Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

De Sitter Complexity Grows Linearly in the Static Patch

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A volume-based complexity measure for the de Sitter static patch grows linearly at late times, at a rate proportional to the horizon entropy and temperature, instead of hyperfast.

desk verdict Timelike extremal volume gives a clean linear growth law for dS static patch complexity; just don't buy the exact proportionality constant until the reference scale prescription is actually derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10093 v1 pith:UV5LVUKK submitted 2025-08-13 hep-th gr-qc

Vyshnav Mohan , Watse Sybesma This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords deSitterspaceholographiccomplexitystaticpatchtimelikeextremalsurfacescosmologicalhorizongrowthchaoticHamiltonianreferencescale
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 paper proposes a concrete measure of holographic complexity for the static patch of de Sitter space: the volume of an extremal timelike surface, divided by a reference scale and Newton's constant. The surface is anchored either to an observer's worldline or to the cosmological horizon, and the anchoring time provides a clear reference state, overcoming a common ambiguity in earlier definitions. The reference scale is fixed by a min-max infall-time prescription that makes the final complexity real. The main result is that the late-time growth of this complexity is linear and proportional to the entropy and temperature of the cosmological horizon, $dC/d\tau \propto S T$, with no hyperfast growth. If correct, this supports the picture of the static patch as a finite-dimensional quantum system whose evolution is governed by a chaotic Hamiltonian.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of extremal timelike codimension-one surfaces in the static patch, viewed through an effective-potential scattering picture with $V_{\rm eff}(r)=r^{2d-2}f(r)$. The workhorse identity is $dV/d\tau = i\Omega_{d-1}p$, relating the volume growth to the conserved momentum $p$; at late times the turning point approaches the potential maximum at $r_a$, making the growth rate constant. The reference scale $\ell_r$, defined by a min-max over infalling (here spacelike) curves, supplies the imaginary normalization that renders $C$ real.

What would settle it

Evaluate the min-max proper-time prescription directly for a concrete de Sitter dimension, e.g. $d=3$, and compare the resulting $\ell_r$ with the values that follow from applying the same prescription to Schwarzschild and AdS black holes as in [14]; if the prescription fails to reproduce those known infall-time length scales, the coefficient in Eq. (19) is not the one the paper claims. Alternatively, in a solvable holographic model such as double-scaled SYK (a quantum-mechanical matrix model), compute spread complexity and compare its late-time slope with $dC/d\tau$ from (19).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, with $C = V/(G_N \ell_r)$ where $V$ is the volume of an extremal timelike codimension-one surface in a single static patch, de Sitter complexity grows linearly rather than hyperfast. Extremal surfaces anchored at time separation $\tau$ turn at a radius $r_{\rm min}$; as $\tau \to \infty$ they accumulate on the constant-$r$ surface $r_a = L\sqrt{(d-1)/d}$, the maximum of the effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(r)=r^{2d-2}(1-r^2/L^2)$. The growth rate follows from $dV/d\tau = i\Omega_{d-1}p$ and becomes $dC/d\tau = 8\pi \left((d-1)/d\right)^{(d-1)/2} \left(\sqrt{d}/\cos^{-1}\sqrt{(d-1)/d}\right) S T$, where $S=\Omega_{d-1}L^{d-1}/(4G_N)$ and $T=1/(2\pi L)$. The

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the min-max prescription for the reference scale $\ell_r$ (Section II.C) is the correct generalization of the black-hole infall-time normalization; the paper asserts, without showing the calculation, that this prescription reproduces all length scales of [14], and this scale fixes the proportionality coefficient in the linear growth rate, so a wrong prescription changes the coefficient even though linear growth survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observer-anchored and horizon-anchored volumes give the same late-time growth rate, so the stretched-horizon complexity matches the complexity measured by an observer in the static patch.
  • The complexity saturates only after a timescale of order $e^{O(S)}$, the behavior expected of a chaotic system with finite-dimensional Hilbert space.
  • The absence of hyperfast growth removes the main obstruction to interpreting dS static-patch complexity as a quantum circuit complexity.
  • Shockwave or switchback experiments in this setup could extract the scrambling time, providing a dynamical test of the chaotic interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the $d$-dependent proportionality constant in Eq. (19) is a quantitative target for solvable dual models; a dual-side spread-complexity calculation should reproduce this coefficient if the prescription is right.
  • Inference: the paper's assertion that the min-max prescription reproduces the length scales of [14] is not shown; carrying out that verification for Schwarzschild or AdS black holes would directly test the only non-derived input to the growth coefficient.
  • Inference: the trivial $r=0$ solution, present for observer anchoring but absent for horizon anchoring, suggests the observer-anchored definition may contain an 'internal' complexity contribution attributable to the observer herself; isolating it would refine the dictionary between bulk volume and boundary state complexity.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a holographic complexity measure for the de Sitter static patch. The proposal is CV-like, but with extremal timelike codimension-one surfaces anchored either to an observer worldline at r=0 or to the cosmological horizon. The volume V is imaginary; a complex reference scale ℓ_r is introduced so that C=V/(G_N ℓ_r) is real. The main technical content is the extremization of the volume functional, Eqs. (6)-(17), the identification of an accumulation surface at r_a=L√((d-1)/d), and the late-time limit r_min→r_a. The claimed result is that dC/dτ grows linearly at late times and is proportional to ST, Eq. (19), so that the static patch is described by a finite-dimensional chaotic quantum system rather than by hyperfast complexity growth. The same linear growth is obtained from observer anchoring and from horizon anchoring.

Significance. If the construction is correct, this is a valuable step for de Sitter holography: it gives a concrete, time-independent definition of a reference state, keeps the computation within a single static patch, and avoids the hyperfast growth that plagued earlier CV-type prescriptions for dS. The derivation of the late-time growth from Eqs. (6)-(17) is transparent and internally consistent: the effective-potential argument, the turning-point relation (8), and the late-time limit p^2→V_eff(r_a) are standard and clearly presented. There are no fitted parameters in the growth rate. The main quantitative caveat is that the reference scale ℓ_r in Eq. (18) fixes the prefactor in the headline Eq. (19), and the paper does not actually show the min-max calculation that defines ℓ_r. The qualitative linear-growth claim is robust under any τ-independent normalization of ℓ_r, but the exact ST coefficient is not. The paper also contains an apparent arithmetic mismatch in Eq. (19) and some presentation issues in the discussion of d=2, which need attention.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.C, Eq. (18)] The reference scale ℓ_r is the load-bearing normalization for the complexity, but the min-max prescription is asserted rather than executed. The text states 'We can easily verify that this prescription reproduces all the length scales computed in [14]', yet no verification is shown, and no calculation is presented for de Sitter. Because the 'infalling' trajectories outside the dS horizon are spacelike, the variational statement needs care: for fixed endpoints the proper length of a spacelike curve can be reduced by adding t-wiggles up to a null segment, so the claimed 'maximal imaginary proper time' requires a precise definition. Please either derive Eq. (18) explicitly or show the reduction to the [14] prescription. In addition, as printed Eq. (18) has the limits and integrand in an inconsistent form: ∫_L^{r_a} dr √f(r) is negative and is not equal to L cos^{-1}√((d-1)/d); the intended
  2. [Section II.D, Eq. (19)] There is an arithmetic inconsistency in the displayed coefficient. Using dV/dτ=iΩ_{d-1}p, the late-time value p→r_a^{d-1}√f(r_a) with r_a=L√((d-1)/d), and ℓ_r=iL cos^{-1}√((d-1)/d), I obtain dC/dτ = 8π ((d-1)/d)^((d-1)/2) [1/(√d cos^{-1}√((d-1)/d))] S T, i.e. a factor d smaller than the expression with √d/cos^{-1} in Eq. (19). Please check the substitution. The corrected expression still gives linear growth ∝ ST, so the qualitative conclusion is unchanged, but the exact prefactor should be fixed.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (15)] The statement that p(τ) is a monotonic function of τ is supported only by numerical evaluation. Since the late-time saturation argument uses the approach r_min→r_a, an analytic statement about the relation (15), or at least a clarification that only the limiting behavior is needed, would make the derivation more complete. If an analytic proof is not available, the numerical check should be described with enough detail to be reproducible.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, d=2 discussion] The sentence 'despite carefully defining our results to be only valid beyond two dimensions (d=1)' is confusing: the paper works for d≥2, and the continuation under discussion is to d=1 (two-dimensional de Sitter). Please rephrase and clarify whether Eq. (19) is being continued to d=1 or to d=2.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (26)] Eq. (26) displays dC/dv with an explicit i in the numerator and ℓ_r in the denominator. Since ℓ_r is itself i times a real integral, the ratio is real. The display would be clearer if the i was cancelled before writing the proportionality to ST.
  3. [Section II.C, around Eq. (18)] Please state explicitly the branch choice for i in V and ℓ_r. The text notes that a simultaneous branch choice is required, but the sentence is easy to miss; a one-line summary would avoid ambiguity for readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the linear-growth derivation is self-contained; the ST proportionality is an algebraic consequence of definitions. The main weakness is an unverified normalization, not a circular reduction.

  1. other [Section II.C, Eq. (18)]
    "We can easily verify that this prescription reproduces all the length scales computed in [14]. Now let us use this prescription to compute the reference scale of dS. ... The reference scale ℓ_r = ∫ √(−g_μν ẋ^μ ẋ^ν) is then given by ℓ_r = i ∫_L^{r_a} dr √f(r) = iL cos^{−1}(√((d−1)/d))."

    This is not a fitted-input circularity: ℓ_r is fixed by a stated min-max prescription, not by matching the target growth rate. However, it is load-bearing for the coefficient in Eq. (19) and is asserted without showing the claimed verification. The displayed integral from L to r_a has the opposite sign of the right-hand side, and the spacelike 'infalling' minimization is not made precise. These are normalization/correctness concerns, not an equivalence of prediction to input: any τ-independent rescaling of ℓ_r preserves the linear growth, so the central claim does not reduce to this prescription.

full rationale

The late-time growth is computed from the extremal-volume functional: Eq. (17), dV/dτ = iΩ_{d−1} p, follows from Eqs. (15) and (16); at late times r_min → r_a and p² → V_eff(r_a), giving a constant rate. Eq. (19) is obtained by dividing by G_N ℓ_r and then substituting the definitions of S and T in Eq. (20). This is pure algebra using L, G_N, Ω_{d−1}, and d; no parameter is fitted to the advertised growth rate, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work to forbid alternatives. The reference scale ℓ_r is introduced by definition in Eq. (1) and fixed by the min-max prescription in Eq. (18); it is a normalization choice, and its exact value affects the proportionality constant but not the linear growth. The self-citations ([20] for saturation timescale, and [28]–[31] for two-dimensional realizations) are supporting remarks, not load-bearing justifications for the central derivation. The main legitimate concern is the unverified claim that the min-max prescription reproduces the length scales of [14], plus the sign/well-posedness issue in Eq. (18). These are correctness risks, not circularity: the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. A minor self-citation and an unverified normalization justify a score of 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation introduces no free parameters fitted to data. It rests on the CV proposal extended to timelike surfaces, on anchoring surfaces to the observer/horizon, on the monotonicity of p(τ) (asserted), and on the min-max reference scale prescription taken from prior work. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The reference scale ℓ_r should be defined by the generalized min-max prescription of Couch-Eccles-Jacobson-Nguyen [14], reproduced here via Eq. (18).
    Invoked in Section II.C to cancel the imaginary phase of V and fix the complexity normalization; if a different reference scale were used, the growth coefficient changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The extremal timelike volume V, which is purely imaginary (Eq. 13), is the appropriate CV-style measure for dS complexity after division by an imaginary reference scale.
    This is the paper's proposal, not derived from prior principles; the interpretation of imaginary volumes as complexity is new.
  • domain assumption The energy p^2 is a monotonic function of anchoring time τ, so r_min approaches r_a at late times (used after Eq. 11 and in Eq. 15).
    The paper states that numerical evaluation confirms this but does not prove it; the linear late-time growth depends on this limit.
  • domain assumption The static patch observer worldline at r=0 provides a valid holographic anchor and reference state.
    Inspired by [12,13]; the dual description of the static patch in terms of an observer's algebra is assumed.
  • domain assumption Standard CV holographic dictionary (complexity ∝ volume) applies to dS with the timelike modification.
    The entire computation builds on the CV conjecture extended to dS.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of De Sitter Complexity Grows Linearly in the Static Patch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UV5LVUKK

@misc{pith2026250810093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: De Sitter Complexity Grows Linearly in the Static Patch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UV5LVUKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10093}
}
read the original abstract

The observable universe has undergone periods of expansion that are well approximated by de Sitter (dS) space. Still lacking is a quantum mechanical description of dS, both globally and when restricted to the static patch. We develop a novel prescription for computing holographic complexity in the dS static patch to determine its microscopic features. Specifically, we propose that the natural candidate for dS complexity is the volume of extremal timelike surfaces restricted to the static patch, anchored to the cosmological horizon or an observer worldline. Our anchoring prescription provides a clear definition of a reference state, overcoming a common ambiguity in prior definitions of de Sitter holographic complexity. The late-time growth of our complexity functional is linear and proportional to the number of degrees of freedom associated to the cosmological horizon, and therefore does not exhibit hyperfast growth. Our results imply the dS static patch is characterized by a quantum mechanical system, with a finite dimensional Hilbert space whose evolution is governed by a chaotic Hamiltonian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10093 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The left conformal diagram traces an observer on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The blue curve corresponds to a timelike extremal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The scattering picture of the extremal surface. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The volume integral now takes the form V = 2iΩd−1 Z L rmin dr r 2(d−1) p −f(r)r 2(d−1) + p 2 . (21) Using the equation of motion for ˙v, we find that: v 2 − r ∗ min = Z v(r=L) v(r=rmin) dv = Z L rmin dr f(r) " p p −f(r)r 2(d−1) + p 2 + 1# . (22) This gives us − V 2iΩd−…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Holographic timelike complexity for de Sitter

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Timelike subregion volume complexity in de Sitter grows exponentially early and diverges hyperfast at a maximal duration; near the SdS black hole horizon the divergence is replaced by slower, claimed-nonlinear growth.

  2. Timelike Holographic Complexity

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Timelike subregion complexity within the holographic Complexity=Volume conjecture is computed for pure AdS and AdS black branes; it is purely real and shares the spacelike UV divergence structure.

  3. Holographic complexity of de-Sitter black holes

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    In SdS black hole holography, CV and CV2.0 complexities grow linearly while CA growth vanishes due to finite action, with matching rates between static patch and dS/CFT schemes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [14]

    Couch, S

    J. Couch, S. Eccles, T. Jacobson, and P. Nguyen, Holo- graphic Complexity and Volume, jhep 11, 044 (2018), arXiv:1807.02186 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  3. [2]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    Witten, Anti de Sitter space and holography, Adv

    E. Witten, Anti de Sitter space and holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    arXiv 1998

  5. [4]

    Baumann, Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    D. Baumann, Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    2022

  6. [5]

    Baiguera, V

    S. Baiguera, V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chap- man, J. Haferkamp, M. P. Heller, and N. Y. Halpern, Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science (2025), arXiv:2503.10753 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Susskind, Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons, Fortsch

    L. Susskind, Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 24 (2016), [Addendum: Fortsch.Phys. 64, 44–48 (2016)], arXiv:1403.5695 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    Stanford and L

    D. Stanford and L. Susskind, Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries, Phys. Rev. D 90, 126007 (2014), arXiv:1406.2678 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    J. L. F. Barb´ on, E. Rabinovici, R. Shir, and R. Sinha, On The Evolution Of Operator Complexity Beyond Scram- bling, jhep 10, 264 (2019), arXiv:1907.05393 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Fischler and L

    W. Fischler and L. Susskind, Holography and cosmology (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9806039

    1998 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M. K. Parikh and E. P. Verlinde, De Sitter hologra- 6 phy with a finite number of states, jhep 01, 054 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0410227

    2005 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Banks, Some thoughts on the quantum theory of sta- ble de Sitter space (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0503066

    T. Banks, Some thoughts on the quantum theory of sta- ble de Sitter space (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0503066

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Chandrasekaran, R

    V. Chandrasekaran, R. Longo, G. Penington, and E. Wit- ten, An algebra of observables for de Sitter space, jhep 02, 082 (2023), arXiv:2206.10780 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Maldacena, Real observers solving imaginary problems (2024), arXiv:2412.14014 [hep-th]

    J. Maldacena, Real observers solving imaginary problems (2024), arXiv:2412.14014 [hep-th]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Susskind, Entanglement and Chaos in De Sitter Space Holography: An SYK Example, JHAP 1, 1 (2021), arXiv:2109.14104 [hep-th]

    L. Susskind, Entanglement and Chaos in De Sitter Space Holography: An SYK Example, JHAP 1, 1 (2021), arXiv:2109.14104 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jørstad, R

    E. Jørstad, R. C. Myers, and S.-M. Ruan, Holo- graphic complexity in dS d+1, jhep 05, 119 (2022), arXiv:2202.10684 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, M. P. Heller, and S. Van der Schueren, Complexity equals anything can grow forever in de Sitter space, Phys. Rev. D 110, 066009 (2024), arXiv:2305.11280 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Timelike codimension-two surfaces in de Sitter space have been previously studied, and the corresponding boundary dual has been proposed to be what is referred to as pseudo-entropy (see, for example, [41–44])

  11. [19]

    Carmi, S

    D. Carmi, S. Chapman, H. Marrochio, R. C. Myers, and S. Sugishita, On the Time Dependence of Holographic Complexity, jhep 11, 188 (2017), arXiv:1709.10184 [hep- th]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    F. F. Gautason, V. Mohan, and L. Thorlacius, Late- Time Saturation of Black Hole Complexity, jhep 08, 056 (2025), arXiv:2502.17179 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    As this trivial solution will turn out to be absent when an- choring to the horizon, one could muse that this solution can be associated to some sort of ‘internal’ complexity of the observer

  14. [22]

    Anegawa and N

    T. Anegawa and N. Iizuka, Shock waves and delay of hyperfast growth in de Sitter complexity, jhep 08, 115 (2023), arXiv:2304.14620 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Baiguera, R

    S. Baiguera, R. Berman, S. Chapman, and R. C. Myers, The cosmological switchback effect, jhep 07, 162 (2023), arXiv:2304.15008 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Baiguera and R

    S. Baiguera and R. Berman, The cosmological switchback effect. Part II, jhep 08, 086 (2024), arXiv:2406.04397 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and Y. Zhao, Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 191301 (2016), arXiv:1509.07876 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Belin, R

    A. Belin, R. C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan, G. S´ arosi, and A. J. Speranza, Does Complexity Equal Anything?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 081602 (2022), arXiv:2111.02429 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Belin, R

    A. Belin, R. C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan, G. S´ arosi, and A. J. Speranza, Complexity equals anything II, jhep 01, 154 (2023), arXiv:2210.09647 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sybesma, Pure de Sitter space and the island mov- ing back in time, Class

    W. Sybesma, Pure de Sitter space and the island mov- ing back in time, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 145012 (2021), arXiv:2008.07994 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aalsma and W

    L. Aalsma and W. Sybesma, The Price of Curiosity: Information Recovery in de Sitter Space, jhep 05, 291 (2021), arXiv:2104.00006 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Schneiderbauer, W

    L. Schneiderbauer, W. Sybesma, and L. Thorlacius, Holo- graphic Complexity: Stretching the Horizon of an Evapo- rating Black Hole, jhep 03, 069 (2020), arXiv:1911.06800 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anegawa, N

    T. Anegawa, N. Iizuka, S. K. Sake, and N. Zenoni, Is action complexity better for de Sitter space in Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity?, jhep 06, 213 (2023), arXiv:2303.05025 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Susskind, De Sitter Space, Double-Scaled SYK, and the Separation of Scales in the Semiclassical Limit, JHAP 5, 1 (2025), arXiv:2209.09999 [hep-th]

    L. Susskind, De Sitter Space, Double-Scaled SYK, and the Separation of Scales in the Semiclassical Limit, JHAP 5, 1 (2025), arXiv:2209.09999 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Susskind, Scrambling in Double-Scaled SYK and De Sitter Space (2022), arXiv:2205.00315 [hep-th]

    L. Susskind, Scrambling in Double-Scaled SYK and De Sitter Space (2022), arXiv:2205.00315 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Narovlansky and H

    V. Narovlansky and H. Verlinde, Double-scaled SYK and de Sitter holography, jhep 05, 032 (2025), arXiv:2310.16994 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. A. Rahman, dS JT Gravity and Double-Scaled SYK (2022), arXiv:2209.09997 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. A. Rahman and L. Susskind, Comments on a Paper by Narovlansky and Verlinde (2023), arXiv:2312.04097 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Verlinde, Double-scaled SYK, chords and de Sitter gravity, jhep 03, 076 (2025), arXiv:2402.00635 [hep-th]

    H. Verlinde, Double-scaled SYK, chords and de Sitter gravity, jhep 03, 076 (2025), arXiv:2402.00635 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Blommaert, T

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, and J. Papalini, The dila- ton gravity hologram of double-scaled SYK, jhep 06, 050 (2025), arXiv:2404.03535 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Son- ner, A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity, jhep 08, 213 (2023), arXiv:2305.04355 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. P. Heller, J. Papalini, and T. Schuhmann, Krylov spread complexity as holographic complexity beyond JT gravity (2024), arXiv:2412.17785 [hep-th]

    2024

  33. [41]

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi, and Y. Taki, Pseudoentropy in dS/CFT and Timelike Entan- glement Entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 031601 (2023), arXiv:2210.09457 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi, and Y. Taki, Timelike entanglement entropy, jhep 05, 052 (2023), arXiv:2302.11695 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Narayan, de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, Phys

    K. Narayan, de Sitter space, extremal surfaces, and time entanglement, Phys. Rev. D 107, 126004 (2023), arXiv:2210.12963 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Narayan and H

    K. Narayan and H. K. Saini, Notes on time entangle- ment and pseudo-entropy, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 499 (2024), arXiv:2303.01307 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.