Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On geometric bases for A-polynomials II: $\mathfrak{su}_3$ and Kuberberg bracket

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed system of multiplicative relations among su3 link symbols, built from arcades and the Kuperberg bracket, yields classical A-polynomial equations for the trefoil.

desk verdict Arcade formalism is new and the su2 checks are solid, but the su3 conclusion rests on an unproven identification and unchecked roots. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20260 v2 pith:7AYHJ7JQ submitted 2025-05-26 hep-th math-phmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA

Dmitry Galakhov , Alexei Morozov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA MSC 57K1417B3720F3657K16
keywords quantumA-polynomialsHOMFLY-PTpolynomialsKuperbergbracketarcadesbraidgroupsu3MOYdiagramscoloredknotinvariants
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

The paper continues a program that seeks to derive quantum A-polynomials as relations among links obtained by decorating a knot. It introduces an arcade representation of the braid group that planarizes decorating links algorithmically, and it extends the geometric method from $\mathfrak{su}_2$, where the Kauffman bracket applies, to $\mathfrak{su}_3$, where the Kuperberg bracket applies. The main result is a closed system of multiplicative relations among the $\mathfrak{su}_3$ link symbols $L_\pm$, $\Theta_\pm$, $X_\pm$, $Y_\pm$; after identifying $\Theta_+ = \Theta_-$ and the analogous pairs, the quasi-classical limit $q\to 1$ of this system produces equations whose roots include the $\mathfrak{su}_3$ analogues of the trefoil A-polynomial. The $\mathfrak{su}_2$ checks in the same formalism reproduce known classical A-polynomials for the trefoil, cinquefoil, and figure-eight knots, supporting the general method.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three main parts. First, arcades give a combinatorial representation of the braid group acting on planarized link diagrams: an arcade is a configuration of dots for punctures and upper/lower arcs for strands, and braid generators act by duplicating dot sets and reconnecting arcs, with extra rules for 'chipped' endpoints that model satellite strands peeling off the base knot. This makes link planarization algorithmic. Second, the Kuperberg bracket replaces the Kauffman bracket for $\mathfrak{su}_3$: it is a graphical calculus on MOY diagrams with trivalent vertices, allowing elimination of bigons and boxes (equation (4.18)) and turning crossings into combinations of such diagrams. Third, the closed relation system for $L_\pm$, $\Theta_\pm$, $X_\pm$, $Y_\pm$, together with the identification $\Theta_+ = \Theta_- = \Theta$ (and analogues for $X$ and $Y$), converts the planarized-link calculus into classical A-polynomial equations: in the quasi-classical limit, equations (6.17) are a finite polynomial system in $\mu_\pm$, $\lambda_\pm$, $z_1$, $z_2$, $\theta$, and its roots include the desired A-polynomial relations.

What would settle it

Evaluate the two planarized link diagrams $\Theta_+$ and $\Theta_-$ for the $\mathfrak{su}_3$ trefoil at a small representation, for instance the fundamental representation, using the Reshetikhin-Turaev rules; if the two values differ for any $q$, the identification $\Theta_+ = \Theta_-$ fails and the classical system (6.17) is not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for $\mathfrak{su}_3$ the reduction of planarized decorating links closes: the link symbols $L_\pm$, $\Theta_\pm$, $X_\pm$, $Y_\pm$ satisfy a finite set of multiplicative relations (equations (6.4)--(6.10)) once one identifies $\Theta_+ = \Theta_- = \Theta$, $X_+ = X_- = X$, $Y_+ = Y_- = Y$. This identification is argued from the conjugation of surface operators by the braiding matrix, $R\Theta_+ = \Theta_- R$, together with the expectation that $R$ is diagonalizable on isotypical components of the tensor square. In the quasi-classical limit, $q\to 1$ with large highest weights, the system becomes a set of polynomial equations (6.17) for variables $\mu_\pm$, $\lambda_\pm$, $z_1$, $z_2$, $\theta$; two families of roots are exhibited, one with $l_1 = m_1^6 m_2^3$ and $l_2 = m_1^3 m_2^6$, and another reminiscent of the $\mathfrak{su}_2$ root $l = -m^3$ for the trefoil. The authors present these roots as classical $\mathfrak{su}_3$ A-polynomial relations for the trefoil, while noting that distinguishing genuine Chern-Simons integration-cycle branches from spurious ones remains open.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that two rotated versions of the same link diagram, $\Theta_+$ and $\Theta_-$, give equal expectation values; the paper argues this from the braiding matrix but does not prove the needed commutativity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The arcade representation gives an algorithmic, group-independent way to planarize arbitrary decorating links, so the same geometric derivation can be attempted for other knots and other gauge groups.
  • Extending the derivation to other $\mathfrak{su}_3$ knots requires solving the classification of indecomposable graphs such as $X_\pm$ and $Y_\pm$, an open problem identified in the paper.
  • The appearance of two-lined Young diagrams places $\mathfrak{su}_3$ at a boundary where both the fundamental and anti-fundamental representations are needed, and where MOY diagrams have a single edge type; higher ranks will need more elaborate decoration data.
  • The $\mathfrak{su}_2$ checks reproduce the known classical A-polynomials for the trefoil, cinquefoil, and figure-eight knots, which supports the scheme of deriving A-polynomials from link relations rather than from direct computation of colored polynomials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\Theta_+ = \Theta_-$ identification survives direct computation, the same closed-system logic should promote to full quantum A-polynomials for $\mathfrak{su}_3$ by keeping operator ordering and adjoining additional link symbols, in analogy with the $\mathfrak{su}_2$ case.
  • The paper's distinction between 'actual' and 'spurious' roots in (6.17) could be settled by computing the $\mathfrak{su}_3$ colored HOMFLY polynomial for the trefoil at large representations and checking which roots match the classical asymptotics; this is a numerical test not performed in the paper.
  • The arcade formalism may connect to graph-valued link invariants and virtual knot theories, a direction suggested in the paper's acknowledgments, potentially yielding skein relations with topological rather than representation-dependent coefficients.
  • A direct evaluation of $\Theta_+$ and $\Theta_-$ expectation values for the fundamental representation at generic $q$ would test the weakest assumption of the paper; if they differ, equations (6.17) need modification, but the method could still produce A-polynomial-type relations from a larger symbol set.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a diagrammatic 'arcade' formalism for deriving quantum A-polynomials as relations among planarized links decorating a base knot. It introduces a braid group action on arcades (Sec. 3), reviews the Reshetikhin-Turaev formalism and the Kauffman/Kuperberg bracket reductions (Sec. 4), tests the approach on su2 for the trefoil, cinquefoil, and figure-eight knots by reproducing their classical A-polynomials (Sec. 5), and then presents a first su3 example: for the trefoil it writes relations (6.5)-(6.10) among link symbols, argues the identification Θ+ = Θ−, X+ = X−, Y+ = Y− in (6.11)-(6.13), takes the q→1, large-weight limit to obtain the algebraic system (6.17), and exhibits two candidate roots (6.18)-(6.19) leading to the eikonal (6.22). The paper's central claim, stated in Sec. 7, is that this demonstrates a closed system of multiplicative relations for su3 planarized link symbols and thus yields classical A-polynomial-like relations for su3.

Significance. If the su3 derivation were fully justified, this would be a valuable step: the arcade representation gives a systematic planarization algorithm, the su2 checks in Sec. 5 are explicit and reproduce known results, and the su3 relations (6.4)-(6.10) exhibit genuinely new structure through the indecomposable graphs X± and Y±. The su2 checks are a concrete strength and provide evidence that the arcade method is not vacuous. However, the significance is currently conditional. The paper's su3 conclusion rests on an unproved identification (6.11) and on roots (6.18)-(6.19) that are neither derived nor compared with an independent RT computation of the su3 trefoil colored HOMFLY polynomial. The su2 tests do not exercise the su3-specific Kuperberg bracket or the identification step, so they do not by themselves establish the su3 claims. The authors themselves note that they cannot distinguish physical from spurious roots and that the relations were 'guessed,' and these limitations are not reflected in the strength of the Sec. 7 claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, eqs. (6.18)-(6.19)] The identification Θ+ = Θ− = Θ, together with X+ = X− and Y+ = Y−, is the load-bearing step that turns (6.5)-(6.10) into the closed classical system (6.17). The justification offered is not a proof: the relation RΘ+ = Θ−R is asserted for surface operators, and the diagonalization argument is phrased as an expectation ('We expect that the R-functor is diagonalized...'), not as a theorem. Even if R is scalar on isotypical components of □⊗□ in the free braided category, Θ± are planarized satellite links attached to base-knot punctures, so the relevant operators act on the knot-complement Hilbert space and the extension of the same argument to the four-strand objects X± and Y± is asserted without derivation. If (6.11) fails, equations (6.5)-(6.10) do not close in the stated variables and (6.17) is not implied. This must be proved or replaced by an independent RT check. A concrete consistency condition that the manuscript does not discuss is that after imposing (6.11), subtracting the two products in (6.4) gives (q − q−1)(Y+ − Y−) = 0 at generic q; the paper neither derives nor verifies this consequence.
  2. [Sec. 7] The roots (6.18) and (6.19) are stated as 'particular roots' of (6.17) without derivation, and no independent su3 computation is provided. Root (6.18) is justified only by a verbal description of an RT sum over channels, and root (6.19) is supported only by analogy with the su2 trefoil relation l = −m3. Since these roots are the only su3 A-polynomial output of the paper, at least one of them should be checked against the quasi-classical limit of the colored su3 HOMFLY polynomial of 3_1 computed by standard RT methods, or derived explicitly from those polynomials. The manuscript itself states that no mechanism exists to distinguish actual from spurious roots; this limitation is acceptable for a preliminary study, but then the Sec. 7 claim that the example 'showed that there is a closed system' and yields classical A-polynomials is stronger than what has been established.
  3. [Sec. 7] The su2 checks in Sec. 5.1-5.3 are a genuine strength, but they do not validate the su3-specific steps: the Kuperberg bracket (4.16)-(4.20), the indecomposable graph relations (6.4), and the identification (6.11). Moreover, in the su2 factorizations the choice of the 'interesting' root is guided by the known answer, and for su3 the same selection is made without an independent criterion. The paper should either add a direct su3 test (for example, a small-representation colored polynomial for the trefoil evaluated by RT) or explicitly frame the su3 section as conjectural. As written, the conclusion in Sec. 7 overstates the certainty of the su3 derivation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The name 'Kuperberg' is misspelled as 'Kuberberg' in the abstract (and in the title as given in the submission header); please correct this throughout.
  2. [Sec. 5.3] The caption says 'Our conventions for auxiliary links for knot31 diagram,' but the section is about the figure-eight knot 4_1; this appears to be a copy-paste error.
  3. [Sec. 6] In the second line of (6.14), the identification Ψ31(w1, w2 + 1) =: l1Ψ31(w1, w2) should presumably define l2, not l1; the later use of l2 in (6.18) suggests this is a typo.
  4. [Sec. 6] The sentences acknowledging that there is no effective mechanism to distinguish actual roots from spurious ones, and that the classification of indecomposable graphs is open, are important; they should be echoed in the conclusion so that the scope of the claim in Sec. 7 matches the body of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: su2 checks are benchmarked against independent literature; the su3 system is derived from diagrammatic Kuperberg rules, and the acknowledged root-selection and Θ+=Θ− assumptions are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The underlying derivation chain is not circular. In Section 5 the arcade planarization plus Kauffman bracket expansions (5.1), (5.2), (5.4), (5.5), (5.9) and (5.12) are algebraic computations; the quasi-classical factorizations are then compared with the independent A-polynomial tables [2] (e.g. (5.8), (5.15)). The choice of the 'interesting' root is a branch-selection step: the paper states 'For an interesting root of this equation...' and 'Clearly one of the roots contributes to the canonical A-polynomial' (5.7)-(5.8). This uses the known answer as a check, which is legitimate for a test and does not feed that answer back into the derivation. In Section 6 the su3 relations (6.5)-(6.10) and (6.4) are obtained by applying the Kuperberg bracket to the planarized diagrams; they are not fitted to a desired output. The identification Θ+=Θ− in (6.11) is argued from RΘ+=Θ−R and an explicit expectation about diagonalizing R in isotypical components (6.12)-(6.13); although this is an unproved assumption and therefore a mathematical gap, it is not circular. The quasi-classical roots (6.18) and (6.19) are presented as 'few particular roots' of (6.17), with the paper itself admitting 'we do not have at hands an effective mechanism to distinguish actual roots... from fake, spurious ones.' Root (6.19) is motivated by its resemblance to the su2 trefoil relation l=-m^3 from the authors' prior work [16]; this is an acknowledged heuristic selection, not a reduction of the result to its own input, and it is not used to impose the equations. Citations [16] and [32] are programmatic and contextual; no uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier work is invoked to force the choice. The main caveats are therefore unproven assumptions and unsupported root selection, which belong to correctness risk rather than to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on standard quantum group invariants and the new arcade formalism. The principal non-standard assumption is the Θ+ = Θ identification, which is load-bearing for the su3 equations but not proven. The manual selection of solution branches in the su2 and su3 examples acts as a free choice, though no numerical parameter is fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • Selection of the 'interesting' root in su2 derivations = for trefoil, x = -m^2 - m^{-2}; similar branch choices in (5.7) and (5.14)
    The factorized relation for ⟨L⟩ has multiple roots; the root that reproduces the known A-polynomial is picked by hand with no independent selection principle.
  • Choice of candidate roots (6.18) and (6.19) for the su3 trefoil
    Particular solutions of the classical system (6.17) are selected manually; the authors state they cannot distinguish physical from spurious roots.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math RT formalism with U_q(su_n) R-matrix, caps/cups and Clebsch-Gordan intertwiners computes HOMFLY polynomials
    Sec. 4.1-4.2; standard quantum group invariants.
  • domain assumption Kuperberg bracket reduction rules for su3 MOY diagrams (bigon and box removals) are complete for the considered diagrams
    Sec. 4.3, eq. (4.18)-(4.20); the authors note higher polygons do not reduce and are new invariants.
  • domain assumption Arcade equivalence moves and braid group action faithfully encode link planarization
    Sec. 3, eq. (3.2); a construction asserted with examples.
  • ad hoc to paper Θ+ = Θ, X+ = X, Y+ = Y after acting on wave functions
    Sec. 6, eq. (6.11)-(6.13); based on an expectation about R-matrix diagonalization, not a proof.
  • domain assumption Quasi-classical limit turns operators and symbols into commuting variables with vacuum expectation values (6.14)
    Sec. 6; standard large-weight limit with the specified scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On geometric bases for A-polynomials II: $\mathfrak{su}_3$ and Kuberberg bracket." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AYHJ7JQ

@misc{pith2026250520260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On geometric bases for A-polynomials II: $\mathfraksu_3$ and Kuberberg bracket},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AYHJ7JQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20260}
}
abstract

We continue the study of quantum A-polynomials -- equations for knot polynomials with respect to their coloring (representation-dependence) -- as the relations between different links, obtained by hanging additional ``simple'' components on the original knot. Depending on the choice of this ``decoration'', the knot polynomial is either multiplied by a number or decomposes into a sum over ``surrounding'' representations by a cabling procedure. What happens is that these two of decorations, when complicated enough, become dependent -- and this provides an equation. Remarkably it can be made independent of the representation. However, the equivalence of links is not a topological property -- it follows from the properties of $R$-matrices, and strongly depends on the choice the gauge group and particular links. The relatively well studied part of the story concerns $\mathfrak{su}_2$, where $R$-matrices can be chosen in an especially convenient Kauffman form, what makes the derivation of equations rather geometrical. To make these geometric methods somewhat simpler we suggest to use an arcade formalism/representation of the braid group to simplify decorating links universally. Here we attempt to extend this technique to the next case, $\mathfrak{su}_3$, where the Kauffman rule is substituted by a more involved Kuberberg rule, still remains more geometric than generic analysis of MOY-diagrams, needed for higher ranks. Already in this case we encounter a classification problem for possible ``decorations'' and emergence of two-lined Young diagrams in enumeration of representations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Inverting complements of knot tubular neighborhoods In this note we will not be interested in geometry of the knot complement, so we apply the inversion transform of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sinking operators inside the torus body produces links after inversion Using Reshetikhin-Turaev (RT) formalism for computing HOMFLY-PT polynomials one could push further the action of µ and λ on Ψ’s. Link µ passes through any knot diagram intersection, in other words µ commutes with the R-matrix in the RT formalism. Also in the RT formalism one is able to reconstruct the action of Uq(g) from the R-matrix elements, s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic depiction of a-link and b-link analogies on a 2d M (a Riemann surface) with 1d ∂M (a circle at the bottle neck on the left). An example of the b-link is homotopic to the boundary, and a-link is not. We would like to introduce notations for planarized links. Suppose there are some planarized link diagrams Li drawn with possible self-intersections on a plane with punctures as in (2.3)(c). We will denote a HO… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our conventions for auxiliary links for knot 31 diagram. First we consider the spin shift operator. The planarization procedure for its cups is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Braid group action (3.2) on arcades for the braid of 31. Next we would like to deduce a relation for generators ⟨L p ⟩ indicating that the link basis is actually 2d over coefficient field C[µ]. To do so consider link L ′ and planarize it to the upper level in two ways:…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Braid group action (3.2) on arcades for the braid of 51. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Our conventions for auxiliary links for knot 31 diagram. collection of loops around two strands L ′ as a generator instead of L, yet they are related, and L would be for us more convenient. First of all we consider the spin shift operator λ. To decompose the respective…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Braid group action (3.2) on arcades for the braid of 41. where we have introduced new link symbols: ⟨T1⟩ = = = −qµ2 ⟨1⟩ − q 2 ⟨L⟩, (5.10a) ⟨T2⟩ = = = q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Maps from knots to $2$-links, chord diagrams, and a way to enhance Vassiliev invariants

    math.GT 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Symbols of good Vassiliev invariants in 3-manifolds with Z2 cohomology satisfy the framed 4-term and 1-term relations on framed chord diagrams.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    On the characteristic and deformation varieties of a knot,

    S. Garoufalidis, “On the characteristic and deformation varieties of a knot,”Geom. Topol. Monogr7 (2004) 291–304, arXiv:math/0306230 [math.GT]

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    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

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Large N Duality, Mirror Symmetry, and a Q-deformed A-polynomial for Knots,

    M. Aganagic and C. Vafa, “Large N Duality, Mirror Symmetry, and a Q-deformed A-polynomial for Knots,” arXiv:1204.4709 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    The colored HOMFLYPT function is $q$-holonomic

    S. Garoufalidis, A. D. Lauda, and T. T. Q. Lˆ e, “The colored HOMFLYPT function isq-holonomic,” Duke Math. J. 167 no. 3, (2018) 397–447,arXiv:1604.08502 [math.GT]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Plane curves associated to character varieties of 3-manifolds,

    D. Cooper, M. Culler, H. Gillet, D. D. Long, and P. B. Shalen, “Plane curves associated to character varieties of 3-manifolds,” Inventiones mathematicae118 no. 1, (1994) 47–84

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    On ideal points of deformation curves of hyperbolic 3-manifolds with one cusp,

    T. Yoshida, “On ideal points of deformation curves of hyperbolic 3-manifolds with one cusp,”Topology30 no. 2, (1991) 155–170

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Volumes of hyperbolic three-manifolds,

    W. D. Neumann and D. Zagier, “Volumes of hyperbolic three-manifolds,”Topology24 no. 3, (1985) 307–332

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    A diagrammatic approach to the AJ Conjecture

    R. Detcherry and S. Garoufalidis, “A diagrammatic approach to the AJ Conjecture,”arXiv:1903.01732 [math.GT]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    The Hyperbolic volume of knots from quantum dilogarithm,

    R. M. Kashaev, “The Hyperbolic volume of knots from quantum dilogarithm,”Lett. Math. Phys.39 (1997) 269–275

    1997

  2. [10]

    The colored jones polynomials and the simplicial volume of a knot,

    H. Murakami and J. Murakami, “The colored jones polynomials and the simplicial volume of a knot,”Acta Mathematica186 no. 1, (2001) 85–104,arXiv:math/9905075 [math.GT] . 22

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    SL(2,C) Chern-Simons theory and the asymptotic behavior of the colored Jones polynomial,

    S. Gukov and H. Murakami, “SL(2,C) Chern-Simons theory and the asymptotic behavior of the colored Jones polynomial,” Lett. Math. Phys.86 (2008) 79–98, arXiv:math/0608324

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Petkovsek, H

    M. Petkovsek, H. S. Wilf, and D. Zeilberger,A = B. A K Peters/CRC Press, 1996

    1996

  5. [13]

    Link polynomial calculus and the AENV conjecture,

    S. Arthamonov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov, “Link polynomial calculus and the AENV conjecture,” JHEP 04 (2014) 156, arXiv:1309.7984 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The C–polynomial of a knot,

    S. Garoufalidis and X. Sun, “The C–polynomial of a knot,”Algebraic & Geometric Topology6 no. 4, (2006) 1623–1653, arXiv:math/0504305 [math.GT]

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Algebra of quantumC-polynomials,

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “Algebra of quantumC-polynomials,” JHEP 02 (2021) 142, arXiv:2009.11641 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C. C. Adams,The knot book: an elementary introduction to the mathematical theory of knots. American Mathematical Soc., 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Cabling procedure for the colored HOMFLY polynomials,

    A. Anokhina and A. Morozov, “Cabling procedure for the colored HOMFLY polynomials,”Teor. Mat. Fiz.178 (2014) 3–68, arXiv:1307.2216 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    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 mathematicae103 no. 1, (1991) 547–597

    1991

  13. [21]

    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,”JHEP 03 (2012) 034, arXiv:1112.2654 [math.QA]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. H. Kauffman,Knots and physics, vol. 1. World scientific, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    HOMFLY polynomial via an invariant of colored plane graphs,

    H. Murakami, T. Ohtsuki, and S. Yamada, “HOMFLY polynomial via an invariant of colored plane graphs,” Enseignement Math´ ematique44 (1998) 325–360

    1998

  16. [24]

    Spiders for rank 2 lie algebras,

    G. Kuperberg, “Spiders for rank 2 lie algebras,”Communications in mathematical physics180 no. 1, (1996) 109–151

    1996

  17. [25]

    A new polynomial invariant of knots and links,

    P. Freyd, D. Yetter, J. Hoste, W. Lickorish, K. Millett, and A. Ocneanu, “A new polynomial invariant of knots and links,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society12 no. 2, (Apr., 1985) 239–246

    1985

  18. [26]

    Invariants of links of conway type,

    J. H. Przytycki and P. Traczyk, “Invariants of links of conway type,”Kobe J. Math.4 (1988) 115–139, arXiv:1610.06679 [math.GT]

    1988 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Morozov,Character expansion for HOMFLY polynomials. I. Integrability and difference equations, pp. 101–118. 12, 2011.arXiv:1112.5754 [hep-th] . 23

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    W. P. Thurston,The geometry and topology of three-manifolds: With a preface by Steven P. Kerckhoff, vol. 27. American Mathematical Society, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Octahedral developing of knot complement i: Pseudo-hyperbolic structure,

    H. Kim, S. Kim, and S. Yoon, “Octahedral developing of knot complement i: Pseudo-hyperbolic structure,” Geometriae Dedicata197 (2018) 123–172, arXiv:1612.02928 [math.GT]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Classical and Quantum Conformal Field Theory,

    G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, “Classical and Quantum Conformal Field Theory,”Commun. Math. Phys.123 (1989) 177

    1989

  23. [31]

    Quantization of chern-simons gauge theory with complex gauge group,

    E. Witten, “Quantization of chern-simons gauge theory with complex gauge group,”Communications in Mathematical Physics137 no. 1, (1991) 29–66

    1991

  24. [32]

    Wall Crossing Invariants: from quantum mechanics to knots,

    D. Galakhov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “Wall Crossing Invariants: from quantum mechanics to knots,”J. Exp. Theor. Phys.120 no. 3, (2015) 549–577,arXiv:1410.8482 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    SU(2)/SL(2) knot invariants and Kontsevich–Soibelman monodromies,

    D. Galakhov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “SU(2)/SL(2) knot invariants and Kontsevich–Soibelman monodromies,” Theor. Math. Phys.187 no. 2, (2016) 678–694,arXiv:1510.05366 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Exact Results for Perturbative Chern-Simons Theory with Complex Gauge Group,

    T. Dimofte, S. Gukov, J. Lenells, and D. Zagier, “Exact Results for Perturbative Chern-Simons Theory with Complex Gauge Group,”Commun. Num. Theor. Phys.3 (2009) 363–443, arXiv:0903.2472 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Perturbative and nonperturbative aspects of complex Chern–Simons theory,

    T. Dimofte, “Perturbative and nonperturbative aspects of complex Chern–Simons theory,”J. Phys. A50 no. 44, (2017) 443009,arXiv:1608.02961 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    3d spectral networks and classical Chern–Simons theory,

    D. S. Freed and A. Neitzke, “3d spectral networks and classical Chern–Simons theory,”Surveys Diff. Geom.26 no. 1, (2021) 51–155,arXiv:2208.07420 [math.DG]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Legendrian Submanifolds inR2n+1 and Contact Homology,

    T. Ekholm, J. Etnyre, and M. G. Sullivan, “Legendrian Submanifolds inR2n+1 and Contact Homology,” arXiv:math/0210124 [math.SG]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Knot contact homology,

    T. Ekholm, J. B. Etnyre, L. Ng, and M. G. Sullivan, “Knot contact homology,”Geometry & Topology17 no. 2, (2013) 975–1112, arXiv:1109.1542 [math.SG]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Topological Strings, D-Model, and Knot Contact Homology,

    M. Aganagic, T. Ekholm, L. Ng, and C. Vafa, “Topological Strings, D-Model, and Knot Contact Homology,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.18 no. 4, (2014) 827–956,arXiv:1304.5778 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ng,A Topological Introduction to Knot Contact Homology, pp

    L. Ng,A Topological Introduction to Knot Contact Homology, pp. 485–530. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014. arXiv:1210.4803 [math.GT]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Labels instead of coefficients: A label bracket which dominates the jones polynomial, the kuperberg bracket, and the normalized arrow polynomial,

    A. A. Akimova and V. O. Manturov, “Labels instead of coefficients: A label bracket which dominates the jones polynomial, the kuperberg bracket, and the normalized arrow polynomial,”Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications29 no. 02, (2020) 2040001,arXiv:1907.06502 [math.GT]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Maps to virtual braids and braid representations,

    V. O. Manturov and I. M. Nikonov, “Maps to virtual braids and braid representations,”Russian Mathematical Surveys 78 no. 2, (Jan., 2023) 393–395,arXiv:2210.06862 [math.GT]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    3d N=2 Theories from Cluster Algebras,

    Y. Terashima and M. Yamazaki, “3d N=2 Theories from Cluster Algebras,”PTEP 2014 (2014) 023B01, arXiv:1301.5902 [hep-th] . 24

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gauge Theory Loop Operators and Liouville Theory,

    N. Drukker, J. Gomis, T. Okuda, and J. Teschner, “Gauge Theory Loop Operators and Liouville Theory,” JHEP 02 (2010) 057, arXiv:0909.1105 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A & B model approaches to surface operators and Toda theories,

    C. Kozcaz, S. Pasquetti, and N. Wyllard, “A & B model approaches to surface operators and Toda theories,” JHEP 08 (2010) 042, arXiv:1004.2025 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S-Duality and Modular Transformation as a non-perturbative deformation of the ordinary pq-duality,

    D. Galakhov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “S-Duality and Modular Transformation as a non-perturbative deformation of the ordinary pq-duality,”JHEP 06 (2014) 050, arXiv:1311.7069 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Deformed Prepotential, Quantum Integrable System and Liouville Field Theory,

    K. Maruyoshi and M. Taki, “Deformed Prepotential, Quantum Integrable System and Liouville Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B841 (2010) 388–425, arXiv:1006.4505 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    On AGT Relations with Surface Operator Insertion and Stationary Limit of Beta-Ensembles,

    A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “On AGT Relations with Surface Operator Insertion and Stationary Limit of Beta-Ensembles,”J. Geom. Phys.61 (2011) 1203–1222, arXiv:1011.4491 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Spectral networks,

    D. Gaiotto, G. W. Moore, and A. Neitzke, “Spectral networks,”Annales Henri Poincare14 (2013) 1643–1731, arXiv:1204.4824 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Spectral Networks with Spin,

    D. Galakhov, P. Longhi, and G. W. Moore, “Spectral Networks with Spin,”Commun. Math. Phys.340 no. 1, (2015) 171–232, arXiv:1408.0207 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ADE Spectral Networks,

    P. Longhi and C. Y. Park, “ADE Spectral Networks,”JHEP 08 (2016) 087, arXiv:1601.02633 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    The quantum UV-IR map for line defects ingl(3)-type class S theories,

    A. Neitzke and F. Yan, “The quantum UV-IR map for line defects ingl(3)-type class S theories,”JHEP 09 (2022) 081, arXiv:2112.03775 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nilpotent slices, Hilbert schemes, and the Jones polynomial,

    C. Manolescu, “Nilpotent slices, Hilbert schemes, and the Jones polynomial,”arXiv:math/0411015 [math.SG]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Homological Link Invariants from Floer Theory,

    M. Aganagic, E. LePage, and M. Rapcak, “Homological Link Invariants from Floer Theory,”arXiv:2305.13480 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    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,”JHEP 07 (2015) 109, arXiv:1504.00371 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    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. C84 no. 9, (2024) 990,arXiv:2407.08724 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    P. I. Etingof, I. Frenkel, and A. A. Kirillov,Lectures on representation theory and Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations. No. 58. American Mathematical Soc., 1998

    1998

  52. [60]

    Universal r-matrix for quantized (super) algebras,

    S. M. Khoroshkin and V. N. Tolstoy, “Universal r-matrix for quantized (super) algebras,”Communications in Mathematical Physics141 (1991) 599–617

    1991

  53. [61]

    On R-matrix approaches to knot invariants,

    A. Anokhina, “On R-matrix approaches to knot invariants,”arXiv:1412.8444 [hep-th] . 25

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Skein theory for su (n)–quantum invariants,

    A. S. Sikora, “Skein theory for su (n)–quantum invariants,”Algebraic & Geometric Topology5 no. 3, (2005) 865–897, arXiv:math/0407299 [math.QA]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A Graphical Construction of the sl(3) Invariant for Virtual Knots,

    L. H. Kauffman and V. O. Manturov, “A Graphical Construction of the sl(3) Invariant for Virtual Knots,” arXiv:1207.0719 [math.GT]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Khovanov homology is a skew Howe 2-representation of categorified quantum sl(m),

    A. D. Lauda, H. Queffelec, and D. E. V. Rose, “Khovanov homology is a skew Howe 2-representation of categorified quantum sl(m),”arXiv:1212.6076 [math.QA]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Junctions of surface operators and categorification of quantum groups,

    S. Chun, S. Gukov, and D. Roggenkamp, “Junctions of surface operators and categorification of quantum groups,” arXiv:1507.06318 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Skein recursion for holomorphic curves and invariants of the unknot,

    T. Ekholm and V. Shende, “Skein recursion for holomorphic curves and invariants of the unknot,” arXiv:2012.15366 [math.SG]

    2012 arXiv

  59. [67]

    The worldsheet skein D-module and basic curves on Lagrangian fillings of the Hopf link conormal,

    T. Ekholm, P. Longhi, and L. Nakamura, “The worldsheet skein D-module and basic curves on Lagrangian fillings of the Hopf link conormal,”arXiv:2407.09836 [math.SG]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    From equations in coordinate space to Picard–Fuchs and back,

    V. Mishnyakov, A. Morozov, M. Reva, and P. Suprun, “From equations in coordinate space to Picard–Fuchs and back,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40 no. 07, (2025) 2550017,arXiv:2404.03069 [hep-th] . 26

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.