Search

This work is an extension of our previous work [1] where we exploited holography to compute the complexity characteristics of Little String Theory (LST), a nonlocal, nongravitational field theory which flows to a local 2d CFT in the IR under RG via an integrable irrelevant T T ¯ deformation. Here we look at the more general LST obtained by UV deforming the 2d CFT by incorporating Lorentz violating irrelevant J T ¯ and T J ¯ deformations on top of T T ¯ deformation, in an effort to capture the novel signatures of Lorentz violation (on top of nonlocality) on quantum complexity. In anticipation of the fact that the dual field theory is Lorentz violating, we compute the volume complexity in two different Lorentz frames and the comparison is drawn between the results. It turns out that for this system the nonlocality and Lorentz violation effects are inextricably intertwined in the UV divergence structure of the quantum complexity. The coefficients of the divergences carry the signature of Lorentz boost violation. We also compute the subregion complexity which displays a (Hagedorn) phase transition with the transition point being the same as that for the phase transition of entanglement entropy [2]. These new results are consistent with our previous work [1]. Null warped AdS3 is treated as special case of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We perform a comparative study of the time dependence of the holographic quantum complexity of some space like singular bulk gravitational backgrounds. This is done by considering the two available notions of complexity, one that relates it to the maximal spatial volume and the other that relates it to the classical action of the Wheeler-de Witt patch. We calculate and compare the leading and the next to leading terms and find some universal features. The complexity decreases towards the singularity for both definitions, for all types of singularities studied. In addition the leading terms have the same quantitative behavior for both definitions in restricted number of cases and the behaviour itself is different for different singular backgrounds. The quantitative details of the next to leading terms, such as their specific form of time dependence, are found not to be universal. They vary between the different cases and between the different bulk definitions of complexity. We also address some technical points inherent to the calculation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]