-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Flux-Drive timing #1056
base: 0.2
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Flux-Drive timing #1056
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 0.2 #1056 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.96% 97.01% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 98 99 +1
Lines 7932 8042 +110
==========================================
+ Hits 7691 7802 +111
+ Misses 241 240 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
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.
Thanks for the implementation @Edoardo-Pedicillo.
I have a few questions in the comments below. Apart from a problem with the for loop the code runs fine.
|
||
This routine is evaluating the different time of arrival of the flux and drive | ||
pulse to the qubit. These delays are usually originated by the differences in | ||
cable length or by the electronics. |
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.
With "by the electronics" what do you mean? An asynchronization between the drive and the flux signals on the electronics themselves?
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.
An asynchronization between the drive and the flux signals on the electronics themselves?
Yes
src/qibocal/protocols/xyz_timing.py
Outdated
for duration in durations: | ||
ro_pulses.append([]) | ||
for qubit in targets: | ||
sequence = PulseSequence() |
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 create the sequence at each iteration of the for loop over targets only the last qubit in target will be present in the sequence.
] | ||
fit_parameters, perr = curve_fit( | ||
fit_function, | ||
delay - data.pulse_duration[qubit], |
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.
At this point I would just store directly this value in the data structure given that you also repeat the same line in the plotting function.
|
||
fig.update_layout( | ||
showlegend=True, | ||
xaxis_title="Time [ns]", |
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 would put a bit more details here.
Co-authored-by: Andrea Pasquale <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrea Pasquale <[email protected]>
This PR implements the protocol XY-Z timing (https://escholarship.org/content/qt0g29b4p0/qt0g29b4p0.pdf?t=prk0gj par. 5.10).
http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/xWr3LZnfTQmN59r2aFetnA==/
Checklist:
master
main
main