-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Feature/implement_IRB_routine #994
Conversation
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
eb5550d
to
08c7af7
Compare
afe0731
to
ea42062
Compare
ea42062
to
6b2f808
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(Just a couple of preliminary review comments)
In looking at the IRB routine, I have one review comment on base_experiment.py
:
- Can we rename
_run_check
to something like_has_raw_data
? The former is a bit opaque.
_has_probabilities
could also work -- but _has_raw_data
makes sense since, inside collect_data
, _process_probabilities
populates _raw_data
anyway.
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ | |||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Style nit: add supermarq
import here (and maybe put all imports in a separate cell)
Reply via ReviewNB
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM % style nits and previous comments
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ | |||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implement the interleaved randomized benchmarking routine within the qcvv framework.
Blocked by #992