-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
Fix zero-qubit Pauli
label strings
#9726
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
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
7 changes: 7 additions & 0 deletions
7
releasenotes/notes/fix-empty-pauli-label-ce2580584db67a4d.yaml
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
--- | ||
fixes: | ||
- | | ||
Fixed an edge case in the construction of :class:`.Pauli` instances; a string with an optional | ||
phase and no qubits is now a valid label, making an operator with no qubits (such as | ||
``Pauli("-i")``). This was already possible when using the array forms, or empty slices. | ||
Fixed `#9720 <https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-terra/issues/9720>`__. |
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This got removed because
""
is a valid input now - it's not that the estimator fails to reject it, it's that it shouldn't be rejected now. It'll very likely get rejected when somebody tries to actually run a circuit with aPauli("")
as the observable, because I'm assuming that nobody's running zero-qubit circuits and so the number of qubits won't match.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, if #9700 is merged in its current form, a zero-qubit observable would be allowed for any circuit (i.e., with any number of qubits) as far as
BaseEstimator
is concerned, if I understand correctly.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's pretty wild to me. If you don't specify which qubits you're acting on with the observable, how is the primitive meant to know which ones undergo the implicit identity - is it the first qubit indices that it applies to? That doesn't seem right. Anyway, I don't know the context of that PR, and it wouldn't be my call anyway.
I think this PR is correct regardless of that, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree.