Skip to content
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

Feature/implement_IRB_routine #994

Merged
merged 40 commits into from
Sep 6, 2024
Merged

Feature/implement_IRB_routine #994

merged 40 commits into from
Sep 6, 2024

Conversation

cdbf1
Copy link
Contributor

@cdbf1 cdbf1 commented Jul 16, 2024

Implement the interleaved randomized benchmarking routine within the qcvv framework.

Blocked by #992

Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@cdbf1 cdbf1 force-pushed the feature/implement_IRB_routine branch from eb5550d to 08c7af7 Compare August 5, 2024 09:25
@cdbf1 cdbf1 force-pushed the feature/implement_IRB_routine branch from afe0731 to ea42062 Compare August 5, 2024 10:11
@cdbf1 cdbf1 force-pushed the feature/implement_IRB_routine branch from ea42062 to 6b2f808 Compare August 5, 2024 10:11
@cdbf1 cdbf1 marked this pull request as ready for review August 14, 2024 08:34
Copy link
Contributor

@dowusu-antwi dowusu-antwi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(Just a couple of preliminary review comments)

In looking at the IRB routine, I have one review comment on base_experiment.py:

  • Can we rename _run_check to something like _has_raw_data? The former is a bit opaque.

_has_probabilities could also work -- but _has_raw_data makes sense since, inside collect_data, _process_probabilities populates _raw_data anyway.

supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb_test.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
supermarq-benchmarks/supermarq/qcvv/irb.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
{
Copy link
Contributor

@dowusu-antwi dowusu-antwi Sep 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Style nit: add supermarq import here (and maybe put all imports in a separate cell)


Reply via ReviewNB

Copy link
Contributor

@dowusu-antwi dowusu-antwi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM % style nits and previous comments

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
{
Copy link
Contributor

@dowusu-antwi dowusu-antwi Sep 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(Also remove warning output before merging)


Reply via ReviewNB

@cdbf1 cdbf1 merged commit 168a88d into main Sep 6, 2024
20 checks passed
@cdbf1 cdbf1 deleted the feature/implement_IRB_routine branch September 6, 2024 08:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants