Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

The complexity gap between a full quantum state and its three disjoint subsystems carries a definite sign across multiple complexity measures.

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 · grok-4.3

2026-07-01 06:58 UTC pith:V6IEB73G

load-bearing objection The paper defines tripartite complexity and a complexity gap, then reports that the gap has a fixed sign in examples from CV holography, Fisher-Rao, and Krylov, but offers no general argument for why. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.20790 v2 pith:V6IEB73G submitted 2026-06-18 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Complexity Inequalities for Quantum Subsystems

Pawel Caputa , Giuseppe Di Giulio , Tran Quang Loc This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords subsystem complexitycomplexity gaptripartite complexityholographic complexityFisher-Rao complexityKrylov complexityreduced density matrixquantum inequalities
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.

The paper defines two new combinations of subsystem complexities for three disjoint regions: a tripartite complexity modeled on tripartite information, and a complexity gap that isolates the extra complexity present only in the full state. It computes both quantities in three concrete settings: holographic volume complexity in AdS, Fisher-Rao complexity for Gaussian states, and a Krylov-space construction applied to few-qubit and coherent-state reduced density matrices. In every case the tripartite combination can be positive or negative, yet the complexity gap always has one fixed sign that depends on the chosen measure. The authors therefore propose the gap as a possible starting point for a broader set of inequalities that would constrain how subsystem complexities can combine.

Core claim

Across holographic CV complexity, Fisher-Rao Gaussian complexity, and a Krylov-inspired measure for reduced states, the tripartite complexity lacks a fixed sign while the complexity gap always exhibits a definite sign whose direction is determined by the underlying complexity definition. This pattern is observed in AdS geometries, Gaussian many-body states, and small quantum systems, suggesting that the gap isolates an emergent contribution that is systematically ordered relative to the sum of its parts.

What carries the argument

The complexity gap, constructed by subtracting the sum of the three individual subsystem complexities from the complexity of the full state.

Load-bearing premise

The sign patterns found in the three chosen complexity measures and the specific states examined are representative of a general property that holds for subsystem complexities more broadly.

What would settle it

An explicit calculation, in any one of the three frameworks, of three disjoint regions where the complexity gap changes sign for some choice of state or geometry.

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

If this is right

  • The tripartite complexity can take either sign depending on the quantum state.
  • The complexity gap remains non-negative or non-positive in all examined examples, with the sign fixed by the complexity definition.
  • The gap isolates complexity that appears only when the three regions are considered together rather than separately.
  • The gap is positioned as a candidate building block for a prospective hierarchy of subsystem complexity inequalities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the sign persists under other definitions of complexity, such as circuit or action complexity, the gap could provide a unified ordering principle.
  • The construction could be extended to four or more regions to generate additional candidate inequalities.
  • The definite sign may impose constraints on which reduced density matrices can arise from a given global state when complexity is used as a diagnostic.
  • Numerical checks in larger qubit systems or different holographic backgrounds would test whether the sign structure survives beyond the few-qubit and AdS examples studied.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a tripartite complexity (inspired by tripartite information) and a complexity gap (to capture emergent complexity beyond subsystems) for three disjoint regions in multipartite quantum systems. It computes the sign structure of both quantities in three concrete settings: the complexity=volume proposal in AdS holography, the Fisher-Rao metric applied to Gaussian states, and a Krylov-space construction tested on few-qubit systems and coherent-state dynamics. The tripartite complexity is reported to lack a definite sign, while the complexity gap is found to have a definite sign in every examined example (with the sign direction depending on the chosen complexity measure). The authors suggest that the complexity gap may serve as a building block for a prospective hierarchy of subsystem complexity inequalities.

Significance. If the observed sign definiteness of the complexity gap generalizes, the work could motivate new inequalities that constrain multipartite complexity structures in a manner analogous to the holographic entropy cone for entanglement. The explicit calculations across three independent frameworks (holographic volume, information geometry, and Krylov basis) provide a useful empirical foundation for further exploration in quantum information and holography.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The suggestion that the complexity gap 'could be a natural candidate building block for a prospective hierarchy of subsystem complexity inequalities' is load-bearing for the paper's main message, yet rests solely on the sign being definite in the listed examples; no general derivation, inequality proof, or argument for robustness outside the three selected measures and specific states (AdS CV, Gaussians, few-qubit/coherent) is supplied.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of 'definite sign in every example we analyze' is presented without accompanying error analysis, bounds on the gap, or discussion of possible counterexamples, which limits the strength of the observation even within the examined cases and thereby weakens support for elevating the gap to a foundational role.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from an early, self-contained definition (with explicit formulas) of both the tripartite complexity and the complexity gap before the case studies.
  2. A summary table listing the sign of the complexity gap for each approach and example would improve clarity and allow readers to compare the measure-dependent signs at a glance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive feedback. We respond to the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The suggestion that the complexity gap 'could be a natural candidate building block for a prospective hierarchy of subsystem complexity inequalities' is load-bearing for the paper's main message, yet rests solely on the sign being definite in the listed examples; no general derivation, inequality proof, or argument for robustness outside the three selected measures and specific states (AdS CV, Gaussians, few-qubit/coherent) is supplied.

    Authors: The manuscript is an exploratory study motivated by the historical development of the holographic entropy cone, in which initial observations of sign structures in concrete examples preceded general proofs. The abstract employs deliberately cautious phrasing ('could be a natural candidate', 'suggest') to indicate that the proposal rests on the observed pattern rather than a claimed theorem. No general derivation is supplied because the work centers on explicit computations across three independent frameworks; a proof of robustness would constitute a distinct, more formal investigation. The empirical consistency across holographic volume, Fisher-Rao, and Krylov constructions is presented as a foundation for future work, not as a completed inequality. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of 'definite sign in every example we analyze' is presented without accompanying error analysis, bounds on the gap, or discussion of possible counterexamples, which limits the strength of the observation even within the examined cases and thereby weakens support for elevating the gap to a foundational role.

    Authors: The holographic CV and Fisher-Rao results follow from exact analytical expressions for the chosen states and geometries, so statistical error analysis or bounds are not applicable. The Krylov examples consist of exact diagonalization for few-qubit systems and exact time evolution for coherent states within the effective model. We have not performed an exhaustive search for counterexamples outside these classes, which is a genuine limitation of the present scope. We are prepared to add a brief clarifying sentence on the restricted set of examples in a revised version. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A general mathematical proof or derivation establishing the sign definiteness of the complexity gap for arbitrary complexity measures and quantum states.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; sign observations derived from explicit calculations in concrete models.

full rationale

The paper computes tripartite complexity and complexity gap explicitly in three distinct frameworks (holographic CV in AdS, Fisher-Rao on Gaussians, Krylov on qubits/coherent states) and reports observed signs from those calculations. No step reduces a claimed prediction or inequality to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the central suggestion is framed as a hypothesis motivated by the examples rather than a general derivation. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks via direct model evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard domain assumptions of the three complexity proposals without introducing new free parameters or invented entities in the abstract description.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The complexity=volume proposal correctly captures subsystem complexity in AdS spacetimes
    Invoked for the holographic calculations on three disjoint regions.
  • domain assumption Fisher-Rao metric provides a valid notion of subsystem complexity for Gaussian states
    Used for the many-body Gaussian state analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5742 in / 1414 out tokens · 46581 ms · 2026-07-01T06:58:09.799758+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Motivated by the role of the holographic entropy cone in constraining the entanglement structure of states with classical gravitational duals, we investigate combinations of subsystem complexities associated with reduced density matrices in multipartite quantum systems. Focusing on subsystems composed of three disjoint regions, we introduce two quantities: a tripartite complexity, inspired by the tripartite information, and a complexity gap, designed to characterize emergent complexity in the full quantum state beyond that of its constituents. We study the sign structure of these quantities in three selected approaches to subsystem complexity. In holography, we employ the complexity=volume proposal in AdS spacetimes; for Gaussian many-body states, we use Fisher-Rao subsystem complexity; and we further develop a Krylov-space inspired, effective framework for reduced density matrices, which we test in few-qubit systems and coherent-state dynamics. Across all three approaches, we find that the tripartite complexity is not sign-definite in general. By contrast, the complexity gap exhibits a definite sign in every example we analyze, although the sign itself depends on the underlying notion of subsystem complexity. Our results suggest that the complexity gap could be a natural candidate building block for a prospective hierarchy of subsystem complexity inequalities.

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Page transition for the complexity of an evaporating black hole

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The complexity of radiation from an evaporating black hole is argued to undergo a sharp Page-like transition, dominated after the Page time by the volume of an island in the entanglement wedge.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 53 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Baiguera, V

    S. Baiguera, V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M. P. Heller and N. Y. Halpern,“Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field – 70 – theory, and quantum information science”,Phys. Rept. 1159, 1 (2026), arxiv:2503.10753

    work page arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    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, 181602 (2006),hep-th/0603001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    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. D 76, 106013 (2007),arxiv:0704.3719

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Holographic Mutual Information is Monogamous

    P. Hayden, M. Headrick and A. Maloney,“Holographic Mutual Information is Monogamous”,Phys. Rev. D 87, 046003 (2013),arxiv:1107.2940

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Purely Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger–like Entanglement is Forbidden in Holography

    V. Balasubramanian, M. J. Kang, C. Cummings, C. Murdia and S. F. Ross, “Purely Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger–like Entanglement is Forbidden in Holography”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 031602 (2026),arxiv:2509.03621

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Constraints on four-party entanglement in holography

    V. Balasubramanian, W. K. L. Chan, M. J. Kang, C. Murdia and S. F. Ross, “Constraints on four-party entanglement in holography”,arxiv:2606.00210

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    The Markov gap for geometric reflected entropy

    P. Hayden, O. Parrikar and J. Sorce,“The Markov gap for geometric reflected entropy”,JHEP 2110, 047 (2021),arxiv:2107.00009

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    The Holographic Entropy Cone

    N. Bao, S. Nezami, H. Ooguri, B. Stoica, J. Sully and M. Walter,“The Holographic Entropy Cone”,JHEP 1509, 130 (2015),arxiv:1505.07839

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Holographic entropy relations

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and M. Rota,“Holographic entropy relations”, Fortsch. Phys. 66, 1800067 (2018),arxiv:1808.07871

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Holographic entropy cone for five regions

    S. Hern´ andez Cuenca,“Holographic entropy cone for five regions”, Phys. Rev. D 100, 026004 (2019),arxiv:1903.09148

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Testing holographic entropy inequalities in 2 + 1 dimensions

    B. Grado-White, G. Grimaldi, M. Headrick and V. E. Hubeny,“Testing holographic entropy inequalities in 2 + 1 dimensions”,JHEP 2501, 065 (2025), arxiv:2407.07165

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    A new characterization of the holographic entropy cone

    G. Grimaldi, M. Headrick and V. E. Hubeny,“A new characterization of the holographic entropy cone”,SciPost Phys. 20, 122 (2026),arxiv:2508.21823

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Holographic entropy inequalities and the topology of entanglement wedge nesting

    B. Czech, S. Shuai, Y. Wang and D. Zhang,“Holographic entropy inequalities and the topology of entanglement wedge nesting”,Phys. Rev. D 109, L101903 (2024), arxiv:2309.15145

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Towards a complete classification of holographic entropy inequalities

    N. Bao, K. Furuya and J. Naskar,“Towards a complete classification of holographic entropy inequalities”,JHEP 2503, 117 (2025),arxiv:2409.17317

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Entropy Inequalities Constrain Holographic Erasure Correction

    B. Czech, S. Shuai and Y. Wang,“Entropy Inequalities Constrain Holographic Erasure Correction”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 141603 (2025),arxiv:2502.12246

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    On a mixed-state extension of the holographic signal inequality

    J. Naskar,“On a mixed-state extension of the holographic signal inequality”, arxiv:2605.26617

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    The Holographic Multi-Entropy Cone

    X.-X. Ju and Y. Zhao,“The Holographic Multi-Entropy Cone”,arxiv:2606.15173

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  19. [19]

    Entanglement is not Enough

    L. Susskind,“Entanglement is not enough”,Fortsch. Phys. 64, 49 (2016), – 71 – arxiv:1411.0690

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    The bulk Hilbert space of double scaled SYK,

    H. W. Lin,“The bulk Hilbert space of double scaled SYK”,JHEP 2211, 060 (2022), arxiv:2208.07032

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,“A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity”,JHEP 2308, 213 (2023),arxiv:2305.04355

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Growth and collapse of subsystem complexity under random unitary circuits

    J. Haah and D. Stanford,“Growth and collapse of subsystem complexity under random unitary circuits”,arxiv:2510.18805

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Sharp Transitions for Subsystem Complexity

    Y. Fan, N. Hunter-Jones, A. Karch and S. Mittal,“Sharp Transitions for Subsystem Complexity”,arxiv:2510.18832

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    Complexity of mixed Gaussian states from Fisher information geometry

    G. Di Giulio and E. Tonni,“Complexity of mixed Gaussian states from Fisher information geometry”,JHEP 2012, 101 (2020),arxiv:2006.00921

    work page arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    The Entanglement Wedge Polygon

    K. Fujiki, J. Harper, T. Takayanagi and N. Zenoni,“The Entanglement Wedge Polygon”,arxiv:2606.21081

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Holographic Complexity

    M. Alishahiha,“Holographic Complexity”,Phys. Rev. D 92, 126009 (2015), arxiv:1509.06614

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Comments on Holographic Complexity

    D. Carmi, R. C. Myers and P. Rath,“Comments on Holographic Complexity”, JHEP 1703, 118 (2017),arxiv:1612.00433

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Subsystem Complexity and Holography

    C. A. Ag´ on, M. Headrick and B. Swingle,“Subsystem Complexity and Holography”, JHEP 1902, 145 (2019),arxiv:1804.01561

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  29. [29]

    Complexity as a novel probe of quantum quenches: universal scalings and purifications

    H. A. Camargo, P. Caputa, D. Das, M. P. Heller and R. Jefferson,“Complexity as a novel probe of quantum quenches: universal scalings and purifications”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 081601 (2019),arxiv:1807.07075

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Remarks on the entanglement entropy for disconnected regions

    H. Casini and M. Huerta,“Remarks on the entanglement entropy for disconnected regions”,JHEP 0903, 048 (2009),arxiv:0812.1773

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    Universality in the tripartite information after global quenches: (generalised) quantum XY models

    V. Mari´ c and M. Fagotti,“Universality in the tripartite information after global quenches: (generalised) quantum XY models”,JHEP 2023, 140 (2020), arxiv:2302.01322

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Universality in the tripartite information after global quenches

    V. Mari´ c and M. Fagotti,“Universality in the tripartite information after global quenches”,Phys. Rev. B 108, L161116 (2023),arxiv:2209.14253

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Negative tripartite mutual information after quantum quenches in integrable systems

    F. Caceffo and V. Alba,“Negative tripartite mutual information after quantum quenches in integrable systems”,Phys. Rev. B 108, 134434 (2023), arxiv:2305.10245

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Holographic evolution of the mutual information

    A. Allais and E. Tonni,“Holographic evolution of the mutual information”, JHEP 1201, 102 (2012),arxiv:1110.1607

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Thermalization of mutual and tripartite information in strongly coupled two dimensional conformal field theories

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Bernamonti, N. Copland, B. Craps and F. Galli, “Thermalization of mutual and tripartite information in strongly coupled two dimensional conformal field theories”,Phys. Rev. D 84, 105017 (2011), arxiv:1110.0488. – 72 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Holographic Mutual and Tripartite Information in a Symmetry Breaking Quench

    M. Asadi and M. Ali-Akbari,“Holographic Mutual and Tripartite Information in a Symmetry Breaking Quench”,Phys. Lett. B 785, 409 (2018),arxiv:1804.05604

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Tripartite information at long distances

    C. A. Ag´ on, P. Bueno and H. Casini,“Tripartite information at long distances”, SciPost Phys. 12, 153 (2022),arxiv:2109.09179

    work page arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Complexity of Mixed States in QFT and Holography

    E. Caceres, S. Chapman, J. D. Couch, J. P. Hernandez, R. C. Myers and S.-M. Ruan,“Complexity of Mixed States in QFT and Holography”, JHEP 2003, 012 (2020),arxiv:1909.10557

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  39. [39]

    Purification Complexity without Purifications

    S.-M. Ruan,“Purification Complexity without Purifications”, JHEP 2101, 092 (2021),arxiv:2006.01088

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Subregion Action and Complexity

    M. Alishahiha, K. Babaei Velni and M. R. Mohammadi Mozaffar,“Black hole subregion action and complexity”,Phys. Rev. D 99, 126016 (2019), arxiv:1809.06031

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    On subregion action complexity in AdS 3 and in the BTZ black hole

    R. Auzzi, S. Baiguera, A. Legramandi, G. Nardelli, P. Roy and N. Zenoni,“On subregion action complexity in AdS 3 and in the BTZ black hole”, JHEP 2001, 066 (2020),arxiv:1910.00526

    work page arXiv 2001

  42. [42]

    Growth of block-diagonal operators and symmetry-resolved Krylov complexity

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Symmetry-resolved spread complexity

    P. Caputa, G. Di Giulio and T. Q. Loc,“Symmetry-resolved spread complexity”, JHEP 2602, 189 (2026),arxiv:2509.12992

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    The holographic entropy arrangement

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and M. Rota,“The holographic entropy arrangement”,Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1900011 (2019),arxiv:1812.08133

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Superbalance of Holographic Entropy Inequalities

    T. He, V. E. Hubeny and M. Rangamani,“Superbalance of Holographic Entropy Inequalities”,JHEP 2007, 245 (2020),arxiv:2002.04558

    work page arXiv 2007

  46. [46]

    Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries

    D. Stanford and L. Susskind,“Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries”, Phys. Rev. D 90, 126007 (2014),arxiv:1406.2678

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Switchbacks and the Bridge to Nowhere

    L. Susskind and Y. Zhao,“Switchbacks and the Bridge to Nowhere”, arxiv:1408.2823

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Does Complexity Equal Anything?

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    The Gravity Dual of a Density Matrix

    B. Czech, J. L. Karczmarek, F. Nogueira and M. Van Raamsdonk,“The Gravity Dual of a Density Matrix”,Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 155009 (2012), arxiv:1204.1330

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Geometric and Renormalized Entropy in Conformal Field Theory

    C. Holzhey, F. Larsen and F. Wilczek,“Geometric and renormalized entropy in conformal field theory”,Nucl. Phys. B 424, 443 (1994),hep-th/9403108

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  51. [51]

    Entanglement Entropy and Quantum Field Theory

    P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy,“Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory”, J. Stat. Mech. 0406, P06002 (2004),hep-th/0405152

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  52. [52]

    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 – 73 – Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 021601 (2016),arxiv:1601.05416

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Evolution of Entanglement Entropy in One-Dimensional Systems

    P. Calabrese and J. L. Cardy,“Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems”,J. Stat. Mech. 0504, P04010 (2005),cond-mat/0503393

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    A Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy Proposal

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi,“A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal”,JHEP 0707, 062 (2007),arxiv:0705.0016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Time Evolution of Entanglement Entropy from Black Hole Interiors

    T. Hartman and J. Maldacena,“Time Evolution of Entanglement Entropy from Black Hole Interiors”,JHEP 1305, 014 (2013),arxiv:1303.1080

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    Addendum to Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons

    L. Susskind,“Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons”, Fortsch. Phys. 64, 24 (2016),arxiv:1403.5695, [Addendum: Fortsch.Phys. 64, 44–48 (2016)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis

    D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi and E. Altman,“A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis”,Phys. Rev. X 9, 041017 (2019),arxiv:1812.08657

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    The Recursion Method: Application to Many-Body Dynamics

    V. S. Viswanath and G. M¨ uller,“The Recursion Method: Application to Many-Body Dynamics”, Springer Berlin (1994), Heidelberg, Germany

    work page 1994

  59. [59]

    Quantum Dynamics in Krylov Space: Methods and Applications

    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, 1 (2025),arxiv:2405.09628

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Krylov Complexity

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J. M. Magan and Q. Wu,“Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states”,Phys. Rev. D 106, 046007 (2022), arxiv:2202.06957

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Geometry of Krylov complexity,

    P. Caputa, J. M. Magan and D. Patramanis,“Geometry of Krylov complexity”, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013041 (2022),arxiv:2109.03824

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Probing the entanglement of operator growth

    D. Patramanis,“Probing the entanglement of operator growth”, PTEP 2022, 063A01 (2022),arxiv:2111.03424

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Coherent states for arbitrary lie groups

    A. M. Perelomov,“Coherent states for arbitrary lie groups”, Commun. Math. Phys. 26, 222 (1972)

    work page 1972

  65. [65]

    Krylov complexity of density matrix operators

    P. Caputa, H.-S. Jeong, S. Liu, J. F. Pedraza and L.-C. Qu,“Krylov complexity of density matrix operators”,JHEP 2405, 337 (2024),arxiv:2402.09522

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Krylov complexity of purification,

    R. N. Das and T. Mori,“Krylov Complexity of Purification”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 030201 (2026),arxiv:2408.00826

    work page arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Operator complexity: a journey to the edge of Krylov space,

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,“Operator complexity: a journey to the edge of Krylov space”,JHEP 2106, 062 (2021),arxiv:2009.01862

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Subsystem complexity after a global quantum quench

    G. Di Giulio and E. Tonni,“Subsystem complexity after a global quantum quench”, JHEP 2105, 022 (2021),arxiv:2102.02764. – 74 –

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Subsystem complexity after a local quantum quench

    G. Di Giulio and E. Tonni,“Subsystem complexity after a local quantum quench”, JHEP 2108, 135 (2021),arxiv:2106.08282

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Quantum Continuous Variables

    A. Serafini,“Quantum Continuous Variables”, CRC Press (2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    Gaussian Quantum Information

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro and S. Lloyd,“Gaussian quantum information”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012),arxiv:1110.3234

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    Quantum Computation as Geometry

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  73. [73]

    Information Geometry and Its Applications

    S. ichi Amari,“Information Geometry and Its Applications”, Springer Tokyo (2016)

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    Quantum Computation and Quantum Information

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,“Quantum Computation and Quantum Information”, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Positive Definite Matrices

    R. Bhatia,“Positive Definite Matrices”, Princeton University Press (2007)

    work page 2007

  76. [76]

    Circuit complexity in quantum field theory

    R. Jefferson and R. C. Myers,“Circuit complexity in quantum field theory”, JHEP 1710, 107 (2017),arxiv:1707.08570

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  77. [77]

    Complexity and entanglement for thermofield double states

    S. Chapman, J. Eisert, L. Hackl, M. P. Heller, R. Jefferson, H. Marrochio and R. C. Myers,“Complexity and entanglement for thermofield double states”, SciPost Phys. 6, 034 (2019),arxiv:1810.05151

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    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”,JHEP 1807, 034 (2018), arxiv:1803.06680

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Auzzi, G

    R. Auzzi, G. Nardelli, F. I. Schaposnik Massolo, G. Tallarita and N. Zenoni,“On volume subregion complexity in Vaidya spacetime”,JHEP 1911, 098 (2019), arxiv:1908.10832

    work page arXiv 1911

  80. [80]

    Entanglement negativity after a global quantum quench

    A. Coser, E. Tonni and P. Calabrese,“Entanglement negativity after a global quantum quench”,J. Stat. Mech. 1412, P12017 (2014),arxiv:1410.0900

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

Showing first 80 references.