REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Noether charge and the gravity duals of quantum complexity
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The physical relevance of the thermodynamic volumes of AdS black holes to the gravity duals of quantum complexity was recently argued by Couch et al. In this paper, by generalizing the Wald-Iyer formalism, we derive a geometric expression for the thermodynamic volume and relate its product with the thermodynamic pressure to the non-derivative part of the gravitational action evaluated on the Wheeler-DeWitt patch. We propose that this action provides an alternative gravity dual of the quantum complexity of the boundary theory. We refer this to "complexity=action 2.0" (CA-2) duality. It is significantly different from the original "complexity=action" (CA) duality as well as the "complexity=volume 2.0" (CV-2) duality proposed by Couch et al. The latter postulates that the complexity is dual to the spacetime volume of the Wheeler-DeWitt patch. To distinguish our new conjecture from the various dualities in literature, we study a number of black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-Dilation theories. We find that for all these black holes, the CA duality generally does not respect the Lloyd bound whereas the CV-2 duality always does. For the CA-2 duality, although in many cases it is consistent with the Lloyd bound, we also find a counter example for which it violates the bound as well.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Time dependence of complexity for Lovelock black holes
For Lovelock black holes, the Complexity=Action growth rate at late times is a coupling-independent multiple of the mass, and the Schwarzschild limit is recovered only up to a constant under the authors' boundary-term...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.