Apply phases using frame_rotation in QM

[stavros11]

In 0.2 pulse phases was applied in the uploaded waveform samples. Here I am switching this back to the approach used in 0.1, based on frame_rotation, because this is how I managed to make the CHSH routine work.

I am not sure which solution of the two is better. The one implemented here may suffer from the second note in https://docs.quantum-machines.co/latest/docs/API_references/qua/dsl_main/?h=frame_#qm.qua._dsl.frame_rotation_2pi, so I am leaving it as draft for now.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 50.66%. Comparing base (cbaf2c6) to head (632cb28).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...bolab/_core/instruments/qm/program/instructions.py	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/qibolab/_core/instruments/qm/config/pulses.py	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1116      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   50.65%   50.66%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          63       63              
  Lines        2922     2921       -1     
==========================================
  Hits         1480     1480              
+ Misses       1442     1441       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	50.66% <0.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[alecandido]

I'd like to understand why the results are different in the two cases (before and after this PR).

However, the current approach (after this PR) may not be that bad, since it would deduplicate waveforms that are different just because of the relative_phase, saving memory and networking.

Moreover, that second note is talking about an error of ~1e-5, which may be relevant at some point, but individually would be compensated by the calibration, and the accumulated one could be counteracted exactly in the way they are describing (which is adding some complexity to the program generation, but if it's efficient in other respects we could accept it - and with our current experiments we should not be that sensitive...).

[alecandido]

What was the +1 for?

[alecandido]

If the phase was already accounted for in the waveform, why were you resetting the frame?

[alecandido]

Maybe, if a frame reset was needed, it could have always been needed, even when the parameters.phase is None. Since None should be a relative zero, I guess (in Pulse.relative_phase we actually use 0.0 as default, and never None - not sure where the None is generated).
If instead is not needed, because you're somehow accumulating the relative phases, then it may be never needed.

I'm trying to understand the whole flow, so, I'm still at the level of collecting hints to reconstruct the full picture...

[stavros11]

If the phase was already accounted for in the waveform, why were you resetting the frame?

Because we were still using frame_rotation_2pi when sweeping phases, and in that case we may need to reset_frame. For example doing the following with sweeper:

for theta in sweeper.values:
    RX(0, theta=theta)
    RX(0, theta=0)

there will be a frame rotation to apply the first gate and we need to reset the frame before applying the second.

Maybe, if a frame reset was needed, it could have always been needed, even when the parameters.phase is None.

That's true, I think you can add reset_frame in the program even without doing any rotation and it should have no effect. However, I think reset_frame, if not used properly, will screw up VirtualZ "pulses", that's why I completely removed it from this PR. For example in

RZ(0, theta=np.pi / 4)
RX(0, theta=np.pi / 2)
RX(0, theta=0)

the first np.pi/4 is a virtual-Z and should be maintained throughout the circuit, so if the second RX causes a reset_frame in the driver, it won't be correct.

[alecandido]

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. The only way I see to make reset_frame work should be the one described in #1116 (comment), i.e.

• preserving a counter of the accumulated virtual phase in parallel
• restoring the virtual phase after every reset_frame

However, for the individual RX it seems simpler to just rotate forward before the gate, and backward right after the play() instruction (which I expect is what you're now doing). This would accumulate a negligible error on the individual instruction, and we only have to pay attention for long sequences, applying a reset strategy.

[stavros11]

I'd like to understand why the results are different in the two cases (before and after this PR).

I haven't understood that myself yet, that's why it's draft. I just switched to the original approach as I was debugging the CHSH and since I managed to make it work I opened this PR mainly as support of qiboteam/qibocal#1049. The idea is that the qibocal PR should be good as it is and we can decide internally in the driver how to do the phases.

However, the current approach (after this PR) may not be that bad, since it would deduplicate waveforms that are different just because of the relative_phase, saving memory and networking.

Indeed, however this may not happen in practice right now, because the deduplication is handled by using hash(pulse) when uploading and if two pulses have different phases, they'll have different hash. But I need to investigate this more, as I am not sure.

Moreover, that second note is talking about an error of ~1e-5, which may be relevant at some point, but individually would be compensated by the calibration, and the accumulated one could be counteracted exactly in the way they are describing

I am not sure if this can be solved in calibration. For example, take a single qubit and apply a sequence of random unitaries/U3s. In single qubit calibration we never deal with phases, we only calibrate an RX (or RX90) with zero phase. Then the sequence of random unitaries is compiled to RX90s with random phases, so in principle if there are many gates, this error should affect if we never use reset_frame (if I understand it correctly).

[alecandido]

Indeed, however this may not happen in practice right now, because the deduplication is handled by using hash(pulse) when uploading and if two pulses have different phases, they'll have different hash. But I need to investigate this more, as I am not sure.

I'm also considering hashing the generated samples for deduplication, instead of hashing the parameters.
However, it may be more convenient for to skip samples generation, if possible, and thus applying the current strategy of hashing the pulse, but with the correct information. We may consider to have a .hash() (or a better-named equivalent) that ignores by default the relative_phase, or it does as an option.

I am not sure if this can be solved in calibration. For example, take a single qubit and apply a sequence of random unitaries/U3s. In single qubit calibration we never deal with phases, we only calibrate an RX (or RX90) with zero phase. Then the sequence of random unitaries is compiled to RX90s with random phases, so in principle if there are many gates, this error should affect if we never use reset_frame (if I understand it correctly).

Ok, my point was that we don't need this to make the individual gate optimal. Then, I agree we should still place reset_frame every now and then, but we can do something like that as a final post-processing, by somehow keeping the information about the virtual-zs somewhere else than in the QUA commands, as a full double precision float, and issuing a reset_frame followed by a single frame_rotation of the accumulated virtual phase, after a certain number of frame_rotations.