Probing the self-coherence of primordial quantum fluctuations with complexity

Arpan Bhattacharyya; Arpon Paul; Jacob S. Lund; S. Shajidul Haque; Suddhasattwa Brahma

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Probing the self-coherence of primordial quantum fluctuations with complexity

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A complexity-of-formation curve tells decoherence from recoherence.

desk verdict COF as a recoherence diagnostic is plausible and well-illustrated, but purification-scheme dependence and the imported Eq. (4.9) need a referee's attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09739 v2 pith:TRD3BQVM submitted 2025-02-13 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Arpan Bhattacharyya , Suddhasattwa Brahma , S. Shajidul Haque , Jacob S. Lund , Arpon Paul This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qcquant-ph MSC 81P6883F0581T2081S22

keywords complexityofpurificationformationrecoherencedecoherencedeSittercosmologyprimordialquantumfluctuationsopensystemsGaussianstates

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 studies two interacting scalar fields in a de Sitter background—one massless system field $\varphi$ and one heavy environment field $\chi$—and asks whether quantum-circuit complexity can reveal when the system loses coherence and when it regains it. Its central claim is that the complexity of formation (COF), defined as the difference between the complexity of purification of the interacting theory and that of the free theory, behaves differently for the two types of coupling. With field-field coupling $\lambda\varphi^2\chi$ the COF grows linearly without bound, matching the linear entropy's approach to a maximally mixed state; with momentum-field coupling $\rho\varphi'\chi$ the COF rises transiently, falls, and then saturates, matching the recoherence of the system to a nearly pure state. When both couplings act, COF shows first a recoherence plateau and then a late-time kink followed by linear growth. The paper interprets these features as making COF a diagnostic of decoherence and recoherence whose characteristic timescales coincide with those of linear entropy, and argues this could eventually help certify the quantum origin of primordial density perturbations.

What carries the argument

Complexity of formation (COF): $COF \equiv |COP - COP_{\lambda=0,\rho=0}|$, the absolute difference between the complexity of purification of the interacting two-field state and that of the same state with interactions switched off. The COP itself is the circuit complexity of the purified Gaussian state, minimized over the imaginary part of the parameter $\beta$ in the minimal Gaussian purification ansatz; it is computed from the reduced covariance matrix $\Sigma^{(\varphi\varphi)}$ of the system mode, whose evolution follows $d\Sigma/d\eta = \Omega H\Sigma - \Sigma H\Omega$. The subtraction in COF removes the large complexity growth caused by gravitational squeezing of the free mode, isolating the interaction-driven part. That isolated part is what grows linearly during decoherence and saturates upon recoherence.

What would settle it

Perform the same COF computation with an enlarged or non-Gaussian purification ansatz (or with a different reference-state frequency) and check whether the momentum-field coupling still produces a saturating COF and the field-field coupling a linearly growing one; alternatively, scan the parameter space with $\lambda$ comparable to $M$ and check whether the claimed recoherence plateau disappears together with the linear-entropy recoherence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes, within a Gaussian two-field model in de Sitter space, that the time evolution of the complexity of formation carries a clear signature of both decoherence and recoherence. For field-field coupling the COF grows linearly at late times, corresponding to complete decoherence; for momentum-field coupling it saturates to a constant, corresponding to the system returning to a self-coherent state after a transient period of mixedness. When both couplings are present the COF exhibits an early bump and plateau (recoherence) followed by a sharp kink and linear growth (decoherence). The timescales of these COF features match the timescales extracted from the linear entropy, shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The authors argue this makes COF a more effective probe than the complexity of purification alone, whose late-time growth is dominated by background squeezing and does not distinguish the two cases.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's signatures rely on computing complexity of purification with a specific minimal Gaussian ansatz and subtracting the free-theory complexity, so if that purification scheme is not representative, the saturation-versus-growth distinction may not be a robust property of the system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If COF indeed saturates exactly when linear entropy returns to near zero, then COF gives a complexity-based clock for recoherence that does not require full tomography of the reduced state.
In the combined-coupling regime, the late-time decoherence always wins because the $\lambda$ term carries an $a^2$ factor while the $\rho$ term carries only $a$; COF's late-time linear growth in that regime is a direct probe of this dominance.
Because the recoherence timescale is independent of $\rho$ while the decoherence timescale scales inversely with $\lambda$, COF offers a way to measure coupling strengths from the shape of its evolution.
The paper's method extends the earlier finding that complexity signals decoherence to the more delicate phenomenon of recoherence, strengthening the case that complexity measures can serve as open-quantum-system diagnostics in cosmology.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the COF signatures survive non-minimal purifications, they would provide a purification-independent observable for recoherence; the paper leaves this check open in Sec. 4.
Because only $k$ and $-k$ modes couple, the recoherence signature is a few-mode, non-Markovian effect; COF might therefore serve as a non-Markovianity witness in more general Gaussian open systems.
Applied to inflationary observables, one could test whether the recoherence plateau in COF corresponds to a window in which the curvature perturbation's squeezed vacuum maintains detectable quantum signatures, connecting to potential bispectrum or trispectrum probes.
The $\lambda \ll M$ restriction suggests that in heavier-field parameter space the recoherence signal disappears; a numerical scan beyond this regime could either confirm the diagnostic's reach or reveal a false-positive regime.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper does what it says on the tin. It takes a two-field Gaussian de Sitter model, evolves the covariance matrix numerically, and shows that complexity of formation (COF) — COP minus free-theory COP — distinguishes decoherence (linear growth) from recoherence (saturation), while COP alone does not. The numerics look internally consistent, the plots are clear, and the timescale comparison against linear entropy (Figs. 6 and 7) makes the qualitative claim concrete. The idea of subtracting the background squeezing contribution is sensible.

The new content is specifically the COF growth/saturation dichotomy, which is not in the cited prior work. So the paper deserves a careful read.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. The diagnostic relies on the minimal Gaussian purification ansatz, eq. (4.5), with parameters fixed by eq. (4.9). The authors acknowledge the scheme is a choice and defer going beyond it; that is honest, but it leaves a gap—we do not know whether the growth/saturation signature survives a different purification. Until that is tested, the strong claim that COF is an efficient diagnostic remains conditional. It may well be robust, but this paper does not show it.

There is also a technical point I could not resolve: eq. (4.9) gives tau^2 as a complex number. For a Gaussian exponent one expects a positive-definite width matrix; a complex tau may be a phase convention, but it is not explained. The formula is imported from [57] without derivation. I would ask a referee to request a derivation or a clearer convention.

Minor points: no code or data are released, and the timescale extraction is somewhat manual ('flattens out', 'sufficiently close to 1'). Both are fixable. The lambda << M restriction is explicit, so the recoherence claim is properly scoped. Also, the timescale matching is consistency between two diagnostics on the same covariance matrix, not an independent test; still, the match is not automatic, so it carries some weight.

Bottom line: a solid, honest paper about a plausible diagnostic. It leaves the purification-dependence question open, but it does not pretend otherwise. I would send it to a serious referee, with instructions to focus on eq. (4.9) and to invite a simple test of purification dependence. If I worked in cosmological complexity I would cite it; the COF growth/saturation observation is worth recording.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies two interacting Gaussian scalar fields in a de Sitter background, with the massless field as system and the massive field as environment. It numerically evolves the covariance matrix using Eq. (2.10), then computes linear entropy, complexity of purification (COP), and complexity of formation (COF) for field-field coupling λ, momentum-field coupling ρ, and both couplings. The central claim, stated in Sec. 5.1 and repeated in Sec. 6, is that COF distinguishes decoherence from recoherence: field-field coupling produces complete decoherence with unbounded linear COF growth, while momentum-field coupling produces transient decoherence followed by recoherence with COF saturation. In the two-coupling case the authors report that COF reproduces the early recoherence and late decoherence seen in linear entropy, with matching timescales in Figs. 6 and 7.

Significance. If substantiated, COF would be a useful diagnostic for recoherence in cosmological open systems, complementing linear entropy and avoiding the squeezing background that obscures COP. The manuscript has clear strengths: the Gaussian transport equation and the linear-entropy formula (3.2) are standard, the numerical evolution is internally consistent, and the figures directly compare the relevant quantities. The main reservation is that COF is defined through a particular minimal Gaussian purification ansatz and is compared with a quantity derived from the same reduced covariance matrix, so the significance of the claimed signatures is conditional on scheme independence and on an independent benchmark.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4, Eq. (4.9)] The mapping from the reduced covariance matrix Sigma^(phi phi) to the purification parameters is asserted without derivation. In particular, Eq. (4.9) gives tau^2 = 4(Sigma_12)^2 - 1 + 4i Sigma_12, which is generically complex for real Sigma_12, even though tau appears in the Gaussian exponent of the purified wavefunction (4.5) and the normal-mode frequencies (4.7)-(4.8) depend on tau^2. The authors should derive these relations from the purification condition (4.2) or provide a reference, and explain why the complexification is consistent with a proper Gaussian state.
[Sec. 4, Eq. (4.10)] The central diagnostic claim rests on COF being a robust measure of interaction-driven complexity, but COF is defined relative to the minimal Gaussian purification ansatz (4.5), a choice that the paper itself flags in the footnote of Sec. 4 ('It will be interesting to go beyond the minimal purification scheme'). Without a scheme-independence test, for example non-minimal Gaussian purifications or a different ancillary dimension, the saturation versus growth features in Figs. 3, 6, and 7 could be artifacts of the chosen purification rather than robust signatures of recoherence or decoherence.
[Sec. 5.2, Figs. 6-7] The claimed agreement between COF and linear-entropy timescales is an internal consistency check, not a test against an independent benchmark, because both quantities are computed from the same reduced covariance matrix Sigma^(phi phi) obtained from the same numerical evolution. To establish COF as a diagnostic, the authors should either compare it with an observable not constructed from the same Sigma^(phi phi) or demonstrate that the features survive across purification schemes.
[Sec. 5.2, Fig. 7 and footnote 7] The extraction of decoherence and recoherence timescales relies on visual identification and uses the threshold Sl = 0.998 for linear entropy. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the timescales shown in Fig. 7 to this threshold and to the choice of feature points; as it stands, the 'clear similarity' is not supported by an objective algorithm or error estimates.

minor comments (3)

[Footnote 3] The phrase 'some of theses papers' should be 'some of these papers'.
[Eq. (4.1)] The notation 'arctan(Im(omega)/Re(omega0))' is slightly confusing because omega0 is real; writing arctan(Im(omega)/omega0) would be clearer.
[Fig. 3b] The curve for rho = 0 should exactly vanish by the definition of COF in Eq. (4.10); the authors may want to state this explicitly so that the baseline is not mistaken for a physical feature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: COF is derived from the same Gaussian covariance matrix as linear entropy, so the timescale agreement is an internal consistency check, not a by-construction equivalence or a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The dynamics are fixed by the Gaussian Hamiltonian (2.6)-(2.8), and the reduced covariance matrix Sigma^(phi phi) is obtained by numerically solving the transport equation (2.10) from the Bunch-Davies vacuum, with no parameters fitted to either linear entropy or complexity. Linear entropy is the function (3.2) of det Sigma^(phi phi); COP is the minimization (4.6)-(4.9) over Im(beta); COF is the subtraction (4.10) of the free-theory COP. Neither Eq. (4.6) nor Eq. (4.10) is defined in terms of linear entropy, so the agreement between Sl and COF timescales in Figs. 6-7 is a computed consequence of a shared input, not a definitional equality. The minimal Gaussian purification ansatz (4.5) is imported from Refs. [39,57,81] and is explicitly flagged in Sec. 4 as a choice to be revisited, not as a uniqueness theorem. The recoherence phenomenon itself is taken from Ref. [8], which is an external group. Self-citations to Ref. [10] support earlier complexity-decoherence observations, but the present computation reproduces those features directly from the same evolution. The main epistemic limitation is that comparing COF with linear entropy is an internal consistency check rather than an external falsification, since both quantities are evaluated on the same numerically obtained covariance matrix; that limits the strength of the diagnostic claim but does not constitute circularity under the definitions used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. It does introduce a diagnostic quantity, COF, which is defined from existing complexity measures, and it relies on several modeling choices (Gaussian EFT, Bunch-Davies vacuum, minimal Gaussian purification, heavy-field quenching) that are stated but not independently validated.

free parameters (6)

lambda (field-field coupling) = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 in figures
Chosen by hand to explore coupling regimes; not fitted to data. The analysis restricts to lambda << M because that regime allows recoherence.
rho (momentum-field coupling) = 0, 3, 5, 7 in figures
Chosen by hand; larger rho increases the transient decoherence peak but not the recoherence timescale.
M (heavy field mass) = 4 H with H = 1
Hand-selected mass scale ensuring the entropic field is heavy enough for its decaying mode to quench the momentum coupling and produce recoherence.
k (comoving momentum) = 1
Single Fourier mode tracked in all figures; the analysis does not examine mode dependence of the COF signatures.
omega_0 (reference frequency in COP) = 1
Set for convenience in eq. (4.6); affects absolute COP values but the paper argues qualitative COF features are unchanged.
Sl decoherence threshold = 0.998
Hand-chosen benchmark in Sec. 5.2 footnote for defining the decoherence timescale from linear entropy; affects the reported timescale comparison.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The two-field Gaussian action (2.2) captures the relevant EFT of adiabatic and entropic fluctuations during inflation, with the zeta-prime F term as the shift-symmetric leading-order coupling.
Sec. 2 and eq. (2.3), imported from refs. [8, 69]. If higher-order or non-Gaussian terms matter, the toy model and its COF signatures may not persist.
domain assumption The initial state is the Bunch-Davies vacuum and the reduced dynamics is governed by the covariance-matrix transport equation (2.10).
Sec. 2, eqs. (2.9)-(2.10). Standard in cosmological open quantum systems, but no explicit initial covariance matrix or numerical verification is given.
ad hoc to paper COP can be computed with minimal Gaussian purification, with the purified wavefunction ansatz (4.5) and parameters fixed by (4.9).
Sec. 4. The paper acknowledges that going beyond minimal purification is left for future studies, so the complexity measure is scheme-dependent.
ad hoc to paper The COF subtraction in eq. (4.10), using the free-theory COP as baseline, isolates interaction-driven complexity from background squeezing.
Defined in Sec. 4. This normalization is essential for the saturation-versus-growth signature and is not independently derived.
domain assumption The heavy field's decaying mode quenches the momentum coupling after horizon crossing, so the interaction effectively switches off.
Sec. 5.2, final paragraph. Required for recoherence; holds only for sufficiently massive chi with lambda << M.
standard math Numerical integration of the Gaussian transport equation and minimization over Im(beta) accurately realize the stated formulas.
Sec. 5. No code, solver details, or convergence tests are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the self-coherence of primordial quantum fluctuations with complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRD3BQVM

@misc{pith2026250209739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the self-coherence of primordial quantum fluctuations with complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRD3BQVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09739}
}

read the original abstract

A smoking gun for our current paradigm of the early universe would be direct evidence for the quantum mechanical origin of density perturbations which are conjectured to seed the large scale structure of our universe. A recently-proposed novel phenomenon is that of recoherence, wherein a specific interaction between the adiabatic and the entropic sector leads to the adiabatic mode retaining a coherent state after a transient increase in linear entropy. In this paper, we choose the most general Gaussian action and analyze the evolution of linear entropy, complexity of purification (COP), and complexity of formation (COF) to capture the interplay between decoherence and recoherence in this model. In the presence of two types of couplings that drive these two opposing characteristics, we highlight how COF is an efficient tool for diagnosing dynamics for such an open quantum system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A Landscape of Cosmological Decoherence
gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Requiring decohered cosmological perturbations to admit a classical P-function forces their momentum variance above the vacuum value, and demanding a linear gravitational potential at reheating bounds that variance by...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[57]

Bhattacharyya, S.S

A. Bhattacharyya, S.S. Haque and E.H. Kim, Complexity from the reduced density matrix: a new diagnostic for chaos , JHEP 10 (2021) 028 [ 2011.04705]

arXiv 2021
[1]

Lehners, Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology , Phys

J.-L. Lehners, Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology , Phys. Rept. 465 (2008) 223 [ 0806.1245]

arXiv 2008
[2]

Brandenberger and C

R. Brandenberger and C. Vafa, Superstrings in the early universe , Nuclear Physics B 316 (1989) 391

1989
[3]

Brahma, R

S. Brahma, R. Brandenberger and S. Laliberte, Emergent cosmology from matrix theory , JHEP 03 (2022) 067 [ 2107.11512]

arXiv 2022
[4]

Berera, Warm inflation , Phys

A. Berera, Warm inflation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3218 [ astro-ph/9509049]

arXiv 1995
[5]

Brahma, J

S. Brahma, J. Calder´ on-Figueroa and X. Luo, Time-convolutionless cosmological master equations: Late-time resummations and decoherence for non-local kernels , 2407.12091

arXiv
[6]

Brahma, A

S. Brahma, A. Berera and J. Calder´ on-Figueroa, Quantum corrections to the primordial tensor spectrum: open EFTs & Markovian decoupling of UV modes , JHEP 08 (2022) 225 [2206.05797]

arXiv 2022
[7]

Shandera, N

S. Shandera, N. Agarwal and A. Kamal, Open quantum cosmological system , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 083535 [ 1708.00493]

arXiv 2018

Show all 82 references

[8]

Colas, J

T. Colas, J. Grain and V. Vennin, Quantum recoherence in the early universe , 2212.09486

arXiv
[9]

Burgess, T

C.P. Burgess, T. Colas, R. Holman, G. Kaplanek and V. Vennin, Cosmic purity lost: perturbative and resummed late-time inflationary decoherence , JCAP 08 (2024) 042 [2403.12240]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Bhattacharyya, S

A. Bhattacharyya, S. Brahma, S. Haque, J.S. Lund and A. Paul, The early universe as an open quantum system: complexity and decoherence , JHEP 2024 (2024)

2024
[11]

Bhattacharyya, S

A. Bhattacharyya, S. Das, S. Shajidul Haque and B. Underwood, Cosmological Complexity, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 106020 [ 2001.08664]

2020 arXiv
[12]

Bhattacharyya, S

A. Bhattacharyya, S. Das, S.S. Haque and B. Underwood, Rise of cosmological complexity: Saturation of growth and chaos , Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 033273 [ 2005.10854]

2020 arXiv
[13]

Haque, C

S.S. Haque, C. Jana and B. Underwood, Saturation of thermal complexity of purification , JHEP 01 (2022) 159 [ 2107.08969]. – 17 –

2022 arXiv
[14]

Haque, C

S.S. Haque, C. Jana and B. Underwood, Operator complexity for quantum scalar fields and cosmological perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 063510 [ 2110.08356]

2022 arXiv
[15]

Lehners and J

J.-L. Lehners and J. Quintin, Quantum Circuit Complexity of Primordial Perturbations , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 063527 [ 2012.04911]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Liu and A.-C

L.-H. Liu and A.-C. Li, Complexity of non-trivial sound speed in inflation , Phys. Dark Univ. 37 (2022) 101123 [ 2102.12014]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Saha and M

P. Saha and M. Park, Primordial cosmic complexity and effects of reheating , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 083520 [ 2212.13723]

2023 arXiv
[18]

Li and L.-H

T. Li and L.-H. Liu, Cosmological complexity of the modified dispersion relation , 2309.01595

arXiv
[19]

Nielsen, A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds , Science 311 (2006) 92 [0502070]

M.A. Nielsen, A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds , Science 311 (2006) 92 [0502070]

2006
[20]

Nielsen, M

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

2006
[21]

Nielsen, M

M.R. Nielsen, M. A.and Dowling, The geometry of quantum computation , Science 311 (2006) 1133 [ 0701004]

2006
[22]

Jefferson and R.C

R. Jefferson and R.C. Myers, Circuit complexity in quantum field theory , JHEP 10 (2017) 107 [1707.08570]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Chapman, M.P

S. Chapman, M.P. Heller, H. Marrochio and F. Pastawski, Toward a Definition of Complexity for Quantum Field Theory States , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 121602 [ 1707.08582]

2018 arXiv
[24]

Bhattacharyya, P

A. Bhattacharyya, P. Caputa, S.R. Das, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji and T. Takayanagi, Path-Integral Complexity for Perturbed CFTs , JHEP 07 (2018) 086 [ 1804.01999]

2018 arXiv
[25]

Caputa, N

P. Caputa, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, Liouville Action as Path-Integral Complexity: From Continuous Tensor Networks to AdS/CFT , JHEP 11 (2017) 097 [1706.07056]

2017 arXiv
[26]

T. Ali, A. Bhattacharyya, S. Shajidul Haque, E.H. Kim and N. Moynihan, Time Evolution of Complexity: A Critique of Three Methods , JHEP 04 (2019) 087 [ 1810.02734]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Bhattacharyya, A

A. Bhattacharyya, A. Shekar and A. Sinha, Circuit complexity in interacting QFTs and RG flows, JHEP 10 (2018) 140 [ 1808.03105]

2018 arXiv
[28]

Hackl and R.C

L. Hackl and R.C. Myers, Circuit complexity for free fermions , JHEP 07 (2018) 139 [1803.10638]

2018 arXiv
[29]

R. Khan, C. Krishnan and S. Sharma, Circuit Complexity in Fermionic Field Theory , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 126001 [ 1801.07620]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Camargo, P

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 (2019) 081601 [1807.07075]

2019 arXiv
[31]

T. Ali, A. Bhattacharyya, S. Shajidul Haque, E.H. Kim and N. Moynihan, Post-Quench Evolution of Complexity and Entanglement in a Topological System , Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135919 [ 1811.05985]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Caputa and J.M

P. Caputa and J.M. Magan, Quantum Computation as Gravity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 231302 [1807.04422]. – 18 –

2019 arXiv
[33]

M. Guo, J. Hernandez, R.C. Myers and S.-M. Ruan, Circuit Complexity for Coherent States , JHEP 10 (2018) 011 [ 1807.07677]

2018 arXiv
[34]

Bhattacharyya, P

A. Bhattacharyya, P. Nandy and A. Sinha, Renormalized Circuit Complexity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 101602 [ 1907.08223]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Flory and M.P

M. Flory and M.P. Heller, Geometry of Complexity in Conformal Field Theory , Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 043438 [ 2005.02415]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Erdmenger, M

J. Erdmenger, M. Gerbershagen and A.-L. Weigel, Complexity measures from geometric actions on Virasoro and Kac-Moody orbits , JHEP 11 (2020) 003 [ 2004.03619]

2020 arXiv
[37]

T. Ali, A. Bhattacharyya, S.S. Haque, E.H. Kim, N. Moynihan and J. Murugan, Chaos and Complexity in Quantum Mechanics , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 026021 [ 1905.13534]

2020 arXiv
[38]

Bhattacharyya, W

A. Bhattacharyya, W. Chemissany, S. Shajidul Haque and B. Yan, Towards the web of quantum chaos diagnostics , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 87 [ 1909.01894]

2022 arXiv
[39]

Caceres, S

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 03 (2020) 012 [ 1909.10557]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Bhattacharyya, W

A. Bhattacharyya, W. Chemissany, S.S. Haque, J. Murugan and B. Yan, The Multi-faceted Inverted Harmonic Oscillator: Chaos and Complexity , SciPost Phys. Core 4 (2021) 002 [2007.01232]

2021 arXiv
[41]

F. Liu, S. Whitsitt, J.B. Curtis, R. Lundgren, P. Titum, Z.-C. Yang et al., Circuit complexity across a topological phase transition , Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 013323 [ 1902.10720]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Susskind and Y

L. Susskind and Y. Zhao, Complexity and Momentum , 2006.03019

2006 arXiv
[43]

B. Chen, B. Czech and Z.-z. Wang, Cutoff Dependence and Complexity of the CFT 2 Ground State, 2004.11377

2004 arXiv
[44]

Czech, Einstein Equations from Varying Complexity , Phys

B. Czech, Einstein Equations from Varying Complexity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 031601 [1706.00965]

2018 arXiv
[45]

Chapman, J

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

2019 arXiv
[46]

Geng, T ¯T Deformation and the Complexity=Volume Conjecture , Fortsch

H. Geng, T ¯T Deformation and the Complexity=Volume Conjecture , Fortsch. Phys. 68 (2020) 2000036 [1910.08082]

2020 arXiv
[47]

Guo, Z.-Y

M. Guo, Z.-Y. Fan, J. Jiang, X. Liu and B. Chen, Circuit complexity for generalized coherent states in thermal field dynamics , Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 126007 [ 2004.00344]

2020 arXiv
[48]

Couch, Y

J. Couch, Y. Fan and S. Shashi, Circuit Complexity in Topological Quantum Field Theory , 2108.13427

arXiv
[49]

Erdmenger, M

J. Erdmenger, M. Flory, M. Gerbershagen, M.P. Heller and A.-L. Weigel, Exact Gravity Duals for Simple Quantum Circuits , 2112.12158

arXiv
[50]

Chagnet, S

N. Chagnet, S. Chapman, J. de Boer and C. Zukowski, Complexity for Conformal Field Theories in General Dimensions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 051601 [ 2103.06920]

2022 arXiv
[51]

R.d.M. Koch, M. Kim and H.J.R. Van Zyl, Complexity from spinning primaries , JHEP 12 (2021) 030 [ 2108.10669]

2021 arXiv
[52]

Banerjee, A

A. Banerjee, A. Bhattacharyya, P. Drashni and S. Pawar, From CFTs to theories with Bondi-Metzner-Sachs symmetries: Complexity and out-of-time-ordered correlators , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 126022 [ 2205.15338]. – 19 –

2022 arXiv
[53]

Bhattacharyya, G

A. Bhattacharyya, G. Katoch and S.R. Roy, Complexity of warped conformal field theory , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 33 [ 2202.09350]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Bhattacharyya and P

A. Bhattacharyya and P. Nandi, Circuit complexity for Carrollian Conformal (BMS) field theories, JHEP 07 (2023) 105 [ 2301.12845]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Bhattacharyya, T

A. Bhattacharyya, T. Hanif, S.S. Haque and A. Paul, Decoherence, entanglement negativity, and circuit complexity for an open quantum system , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 106007 [2210.09268]

2023 arXiv
[56]

Bhattacharyya, T

A. Bhattacharyya, T. Hanif, S.S. Haque and M.K. Rahman, Complexity for an open quantum system , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 046011 [ 2112.03955]

2022 arXiv
[58]

Craps, M

B. Craps, M. De Clerck, O. Evnin and P. Hacker, Integrability and complexity in quantum spin chains , 2305.00037

arXiv
[59]

Jaiswal, M

N. Jaiswal, M. Gautam and T. Sarkar, Complexity, information geometry, and Loschmidt echo near quantum criticality , J. Stat. Mech. 2207 (2022) 073105 [ 2110.02099]

2022 arXiv
[60]

Jaiswal, M

N. Jaiswal, M. Gautam and T. Sarkar, Complexity and information geometry in the transverse XY model , Phys. Rev. E 104 (2021) 024127 [ 2005.03532]

2021 arXiv
[61]

Bhattacharya, A

A. Bhattacharya, A. Bhattacharyya and S. Maulik, Pseudocomplexity of purification for free scalar field theories , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 086010 [ 2209.00049]

2022 arXiv
[62]

Chapman and G

S. Chapman and G. Policastro, Quantum Computational Complexity – From Quantum Information to Black Holes and Back , 2110.14672

arXiv
[63]

Bhattacharyya, Circuit complexity and (some of ) its applications , Int

A. Bhattacharyya, Circuit complexity and (some of ) its applications , Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 30 (2021) 2130005

2021
[64]

Katoch, Investigations of LST and WCFT using complexity as a probe , Ph.D

G. Katoch, Investigations of LST and WCFT using complexity as a probe , Ph.D. thesis, Indian Inst. Tech., Hyderabad, 8, 2023

2023
[65]

Aguilar-Gutierrez, De Sitter space, complexity, and the double-scaled SYK model , Ph.D

S.E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, De Sitter space, complexity, and the double-scaled SYK model , Ph.D. thesis, Leuven U., 2024. 2406.19089

2024 arXiv
[66]

Caldeira and A.J

A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Influence of dissipation on quantum tunneling in macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 (1981) 211

1981
[67]

Martin, A

J. Martin, A. Micheli and V. Vennin, Discord and decoherence, JCAP 04 (2022) 051 [2112.05037]

2022 arXiv
[68]

Martin, A

J. Martin, A. Micheli and V. Vennin, Comparing quantumness criteria , EPL 142 (2023) 18001 [2211.10114]

2023 arXiv
[69]

Assassi, D

V. Assassi, D. Baumann, D. Green and L. McAllister, Planck-Suppressed Operators, JCAP 01 (2014) 033 [ 1304.5226]

2014 arXiv
[70]

Colas, C

T. Colas, C. de Rham and G. Kaplanek, Decoherence out of fire: purity loss in expanding and contracting universes , JCAP 05 (2024) 025 [ 2401.02832]

2024 arXiv
[71]

Brahma, J

S. Brahma, J. Calder´ on-Figueroa, X. Luo and D. Seery, The special case of slow-roll attractors in de Sitter: Non-Markovian noise and evolution of entanglement entropy , 2411.08632. – 20 –

arXiv
[72]

Colas, J

T. Colas, J. Grain and V. Vennin, Benchmarking the cosmological master equations , The European Physical Journal C 82 (2022) 1085

2022
[73]

Burgess, Intro to Effective Field Theories and Inflation , 1711.10592

C.P. Burgess, Intro to Effective Field Theories and Inflation , 1711.10592

arXiv
[74]

Shiu and J

G. Shiu and J. Xu, Effective Field Theory and Decoupling in Multi-field Inflation: An Illustrative Case Study , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 103509 [ 1108.0981]

2011 arXiv
[75]

Pinol, Multifield inflation beyond Nfield = 2: non-Gaussianities and single-field effective theory, JCAP 04 (2021) 002 [ 2011.05930]

L. Pinol, Multifield inflation beyond Nfield = 2: non-Gaussianities and single-field effective theory, JCAP 04 (2021) 002 [ 2011.05930]

2021 arXiv
[76]

Pinol, S

L. Pinol, S. Aoki, S. Renaux-Petel and M. Yamaguchi, Inflationary flavor oscillations and the cosmic spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) L021301 [ 2112.05710]

2023 arXiv
[77]

Tolley and D.H

A.J. Tolley and D.H. Wesley, Scale-invariance in expanding and contracting universes from two-field models, JCAP 05 (2007) 006 [ hep-th/0703101]

2007 arXiv
[78]

Paris, F

M.G.A. Paris, F. Illuminati, A. Serafini and S. De Siena, Purity of gaussian states: Measurement schemes and time evolution in noisy channels , Physical Review A 68 (2003)

2003
[79]

Ag´ on, M

C.A. Ag´ on, M. Headrick and B. Swingle, Subsystem Complexity and Holography , JHEP 02 (2019) 145 [ 1804.01561]

2019 arXiv
[80]

Ghodrati, X.-M

M. Ghodrati, X.-M. Kuang, B. Wang, C.-Y. Zhang and Y.-T. Zhou, The connection between holographic entanglement and complexity of purification , JHEP 09 (2019) 009 [ 1902.02475]

2019 arXiv
[81]

Bhattacharyya, T

A. Bhattacharyya, T. Takayanagi and K. Umemoto, Entanglement of Purification in Free Scalar Field Theories , JHEP 04 (2018) 132 [ 1802.09545]

2018 arXiv
[82]

Colas, J

T. Colas, J. Grain and V. Vennin, Four-mode squeezed states: two-field quantum systems and the symplectic group Sp(4, R), Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 6 [ 2104.14942]. – 21 –

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [57]

Bhattacharyya, S.S

A. Bhattacharyya, S.S. Haque and E.H. Kim, Complexity from the reduced density matrix: a new diagnostic for chaos , JHEP 10 (2021) 028 [ 2011.04705]

arXiv 2021

[2] [1]

Lehners, Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology , Phys

J.-L. Lehners, Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology , Phys. Rept. 465 (2008) 223 [ 0806.1245]

arXiv 2008

[3] [2]

Brandenberger and C

R. Brandenberger and C. Vafa, Superstrings in the early universe , Nuclear Physics B 316 (1989) 391

1989

[4] [3]

Brahma, R

S. Brahma, R. Brandenberger and S. Laliberte, Emergent cosmology from matrix theory , JHEP 03 (2022) 067 [ 2107.11512]

arXiv 2022

[5] [4]

Berera, Warm inflation , Phys

A. Berera, Warm inflation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3218 [ astro-ph/9509049]

arXiv 1995

[6] [5]

Brahma, J

S. Brahma, J. Calder´ on-Figueroa and X. Luo, Time-convolutionless cosmological master equations: Late-time resummations and decoherence for non-local kernels , 2407.12091

arXiv

[7] [6]

Brahma, A

S. Brahma, A. Berera and J. Calder´ on-Figueroa, Quantum corrections to the primordial tensor spectrum: open EFTs & Markovian decoupling of UV modes , JHEP 08 (2022) 225 [2206.05797]

arXiv 2022

[8] [7]

Shandera, N

S. Shandera, N. Agarwal and A. Kamal, Open quantum cosmological system , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 083535 [ 1708.00493]

arXiv 2018