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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

WIP: add skip transpile to t1 #1454

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

WIP: add skip transpile to t1 #1454

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
62d5422
add skip transpile to t1
dcmckayibm May 15, 2024
6d73c9b
reset composite analysis
dcmckayibm May 15, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 8 additions & 5 deletions qiskit_experiments/framework/composite/composite_analysis.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -149,12 +149,15 @@ def _run_analysis(self, experiment_data: ExperimentData):
# Since copy for replace result is handled at the parent level
# we always run with replace result on component analysis
self._analyses[i].run(sub_expdata, replace_results=True)

# Analysis is running in parallel so we add loop to wait
# for all component analysis to finish before returning
# the parent experiment analysis results
for sub_expdata in component_expdata:
# Block for results to avoid issues nested CompositeAnalysis runs.
dcmckayibm marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
# Ideally this constraint will be removed in the future.
# Previously run() was called on all components and then
# block_for_results() was called on all of them, but since only one
# thread can execute Python code at a time there is not much
# difference in performance. Blocking separately limits the number
# of threads that are started simultaneously.
sub_expdata.block_for_results()

# Optionally flatten results from all component experiments
# for adding to the main experiment data container
if self._flatten_results:
Expand Down
29 changes: 22 additions & 7 deletions qiskit_experiments/library/characterization/t1.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ def __init__(
# Set experiment options
self.set_experiment_options(delays=delays)

def circuits(self) -> List[QuantumCircuit]:
def circuits(self, qnum=0) -> List[QuantumCircuit]:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know this is much faster but circuits() is the base class method and signature shouldn't change. Indeed this breaks polymorphism of experiment class, e.g. user may think T2 also has this argument. Also experiment.run doesn't consider the qnum argument.

You can consider another approach of creating a pass manager that only performs virtual -> physical index mapping. Which must be lightweight compared with the default level0 pass manager (to reduce overhead you can directly run layout, i.e. layout.run(circuits))

https://github.com/Qiskit-Extensions/qiskit-experiments/blob/fe4ccff973dae85fdff3416b253880051b71e6c3/qiskit_experiments/calibration_management/base_calibration_experiment.py#L317-L332

Unfortunately this code is not as performant as the proposed code change because of the initialization overhead of passes and pass manager instance. However this doesn't cause API break.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think there's anything forbidden by this idea in inheritance because the circuit call still behaves the same. You can absolutely add parameters to an inherited function. But this is also backwards compatibl. I also don't know why run needs to know anything about this. It's merely to allow the circuit to be created on any qubit if desired. I don't see why it's relevant whether a user will think T2 has this argument. Of course since this works really well I would argue it should be added to the T2 class as well.

"""
Return a list of experiment circuits

Expand All @@ -109,18 +109,33 @@ def circuits(self) -> List[QuantumCircuit]:

circuits = []
for delay in self.experiment_options.delays:
circ = QuantumCircuit(1, 1)
circ.x(0)
circ.barrier(0)
circ.delay(timing.round_delay(time=delay), 0, timing.delay_unit)
circ.barrier(0)
circ.measure(0, 0)
circ = QuantumCircuit(qnum+1, 1)
circ.x(qnum)
circ.barrier(qnum)
circ.delay(timing.round_delay(time=delay), qnum, timing.delay_unit)
circ.barrier(qnum)
circ.measure(qnum, 0)

circ.metadata = {"xval": timing.delay_time(time=delay)}

circuits.append(circ)

return circuits

def _transpiled_circuits(self) -> List[QuantumCircuit]:
"""Return a list of experiment circuits, transpiled.

Override to skip transpilaion if not needed
"""
if self._backend:
#get basis gates
basis_gates = self._backend.configuration().basis_gates

if 'x' in basis_gates:
return self.circuits(self.physical_qubits[0])

return super()._transpiled_circuits()


def _metadata(self):
metadata = super()._metadata()
Expand Down