Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

At rational b², Virasoro crossing kernels split into two admissible square-root-branched pieces; at c≤1 the average is the physical kernel proving crossing symmetry.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:50 UTC pith:EZ5P2UHX

load-bearing objection First explicit Virasoro crossing kernels for rational c≤1, with real value if the normalization gap gets closed—currently a strong conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.03172 v3 pith:EZ5P2UHX submitted 2025-12-02 hep-th math-phmath.MP

On the Virasoro Crossing Kernels at Rational Central Charge

Julien Roussillon , Ioannis Tsiares This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MP
keywords Virasoro conformal blocksmodular kernelfusion kernelrational central chargetimelike Liouville theorysquare-root branch pointsconformal bootstrapquantum modular forms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

For every rational b²=m/n, covering all rational central charges in (−∞,1]∪[25,∞), the two Virasoro crossing kernels—the modular kernel on the torus and the fusion kernel on the sphere—decompose into the average of two partner kernels. Each partner is an admissible crossing kernel with square-root branch points in Liouville momenta, and reflection swaps the partners. For c≥25 this gives an exact integral-free representation of the known kernels; for c≤1 it supplies the first physical kernels for generic momenta. As a corollary the paper proves crossing symmetry and modular covariance of timelike Liouville theory at rational c≤1. The one-loop-exact, semiclassical-looking form suggests the kernels are quantum modular objects in b².

Core claim

At b²=m/n, the crossing kernels are not irreducible meromorphic functions: the known modular and fusion kernels are each the average of two admissible kernels associated with the two roots of a quadratic polynomial. Each root-kernel has square-root branch points and is not reflection-symmetric; reflecting an internal momentum swaps the two roots, so the average recovers the reflection-symmetric full kernel. Applying the b→ib rotation symmetry of the shift relations produces the physical c≤1 kernels as the same-sign averages, while the opposite-sign averages reproduce the previously known unphysical meromorphic solutions that integrate to zero against the c≤1 blocks. The paper proves that the

What carries the argument

The central objects are the quantum modular polynomial and the quantum fusion polynomial: degree-two polynomials in a variable built from e^{2πi mn u}, whose two roots label the two partner kernels. Their discriminants—called the quantum modular and fusion determinants—produce the square-root branch points and are realized as Gram-matrix determinants of tetrahedra. The analytic derivation relies on a quasi-periodicity lemma that converts the kernel integrals into residue sums over those roots, made possible because at b²=m/n the double-sine function collapses to finite products of the G-function. The b→ib rotation symmetry of the shift relations, which maps solutions at central charge c to s

Load-bearing premise

The proof that each partner kernel is an admissible crossing kernel assumes that the residue computation fixes the normalization exactly, meaning the shift relations have no extra non-meromorphic solutions with a different momentum-independent overall constant; the paper notes the non-meromorphic solution space is broader but does not prove uniqueness.

What would settle it

For b=√(2/3), corresponding to c=26, choose generic imaginary Liouville momenta and numerically compare the standard kernel integral with ½(M⁺+M⁻) and with the individual crossing relation for M⁺. A mismatch by a constant phase would show the normalization assumption fails; checking that the predicted branch-point locus D=0 produces genuine square-root monodromy would test the singularity structure claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For rational c≥25, the known modular and fusion kernels are no longer irreducible: each equals the average of two admissible partner kernels, so identities satisfied by the full kernel can be split into pairs of identities.
  • For rational c≤1, explicit physical kernels now exist for generic Liouville momenta; they are reflection-symmetric averages of two non-meromorphic pieces, each with square-root branch points.
  • Timelike Liouville theory at rational c≤1 is crossing symmetric on the sphere and modular covariant on the torus, with the integration contour chosen to evade the branch cuts.
  • The individual partner kernels require the full imaginary line as integration contour, not the half-line allowed for the original reflection-symmetric kernels, because reflection swaps the two partners.
  • At every rational b² the kernels take a one-loop-exact, semiclassical-looking form, motivating the paper's conjecture that they are quantum modular forms in τ=b².

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to compute the discontinuities of the c≤1 kernels across their square-root cuts and check whether those discontinuities define yet another admissible kernel supported on a different contour; the paper leaves this open.
  • If the partner kernels satisfy the idempotency and Moore–Seiberg consistency relations that the paper presents as expected but does not fully prove, they would yield a new realization of the Virasoro crossing algebra at rational central charge.
  • The one-loop-exact, semiclassical-looking form at all rational b² hints that the exact kernels may coincide with their own saddle-point approximation, a property that would sharply constrain 3d gravity path integrals at rational central charge.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Virasoro modular and fusion kernels at b^2 = m/n (m,n coprime) for rational central charges c = 13 + 6(m/n + n/m) ≥ 25 and c = 13 − 6(m/n + n/m) ≤ 1. Starting from the Teschner and Teschner–Vartanov integral representations, the authors use the Garoufalidis–Kashaev lemma and residue computations to express each kernel as one half of a sum of two new functions, M^(±) and F^(±), given by finite sums over Barnes G-functions with square-root branch cuts (eqs. (2.4), (2.22)). They claim that each summand is itself an admissible crossing kernel with the standard normalization (eqs. (1.31), (1.32)), despite being non-meromorphic and not reflection-symmetric. Using the Virasoro-Wick Rotation, they then propose explicit c≤1 physical kernels as the positive combinations cM = ½(cM^(+)+cM^(−)) and bF = ½(bF^(+)+bF^(−)) (eqs. (3.13), (3.27)), and derive crossing symmetry and modular covariance of timelike Liouville theory at rational c≤1 (eqs. (3.32), (3.38)).

Significance. If the central claim is fully established, this is a substantial contribution: it provides the first explicit non-integral representations of Virasoro crossing kernels for all rational central charges covered by b^2 ∈ Q^×, exhibits new non-meromorphic solutions to the shift relations, and gives an analytic proof of crossing symmetry of timelike Liouville theory at rational c≤1. The paper contains detailed residue computations in Appendix B and a nontrivial proof of a fusion shift relation in Appendix C; the formulas are explicit and involve no fitted parameters. The discussion of connections to tetrahedra, state integrals, and quantum modular forms is suggestive and likely to stimulate further work. However, the individual admissibility claim is not yet supported to the standard needed for the main theorems.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4 after (2.68); §1.5 (1.30)–(1.32); §3.3 (3.32)] The central claim that M^(±) and F^(±) are admissible crossing kernels with the standard normalization rests on an unproved uniqueness statement. The proof of the shift relations is homogeneous in the kernel, so it determines solutions only up to a momentum-independent factor. The Appendix B residue evaluation fixes the sum ½(M^(+)+M^(−)) to the original kernel, but not the individual summands. The text itself concedes in §2.4 that the absence of an extra coefficient is 'supported' rather than proved. The odd combinations such as (3.17) and (3.30) satisfy the same shift relations but integrate to zero against conformal blocks, demonstrating that shift relations alone do not single out admissible crossing kernels. Since (3.32) is obtained by adding the individual identities (3.35)–(3.36), a possible overall coefficient or zero-mode ambiguity in M^(±) or F^(±) would invalidate the derivati
  2. [§2.4, eqs. (2.57b,c); §1.4 (1.26); §3.1–3.2 (1.36)] The proof of the shift relations is incomplete. For the modular kernel, only (2.57a) is proved explicitly; (2.57b,c) are asserted to follow 'similarly', and the b→b^{−1} variants are likewise not shown. For the fusion kernel, Appendix C proves one shift relation, but the full set needed for individual admissibility is not systematically supplied. In addition, the c≤1 kernels are obtained by the Virasoro-Wick Rotation step (1.36), yet the paper stresses in §1.3 that the integral representations have a natural boundary at b∈iR. It is therefore not automatic that the rotated finite sums obey the c≤1 shift relations; a self-contained derivation, or at least a precise statement of which identities from [15] are being invoked, is needed. As written, the individual admissibility of cM^(±) and bF^(±) relies on the same unsupported 'similarly' statements.
  3. [§2.3, eqs. (2.53)–(2.56)] The idempotency relations (2.53)–(2.56) are introduced as 'expected' and are not proved; the following section presents only shift relations as 'strong evidence'. If the phrase 'admissible crossing kernel' is meant to include the full Moore–Seiberg consistency conditions invoked in §2.4, these identities are part of the required structure and should be proved or explicitly stated as conjectural. If the central claim is only the crossing transformation (1.31)/(1.32), the text should say so and not imply that full consistency has been established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1.5] The abstract says that b^2 ∈ Q^× corresponds to 'all rational central charge values' in (−∞,1]∪[25,∞). This is not correct: the map b^2 ↦ c = 13 + 6(b^2 + b^{−2}) is not surjective onto Q ∩ [25,∞). For example, c = 30 gives b^2 = (17 ± √145)/12, which is irrational. Please rephrase to avoid overstating the coverage.
  2. [§2.1, eq. (2.4)] The notation M_b is used both for the prefactor in (2.1) and for the summand function in (2.4)–(2.5). This is confusing; a different symbol for one of them would improve readability.
  3. [§3.1, eq. (3.18)] The c=1 example is welcome, but the claim that the kernel of [13] 'coincides exactly' with bF^(+)|_{b=1} is not demonstrated. A brief check or a reference to where the equality is shown would be helpful.
  4. [Appendix A, around (A.14)–(A.19)] The multi-valuedness of Li2 and the choice of branches in (A.14)–(A.19) is not discussed. Since the functions eG_{m,n} are meromorphic, a short comment on branch choices would prevent ambiguities.
  5. [General presentation] There are several typographical issues, e.g. 'Branes’ G function' should presumably be 'Barnes G function', and 'irotated' should be 'rotated'. These do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; the central derivation is self-contained residue calculus, with one acknowledged uniqueness gap that is a rigor issue rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: starting from the Teschner and Teschner–Vartanov integral representations (1.15)/(1.19), Appendix B applies the external Garoufalidis–Kashaev lemma [16] and explicit residue calculus to obtain the exact identities (2.3)/(2.21). No parameter is fitted to data, and the 1/2 decomposition is a by-product of the residue evaluation, not an input. The shift-relation proofs in Section 2.4 and Appendix C are direct verifications using the periodicity properties (2.36)/(2.37), and they do not assume the target crossing identities. The c≤1 kernels are obtained by applying the Virasoro–Wick Rotation; that symmetry is cited from [15], a separate peer-reviewed paper by one of the present authors, so it is independent support rather than a self-citation chain. The one load-bearing caveat is explicitly acknowledged in Section 2.4: 'It is essential to mention that the shift relations determine the crossing kernels up to a momentum-independent constant. The fact that each of M(±) as defined in (2.4) satisfies the crossing transformation of the blocks (1.31) with no additional overall coefficient is supported from the analytic derivation of the result as we describe it in Appendix B.1 as well as from the proof of the shift relations that we just presented.' No uniqueness theorem for the non-meromorphic solution space is supplied, so the individual admissibility of M(±) and F(±) with the standard normalization is not fully proven. This is a rigor gap, not circularity: the constants are fixed by closed-form residue computation, and the proof never assumes the conclusion. Therefore no circular step is present; the modest score reflects the acknowledged missing support, not an input-output equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces new mathematical functions (M^(±), F^(±), quantum modular/fusion polynomials) but no new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions. These functions are built from standard special functions and carry no independent experimental handle; they are constructs, not entities needing external evidence. The free-parameter ledger is empty: m,n parametrize the rational central charge as an input, and no fitted constants are used.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Teschner and Teschner–Vartanov integral representations (1.15), (1.19) are the unique meromorphic solutions to the modular/fusion shift relations and define the crossing kernels for c ∈ C\(−∞,1].
    Section 1.2; the paper takes these as the starting point and relies on the uniqueness proved in [17].
  • domain assumption Virasoro–Wick rotation is a symmetry of the shift relations, mapping solutions at central charge c to solutions at 26−c.
    Section 1.4, from [15]; the c≤1 kernels in Section 3 are constructed using this map.
  • standard math Garoufalidis–Kashaev lemma (quasi-periodicity identity), eq. (1.3).
    Used in Appendix B to convert the integral kernels into residue sums over roots of the quantum polynomials.
  • standard math Special-function identities for Barnes double gamma and double sine at rational b²: reduction to products of Barnes G functions, shift relations (A.28), (A.31), asymptotics (A.26).
    Appendix A; these identities underlie all closed-form expressions in the paper.
  • domain assumption At c≤1 the physical crossing kernels are not analytic continuations from c≥25; the physical kernel is the reflection-symmetric positive linear combination of the two VWR-rotated solutions.
    Section 1.3 and Section 3; this selection criterion determines cM and bF and is load-bearing for the timelike-Liouville crossing proof.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 47316 in / 12680 out tokens · 109106 ms · 2026-08-03T18:50:33.192284+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report novel analytic results for the Virasoro modular and fusion kernels relevant to 2d conformal field theories (CFTs), 3d topological field theories (TQFTs), and the representation theory of certain quantum groups. For all rational values of the parameter $b^2\in\mathbb{Q}^{\times}$ -- corresponding in 2d CFT to all rational central charge values in the domain $(-\infty,1]\cup[25,\infty)$ -- we establish two main results. First, in the domain $c\in\mathbb{Q}_{[25,\infty)}$ we show that the modular and fusion kernels derived by Teschner and Teschner-Vartanov respectively can be expressed as a linear combination of two functions, which (i) are themselves admissible crossing kernels, (ii) have square-root branch point singularities in the Liouville momenta, (iii) are not reflection-symmetric in the Liouville momenta. These features illustrate that the space of solutions to the basic shift relations determining these kernels is broader than previously assumed. Second, in the domain $c\in\mathbb{Q}_{(-\infty,1]}$ we derive for the first time the physical modular and fusion kernels for generic values of the Liouville momenta. These can again be written as a linear combination of two other admissible kernels but overall, and unlike the Teschner and Teschner-Vartanov solutions for $c\geq 25$, they possess square-root branch point singularities. As a corollary, we demonstrate that timelike Liouville theory at $c\in\mathbb{Q}_{(-\infty,1]}$ is crossing symmetric and modular covariant. Surprisingly, the crossing kernels at any $b^2\in\mathbb{Q}^{\times}$ behave as if they were semiclassical and one-loop exact, and we discuss the interpretation of this fact in the context of the 2d conformal bootstrap and the 3d TQFT that captures pure 3d gravity with negative cosmological constant.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Runkel-Watts string

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The Runkel-Watts string is a solvable family of two-dimensional string theories whose all-genus amplitudes are generated by SU(2) Yang-Mills TQFT data combined with VMS quantum volumes, and it has a dual matrix-integr...

  2. (1,k) CFT and RH problem with the c=-2 case

    math-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    For (1,k) Virasoro models, periodic vertex operators plus two degenerate fields solve a modified Riemann–Hilbert problem; in the k=2, c=-2 case the solution is explicit and satisfies new bilinear identities.

  3. Quantum Liouville Cosmology

    hep-th 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Timelike Liouville disk path integrals in fixed K-representation produce Hartle-Hawking-like states, a conjecture for all-loop wavefunctions, and a K-independent inner product for 2D quantum cosmology.

  4. Quantum Liouville Cosmology

    hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Disk path integrals of timelike Liouville theory yield one-loop Hartle-Hawking-like wavefunctions in a fixed extrinsic-curvature representation, with a conjectured all-loop form and a K-independent pairing that may de...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv

    J.M. Maldacena,The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231 [hep-th/9711200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Faddeev,Modular double of quantum group, inConference Moshe Flato, pp

    L.D. Faddeev,Modular double of quantum group, inConference Moshe Flato, pp. 149–156, 2000 [math/9912078]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Alday, D

    L.F. Alday, D. Gaiotto and Y. Tachikawa,Liouville Correlation Functions from Four-dimensional Gauge Theories,Lett. Math. Phys.91(2010) 167 [0906.3219]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Witten,Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,Commun

    E. Witten,Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,Commun. Math. Phys. 121(1989) 351. – 62 –

    1989

  5. [5]

    Collier, L

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt and M. Zhang,Solving 3d gravity with Virasoro TQFT, SciPost Phys.15(2023) 151 [2304.13650]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Hartman,Conformal Turaev-Viro Theory,2507.11652

    T. Hartman,Conformal Turaev-Viro Theory,2507.11652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Guillarmou, A

    C. Guillarmou, A. Kupiainen, R. Rhodes and V. Vargas,Conformal bootstrap in Liouville theory,Acta Math.233(2024) 33 [2005.11530]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Ghosal, G

    P. Ghosal, G. Remy, X. Sun and Y. Sun,Probabilistic conformal blocks for Liouville CFT on the torus,Duke Math. J.173(2024) 1085 [2003.03802]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Guillarmou, A

    C. Guillarmou, A. Kupiainen and R. Rhodes,Review on the probabilistic construction and Conformal bootstrap in Liouville Theory,2403.12780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Teschner,From Liouville theory to the quantum geometry of Riemann surfaces, in 14th International Congress on Mathematical Physics, 8, 2003 [hep-th/0308031]

    J. Teschner,From Liouville theory to the quantum geometry of Riemann surfaces, in 14th International Congress on Mathematical Physics, 8, 2003 [hep-th/0308031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Ponsot and J

    B. Ponsot and J. Teschner,Clebsch-Gordan and Racah-Wigner coefficients for a continuous series of representations of U(q)(sl(2,R)),Commun. Math. Phys.224 (2001) 613 [math/0007097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  12. [12]

    Teschner and G

    J. Teschner and G. Vartanov,6j symbols for the modular double, quantum hyperbolic geometry, and supersymmetric gauge theories,Lett. Math. Phys.104(2014) 527 [1202.4698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Iorgov, O

    N. Iorgov, O. Lisovyy and Y. Tykhyy,Painlev´ e VI connection problem and monodromy ofc= 1conformal blocks,JHEP12(2013) 029 [1308.4092]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Del Monte, H

    F. Del Monte, H. Desiraju and P. Gavrylenko,Modular transformations of tau functions and conformal blocks on the torus,2508.14030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Ribault and I

    S. Ribault and I. Tsiares,On the Virasoro fusion kernel atc= 25,SciPost Phys.17 (2024) 058 [2310.09334]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Garoufalidis and R

    S. Garoufalidis and R. Kashaev,Evaluation of state integrals at rational points, Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.09(2015) 549 [1411.6062]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Eberhardt,Notes on crossing transformations of Virasoro conformal blocks, 2309.11540

    L. Eberhardt,Notes on crossing transformations of Virasoro conformal blocks, 2309.11540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Moore and N

    G.W. Moore and N. Seiberg,Polynomial Equations for Rational Conformal Field Theories,Phys. Lett. B212(1988) 451

    1988

  19. [19]

    Cho and H

    Y. Cho and H. Kim,On the volume formula for hyperbolic tetrahedra,Discrete Comput. Geom. 22 no. 3, (1999) 347–366

    1999

  20. [20]

    Murakami and M

    J. Murakami and M. Yano,On the volume of a hyperbolic and spherical tetrahedron, Communications in Analysis and Geometry, 13 (2): 379–400

  21. [21]

    Ushijima,A volume formula for generalised hyperbolic tetrahedra,Non-Euclidean geometries, vol

    A. Ushijima,A volume formula for generalised hyperbolic tetrahedra,Non-Euclidean geometries, vol. 581 of Math. Appl. (N. Y.), pp. 249–265. Springer, New York, 2006. – 63 –

    2006

  22. [22]

    Nemkov,On modular transformations of toric conformal blocks,JHEP10(2015) 039 [1504.04360]

    N. Nemkov,On modular transformations of toric conformal blocks,JHEP10(2015) 039 [1504.04360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Teschner,Liouville theory revisited,Class

    J. Teschner,Liouville theory revisited,Class. Quant. Grav.18(2001) R153 [hep-th/0104158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    Ribault,Conformal field theory on the plane,1406.4290

    S. Ribault,Conformal field theory on the plane,1406.4290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Hadasz, Z

    L. Hadasz, Z. Jaskolski and P. Suchanek,Modular bootstrap in Liouville field theory, Phys. Lett. B685(2010) 79 [0911.4296]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Zamolodchikov,Three-point function in the minimal Liouville gravity,Theor

    A.B. Zamolodchikov,Three-point function in the minimal Liouville gravity,Theor. Math. Phys.142(2005) 183 [hep-th/0505063]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Schomerus,Rolling tachyons from Liouville theory,JHEP11(2003) 043 [hep-th/0306026]

    V. Schomerus,Rolling tachyons from Liouville theory,JHEP11(2003) 043 [hep-th/0306026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  28. [28]

    Kostov and V.B

    I.K. Kostov and V.B. Petkova,Bulk correlation functions in 2-D quantum gravity, Theor. Math. Phys.146(2006) 108 [hep-th/0505078]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    Gamayun, N

    O. Gamayun, N. Iorgov and O. Lisovyy,Conformal field theory of Painlev´ e VI,JHEP 10(2012) 038 [1207.0787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    Iorgov, O

    N. Iorgov, O. Lisovyy and J. Teschner,Isomonodromic tau-functions from Liouville conformal blocks,Commun. Math. Phys.336(2015) 671 [1401.6104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Polyakov,Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings,Phys

    A.M. Polyakov,Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings,Phys. Lett. B103(1981) 207

    1981

  32. [32]

    Harlow, J

    D. Harlow, J. Maltz and E. Witten,Analytic Continuation of Liouville Theory,JHEP 12(2011) 071 [1108.4417]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Bautista, A

    T. Bautista, A. Dabholkar and H. Erbin,Quantum Gravity from Timelike Liouville theory,JHEP10(2019) 284 [1905.12689]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Anninos, T

    D. Anninos, T. Bautista and B. M¨ uhlmann,The two-sphere partition function in two-dimensional quantum gravity,JHEP09(2021) 116 [2106.01665]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Chatterjee,Rigorous results for timelike Liouville field theory,2504.02348

    S. Chatterjee,Rigorous results for timelike Liouville field theory,2504.02348

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Usciati, C

    R. Usciati, C. Guillarmou, R. Rhodes and R. Santachiara,Probabilistic construction of non compactified imaginary Liouville field theory,2505.09390

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Ribault and R

    S. Ribault and R. Santachiara,Liouville theory with a central charge less than one, JHEP08(2015) 109 [1503.02067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    Roussillon,On the Virasoro fusion and modular kernels at any irrational central charge,SciPost Phys.17(2024) 138 [2405.09325]

    J. Roussillon,On the Virasoro fusion and modular kernels at any irrational central charge,SciPost Phys.17(2024) 138 [2405.09325]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Hikami,Hyperbolic structure arising from a knot invariant,International Journal of Modern Physics A16(2001) 3309–3333

    K. Hikami,Hyperbolic structure arising from a knot invariant,International Journal of Modern Physics A16(2001) 3309–3333

    2001

  40. [40]

    Dimofte, S

    T. Dimofte, S. Gukov, J. Lenells and D. Zagier,Exact Results for Perturbative – 64 – Chern-Simons Theory with Complex Gauge Group,Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.3 (2009) 363 [0903.2472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    Ellegaard Andersen and R

    J. Ellegaard Andersen and R. Kashaev,A TQFT from Quantum Teichm¨ uller Theory, Commun. Math. Phys.330(2014) 887 [1109.6295]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Ellegaard Andersen and R

    J. Ellegaard Andersen and R. Kashaev,A new formulation of the Teichm¨ uller TQFT, 1305.4291

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Kashaev, F

    R. Kashaev, F. Luo and G. Vartanov,A TQFT of Turaev–Viro Type on Shaped Triangulations,Annales Henri Poincare17(2016) 1109 [1210.8393]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Dimofte,Complex Chern–Simons Theory at Level k via the 3d–3d Correspondence, Commun

    T. Dimofte,Complex Chern–Simons Theory at Level k via the 3d–3d Correspondence, Commun. Math. Phys.339(2015) 619 [1409.0857]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Dimofte and S

    T. Dimofte and S. Garoufalidis,Quantum modularity and complex Chern–Simons theory,Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.12(2018) 1 [1511.05628]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Hartman,Triangulating quantum gravity in AdS 3,2507.12696

    T. Hartman,Triangulating quantum gravity in AdS 3,2507.12696

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    T. Liu, S. Ming, X. Sun, B. Wu and T. Yang,Asymptotics ofb-6jsymbols and anti-de Sitter tetrahedra,2511.20953

    arXiv

  48. [48]

    Zagier,Quantum modular forms,Quanta of maths(2010)

    D. Zagier,Quantum modular forms,Quanta of maths(2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    Garoufalidis and D

    S. Garoufalidis and D. Zagier,Knots, Perturbative Series and Quantum Modularity, SIGMA20(2024) 055 [2111.06645]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Garoufalidis and D

    S. Garoufalidis and D. Zagier,Knots and Their Relatedq-Series,SIGMA19(2023) 082 [2304.09377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Wheeler,Modular q–difference equations and quantum invariants of hyperbolic three–manifolds, Ph.D

    C. Wheeler,Modular q–difference equations and quantum invariants of hyperbolic three–manifolds, Ph.D. thesis, U. Bonn (main), 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

    Garoufalidis and C

    S. Garoufalidis and C. Wheeler,Modularq-holonomic modules,2203.17029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Wheeler,Quantum Modularity for a Closed Hyperbolic 3-Manifold,SIGMA21 (2025) 004 [2308.03265]

    C. Wheeler,Quantum Modularity for a Closed Hyperbolic 3-Manifold,SIGMA21 (2025) 004 [2308.03265]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Collier, L

    S. Collier, L. Eberhardt and M. Zhang,3d gravity from Virasoro TQFT: Holography, wormholes and knots,2401.13900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    An asymptotic expansion of the double gamma function

    J.L. L´ opez and C. Ferreira, “An asymptotic expansion of the double gamma function.” http: //pcmap.unizar.es/~chelo/investig/publicaciones/joseluis/doublegamma.pdf. – 65 –