Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 134 references

Complexity measures in holographic cascading theories with multiscale dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two complexity measures in a holographic family of gauge theories separate walking dynamics from genuine confinement: the volume growth of the wormhole detects the walk, while the frequency of Krylov oscillations of locally excited states…

desk verdict A clean, honest application of two complexity prescriptions to the B8 family that cleanly separates walking, screening, and confinement; the Krylov half rests on an extrapolated dictionary, but the geometric core holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10060 v1 pith:RFH6LS4Q submitted 2026-08-10 hep-th

Carlos Nunez , Juan F. Pedraza , Javier G. Subils This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords holographiccomplexitycomplexity=volumeKrylovspreadratewalkingdynamicsconfinementChern-Simons-mattertheoriesRGflows
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

Using the gravitational duals of the B8 family of three-dimensional Chern-Simons-matter quiver theories, the paper asks whether two different holographic complexity measures can separate three infrared phenomena that often occur together: approximate conformality (walking), a discrete massive spectrum supported by a smoothly capped geometry, and genuine Wilson-loop confinement. The authors compute the late-time complexity=volume growth for thermofield-double states and the Krylov spread complexity of locally excited states, the latter through the radial motion of a falling point particle or D0-brane. Near $b_0=0$, where the flow passes close to the Ooguri-Park conformal fixed point, both notions exhibit walking behaviour: the volume-growth-to-energy ratio flattens over a wide energy range, while the Krylov oscillation period grows, becoming a maximum at an intermediate smearing scale. Near $b_0=1$, the volume growth approaches the confining result without any new feature, whereas the Krylov oscillations persist throughout the screened window $0

What carries the argument

The machinery is threefold. The B8 family of type IIA backgrounds, with parameter $b_0$ interpolating between the Ooguri-Park conformal fixed point and a confining theory at $b_0=1$, provides the arena: for $0<b_0<1$ the ten-dimensional metric is singular in the infrared but its eleven-dimensional uplift caps off smoothly, producing a discrete massive tower while Chern-Simons terms screen fundamental charges. For thermal states, the complexity=volume prescription identifies complexity with the volume of a maximal Einstein-Rosen-bridge slice, whose late-time growth rate is computed from the geometry inside the horizon. For locally excited states, the dictionary $\dot C_K(t) = -P_{\bar y}(t)$ converts the proper radial momentum of a falling probe into the growth rate of Krylov spread complexity; a massive particle and a D0-brane are used as probes, with the D0-brane's dilaton coupling generating an effective potential well that prevents it from reaching the singular end of space. The smooth cap is the mechanism that makes the radial motion periodic, and the infrared scale sets the oscillation frequency.

What would settle it

Compute the Krylov spread complexity of a local operator directly in the boundary theory from the survival amplitude $S(t)$, without using the momentum dictionary, and compare the oscillation frequency with the radial-probe period predicted from the geometry, for example $T_{\rm UV} \simeq 7.88\, q_c/\rho_0^2$ at $b_0=1$; a mismatch would falsify the dictionary. Alternatively, a fully regular eleven-dimensional computation with a massive particle, which needs no reflective boundary condition, should reproduce the smooth D0-brane behaviour; if the oscillations or their period differ, the ten-dimensional prescription is the wrong effective description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two notions of complexity function as complementary filters on the same renormalization-group flow. In the walking regime the complexity=volume growth rate, normalized by energy, stays close to its constant Ooguri-Park value over a parametrically large energy window; this is the complexity-side manifestation of walking dynamics. In the same regime the period of Krylov oscillations grows and, for a D0-brane, develops a maximum at an intermediate release position, which the authors interpret as a qualitative modification of the smearing-scale dependence induced by the nearby conformal fixed point. Near the confining endpoint, by contrast, the complexity=volume ratio smoothly approaches the confining curve with no new feature at the transition, so wormhole growth is largely blind to whether the ground state confines. The Krylov oscillations, however, persist for every non-confining value $0<b_0<1$ and their period is controlled by the infrared scale; they therefore diagnose the smooth cap and discrete massive spectrum, not the area law. At $b_0=1$ the geometry becomes regular and the probe dynamics changes character, so spread complexity is markedly more sensitive than wormhole growth to genuine confinement.

Load-bearing premise

The Krylov results stand on the assumption that the growth rate of spread complexity equals the radial momentum of a falling object even though the ultraviolet geometry is D2-brane-like rather than asymptotically anti-de Sitter, and that a probe reaching the singular end of space bounces back rather than stopping or behaving otherwise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Oscillations in the Krylov complexity growth of locally excited states can no longer be cited by themselves as evidence of confinement; in any holographic model with a smoothly capped infrared geometry and a discrete spectrum they will appear even when fundamental charges are screened.
  • In walking theories, the period of these oscillations is a direct probe of approximate conformality: it grows as the flow approaches a conformal fixed point, and the D0-brane period develops a maximum at intermediate operator smearing, giving a boundary-observable signature of walking.
  • The late-time complexity=volume growth-to-energy ratio is a reliable detector of walking but not of confinement; near the confining endpoint it approaches the confining result smoothly and is insensitive to the phase transitions of the system.
  • The comparison with the lattice Ising chain implies that an infrared mass scale acts as an oscillation clock for spread complexity regardless of its origin, so the period, not the mere presence of oscillations, carries the information about the scale.
  • The divergence of $\dot C_K$ for a ten-dimensional massive particle, absent for D0-branes and in eleven dimensions, indicates that singular ten-dimensional descriptions must be handled with care: only regular or uplifted computations give finite spread-complexity rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the momentum-Krylov dictionary extends beyond anti-de Sitter, the B8 results suggest a practical diagnostic: measure the dependence of the Krylov oscillation period on the smearing scale of the boundary operator; a maximum at intermediate smearing indicates a nearby walking region, while a monotonic decrease identifies a generic massive flow.
  • The discontinuity in $T_{\rm UV}$ when the Chern-Simons level is rescaled to zero hints that the $b_0\to 1$ limit and the truly confining theory are distinct physical theories that happen to share a smooth geometry; boundary observables that are continuous in $b_0$ may be blind to the difference, while spread complexity is not.
  • One could test the smooth-cap interpretation by engineering a holographic model with the same smooth cap but with confining Wilson loops restored, and checking whether the oscillation period still scales with the same infrared scale; the paper's logic predicts the period tracks the cap scale, not the string tension.
  • The walking-induced maximum of the D0-brane period at intermediate release position is a sharp, quantitative prediction that could be checked in lattice or tensor-network models of spreading, where the proximity of a critical point is tuned by a parameter.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper computes two holographic complexity observables in the B8 family of three-dimensional quiver gauge theories: the complexity=volume (CV) growth of thermofield-double states and the Krylov spread complexity of locally excited states. For CV, the authors derive the maximal-volume growth rate, normalize it by the energy, and show that it flattens in the walking region near the Ooguri-Park fixed point while remaining qualitatively insensitive to the onset of Wilson-loop confinement. For local excitations, they adopt the holographic momentum-Krylov dictionary of Refs. [64-67], apply it to a massive particle and a D0-brane in the ten-dimensional geometries, and find oscillatory complexity growth whose period is controlled by the infrared scale. They argue that these oscillations diagnose a smooth infrared cap rather than confinement, since they persist throughout the screened window 0<b0<1, and they compare their periods with the lightest spin-2 mass, the screening length, and the entanglement-entropy saturation scale. The analysis is corroborated by an eleven-dimensional uplift and by a qualitative comparison with lattice results on the transverse-field Ising model.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a genuinely useful disentangling of three logically distinct infrared properties—approximate conformality, a discrete massive spectrum, and Wilson-loop confinement—within a single holographic family. The CV computation is a clean application of a standard conjecture, with an analytic check at the Ooguri-Park fixed point (Eq. (3.30)) and consistent numerical behavior across the parameter space. The local-probe part is more conjectural but is strengthened by internal cross-checks: the D0-brane computation avoids the type IIA singularity, and the eleven-dimensional uplift reproduces the main qualitative features. The paper also offers concrete falsifiable statements, such as the period scales of the oscillations and the presence of a walking-induced maximum in the D0-brane period near b0=0. The authors are transparent about the main assumption, explicitly flagging that the momentum-Krylov prescription is being extrapolated beyond its original AdS setting. The central limitation is that this extrapolation is not independently verified, which makes the spread-complexity conclusions conditional rather than established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Eq. (4.18)] The identification \dot C_K(t)=-P_{\bar y}(t) is the load-bearing assumption of the entire Krylov half of the paper. It was proposed for asymptotically AdS backgrounds in Refs. [64-67], whereas the B8 geometries are D2-brane-like in the UV and, for 0<b0<1, have a singular ten-dimensional description (Eq. (2.10)). The paper explicitly acknowledges that this prescription is being extrapolated beyond its derivation, but it does not provide an order-of-magnitude estimate, a derivation in the D2-brane regime, or an independent check. Because the oscillatory behavior of \dot C_K, the identification of its period with an infrared scale, and the claimed contrast between screened and confining windows all follow from this dictionary, I ask the authors either to supply such a check (for example, by computing Lanczos coefficients or the survival amplitude from the boundary data in a limit where the dictionary is expected to hold) or to explicitly reframe the spread-complexity claims as conditional on this correspondence. Without this, the most distinctive conclusions of Section 4 are not established.
  2. [Section 4.2 / Eq. (4.18) and Appendix B.2] The period T in Eq. (4.18) for the ten-dimensional massive particle is computed using a reflective boundary condition at the singular end of the geometry. The manuscript states this prescription and later shows that the D0-brane and eleven-dimensional computations are qualitatively similar, which is reassuring. However, because the bounce occurs at a point where the geodesic equation is not defined, the period itself is prescription-dependent, and the main-text statement that the oscillation frequency is set by the infrared scale inherits this dependence. I request a more quantitative statement of how the reflective prescription affects the period: the comparison between Fig. 9 and Fig. 21 is only qualitative, and the difference between the ten-dimensional and eleven-dimensional periods for the same b0 is not quantified. Adding such a comparison would strengthen the claim that the oscillations and their periods are robust features rather than artifacts of the chosen boundary condition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3 / Eq. (3.36)] The claim that G/E vanishes with energy whenever a mass gap is present is supported by a fit to the last five numerical points with two free parameters, but no error estimate is given and the text says this is a belief. Adding an error bar or an analytic argument would strengthen the walking-regime characterization.
  2. [Section 4.4] The comparison with the transverse-field Ising model is qualitative. It would be helpful to state explicitly which of the holographic results could be falsified by the lattice calculation and which are expected to differ because b0 is not a string-tension parameter.
  3. [Figure 12 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'the end o of space' should read 'the end of space'.
  4. [Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.14)] The footnote marker for the monotonicity of A(r) appears without a visible footnote; please check that footnotes are rendered correctly.
  5. [Section 5, first paragraph after Eq. (C.13)] The list of key differences in Appendix C is useful but would be clearer if the corresponding periods were tied back to Eqs. (4.18) and (4.30) for the screened case.
  6. [References] Reference [63] is listed as 'to appear(2026)' without an arXiv number; please update it if a preprint exists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CV computation is a direct application of the standard conjecture, and the Krylov results are conditional on an explicitly flagged extrapolation of an external dictionary, not on a fit or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The CV analysis is self-contained: it applies the standard CV conjecture (Eq. 1.4) to the known B8 black-brane metrics, derives the late-time growth from the extremal-surface equations (Eqs. 3.25 and 3.26), and evaluates it analytically at the Ooguri-Park fixed point (Eq. 3.30). No parameter is fitted to the walking or confinement claims; the numerical curves are direct evaluations of the same formulae. The Krylov analysis is conditional on the proper-momentum dictionary (Eq. 1.12) taken from Refs. [64-67], and the paper explicitly flags that the B8 UV is D2-brane-like rather than asymptotically AdS, so 'this prescription is being extrapolated beyond the setting in which it was derived.' That is an unvalidated assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the oscillation periods (Eqs. 4.18 and 4.25) are computed from geodesic motion, and no boundary Krylov data are used to fit or define the momentum. Self-citations [68-74] supply background and prior applications of the same dictionary, including an earlier 'universal signature of confinement' suggestion that the present paper argues against on the basis of its own independent B8 computation. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusions. The only fitting in the paper (Eq. 3.36) is an illustrative low-energy interpolation of the authors' own numerical data, not an input to the central claims. Accordingly, no step reduces to its own input by construction, and the paper earns a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central geometric computations are self-contained once the two holographic dictionaries, CV and momentum-Krylov, are granted. The paper adds no new fitted entities; the only numbers fitted to data are the illustrative low-energy power-law coefficients in Eq. (3.36). The numerically constructed backgrounds and the B8 duals themselves are imported from earlier work, and the momentum-Krylov dictionary is imported from Refs. [64-67].

free parameters (2)
  • Low-energy growth fit: coefficient = 1.367
    Fit to the last five numerical points of G/E for b0=2/5 in Eq. (3.36); used only to illustrate the low-energy approach to zero.
  • Low-energy growth fit: exponent = 0.377
    Same fit in Eq. (3.36); not a prediction and not used elsewhere.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Complexity=volume conjecture equates the maximal volume of the Einstein-Rosen bridge with the computational complexity of the TFD state.
    Invoked in Section 3 and Eq. (1.4); a standard but unproven holographic conjecture, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The growth rate of Krylov spread complexity equals the negative proper radial momentum of a bulk probe.
    Eq. (1.12) and Section 4.1, proposed in Refs. [64-67] and assumed here; explicitly extrapolated beyond asymptotically AdS geometries.
  • domain assumption The B8 supergravity backgrounds are the correct holographic duals of the U(N)_k x U(N+M)_-k quiver theories.
    Section 2, from Refs. [1-3]; the field theory side is not fully known, as the paper states: 'we lack a full field theory description of them.'
  • domain assumption Geodesic motion of point particles and D0-branes faithfully represents local operator excitations and their Krylov dynamics.
    Section 4, following Refs. [39-41,64]; assumes the probe/boundary dictionary for one-particle states.
  • ad hoc to paper A reflective boundary condition at the type IIA end-of-space singularity defines the evolution of a massive particle.
    Section 4.2 states: 'This reflective boundary condition should be understood as an effective prescription'; introduced to handle the singular 10D geometry and later supported by D0-brane and 11D computations.
  • domain assumption The release position ri of the probe maps to the smearing scale of the boundary operator.
    Section 5, following Refs. [121,122]; used to interpret the period versus ri curves.
  • standard math Standard background results in differential geometry and supergravity, including extremal-surface calculus, geodesic equations, and the eleven-dimensional uplift ansatz.
    Used throughout Sections 3, 4, and Appendices A-B; standard tools taken as given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complexity measures in holographic cascading theories with multiscale dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFH6LS4Q

