In VZ signal experiment sweep phase as absolute, instead of relative to match the non-signal experiment

[hay-k]

resolves #1004

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.47%. Comparing base (bb83a11) to head (7d6af84).
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1017      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.46%   97.47%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         123      123              
  Lines        9722     9722              
==========================================
+ Hits         9476     9477       +1     
+ Misses        246      245       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.47% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...s/two_qubit_interaction/virtual_z_phases_signal.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[igres26]

Looks good to me. Both should be the same. Thanks!

[igres26]

Actually, could we do it the other way around? Change the the other routine to match with the signal one? The point of this is that after setting the virtual phase, you want to see both signals starting at the same point.

not ready to be merged

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

Actually, could we do it the other way around? Change the the other routine to match with the signal one? The point of this is that after setting the virtual phase, you want to see both signals starting at the same point.

I prefer the current implementation (just theta) because it does not hide non-documented post-processing.
I am also not sure the sign is correct: if theta = 0, I am expecting the correction phase to be the one in the platform and
not the opposite.

[andrea-pasquale]

Actually, could we do it the other way around? Change the the other routine to match with the signal one? The point of this is that after setting the virtual phase, you want to see both signals starting at the same point.

I prefer the current implementation (just theta) because it does not hide non-documented post-processing. I am also not sure the sign is correct: if theta = 0, I am expecting the correction phase to be the one in the platform and not the opposite.

Indeed, to be more clear we can draw a vertical line where the virtual phase is supposed to be.

[igres26]

Okay, the vertical line might add clarity. I would also encourage to keep the virtual phases modulo 2\pi then, as otherwise they might not appear on the graph.

[hay-k]

Somehow visualizing the calculated angles (be it a vertical line, or other means) sounds good. Using angles modulo 2*pi if it is not the case already - completely agree. Since these are irrelevant to the problem that this PR is addressing, let's create separate issue(s) for these requests and address in them in a separate PR.