Replies: 4 comments
-
|
Not sure, I feel like we should either do or not do, and do not add a flag. Otherwise, we would end up in the same situation of |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I would say that if a list of multiple |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Checking if parallel execution is possible is for sure something we have to implement and I was already thinking about that, but I also think this might be step1. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Maybe I misunderstood your original suggestion. I thought you meant a flag that if True runs runs the protocol in parallel on all This is independent of the handling of flux, for which I would say we should turn on the flux only for those qubits being used simultaneously. I.e if you do a single-qubit experiment, only one qubit should be fluxed, and if at a later stage of the calibration process you want to do a simultaneous calibration then all of them are fluxed and the flux-crosstalk matrix is used to set the fluxes. For the time being all fluxes are always activated (at least in qblox), which is something that has to be changed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Might it be useful to actually expose a flag in the experiments Parameters for executing in parallel or not a specific experiment?
Of course this is in the same fashion of the eventual refactor of qibocal protocols.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions