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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add SuperconductingQubitsNoiseProperties #4964
Add SuperconductingQubitsNoiseProperties #4964
Changes from all commits
0651a22
35b8f6a
ac0045e
8f66c53
7d42659
2563276
332c69f
e27b611
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
why are we standardizing on on t_phi isn't t2 a little more common and it still gives you enough info to compute t_phi ?
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.
@dkafri can you comment on this? It's copied pretty directly from the internal version of this behavior.
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.
If you have T1 then indeed T2 and Tphi can be determined from each other. I used Tphi because in the actual implementation the two terms contributing to the master equation are proportional to (1/ T1) and (1/Tphi). Presumably T2 is quoted more often because it is measured directly, whereas Tphi is usually inferred from T1 and T2 data. So in terms of the user-facing code, I suppose it makes more sense to use T2 and then convert to Tphi in the underlying implementation.
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.
On second thought, here is another point. Suppose I want to include only T1 decay and no white noise dephasing. In this case I would still need to specify a dictionary of T2 even though I know it must be equal to (2 T1). With the above implementation, I could just specify the T1 dictionary and have the Tphi dictionary remain empty.
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.
We could just introduce a default for T2 of 2 * T1 ?
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'll convert to T2 if that's the consensus here, but I don't know the T2-Tphi relation offhand - how do we translate between the two?
Also consider that the QCS calibration-to-noise tools will also need to be modified to take this change into account, and (on a more minor note) that setting a default for T2 forces it to the end of the arguments list.