Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 59 references

Adding a confining potential that discretizes the black-hole spectrum also lets boundary time pass the would-be singularity, resolving it.

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

2026-08-02 19:55 UTC pith:32GM2MKG

load-bearing objection A coherent mechanism in the authors' modified JT model, but the conclusion lives or dies on an unproven map from the random-potential ensemble to JT itself, and the real-time step is asserted rather than derived. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.00450 v3 pith:32GM2MKG submitted 2026-02-28 hep-th gr-qc

Resolving Black Hole Singularities in Jackiw-Teitelboim Gravity

Dongsu Bak , Chanju Kim , Sang-Heon Yi This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords Jackiw-Teitelboim gravityblack hole singularitySchwarzian quantum mechanicsleft confining potentialspectral discretenessKrylov spread complexityrandom matrix ensemblewormhole length
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 argues that the contradiction between the continuous spectrum of Schwarzian quantum mechanics and the finite entropy of a black hole is cured by a left confining potential, and that this same potential resolves the black-hole singularity. In the unmodified theory the renormalized wormhole length grows without bound and boundary time freezes at a finite value, producing a singular interior. With the confining potential—which turns on only when the wormhole length reaches order e^{S0}—the growth is reversed by a repulsive force, boundary time continues past the would-be endpoint, and the singularity is avoided. The resolution is a dynamical consequence of spectral discreteness, not an extra ingredient. The result matters because it gives a solvable model in which finite entropy, random level statistics, and singularity removal are connected.

Core claim

The central claim: restoring the discrete, random-level spectrum of the two-sided black hole by adding a left confining potential W(X) to the Schwarzian Hamiltonian removes the black-hole singularity. The potential turns on only when the renormalized wormhole length reaches O(e^{S0}); its force -∂_χ W reverses the otherwise indefinite growth of the wormhole. Consequently ˙τ = e^χ/C stays positive, so boundary time τ passes π/2 and never stalls, and the would-be singularity is avoided. In the bulk, future horizons disappear and the two boundaries become causally connected, although the paper argues no recoverable signal can cross at such exponentially late, scrambled times.

What carries the argument

The left confining potential W(X) added to the Schwarzian Hamiltonian, with X = -q e^{-S0} and q = 2χ, where ℓ_ren = -2χ is the renormalized wormhole length. The total potential is V(χ) = e^{2χ}/(2C) + W, and the Hamiltonian is H = e^{-2S0} p_X^2 + e^{-X e^{S0}} + W(X). W is fixed at leading order by the disk density of states, with random components v_n(X) supplying the random-matrix level statistics; mechanically it supplies the repulsive force -∂_χ W that turns the wormhole around at length ~ e^{S0}, converts the continuous spectrum into a discrete one, and encodes the matching conditions that recover the perturbative genus expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the assumption that the transformation from the random-matrix description to a quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian with random potentials is exactly what JT gravity becomes at the nonperturbative level; this has been checked only for the leading and first two subleading terms, with two constants fixed by hand, so if the next check fails, the confining potential is an arbitrary addition and the singularity resolution does not apply to JT gravity.

What would settle it

Compute the next genus contribution (e.g., Z_{2,1}(β)) or a connected multi-boundary amplitude such as Z_{0,4} from the proposed random-potential ensemble using the same renormalization prescription, and compare with the known JT matrix-integral value; a mismatch at this order refutes the equivalence and removes the singularity-resolution claim. Alternatively, numerically evolve the thermofield-double state in one realization of the random potential and measure the wormhole length: if it keeps growing linearly beyond t∼e^{S0} instead of turning around and plateauing, the singularity is not res

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

If this is right

  • The two-sided black hole in JT gravity has no singularity: boundary global time τ extends beyond π/2 and the wormhole length saturates instead of diverging.
  • Future horizons disappear and the two boundaries become causally connected in the bulk, but operational causality is restored by a complexity barrier: signals arrive only at times of order e^{S0}, fully scrambled.
  • Spectral discreteness is the physical origin of the repulsive force, so singularity resolution is intrinsically nonclassical and invisible in the e^{S0}→∞ semiclassical limit.
  • The wormhole length, identified with Krylov spread complexity, follows a ramp–top–slope–plateau pattern with the plateau at O(e^{S0}).
  • The modified quantum mechanics reproduces the known JT disk amplitude and the first subleading genus corrections, providing nontrivial consistency checks of the framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the random-potential mapping survives at higher genus, the confining potential is not an ad hoc regulator but is uniquely determined by the JT genus expansion, making singularity resolution a consequence of the matrix model itself.
  • Editorial extension: the same principle—finite Hilbert-space dimension plus random level statistics caps interior growth—suggests a template for singularity resolution in higher-dimensional black holes, where interior volume plays the role of wormhole length.
  • Editorial extension: the predicted turnaround at t∼e^{S0} and the accompanying negative bulk energy could be tested in dual quantum-mechanical models by measuring quenched spread complexity and checking that the plateau onset scales as e^{S0}.
  • Editorial extension: the no-signal argument despite causal connection rests on complexity assumptions; a quantitative bound on scrambling at the turnaround could turn the 'complexity barrier' into a precise no-transmission theorem.

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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that JT gravity, when supplemented by a left confining potential W(X) that becomes significant only when the renormalized wormhole length is O(e^{S_0}), resolves the would-be black-hole singularity. The authors review their previous construction in which W is fixed by matching the disk density of states and the first few multi-boundary amplitudes of the matrix-model dual, and then show that the classical trajectory of the Schwarzian variable χ acquires a turning point at exponentially large negative χ, so that τ(t) no longer asymptotes to π/2. They further argue that in the plateau regime quantum random-matrix phases freeze expectation values, leading to a linearly growing τ and a resolvable causal structure. Bulk consequences are discussed through a modified dilaton ansatz and an effective negative-energy tensor.

Significance. If the construction were established, this would be a striking proposal: spectral discreteness, enforced by a random-potential modification of Schwarzian mechanics, would remove the JT black-hole singularity and replace the horizon with a 'complexity barrier.' The paper does provide a nontrivial low-order consistency check: W_0 from the disk density of states, W_1 and C(X) from Z_{0,2}, and the matching of Z_{1,1} with the asymmetric point-splitting prescription. These checks are a genuine strength. However, the central conclusion is conditional on an all-orders equivalence between the random-potential ensemble and JT gravity, which the manuscript itself states is not yet established. In addition, the real-time dynamics used for the singularity-resolution argument requires matrix elements and ensemble properties that go beyond the matched partition functions. The paper is therefore best read as a promising proposal with a well-defined testing program, not as a completed derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.6) and Appendix A] The random-potential ensemble is related to the JT/matrix model by the assumed change of variables (3.6), but the matching is only performed through Z_{0,1}, Z_{0,2}, Z_{1,1}, and Z_{0,3}. The matching fixes C(X)=δ(X), W_1=√(2W_0'), and then requires hand-tuned constants α=1/6 and renormalized δ_ϵ(0)=π²/6 (Eqs. (A.15)–(A.17)). The paper explicitly states that higher-order checks are left to future work. Thus the left confining potential W is not derived from JT gravity; it is fitted to a finite number of amplitudes. If the equivalence fails at higher orders, W is an arbitrary wall added to Schwarzian mechanics and the singularity-resolution conclusion does not follow for JT gravity. This is the load-bearing assumption of the paper.
  2. [§2, Eq. (2.15) and §4, Eqs. (4.2), (4.4)] There are unexplained factor discrepancies in the central Hamiltonian and equation of motion. From L_total = C ˙χ² − (1/C)e^{2χ} (2.14), the canonical momentum is p_χ=2C˙χ and H=p_χ²/(4C)+e^{2χ}/C, so 2CH=p_χ²/2+2e^{2χ}, not (1/4)p_χ²+e^{2χ} as written in (2.15). Similarly, with V(χ)=e^{2χ}/2C+W in (4.1), the Euler–Lagrange equation gives C¨χ=−e^{2χ}/(2C)−(1/2)∂_χ W, not (4.2). Since the turning-point condition and the positivity of ˙τ in (4.3) are quantitative consequences of (4.2), these factors matter for the reported dynamics. The authors should reconcile the conventions or correct the equations.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (4.8)–(4.10)] The plateau argument uses random-phase cancellation for off-diagonal matrix elements of q to conclude d⟨q⟩/dt≈0. However, the physical quantity needed for the boundary trajectory is ⟨˙τ⟩=⟨e^χ⟩/C, and the same phase-cancellation argument is not shown to apply to e^χ. Moreover, the cancellation in (4.10) is an ensemble-average statement, while the quenched average (3.13) fixes the potential per sample; for a single realization, the phases are deterministic quasiperiodic and do not literally cancel. The conclusion that 'τ(t) continues to grow linearly even in the plateau regime' therefore needs a separate justification, either through a better-controlled average or through a computation of the relevant matrix elements.
  4. [§5, Eqs. (5.4)–(5.7)] The bulk interpretation is based on additional assumptions: the metric remains global AdS₂, the extra matter sector is independent of the dilaton, and the dilaton ansatz (5.5) with the boundary-dynamics input G(τ) is valid. In particular, the effective energy-momentum tensor T_ab is not derived from a bulk action; it is constructed from the boundary W via (5.6)–(5.7). If W is not a genuine bulk source, these equations are a consistency condition, not a derivation of the causal structure. The claim that the future horizons disappear and the boundaries become causally connected is thus not yet supported by an independent bulk computation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3 and Appendix A] The notation is dense and sometimes ambiguous: X=−q e^{−S_0}, q=2χ, and later χ is replaced by the random-potential variable X. It would help to state the rescalings once in one place and use a single symbol set throughout.
  2. [Figure 3] The ramp/top/slope/plateau behavior is shown only schematically. Since [15] reports numerical tests, a representative numerical curve or a reference to a specific figure would make the claim more concrete and falsifiable.
  3. [General] There are typos and small presentation issues: 'explict expressions' in Appendix A, 'sigularity resolution' near Eq. (5.13), and the missing display of κ(t_s) in §5. These are cosmetic but should be fixed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor hand-tuning in the Z1,1 consistency check; central singularity-resolution claim is not circular.

specific steps
  1. other [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.15)-(A.17); cf. Section 3 discussion of Z1,1 consistency check]
    "Reproducing the known answer requires the elimination of the last term in parentheses. This fixes the asymmetric point-splitting parameter through αϵδϵ(0) = 1/6, which implies α=1/6. Finally, by subtracting an appropriate local counterterm, the divergent quantity δϵ(0) may be replaced by its renormalized value r1=π2/6. With this prescription, the expression above precisely reproduces the known result for Z1,1(β)."

    The paper presents the reproduction of Z1,1 as a nontrivial consistency check, but the constants α and the renormalized δϵ(0) are fixed in this very step to match the known Z1,1. The agreement is therefore forced by construction and cannot serve as an independent test of the framework. This fitted validation is peripheral to the central singularity-resolution claim, which follows from the equation of motion (4.2) once W is present; no singularity-related datum is used to fix W0, W1, α, or δren.

full rationale

The paper's claimed 'recovery' of known JT amplitudes is partly a calibration exercise: W0 is fixed from the disk partition function, W1 and C are fixed from Z0,2, and the Z1,1 match is achieved by adjusting α and the renormalized δϵ(0). The quote from (A.17) shows that the Z1,1 agreement is statistically forced, so calling it a consistency check overstates its evidential weight. This is a genuine but minor circularity in the validation language, not in the central physics claim. The singularity-resolution conclusion is derived from the modified equation of motion (4.2) after W has been introduced; none of the fitted quantities was chosen to make τ(t) pass π/2 or to produce the turning point. The left-confining potential is inherited from the authors' earlier work [15], but this paper re-derives W0 from the disk density of states and checks the low-order structure, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in the sense that would raise the score. The unproven change of variables in Eq. (3.6) is an assumption/correctness risk explicitly acknowledged in Section 6, not a circularity: the singularity claim is not fed back into the matching that defines W.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of modeling inputs: the confining potential (with its random components) is fixed by matching known JT amplitudes; the identification of wormhole length with Krylov complexity; the use of quenched averages; and the ad hoc bulk stress tensor. These are not derived from first principles within this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Left confining potential W(X) (including leading W_0 and random components v_n) = W_0(X) solved from disk density via (3.12); W_1 = sqrt(2W'_0) from (3.8); higher W_n and correlation functions fixed by
    Introduced in [15] to enforce spectral discreteness; fixed by requiring the ensemble-averaged QM partition function to reproduce known JT/matrix-model results. It is the key input controlling the singularity-resolution claim.
  • Random potential two-point correlation normalization C(X)=δ(X) = C(X)=δ(X) with normalization fixed to unity
    Set to reproduce Z_0,2 (A.13-A.14).
  • Asymmetric point-splitting parameter α = α = 1/6
    Selected in (A.17) so that the Z_1,1 expression matches the known result (A.16).
  • Renormalized δ_ϵ(0) value r_1 = r_1 = π^2/6
    Chosen to replace the divergent δ_ϵ(0) so that Z_1,1 reproduces (A.16).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Identification of the renormalized wormhole length ℓ_ren = -2χ with Krylov spread complexity (Sec. 3).
    The claim that complexity saturation implies singularity resolution depends on identifying the bulk length with complexity. This identification is borrowed from prior work (Refs. [18-23]) and is not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption The quenched average is the physically correct ensemble average for observables (Eq. (3.13)).
    The plateau behavior and the entire late-time analysis rely on quenched averaging; the annealed average would give indefinite linear growth. The choice is motivated but not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Random-matrix phase cancellation makes off-diagonal TFD contributions vanish for t ≫ e^{S0} (Eqs. (4.8)-(4.10)).
    Standard in random-matrix descriptions, but here applied to a TFD state with a finite number of levels; the crossover and the validity of the approximation are not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The bulk geometry remains global AdS2 with dilaton ansatz (5.5), and the extra matter sector is independent of the dilaton (Sec. 5).
    The bulk description of the resolution is based on an assumed dilaton form and an effective T_ab whose origin is unspecified. This is introduced to realize the modified boundary dynamics in the bulk.
  • ad hoc to paper The equivalence between the ensemble-averaged quantum mechanics with random potentials and the JT/matrix model is assumed at all orders (Eq. (3.6)).
    Only leading and first subleading orders are matched; higher-order matching and compatibility with topological recursion are left to future work (stated in Sec. 6). The singularity-resolution claim presumes this equivalence holds.
invented entities (2)
  • Effective bulk energy-momentum tensor T_ab with negative energy no independent evidence
    purpose: Supports the modified dilaton profile and the 'turnaround' in the bulk; gives negative bulk energy E_bulk = -4C⟨K⟩ (Eq. (5.13)).
    The stress tensor is not derived from a dynamical matter action; it is fixed by requiring nonsingular cutoff behavior (Eq. (5.7)). No independent observational handle is given.
  • Complexity barrier (quantum successor of the event horizon) no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains why no information can pass between the causally connected boundaries despite the disappearance of horizons.
    Introduced as an interpretive notion; no independent measurement is proposed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15782 in / 22970 out tokens · 230381 ms · 2026-08-02T19:55:16.129179+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity, the naive Schwarzian quantum mechanics leads to a continuous bulk spectrum, in apparent contradiction with the finite entropy of the black hole, which requires a discrete spectrum with level spacing of order $e^{-S_0}$. It was recently shown that restoring spectral discreteness with random statistics requires the introduction of a left confining potential that becomes relevant when the renormalized wormhole length reaches order $e^{S_0}$. In this work, we show how the known perturbative results of JT gravity are recovered within this modified framework. More importantly, we demonstrate that this modification has a direct dynamical consequence: it resolves the black-hole singularity. The confining potential generates a repulsive force at exponentially large wormhole length, preventing the indefinite growth that would otherwise lead to a singularity. We explain in detail how this turnaround arises and explore its implications for late-time bulk gravitational dynamics, the disappearance of horizons, and possible observational consequences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.00450 by Chanju Kim, Dongsu Bak, Sang-Heon Yi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Penrose diagram of bulk AdS2 spacetime with horizons and boundary cutoff trajectories. ensemble, ⟨Zb⟩⃗λ ≡ Z d ⃗λP( ⃗λ) Zb( ⃗λ), (3.1) where P( ⃗λ) is the appropriately normalized JT ensemble weight satisfying R d ⃗λP( ⃗λ) = 1. Throughout this work, we take the double-scaling limit in which N → ∞ while the level￾spacing parameter e −S0 is held fixed and small. In the limit, the averaged matrix-model partiti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A schematic form of the potential V (q) = e q + W(q), where the left confining potential W(q) becomes O(1) only when q becomes of −O(e S0 ). With the left confining potential, the spectrum becomes discrete. As discussed in [15], the Schwarzian Hamiltonian in (2.15) gives rise to a continuous spectrum because the Liouville potential e q is not confining as q → −∞. (Throughout this section and the Appendix, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic diagram for complexity vs time. The typical behavior of ramp, top, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The boundary cutoff trajectories, depicted by blue lines, do not touch the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Lower Dimensional Gravity,

    R. Jackiw, “Lower Dimensional Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B252, 343-356 (1985)

    1985

  2. [2]

    Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimen- sions,

    C. Teitelboim, “Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimen- sions,” Phys. Lett. B126, 41-45 (1983)

    1983

  3. [3]

    Models of AdS2 backreaction and holography,

    A. Almheiri and J. Polchinski, “Models of AdS2 backreaction and holography,” JHEP 11, 014 (2015) [arXiv:1402.6334 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    JT gravity as a matrix integral,

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “JT gravity as a matrix integral,” [arXiv:1903.11115 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  5. [5]

    Three Lectures on Complexity and Black Holes,

    L. Susskind, “Three Lectures on Complexity and Black Holes,” Springer, 2020, ISBN 978-3-030-45108-0, 978-3-030-45109-7 [arXiv:1810.11563 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,

    L. Susskind, “Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,” Fortsch. Phys. 64, 24-43 (2016) [arXiv:1403.5695 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Entanglement is not enough,

    L. Susskind, “Entanglement is not enough,” Fortsch. Phys.64, 49-71 (2016) [arXiv:1411.0690 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Complexity of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,

    A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, H. W. Lin, L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius and Y. Zhao, “Complexity of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity,” Phys. Rev. D99, no.4, 046016 (2019) [arXiv:1810.08741 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Complexity and Newton’s Laws,

    L. Susskind, “Complexity and Newton’s Laws,” Front. in Phys.8, 262 (2020) [arXiv:1904.12819 [hep-th]]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Complexity and Momentum,

    L. Susskind and Y. Zhao, “Complexity and Momentum,” JHEP03, 239 (2021) [arXiv:2006.03019 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Conformal symmetry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space,

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford and Z. Yang, “Conformal symmetry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space,” PTEP2016, no.12, 12C104 (2016) [arXiv:1606.01857 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    The Factorization Problem in Jackiw-Teitelboim Grav- ity,

    D. Harlow and D. Jafferis, “The Factorization Problem in Jackiw-Teitelboim Grav- ity,” JHEP02, 177 (2020) [arXiv:1804.01081 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model as Liouville quantum mechanics,

    D. Bagrets, A. Altland and A. Kamenev, “Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model as Liouville quantum mechanics,” Nucl. Phys. B911, 191-205 (2016) [arXiv:1607.00694 [cond- mat.str-el]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Fermionic Localization of the Schwarzian Theory,

    D. Stanford and E. Witten, “Fermionic Localization of the Schwarzian Theory,” JHEP10, 008 (2017) [arXiv:1703.04612 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Discrete bulk spectrum in Jackiw-Teitelboim theory,

    D. Bak, C. Kim and S. H. Yi, “Discrete bulk spectrum in Jackiw-Teitelboim theory,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.12, 126002 [arXiv:2503.00346 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Solvable models of quantum black holes: a review on Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,

    T. G. Mertens and G. J. Turiaci, “Solvable models of quantum black holes: a review on Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity,” Living Rev. Rel.26, no.1, 4 (2023) [arXiv:2210.10846 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Les Houches lectures on two-dimensional gravity and holography,

    G. J. Turiaci, “Les Houches lectures on two-dimensional gravity and holography,” [arXiv:2412.09537 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  18. [18]

    Quantum Complexity of Time Evolution with Chaotic Hamiltonians,

    V. Balasubramanian, M. Decross, A. Kar and O. Parrikar, “Quantum Complexity of Time Evolution with Chaotic Hamiltonians,” JHEP01, 134 (2020) [arXiv:1905.05765 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    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. D106, no.4, 046007 (2022) [arXiv:2202.06957 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Tridiagonalizing random matrices,

    V. Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan and Q. Wu, “Tridiagonalizing random matrices,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.12, 126001 (2023) [arXiv:2208.08452 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Universal chaotic dynamics from Krylov space,

    J. Erdmenger, S. K. Jian and Z. Y. Xian, “Universal chaotic dynamics from Krylov space,” JHEP08, 176 (2023) [arXiv:2303.12151 [hep-th]]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Spread complexity and the saturation of wormhole size,

    V. Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan, P. Nandi and Q. Wu, “Spread complexity and the saturation of wormhole size,” Phys. Rev. D113, no.4, 046004 (2026) [arXiv:2412.02038 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    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(2025), 1-82 [arXiv:2405.09628 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science,

    S. Baiguera, V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M. P. Heller and N. Y. Halpern, “Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science,” Phys. Rept.1159, 1-77 (2026) [arXiv:2503.10753 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Krylov Complexity,

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner, “Krylov Complexity,” [arXiv:2507.06286 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Chaos in AdS 2 Holography,

    K. Jensen, “Chaos in AdS 2 Holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.11, 111601 (2016) [arXiv:1605.06098 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    An investigation of AdS2 backreaction and holography,

    J. Engels¨ oy, T. G. Mertens and H. Verlinde, “An investigation of AdS2 backreaction and holography,” JHEP07, 139 (2016) [arXiv:1606.03438 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Solving the Schwarzian via the Conformal Bootstrap,

    T. G. Mertens, G. J. Turiaci and H. L. Verlinde, “Solving the Schwarzian via the Conformal Bootstrap,” JHEP08, 136 (2017) [arXiv:1705.08408 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    The soft mode in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual,

    A. Kitaev and S. J. Suh, “The soft mode in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual,” JHEP05, 183 (2018) [arXiv:1711.08467 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Quantization of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity with a massless scalar,

    D. Bak, C. Kim and S. H. Yi, “Quantization of Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity with a massless scalar,” JHEP05, 045 (2023) [arXiv:2303.05057 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    M. L. Mehta, Random matrices, third ed., Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 142, Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2004

    2004

  33. [33]

    Random matrices,

    B. Eynard, T. Kimura and S. Ribault, “Random matrices,” [arXiv:1510.04430 [math- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Black Holes and Random Matrices,

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stan- ford, A. Streicher and M. Tezuka, “Black Holes and Random Matrices,” JHEP05, 118 (2017) [erratum: JHEP09, 002 (2018)] [arXiv:1611.04650 [hep-th]]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Topological expansion for the 1-Hermitian matrix model correlation functions,

    B. Eynard, “Topological expansion for the 1-Hermitian matrix model correlation functions,” JHEP11, 031 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0407261 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces,

    M. Mirzakhani, “Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces,” Invent. Math.167, no.1, 179-222 (2006)

    2006

  37. [37]

    Invariants of algebraic curves and topological expan- sion,

    B. Eynard and N. Orantin, “Invariants of algebraic curves and topological expan- sion,” Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.1, 347-452 (2007) [arXiv:math-ph/0702045 [math-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Weil-Petersson volume of moduli spaces, Mirzakhani’s recursion and matrix models,

    B. Eynard and N. Orantin, “Weil-Petersson volume of moduli spaces, Mirzakhani’s recursion and matrix models,” [arXiv:0705.3600 [math-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity,

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity,” [arXiv:1806.06840 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    The path integral of 3D gravity near extremality; or, JT gravity with defects as a matrix integral,

    H. Maxfield and G. J. Turiaci, “The path integral of 3D gravity near extremality; or, JT gravity with defects as a matrix integral,” JHEP01, 118 (2021) [arXiv:2006.11317 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    The volume of the black hole interior at late times,

    L. V. Iliesiu, M. Mezei and G. S´ arosi, “The volume of the black hole interior at late times,” JHEP07, 073 (2022) [arXiv:2107.06286 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    The bulk Hilbert space of double scaled SYK,

    H. W. Lin, “The bulk Hilbert space of double scaled SYK,” JHEP11, 060 (2022) [arXiv:2208.07032 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Jackiw- Teitelboim gravity with matter, generalized eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, and random matrices,

    D. L. Jafferis, D. K. Kolchmeyer, B. Mukhametzhanov and J. Sonner, “Jackiw- Teitelboim gravity with matter, generalized eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, and random matrices,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.6, 066015 (2023) [arXiv:2209.02131 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    On the non-perturbative bulk Hilbert space of JT gravity,

    L. V. Iliesiu, A. Levine, H. W. Lin, H. Maxfield and M. Mezei, “On the non-perturbative bulk Hilbert space of JT gravity,” JHEP10, 220 (2024) [arXiv:2403.08696 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    How the Hilbert space of two-sided black holes factorises,

    J. Boruch, L. V. Iliesiu, G. Lin and C. Yan, “How the Hilbert space of two-sided black holes factorises,” JHEP06, 092 (2025) [arXiv:2406.04396 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Non-perturbative discrete spectrum of interior length and timeshift in two-sided black hole,

    M. Miyaji, “Non-perturbative discrete spectrum of interior length and timeshift in two-sided black hole,” JHEP04, 190 (2025) [arXiv:2410.20662 [hep-th]]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Machine Learns Quantum Complexity,

    D. Bak, S. H. Kim, S. Park and J. P. Song, “Machine Learns Quantum Complexity,” [arXiv:2501.02005 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  48. [48]

    Non-perturbative overlaps in JT gravity: from spectral form factor to generating functions of complexity,

    M. Miyaji, S. M. Ruan, S. Shibuya and K. Yano, “Non-perturbative overlaps in JT gravity: from spectral form factor to generating functions of complexity,” JHEP06, 251 (2025) [arXiv:2502.12266 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Finite N bulk Hilbert space in ETH ma- trix model for double-scaled SYK. Null states, state-dependence and Krylov state complexity,

    M. Miyaji, S. Mori and K. Okuyama, “Finite N bulk Hilbert space in ETH ma- trix model for double-scaled SYK. Null states, state-dependence and Krylov state complexity,” JHEP08, 084 (2025) [arXiv:2505.13194 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    On the reconstruction map in JT gravity,

    C. Akers, A. Lucas and A. Vikram, “On the reconstruction map in JT gravity,” JHEP12, 045 (2025) [arXiv:2506.18975 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Complexity and the Hilbert space dimension of 3D gravity,

    V. Balasubramanian, R. N. Das, J. Erdmenger, J. Karl and H. Verlinde, “Complexity and the Hilbert space dimension of 3D gravity,” [arXiv:2602.02645 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  52. [52]

    A Nonsingular black hole,

    A. Bogojevic and D. Stojkovic, “A Nonsingular black hole,” Phys. Rev. D61(2000), 084011 [arXiv:gr-qc/9804070 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  53. [53]

    Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [54]

    The entropy of Hawking radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian and A. Tajdini, “The entropy of Hawking radiation,” Rev. Mod. Phys.93, no.3, 035002 (2021) [arXiv:2006.06872 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    The ghost in the radiation: robust encodings of the black hole interior (invited paper),

    I. H. Kim, E. Tang and J. Preskill, “The ghost in the radiation: robust encodings of the black hole interior (invited paper),” JHEP06, 031 (2020) [arXiv:2003.05451 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Black Holes in General Relativity,

    V. Balasubramanian, A. Lawrence, J. M. Magan and M. Sasieta, “Microscopic Origin of the Entropy of Black Holes in General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. X14, no.1, 011024 (2024) [arXiv:2212.02447 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Distribution functions in physics: Fundamentals,

    M. Hillery, R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully and E. P. Wigner, “Distribution functions in physics: Fundamentals,” Phys. Rept.106, 121-167 (1984)

    1984

  58. [58]

    Semiclassical Physics,

    M. Brack and R. K. Bhaduri, “Semiclassical Physics,” in Frontiers in Physics, ISBN: 9780201483512, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA (1997). 25

    1997

  59. [59]

    Path-integral approach to the Wigner-Kirkwood expan- sion,

    P. Jizba and V. Zatloukal, “Path-integral approach to the Wigner-Kirkwood expan- sion,” Phys. Rev. E89, 012135 (2014) [arXiv:1309.0206 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014