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

Flux crosstalk computation with flux pulse amplitude #1061

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: test_cryoscope
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

andrea-pasquale
Copy link
Contributor

In this PR I'm modifying the flux_amplitude_frequency protocol intially proposed in #974 to evaluate also flux crosstalk. This evaluation should be "more useful" compared to the one already available in main given that in this case I'm using flux_pulses.
Here are a few examples:
http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/PrWiWFppRtiyaTHy3jRocA==/
http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/h2SDjCTvTj66-XdkfUr1tg==/

Here is an example of the crosstalk matrix computed using qubits B3 and B4:
test

Currently the crosstalk is almost 3 orders of magnitude lower which is more or less expected. See for example https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.03347 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.03708.

According to the qua documentation https://docs.quantum-machines.co/latest/docs/Guides/features/?h=crosstalk#crosstalk-correction-matrix it seems that it should be possible to just provide this crosstalk matrix to correct the flux pulses.

TODO:

  • update documentation

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 13, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.64865% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.96%. Comparing base (b451ac6) to head (d3ec4a7).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/qibocal/calibration/calibration.py 83.33% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@                Coverage Diff                 @@
##           test_cryoscope    #1061      +/-   ##
==================================================
- Coverage           96.98%   96.96%   -0.02%     
==================================================
  Files                 101      101              
  Lines                8217     8276      +59     
==================================================
+ Hits                 7969     8025      +56     
- Misses                248      251       +3     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 96.96% <98.64%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/qibocal/protocols/flux_amplitude_frequency.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...bocal/protocols/two_qubit_interaction/cryoscope.py 98.31% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
src/qibocal/calibration/calibration.py 95.00% <83.33%> (-0.62%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant