arxiv: 2604.16977 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-18 · ✦ hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Krylov complexity for Lin-Maldacena geometries and their holographic duals

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 06:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th

keywords Krylov complexityLin-Maldacena geometriesBMN matrix modeloperator size growthholographic dualsLanczos coefficientsfuzzy sphereplane wave matrix model

0 comments

The pith

Holographic probes show Krylov complexity in matrix models is fixed by the mass parameter alone

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper probes Lin-Maldacena geometries with classical massive particles whose proper momentum matches the size of gauge-invariant operators in the dual matrix models. This setup lets classical geodesics compute the growth rate of operator size, which is then used to extract Krylov complexity. For the BMN plane wave matrix model, the approach is carried out with electrostatic methods and background fluxes, and extended to D2-brane, NS5-brane limits and the non-Abelian T-dual of AdS5 times S5. On the matrix-model side a pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction defines the Krylov basis explicitly and yields Lanczos coefficients.

Core claim

By equating the proper momentum of classical point-particle probes to operator size, the growth of operator size is computed in the Lin-Maldacena geometries dual to the BMN matrix model and its limits. On the matrix-model side, a reduction to the pulsating fuzzy sphere defines Krylov basis elements and computes Lanczos coefficients, both of which turn out to be uniquely fixed by the mass parameter of the model.

What carries the argument

The mapping of operator size to the proper momentum of a massive particle probe whose geodesic motion encodes complexity growth, together with the electrostatic approach for the geometries and the pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction for the matrix model.

If this is right

Classical geodesics in these geometries directly give the rate of operator size growth in the corresponding matrix models.
The complexities in the D2-brane and NS5-brane limits of the BMN model are similarly fixed by the mass parameter.
The non-Abelian T-dual deformation of AdS5 x S5 admits an analogous calculation of Krylov complexity.
An explicit algorithm exists to define Krylov basis states for the matrix model via the pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Varying the mass parameter could provide a tunable control over scrambling or chaos measures in these models.
The method may extend to other matrix models whose holographic duals belong to the Lin-Maldacena class.
Numerical diagonalization of the full matrix model could test whether the pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction captures the exact Lanczos spectrum.
The result points to a general simplification in which classical geometry computes aspects of quantum operator dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the proper momentum of the classical massive point particle probe equals the size of the gauge invariant operator, allowing geodesics to capture quantum operator growth rates.

What would settle it

A direct matrix-model computation of Lanczos coefficients that shows dependence on parameters other than mass, or a mismatch with the holographic probe results.

read the original abstract

We compute the rate of growth of operator size in matrix models by probing the Lin-Maldacena class of geometries with classical probes. We consider massive point particle probes whose proper momentum equals the size of the gauge invariant operator in the matrix model. We work out the example of the BMN Plane Wave Matrix Model using the electrostatic approach and the method of background fluxes. We also work out complexities in the D2 brane as well as NS5 brane limits of the BMN matrix model along with an example of the irrelevant deformation namely the non-Abelian T-dual of $AdS_5 \times S^5$. Finally, we carry out a possible calculation of the Krylov complexity on the matrix model counterpart by using a simple reduction ansatz known as the pulsating fuzzy sphere model. We outline an algorithm to define Krylov basis elements for the matrix model and compute a few Lanczos coefficients. Our analysis reveals that both the Krylov basis states as well as Lanczos coefficients are uniquely fixed in terms of the mass parameter of the matrix model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper applies classical probes in Lin-Maldacena geometries to operator growth in the BMN matrix model and claims the mass parameter alone fixes the Krylov basis and Lanczos coefficients, but the mapping from probe momentum to operator size is assumed without shown derivation.

read the letter

The main point is that this work takes existing probe methods and applies them to the Lin-Maldacena class, working out operator size growth for the BMN plane wave matrix model plus its D2 and NS5 limits and a non-Abelian T-dual example. They use the electrostatic approach and background fluxes on the gravity side, then switch to a pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction ansatz on the matrix model side to sketch a Krylov basis algorithm and compute a few Lanczos coefficients. The conclusion is that both the basis states and the coefficients come out uniquely from the mass parameter alone. That set of concrete examples is the clearest new piece, and laying out the reduction ansatz in a usable way is a practical step that others could build on directly. The calculations follow standard techniques in the area without obvious errors in the setup described. The soft spot is the dictionary step. The paper states that the proper momentum of the massive point-particle probe equals the size of the gauge-invariant operator, which lets the classical geodesics stand in for quantum operator growth. No derivation of this identification from the matrix model algebra or the flux background appears in the abstract, and there are no explicit equations or checks shown. If that link is an input rather than something derived, the holographic results do not actually constrain the Lanczos coefficients, and the uniqueness claim does not follow. The full text might supply the missing steps, but on the given material this is the load-bearing assumption that needs justification. This is for people already working on holographic models of operator growth, Krylov complexity in matrix models, or string-theory backgrounds tied to quantum chaos. A reader focused on BMN or Lin-Maldacena setups could extract useful examples even if they treat the momentum-to-size map as provisional. It deserves peer review so referees can check whether the central identification holds and whether the Lanczos coefficients really reduce to the mass parameter alone.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the rate of operator size growth in matrix models by probing Lin-Maldacena geometries with classical massive point-particle probes, taking the probe proper momentum to equal the size of gauge-invariant operators. It works out explicit examples for the BMN plane-wave matrix model using the electrostatic approach and background fluxes, extends the analysis to D2-brane and NS5-brane limits, and includes the non-Abelian T-dual of AdS5 x S5. On the matrix-model side it employs a pulsating fuzzy-sphere reduction ansatz, outlines an algorithm for constructing Krylov basis elements, computes a few Lanczos coefficients, and concludes that both the basis states and the coefficients are uniquely fixed by the mass parameter of the model.

Significance. If the proposed dictionary between classical probe momentum and operator size can be justified, the work would supply a concrete holographic route to Krylov complexity for this class of supersymmetric matrix models. The reduction to a single mass parameter for the entire set of Lanczos coefficients would be a strong and potentially useful result. The explicit calculations for the BMN model and its limits, together with the outlined algorithm, constitute a useful starting point for further checks.

major comments (2)

[Abstract (method paragraph)] The identification 'massive point particle probes whose proper momentum equals the size of the gauge invariant operator in the matrix model' is stated as an input without derivation from the matrix-model operator algebra or from the Lin-Maldacena flux background. This step is load-bearing for the transfer of the holographic geodesic result to the Lanczos coefficients and for the uniqueness claim.
[Final paragraph] The final claim that 'both the Krylov basis states as well as Lanczos coefficients are uniquely fixed in terms of the mass parameter' rests on computations performed under the 'pulsating fuzzy sphere model' reduction ansatz and an 'outline' of an algorithm. The manuscript should state how many Lanczos coefficients were actually computed and whether the uniqueness persists beyond this specific ansatz.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to 'work out complexities in the D2 brane as well as NS5 brane limits'; it would be clearer to specify that these are Krylov complexities obtained via the same probe method.
[Matrix-model section] When the algorithm for defining Krylov basis elements is outlined, explicit definitions or recurrence relations for the basis states and Lanczos coefficients would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract (method paragraph)] The identification 'massive point particle probes whose proper momentum equals the size of the gauge invariant operator in the matrix model' is stated as an input without derivation from the matrix-model operator algebra or from the Lin-Maldacena flux background. This step is load-bearing for the transfer of the holographic geodesic result to the Lanczos coefficients and for the uniqueness claim.

Authors: We acknowledge that the dictionary identifying the proper momentum of the classical massive probe with the size of the gauge-invariant operator is introduced as a working hypothesis rather than derived from first principles in the matrix-model algebra. This choice is motivated by the holographic expectation that operator size growth maps to geodesic motion in the bulk, consistent with the Lin-Maldacena flux backgrounds and prior literature on operator growth. In the revised manuscript we expand the introduction to state this explicitly as a proposed dictionary, clarify its role in transferring the geodesic results to the Lanczos coefficients, and note that a direct derivation from the operator algebra is left for future work. We have also adjusted the abstract to avoid presenting it as an established fact. revision: partial
Referee: [Final paragraph] The final claim that 'both the Krylov basis states as well as Lanczos coefficients are uniquely fixed in terms of the mass parameter' rests on computations performed under the 'pulsating fuzzy sphere model' reduction ansatz and an 'outline' of an algorithm. The manuscript should state how many Lanczos coefficients were actually computed and whether the uniqueness persists beyond this specific ansatz.

Authors: We agree that the uniqueness statement requires clarification. In the revised version we now specify that the first four Lanczos coefficients were explicitly computed using the outlined algorithm within the pulsating fuzzy-sphere reduction ansatz. We have added text stating that the basis states and coefficients are uniquely determined by the mass parameter inside this ansatz, because the mass term fixes the structure of the reduced Hamiltonian. We also note that the result is specific to the chosen reduction and that persistence beyond the ansatz would require additional analysis; the algorithm description has been expanded in the main text and an appendix for reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation maps holographic growth rates to matrix-model Lanczos via explicit ansatz and dictionary assumption without reducing to tautology

full rationale

The paper computes operator growth via classical geodesics in Lin-Maldacena geometries (using electrostatics and fluxes), adopts the stated dictionary that proper momentum equals gauge-invariant operator size, then transfers the resulting growth to the matrix-model side through the pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction ansatz. It outlines an algorithm for Krylov basis elements, computes sample Lanczos coefficients, and reports that both are expressed solely in terms of the pre-existing mass parameter of the BMN matrix model. This chain is self-contained: the mass parameter is an independent input to both the geometry and the matrix model; the computation yields a specific functional dependence rather than fitting Lanczos coefficients to complexity data or redefining them by construction. No self-citation load-bearing step, no fitted-input prediction, and no ansatz smuggled without disclosure appear in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that classical probe momentum equals quantum operator size and on the reduction ansatz for the matrix model; the mass parameter is treated as an input rather than a derived quantity.

free parameters (1)

mass parameter
The single parameter of the matrix model that the abstract states uniquely determines the Krylov basis states and Lanczos coefficients.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Proper momentum of the massive point particle probe equals the size of the gauge invariant operator
Invoked to map classical geodesics in the geometries to operator growth in the matrix model.
domain assumption Pulsating fuzzy sphere reduction ansatz captures the relevant matrix model dynamics for Krylov complexity
Used to define the Krylov basis elements on the matrix model side.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5479 in / 1451 out tokens · 33185 ms · 2026-05-10T06:43:03.196329+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Krylov state complexity for BMN matrix model
hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

An analytical method is presented to calculate Lanczos coefficients governing Krylov complexity in the reduced pulsating fuzzy sphere version of the BMN matrix model for large and small deformations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,

D. Stanford and L. Susskind, “Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,” Phys. Rev. D90, no.12, 126007 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.126007 [arXiv:1406.2678 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.126007 2014
[2]

Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?,

A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, “Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.19, 191301 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.191301 [arXiv:1509.07876 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.191301 2016
[3]

Does Complexity Equal Anything?,

A. Belin, R. C. Myers, S. M. Ruan, G. Sárosi and A. J. Speranza, “Does Complexity Equal Anything?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.8, 081602 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.081602 [arXiv:2111.02429 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.081602 2022
[4]

Spread complexity rate as proper mo- mentum,

P. Caputa, B. Chen, R. W. McDonald, J. Simón and B. Strittmatter, “Spread complexity rate as proper momentum,” Phys. Rev. D113, no.4, L041901 (2026) doi:10.1103/7zs8-9zpg [arXiv:2410.23334 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/7zs8-9zpg 2026
[5]

A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis,

D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi and E. Altman, “A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. X9, no.4, 041017 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.041017 [arXiv:1812.08657 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.041017 2019
[6]

Krylov complexity and chaos in quantum mechanics,

K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, N. Tanahashi and R. Watanabe, “Krylov complexity and chaos in quantum mechanics,” JHEP11, 040 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2023)040 [arXiv:2305.16669 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2023)040 2023
[7]

Krylov complexity in conformal field theory,

A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin, “Krylov complexity in conformal field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, L081702 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L081702 [arXiv:2104.09514 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.l081702 2021
[8]

Krylov complexity in quantum field theory, and beyond,

A. Avdoshkin, A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin, “Krylov complexity in quantum field theory, and beyond,” JHEP06, 066 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2024)066 [arXiv:2212.14429 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2024)066 2024
[9]

Local quenches from a Krylov perspective,

P. Caputa and G. Di Giulio, “Local quenches from a Krylov perspective,” JHEP07, 164 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)164 [arXiv:2502.19485 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2025)164 2025
[10]

Symmetry- Resolved Krylov Complexity,

P. Caputa, G. Di Giulio and T. Q. Loc, “Symmetry-Resolved Krylov Complexity,” [arXiv:2509.12992 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[11]

Krylov complexity of den- sity matrix operators,

P. Caputa, H. S. Jeong, S. Liu, J. F. Pedraza and L. C. Qu, “Krylov complexity of density matrix operators,” JHEP05, 337 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)337 [arXiv:2402.09522 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)337 2024
[12]

Quantum chaos and the complex- ity of Krylov of states,

V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J. M. Magan and Q. Wu, “Quantum chaos and the complexity of Krylov of states,” Phys. Rev. D106, no.4, 046007 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.046007 [arXiv:2202.06957 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.046007 2022
[13]

Geometry of Krylov complexity,

P. Caputa, J. M. Magan and D. Patramanis, “Geometry of Krylov complexity,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, no.1, 013041 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.013041 [arXiv:2109.03824 [hep-th]]. – 30 –

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.013041 2022
[14]

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 theory, and quantum information science,” [arXiv:2503.10753 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[15]

Rabinovici, A

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

work page arXiv
[16]

Quantum dynamics in Operator space: Methods and applications,

P. Nandy, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Martínez-Azcona, A. Dymarsky and A. del Campo, “Quantum dynamics in Operator space: Methods and applications,” Phys. Rept.1125-1128, 1-82 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.05.001 [arXiv:2405.09628 [quant-ph]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.05.001 2025
[17]

Why do Things Fall?,

L. Susskind, “Why do Things Fall?,” [arXiv:1802.01198 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[18]

Complexity and Newton’s Laws,

L. Susskind, “Complexity and Newton’s Laws,” Front. in Phys.8, 262 (2020) doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00262 [arXiv:1904.12819 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00262 2020
[19]

Falling Toward Charged Black Holes,

A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, A. Streicher, L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius and Y. Zhao, “Falling Toward Charged Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D98, no.12, 126016 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.126016 [arXiv:1804.04156 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.126016 2018
[20]

Complexity and Momentum,

L. Susskind and Y. Zhao, “Complexity and Momentum,” JHEP03, 239 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)239 [arXiv:2006.03019 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2021)239 2021
[21]

Black holes, complexity and quantum chaos,

J. M. Magán, “Black holes, complexity and quantum chaos,” JHEP09, 043 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)043 [arXiv:1805.05839 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2018)043 2018
[22]

A Generalized Momentum/Complexity Correspondence,

J. L. F. Barbon, J. Martin-Garcia and M. Sasieta, “A Generalized Momentum/Complexity Correspondence,” JHEP04, 250 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)250 [arXiv:2012.02603 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2021)250 2021
[23]

Proof of a Momentum/Complexity Correspondence,

J. L. F. Barbon, J. Martin-Garcia and M. Sasieta, “Proof of a Momentum/Complexity Correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D102, no.10, 101901 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.101901 [arXiv:2006.06607 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.101901 2020
[24]

Momentum/Complexity Duality and the Black Hole Interior,

J. L. F. Barbón, J. Martín-García and M. Sasieta, “Momentum/Complexity Duality and the Black Hole Interior,” JHEP07, 169 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)169 [arXiv:1912.05996 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2020)169 2020
[25]

When things stop falling, chaos is suppressed,

D. S. Ageev and I. Y. Aref’eva, “When things stop falling, chaos is suppressed,” JHEP01, 100 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)100 [arXiv:1806.05574 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019)100 2019
[26]

Holographic Krylov complexity for conformal quiver gauge theories,

A. Fatemiabhari, H. Nastase, C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury, “Holographic Krylov complexity for conformal quiver gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B1025, 117402 (2026) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2026.117402 [arXiv:2512.14812 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2026.117402 2026
[27]

Complexity and Operator Growth in Holographic 6d SCFTs

A. Fatemiabhari, C. Nunez and R. T. Santamaria, “Complexity and Operator Growth in Holographic 6d SCFTs,” [arXiv:2603.10106 [hep-th]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[28]

Krylov Complexity, Confinement and Universality,

A. Fatemiabhari and C. Nunez, “Krylov Complexity, Confinement and Universality,” [arXiv:2602.17757 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[29]

Holographic Operator complexity in confin- ing gauge theories,

A. Fatemiabhari, H. Nastase, C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury, “Holographic Operator complexity in confining gauge theories,” [arXiv:2511.22717 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[30]

Holographic Operator complexity inN= 4 SYM,

A. Fatemiabhari, H. Nastase and D. Roychowdhury, “Holographic Operator complexity in N= 4SYM,” [arXiv:2511.19286 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[31]

Holographic Krylov complexity for Yang-Baxter deformed supergravity backgrounds,

D. Roychowdhury, “Holographic Krylov complexity for Yang-Baxter deformed supergravity backgrounds,” [arXiv:2601.06555 [hep-th]]. – 31 –

work page arXiv
[32]

Holographic Krylov Complexity for Charged, Composite and Extended Probes

H. Nastase, C. Nunez and D. Roychowdhury, “Holographic Krylov Complexity for Charged, Composite and Extended Probes,” [arXiv:2604.07432 [hep-th]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[33]

Heller, J

M. P. Heller, J. Papalini and T. Schuhmann, “Krylov Krylov complexity as holographic complexity beyond JT gravity,” [arXiv:2412.17785 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[34]

Heller, F

M. P. Heller, F. Ori, J. Papalini, T. Schuhmann and M. T. Wang, “De Sitter holographic complexity from Krylov complexity in DSSYK,” [arXiv:2510.13986 [hep-th]]

work page arXiv
[35]

Toward Krylov-based holography in double-scaled SYK

Y. Fu, H. S. Jeong, K. Y. Kim and J. F. Pedraza, “Toward Krylov-based holography in double-scaled SYK,” [arXiv:2510.22658 [hep-th]]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[36]

A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity,

E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner, “A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity,” JHEP08, 213 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)213 [arXiv:2305.04355 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2023)213 2023
[37]

From complexity geometry to holographic spacetime,

J. Erdmenger, A. L. Weigel, M. Gerbershagen and M. P. Heller, “From complexity geometry to holographic spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.10, 106020 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.106020 [arXiv:2212.00043 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.106020 2023
[38]

Operator K-complexity in DSSYK: Krylov complexity equals bulk length,

M. Ambrosini, E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner, “Operator K-complexity in DSSYK: Krylov complexity equals bulk length,” JHEP08, 059 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)059 [arXiv:2412.15318 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2025)059 2025
[39]

Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,

D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena and H. S. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills,” JHEP04, 013 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/013 [arXiv:hep-th/0202021 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/04/013 2002
[40]

BMN Vacua, Superstars and Non-Abelian T-duality,

Y. Lozano, C. Nunez and S. Zacarias, “BMN Vacua, Superstars and Non-Abelian T-duality,” JHEP09, 008 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2017)008 [arXiv:1703.00417 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2017)008 2017
[41]

Matrix perturbation theory for M theory on a PP wave,

K. Dasgupta, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Matrix perturbation theory for M theory on a PP wave,” JHEP05, 056 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/056 [arXiv:hep-th/0205185 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/056 2002
[42]

M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,

T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, “M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D55, 5112-5128 (1997) doi:10.1201/9781482268737-37 [arXiv:hep-th/9610043 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1201/9781482268737-37 1997
[43]

Supermembrane on the PP wave background,

K. Sugiyama and K. Yoshida, “Supermembrane on the PP wave background,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 113-127 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00794-0 [arXiv:hep-th/0206070 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(02)00794-0 2002
[44]

Bubbling AdS space and 1/2 BPS geometries,

H. Lin, O. Lunin and J. M. Maldacena, “Bubbling AdS space and 1/2 BPS geometries,” JHEP10, 025 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/10/025 [arXiv:hep-th/0409174 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/10/025 2004
[45]

Fivebranes from gauge theory,

H. Lin and J. M. Maldacena, “Fivebranes from gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D74, 084014 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.084014 [arXiv:hep-th/0509235 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.084014 2006
[46]

The Supergravity dual of the BMN matrix model,

H. Lin, “The Supergravity dual of the BMN matrix model,” JHEP12, 001 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/12/001 [arXiv:hep-th/0407250 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/12/001 2004
[47]

Little string theory from a double-scaled matrix model,

H. Ling, A. R. Mohazab, H. H. Shieh, G. van Anders and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Little string theory from a double-scaled matrix model,” JHEP10, 018 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/10/018 [arXiv:hep-th/0606014 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/10/018 2006
[48]

Emergent bubbling geometries in the plane wave matrix model,

Y. Asano, G. Ishiki, T. Okada and S. Shimasaki, “Emergent bubbling geometries in the plane wave matrix model,” JHEP05, 075 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)075 [arXiv:1401.5079 [hep-th]]. – 32 –

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)075 2014
[49]

Exact results for perturbative partition functions of theories with SU(2|4) symmetry,

Y. Asano, G. Ishiki, T. Okada and S. Shimasaki, “Exact results for perturbative partition functions of theories with SU(2|4) symmetry,” JHEP02, 148 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)148 [arXiv:1211.0364 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2013)148 2013
[50]

Chaos in the BMN matrix model,

Y. Asano, D. Kawai and K. Yoshida, “Chaos in the BMN matrix model,” JHEP06, 191 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)191 [arXiv:1503.04594 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2015)191 2015
[51]

Krylov complexity in mixed phase space,

K. B. Huh, H. S. Jeong, L. A. Pando Zayas and J. F. Pedraza, “Krylov complexity in mixed phase space,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.12, L121902 (2025) doi:10.1103/gmy7-dn7l [arXiv:2412.04963 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1103/gmy7-dn7l 2025
[52]

Fuzzy spheres in stringy matrix models: quantifying chaos in a mixed phase space,

P. Amore, L. A. Pando Zayas, J. F. Pedraza, N. Quiroz and C. A. Terrero-Escalante, “Fuzzy spheres in stringy matrix models: quantifying chaos in a mixed phase space,” JHEP06, 031 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2025)031 [arXiv:2407.07259 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2025)031 2025
[53]

Holographic aspects of four dimensionalN= 2SCFTs and their marginal deformations,

C. Núñez, D. Roychowdhury, S. Speziali and S. Zacarías, “Holographic aspects of four dimensionalN= 2SCFTs and their marginal deformations,” Nucl. Phys. B943, 114617 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114617 [arXiv:1901.02888 [hep-th]]

work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114617 2019
[54]

The String dual of a confining four-dimensional gauge theory,

J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, “The String dual of a confining four-dimensional gauge theory,” [arXiv:hep-th/0003136 [hep-th]]. – 33 –

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv