Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Algorithmic construction of SSA-compatible extreme rays of the subadditivity cone and the ${\sf N}=6$ solution

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper computes the complete set of extreme rays of the six-party subadditivity cone compatible with strong subadditivity: 208 orbits, of which 150 are holographic, 52 are not, and 6 remain undecided.

desk verdict The N=6 SSA-compatible extreme-ray enumeration is a real milestone; the main caveat is that the 208-orbit count inherits a polyhedral exclusion from [24] that this paper cites but does not re-prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15364 v3 pith:ZQS67SMR submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph hep-th

Temple He , Veronika E. Hubeny , Massimiliano Rota This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-th MSC 81P4552B5506A07 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords subadditivityconestrongextremeraysholographicentropygraphmodelsmutualinformationposetKlein'sconditionquantummarginalindependence
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

This paper pins down the full list of atomic entropy patterns — extreme rays — that a six-party quantum system can exhibit while obeying strong subadditivity, the key constraint relating the entropies of overlapping subsystems. The list contains exactly 208 genuinely six-party orbits: 52 violate at least one known holographic entropy inequality and are therefore not holographic, 150 are explicitly realized by holographic graph models, and 6 remain unresolved. The enumeration matters because a leading conjecture holds that holographic entropy cones for any number of parties can be reconstructed from such extreme rays at larger party number, and because it tests whether every holographic ray is realizable by a tree-shaped graph: 148 of the 150 constructed graphs are trees, while 2 contain bulk cycles. A second result is methodological: a general algorithm that finds extreme rays corresponding to down-sets in a poset of inequalities, applicable to any polyhedral cone whose constraints carry a partial order. The computation also shows that a weaker condition called Klein's condition is not exactly equivalent to strong subadditivity at six parties, since 12 Klein-compatible extreme rays violate it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mutual information poset: the set of all subadditivity instances $I(J:K) \geq 0$, ordered by containment of the subsystems involved, so that the saturated instances of any strong-subadditivity-compatible extreme ray must form a down-set, a set closed under passing to smaller instances (this down-set condition is Klein's condition). The search is restricted by the Bell pairs theorem to the face $F^*$ of the cone, whose down-sets contain all single-party vanishings, and to down-sets containing no maximal or next-to-maximal elements, which would correspond to lifted or decomposable rays. The algorithm enumerates such down-sets using composable closure operators — down-set closure, linear-dependence closure, and face closure — to discard subsets that cannot correspond to faces of the cone, while the stabilizer of the party-permutation group quotients equivalent branches and an excluded region of saturated inequalities prunes already-explored territory. A completeness theorem shows that no down-set extreme ray outside the excluded region is missed.

What would settle it

Run an independent extreme-ray computation on the cone cut out by all six-party subadditivity instances together with all strong-subadditivity instances, reduced to the face $F^*$ where all single-party mutual informations vanish, and compare with the 208 listed orbits: any extreme ray outside the party-permutation orbits, or any listed ray that fails a direct strong-subadditivity check, refutes the enumeration. The tree question is settled by either constructing a fine-grained tree model for orbits #111 and #207 or proving none exists, and the mystery orbits by either realizing one with a graph model or finding a holographic entropy inequality that it violates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the set $R^6_{\rm SSA}$ — all extreme rays of the six-party subadditivity cone that are compatible with strong subadditivity — consists of exactly 208 orbits of genuinely six-party rays under permutations of the parties and the purifier. Of these, 52 violate at least one of the 1,877 known holographic entropy inequalities and therefore lie outside the six-party holographic entropy cone; 150 are explicitly realized by holographic graph models, weighted networks whose min-cut entropies reproduce the boundary entropies of holographic states, placing them inside it; and the remaining 6 orbits are unresolved, violating no known inequality while still lacking a graph model. The paper further shows that the inclusion $R^6_{\rm SSA} \subset R^6_{\rm KC}$ is strict: the set of extreme rays satisfying Klein's condition, a down-set condition on saturated subadditivity instances that follows from strong subadditivity, contains 220 orbits, 12 of which violate strong subadditivity — the first demonstration that the two conditions differ at the extreme-ray level. Among the constructed graph models, 148 have tree topology, consistent with the strong form of the tree conjecture, while two orbits (labeled #111 and #207) are realized only by graphs containing a bulk cycle, leaving open whether equivalent tree models exist.

Load-bearing premise

The enumeration's load-bearing premise is that the Bell pairs theorem and the maximal-element exclusion property, both imported from the authors' earlier work, are valid for arbitrary six-party faces of the subadditivity cone; if either fails, the restricted search could miss genuine extreme rays and the 208-orbit count would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The holographic status of the six-party subadditivity cone is now fixed up to six orbits, so any future derivation of six-party holographic entropy inequalities must be consistent with these 208 rays.
  • Twenty-five of the constructed graph models realize extreme rays of the six-party holographic entropy cone that were previously unknown, adding new data beyond the previously catalogued holographic rays.
  • Klein's condition is a strict approximation to strong subadditivity at six parties, ruling out the earlier speculation that the two conditions coincide for extreme rays at every party number.
  • Whether the strong tree conjecture survives at six parties reduces to a concrete target list: the two bulk-cycle orbits (#111 and #207) plus the six mystery orbits.
  • If the reconstruction conjecture is correct, the split computed here — 150 holographic, 52 non-holographic, 6 unresolved — is the essential data from which six-party holographic entropy inequalities can in principle be reconstructed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The algorithm is a reusable tool independent of entropy: any polyhedral cone whose defining inequalities carry a partial order — for instance stabilizer or hypergraph entropy cones, or linear programs over down-sets — can be enumerated by the same procedure and the same completeness proof.
  • The two bulk-cycle graphs are the sharpest available stress test of the strong tree conjecture: a fine-graining search at seven or more parties that finds tree realizations would corroborate it, whereas a proof that none exists would yield the first tree-less holographic extreme ray.
  • The six mystery orbits are the most promising site for new holographic entropy inequalities; if one of them violates an inequality outside the current list of 1,877, the yet-incomplete six-party holographic cone has an additional facet family.
  • The pattern that every non-holographic orbit violates an inequality involving at most five parties, with none violating only six-party inequalities, hints at a general principle — that holographic status at N is already decided by smaller-N inequalities — which the paper's data supports but does not prove.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general algorithm for computing extreme rays of a polyhedral cone that correspond to down-sets in a poset of inequalities, and applies it to the six-party subadditivity cone. The main result is the enumeration of all SSA-compatible extreme rays of the SAC_6: 208 genuine six-party orbits, of which 52 violate at least one known holographic entropy inequality, 150 are realized by explicit holographic graph models, and 6 remain unclassified. The paper also reports that 12 KC-compatible orbits violate SSA, showing that KC is not exact at N=6, and it re-derives the known N=5 result as a benchmark. The algorithm is described in detail, with a completeness theorem, and the data and code are made available.

Significance. If the enumeration is correct, this is the first complete computation of R6_SSA and provides a concrete dataset for testing conjectures about the holographic entropy cone, the tree-graph conjecture, and the relation between Klein's condition and strong subadditivity. The algorithm itself is a useful contribution: it is framed generically, it is accompanied by a completeness proof, and it is benchmarked against known N=5 data. The paper is also commendable for making code and data publicly available and for clearly distinguishing proven statements from unresolved cases (the six mystery orbits and the two bulk-cycle graphs). The central claims are quantitative and falsifiable, and the presentation is generally careful. The main caveat is that the completeness of the enumeration relies on an unproven polyhedral extension statement from prior work; this is a dependence on a published theorem rather than a circular step, but it is load-bearing and should be made explicit.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.13)–(2.15), and §4 initialization U(0)] The completeness of the enumeration depends on excluding all down-sets containing a next-to-maximal MI element, even for non-realizable KC-faces. The argument in §2.2 establishes this exclusion only for realizable faces, using the factorization ρ_N = ρ_J ⊗ ρ_{Jc}; the next sentence asserts that the result extends to any KC-face 'independently from realizability' and cites [24, Sec. 3.4] without giving the proof or the exact statement. Since R6_SSA is defined on the SAC without a realizability assumption, a non-realizable SSA-compatible extreme ray saturating a next-to-maximal MI would be excluded by U(0), invalidating the 208-orbit count and all downstream splits. Please include a self-contained proof of the polyhedral extension, or restate the precise theorem from [24] and explicitly incorporate it into the completeness argument.
  2. [§3.4 and §5] The actual computation of R6 uses the closure operator clLD (§3.4, §§4–5), while Theorem 2 is stated and proved for clFD. The paper states that the proof 'remains essentially unchanged' when clLD is used, but this replacement changes a triplet from a D-face to a D-subspace, changes the meaning of the 1-dimensional case, and affects the validity of discarding sets through the condition D_m ∩ U = ∅. Since the N=6 result was obtained with the clLD version, please provide a formal adapted completeness statement for clLD, including the post-processing verification that each 1-dimensional D-subspace contains a feasible extreme ray.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4] There is a typo: 'guaranties' should be 'guarantees'.
  2. [Tables 4–8] The color-coding is essential to the classification but is not accessible in monochrome print or for visually impaired readers; please add explicit textual labels or a machine-readable key alongside the tables and in the supplementary data.
  3. [§5.3 and Refs. [35,36]] The graph construction procedure for the 150 realizations is described in two companion papers that are 'in preparation'; for archival reproducibility, please include the weighted adjacency lists and a verification script in the repository, or at least specify which files in the repository certify Table 8.
  4. [Table 6] The representative vectors are not canonically ordered under party permutations (e.g., row 220 begins with {2,3,2,2,3,4}); this is not an error, but a brief note on how representatives were chosen would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the N=6 enumeration is benchmarked against external data and does not assume its own output; the main dependency on [24] is a prior theorem, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a complete enumeration of R6_SSA. The enumeration does not fit any parameter and does not use the target set R6_SSA as an input: the algorithm enumerates down-set extreme rays of the SAC (R6_KC) and then filters by direct SSA checking (§5), which is a separate linear computation. Completeness is argued internally in Theorem 2 (§3.3), and the N=5 rerun (§4) is an external benchmark against the known R5_SSA, while the HEI-violation counts use the independent [17] database and the graph realizations are explicit constructions. The only load-bearing reliance on the authors' prior work is the Bell pairs theorem (Theorem 1, proof by citation to [24, Cor. 1]) and the extension to arbitrary KC-faces of the exclusion of maximal/next-to-maximal MI elements (§2.2: 'The result however can be extended to any KC-face, independently from realizability, and we refer to reader to Section 3.4 of [24] for the proof'). These are parameter-free general theorems from a published companion paper, not restatements of the N=6 result, so relying on them is a dependency rather than a circular step; the unproven extension is a correctness risk if [24] were wrong, but it does not make the present derivation equivalent to its inputs. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no fitted value is relabelled as a prediction.

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

The central computation is exact, with no fitted parameters. It relies on standard facts about polyhedral cones and closure operators, on the Bell pairs theorem and maximal-element exclusion from the authors' prior work [24], on strong subadditivity as a fundamental quantum inequality, and on the list of known holographic entropy inequalities from [17]. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Edge weights and topology of the 150 graph models in Table 8 = Listed per graph as {s,v,e} and edge weights
    Chosen by a heuristic described in the companion paper [36] so that each graph's min-cut entropy vector equals the target extreme ray; the holographic realizability claims rest on these choices.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Strong subadditivity (SSA) is a valid constraint on von Neumann entropies of quantum states.
    The paper defines R6_SSA as extreme rays satisfying all instances of SSA, citing [26,33].
  • standard math Klein's condition (KC) is implied by SSA and is formulated via the mutual information poset.
    Derived in Section 2.1 from the chain of implications of vanishing mutual information; used to reduce the search to down-sets.
  • domain assumption Bell pairs theorem (Theorem 1, from Corollary 1 of [24]): every KC-ER not realized by a Bell pair has I(ell:ell')=0 for all single parties.
    Invoked in Section 4 to initialize D(0)=V(F*); completeness of the enumeration depends on it.
  • domain assumption Down-sets containing maximal or next-to-maximal MI-poset elements correspond to lifts or sums of lower-party rays and can be excluded (Section 3.4 of [24]).
    Used in Section 2.2 to define the excluded region U(0); relied on for genuine 6-party classification.
  • domain assumption The 1,877 known holographic entropy inequalities from [17] are valid for holographic states.
    Used in Section 5.2 to certify 52 orbits as non-holographic; the authors note the N=6 list is incomplete.
  • domain assumption Graph models realize holographic entropy vectors via min-cut computations.
    Standard holographic construction from [15]; used to certify 150 orbits as in R6_Hol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Algorithmic construction of SSA-compatible extreme rays of the subadditivity cone and the ${\sf N}=6$ solution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQS67SMR

@misc{pith2026241215364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Algorithmic construction of SSA-compatible extreme rays of the subadditivity cone and the $\sf N=6$ solution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQS67SMR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15364}
}
read the original abstract

We compute the set of all extreme rays of the 6-party subadditivity cone that are compatible with strong subadditivity. In total, we identify 208 new (genuine 6-party) orbits, 52 of which violate at least one known holographic entropy inequality. For the remaining 156 orbits, which do not violate any such inequalities, we construct holographic graph models for 150 of them. For the final 6 orbits, it remains an open question whether they are holographic. Consistent with the strong form of the conjecture in arXiv:2204.00075, 148 of these graph models are trees. However, 2 of the graphs contain a "bulk cycle", leaving open the question of whether equivalent models with tree topology exist, or if these extreme rays are counterexamples to the conjecture. The paper includes a detailed description of the algorithm used for the computation, which is presented in a general framework and can be applied to any situation involving a polyhedral cone defined by a set of linear inequalities and a partial order among them to find extreme rays corresponding to down-sets in this poset.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Holographic Multi-Entropy Cone

    hep-th 2026-06 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    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. On the construction of graph models realizing given entropy vectors

    hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An efficient algorithm constructs candidate simple tree graph models for entropy vectors that pass a chordality test, but its correctness remains conjectural.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [24]

    On the relation between the subadditivity cone and the quantum entropy cone,

    T. He, V. E. Hubeny, and M. Rota, “On the relation between the subadditivity cone and the quantum entropy cone,” JHEP 08 (2023) 018, arXiv:2211.11858 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    The holographic entropy cone from marginal independence,

    S. Hern´ andez-Cuenca, V. E. Hubeny, and M. Rota, “The holographic entropy cone from marginal independence,” JHEP 09 (2022) 190, arXiv:2204.00075 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    The Quantum Entropy Cone of Stabiliser States,

    N. Linden, F. Mat´ uˇ s, M. B. Ruskai, and A. Winter, “The Quantum Entropy Cone of Stabiliser States,” Leibniz Int. Proc. Inf. 22 (2013) 270–284, arXiv:1302.5453 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [3]

    Stabilizer information inequalities from phase space distributions,

    D. Gross and M. Walter, “Stabilizer information inequalities from phase space distributions,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 54 no. 8, (08, 2013) 082201. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4818950

    doi:10.1063/1.4818950 2013

  5. [4]

    A framework for linear information inequalities,

    R. Yeung, “A framework for linear information inequalities,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 43 no. 6, (1997) 1924–1934

    work page 1997

  6. [5]

    On characterization of entropy function via information inequalities,

    Z. Zhang and R. Yeung, “On characterization of entropy function via information inequalities,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 44 no. 4, (1998) 1440–1452

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    A new class of non-shannon-type inequalities for entropies,

    K. Makarychev, Y. Makarychev, A. E. Romashchenko, and N. K. Vereshchagin, “A new class of non-shannon-type inequalities for entropies,” Commun. Inf. Syst. 2 (2002) 147–166. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:734377

    work page 2002

  8. [7]

    On a new non-shannon type information inequality,

    Z. Zhang, “On a new non-shannon type information inequality,” Commun. Inf. Syst. 3 (2003) 47–60. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:124371850

    work page 2003

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Infinitely many information inequalities,

    F. Mat´ us, “Infinitely many information inequalities,” 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2007) 41–44. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14959910

    2007

  2. [9]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    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

    1998 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105–114, arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    1998 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

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

    1998 arXiv

  5. [12]

    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, arXiv:hep-th/0603001 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [13]

    A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi, “A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,” JHEP 07 (2007) 062, arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Holographic Mutual Information is Monogamous,

    P. Hayden, M. Headrick, and A. Maloney, “Holographic Mutual Information is Monogamous,” Phys. Rev. D87 no. 4, (2013) 046003, arXiv:1107.2940 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [15]

    The Holographic Entropy Cone,

    N. Bao, S. Nezami, H. Ooguri, B. Stoica, J. Sully, and M. Walter, “The Holographic Entropy Cone,” JHEP 09 (2015) 130, arXiv:1505.07839 [hep-th]. – 49 –

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A holographic inequality for N = 7 regions,

    B. Czech and Y. Wang, “A holographic inequality for N = 7 regions,” JHEP 01 (2023) 101, arXiv:2209.10547 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Holographic entropy inequalities and multipartite entanglement,

    S. Hern´ andez-Cuenca, V. E. Hubeny, and H. F. Jia, “Holographic entropy inequalities and multipartite entanglement,” JHEP 08 (2024) 238, arXiv:2309.06296 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Two infinite families of facets of the holographic entropy cone,

    B. Czech, Y. Liu, and B. Yu, “Two infinite families of facets of the holographic entropy cone,” SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 084, arXiv:2401.13029 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Holographic entropy relations,

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and M. Rota, “Holographic entropy relations,” Fortsch. Phys. 66 no. 11-12, (2018) 1800067, arXiv:1808.07871 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The holographic entropy arrangement,

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and M. Rota, “The holographic entropy arrangement,” Fortsch. Phys. 67 no. 4, (2019) 1900011, arXiv:1812.08133 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    The quantum marginal independence problem,

    S. Hern´ andez-Cuenca, V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and M. Rota, “The quantum marginal independence problem,” arXiv:1912.01041 [quant-ph]

    1912 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Holographic entropy cone for five regions,

    S. Hern´ andez Cuenca, “Holographic entropy cone for five regions,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 2, (2019) 026004, arXiv:1903.09148 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Gap between holographic and quantum mechanical extreme rays of the subadditivity cone,

    T. He, V. E. Hubeny, and M. Rota, “Gap between holographic and quantum mechanical extreme rays of the subadditivity cone,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 4, (2024) L041901, arXiv:2307.10137 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Inner bounding the quantum entropy cone with subadditivity and subsystem coarse grainings,

    T. He, V. E. Hubeny, and M. Rota, “Inner bounding the quantum entropy cone with subadditivity and subsystem coarse grainings,” Phys. Rev. A 109 no. 5, (2024) 052407, arXiv:2312.04074 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The inequalities of quantum information theory,

    N. Pippenger, “The inequalities of quantum information theory,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 49 no. 4, (2003) 773–789

    2003

  19. [27]

    A new inequality for the von neumann entropy,

    N. Linden and A. Winter, “A new inequality for the von neumann entropy,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 259 no. 1, (2005) 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-005-1361-2

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    Infinitely many constrained inequalities for the von neumann entropy,

    J. Cadney, N. Linden, and A. Winter, “Infinitely many constrained inequalities for the von neumann entropy,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 58 no. 6, (2012) 3657–3663

    2012

  21. [29]

    Tip of the quantum entropy cone,

    M. Christandl, B. Durhuus, and L. H. Wolff, “Tip of the quantum entropy cone,” Physical Review Letters 131 no. 24, (Dec., 2023) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.240201

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Normaliz. Algorithms for rational cones and affine monoids

    W. Bruns, B. Ichim, C. S¨ oger, and U. von der Ohe, “Normaliz. Algorithms for rational cones and affine monoids.” Available at https://www.normaliz.uni-osnabrueck.de

  23. [31]

    The Quantum Entropy Cone of Hypergraphs,

    N. Bao, N. Cheng, S. Hern´ andez-Cuenca, and V. P. Su, “The Quantum Entropy Cone of Hypergraphs,” SciPost Phys. 9 no. 5, (2020) 5, arXiv:2002.05317 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hypergraph min-cuts from quantum entropies,

    M. Walter and F. Witteveen, “Hypergraph min-cuts from quantum entropies,” J. Math. Phys. 62 no. 9, (2021) 092203, arXiv:2002.12397 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Proof of the strong subadditivity of quantum-mechanical entropy,

    E. H. Lieb and M. B. Ruskai, “Proof of the strong subadditivity of quantum-mechanical entropy,” J. Math. Phys. 14 (1973) 1938–1941

    1973

  26. [34]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. – 50 –

    2010

  27. [35]

    Comments on the SSA-compatible extreme rays of the subadditivity cone for N = 6,

    V. Hubeny and M. Rota, “Comments on the SSA-compatible extreme rays of the subadditivity cone for N = 6,”. In preparation

  28. [36]

    On the construction of graph models realizing given entropy vectors,

    V. Hubeny and M. Rota, “On the construction of graph models realizing given entropy vectors,”. In preparation

  29. [37]

    Birkhoff, Lattice Theory

    G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 3rd ed., 1967

    1967

  30. [38]

    A survey and comparison of methods for finding all vertices of convex polyhedral sets,

    T. H. Matheiss and D. S. Rubin, “A survey and comparison of methods for finding all vertices of convex polyhedral sets,” Mathematics of Operations Research 5 no. 2, (1980) 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.5.2.167

    1980 doi

  31. [39]

    G. M. Ziegler, Lectures on polytopes. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8431-1

    1995 doi

  32. [40]

    Fukuda, Lectures on Polyhedral Computation

    K. Fukuda, Lectures on Polyhedral Computation. ETH Zurich, 2015. https://people.inf.ethz.ch/fukudak/lect/pclect/notes2015/PolyComp2015.pdf

    2015

  33. [41]

    Polyhedral representation conversion up to symmetries,

    D. Bremner, M. D. Sikiric, and A. Schuermann, “Polyhedral representation conversion up to symmetries,” CRM Proceedings & Lecture Notes 48 (2009) 45–71, arXiv:math/0702239 [math.MG]. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702239

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. A. Davey and H. A. Priestley, Introduction to Lattices and Order . Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2002

    2002

  35. [43]

    Bj¨ orner, M

    A. Bj¨ orner, M. Las Vergnas, B. Sturmfels, N. White, and G. M. Ziegler, Oriented matroids, vol. 46 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

    1993

  36. [44]

    Correlation hypergraph: a new representation of a quantum marginal independence pattern,

    V. E. Hubeny and M. Rota, “Correlation hypergraph: a new representation of a quantum marginal independence pattern,” arXiv:2412.18018 [hep-th]

  37. [45]

    Holographic Entropy Cone Database,

    S. Hern´ andez-Cuenca, “Holographic Entropy Cone Database,”GitHub Repository (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    A Gap Between the Hypergraph and Stabilizer Entropy Cones,

    N. Bao, N. Cheng, S. Hern´ andez-Cuenca, and V. P. Su, “A Gap Between the Hypergraph and Stabilizer Entropy Cones,” arXiv:2006.16292 [quant-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Representation of matroids

    A. W. Ingleton, “Representation of matroids.” Combinat. Math. Appl., Proc. Conf. math. Inst., Oxford 1969, 149-167, 1971

    1969

  40. [48]

    SSA-compatible Extreme Rays of the Subadditivity Cone,

    M. Rota, “SSA-compatible Extreme Rays of the Subadditivity Cone,” GitHub Repository (2025) . 10.5281/zenodo.14983856. – 51 –

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.