-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Correct way of evaluating logic circuit #15
Comments
Ok, so doing some digging, I found out that if I replace the constant nodes with literals, it works fine. Does |
Thanks for the report. It's very likely that I implemented this without support for constants. Of course you can always propagate away the constants, but I will implement the general case of evaluation anyway. |
Thanks! While I'm at it, I'm a bit confused with the many inference methods implemented. What exactly are the differences between UpFlow and DownFlow? And how do they differ from simple evaluation? Again, thank you all for being so quick on the PRs and issues. |
@RenatoGeh Thanks for the fix. We are aware these are a bit confusing and planning to fix and document them for our The distinction has been mostly for historical and sometimes performance reasons, when we get the chance we are planning to simply the code. We are also experimenting with different implementations. for example, we also have recursive version of the algorithms without expclit allocation of flow circuit. We are currently buidling a benchmark and based on that will decide which implementations to keep (or which ones to set as default so end-users don't have to worry about which method to use). |
I see. Thank you for answering. :) |
Hi,
I am attempting to evaluate a
Logical\DeltaNode
, in the following way:However, this outputs the following error.
What exactly am I doing wrong here? Even the minimal example below with a simple circuit outputs the same error.
Thank you,
Renato
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: