Use automatic partition_labels in new CutWire how-to
#370
Conversation
garrison
added
documentation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks really elegant. I like the symmetry between cut_wires and cut_gates. They both prepare a circuit for a gate cutting workflow. I like that we abstract the difference between gate and wire cutting immediately in our workflow.
Just a small, pedantic comment on imports here and also a suggestion we link to the wire-cutting-as-a-2q-IGate-cut appendix in the Piveteau/Sutter paper.
Thanks!
| def cut_wires(circuit: QuantumCircuit, /) -> QuantumCircuit: | ||
| """Transform all :class:`.CutWire` instructions in a circuit to :class:`.Move` instructions marked for cutting. | ||
|
|
||
| The returned circuit will have one newly allocated qubit for every :class:`.CutWire` instruction. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we link to the Piveteau/Sutter LOCC wire cutting paper appendix here? THey do a nice explanation of wire cutting as a 2q identity cut / move operation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should go in an explanation at some point, but good idea -- I've added it here for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I plan on making a milestone for tidying up the docs by using more links out to explanation (especially in cutting tutorials. they're very verbose.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you mean issue, rather than milestone? We can add such an issue to the 0.3.1 milestone.
Co-authored-by: Caleb Johnson <[email protected]>
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5903504761
💛 - Coveralls |
This introduces a
cut_wiresfunction, as suggested at #326 (comment), which is the one remaining piece (beyond #368) that is needed to make it so wire cuts can be specified byCutWires alone, without having also to provide the correctpartition_labels.I've opened this as a PR against the branch in #368 so GitHub will show only the changes that are unique to this PR. I still think, however, that #368 should be merged first and then this should go in after it, since they are each logical, discrete changes.