Dev/decoherence #22

jasonhan3 · 2024-07-20T19:57:14Z

Created an abstract noise operation class AbstractNoiseBellOp
Implemented PauliZOp for phase damping errors and MixedStateOp for amplitude damping errors

codecov · 2024-07-24T19:24:45Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 76.74419% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.54%. Comparing base (cf6575d) to head (69be8ca).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/BPGates.jl	76.74%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #22      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.93%   86.54%   -1.39%     
==========================================
  Files           2        2              
  Lines         232      275      +43     
==========================================
+ Hits          204      238      +34     
- Misses         28       37       +9

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

Krastanov

This looks pretty good! Most of my questions are on naming conventions. In a second round of review we will probably need to discuss testing a bit more (I have not read through it in detail yet).

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:35:14Z

src/BPGates.jl

@@ -260,6 +265,7 @@ const double_perm_tuple = (

 """The permutations realized by [`BellDoublePermutation`](@ref) as Clifford operations."""
 const double_perm_qc = ( # TODO switch to symbolic gates
+    # Q: are these the stabilizer states for each qubit?


These are gates defined as Clifford tableaux from QuantumClifford.jl

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:36:02Z

src/BPGates.jl

+    # does this apply both coincidence AND anti-coincidence measurements?
+    # i assume that it's hard coded into measure_tuple


Yes, all three types of measurements that result in preserving the A state are included here.

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:36:53Z

src/BPGates.jl

@@ -422,6 +433,7 @@ const cnot_perm = (1, 2, 11, 12, 6, 5, 16, 15, 9, 10, 3, 4, 14, 13, 8, 7)

 function QuantumClifford.apply!(state::BellState, g::CNOTPerm) # TODO abstract away the permutation application as it is used by other gates too
    phase = state.phases
+    # why can you do inbounds here?


the constructor has checked that the indices are within bounds

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:37:05Z

src/BPGates.jl

@@ -379,6 +388,7 @@ struct CNOTPerm <: BellOp
    idx2::Int
    function CNOTPerm(s1,s2,i1,i2)
        (1 <= s1 <= 6 && 1 <= s2 <= 6) || throw(ArgumentError("The permutation index needs to be between 1 and 6."))
+        # no other checks on the BP indices? maybe that's the job of the other component


do you have other checks in mind?

Just that i1 and i2 (representing the indices of the Bell states to be manipulated) aren't checked to be inbounds, but actually I think this is a good design choice because you are decoupling the gate application from the specific Bell state you are applying it to.

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:39:10Z

src/BPGates.jl

@@ -409,6 +419,7 @@ const h = tHadamard
 const p = tPhase
 const hp = h*p
 const ph = p*h
+# TODO: What is this????


the 6 gates that are "good permutation gates", i.e. the ones from good_perm_tuple, i.e. GoodSingleQubitPerm, but represented as Clifford tableaux, for more general-purpose simulations. Used in the toQCcircuit conversion utility.

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:40:00Z

src/BPGates.jl

@@ -507,6 +522,7 @@ end
 function QuantumClifford.apply!(state::BellState, g::PauliNoiseOp)
    i = g.idx
    # TODO repetition with ...NoisyReset and PauliNoise...
+    # ^ ?


this todo is a reminder that there is some code repetition with things implemented in QuantumClifford

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:40:58Z

src/BPGates.jl

+"""
+PauliZOp(idx, pz) causes qubit at idx `idx` to have a Z flip with probabilty `pz`.
+"""
+struct PauliZOp <: AbstractNoiseBellOp


I would not call this an Op as this implies it is a deterministic gate, not a noise process that happens only probabilistically.

I see. But isn't "PauliNoiseOp" in the original BPGates.jl also a probabilistic application of an X, Y, or Z gate? So I think it's in agreement with that convention?

Technically this struct is just a special case of the PauliNoiseOp but px = 0, py = 0, and pz = pz, but I wanted to create my own for testing purposes (in case PauliNoiseOp was broken for whatever reason; the original BPGates.jl does not have explicit tests for the PauliNoiseOp struct

Would calling this "PhaseDampingOp" make more sense?

