Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Analytic Spread Complexity from Level Statistics: From Chaos to Integrability

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spread complexity is controlled by local spectral statistics through a master formula that ties the finite-time peak to the nearest-neighbour spacing distribution.

desk verdict A plausible and useful master formula connecting spread complexity to level-spacing statistics, built on an uncontrolled but numerically well-supported kernel-universality and a factorization that deserves more scrutiny; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07412 v1 pith:IIZLTKAK submitted 2026-08-07 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Pallab Basu , Suman das , Bigboy Madlala This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph MSC 81Q50
keywords spreadcomplexityKrylovlevelspacingstatisticsquantumchaosrandommatrixtheoryPoissonkerneluniversalityLanczosalgorithm
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

Spread complexity tracks how quickly a quantum state spreads across the Krylov basis built from repeated Hamiltonian action; for chaotic systems it shows a growth–peak–plateau shape, and it has been unclear which spectral correlations set the peak. This paper claims the answer is strictly local: after unfolding the spectrum, the ensemble-averaged complexity is fixed by the Fourier transforms of the $k$th-nearest-neighbour spacing distributions, with the nearest-neighbour term dominant. The central formula expresses $\langle C_{\rm unfold}(\tau)\rangle/D$ as $\frac12\left(1-2\sum_{k=1}^\infty \Phi_k(\tau)/(4k^2-1)\right)$, so all ensemble dependence enters through level-spacing statistics. If correct, it unifies the chaotic (Wigner–Dyson) and integrable (Poisson) limits and turns the complexity peak into a quantitative probe of level repulsion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Krylov kernel $K(i,j)$ in the ordered energy basis, together with its diagonal decomposition $C(t)=C_0+\sum_{k=1}^{D-1} C_k(t)$, where $C_k(t)=2\sum_i K(i,i+k)\cos[(E_{i+k}-E_i)t]$. The load-bearing approximation is the uniform-lattice kernel $K_{\rm uni}$ constructed from discrete Chebyshev polynomials, whose large-$D$ diagonal sums give the weights $W_k\sim -D/[2(4k^2-1)]$; these weights make the diagonal series rapidly convergent and turn level-spacing distributions, through their cosine transforms $\Phi_k(\tau)$, into the sole ensemble-dependent input.

What would settle it

Construct a spectrum engineered to have Wigner nearest-neighbour spacings but non-random higher-order correlations, compute the exact unfolded Krylov kernel and ensemble-averaged spread complexity by Lanczos iteration, and compare with Eq. (1.1); if the $k>1$ terms contribute beyond the predicted $1/(4k^2-1)$ tail, or the peak height deviates by more than the $O(1/\sqrt{D})$ fluctuations noted in Section 3, the universality and factorization assumptions fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives an exact energy-space representation of the Krylov kernel, $K(i,j)=\frac{1}{D^2}\sum_{n=0}^{D-1} n\,p_n(E_i)p_n(E_j)$ with $p_n$ the Lanczos polynomials, and shows that this kernel is approximately banded: its integrated off-diagonal weights decay roughly as $1/k^2$. It then proposes an approximate kernel-universality hypothesis: after unfolding, the Krylov kernel of a generic spectrum is well approximated by the kernel of a uniform lattice, built from discrete Chebyshev (Gram) polynomials. Substituting this universal kernel into the diagonal decomposition and averaging over the $k$th-neighbour spacing distributions gives the master formula Eq. (1.1), with the nearest-neighbour term alone reproducing the GOE and GUE peak heights. For Poisson spectra the same series resums exactly and produces a monotone rise to the plateau with no peak.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the approximate kernel-universality hypothesis of Section 4: after unfolding, a generic spectrum's Krylov kernel is close enough to the uniform-lattice kernel that replacing one by the other leaves the ensemble-averaged spread complexity unchanged, together with the factorization in Eq. (5.3) that replaces correlations between different $k$-separations by the single $k$th-neighbour spacing distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The finite-time peak height and position of spread complexity become computable directly from the nearest-neighbour spacing distribution, so stronger level repulsion (GUE versus GOE) yields a higher, slightly later peak.
  • Keeping only the $k=1$ diagonal already captures the peak, because higher diagonals are suppressed by the factor $1/(4k^2-1)$ and the omitted tail is bounded by $1/[2(2m+1)]$.
  • For Poisson spectra the full series resums to $C_P(\tau)/D=\frac12\int_0^1 dx\, \tau^2/[(1-x^2)^2+\tau^2]$, which rises monotonically to the plateau $D/2$ without developing a finite-time maximum.
  • The unfolded-time peak positions convert to physical time through the local density of states, giving $t_{\rm peak}/D\simeq 0.88$ for GUE and $0.85$ for GOE under the bulk-density approximation.
  • The late-time plateau value $D/2$ is a universal outcome of the master formula for both chaotic and integrable spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same master formula should predict peak positions and heights for intermediate ensembles once the appropriate nearest-neighbour spacing distribution (for example a Brody interpolation) is inserted; the paper does not compute this.
  • Editorial extension: if kernel universality holds beyond the Gaussian and Poisson cases, the spread-complexity peak height becomes a directly measurable proxy for the level-repulsion parameter and could serve as a chaos diagnostic in many-body spectra where level statistics are already accessible.
  • Editorial extension: the $1/(4k^2-1)$ hierarchy suggests a quantitative spectral explanation for the maximum wormhole size and its subsequent relaxation in holographic duals, a connection the paper raises but leaves open.
  • Editorial extension: the diagonal decomposition could extend to temperature-dependent or weighted complexity measures by filtering the degree matrix in the kernel definition; this is a numerically testable generalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an analytic relation between spread (state Krylov) complexity and local spectral statistics. It starts from an exact energy-eigenbasis representation of spread complexity, Eq. (2.19), decomposes the double sum into contributions from k-th diagonals of the Krylov kernel, and observes numerically that the kernel is approximately banded with diagonal weights decaying roughly as k^{-2}. It then introduces an approximate kernel-universality hypothesis: after unfolding, the Krylov kernel of a generic random-matrix spectrum is well approximated by the kernel of a uniform lattice, K_uni. Combining K_uni with the k-th-nearest-neighbour spacing distributions p_k(s) leads to the master formula Eq. (5.6), which expresses the ensemble-averaged unfolded complexity in terms of the Fourier transforms Φ_k of p_k. The paper tests the formula for GOE, GUE, and Poisson spectra at D=1000 and gives an exact resummation of the Poisson limit, showing monotonic approach to the plateau with no finite-time peak.

Significance. If the master formula, Eq. (5.6), is valid, the paper establishes a direct, parameter-free connection between spread complexity and standard local level statistics, identifying the finite-time complexity peak as a consequence of short-range spectral correlations. This would be a useful conceptual and quantitative result for the Krylov-complexity literature, and the paper contains several strong technical components: the exact operator identity (A.7), the clean derivation of the uniform-kernel diagonal sums in Appendix A, the exact Poisson resummation of Section 6, and an openly available numerical repository. The claims are falsifiable and the numerical checks are extensive for GOE/GUE/Poisson at D=1000. However, the central formula rests on two uncontrolled approximations — the kernel-universality replacement K_unfold ≃ K_uni and the factorization of the ensemble average in Eq. (5.3) — so the paper presently delivers a well-motivated conjecture supported by finite-dimensional numerics rather than a fully derived asymptotic result.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (4.27)–(4.30)] The kernel-universality hypothesis is load-bearing and is not quantified. Equation (4.27), K_unfold = M K_uni M^T, is exact, but the replacement K_unfold ≃ K_uni in Eq. (4.30) requires that M be close to the identity in a controlled sense. The numerical evidence, while suggestive, does not provide such control: the localization width of M in Figs. 5–6 is shown only at D=1000, and no scaling with D or estimate of the induced error in the complexity is given. Because M is finite-dimensional and orthogonal rather than close to the identity in an operator norm that shrinks with D, there is no small parameter justifying the substitution. Please state the precise form of the hypothesis and provide either an error bound, a scaling analysis of ‖K_unfold − K_uni‖ or of the induced complexity error as a function of D, or at minimum additional tests for GSE and for intermediate ensembles.
  2. [§5, Eqs. (5.3)–(5.4)] The passage from the exact ensemble average in Eq. (5.2) to the master formula (5.6) uses a second uncontrolled approximation. Equation (5.3) defines Φ_k(t) as the Fourier transform of the global k-th-neighbour spacing distribution p_k(s), but Eq. (5.4) requires the kernel-weighted average of cos[(ε_{i+k}−ε_i)t] over i with weights K_uni(i,i+k). This is valid only if the local spacing distribution is independent of i and uncorrelated with the kernel weight; boundary effects and edge contributions are not estimated. The observed discrepancy between the leading-order peak height, e.g. 0.649 for GUE from Eq. (5.15), and the exact unfolded curve in Fig. 9 (right) shows that the combined approximation error is of order several percent. Please derive or numerically quantify the difference between the factored and full ensemble averages, and report the error separately from the error in the k=1 truncation.
  3. [§5, Eqs. (5.7)–(5.8), Fig. 9] The convergence bound in Eq. (5.7) controls only the tail of the k-sum and does not include the two approximation errors identified above. Therefore it does not, by itself, justify the statement that the leading-order formula reproduces the peak height 'with remarkable accuracy.' The right panel of Fig. 9 shows that the leading-order GUE peak is about 6% higher than the exact unfolded numerical curve; the paper should report this discrepancy explicitly and also compare the analytic peak positions with the exact numerical peak positions. To separate the sources of error, it would be very helpful to evaluate the full master formula using numerically extracted p_k(s) for the GUE and GOE ensembles and compare it with the exact unfolded complexity, rather than only the k=1 approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that at leading order the finite-time peak is controlled by the Fourier transform of the nearest-neighbour spacing distribution; given the ~6% peak-height discrepancy documented in Fig. 9, it would be more precise to say 'approximately controlled' or to quantify the accuracy in the abstract and in the introductory summary.
  2. [§5, Eq. (5.3)] The notation p_k(s) should specify precisely which empirical distribution is used: the standard k-th-neighbour spacing distribution for levels in the bulk, a global average over all i, or a distribution with specific boundary conventions (e.g., excluding the first and last k levels). The edge convention matters at finite D because the sums in Eq. (5.4) run over i=0,...,D−1−k.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.15)] The statement that S^{(D)}_{n,k} → 1 'admit a smooth continuum limit' is heuristic. Since Eq. (A.15) is the only asymptotic input for the diagonal sums, a few lines justifying the limit uniformly enough to control the o(D^2) remainder would make the derivation in Appendix A fully rigorous; at present the reader must supply the convergence argument.
  4. [Fig. 9] The right panel marks the analytic leading-order peak positions with vertical dotted lines but does not mark the exact numerical peak positions. Adding the latter would make the claimed agreement quantitatively transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (5.6) combines an exact diagonal decomposition with an explicitly stated kernel-universality hypothesis and external spacing-statistics inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The exact kernel representation (2.19)--(2.21) is reorganized into diagonal contributions, the approximate kernel-universality hypothesis K_unfold(i,j) ~ K_uni(i,j) is introduced and tested as a hypothesis rather than derived from the target result, and the uniform-lattice diagonal sums used in Eq. (5.5) are derived exactly in Appendix A from Gram polynomials. The master formula (5.6) is then assembled from these ingredients together with the independently defined kth-neighbour spacing distributions p_k(s); the functions Phi_k(t) are Fourier/cosine transforms of those spacing distributions, not quantities fitted to spread complexity. The Wigner surmises for GUE/GOE and the Gamma distribution for Poisson are external spectral-statistics benchmarks, and the peak positions and heights are predicted from them rather than used to calibrate any parameter. The numerical tests in Figs. 5--9 validate the kernel-universality and spiking-factorization approximations, but validation of an uncontrolled approximation is not parameter fitting and does not make the output an input by construction. The step from Eq. (5.3) to Eq. (5.4), where the factor Phi_k(t) is moved outside the i-sum, is an accuracy concern that may require a rigorous error bound, but it is not circular: the averaged cosine transform and the kernel-weighted sum are not defined in terms of C(t), and no equality is forced by definition. Self-citations such as [44], [48]--[53], and [60] supply prior context and dynamical interpretations, but the central claim does not rest on them as its only justification. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the result has independent falsifiable content: different spacing statistics (Wigner vs. Poisson) lead to different predicted complexity behavior. Hence there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses the stated initial-state choice, maximal Krylov dimension, the approximate kernel-universality hypothesis, and a factorization assumption. No numbers are fitted to the target complexity data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Infinite-temperature thermofield-double initial state with uniform coefficients |c_i|^2 = 1/D
    Eq. (2.17); the kernel representation and all subsequent formulas assume this specific initial state.
  • domain assumption Nondegenerate spectrum with maximal Krylov dimension K = D
    Sec. 4; needed for the polynomial-evaluation matrices O_unfold and O_uni to be square and orthogonal.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximate kernel universality: after unfolding, K_unfold ≃ K_uni (uniform lattice kernel)
    Sec. 4 Hypothesis; numerically motivated but not derived. It is the core assumption behind the master formula.
  • domain assumption Ensemble-average factorization: ⟨cos[(ε_{i+k}-ε_i)t]⟩ = Φ_k(t) with p_k(s) the kth-neighbour spacing density
    Eq. (5.3); assumes the spacing distribution is stationary and ignores correlations between different k and boundary effects.
  • domain assumption Large-D asymptotic input: ∑_{i=0}^{D-1-k} ⟨i|B|i+k⟩ = Tr B (1 + O(k/D))
    Eq. (A.15) in Appendix A; used to derive the uniform-kernel diagonal sums (A.22). Stated without proof.
  • standard math Standard theory of orthogonal polynomials (Gram/Chebyshev), three-term recurrences, and completeness
    Used throughout to define Lanczos polynomials, the Krylov kernel, and the kernel identities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Spread Complexity from Level Statistics: From Chaos to Integrability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIZLTKAK

@misc{pith2026260807412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Spread Complexity from Level Statistics: From Chaos to Integrability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIZLTKAK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07412}
}
abstract

Spread complexity has emerged as a useful probe of quantum chaos, yet the microscopic spectral origin of its characteristic finite-time peak remains incompletely understood. We develop an analytic framework that relates spread complexity directly to local spectral statistics. Starting from an energy-space representation of the Krylov kernel, we show that the kernel is approximately banded, leading to a rapidly convergent diagonal expansion dominated by nearby levels in the ordered spectrum. Motivated by this structure, we propose an approximate kernel-universality hypothesis: after unfolding, the Krylov kernel is well approximated by that of a uniform lattice. Combining this universal kernel with local spectral statistics yields a simple analytic expression for spread complexity in terms of the Fourier transforms of the $k$-th nearest-neighbour spacing distributions. In particular, at leading order, the finite-time peak is controlled by the Fourier transform of the nearest-neighbour spacing distribution. The resulting framework describes both chaotic random-matrix ensembles and the integrable Poisson limit, identifies the spectral origin of the complexity peak and its late-time behaviour, and provides a direct connection between Krylov dynamics and spectral statistics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shenker and D

    S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,Black holes and the butterfly effect,JHEP03(2014) 067 [1306.0622]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Maldacena, S.H

    J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,A bound on chaos,JHEP08(2016) 106 [1503.01409]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Bohigas, M.J

    O. Bohigas, M.J. Giannoni and C. Schmit,Characterization of chaotic quantum spectra and universality of level fluctuation laws,Phys. Rev. Lett.52(1984) 1

    1984

  4. [4]

    Dyson and M.L

    F.J. Dyson and M.L. Mehta,Statistical theory of the energy levels of complex systems. iv,Journal of Mathematical Physics4(1963) 701

    work page 1963

  5. [5]

    Oganesyan and D.A

    V. Oganesyan and D.A. Huse,Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature,Phys. Rev. B75(2007) 155111

    2007

  6. [6]

    Y.Y. Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud and G. Roux,Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 084101

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Mehta,Random Matrices, vol

    M.L. Mehta,Random Matrices, vol. 142 ofPure and Applied Mathematics, Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 3 ed. (2004), 10.1016/S0079-8169(04)80088-6

    doi:10.1016/s0079-8169(04)80088-6 2004

  8. [8]

    Cotler, G

    J.S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S.H. Shenker et al., Black Holes and Random Matrices,JHEP05(2017) 118 [1611.04650]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Parker, X

    D.E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi and E. Altman,A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis,Phys. Rev. X9(2019) 041017 [1812.08657]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 046007 [2202.06957]. – 32 –

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. Lanczos,An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators,Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards45(1950) 255

    1950

  4. [12]

    Dymarsky and M

    A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin,Krylov complexity in conformal field theory,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) L081702 [2104.09514]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Avdoshkin, A

    A. Avdoshkin, A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin,Krylov complexity in quantum field theory, and beyond,JHEP06(2024) 066 [2212.14429]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hashimoto, K

    K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, N. Tanahashi and R. Watanabe,Krylov complexity and chaos in quantum mechanics,JHEP11(2023) 040 [2305.16669]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Camargo, V

    H.A. Camargo, V. Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim and M. Nishida,Spectral and Krylov complexity in billiard systems,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 046017 [2306.11632]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    K. Pal, K. Pal, A. Gill and T. Sarkar,Time evolution of spread complexity and statistics of work done in quantum quenches,Phys. Rev. B108(2023) 104311 [2304.09636]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nandy, B

    S. Nandy, B. Mukherjee, A. Bhattacharyya and A. Banerjee,Quantum state complexity meets many-body scars,J. Phys. Condens. Matter36(2024) 155601 [2305.13322]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bhattacharya, R.N

    A. Bhattacharya, R.N. Das, B. Dey and J. Erdmenger,Spread complexity for measurement-induced non-unitary dynamics and Zeno effect,JHEP03(2024) 179 [2312.11635]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bhattacharyya, S.S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S.S. Haque, G. Jafari, J. Murugan and D. Rapotu,Krylov complexity and spectral form factor for noisy random matrix models,JHEP10 (2023) 157 [2307.15495]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Nizami and A.W

    A.A. Nizami and A.W. Shrestha,Spread complexity and quantum chaos for periodically driven spin chains,Phys. Rev. E110(2024) 034201 [2405.16182]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Huh, H.-S

    K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong and J.F. Pedraza,Spread complexity in saddle-dominated scrambling,JHEP05(2024) 137 [2312.12593]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nandy, T

    P. Nandy, T. Pathak and M. Tezuka,Probing quantum chaos through singular-value correlations in the sparse non-Hermitian Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,Phys. Rev. B 111(2025) L060201 [2406.11969]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    B. Bhattacharjee and P. Nandy,Krylov fractality and complexity in generic random matrix ensembles,Phys. Rev. B111(2025) L060202 [2407.07399]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. Basu, S. Das and P. Nandy,Complexity of quadratic quantum chaos,JHEP04 (2026) 081 [2509.04075]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Balasubramanian, R.N

    V. Balasubramanian, R.N. Das, J. Erdmenger and Z.-Y. Xian,Chaos and integrability in triangular billiards,J. Stat. Mech.2025(2025) 033202 [2407.11114]. – 33 –

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chatzis, M

    D. Chatzis, M. Hammond, C. Nunez, A.V. Ramallo and R.T. Santamaria, Holographic Spread Complexity from Branes and Strings,2607.00074

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Roychowdhury,Krylov state complexity for BMN matrix model,2605.10786

    D. Roychowdhury,Krylov state complexity for BMN matrix model,2605.10786

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nandy, A.S

    P. Nandy, A.S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Mart´ ınez-Azcona, A. Dymarsky and A. del Campo,Quantum dynamics in Krylov space: Methods and applications,Phys. Rept. 1125-1128(2025) 1 [2405.09628]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,Krylov Complexity, 2507.06286

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv

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

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv

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

    1998 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aharony, S.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 [hep-th/9905111]

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Stanford and L

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

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Couch, W

    J. Couch, W. Fischler and P.H. Nguyen,Noether charge, black hole volume, and complexity,JHEP03(2017) 119 [1610.02038]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Brown, D.A

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

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Belin, R.C

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

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Belin, R.C

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

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lin,The bulk Hilbert space of double scaled SYK,JHEP11(2022) 060 [2208.07032]

    H.W. Lin,The bulk Hilbert space of double scaled SYK,JHEP11(2022) 060 [2208.07032]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity,JHEP08(2023) 213 [2305.04355]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aguilar-Gutierrez,Building the holographic dictionary of the DSSYK from chords, complexity & wormholes with matter,JHEP10(2025) 221 [2505.22716]

    S.E. Aguilar-Gutierrez,Building the holographic dictionary of the DSSYK from chords, complexity & wormholes with matter,JHEP10(2025) 221 [2505.22716]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Fu, H.-S

    Y. Fu, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim and J.F. Pedraza,Toward Krylov-based holography in double-scaled SYK,JHEP05(2026) 056 [2510.22658]

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Caputa, B

    P. Caputa, B. Chen, R.W. McDonald, J. Sim´ on and B. Strittmatter,Spread complexity rate as proper momentum,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) L041901 [2410.23334]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    V. Balasubramanian, J.M. Magan, P. Nandi and Q. Wu,Spread complexity and the saturation of wormhole size,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 046004 [2412.02038]. – 34 –

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Erdmenger, S.-K

    J. Erdmenger, S.-K. Jian and Z.-Y. Xian,Universal chaotic dynamics from Krylov space,JHEP08(2023) 176 [2303.12151]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Scialchi, A.J

    G.F. Scialchi, A.J. Roncaglia and D.A. Wisniacki,Integrability-to-chaos transition through the Krylov approach for state evolution,Phys. Rev. E109(2024) 054209 [2309.13427]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Camargo, K.-B

    H.A. Camargo, K.-B. Huh, V. Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim and M. Nishida, Spread and spectral complexity in quantum spin chains: from integrability to chaos, JHEP08(2024) 241 [2405.11254]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Huh, H.-S

    K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong, L.A. Pando Zayas and J.F. Pedraza,Krylov complexity in mixed phase space,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) L121902 [2412.04963]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Baggioli, K.-B

    M. Baggioli, K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim and J.F. Pedraza,Krylov complexity as an order parameter for quantum chaotic-integrable transitions,Phys. Rev. Res.7(2025) 023028 [2407.17054]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Alishahiha, S

    M. Alishahiha, S. Banerjee and M.J. Vasli,Krylov complexity as a probe for chaos, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 749 [2408.10194]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Das, S.K

    S. Das, S.K. Garg, C. Krishnan and A. Kundu,What is the Simplest Linear Ramp?, JHEP01(2024) 172 [2308.11704]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    P. Basu, S. Das and C. Krishnan,An analytic zeta function ramp at the black hole Thouless time,JHEP02(2026) 002 [2505.00528]

    2026 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Jeong, A

    H.-S. Jeong, A. Kundu and J.F. Pedraza,Brickwall one-loop determinant: spectral statistics & Krylov complexity,JHEP05(2025) 154 [2412.12301]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Begines, S

    J.M. Begines, S. Das, H.-S. Jeong and J.F. Pedraza,Cosmological brick walls & quantum chaotic dynamics of de Sitter horizons,2603.29443

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Onsager,Crystal statistics

    L. Onsager,Crystal statistics. i. a two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition,Phys. Rev.65(1944) 117

    1944

  47. [55]

    Weiss,L’hypoth` ese du champ mol´ eculaire et la propri´ et´ e ferromagn´ etique,J

    P. Weiss,L’hypoth` ese du champ mol´ eculaire et la propri´ et´ e ferromagn´ etique,J. Phys. Theor. Appl.6(1907) 661

    1907

  48. [56]

    Ginzburg and L.D

    V.L. Ginzburg and L.D. Landau,On the theory of superconductivity,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.20(1950) 1064

    1950

  49. [57]

    Anderson,A poor man’s derivation of scaling laws for the kondo problem,J

    P.W. Anderson,A poor man’s derivation of scaling laws for the kondo problem,J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.3(1970) 2436

    1970

  50. [58]

    Anderson, G

    P.W. Anderson, G. Yuval and D.R. Hamann,Exact results in the kondo problem. ii. scaling theory, qualitatively correct solution, and some new results on one-dimensional classical statistical models,Phys. Rev. B1(1970) 4464

    1970

  51. [59]

    Faraji Astaneh and N

    A. Faraji Astaneh and N. Vardian,Average spread complexity and the higher-order level spacing,JHEP12(2025) 128 [2504.14362]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Martinez-Azcona, R

    P. Martinez-Azcona, R. Shir and A. Chenu,Decomposing the spectral form factor, Phys. Rev. B111(2025) 165108 [2311.09292]. – 35 –

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    S. Xu, L. Susskind, Y. Su and B. Swingle,A Sparse Model of Quantum Holography, 2008.02303

    2008 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Y

    A.M. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Y. Jia, D. Rosa and J.J.M. Verbaarschot,Sparse Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, quantum chaos and gravity duals,Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 106002 [2007.13837]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Orman, H

    P. Orman, H. Gharibyan and J. Preskill,Quantum chaos in the sparse SYK model, JHEP02(2025) 173 [2403.13884]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Jha and R

    R.G. Jha and R. Roy,Sparsity dependence of Krylov state complexity in the SYK model,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 046017 [2407.20569]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hanada, A

    M. Hanada, A. Jevicki, X. Liu, E. Rinaldi and M. Tezuka,A model of randomly-coupled Pauli spins,JHEP05(2024) 280 [2309.15349]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Hanada, S

    M. Hanada, S. van Leuven, O. Oktay and M. Tezuka,Two-local modifications of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model with quantum chaos,Phys. Rev. E113(2026) 014217 [2505.09900]

    2026

  59. [67]

    Pandey and M.L

    A. Pandey and M.L. Mehta,Gaussian ensembles of random hermitian matrices intermediate between orthogonal and unitary ones,Commun. Math. Phys.87(1983) 449

    1983

  60. [68]

    Mehta and A

    M.L. Mehta and A. Pandey,On some gaussian ensembles of hermitian matrices,J. Phys. A16(1983) 2655

    1983

  61. [69]

    Perugu, B

    R. Perugu, B. Kobrin, M.O. Flynn and T. Scaffidi,Krylov winding and emergent coherence in operator growth dynamics,Physical Review Letters136(2026) . – 36 –

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.