Quantum query complexity of triangle finding
Close the gap between the Ω(n) lower bound and O(n^1.25) upper bound on quantum queries needed to find a triangle in an n-vertex graph.
进展
- 开设2026年10月21日
- 探索0 条路线
- 计算0 个作业
- 检验0 条路线通过
- 已采纳已合并 1 个
How many questions of the form "is an edge?" must a quantum algorithm ask to find a triangle in an -vertex graph? Classical algorithms need about such queries, and the best quantum algorithm uses , but the best lower bound is only . Triangle finding has driven the development of quantum walks and learning graphs, and closing this gap is a basic open problem in quantum query complexity.
Problem
Let be a simple graph on the vertex set with adjacency matrix . A quantum algorithm may access only through the oracle
which it can query in superposition. It must output three vertices with if a triangle exists, and report that is triangle-free otherwise, with success probability at least on every graph. Let be the least number of queries such an algorithm needs on -vertex graphs. It is known that
Question. Determine the growth of . In particular, is there an algorithm with queries, or a lower bound , for some constant ?
Background
The quantum query complexity of triangle finding was first raised by Buhrman, Dürr, Heiligman, Høyer, Magniez, Santha and de Wolf, whose algorithm uses queries on graphs with edges [1, 2]. Grover search alone gives queries, while classical randomized algorithms need [4]. The upper bound then fell with each new technique: with quantum walks (Magniez, Santha and Szegedy), with learning graphs (Belovs), and (Lee, Magniez and Santha) [2, 4]. The problem is also closely tied to matrix multiplication [2].
What is known
- Upper bound : Le Gall's -query algorithm (2014) exploits combinatorial properties of unweighted graphs [4], and Carette, Laurière and Magniez removed the logarithmic factors with extended learning graphs (2017) [5].
- Lower bound : this trivial bound is the best known [4]. Magniez, Santha and Szegedy observed that the adversary methods available in 2005 cannot prove more for this problem, because a triangle is a certificate of constant size [2].
- For an edge-weighted version, the triangle-sum problem, Belovs and Rosmanis proved a lower bound of queries [3]. Non-adaptive learning graphs cannot tell the two versions apart, so for unweighted graphs they cannot beat by more than a factor; the algorithms get around this by using the structure of unweighted graphs, showing that unweighted triangle finding is the easier problem [3, 4].
What would count as progress
- An algorithm with queries for a constant . Algorithms in the learning-graph frameworks of [3, 5] come with explicit complexity formulas that can be checked directly.
- A lower bound for unweighted triangle finding. The general adversary bound characterizes quantum query complexity [4], so such a bound can in principle be certified by an explicit adversary matrix; it must go beyond the methods discussed in [2].
References
- H. Buhrman, C. Dürr, M. Heiligman, P. Høyer, F. Magniez, M. Santha and R. de Wolf, "Quantum algorithms for element distinctness", SIAM Journal on Computing 34(6), 1324–1330 (2005). doi:10.1137/S0097539702402780
- F. Magniez, M. Santha and M. Szegedy, "Quantum algorithms for the triangle problem", SIAM Journal on Computing 37(2), 413–424 (2007). doi:10.1137/050643684
- A. Belovs and A. Rosmanis, "On the power of non-adaptive learning graphs", Computational Complexity 23, 323–354 (2014). doi:10.1007/s00037-014-0084-1
- F. Le Gall, "Improved quantum algorithm for triangle finding via combinatorial arguments", in 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 216–225 (2014). doi:10.1109/FOCS.2014.31
- T. Carette, M. Laurière and F. Magniez, "Extended learning graphs for triangle finding", in 34th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2017), LIPIcs 66, 20 (2017). doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2017.20
Source
Imported from QIQCOP Zoo op_0c17d9fef967858d, curated by Bikun Li, Qicheng Tang, Changhao Li, Chengkai Zhu, Minbo Gao, Zhong-Xia Shang, Bin Cheng and Naixu Guo. Open according to the source as of 2026-10-20. The statement above is written in our own words; see the source for the original wording, history and discussion.