Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.09029

Automating Detection and Root-Cause Analysis of Flaky Tests in Quantum Software

Abstract

Like classical software, quantum software systems rely on automated testing. However, their inherently probabilistic outputs make them susceptible to quantum flakiness -- tests that pass or fail inconsistently without code changes. Such quantum flaky tests can mask real defects and reduce developer productivity, yet systematic tooling for their detection and diagnosis remains limited. This paper presents an automated pipeline to detect flaky-test-related issues and pull requests in quantum software repositories and to support the identification of their root causes. We aim to expand an existing quantum flaky test dataset and evaluate the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) for flakiness classification and root-cause identification. Building on a prior manual analysis of 14 quantum software repositories, we automate the discovery of additional flaky test cases using LLMs and cosine similarity. We further evaluate a variety of LLMs from OpenAI GPT, Meta LLaMA, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude suites for classifying flakiness and identifying root causes from issue descriptions and code context. Classification performance is assessed using standard performance metrics, including F1-score. Using our pipeline, we identify 25 previously unknown flaky tests, increasing the original dataset size by 54%. The best-performing model, Google Gemini, achieves an F1-score of 0.9420 for flakiness detection and 0.9643 for root-cause identification, demonstrating that LLMs can provide practical support for triaging flaky reports and understanding their underlying causes in quantum software. The expanded dataset and automated pipeline provide reusable artifacts for the quantum software engineering community. Future work will focus on improving detection robustness and exploring automated repair of quantum flaky tests.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Janakan Sivaloganathan, Ainaz Jamshidi, Andriy Miranskyy, Lei Zhang. 2026-03-09. Automating Detection and Root-Cause Analysis of Flaky Tests in Quantum Software. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09029

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE