pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31588 · v1 · pith:G32E2PV7new · submitted 2026-05-29 · ✦ hep-th · math-ph· math.GT· math.MP· math.QA

Two roles of Alexander in two Kashaev phases

Dmitry Galakhov , Alexei Morozov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 21:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th math-phmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA
keywords Alexander polynomialsKashaev limitChern-Simons theoryquantum A-polynomialquasiclassical limitJones polynomialsresurgence theoryWilson averages
0
0 comments X

The pith

The quantum A-polynomial admits two phases in the Kashaev limit, one producing classical A-polynomials tied to hyperbolic volumes and the other inverse Alexanders from Jones polynomials.

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

The paper examines the Kashaev limit of Chern-Simons theory, where Wilson averages are considered in a double-scaling regime of large representation and small coupling. It shows that Alexander polynomials appear in two opposite roles: sharing roots with classical A-polynomials while Jones polynomials tend to their inverses in the perturbative expansion. This apparent contradiction is resolved by the existence of two branches in the quasiclassical limit, enabled by the specific form of the quantum A-polynomial. A reader cares because this clarifies non-perturbative ambiguities in resurgence theory for an exactly solvable model.

Core claim

The consistency is provided by the peculiar form of the quantum A-polynomial, and the resolution of the puzzle is the co-existence of two different branches (phases) in the quasiclassical limit -- with non-trivial and with vanishing classical actions. The first leads to classical A-polynomials and hyperbolic volumes, the second -- to inverse Alexanders.

What carries the argument

The quantum A-polynomial, whose peculiar form permits two distinct quasiclassical phases with non-trivial and vanishing classical actions.

If this is right

  • Classical A-polynomials share roots with Alexander polynomials.
  • Jones polynomials approach the inverse of Alexander polynomials in the perturbative expansion.
  • One phase connects to hyperbolic volumes via non-trivial actions.
  • The two phases ensure consistency in the resurgence analysis of Wilson averages.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This structure may generalize directly to arbitrary Yang-Mills theories.
  • Similar dual-phase behaviors could appear in other exactly solvable models with resurgence ambiguities.
  • Explicit computations of higher representations might confirm the vanishing action branch.

Load-bearing premise

The quasiclassical/WKB approximation applies in this peculiar manner to the Kashaev limit such that the quantum A-polynomial allows two distinct phases with the stated properties.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that the quantum A-polynomial does not support two separate branches in the quasiclassical limit, or that only one phase appears in the Kashaev limit of Chern-Simons theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31588 by Alexei Morozov, Dmitry Galakhov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a) exemplary plot of function g(z) = e − z 0.1 (1 + z) 1.5 0.1 ; b) exemplary plot of function g(z) = e − z 0.1 (1 + z) 0.5 0.1 . The standard prescription [54] of estimating the asymptotics of integral (2.7) is to expand the integration cycle over Lefschetz thimbles associated to saddle points and the steepest descent paths to and from the endpoints if they are not located at singularities. To simplify ou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Meridian and longitude operators on knot complement S 3 \ K Canonically, an A-polynomial AK(ℓ, m) for knot K defines [44] an algebraic curve in coordinates (ℓ, m) ∈ C 2 describing possible values of ℓ and m for which such a representation π(K) → SL(2, C) exists. In other words, it characterizes saddle points in (4.1). We would like to mention two specific flat connections in the knot complement. The first … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relations for the Wirtinger basis: (a) xixj = xjxk, (b) xjxi = xkxj . Classically, A-polynomials study character varieties for π(K), in particular homomorphisms π(K) → SL(2, C) modulo SL(2, C). Following de Rham [51] we choose a subgroup Γ ⊂ SL(2, C) of upper-triangular matrices. All the loops xi represent meridian holonomies, therefore: Tr xi = m + m−1 . (5.2) Moreover, relations depicted in [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The crucial feature of resurgence theory is the ambiguity of non-perturbative behavior, reflected either in the different choices of integration contours or in the existence of several solutions to Ward identities. This is well illustrated by considering exactly solvable models, of which the prominent example is Chern-Simons theory. Its important chapter, which should have a direct generalization to arbitrary Yang-Mills, is the consideration of Wilson averages in the double-scaling limit of large representation and small coupling. For historical reasons, we call it a Kashaev limit. It possesses a natural interpretation in terms of quasiclassical/WKB approximation, which is, however, somewhat peculiar and thus sheds new light on the old story. The crucial point is the appearance of Alexander polynomials $\Delta$ in two seemingly opposite roles: the classical $A$-polynomials have common roots with $\Delta$, while Jones polynomials tend to $\Delta^{-1}$ in the perturbative expansion. The consistency is provided by the peculiar form of the quantum $A$-polynomial, and the resolution of the puzzle is the co-existence of two different branches (phases) in the quasiclassical limit -- with non-trivial and with vanishing classical actions. The first leads to classical $A$-polynomials and hyperbolic volumes, the second -- to inverse Alexanders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that in the Kashaev (double-scaling) limit of Chern-Simons theory, the Alexander polynomial Δ appears in two opposite roles: classical A-polynomials share roots with Δ while Jones polynomials approach Δ^{-1} in perturbation theory. This apparent tension is resolved by the coexistence of two quasiclassical phases permitted by the peculiar form of the quantum A-polynomial—one phase with non-trivial classical action (yielding classical A-polynomials and hyperbolic volumes) and one with vanishing classical action (yielding inverse Alexanders). The argument is framed as an illustration of resurgence ambiguities arising from multiple solutions to Ward identities.

Significance. If the two-phase structure is rigorously derived from the Kashaev-limit path integral, the result would clarify how the quasiclassical/WKB approximation behaves in this limit and supply a concrete example of contour or solution ambiguity in resurgence for an exactly solvable model with potential extension to Yang-Mills theories.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (crucial point paragraph): the claim that consistency follows from the 'peculiar form' of the quantum A-polynomial is asserted without an explicit operator construction, Ward-identity solution, or demonstration that the Kashaev limit of the Chern-Simons path integral produces an operator admitting precisely the two stated branches (non-trivial vs. vanishing classical action).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no explicit derivation or error-control steps are supplied to show that the quasiclassical approximation in the Kashaev limit indeed splits into the two phases with the claimed properties (classical A-polynomials + volumes vs. inverse Alexanders); the resolution therefore remains an assumption rather than a consequence of the path-integral formulation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful report and the opportunity to clarify the scope of our work. The manuscript is intended as a concise illustration of resurgence ambiguities in Chern-Simons theory rather than a complete path-integral derivation. We address the major comments below and will revise the abstract accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (crucial point paragraph): the claim that consistency follows from the 'peculiar form' of the quantum A-polynomial is asserted without an explicit operator construction, Ward-identity solution, or demonstration that the Kashaev limit of the Chern-Simons path integral produces an operator admitting precisely the two stated branches (non-trivial vs. vanishing classical action).

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply an explicit operator construction or a fresh derivation of the quantum A-polynomial from the path integral. The argument takes the established form of the quantum A-polynomial (known to admit multiple solutions to the associated Ward identities) as given and shows how this structure naturally produces the two co-existing phases. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that the resolution relies on these known properties rather than a new construction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no explicit derivation or error-control steps are supplied to show that the quasiclassical approximation in the Kashaev limit indeed splits into the two phases with the claimed properties (classical A-polynomials + volumes vs. inverse Alexanders); the resolution therefore remains an assumption rather than a consequence of the path-integral formulation.

    Authors: The paper presents the two-phase structure as a conceptual consequence of the peculiar form of the quantum A-polynomial within the Kashaev limit, serving as an exactly solvable illustration of resurgence. No new error-controlled derivation from the path integral is attempted. We will revise the abstract and add a brief clarifying sentence in the introduction to emphasize the illustrative nature of the argument and the reliance on established results. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A full, rigorous derivation of the two-phase structure directly from the Kashaev-limit path integral, including explicit operator construction, Ward-identity solutions, and error-control analysis, lies outside the scope of the present manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: two-phase resolution follows from stated properties of quantum A-polynomial without reduction to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The abstract grounds consistency in the peculiar form of the quantum A-polynomial permitting two quasiclassical branches (non-trivial action yielding classical A-polynomials/volumes; vanishing action yielding inverse Alexanders). No self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is exhibited in the provided text. The derivation chain treats the A-polynomial form as an independent input whose consequences are then explored, keeping the central claim self-contained rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the discussion invokes standard objects (Alexander, Jones, A-polynomials) from prior literature without introducing new fitted constants or postulates visible here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5771 in / 1181 out tokens · 34189 ms · 2026-06-28T21:14:09.938784+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. More on Kashaev limits of the quantum $A$-polynomials

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    In the Kashaev limit the non-homogeneous quantum A-polynomial splits into phases tied to zero action and deformed hyperbolic volume, with a byproduct expectation that the classical A-polynomial at L=1 is proportional ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    What is QFT? Resurgent trans-series, Lefschetz thimbles, and new exact saddles,

    G. V. Dunne and M.¨Unsal, “What is QFT? Resurgent trans-series, Lefschetz thimbles, and new exact saddles,” PoSLATTICE2015(2016) 010,arXiv:1511.05977 [hep-lat]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    A primer on resurgent transseries and their asymptotics,

    I. Aniceto, G. Ba¸ sar, and R. Schiappa, “A primer on resurgent transseries and their asymptotics,”Phys. Rep. 809(2019) 1–135,arXiv:1802.10441 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Introductory lectures on resurgence,

    G. V. Dunne, “Introductory lectures on resurgence,”arXiv:2511.15528 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    On the Variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space,

    J. J. Duistermaat and G. J. Heckman, “On the Variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space,”Invent. Math.69(1982) 259–268

    1982

  5. [5]

    Path integrals and geometry of trajectories,

    M. Blau, E. Keski-Vakkuri, and A. J. Niemi, “Path integrals and geometry of trajectories,”Phys. Lett. B246 (1990) 92–98

    1990

  6. [6]

    Topological field theories and integrable models,

    E. Keski-Vakkuri, A. J. Niemi, G. W. Semenoff, and O. Tirkkonen, “Topological field theories and integrable models,”Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 3899–3905

    1991

  7. [7]

    Supersymmetry and loop space geometry,

    A. Y. Morozov, A. J. Niemi, and K. Palo, “Supersymmetry and loop space geometry,”Phys. Lett. B271(1991) 365–371

    1991

  8. [8]

    Supersymplectic geometry of supersymmetric quantum field theories,

    A. Y. Morozov, A. Niemi, and K. Palo, “Supersymplectic geometry of supersymmetric quantum field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B377(1992) 295–338

    1992

  9. [9]

    Geometric approach to supersymmetry,

    A. Y. Morozov, A. J. Niemi, and K. Palo, “Geometric approach to supersymmetry,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. B6 no. 11-12, (1992) 2149–2157

    1992

  10. [10]

    String theory: What is it?,

    A. Y. Morozov, “String theory: What is it?,”Sov. Phys. Usp.35(1992) 671–714

    1992

  11. [11]

    Integrability and matrix models,

    A. Morozov, “Integrability and matrix models,”Phys. Usp.37(1994) 1–55,arXiv:hep-th/9303139

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  12. [12]

    2-d gravity and matrix models. 1. 2-d gravity,

    A. Mironov, “2-d gravity and matrix models. 1. 2-d gravity,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9(1994) 4355–4406, arXiv:hep-th/9312212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  13. [13]

    Matrix models as integrable systems,

    A. Morozov, “Matrix models as integrable systems,” inCRM-CAP Summer School on Particles and Fields ’94, pp. 127–210. 1, 1995.arXiv:hep-th/9502091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  14. [14]

    Quantum Deformations ofτ-functions, Bilinear Identities and Representation Theory,

    A. Mironov, “Quantum Deformations ofτ-functions, Bilinear Identities and Representation Theory,”Electron. Res. Announ. AMS9(1996) 219–238,arXiv:hep-th/9409190

    arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    Challenges of matrix models,

    A. Morozov, “Challenges of matrix models,” inFrom Gauge Interactions to Cosmology Carg` ese, France 7–19 June 2004, pp. 129–162. 2, 2005.arXiv:hep-th/0502010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Integrability and Matrix Models,

    A. Morozov, “Integrability and Matrix Models,”arXiv:2212.02632 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    Ward identities and combinatorics of rainbow tensor models,

    H. Itoyama, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “Ward identities and combinatorics of rainbow tensor models,”JHEP 06(2017) 115,arXiv:1704.08648 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    On the complete perturbative solution of one-matrix models,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “On the complete perturbative solution of one-matrix models,”Phys. Lett. B771 (2017) 503–507,arXiv:1705.00976 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Superintegrability summary,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “Superintegrability summary,”Phys. Lett. B835(2022) 137573, arXiv:2201.12917 [hep-th]. 16

    arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Superintegrability as the hidden origin of the Nekrasov calculus,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “Superintegrability as the hidden origin of the Nekrasov calculus,”Phys. Rev. D 106no. 12, (2022) 126004,arXiv:2207.08242 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Summing up perturbation series around superintegrable point,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, and S. Shakirov, “Summing up perturbation series around superintegrable point,”Phys. Lett. B852(2024) 138593,arXiv:2401.14392 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Deformation of superintegrability in the Miwa-deformed Gaussian matrix model,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, and S. Shakirov, “Deformation of superintegrability in the Miwa-deformed Gaussian matrix model,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 4, (2024) 046027,arXiv:2403.09670 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Superintegrability ofq, t-matrix models and quantum toroidal algebra recursions,

    L. Cassia and V. Mishnyakov, “Superintegrability ofq, t-matrix models and quantum toroidal algebra recursions,”arXiv:2510.17360 [math-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Quantum two-dimensional superintegrable systems in flat space: exact-solvability, hidden algebra, polynomial algebra of integrals,

    A. V. Turbiner, J. C. L. Vieyra, and P. Winternitz, “Quantum two-dimensional superintegrable systems in flat space: exact-solvability, hidden algebra, polynomial algebra of integrals,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41(2026) 2630006,arXiv:2512.24045 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups,

    N. Y. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev, “Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups,” Commun. Math. Phys.127(1990) 1–26

    1990

  26. [26]

    Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups,

    N. Y. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev, “Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups,” Inventiones mathematicae103no. 1, (1991) 547–597

    1991

  27. [27]

    Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials. II. Fundamental representation. Up to five strands in braid,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials. II. Fundamental representation. Up to five strands in braid,”JHEP03(2012) 034,arXiv:1112.2654 [math.QA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Colored HOMFLY polynomials of knots presented as double fat diagrams,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Morozov, P. Ramadevi, and V. K. Singh, “Colored HOMFLY polynomials of knots presented as double fat diagrams,”JHEP07(2015) 109,arXiv:1504.00371 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Towards effective topological field theory for knots,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “Towards effective topological field theory for knots,”Nucl. Phys. B899(2015) 395–413,arXiv:1506.00339 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    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,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 9, (2024) 990,arXiv:2407.08724 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Colored knot polynomials for arbitrary pretzel knots and links,

    D. Galakhov, D. Melnikov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Sleptsov, “Colored knot polynomials for arbitrary pretzel knots and links,”Phys. Lett. B743(2015) 71–74,arXiv:1412.2616 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Resurgence in complex Chern-Simons theory,

    S. Gukov, M. Mari˜ no, and P. Putrov, “Resurgence in complex Chern-Simons theory,”arXiv:1605.07615 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Peacock patterns and resurgence in complex Chern-Simons theory,

    S. Garoufalidis, J. Gu, and M. Mari˜ no, “Peacock patterns and resurgence in complex Chern-Simons theory,” Res. Math. Sci.10no. 3, (2023) Paper No. 29, 67 pages,arXiv:2012.00062 [math.GT]

    arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Resurgence of Chern-Simons theory at the trivial flat connection,

    S. Garoufalidis, J. Gu, M. Mari˜ no, and C. Wheeler, “Resurgence of Chern-Simons theory at the trivial flat connection,”Commun. Math. Phys.406no. 1, (2025) Paper No. 20, 60 pages,arXiv:2111.04763 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Orientation reversal and the Chern-Simons natural boundary,

    G. Adams, O. Costin, G. V. Dunne, S. Gukov, and O.¨Oner, “Orientation reversal and the Chern-Simons natural boundary,”JHEP08(2025) 154,arXiv:2505.14441 [hep-th]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    The Chern-Simons natural boundary and black hole entropy,

    G. Adams and G. V. Dunne, “The Chern-Simons natural boundary and black hole entropy,”arXiv:2603.04619 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  37. [37]

    The Hyperbolic Volume of Knots from the Quantum Dilogarithm,

    R. M. Kashaev, “The Hyperbolic Volume of Knots from the Quantum Dilogarithm,”Letters in Mathematical Physics39no. 3, (Feb., 1997) 269–275,arXiv:q-alg/9601025 [math.QA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  38. [38]

    The coloured jones function,

    P. Melvin and H. Morton, “The coloured jones function,”Commun. Math. Phys.169(1995) 501–520

    1995

  39. [39]

    A Contribution to the trivial connection to Jones polynomial and Witten’s invariant of 3-d manifolds. 1.,

    L. Rozansky, “A Contribution to the trivial connection to Jones polynomial and Witten’s invariant of 3-d manifolds. 1.,”Commun. Math. Phys.175(1996) 275–296,arXiv:hep-th/9401061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  40. [40]

    On the melvin-morton-rozansky conjecture,

    D. Bar-Natan and S. Garoufalidis, “On the melvin-morton-rozansky conjecture,”Invent. Math.125(1996) 103–133

    1996

  41. [41]

    Higher order terms in the Melvin-Morton expansion of the colored Jones polynomial,

    L. Rozansky, “Higher order terms in the Melvin-Morton expansion of the colored Jones polynomial,”Commun. Math. Phys.183no. 2, (Jan., 1997) 291–306,arXiv:q-alg/9601009 [math.QA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  42. [42]

    A lift of the colored Jones polynomial of a knot,

    S. Garoufalidis and C. Wheeler, “A lift of the colored Jones polynomial of a knot,”arXiv:2603.01619 [math.GT]

    arXiv

  43. [43]

    Korzun, E

    D. Korzun, E. Lanina, and A. Morozov.To appear

  44. [44]

    Plane curves associated to character varieties of knot complements,

    D. Cooper, M. Culler, H. Gillet, D. D. Long, and P. B. Shalen, “Plane curves associated to character varieties of knot complements,”Inventiones Mathematicae118no. 1, (1994) 47–84

    1994

  45. [45]

    On the characteristic and deformation varieties of a knot,

    S. Garoufalidis, “On the characteristic and deformation varieties of a knot,” inProceedings of the Casson Fest, vol. 7 ofGeom. Topol. Monogr., pp. 291–309. Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 2004.arXiv:math/0306230 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    The colored Jones polynomial and the A-polynomial of knots,

    T. T. Q. Lˆ e, “The colored Jones polynomial and the A-polynomial of knots,”Adv. Math.207no. 2, (2006) 782–804,arXiv:math/0407521 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  47. [47]

    The colored Jones function isq-holonomic,

    S. Garoufalidis and T. T. Q. Lˆ e, “The colored Jones function isq-holonomic,”Geom. Topol.9(2005) 1253–1293, arXiv:math/0309214 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    Knots and tropical curves,

    S. Garoufalidis, “Knots and tropical curves,” 2010

    2010

  49. [49]

    The non-commutative A-polynomial of(−2,3, n)pretzel knots,

    S. Garoufalidis and C. Koutschan, “The non-commutative A-polynomial of(−2,3, n)pretzel knots,”Exp. Math. 27no. 3, (2018) 302–315,arXiv:1311.3500 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    The AJ-conjecture for the Teichm¨ uller TQFT,

    J. E. Andersen and A. Malus` a, “The AJ-conjecture for the Teichm¨ uller TQFT,” 2017

    2017

  51. [51]

    Introduction aux polynˆ omes d’un nœud,

    G. de Rham, “Introduction aux polynˆ omes d’un nœud,”Enseignement Math. (2)13(1967) 187–194

    1967

  52. [52]

    Matrix representation of knot and link groups,

    J. May, “Matrix representation of knot and link groups,” Master’s thesis, Harvey Mudd College, 2006. HMC Senior Theses. 185

    2006

  53. [53]

    On a Theorem of Burde and de Rham,

    D. S. Silver and S. G. Williams, “On a Theorem of Burde and de Rham,”J. Knot Theory Ramifications20 no. 5, (2011) 713–720,arXiv:0908.2260 [math.GT]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  54. [54]

    Hyperasymptotics for integrals with finite endpoints,

    C. J. Howls, “Hyperasymptotics for integrals with finite endpoints,”Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A439no. 1906, (1992) 373–396

    1906

  55. [55]

    The Superpolynomial for knot homologies,

    N. M. Dunfield, S. Gukov, and J. Rasmussen, “The Superpolynomial for knot homologies,”Exp. Math.15 (2006) 129–159,arXiv:math/0505662 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

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

    H. Itoyama, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “HOMFLY and superpolynomials for figure eight knot in all symmetric and antisymmetric representations,”JHEP2012(2012) 131,arXiv:1203.5978 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Colored HOMFLY polynomial via skein theory,

    S. Zhu, “Colored HOMFLY polynomial via skein theory,”JHEP10(2013) 1–24,arXiv:1206.5886 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Special colored Superpolynomials and their representation-dependence,

    A. Morozov, “Special colored Superpolynomials and their representation-dependence,”JHEP12(2012) 116, arXiv:1208.3544 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  59. [59]

    The first-order deviation of superpolynomial in an arbitrary representation from the special polynomial,

    A. Morozov, “The first-order deviation of superpolynomial in an arbitrary representation from the special polynomial,”JETP Lett.97(2013) 171–172,arXiv:1211.4596 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    Evolution method and “differential hierarchy

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “Evolution method and “differential hierarchy” of colored knot polynomials,”AIP Conf. Proc.1562(2013) 123,arXiv:1306.3197 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  61. [61]

    Quadruply-graded colored homology of knots,

    E. Gorsky, S. Gukov, and M. Stosic, “Quadruply-graded colored homology of knots,”arXiv e-prints(2013) , arXiv:1304.3481 [math.QA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Differential hierarchy and additional grading of knot polynomials,

    S. Arthamonov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “Differential hierarchy and additional grading of knot polynomials,”Theor. Math. Phys.179(2014) 509–542,arXiv:1306.5682 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Link polynomial calculus and the AENV conjecture,

    S. Arthamonov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “Link polynomial calculus and the AENV conjecture,”JHEP04(2014) 156,arXiv:1309.7984 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    Knot polynomials in the first non-symmetric representation,

    A. Anokhina, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “Knot polynomials in the first non-symmetric representation,”Nucl. Phys. B882(2014) 171–194,arXiv:1211.6375 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    On colored HOMFLY polynomials for twist knots,

    A. Anokhina, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “On colored HOMFLY polynomials for twist knots,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A29(2014) 1450183,arXiv:1408.3076 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    Colored knot polynomials: HOMFLY in representations [2,1],

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Sleptsov, “Colored knot polynomials: HOMFLY in representations [2,1],” Theor. Math. Phys.177(2013) 1435–1470,arXiv:1303.1015 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [67]

    On genus expansion of knot polynomials and hidden structure of Hurwitz tau-functions,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Sleptsov, “On genus expansion of knot polynomials and hidden structure of Hurwitz tau-functions,”Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2492,arXiv:1304.7499 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    On genus expansion of superpolynomials,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Sleptsov, and A. Smirnov, “On genus expansion of superpolynomials,”Nucl. Phys. B889(2014) 757–777,arXiv:1310.7622 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    On the defect and stability of differential expansion,

    Y. Kononov and A. Morozov, “On the defect and stability of differential expansion,”JETP Lett.101no. 12, (2015) 831–834,arXiv:1504.07146 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Gluing equations forPGL(n,C)-representations of3-manifolds,

    S. Garoufalidis, M. Goerner, and C. Zickert, “Gluing equations forPGL(n,C)-representations of3-manifolds,” Algebr. Geom. Topol.15no. 1, (2015) 565–622. 19

    2015

  71. [71]

    The geometry and topology of three-manifolds

    W. P. Thurston, “The geometry and topology of three-manifolds.” Princeton lecture notes, 1980

    1980

  72. [72]

    Quantization of Chern-Simons Gauge Theory With Complex Gauge Group,

    E. Witten, “Quantization of Chern-Simons Gauge Theory With Complex Gauge Group,”Commun. Math. Phys. 137(1991) 29–66

    1991

  73. [73]

    Three-dimensional quantum gravity, Chern-Simons theory, and the A polynomial,

    S. Gukov, “Three-dimensional quantum gravity, Chern-Simons theory, and the A polynomial,”Commun. Math. Phys.255(2005) 577–627,arXiv:hep-th/0306165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  74. [74]

    Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory,

    E. Witten, “Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory,”AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math.50(2011) 347–446, arXiv:1001.2933 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    On geometric bases for quantum A-polynomials of knots,

    D. Galakhov and A. Morozov, “On geometric bases for quantum A-polynomials of knots,”Phys. Lett. B860 (2025) 139139,arXiv:2408.08181 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    On geometric bases for A-polynomials II:su3 and Kuperberg bracket,

    D. Galakhov and A. Morozov, “On geometric bases for A-polynomials II:su3 and Kuperberg bracket,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 8, (2025) 915,arXiv:2505.20260 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Shading A-polynomials via huge representations ofUq(suN),

    D. Galakhov and A. Morozov, “Shading A-polynomials via huge representations ofUq(suN),” arXiv:2605.22560 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  78. [78]

    The C-polynomial of a knot,

    S. Garoufalidis and X.-S. Lin, “The C-polynomial of a knot,”Algebr. Geom. Topol.6(2006) 1623–1653, arXiv:math/0504305 [math.GT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  79. [79]

    Algebra of quantumC-polynomials,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “Algebra of quantumC-polynomials,”JHEP02(2021) 142,arXiv:2009.11641 [hep-th]. 20

    arXiv 2021