Add a Pauli bitmask operations benchmark module - #553
Open
ciaranra wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
crates/benchmarkshad no coverage of Pauli bitmask arithmetic at all — the module list carried a// TODO: pub mod pauli_ops;placeholder. This fills it in.The module measures
multiply_with_phase(and phase-freemultiplyas a reference point) across all three storage backends and the operand shapes that stress different parts of the implementation:Operands are built once outside the timed closure and derived arithmetically from the qubit index, so the inputs are byte-identical across runs and across branches. The module uses only the public
pecos_coreAPI, which is what makes it usable as a cross-branch comparison harness.Why it exists
It was written to substantiate — or refute — a performance claim about the phase computation, and it did both: it confirmed a large speedup on dense and wide-register shapes and exposed a real regression on sparse-low-index operands that had been predicted but never measured. That regression was then fixed before the change shipped.