trials. We see that while the model is able to perform exceptionally well in some trials, the variance across trials with certain datasets quantifies its relatively poor training stability.