Skip to content
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

Inconsistent boundary setting within the evolution process and out of the evolution process #35

Open
RunzeZhang123 opened this issue May 7, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@RunzeZhang123
Copy link

Hey Maxime,

We noticed that the default boundary for C used within the evolutionary process might be different from the boundary used when returning the output circuit.

Within the evolutionary process, the boundary for C is
parameter_bounds = Dict('R'=>[0,1.0e9],'C'=>[0,10],'L'=>[0,5],'P'=>[[0,0],[1.0e9,1]],'W'=>[0,1.0e9],'+'=>[0,0],'-'=>[0,0])
When outputting the final results, the boundary for C is

EquivalentCircuit(best_circuit,parameteroptimisation(best_circuit,measurements,frequencies))
...
get_parameter_upper_bound 
...
Dict('R'=>1.0e9,'C'=>0.01,'L'=>5,'P'=>[1.0e9,1],'W'=>1.0e9,'+'=>0,'-'=>0) 
...

:)

@MaximeVH
Copy link
Owner

MaximeVH commented May 8, 2024

That's a good point. Also, in the present code, the circuit_evolution function calls parameteroptimisation in the end (as you mentioned in your other issue), but does not allow a custom parameter bounds input. I'll have to make some adjustments by making the default values the same and either not calling parameteroptimisation in the circuit_evolution function or adjusting it so that it also uses custom parameter bounds.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants