The quadratic growth of Krylov spread complexity in the BTZ black hole

The boundary quantity that captures the growth of black-hole interiors quantified by holographic complexity remains unknown beyond 2d dilaton gravity. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

That matters because astrophysics becomes persuasive only when an observed signal can be tied to a physically defensible explanation. Compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes are natural laboratories for extreme physics, but the distance and complexity of these systems make interpretation difficult without multi-wavelength coverage and careful modeling. A detection without a mechanism is only half a result. the other half comes from showing that the signal fits quantitatively inside a coherent physical picture rather than merely being consistent with a broad family of models. We provide a critical analysis of a partition-function construction of Krylov spread complexity for thermofield-double states that provides a dimension-independent boundary. In the double-scaled Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, where exact and semiclassical results can be compared, we show that the classical limit is reliable only when taken after the.

Taking this limit at the level of individual Lanczos coefficients discards essential information. We then match this boundary behavior to a generalized complexity = anything bulk object built from an infinite series of extrinsic-curvature invariants.

The construction provides a systematic route from black-hole thermodynamics to Krylov dynamics and can naturally be extended to higher-dimensional holographic black holes. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy.

ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community.

The broader interest lies in turning an observational clue into something that can be weighed against competing models of the underlying physics. Astrophysics does not have the luxury of controlled experiments; everything is inferred from radiation that traveled across cosmic distances under conditions that cannot be reproduced in a terrestrial laboratory. This makes the interpretation chain longer and more uncertain than in bench science, but it also means that a well-constrained measurement of an extreme object carries theoretical information that no earthbound experiment can provide.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether independent datasets and physical modeling converge on the same interpretation. Multi-wavelength follow-up, combining X-ray, radio and optical data where possible, is typically what separates a compelling detection from a robust physical characterization. In high-energy astrophysics, results that initially looked definitive have been revised when data from a second messenger arrived; the current result should be read with that history in mind. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source