An experience-based classification of quantum bugs in quantum software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As quantum computers continue to improve in quality and scale, there is a growing need for accessible software frameworks for programming them. However, the unique behavior of quantum systems means specialized approaches, beyond traditional software development, are required. This is particularly true for debugging due to quantum bugs, i.e., bugs that occur precisely because an algorithm is a quantum algorithm. Pinpointing a quantum bug’s root cause often requires significant developer time, as there is little established guidance for quantum debugging techniques. Developing such guidance is the main challenge we sought to address. In this work, we describe a set of 14 quantum bugs, sourced primarily from our experience as quantum software developers, and supplemented by analysis of open-source GitHub repositories. We detail their context, symptoms, and the techniques applied to identify and fix them. While classifying these bugs based on existing schemes, we observed that most emerged due to unique interactions between multiple aspects of an algorithm or workflow. In other words, they occurred because more than one thing went wrong, which provided important insight into why quantum debugging is more challenging. Furthermore, based on this clustering, we found that—unexpectedly—there is no clear relationship between debugging strategies and bug classes. Further research is needed to develop effective and systematic quantum debugging strategies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".