Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Holographic Timelike Entanglement and Subregion Complexity in Localized AdS3*S3*T4 Black Holes

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Timelike holographic probes of a black pole feel the internal sphere's cap-horizon split, not just the asymptotic BTZ geometry.

desk verdict Solid computational holography: first systematic Lorentzian-branch application to the black pole, with a clean geometric effect (selected saddles track the cap–horizon transition) that is internally consistent but rests on an imported dual map. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11641 v1 pith:V4H7QKSQ submitted 2026-07-13 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Jitendra Pal , Yu Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qcquant-ph
keywords timelikeentanglemententropysubregioncomplexitylocalizedblackholespoleAdS3×T4holographicdualitycap-horizontransition
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

The paper asks whether Lorentzian holographic probes can see localization of a black-hole horizon on an internal sphere, something that ordinary BTZ geometry erases. It studies two related observables—timelike entanglement entropy (a complex lifted area) and timelike subregion complexity (a real renormalized volume)—in the black-pole solution of asymptotic AdS3 imes S3 imes T4. Both are built from the same spacelike-plus-timelike bulk branches. In the large-radius limit the angular dependence drops out and one recovers the familiar short-interval BTZ-like behaviour. In the exact geometry the map from bulk turning point to boundary time interval becomes non-monotonic, so one must first fix the boundary interval and only then minimize. Once that is done, larger intervals force the selected branches inward toward the angular transition between the smooth cap and the localized horizon. The claim is that these timelike probes therefore register ten-dimensional localization effects that neither pure BTZ nor the asymptotic expansion can see.

What carries the argument

Localized lifting of Lorentzian branches: solve the reduced (t,r) branch problem at a single angular label θ0, then lift the area or volume by integrating the full black-pole warp factors Ky(r,θ) and G(r,θ) over the physical internal angle θ, and select the physical saddle only among branches that share the same boundary time interval.

What would settle it

Compute the same fixed-boundary-interval branches in the exact black pole and check whether, as the boundary interval grows, the selected turning points and angular labels still migrate toward the cap–horizon transition; if they remain asymptotic or show no angular preference, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the exact black-pole geometry, after fixed-boundary-interval selection, the selected Lorentzian branches for both timelike entanglement entropy and timelike subregion complexity move inward and become sensitive to the localized cap–horizon transition region on the internal sphere—features absent in BTZ and in the leading large-r description.

Load-bearing premise

The dual map is assumed to be the reduced-branch-plus-ten-dimensional-lift prescription, with the physical answer given by minimizing the real lifted area or the finite volume at fixed boundary interval.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes holographic timelike entanglement entropy (complex lifted area) and timelike subregion complexity (real finite renormalized volume) for the black-pole solution of AdS3×S3×T4. Both observables are built from the same Lorentzian spacelike/timelike branch geometry. The authors adapt the localized lifting prescription of Ref. [6]: reduced (t,r) branches are solved at an angular label θ0 using F(r;θ0), H(r;θ0), then the area/volume is lifted by integrating the full Ky(r,θ), G(r,θ) over the physical angle θ. Large-r analytics recover short-interval BTZ-like formulae (log + iπ/2 for TEE; T² log for complexity). In the exact geometry the time map T(r0,θ0) becomes non-monotonic, so saddles are selected only after fixing the boundary interval and minimizing Re(A) or the finite volume. Selected branches move inward toward the cap–horizon transition θ⋆ as T grows—effects absent in BTZ and the large-r limit. Appendix A supplies a local logarithmic mechanism for the Tmax enhancement near θ⋆.

Significance. If the dual map is accepted, the work supplies a concrete, complementary pair of Lorentzian probes that detect internal-sphere localization beyond the BTZ uplift and the asymptotic regime. Strengths include closed-form large-r hypergeometric integrals, controlled UV subtractions, an explicit BTZ benchmark for the volume prescription, and a transparent local analysis (Appendix A) of the transition-region enhancement. The fixed-boundary multi-branch selection is a necessary and carefully implemented technical step once non-monotonicity appears. The results are therefore a useful extension of the recent timelike-entanglement and subregion-complexity literature to genuinely ten-dimensional localized black holes, provided the imported lifting prescription is regarded as the correct holographic dual.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim (Abstract; §§3.4–3.5, 4.4–4.5, 5) that selected branches become sensitive to the cap–horizon transition rests entirely on the localized lifting prescription imported from the spatial RT construction of Ref. [6] and adapted to Lorentzian branches (eqs. 2.22–2.23, 3.14, 3.60–3.62, 4.1–4.5). The paper never derives this dual map from a CFT calculation or from a first-principles ten-dimensional variational principle for timelike regions. A short discussion of why the reduced-θ0-then-full-θ-lift is preferred over a fully ten-dimensional extremal surface (or an alternative angular weighting), and of how the conclusions would change if that map failed, is needed for the claim to be load-bearing.
  2. Numerical results for TEE and complexity are presented at different energy fractions (xE=0.2 in §3 vs xE=0.6 in §4). Because θ⋆, ℓ1 and ℓ2 depend on xE through τ (eqs. 2.10, 2.16), a direct comparison of the two selected saddles is not immediate. Either a common xE should be used for the main figures, or an explicit cross-check at one shared value should be added so that the claimed complementarity of the two observables is demonstrated under identical geometric parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. Notation for the compact-space factor N=(2π)^6 V4 is introduced repeatedly (eqs. 3.38, 3.59, 4.2); a single definition in §2 would reduce clutter.
  2. Figures 8 and 19 are dense multi-panel grids; a clearer legend or a single summary panel of selected (θ∗₀,r∗₀) versus T would improve readability.
  3. The unit choice Q1=Q5=Ry=1 (eq. 2.17) is stated, but a brief remark that all plotted lengths are in these units would help readers comparing with other D1-D5 literature.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “LocalizedAdS” in the title line, occasional missing spaces around ×). A light copy-edit pass would suffice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: observables are computed from an external supergravity solution via an explicitly assumed lifting prescription; large-r limits recover known formulae as checks, not fits.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) import the black-pole metric and Ky, G from the independent supergravity construction of Ref. [6] (different author set); (ii) write reduced Lorentzian branch equations from the effective 2d metric at fixed angular label θ0 (eqs. 2.22–2.23, 3.14); (iii) lift area/volume by integrating the full metric over physical θ (eqs. 3.60–3.62, 4.1–4.5); (iv) impose fixed-boundary-interval selection because the exact time map T(r0,θ0) is non-monotonic; (v) report that selected saddles move inward toward the cap–horizon transition. None of these steps reduces the claimed sensitivity to its own inputs by construction. The large-r regime recovers the expected short-interval logarithmic real part and constant imaginary part (eq. 3.56) and the T² log(1/T) vanishing of finite complexity (eq. 4.63) as analytic consistency checks against BTZ/short-interval formulae, not as fitted predictions. Appendix A derives the local logarithmic enhancement of Tmax near θ⋆ from the metric functions themselves. The dual map (θ0-branch then full-θ lift + fixed-T min) is an assumption imported from spatial RT in [6] and Lorentzian branch literature; that is a correctness/assumption risk, not circularity under the stated patterns. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-then-predicted quantities, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem from overlapping authors, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern. Score 0 is therefore the honest finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) the existence and metric form of the black-pole solution from prior supergravity work, (ii) the holographic identification of timelike EE with a complex lifted area and of timelike complexity with a finite renormalized branch volume, and (iii) the localized lift (θ0 profile, then θ integral) plus fixed-boundary minimization as the dual selection rule. Free parameters are conventional unit and energy choices that shift θ⋆ but are not fitted to produce the qualitative effect. No new particles or forces are postulated; the ‘invented’ pieces are methodological adaptations of existing dual maps.

free parameters (4)
  • xE (energy fraction E/Emax)
    Chosen by hand (0.2 for TEE plots, 0.6 for complexity plots); fixes τ, ℓ1, ℓ2 and θ⋆. Qualitative transition mechanism is argued to be local and robust, but numerical selected (θ0*, r0*) depend on this choice.
  • Unit choice Q1=Q5=Ry=1
    Sets the overall scale so ℓ²=τ/(1+τ); conventional but free.
  • Branch choice σ=−1 (minus branch)
    Only the minus branch is used for all numerics; plus branch is physical at positive energy but not scanned.
  • Radial cutoffs ϵ, Rmax, r*
    Regulators for core and UV; analytic subtractions remove leading divergences, but residual numerical dependence is not quantified with error bars.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Holographic duality for AdS3×S3×T4 / D1-D5 CFT identifies bulk geometric functionals with boundary entanglement and complexity observables.
    Standard AdS/CFT premise used throughout §§1–5.
  • domain assumption Timelike entanglement entropy is given by the complex area of a Lorentzian surface composed of spacelike and timelike branches (Doi et al. prescription).
    Adopted from Refs. [40,41,43]; not re-derived from a Euclidean replica path integral in this paper.
  • domain assumption Timelike subregion complexity is the finite renormalized volume of the region bounded by the same Lorentzian branches (Alishahiha / related volume prescriptions).
    Adopted from Refs. [42–44]; UV subtraction and spacelike-minus-timelike sign convention are fixed by the BTZ benchmark in §4.1.
  • domain assumption The black-pole metric functions Ky(r,θ), G(r,θ) and the source structure of Ref. [6] correctly describe the localized horizon/cap geometry.
    Geometry is imported from Bena–Dulac–Heidmann–Wei; not re-solved from the supergravity equations here.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical comparison of saddles must be performed only at fixed boundary interval T, minimizing Re(lifted area) for TEE and finite volume for complexity.
    Natural extension of minimal-area/volume logic, but the precise selection rule (especially minimizing only the real part while evaluating Im on the same surface) is a modeling choice of this paper (§§3.4, 4.4).
  • standard math Standard calculus of variations and conserved momenta for cyclic t yield the first-order branch slopes (3.14a–b).
    Ordinary Lagrangian mechanics on the reduced 2d metric.
invented entities (2)
  • Localized timelike lifting prescription (θ0 branch profile + θ lift)
    purpose: Adapt the spatial localized RT lift of Ref. [6] to Lorentzian spacelike/timelike branches so that internal angular structure enters the area/volume.
    Methodological adaptation rather than a new physical field; independent evidence would require a matching CFT calculation of timelike EE/complexity in the dual of the black pole, which is not provided.
  • Fixed-boundary-interval multi-branch selection for non-monotonic T(r0,θ0)
    purpose: Define a unique boundary observable when multiple radial roots and angular labels share the same T.
    Operational rule needed by the exact geometry; not independently verified against a boundary computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Timelike Entanglement and Subregion Complexity in Localized AdS3*S3*T4 Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4H7QKSQ

@misc{pith2026260711641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Timelike Entanglement and Subregion Complexity in Localized AdS3*S3*T4 Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4H7QKSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11641}
}
abstract

We study timelike entanglement entropy and timelike subregion complexity in localized black holes with asymptotic AdS3*S3*T4 geometry, focusing on the black-pole solution. Unlike the BTZ solution, the black pole exhibits a nontrivial dependence on the internal sphere through the functions $K_y(r,\theta)$ and $G(r,\theta)$. Both observables are constructed from spacelike and timelike Lorentzian branches, but they probe the geometry in different ways: timelike entanglement yields a complex lifted area, while timelike complexity gives a real, finite renormalized volume. We employ a localized timelike prescription in which the branch profile is built at an angular label $\theta_0$ and subsequently lifted over the physical internal angle $\theta$. In the large-$r$ regime, the leading angular dependence drops out, recovering the expected short-interval behaviour. In the exact black-pole geometry, the temporal families become non-monotonic, making a fixed-boundary-interval selection essential. As the boundary interval increases, the selected branches move inward and become sensitive to the localized cap-horizon transition region. These results demonstrate that timelike Lorentzian observables probe localized-geometry effects that are absent in BTZ and in the leading large-$r$ description.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Holographic timelike complexity for de Sitter

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

  2. Analytic HTEE in Moving Plasmas and Its Transition

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Analytic holographic timelike entanglement entropy for a boosted BTZ black hole, with a critical boost separating complex and real extremal-geodesic branches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [6]

    Localized Black Holes in AdS3: What Happens Belowc/12Stays Belowc/12,

    I. Bena, R. Dulac, P. Heidmann and Z. Wei, “Localized Black Holes in AdS3: What Happens Belowc/12Stays Belowc/12,” JHEP10(2025) 165, arXiv:2412.01885 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy,

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy,” Phys. Lett. B379(1996) 99–104, arXiv:hep-th/9601029

    arXiv 1996

  3. [2]

    Black Hole Entropy in M-Theory,

    J. M. Maldacena, A. Strominger and E. Witten, “Black Hole Entropy in M-Theory,” JHEP 12(1997) 002, arXiv:hep-th/9711053

    arXiv 1997

  4. [3]

    Microscopic Formulation of Black Holes in String Theory,

    J. R. David, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, “Microscopic Formulation of Black Holes in String Theory,” Phys. Rept.369(2002) 549–686, arXiv:hep-th/0203048

    arXiv 2002

  5. [4]

    The Black Hole in Three-Dimensional Space-Time,

    M. Banados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, “The Black Hole in Three-Dimensional Space-Time,” Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 1849–1851, arXiv:hep-th/9204099

    arXiv 1992

  6. [5]

    Geometry of the2 + 1Black Hole,

    M. Banados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, “Geometry of the2 + 1Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 1506–1525, arXiv:gr-qc/9302012

    arXiv 1993

  7. [7]

    Localised AdS3 ×S 3 ×T 4 Black Holes,

    O. J. C. Dias and J. E. Santos, “Localised AdS3 ×S 3 ×T 4 Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 136(2026) 031501, arXiv:2508.16722 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    The Phase Diagram of the D1-D5 CFT and Localized Black Holes,

    O. Aharony, R. Frumkin and J. Mehl, “The Phase Diagram of the D1-D5 CFT and Localized Black Holes,” arXiv:2603.11181 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Black Strings andp-Branes are Unstable,

    R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, “Black Strings andp-Branes are Unstable,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70(1993) 2837–2840, arXiv:hep-th/9301052

    1993 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The Instability of Charged Black Strings andp-Branes,

    R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, “The Instability of Charged Black Strings andp-Branes,” Nucl. Phys. B428(1994) 399–434, arXiv:hep-th/9404071

    1994 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On Non-Uniform Black Branes,

    S. S. Gubser, “On Non-Uniform Black Branes,” Class. Quant. Grav.19(2002) 4825–4844, arXiv:hep-th/0110193

    2002 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Unstable Horizons,

    V. E. Hubeny and M. Rangamani, “Unstable Horizons,” JHEP05(2002) 027, arXiv:hep-th/0202189. – 61 –

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Microcanonical Phases of String Theory on AdSm ×S n,

    A. W. Peet and S. F. Ross, “Microcanonical Phases of String Theory on AdSm ×S n,” JHEP 12(1998) 020, arXiv:hep-th/9810200

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lumpy AdS5 ×S 5 Black Holes and Black Belts,

    O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos and B. Way, “Lumpy AdS5 ×S 5 Black Holes and Black Belts,” JHEP04(2015) 060, arXiv:1501.06574 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Small Black Holes in AdS5 ×S 5,

    A. Buchel and L. Lehner, “Small Black Holes in AdS5 ×S 5,” Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 145003, arXiv:1502.01574 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Localised AdS5 ×S 5 Black Holes,

    O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos and B. Way, “Localised AdS5 ×S 5 Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117(2016) 151101, arXiv:1605.04911 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The LargeNLimit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNLimit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252, arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gauge Theory Correlators from Noncritical String Theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge Theory Correlators from Noncritical String Theory,” Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105–114, arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Anti-de Sitter Space and Holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter Space and Holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253–291, arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from AdS/CFT,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 181602, arXiv:hep-th/0603001

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” JHEP08 (2006) 045, arXiv:hep-th/0605073

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy Proposal,

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, “A Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy Proposal,” JHEP07(2007) 062, arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A Holographic Proof of the Strong Subadditivity of Entanglement Entropy,

    M. Headrick and T. Takayanagi, “A Holographic Proof of the Strong Subadditivity of Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 106013, arXiv:0704.3719 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Maximin Surfaces, and the Strong Subadditivity of the Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    A. C. Wall, “Maximin Surfaces, and the Strong Subadditivity of the Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” Class. Quant. Grav.31(2014) 225007, arXiv:1211.3494 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Holographic Entanglement Entropy: An Overview,

    T. Nishioka, S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy: An Overview,” J. Phys. A42(2009) 504008, arXiv:0905.0932 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” Lect. Notes Phys. 931(2017) 1–246, arXiv:1609.01287 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Generalized Gravitational Entropy,

    A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Generalized Gravitational Entropy,” JHEP08(2013) 090, arXiv:1304.4926 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Quantum Corrections to Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Quantum Corrections to Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” JHEP11(2013) 074, arXiv:1307.2892 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,

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

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Relative Entropy Equals Bulk Relative Entropy,

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena and S. J. Suh, “Relative Entropy Equals Bulk Relative Entropy,” JHEP06(2016) 004, arXiv:1512.06431 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT,

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

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,

    X. Dong, D. Harlow and A. C. Wall, “Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 021601, arXiv:1601.05416 [hep-th]. – 62 –

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,

    D. Harlow, “The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction,” Commun. Math. Phys.354(2017) 865–912, arXiv:1607.03901 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,

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

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,

    D. Stanford and L. Susskind, “Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,” Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 126007, arXiv:1406.2678 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?

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

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Complexity, Action, and Black Holes,

    A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, “Complexity, Action, and Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 086006, arXiv:1512.04993 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    On the Time Dependence of Holographic Complexity,

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

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Quantum Computational Complexity from Quantum Information to Black Holes and Back,

    S. Chapman and G. Policastro, “Quantum Computational Complexity from Quantum Information to Black Holes and Back,” Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 128, arXiv:2110.14672 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pseudo Entropy in dS/CFT and Time-like Entanglement Entropy,

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi and Y. Taki, “Pseudo Entropy in dS/CFT and Time-like Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 031601, arXiv:2210.09457 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy,

    K. Doi, J. Harper, A. Mollabashi, T. Takayanagi and Y. Taki, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy,” JHEP05(2023) 052, arXiv:2302.11695 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Timelike Holographic Complexity,

    M. Alishahiha, “Timelike Holographic Complexity,” arXiv:2510.25700 [hep-th]

  35. [43]

    Aspects of Holographic Timelike Entanglement Entropy in Black Hole Backgrounds,

    M. Afrasiar, J. K. Basak and K.-Y. Kim, “Aspects of Holographic Timelike Entanglement Entropy in Black Hole Backgrounds,” arXiv:2512.21327 [hep-th]

  36. [44]

    Holographic Timelike Entanglement and Subregion Complexity with Scalar Hair,

    H. L. Prihadi, M. A. R. Al-Faritsi, R. R. Firdaus, F. Khairunnisa, Y. P. Sarwono and F. P. Zen, “Holographic Timelike Entanglement and Subregion Complexity with Scalar Hair,” JHEP04(2026) 174, arXiv:2601.18310 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Black Hole Singularity and Timelike Entanglement,

    T. Anegawa and K. Tamaoka, “Black Hole Singularity and Timelike Entanglement,” JHEP 10(2024) 182, arXiv:2406.10968 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    On holographic time-like entanglement entropy,

    Z. Li, Z.-Q. Xiao and R.-Q. Yang, “On holographic time-like entanglement entropy,” JHEP 04(2023) 004, arXiv:2211.14883 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy and Phase Transitions in Non-Conformal Theories,

    M. Afrasiar, J. K. Basak and D. Giataganas, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy and Phase Transitions in Non-Conformal Theories,” JHEP07(2024) 243, arXiv:2404.01393 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Holographic timelike entanglement entropy in non-relativistic theories,

    M. Afrasiar, J. K. Basak and D. Giataganas, “Holographic timelike entanglement entropy in non-relativistic theories,” JHEP05(2025) 205, arXiv:2411.18514 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Geometric Interpretation of Timelike Entanglement Entropy,

    M. P. Heller, F. Ori and A. Serantes, “Geometric Interpretation of Timelike Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 131601, arXiv:2408.15752 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Temporal Entanglement from Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    M. P. Heller, F. Ori and A. Serantes, “Temporal Entanglement from Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. X15(2025) 041022, arXiv:2507.17847 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A Note on the Holographic Time-Like Entanglement Entropy in Lifshitz Theory,

    S. S. Jena and S. Mahapatra, “A Note on the Holographic Time-Like Entanglement Entropy in Lifshitz Theory,” JHEP01(2025) 055, arXiv:2410.00384 [hep-th]. – 63 –

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy andT¯T Deformation,

    X. Jiang, P. Wang, H. Wu and H. Yang, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy andT¯T Deformation,” Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 046004, arXiv:2302.13872 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Reflected Entropy and Timelike Entanglement inT¯T-Deformed CFT2s,

    D. Basu and V. Raj, “Reflected Entropy and Timelike Entanglement inT¯T-Deformed CFT2s,” Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 046009, arXiv:2402.07253 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Entropic Interpretation of Einstein Equation in dS/CFT,

    K. Fujiki, M. Kohara, K. Shinmyo, Y.-ki Suzuki and T. Takayanagi, “Entropic Interpretation of Einstein Equation in dS/CFT,” JHEP04(2026) 072, arXiv:2511.07915 [hep-th]

    2026

  47. [55]

    Entanglement First Law for Timelike Entanglement Entropy and Linearized Einstein’s Equation,

    G.-Y. Li, M.-H. Xiao, S. He and J.-R. Sun, “Entanglement First Law for Timelike Entanglement Entropy and Linearized Einstein’s Equation,” JHEP06(2026) 144, arXiv:2511.17098 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Traversable AdS Wormhole via Non-Local Double Trace or Janus Deformation,

    T. Kawamoto, R. Maeda, N. Nakamura and T. Takayanagi, “Traversable AdS Wormhole via Non-Local Double Trace or Janus Deformation,” JHEP04(2025) 086, arXiv:2502.03531 [hep-th]

    2025

  49. [57]

    Non-Hermitian Density Matrices from Time-Like Entanglement and Wormholes,

    J. Harper, T. Kawamoto, R. Maeda, N. Nakamura and T. Takayanagi, “Non-Hermitian Density Matrices from Time-Like Entanglement and Wormholes,” arXiv:2512.13800 [hep-th]

  50. [58]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy in dS3/CFT2,

    X. Jiang, P. Wang, H. Wu and H. Yang, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy in dS3/CFT2,” JHEP08(2023) 216, arXiv:2304.10376 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Time-Like Entanglement Entropy in AdS/BCFT,

    C.-S. Chu and H. Parihar, “Time-Like Entanglement Entropy in AdS/BCFT,” JHEP06 (2023) 173, arXiv:2304.10907 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Temporal Entanglement Entropy as a Probe of Renormalization Group Flow,

    S. Grieninger, K. Ikeda and D. E. Kharzeev, “Temporal Entanglement Entropy as a Probe of Renormalization Group Flow,” JHEP05(2024) 030, arXiv:2312.08534 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Notes on Time Entanglement and Pseudo-Entropy,

    K. Narayan and H. K. Saini, “Notes on Time Entanglement and Pseudo-Entropy,” Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 499, arXiv:2303.01307 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Holographic Timelike Entanglement Entropy from Rindler Method,

    P.-Z. He and H.-Q. Zhang, “Holographic Timelike Entanglement Entropy from Rindler Method,” Chin. Phys. C48(2024) 115113, arXiv:2307.09803 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Entanglement Entropy of Free Fermions in Timelike Slices,

    B. Liu, H. Chen and B. Lian, “Entanglement Entropy of Free Fermions in Timelike Slices,” Phys. Rev. B110(2024) 144306, arXiv:2210.03134 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy: A Top-Down Approach,

    C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy: A Top-Down Approach,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 026030, arXiv:2505.20388 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Imaginary Part of Timelike Entanglement Entropy,

    J. Xu and W.-z. Guo, “Imaginary Part of Timelike Entanglement Entropy,” JHEP02(2025) 094, arXiv:2410.22684 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Relation Between Time- and Spacelike Entanglement Entropy,

    W.-z. Guo, S. He and Y.-X. Zhang, “Relation Between Time- and Spacelike Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 086020, arXiv:2402.00268 [hep-th]

    2025

  59. [67]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy with Gravitational Anomalies,

    C.-S. Chu and H. Parihar, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy with Gravitational Anomalies,” JHEP08(2025) 038, arXiv:2504.19694 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy and Renormalization Group Flow Irreversibility,

    D. Giataganas, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy and Renormalization Group Flow Irreversibility,” arXiv:2512.16499 [hep-th]

  61. [69]

    Holographic Timelike Entanglement in AdS3 Vaidya,

    G. Katoch, D. Sarkar and B. Sen, “Holographic Timelike Entanglement in AdS3 Vaidya,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 046026, arXiv:2504.14313 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy Revisited,

    X. Jiang and H. Yang, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy Revisited,” Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 106021, arXiv:2503.19342 [hep-th]. – 64 –

    2026 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy in Higher Curvature Gravity,

    Z.-X. Zhao, L. Zhao and S. He, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy in Higher Curvature Gravity,” JHEP12(2025) 156, arXiv:2509.04181 [hep-th]

    2025

  64. [72]

    Interpolating Between Space-Like and Time-Like Entanglement via Holography,

    C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury, “Interpolating Between Space-Like and Time-Like Entanglement via Holography,” arXiv:2507.17805 [hep-th]

  65. [73]

    On Holographic Time-Like Entanglement Entropy,

    M. M. Daryaei Goki and M. Ali-Akbari, “On Holographic Time-Like Entanglement Entropy,” arXiv:2601.17810 [hep-th]

  66. [74]

    Black Hole Interior and Time-Like Entanglement Entropy,

    Z.-H. Li and R.-Q. Yang, “Black Hole Interior and Time-Like Entanglement Entropy,” arXiv:2601.18319 [hep-th]

  67. [75]

    Timelike Entanglement Entropy of Hawking Radiation,

    Y. Ladghami, F. S. N. Lobo and T. Ouali, “Timelike Entanglement Entropy of Hawking Radiation,” arXiv:2602.06833 [gr-qc]

  68. [76]

    Geometric entropy and time-like entanglement entropy on a rotating BTZ black hole,

    H. Dai, X.-H. Fang, M. Fujita and S. He, “Geometric entropy and time-like entanglement entropy on a rotating BTZ black hole,” arXiv:2604.15720 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Linear Growth of Holographic Time-like Entanglement Entropy and Kasner exponents,

    Z. H. Li and R. Q. Yang, “Linear Growth of Holographic Time-like Entanglement Entropy and Kasner exponents,” arXiv:2606.21079 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Holographic Complexity,

    M. Alishahiha, “Holographic Complexity,” Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 126009, arXiv:1509.06614 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Comments on Holographic Complexity,

    D. Carmi, R. C. Myers and P. Rath, “Comments on Holographic Complexity,” JHEP03 (2017) 118, arXiv:1612.00433 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    On Volumes of Subregions in Holography and Complexity,

    O. Ben-Ami and D. Carmi, “On Volumes of Subregions in Holography and Complexity,” JHEP11(2016) 129, arXiv:1609.02514 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Complexity of Formation in Holography,

    S. Chapman, H. Marrochio and R. C. Myers, “Complexity of Formation in Holography,” JHEP01(2017) 062, arXiv:1610.08063 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Holographic Subregion Complexity under a Thermal Quench,

    B. Chen, W.-M. Li, R.-Q. Yang, C.-Y. Zhang and S.-J. Zhang, “Holographic Subregion Complexity under a Thermal Quench,” JHEP07(2018) 034, arXiv:1803.06680 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Holographic Subregion Complexity in Einstein-Born-Infeld Theory,

    Y. Ling, Y. Liu and C.-Y. Zhang, “Holographic Subregion Complexity in Einstein-Born-Infeld Theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 194, arXiv:1808.10169 [hep-th]. – 65 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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