Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Bridging the Quantum Divide: Aligning Academic and Industry Goals in Software Engineering

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Academic quantum software research is out of step with the integration and compatibility problems industry developers face.

desk verdict Readable position paper with sensible proposals, but the central divide evidence is borrowed from an unpublished companion paper and is under-supported here. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07014 v1 pith:75RHI5D6 submitted 2025-02-10 cs.SE

Jake Zappin , Trevor Stalnaker , Oscar Chaparro , Denys Poshyvanyk This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords quantumsoftwareengineeringacademia-industrygaphybridquantum-classicalsystemsdebuggingandtestingdeveloperforumsintegrationcompatibilitypositionpaper
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that academic research on quantum software engineering is studying a narrow slice of quantum-specific bugs while industry developers spend much of their time on integration, compatibility, and hybrid quantum-classical problems. The authors support this with data from their companion study: 531 real-world issues from quantum developer forums, of which 17.1% involve hybrid system integration and 39.0% are classical integration and platform problems, while academia concentrates on qubit ordering, entanglement, and circuit-level faults. They attribute the gap to industry secrecy, national-security contracts, and a small fragmented developer community. The paper proposes confidential research collaboratives, government-funded partnerships, university consortiums, and joint open-source projects as bridges. If the claim is right, aligning research with these practical concerns would make quantum software tools and methods actually useful to working developers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing evidence is the paper's own corpus of 531 developer-reported issues from quantum developer forums and 540 hybrid quantum-classical (HQC) repositories, drawn from the companion study. This corpus lets the authors compare the distribution of practitioner problems—17.1% hybrid integration issues and 39.0% classical issues such as library and platform compatibility—against the topics academic bug studies emphasize, such as qubit ordering, entanglement errors, and circuit design. The comparison, not any single experiment, carries the argument that academia and industry are focused on different problems.

What would settle it

A systematic survey of quantum developers in commercial settings that asks them to rank their top debugging and testing problems would falsify the divide claim if quantum-specific issues such as qubit ordering and entanglement errors are reported more frequently than integration, compatibility, and hybrid-system issues.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a measurable disconnect exists between what quantum software engineering research studies and what quantum software practitioners actually struggle with. Using a corpus of 531 real-world developer issues, the authors report that hybrid quantum-classical integration challenges make up 17.1% of reported issues and classical problems such as library/platform compatibility, dependency handling, and integration account for 39.0%, while academic empirical studies concentrate on idealized quantum-specific bugs like qubit ordering and entanglement errors. The paper further observes that only 540 hybrid repositories were found, most of them inactive or educational, and that academic testing and debugging tools see virtually no use in industry. From these observations it concludes that academia's limited access to real industry practice, compounded by secrecy and national-security concerns, leaves the most pressing industrial challenges unaddressed.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the 531 forum issues and 540 repositories studied are representative of what industry quantum developers actually struggle with, even though the forums' participants and selection criteria are not described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum software engineering research would broaden its agenda to include hybrid-system integration, dependency handling, and compatibility testing rather than only quantum-only faults.
  • Academic testing and debugging tools, currently observed as largely unused, would be redesigned around industry workflows through joint projects and confidential research collaboratives.
  • Shared open-source quantum projects with mixed funding would give academic researchers real-world artifacts to study and give practitioners tested, documented solutions.
  • University-based quantum software engineering consortiums would train students in the practical integration and maintenance skills that industrial quantum development requires.
  • Government-funded, security-aware partnerships could open a channel for researchers to study industry challenges without exposing proprietary information.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same pattern of academic focus on idealized, low-level bugs while industry wrestles with integration issues likely appears in other security-adjacent emerging technologies, so the proposed collaboratives could generalize beyond quantum computing.
  • A concrete testable extension would be to build a benchmark from the 531 forum issues and measure whether existing academic quantum testing and debugging tools detect any of them.
  • The paper's claim that academic tools see 'virtually no usage' could be quantified by mining dependency graphs of commercial quantum repositories for academic tool imports.
  • Even with successful collaboration, industry's need for speed-to-market may favor internal proprietary solutions over open best practices, so the proposed open-source ecosystem may require explicit incentives to attract commercial participation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that there is a substantial divide between academic research and industry practice in quantum software engineering (QSE). The authors claim that academic work on debugging and testing focuses on a narrow set of quantum-specific issues (e.g., qubit ordering, entanglement errors), whereas industry practitioners face a broader range of practical challenges, including integration, compatibility, and platform limitations in hybrid quantum-classical (HQC) applications. They attribute the divide primarily to secrecy and national security concerns in the quantum industry, which limit academic access to real-world practices. The paper supports the divide with quantitative observations from the authors' companion work [14]: 91 of 531 forum issues (17.1%) concern HQC integration, 207 (39.0%) concern classical issues, and 91% of 540 hybrid repositories are minimally active. Based on these observations, the paper proposes collaborative initiatives: confidential research collaboratives, government-funded partnerships, university QSE consortiums, and joint OSS projects, each intended to align academic research with industry needs. The paper is explicitly a position piece and does not present a new empirical study; its central quantitative evidence is drawn from the authors' to-appear ICSE'25 paper.

Significance. If the empirical divide claim holds, the paper addresses a timely and important problem in a nascent field. The proposed recommendations are concrete and actionable, and they could plausibly improve knowledge transfer between quantum software researchers and practitioners. The paper also cites independent practitioner-survey work ([38, 39]) that partially corroborates the existence of a gap, and it productively reframes academic QSE research as often oriented toward platform development rather than application development. A notable strength is the explicit identification of hybrid integration and classical compatibility as underrepresented but practically important topics, which could help steer future research agendas. However, the central quantitative evidence is not self-contained: the 531-issue and 540-repository figures are attributed entirely to a to-appear companion paper [14] with no methodology or dataset in this manuscript. The significance of the present paper is therefore conditional on the strength and representativeness of that companion study.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B and §III.C] The quantitative underpinning of the central divide claim—91 of 531 issues (17.1%) for HQC integration and 207 of 531 issues (39.0%) for classical issues—is cited entirely to [14], which is listed as 'to appear' without an arXiv identifier or DOI. This manuscript never states which forums were analyzed, how 'developer' was defined, how industry affiliation (as opposed to hobbyist, student, or vendor-support participation) was established, or how the issue taxonomy was applied. Since these numbers carry the paper's core assertion, the reader cannot assess their validity. The authors should provide the essential methodology in an appendix or supplementary material, or explicitly frame these figures as preliminary results from a companion paper and temper the definitive language in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [§III (Observations of the Quantum Divide)] The text repeatedly contrasts 'industry practitioners' (or 'developers') with 'academic research,' but the evidence base is public developer forum posts. The paper does not justify why the forum population is representative of industry; forums often contain students, hobbyists, and vendor-support interactions, which would skew the distribution of issue types. The authors should acknowledge this threat to validity and soften the wording (e.g., 'practitioners and other forum participants') or provide evidence about the affiliations of the forum users. Without this qualification, the generalization from forum issues to 'industry practitioners face' is not established.
  3. [§III.B–§III.D] The claim that academic research 'predominantly focuses on a limited subset of primarily quantum-specific issues' is supported by citing only five papers [2,40–44] on bug patterns and bug characteristics. This is not a systematic literature review, so it does not establish the quantitative predominance required for the divide claim. The comparison is also asymmetric: the industry side is quantified with 531 issues, while the academic side is illustrated with a handful of examples. The authors should either conduct or cite a systematic mapping of academic QSE research, or reframe the claim as 'a substantial body of academic work' rather than 'predominantly,' which is a quantitative assertion that needs corresponding evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II.A] The sentence 'The QC industry is currently led by IBM, which dominates both market share and influence [ ?]' contains a missing citation placeholder that must be filled before publication.
  2. [References [14]] Reference [14] is listed as 'to appear' without an arXiv identifier or DOI. If the companion paper is not yet publicly available, please provide a public preprint link or a copy so that reviewers can verify the cited statistics.
  3. [§II.A] The statement 'which we estimate to be only a few thousand professionals globally' is unsourced; the cited reference [34] concerns repository evolution, not community size. Please provide a source or explicitly mark this as an informal estimate.
  4. [§I] The claim 'as evidenced by our research [14] where we observed virtually no usage by practitioners of quantum testing and debugging tools developed in academia' is a strong empirical assertion that again depends on the inaccessible companion paper; consider reporting the relevant evidence in this manuscript or softening the wording.
  5. [§III] Given that the paper makes empirical claims from forum and repository data, a 'Threats to Validity' subsection would help readers understand the limitations of the evidence base. Currently, no such discussion is present.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract states 'By analyzing discussions within quantum developer forums, we identify key gaps...' but the forum analysis itself is not described in this paper. If the empirical work remains in [14], the abstract should attribute the analysis explicitly to that companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the divide claim is reported from prior empirical work, and the paper's recommendations do not reduce to that evidence.

full rationale

This is a position paper rather than a derivation, and it makes no formal prediction that could be compared with an input. The central quantitative evidence for the academia-industry divide—531 forum issues, 91 (17.1%) hybrid integration issues, 207 (39.0%) classical issues, and 540 HQC repositories—is presented as a summary of the authors' prior ICSE'25 study [14]. That is a self-citation, and it is load-bearing for the empirical portion of the argument, but it is not circular in the technical sense defined here: [14] is a separate peer-reviewed empirical study, not a parameter fitted within this paper and then relabeled as a finding. The paper's claims about academic focus are additionally anchored in independent literature [2, 40-44], and the collaboration proposals in Sections IV and V are policy recommendations rather than results derived from the cited numbers. The main weakness is evidentiary transparency—the forum sample and inclusion criteria are not described in this manuscript—but that is a representativeness concern, not a circularity concern. No equation, fitted value, or definitional equivalence is exhibited that would make any claim reduce to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on two untested sampling assumptions (forum representativeness and literature selection) and an asserted explanation for the divide (secrecy). No numeric parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Observations from quantum developer forums (531 issues) are representative of industry practitioner challenges.
    The paper relies on this dataset in Section III-B to conclude that industry faces hybrid and classical issues, but the forums, sampling, and classification are not described, so representativeness is assumed.
  • domain assumption The selected academic works [2,40-44] accurately represent the full scope of academic quantum software engineering research.
    Section III-C contrasts practitioner issues with 'academic research primarily focused on idealized, isolated quantum bugs'; this assumes the cited works are a fair sample of academia.
  • ad hoc to paper Secrecy and national security are the primary causes of the academia-industry divide.
    Section II-B asserts that non-disclosure agreements and government contracts limit collaboration, but provides no direct evidence that these are the main drivers or that other factors (e.g., lack of mature tools) are secondary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging the Quantum Divide: Aligning Academic and Industry Goals in Software Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75RHI5D6

@misc{pith2026250207014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging the Quantum Divide: Aligning Academic and Industry Goals in Software Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75RHI5D6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07014}
}
read the original abstract

This position paper examines the substantial divide between academia and industry within quantum software engineering. For example, while academic research related to debugging and testing predominantly focuses on a limited subset of primarily quantum-specific issues, industry practitioners face a broader range of practical concerns, including software integration, compatibility, and real-world implementation hurdles. This disconnect mainly arises due to academia's limited access to industry practices and the often confidential, competitive nature of quantum development in commercial settings. As a result, academic advancements often fail to translate into actionable tools and methodologies that meet industry needs. By analyzing discussions within quantum developer forums, we identify key gaps in focus and resource availability that hinder progress on both sides. We propose collaborative efforts aimed at developing practical tools, methodologies, and best practices to bridge this divide, enabling academia to address the application-driven needs of industry and fostering a more aligned, sustainable ecosystem for quantum software development.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    When quantum meets classical: Characterizinghybrid quantum-classical issues discussed in developer forums,

    J. Zappin, T. Stalnaker, O. Chaparro, and D. Poshyvanyk, “When quantum meets classical: Characterizinghybrid quantum-classical issues discussed in developer forums,” in Proceedings of the 47th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’25) , p. to appear

    work page

  2. [1]

    Quantum software engineering: Landscapes and horizons,

    J. Zhao, “Quantum software engineering: Landscapes and horizons,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.07047 , 2020

    arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    Bugs in quantum computing platforms: An empirical study,

    M. Paltenghi and M. Pradel, “Bugs in quantum computing platforms: An empirical study,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , vol. 6, no. OOPSLA1, pp. 1–27, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Quantum Computing: An Overview Across the System Stack

    S. Resch and U. R. Karpuzcu, “Quantum computing: an overview across the system stack,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07240 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1905

  5. [4]

    Identifying bug patterns in quantum programs,

    P . Zhao, J. Zhao, and L. Ma, “Identifying bug patterns in quantum programs,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Software Engineering (Q-SE) , 2021, pp. 16–21

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  7. [6]

    Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing,

    T. Lubinski, S. Johri, P . V arosy, J. Coleman, L. Zhao, J. Necaise, C. H. Baldwin, K. Mayer, and T. Proctor, “Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 1–32, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Classical to quantum software migration journey begins: a conceptual readiness model,

    M. A. Akbar, S. Rafi, and A. A. Khan, “Classical to quantum software migration journey begins: a conceptual readiness model,” in International Conference on Product-F ocused Software Process Improvement , 2022, pp. 563–573

    work page 2022

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    A roadmap for quantum software engineering: Applying the lessons learned from the classics

    E. Moguel, J. Berrocal, J. Garc ´ıa-Alonso, and J. M. Murillo, “A roadmap for quantum software engineering: Applying the lessons learned from the classics.” in Q-SET@ QCE , 2020, pp. 5–13

    2020

  2. [9]

    Challenges of quantum software engineering for the next decade: The road ahead,

    J. M. Murillo, J. Garcia-Alonso, E. Moguel, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, S. Ali, T. Y ue, P . Arcaini, R. P . Castillo, I. G. R. de Guzm ´an et al. , “Challenges of quantum software engineering for the next decade: The road ahead,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06825 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Software engineering for quantum programming: How far are we?

    M. De Stefano, F. Pecorelli, D. Di Nucci, F. Palomba, and A. De Lucia, “Software engineering for quantum programming: How far are we?” Journal of Systems and Software , vol. 190, p. 111326, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Advancements in quantum computing and their implications for software development,

    C. Oyeniran, A. O. Adewusi, A. G. Adeleke, L. A. Akwawa, and C. F. Azubuko, “Advancements in quantum computing and their implications for software development,” Computer Science & IT Research Journal , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 577–593, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering,

    D. I. Sjøberg, J. E. Hannay, O. Hansen, V . B. Kampenes, A. Kara- hasanovic, N.-K. Liborg, and A. C. Rekdal, “A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering,” IEEE transactions on software engineering, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 733–753, 2005

    2005

  6. [13]

    Continuous software engineering and beyond: trends and challenges,

    B. Fitzgerald and K.-J. Stol, “Continuous software engineering and beyond: trends and challenges,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on rapid continuous software engineering , 2014, pp. 1–9

    2014

  7. [15]

    A model for technology transfer in practice,

    T. Gorschek, P . Garre, S. Larsson, and C. Wohlin, “A model for technology transfer in practice,” IEEE software, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 88–95, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Open innovation and public administration: transformational typologies and business model impacts,

    J. Feller, P . Finnegan, and O. Nilsson, “Open innovation and public administration: transformational typologies and business model impacts,” European Journal of Information Systems , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 358–374, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Global software development and collaboration: barriers and solutions,

    J. Noll, S. Beecham, and I. Richardson, “Global software development and collaboration: barriers and solutions,” ACM inroads, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 66–78, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Quantum computing with qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P . D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross et al. , “Quantum computing with qiskit,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

    G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexander, P . Barkoutsos, L. Bello, Y . Ben-Haim, D. Bucher, F. J. Cabrera-Hern ´andez, J. Carballo-Franquis, A. Chen, C.-F. Chen et al., “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” Accessed on: Mar , vol. 16, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Ibm quantum initiative,

    “Ibm quantum initiative,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //quantum.ncsu.edu/

    2024

  13. [21]

    G. A. Q. Team, “Cirq,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://github .com/ quantumlib/Cirq

    2018

  14. [22]

    Introduction to the quantum programming language q#,

    “Introduction to the quantum programming language q#,” 10 2024. [Online]. Available: https://learn .microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/ qsharp-overview

    2024

  15. [23]

    Amazon braket,

    “Amazon braket,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://aws .amazon.com/ braket/

    2024

  16. [24]

    cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science,

    “cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://docs .nvidia.com/cuda/ cuquantum/latest/index.html

    2024

  17. [25]

    Xanadu, linkedin profile,

    X. AI, “Xanadu, linkedin profile,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ca.linkedin.com/company/xanaduai

    2023

  18. [26]

    Templates - pennylane 0.33.0 documentation,

    ——, “Templates - pennylane 0.33.0 documentation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://docs.pennylane.ai/en/stable/introduction/templates.html

    2023

  19. [27]

    Rigetti - our approach,

    “Rigetti - our approach,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.rigetti.com/about-rigetti-computing

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ionq - our mission,

    “Ionq - our mission,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ionq .com/ company

    2024

  21. [29]

    Atom computing,

    “Atom computing,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://atom- computing.com/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Psiquantum,

    “Psiquantum,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https:// www.psiquantum.com/

    2024

  23. [31]

    Quantum brilliance,

    “Quantum brilliance,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //quantumbrilliance.com/

    2024

  24. [32]

    Quantinuum,

    “Quantinuum,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https:// www.quantinuum.com/

    2024

  25. [33]

    [Online]

    “Iqm,” 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www .meetiqm.com/

    2024

  26. [34]

    Analyzing the evolution and maintenance of quantum computing repositories,

    K. Upadhyay, V . Chhetri, A. Siddique, and U. Farooq, “Analyzing the evolution and maintenance of quantum computing repositories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06894 , 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Darpa advances psiquantum to second phase of utility-scale quantum computing program,

    “Darpa advances psiquantum to second phase of utility-scale quantum computing program,” 6 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.psiquantum.com/news-import/darpa-advances-psiquantum- to-second-phase-of-utility-scale-quantum-computing-program

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ibm intends to partner with fermilab’s sqms center to advance critical quantum information science initiatives,

    “Ibm intends to partner with fermilab’s sqms center to advance critical quantum information science initiatives,” 7 2024. [Online]. Available: https://newsroom.ibm.com/2024-07-18-IBM-Intends-to-Partner-with- Fermilabs-SQMS-Center-to-Advance-Critical-Quantum-Information- Scienc...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ionq announces largest 2024 u.s. quantum contract award,

    “Ionq announces largest 2024 u.s. quantum contract award,” 9 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ionq .com/news/ionq-announces-largest-2024- u-s-quantum-contract-award-of-usd54-5m-with

    2024

  30. [38]

    Quantum software development: A survey,

    L. Jimnez-Navajas, F. Bhler, F. Leymann, M. Piattini, and D. Vietz, “Quantum software development: A survey,” Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 24, no. 7&8, pp. 0609–0642, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Quantum software engineering issues and challenges: Insights from practitioners,

    M. De Stefano, F. Pecorelli, F. Palomba, D. Taibi, D. Di Nucci, and A. De Lucia, “Quantum software engineering issues and challenges: Insights from practitioners,” in Quantum Software: Aspects of Theory and System Design , 2024, pp. 337–355

    2024

  32. [40]

    Bug characteristics in quantum software ecosystem,

    H. Li, F. Khomh, L. Tidjon et al. , “Bug characteristics in quantum software ecosystem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11965 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A comprehensive study of bug fixes in quantum programs,

    J. Luo, P . Zhao, Z. Miao, S. Lan, and J. Zhao, “A comprehensive study of bug fixes in quantum programs,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1239–1246

    2022

  34. [42]

    An empirical study of bugs in quantum machine learning frameworks,

    P . Zhao, X. Wu, J. Luo, Z. Li, and J. Zhao, “An empirical study of bugs in quantum machine learning frameworks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06369, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bugs4q: A benchmark of real bugs for quantum programs,

    P . Zhao, J. Zhao, Z. Miao, and S. Lan, “Bugs4q: A benchmark of real bugs for quantum programs,” in 2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , 2021, pp. 1373– 1376

    2021

  36. [44]

    Q- pac: Automated detection of quantum bug-fix patterns,

    P . K. Nayak, K. V . Kher, M. B. Chandra, M. Rao, and L. Zhang, “Q- pac: Automated detection of quantum bug-fix patterns,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17705, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation,

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Y uan, “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan , vol. 90, no. 3, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Classification of hybrid quantum-classical computing,

    F. Phillipson, N. Neumann, and R. Wezeman, “Classification of hybrid quantum-classical computing,” in International Conference on Computa- tional Science , 2023, pp. 18–33

    2023

  39. [47]

    A survey of nisq era hybrid quantum-classical machine learning research,

    G. De Luca, “A survey of nisq era hybrid quantum-classical machine learning research,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Quantum machine learning for classical data,

    L. Wossnig, “Quantum machine learning for classical data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03684, 2021. 5

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.