Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Combinatorial aspects of holographic quantum secret sharing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that in AdS3/CFT2 a single erasure distance d_b controls quantum secret sharing for every bulk cell, forcing the reconstruction threshold r_b = n - d_b + 1 and splitting schemes into additive (pure-state) and superadd

desk verdict A genuinely new combinatorial translation of holographic QSS with a clean distance/threshold story; the main theorem's appendix proof has a real gap that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16110 v1 pith:5RXJGZVJ submitted 2026-07-17 hep-th quant-ph

Ning Bao , Keiichiro Furuya , Jacob March This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thquant-ph PACS 11.25.Tq03.67.Dd03.67.Pp
keywords holographicquantumsecretsharingentanglementwedgereconstructionRT-regiongraphthresholderasuredistanceAdS3/CFT2phasetransitions
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 tries to prove that the quality of holographic encoding in AdS3/CFT2—how easily a bulk region's logical information can be reconstructed from the boundary, how well it stays secret, and how robust it is to erasures—is fixed entirely by combinatorial data: which entanglement wedges contain the bulk cell. It defines a distance d_b for each bulk cell (the smallest erasure that destroys all authorized boundary sets), a reconstruction threshold r_b, and a secret threshold s_b, and establishes the exact relations r_b = n - d_b + 1 and a dichotomy: either s_b = d_b - 1 (additive) or s_b ≥ d_b (superadditive). Pure-state schemes are always additive; mixed-state schemes can be superadditive, which is the paper's explanation for why exact holographic quantum error correction can fail. It also derives the maximum distance d_max = ceil(n/2), consistent with the no-cloning bound, and constructs concrete families of perfect threshold and perfect non-threshold schemes from phase-transition geometries in the symmetric n = 3, 4, 5 settings. If correct, this gives a complete combinatorial characterization of holographic secret sharing from entanglement-wedge inclusion alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the RT-region graph: a coarse-graining of the bulk time slice by the minimal surfaces of all boundary subsets, where each vertex b carries an access structure R_b = {R ⊆ [n] : b ⊆ EW(R)}. Its defining property is the pairwise-intersection lemma: any two minimal authorized sets intersect, which follows from entanglement wedge nesting plus geometric complementarity. That pairwise-intersection fact is what converts the no-cloning principle into the bound 2r_b > n, and it is the engine behind Theorem 4.1 (r_b = n - d_b + 1) and Theorem 4.2 (the additive/superadditive dichotomy).

What would settle it

Take the symmetric n = 5 mixed-state phase in which only the five-partite entanglement wedge is connected and compute the exact authorized sets for the central cell from the minimal-surface configuration. The paper predicts (d_b, r_b, s_b) = (1, 5, 4); any exact computation that yields a different triple for that cell—or any bulk cell whose minimal authorized sets fail to pairwise intersect—would refute the central classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that for any bulk cell b contained in EW([n]), the access structure R_b is monotone (by entanglement wedge nesting) and has pairwise-intersecting minimal elements (by nesting plus geometric complementarity). From these two facts, the distance d_b and reconstruction threshold r_b are locked by r_b = n - d_b + 1. The secret threshold s_b then obeys a dichotomy: s_b = d_b - 1 exactly when the entanglement wedge of the complement of each minimal authorized set also contains b (additive), and s_b ≥ d_b when some complement pair leaves b outside both wedges even though b is inside EW([n]) (superadditive). Pure-state schemes always fall in the additive case, while mixed-sta

Load-bearing premise

The entire chain rests on the assumption that the entanglement wedge of the complement of any boundary region—including a purifier—is exactly the geometric complement of its entanglement wedge; if that fails for a bulk cell, the distance-threshold relations for that cell need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each bulk cell's combinatorial holographic quantum secret sharing scheme is fully classified by the triple (r_b, s_b, d_b); from the access structure alone one can read off the erasure threshold and the reconstruction and secret thresholds.
  • The best-protected bulk region achieves d_max = ceil(n/2) and reconstruction threshold floor(n/2) + 1, saturating the holographic no-cloning bound 2r > n in phases where all relevant entanglement wedges are connected.
  • Pure-state schemes always satisfy d_b - s_b = 1 and r_b + s_b = n, a clean additive relation that underlies exact holographic quantum error correction.
  • Mixed-state superadditive schemes satisfy s_b ≥ d_b and r_b + s_b ≥ n + 1, so their existence explains why exact holographic quantum error correction can fail in mixed states and ties that failure to genuine multipartite entanglement.
  • The symmetric n = 3, 4, 5 constructions produce explicit families of both perfect threshold and perfect non-threshold schemes, showing that holography naturally realizes both classes of quantum secret sharing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the same distance-threshold relation r_b = n - d_b + 1 should hold in any holographic theory satisfying entanglement wedge nesting and geometric complementarity, not just pure AdS3; the maximum-distance formula might change with dimension, but the additive/superadditive dichotomy should persist.
  • The gap d_b - s_b (or r_b - s_b) could serve as an order parameter for holographic phase transitions: in the symmetric examples it jumps at each transition point, so boundary entropy data may be usable to locate bulk cells with superadditive schemes.
  • One could turn the RT-region graph into explicit erasure codes by assigning a logical state to each cell and checking whether its authorized sets realize a known quantum secret sharing scheme, making the combinatorial classification testable in tensor-network toy models.
  • Because mixed states can have s_b ≥ d_b, a quantitative trade-off between secrecy and robustness emerges: maximizing one lowers the other. This suggests treating the holographic phase choice as a resource in a future resource-theoretic account of holographic secret sharing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces combinatorial holographic quantum secret sharing (CHQSS), a coarse-grained framework in which a bulk subregion b in AdS3/CFT2 is characterized by the family R_b of boundary subsets whose entanglement wedges contain b. It defines a distance d_b (Definition 3.3), a uniform reconstruction threshold r_b (Definition 4.2), and a uniform secret threshold s_b (Definition 4.3). The main formal claims are Theorem 3.1 (d_max = ceil(n/2)), Theorem 4.1 (r_b = n - d_b + 1), and Theorem 4.2, which gives an additive/superadditive dichotomy: if every s_b-subset has an authorized complement then s_b = d_b - 1, while otherwise s_b >= d_b. Corollary 4.1 states that pure-state CHQSS are additive and mixed-state schemes may be superadditive. The paper also presents numerical phase-transition data for symmetric n = 3,4,5 setups and constructs families of CHQSS schemes, including a perfect threshold scheme at the graph center and perfect non-threshold schemes away from it. Proofs are collected in Appendix A; additional examples appear in Appendix B.

Significance. If the central theorems are correct, CHQSS provides a clean, parameter-free combinatorial characterization of how bulk logical information is protected against boundary erasures, and it draws a sharp distinction between pure-state (additive) and mixed-state (superadditive) holographic encodings. The connection to superadditivity and the failure of exact holographic QEC is a useful conceptual contribution. The paper is explicit and self-contained: the definitions are operational, the claims are concrete, and the examples for n = 3,4,5 are easy to verify once the proofs are repaired. The paper does not include code or machine-checked proofs, and the numerical phase-transition data are only summarized graphically, but the framework is concrete enough for the proofs to be checked by hand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.2, Theorem 4.2] The proof of the additive branch contains an unsupported equality. After choosing E with |E|=s_b, the text asserts that b⊆EW([n]\E) implies n−s_b=r_b. This does not follow from the definitions: r_b is the smallest m such that every m-subset is authorized, while the assumption concerns only a single complement. To obtain r_b=n−s_b one must use the maximality of s_b (there exists an authorized set A of size s_b+1) and Lemma 3.2 to show that the complement of A, of size n−s_b−1, is unauthorized; alternatively, one can prove s_b=d_b−1 directly from the distance definition. As written, Theorem 4.2 and Corollary 4.1 are not fully supported. The converse direction also contains an undefined expression 'R\E', which should be '[n]\E'.
  2. [Section 4.1, Theorem 4.1, Eqs. (4.13)–(4.14)] The proof identifies the maximum of |E| in X_E_b with d_b−1, but this is not immediate. X_E_b is a uniform condition over all erasures of size at most |E|, whereas d_b is the least size of a single erasure that leaves no authorized set. These notions differ; for example, in the §4.2 case b1, d_b1=1 and the erasure {A2} is correctable, yet {A2} is not in X_E_b1 because the erasure {A1} is not correctable. The proof needs to show: (i) every erasure of size ≤d_b−1 is correctable and, by monotonicity and no-cloning, its complement is authorized; and (ii) any uniform threshold t≥d_b would contradict the definition of d_b. Without this argument, Theorem 4.1 is not rigorously established.
  3. [Appendix A.1, Theorem 3.1] The upper bound d_b ≤ min(u_b, n−u_b+1) is fine, but the realizability part of the proof only shows that d_b ≤ ceil(n/2) for the constructed b. To prove the lower bound d_b ≥ ceil(n/2), the authors must also show that no erasure of size ceil(n/2)−1 destroys all minimal authorized sets. In the constructed case where R_min_b consists of all ceil((n+1)/2)-subsets, this follows because the complement of such an erasure has size at least ceil((n+1)/2) and is itself a minimal authorized set. The counting in Eqs. (A.11)–(A.12) does not by itself establish equality. The theorem statement may be true, but the proof as written is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 4.2 statement] In item 2, the second occurrence of 'R' should be '\bar R'; as written the condition reads 'b⊄EW(R) and b⊄EW(R)', which loses the complement. This is likely a typographical error but should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.1] The phase-transition points are reported only graphically and to three significant figures, and no code or tabulated data are provided. The claim that the transition points extracted from Markov gaps match the geometric ones to four significant figures cannot be verified from the manuscript. Please provide numerical data or code, or an analytic determination of the transition points.
  3. [After Eq. (4.27)] The sentence 'In a general QSS, the second equation implies a ramp CHQSS' is misleading under the paper's uniform definitions of r_b and s_b. The example b1 in §4.2 has r_b−s_b>1 but is a perfect non-threshold scheme with no intermediate sets. The subsequent qualification about empty intermediate sets is helpful, but the wording should be revised to avoid equating r−s>1 with ramp behavior.
  4. [Definition 4.1, item 3] The geometric complementarity assumption EW(R^c)=EW(R)^c, including the purifier O, is load-bearing for Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 4.1. The paper assumes it without discussion of its domain of validity for mixed states. A brief statement of when this complementarity is expected to hold (e.g., classical RT surfaces in a pure global state) would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central claims are derived from EWN, complementarity, and RT geometry. The flagged issue in Theorem 4.2's appendix is a proof gap, not a definitional or fitted circularity.

full rationale

No significant circularity. The paper's central derivation chain runs from EW reconstruction (3.1)-(3.2) and EWN to monotonicity (Lemma 3.1); from complementarity (4.7) to the pairwise-intersection lemma (Lemma 3.2); and from those, together with the definitions of d_b, r_b, s_b, to Theorem 4.1 and the additive/superadditive dichotomy. Theorem 4.1 is a genuine translation: r_b = min |[n]\E| = n - max|E|, and the downward-closed property of correctable erasures makes max|E| = d_b - 1; no parameter is fitted to data. Theorem 3.1 is proved from u_b and Lemma A.1 with an explicit achievability construction using connectivity of ceil((n+1)/2)-partite wedges. Theorem 4.2 is not a renaming: the additive case means EW(R) ∪ EW(Rbar) = EW([n]) (with Rbar = [n]\R), and s_b = d_b - 1 is derived from r_b = n - d_b + 1 plus complementarity; the superadditive case uses the proper inclusion (4.23), so the dichotomy has independent geometric content. Self-citations are present (Definition 3.1 cites [38-40], including the authors' [39,40]), but the RT-region graph is redefined in the paper and the cited works do not supply any of the load-bearing inequalities. Flagged for the record, not as circularity: Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.14) asserts n - s_b = r_b without the missing maximality/pairwise-intersection argument; this is an omitted proof, not a reduction-by-construction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard holographic reconstruction axioms plus one paper-specific sharp/no-ramp assumption. No free parameters are fitted to data; the transition points are deterministic outputs of the RT formula.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Entanglement wedge reconstruction: logical information in bulk subregion b can be reconstructed from boundary subregion R iff b is contained in EW(R).
    Invoked in Definition 4.1(1) and used to define R_b in Eq (3.2)/(4.1). This is the central interpretive premise of the paper.
  • domain assumption Entanglement wedge nesting: R1 subset R2 implies EW(R1) subset EW(R2).
    Used in Lemma 3.1 to prove upward monotonicity of the access structure and in Lemma 3.2 to prove pairwise intersections.
  • domain assumption Geometric complementarity of entanglement wedges including the purifier O: EW(R^c) = EW(R)^c.
    Definition 4.1(3), Eq (4.7); used in the proofs of Lemma 3.2, Theorem 4.1, and the no-cloning bound. This is the weakest structural premise.
  • standard math Gottesman's existence theorem: any monotone access structure with no two disjoint authorized sets admits a quantum secret-sharing scheme.
    Cited as [1] in Remark 1 to assert that the holographic access structure R_b yields a valid QSS.
  • standard math RT formula for pure AdS3: gamma_A = 2 log(2/epsilon) sin(phi/2) in units of the AdS radius, with entropy gamma/4G_N.
    Eq (2.1) is the input for all numerical phase-transition and Markov-gap computations. Standard holographic input.
  • domain assumption A phase exists in pure AdS3 where all ceil((n+1)/2)-partite entanglement wedges are connected, realizing the maximum distance.
    Used in Theorem 3.1 to achieve d_max = ceil(n/2). It is stated as a realizability condition rather than proved in full generality.
  • ad hoc to paper There are no intermediate/ramp sets: for fixed b and R, R either reconstructs b completely or not at all.
    Remark 3 asserts the absence of ramp CHQSS because intermediate sets are empty. This is a sharp exact-reconstruction assumption, not proved from EWR, and it sits uneasily with the paper's own superadditivity discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combinatorial aspects of holographic quantum secret sharing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5RXJGZVJ

@misc{pith2026260716110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combinatorial aspects of holographic quantum secret sharing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5RXJGZVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16110}
}
abstract

We introduce combinatorial holographic quantum secret sharing (CHQSS) for a bulk subregion in AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$ to study how logical information of the bulk subregion is encoded in the boundary and protected from erasures of boundary subregions. We introduce a distance, a reconstruction threshold, and a secret threshold to characterize CHQSS schemes. We present the phase transitions of multipartite entanglement wedges in a symmetric setup and observe multiple distinct phase transition points. The distance and thresholds depend on the holographic phase and the choice of bulk subregion. We derive the maximum distance. Moreover, we derive the relations between the distance and the thresholds. We construct a family of CHQSS schemes in the symmetric setting that includes perfect threshold CHQSS and perfect non-threshold CHQSS.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gottesman,Theory of quantum secret sharing, Phys

    D. Gottesman,Theory of quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A61(2000), no. 4 042311, [quant-ph/9910067]

    arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo,How to share a quantum secret, Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 648–651, [quant-ph/9901025]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V. Buzek, and A. Berthiaume,Quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A59(1999) 1829, [quant-ph/9806063]

    arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    A. D. Smith,Quantum secret sharing for general access structures,quant-ph/0001087

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Zhang and R

    P. Zhang and R. Matsumoto,Quantum strongly secure ramp secret sharing, Quant. Inf. Proc. 14(2015), no. 2 715–729, [arXiv:1404.5749]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    L. Xiao, G. L. Long, F.-G. Deng, and J.-W. Pan,Efficient multiparty quantum-secret-sharing schemes, Phys. Rev. A69(2004), no. 5 052307, [quant-ph/0405179]

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    C ¸ akan, V

    A. C ¸ akan, V. Goyal, C.-D. Liu-Zhang, and J. Ribeiro,Computational Quantum Secret Sharing, Leibniz Int. Proc. Inf.266(2023) 4:1–4:26, [arXiv:2305.00356]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Secret-sharing schemes for general access structures: An introduction

    A. Beimel, “Secret-sharing schemes for general access structures: An introduction.” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2025/518, 2025

    2025

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    S.-J. Qin, F. Gao, Q.-Y. Wen, and F.-C. Zhu,Cryptanalysis of the Hillery-Buzek-Berthiaume quantum secret-sharing protocol, Phys. Rev. A76(2007) 062324, [arXiv:0801.2418]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gheorghiu,Generalized Semi-Quantum Secret Sharing Schemes, Phys

    V. Gheorghiu,Generalized Semi-Quantum Secret Sharing Schemes, Phys. Rev. A85(2012) 052309, [arXiv:1204.1072]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Applebaum, A

    B. Applebaum, A. Beimel, O. Nir, N. Peter, and T. Pitassi,Secret sharing, slice formulas, and monotone real circuits, ACM Trans. Comput. Theory18(June, 2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Liu and V

    T. Liu and V. Vaikuntanathan,Breaking the circuit-size barrier in secret sharing, in Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018, (New York, NY, USA), p. 699–708, Association for Computing Machinery, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Probabilistic infinite secret sharing

    L. Csirmaz, “Probabilistic infinite secret sharing.” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2012/412, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Helwig, W

    W. Helwig, W. Cui, A. Riera, J. I. Latorre, and H.-K. Lo,Absolute Maximal Entanglement and Quantum Secret Sharing, Phys. Rev. A86(2012) 052335, [arXiv:1204.2289]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Markham and B

    D. Markham and B. C. Sanders,Graph states for quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A78 (2008), no. 4 042309, [arXiv:0808.1532]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chiwaki and R

    S. Chiwaki and R. Matsumoto,Measurement-free reconstruction circuit of quantum secrets in quantum secret sharing, Quant. Inf. Proc.24(2025), no. 10 322, [arXiv:2505.18840]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Matsumoto,Classical access structures of ramp secret sharing based on quantum stabilizer codes, Quant

    R. Matsumoto,Classical access structures of ramp secret sharing based on quantum stabilizer codes, Quant. Inf. Proc.19(2020), no. 1 9, [arXiv:1811.05217]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Matsumoto,Quantum Stabilizer Codes Can Realize Access Structures Impossible by Classical Secret Sharing,arXiv:1701.02911

    R. Matsumoto,Quantum Stabilizer Codes Can Realize Access Structures Impossible by Classical Secret Sharing,arXiv:1701.02911

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Javelle, M

    J. Javelle, M. Mhalla, and S. Perdrix,New Protocols and Lower Bounds for Quantum Secret Sharing with Graph States, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.7582(2013) 1–12, [arXiv:1109.1487]. – 37 –

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sarvepalli,Non-Threshold Quantum Secret Sharing Schemes in the Graph State Formalism, Phys

    P. Sarvepalli,Non-Threshold Quantum Secret Sharing Schemes in the Graph State Formalism, Phys. Rev. A86(2012) 042303, [arXiv:1202.3433]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. Keet, B. Fortescue, D. Markham, and B. C. Sanders,Quantum secret sharing with qudit graph states, Phys. Rev. A82(2010), no. 6 062315, [arXiv:1004.4619]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. L. Jafferis, A. Lewkowycz, J. Maldacena, and S. J. Suh,Relative entropy equals bulk relative entropy, JHEP06(2016) 004, [arXiv:1512.06431]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    X. Dong, D. Harlow, and A. C. Wall,Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality, Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016), no. 2 021601, [arXiv:1601.05416]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction, Commun

    D. Harlow,The Ryu–Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction, Commun. Math. Phys.354(2017), no. 3 865–912, [arXiv:1607.03901]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pastawski, B

    F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow, and J. Preskill,Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence, JHEP06(2015) 149, [arXiv:1503.06237]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow,Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT, JHEP04(2015) 163, [arXiv:1411.7041]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Furuya, N

    K. Furuya, N. Lashkari, and S. Ouseph,Real-space RG, error correction and Petz map, JHEP01(2022) 170, [arXiv:2012.14001]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Leutheusser and H

    S. Leutheusser and H. Liu,Subregion-subalgebra duality: Emergence of space and time in holography, Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 6 066021, [arXiv:2212.13266]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cotler, P

    J. Cotler, P. Hayden, G. Penington, G. Salton, B. Swingle, and M. Walter,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction via Universal Recovery Channels, Phys. Rev. X9(2019), no. 3 031011, [arXiv:1704.05839]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C.-F. Chen, G. Penington, and G. Salton,Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction using the Petz Map, JHEP01(2020) 168, [arXiv:1902.02844]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Akers, V

    C. Akers, V. Chandrasekaran, S. Leichenauer, A. Levine, and A. Shahbazi Moghaddam, Quantum null energy condition, entanglement wedge nesting, and quantum focusing, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 2 025011, [arXiv:1706.04183]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Czech and S

    B. Czech and S. Shuai,Nesting is not contracting, Journal of High Energy Physics2025 (2025), no. 6 122

    2025

  25. [33]

    Czech, S

    B. Czech, S. Shuai, Y. Wang, and D. Zhang,Holographic entropy inequalities and the topology of entanglement wedge nesting, Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 10 L101903, [arXiv:2309.15145]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Akers, A

    C. Akers, A. Levine, G. Penington, and E. Wildenhain,One-shot holography, SciPost Phys. 16(2024), no. 6 144, [arXiv:2307.13032]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    N. Bao, Y. Jiang, and J. Naskar,Subregion duality, wedge classification and no global symmetries in ads/cft, Journal of High Energy Physics2025(2025), no. 1 64

    2025

  28. [36]

    Faulkner,The holographic map as a conditional expectation,arXiv:2008.04810

    T. Faulkner,The holographic map as a conditional expectation,arXiv:2008.04810

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Leutheusser and H

    S. Leutheusser and H. Liu,Superadditivity in largenfield theories and performance of quantum tasks, Phys. Rev. D112(Aug, 2025) 046001

    2025

  30. [38]

    N. Bao, S. Nezami, H. Ooguri, B. Stoica, J. Sully, and M. Walter,The Holographic Entropy Cone, JHEP09(2015) 130, [arXiv:1505.07839]. – 38 –

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    N. Bao, K. Furuya, and J. Naskar,Towards a complete classification of holographic entropy inequalities, JHEP03(2025) 117, [arXiv:2409.17317]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    N. Bao, K. Furuya, and J. Naskar,On the completeness of contraction map proof method for holographic entropy inequalities, JHEP12(2025) 140, [arXiv:2506.18086]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ju, W.-B

    X.-X. Ju, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, and Y. Zhao,Holographic multipartite entanglement from the upper bound ofn-partite information,arXiv:2411.07790

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ju, Y.-W

    X.-X. Ju, Y.-W. Sun, and Y. Zhao,Upper bound of holographic entanglement entropy combinations, JHEP09(2025) 085, [arXiv:2505.11059]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hayden, O

    P. Hayden, O. Parrikar, and J. Sorce,The Markov gap for geometric reflected entropy, JHEP 10(2021) 047, [arXiv:2107.00009]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Dutta and T

    S. Dutta and T. Faulkner,A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section, JHEP03(2021) 178, [arXiv:1905.00577]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Pastawski and J

    F. Pastawski and J. Preskill,Code properties from holographic geometries, Phys. Rev. X7 (2017), no. 2 021022, [arXiv:1612.00017]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Volic and L

    I. Volic and L. Valentiner,The topology of simple games, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12578 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bousso and S

    R. Bousso and S. Kaya,Fundamental complement of a gravitating region, Gen. Rel. Grav.57 (2025), no. 8 124, [arXiv:2505.15886]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bousso and G

    R. Bousso and G. Penington,Holograms in our world, Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 4 046007, [arXiv:2302.07892]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bousso and G

    R. Bousso and G. Penington,Entanglement wedges for gravitating regions, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023), no. 8 086002, [arXiv:2208.04993]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Diestel, Graph Theory (Graduate Texts in Mathematics)

    R. Diestel, Graph Theory (Graduate Texts in Mathematics). Springer, August, 2005

    2005

  43. [51]

    Czech, S

    B. Czech, S. Shuai, and Y. Wang,Entropy Inequalities Constrain Holographic Erasure Correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025), no. 14 141603, [arXiv:2502.12246]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Fujiki, J

    K. Fujiki, J. Harper, T. Takayanagi, and N. Zenoni,The Entanglement Wedge Polygon, arXiv:2606.21081

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Alishahiha,Holographic Complexity, Phys

    M. Alishahiha,Holographic Complexity, Phys. Rev. D92(2015), no. 12 126009, [arXiv:1509.06614]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Roy and T

    P. Roy and T. Sarkar,Note on subregion holographic complexity, Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 2 026022, [arXiv:1701.05489]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Carmi, R

    D. Carmi, R. C. Myers, and P. Rath,Comments on Holographic Complexity, JHEP03 (2017) 118, [arXiv:1612.00433]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ben-Ami and D

    O. Ben-Ami and D. Carmi,On Volumes of Subregions in Holography and Complexity, JHEP 11(2016) 129, [arXiv:1609.02514]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    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, JHEP03(2020) 012, [arXiv:1909.10557]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    C´ aceres, J

    E. C´ aceres, J. Couch, S. Eccles, and W. Fischler,Holographic Purification Complexity, Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 8 086016, [arXiv:1811.10650]. – 39 –

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bakhshaei, A

    E. Bakhshaei, A. Mollabashi, and A. Shirzad,Holographic Subregion Complexity for Singular Surfaces, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017), no. 10 665, [arXiv:1703.03469]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Caceres and M.-L

    E. Caceres and M.-L. Xiao,Complexity-action of subregions with corners, JHEP03(2019) 062, [arXiv:1809.09356]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Alishahiha, K

    M. Alishahiha, K. Babaei Velni, and M. R. Mohammadi Mozaffar,Black hole subregion action and complexity, Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 12 126016, [arXiv:1809.06031]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    C. A. Ag´ on, M. Headrick, and B. Swingle,Subsystem Complexity and Holography, JHEP02 (2019) 145, [arXiv:1804.01561]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Nakajima,Holographic subregion complexity and fidelity susceptibility in noncommutative Yang-Mills theory, JHEP05(2026) 255, [arXiv:2602.14448]

    T. Nakajima,Holographic subregion complexity and fidelity susceptibility in noncommutative Yang-Mills theory, JHEP05(2026) 255, [arXiv:2602.14448]

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gerbershagen, J

    M. Gerbershagen, J. Hernandez, M. Khramtsov, and M. Knysh,Holographic dual of Bures metric and subregion complexity, JHEP04(2025) 059, [arXiv:2412.08707]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Junge, R

    M. Junge, R. Renner, D. Sutter, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter,Universal Recovery Maps and Approximate Sufficiency of Quantum Relative Entropy, Annales Henri Poincare19(2018), no. 10 2955–2978, [arXiv:1509.07127]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Petz,Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105(1986), no

    D. Petz,Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105(1986), no. 1 123–131

    1986

  59. [67]

    PETZ,Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy revisited, Reviews in Mathematical Physics15(2003), no

    D. PETZ,Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy revisited, Reviews in Mathematical Physics15(2003), no. 01 79–91, [https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X03001576]

    2003 doi

  60. [68]

    Gily´ en, S

    A. Gily´ en, S. Lloyd, I. Marvian, Y. Quek, and M. M. Wilde,Quantum algorithm for petz recovery channels and pretty good measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.128(Jun, 2022) 220502

    2022

  61. [69]

    Barnum and E

    H. Barnum and E. Knill,Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity, Journal of Mathematical Physics43(05, 2002) 2097–2106

    2002

  62. [70]

    Lautenbacher, V

    L. Lautenbacher, V. Jagadish, F. Petruccione, and N. K. Bernardes,Petz recovery maps for qudit quantum channels, Phys. Lett. A512(2024) 129583, [arXiv:2305.11658]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Faulkner, S

    T. Faulkner, S. Hollands, B. Swingle, and Y. Wang,Approximate Recovery and Relative Entropy I: General von Neumann Subalgebras, Commun. Math. Phys.389(2022), no. 1 349–397, [arXiv:2006.08002]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Faulkner and S

    T. Faulkner and S. Hollands,Approximate recoverability and relative entropy II: 2-positive channels of general von Neumann algebras, Lett. Math. Phys.112(2022), no. 2 26, [arXiv:2010.05513]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Leutheusser and H

    S. Leutheusser and H. Liu,Volume as an index of a subalgebra,arXiv:2508.00056

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Goyeneche, D

    D. Goyeneche, D. Alsina, J. I. Latorre, A. Riera, and K. ˙Zyczkowski,Absolutely maximally entangled states, combinatorial designs, and multiunitary matrices, Phys. Rev. A92(2015), no. 3 032316, [arXiv:1506.08857]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Sarvepalli,Bounds on the Information Rate of Quantum Secret Sharing Schemes, Phys

    P. Sarvepalli,Bounds on the Information Rate of Quantum Secret Sharing Schemes, Phys. Rev. A83(2011) 042324, [arXiv:1007.1232]

    2011 arXiv

  68. [76]

    H. Imai, J. Mueller-Quade, A. C. A. Nascimento, P. Tuyls, and A. Winter,An information theoretical model for quantum secret sharing schemes, Quant. Inf. Comput.5(2005), no. 1 069–080, [quant-ph/0311136]

    2005 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Grimaldi, M

    G. Grimaldi, M. Headrick, V. E. Hubeny, and P. Shteyner,Combinatorial properties of holographic entropy inequalities,arXiv:2601.09987. – 40 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.