Josh Izaac

> In qchem we sort of have this situation going here since our molecule information is all stored in the Molecule class, rather than as separate parameters in the function...

Hey all, just revisiting this issue now (with newer context we might have from plxpr work). Will plxpr be treating wires as dynamic or static?

Thanks @cvjjm! from chatting to the team, this seems to come from the `adjoint` modifier; exchanging the decomposition and the `qml.adjoint` resolves the problem (compiling to `S^\dagger`). I wonder if...

We're curious if you've encountered any other cases where the clifford decomposition struggles?

Thanks @cvjjm, definitely something we want to improve down the line! Are there any particular ones in the list that have come up which you would find useful?

Thanks @cvjjm! This is on our radar, and I have good news and not-so-good news. The good news is that we have found and fixed this performance regression when using...

Thanks @obliviateandsurrender and @PabloAMC! @obliviateandsurrender something odd I notice: using this PR, the following works: ```python dev = qml.device("lightning.qubit", wires=4) @jax.jit @qml.qnode(dev) def f(U): for i in range(4): qml.Hadamard(i) qml.BasisRotation.compute_decomposition(unitary_matrix=U,...

> The idea was that if a user went through the effort of computing the grouping indices, they wanted to use them. Part of the problem was that we had...

@trbromley do you have more details on this? > There is also an error when using qml.qjit and lightning.qubit, which doesn't expect a JAX tracer for the seed argument. This...

> Oh interesting, so the seed should live with qjit rather than the device? 🤔 The PR was motivated by a technical problem: we have tests in the catalyst code...