Understanding Quantum Software Engineering Challenges An Empirical Study on Stack Exchange Forums and GitHub Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advance of quantum computing, quantum software becomes critical for exploring the full potential of quantum computing systems. Recently, quantum software engineering (QSE) becomes an emerging area attracting more and more attention. However, it is not clear what are the challenges and opportunities of quantum computing facing the software engineering community. This work aims to understand the QSE-related challenges perceived by developers. We perform an empirical study on Stack Exchange forums where developers post-QSE-related questions & answers and Github issue reports where developers raise QSE-related issues in practical quantum computing projects. Based on an existing taxonomy of question types on Stack Overflow, we first perform a qualitative analysis of the types of QSE-related questions asked on Stack Exchange forums. We then use automated topic modeling to uncover the topics in QSE-related Stack Exchange posts and GitHub issue reports. Our study highlights some particularly challenging areas of QSE that are different from that of traditional software engineering, such as explaining the theory behind quantum computing code, interpreting quantum program outputs, and bridging the knowledge gap between quantum computing and classical computing, as well as their associated opportunities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".