-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 127
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
Refactor RB module for future extensions #898
Merged
Merged
Changes from 9 commits
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d11b0eb
Refactor RB module easier to handle non-Clifford RB
itoko 154352b
Speed up by caching circuit instructions
itoko 28a3b00
Support serialization of TwirlingGroup
itoko af241ea
Add nobs for further speed-up
itoko fe9065d
Backe to support only Clifford RB
itoko a6e7eb3
Change to compute only the difference from previous sequence in no fu…
itoko c3ba7e1
Refactor implementation of InterleavedRB
itoko 29ac956
Fix a bug in lru_cache usage and function names
itoko 6759eaf
Revert API changes in clifford_utils
itoko b94ce8d
Apply suggestions from code review
itoko 5e0689f
Updates based on reviewer comment
itoko 3d25f3c
Make full_sampling be an experiment option
itoko 1972130
Stabilize a unittest
itoko 229b9f4
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into refactor-rb
itoko 15c2782
Updates following reviewer's suggestions
itoko ec3b8bc
Fix a tiny bug in docstring
itoko 2100c73
Change a protected function to be private
itoko 8e2e34e
Update test/library/randomized_benchmarking/test_randomized_benchmark…
itoko 0eb103f
tox -eblack
itoko c577461
Fix double barriers before measurement to single
itoko 1962fb1
Merge branch 'main' into refactor-rb
nkanazawa1989 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any idea which test fails and why? there should be no difference between the case where k0=2 and k1=2 (both should append a W=HS gate)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-experiments/blob/622554d475f1b0ee7c20941e1ad79613a51771e7/test/library/randomized_benchmarking/test_randomized_benchmarking.py#L579
(See also https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-experiments/runs/8031956851?check_suite_focus=true for the error message)
Honestly, I have no idea... I'd like to ask it to the person who wrote the original (test) code. I tried to replace the W with HS and noticed this wired behavior. And for safety, I just leave it as is...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that it's better to fix the test, since the code should definitely be correct (maybe it's only a matter of error bounds?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated the test following @nkanazawa1989 's suggestion in 1972130.