Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

RT-boundary shifts holographic phase transitions, fractal dimension survives

2026-07-09 23:50 UTC pith:RSTHGGPA

load-bearing objection Clean analytic theorem on phase transitions in pure-state geometries; uberholography section rests on unproven numerical hypotheses from one configuration the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06870 v1 pith:RSTHGGPA submitted 2026-07-08 hep-th quant-ph

Phase transitions and uberholography of holographic pure-state geometries

Ning Bao , Keiichiro Furuya , Jacob March This is my paper
classification hep-th quant-ph
keywords holographic quantum error correctionsurface/state correspondenceentanglement wedge phase transitionuberholographyRyu-Takayanagi formulafractal dimensionAdS/CFT correspondenceentanglement of purification
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.

This paper studies what happens to holographic quantum error correction when mixed boundary states are geometrically purified via the surface/state correspondence — replacing boundary subregions with their RT (Ryu–Takayanagi) geodesics. The central result is a cross-ratio threshold relation for the connected/disconnected entanglement wedge phase transition when two holes are punched in such a purified geometry: the transition occurs at η'/η = e^{ΔH/2}, where ΔH is sourced entirely by geodesics with both endpoints on RT-boundary geodesics (bb-type pairs). This shifts the standard two-interval threshold η = 1/2, with the sign of the shift determined by the cyclic pattern of anchor types. For the code-theoretic side, the paper shows that uberholographic recursive hole-punching cannot start within an RT-boundary geodesic (since it is already a bulk minimal surface with no competitive connected wedge), while any untouched asymptotic boundary still fractalizes with the universal dimension α ≈ 0.786. However, the resulting bounds on price and distance depend on the procedure: retaining RT-boundaries while fractalizing the asymptotic boundary yields strictly tighter bounds than tracing out RT-boundaries first, at least in the configurations studied numerically.

Core claim

The paper derives a single cross-ratio threshold relation η'/η = e^{ΔH/2} (Theorem 3.1) that governs the connected/disconnected entanglement wedge transition for two holes punched in a pure-state geometry. The shift ΔH from the standard η = 1/2 threshold is determined entirely by bb-type geodesic pairs (both endpoints on RT-boundary geodesics), and the sign of ΔH is classified by the cyclic anchor pattern. On the code side, the paper identifies that uberholographic recursion is blocked on RT-boundary geodesics (they are already minimal surfaces) while the asymptotic boundary retains the universal fractal dimension α ≈ 0.786, and that price/distance bounds are procedure-dependent with the RT-

What carries the argument

The surface/state correspondence assigns quantum states to codimension-two convex bulk surfaces with an RT-like entropy formula. Pure-state geometries are constructed by pushing mixed boundary subregions inward to their RT geodesics, producing a boundary Σ composed of asymptotic boundary arcs and RT-boundary geodesics meeting at corners. The cross-ratio threshold relation uses Möbius-invariant cross-ratios η and η' of four anchor points, the function h(ρ) = arccosh(1+2ρ) − log(4ρ) measuring the deviation of hyperbolic distance from its large-ρ asymptote, and ΔH = H_conn − H_disc where H_conn and H_disc sum h(ρ_ij) over bb-type pairs in each channel. Under the regulator ε → 0, all non-bb pair

Load-bearing premise

The claim that Procedure 1 yields strictly tighter bounds than Procedure 2 rests on three hypotheses about the kept fractions r_i that are verified only numerically for a single symmetric configuration (Appendix A), without analytic proof. The universality of α ≈ 0.786 on the asymptotic boundary likewise rests on numerical evidence from that same configuration.

What would settle it

If one could exhibit a pure-state geometry configuration where the kept fractions r_i of Procedure 1 violate the condition r_i ≤ r_∞ for some step i, or where the asymptotic fractal dimension differs from α ≈ 0.786, the claims about tighter bounds and universal fractal dimension would fail.

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

If this is right

  • The cross-ratio threshold relation provides a concrete diagnostic for how geometric purification modifies entanglement structure, testable in tensor network models of holographic codes that include purified boundaries.
  • The obstruction to uberholography on RT-boundary geodesics suggests that purified subregions have fundamentally different error-correcting properties from asymptotic boundaries, which could constrain the design of holographic code subspaces.
  • The procedure-dependence of price and distance bounds raises the question of whether an optimal purification procedure exists, and whether it connects to the entanglement of purification.
  • The survival of the universal fractal dimension α ≈ 0.786 under purification, while coarse code parameters change, parallels behavior seen under bulk deformations and suggests α is a robust geometric invariant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If ΔH is interpreted as a measure of how much the RT-boundary geometry 'pre-distills' entanglement relative to the asymptotic boundary, then the tighter bounds from Procedure 1 suggest that pre-distilled redundancy is more efficiently exploited when preserved rather than discarded — an intuition the paper states but does not prove.
  • The convergence r_i → r_∞ for Procedure 1, if it holds generally, would imply that the local geometry of late-stage hole punches universally approaches the original asymptotic-boundary competition regardless of the global purified geometry, making α a universal attractor of the recursion.
  • The connection between the Singleton gap and Haag duality failure, mentioned as a future direction, could provide an algebraic characterization of when geometric purification breaks complementary recovery — potentially linking ΔH to a Jones-type index for the inclusion of reconstructible algebras.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the entanglement wedge phase structure and quantum error-correcting code properties of pure-state holographic geometries constructed via the surface/state correspondence in AdS3/CFT2. The central analytic result is Theorem 3.1, which derives a cross-ratio threshold relation η'/η = e^{ΔH/2} for the connected/disconnected entanglement wedge transition when two holes are punched in a pure-state geometry. The quantity ΔH is sourced entirely by geodesics with both endpoints on RT-boundary (b-type) anchors, shifting the standard η = 1/2 threshold. The authors classify the sign of ΔH by cyclic anchor pattern. They then define price and distance for pure-state geometries, show that uberholographic recursion cannot start within an RT-boundary geodesic, and study two fractalization procedures numerically, finding that the universal fractal dimension α ≈ 0.786 is preserved while bounds on price and distance are procedure-dependent.

Significance. The paper makes a concrete, falsifiable analytic contribution in Theorem 3.1: the threshold relation is derived from first principles within the surface/state correspondence, the decomposition of channel lengths into log terms plus H-corrections (Eqs. 3.10–3.13) is clean, and the ε-cancellation is exact. The classification of ΔH signs by anchor pattern (Table 1) is a useful, self-contained result. The observation that uberholographic recursion cannot start within an RT-boundary geodesic (§5.2, Fig. 7) is a crisp geometric argument. The code-property conclusions in §5.2 are more modestly supported: Proposition 5.1 rests on explicitly unproven numerical hypotheses, and the universality of α rests on a single symmetric configuration. The paper is transparent about these limitations, which is appropriate.

