Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Bipartite expansion beyond biparticity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that every symmetric polynomial, in particular the fundamental HOMFLY polynomial of any knot, has a positive decomposition in the three variables φ, φ̄, D, unique for chiral knots and ambiguous for non-chiral ones.

desk verdict Strong extension of bipartite expansion to all knots, but the universal claim needs a normalization condition; the knot case likely survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15467 v1 pith:2XSHK4YP submitted 2025-01-26 hep-th math-phmath.GTmath.MP

A. Anokhina , E. Lanina , A. Morozov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.GTmath.MP MSC 57K1457K1081T45 PACS 02.10.Kn11.15.Yc
keywords positivedecompositionHOMFLYpolynomialbipartiteknotsplanarKauffmanbracketChern-SimonstheoryprecursorJonessymmetricrepresentations
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 claims that the positive decomposition of the fundamental HOMFLY polynomial — writing it as a polynomial with non-negative integer coefficients in the three variables φ, φ̄ and D — exists not just for bipartite knots, but for every knot, and in fact for every symmetric polynomial of the type that knots produce. If true, the planar calculus that generalizes the Kauffman bracket from N=2 to arbitrary rank becomes a universal non-perturbative tool for Chern–Simons theory, not a specialty of the bipartite diagram class. The paper shows that for chiral knots the decomposition is unique and algorithmic, while for non-chiral knots it exists but is ambiguous, and it gives two mechanisms by which non-bipartite knots can inherit such decompositions: expansion into sums of bipartite diagrams, or a bipartite clone with the same HOMFLY polynomial. A positive decomposition is not automatically a bipartite expansion; the paper's precursor-Jones criterion and D=1 reduction serve as checks that separate genuine bipartite realizations from 'fake' ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the planar decomposition of an antiparallel lock tangle: each two-vertex tangle is replaced by a sum of two planar resolutions with weights 1 and φ (or 1 and φ̄ depending on orientation), while each planar cycle contributes the dimension D = {A}/{q}. Iterating over all resolution choices gives the positive integer polynomial (9.1). The argument is carried by the algebraic identity G = φ+φ̄+φφ̄D = 0, the framing relation (1+Dφ)(1+Dφ̄)=1, the chiral-PD formula (3.6), and the two necessary conditions for a PD to be a genuine bipartite expansion: the D=1 reduction and the precursor-Jones check, which downgrades the PD to a Jones polynomial of a hypothetical diagram.

What would settle it

Compute the formal expansion (3.6) with the framing factor (1+Dφ̄)^fr for the HOMFLY polynomial of every knot with up to, say, 11 crossings and check the Section 4.4 assertion that all negative addends are proportional to φ; a single negative monomial proportional to φ̄ or D would make the positivity-curing step (4.9) inapplicable and refute the universal-existence claim. Equivalently, finding any of the five listed fake precursor Jones polynomials among actual low-crossing links would promote the corresponding fake-BE candidate to a genuine bipartite realization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that every symmetric polynomial in q and A, in particular the fundamental HOMFLY polynomial of every knot, can be rewritten as a positive integer polynomial in the three variables φ, φ̄ and D. The key construction is formula (3.6): substituting v = $X^{{-1/2}}$ and z = $X^{{-1/2}}$φ, with X = Dφ+1, into the reduced HOMFLY polynomial produces a rational function whose denominator is a power of X and whose numerator is, for chiral knots, a positive polynomial in φ and D. For non-chiral knots the same substitution yields mixed signs, but the paper argues these can always be cured by adding multiples of the relation G = φ+φ̄+φφ̄D = 0, which vanishes identically for the knot variables. The paper treats this as evidence that the planar, state-sum calculus previously available only for bipartite diagrams is universal, while acknowledging that in the non-chiral case the resulting decomposition is not unique.

Load-bearing premise

In the non-chiral case, the proof that a positive decomposition always exists assumes that every negative term produced by formula (3.6) is proportional to φ alone, so that the substitution (4.9) can flip its sign; if a negative term proportional to φ̄ or D can occur, the construction breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any knot, the fundamental HOMFLY polynomial can be encoded as a positive integer polynomial in φ, φ̄, D, extending the Kauffman planar calculus from N=2 to arbitrary rank N without requiring a bipartite diagram.
  • Chiral knots acquire a unique positive decomposition, while non-chiral knots have infinitely many, differing by positive multiples of the relation G = φ+φ̄+φφ̄D.
  • Non-bipartite knots can still be handled: resolving bipartite tangles in their diagrams expresses their HOMFLY polynomial as a positive combination of HOMFLY polynomials of bipartite diagrams, and bipartite clones provide another route.
  • The precursor-Jones criterion gives an effective, HOMFLY-only necessary condition for a PD to correspond to a bipartite diagram, complementing Alexander-ideal obstructions.
  • The extension to the symmetric representation [2] is not yet canonical: the chiral answer becomes ambiguous and appears to require additional selection rules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's examples, the universal PD suggests a semi-perturbative expansion in z and D that could substitute part of the perturbative Vassiliev calculus; the paper does not develop this direction.
  • The unresolved ambiguity of non-chiral PD could be read as evidence that G-equivalence classes of positive polynomials correspond to Reidemeister classes of bipartite diagrams; the paper poses this connection only as a question.
  • The precursor criterion can be promoted to a practical non-bipartiteness test: given a candidate PD, compute its hypothetical Jones polynomial and search knot and link tables up to the allowed crossing number; the paper leaves the five unresolved candidate polynomials open.
  • A categorification of PD would produce a new knot homology theory for arbitrary knots, likely different from Khovanov-Rozansky homology; the paper raises this possibility without developing it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the notion of positive decomposition (PD) of the reduced fundamental HOMFLY polynomial as a polynomial with non-negative integer coefficients in the three algebraically dependent variables φ, φ̄, and D. It claims that such a PD exists not only for knots admitting bipartite diagrams, but for arbitrary knots, and indeed for every symmetric polynomial of the type satisfied by the fundamental HOMFLY polynomial. The paper develops a chiral (φ̄-independent) PD via formula (3.6), discusses the ambiguity of non-chiral PDs modulo the relation G = φ + φ̄ + φφ̄D = 0, proposes two criteria (the D = 1 reduction and the precursor Jones polynomial check) for deciding whether a given PD comes from a bipartite diagram, and offers explanations for the PDs of non-bipartite knots via resolution of individual bipartite tangles or via HOMFLY clones. It also sketches the extension of PD to the second symmetric representation, where the situation is left largely open.

Significance. If the central existence claim is correct for all knots, the paper provides a genuinely new semi-perturbative expansion of HOMFLY polynomials, extending the Kauffman planar calculus from N = 2 to arbitrary N. The manuscript contains a large amount of explicit and falsifiable data: complete chiral PD tables for knots up to 10 crossings, systematic clone searches, and precursor Jones polynomial tests. The chiral PD is argued to be unique, and the resolution-based explanation for non-bipartite knots 9_35, 9_41, and 9_49 is concrete and checkable. These strengths are substantial. However, the paper's headline claim is overgeneralized: as stated, 'every symmetric polynomial does [possess PD]' is false, and the proof of the non-chiral existence relies on an unproved structural assertion. Both issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they affect the central claim and therefore require revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1] The claim that every symmetric polynomial possesses a PD, repeated in the abstract and in §3.1, is false as stated. Consider F(A,q) = -1 + (q - q^{-1})^2. This polynomial is symmetric under q → q^{-1} and depends on A and q only through A^2 and q^2, so it falls under the §3.2 definition. At A = 1 we have D = 0, φ = z, and φ̄ = -z, so any PD of the form (2.1) reduces to its constant term N_{0,0,0} ≥ 0 at z = 0, while F(1, 1) = -1. Hence no PD exists. The correct statement requires the additional knot-polynomial property H(1,q) = Δ(q) with Δ(0) = 1; the manuscript should either restrict the universal claim to knot HOMFLY polynomials or add this condition explicitly.
  2. [§4.4, Eq. (4.9)] The positivity-curing step (4.9) rests on the unproved assertion that 'all addends with the negative sign are proportional to φ' after applying formula (3.6). This assertion is not true for arbitrary symmetric polynomials, as the counterexample in the previous comment shows. For knot polynomials, the assertion can be justified: after the substitution in (3.6), the D^0 part equals P(1,φ) = H(1,φ) = Δ(φ), the Alexander polynomial, whose constant term is 1; hence P(1 + Dφ, φ) = 1 + φ·T(D,φ), so every negative monomial indeed carries a factor of φ. The manuscript should state this extra condition on H(1,q) and give the short proof, rather than leaving the proportionality as an unqualified observation. Without this, the existence proof for non-chiral PDs is incomplete.
  3. [§3.2 (definition of symmetric polynomial) and §6.1] The definition of 'symmetric polynomial' in §3.2 (invariance under q → q^{-1} and dependence on A^2, q^2) is too weak for the paper's main theorem. The D = 1 criterion in Section 6.1 also assumes that a PD under consideration comes from a hypothetical bipartite diagram, but the paper does not prove that the PD constructed by the algorithm in Section 4.4 satisfies the D = 1 reduction. The connection between the newly constructed PDs and the D = 1 criterion is therefore only conjectural, and the text should clearly separate established results from conjectural ones.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are many typos and inconsistent spellings: 'Montensinos' should be 'Montesinos' (§4.3), 'criterium' and 'criteria' are used interchangeably (§6.1, §6.2), 'semilast column' should be 'second-to-last column' (§3.3), 'digram' appears in §4.3, and 'biparticy' appears in §2.5. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§3.3] The tables are information-dense but some column headers are ambiguous. In particular, the column 'existence of BP diagram' uses '+', '−', and '?', and the meaning of the precursor Jones polynomial entry in the second column is not explained in the table caption; it is only defined much later in Section 6.2. A short note in the caption would help the reader.
  3. [§4.4, Eq. (4.9)] In Eq. (4.9) the notation P D+ and P D− is introduced but not defined precisely. It should be stated explicitly that P D+ collects all monomials with non-negative coefficients and P D− collects the absolute values of the monomials with negative coefficients, each multiplied by the appropriate monomial in D and φ.
  4. [§8.3] The derivation of the PD for the trefoil in the representation [2] is hard to follow because the monomials in A and q are displayed without explanation of the notation (e.g., A14q28, A14q26). The reader must infer that these are the highest-degree terms of the multiplied expression; adding a sentence explaining the ordering and the role of the parameters a1, a2, a3, a4 would greatly improve readability.
  5. [§1] The phrase 'fake BE' is used before it is defined; it is introduced informally in the introduction and only made precise through examples in Section 3.3 and Section 7. A brief definition at first use would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the PD construction is an explicit change of variables applied to the input polynomial; prior self-citations are independent combinatorial foundations, and the main gaps are missing proof / overbroad statement, not circularity.

full rationale

The construction of a PD from a HOMFLY polynomial is via the explicit substitution (3.6), PDchiral(H) := H(v=X^{-1/2}, z=X^{-1/2}phi) with X = D*phi + 1; this rewrites the input polynomial in new variables, so no target result is assumed as an input. Positivity curing in Section 4.4 uses the relation G = 0 and the 'Notice' that all negative addends are proportional to phi; for knot polynomials this follows from H(1,q) = Delta(q) with Delta(0) = 1, but the paper does not state that extra condition, so the universal 'every symmetric polynomial does' claim in Section 3.1 is overbroad and as stated false (e.g., F = -1 + z^2 at A=1, D=0, phi=z has a negative constant term). This is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction: the algorithm is not forced by a previously assumed positive decomposition. Citations to the authors' prior papers [32,34] supply the bipartite-expansion machinery and the precursor-Jones criterion; these are parameter-free combinatorial facts checked against external knot/link tables and do not incorporate the present paper's target conclusions. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input. The non-chiral PD ambiguity and the clone/precursor arguments are presented as open problems or benchmarked checks, not as forced uniqueness. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central construction is a change of variables plus a positivity-enhancement algorithm; the main implicit assumptions are the two database-completeness assumptions and the unproved structural claim in Section 4.4. The framing factor is a genuine free choice in the non-chiral case.

free parameters (1)
  • framing factor fr = chosen per knot (integer, varies)
    In (3.6) and (4.9) a power of X=(1+Dφ) is used to clear denominators and obtain polynomiality; for non-chiral knots there are multiple choices, and the paper does not fix a canonical representative. This choice affects which positive decomposition is obtained.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fundamental HOMFLY polynomial of a knot is symmetric under q -> q^{-1} (Pol(q^{-2}) = Pol(q^2))
    Stated in the Introduction and Section 3.2; it restricts PD to symmetric polynomials and underlies the change to variables z and D.
  • domain assumption The completeness of the list of non-bipartite knots with up to 10 crossings from [33]
    Used in Section 2.5 to identify 9_35 and 9_49 as definitely non-bipartite and to test the clone and vertex-resolution explanations.
  • domain assumption The completeness of KnotInfo and LinkInfo databases for the precursor check
    Section 6.2 concludes that a hypothetical precursor Jones polynomial 'does not correspond to any link' based on searching knots up to 16 crossings and links up to 11 crossings; the force of the criterion depends on these databases being exhaustive.
  • ad hoc to paper All negative addends in the expression from (3.6) are proportional to φ
    Stated without proof in Section 4.4 ('Notice that all addends with the negative sign are proportional to φ'). It is the key step that makes the positivity-curing substitution (4.9) work; if false, the existence of PD for arbitrary non-chiral knots is not established.
  • standard math The Morton-Franks-Williams inequality bounds the powers in the PD
    Used in the conditions for chiral PD in Section 3.2, citing [46-48].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bipartite expansion beyond biparticity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XSHK4YP

@misc{pith2026250115467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bipartite expansion beyond biparticity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XSHK4YP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15467}
}
abstract

The recently suggested bipartite analysis extends the Kauffman planar decomposition to arbitrary $N$, i.e. extends it from the Jones polynomial to the HOMFLY polynomial. This provides a generic and straightforward non-perturbative calculus in an arbitrary Chern--Simons theory. Technically, this approach is restricted to knots and links which possess bipartite realizations, i.e. can be entirely glued from antiparallel lock (two-vertex) tangles rather than single-vertex $R$-matrices. However, we demonstrate that the resulting positive decomposition (PD), i.e. the representation of the fundamental HOMFLY polynomials as positive integer polynomials of the three parameters $\phi$, $\bar\phi$ and $D$, exists for arbitrary knots, not only bipartite ones. This poses new questions about the true significance of bipartite expansion, which appears to make sense far beyond its original scope, and its generalizations to higher representations. We have provided two explanations for the existence of the PD for non-bipartite knots. An interesting option is to resolve a particular bipartite vertex in a not-fully-bipartite diagram and reduce the HOMFLY polynomial to a linear combination of those for smaller diagrams. If the resulting diagrams correspond to bipartite links, this option provides a PD even to an initially non-bipartite knot. Another possibility for a non-bipartite knot is to have a bipartite clone with the same HOMFLY polynomial providing this PD. We also suggest a promising criterium for the existence of a bipartite realization behind a given PD, which is based on the study of the precursor Jones polynomials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The planar decomposition of the positive (in the first line) and negative (in the second line) lock vertices in the topological framing. In [32], we used the vertical framing, but the topological one is more convenient for our considerations, thus, we use it throughout the present paper. Originally, we deduced (2.1) in [32] from the study of bipartite diagrams, consisting entirely of the antiparallel lock tangles fr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The celebrated Kauffman bracket – the planar decomposition of the R-matrix vertex for the fundamental representation of slq(2). In this case (N = 2), the conjugate of the fundamental representation is isomorphic to it, thus, tangles in the picture has no orientation. If we have a bipartite diagram, then the planar decomposition in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analogues of the first and the second Reidemeister moves for bipartite diagrams. (1 + Dϕ) −n• (1 + Dϕ¯) −n◦ guarantees the “bipartite first Reidemeister move” ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: I. The diagram that reproduces one of 8 bipartite knots depending on signs of the bipartite vertices. Table on the left give knots up to 12 crossings with the corresponding HOMFLY polynomial (a diagram with any other combination of signs is equivalent to one of these 8…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of an equivalence transformation of a bipartite diagram that changes PD to a positive polynomial that is a multiple of ϕ + ϕ¯ + Dϕϕ¯. An initial bipartite diagram (living inside a big circle) is arbitrarily split into two bipartite 4-tangles BT1 and BT2. The ne…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of an equivalence transformation of a bipartite diagram that does not change PD [53]. 6 Possible obstacles to the existence of a bipartite diagram The moral of the above considerations is that positive decomposition (2.1) of the fundamental HOMFLY polynomial ex…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Kauffman and lock decompositions can be generalized to describe both the bipartite HOMFLY polynomial and the precursor Jones polynomial, picture from [32]. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The three antiparallel locks in the non-bipartite diagram for 935 can be decomposed with the help of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The planar decomposition of the lock vertices in the topological framing. No extra factor is needed to restore the topological invariance. If we want a polynomial expression, we rather multiply the r.h.s. by (1 + Dϕ¯), using the fact that (1 + Dϕ)(1 + Dϕ¯) = 1 – but th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Diagrams of the knots 949 (the left one) and 941 (the right one) from [51]. To find the bipartite vertices in these diagrams, one selects an orientation. Non-pretzel knot 949. The other definitely non-bipartite [33] chiral knot up to 9 crossings is 949. According to […
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The lock tangle projected to the representation [2] and its planar decomposition. The coefficients are given by (8.5). Let us briefly formulate the basics of planar decomposition for the representation [2]. Instead of the lock tangle in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Vertical chain of projectors. Shown are its closures, which are relevant for twist knots. n is the number of Π, which is the ˆ same as the number of small cycles in the picture. The lock vertices would stand in between the cycles, thus, there would be (n − 1) of them …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Erasure of single circles – as implied by projector properties. At the l.h.s. we have contractions of projectors, while at the r.h.s. there are only single lines carrying the fundamental representation. 8.2 Simple examples Exhaustive description of PD for twist knots …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Characteristic forms and geometric invariants

    S.-S. Chern and J. Simons. “Characteristic forms and geometric invariants”. In: Annals Math. 99 (1974), pp. 48–69

    1974

  2. [2]

    Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial

    E. Witten. “Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 121.3 (1989), pp. 351–399

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    New topological invariants arising in the theory of quantized fields

    A. Schwarz. “New topological invariants arising in the theory of quantized fields”. In: Talk at the Baku International Topological Conf. Abstracts (part II) (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Chern–Simons theory in the temporal gauge and knot invariants through the universal quantum R-matrix

    A. Morozov and A. Smirnov. “Chern–Simons theory in the temporal gauge and knot invariants through the universal quantum R-matrix”. In: Nuclear Physics B 835.3 (2010), pp. 284–313. arXiv: 1001.2003 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [6]

    Knot Polynomials from-Matrices: Wherefore This Mathematics?

    A. Anokhina. “Knot Polynomials from-Matrices: Wherefore This Mathematics?” In: Physics of Particles and Nuclei 52.3 (2021), pp. 374–419. arXiv: 1412.8444 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [7]

    Feynman integrals

    S. Weinzierl. “Feynman integrals”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03593 5.6 (2022). arXiv: 2201 . 03593 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [8]

    Feynman integrals, toric geometry and mirror symmetry

    P. Vanhove. “Feynman integrals, toric geometry and mirror symmetry”. In: Elliptic Integrals, Elliptic Func- tions and Modular Forms in Quantum Field Theory (2019), pp. 415–458. arXiv: 1807.11466 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [9]

    Feynman integrals and motives

    M. Marcolli. “Feynman integrals and motives”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.0321 (2009). arXiv: 0907.0321 [math-ph]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 51 references
  1. [10]

    On factorization hierarchy of equations for banana Feynman integrals

    V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, and M. Reva. “On factorization hierarchy of equations for banana Feynman integrals”. In: Nuclear Physics B 1010 (2025), p. 116746. arXiv: 2311.13524 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Position space equations for generic Feynman graphs

    V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, and M. Reva. “Position space equations for generic Feynman graphs”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21200 (2024). arXiv: 2407.21200 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Infinite conformal symmetry in two-dimensional quantum field theory

    Alexander A Belavin, Alexander M Polyakov, and Alexander B Zamolodchikov. “Infinite conformal symmetry in two-dimensional quantum field theory”. In: Nuclear Physics B 241.2 (1984), pp. 333–380

    1984

  4. [13]

    Wess-Zumino-Witten model as a theory of free fields

    A. Gerasimov, A. Morozov, M. Olshanetsky, A. Marshakov, and S. Shatashvili. “Wess-Zumino-Witten model as a theory of free fields”. In: International Journal of Modern Physics A 5 (1990), pp. 2495–2589. 35

    1990

  5. [14]

    Clausthal 1989, Procs. 307-317

    E. Guadagnini, M. Martellini, and M. Mintchev. “Clausthal 1989, Procs. 307-317”. In: Phys. Lett. B 235 (1990), p. 275

    1990

  6. [15]

    Ribbon graphs and their invaraints derived from quantum groups

    N. Reshetikhin and V. Turaev. “Ribbon graphs and their invaraints derived from quantum groups”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 127 (1990), pp. 1–26

    1990

  7. [16]

    Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials I: Integrability and difference equations

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and And. Morozov. “Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials I: Integrability and difference equations”. In: Strings, gauge fields, and the geometry behind: the legacy of Maximilian Kreuzer . World Scientific, 2013, pp. 101–118. arXiv: 1112.5754 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials. II. Fundamen- tal representation. Up to five strands in braid

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and And. Morozov. “Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials. II. Fundamen- tal representation. Up to five strands in braid”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2012.3 (2012), pp. 1–34. arXiv: 1112.2654 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Cabling procedure for the colored HOMFLY polynomials

    A. Anokhina and And. Morozov. “Cabling procedure for the colored HOMFLY polynomials”. In: Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 178.1 (2014), pp. 1–58. arXiv: 1307.2216 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Tangle blocks in the theory of link invariants

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and And. Morozov. “Tangle blocks in the theory of link invariants”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2018.9 (2018), pp. 1–45. arXiv: 1804.07278 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [21]

    State models and the Jones polynomial

    L. Kauffman. “State models and the Jones polynomial”. In: Topology 26.3 (1987), pp. 395–407

    1987

  12. [22]

    A categorification of the Jones polynomial

    M. Khovanov. “A categorification of the Jones polynomial”. In: Duke Math. J. 104.1 (2000), pp. 359–426. arXiv: math/9908171 [math.QA]

    2000 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Matrix factorizations and link homology

    M. Khovanov and L. Rozansky. “Matrix factorizations and link homology”. In: Fundamenta Mathematicae 199 (2008), pp. 1–91. arXiv: math/0401268 [math.QA]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Matrix factorizations and link homology II

    M. Khovanov and L. Rozansky. “Matrix factorizations and link homology II”. In: Geometry & Topology 12.3 (2008), pp. 1387–1425. arXiv: math/0505056 [math.QA]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Introduction to Khovanov homologies I. Unreduced Jones superpolynomial

    V. Dolotin and A. Morozov. “Introduction to Khovanov homologies I. Unreduced Jones superpolynomial”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2013.1 (2013), pp. 1–48. arXiv: 1208.4994 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Introduction to Khovanov homologies. II. Reduced Jones superpolynomials

    V. Dolotin and A. Morozov. “Introduction to Khovanov homologies. II. Reduced Jones superpolynomials”. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series . Vol. 411. 1. IOP Publishing. 2013, p. 012013. arXiv: 1209.5109 [math-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Introduction to Khovanov homologies. III. A new and simple tensor-algebra construction of Khovanov–Rozansky invariants

    V. Dolotin and A. Morozov. “Introduction to Khovanov homologies. III. A new and simple tensor-algebra construction of Khovanov–Rozansky invariants”. In: Nuclear Physics B 878 (2014), pp. 12–81. arXiv: 1308. 5759 [hep-th]

    2014

  18. [28]

    Are Khovanov-Rozansky polynomials consistent with evolution in the space of knots?

    A. Anokhina and A. Morozov. “Are Khovanov-Rozansky polynomials consistent with evolution in the space of knots?” In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2018.4 (2018), pp. 1–29. arXiv: 1802.09383 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Nimble evolution for pretzel Khovanov polynomials

    A. Anokhina, A. Morozov, and A. Popolitov. “Nimble evolution for pretzel Khovanov polynomials”. In: The European Physical Journal C 79.10 (2019), p. 867. arXiv: 1904.10277 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Khovanov polynomials for satellites and asymptotic adjoint polynomials

    A. Anokhina, A. Morozov, and A. Popolitov. “Khovanov polynomials for satellites and asymptotic adjoint polynomials”. In: International Journal of Modern Physics A 36.34n35 (2021), p. 2150243. arXiv: 2104.14491 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Towards tangle calculus for Khovanov polynomials

    A. Anokhina, E. Lanina, and A. Morozov. “Towards tangle calculus for Khovanov polynomials”. In: Nuclear Physics B 998 (2024), p. 116403. arXiv: 2308.13095 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Planar decomposition of the HOMFLY polynomial for bipartite knots and links

    A. Anokhina, E. Lanina, and A. Morozov. “Planar decomposition of the HOMFLY polynomial for bipartite knots and links”. In: The European Physical Journal C 84.9 (2024), p. 990. arXiv: 2407.08724 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Bipartite knots

    S. Duzhin and M. Shkolnikov. “Bipartite knots”. In: Fundamenta Mathematicae 225 (2014), pp. 95–102. arXiv: 1105.1264 [math.GT]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Planar decomposition of bipartite HOMFLY polynomials in symmetric representations

    A. Anokhina, E. Lanina, and A. Morozov. “Planar decomposition of bipartite HOMFLY polynomials in symmetric representations”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18525 (2024). arXiv: 2410.18525 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [35]

    A computation in Khovanov-Rozansky homology

    D. Krasner. “A computation in Khovanov-Rozansky homology”. In: Fundamenta Mathematicae 203.1 (2009), pp. 75–95. arXiv: 0801.4018 [math.GT]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Knots whose braided satellite have the same HOMFLY polynomial up to given z-degrees

    T. Ito. “Knots whose braided satellite have the same HOMFLY polynomial up to given z-degrees”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12344 (2024). arXiv: 2410.12344 [math.GT]. 36

    2024 arXiv

  27. [38]

    HOMFLY and superpolynomials for figure eight knot in all symmetric and antisymmetric representations

    H. Itoyama, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and And. Morozov. “HOMFLY and superpolynomials for figure eight knot in all symmetric and antisymmetric representations”. In: JHEP 07 (2012), p. 131. arXiv: 1203.5978 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Factorization of differential expansion for antiparallel double-braid knots

    A. Morozov. “Factorization of differential expansion for antiparallel double-braid knots”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2016.9 (2016). arXiv: 1606.06015 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [40]

    On rectangular HOMFLY for twist knots

    Ya. Kononov and A. Morozov. “On rectangular HOMFLY for twist knots”. In: Modern Physics Letters A 31.38 (2016), p. 1650223. arXiv: 1610.04778 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Factorization of differential expansion for non-rectangular representations

    A. Morozov. “Factorization of differential expansion for non-rectangular representations”. In: Modern Physics Letters A 33.12 (2018), p. 1850062. arXiv: 1612.00422 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Extension of KNTZ trick to non-rectangular representations

    A. Morozov. “Extension of KNTZ trick to non-rectangular representations”. In: Physics Letters B 793 (2019), pp. 464–468. arXiv: 1903.00259 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [43]

    The KNTZ trick from arborescent calculus and the structure of the differential expansion

    A. Morozov. “The KNTZ trick from arborescent calculus and the structure of the differential expansion”. In: Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 204.2 (2020), pp. 993–1019. arXiv: 2001.10254 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Perspectives of differential expansion

    L. Bishler and A. Morozov. “Perspectives of differential expansion”. In: Phys. Lett. B 808 (2020), p. 135639. arXiv: 2006.01190 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [45]

    Differential expansion for antiparallel triple pretzels: the way the factorization is deformed

    A. Morozov and N. Tselousov. “Differential expansion for antiparallel triple pretzels: the way the factorization is deformed”. In: The European Physical Journal C 82.10 (2022), p. 912. arXiv: 2205.12238 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Seifert circles and knot polynomials

    H. Morton. “Seifert circles and knot polynomials”. In: Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosoph- ical Society. Vol. 99. 1. Cambridge University Press. 1986, pp. 107–109

    1986

  36. [47]

    Polynomials from braids

    H. Morton. “Polynomials from braids”. In: Contemp. Math 78 (1988), pp. 575–585

    1988

  37. [48]

    Braids and the Jones polynomial

    J. Franks and R. Williams. “Braids and the Jones polynomial”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 303.1 (1987), pp. 97–108

    1987

  38. [49]

    Carrick mat and further development of bipartite knots

    A. Pavlikova. “Carrick mat and further development of bipartite knots”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17254 (2021). arXiv: 2103.17254 [math.GT]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [50]

    A formula for the HOMFLY polynomial of rational links

    S. Duzhin and M. Shkolnikov. “A formula for the HOMFLY polynomial of rational links”. In: Arnold Mathe- matical Journal 1.4 (2015), pp. 345–359

    2015

  40. [51]

    https://knotinfo.math.indiana.edu

  41. [52]

    Anokhina et al

    A. Anokhina et al. to appear

  42. [53]

    privite communication with Alina Pavlikova

  43. [54]

    https://linkinfo.sitehost.iu.edu. 37

Pith tools

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