internlm/SWE-Fixer-Train-110K huggingface dataset:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
Remove `_name` attribute of Parameter
### What should we add?

It's redundant with the `_symbol_expr` attribute. See https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/pull/10875#discussion_r1333369933


Discussion:

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/circuit/parameter.py b/qiskit/circuit/parameter.py
--- a/qiskit/circuit/parameter.py
+++ b/qiskit/circuit/parameter.py
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ class Parameter(ParameterExpression):
            bc.draw('mpl')
     """
 
-    __slots__ = ("_name", "_uuid", "_hash")
+    __slots__ = ("_uuid", "_hash")
 
     # This `__init__` does not call the super init, because we can't construct the
     # `_parameter_symbols` dictionary we need to pass to it before we're entirely initialised
@@ -79,7 +79,6 @@ def __init__(
                 field when creating two parameters to the same thing (along with the same name)
                 allows them to be equal.  This is useful during serialization and deserialization.
         """
-        self._name = name
         self._uuid = uuid4() if uuid is None else uuid
         symbol = symengine.Symbol(name)
 
@@ -117,7 +116,7 @@ def subs(self, parameter_map: dict, allow_unknown_parameters: bool = False):
     @property
     def name(self):
         """Returns the name of the :class:`Parameter`."""
-        return self._name
+        return self._symbol_expr.name
 
     @property
     def uuid(self) -> UUID:
@@ -143,7 +142,7 @@ def __repr__(self):
 
     def __eq__(self, other):
         if isinstance(other, Parameter):
-            return (self._uuid, self._name) == (other._uuid, other._name)
+            return (self._uuid, self._symbol_expr) == (other._uuid, other._symbol_expr)
         elif isinstance(other, ParameterExpression):
             return super().__eq__(other)
         else:
@@ -155,7 +154,7 @@ def _hash_key(self):
         # expression, so its full hash key is split into `(parameter_keys, symbolic_expression)`.
         # This method lets containing expressions get only the bits they need for equality checks in
         # the first value, without wasting time re-hashing individual Sympy/Symengine symbols.
-        return (self._name, self._uuid)
+        return (self._symbol_expr, self._uuid)
 
     def __hash__(self):
         # This is precached for performance, since it's used a lot and we are immutable.
@@ -165,10 +164,10 @@ def __hash__(self):
     # operation attempts to put this parameter into a hashmap.
 
     def __getstate__(self):
-        return (self._name, self._uuid, self._symbol_expr)
+        return (self.name, self._uuid, self._symbol_expr)
 
     def __setstate__(self, state):
-        self._name, self._uuid, self._symbol_expr = state
+        _, self._uuid, self._symbol_expr = state
         self._parameter_keys = frozenset((self._hash_key(),))
         self._hash = hash((self._parameter_keys, self._symbol_expr))
         self._parameter_symbols = {self: self._symbol_expr}


Test patch:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
entanglement="pairwise" for EfficientSU2 is not documented
### Environment

- **Qiskit version**:
- **Python version**: 
- **Operating system**: 


### What is happening?

See https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/qiskit.circuit.library.EfficientSU2
![image](https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/assets/4296166/01874a64-6a79-40a9-b4c2-19eaf2201ffb)


### How can we reproduce the issue?

It works though
```python
from qiskit.circuit.library import EfficientSU2

n_qubits = 10
circuit = EfficientSU2(n_qubits, entanglement="pairwise")
circuit.decompose().draw("mpl")
```
![image](https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/assets/4296166/d6087fa4-fcf4-4b83-b282-2e6142f59b5a)


### What should happen?

It should be documented.

### Any suggestions?

_No response_


Discussion:

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/circuit/library/n_local/efficient_su2.py b/qiskit/circuit/library/n_local/efficient_su2.py
--- a/qiskit/circuit/library/n_local/efficient_su2.py
+++ b/qiskit/circuit/library/n_local/efficient_su2.py
@@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ def __init__(
                 If only one gate is provided, the same gate is applied to each qubit.
                 If a list of gates is provided, all gates are applied to each qubit in the provided
                 order.
-            entanglement: Specifies the entanglement structure. Can be a string ('full', 'linear'
-                , 'reverse_linear', 'circular' or 'sca'), a list of integer-pairs specifying the indices
-                of qubits entangled with one another, or a callable returning such a list provided with
-                the index of the entanglement layer.
-                Default to 'reverse_linear' entanglement.
+            entanglement: Specifies the entanglement structure. Can be a string
+                ('full', 'linear', 'reverse_linear', 'pairwise', 'circular', or 'sca'),
+                a list of integer-pairs specifying the indices of qubits entangled with one another,
+                or a callable returning such a list provided with the index of the entanglement layer.
+                Defaults to 'reverse_linear' entanglement.
                 Note that 'reverse_linear' entanglement provides the same unitary as 'full'
                 with fewer entangling gates.
                 See the Examples section of :class:`~qiskit.circuit.library.TwoLocal` for more


Test patch:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
Add insert_barrier argument to UnitaryOverlap
### What should we add?

This argument would insert a barrier between the two unitaries. This is useful if you want to prevent circuit optimization between the two parts.


Discussion:

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/circuit/library/overlap.py b/qiskit/circuit/library/overlap.py
--- a/qiskit/circuit/library/overlap.py
+++ b/qiskit/circuit/library/overlap.py
@@ -59,7 +59,12 @@ class UnitaryOverlap(QuantumCircuit):
     """
 
     def __init__(
-        self, unitary1: QuantumCircuit, unitary2: QuantumCircuit, prefix1="p1", prefix2="p2"
+        self,
+        unitary1: QuantumCircuit,
+        unitary2: QuantumCircuit,
+        prefix1: str = "p1",
+        prefix2: str = "p2",
+        insert_barrier: bool = False,
     ):
         """
         Args:
@@ -69,6 +74,7 @@ def __init__(
                 if it is parameterized. Defaults to ``"p1"``.
             prefix2: The name of the parameter vector associated to ``unitary2``,
                 if it is parameterized. Defaults to ``"p2"``.
+            insert_barrier: Whether to insert a barrier between the two unitaries.
 
         Raises:
             CircuitError: Number of qubits in ``unitary1`` and ``unitary2`` does not match.
@@ -95,6 +101,8 @@ def __init__(
         # Generate the actual overlap circuit
         super().__init__(unitaries[0].num_qubits, name="UnitaryOverlap")
         self.compose(unitaries[0], inplace=True)
+        if insert_barrier:
+            self.barrier()
         self.compose(unitaries[1].inverse(), inplace=True)
 
 


Test patch:
diff --git a/test/python/circuit/library/test_overlap.py b/test/python/circuit/library/test_overlap.py
--- a/test/python/circuit/library/test_overlap.py
+++ b/test/python/circuit/library/test_overlap.py
@@ -131,6 +131,21 @@ def test_mismatching_qubits(self):
         with self.assertRaises(CircuitError):
             _ = UnitaryOverlap(unitary1, unitary2)
 
+    def test_insert_barrier(self):
+        """Test inserting barrier between circuits"""
+        unitary1 = EfficientSU2(1, reps=1)
+        unitary2 = EfficientSU2(1, reps=1)
+        overlap = UnitaryOverlap(unitary1, unitary2, insert_barrier=True)
+        self.assertEqual(overlap.count_ops()["barrier"], 1)
+        self.assertEqual(
+            str(overlap.draw(fold=-1, output="text")).strip(),
+            """
+   ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐ ░ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐
+q: ┤ EfficientSU2(p1[0],p1[1],p1[2],p1[3]) ├─░─┤ EfficientSU2_dg(p2[0],p2[1],p2[2],p2[3]) ├
+   └───────────────────────────────────────┘ ░ └──────────────────────────────────────────┘
+""".strip(),
+        )
+
 
 if __name__ == "__main__":
     unittest.main()
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
`hamiltonian1` is not defined in an example of EstimatorV2
### URL to the relevant documentation

https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/primitives#overview-of-estimatorv2

### Select all that apply

- [ ] typo
- [X] code bug
- [ ] out-of-date content
- [ ] broken link
- [ ] other

### Describe the fix.

```
from qiskit.primitives import StatevectorEstimator as Estimator
from qiskit.circuit.library import RealAmplitudes
from qiskit.quantum_info import SparsePauliOp
 
psi1 = RealAmplitudes(num_qubits=2, reps=2)
psi2 = RealAmplitudes(num_qubits=2, reps=3)
 
H1 = SparsePauliOp.from_list([("II", 1), ("IZ", 2), ("XI", 3)])
H2 = SparsePauliOp.from_list([("IZ", 1)])
H3 = SparsePauliOp.from_list([("ZI", 1), ("ZZ", 1)])
 
theta1 = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5]
theta2 = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13]
theta3 = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
 
estimator = Estimator()
 
# calculate [ <psi1(theta1)|H1|psi1(theta1)> ]
job = estimator.run([(psi1, hamiltonian1, [theta1])])
job_result = job.result() # It will block until the job finishes.
print(f"The primitive-job finished with result {job_result}"))
 
# calculate [ [<psi1(theta1)|H1|psi1(theta1)>,
#              <psi1(theta3)|H3|psi1(theta3)>],
#             [<psi2(theta2)|H2|psi2(theta2)>] ]
job2 = estimator.run(
    [
        (psi1, [hamiltonian1, hamiltonian3], [theta1, theta3]),
        (psi2, hamiltonian2, theta2)
    ],
    precision=0.01
)
job_result = job2.result()
print(f"The primitive-job finished with result {job_result}")
```

`hamiltonian*` are not defined. I think it should be `H*`. If so, do `sed s/hamiltonian/H/g`.


Discussion:
Hi @hhorii ! Looks like this issue should be posted in the qiskit/qiskit repo, which is where the API docs source files live: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/issues/new?assignees=&labels=bug&projects=&template=BUG_REPORT.yaml - can you please open an issue there? Thanks, and I will close this issue here.

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/primitives/__init__.py b/qiskit/primitives/__init__.py
--- a/qiskit/primitives/__init__.py
+++ b/qiskit/primitives/__init__.py
@@ -86,17 +86,17 @@
     estimator = Estimator()
 
     # calculate [ <psi1(theta1)|H1|psi1(theta1)> ]
-    job = estimator.run([(psi1, hamiltonian1, [theta1])])
+    job = estimator.run([(psi1, H1, [theta1])])
     job_result = job.result() # It will block until the job finishes.
-    print(f"The primitive-job finished with result {job_result}"))
+    print(f"The primitive-job finished with result {job_result}")
 
     # calculate [ [<psi1(theta1)|H1|psi1(theta1)>,
     #              <psi1(theta3)|H3|psi1(theta3)>],
     #             [<psi2(theta2)|H2|psi2(theta2)>] ]
     job2 = estimator.run(
         [
-            (psi1, [hamiltonian1, hamiltonian3], [theta1, theta3]), 
-            (psi2, hamiltonian2, theta2)
+            (psi1, [H1, H3], [theta1, theta3]), 
+            (psi2, H2, theta2)
         ],
         precision=0.01
     )


Test patch:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
plot_circuit_layout colors edges incorrectly
### Environment

- **Qiskit version**: 
- **Python version**: 
- **Operating system**: 


### What is happening?

I believe the intent is for the black edges to connect the black qubits.

### How can we reproduce the issue?

```python
from qiskit.circuit.library import EfficientSU2
from qiskit.providers.fake_provider import GenericBackendV2
from qiskit.transpiler import CouplingMap
from qiskit.transpiler.preset_passmanagers import generate_preset_pass_manager
from qiskit.visualization import plot_circuit_layout

# Construct circuit
n_qubits = 10
circuit = EfficientSU2(n_qubits, entanglement="pairwise")

# Initialize simulator backend
coupling_map = CouplingMap.from_heavy_hex(3)
backend = GenericBackendV2(
    coupling_map.size(),
    basis_gates=["ecr", "id", "rz", "sx", "x"],
    coupling_map=coupling_map,
    seed=1234
)

# Transpile circuit
pass_manager = generate_preset_pass_manager(
    optimization_level=3, backend=backend, seed_transpiler=1234
)
isa_circuit = pass_manager.run(circuit)

plot_circuit_layout(isa_circuit, backend, view="physical")
```
![image](https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/assets/4296166/c4158a16-30c4-4129-bac7-0c0688526a66)


### What should happen?

Black edges should connect black qubits.

### Any suggestions?

_No response_


Discussion:
The bug is caused by this line:
https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/blob/8b94fc36df05a9f5b2150e7a8ac1c36dca3286d1/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py#L1042

It creates a new graph, and the edge order of the new graph no longer matches the order assumed in the list of edge colors passed as `line_color`.

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py b/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py
--- a/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py
+++ b/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py
@@ -1039,7 +1039,9 @@ def plot_coupling_map(
         graph = CouplingMap(coupling_map).graph
 
     if not plot_directed:
+        line_color_map = dict(zip(graph.edge_list(), line_color))
         graph = graph.to_undirected(multigraph=False)
+        line_color = [line_color_map[edge] for edge in graph.edge_list()]
 
     for node in graph.node_indices():
         graph[node] = node


Test patch:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
Improve docstring of plot_circuit_layout
### What should we add?

https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/qiskit.visualization.plot_circuit_layout#qiskitvisualizationplot_circuit_layout

For example, the documentation of the `view` argument just says

>view (str): Layout view: either 'virtual' or 'physical'.

which is not informative.


Discussion:

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py b/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py
--- a/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py
+++ b/qiskit/visualization/gate_map.py
@@ -1122,7 +1122,13 @@ def plot_circuit_layout(circuit, backend, view="virtual", qubit_coordinates=None
     Args:
         circuit (QuantumCircuit): Input quantum circuit.
         backend (Backend): Target backend.
-        view (str): Layout view: either 'virtual' or 'physical'.
+        view (str): How to label qubits in the layout. Options:
+
+          - ``"virtual"``: Label each qubit with the index of the virtual qubit that
+            mapped to it.
+          - ``"physical"``: Label each qubit with the index of the physical qubit that it
+            corresponds to on the device.
+
         qubit_coordinates (Sequence): An optional sequence input (list or array being the
             most common) of 2d coordinates for each qubit. The length of the
             sequence must match the number of qubits on the backend. The sequence


Test patch:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
No support for transpiling `Schedule`
### Environment

- **Qiskit version**: 1.1.0
- **Python version**: 3.11
- **Operating system**: macos


### What is happening?

[Documentation](https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/pulse) says that is possible to run a pulse level program by calling `backend.run(transpile(pulse_prog, backend))`. However, that is not yet supported.

### How can we reproduce the issue?

Just run the example in the documentation 

```python
from qiskit import pulse, transpile
 
d0 = pulse.DriveChannel(0)
 
with pulse.build() as pulse_prog:
    pulse.play(pulse.Constant(100, 1.0), d0)

transpile(pulse_prog, backend)
```


### What should happen?

transpile successfully 

### Any suggestions?

_No response_


Discussion:
Thanks - this is a documentation mistake stemming from the removal of `execute` in Qiskit/qiskit#11565.  `Schedule`s cannot be transpiled.  There was (a _long_ time ago) support planned, but it never materialised.

That documentation originally said that `Schedule`s can be _executed_ the same as circuits, where `execute` was (for circuits) a wrapper around `backend.run` and `transpile`.  For `Schedule`, however, it never did any transpilation, it just submitted it to the backend.

If there are still pulse-enabled backends (I'm not 100% certain on the states of what's allowed for submission), then you would be able to do `backend.run(pulse_prog)`.
Thanks for the prompt reply!

I just tried `backend.run(pulse_prog)` with `ibm_kyoto` for example (`open_pulse=True`) and it fails with 

<img width="565" alt="Screenshot 2024-05-20 at 17 11 53" src="https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/assets/48832149/6bf45774-9c44-4cd9-b3b5-925a12930395">


Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/pulse/builder.py b/qiskit/pulse/builder.py
--- a/qiskit/pulse/builder.py
+++ b/qiskit/pulse/builder.py
@@ -74,8 +74,8 @@
 
 The builder initializes a :class:`.pulse.Schedule`, ``pulse_prog``
 and then begins to construct the program within the context. The output pulse
-schedule will survive after the context is exited and can be transpiled and executed like a
-normal Qiskit schedule using ``backend.run(transpile(pulse_prog, backend))``.
+schedule will survive after the context is exited and can be used like a
+normal Qiskit schedule.
 
 Pulse programming has a simple imperative style. This leaves the programmer
 to worry about the raw experimental physics of pulse programming and not


Test patch:
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
Bound `ParameterExpression`s do not match the hash of an equal object of a numeric type
### Environment

- **Qiskit version**: 1.1.0
- **Python version**: 3.11
- **Operating system**: Fedora Linux 40


### What is happening?

When all the parameters in a `ParameterExpression` are bound, it becomes equal to a `float`, `int`, or `complex`. However, it still uses its own hashing algorithm, so it does not hash to the same value as the numeric type. The Python data model documents that objects that compare equal should hash to the same value.

### How can we reproduce the issue?

```
from qiskit.circuit import Parameter


a = Parameter("a")
b = a.bind({a: 1.2})
b == 1.2  # True
hash(b)  == hash(1.2)  # False
```

### What should happen?

As much as possible, the Python data model should be followed. At some points in the parameter handling code, bound `ParameterExpression`s are eagerly cast to `float`. For example, the `float(p)` here:

https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/blob/26886a1b2926a474ea06aa3f9ce9e11e6ce28020/qiskit/transpiler/passes/scheduling/scheduling/base_scheduler.py#L71

I think this is done to avoid a bound `p` failing the lookup if the calibrations dict was keyed with a plain `float`. It would be preferable not to have to deal with type casting in these cases.

### Any suggestions?

_No response_


Discussion:

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/circuit/parameterexpression.py b/qiskit/circuit/parameterexpression.py
--- a/qiskit/circuit/parameterexpression.py
+++ b/qiskit/circuit/parameterexpression.py
@@ -439,6 +439,9 @@ def __int__(self):
             raise TypeError("could not cast expression to int") from exc
 
     def __hash__(self):
+        if not self._parameter_symbols:
+            # For fully bound expressions, fall back to the underlying value
+            return hash(self.numeric())
         return hash((self._parameter_keys, self._symbol_expr))
 
     def __copy__(self):


Test patch:
diff --git a/test/python/circuit/test_parameters.py b/test/python/circuit/test_parameters.py
--- a/test/python/circuit/test_parameters.py
+++ b/test/python/circuit/test_parameters.py
@@ -1425,6 +1425,7 @@ def test_compare_to_value_when_bound(self):
         x = Parameter("x")
         bound_expr = x.bind({x: 2.3})
         self.assertEqual(bound_expr, 2.3)
+        self.assertEqual(hash(bound_expr), hash(2.3))
 
     def test_abs_function_when_bound(self):
         """Verify expression can be used with
Repository: Qiskit/qiskit

Issue:
`Target.has_calibration` errors for instructions without properties
### Environment

- **Qiskit version**: 1.1.0
- **Python version**: 3.12
- **Operating system**: Fedora Linux 40


### What is happening?

If a `Target` has an `Instruction` with `None` for its `InstructionProperties`, `Target.has_calibration` raises an `AttributeError`.

### How can we reproduce the issue?

Consider this case from the `Target` docstring with the `has_calibration` call added at the end:

```python
from qiskit.circuit.library import CXGate
from qiskit.transpiler import Target, InstructionProperties

target = Target()
cx_properties = {
    (0, 1): None,
    (1, 0): None,
    (0, 2): None,
    (2, 0): None,
    (0, 3): None,
    (2, 3): None,
    (3, 0): None,
    (3, 2): None
}
target.add_instruction(CXGate(), cx_properties)

target.has_calibration("cx", (0, 1))  # AttributeError!
```

### What should happen?

The last line above should return `False`

### Any suggestions?

I will submit a PR.


Discussion:

Resolving patch:
diff --git a/qiskit/transpiler/target.py b/qiskit/transpiler/target.py
--- a/qiskit/transpiler/target.py
+++ b/qiskit/transpiler/target.py
@@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ def has_calibration(
             return False
         if qargs not in self._gate_map[operation_name]:
             return False
-        return getattr(self._gate_map[operation_name][qargs], "_calibration") is not None
+        return getattr(self._gate_map[operation_name][qargs], "_calibration", None) is not None
 
     def get_calibration(
         self,


Test patch:
diff --git a/test/python/transpiler/test_target.py b/test/python/transpiler/test_target.py
--- a/test/python/transpiler/test_target.py
+++ b/test/python/transpiler/test_target.py
@@ -1366,6 +1366,31 @@ def test_get_empty_target_calibration(self):
 
         self.assertIsNone(target["x"][(0,)].calibration)
 
+    def test_has_calibration(self):
+        target = Target()
+        properties = {
+            (0,): InstructionProperties(duration=100, error=0.1),
+            (1,): None,
+        }
+        target.add_instruction(XGate(), properties)
+
+        # Test false for properties with no calibration
+        self.assertFalse(target.has_calibration("x", (0,)))
+        # Test false for no properties
+        self.assertFalse(target.has_calibration("x", (1,)))
+
+        properties = {
+            (0,): InstructionProperties(
+                duration=self.custom_sx_q0.duration,
+                error=None,
+                calibration=self.custom_sx_q0,
+            )
+        }
+        target.add_instruction(SXGate(), properties)
+
+        # Test true for properties with calibration
+        self.assertTrue(target.has_calibration("sx", (0,)))
+
     def test_loading_legacy_ugate_instmap(self):
         # This is typical IBM backend situation.
         # IBM provider used to have u1, u2, u3 in the basis gates and