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

ComputeUncompute fidelity - lack of transpilation option #194

Open
rihartma opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #197
Open

ComputeUncompute fidelity - lack of transpilation option #194

rihartma opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #197

Comments

@rihartma
Copy link

What should we add?

When using ComputeUncompute, there is no option to transpile the final circuit for specific backend (using a PassManager), therefore it cannot be used sufficiently on real devices.

A possible solution (which is not sufficient!) would be to pass already transpiled circuits to create_fidelity_circuit method, but it is using the circuit .inverse() method, which contains inverse gates which might not be implemented on the specific quantum device, therefore it cannot be used.

I suggest adding a new optional parameter _pass_manager (of type PassManager) to ComputeUncompute with the following behavior:

  • If None, then the behavior would remain unchanged.
  • Otherwise, before the circuit is returned in create_fidelity_circuit, it would be transformed to satisfy the PassManager constraints.

I already have a basic local implementation and can submit a pull request.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant