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

noncliff: fix #418: inconsistency in multi-qubit projections for MixedDestabilizer/Stabilizer states #424

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

Fe-r-oz
Copy link
Contributor

@Fe-r-oz Fe-r-oz commented Nov 8, 2024

This PR fixes the inconsistencies that we see when testing projection using multi-qubit random_stabilizer states and multi-qubit random_pauli operator for Stabilizer and MixedDestabilizer. Multi-qubit tests have been been added to demonstrate the consistency of projection test now.

Detail about investigation are included in #418.

Edit: The primary issue in the current testing lies in a scaling discrepancy within one branch, as demonstrated in the tests in #418.

graph TD

    A --> D[Nitty Gritty]
    D--> D1[define_proj]
    
    A --> E[Testing for Consistency]
    E --> E1[multi-qubit stabilizer <br>multi-qubit pauli <br>non-stabilizer]

    subgraph ScaffoldingBranch [ ]
        direction TB
        B[Scaffolding] --> B1[completed]
    end
    subgraph ErrorBranch [Unrelated Errors, <br> Issue #418]
        direction TB
        C[Unrelated Errors, <br> Issue #418] --> C1[Resolve projection inconsistencies for multi-qubit Stabilizer/MixedDestabilizer]
    end
    A[projectrand!] --> C
    A[projectrand!] --> B
Loading

… multi-qubit random_stabilizer and random_pauli for MixedDestabilizer/Stabilizer states
@Fe-r-oz Fe-r-oz changed the title noncliff: fix #418: inconsistency in Multi-qubit projections for MixedDestabilizer/Stabilizer states noncliff: fix #418: inconsistency in multi-qubit projections for MixedDestabilizer/Stabilizer states Nov 8, 2024
@Fe-r-oz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fe-r-oz commented Nov 8, 2024

This PR is ready for review, Thank you!

Edit:
Improved the code quality by doing normalization and using random_clifford. This test will serve as a baseline test.

@Krastanov
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the fix. If I understand correctly, this is an issue with a feature that is not yet implemented. These tests should just be added whenever that feature is submitted as a PR (in that same PR)

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.

2 participants