Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Every continuous-time quantum walk secretly runs on a Krylov chain — and that chain is the system's spread 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

2026-08-03 04:28 UTC pith:RU7IHXQ4

load-bearing objection The graph-to-chain reduction works cleanly on equitable partitions and the hypercube computation is correct, but the headline finite-q SYK Lanczos formula conflicts with the exact large-q autocorrelation and the paper does not resolve the contradiction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.04949 v5 pith:RU7IHXQ4 submitted 2026-02-04 hep-th cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Emergence of Krylov complexity through quantum walks: An exploration of the quantum origins of complexity

Dimitrios Patramanis , Watse Sybesma This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords Krylov complexityspread complexitycontinuous-time quantum walkLanczos coefficientsSYK modelhypercube graphFuss-Catalan numbersoperator growth
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.

Krylov/spread complexity, the standard measure of how fast a state or operator explores an available space, is usually built from an abstract orthogonalization algorithm. This paper argues that the same structure already sits inside any continuous-time quantum walk: partition a graph into layers by distance from the starting state, and the adjacency-matrix Hamiltonian automatically becomes a tridiagonal chain whose off-diagonal entries are the Lanczos coefficients; the walker's average distance along that chain is exactly Krylov complexity. The dictionary reduces complexity computations to counting vertices and edges between layers, and the paper uses it to derive an analytic expression for the Lanczos coefficients of the SYK model (q interacting fermions) from Fuss-Catalan counts of tree-shaped operator strings, plus the exact hypercube result C_K(t)=D sin^2(t/D). The paper then compares quantum-walk Krylov complexity with circuit complexity from classical random walks, finding that time-averaged Krylov complexity grows and saturates like the circuit benchmark but on a timescale O(D) instead of O(D log D). The SYK formula is presented as a correction to the earlier large-q result, which the paper attributes to coarse-graining.

Core claim

The central discovery is a graph-theoretic reduction that turns the dynamics of any graph into a one-dimensional chain. The neighborhood-partition states |n>, uniform superpositions over all vertices at distance n from the initial state, are orthonormal by construction and make the adjacency Hamiltonian act as H|n>=a_n|n>+b_{n+1}|n+1>+b_n|n−1>. The coefficients are pure edge counts: b_n=E_{n−1}/sqrt(V_n V_{n−1}) and a_n=I_n/V_n. This is the same tridiagonal structure produced by the Lanczos algorithm, so the chain's average position, C_K=Σ n|φ_n|^2, is Krylov/spread complexity. Applied to the SYK operator-growth graph, the paper identifies the operator-space layers with generations of tree g

What carries the argument

The neighborhood-partition reduction is the load-bearing construction. Starting from an initial vertex, one groups vertices by graph distance into layers and forms the uniform superposition |n>=V_n^{-1/2} Σ_{α_n}|α_n>. Because edges in a graph only connect vertices in the same or adjacent layers, the adjacency Hamiltonian is exactly tridiagonal in this basis, and the Lanczos coefficients collapse to graph counts: b_n=E_{n−1}/sqrt(V_n V_{n−1}), a_n=I_n/V_n. Every later result — SYK via Fuss-Catalan layer counts, the hypercube via binomial layer counts, and the graph families realizing constant, sqrt(n), sqrt(n(n−1)), and linear Lanczos growth — is obtained by substituting V_n and E_n into the

Load-bearing premise

For the SYK headline result, the load-bearing premise is that the tree layers of operator strings form a true orthonormal basis of the operator-growth space and that the time-evolution generator connects only neighboring layers; the paper asserts this rather than proves it, and its own coefficients differ from the established large-q answer by a factor approaching e^{−1/2}.

What would settle it

Compute the survival amplitude from the paper's claimed SYK Lanczos coefficients (3.17) using the moment/continued-fraction recursion and compare it with the exact large-q autocorrelation C(t)=1+(2/q) ln sech(Jt); since the autocorrelation uniquely fixes the Lanczos coefficients, any mismatch would show the claimed Krylov basis is not the true operator-growth basis. A direct alternative: for finite N and q, evaluate the matrix elements of the SYK time-evolution generator between distinct tree-layer states; any nonzero element connecting non-neighboring layers, or any nonzero overlap between la

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

If this is right

  • For any graph supporting a continuous-time quantum walk, Krylov/spread complexity is not an extra choice: it is the walker's average distance from the origin on the reduced chain, computable directly from layer sizes and edge counts.
  • The SYK formula, if correct, supplies the first analytic Lanczos sequence for finite q, giving direct access to operator-growth complexity in the SYK model without numerical Lanczos iteration.
  • The hypercube result fixes Krylov complexity as D sin^2(t/D) in any dimension and provides a clean graph realization of the SU(2)/Krawtchouk complexity class.
  • Time-averaged Krylov complexity reproduces the linear-growth-then-saturation curve used in black-hole complexity discussions, but with saturation time scaling as D rather than D log D; this quantum speed-up is absent on expander graphs.
  • The constructed graph families give a recipe for engineering systems with prescribed Lanczos growth — constant, sqrt(n), sqrt(n(n−1)), and linear.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the graph-to-chain equivalence is exact, Krylov complexity becomes a graph-theoretic quantity: the initial-state dependence of complexity is precisely the dependence on the choice of root layer, which could connect complexity growth to graph diameter and isoperimetric-type bounds.
  • The natural stress test of the SYK claim is an explicit orthogonalization of the Fuss-Catalan tree layers; whether that produces the paper's coefficients or the earlier large-q ones, the survival-amplitude comparison would settle the discrepancy and might still yield a closed-form sequence.
  • The hypercube calculation suggests a broader family of exactly solvable examples: other distance-regular graphs (Hamming and Johnson graphs, for instance) should produce closed-form Lanczos coefficients and complexity, potentially classifying complexity algebras by association schemes.
  • The paper's time-averaging argument implies that the familiar linear-then-saturating complexity curve is an ensemble-average statement rather than raw unitary dynamics; a consequence the paper leaves open is whether bulk gravitational probes see the averaged or the unaveraged 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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that every continuous-time quantum walk on a graph secretly defines a Krylov chain. The neighborhood partition (2.9)–(2.14) is presented as a canonical reduction in which the adjacency matrix becomes tridiagonal and the average distance on the chain becomes Krylov/spread complexity. The framework is then applied to complete graphs, circular graphs, the hypercube, and the SYK model. Two advertised outcomes are an analytic Lanczos sequence for SYK for arbitrary q, Eq. (3.17), and the hypercube characterization b_n = (1/D)√(n(D−n+1)), C_K = D sin²(t/D), Eqs. (3.25)/(3.29). The hypercube result is used to compare Krylov complexity of a quantum walk with the circuit complexity of a classical random walk on the same graph, with a discussion of saturation times, time averaging, and the Hayden-Preskill picture.

