coreyostrove

Hi @pcwysoc, thanks for reporting this. I think I've found why this is happening. Since you already have code on your side that produces this error (and I don't have...

Chiming in here with a couple of thoughts to piggy back off of @sserita. But first: `in the creation of the edesign/protocol objects if not parameterizations for the fit(s) are...

Thanks for the bug report, @pcwysoc! And for the example code reproducing the error. I have implemented a fix for this (along with some other issues I discovered along the...

> Juan's point: about adding something like "click for more info" on the titles of plots This was added by @sserita in 0.9.12.2, so this can be checked off.

Question: > Predicted RB number in Gauge Invariant Estimates: this never calculates correctly By this do you mean that it doesn't show up, or that the value returned is wrong?

 (Joking aside, thanks for the detailed updates!)

>Predicted RB number in Gauge Invariant Estimates: this never calculates correctly > The returned value is -1 always. Whelp, I can explain this one (stumbled onto this serendipitously): https://github.com/sandialabs/pyGSTi/blob/ee2158575f4a6a9cffa7465983054be13772e0f8/pygsti/report/reportables.py#L2218C66-L2218C67 @jordanh6...

Hi @Shuoming, thanks for the suggestion. We'll certainly take this into consideration when considering the next round of feature updates for pygsti. Unfortunately, adding support for interleaved RB is not...

> Some places even do this as a way to compute (squared) Frobenius norms. This hurts me a bit in my soul. I'm generally supportive of this. I used einsum...

Whoops, just read your PR related to this. vdot is cool too.