You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the context of VQE, I am wondering whether in Pennylane it is a hard requirement that all unitaries must be defined over qubits, or if it's possible to optimize a cost function <U* H U> where the dimensions of U and H aren't necessarily a power of 2. Basically, I don't want to define an underlying circuit - is this a no-go? Or is it possible that the cost can still be numerically optimized by using/hacking Pennylane methods as-is?
Implementation
I don't need a proper implementation per-se, just some way of calling (potentially) internal functions to extract the necessary functionality.
How important would you say this feature is?
1: Not important. Would be nice to have.
Additional information
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @joeybarreto, this is a good question. Right now, PennyLane is quite dimension-dependent - we have support for both qubits and qutrits, but it would be great to generalize to arbitrary $d$.
Though we're always up for prioritizing features if they are of use to users. It would be great to get a few more details on what you're trying to do, perhaps we could have a brief call to get on the same page?
Feature details
In the context of VQE, I am wondering whether in Pennylane it is a hard requirement that all unitaries must be defined over qubits, or if it's possible to optimize a cost function <U* H U> where the dimensions of U and H aren't necessarily a power of 2. Basically, I don't want to define an underlying circuit - is this a no-go? Or is it possible that the cost can still be numerically optimized by using/hacking Pennylane methods as-is?
Implementation
I don't need a proper implementation per-se, just some way of calling (potentially) internal functions to extract the necessary functionality.
How important would you say this feature is?
1: Not important. Would be nice to have.
Additional information
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: