Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

This paper shows that multipartite entanglement measures in a strongly coupled holographic nodal line semimetal vanish at long distances, yet their power-law decay exponents shift sharply at the quantum critical point, acting as non-local o

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

2026-08-03 05:40 UTC pith:PBQRQSOZ

load-bearing objection Competent extension of the holographic c-function program to tripartite measures; the CMI part is clean, the κ and Markov-gap scalings are plausible but underdocumented, and the paper deserves referee time with demands for numerical transparency. the 6 major comments →

arxiv 2602.01545 v3 pith:PBQRQSOZ submitted 2026-02-02 hep-th cond-mat.str-el

Multipartite entanglement characterizing topological phase transitions in holographic nodal line semimetals

Xiantong Chen , Xuanting Ji , Ya-Wen Sun This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.str-el
keywords multipartite entanglementholographic nodal line semimetaltopological phase transitionconditional mutual informationmulti-entropyentanglement wedge cross sectionMarkov gapquantum critical point
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 argues that in a strongly coupled holographic nodal line semimetal, several tripartite entanglement measures—conditional mutual information, a multi-entropy-derived quantity κ, and the entanglement wedge cross section along with the Markov gap—all decay to zero at large separation, confirming that the state is short-range entangled. Crucially, the way these measures decay, namely their power-law exponents, is set by the anisotropic scaling exponent of the infrared geometry and changes discontinuously when the control parameter M/b crosses the critical value 0.8597. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a purely entanglement-based, non-local order parameter for the topological phase transition that works even in the strong-coupling regime where quasiparticle and band-structure descriptions break down.

Core claim

The central claim is that the infrared geometry of the holographic dual exhibits an anisotropic scaling exponent z with distinct values in the topological (z≈10.929), critical (z≈6.3694), and trivial (z=1) phases, and that every tripartite measure computed from strip-like boundary regions follows a power law at large separation l whose exponent depends on z and on the orientation of the strip. Along the x-direction the exponents are l^{-3-z} for CMI and l^{-1-z} for κ, EWCS, and the Markov gap; along the z-direction they are l^{-2-2/z} for CMI and l^{-2/z} for κ, EWCS, and the Markov gap. Because z jumps at the quantum critical point, these scaling exponents (or the values of the measures at

What carries the argument

The central object is the holographic IR geometry of the nodal line semimetal, characterized by metric components u(r) and f(r) whose near-horizon scaling yields an anisotropic exponent z. The paper computes three classes of multipartite entanglement measures: (1) conditional mutual information, expressed as the second derivative of entanglement entropy and thereby through a conserved quantity on the extremal surface; (2) the holographic multi-entropy, defined as the area of a minimal branching network of surfaces that meet at mutual angles 2π/3, with κ obtained by subtracting half the summed bipartite entropies; and (3) the entanglement wedge cross section E_W and the Markov gap h = 2E_W -

Load-bearing premise

The claimed scaling exponents for κ and the Markov gap rest on two unproven identifications: the 2π/3 branch-point condition for the minimal surface network in this anisotropic bulk geometry, and the canonical purification formula SR=2EW, along with an asserted cancellation of ultraviolet divergences that makes κ finite; if any of these fail, the l^{-1-z} and l^{-2/z} power laws for those two measures would not follow.

What would settle it

Directly verify the junction condition 3g_rr(r_node) r'^2 = g_ii(r_node) in the anisotropic bulk by numerically minimizing the full area of the branching network without imposing equal 2π/3 angles, and compare the resulting multi-entropy and κ with Eqs. (4.3)-(4.5). A mismatch, or a residual cutoff-dependence in the UV-subtracted κ, would falsify the claimed decay exponents.

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

If this is right

  • The large-distance decay exponents of CMI, κ, EWCS, and the Markov gap can distinguish the topological, critical, and trivial phases of a strongly coupled nodal line semimetal, providing non-local order parameters beyond band theory.
  • The vanishing of all tripartite measures at l→∞ confirms that the strongly coupled holographic nodal line semimetal remains a short-range entangled state, consistent with symmetry-protected topological order rather than intrinsic topological order.
  • The anisotropic scaling along x/y versus z directions reveals that the nodal ring in the kx-ky plane suppresses long-range correlations in-plane while preserving an enhanced correlation channel along the z axis, a feature that should be observable in other entanglement probes.
  • These results extend the earlier c-function analysis to higher-order multipartite entanglement and suggest that multipartite entanglement structure is a sensitive probe of topological quantum phase transitions in holographic systems.
  • The sharp transition at M/b=0.8597 in all computed measures provides a concrete diagnostic that could be used in future holographic studies of nodal line semimetals and related topological semimetals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling exponents are indeed determined solely by the IR exponent z, then the same table of power laws should hold for other holographic semimetals (e.g., Weyl or Weyl-Z2) with their respective z values; testing this would be a direct extension of the paper's framework.
  • The claimed identity h(A:B:C)=h(A:B) for the chosen strip configuration, and the canonical purification formula SR=2EW, are assumptions that could be checked independently by explicit replica computations or by using other holographic backgrounds; the large-l power laws for the Markov gap hinge on these steps.
  • The non-zero value of κ at finite l implies that the tripartite state is not locally a triangle state at any finite scale, with triangle-state structure emerging only asymptotically; this suggests a quantitative measure of how quickly genuine tripartite entanglement is lost along the RG flow.
  • If the decay exponents are universal for a given topological phase, then measuring the large-distance decay of tripartite correlation functions in a lattice or cold-atom simulation of a nodal line semimetal could serve as a tabletop test of the holographic prediction.

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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies tripartite entanglement measures in the holographic nodal line semimetal of Refs. [23,24]. Using the known IR geometries for topological, critical, and trivial phases, it computes (i) the conditional mutual information for two infinitesimal strips separated by a strip, (ii) the multi-entropy-based measure kappa for two adjacent strips plus complement, and (iii) the entanglement wedge cross section (EWCS) and a Markov gap for strip configurations. It reports large-separation power laws in Table 1 and shows that at fixed large strip width the measures change sharply at M/b = 0.8597. The authors interpret this as evidence that the holographic nodal line semimetal is short-range entangled and that multipartite measures serve as non-local order parameters for the topological transition.

Significance. If the reported scalings are correct, the paper would extend the c-function diagnostic of Ref. [35] to genuine multipartite measures and provide concrete holographic predictions, e.g., CMI ~ l^{-3-z_x}, kappa ~ l^{-1-z_x}, and EWCS/Markov gap with the same exponent along x, with analogous 1/z-dependent powers along z. A clear strength is that the CMI exponents follow analytically from Eq. (3.2) and the known c-function scaling, so that part is on a solid footing. The most novel parts, however, depend on unproven geometric assumptions for the Steiner network, on a claimed UV-finiteness that is not demonstrated, and on numerical fits with no documented ranges or residuals. In addition, the critical value M/b = 0.8597 and the exponents z are inputs from earlier work, so the sharp transition seen in the plots is a consistency check rather than an independent extraction of the phase boundary. The manuscript is therefore potentially useful but needs substantial strengthening before the central claim is established.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4.3)-(4.4)] The kappa computation assumes a single connected three-leg Steiner network whose junction obeys 3 g_rr r'^2 = g_ii. For a diagonal metric this angle condition can in fact be derived from the first variation in the (x_i,r) slice, but the paper does not provide that derivation, and it does not compare the connected network with disconnected competitors. If a disconnected configuration is the global minimum, Eq. (4.4) is not the multi-entropy and the Table 1 kappa scalings do not follow. Please supply the full minimization and a numerical check of the network topology.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.5)] The definition kappa = S^(3) - (1/2)(S_AB + S_BC + S_CA) is stated to be UV-finite, but the cancellation is not shown. Each ingredient has a power-law UV divergence in this background; without an explicit demonstration the finite remainder could depend on the cutoff, which would invalidate kappa as an order parameter. Please provide an analytic or numerical check of the divergence cancellation for the configurations used.
  3. [Sections 5.2-5.3] Eq. (5.7) defines h(A:B:C) as the minimum of three pair Markov gaps, and Section 5.3 asserts that for two strips of width l separated by l, h(A:B:C) reduces to h(A:B). The other two pair quantities are not computed; at least one involves the infinite complement C and may be UV-divergent or have a different l-scaling. This reduction is load-bearing for the Markov-gap exponents in Table 1 and should be proven, or the definition of h(A:B:C) should be changed.
  4. [Sections 5.1 and 5.3] The large-l exponents for the EWCS and the Markov gap are reported only as 'by fitting we obtain...'. No fit intervals, residuals, or log-log plots are given. Since Table 1 states exact power laws, the fitting procedure should be documented so that the claimed exponents are independently checkable.
  5. [Sections 2-4] The critical value M/b = 0.8597 and the values of z in Eq. (2.7) are inputs from Refs. [24,35]. The sharp changes at the critical point are therefore consistency checks with the known phase diagram, not an independent determination of the transition. To support the 'robust non-local order parameter' claim, the authors should extract the transition from the entanglement data themselves, for example by fitting exponents as functions of M/b without using the known critical value.
  6. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The inference that vanishing CMI/kappa/EWCS at large l 'confirms' short-range entanglement is too strong. Power-law decays at large separation can also occur in gapless or long-range entangled states; the presented data do not rule out subleading constant terms or a topological entanglement entropy. Please soften the conclusion or provide an additional diagnostic, such as comparison of subleading terms with a trivial reference state.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos include 'Similiarly' (Section 2.1), 'seperarted' (Section 3.1), 'compluted' (Section 5.1), 'interprested' (Section 5.2), 'severes' (Section 5.2), 'quantu m' (Section 3.2), and 'gravitional' (Section 5.1).
  2. [Table 1] In the EWCS z-direction row, the entry 'l^{-2/z_x}' should presumably be 'l^{-2/z_z}', consistent with the text and the adjacent rows.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption repeats 'left' and 'right': 'The dependence of CMI on l_x (left) and l_z (right)' is redundant and should be corrected to match the two panels.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.4)] The notation with product over j=1..n uses n without defining it; in this 5D setup n=3 should be stated explicitly when the formula is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the multipartite measures are computed as distinct observables from the given bulk geometry; the phase boundary and IR exponents are model inputs, not outputs of a circular fit.

full rationale

The paper takes as inputs the holographic nodal-line semimetal action and IR geometries from Refs. [23,24,50] and the c-function framework of Ref. [35]. These are prior model constructions, not conclusions of the present work. The new computations—CMI via Eq. (3.2), κ via Eqs. (4.3)–(4.5), and EWCS/Markov gap via Eqs. (5.1)–(5.7)—are distinct observables evaluated from the same metric. The large-l scaling exponents in Table 1 follow from inserting the IR scaling exponent z of Eq. (2.7) into each geometric construction; they are not produced by defining the measures in terms of z, nor by fitting z to the measures and then presenting that fit as a prediction. The critical value M/b = 0.8597 is an input inherited from the model and is used to display sharp changes, not derived as a new prediction. Self-citations such as Refs. [23,37,42,49,50] provide prior constructions, but the load-bearing identities also have independent support (e.g., Ref. [56] for CMI = -d^2S/dl^2, Refs. [46,47] for S_R = 2E_W, Ref. [57] for the Steiner-tree junction condition). No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no equation reduces to its input by construction. The unproven assumptions—the adapted 120° junction condition in an anisotropic metric, the UV finiteness of κ asserted after Eq. (4.5), and the canonical-purification identification S_R = 2E_W—are potential correctness risks rather than circular steps, because the claimed scaling laws would simply be invalid if those assumptions failed, not merely restatements of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and no free parameters of its own in the entanglement computations; the load-bearing numbers (z, M/b_c, IR exponents) come from the model of Ref. [24]. The central claims rest on four working conjectures of the holographic literature (RT, multi-entropy Steiner tree, canonical purification S_R=2E_W, Markov-gap tripartite interpretation) plus two same-group identities (CMI second-derivative formula, κ definition).

free parameters (5)
  • z (anisotropic scaling exponent) = z = 2/α = 10.929 (topological), 2/α_c = 6.3694 (critical), 1 (trivial)
    Every claimed exponent (l^{1-z}, l^{-3-z}, l^{-1-z}, l^{-2/z}) is a function of z, read off the IR geometries (2.4)-(2.6) inherited from Ref. [24]. The paper assigns exponents via z rather than deriving them from the entanglement integrals.
  • critical value M/b = 0.8597
    The location of the 'sharp transition at the quantum critical point' is input from Ref. [24]'s numerical solution of the model; the entanglement measures inherit it rather than predict it.
  • large-l exponent fits for EWCS and Markov gap = not reported numerically
    §5.1 and §5.3 state the leading powers were obtained 'by fitting' but give no fitted values, fit intervals, or residuals; the claimed match to the z-predicted exponents is unverifiable from the text.
  • strip separation for EWCS/Markov-gap configurations = unspecified
    §5.1 uses two non-adjacent strips at a 'properly chosen distance' that 'does not affect the qualitative behavior'; the coefficient of the power law, which sets the finite-l plateaus in Figs. 12 and 15, depends on this choice.
  • bulk couplings (α_CS=1, η=2, m²=-3, m_B=1, λ_B=1, λ=0.1, q=q_B=1) = as fixed in §2.1
    Hand-chosen in Ref. [24] to produce the intended phase structure; the z values and the critical point are contingent on them.
axioms (7)
  • standard math RT/HRT prescription: entanglement entropy = Area/4G, with the strip extremal-surface computation (Eqs. 2.11-2.12)
    Standard holographic background (Ref. [28]) used throughout §2-5.
  • domain assumption Canonical purification conjecture S_R(A:B) = 2E_W(A:B)
    Eq. (5.2); the Markov gap results inherit this unproven identification, which is not verified for the matter-coupled anisotropic backgrounds used here.
  • domain assumption Holographic multi-entropy = Steiner-tree area (Eq. 4.2) with 2π/3 junction equilibrium condition (Eq. 4.3)
    Conjectured holographic dual (Refs. [57-65]); applied without justification of the angle equilibrium condition in the anisotropic curved bulk, and load-bearing for the κ scaling claims.
  • domain assumption κ = S^(3) - (1/2)(S_AB+S_BC+S_CA) isolates genuine tripartite entanglement and is UV-finite
    Definition (Eq. 4.5) from Refs. [44, 45]; the UV-divergence cancellation that guarantees finiteness is asserted in §4.2, not verified here.
  • domain assumption Markov gap h = S_R - I vanishes iff triangle-state/SOTS structure; S_R ≥ I
    Interpretive load-bearing premise of §5.2 (Refs. [48, 71]); the holographic identification collapses g and h into one quantity, and the reduction h(A:B:C) → h(A:B) in §5.3 is stated without proof.
  • domain assumption CMI identity I(A:B|E) = -d²S/dl² for infinitesimal regions separated by a strip
    Eq. (3.2), cited to Refs. [42, 56]; the CMI section stands on this identity, inherited from same-group work.
  • domain assumption The IR geometries (2.4)-(2.6) and the phase structure (M/b_c = 0.8597) are the correct ground states of model (2.1)
    Taken from Ref. [24]; the paper does not re-solve the full equations of motion, so the lattice of phases and exponents is inherited from these solutions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22722 in / 37238 out tokens · 375516 ms · 2026-08-03T05:40:50.573806+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Topological states of matter are characterized by nonlocal structures that are naturally encoded in the quantum entanglement of many-body wavefunctions. Topological semimetals are short-range entangled states at weak coupling and their entanglement structure at strong coupling remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate the multipartite entanglement structure of strongly coupled holographic nodal line semimetals. Building on previous studies of entanglement entropy and the holographic c-function, we focus on multipartite entanglement measures, including the conditional mutual information, multi-entropy, and the Markov gap which is based on the entanglement wedge cross section. Our results demonstrate that while these multipartite measures vanish in the long-distance limit $l \to \infty$, which confirms that the holographic nodal line semimetal remains a short-range entangled state, their large $l$ scaling behavior remains highly sensitive to the underlying topology. The large $l$ power-law decay and scaling exponents serve as robust, non-local order parameters that exhibit sharp changes at the quantum critical point. This work establishes multi-partite entanglement as a powerful probe of quantum topological phase transitions in strongly coupled topological systems.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Holographic Multi-Entropy Cone

    hep-th 2026-06 accept novelty 7.0

    Holographic multi-entropy vectors form a rational polyhedral cone; its n=3,4 facets yield seven fundamental multi-entropy inequality orbits, with ordinary HEC facets arising as convex combinations of HMEC facets.

  2. Multi-entropy in random tensor networks

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    For n=2, Rényi multi-entropies in RTNs are determined by minimal multiway cuts; the minimal multiway cut conjecture fails for integer n>2 with explicit counterexamples.

  3. Detecting Topological Transitions and Anisotropy through Multipartite Entanglement in Holographic Weyl Semimetals

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Multipartite entanglement quantities in holographic Weyl semimetals develop features at the topological critical point and distinguish phases through anisotropic large-l scaling.

  4. The Junction Law for Multipartite Entanglement in Confining Holographic Backgrounds

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The junction law for multipartite entanglement persists in confining holographic backgrounds, but phase structure and GM short-distance scaling (L^{-4}, L^{-2}, or L^{-2}(log L)^2) are background-dependent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Zhang, Lectures on Chern-Weil theory and Witten deformations, Vol

    W. Zhang, Lectures on Chern-Weil theory and Witten deformations, Vol. 4, World Scientific, 2001

    2001

  2. [2]

    Witten, Three lectures on topological phases of matter, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 39 (2016) 313–370

    E. Witten, Three lectures on topological phases of matter, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 39 (2016) 313–370

    2016

  3. [3]

    Wen, Topological order: from long-range entangled quantum matter to an unification of light and electrons, ISRN Cond

    X.-G. Wen, Topological order: from long-range entangled quantum matter to an unification of light and electrons, ISRN Cond. Matt. Phys. 2013 (2013) 198710.arXiv:1210.1281, doi:10.1155/2013/198710

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Levin, X.-G

    M. Levin, X.-G. Wen, Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 110405.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110405. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110405

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.110405 2006

  5. [5]

    T. Senthil, Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases of Quantum Matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6 (2015) 299–324.arXiv:1405.4015, doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014740

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    X. Wan, A. M. Turner, A. Vishwanath, S. Y. Savrasov, Topological semimetal and fermi-arc surface states in the electronic structure of pyrochlore iridates, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 83 (20) (2011) 205101

    2011

  7. [7]

    A. A. Burkov, M. D. Hook, L. Balents, Topological nodal semimetals, Phys. Rev. B 84 (2011) 235126.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235126. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235126

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.235126 2011

  8. [8]

    C. Fang, H. Weng, X. Dai, Z. Fang, Topological nodal line semimetals, Chinese Physics B 25 (11) (2016) 117106.doi:10.1088/1674-1056/25/11/117106. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/25/11/117106

    doi:10.1088/1674-1056/25/11/117106 2016

  9. [9]

    C. L. Kane, E. J. Mele, Quantum spin hall effect in graphene, Physical review letters 95 (22) (2005) 226801

    2005

  10. [10]

    L. Fu, C. L. Kane, E. J. Mele, Topological insulators in three dimensions, Physical review letters 98 (10) (2007) 106803

    2007

  11. [11]

    J. E. Moore, L. Balents, Topological invariants of time-reversal-invariant band structures, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 75 (12) (2007) 121306

    2007

  12. [12]

    Coleman, Theories of non-Fermi liquid behavior in heavy fermions, Physica B Condensed Matter 259 (1-4) (1999) 353–358.doi:10.1016/S0921-4526(98)00795-9

    P. Coleman, Theories of non-Fermi liquid behavior in heavy fermions, Physica B Condensed Matter 259 (1-4) (1999) 353–358.doi:10.1016/S0921-4526(98)00795-9. URLhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhyB..259..353C

    work page doi:10.1016/s0921-4526(98)00795-9 1999

  13. [13]

    Byczuk, M

    K. Byczuk, M. Kollar, K. Held, Y.-F. Yang, I. A. Nekrasov, T. Pruschke, D. Vollhardt, Kinks in the dispersion of strongly correlated electrons, Nature Physics 3 (3) (2007) 168–171. arXiv:cond-mat/0609594,doi:10.1038/nphys538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    J. Zaanen, Electrons go with the flow in exotic material systems, Science 351 (6277) (2016) 1026–1027.arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaf2487, doi:10.1126/science.aaf2487. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaf2487 – 27 –

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf2487 2016

  15. [15]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252.arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, A. M. Polyakov, Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory, Physics Letters B 428 (1-2) (1998) 105–114

    1998

  17. [17]

    Witten, Anti de sitter space and holography (1998).arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    E. Witten, Anti de sitter space and holography (1998).arXiv:hep-th/9802150. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    Zaanen, Y

    J. Zaanen, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, K. Schalm, Holographic duality in condensed matter physics, Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  19. [19]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu, The holographic weyl semi-metal, Physics Letters B 753 (2016) 453–457.doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.052. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.052

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.052 2016

  20. [20]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Quantum phase transition between a topological and a trivial semimetal from holography, Physical Review Letters 116 (8) (Feb. 2016). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.081602. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.081602 2016

  21. [21]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Odd viscosity in the quantum critical region of a holographic weyl semimetal, Physical Review Letters 117 (8) (Aug. 2016). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.081604. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.081604

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.081604 2016

  22. [22]

    N. W. M. Plantz, F. Garc ´ ıa Fl´ orez, H. T. C. Stoof, Massive dirac fermions from holography, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (4) (Apr. 2018).doi:10.1007/jhep04(2018)123. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2018)123

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2018)123 2018

  23. [23]

    Liu, Y.-W

    Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Topological nodal line semimetals in holography, JHEP 12 (2018) 072. arXiv:1801.09357,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Liu, X.-M

    Y. Liu, X.-M. Wu, An improved holographic nodal line semimetal, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (5) (May 2021).doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)141. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2021)141

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)141 2021

  25. [25]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-L. Zhang, A Weyl-Z 2 semimetal from holography, JHEP 12 (2021) 066.arXiv:2109.05993,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    H. Chu, X. Ji, Y.-W. Sun, Coexistence of topological semimetal states in holography, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024 (5) (May 2024).doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)166. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)166

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)166 2024

  27. [27]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Holographic topological semimetals, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63 (5) (2020) 250001.arXiv:1911.07978,doi:10.1007/s11433-019-1477-7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    S. Ryu, T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from the anti–de sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence, Physical Review Letters 96 (18) (May 2006).doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602 2006

  29. [29]

    Almheiri, T

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, A. Tajdini, The entropy of hawking radiation, Reviews of Modern Physics 93 (3) (Jul. 2021). doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.035002. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002 – 28 –

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.035002 2021

  30. [30]

    Albash, C

    T. Albash, C. V. Johnson, Holographic Studies of Entanglement Entropy in Superconductors, JHEP 05 (2012) 079.arXiv:1202.2605,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Jeong, W.-B

    H.-S. Jeong, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-T. Wang, Holographic study ofT Tlike deformed HV QFTs: holographic entanglement entropy, JHEP 02 (2023) 018.arXiv:2211.00518, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Z. Yang, G. Ye, J.-P. Wu, P. Liu, Diagnosing Critical Behavior in AdS Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar Theory via Holographic Entanglement Measures (12 2025). arXiv:2601.00069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Yang, J.-P

    Z. Yang, J.-P. Wu, P. Liu, Diagnosing Metal-Insulator and Hawking-Page Transitions: A Mixed-State Entanglement Perspective in Einstein-Born-Infeld-Massive Gravity (12 2025). arXiv:2601.00071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Baggioli, D

    M. Baggioli, D. Giataganas, Detecting Topological Quantum Phase Transitions via the c-Function, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2) (2021) 026009.arXiv:2007.07273, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.026009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Baggioli, Y

    M. Baggioli, Y. Liu, X.-M. Wu, Entanglement entropy as an order parameter for strongly coupled nodal line semimetals, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (5) (May 2023). doi:10.1007/jhep05(2023)221. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2023)221

    doi:10.1007/jhep05(2023)221 2023

  36. [36]

    H. Liu, M. Mezei, Probing renormalization group flows using entanglement entropy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (1) (Jan. 2014).doi:10.1007/jhep01(2014)098. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2014)098

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2014)098 2014

  37. [37]

    Ju, W.-B

    X.-X. Ju, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Y. Zhao, Holographic multipartite entanglement from the upper bound ofn-partite information (2024).arXiv:2411.07790. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Ju, W.-B

    X.-X. Ju, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-T. Wang, Y. Zhao, More on the upper bound of holographic n-partite information, JHEP 03 (2025) 184.arXiv:2411.19207, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2025)184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    R. C. Myers, A. Singh, Comments on holographic entanglement entropy and rg flows, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (4) (Apr. 2012).doi:10.1007/jhep04(2012)122. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2012)122

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2012)122 2012

  40. [40]

    Ju, W.-B

    X.-X. Ju, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-T. Wang, Generalized rindler wedge and holographic observer concordance (2024).arXiv:2302.03340. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Balasubramanian, B

    V. Balasubramanian, B. D. Chowdhury, B. Czech, J. de Boer, M. P. Heller, Bulk curves from boundary data in holography, Physical Review D 89 (8) (Apr. 2014). doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.086004. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.086004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.086004 2014

  42. [42]

    Ju, T.-Z

    X.-X. Ju, T.-Z. Lai, B.-H. Liu, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Entanglement structures from modified ir geometry, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024 (7) (Jul. 2024). doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)181. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2024)181

    doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)181 2024

  43. [43]

    Ji, X.-X

    X. Ji, X.-X. Ju, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-T. Wang, H.-L. Zhou, Holographic geometry/real-space entanglement correspondence and metric reconstruction, Journal of High Energy Physics – 29 – 2025 (9) (Sep. 2025).doi:10.1007/jhep09(2025)081. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2025)081

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2025)081 2025

  44. [44]

    Iizuka, S

    N. Iizuka, S. Lin, M. Nishida, More on genuine multi-entropy and holography (2025). arXiv:2504.16589. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Iizuka, M

    N. Iizuka, M. Nishida, Genuine multi-entropy and holography (2025).arXiv:2502.07995. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07995

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Dutta, T

    S. Dutta, T. Faulkner, A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section (2019).arXiv:1905.00577. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00577

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Umemoto, T

    K. Umemoto, T. Takayanagi, Entanglement of purification through holographic duality, Nature Physics 14 (6) (2018) 573–577.doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2

    doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2 2018

  48. [48]

    Hayden, O

    P. Hayden, O. Parrikar, J. Sorce, The markov gap for geometric reflected entropy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (10) (Oct. 2021).doi:10.1007/jhep10(2021)047. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2021)047

    doi:10.1007/jhep10(2021)047 2021

  49. [49]

    Ju, B.-H

    X.-X. Ju, B.-H. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, B.-Y. Xu, Y. Zhao, Holographic multipartite entanglement structures in ir modified geometries (2025).arXiv:2512.20397. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20397

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Liu, Y.-W

    Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Topological invariants for holographic semimetals, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (10) (Oct. 2018).doi:10.1007/jhep10(2018)189. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2018)189

    doi:10.1007/jhep10(2018)189 2018

  51. [51]

    X. Chen, X. Ji, Y.-W. Sun, Topological invariant for holographic Weyl-Z 2 semimetal, JHEP 08 (2025) 048.arXiv:2503.12791,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    X. Chen, X. Ji, Y.-W. Sun, Topological invariant for holographic Weyl-Nodal line coexisting semimetal, JHEP 11 (2025) 162.arXiv:2509.15574,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)162

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    C.-S. Chu, D. Giataganas,c-Theorem for Anisotropic RG Flows from Holographic Entanglement Entropy, Phys. Rev. D 101 (4) (2020) 046007.arXiv:1906.09620, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.046007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    K. Kato, F. Furrer, M. murao, Information-theoretical analysis of topological entanglement entropy and multipartite correlations, Phys. Rev. A 93 (2016) 022317.arXiv:1505.01917, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.022317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, X.-G. Wen, Quantum Information Meets Quantum Matter: From Quantum Entanglement to Topological Phases of Many-Body Systems, Springer New York, 2019.doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9084-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9084-9 2019

  56. [56]

    Y. Chen, G. Vidal, Entanglement contour, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014 (10) (2014) P10011.doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2014/10/p10011. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2014/10/P10011

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2014/10/p10011 2014

  57. [57]

    Harper, T

    J. Harper, T. Takayanagi, T. Tsuda, Multi-entropy at low renyi index in 2d cfts, SciPost Physics 16 (5) (May 2024).doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.5.125. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.5.125

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.5.125 2024

  58. [58]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. J. Kang, C. Cummings, C. Murdia, S. F. Ross, Purely greenberger-horne-zeilinger–like entanglement is forbidden in holography, Physical Review – 30 – Letters 136 (3) (Jan. 2026).doi:10.1103/g5rw-nvnr. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/g5rw-nvnr

    doi:10.1103/g5rw-nvnr 2026

  59. [59]

    Jiang, Y

    L. Jiang, Y. Liu, The holographic dual of the ghz state (2025).arXiv:2508.17898. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.17898

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    M.-K. Yuan, M. Li, Y. Zhou, Reflected multientropy and its holographic dual, Physical Review Letters 135 (9) (Aug. 2025).doi:10.1103/76vs-rxcs. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/76vs-rxcs

    work page doi:10.1103/76vs-rxcs 2025

  61. [61]

    Alkalaev, M

    K. Alkalaev, M. Pavlov, Perturbative classical conformal blocks as steiner trees on the hyperbolic disk, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (2) (Feb. 2019). doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)023. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2019)023

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)023 2019

  62. [62]

    Lunin, S

    O. Lunin, S. D. Mathur, Correlation functions for m n / s n orbifolds, Communications in Mathematical Physics 219 (2) (2001) 399–442.doi:10.1007/s002200100431. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002200100431

    work page doi:10.1007/s002200100431 2001

  63. [63]

    Gadde, V

    A. Gadde, V. Krishna, T. Sharma, New multipartite entanglement measure and its holographic dual, Physical Review D 106 (12) (Dec. 2022). doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.126001. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.126001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.126001 2022

  64. [64]

    Gadde, V

    A. Gadde, V. Krishna, T. Sharma, Towards a classification of holographic multi-partite entanglement measures, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (8) (Aug. 2023). doi:10.1007/jhep08(2023)202. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2023)202

    doi:10.1007/jhep08(2023)202 2023

  65. [65]

    Gadde, J

    A. Gadde, J. Harper, V. Krishna, Multi-invariants and bulk replica symmetry (2025). arXiv:2411.00935. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00935

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    N. Bao, I. F. Halpern, Conditional and multipartite entanglements of purification and holography, Physical Review D 99 (4) (Feb. 2019).doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.046010. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.046010

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.046010 2019

  67. [67]

    N. Bao, N. Cheng, Multipartite reflected entropy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (10) (Oct. 2019).doi:10.1007/jhep10(2019)102. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2019)102

    doi:10.1007/jhep10(2019)102 2019

  68. [68]

    N. Bao, A. Chatwin-Davies, G. N. Remmen, Entanglement of purification and multiboundary wormhole geometries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (2) (Feb. 2019). doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)110. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2019)110

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)110 2019

  69. [69]

    Ju, W.-B

    X.-X. Ju, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Y. Zhao, Entanglement wedge cross section triangle information and holographic entanglement of assistance (2025).arXiv:2512.21679. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21679

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    N. Bao, K. Furuya, J. Naskar, Tripartite correlation signal from multipartite entanglement of purification (2026).arXiv:2509.08209. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Y. Zou, K. Siva, T. Soejima, R. S. Mong, M. P. Zaletel, Universal tripartite entanglement in one-dimensional many-body systems, Physical Review Letters 126 (12) (Mar. 2021). – 31 – doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.120501. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.120501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.120501 2021

  72. [72]

    J. K. Basak, V. Malvimat, J. Yoon, A new genuine multipartite entanglement measure: from qubits to multiboundary wormholes (2025).arXiv:2411.11961. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11961

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Naskar, S

    J. Naskar, S. S. Samal, Topological entanglement entropy meets holographic entropy inequalities (2024).arXiv:2412.05484. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05484 – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024