
union of n subregions, the brute force solution consists of checking every combination of n
geodesics that run between the 2n endpoints — a task that scales exponentially in n. Is
there a more efficient way to identify the correct union of geodesics, or is the combinatorics
of boundary subregions a source of hardness even in a one-dimensional boundary?
Strikingly, we find that there is a strong simplification to a polynomial time algorithm
in three-dimensional gravity. Following previous inspiring and precise statements of a
connection between the Ryu-Takayanagi conjecture and max-flow/min-cut [4, 5], we first
devise a constructive algorithm that reduces the problem of determining the minimal-area
surface in the context of AdS
3
/CFT
2
to solving max-flow/min-cut on a graph. Crucially,
the latter problem can be solved in polynomial time. We then analyze the computational
overhead that is required to reduce the problem to max-flow/min-cut and verify that it
requires no more than polynomial time as well.
The organization of the paper is as follows: in section 2 we present the algorithm to
identify the bulk minimal surface in mathematical terms, and in section 3 we analyze the
complexity of this algorithm. In section 4, we discuss how our approach generalizes to
nontrivial bulk topologies. Finally, in section 5 we conclude with a few remarks.
2 An algorithm to identify minimal-length bulk surfaces
We begin by precisely stating the problem. Let X be a spatial slice of an asymptotically
AdS
3
spacetime, and suppose that X is simply-connected. Further, suppose that X is
holographically dual to a CFT state ρ defined on its boundary, ∂X. Let {A
i
}
n
i=1
with n ≥ 2
be a collection of non-empty, simply-connected, closed, disjoint boundary regions, i.e., A
i
⊂
∂X, A
i
6= ∅, A
i
= cl(A
i
) for i ∈ [n],
1
and A
i
∩A
j
= ∅ for i 6= j. What is the Ryu-Takayanagi
surface, i.e., the minimal-length bulk surface
˜
A that is homologous to A =
S
n
i=1
A
i
? Or,
if there are several minimal-length surfaces, what is one of them? Note that we may
consider strictly disjoint regions without loss of any generality; two overlapping or touching
regions A
i
and A
i+1
may be fused, since the area of any surface that subtends A
i
and A
i+1
separately can only be greater than or equal to the area of a surface that subtends A
i
∪A
i+1
.
Our approach to identifying
˜
A is to reformulate the question as a problem on a graph
using a construction that is a variation on the one presented in section 3 of [5]. Without
loss of generality, suppose that the A
i
are numbered according to the order in which they
appear going counter-clockwise along ∂X and let A
i
= [a
i
, b
i
], again with respect to counter-
clockwise ordering. Next, for each a
i
, draw geodesics between it and every b
j
so that each
geodesic subtends a boundary region [a
i
, b
j
] whose interior contains zero or an even number
of boundary endpoints
2
(figure 1a). Because X is two-dimensional and simply-connected,
these geodesics are precisely the curves that could possibly make up the bulk minimal sur-
face, or in other words,
˜
A is a subset of these geodesics. Since each a
i
is connected to each of
the n endpoints b
j
, there are n
2
geodesics in total, and since in the minimal surface each end-
point must be connected to only one other endpoint by a geodesic,
˜
A consists of n geodesics.
1
We use the notation [n] ≡ {1, 2, . . . , n} as in [5].
2
The graph formed by the endpoints as vertices and the geodesics as edges is known as a complete
bipartite graph.
– 2 –