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

Hotfix: Exclude flux pulses from subsection splitting logic if they overlap (in time) with readout #848

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 26, 2024

Conversation

hay-k
Copy link
Contributor

@hay-k hay-k commented Mar 21, 2024

Historically, the ZI driver was designed so that it splits incoming pulse sequence based on the locations of measurement. This was motivated by some limitations in laboneq, (at least) part of which no longer exist. Eventually the driver will be rewritten to remove the assumptions related to this logic, but for now to make this experiment work, this PR implements a hotfix.

See also discussion in #840

Tested for qubit 1 with qiboteam/qibocal#691 and qiboteam/qibolab_platforms_qrc#126 (but updated the power range of flux lines from 9 to 1).

Qubit flux dependence:

qubit_flux

Resonator flux dependence:

resonator_flux

P.S. The amplitude sweeps are indeed flux pulse amplitude sweeps. The axis is incorrectly named bias (see qiboteam/qibocal#691 (review))

Before this change, the right plots (i.e. the ones with flux pulse amplitude sweep) would look like as below (example plot for qubit flux dependence). I.e. the sweep wouldn't happen at all. This is because the long flux pulse overlapping with measurement was dropped.
image

Checklist:

  • Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
  • Tests are passing.
  • Coverage does not decrease.
  • Documentation is updated.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.47%. Comparing base (503c3b5) to head (2b79dd0).
Report is 23 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #848      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.28%   66.47%   +0.18%     
==========================================
  Files          54       54              
  Lines        5873     5891      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits         3893     3916      +23     
+ Misses       1980     1975       -5     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 66.47% <100.00%> (+0.18%) ⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@alecandido alecandido added this to the Qibolab 0.1.6 milestone Mar 21, 2024
@hay-k hay-k force-pushed the flux-pulse-hotfix branch from c1d6129 to dfe6e1a Compare March 22, 2024 12:25
@hay-k hay-k force-pushed the flux-pulse-hotfix branch from dfe6e1a to 1304ba0 Compare March 25, 2024 07:21
@hay-k hay-k marked this pull request as ready for review March 25, 2024 07:58
Co-authored-by: Gabriele Palazzo <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@Jacfomg Jacfomg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice axis edition on the plots, btw!

src/qibolab/instruments/zhinst/executor.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Jacfomg Jacfomg mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2024
4 tasks
Co-authored-by: Juan Cereijo <[email protected]>
@hay-k hay-k merged commit c109c51 into main Mar 26, 2024
24 checks passed
@hay-k hay-k deleted the flux-pulse-hotfix branch March 28, 2024 11:24
@hay-k hay-k mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2024
4 tasks
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.

4 participants