In quantum software engineering (QSE), quantum software testing (QST) has attracted increasing attention as quantum software systems grow in scale and complexity. Since QST evaluates quantum programs through execution under designed test inputs, empirical studies are widely used to assess the effectiveness of testing approaches. However, the design and reporting of empirical studies in QST remain highly diverse, and a shared methodological understanding has yet to emerge, making it difficult to interpret results and compare findings across studies. This paper presents a methodological analysis of empirical studies in QST through a systematic examination of 59 primary studies identified from a literature pool of size 384. We organize our analysis around ten research questions that cover key methodological dimensions of QST empirical studies, including objects under test, baseline comparison, testing setup, experimental configuration, and tool and artifact support. Through cross-study analysis along these dimensions, we characterize current empirical practices in QST, identify recurring limitations and inconsistencies, and highlight open methodological challenges. Based on our findings, we derive insights and recommendations to inform the design, execution, and reporting of future empirical studies in QST.
Journal reference
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2026
In quantum software engineering (QSE), quantum software testing (QST) has attracted increasing attention as quantum software systems grow in scale and complexity. Since QST evaluates quantum programs through execution under designed test inputs, empirical studies are widely used to assess the effectiveness of testing approaches. However, the design and reporting of empirical studies in QST remain highly diverse, and a shared methodological understanding has yet to emerge, making it difficult to interpret results and compare findings across studies. This paper presents a methodological analysis of empirical studies in QST through a systematic examination of 59 primary studies identified from a literature pool of size 384. We organize our analysis around ten research questions that cover key methodological dimensions of QST empirical studies, including objects under test, baseline comparison, testing setup, experimental configuration, and tool and artifact support. Through cross-study analysis along these dimensions, we characterize current empirical practices in QST, identify recurring limitations and inconsistencies, and highlight open methodological challenges. Based on our findings, we derive insights and recommendations to inform the design, execution, and reporting of future empirical studies in QST.
In recent years, quantum, quantum-inspired, and hybrid algorithms are increasingly showing promise for solving software engineering optimization problems. However, best-intended practices for conducting empirical studies have not yet well established. In this paper, based on the primary studies identified from the latest systematic literature review on quantum optimization for software engineering problems, we conducted a systematic analysis on these studies from various aspects including experimental designs, hyperparameter settings, case studies, baselines, tooling, and metrics. We identify key gaps in the current practices such as limited reporting of the number of repetitions, number of shots, and inadequate consideration of noise handling, as well as a lack of standardized evaluation protocols such as the adoption of quality metrics, especially quantum-specific metrics. Based on our analysis, we provide insights for designing empirical studies and highlight the need for more real-world and open case studies to assess cost-effectiveness and practical utility of the three types of approaches: quantum-inspired, quantum, and hybrid. This study is intended to offer an overview of current practices and serve as an initial reference for designing and conducting empirical studies on evaluating and comparing quantum, quantum-inspired, and hybrid algorithms in solving optimization problems in software engineering.
Quantum software testing (QST) checks whether quantum programs behave according to their intended specifications. A key requirement for QST research is a benchmark that supports rigorous empirical evaluation on programs that are testable and better reflect current software development practices. However, existing studies heavily rely on small hard-coded or circuit-level benchmarks, while available quantum programs are scattered across repositories without clear selection criteria, which limits fair comparison and systematic reproducibility. To this end, we present Qolumbina, a benchmark infrastructure for controlled QST experiments on scalable quantum programs. Qolumbina curates 40 programs from open-source repositories, turns them into test-ready subjects through systematic selection, refactoring, specifications, test case examples, unit tests, and standardized interfaces. We also propose QST-oriented criteria to characterize quantum programs along functionality, output behavior, development complexity, and quantum-specific execution complexity. Using these criteria, our empirical study shows that Qolumbina covers diverse testing-relevant properties and supports scalability analysis beyond fixed-size circuit benchmarks. Through controlled experiments with two recent QST approaches, we demonstrate the feasibility of using Qolumbina for execution-cost and fault-detection studies, and highlight backend-dependent effects that can influence QST result interpretation.
As quantum computers advance, the complexity of the software they can execute increases as well. To ensure this software is efficient, maintainable, reusable, and cost-effective—key qualities of any industry-grade software—mature software engineering practices must be applied throughout its design, development, and operation. However, the significant differences between classical and quantum software make it challenging to directly apply classical software engineering methods to quantum systems. This challenge has led to the emergence of Quantum Software Engineering (QSE) as a distinct field within the broader software engineering landscape. In this work, a group of active researchers analyze in depth the current state of QSE research. From this analysis, the key areas of QSE are identified and explored in order to determine the most relevant open challenges that should be addressed in the next years. These challenges help identify necessary breakthroughs and future research directions for advancing QSE.
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.
This paper presents preliminary findings from a multivocal literature review investigating how quantum software testing is characterized across academic and practitioner-oriented sources. Our study integrated peer-reviewed studies with gray literature, including blogs, tutorials, forums, technical reports, documentation pages, and company webpages. Our results indicate a rapidly evolving but fragmented ecosystem involving classical adapted testing approaches, quantum-specific techniques, statistical validation methods, simulators, debugging environments, and verification frameworks. The reviewed material also revealed recurring challenges related to scalability limitations, hardware noise, probabilistic execution, limited observability, and immature tooling ecosystems. These findings provide an initial characterization of how research and practice currently discuss quantum software testing challenges, techniques, and tooling.
Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware has transformed quantum computing into a practical experimental platform while introducing fundamental challenges associated with hardware noise, decoherence, and probabilistic execution. Although quantum software testing (QST) has rapidly emerged as an active research area, it remains unclear to what extent existing testing methodologies explicitly engage with noisy and hardware-constrained execution environments. This paper presents a systematic empirical landscape analysis of noise-awareness in QST research through a deterministic, taxonomy-guided analytical framework applied to 61 papers published between 2018 and 2025 across eight testing paradigms, contrasting how contributions are framed with how they are evaluated. Among the analyzed papers, 47 (77.0%) are noise-oblivious and only 14 (23.0%) explicitly engage with noise-related execution concerns, while only 11 (18.0%) report evaluation on physical hardware or a noisy simulator. Test generation, the largest paradigm, exhibits a noise-awareness rate of only 14.3%, and debugging and repair 18.2%; coverage-based, metamorphic, and differential testing contain no noise-aware contributions. Noise-aware methodologies emerged late and remain outnumbered in all analyzed years. Framing and evaluation are strongly associated (odds ratio 40.5, p < 0.001) yet diverge for individual papers: 5 of the 14 noise-aware papers evaluate only on ideal simulators. Inferential statistical tests are reported in only 16.4% of papers. The classification framework was validated against a blinded, human-coded reference sample, achieving almost perfect inter-rater agreement on testing-technique classification and substantial agreement on noise-awareness. The framework provides a reusable empirical basis for longitudinal analysis of hardware-conscious testing practice.