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

Use fixed PauliString.after() in dynamical decoupling. #7103

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 28, 2025

Conversation

babacry
Copy link
Collaborator

@babacry babacry commented Feb 28, 2025

Context: #7065 fixed PauliString's conjugated_by, before and after. Now dd could use a more reliable after() in pulling Paulis through Cliffords.

Also read through dynamical_decoupling.py and did a couple of nit fixes.

@CirqBot CirqBot added the size: S 10< lines changed <50 label Feb 28, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 28, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.15%. Comparing base (22ed25e) to head (6821cbb).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7103      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.15%   98.15%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1089     1089              
  Lines       95253    95251       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        93500    93497       -3     
- Misses       1753     1754       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@babacry
Copy link
Collaborator Author

babacry commented Feb 28, 2025

@eliottrosenberg FYI, I've rewrittenPualiString.after(), where the previous implementation caused the dynamical decoupling failures (we used a workaround at that time to fix, which wasn't reliable).

Copy link
Collaborator

@NoureldinYosri NoureldinYosri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice work @babacry

@NoureldinYosri NoureldinYosri added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 28, 2025
Merged via the queue into quantumlib:main with commit fe946a1 Feb 28, 2025
38 checks passed
@babacry babacry deleted the dd_todo branch February 28, 2025 03:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
size: S 10< lines changed <50
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants