arXiv preprint ·
Are We Testing the Wrong Quantum Bugs? A Study of Fault Representation Gaps in Quantum Software Testing
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Quantum software relies on compilers, intermediate representations, and execution frameworks that transform programs before execution. Faults in these components can change the behavior of otherwise correct quantum programs. Yet quantum testing techniques are often evaluated using mutation-generated faults and curated bug benchmarks. We investigate how well the faults represented by these artifacts reflect those encountered in modern quantum software. We audit four quantum mutation-testing tools and three curated bug benchmarks, and collect 410 verified bugs from ten quantum software repositories over two years. We classify faults from all three sources into a common taxonomy of 56 bug families and compare their representation across mutation operators, curated benchmarks, and recent real-world bugs. The mutation tools support 20 bug families, and curated benchmarks add 15 more. Yet only 56 of the 410 real-world bugs (13.7%) belong to families represented by either source; the remaining 354 (86.3%) belong to families absent from both. The largest unrepresented families concern compiler transformations (66 bugs), type handling (53), and input validation (47). Unlike local gate or statement changes, these faults often depend on intermediate representations, compiler pipelines, input types, or dependency versions. Existing mutation operators primarily modify circuits and program constructs, whereas many real-world faults arise in the compilers, representations, and framework interfaces that process them. Addressing this gap requires looking beyond circuit-level faults toward testing semantic preservation across compiler transformations, correctness at representation boundaries, and interactions between software components. Our study provides empirical evidence to guide fault models and benchmarks that capture these mechanisms and preserve the contexts needed to reproduce them.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
FAOPs: Normal Forms and an Algebra for AI Agent Workflows
VulnSAGE: Adjudicating SAST Reports by Connecting LLM Reasoning to Program Structure
Where Does the Performance Go? Understanding and Recovering Performance Regressions in C-to-Rust Translation
Recursive Formation and First-Class Reuse of Compositional Capabilities
Pattern-Driven Evaluation of LLM Code Optimization: Isolating Compiler-Transcendent Semantic Reasoning
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.