Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 52 references

The paper argues that the holographic complexity of black hole radiation from an evaporating AdS black hole jumps sharply at the Page time because the radiation's entanglement wedge gains an island whose volume dominates the complexity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:51 UTC pith:HZUMRN2Q

load-bearing objection A genuinely new proposal for a Page-like complexity transition via an island-volume term, but the central formula is conjectural and the late-time island persistence is asserted, not derived; worth refereeing, not desk rejection. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21734 v1 pith:HZUMRN2Q submitted 2026-07-23 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Page transition for the complexity of an evaporating black hole

Violet Concepcion , Yasunori Nomura , Kyle Ritchie , Samuel Weiss This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qcquant-ph
keywords holographic complexityPage curveevaporating black holesentanglement islandsComplexity=Volumesubsystem complexitypurification complexityquantum circuits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to show that computational complexity, like entanglement entropy, has a Page-like transition for an evaporating black hole in AdS coupled to a bath. Before the Page time, the radiation is nearly maximally mixed and its complexity is set by its entanglement spectrum, roughly equal to its entropy. After the Page time, the radiation's entanglement wedge acquires an island inside the black hole, and the volume of that island, via the Complexity=Volume proposal, becomes the dominant contribution, making the radiation complexity as large as the full system's. If correct, this resolves a 'complexity information paradox': naive volume counting would make the final radiation complexity vanish and imply the radiation is exactly thermal. The authors support the picture with a circuit model of evaporation, where the radiation complexity switches from spectrum-dominated to basis-dominated at half system size.

Core claim

The central claim is that the purification complexity of the radiation subsystem of an evaporating AdS black hole obeys the generalized CV formula C_P(ρ_R) = C_EFT(R ∪ I_ext) + max_{Σ∈I_ext} Vol(Σ)/(G_N ℓ), and that this produces a sharp Page-like jump: the island volume contribution is negligible before the Page time and dominant after it, scaling as V_inside ~ L^{2D-3}/(k G_N). The jump matches the circuit-model expectation that subsystem complexity is controlled by the spectrum below half system size and by the basis above it. The paper argues this resolves the apparent paradox that naive CV predicts vanishing complexity of the radiation after evaporation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized 'Complexity=Volume with islands' formula, conjectured as C_P(ρ_a) = C_EFT(e(a)) + max_{Σ∈e(a)} Vol(Σ)/(G_N ℓ), which extends subregion CV by including the island in the entanglement wedge of the radiation and by adding the complexity of semiclassical degrees of freedom in the wedge. Supporting it are the basis-spectrum decomposition of mixed-state complexity (C_S ≤ C_P ≤ C_S + C_B), which explains why small subsystems are spectrum-dominated and large subsystems basis-dominated, and the quasistatic approximation for the evaporating geometry that gives the volume growth of the black hole interior.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the conjectured generalized CV formula (3.4)-(3.5), which the paper itself flags as a conjecture and notes may not be exactly purification complexity; if islands do not contribute to complexity in the same way they contribute to entropy, the claimed jump and the resolution of the paradox do not follow.

What would settle it

Compute the purification complexity of the radiation in the circuit model of Section 4.3 (random p-local gates on a shrinking subsystem) by directly counting gates or solving the complexity geodesic, and check whether the radiation complexity actually jumps from O(entropy) to O(full complexity) at the Page time. Alternatively, in a small holographic setup, compute the vacuum-subtracted maximal volume of the radiation entanglement wedge with and without the island and verify that the island-dominated volume scales as L^{2D-3}/(k G_N) at late times; if it does not, the central claim is wrong.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The radiation state after the Page time is not approximately thermal in the complexity sense; its purification complexity is of order the full-system complexity, so it is highly distinguishable from a maximally mixed state.
  • The complexity Page curve can be computed in the same quantum extremal surface framework as the entropy Page curve, with the island volume playing the role of the island area.
  • The AdS boundary state's complexity drops sharply at the Page time, mirroring the transfer of the interior volume from the black hole's entanglement wedge to the radiation's.
  • Full-system complexity growth follows the Lloyd bound during evaporation, with C(t) proportional to the integrated mass, matching the interior volume growth in the quasistatic approximation.
  • The same qualitative jump appears in circuit models of evaporation, where the upper bound on radiation complexity switches from spectrum complexity C_S to the full-system complexity C once the radiation exceeds half the system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the generalized CV formula holds, complexity-based probes could serve as a sharper diagnostic of information recovery in black hole evaporation than entropy, because complexity jumps by a larger factor than entropy.
  • The argument suggests that any holographic complexity proposal, including Complexity=Action, must also include island contributions; the paper notes CA would likely give a different transition profile but the same qualitative story.
  • The basis-dominated regime could be tested in small quantum simulators: prepare random circuit states with a monitored or environment-coupled subsystem, estimate or bound purification complexity, and look for the predicted switch at half system size.
  • The zero basis complexity before the Page time relies on choosing a finite tolerance ε; choosing an exponentially fine tolerance could alter the transition, so the result is sensitive to the precise operational definition of complexity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the purification complexity of the radiation subsystem of an evaporating AdS black hole coupled to a bath undergoes a sharp Page-like transition at the Page time. After developing a basis–spectrum decomposition of mixed-state complexity and a bound on basis complexity of small subsystems, the authors formulate a generalized Complexity=Volume proposal, Eqs. (3.4)–(3.5), in which the complexity of a subsystem is the sum of an EFT matter complexity and the maximal volume of the entanglement wedge, including any island. Using a quasistatic Vaidya model, they compute the full-system volume growth and then argue in Section 5 that when the island enters the radiation entanglement wedge at the Page time, the radiation complexity jumps from a small, entropy-sized value to a value comparable to the full-system complexity. The same qualitative transition is argued for a random-circuit model of evaporation. The paper interprets this as resolving an apparent 'complexity information paradox.'

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would extend the island-based restoration of information from entanglement entropy to complexity, connecting the Page curve for entropy to a sharp transition in complexity and giving a concrete bulk dual for the late-time non-thermal character of the radiation. The analytic volume computations—the eternal black-hole growth (4.6)–(4.10), the evaporating volume evolution (4.22)–(4.29), and the renormalized wedge volumes (5.1)–(5.19)—are generally coherent and internally consistent. The full-system circuit model also reproduces the expected Lloyd-bound behavior, Eq. (4.40)–(4.42). However, the central new input, Eq. (3.4), is explicitly conjectural, and two of its key ingredients—the persistence of the island after complete evaporation and the exponential basis complexity of subsystems larger than half the total system—are not derived. The paper is best read as a clearly stated proposal and consistency argument, not as a proof; the authors should frame it in those terms.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.4)–(3.5)] The central claim is hard-wired into the conjecture. Equation (3.5) asserts C_P(ρ_R)=C_EFT(R∪I_ext)+max_{Σ∈I_ext}Vol(Σ)/(G_Nℓ), and Section 5.1 then 'shows' the Page-time jump by evaluating the island volume term. Since the dominance of the island contribution is exactly what the paper aims to conclude, the derivation is circular unless (3.4) is independently motivated or tested. The paper itself flags '(3.4) we conjecture' and Section 5.2 concedes that the circuit model gives only an upper-bound switch, not a proof. The authors should state explicitly that all conclusions are conditional on (3.4) and identify a concrete, falsifiable signature that would distinguish (3.4) from C_P=C_EFT alone.
  2. [§1, p.2 and §3.1] The claim that 'the island remains even after evaporation is complete' is asserted but never derived. The paper's own evaporation law (4.28) gives M(v)→0 only as v→∞; extrapolating to M=0, the background is empty AdS, and the quantum extremal surface condition (3.3) generically admits no island in the standard island computations [16–18]. If the island disappears at late times, Eq. (3.5) reduces to C_P(ρ_R)=C_EFT(R), which §2.2 suggests is small (of order the entropy), leaving the claimed paradox unresolved. Because the final-state behavior is load-bearing for the resolution in §6.1, the authors must either derive the late-time QES solutions in their coupled model or weaken the statement to an explicit assumption with the resulting limitations stated.
  3. [§5.2] The circuit-model transition is not established. The argument shows that the operative upper bound on C_P changes from C_S to C at the Page time, but—as the paper acknowledges—'This does not, by itself, prove that the radiation complexity actually undergoes such a jump.' A jump requires a matching lower bound. In addition, the expectation of exponentially large basis complexity for a subsystem larger than half the total system is imported from Haar-random state results [1], whereas the evaporation circuit of §4.3 has simple, non-random dynamics on the radiation subsystem once it leaves the scrambling interior. The two settings may not be in the same universality class. A direct calculation or lower bound on C_P for the §4.3 circuit is needed before claiming that the same jump occurs in the qubit model.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (3.4)] The EFT term C_EFT(e(a)) is never operationally defined or computed. In the no-island phase it is the entire answer, and in the island phase it is asserted to be small; without a definition—or at least a concrete prescription—Eq. (3.4) is not falsifiable. This is unlike the QES formula (3.3), where S_EFT is the computable von Neumann entropy of bulk fields. The smallness of C_EFT(R) is essential to the claim that pre-Page-time radiation complexity is ≈C_S, so this gap is load-bearing.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1(b) caption] The caption says the volume increases at a rate proportional to M^2, but Eq. (4.22) with v_D∝M gives dV/dv∝M, in agreement with the text. Please correct the caption.
  2. [Eq. (3.1) vs. Eq. (3.4)] Equation (3.1) omits the factor 1/(G_Nℓ) that appears in Eq. (3.4); clarify whether (3.1) is schematic or whether the units differ.
  3. [§5.2, last paragraph] The statement 'at the end of evaporation, the radiation subsystem will also be the full system' is used to argue that its complexity must be close to C. This is true only if the full-system state after evaporation is the same pure state as the radiation subsystem; since the black hole has disappeared, this should be stated explicitly and reconciled with the late-time island discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The central radiation-complexity transition is the conjectured CV-with-islands formula itself; the paradox resolution is loaded into the input, while the circuit model only gives bounds.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5); used in Sections 5.1 and 6.1]
    "We propose an analogous generalization to the CV formula. For a boundary region a, we conjecture C_P(ρ_a) = C_EFT(e(a)) + max_{Σ∈e(a)} Vol(Σ)/(G_N ℓ). Applied to the radiation subsystem of an evaporating AdS black hole coupled to a bath, this proposal gives C_P(ρ_R) = C_EFT(R ∪ I_ext) + max_{Σ∈I_ext} Vol(Σ)/(G_N ℓ). ... absent the volume contribution, we arrive at the unlikely conclusion that the complexity of the final evaporation state is small, even after having undergone the complex dynamics of black hole formation and evaporation."

    The paper's central result—that after the Page time the radiation complexity jumps because the island volume dominates—is not derived but is the content of conjectured Eq. (3.5). The formula defines C_P(ρ_R) to include max_{Σ∈I_ext} Vol(Σ)/(G_N ℓ); Section 5.1 then evaluates this definition by computing V_inside, and Section 6.1 concludes that 'the volume of the island ... captures the fine-grained complexity.' The geometric term was introduced specifically to avoid the opposite conclusion, as the quoted motivation states: absent the volume term the final-state complexity would be small. Thus the proposed resolution of the complexity information paradox is inserted as the conjecture, not obtained as an independent output. The subsequent 'prediction' of a sharp transition is an evaluation o

full rationale

The derivation is mostly honest and self-consistent: the volume integrals in Sections 4-5 are computed without algebraic sleight of hand, the island's appearance at the Page time is imported from the independent QES literature [16-18], and the paper labels (3.4) as a conjecture in Section 3.2. However, the paper's distinctive contribution—the Page-like jump in radiation complexity caused by the island volume—is exactly what the conjectured formula (3.5) builds in: radiation complexity is defined to equal C_EFT plus the island volume, and the paper then 'finds' that this volume dominates. The motivation passage makes the circularity transparent: the geometric term is added because without it the final-state complexity would be small, so the resolution is chosen as an input rather than derived as a result. The circuit-model discussion in Section 5.2 does not supply independent support; the paper concedes 'This does not, by itself, prove that the radiation complexity actually undergoes such a jump' and then falls back on the holographic formula. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, and the cited results [1,2,16-18,30,47-49] are external; the only self-citation [38] is not used in the argument. These caveats prevent a score of 8 or 10, but the central claim still reduces by construction to the conjectured input, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the conjectured generalized CV formula (3.4)/(3.5), which is introduced in this paper and not derived. The QES/island prescription and CV for subregions are borrowed from prior literature. The epidemic circuit model and the quasistatic approximation are additional domain assumptions. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced; the paper's novelty is a new formula and interpretation.

free parameters (4)
  • k (bath coupling) = not fitted
    Strength of coupling between the gravitational system and the bath in the Stefan-Boltzmann law dM/dv = -k G_N^2 M^2 / L^{2D-4} (4.27). Appears in mass evolution (4.28), volume growth (4.29), wedge-volume ratio (5.9), and island volume (5.18). The quasistatic bound (4.30) constrains it but does not determine it.
  • α (O(1) constant in v_D = α G_N L M) = not fitted
    D-dependent numerical coefficient in the volume growth rate (4.24), treated as O(1) and unspecified.
  • ε (complexity tolerance) = chosen such that ε > 2^{-(N-M)/2}
    The tolerance in the definition of complexity; the basis-complexity bound (2.14) depends on it. The paper assumes it is small but larger than nonperturbative 2^{-S0} corrections to make C_B = 0 for small subsystems.
  • V_0 (initial volume) = 0
    Initial vacuum-subtracted volume, set to zero in the late-time analysis; affects only the additive constant in (4.29).
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The proposed generalized CV formula (3.4): C_P(ρ_a) = C_EFT(e(a)) + max_{Σ∈e(a)} Vol(Σ)/(G_N ℓ).
    This is the central conjecture, motivated by analogy with QES but not derived. It directly encodes the island-volume contribution to radiation complexity.
  • domain assumption The island prescription for entanglement wedges of the radiation (QES), from refs [16-18].
    The paper assumes the island appears in the radiation entanglement wedge after the Page time, as in the entropy Page curve. This is prior literature, not derived here.
  • domain assumption CV proposal for subregions (Eq. 3.1) from ref [30].
    The paper uses CV for subregions as the baseline holographic complexity measure.
  • domain assumption Quasistatic approximation (4.20): |∂_v F| << |F|/r_h.
    The slow-evolution assumption allows applying the static result locally. It is not guaranteed for the whole evaporation; the paper gives a bound (4.30) under which it holds initially.
  • domain assumption Epidemic model for complexity growth (4.35)-(4.37) from Susskind [45].
    The circuit model uses the epidemic spread model to estimate complexity growth. This is an established heuristic from the cited literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The expectation that basis complexity of a >half-system subsystem is exponential in subsystem size.
    Used in Section 5.2 to argue the upper bound on C_P switches from C_S to C. This is an 'expected' scaling, not a theorem, and it is not computed in the circuit model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16857 in / 18006 out tokens · 158875 ms · 2026-08-01T06:51:09.014656+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent results demonstrate that there exists a sharp, Page-like transition for the complexity of subsystems of Haar-random states as their fractional subsystem size surpasses one half. They further demonstrate that this transition also occurs for the holographic complexity of boundary subregions of eternal AdS black holes, assuming the Complexity$=$Volume (CV) proposal for subregions. We interpret this transition as a crossover from spectrum-dominated to basis-dominated subsystem complexity, reflecting the breakdown of approximate thermality beyond half-system size. We then apply this reasoning to an evaporating AdS black hole coupled to a bath, modeled by a quantum circuit undergoing random evolution on an interior subsystem of diminishing size. Using the basis-spectrum decomposition of subsystem complexity, we argue for a similar Page-like transition in the radiation complexity. We then show, using CV for subregions, that the same transition appears in the holographic complexity of the radiation subsystem through the emergence of an island, whose volume gives the dominant contribution. We argue that the island volume contribution resolves an apparent complexity paradox analogous to the information paradox.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. Fan, N. Hunter-Jones, A. Karch, and S. Mittal,Sharp Transitions for Subsystem Complexity,arXiv:2510.18832. – 27 –

