๊ฐ€์ž… ํ›„ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋งํฌ๋ฅผ ๊ณต์œ ํ•˜๋ฉด ๋™์˜์ƒ ์žฌ์ƒ ๋ฐ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋ณด์ƒ์„ ๋ฐ›์„ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

cv usk
@cv_usk
AI / Software Research Notes AI Agent, LLMOps, MLOps, Software Architecture ๆŠ•็จฟใฏๅ€‹ไบบใฎๆ„่ฆ‹ใงใ™ใ€‚
๊ฐ€์ž… May 2026
282 ํŒ”๋กœ์ž‰ ์ค‘    431 ํŒฌ
TL;DR: The mutation-generated faults and curated benchmarks long used to evaluate quantum software testing tools may be missing 86.3% of the bugs that actually show up in real quantum projects. Title: Are We Testing the Wrong Quantum Bugs? A Study of Fault Representation Gaps in Quantum Software Testing URL: Key points ๐Ÿ” Collected 410 verified real-world bugs from 10 repositories (Qiskit, PennyLane, Cirq, and more), classified into 56 bug families ๐Ÿงฌ Mutation-testing tools only cover 20 of those families ๐Ÿ“š Curated benchmarks add just 15 more families ๐Ÿ“‰ Only 13.7% of real bugs fall into families represented by either source ๐Ÿงฉ The big missing categories: compiler transformation errors (66 bugs), type-handling errors (53), missing input validation (47) โš™๏ธ Most of these faults live in compilers, intermediate representations, and framework interactions, not in the circuits themselves, so circuit mutation alone can't reproduce them The reminder that a correct circuit says nothing about a correct compilation feels like a lesson that reaches well beyond quantum software testing. #QuantumComputing# #SoftwareTesting#
๋” ๋ณด๊ธฐ