@misc{pith2026260810060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complexity measures in holographic cascading theories with multiscale dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFH6LS4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10060}
}
read the original abstract

Using the gravitational duals, we perform a systematic study of two notions of complexity in a family of three-dimensional gauge theories with rich infrared structure. For thermofield double states, we employ the complexity=volume prescription, which relates computational complexity to the volume of the dual Einstein-Rosen bridge. For one particle states created by the insertion of a local operator on the vacuum, we study their spreading in Krylov space, encoded holographically by the radial momentum of bulk excitations. We investigate these two notions of complexity across the parameter space of the theories, focusing on the two limiting values of a tunable parameter. Near the limit where the theories flow close to an intermediate conformal fixed point, both notions reveal distinct manifestations of ``walking'' dynamics. Near the opposite limit, computational complexity is largely insensitive to the confining nature of the ground state, whereas the frequency of oscillations in the Krylov spread complexity -- set by the emerging infrared scale -- is sensitive to the presence of confinement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cvetic, G

    M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, J. T. Liu, H. Lu and C. N. Pope,A New fractional D2-brane, G(2) holonomy and T duality,Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 5163 [hep-th/0106162]

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    C. P. Herzog,String tensions and three-dimensional confining gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 065009 [hep-th/0205064]

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Cvetic, G

    M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu and C. N. Pope,New complete noncompact spin(7) manifolds, Nucl. Phys. B620(2002) 29 [hep-th/0103155]

    arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    A. F. Faedo, D. Mateos, D. Pravos and J. G. Subils,Mass Gap without Confinement,JHEP06 (2017) 153 [1702.05988]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    J. G. Subils,Non-perturbative Aspects of Quantum Field Theories from Holography, Ph.D. thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, 2021.2107.01954

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Elander, A

    D. Elander, A. F. Faedo, D. Mateos, D. Pravos and J. G. Subils,Mass spectrum of gapped, non-confining theories with multi-scale dynamics,JHEP05(2019) 175 [1810.04656]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    A. F. Faedo, C. Hoyos and J. G. Subils,Spontaneous breaking of baryon symmetry in strongly coupled three-dimensional theories,Phys. Lett. B870(2025) 139894 [2507.15998]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    S. S. Gubser, C. P. Herzog and I. R. Klebanov,Symmetry breaking and axionic strings in the warped deformed conifold,JHEP09(2004) 036 [hep-th/0405282]

    arXiv 2004

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    Butti, M

    A. Butti, M. Grana, R. Minasian, M. Petrini and A. Zaffaroni,The Baryonic branch of Klebanov-Strassler solution: A supersymmetric family of SU(3) structure backgrounds,JHEP03 (2005) 069 [hep-th/0412187]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dymarsky, I

    A. Dymarsky, I. R. Klebanov and N. Seiberg,On the moduli space of the cascading SU(M+p) x SU(p) gauge theory,JHEP01(2006) 155 [hep-th/0511254]

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Elander, A

    D. Elander, A. F. Faedo, D. Mateos and J. G. Subils,Phase transitions in a three-dimensional analogue of Klebanov-Strassler,JHEP06(2020) 131 [2002.08279]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jokela and J

    N. Jokela and J. G. Subils,Is entanglement a probe of confinement?,JHEP02(2021) 147 [2010.09392]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Jokela, H

    N. Jokela, H. Ruotsalainen and J. G. Subils,Limitations of entanglement entropy in detecting thermal phase transitions,JHEP01(2024) 186 [2310.11205]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. M. Maldacena,Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,JHEP04(2003) 021 [hep-th/0106112]

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch

    L. Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch. Phys.64(2016) 24 [1403.5695]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Susskind,Entanglement is not enough,Fortsch

    L. Susskind,Entanglement is not enough,Fortsch. Phys.64(2016) 49 [1411.0690]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. A. Nielsen, M. R. Dowling, M. Gu and A. C. Doherty,Quantum Computation as Geometry, Science311(2006) 1133 [quant-ph/0603161]

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jefferson and R

    R. Jefferson and R. C. Myers,Circuit complexity in quantum field theory,JHEP10(2017) 107 [1707.08570]. – 44 –

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chapman, M

    S. Chapman, M. P. Heller, H. Marrochio and F. Pastawski,Toward a Definition of Complexity for Quantum Field Theory States,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 121602 [1707.08582]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Stanford and L

    D. Stanford and L. Susskind,Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 126007 [1406.2678]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. F. Pedraza, A. Russo, A. Svesko and Z. Weller-Davies,Lorentzian Threads as Gatelines and Holographic Complexity,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 271602 [2105.12735]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. F. Pedraza, A. Russo, A. Svesko and Z. Weller-Davies,Sewing spacetime with Lorentzian threads: complexity and the emergence of time in quantum gravity,JHEP02(2022) 093 [2106.12585]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cáceres, R

    E. Cáceres, R. Carrasco and J. F. Pedraza,Lorentzian threads and nonlocal computation in holography,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 106024 [2512.07963]

    2026

  17. [25]

    J. F. Pedraza, A. Russo, A. Svesko and Z. Weller-Davies,Computing spacetime,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31(2022) 2242010 [2205.05705]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Carrasco, J

    R. Carrasco, J. F. Pedraza, A. Svesko and Z. Weller-Davies,Gravitation from optimized computation: Einstein and beyond,JHEP09(2023) 167 [2306.08503]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao,Complexity, action, and black holes,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 086006 [1512.04993]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Belin, R

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

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cáceres, R

    E. Cáceres, R. Carrasco, V. Patil, J. F. Pedraza and A. Svesko,The landscape of complexity measures in 2D gravity,JHEP10(2025) 218 [2503.20943]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Carmi, R

    D. Carmi, R. C. Myers and P. Rath,Comments on Holographic Complexity,JHEP03(2017) 118 [1612.00433]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Carmi, S

    D. Carmi, S. Chapman, H. Marrochio, R. C. Myers and S. Sugishita,On the Time Dependence of Holographic Complexity,JHEP11(2017) 188 [1709.10184]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Chapman, H

    S. Chapman, H. Marrochio and R. C. Myers,Complexity of Formation in Holography,JHEP01 (2017) 062 [1610.08063]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Reynolds and S

    A. Reynolds and S. F. Ross,Divergences in Holographic Complexity,Class. Quant. Grav.34 (2017) 105004 [1612.05439]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chapman, H

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

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jørstad, R

    E. Jørstad, R. C. Myers and S.-M. Ruan,Complexity=Anything: Singularity Probes,JHEP07 (2023) 223 [2304.05453]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Areán, H.-S

    D. Areán, H.-S. Jeong, J. F. Pedraza and L.-C. Qu,Kasner interiors from analytic hairy black holes,JHEP11(2024) 138 [2407.18430]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Nozaki, T

    M. Nozaki, T. Numasawa and T. Takayanagi,Holographic Local Quenches and Entanglement Density,JHEP05(2013) 080 [1302.5703]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Caputa, J

    P. Caputa, J. Simón, A. Štikonas and T. Takayanagi,Quantum Entanglement of Localized Excited States at Finite Temperature,JHEP01(2015) 102 [1410.2287]. – 45 –

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C. A. Agón, S. F. Lokhande and J. F. Pedraza,Local quenches, bulk entanglement entropy and a unitary Page curve,JHEP08(2020) 152 [2004.15010]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    Chattopadhyay, A

    A. Chattopadhyay, A. Mitra and H. J. R. van Zyl,Spread complexity as classical dilaton solutions,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 025013 [2302.10489]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. Lv, R. Zhang and Q. Zhou,Building Krylov complexity from circuit complexity,Phys. Rev. Res.6(2024) L042001 [2303.07343]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Craps, O

    B. Craps, O. Evnin and G. Pascuzzi,A Relation between Krylov and Nielsen Complexity,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 160402 [2311.18401]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Beetar, E

    C. Beetar, E. L. Graef, J. Murugan, H. Nastase and H. J. R. van Zyl,A Quantum Computational Perspective on Spread Complexity,Phys. Lett. B878(2026) 140570 [2506.07257]

    2026 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Craps, G

    B. Craps, G. Pascuzzi, J. F. Pedraza, L.-C. Qu and S.-M. Ruan,Explicit Connections Between Krylov and Nielsen Complexity,2511.15799

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Rabinovici, A

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

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. P. Heller, J. Papalini and T. Schuhmann,Krylov Spread Complexity as Holographic Complexity beyond Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 151602 [2412.17785]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Balasubramanian, J

    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]

    2026 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    Erdmenger, S.-K

    J. Erdmenger, S.-K. Jian and Z.-Y. Xian,Universal chaotic dynamics from Krylov space,JHEP 08(2023) 176 [2303.12151]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Balasubramanian, J

    V. Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos, integrability, and late times in the Krylov basis,Phys. Rev. E111(2025) 014218 [2312.03848]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Caputa, H.-S

    P. Caputa, H.-S. Jeong, S. Liu, J. F. Pedraza and L.-C. Qu,Krylov complexity of density matrix operators,JHEP05(2024) 337 [2402.09522]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    Baggioli, K.-B

    M. Baggioli, K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong, X. Jiang, K.-Y. Kim and J. F. Pedraza,Quantum Chaos Diagnostics for non-Hermitian Systems from Bi-Lanczos Krylov Dynamics,2508.13956

  52. [60]

    Nandy, A

    P. Nandy, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Martínez-Azcona, A. Dymarsky and A. del Campo, Quantum dynamics in Krylov space: Methods and applications,Phys. Rept.1125-1128(2025) 1 [2405.09628]. – 46 –

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Baiguera, V

    S. Baiguera, V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M. P. Heller et al., Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science, 2503.10753

  54. [62]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,Krylov Complexity,2507.06286

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Jeong and J

    H.-S. Jeong and J. F. Pedraza,Quantum Chaos and Spread of States in Krylov Subspace: A Topical Review,to appear(2026)

    2026

  56. [64]

    Caputa, B

    P. Caputa, B. Chen, R. W. McDonald, J. Simón and B. Strittmatter,Spread Complexity Rate as Proper Momentum,2410.23334

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    He,Revisit the relationship between spread complexity rate and radial momentum, 2411.19172

    P.-Z. He,Revisit the relationship between spread complexity rate and radial momentum, 2411.19172

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Fan,Momentum-Krylov complexity correspondence,2411.04492

    Z.-Y. Fan,Momentum-Krylov complexity correspondence,2411.04492

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Li and J

    Z. Li and J. Tian,The Holography of Spread Complexity: A Story of Observers,2506.13481

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Fatemiabhari, H

    A. Fatemiabhari, H. Nastase, C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury,Holographic Krylov complexity in confining gauge theories,2511.22717

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Fatemiabhari, H

    A. Fatemiabhari, H. Nastase, C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury,Holographic Krylov Complexity for Conformal Quiver Gauge Theories,2512.14812

  62. [70]

    Fatemiabhari and C

    A. Fatemiabhari and C. Nunez,Krylov Complexity, Confinement and Universality,2602.17757

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Fatemiabhari, C

    A. Fatemiabhari, C. Nunez and R. T. Santamaria,Complexity and Operator Growth in Holographic 6d SCFTs,2603.10106

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Nastase, C

    H. Nastase, C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury,Holographic Krylov Complexity for Charged, Composite and Extended Probes,2604.07432

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    Nunez and D

    C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury,Krylov Complexity andc-function along RG Flows,2608.02715

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Roychowdhury,Holographic Krylov complexity for Yang-Baxter deformed supergravity backgrounds,2601.06555

    D. Roychowdhury,Holographic Krylov complexity for Yang-Baxter deformed supergravity backgrounds,2601.06555

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Zoakos,Holographic Krylov complexity in the Coulomb branch ofN= 4SYM,2603.15435

    D. Zoakos,Holographic Krylov complexity in the Coulomb branch ofN= 4SYM,2603.15435

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Roychowdhury,Krylov complexity for Lin-Maldacena geometries and their holographic duals, 2604.16977

    D. Roychowdhury,Krylov complexity for Lin-Maldacena geometries and their holographic duals, 2604.16977

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Roychowdhury,Krylov state complexity for BMN matrix model,2605.10786

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

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Roychowdhury,Krylov Complexity for Plane Wave Matrix Model,2605.26055

    D. Roychowdhury,Krylov Complexity for Plane Wave Matrix Model,2605.26055

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Alfinito and M

    E. Alfinito and M. Beccaria,Krylov Correlators insl(2,R)Models: Exact Results and Holographic Complexity,2605.17550

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bitaghsir Fadafan and M

    K. Bitaghsir Fadafan and M. R. Mohammadi Mozaffar,Holographic Krylov Complexity with Lifshitz Scaling and Hyperscaling Violation,2606.31724

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    E. L. Graef, J. Murugan, H. Nastase and H. J. R. Van Zyl,On the Universality of Probe Complexity inN= 4SYM,2606.21662

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Roychowdhury,Krylov complexity and spectral density of BMN matrix model,2607.24632

    D. Roychowdhury,Krylov complexity and spectral density of BMN matrix model,2607.24632

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Qu,Lanczos meets orthogonal polynomials,JHEP05(2026) 225 [2512.15857]

    L.-C. Qu,Lanczos meets orthogonal polynomials,JHEP05(2026) 225 [2512.15857]

    2026

  77. [85]

    Alfinito and M

    E. Alfinito and M. Beccaria,Krylov Complexity in Supersymmetric Large-NQuantum Mechanics, 2603.16291

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Baume, A

    F. Baume, A. Çavuşoğlu, V. Chakrabhavi and J. J. Heckman,Controlled Chaos in 4D SCFTs, 2606.23785. – 47 –

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Mück,Krylov complexity has it all,2605.28681

    W. Mück,Krylov complexity has it all,2605.28681

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Li and J

    Z. Li and J. Tian,Comments on holographic spread complexity,2607.18024

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Jokela, J

    N. Jokela, J. Kastikainen, E. Kiritsis and F. Nitti,Flavored ABJM theory on the sphere and holographic F-functions,JHEP03(2022) 091 [2112.08715]

    2022 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Aharony, O

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena,N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,JHEP10(2008) 091 [0806.1218]

    2008 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Loewy and Y

    A. Loewy and Y. Oz,Branes in special holonomy backgrounds,Phys. Lett. B537(2002) 147 [hep-th/0203092]

    2002 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Aharony, O

    O. Aharony, O. Bergman and D. L. Jafferis,Fractional M2-branes,JHEP11(2008) 043 [0807.4924]

    2008 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Hashimoto, S

    A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano and P. Ouyang,Branes and fluxes in special holonomy manifolds and cascading field theories,JHEP06(2011) 101 [1004.0903]

    2011 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Aharony, A

    O. Aharony, A. Hashimoto, S. Hirano and P. Ouyang,D-brane Charges in Gravitational Duals of 2+1 Dimensional Gauge Theories and Duality Cascades,JHEP01(2010) 072 [0906.2390]

    2010 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Benini, F

    F. Benini, F. Canoura, S. Cremonesi, C. Nunez and A. V. Ramallo,Backreacting flavors in the Klebanov-Strassler background,JHEP09(2007) 109 [0706.1238]

    2007 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Aramini, R

    F. Aramini, R. Argurio, M. Bertolini, E. García-Valdecasas and P. Moroni,Gravity, finite duality cascades and confinement,JHEP09(2025) 054 [2506.18988]

    2025 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Aramini, R

    F. Aramini, R. Argurio, M. Bertolini, P. Moroni and V. Tatitscheff,Confinement in a finite duality cascade,JHEP07(2026) 081 [2604.18702]

    2026 arXiv

  90. [98]

    J. M. Maldacena,Wilson loops in large N field theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 4859 [hep-th/9803002]

    1998 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Sonnenschein,What does the string / gauge correspondence teach us about Wilson loops?, in Advanced School on Supersymmetry in the Theories of Fields, Strings and Branes, pp

    J. Sonnenschein,What does the string / gauge correspondence teach us about Wilson loops?, in Advanced School on Supersymmetry in the Theories of Fields, Strings and Branes, pp. 219–269, 7, 1999,hep-th/0003032

    1999 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Núñez, M

    C. Núñez, M. Piai and A. Rago,Wilson loops in string duals of walking and flavored systems, Physical Review D81(2010)

    2010

  93. [101]

    G. V. Dunne,Aspects of Chern-Simons theory, inLes Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 69: Topological Aspects of Low-dimensional Systems, 7, 1998,hep-th/9902115

    1998 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Karabali, C.-j

    D. Karabali, C.-j. Kim and V. P. Nair,Gauge invariant variables and the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons theory,Nucl. Phys. B566(2000) 331 [hep-th/9907078]

    2000 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Ooguri and C.-S

    H. Ooguri and C.-S. Park,Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories and the Squashed Seven Sphere,JHEP11(2008) 082 [0808.0500]

    2008 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Susskind,Why do Things Fall?,1802.01198

    L. Susskind,Why do Things Fall?,1802.01198

    arXiv

  97. [105]

    Susskind,Complexity and Newton’s Laws,Front

    L. Susskind,Complexity and Newton’s Laws,Front. in Phys.8(2020) 262 [1904.12819]

    2020 arXiv

  98. [106]

    D. S. Ageev and I. Y. Aref’eva,When things stop falling, chaos is suppressed,JHEP01(2019) 100 [1806.05574]

    2019 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. C. Halimeh and N. S. Srivatsa,Krylov Complexity Meets Confinement,Phys. Rev. D (2025) [2511.03783]

    2025

  100. [108]

    Kormos, M

    M. Kormos, M. Collura, G. Takács and P. Calabrese,Real-time confinement following a quantum quench to a non-integrable model,Nature Phys.13(2016) 246

    2016

  101. [109]

    Anabalon and S

    A. Anabalon and S. F. Ross,Supersymmetric solitons and a degeneracy of solutions in AdS/CFT, JHEP07(2021) 015 [2104.14572]. – 48 –

    2021 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Chatzis, A

    D. Chatzis, A. Fatemiabhari, C. Nunez and P. Weck,SCFT deformations via uplifted solitons, 2406.01685

    arXiv

  103. [111]

    Chatzis, A

    D. Chatzis, A. Fatemiabhari, C. Nunez and P. Weck,Conformal to confining SQFTs from holography,2405.05563

    arXiv

  104. [112]

    Chatzis, M

    D. Chatzis, M. Hammond, G. Itsios, C. Nunez and D. Zoakos,Supersymmetric AdS Solitons, Coulomb Branch Flows and Twisted Compactifications,2511.18128

    arXiv

  105. [113]

    Anabalón, H

    A. Anabalón, H. Nastase and M. Oyarzo,Supersymmetric AdS Solitons and the interconnection of different vacua ofN= 4Super Yang-Mills,2402.18482

    arXiv

  106. [114]

    Fatemiabhari and C

    A. Fatemiabhari and C. Nunez,From conformal to confining field theories using holography, JHEP03(2024) 160 [2401.04158]

    2024 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Anabalón, H

    A. Anabalón, H. Nastase, C. Nunez, M. Oyarzo and R. Stuardo,Moduli space ofN= 4 super Yang-Mills from AdS/CFT,JHEP05(2026) 251 [2603.18141]

    2026

  108. [116]

    Nunez, M

    C. Nunez, M. Oyarzo and R. Stuardo,Confinement in (1 + 1) dimensions: a holographic perspective from I-branes,JHEP09(2023) 201 [2307.04783]

    2023 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Nunez, M

    C. Nunez, M. Oyarzo and R. Stuardo,Confinement and D5-branes,JHEP03(2024) 080 [2311.17998]

    2024 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Witten,Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories, Adv

    E. Witten,Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 505 [hep-th/9803131]

    1998 arXiv

  111. [119]

    I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler,Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and chi SB resolution of naked singularities,JHEP08(2000) 052 [hep-th/0007191]

    2000 arXiv

  112. [120]

    J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez,Towards the large N limit of pure N=1 superYang-Mills,Phys. Rev. Lett.86(2001) 588 [hep-th/0008001]

    2001 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Leichenauer and V

    S. Leichenauer and V. Rosenhaus,AdS black holes, the bulk-boundary dictionary, and smearing functions,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 026003 [1304.6821]

    2013 arXiv

  114. [122]

    S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, H. A. Camargo, V. Jahnke, K.-Y. Kim and M. Nishida,Krylov operator complexity in holographic CFTs: Smeared boundary reconstruction and the dual proper radial momentum,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 126014 [2506.03273]

    2025

  115. [123]

    D. B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov,Conformality Lost,Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 125005 [0905.4752]

    2009 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov and B. Zan,Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs II. Two-dimensional Potts model atQ>4,SciPost Phys.5(2018) 050 [1808.04380]

    2018 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov and B. Zan,Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs, JHEP10(2018) 108 [1807.11512]

    2018 arXiv

  118. [126]

    J. L. Cardy, M. Nauenberg and D. J. Scalapino,Scaling Theory of the Potts Model Multicritical Point,Phys. Rev. B22(1980) 2560

    1980

  119. [127]

    Nauenberg and D

    M. Nauenberg and D. J. Scalapino,Singularities and Scaling Functions at the Potts Model Multicritical Point,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 837

    1980

  120. [128]

    A. F. Faedo, C. Hoyos, D. Mateos and J. G. Subils,Holographic Complex Conformal Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 161601 [1909.04008]

    2020 arXiv

  121. [129]

    T. W. Grimm,Taming the landscape of effective theories,JHEP11(2022) 003 [2112.08383]

    2022 arXiv

  122. [130]

    T. W. Grimm and M. van Vliet,On the complexity of quantum field theory,JHEP06(2025) 215 [2410.23338]

    2025 arXiv

  123. [131]

    T. W. Grimm, D. Prieto and M. van Vliet,Tame embeddings, volume growth, and complexity of moduli spaces,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 106015 [2503.15601]. – 49 –

    2025 arXiv

  124. [132]

    T. W. Grimm, D. Prieto and M. van Vliet,Tame Complexity of Effective Field Theories in the Quantum Gravity Landscape,2601.18863

    arXiv

  125. [133]

    Conde and A

    E. Conde and A. V. Ramallo,On the gravity dual of Chern-Simons-matter theories with unquenched flavor,JHEP07(2011) 099 [1105.6045]

    2011 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Jokela, J

    N. Jokela, J. Mas, A. V. Ramallo and D. Zoakos,Thermodynamics of the brane in Chern-Simons matter theories with flavor,JHEP02(2013) 144 [1211.0630]. – 50 –

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.