Papers › An Empirical Study of Bugs in Quantum Machine Learning Frameworks
An Empirical Study of Bugs in Quantum Machine Learning Frameworks
Pengzhan Zhao, Xiongfei Wu, Junjie Luo, Zhuo Li, Jianjun Zhao
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Quantum computing has emerged as a promising domain for the machine learning (ML) area, offering significant computational advantages over classical counterparts. With the growing interest in quantum machine learning (QML), ensuring the correctness and robustness of software platforms to develop such QML programs is critical. A necessary step for ensuring the reliability of such platforms is to understand the bugs they typically suffer from. To address this need, this paper presents the first comprehensive study of bugs in QML frameworks. We inspect 391 real-world bugs collected from 22 open-source repositories of nine popular QML frameworks. We find that 1) 28% of the bugs are quantum-specific, such as erroneous unitary matrix implementation, calling for dedicated approaches to find and prevent them; 2) We manually distilled a taxonomy of five symptoms and nine root cause of bugs in QML platforms; 3) We summarized four critical challenges for QML framework developers. The study results provide researchers with insights into how to ensure QML framework quality and present several actionable suggestions for QML framework developers to improve their code quality.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections