Skip to content

Conversation

ytdHuang
Copy link
Member

@ytdHuang ytdHuang commented Sep 3, 2025

Checklist

Thank you for contributing to QuantumToolbox.jl! Please make sure you have finished the following tasks before opening the PR.

  • Please read Contributing to Quantum Toolbox in Julia.
  • Any code changes were done in a way that does not break public API.
  • Appropriate tests were added and tested locally by running: make test.
  • Any code changes should be julia formatted by running: make format.
  • All documents (in docs/ folder) related to code changes were updated and able to build locally by running: make docs.
  • (If necessary) the CHANGELOG.md should be updated (regarding to the code changes) and built by running: make changelog.

Request for a review after you have completed all the tasks. If you have not finished them all, you can also open a Draft Pull Request to let the others know this on-going work.

Description

Start from QuTiP v5.2.1, they have generalize the definition of liouvillian as

$$\mathcal{L} [\cdot] =-i\left(\hat{H}[\cdot] - [\cdot]\hat{H}^\dagger\right)$$

see also the PR in qutip: qutip/qutip#2658

That is, we should not expect the Hamiltonian to be Hermitian. This could be beneficial for people working on non-Hermitian physics.

All the test passes, the only problem is the type instability from our original test:

H_td2 = H_td + QobjEvo(destroy(N) + create(N), coef3)
c_ops1 = (destroy(N), create(N))
c_ops2 = (destroy(N), QobjEvo(create(N), coef1))

@inferred liouvillian(H_td, c_ops1)   # pass
@inferred liouvillian(H_td, c_ops2)   # fail
@inferred liouvillian(H_td2, c_ops1)  # pass
@inferred liouvillian(H_td2, c_ops2)  # fail

This is super weird cause I only change the definition of liouvilian, how come it fails for c_ops2 but pass for c_ops1.

-1im * (_spre(H, Id) - _spost(H, Id))
-1im * _spre(H, Id) + 1im * _spost(H', Id) # without extracting the prefactor -1im seems to be better for AbstractSciMLOperator
_liouvillian(H::MatrixOperator, Id::AbstractMatrix) = MatrixOperator(_liouvillian(H.A, Id))
_liouvillian(H::ScaledOperator, Id::AbstractMatrix) = ScaledOperator(H.λ, _liouvillian(H.L, Id))
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can remove the implementation for ScaledOperator, since it should just call the first method (for AbstractSciMLOperator)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually by removing this we have issues with Enzyme.jl

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok we actually need it, otherwise we don't apply conj to the ScalarOperator. This creates some errors in Enzyme.jl

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 3, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.95%. Comparing base (be147e5) to head (dc46a4f).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #541      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.15%   93.95%   +0.79%     
==========================================
  Files          51       51              
  Lines        3566     3558       -8     
==========================================
+ Hits         3322     3343      +21     
+ Misses        244      215      -29     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@albertomercurio
Copy link
Member

When this PR will be merged

the code should not show these error anymore.

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