The edge list model is arguably the simplest input model for graphs, where the graph is specified by a list of its edges. In this model, we study the quantum query complexity of three variants of the triangle finding problem. The first asks whether there exists a triangle containing a target edge and raises general questions about the hiding of a problem's input among irrelevant data. The second asks whether there exists a triangle containing a target vertex and raises general questions about the shuffling of a problem's input. The third asks whether there exists a triangle; this problem bridges the $3$-distinctness and $3$-sum problems, which have been extensively studied by both cryptographers and complexity theorists. We provide tight or nearly tight results for these problems as well as some first answers to the general questions they raise. Furthermore, given any graph with low maximum degree, such as a typical random sparse graph, we prove that the quantum query complexity of finding a length-$k$ cycle in its length-$m$ edge list is $m^{3/4-1/(2^{k+2}-4)\pm o(1)}$, which matches the best-known upper bound for the quantum query complexity of $k$-distinctness on length-$m$ inputs up to an $m^{o(1)}$ factor. We prove the lower bound by developing new techniques within Zhandry's recording query framework [CRYPTO '19] as generalized by Hamoudi and Magniez [ToCT '23]. These techniques extend the framework to treat any non-product distribution that results from conditioning a product distribution on the absence of rare events. We prove the upper bound by adapting Belovs's learning graph algorithm for $k$-distinctness [FOCS '12]. Finally, assuming a plausible conjecture concerning only cycle finding, we show that the lower bound can be lifted to an essentially tight lower bound on the quantum query complexity of $k$-distinctness, which is a long-standing open question.

It is well known that quantum, randomized and deterministic (sequential) query complexities are polynomially related for total boolean functions. We find that significantly larger separations between the parallel generalizations of these measures are possible. In particular, 1) We employ the cheatsheet framework to obtain an unbounded parallel quantum query advantage over its randomized analogue for a total function, falsifying a conjecture of [https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6116]. 2) We strengthen 1 by constructing a total function which exhibits an unbounded parallel quantum query advantage despite having no sequential advantage, suggesting that genuine quantum advantage could occur entirely due to parallelism. 3) We construct a total function that exhibits a polynomial separation between 2-round quantum and randomized query complexities, contrasting a result of [https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0018] that there is at most a constant separation for 1-round (nonadaptive) algorithms. 4) We develop a new technique for deriving parallel quantum lower bounds from sequential upper bounds. We employ this technique to give lower bounds for Boolean symmetric functions and read-once formulas, ruling out large parallel query advantages for them. We also provide separations between randomized and deterministic parallel query complexities analogous to items 1-3.

The so-called welded tree problem provides an example of a black-box problem that can be solved exponentially faster by a quantum walk than by any classical algorithm. Given the name of a special ENTRANCE vertex, a quantum walk can find another distinguished EXIT vertex using polynomially many queries, though without finding any particular path from ENTRANCE to EXIT. It has been an open problem for twenty years whether there is an efficient quantum algorithm for finding such a path, or if the path-finding problem is hard even for quantum computers. We show that a natural class of efficient quantum algorithms provably cannot find a path from ENTRANCE to EXIT. Specifically, we consider algorithms that, within each branch of their superposition, always store a set of vertex labels that form a connected subgraph including the ENTRANCE, and that only provide these vertex labels as inputs to the oracle. While this does not rule out the possibility of a quantum algorithm that efficiently finds a path, it is unclear how an algorithm could benefit by deviating from this behavior. Our no-go result suggests that, for some problems, quantum algorithms must necessarily forget the path they take to reach a solution in order to outperform classical computation.