Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Aganagic's invariant is Khovanov homology

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that Aganagic's symplectic invariant computes Khovanov homology with both gradings and over Z, by showing the geometric braid action matches Webster's combinatorial action.

desk verdict Real proof of Aganagic's conjecture, but the u/ℏ-grading preservation of the embedding from [6] is a load-bearing dependency the authors flag without discharging. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00327 v1 pith:SQD42GNK submitted 2025-05-01 math.SG hep-thmath.GT

Elise LePage , Vivek Shende This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SGhep-thmath.GT MSC 53D3753D4057K18
keywords KhovanovhomologyFukaya-SeidelcategoriesmultiplicativeCoulombbranchesbraidgroupactionssymplecticKLRWJonesgradingLagrangianFloer
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 proves that Aganagic's symplectic construction of knot invariants recovers exactly Khovanov homology, over the integers and with both gradings. Aganagic proposed that Khovanov homology could be computed from a braid group action on the Fukaya-Seidel category of a multiplicative Coulomb branch, a symplectic category built from Lagrangians and a superpotential. The paper shows that this geometric action is naturally isomorphic to Webster's earlier combinatorial braid action on his diagrammatic KLRW category, which was already known to compute Khovanov homology. The proof is a direct calculation comparing how the two braid actions behave on a carefully chosen resolution of the generating object. This connects combinatorial categorification with symplectic geometry in a way that was previously only conjectured.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the embedding theorem of [6] (restated as Theorem 5.5): the diagrammatic KLRW category, meaning the category of strand diagrams on a circle modulo local relations, embeds into the Fukaya-Seidel category of the multiplicative Coulomb branch while preserving the $u$, $\hbar$, and $J$ gradings. Over this bridge, the main calculational object is the complex $\Lambda_n = (U_+ \times T_+^{n-1})^{\oplus n} \to T_+^n$, which is shown to be isomorphic to $T^n$ as an object and whose image under braiding can be computed directly on both sides. The exact triangle that identifies a cone over a Reeb chord with a Polterovich-style surgery at infinity converts the braiding into explicit disk counts, and Corollary 2.3 uses the auxiliary gradings to force the resulting isomorphisms to be natural.

What would settle it

Compute the geometric Hom space for the 2-strand closed braid giving the Hopf link, using the multicurve and disk-counting rules of Section 5, and compare its $u=\hbar=1$ bigraded Poincaré polynomial with the Khovanov homology of the Hopf link; any mismatch in grading, Euler characteristic, or torsion would disprove the claimed equality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for the one-node quiver with dimension vector $n$, the embedding of Webster's diagrammatic KLRW category into the Fukaya-Seidel category of the multiplicative Coulomb branch intertwines the braid group representation $\rho_W$ with the monodromy representation $\rho_A$, and sends Webster's cup object $\cup_W^n$ to the geometric cup object $\cup_A^n$. Consequently, for any braid $\beta$, the Khovanov homology of its plat closure is isomorphic, as a bigraded group over $\mathbb{Z}$, to $\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Fuk}}(\cup_A^n, \rho_A(\beta)\cup_A^n)$. The proof identifies a convenient resolution $\Lambda_n$ of the generating object whose braiding is tractable on both sides: geometric braiding turns it into $\Lambda'_n$, and Webster's braiding does the same, forcing the actions to agree. Auxiliary gradings rule out unwanted automorphisms, and the identification of cones over Reeb chords with Lagrangian surgeries supplies the geometric side.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the diagrammatic KLRW category embeds into the Fukaya-Seidel category of the multiplicative Coulomb branch while preserving the $u$, $\hbar$, and $J$ gradings; if this embedding or its grading preservation fails, the intertwining has no geometric side.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Aganagic's geometric Hom pairing computes Khovanov homology as an abelian group with both gradings, over the integers, not only over the rationals.
  • The Jones grading now has a geometric origin: it arises from an ordinary cohomology class in the Coulomb branch, not from symplectic data.
  • The identification gives a canonical quasi-isomorphism between the Webster and Aganagic chain complexes up to homotopy; the paper does not prove that the homotopies themselves are canonical, but expects that they are.
  • Working with the full annular braid group should yield annular Khovanov homology, as the paper remarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same intertwining strategy may plausibly extend to other ADE-type quivers, giving symplectic constructions of knot homologies associated to other simple Lie algebras; the paper proves only the one-node sl(2) case.
  • The equality between the cup and cap objects suggests the geometric invariant could be defined without referring to braid closures, potentially making functoriality under link cobordisms more transparent.
  • The explicit disk-counting calculations could be developed into an algorithmic way to compute Khovanov homology, rather than merely identifying the two constructions abstractly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves that Aganagic's symplectic construction of Khovanov homology, via the Fukaya-Seidel category of the multiplicative Coulomb branch of a quiver gauge theory, coincides with Webster's combinatorial construction. For Γ=• and a collection of 2n points, it shows that the embedding of Webster's KLRW category into Fuk_|||(M^×(•,n), W_a) established in [6] intertwines Webster's braid group action ρ_W with the monodromy action ρ_A and sends the cup object ∪_W^n to ∪_A^n. Consequently, Khovanov homology is isomorphic to Hom_Fuk(∪_A^n, ρ_A(β)∪_A^n) over Z, with both the homological and Jones gradings. The proof is by explicit diagrammatic and Floer-theoretic calculations, centered on a resolution Λ^n of the n-strand object that behaves simply under both braidings.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a significant advance: it gives a symplectic/Lagrangian construction of Khovanov homology over the integers and with both gradings, going beyond the Seidel-Smith construction which is currently known over Q. The paper is clearly written and the main calculations are explicit and verifiable. The grading-constraint argument (Corollary 2.3) is an elegant way to reduce the naturality check to a small number of diagrams, and the construction of the 'easy to braid' objects Λ^n (Section 4) is the key technical contribution. However, the argument inherits a load-bearing premise from the companion paper [6] concerning grading preservation, which the authors themselves flag as not explicit, and one geometric argument in Section 8 would benefit from fuller justification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2, Remark 5.6; proof of Theorem 9.1] The proof of Theorem 9.1 and the promotion of the object-wise isomorphisms to a natural transformation via Corollary 2.3 require the embedding A of Theorem 5.5 to be an equivalence onto its image over Z[u,ℏ] and to preserve the u, ℏ, and J gradings. Remark 5.6 concedes that the u and ℏ grading preservation is not explicit in the available version of [6]. This is a load-bearing point: if A preserves only the J grading, then Φ=(B_W)^{-1}∘A^{-1}∘B_A∘A is not known to be graded, Lemma 2.2 and Corollary 2.3 do not apply, and the object-wise isomorphisms cannot be assembled into a natural transformation. The authors should either prove the needed grading statement, supply a precise quotation from [6] with proof, or restructure the argument so that it does not depend on unverified grading properties.
  2. [§8, proof of Proposition 8.1] The inductive step in the proof of Proposition 8.1 (around equation (45) and Figures 11) asserts that the newly created intersection points form an acyclic complex and that the homology class of (p···) is preserved under the continuation map. The written argument only analyzes the disk from q_2 to q_1 and does not give a full account of the differentials among the new generators or of the claim that intersection points involving p remain closed. This is a key step in identifying Λ^n with θ^n, and it needs a more systematic justification, either a complete disk count or a reference to a general principle.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Corollary 2.3] The 'particular element' in condition (2) of Corollary 2.3 is not explicitly described in the text; the diagram appears to be missing or unlabeled. Please clarify what element is meant, as the proof of Theorem 9.1 explicitly invokes this condition.
  2. [Corollary 6.2] The sentence '(If η= ‘ηi, then there are Q_i #π_0(η_i\red lines) such L_μ in the iterated cone.)' contains a typo and is unclear; please rewrite it.
  3. [§2.3] The definition of the u- and ℏ-gradings is terse; the degrees quoted in Lemma 2.2 (e.g., u-degree 1/2 for a red-black crossing) are not derived in the text. Adding a short derivation from the relations in Figure 1 would make the paper more self-contained.
  4. [§10, footnote 8] The construction of the cap object I_Π is explicitly labeled as a sketch, and no conic-check is provided. Since the main theorem only needs the cup object E_Π, I suggest moving the I_Π discussion to a clearly-marked remark or supplying the missing analytic detail, so that readers do not mistake it for part of the main proof.
  5. [§5.5] In equation (37), the counts #Φ_y^{-1}(a), Φ_u^{-1}(0) and Φ_u^{-1}(∞) are used without defining the maps for the specific disk being counted; a sentence explaining the notation would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the intertwining is proved by direct calculation, and the self-cited embedding theorem is an independent foundational input whose assumptions do not include the target Khovanov equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.1: the embedding of Webster's category into the Fukaya–Seidel category intertwines the Webster and Aganagic braid actions and carries cup_W^n to cup_A^n, so that Kh(beta) is isomorphic to Hom_Fuk(cup_A^n, rho_A(beta) cup_A^n). The derivation does not assume the conclusion. Webster's computation of Khovanov homology from his combinatorial action (Eq. 3) is an external, independent result [28], and the paper's own contribution is a direct calculation showing that the geometric monodromy action and Webster's combinatorial action agree on generators (Prop. 4.1, Prop. 8.1, Thm. 9.1) and that the cup objects match (Lemma 10.2). The main self-citation is Theorem 5.5, the embedding from [6]; although load-bearing, it is not circular. It is a general embedding theorem with stated hypotheses (ADE type, distinct arguments, Z[u,hbar] linear, grading preserving) that do not include the braid intertwining or the Khovanov-homology comparison, and it is not derived from the target result. The paper explicitly flags some rigor caveats: Remark 5.6 concedes that u- and hbar-grading preservation was not explicit in the available version of [6], Remark 9.2 notes that higher coherences of the intertwining were not checked, and the footnote in Section 10.2 calls the caps discussion a sketch. These are correctness and completeness concerns, not circularity: none of them amounts to fitting a parameter to the output or defining a quantity in terms of the claimed conclusion. Since the claimed equivalence with Khovanov homology rests on an external independent theorem and on explicit computations rather than on an assumed version of itself, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data. The load-bearing input is a sequence of theorems from prior literature, chiefly [6] and [28], not tunable constants. The paper defines auxiliary Lagrangians and complexes inside already established categories, so no new physical or mathematical entities with independent falsifiable handles are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Existence of the multiplicative Coulomb branch M^times(Gamma,d) and its Fukaya-Seidel category Fuk(M^times(Gamma,d), W_a), with the properties used from [8] and [6].
    Used throughout to define the Aganagic objects and the monodromy action; see Section 1 and Sections 5.1 to 5.3.
  • domain assumption Embedding theorem [6, Thm. 1.7], restated as Theorem 5.5: for ADE Gamma, the KLRW category C_{Gamma,d,arg(a)} embeds in Fuk_|||(...) over Z[u,hbar], preserving u, hbar, and J gradings.
    This is the load-bearing bridge between combinatorics and symplectic geometry. Remark 5.6 notes that the u and hbar grading statements are not explicit in the available version of [6].
  • domain assumption Webster's theorem [28] that Khovanov homology is recovered as Hom_{A(.,n,2n)-mod}(cup_W^n, rho_W(beta) cup_W^n).
    Used as the external benchmark that converts the intertwining into a Khovanov homology computation; see Eq. (3) in Section 1.
  • domain assumption The cone equals surgery and surgery at infinity exact triangle from [13, Prop. 1.12], together with the cylindrical model of holomorphic disks from [6].
    Used to compute morphisms, cones, and exact triangles in Sections 5.4, 6, 7, 8, and 10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aganagic's invariant is Khovanov homology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQD42GNK

@misc{pith2026250500327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aganagic's invariant is Khovanov homology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQD42GNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00327}
}
read the original abstract

On the Coulomb branch of a quiver gauge theory, there is a family of functions parameterized by choices of points in the punctured plane. Aganagic has predicted that Khovanov homology can be recovered from the braid group action on Fukaya-Seidel categories arising from monodromy in said space of potentials. These categories have since been rigorously studied, and shown to contain a certain (combinatorially defined) category on which Webster had previously constructed a (combinatorially defined) braid group action from which the Khovanov homology can be recovered. Here we show, by a direct calculation, that the aforementioned containment intertwines said combinatorially defined braid group action with the braid group action arising naturally from monodromy. This provides a mathematical verification that Aganagic's proposal gives a symplectic construction of Khovanov homology -- with both gradings, and over the integers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Nontrivial KLRW relations. Exchanging i and j in diagrams (b) and (d), i.e. if we have an arrow (j) ← (i), the right-hand-side gets an extra (-1) factor. diagrams, we depict the points of F as red.5 The KLRW category CΓ,d,F⃗ is defined as follows: • Objects are collections of points on a line R, all distinct from the points of F, with di points labeled by the vertex i of Γ. In diagrams, we depict these points as bla… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of objects in F uk|||(M×(Γ, ⃗d), W(a)) Note that Theorem 5.5 also implies that Lγ is is conic at infinity, and that if γ is in fact a-admissible, then Lγ stays away from the stop associated to the superpotential Wa. The space M×(Γ, ⃗d) is always affine. If it is in addition smooth (this is known to hold when Γ is of ADE type), we may consider the Fukaya-Seidel category F uk(M×(Γ, ⃗d), Wa). Suppose in additio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The disk count yielding p1 · p2 = p3 where p1 = , p2 = , and p3 = ∗ ∗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The image of the morphism under the embedding of Theorem 5.5 Lemma 5.7. The functor of Theorem 5.5 carries [d → d+t] to the morphism given as the identity on all components of the multicurve other than d and d + t, and the length |t| positive Reeb chord from d to d + t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two equivalent Lagrangians Remark 6.3. Rather than work inductively, one could argue for Corollary 6.2 by stretching all the curves simultaneously and applying [13, Prop. 1.37]. 7 Zero objects Consider the two Lagrangians U × Ti and U × Ti+1 shown in Figures 6a and 6b.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cylindrical model presentation of the unique disk in this geometry. Note that at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two zero objects ∗ 1 2 1 2 u1 p1 p2 u2 q1 v1 v2 q2 (a) Base 1 2 1 2 1p 1v 1u 1q xp xv u = 0 u = ∞ (b) Fiber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The disk from u1v21u1v to p1q11p1q 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The curves T−, T, T+, U− and U+ The image of Λn is then a complex of products of U+ and T+ Lagrangians. We will show how to resolve the components of T n one at a time to get this complex. We have T ∼= {U + → T +}, and correspondingly T n ∼=  T n−1 × T+  idT n−1 × i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Resolving the T branes in equation (45) 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Action of geometric braiding on a map from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An intersection point invariant under braiding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A figure-eight breaking into two U objects actions on categories intertwine is the same as checking that the underlying weak braid group actions (ignoring the aforementioned coherences) intertwine. However, the corresponding higher categorical notion involves further …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Hom(T, E) Let θΠ(n) be the KLRW object given by ··· . Then there is a simple KLRW module SΠ(n) characterized by Hom(θ∗, SΠ(n) ) = 0 unless ∗ = Π(n), and Hom(θΠ(n) , SΠ(n) ) = Z, where said Z is in u, ℏ, J gradings zero. (This grading constraint forces all nontrivial e…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: E and I Here we will show that IΠ ∼= EΠ. For simplicity, we just discuss the case where |a| = 2 and d = 1; the general case is just many disjoint copies of the same argument. Lemma 10.3. The U Lagrangian is isomorphic to the Lagrangian J shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: U and J ∗ p q r (a) Base u=0 u=∞ r p q (b) Fiber (pr) (r) (rq) (q) (qp) (p) MS→C∗ u MS→C∗ y (c) MS→C∗ y and MS→C∗ u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The disk for p · q = r ∗ q p s (a) Base u=0 u=∞ s q p (b) Fiber (ps) (s) (sq) (q) (qp) (p) MS→C∗ y MS→C∗ u (c) MS→C∗ y and MS→C∗ u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The disk for q · p = s ∗ ∗ s (a) Base u=0 u=∞ t1 t2 (b) Fiber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The intersection points in Hom(J−, J+) 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Quiver Hecke algebras from Floer homology in Coulomb branches.arXiv:2406.04258

    Mina Aganagic, Ivan Danilenko, Yixuan Li, Vivek Shende, and Peng Zhou. Quiver Hecke algebras from Floer homology in Coulomb branches.arXiv:2406.04258

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    The symplectic arc algebra is formal.Duke Mathe- matical Journal, 165(6):985–1060, 2016

    Mohammed Abouzaid and Ivan Smith. The symplectic arc algebra is formal.Duke Mathe- matical Journal, 165(6):985–1060, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Khovanov homology from Floer cohomology.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 32(1):1–79, 2019

    Mohammed Abouzaid and Ivan Smith. Khovanov homology from Floer cohomology.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 32(1):1–79, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Knot categorification from mirror symmetry, part I: Coherent sheaves

    Mina Aganagic. Knot categorification from mirror symmetry, part I: Coherent sheaves. arXiv:2004.14518

    arXiv 2004

  5. [4]

    Knot categorification from mirror symmetry, part II: Lagrangians

    Mina Aganagic. Knot categorification from mirror symmetry, part II: Lagrangians. arXiv:2105.06039

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Homological knot invariants from mirror symmetry

    Mina Aganagic. Homological knot invariants from mirror symmetry. InProc. Int. Cong. Math. 2022, volume 3, page 2108–2144. EMS Press, 2023

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Homological link invariants from Floer theory.arXiv:2305.13480

    Mina Aganagic, Elise LePage, and Miroslav Rapcak. Homological link invariants from Floer theory.arXiv:2305.13480

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional n=4 gauge theories, II.Advances in Theoret- ical and Mathematical Physics, 22(5):1071–1147, 2018

    Alexander Braverman, Michael Finkelberg, and Hiraku Nakajima. Towards a mathematical definition of Coulomb branches of 3-dimensional n=4 gauge theories, II.Advances in Theoret- ical and Mathematical Physics, 22(5):1071–1147, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Bigrading the symplectic Khovanov cohomology.Algebraic & Geometric Topol- ogy, 23(9):4057–4086, 2023

    Zhechi Cheng. Bigrading the symplectic Khovanov cohomology.Algebraic & Geometric Topol- ogy, 23(9):4057–4086, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Perverse equivalences.Available athttps: // www

    Joseph Chuang and Rapha¨ el Rouquier. Perverse equivalences.Available athttps: // www. math. ucla. edu/ ~ rouquier/ papers/ perverse. pdf

  3. [11]

    Chapter 10: La- grangian surgery and holomorphic discs.Unpublished chapter fromLagrangian intersec- tion Floer theory: anomaly and obstruction,https: // www

    Kenji Fukaya, Yong-Geun Oh, Hiroshi Ohta, and Kaoru Ono. Chapter 10: La- grangian surgery and holomorphic discs.Unpublished chapter fromLagrangian intersec- tion Floer theory: anomaly and obstruction,https: // www. math. kyoto-u. ac. jp/ fukaya/ Chapter10071117. pdf

  4. [12]

    Knot Invariants from Four-Dimensional Gauge Theory

    Davide Gaiotto and Edward Witten. Knot Invariants from Four-Dimensional Gauge Theory. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 16(3):935–1086, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Sectorial descent for wrapped Fukaya cate- gories.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 37(2):499–635, 2024

    Sheel Ganatra, John Pardon, and Vivek Shende. Sectorial descent for wrapped Fukaya cate- gories.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 37(2):499–635, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    A categorification of the Jones polynomial.Duke Mathematical Journal, 101(3):359 – 426, 2000

    Mikhail Khovanov. A categorification of the Jones polynomial.Duke Mathematical Journal, 101(3):359 – 426, 2000

    2000

  7. [15]

    A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups I.Representation Theory, 13(14):309–347, 2009

    Mikhail Khovanov and Aaron Lauda. A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups I.Representation Theory, 13(14):309–347, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups II.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 363(5):2685–2700, 2011

    Mikhail Khovanov and Aaron Lauda. A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups II.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 363(5):2685–2700, 2011. 31

    2011

  9. [17]

    A cylindrical reformulation of Heegaard Floer homology.Geometry & Topol- ogy, 10(2):955–1096, 2006

    Robert Lipshitz. A cylindrical reformulation of Heegaard Floer homology.Geometry & Topol- ogy, 10(2):955–1096, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Higher representations and cornered Heegaard Floer homology.arXiv:2009.09627

    Andrew Manion and Raphael Rouquier. Higher representations and cornered Heegaard Floer homology.arXiv:2009.09627

    2009

  11. [19]

    Nilpotent slices, Hilbert schemes, and the Jones polynomial.Duke Math- ematical Journal, 132(2):311 – 369, 2006

    Ciprian Manolescu. Nilpotent slices, Hilbert schemes, and the Jones polynomial.Duke Math- ematical Journal, 132(2):311 – 369, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Link homology theories from symplectic geometry.Advances in Mathe- matics, 211(1):363–416, 2007

    Ciprian Manolescu. Link homology theories from symplectic geometry.Advances in Mathe- matics, 211(1):363–416, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Holomorphic disks and knot invariants.Advances in Math- ematics, 186(1):58–116, 2004

    Peter Ozsv´ ath and Zolt´ an Szab´ o. Holomorphic disks and knot invariants.Advances in Math- ematics, 186(1):58–116, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Holomorphic disks and topological invariants for closed three-manifolds.Annals of Mathematics, pages 1027–1158, 2004

    Peter Ozsv´ ath and Zolt´ an Szab´ o. Holomorphic disks and topological invariants for closed three-manifolds.Annals of Mathematics, pages 1027–1158, 2004

    2004

  15. [23]

    2-Kac-Moody algebras.arXiv:0812.5023

    Rapha¨ el Rouquier. 2-Kac-Moody algebras.arXiv:0812.5023

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    A link invariant from the symplectic geometry of nilpotent slices

    Paul Seidel and Ivan Smith. A link invariant from the symplectic geometry of nilpotent slices. Duke Math. J., 131(1):453–514, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Homological mirror symmetry for Calabi–Yau hypersurfaces in projective space.Inventiones mathematicae, 199(1):1–186, 2015

    Nick Sheridan. Homological mirror symmetry for Calabi–Yau hypersurfaces in projective space.Inventiones mathematicae, 199(1):1–186, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches I: tilting bundles from inte- grable systems.arXiv:1905.04623

    Ben Webster. Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches I: tilting bundles from inte- grable systems.arXiv:1905.04623

    1905 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches II: quiver gauge theories and knot homology.arXiv:2211.02099

    Ben Webster. Coherent sheaves and quantum Coulomb branches II: quiver gauge theories and knot homology.arXiv:2211.02099

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Knot invariants and higher representation theory.arXiv:1309.3796

    Ben Webster. Knot invariants and higher representation theory.arXiv:1309.3796

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Weighted Khovanov-Lauda-Rouquier algebras.arXiv:1209.2463

    Ben Webster. Weighted Khovanov-Lauda-Rouquier algebras.arXiv:1209.2463

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tensor product algebras, Grassmannians and Khovanov homology.Physics and mathematics of link homology, 680:23–58, 2016

    Ben Webster. Tensor product algebras, Grassmannians and Khovanov homology.Physics and mathematics of link homology, 680:23–58, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Fivebranes and knots.Quantum Topology, 3(1):1–137, 2011

    Edward Witten. Fivebranes and knots.Quantum Topology, 3(1):1–137, 2011. 32

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.