Skip to content

Adding support for QPY as the circuit exchange mechanism #60

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
cbjuan merged 24 commits into from
Dec 18, 2025
Merged

Adding support for QPY as the circuit exchange mechanism #60

cbjuan merged 24 commits into from
Dec 18, 2025

Conversation

@cbjuan
Copy link
Member

@cbjuan cbjuan commented Dec 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description

Adding support for QPY as the circuit exchange format between methods and servers

Linked Issue(s)

Fixes #59

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Automated tests

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

@cbjuan cbjuan changed the title Adding qpy Adding support for QPY as the circuit exchange mechanism Dec 16, 2025
@cbjuan cbjuan marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2025 16:59
@cbjuan cbjuan requested a review from vabarbosa as a code owner December 17, 2025 16:59
vabarbosa
vabarbosa approved these changes Dec 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@vabarbosa vabarbosa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this looks good and i was able to test and run some examples

qiskit-ibm-transpiler-mcp-server/src/qiskit_ibm_transpiler_mcp_server/qta.py
Comment on lines +118 to +119
"depth_reduction": depth_reduction,
"two_qubit_gate_reduction": two_qubit_reduction,
Copy link
Collaborator

@vabarbosa vabarbosa Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just curious since i am not too familiar, but could there be a case where either of these values are negative? and if so, would that have any impact on what is being returned here?

Copy link
Member Author

@cbjuan cbjuan Dec 18, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, we can find examples in which a particular method does not improve and gives worse results than others. That would be the negative value there.

The impact will be for the agent/LLM to know that something is worse. I'm not sure every LLM would be able to interpret clearly the sign, so I'll review it with a few models in the future. Thanks!

@cbjuan cbjuan merged commit ccbbe48 into main Dec 18, 2025
21 checks passed
@cbjuan cbjuan deleted the adding-qpy branch December 18, 2025 10:49
@cbjuan cbjuan mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@vabarbosa vabarbosa vabarbosa approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

FEATURE: Enable QPY as the exchange mechanism for quantum circuits

2 participants

@cbjuan @vabarbosa