Significance. If correct, the SYK formula would be the first finite-q analytic Lanczos sequence, and the hypercube computation would provide a clean graph-theoretic realization of the SU(2)/Krawtchouk complexity class. The hypercube, complete-graph, and circular-graph calculations are explicit, internally consistent, and likely correct; they give a useful bridge between quantum-walk literature and Krylov complexity. The paper does not ship code or machine-checked proofs, but the analytic derivations are transparent and the examples are instructive. However, the general reduction claim and the SYK result are both unsupported: the former requires an equitable-partition assumption, and the latter contradicts the exact large-q autocorrelation. As submitted, an advertised main result is not valid.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.10)–(2.14)] The claim that every graph reduces to a Krylov chain via the neighborhood partition is too strong. For H|n⟩ to be a combination of |n−1⟩, |n⟩, and |n+1⟩, every vertex in layer n must have the same number of neighbors in each of the three layers. Equation (2.14) uses only the total edge counts E_{n-1} and I_n; these totals do not enforce uniformity. For a generic graph, H|n⟩ contains a non-uniform superposition within layer n that is not proportional to |n⟩, so the reduction is not a unitary equivalence to a Krylov chain. The construction is valid for equitable partitions (distance-regular graphs, and the hypercube are examples), and the paper should state this restriction. As written, the universal claim in the Introduction is unsupported.
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. (3.17)–(3.21)] The claimed SYK Lanczos sequence contradicts the exact large-q solution. For a fixed initial operator, the survival amplitude uniquely fixes all Lanczos coefficients via the moment recursion and continued-fraction construction described in §2.3. Equation (3.21) is the exact large-q autocorrelation of SYK. If Eq. (3.17) were the exact tridiagonalization of the SYK Liouvillian, the survival amplitude computed from it would equal (3.21). Instead (3.20) differs from (3.18) by ((n−1)/n)^{(n−1)/2} → e^{−1/2}, so the two sequences cannot describe the same evolution. The explanation that (3.21) 'coarse-grains' the graph is not available: the autocorrelation is precisely the root survival amplitude of the proposed Krylov chain. Therefore the tree-generation graph with uniform layer superpositions is not the exact Krylov subspace of the SYK Liouvillian, or the graph model of [79] is only approxima
  3. [§3.3, after Eq. (3.20)] The assertion that the result is an exact 'small, yet important correction' is not backed by a proof that the tree-layer states are closed under the Liouvillian. The counts E_{n-1} = (2 + n(k−1) − k) A_k(n−1) and V_n = A_k(n) give only total numbers of edges and vertices. Closure requires that every k-ary tree of generation n has the same number of parents in generation n−1 and the same number of children in generation n+1, and that the corresponding operators are orthogonal and of equal norm. Without such a proof, Eq. (2.12) cannot be applied. Moreover, even if closure held, Major Comment 2 shows the resulting sequence would contradict the exact autocorrelation, so this missing step is load-bearing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.8)] The formula for the amplitude appears to contain a typographical issue: the factor i^{m−l} is not clearly typeset, making the expression hard to read.
  2. [§2.5] The claim that no other families of graphs achieve the listed growth rates is speculative and should be labeled a conjecture; the natural-number constraints alone do not rule out other constructions.
  3. [§5] There are typos in the outlook, e.g. 'inherently realted' and 'realted'. The phrase 'Frankenstein's Monster' graphs in §2.5 is informal for a journal article.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The sentence 'The dashed line expresses vertices 5 and 8 to be connected' is unclear; the graphical convention should be explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the graph-derived Lanczos coefficients follow from (2.12)-(2.14); the SYK and hypercube answers are not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The core reduction is not circular. Eqs. (2.12)-(2.14) compute a_n and b_n directly as matrix elements of the adjacency Hamiltonian between graph-neighborhood states, and every example supplies V_n and E_n by independent counting: the hypercube uses binomial V_n and an explicit edge count; the SYK graph uses Fuss-Catalan tree counts taken from the external reference [79]. The advertised results are obtained by applying (2.12)-(2.14), not by fitting parameters to the target answers. The large-q discrepancy between (3.17) and (3.18) is a real validity problem — the paper itself flags it ('we still have to explain the origin of this discrepancy') and its assertion of exact tridiagonalization is unproved — but a factual contradiction between two derivations is not a circular reduction of the output to the input. The structural self-citation to [37] in Sec. 3.4 is used after the graph-derived b_n have been computed, and its SU(2) identification is checked via (3.25) and (3.27), so the citation is recognition rather than load-bearing. The pedagogical 'rediscovery' of Krylov complexity from quantum walks is explicitly a reformulation, and the graph families in Sec. 2.5 are inverse constructions, not predictions. Therefore no step reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced. The graph families in Sec. 2.5 and the Krylov chains are mathematical constructions. The free parameters are Ansatz choices, normalization conventions, and comparison criteria rather than fits to data.

free parameters (4)
  • Graph-family Ansatz constants c1, c2, c3, q = c1=c2=c3=1, q=2 in the G4 example; analogous unit constants for the factorial/squid/quadratic families
    Sec. 2.5: V_n and E_n are chosen by hand to realize desired b_n growth classes; the paper admits the bound (2.22) and integer constraints are not enforced.
  • Saturation-time criterion = quantum: T_sat = πD (first zero of moving-averaged σ_K); classical: τ_sat = (D/4)ln D (one std below plateau)
    Sec. 4.1: two different conventions for the two walks; the claimed speed-up depends on this choice.
  • Hypercube Hamiltonian normalization = H_D = A_D/D, dropping the D+1 factor
    Sec. 3.4: b_n = (1/D)√(n(D−n+1)) and all time scales inherit this normalization; the paper notes D+1 ≃ D is used.
  • Toeplitz-chain size N (expander/decision-tree model) = finite, chosen by hand (example: N=5, q=16 in Fig. 9)
    Sec. 4.2: N stands in for the black-hole Hilbert-space size; a free modeling choice.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption CTQW Hamiltonian = adjacency matrix of the graph (up to normalization)
    Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2); standard in the CTQW literature [62] but a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption SYK operator growth equals a quantum walk on the tree-generation graph of [79], with each growth move counted as one edge
    Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (3.8)–(3.14); imported from Roberts–Stanford–Streicher [79].
  • ad hoc to paper Tree-layer (neighborhood) states form an orthonormal, Liouvillian-invariant decomposition of the SYK operator Hilbert space
    Sec. 3.3, after Eq. (3.17); asserted ('we are confident') without proof; the O(1) large-q mismatch with (3.18) suggests it is false or only approximate.
  • ad hoc to paper For arbitrary graphs the neighborhood partition is equitable (constant per-vertex inter-layer degrees), so (2.10) is exact
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.10); implicitly assumed, false for generic graphs.
  • domain assumption Universal operator growth bound b_n ≤ γn + O(1) and its saturation signature
    Sec. 2.3, Eq. (2.19), from [16]; used to classify graph families.
  • domain assumption Time-averaged Krylov complexity is the appropriate quantum analog of circuit complexity from classical walks (ETH-type reasoning)
    Sec. 4.3; the authors invoke ergodicity to equate time and ensemble averages, and themselves quote that the classical Markov process 'is not the true unitary dynamics.'

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5924 in / 5792 out tokens · 422174 ms · 2026-08-03T04:28:36.946394+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we study the relationship between quantum random walks on graphs and Krylov/spread complexity. We show that the latter's definition naturally emerges through a canonical method of reducing a graph to a chain, on which we can identify the usual Krylov structure. We use this identification to construct families of graphs corresponding to special classes of systems with known complexity features and conversely, to compute Krylov complexity for graphs of physical interest. The two main outcomes are the analytic computation of the Lanczos coefficients for the SYK model for an arbitrary number $q$ of interacting fermions and the complete characterization of Krylov complexity for the hypercube graph in any number of dimensions. The latter serves as the starting point for an in-depth comparison between Krylov and circuit complexities as they purportedly arise in the context of black holes. We find that while under certain conditions Krylov complexity follows the growth and saturation pattern ascribed to such systems, the timescale at which saturation happens can generally be shorter than what is predicted by random unitary circuits, due to the effects of quantum speed-ups commonly occurring when comparing quantum and classical random walks.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Towards a Refinement of Krylov Complexity: Scrambling, Classical Operator Growth and Replicas

    hep-th 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LogK complexity via replicas distinguishes genuine scrambling from saddle effects in quantum and classical systems and refines the measure for integrable cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 85 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Watrous,Quantum Computational Complexity,0804.3401

    J. Watrous,Quantum Computational Complexity,0804.3401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Nielsen,A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds,Quant

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Nielsen, M.R

    M.A. Nielsen, M.R. Dowling, M. Gu and A.C. Doherty,Quantum Computation as Geometry,Science 311(2006) 1133 [quant-ph/0603161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Dowling and M.A

    M.R. Dowling and M.A. Nielsen,The geometry of quantum computation,Quant. Inf. Comput.8(2008) 0861 [quant-ph/0701004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Susskind,Entanglement is not enough,Fortsch

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Susskind and Y

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Brown, L

    A.R. Brown, L. Susskind and Y. Zhao,Quantum Complexity and Negative Curvature,Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 045010 [1608.02612]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Brown, D.A

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Susskind,Three Lectures on Complexity and Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, 10, 2018, DOI [1810.11563]

    L. Susskind,Three Lectures on Complexity and Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, 10, 2018, DOI [1810.11563]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Chapman, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Chapman, M.P

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Jefferson and R.C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Chapman, J

    S. Chapman, J. Eisert, L. Hackl, M.P. Heller, R. Jefferson, H. Marrochio et al.,Complexity and entanglement for thermofield double states,SciPost Phys.6(2019) 034 [1810.05151]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Chapman and G

    S. Chapman and G. Policastro,Quantum computational complexity from quantum information to black holes and back,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 128 [2110.14672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Rabinovici, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Caputa, B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    R.N. Das, S. Demulder, J. Erdmenger and C. Northe,Spread complexity for the planar limit of holography,JHEP06(2025) 166 [2412.09673]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Heller, J

    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]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    V. Balasubramanian, J.M. Magan, P. Nandi and Q. Wu,Spread complexity and the saturation of wormhole size,2412.02038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Heller, F

    M.P. Heller, F. Ori, J. Papalini, T. Schuhmann and M.-T. Wang,De Sitter holographic complexity from Krylov complexity in DSSYK,2510.13986

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Dymarsky and A

    A. Dymarsky and A. Gorsky,Quantum chaos as delocalization in Krylov space,Phys. Rev. B102 (2020) 085137 [1912.12227]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Dymarsky and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Avdoshkin, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Camargo, V

    H.A. Camargo, V. Jahnke, K.-Y. Kim and M. Nishida,Krylov complexity in free and interacting scalar field theories with bounded power spectrum,JHEP05(2023) 226 [2212.14702]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    L. Chen, B. Mu, H. Wang and P. Zhang,Dissecting Quantum Many-Body Chaos in the Krylov Space, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 190403 [2404.08207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Caputa and S

    P. Caputa and S. Liu,Quantum complexity and topological phases of matter,Phys. Rev. B106(2022) 195125 [2205.05688]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Caputa, N

    P. Caputa, N. Gupta, S.S. Haque, S. Liu, J. Murugan and H.J.R. Van Zyl,Spread complexity and topological transitions in the Kitaev chain,JHEP01(2023) 120 [2208.06311]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Caputa, X

    P. Caputa, X. Jiang and S. Liu,Complexity of PXP scars revisited,2506.21156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Bento, A

    P.H.S. Bento, A. del Campo and L.C. C´ eleri,Krylov complexity and dynamical phase transition in the quenched Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model,Phys. Rev. B109(2024) 224304 [2312.05321]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Chakrabarti, N

    N. Chakrabarti, N. Nirbhan and A. Bhattacharyya,Dynamics of monitored SSH model in Krylov space: from complexity to quantum Fisher information,JHEP07(2025) 203 [2502.03434]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Caputa, J.M

    P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and D. Patramanis,Geometry of Krylov complexity,Phys. Rev. Res.4(2022) 013041 [2109.03824]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Patramanis,Probing the entanglement of operator growth,PTEP2022(2022) 063A01 [2111.03424]

    D. Patramanis,Probing the entanglement of operator growth,PTEP2022(2022) 063A01 [2111.03424]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Patramanis and W

    D. Patramanis and W. Sybesma,Krylov complexity in a natural basis for the Schr¨ odinger algebra, SciPost Phys. Core7(2024) 037 [2306.03133]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Caputa, J.M

    P. Caputa, J.M. Magan, D. Patramanis and E. Tonni,Krylov complexity of modular Hamiltonian evolution,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 086004 [2306.14732]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    M¨ uck and Y

    W. M¨ uck and Y. Yang,Krylov complexity and orthogonal polynomials,Nucl. Phys. B984(2022) 115948 [2205.12815]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    H¨ ornedal, N

    N. H¨ ornedal, N. Carabba, A.S. Matsoukas-Roubeas and A. del Campo,Ultimate Speed Limits to the Growth of Operator Complexity,Commun. Phys.5(2022) 207 [2202.05006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    H¨ ornedal, N

    N. H¨ ornedal, N. Carabba, K. Takahashi and A. del Campo,Geometric Operator Quantum Speed Limit, Wegner Hamiltonian Flow and Operator Growth,Quantum7(2023) 1055 [2301.04372]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Caputa, G

    P. Caputa, G. Di Giulio and T.Q. Loc,Growth of block-diagonal operators and symmetry-resolved Krylov complexity,Phys. Rev. Res.7(2025) 043055 [2507.02033]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Caputa, G

    P. Caputa, G. Di Giulio and T.Q. Loc,Symmetry-Resolved Spread Complexity,2509.12992

    arXiv

  46. [46]

    Childs,Universal Computation by Quantum Walk,Phys

    A.M. Childs,Universal Computation by Quantum Walk,Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 180501 [0806.1972]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Lovett, S

    N.B. Lovett, S. Cooper, M. Everitt, M. Trevers and V. Kendon,Universal quantum computation using the discrete-time quantum walk,Phys. Rev. A81(2010) 042330 [0910.1024]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  48. [48]

    Underwood and D.L

    M.S. Underwood and D.L. Feder,Universal quantum computation by discontinuous quantum walk,Phys. Rev. A82(2010) 042304 [1008.3578]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Karamlou et al.,Quantum transport and localization in 1d and 2d tight-binding lattices,npj Quantum Inf.8(2022) 35 [2107.05035]

    A.H. Karamlou et al.,Quantum transport and localization in 1d and 2d tight-binding lattices,npj Quantum Inf.8(2022) 35 [2107.05035]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Xu, X.-W

    X.-Y. Xu, X.-W. Wang, D.-Y. Chen, C.M. Smith and X.-M. Jin,Quantum transport in fractal networks, Nature Photonics15(2021) 703

    2021

  51. [51]

    Mohseni, P

    M. Mohseni, P. Rebentrost, S. Lloyd and A. Aspuru-Guzik,Environment-assisted quantum walks in photosynthetic energy transfer,J. Chem. Phys.129(2008) 174106 [0805.2741]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [52]

    Varsamis et al.,Quantum algorithm for de novo DNA sequence assembly based on quantum walks on graphs,Biosyst.233(2023) 105037 [2308.03532]

    G.D. Varsamis et al.,Quantum algorithm for de novo DNA sequence assembly based on quantum walks on graphs,Biosyst.233(2023) 105037 [2308.03532]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Kempe,Quantum random walks: An introductory overview,Contemp

    J. Kempe,Quantum random walks: An introductory overview,Contemp. Phys.44(2003) 307 [quant-ph/0303081]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [54]

    Venegas-Andraca,Quantum walks: a comprehensive review,Quant

    S.E. Venegas-Andraca,Quantum walks: a comprehensive review,Quant. Inf. Proc.11(2012) 1015 [1201.4780]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    Biamonte, M

    J. Biamonte, M. Faccin and M. De Domenico,Complex networks from classical to quantum,Commun. Phys.2(2019) 53 [1702.08459]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Qiang, S

    X. Qiang, S. Ma and H. Song,Review on Quantum Walk Computing: Theory, Implementation, and Application,2404.04178. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Jeevanesan,Krylov spread complexity of quantum walks,Phys

    B. Jeevanesan,Krylov spread complexity of quantum walks,Phys. Rev. A110(2024) 032206 [2401.00526]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Sahu,Information scrambling in quantum walks: Discrete-time formulation of Krylov complexity, Phys

    H. Sahu,Information scrambling in quantum walks: Discrete-time formulation of Krylov complexity, Phys. Rev. A110(2024) 052405 [2406.05865]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Moore and A

    C. Moore and A. Russell,Quantum Walks on the Hypercube,quant-ph/0104137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Christandl, N

    M. Christandl, N. Datta, T.C. Dorlas, A. Ekert, A. Kay and A.J. Landahl,Perfect transfer of arbitrary states in quantum spin networks,Phys. Rev. A71(2005) 032312 [quant-ph/0411020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  61. [61]

    Singh, B

    S. Singh, B. Adhikari, S. Dutta and D. Zueco,Perfect state transfer on hypercubes and its implementation using superconducting qubits,Phys. Rev. A102(2020) 062609 [2011.03586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Farhi and S

    E. Farhi and S. Gutmann,Quantum computation and decision trees,Phys. Rev. A58(1998) 915 [quant-ph/9706062]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [63]

    Childs, E

    A.M. Childs, E. Farhi and S. Gutmann,An Example of the Difference Between Quantum and Classical Random Walks,Quant. Inf. Proc.1(2002) 35 [quant-ph/0103020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  64. [64]

    Sugiyama, S

    K. Sugiyama, S. Tagawa and M. Toda,Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics11(1981) 109

    1981

  65. [65]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    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

    arXiv

  67. [67]

    Rabinovici, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [68]

    Viswanath and G

    V.S. Viswanath and G. M¨ uller,The recursion method : application to many-body dynamics, 1994

    1994

  69. [69]

    Craps, O

    B. Craps, O. Evnin and G. Pascuzzi,Multiseed Krylov Complexity,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 050402 [2409.15666]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Balasubramanian, T

    S. Balasubramanian, T. Li and A.W. Harrow,Exponential Speedups for Quantum Walks in Random Hierarchical Graphs,Commun. Math. Phys.406(2025) 209 [2307.15062]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Caputa and S

    P. Caputa and S. Datta,Operator growth in 2d CFT,JHEP12(2021) 188 [2110.10519]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    ’t Hooft,A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft,A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions,Nucl. Phys. B72(1974) 461

    1974

  73. [73]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford,Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 106002 [1604.07818]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    Ambrosini, E

    M. Ambrosini, E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,Operator K-complexity in DSSYK: Krylov complexity equals bulk length,JHEP08(2025) 059 [2412.15318]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Bhattacharjee, P

    B. Bhattacharjee, P. Nandy and T. Pathak,Krylov complexity in large q and double-scaled SYK model, JHEP08(2023) 099 [2210.02474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Bhattacharjee, P

    B. Bhattacharjee, P. Nandy and T. Pathak,Operator dynamics in Lindbladian SYK: a Krylov complexity perspective,JHEP01(2024) 094 [2311.00753]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Nandy,Tridiagonal Hamiltonians modeling the density of states of the double-scaled SYK model, JHEP01(2025) 072 [2410.07847]

    P. Nandy,Tridiagonal Hamiltonians modeling the density of states of the double-scaled SYK model, JHEP01(2025) 072 [2410.07847]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Bhattacharjee, X

    B. Bhattacharjee, X. Cao, P. Nandy and T. Pathak,Operator growth in open quantum systems: lessons from the dissipative SYK,JHEP03(2023) 054 [2212.06180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Roberts, D

    D.A. Roberts, D. Stanford and A. Streicher,Operator growth in the SYK model,JHEP06(2018) 122 [1802.02633]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    Gautason, V

    F.F. Gautason, V. Mohan and L. Thorlacius,Late-time saturation of black hole complexity,JHEP08 (2025) 056 [2502.17179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.