Cross resonance protocols for 0.2 version

[andrea-pasquale]

In this PR I'm planning to convert the protocols for cross-resonance to the 0.2 version.
Right now this PR includes only one routine where I sweep the duration of the cross-resonance pulse cross_resonance_length.
I was able to verify the implementation of the protocol using qiboteam/qibolab#1186 with the platform qutrits which I have uploaded in this PR (which is based on some parameters from IBM chips).
Here is a report with the protocol: http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/V_RjRIyXT66pwqcRvCdukQ==/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.80%. Comparing base (66b0441) to head (695ee29).
⚠️ Report is 285 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1131      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.69%   97.80%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         126      134       +8     
  Lines        9293     9736     +443     
==========================================
+ Hits         9079     9522     +443     
  Misses        214      214              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.80% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/qibocal/auto/transpile.py	88.73% <100.00%> (ø)
src/qibocal/protocols/rabi/utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ibocal/protocols/two_qubit_interaction/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../two_qubit_interaction/cross_resonance/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...two_qubit_interaction/cross_resonance/amplitude.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...cross_resonance/hamiltonian_tomography/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../cross_resonance/hamiltonian_tomography/fitting.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...n/cross_resonance/hamiltonian_tomography/length.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...on/cross_resonance/hamiltonian_tomography/utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ls/two_qubit_interaction/cross_resonance/length.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[andrea-pasquale]

In 92fc0ac I added the possibility to run the CR calibration experiments with the echoCR from this paper.
It seems to work as expected (since the target qubit now oscillates roughly at the same frequency).

I'm planning to verify a preliminary CNOT gate which the eCR and later adding the cancellation tone on the target qubit presented in https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04821

[andrea-pasquale]

Just a quick update.
Through some protocols that perform also state tomography I was able to compute all terms in the effective Hamiltonian (using the emulator).
http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/9UYS4YKvS6WsPvFBLjYqVg==/
These are relevant when calibrating the CR gate.

[andrea-pasquale]

Using the echo CR gate I just pushed to the emulator a preliminary CNOT gate with which I was able to generate a Bell state with roughly 93% fidelity.
http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/S27TXCdVSqKHXtEy7Wxf3g==/
Results can (and should be) improved using several things which are already available in this PR such has:

1. Use GaussianSquare pulses instead of Rectangular ones to reduce leakage
2. Calibrate the phase of the CR pulse
3. Calibrate the cancellation tone on the target qubit

Finally, we are missing the calibration of the Drag component which I will probably do in another PR. For the time being I will try to polish the code, so that people can review the PR as soon as possible.

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

Thanks @andrea-pasquale , it looks good to me.

[alecandido]

In 92fc0ac I added the possibility to run the CR calibration experiments with the echoCR from this paper. It seems to work as expected (since the target qubit now oscillates roughly at the same frequency). I'm planning to verify a preliminary CNOT gate which the eCR and later adding the cancellation tone on the target qubit presented in arxiv.org/abs/1603.04821

I know this is not the only protocol in which it is done, but I'd propose to start changing it in here: could we use a scatter plot for the data, and a reserve the line plot just for the fit?
(i.e. 4 lines in the picture should correspond to data, and I'm proposing to plot them as individual points - while the last 2 lines should correspond to fits, and those are fine as lines, as they are right now)

Certainly outdated

[alecandido]

Superseded by #1414