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Haah and D

    J. Haah and D. Stanford,Growth and collapse of subsystem complexity under random unitary circuits,arXiv:2510.18805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    J. M. Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252, [hep-th/9711200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz,Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,Phys. Rept.323(2000) 183–386, [hep-th/9905111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow,Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,JHEP04(2015) 163, [arXiv:1411.7041]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Pastawski, B

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill,Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence,JHEP06 (2015) 149, [arXiv:1503.06237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,Commun

    D. Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,Commun. Math. Phys.354(2017), no. 3 865–912, [arXiv:1607.03901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 181602, [hep-th/0603001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,JHEP08 (2006) 045, [hep-th/0605073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi,A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,JHEP07(2007) 062, [arXiv:0705.0016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    Faulkner, A

    T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz, and J. Maldacena,Quantum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy,JHEP11(2013) 074, [arXiv:1307.2892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Engelhardt and A

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall,Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,JHEP01(2015) 073, [arXiv:1408.3203]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, and S. J. Suh,Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy,JHEP06(2016) 004, [arXiv:1512.06431]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow, and A. C. Wall,Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016), no. 2 021601, [arXiv:1601.05416]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    D. N. Page,Information in black hole radiation,Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 3743–3746, [hep-th/9306083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  16. [16]

    Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox, JHEP09(2020) 002, [arXiv:1905.08255]

    G. Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox, JHEP09(2020) 002, [arXiv:1905.08255]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Almheiri, N

    A. Almheiri, N. Engelhardt, D. Marolf, and H. Maxfield,The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole,JHEP12(2019) 063, [arXiv:1905.08762]. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Almheiri, R

    A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena, and Y. Zhao,The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry,JHEP03(2020) 149, [arXiv:1908.10996]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Penington, S

    G. Penington, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang,Replica wormholes and the black hole interior,JHEP03(2022) 205, [arXiv:1911.11977]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini,Replica Wormholes and the Entropy of Hawking Radiation,JHEP05(2020) 013, [arXiv:1911.12333]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch

    L. Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch. Phys.64 (2016) 24–43, [arXiv:1403.5695]. [Addendum: Fortsch.Phys. 64, 44–48 (2016)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Stanford and L

    D. Stanford and L. Susskind,Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,Phys. Rev. D 90(2014), no. 12 126007, [arXiv:1406.2678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and Y. Zhao,Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016), no. 19 191301, [arXiv:1509.07876]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    R. A. Jefferson and R. C. Myers,Circuit complexity in quantum field theory,Journal of High Energy Physics2017(Oct., 2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    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(2022), no. 8 081602, [arXiv:2111.02429]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Belin, R

    A. Belin, R. C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan, G. S´ arosi, and A. J. Speranza,Complexity equals anything II,JHEP01(2023) 154, [arXiv:2210.09647]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    R. C. Myers and S.-M. Ruan,Complexity Equals (Almost) Anything, inGravity, Strings and Fields: A Conference in Honour of Gordon Semenoff, 3, 2024.arXiv:2403.17475

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Susskind and Y

    L. Susskind and Y. Zhao,Switchbacks and the Bridge to Nowhere,arXiv:1408.2823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    S. W. Hawking,Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse,Phys. Rev. D 14(1976) 2460–2473

    1976

  30. [30]

    Carmi, R

    D. Carmi, R. C. Myers, and P. Rath,Comments on holographic complexity,Journal of High Energy Physics2017(Mar., 2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    D. N. Page,Average entropy of a subsystem,Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 1291–1294, [gr-qc/9305007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  32. [32]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill,Black holes as mirrors: Quantum information in random subsystems,JHEP09(2007) 120, [arXiv:0708.4025]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Sekino and L

    Y. Sekino and L. Susskind,Fast Scramblers,JHEP10(2008) 065, [arXiv:0808.2096]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    A. R. Brown and L. Susskind,Second law of quantum complexity,Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 8 086015, [arXiv:1701.01107]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Bragagnolo and S

    N. Bragagnolo and S. P. Kumar,Evaporating Black Hole Interior and Complexity Evolution,arXiv:2605.16619

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Caputa, G

    P. Caputa, G. Di Giulio, and T. Q. Loc,Complexity Inequalities for Quantum Subsystems,arXiv:2606.20790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    C. Fang, J. Yang, S.-W. Wei, M. Zhang, and R. B. Mann,Holographic complexity of de-Sitter black holes,arXiv:2606.03049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Concepcion and K

    V. Concepcion and K. Ritchie,A Timelike Quantum Focusing Conjecture, arXiv:2604.27054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    M. A. Nielsen,A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds,Quantum Inf. Comput.6(2006) 213–262, [quant-ph/0502070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    M. A. Nielsen, M. R. Dowling, M. Gu, and A. C. Doherty,Quantum computation as geometry,Science311(2006), no. 5764 1133–1135, [quant-ph/0603161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    M. R. Dowling and M. A. Nielsen,The geometry of quantum computation,Quant. Inf. Comput.8(2008), no. 10 0861–0899, [quant-ph/0701004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    C. A. Ag´ on, M. Headrick, and B. Swingle,Subsystem Complexity and Holography, JHEP02(2019) 145, [arXiv:1804.01561]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski,Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2017

    2017

  44. [44]

    S. W. Hawking,Particle Creation by Black Holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  45. [45]

    Susskind,Three Lectures on Complexity and Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, 10, 2018.arXiv:1810.11563

    L. Susskind,Three Lectures on Complexity and Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, 10, 2018.arXiv:1810.11563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Lloyd,Ultimate physical limits to computation,Nature406(2000) 1047–1054, [quant-ph/9908043]

    S. Lloyd,Ultimate physical limits to computation,Nature406(2000) 1047–1054, [quant-ph/9908043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    Harlow and P

    D. Harlow and P. Hayden,Quantum Computation vs. Firewalls,JHEP06(2013) 085, [arXiv:1301.4504]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Hayden and G

    P. Hayden and G. Penington,Learning the Alpha-bits of Black Holes,JHEP12(2019) 007, [arXiv:1807.06041]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, G. Penington, and L. Susskind,The Python’s Lunch: geometric obstructions to decoding Hawking radiation,JHEP08(2020) 121, [arXiv:1912.00228]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and Y. Zhao,Complexity, action, and black holes,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 8 086006, [arXiv:1512.04993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Chapman, H

    S. Chapman, H. Marrochio, and R. C. Myers,Holographic complexity in Vaidya spacetimes. Part I,JHEP06(2018) 046, [arXiv:1804.07410]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Lehner, R

    L. Lehner, R. C. Myers, E. Poisson, and R. D. Sorkin,Gravitational action with null boundaries,Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 8 084046, [arXiv:1609.00207]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016