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

arbitrary initial state #53

Open
shinich1 opened this issue May 16, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #135
Open

arbitrary initial state #53

shinich1 opened this issue May 16, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #135
Labels
new feature New feature or request simulation backend related to numerical simulation backend

Comments

@shinich1
Copy link
Contributor

shinich1 commented May 16, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, graphix does not assume arbitrary initial state for the MBQC. This is not a problem (still universal, just like real quantum hardware) but it would be a good feature to have, to test out MBQC with small toy models

Describe the feature you'd like
An option to simulate with arbitrary input state. For this, we would need:

  • an option to keep the input nodes during the Pattern.perform_pauli_measurements(). Otherwise input nodes will be considered fixed |+> states and be preprocessed, making it difficult to simulate with arbitrary input state.
  • an option to use arbitrary input statevector in StatevectorBackend.
  • similar option for TN backend.

Additional context
na

@shinich1 shinich1 added new feature New feature or request simulation backend related to numerical simulation backend labels May 16, 2023
@mgarnier59
Copy link
Contributor

I will work on that. I think it also requires modification of the preparation MBQC command N so as to allow user-defined preparations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new feature New feature or request simulation backend related to numerical simulation backend
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants