As quantum computing continues to emerge, ensuring the quality of quantum programs has become increasingly critical. Quantum program testing has emerged as a prominent research area within the scope of quantum software engineering. While numerous approaches have been proposed to address quantum program quality assurance, our analysis reveals that most existing methods rely on measurement-based validation in practice. However, due to the inherently probabilistic nature of quantum programs, measurement-based validation methods face significant limitations.

To investigate these limitations, we conducted an empirical study of recent research on quantum program testing, analyzing measurement-based validation methods in the literature. Our analysis categorizes existing measurement-based validation methods into two groups: distribution-level validation and output-value-level validation. We then compare measurement-based validation with statevector-based validation methods to evaluate their pros and cons. Our findings demonstrate that measurement-based validation is suitable for straightforward assessments, such as verifying the existence of specific output values, while statevector-based validation proves more effective for complicated tasks such as assessing the program behaviors.