Update XEB and Coherent Error Tutorial #5158
Conversation
augustehirth
requested review from
mrwojtek,
a team,
vtomole and
cduck
as code owners
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
|
This is maybe a philosophical difference, but (clearly -- as I wrote the original notebooks) I prefer many, short tutorials that focus on a particular topic rather than trying to show everything at once in as clever a fashion as possible. In particular, I think the machinery required to have all the different noise models going at once hurts rather than helps; and makes it much less useful as a reference for others to copy out code snippets for their own use. I'm not impartial though. Curious to hear others' thoughts |
|
I fundamentally agree with the usefulness of short tutorials, and their use as a (single or set of) code snippets to copy is something I undervalued when writing this. My original motivation was primarily to reduce repetition. Repetition can be very useful to reinforce ideas, but I think 3 tutorials with ~80% functionally identical code needed to be changed somehow. See go/xeb_tutorial_comparison. Additionally, when two similar but different approaches are compared, it seems more useful for me for them to be side-by-side on the same page, instead of in two different pages. That said, while merging their contents would definitely create a longer tutorial, I also probably got way too excited and went overboard with the additional explanations/analysis, making it much longer than it needs to be. Perhaps a happy medium could be achieved, by shortening things and somehow making it more usable as a code snippet... This is all my opinion though, so so thank you for your feedback and I'd appreciate any more you or others may have on this. ==================================== |
Refine focus to coherent error Add comparisons to incoherent error Add context/explanations/analysis
augustehirth
force-pushed
the
xeb_consolidate
branch
from
ad08a25
to
06e6579
Compare
augustehirth
changed the title
|
To note, #5243 performs the previously mentioned merge of Parallel XEB and Isolated XEB, into one straightforward tutorial that hopefully serves well to copy from. In comparison, this submission elaborates only on the existing XEB and Coherent Error tutorial by comparing XEB's effect on coherent vs incoherent noise. A meaningful amount of explanation and redundant code has been pared from this version to refine it's focus on the experiment results. |
| "source": [ | ||
| "The heatmaps reveal that the estimated error is quite similar when compared across qubits in the mock device. \n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "The coherent error heatmap shows the most variation in qubit pair fidelity error, though all values are within `0.003` of each other. The perturbed `SQRT_ISWAP` gate produces a consistent change in angle that interacts differently with the random single-qubit rotations added in the two-qubit circuits of the `circuit_library`, causing this variance.\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not totally clear to me what the point of the diagrams here is. If we are trying to show a higher variance, we could make the phi angles random, rather than uniformly pi/16. This would be more like hardware as well, where different couplers drift at different rates and directions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried changing this to create a randomly selected phi angle for each qubit pair in the range [1/16*pi, 1*pi]. The optimization/parameter fitting found some values for phi that were not the same or very close to the original, but presumably are equivalent w.r.t. the PhasedFSimGate. What randomly selected values of phi would be good here for this SQRT_ISWAP/PhasedFSIM gate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's probably too big of a range. Suggest [0, 2/16*pi]
|
Hi @dstrain115 thank you for your review! I've resolved most of your comments and followed up on a few that haven't been completely resolved. I am unsure if you get notified when I add review response comments, so I've tagged you here just in case. |
|
Just checking in since I first opined long ago. I like the new direction this PR has taken, namely beefing up the noise model notebook and leaving the "just run it" notebooks alone :) |
|
@dstrain115 wanna follow up so we can get this merged? |
|
Should be updated now. Associated redirect cl/461225511 |
| }, | ||
| "outputs": [], | ||
| "source": [ | ||
| "import multiprocessing\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need multiprocessing? I am a little worried this may cause problems depending on which environment it is run in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would take too long without it. Since it works on Colab, I'll keep it as it is unless something pops up.
augustehirth
added
the
automerge
CirqBot
added
the
front_of_queue_automerge
CirqBot
removed
automerge
Update the XEB and Coherent Error tutorial to: - Focus on coherent error and XEB - Add comparisons to incoherent error and how XEB handles each - Add context, explanations and analysis. A terminology question: Are they "layers" or "cycles" in the generated XEB circuits? Out of date description below: ============================================== Three XEB tutorials: - XEB and Coherent Error - Parallel XEB - Isolated XEB consist of mostly the same code, and lack key context/explanations in multiple places. The new, replacement tutorial, Coherent vs Incoherent Error with XEB, merges the existing content and adds explanations and some additional analysis. Edit: I am unsure how to best resolve the codeowners file CI checks.
Update the XEB and Coherent Error tutorial to:
A terminology question: Are they "layers" or "cycles" in the generated XEB circuits?
Out of date description below:
==============================================
Three XEB tutorials:
consist of mostly the same code, and lack key context/explanations in multiple places. The new, replacement tutorial, Coherent vs Incoherent Error with XEB, merges the existing content and adds explanations and some additional analysis.
Edit: I am unsure how to best resolve the codeowners file CI checks.