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:41:50Z

src/BPGates.jl

+"""
+MixedStateOp(idx, lambda) causes Bell state at idx `idx` to change to another
+Bell state determined by `mixed_state_tuple` and `lambda`.
+"""
+struct MixedStateOp <: AbstractNoiseBellOp


Why is this called MixedStateOp? Semantically I am not sure I am following the naming convention.

Mainly because in the original BPGates.jl, even probabilistic applications are suffixed by "Op".

Maybe it makes more sense to say that this is specifically a noise operation, so calling this "AmplitudeDampingTwirlingOp" makes more sense?

Krastanov · 2024-07-29T17:43:03Z

test/Project.toml

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ DocStringExtensions = "ffbed154-4ef7-542d-bbb7-c09d3a79fcae"
 Documenter = "e30172f5-a6a5-5a46-863b-614d45cd2de4"
 JET = "c3a54625-cd67-489e-a8e7-0a5a0ff4e31b"
 LinearAlgebra = "37e2e46d-f89d-539d-b4ee-838fcccc9c8e"
+Logging = "56ddb016-857b-54e1-b83d-db4d58db5568"


do we need this?

It makes printing out error messages cleaner; it's not strictly necessary. I can remove it if you'd like to minimize the extra dependences. However it is a part of the standard library so I feel like the chances of it breaking are smaller.

jasonhan3 · 2024-08-21T15:01:26Z

From the previous time this PR was reviewed, I made a couple more updates:

Removed the comments as questions that you answered in your replies above (thank you!)
Added tests for PauliZOp and MixedStateOp for comparison to exact density matrix computation
Refactored MixedStateOp
Added AsymmDepOp (is mainly experimental; is not tested and most likely can be removed)

Krastanov · 2024-11-05T03:17:04Z

@jasonhan3 thanks for setting this up! A simpler alternative implementation of most of these capabilities was merged in #23 so closing this one

jasonhan3 added 10 commits June 21, 2024 15:59

Added code for T2 decoherence

810764a

Merge branch 'QuantumSavory:main' into dev/decoherence

7361618

Intermediate progress on MixedStateOp

349fb2a

Added simple tests for PauliZOp (intermediate progress)

cd2a6ce

Added mixed_state_tuple

b749dc6

Commented out progess

1af41a6

Drafted implementation for amplitude damping gate (NEEDS TESTING)

a92156c

Fixed some bugs in BPGates.jl

448c14e

Added minimal comments

e061ec2

Added CHANGELOG

110ec4a

Krastanov self-requested a review July 21, 2024 12:58

jasonhan3 added 5 commits July 24, 2024 00:57

Fixed bug for MixedStateOp in BPGates.jl

ebc1f69

Added Symbolics.jl as a dependency

e65baa5

Did not use Symbolics.jl

a8f50bd

Removed Symbolics.jl as dependency

e8c9fbb

Added tests for MixedStateOp

6aed465

Krastanov requested changes Jul 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

jasonhan3 and others added 4 commits July 31, 2024 15:30

Added asymmetric depolarizing channel gate

0f26045

Added tests for the amplitude damping noise model

2dec460

Slight optimizations to BPGates

8627ac8

Removed question comments + update CHANGELOG

69be8ca

Krastanov closed this Nov 5, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Dev/decoherence #22

Dev/decoherence #22

jasonhan3 commented Jul 20, 2024

codecov bot commented Jul 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Krastanov left a comment

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

jasonhan3 Aug 21, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

jasonhan3 Aug 21, 2024

jasonhan3 Aug 21, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

jasonhan3 Aug 21, 2024

Krastanov Jul 29, 2024

jasonhan3 Aug 21, 2024

jasonhan3 commented Aug 21, 2024

Krastanov commented Nov 5, 2024

		# does this apply both coincidence AND anti-coincidence measurements?
		# i assume that it's hard coded into measure_tuple

Dev/decoherence #22

Dev/decoherence #22

Conversation

jasonhan3 commented Jul 20, 2024

codecov bot commented Jul 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

Krastanov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasonhan3 commented Aug 21, 2024

Krastanov commented Nov 5, 2024

codecov bot commented Jul 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading