Skip to content

n_coeffs_deriv sorting #83

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 20, 2022
Merged

n_coeffs_deriv sorting #83

merged 4 commits into from
May 20, 2022

Conversation

thangleiter
Copy link
Member

Internally operators are sorted by their identifiers, but there were no checks performed in PulseSequence.get_filter_function_derivative whether the n_coeffs_deriv parameter is sorted as such.

@thangleiter
Copy link
Member Author

Actually I don't remember why the sorting is necessary. Maybe we can drop it?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 19, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #83 (ae1c89f) into master (e60bf5f) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #83      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.13%   97.14%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines        2267     2278      +11     
  Branches      516      520       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         2202     2213      +11     
  Misses         29       29              
  Partials       36       36              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
filter_functions/gradient.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
filter_functions/pulse_sequence.py 97.72% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e60bf5f...ae1c89f. Read the comment docs.

@JDTeske
Copy link
Contributor

JDTeske commented May 19, 2022

The previous sorting was required to comply with the order of control terms.

The derivatives have three axes [time, control, noise].
We fixed the order of the control terms but not the order of the noise terms.

Copy link
Contributor

@JDTeske JDTeske left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes make sense to me and they fix the order of noise hamiltonians as required.

@thangleiter
Copy link
Member Author

The previous sorting was required to comply with the order of control terms.

The derivatives have three axes [time, control, noise]. We fixed the order of the control terms but not the order of the noise terms.

I meant the sorting in general. Why they are stored sorted in the first place. I'll have to think about it, but that can wait. This should work for now.

@thangleiter thangleiter merged commit aba0d05 into master May 20, 2022
@thangleiter thangleiter deleted the hotfix/n_coeffs_deriv_sorting branch May 20, 2022 16:57
thangleiter added a commit to qutech/qopt that referenced this pull request May 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants