Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that the seed-normalized Krylov–Wigner negativity of a thermal 2D CFT quench grows as sinh^{4Δ}(πt/β), and that at Δ=1 its rate equals the tidal stretching of neighboring infalling geodesics.

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 08:44 UTC pith:HT55IA3D

load-bearing objection A promising new seed-normalized Krylov-Wigner negativity with a plausible sinh^(4Δ) law, but the derivation of the squeezing parameter has a real gap as written and the paper's own caveats deflate part of the second-moment claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04065 v2 pith:HT55IA3D submitted 2026-07-05 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

The Normalised Wigner Negativity Rate as a Second-Moment Probe of Infall in AdS₃

Ritam Basu This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords Krylov complexityWigner negativityspread complexitySU(1,1) discrete seriesnegative binomial distributionAdS3/CFT2BTZ black holeoperator growth
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 proposes a boundary observable sensitive to the second moment of the operator wavepacket in a thermal 2D CFT: the rate of the seed-normalized Krylov–Wigner negativity. It shows analytically that this negativity grows as sinh^{4Δ}(πt/β) in the macroscopic limit, while the raw normalized-state negativity saturates to a constant. At every conformal dimension the late-time normalized negativity is a fixed power of the Krylov variance, and that power becomes linear exactly at Δ=1. At that point, through the proper-momentum dictionary, the negativity rate becomes the product of the proper radial position and momentum of an infalling particle—the rate of tidal stretching of neighboring geodesics. The boundary calculation is independent of bulk conjectures and is supported by exact discrete Wigner numerics.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the physically growing object is not the Wigner negativity of the normalized Krylov state—which saturates because the quasi-probability spreads and thins, conserving its 1-norm—but the seed-normalized negativity obtained by dividing out the decaying return amplitude. In the macroscopic limit Q≫1 the seed-normalized Krylov–Wigner distribution takes an analytic Bessel form, and integrating this form with the Bessel variable retained gives total negativity scaling as sinh^{4Δ}(πt/β), while the raw negativity saturates to a Δ-dependent constant. Comparing the negativity rate with the exact negative-binomial variance rate yields the general relation N ∝ [Var]^Δ for e

What carries the argument

The SU(1,1) discrete-series structure of the thermal Krylov chain. The Lanczos coefficients b_n ∝ sqrt(n(n+2Δ−1)) make the Krylov Hamiltonian an element of su(1,1), so the time-evolved state is a Perelomov coherent state with negative-binomial occupation probabilities p_n = C(n+2Δ−1,n)|A|^{2n}(1−|A|^2)^{2Δ}. The single squeezing parameter |A|^2 = sinh^2(πt/β)/[sinh^2(πt/β)+sin^2(2πε/β)] controls the spreading. The seed-normalized Wigner distribution is the Wigner transform of χ_n = ψ_n/ψ_0; Stirling asymptotics and Euler–Maclaurin summation turn the mode sum into a Bessel function J_Δ(Z)/Z^Δ, whose negativity integral is finite for Δ>1/2 and yields the scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Krylov wavefunction is exactly an SU(1,1) Perelomov coherent state with negative-binomial probabilities and a squeezing parameter fixed by the return amplitude; as written, the derivation of the squeezing parameter contains a sign or factor inconsistency, so unless that is a typo, the negative-binomial structure and all subsequent scalings lose their ground.

What would settle it

Directly check the algebraic step from the intermediate expression for A(t) to the claimed compact form −i sinh(πt/β)/sinh(π(t−2iε)/β) for a concrete ε/β; if the two disagree, the claimed squeezing parameter is not the solution. Independently, compute the exact discrete seed-normalized negativity at Δ=1 for large prime D and measure the late-time slope of log N versus log sinh(πt/β); it must be 4, and the ratio R/(d Var/dt) must become asymptotically flat only at Δ=1.

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

If this is right

  • The normalized Krylov–Wigner negativity gives a boundary diagnostic of the second moment of the Krylov wavepacket, complementing spread complexity, which captures only the first moment.
  • At late times the normalized negativity satisfies N ∝ [Var]^Δ for all Δ>1/2, so operators with larger conformal dimension exhibit faster growth of second-moment non-classicality.
  • The raw, normalized-state Wigner negativity saturates to a constant depending only on Δ, so it cannot track continued infall; the seed-normalized version is necessary.
  • At Δ=1 the negativity rate equals C P_ρ, the rate of tidal stretching of neighboring infalling geodesics, giving a concrete bulk-geometric reading of a boundary higher-moment observable.
  • The boundary results do not rely on any bulk conjecture and are checked against exact discrete Wigner calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An editor's inference: the same phase-space calculus could be applied to other solvable Krylov chains where a semiclassical bulk interpretation exists, to see whether the saturation-versus-growth split and the Δ=1 linearization persist.
  • An editor's inference: if the Δ=1 linearization is robust beyond the macroscopic limit, it singles out the massless bulk scalar (m^2=0) as the special case where the second-moment diagnostic has the clean tidal-stretching reading.
  • An editor's inference: the speculative string-size operator identification implies that transverse string spreading and Krylov variance share the same discrete-series representation; if the conjecture holds, the negativity rate measures the growth of the squared transverse string area.
  • An editor's inference: the sign/factor inconsistency in the derivation of the squeezing parameter should be repaired; until then, the universality of the sinh^{4Δ} law rests on the exact discrete numerics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies operator growth in 2D CFT local quenches and proposes the rate of a "seed-normalized" Krylov-Wigner negativity as a second-moment diagnostic of infall in AdS3. It assumes the Krylov state is an SU(1,1) Perelomov coherent state, derives the squeezing parameter from the return amplitude and Lanczos data, and obtains a Bessel-form Wigner distribution in the macroscopic limit. The total negativity of the seed-normalized distribution is then computed to grow as sinh^{4Δ}(πt/β), while the raw, normalized-state negativity saturates to a constant. Eliminating the common late-time variable gives N ∝ [Var(Nhat_Krylov)]^Δ for all Δ, with linearization exactly at Δ=1; using the Caputa et al. dictionary this is interpreted as R ∝ C P_ρ, the rate of tidal stretching of neighboring infalling geodesics. Section 7 adds a speculative bulk string interpretation, clearly separated from the boundary results.

Significance. If the derivation is corrected, the paper provides an exact, self-contained boundary computation with a concrete analytical scaling law, supported by exact discrete numerics in Fig. 2 (fitted slopes within a few percent of 4Δ). The transparency of the manuscript is a genuine strength: Remarks 3.3, 4.4, 5.1, 7.1, 7.5 and the frame caveat in §7.1 explicitly delimit what is proven, what is a diagnostic convention, and what is conjectural. The central caveat is already disclosed in Remark 4.4: the leading growth of N coincides with the inverse survival probability 1/P, so the sinh^{4Δ} law and the Δ=1 matching are structurally statements about the boundary two-point function's decay exponent, while the actual Wigner-negativity content enters through the coefficient and subleading terms. This materially tempers the advertised "second-moment probe" and "tidal momentum" interpretations, but it does not invalidate the boundary computation. The paper is a useful contribution to the Krylov-complexity dictionary, provided the load-bearing algebraic step in §3.2 is repaired and the interpretive claims are reframed accordingly.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (2.7), (3.11)–(3.12)] The derivation of the squeezing parameter is internally inconsistent as printed. Let c ≡ 2πε/β and a ≡ πt/β. From (3.9), ∂t ln ψ0 = −(2πΔ/β) coth(a−ic). From (2.7), a0 = (2πΔ/β) tan c and b1√(2Δ) = (2πΔ/β)/sin c. Inserting these into (3.8) gives A(t) = sin c [coth(a−ic) − i tan c], not the expression in (3.11), which requires a0 ∝ cot c. The displayed simplification to (3.12) is correct only if tan in (2.7) is replaced by cot. This is not a cosmetic issue: the coherent-state ansatz with |A(t)|² from (3.12) feeds directly into the negativity growth (4.10), the variance matching (5.1)–(5.5), and the Δ=1 condition. The exact numerics in Fig. 2 suggest the final scalings survive a corrected derivation, so the error may be a one-character typo, but the manuscript as written contains a real proof gap. Please correct (2.7) and check every subsequent use of a_n, or provide a consistent alternati
  2. [Remark 4.4 and Abstract] The paper's own Remark 4.4 states that the leading growth of N coincides with the growth of the inverse survival probability, 1/P = (1−|A|²)^{-2Δ}. Since the survival probability is fixed by the boundary two-point function, the headline sinh^{4Δ} law and the Δ=1 matching R ∝ C P_ρ are, at leading order, statements about the decay exponent 2Δ of the boundary two-point function, not about the Wigner negativity as a second-moment probe; the negativity affects the coefficient N∞ and subleading corrections. I do not regard this as an internal inconsistency, because the remark is candid, but the abstract and introduction currently present the result as a second-moment diagnostic without this qualification. The framing should be adjusted so that the diagnostic status of N — a survival-normalized quantity whose leading growth is shared with 1/P — is stated up front.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C and Fig. 1] Appendix C claims that the plateau value N∞ is "verified against the exact discrete Wigner function in figure 1," but Fig. 1 displays only analytic curves from the macroscopic law, not exact discrete markers. Please add exact data to Fig. 1 or soften the claim.
  2. [Abstract and §4.4] The phrase "as dictated by the O(√D) bound" is imprecise: the bound is an upper bound, not a saturation value. The raw negativity saturates to an O(1), Δ-dependent constant that is independent of D; "consistent with the O(√D) bound" would be more accurate.
  3. [Abstract] In the sentence beginning "Using the exact negative binomial statistics ...," the phrase "the normalized negativity in late times" should read "the normalized negativity is at late times." Minor typographical issue.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The headline sinh^{4Δ} growth and the N∝Var^Δ relation are hard-wired into the definitions: N=Nraw/P with P=(1-|A|^2)^{2Δ}, and both N and Var are functions of the same ξ; Remark 4.4 concedes the leading growth is the inverse survival probability.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sections 3.3-4.4, Eqs. (3.13), (3.14), (4.1), (4.9), (4.10), Remark 4.4]
    "χn(t)≡ψn(t)/ψ0(t) (3.14) ... P(t)≡|ψ0(t)|^2=(1−|A(t)|^2)^{2Δ} (3.13) ... N(t)≡∑_{Q,p}|W(Q,p,t)|=Nraw(t)/P(t) (4.1) ... ξ(t)≡1−|A(t)|^2=ε0/(S^2+ε0), S≡sinh(πt/β) (4.9) ... N(t)≃ [cΔΓ(2Δ)/2^{Δ−2}Γ(Δ)] sinh^{4Δ}(πt/β)/sin^{4Δ}(2πε/β) (4.10)."

    At late times P∝ξ^{2Δ}∝sinh^{-4Δ}(πt/β), so the reciprocal 1/P∝sinh^{4Δ}(πt/β). Since the seed-normalized negativity is defined as N≡Nraw/P, its leading growth is exactly the inverse of the survival factor that was divided out, once Nraw saturates (as shown in (4.12)). Thus the headline growth law is not an independent property of Wigner negativity but a restatement of the normalization convention. The paper itself concedes: 'the leading growth of N coincides with that of the inverse survival probability' (Remark 4.4). The Bessel calculation fixes the coefficient and subleading structure, but the exponent 4Δ is hard-wired by definition.

  2. self definitional [Section 5, Eq. (5.5); Section 6, Eqs. (6.2)-(6.4)]
    "Both are functions of the single scaling variable ξ(t) of (4.9), so the comparison reduces to matching two power laws. ... eliminating the common scaling variable ξ gives N(t)∝[Var( ˆNKrylov)]^Δ (5.5)."

    With N∝ξ^{-2Δ} (from the definition in Step 1) and Var≈2Δ/ξ^2 at late times, the claimed N∝Var^Δ is obtained by eliminating the common variable ξ; no independent dynamical input enters. The 'critical dimension' Δ=1 is then simply the value at which the exponent Δ in this algebraically constructed power law equals 1, making R/(dVar/dt)∝Var^{Δ-1} flat. This is a corollary of the negative-binomial statistics, not an independent prediction selecting Δ=1, exactly as the paper's own remark that the comparison 'reduces to matching two power laws' indicates.

full rationale

Two central claims reduce to definitions. First, N is defined as Nraw/P with P=(1-|A|^2)^{2Δ}; since 1-|A|^2≈ε0/sinh^2(πt/β), the reciprocal survival probability is itself sinh^{4Δ}. Hence the headline growth law (4.10) is the normalization factor divided out, not an independent discovery about Wigner negativity. The paper's Remark 4.4 explicitly concedes this, stating that the leading growth coincides with the inverse survival probability and that the matching is 'a statement about the survival-probability decay exponent 2Δ.' Second, because both N and Var are functions of the same small parameter ξ, eliminating ξ gives N∝Var^Δ by pure algebra; the 'only at Δ=1' linearization is the tautological statement that the exponent Δ in this constructed power law equals one. The exact discrete numerics in Fig. 2 confirm the sinh^{4Δ} trend, but they implement the same defined quantities and do not remove the definitional coupling. The self-citation [22] (which shares an author with this paper) is used for the O(√D) bound and plateau context, but the saturation is independently derived in Proposition 4.3 and supported by the concurrent reference [36], so it is not load-bearing. The §3.2 squeezing-parameter sign/factor inconsistency noted by the reader is a proof/reproducibility gap rather than circularity and is not scored here. The bulk string operator identification in Section 7 is explicitly labeled conjectural and logically separated, so it does not contribute to the circularity score. Overall, the central 'predictions' are partially equivalent to their definitional inputs, giving a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central boundary calculation uses only standard CFT and asymptotic techniques plus the external momentum dictionary; no parameters are fitted to data. The main hidden input is the coherent-state/negative-binomial form of the Krylov wavefunction, whose text derivation is inconsistent as written. The bulk string operators are explicit conjectures.

free parameters (1)
  • Proportionality constant A(β,ε) in R ∝ d/dt Var at Δ=1
    In Eq. (5.4) the constant A(β,ε) is left undetermined; the paper says it should be fixed by a microstate-level analysis. It is not fitted to data but is a free parameter of the matching.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Caputa et al. dictionary: spread complexity rate equals proper radial momentum (arXiv:2410.23334)
    Used in §2.4 and §6 to convert C and dC/dt into bulk radial position and momentum; external result on which the tidal interpretation rests.
  • domain assumption Krylov wavefunction is an SU(1,1) Perelomov coherent state with negative-binomial probabilities (3.1)–(3.3)
    The entire calculation of N(t) and Var(t) depends on this ansatz; motivated by Lemma 2.1 but the determination of A(t) in §3.2 is where the internal inconsistency appears.
  • standard math Continuum limit of the discrete Wigner function via Stirling and Euler-Maclaurin, including the three factors of 2
    §3.4 and Appendix C; standard asymptotic techniques, but the coefficient factors are asserted and only checked against the exact discrete result.
  • domain assumption Return amplitude of the thermal 2D CFT quench is given by Eq. (3.9)
    Standard CFT two-point function on a cylinder; external input from conformal field theory.
  • domain assumption Raw negativity bound N_raw ≤ √D and O(1) saturation
    Uses the finite-dimensional Wigner function bound from ref [22]; the saturation is computed in §4.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Bulk string interpretation: transverse string-size operator with shared Casimir
    Section 7.1; explicitly conjectural, with no independent evidence (Conjecture 7.4, spectral caveat in Remark 7.1).
invented entities (2)
  • Seed-normalized Krylov-Wigner distribution W no independent evidence
    purpose: A rescaled phase-space distribution that removes the return-amplitude decay and exposes geometric spreading
    Defined in Eq. (3.16); not a physical state (its total weight is 1/P), so it has no independent falsifiable handle.
  • Transverse string-size operator N̂_str no independent evidence
    purpose: Postulated bulk operator dual to the Krylov number operator for the string interpretation
    Introduced in §7.1 (Eq. 7.3); the identification with N̂_Krylov is a conjecture with no testable prediction outside the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25378 in / 37390 out tokens · 353745 ms · 2026-08-02T08:44:37.094122+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In spread complexity, the average position of an operator along its Krylov chain, recovers the right radial momentum of an infalling particle in AdS, yet it is a measure of the first moment, irrespective of the spread of the wavepacket away from its classical trajectory. The rate of a normalized Krylov-Wigner negativity can be proposed as a diagnostic of the second moment of the boundary state that captures this spreading. Starting with the seed-normalized Krylov-Wigner distribution -- that is, the Wigner transform of the descendant cloud, with the decaying return amplitude divided out -- we obtain an analytic Bessel form in the macroscopic limit and compute its total negativity explicitly. Retaining the Bessel variable all the way through, we find that the negativity goes as $\sinh^{4\Delta}(\pi t/\beta)$, while the raw, normalized-state negativity saturates, as dictated by the $O(\sqrt{D})$ bound. Using the exact negative binomial statistics of the Krylov chain, the normalized negativity in late times a fixed power of the second moment of the Krylov wavepacket, $\mathcal{N}(t)\propto\bigl[\mathrm{Var}(n)\bigr]^{\Delta}$, for every dimension $\Delta$. The relation linearizes precisely at $\Delta=1$: only at this dimension does the negativity rate track the growth rate of the Krylov variance, and there, through the momentum dictionary of Caputa et al. [arXiv:2410.23334], the rate becomes the product of the proper radial position and momentum, $\dot{\mathcal{N}}\propto\mathcal{C} P_\rho$, i.e., the rate of the tidal stretch of nearby geodesics falling into the horizon. We comment on the direction for future research, in particular the interpretation of the transverse string size operator in terms of the Krylov number operator through the common $\text{SU}(1,1)$ discrete series.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Comments on holographic spread complexity

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    The momentum–spread-complexity relation requires generalized coherent states adapted to the spacetime symmetry algebra; semiclassical spreading alone cannot produce a momentum–complexity correspondence.

  2. The Information Content of Krylov Observables: A Machine Learning Approach

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Under chaos, the normalized Wigner negativity χ(t) carries information about the fine return dynamics that spread complexity C(t) cannot, with the asymmetry gap rising from +0.33 to +0.77 across the integrable-to-GUE ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Caputa, B

    P. Caputa, B. Chen, R.W. McDonald, J. Simon and B. Strittmatter,Spread Complexity Rate as Proper Momentum,2410.23334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv

    J.M. Maldacena,The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231 [hep-th/9711200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Witten,Anti-de Sitter space and holography,Adv

    E. Witten,Anti-de Sitter space and holography,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Gubser, I.R

    S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov,Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105 [hep-th/9802109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch

    L. Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch. Phys.64(2016) 24 [1403.5695]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Stanford and L

    D. Stanford and L. Susskind,Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 126007 [1406.2678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Brown, D.A

    A.R. Brown, D.A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao,Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 191301 [1509.07876]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Brown, D.A

    A.R. Brown, D.A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao,Complexity, action, and black holes,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 086006 [1512.04993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Susskind,Why do Things Fall?,1802.01198

    L. Susskind,Why do Things Fall?,1802.01198

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    V. Balasubramanian, J.M. Magan, P. Nandy and Q. Wu,Spread complexity and the saturation of wormhole size,Phys. Rev. D(2025) [2412.02038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Nielsen,A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds,Quant

    M.A. Nielsen,A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds,Quant. Inf. Comput.6 (2006) 213 [quant-ph/0502070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    Jefferson and R.C

    R. Jefferson and R.C. Myers,Circuit complexity in quantum field theory,JHEP10(2017) 107 [1707.08570]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    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,JHEP11(2017) 097 [1706.07056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Caputa and J.M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 046007 [2202.06957]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Parker, X

    D.E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi and E. Altman,A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis,Phys. Rev. X9(2019) 041017 [1812.08657]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Barbon, E

    J.L.F. Barbon, E. Rabinovici, R. Shir and R. Sinha,On The Evolution Of Operator Complexity Beyond Scrambling,JHEP10(2019) 264 [1907.05393]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. DeCross, A. Kar and O. Parrikar,Quantum Complexity of Time Evolution with Chaotic Hamiltonians,JHEP01(2020) 134 [1905.05765]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Caputa, J.M

    P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and D. Patramanis,Geometry of Krylov complexity,Phys. Rev. Res.4 (2022) 013041 [2109.03824]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Bhattacharya, R.N

    A. Bhattacharya, R.N. Das, B. Dey and J. Erdmenger,Spread complexity for measurement-induced non-unitary dynamics and Zeno effect,JHEP03(2024) 179 [2312.11635]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Banerjee, U

    S. Banerjee, U. Danielsson and M. Zeman,Black hole thermodynamics from an information-theoretic perspective,2304.05803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    R. Basu, A. Ganguly, S. Nath and O. Parrikar,Complexity growth and the Krylov-Wigner function,JHEP05(2024) 264 [2402.13694]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Wootters,A Wigner function formulation of finite state quantum mechanics,Annals Phys

    W.K. Wootters,A Wigner function formulation of finite state quantum mechanics,Annals Phys. 176(1987) 1

    1987

  24. [24]

    Veitch, C

    V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross and J. Emerson,Negative Quasi-Probability as a Resource for Quantum Computation,New J. Phys.14(2012) 113011 [1201.1256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    Hudson,When is the Wigner quasi-probability density nonnegative?,Rept

    R.L. Hudson,When is the Wigner quasi-probability density nonnegative?,Rept. Math. Phys.6 (1974) 249

    1974

  26. [26]

    Roberts, D

    D.A. Roberts, D. Stanford and L. Susskind,Localized shocks,JHEP03(2015) 051 [1409.8180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D.A. Roberts and B. Yoshida,Chaos in quantum channels,JHEP02(2016) 004 [1511.04021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Maldacena, S.H

    J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker and D. Stanford,A bound on chaos,JHEP08(2016) 106 [1503.01409]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Viswanath and G

    V.S. Viswanath and G. Müller,The Recursion Method: Application to Many-Body Dynamics, vol. 23 ofLecture Notes in Physics Monographs, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994), 10.1007/978-3-540-48651-0

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-48651-0 1994

  30. [30]

    Banados, C

    M. Banados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli,The Black hole in three-dimensional space-time,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 1849 [hep-th/9204099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  31. [31]

    Caputa, J

    P. Caputa, J. Simon, A. Stikonas and T. Takayanagi,Quantum Entanglement of Localized Excited States at Finite Temperature,JHEP01(2015) 102 [1410.2287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Chattopadhyay, V

    A. Chattopadhyay, V. Malvimat and A. Mitra,Krylov complexity of states with spread of a wavepacket in a 2d CFT,2405.03630

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Caputa, H.-S

    P. Caputa, H.-S. Jeong, S. Liu, J.F. Pedraza and L.-C. Qu,Krylov complexity of density matrix operators,JHEP05(2024) 337 [2402.09522]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Caputa and S

    P. Caputa and S. Liu,Quantum complexity and topological phases of matter,Phys. Rev. B106 (2022) 195125 [2205.05688]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Perelomov,Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1986), 10.1007/978-3-642-61629-7

    A.M. Perelomov,Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1986), 10.1007/978-3-642-61629-7

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61629-7 1986

  36. [36]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, O. Parrikar and V. Singh,Wigner negativity in Krylov space and emergent semiclassicality,2607.01351

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Breitenlohner and D.Z

    P. Breitenlohner and D.Z. Freedman,Stability in Gauged Extended Supergravity,Annals Phys. 144(1982) 249

    1982

  38. [38]

    Basu and S

    R. Basu and S. Paul,On the Stabilizer Complexity of Hawking Radiation,2510.18967

    arXiv

  39. [39]

    Page,Information in black hole radiation,Phys

    D.N. Page,Information in black hole radiation,Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 3743 [hep-th/9306083]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  40. [40]

    Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,JHEP09 (2020) 002 [1905.08255]

    G. Penington,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox,JHEP09 (2020) 002 [1905.08255]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    R.N. Das, J. Erdmenger and A. Sinha,Krylov complexity of purification,2408.00826

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Nandy, W. Taylor and Q. Wu,Spread complexity in the double-scaled SYK model,2312.03848

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity,JHEP08(2023) 213 [2305.04355]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Fatemiabhari and C

    A. Fatemiabhari and C. Nunez,Extended probes in holography: quantum complexity and infalling strings,2504.06008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Maldacena and H

    J.M. Maldacena and H. Ooguri,Strings in AdS(3) and SL(2,R) WZW model 1.: The Spectrum,J. Math. Phys.42(2001) 2929 [hep-th/0001053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

    Maldacena, H

    J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and J. Son,Strings in AdS(3) and the SL(2,R) WZW model. Part 2. Euclidean black hole,J. Math. Phys.42(2001) 2961 [hep-th/0005183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  47. [47]

    Susskind,Strings, black holes and Lorentz contraction,Phys

    L. Susskind,Strings, black holes and Lorentz contraction,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 6606 [hep-th/9308139]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  48. [48]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus, A.E. Lawrence and S.P. Trivedi,Holographic probes of anti-de Sitter space-times,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 104021 [hep-th/9808017]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  49. [49]

    Horowitz and V.E

    G.T. Horowitz and V.E. Hubeny,CFT description of small objects in AdS,JHEP10(2000) 027 [hep-th/0009051]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  50. [50]

    Horowitz and N

    G.T. Horowitz and N. Itzhaki,Black holes, shock waves, and causality in the AdS / CFT correspondence,JHEP02(1999) 010 [hep-th/9901012]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999