Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Knot-quiver correspondence: a brief review

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A review equating knot HOMFLY-PT series to quiver partition functions, and extending the correspondence to knot complements.

desk verdict A faithful, clearly written review of the knot-quiver correspondence; no new results, and the complement-quiver section rests on finite coefficient matching that should be flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05668 v1 pith:D623TX5C submitted 2025-05-08 hep-th math.GTmath.QA

Piotr Kucharski , Dmitry Noshchenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath.GTmath.QA MSC 16G2057K1414N35
keywords knot-quivercorrespondenceHOMFLY-PTpolynomialsquiverrepresentationsDonaldson-ThomasinvariantsLMOVquantumA-polynomialknotcomplementsdiagonalization
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, for the knots it treats, the generating series of coloured HOMFLY-PT polynomials is exactly the partition function of a symmetric quiver, once the quiver variables are specialized to monomials in $x$, $a$, and $q$. The equality turns knot invariants into motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants of quiver representations, so LMOV invariants can be read off as quiver DT invariants. It also reviews the unlinking and diagonalization operations, which preserve the quiver partition function and make DT invariants computable order by order in terms of $m$-loop quivers. The final part extends the correspondence to knot complements, where the Borel-resummed series $F_K(x,q)$ is matched to quiver partition functions, with the unknot and the figure-eight knot as worked examples. The correspondence matters because it converts knot-theoretic data into finite combinatorial quiver data and points to a shared structure behind knot invariants and quiver representation theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetric quiver partition function, a generating function over dimension vectors $d$ with weights $(-q)^{d\cdot C\cdot d} x^d/(q^2;q^2)_d$. The key operation is unlinking, which removes one pair of arrows between nodes $i,j$ and adds a new node with a loop and generating parameter $q^{-1}x_i x_j$ while preserving the partition function. Repeated unlinking leads to quiver diagonalization, expressing DT invariants through $m$-loop quivers, whose invariants are known explicitly for small $m$. For knot complements, the additional mechanism is the quantum A-polynomial, a $q$-difference operator $\hat A(\hat x,\hat y)$ conjectured to annihilate the Borel-resummed series $f_K(x,q)=F_K(x,q)(x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2})^{-1}$; solving that recursion produces the series that is then matched to a quiver partition function.

What would settle it

Take a knot beyond the worked examples, say a higher double twist knot, compute $F_K(x,q)$ to high order from its coloured Jones recursion, and check whether any quantum A-polynomial with polynomial coefficients annihilates it; if no such operator exists, Conjecture 5.1.1 and the general knot-complement quiver matching collapse. A smaller-scale check is to extend the six-node figure-eight complement quiver to higher order in $x$ and verify that its partition function still equals $x^{-1}F_{4_1}^+(x,q)/(x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2})$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central statement is the identity $P_K(x,a,q)=P_Q(x,q)\big|_{x_i=x a^{a_i} q^{q_i-C_{ii}}}$, where $P_K$ is the generating series of coloured HOMFLY-PT polynomials and $P_Q$ is the quiver partition function of a symmetric quiver with adjacency matrix $C$, loop counts $C_{ii}$, and exponents $a_i,q_i$ read off from the uncoloured HOMFLY-PT polynomial. The same generating series then admits a quantum dilogarithm product decomposition whose exponents are the LMOV invariants, identified with quiver DT invariants. The paper further claims that the quiver descriptions are not unique: the unlinking operation replaces a pair of arrows between two nodes by a new node with a loop and preserves the partition function, so equivalent quivers for the same knot form permutohedra graphs, and repeated unlinking diagonalizes any quiver into $m$-loop quivers. For knot complements, the normalized positive half $x^{-\Delta}F_K^+(x,q)/(x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2})$ is matched to a quiver partition function, giving, for example, a six-node quiver for the figure-eight complement built from the unknot's two-node quiver.

Load-bearing premise

The extension to knot complements rests on the unproved conjecture that, for every knot in $S^3$, the Borel-resummed series $f_K(x,q)=F_K(x,q)(x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2})^{-1}$ satisfies a quantum A-polynomial difference equation $\hat A(\hat x,\hat y)f_K=0$; if some knot fails to admit such an operator, the quiver description of knot complements does not generalize as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every knot that admits a quiver, the LMOV invariants are the DT invariants of the corresponding quiver and therefore are integers with the expected sign pattern.
  • Because unlinking preserves the partition function, any quiver for a knot can be diagonalized into $m$-loop quivers, and the first $n$ unlinking steps give all DT invariants up to $O(x^{n+1})$; the review presents this as the most efficient known way to compute them.
  • Equivalent quivers for the same knot are organized into permutohedra graphs, so apparently different HOMFLY-PT expansions are recognized as the same quiver partition function in different coordinates.
  • For knot complements, the normalized positive part of $F_K(x,q)$ can be identified with a quiver partition function; the figure-eight complement is captured by a six-node quiver, and the paper reports the structural prediction that complement quivers have one more node than the corresponding HOMFLY-PT quivers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the correspondence holds as stated, quiver diagonalization turns LMOV invariant computation into a finite combinatorial game: once an initial quiver is known, any prescribed order in $x$ is reached by finitely many unlinkings. A natural next test is to derive quivers for all double twist knots from the known colored Jones recursions and compare the resulting DT invariants with direct series exp
  • The complement-side statement suggests a stronger role for the quantum A-polynomial: the knot quiver may determine the operator $\hat A$, rather than merely being matched after $\hat A$ is known. This is not proven in the review, but it is a direct consequence of the conjecture if every $F_K$ series has a unique minimal quiver.
  • One could probe the limit of the correspondence by looking for a knot whose HOMFLY-PT generating series cannot be reproduced by any symmetric quiver matrix with integer entries; if such a knot exists, the equality would describe a special class of knots rather than a universal bridge.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a short review of the knot-quiver correspondence. It recalls the HOMFLY-PT generating series and symmetric quiver partition functions, states the correspondence as the equality (9), and works through the trefoil example in detail. It then reviews the unlinking operation, permutohedra graphs, quiver diagonalization, m-loop quivers, and DT-invariant computations, and closes with an extension to knot complements via the Borel-resummed series F_K, proposing quiver descriptions for the unknot and the figure-eight complement. The paper is expository and draws heavily on the authors' prior work.

Significance. As a review, the paper is potentially useful: the trefoil derivation in Section 2.1 is a genuine worked example, the compilation of m-loop DT invariants and the permutohedra graphs provide a compact entry point into the literature, and the explicit formulas make the review self-contained in several places. The main value is pedagogical. However, the extension to knot complements in Section 5.2 is not established by the arguments given: the figure-eight quiver is obtained by matching only to O(x^3), the underlying recursion is explicitly conjectural, and the definitions of the quiver objects used there are inconsistent with those in Section 1.2. These issues need to be fixed or clearly flagged before the paper can serve as a reliable review.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (55)] The displayed equality (55) is presented as the quiver form for the figure-eight knot complement, but the preceding text obtains it by matching the series (52) with the general quiver expansion (53) only through O(x^3). Coefficient matching at finitely many orders does not uniquely determine the quiver, and no all-orders construction or proof is supplied. Since (47) is explicitly called a working definition, the review should state that (55) is a conjectural identification supported to third order, or provide a construction (for example from the quantum A-polynomial) that fixes all higher coefficients. This is load-bearing because the entire extension of the correspondence to knot complements in this section rests on this identification.
  2. [§1.2; Eqs. (24), (56)] The paper defines a quiver as a directed graph, so C_{ij} should be a nonnegative integer representing the number of arrows, yet the examples in (24) and (56) contain negative entries (e.g., C_{12}=-1 in (24) and C_{23}=-1 in (56)). The text should explicitly state that the correspondence uses signed symmetric matrices, and should address the domain of the partition function (6) and the product decomposition (7) for negative entries, in particular the ring in which the formal series is defined. Without this clarification, the quivers used in the central examples of Sections 3.2 and 5.2 fall outside the definition given in Section 1.2.
  3. [§5.2, Eqs. (43), (46), (50)] The unknot normalization is inconsistent. From (43), F_+^\circ = x^{1/2}; combining this with (46) and F_-^\circ = -F_+^\circ(x^{-1}) gives F_\circ = (x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2})/2, not x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2}. Moreover, the right-hand side of (50) evaluates to x^{-1} x^{1/2}/(x^{1/2}-x^{-1/2}) = -1/(1-x), whereas the left-hand side equals +1/(1-x). The sign and the factor 1/2 should be reconciled; as written, the unknot example does not verify the working definition (47).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (14)] The exponent of (-q) in Eq. (14) should contain 4 d2 d3 rather than 2 d2 d3; with the displayed 2 d2 d3 the exponent does not equal d^T C d for the matrix in (15).
  2. [§1.1, Ref. [4]] The citation to Witten's 'Elliptic genera and quantum field theory' is incorrect for the claim about Chern-Simons theory and the Jones polynomial; the appropriate reference is Witten's 'Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial'.
  3. [§3.3, Eqs. (26) and (29)] The vectors in (26) and (29) mix commas and semicolons, and the relation between the displayed variables after unlinking is not transparent; please use uniform notation and verify the entries.
  4. [§5.2, Eqs. (47) and (53)] The symbol P_Q is used both with the (q^2;q^2)_d convention of (6) and with the (q;q)_d convention of (53) and (55); please define the latter convention explicitly, for example as P_Q(x;q^{1/2}), so that the reader can distinguish the two.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the trefoil quiver is derived from an exact colored-HOMFLY formula, and the knot-complement quiver construction is explicitly labeled a working definition rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central correspondence (9) is stated as a conjectural equality, and the trefoil example is a genuine algebraic derivation: it starts from the exact colored HOMFLY-PT formula (10), applies the q-binomial identity (11), and rewrites the generating function into the quiver form (14), so the quiver data (15) is obtained by computation, not by fitting a target. The unlinking and diagonalization results are cited to the authors' previous papers as established facts, but they are stated as checkable identities (e.g., (23)) and are not needed to define the input quantities; their role is expository. The potentially vulnerable part is Section 5.2, where the figure-eight complement quiver is obtained by matching the first few terms of F+_41 against the general quiver expansion. However, the paper is explicit about this method: it calls (47) a 'working definition' and says one uses 'a direct approach – matching quiver adjacency matrix and the change of variables against order by order expansion in x.' Thus the low-order matching is not hidden as a derivation; the unproved all-orders equality (55) is an extrapolation and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Likewise, Conjecture 5.1.1 is explicitly labeled a conjecture and attributed to external and self references; the paper does not present it as a proven theorem or use it to define the quantities it then claims to predict. No step in the review makes the derived object equivalent to its input by construction, so no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new entities. Its free parameters arise only in illustrative examples where quiver variables and entries are matched to known series expansions. The axioms listed are the standard definitions and cited theorems on which the reviewed correspondence depends, plus the explicitly conjectural quantum A-polynomial recursion.

free parameters (2)
  • Normalisation exponent Delta in (47) = chosen so lowest x-degree is 1
    Introduced in the working definition of quivers for knot complements to align the lowest x-degree; this is a convention rather than a physical parameter.
  • Figure-eight complement quiver entries (C44,C55,C66) and variables (x4,x5,x6) = 1 and q^{1/2}x
    Chosen in equation (54) to reproduce the 3x coefficient in the expansion of F+_{4_1}; this is a matching exercise in an illustrative example, not a new claim.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math HOMFLY-PT polynomials are defined by the skein relation (1) plus the unknot condition.
    Used throughout Section 1.1 and 2.1 as the starting point for colored invariants.
  • domain assumption The quiver partition function (6) admits the product decomposition (7) into quantum dilogarithms with integer DT invariants.
    Invoked in Section 1.2 and 2.2; integrality and positivity are cited to [9,10].
  • domain assumption The unlinking operation preserves the quiver partition function (23).
    Used in Sections 3 and 4 to define quiver equivalence and diagonalization; cited to [21].
  • domain assumption For any knot K, the series FK satisfies the quantum A-polynomial equation (42).
    Stated as Conjecture 5.1.1 in Section 5.1 and used to compute FK for the figure-eight knot.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knot-quiver correspondence: a brief review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D623TX5C

@misc{pith2026250505668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knot-quiver correspondence: a brief review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D623TX5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05668}
}
abstract

This note is an overview of the knot-quiver correspondence, which relates symmetric quivers and their partition functions, a.k.a. motivic Donaldson-Thomas generating series, to quantum invariants of knots and links in $S^3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Knots 31, 41, 51 and 52 (generated by KnotScape) mathematical objects to knots in a way that is topologically invariant. From the perspective of a relation to quivers, the most relevant invariant of a knot K is the HOMFLY-PT polynomial 2 PK(a, q) which can be defined using the skein relation aP[ ] − a −1P[ ] = (q − q −1 )P[ ] . (1) Note that it should be understood as a linear relation between polynomials correspond… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Unlinking in a nutshell: removal of a pair of arrows in a symmetric quiver (as shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of permutohedra Πn, shown as planar graphs. For the trefoil knot, analogous graph is trivial and consists of only one vertex. Graphs representing the structure of equivalent quivers for torus knots 51, 71 and 91 are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Permutohedra graphs for knots 51, 71, 91 (from top to bottom). Every vertex corre￾sponds to an equivalent quiver, while the edge between two vertices corresponds to a transposi￾tion of a pair of arrows (different colours correspond to different transpositions). in diff…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A real-life model of S 3 \ 41 by Henry Segerman. Our goal is to define a two-variable series for knot complements which we denote FK(x, q), starting from a sequence of coloured Jones polynomials J K n (q) in the reduced normalisation11 . Let q = e ℏ . The starting poin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Ekholm, A

    T. Ekholm, A. Gruen, S. Gukov, P. Kucharski, S. Park, M. Stoˇ si´ c, and P. Sulkowski, Branches, quivers, and ideals for knot complements , J. Geom. Phys. 177 (2022) 104520, [arXiv:2110.13768]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Rolfsen, Knots and Links

    D. Rolfsen, Knots and Links . AMS Chelsea Press, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    Hoste, A

    J. Hoste, A. Ocneanu, K. Millett, P. J. Freyd, W. B. R. Lickorish, and D. N. Yetter, A new polynomial invariant of knots and links , Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 12 (1985), no. 2 239–246

    work page 1985

  4. [3]

    Przytycki and P

    J. Przytycki and P. Traczyk, Invariants of links of Conway type , Kobe J. Math. 4 (1987) 115–139

    work page 1987

  5. [4]

    Witten, Elliptic genera and quantum field theory , Commun

    E. Witten, Elliptic genera and quantum field theory , Commun. Math. Phys. 109 (1987) 525. 16

    work page 1987

  6. [5]

    Gopakumar and C

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, On the gauge theory / geometry correspondence , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (1999) 1415–1443, [ hep-th/9811131]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [6]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Knot invariants and topological strings , Nucl.Phys. B577 (2000) 419–438, [hep-th/9912123]

    arXiv 2000

  8. [7]

    Mari˜ no,Chern-Simons theory and topological strings , Rev.Mod.Phys

    M. Mari˜ no,Chern-Simons theory and topological strings , Rev.Mod.Phys. 77 (2005) 675–720. arXiv:hep-th/0406005

    arXiv 2005

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Gukov and I

    S. Gukov and I. Saberi, Lectures on knot homology and quantum curves , . arXiv:1211.6075

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Kontsevich and Y

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, Cohomological Hall algebra, exponential Hodge structures and motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants , Commun.Num.Theor.Phys. 5 (2011) 231–352, [ arXiv:1006.2706]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. I. Efimov, Cohomological Hall algebra of a symmetric quiver , Compos. Math. 148 (2012), no. 4 1133–1146, [ arXiv:1103.2736]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Geiss, Introduction to moduli spaces associated to quivers (with an appendix by Lieven Le Bruyn and Markus Reineke) , Contemp

    C. Geiss, Introduction to moduli spaces associated to quivers (with an appendix by Lieven Le Bruyn and Markus Reineke) , Contemp. Math. 406 (2006) 31

    2006

  5. [12]

    Reineke, Cohomology of quiver moduli, functional equations, and integrality of Donaldson-Thomas type invariants , Compos

    M. Reineke, Cohomology of quiver moduli, functional equations, and integrality of Donaldson-Thomas type invariants , Compos. Math. 147 (2011), no. 5 943–964. arXiv:0903.0261

    2011 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Reineke, Degenerate cohomological hall algebra and quantized donaldson-thomas invariants for m-loop quivers , Doc

    M. Reineke, Degenerate cohomological hall algebra and quantized donaldson-thomas invariants for m-loop quivers , Doc. Math. 17 (2012) 1. arXiv:1102.3978

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kucharski, M

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Stosic, and P. Sulkowski, BPS states, knots and quivers , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 12 121902, [ arXiv:1707.02991]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kucharski, M

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Stosic, and P. Sulkowski, Knots-quivers correspondence, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 23 (2019), no. 7 1849–1902, [ arXiv:1707.04017]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, Polynomial invariants for torus knots and topological strings, Comm. Math. Phys. 217 (2001), no. 2 423–449, [ hep-th/0004196]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, A new point of view in the theory of knot and link invariants, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 11 (2002), no. 2 173–197. arXiv:math/0104180

    2002 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. M. F. Labastida, M. Marino, and C. Vafa, Knots, links and branes at large N, JHEP 11 (2000) 007, [ hep-th/0010102]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Ekholm, P

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence, Commun. Math. Phys. 379 (2020), no. 2 361–415, [ arXiv:1811.03110]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ekholm and V

    T. Ekholm and V. Shende, Skeins on branes , arXiv:1901.08027

    1901 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Ekholm, P

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, Multi-cover skeins, quivers, and 3d N = 2 dualities, JHEP 02 (2020) 018, [ arXiv:1910.06193]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Jankowski, P

    J. Jankowski, P. Kucharski, H. Larraguivel, D. Noshchenko, and P. Sulkowski, Permutohedra for knots and quivers , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 086017, [arXiv:2105.11806]. 17

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kucharski, H

    P. Kucharski, H. Larraguıvel, D. Noshchenko, and P. Su lkowski, Unlinking symmetric quivers, arXiv:2312.14905

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Kucharski and P

    P. Kucharski and P. Sulkowski, BPS counting for knots and combinatorics on words , JHEP 11 (2016) 120, [ arXiv:1608.06600]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Dotsenko, E

    V. Dotsenko, E. Feigin, and M. Reineke, Koszul algebras and Donaldson–Thomas invariants, Lett. Math. Phys. 112 (2022) 106, [ arXiv:2111.07588]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Jankowski, P

    J. Jankowski, P. Kucharski, H. Larragu´ ıvel, D. Noshchenko, and P. Su lkowski,Quiver Diagonalization and Open BPS States , Commun. Math. Phys. 402 (2023), no. 2 1551–1584, [arXiv:2212.04379]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Rozansky, Higher order terms in the melvin-morton expansion of the colored jones polynomial, Communications in mathematical physics 183 (1997) 291–306

    L. Rozansky, Higher order terms in the melvin-morton expansion of the colored jones polynomial, Communications in mathematical physics 183 (1997) 291–306

    1997

  21. [28]

    D. M. Jackson and I. Moffatt, An introduction to quantum and Vassiliev knot invariants . Springer, 2019

    2019

  22. [29]

    Gukov and C

    S. Gukov and C. Manolescu, A two-variable series for knot complements , arXiv:1904.06057

    1904 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Ekholm, P

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, Knot homologies and generalized quiver partition functions, Lett. Math. Phys. 113 (2023), no. 6 117, [ arXiv:2108.12645]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Gukov and P

    S. Gukov and P. Sulkowski, A-polynomial, B-model, and Quantization , JHEP 1202 (2012) 070, [arXiv:1108.0002]. arXiv:1108.0002

    2012 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Ekholm, A

    T. Ekholm, A. Gruen, S. Gukov, P. Kucharski, S. Park, and P. Sulkowski, bZ at Large N: From Curve Counts to Quantum Modularity , Commun. Math. Phys. 396 (2022), no. 1 143–186, [arXiv:2005.13349]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Kucharski, Quivers for 3-manifolds: the correspondence, BPS states, and 3d N = 2 theories, JHEP 09 (2020) 075, [ arXiv:2005.13394]

    P. Kucharski, Quivers for 3-manifolds: the correspondence, BPS states, and 3d N = 2 theories, JHEP 09 (2020) 075, [ arXiv:2005.13394]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Park, Large color R-matrix for knot complements and strange identities , arXiv:2004.02087

    S. Park, Large color R-matrix for knot complements and strange identities , arXiv:2004.02087

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lovejoy and R

    J. Lovejoy and R. Osburn, The colored jones polynomial and kontsevich–zagier series for double twist knots , Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications 30 (2021), no. 05 2150031

    2021

  29. [37]

    Park, Inverted state sums, inverted habiro series, and indefinite theta functions , arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03942 (2021)

    S. Park, Inverted state sums, inverted habiro series, and indefinite theta functions , arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03942 (2021). 18

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.