Changed expect_g and fidelity_g to return the "correctly" scaled gradient w.r.t to the register #446
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Up until now
expect_g
andfidelity_g
were off by a factor of one half, in the sense that∂_reg expect(ham, reg) = 2 * expect_g(ham, reg) instead ∂_reg expect(ham, reg) = expect_g(ham, reg) and analogous for the other methods of
expect_g
andfidelity_g
. This was counter acted by multiplying a factor of 2 to the finalparamsδ
at the end ofexpect_g(ham, reg => circuit)
andfidelity_g(reg1 => circuit1, reg2 => circuit2)
.This is changed here to backpropagate the "correctly" scaled gradient w.r.t registers.
I am not sure if this would be considered a breaking change, because it also means that the output of
expect'(ham, reg => circuit)[1]
is changed by a factor of 2 now.Changes: