Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Entanglement Entropy of Mixed State in Thermal CFT$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a bipartite mixed state in a thermal CFT$_2$, the subtraction approach gives $S_{vN}(A:B)=\frac{c}{6}\log\left(1+2\zeta+2\sqrt{\zeta(\zeta+1)}\right)$, and the paper proves this equals the entanglement wedge cross section in planar…

desk verdict Thermal extension of the subtraction approach matches EWCS, but the CFT derivation rests on an unproved vacuum-dominance truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11302 v3 pith:IVAIW5O4 submitted 2025-01-20 hep-th

Xin Jiang , Haitang Yang , Zilin Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords mixedstateentanglemententropythermalCFT2subtractionapproachwedgecrosssectionBTZblackholethermofielddoublereplicatrickboundary
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 aims to establish the bipartite mixed-state entanglement entropy of a thermal two-dimensional conformal field theory from the subtraction approach, and to match it unambiguously to a bulk quantity in the dual BTZ black hole. The core result is that for two disjoint intervals $A$ and $B$, the entropy is $S_{vN}(A:B)=\frac{c}{6}\log\left(1+2\zeta+2\sqrt{\zeta(\zeta+1)}\right)$, where $\zeta$ is a cross ratio of the four endpoints; the complementary pair $C:D$ obeys the same formula with $\zeta\to1/\zeta$. In planar BTZ this is exactly the length of the entanglement wedge cross section, so the paper claims the subtraction prescription is a no-optimization CFT definition of that holographic quantity. It then studies the thermofield double state and shows that, when a parameter $\kappa$ defined by the interval endpoints is less than one, the dual surface for $C:D$ crosses the black hole horizon. If correct, this gives a concrete, calculationally tractable handle on mixed-state entanglement in holography, with a sharp geometric prediction that can be checked either in CFT or in the bulk.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the subtraction map from the thermal cylinder to an annulus. One maps the cylinder to the plane with $w=e^{2\pi z/\beta}$, then removes the separating intervals $C$ and $D$ by cutting out discs whose boundaries carry conformal boundary states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$; the remaining surface is a pure-state annulus with slits for $A$ and $B$. The annulus partition function is $Z_1=e^{cW/12}\sum_k \langle a|k\rangle\langle k|b\rangle e^{-2\delta_k W}$, and the $n$-fold replica is again an annulus with conformal width $W/n$. Keeping only the vacuum term and subtracting the boundary-entropy term $\log(\langle a|0\rangle\langle 0|b\rangle)$ gives $S_{vN}(A:B)=cW/6$, which is rewritten in the conformally invariant cross ratio $\zeta$ through $e^W=1+2\zeta+2\sqrt{\zeta(\zeta+1)}$. On the gravity side, the same cross ratio enters the geodesic length in planar BTZ, and the horizon-crossing analysis is done by mapping BTZ to flat-slice coordinates and locating where an endpoint coordinate vanishes.

What would settle it

On an annulus with two slits representing $A$ and $B$, compute the exact Rényi entropy $S^{(n)}$ for a free compactified boson with general conformal boundary states, keeping the full boundary-state sum; if the $n\to1$ limit after subtracting the fixed boundary entropy is not $\frac{c}{6}\log\left(1+2\zeta+2\sqrt{\zeta(\zeta+1)}\right)$ for all annulus moduli, the central equality is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a thermal CFT$_2$ at inverse temperature $\beta$, the subtraction approach gives the static bipartite mixed-state entanglement entropy $S_{vN}(A:B)=\frac{c}{6}\log\left(1+2\zeta+2\sqrt{\zeta(\zeta+1)}\right)$, where $\zeta=\frac{\sinh(\pi(x_2-x_1)/\beta)\sinh(\pi(x_4-x_3)/\beta)}{\sinh(\pi(x_3-x_2)/\beta)\sinh(\pi(x_4-x_1)/\beta)}$ for intervals $A=(x_1,x_2)$ and $B=(x_3,x_4)$. The same expression with $\zeta\to1/\zeta$ gives the entropy of the complementary pair $C=(x_2,x_3)$ and $D=(-\infty,x_1)\cup(x_4,\infty)$. The paper shows, using the planar BTZ metric and the standard central-charge relation, that the entanglement wedge cross section for the same cross ratio is exactly this CFT answer, so $S_{vN}(A:B)=EW(A:B)$. For the thermofield double state, with the modified cross ratio of Eq. (30), the dual $EW(C:D)$ crosses the horizon when $\kappa<1$ and $EW(A:B)$ does so when $\bar{\kappa}<1$, with $\kappa$ and $\bar{\kappa}$ given explicitly in Eqs. (34) and (36).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the boundary-entropy term left by removing the separating intervals is completely irrelevant to the entanglement between $A$ and $B$, so that dropping it after Eq. (13) leaves a universal result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As a consequence of the claimed equality, the entanglement wedge cross section is the holographic dual of the subtraction-approach entropy in thermal states, extending the zero-temperature verification.
  • The subtraction approach fixes the phase transition between $S_{vN}(A:B)$ and $S_{vN}(C:D)$ at $\zeta=1$ without an optimization procedure, so each boundary pair is matched to a definite bulk geodesic.
  • In the thermofield double state, the dual surface for $C:D$ crosses the BTZ horizon when $\kappa<1$, so mixed-state entanglement in the TFD state is not always confined to one exterior.
  • The covariant extension follows by replacing $x_i$ with $z_i=x_i+\tau_i$, so the same formula applies to time-dependent intervals.
  • The pure-state single-interval entropy is recovered by taking the regulator limit in $S_{vN}(C:D)$, yielding the standard thermal result $\frac{c}{3}\log\left(\frac{\beta}{\pi\epsilon}\sinh\frac{\pi\ell}{\beta}\right)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the subtraction result is universal, it provides an optimization-free CFT definition of the entanglement wedge cross section that could extend to multipartite mixed states and to other holographic settings.
  • The horizon-crossing transition at $\kappa=1$ and $\bar{\kappa}=1$ is a sharp prediction that could be compared with reflected entropy or negativity in the same thermofield double configuration; those quantities should show a qualitative change at the same parameter value if the geometric picture is complete.
  • Because the final formula depends only on the cross ratio, a natural test is to evaluate the exact annulus Rényi entropy in free-boson or minimal-model boundary conditions; if the residual boundary contribution varies with the annulus moduli, the equality holds only for special boundary conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 manuscript extends a previously introduced 'subtraction approach' to mixed-state entanglement in a thermal CFT2 on a cylinder. After mapping the cylinder to the plane and removing the separating intervals C and D by cutting out two discs, the remaining subsystem A∪B is treated as living on an annulus. The authors compute the von Neumann entropy of this pure-state configuration from the annulus partition function, drop all excited-state contributions and the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy, and obtain S_vN(A:B) = (c/6) log(1 + 2ζ + 2√(ζ(ζ+1))) with ζ defined in Eq. (17). They compare this with the entanglement wedge cross section computed from geodesics in the planar BTZ black hole and claim equality in Eq. (25). They also study a two-sided thermofield double configuration and derive a horizon-crossing condition κ=1 in Eq. (34).

Significance. If established, the result would provide a simple finite-temperature check of the subtraction prescription and an unambiguous CFT-side characterization of the holographic entanglement wedge cross section, extending the zero-temperature results of Refs. [16,17]. The bulk calculation in Appendix A is explicit and self-contained, and the comparison involves no fitted parameters: the CFT expression and the geodesic computation are independent and agree in analytic form. The horizon-crossing feature in the thermofield double state, if correct, is an interesting qualitative prediction. However, the significance is currently limited by the lack of control over the CFT approximation, and the paper should not be accepted before that gap is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (12)] The replacement of the full annulus partition functions (8) and (11) by their k=0 vacuum terms is the load-bearing step of the whole CFT computation, but it is only asserted. Suppression of excited states requires W = log(R2/R1) to be large compared with 1/δ_{k>0}; however, Eq. (15) implies W→0 as ζ→0, a regime explicitly covered by the final formula (16). In that regime the k-sum is not vacuum-dominated. The same issue affects the replicated partition function (11), whose effective width is W/n, so the n→1 limit does not restore vacuum dominance. No large-central-charge or sparse-spectrum limit is stated that would justify vacuum dominance in a holographic CFT. Since the bulk EWCS in Eq. (23) is exact for all ζ, the claimed equality (25) is not demonstrated. The authors should either prove that excited-state contributions cancel after the subtraction or state the precise domain of validity of Eq. (16) and explain how the comparison to the exact bulk result is meaningful.
  2. [II.A, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy log(⟨a|0⟩⟨0|b⟩) is removed with the statement that it is 'totally irrelevant' to the entanglement between A and B. This is a definitional choice, not a consequence of the replica computation: in Eq. (13) this term is independent of n, so it survives in the von Neumann limit and would affect the value of S_vN(A:B) unless cancelled by an additional prescription. If the overlap depends on the intervals that define the boundary conditions, or on the annulus modulus, Eq. (14) and therefore Eq. (16) contain an unremoved model-dependent contribution. The authors should derive the cancellation or state explicitly the normalization convention under which the boundary entropy is discarded.
  3. [III, Eq. (30)] The two-sided configuration is one of the advertised new results, but the modified cross ratio (30) is introduced without derivation. It is not immediate how Eqs. (16) and (19) 'can be directly read off' for points living on two different asymptotic boundaries of the thermofield double state, and the coordinate transformation (22) as presented covers one exterior patch of the BTZ geometry. The horizon-crossing analysis in Eqs. (33)-(34) therefore needs a self-contained calculation in the extended BTZ spacetime, including an explanation of how the geodesic endpoints are continued across the horizon and why that geodesic remains the minimal entanglement wedge cross section.
minor comments (4)
  1. [I] There are several typographical errors: 'statenth Rényi entropy', 'ER = EP Rhas', and the spacing in 'ρAA∗BB ∗' should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (20)] The double limit x2-x1→ϵ and x4-x3→ϵ is written loosely, and the constant inside the logarithm after the limit is cutoff-dependent; please specify the regularization and comment on the factor 2π/β relative to the standard thermal interval entropy.
  3. [II.C] The term 'phase transition' for the crossing at ζ=1 is potentially misleading: the paper shows that the green geodesics belong to different bipartitions, so the crossing is a comparison of two different quantities rather than a phase transition in a single mixed-state measure; this should be stated more carefully.
  4. [Eqs. (31)-(34)] The symbol w is used both for the coordinate on the original w-plane and for the boundary coordinate in Eq. (32); please introduce separate notations to avoid confusion in the horizon-crossing formulas.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The finite-temperature S_vN=EW result is obtained by dropping all excited states and subtracting the boundary entropy inside the self-cited subtraction approach; the CFT side of Eq. (25) is the vacuum term chosen to match the known EWCS formula.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (12)-(14)]
    "Since we are concerned with the vacuum entanglement, the contribution of excited states is irrelevant. We thus have Z1 = ecW/12 ⟨a|0⟩ ⟨0|b⟩, Zn = ecW/12n ⟨a|0⟩ ⟨0|b⟩. ... This boundary entropy is model dependent and are totally irrelevant to the entanglement between A and B. Therefore, the entanglement entropy of A and B is: SvN (A : B) = lim_{n→1} S(n)(A) − log(⟨a|0⟩ ⟨0|b⟩) = c/6 W."

    The claimed CFT prediction Eq. (16) is obtained by truncating the exact annulus sum (8)/(11) to k=0 and by manually removing the boundary-entropy term log(⟨a|0⟩⟨0|b⟩). Neither operation follows from the replica calculation; the retained term c/6 W is exactly the function of the cross ratio that equals the EWCS formula (23). The discarded terms are not shown to vanish, and in the ζ→0 limit W→0 they are not suppressed. Thus the equality (25) is not an independent prediction but a restatement of the vacuum term selected by a self-cited ansatz rather than by a derived CFT result.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. I, Introduction (paragraphs around refs. [16,17])]
    "In recent works [16, 17], the SUBTRACTION approach is introduced to calculate the mixed state entanglement entropy in CFT successfully. ... In [16, 17], the zero temperature infinite system is studied, for static and covariant scenarios. It is confirmed SvN(A : B) = EW (A : B). In this paper, we apply the subtraction approach to thermal CFT2."

    The subtraction framework — including the vacuum-only reduction used in Eq. (12) — is imported from the authors' own refs. [16,17], whose 'confirmation' of S_vN=EW is the only prior establishment of the method. The present paper's finite-temperature verification uses that same method on the CFT side, so the central equality to the bulk EWCS leans on the authors' prior claim rather than on an independently derived or externally checkable theorem given in this manuscript. The bulk computation is independent, but the CFT side is not.

full rationale

The bulk EWCS computation in Appendix A (Eq. (23) and Eq. (A11)) is independent and standard, and the algebraic identities used in Eqs. (15), (24), and (34) are not circular. However, the CFT derivation of Eq. (16) is not a first-principles evaluation of the annulus partition function: Eq. (12) truncates to the k=0 vacuum without controlling the omitted excited states, and Eq. (14) subtracts the Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy as 'totally irrelevant' rather than proving that it cancels. These two choices select exactly the term c/6 W that, through Eq. (15), reproduces the known EWCS formula, making the comparison in Eq. (25) partially a restatement of the retained term. The subtraction approach itself is introduced via the authors' own prior works [16,17], so the method's validity is partly a self-citation. No numerical data are fitted, and the mathematics of the annulus partition function and BTZ geodesics is standard; the circularity burden is therefore moderate rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard boundary CFT and holographic techniques plus one ad hoc assumption: the boundary entropy is dropped without proof. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy log(<a|0><0|b>) = dropped (assumed zero)
    The authors assert after Eq. (13) that this term is model dependent and irrelevant, then subtract it to obtain S_vN = cW/6. If it were relevant, the central formula would shift by this undetermined constant.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The replica trick relation Tr_A rho_A^n = Z_n / Z_1^n holds for the thermal density matrix on the cylinder (Eq. (3)).
    Standard CFT replica method, used without modification.
  • standard math The partition function on the annulus is Z_1 = e^{cW/12} sum_k <a|k><k|b> e^{-2 delta_k W} (Eq. (8)).
    Standard boundary CFT result from refs. [18-20], cited by the paper.
  • domain assumption After replica, only the vacuum state contributes to Z_n (Section II.A: 'the contribution of excited states is irrelevant').
    Assumes large conformal width W or decoupling of excited states; no error estimate is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The Affleck-Ludwig boundary entropy log(<a|0><0|b>) is irrelevant to the entanglement between A and B (after Eq. (13)).
    Asserted without proof; dropping this term is necessary to obtain Eq. (14) and the match with EWCS.
  • domain assumption The holographic dual of the subtraction-based mixed-state entanglement entropy is the entanglement wedge cross section (Section II.B, relying on ref. [11]).
    The paper verifies equality rather than deriving this duality from first principles.
  • domain assumption The BTZ to Poincare coordinate transformation (22) faithfully maps the entanglement wedge and horizon, so horizon crossing can be read off by X_L = 0 in pure AdS3 (Section III).
    The mapping is standard, but its global validity for the two-sided configuration is not discussed in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement Entropy of Mixed State in Thermal CFT$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVAIW5O4

@misc{pith2026250111302,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement Entropy of Mixed State in Thermal CFT$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVAIW5O4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11302}
}
abstract

Using the subtraction approach, we give the bipartite mixed state entanglement entropy in thermal $\text{CFT}_2$. With these entanglement entropies, we examine in detail the holographic duals of different entangling configurations unambiguously. In the thermofield double state, we show a horizon-crossing feature in two-sided entanglement configuration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11302 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: At τ = 0, two subsystems A and B on the x-axis are in a mixed state ρAB, separated by segments C and D. Right panel: After conformally subtracting C and D with two discs, an annulus is obtained, in which two subsystems A and B are now in a pure entangled state ψAB. II. MIXED STATE ENTANGLEMENT ENTROPY IN THERMAL CFT2 In this section, we first use the subtraction approach to calculate the entanglement ent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ρ = |TFD⟩ ⟨TFD| is prepared using Euclidean path integral. Two copies of CFTs reside on two slits, one on each side. The thermofield double state |TFD⟩ is a pure entangled state that describes a thermally excited system, |TFD⟩ = X n e − β 2 En |nL⟩ ⊗ |nR⟩, (5) where β is the inverse temperature, En is the energy of the n-th eigenstate, and |nL⟩ and |nR⟩ are the states in the left and right CFTs, respectively. In thi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. At τ = 0, two disjoint subsystems, A = (x1, x2) and B = (x3, x4), are noncomplementary, resulting in a mixed state ρAB. After tracing out A and B, ρCD is also a mixed state. between A and B. The simplest way is to map the cylinder onto the complex plane using the following conformal map: w = exp  2πz β  , (7) where β is the inverse temperature of the thermal CFT2 and is identical to the circumference of the cylind… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The subtraction approach is applied on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cut-and-glue procedure in the replica trick. Each annulus is cut along the segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BTZ black hole in planar coordinates. The boundary is at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The red line is EW (C : D). The LHS green line is EW  (−∞, x1) : (x2, ∞)  . The RHS green line is EW  (−∞, x3) : (x4, ∞)  11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A slice of the solid cylinder. Last section discussion is an one-sided entanglement. In this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A two-sided entanglement configuration. The ideal quadrilateral within the entanglement wedge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: EWCS in Poincaré coordinate. The endpoints, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Exact and Finite de Sitter QFT from CFT

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Constructs exact finite de Sitter QFT from CFT data using moduli space of oriented balls and Casimir completion of operators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity.Adv

    Juan Martin Maldacena. The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity.Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 2:231–252, 1998. arXiv:hep-th/9711200, doi:10.1023/A:1026654312961

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography

    Edward Witten. Anti-de Sitter space and holography. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 2:253–291, 1998. arXiv:hep-th/9802150, doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    S. S. Gubser, Igor R. Klebanov, and Alexander M. Polyakov. Gauge theory correlators from non- critical string theory. Phys. Lett. B , 428:105–114, 1998. arXiv:hep-th/9802109, doi:10.1016/ S0370-2693(98)00377-3

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT

    Shinsei Ryu and Tadashi Takayanagi. Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:181602, 2006. arXiv:hep-th/0603001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Aspects of holographic entanglement entropy.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2006(08):045–045, aug 2006.doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/08/045

    Shinsei Ryu and Tadashi Takayanagi. Aspects of holographic entanglement entropy.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2006(08):045–045, aug 2006.doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/08/045

    doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/08/045 2006

  6. [6]

    Hubeny, Mukund Rangamani, and Tadashi Takayanagi

    Veronika E. Hubeny, Mukund Rangamani, and Tadashi Takayanagi. A Covariant holographic entan- glement entropy proposal. JHEP, 07:062, 2007. arXiv:0705.0016, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/ 07/062. 15

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement.Gen

    Mark Van Raamsdonk. Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement.Gen. Rel. Grav., 42:2323– 2329, 2010. arXiv:1005.3035, doi:10.1142/S0218271810018529

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Einstein Equation Governs the Dynamics of Entanglement Entropy in CFT

    Xin Jiang, Peng Wang, Houwen Wu, and Haitang Yang. Einstein Equation Governs the Dynamics of Entanglement Entropy in CFT. 10 2024.arXiv:2410.19711

    arXiv 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Realization of ”ER=EPR”

    Xin Jiang, Peng Wang, Houwen Wu, and Haitang Yang. Realization of ”ER=EPR”. 11 2024.arXiv: 2411.18485

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Entanglement negativity in extended systems: A field theoretical approach.J

    Pasquale Calabrese, John Cardy, and Erik Tonni. Entanglement negativity in extended systems: A field theoretical approach.J. Stat. Mech., 1302:P02008, 2013.arXiv:1210.5359, doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ 2013/02/P02008

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Entanglement of purification through holographic duality

    Tadashi Takayanagi and Koji Umemoto. Entanglement of purification through holographic duality. Nature Phys., 14(6):573–577, 2018. arXiv:1708.09393, doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Entanglement Wedge Cross Section from the Dual Density Matrix.Phys

    Kotaro Tamaoka. Entanglement Wedge Cross Section from the Dual Density Matrix.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(14):141601, 2019. arXiv:1809.09109, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.141601

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section

    Souvik Dutta and Thomas Faulkner. A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section. JHEP, 03:178, 2021. arXiv:1905.00577, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)178

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Balanced Partial Entanglement and the Entanglement Wedge Cross Section.JHEP, 04:301,

    Qiang Wen. Balanced Partial Entanglement and the Entanglement Wedge Cross Section.JHEP, 04:301,

  7. [15]

    Does connected wedge imply distillable entanglement? 11 2024

    Takato Mori and Beni Yoshida. Does connected wedge imply distillable entanglement? 11 2024. arXiv:2411.03426

    2024

  8. [16]

    Alternative to purification in conformal field theory

    Xin Jiang, Peng Wang, Houwen Wu, and Haitang Yang. Alternative to purification in conformal field theory. Phys. Rev. D , 111(2):L021902, 2025. arXiv:2406.09033, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111. L021902

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mixed State Entanglement Entropy in CFT

    Xin Jiang, Houwen Wu, Peng Wang, and Haitang Yang. Mixed State Entanglement Entropy in CFT. 1 2025. arXiv:2501.08198

    2025

  10. [18]

    John L. Cardy. Boundary Conditions, Fusion Rules and the Verlinde Formula.Nucl. Phys. B, 324:581– 596, 1989. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90521-X

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    John L. Cardy. Boundary conformal field theory. 11 2004.arXiv:hep-th/0411189

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Entanglement hamiltonians in two-dimensional conformal field theory.J

    John Cardy and Erik Tonni. Entanglement hamiltonians in two-dimensional conformal field theory.J. Stat. Mech., 1612(12):123103, 2016. arXiv:1608.01283, doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2016/12/123103

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ian Affleck and Andreas W. W. Ludwig. Universal noninteger ’ground state degeneracy’ in critical quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 67:161–164, 1991. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.161

    1991 doi

  14. [22]

    up” and “down

    J. David Brown and M. Henneaux. Central charges in the canonical realization of asymptotic sym- metries: An example from three-dimensional gravity. Commun. Math. Phys. , 104:207–226, 1986. doi:10.1007/BF01211590. 16 Appendix A: Endpoints of EWCS in Pure AdS 3 We work in pure A...

    1986 doi

  15. [2021]

    arXiv:2103.00415, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)301

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.