major comments (2)
  1. §5.2, Proposition 5.1: The proposition's hypotheses (i)–(iii) — r_i ≤ r_∞ for all i, r_1 < r_∞², and the product bound — are stated as 'numerical observations' for the single symmetric configuration of Appendix A (corners at e^{±iπ/4}, e^{±3iπ/4}) without analytic proof. The paper itself states: 'We do not have an analytic proof of (i)–(iii).' Since the claim that Procedure 1 yields strictly tighter bounds than Procedure 2 depends entirely on these hypotheses, the central code-property conclusion is only as strong as these unproven assumptions. The authors should either (a) provide an analytic argument for at least hypotheses (i) and (ii), or (b) more clearly scope the conclusion as configuration-specific rather than general, and adjust the abstract accordingly (which currently states the result without the 'in the configurations we study' qualifier that appears in the body).
  2. §5.2 and Appendix A: The convergence r_i → r_∞ and the resulting universality of α ≈ 0.786 rest on numerical evidence from a single symmetric geometry. The heuristic argument — that later holes are 'exponentially small and thus far from the b-type anchors so the process locally approaches the original boundary competition' — is plausible but not rigorous: the interaction between bb geodesic contributions (through ΔH in Theorem 3.1) and the recursive hole-punching is not analytically controlled at any finite step. Providing code or pseudocode for the dynamic-programming computation of the r_i sequence, or at least verifying convergence on a second, asymmetric configuration, would substantially strengthen the claim. Without this, the statement that α is 'unaltered' by purification should be more clearly labeled as a conjecture supported by limited numerical evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 1, rows (g) and (h): the b–b–b–b pattern appears twice with different hole assignments. This is explained in the caption but could be clearer in the main text, as the distinction between 'pattern' and 'hole assignment' is load-bearing for the classification.
  2. Figure 7: the caption states 'the connected surface will always be longer than the disconnected surface,' but the figure labels the connected candidate in blue and disconnected in red. A brief sentence in the main text explaining why L_conn ≥ L_disc for sub-arcs of a single RT-boundary geodesic (rather than only in the caption) would help readers.
  3. §3.1, Eq. (3.8): the piecewise definition of h(ρ_ij) uses n_B(zi, zj) = 0 for the first branch and n_B ≥ 1 for the second. The notation is correct but the transition between the two cases could be stated more explicitly for readers who skim.
  4. §5.2, Eq. (5.6): the asymptotic definition of α via r_∞ is introduced after the standard definition (5.5). The relationship between the two definitions and why the asymptotic one is needed (because r_i is not constant) is explained but could be foregrounded earlier.
  5. Appendix A.1: the critical opening fraction ≈0.771887 for Procedure 2 is stated without derivation. A brief indication of which phase transition equation it solves would aid reproducibility.
  6. The abstract states that Procedure 1 'yields strictly tighter bounds' without the qualifier 'in the configurations we study' that appears in the body text. The abstract should match the body's scoping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Theorem 3.1 is a self-contained geometric derivation; Proposition 5.1's hypotheses are openly numerical, not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central analytic result, Theorem 3.1, is derived from first principles within the surface/state correspondence framework. The cross-ratio threshold relation η'/η = e^{ΔH/2} follows directly from comparing the connected and disconnected channel geodesic lengths (Eqs. 3.4–3.5), using the exact hyperbolic distance formula (Eq. 3.2) and the definition of h(ρ) (Eq. 3.7). The quantity ΔH is a geometric quantity computed from bb geodesic pairs, not a parameter fitted to the data it predicts. The standard η = 1/2 threshold is recovered as a special case when all anchors are B-type (ΔH = 0), providing an external consistency check against known results [17–20]. For the uberholography results in §5, the paper builds on the independent framework of Pastawski-Preskill [12] (no author overlap for that reference). The fractal dimension α ≈ 0.786 is derived from the kept fraction r_∞ = 2(√2−1), which itself comes from the phase transition condition 1−r = r²/4 (Eq. 5.3) — a first-principles calculation, not a fit. Proposition 5.1's hypotheses (i)–(iii) are explicitly stated as unproven numerical observations ('We do not have an analytic proof of (i)–(iii)'), which is a transparency about limitations, not circularity. The paper does not claim these hypotheses are derived from theory and then present them as predictions. The convergence r_i → r_∞ is supported by numerical evidence (Table 2, Figure 11) and a heuristic argument, but is not presented as a proven result. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central claims. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard AdS/CFT two-interval phase transition). The only minor concern is that the universality of α rests on numerical evidence from a single symmetric configuration, but this is a limitation of scope, not circular reasoning. Score 1 reflects the absence of circularity with a minor note that the numerical claims lack analytic proof.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. The 'pure-state geometry' is a geometric construction within the surface/state correspondence framework. The main load-bearing assumptions are the surface/state correspondence conjecture itself (domain assumption from [13]) and the unproven numerical hypotheses of Proposition 5.1 (ad hoc to this paper). The free parameters are either standard regulators (ε) or derived quantities (r_∞), not fitted values.

free parameters (3)
  • ε (UV cutoff)
    Standard holographic regulator, not fitted; appears in geodesic length regularization. Taken to zero in the limit.
  • r_∞ = 2(√2−1) = ≈0.828
    Derived from the phase transition condition 1−r = r²/4, not fitted to data. A consequence of the RT prescription, not a free parameter.
  • Configuration coordinates (Appendix A) = corners at e^{±iπ/4}, e^{±3iπ/4}
    Chosen by hand for the symmetric numerical example. Not a fitted parameter but an ad hoc choice of geometry for illustration.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Surface/state correspondence: a codimension-2 convex bulk surface Σ has an associated quantum state satisfying the RT formula S(ρ) = Area(γ)/4G_N.
    Invoked in §2 (Eq. 2.3) as the foundational conjecture from [13]. The entire framework depends on this being valid for pure-state geometries.
  • domain assumption Geometric complementarity: W(R^c) = W(R)^c for entanglement wedges on pure-state geometries.
    Stated in §4 as an assumption underlying the price/distance definitions. Not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Entanglement wedge reconstruction hypothesis: if bulk point x is in W(R̃), the logical algebra A_x can be reconstructed on R̃.
    Stated in §4 as the basis for defining price and distance. Standard in the holographic code literature but unproven for surface/state geometries specifically.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposition 5.1 hypotheses (i)–(iii): r_i ≤ r_∞ for all i, r_1 < r_∞², and the product condition on r_∞/r_i.
    These are numerical observations for one configuration (Appendix A), not proven. The claim that Procedure 1 gives tighter bounds depends on them. §5.2: 'We do not have an analytic proof of (i)–(iii).'
  • domain assumption The bulk metric is unaltered by the surface/state purification, so RT-boundary geodesics remain bulk geodesics.
    Invoked in §3.1 and §5.2 to argue that RT-boundary segments are already minimal surfaces and that candidate geodesics lie within the pure-state geometry. Attributed to [13].
invented entities (2)
  • Pure-state geometry (Σ) independent evidence
    purpose: A closed curve in the hyperbolic disk combining asymptotic boundary arcs and RT-boundary geodesics, serving as the boundary of a purified holographic state.
    Constructed from the surface/state correspondence [13] applied to standard AdS₃/CFT₂. The RT geodesics are independently computable from the boundary state. No new physical entity is postulated; this is a geometric construction within known holography.
  • Entanglement arena independent evidence
    purpose: The specific pure-state geometry resulting from completing RT purification on all intervals, used in Example 3.5.
    A named configuration, not a new physical entity. Constructed from standard RT surfaces and the EWCS, both independently defined in the literature.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 22229 in / 3704 out tokens · 288080 ms · 2026-07-09T23:50:42.103718+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the error-correcting properties of pure-state holographic geometries, in which mixed boundary subregions are replaced, via the surface/state correspondence, by the Ryu--Takayanagi (RT) geodesic bounding their entanglement wedges. In AdS$_3$/CFT$_2$ we derive a cross-ratio threshold relation $\eta'/\eta = e^{\Delta H/2}$ for the connected/disconnected transition of the entanglement wedge when two holes are punched in such a geometry. The quantity $\Delta H$ is sourced entirely by geodesics ending on RT boundaries. It shifts the standard two-interval threshold $\eta = 1/2$, and we classify when its sign is fixed by the pattern of hole endpoints. Turning to code properties, we show that the recursive hole-punching underlying uberholography cannot start within an RT-boundary, while an untouched asymptotic boundary can still fractalize, and we find numerically that in the configurations we study it does so with the universal fractal dimension $\alpha \approx 0.786$. The resulting upper bounds on price and distance are nevertheless procedure dependent. In the configurations we study, punching holes on the asymptotic boundary while retaining the RT-boundary yields strictly tighter bounds than first tracing out the RT-boundary and then fractalizing.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · 44 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. M. Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252, [hep-th/9711200]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Anti De Sitter Space And Holography

    E. Witten,Anti de Sitter space and holography,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 253–291, [hep-th/9802150]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov,Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105–114, [hep-th/9802109]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from AdS/CFT

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 181602, [hep-th/0603001]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi,Aspects of Holographic Entanglement Entropy,JHEP08(2006) 045, [hep-th/0605073]. – 22 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi,A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,JHEP07(2007) 062, [arXiv:0705.0016]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime

    N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall,Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime,JHEP01(2015) 073, [arXiv:1408.3203]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    The Ryu-Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Code properties from holographic geometries

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Surface/State Correspondence as a Generalized Holography

    M. Miyaji and T. Takayanagi,Surface/State Correspondence as a Generalized Holography, PTEP2015(2015), no. 7 073B03, [arXiv:1503.03542]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Holographic Entanglement Distillation from the Surface State Correspondence

    N. Bao and G. Suer,Holographic entanglement distillation from the surface state correspondence,JHEP01(2024) 091, [arXiv:2311.07649]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Holographic Entanglement of Purification

    T. Takayanagi and K. Umemoto,Entanglement of purification through holographic duality, Nature Phys.14(2018), no. 6 573–577, [arXiv:1708.09393]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Entanglement of purification: from spin chains to holography

    P. Nguyen, T. Devakul, M. G. Halbasch, M. P. Zaletel, and B. Swingle,Entanglement of purification: from spin chains to holography,JHEP01(2018) 098, [arXiv:1709.07424]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Entanglement entropy of two disjoint intervals in conformal field theory

    P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, and E. Tonni,Entanglement entropy of two disjoint intervals in conformal field theory,J. Stat. Mech.0911(2009) P11001, [arXiv:0905.2069]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    Entanglement entropy of two disjoint intervals in conformal field theory II

    P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, and E. Tonni,Entanglement entropy of two disjoint intervals in conformal field theory II,J. Stat. Mech.1101(2011) P01021, [arXiv:1011.5482]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Entanglement Renyi entropies in holographic theories

    M. Headrick,Entanglement Renyi entropies in holographic theories,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 126010, [arXiv:1006.0047]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Entanglement Entropy at Large Central Charge

    T. Hartman,Entanglement Entropy at Large Central Charge,arXiv:1303.6955

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    The Entanglement Renyi Entropies of Disjoint Intervals in AdS/CFT

    T. Faulkner,The Entanglement Renyi Entropies of Disjoint Intervals in AdS/CFT, arXiv:1303.7221

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    The Markov gap for geometric reflected entropy

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Sorce,Continuum canonical purifications,arXiv:2512.17014

    J. Sorce,Continuum canonical purifications,arXiv:2512.17014

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    B. M. Terhal, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, and D. P. DiVincenzo,The entanglement of purification,J. Math. Phys.43(2002), no. 9 4286–4298, [quant-ph/0202044]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    Holographic Entanglement of Purification from Conformal Field Theories

    P. Caputa, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi, and K. Umemoto,Holographic Entanglement of Purification from Conformal Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019), no. 11 111601, [arXiv:1812.05268]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Minimal Purifications, Wormhole Geometries, and the Complexity=Action Proposal

    N. Bao,Minimal Purifications, Wormhole Geometries, and the Complexity=Action Proposal, arXiv:1811.03113. – 23 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Bit threads and holographic entanglement of purification

    D.-H. Du, C.-B. Chen, and F.-W. Shu,Bit threads and holographic entanglement of purification,JHEP08(2019) 140, [arXiv:1904.06871]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    A holographic proof of the strong subadditivity of entanglement entropy

    M. Headrick and T. Takayanagi,A Holographic proof of the strong subadditivity of entanglement entropy,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 106013, [arXiv:0704.3719]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and M. Lesosky,Operator quantum error correction, Quant. Inf. Comput.6(2006), no. 4-5 382–399, [quant-ph/0504189]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    A Unified and Generalized Approach to Quantum Error Correction

    D. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin,Unified and Generalized Approach to Quantum Error Correction,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005), no. 18 180501, [quant-ph/0412076]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    C. Beny, A. Kempf, and D. W. Kribs,Quantum Error Correction of Observables,Phys. Rev. A76(2007) 042303, [arXiv:0705.1574]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Generalization of Quantum Error Correction via the Heisenberg Picture

    C. B´ eny, A. Kempf, and D. W. Kribs,Generalization of Quantum Error Correction via the Heisenberg Picture,Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007), no. 10 100502, [quant-ph/0608071]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  34. [34]

    M. J. Kang and D. K. Kolchmeyer,Entanglement wedge reconstruction of infinite-dimensional von neumann algebras using tensor networks,Phys. Rev. D103(Jun,

    work page

  35. [35]

    Quantum error correction on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces

    C. B´ eny, A. Kempf, and D. W. Kribs,Quantum error correction on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces,J. Math. Phys.50(2009) 062108, [arXiv:0811.0421]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    The holographic map as a conditional expectation

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    Real-space RG, error correction and Petz map

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Asymptotically isometric codes for holography

    T. Faulkner and M. Li,Asymptotically isometric codes for holography,arXiv:2211.12439

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Code Properties of the Holographic Sierpinski Triangle

    N. Bao and J. Naskar,Code properties of the holographic Sierpinski triangle,Phys. Rev. D 106(2022), no. 12 126006, [arXiv:2203.01379]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Reconstruction wedges in $AdS/CFT$ with boundary fractallike structures

    N. Bao and J. Naskar,Reconstruction wedges in AdS/CFT with boundary fractallike structures,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 6 066014, [arXiv:2209.15026]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    D. S. Ageev,Exploring holography with boundary fractal-like structures,Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 2 026009, [arXiv:2208.07387]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Revisiting holographic codes with fractal-like boundary erasures

    A. Bhattacharjee and J. Naskar,Revisiting holographic codes with fractallike boundary erasures,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 2 026012, [arXiv:2411.02825]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Renormalization group and approximate error correction

    K. Furuya, N. Lashkari, and M. Moosa,Renormalization group and approximate error correction,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 10 105007, [arXiv:2112.05099]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Entanglement of Purification for Multipartite States and its Holographic Dual

    K. Umemoto and Y. Zhou,Entanglement of Purification for Multipartite States and its Holographic Dual,JHEP10(2018) 152, [arXiv:1805.02625]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    Conditional and Multipartite Entanglements of Purification and Holography

    N. Bao and I. F. Halpern,Conditional and Multipartite Entanglements of Purification and Holography,Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 4 046010, [arXiv:1805.00476]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    The Entanglement Wedge Polygon

    K. Fujiki, J. Harper, T. Takayanagi, and N. Zenoni,The Entanglement Wedge Polygon, arXiv:2606.21081. – 24 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv