Generalizations of Frobenius-Schur indicators from Kuperberg invariants

Liang Chang; Siu-Hung Ng; Yilong Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Generalizations of Frobenius-Schur indicators from Kuperberg invariants

T0 review · 2 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 Framed lens spaces yield Hopf-algebra invariants that depend only on the representation category.

desk verdict Solid trace-computation core, but the even-n spin-class step in Theorem 4.16 is a genuine gap that needs a fix before the arbitrary-framing claim is fully proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07409 v1 pith:BOMMPEW2 submitted 2025-06-09 math.QA math.GTmath.RA

Liang Chang , Siu-Hung Ng , Yilong Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.QAmath.GTmath.RA MSC 16T0557K3157R15

keywords KuperberginvariantsFrobenius-SchurindicatorsHopfalgebrasgaugeinvarianceframed3-manifoldslensspacesDrinfeldtwistsHeegaarddiagrams

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 proves that the Kuperberg invariant of a framed lens space, evaluated on any finite-dimensional Hopf algebra, is unchanged by Drinfeld twists: it depends only on the tensor category of representations of the Hopf algebra, not on the particular algebra presenting it. Since the classical higher Frobenius-Schur indicators of a Hopf algebra are exactly these invariants for the lens spaces $L(n,1)$ with a standard framing, the result extends the indicator calculus to all lens spaces and to an infinite family of genus-2 Seifert manifolds. A reader should care because the paper supplies a topological origin and categorical invariance for a whole family of algebraic invariants that were previously defined only algebraically.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Kuperberg invariant $K(M,f,H)$, a scalar obtained from a framed Heegaard diagram with an admissible combing and twist fronts by evaluating a tensor product of integrals against a word in antipode and Sweedler-power operators. The gauge-invariance argument converts the invariant into the trace of a linear operator $P_H$ on $H$ (or on $H^{\otimes g}$), and proves $\operatorname{Tr}(P_H)=\operatorname{Tr}(P_{H_F})$ using the sequence $F_n$ of $2$-cocycle twists, Radford's trace formula, and the fact that tensor equivalence of representation categories is exactly Drinfeld twist by a $2$-cocycle.

What would settle it

Draw the curve $C$ from the proof of Theorem 4.16 in the standard genus-1 Heegaard diagram of $L(n,k)$ with even $n$, and compute its class in $H_1(L(n,k);\mathbb{Z})\cong \mathbb{Z}/n$ by counting signed intersections with the core of one solid torus; a zero answer for any even $n$ would show the spin classes of $f_L$ and $f_R$ are not separated as claimed, while a nonzero answer would confirm the load-bearing step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For coprime integers $n>k>0$ and any framing $f$ of the lens space $L(n,k)$, the scalar $K(L(n,k),f,H)$ built from a normalized integral, the antipode, and the distinguished grouplike elements of $H$ is a gauge invariant: replacing $H$ by any Hopf algebra whose representation category is tensor equivalent leaves the scalar unchanged. The same statement holds for the framed genus-2 manifolds $(M_{m,n}, f_{m,n})$, a family that includes lens spaces $L(k,1)$ and the quaternionic manifold $S^3/Q_8$ as special cases. The proof rewrites each invariant as the trace of an explicit linear operator on $H$ or $H^{\otimes g}$, then shows via the cocycle sequence $F_n$ that the trace does not change under the Drinfeld twist $H_F$.

Load-bearing premise

For even $n$, the proof needs the loop obtained from a subarc of the upper curve to be nonzero in the homology of the lens space; if that loop were null-homologous, the two special framings could share a spin class and the arbitrary-framing argument would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The higher Frobenius-Schur indicators $\nu_n(H)$ are manifestly invariants of the tensor category $\operatorname{Rep}(H)$, extending the known semisimple result to nonsemisimple Hopf algebras over arbitrary fields.
For lens spaces, changing the Hopf degree of a framing only multiplies the invariant by a gauge-invariant power of $\alpha(g)$, so the whole homotopy class of framings is covered once the spin-class cases are handled.
The newly defined invariants $\nu_{n,k}(H)$ and $\widetilde{\nu}_{n,k}(H)$ give families of topological indicators indexed by coprime pairs, with $\nu_{n,1}$ recovering the $n$-th Frobenius-Schur indicator.
For the Drinfeld double $D(H)$, the lens-space invariant satisfies $K(L,f,D(H))=K(L,f,H)K(L,f,H^{\mathrm{op}})$ and becomes independent of the framing $f$ of $L$.
The genus-2 family $(M_{m,n}, f_{m,n})$ provides topological indicators for nonsemisimple Hopf algebras, with $M_{1,1}\cong S^3/Q_8$ reducing to the quaternionic example studied in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

The cocycle-sequence technique used for genus 1 and 2 is not visibly genus-specific, so the natural test is whether the same trace comparison proves gauge invariance for framed Heegaard diagrams of arbitrary genus, answering Kuperberg's question in full generality.
The spin-class argument for even $n$ relies on a homology nonvanishing claim that could be replaced by a direct intersection-number computation in $H_1(L(n,k);\mathbb{Z})$, which would either harden or refute the arbitrary-framing step.
The paper leaves open whether $\nu_{n,k}(H)$ agrees with the algebraically shuffled power $\widetilde{\nu}_{n,k}(H)$; computing both on Taft algebras for small coprime pairs would show whether the topological and algebraic generalizations of Frobenius-Schur indicators coincide.
Because the invariants distinguish $L(7,1)$ from $L(7,2)$ and distinguish spin classes of $L(4,1)$, they offer concrete numerical targets for interpreting Kuperberg invariants through representation-theoretic data of nonsemisimple Hopf algebras.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version. The paper is a serious, technically heavy contribution. It proves that the Kuperberg invariant for two special diagram framings of lens spaces, f_L and f_R, is a gauge invariant of any finite-dimensional Hopf algebra, and extends this to a family of genus-2 framed manifolds. It also introduces new invariants ν_{n,k} and ν~_{n,k}. The proof strategy—converting the invariant into a trace of an operator P_H, then comparing traces under Drinfeld twists using the F_n cocycle sequence—is coherent, and the technical lemmas in Section 5 are done in detail. I could not verify every long computation in Sections 4 and 7, but the structure is convincing, and Example 4.18 gives concrete non-vacuous checks.

The real soft spot is the spin-class argument for even n in the proof of Theorem 4.16. To pass from f_L/f_R to an arbitrary framing, they need to know these two diagram framings represent different spin classes. They construct a curve C in the Heegaard diagram that is contained in μ∪η, where μ and η are the upper and lower curves. In a lens space, both μ and η bound disks in the two handlebodies, so both are null-homologous. Any closed curve in μ∪η therefore represents zero in H_1(L). The paper instead argues that after shrinking the C2 arc, the loop γ, being "only a part of μ," cannot bound a disk. That inference is wrong: a subarc of a null-homologous simple closed curve closed up in this way is also null-homologous. So the proof of different spin classes for even n is not written correctly. The conclusion may still be true—the L(4,1) Taft algebra computation is consistent with it—but the argument as it stands is a real gap, and it is load-bearing for the arbitrary-framing theorem in the even-n case.

This does not undermine the odd-n case, where H^1(L,Z/2)=0, nor the genus-2 result, which is independent. If the spin-class step is repaired by a direct Poincare dual computation or a different combing argument, the paper would be a strong contribution. As written, Theorem 4.16 is conditional. I would send it to a serious referee, because the core technology is good and the gap is likely fixable. Worth engaging with, especially for people working on Hopf algebra indicators and 3-manifold invariants.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs Kuperberg invariants for framed 3-manifolds from finite-dimensional Hopf algebras and proves that, for all lens spaces L(n,k) and for a family of genus-2 manifolds M_{m,n}, these invariants are unchanged under Drinfeld twists, hence are invariants of the tensor category Rep(H). The main results are Theorem 4.16 (gauge invariance for every framing of every lens space) and Theorem 7.3 (gauge invariance for the framed genus-2 manifolds). The authors derive explicit formulas in terms of integrals, the antipode, and generalized Sweedler powers, introduce new quantities ν_{n,k}(H) and ν~_{n,k}(H), and give numerical examples for Taft algebras, including an example distinguishing L(7,1) from L(7,2) and an example distinguishing the two spin classes of framings of L(4,1).

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper establishes a substantial generalization of Frobenius–Schur indicators: gauge-invariant invariants of arbitrary finite-dimensional Hopf algebras (not necessarily semisimple) arising from 3-manifold topology. The algebraic core of the paper is solid: the trace identities in Section 5 are proved in detail, and the reduction of gauge invariance to Tr(P_H)=Tr(P_{H_F}) is direct and does not presuppose the desired result. The explicit computations in Example 4.18 provide concrete, checkable evidence and give the paper a useful falsifiable character. The main weakness is a terse topological step in the proof of Theorem 4.16 for even n, where the distinctness of the spin classes of the framings f_L and f_R is not rigorously established; the numerical check for L(4,1) does not replace a general argument. Thus the central claim is plausible and likely fixable, but the arbitrary-framing theorem for even-order lens spaces is not fully justified as written.

major comments (2)

[§4.3, proof of Theorem 4.16 (even n case)] The proof that f_L and f_R have different spin classes for even n is incomplete. The passage after Figure 24 states: 'Since μ bounds a disk in L, so γ cannot bound a disk in L because it is only a part of μ. Therefore, [C] = [γ] ≠ 0 ∈ H_1(L,Z).' This inference is not valid: the fact that the full curve μ is null-homologous gives no control over the homology class of a loop formed from a proper subarc of μ after endpoints are identified. A loop contained in the graph μ∪η can be null-homologous even if neither μ nor η contributes a nonzero class, and conversely a subarc of μ can produce a nonzero class only for reasons that are not supplied. Since for even n this is the only step distinguishing the two spin classes of framings, Theorem 4.16 is not fully proved as written. Example 4.18(ii) verifies only L(4,1) and does not close the gap.
[§4.3, construction of the curve C] The topological construction of the Poincaré dual curve C is described too loosely. The text says that C_2, an arc in η, is 'shrunk to a point that identifies ξ_2 and ξ_2′' and that this is an isotopy, but an embedded arc with distinct endpoints cannot be shrunk to a point by an ambient isotopy of a 3-manifold; at best the described operation is a homotopy, and its effect on the homology class of the resulting loop is not justified. The paper should either replace this by a direct computation of [C] in H_1(L(n,k)) (for example, via the intersection form on the Heegaard torus or via the known classification of spin structures on lens spaces) or give a fully precise chain-level argument. This is load-bearing for the even-n case of the main theorem.

minor comments (4)

[§4.3] The use of [23, Lem. 2.14] should be explained in more detail: the manuscript should state explicitly how the relative characteristic class c−c′ is represented by the closed curve C on which b_1 = −b_1′, and how the orientation and basepoint choices in Figures 23 and 24 determine a well-defined homology class.
[§7, proof of Theorem 7.3] The proof of gauge invariance in Theorem 7.3 is a very long sequence of tensor manipulations with no intermediate named identities or checkpoints. I did not identify a specific error, but the exposition would be much more auditable if the cancellations were organized into lemmas or summarized in an appendix.
[Throughout] There are numerous typos and small grammatical errors, including 'the the horizontal green line' in Section 4 and 'tothe' in the caption of Figure 11. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[§6, Theorem 6.2] The proof of gauge invariance of ν~_{n,k}(H) is concise but hard to follow at the step where Lemma 5.2(iii) is 'applied repeatedly'; please indicate explicitly which indices are being reduced at each application.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: gauge invariance is derived from a direct trace identity, not from the result being proved.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are established by direct computation rather than by assuming what they prove. For the diagram framings f_R and f_L, the Kuperberg invariant is first expressed as Tr(S ∘ P^{(n,-k)}) (Theorem 4.9), and Theorem 4.10 then shows Tr(S ∘ P) = Tr(S_F ∘ P_F) for every 2-cocycle F, using Radford's trace formula and explicit cocycle identities that are proved in Section 5. The f_L case is reduced to f_R via the opposite Hopf algebra in Proposition 4.12, and the genus-2 result in Theorem 7.3 follows the same pattern. Since the paper's definition of gauge invariant (Definition 2.6) is exactly invariance under Drinfeld twists, this proves the claim from the stated input, not from the target result. Citations to prior work by one of the authors, such as [14] and [44], are used as external benchmarks or for standard elementary facts about 2-cocycles and indicators, and they are not load-bearing substitutes for the paper's own trace computations. The only questionable passage is the even-n spin-class argument at the end of Theorem 4.16, where the inference that a subarc of the null-homologous curve µ gives a nonzero loop γ is not justified; however, this is a correctness gap in a specific topological lemma, not a circular reduction, because the spin-class conclusion is not assumed in the premises and the independent numerical evidence in Example 4.18(ii) is presented as consistency rather than as an input to the proof. Overall, no construction in the paper reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

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

No free parameters or invented entities; the paper is a pure mathematics derivation. The axioms are standard results in Hopf algebra theory and topology, cited from the literature. The central claim is not assumed in any of these axioms.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Two finite-dimensional Hopf algebras H and H' have equivalent tensor categories of representations if and only if H' is a Drinfeld twist of H by a 2-cocycle.
Used in Section 2.2 and throughout to reduce gauge invariance to invariance under Drinfeld twists; cited from Ng-Schauenburg, Schauenburg, and Etingof-Gelaki.
standard math Radford's trace formula and the integral identities in Theorem 2.3 (i)-(vi) hold for arbitrary finite-dimensional Hopf algebras.
Quoted from Radford and used in Theorems 4.9, 4.10, and 7.3 to express Kuperberg invariants as traces.
domain assumption Kuperberg's construction gives a well-defined invariant of framed 3-manifolds that is independent of the framed Heegaard diagram, including invariance under base point isotopy and stabilization moves.
Foundational result from Kuperberg (1996) used to define K(M,f,H) and to justify the diagram moves in Sections 4 and 7.
standard math Obstruction theory classifies framings up to homotopy by H^1(M,Z/2) x H^3(M,Z) relative to a fixed framing, with the H^3 component called the Hopf degree.
Used in Section 4.3 to reduce arbitrary framings of lens spaces to fL and fR together with factors of alpha(g).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalizations of Frobenius-Schur indicators from Kuperberg invariants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOMMPEW2

@misc{pith2026250607409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalizations of Frobenius-Schur indicators from Kuperberg invariants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOMMPEW2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07409}
}

abstract

We introduce an approach to produce gauge invariants of any finite-dimensional Hopf algebras from the Kuperberg invariants of framed 3-manifolds. These invariants are generalizations of Frobenius-Schur indicators of Hopf algebras. The computation of Kuperberg invariants is based on a presentation of the framed 3-manifold in terms of Heegaard diagram with combings satisfying certain admissibility conditions. We provide framed Heegaard diagrams for two infinite families of small genus 3-manifolds, which include all the lens spaces, and some homology spheres. In particular, the invariants of the lens spaces $L(n,1)$ coincide with the higher Frobenius-Schur indicators of Hopf algebras. We compute the Kuperberg invariants of all these framed 3-manifolds, and prove that they are invariants of the tensor category of representations of the underlying Hopf algebra, or simply gauge invariants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07409 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The stabilization move. We will use the following planar presentation of Heegaard diagrams (see, for example, [42, Lec. 1]). Note that it suffices to indicate where the upper and lower curves are located on the surface Σg. We will draw Σg minus a point as a plane with 2g open disks removed, whose boundaries are depicted by black circles in our presentation. It is understood, although not shown in the picture, that … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A Heegaard diagram of L(2, 1). Equip M with a Riemannian metric. A combing on M is a unit-length tangent vector field up to homotopy, and a framing f on M consists of three orthonormal combings. Combings and framings can be drawn on Heegaard diagrams of M. Given a Heegaard diagram (Σg, µ, η), a combing of Σg is a vector field on Σg with 2g singularities of index −1, one on each curve, and one singularity of index +2… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The gray dashed lines with arrows represent the combing b1, and the gray bullet on each curve stands for the base point. Left: b1 points outwards from the base point along an upper or a lower curve. Right: α is a lower curve, β is an upper curve. The black arc with small triangles represents the twist front. of the arc homotopic to an integral curve of b1. When viewing from the upper handlebody, the triangles point … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (21 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: In this Heegaard diagram, the two black circles represent the attaching circles for the p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A framed Heegaard diagram of S 2 × S 1 . see also [22]. In particular, by [22, 21], H is semisimple and cosemisimple if and only if K(S 2 × S 1 ,f1, H) 6= 0. Note also that by Shimizu (see also [14, Thm. 2.2]), K(S 2 × S 1 ,f1, H) is a gauge invariant. In general, we c…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: A framed Heegaard diagram of M = S 3/Q8. black circles represent the attaching circles for handles, and the lower and upper curves are colored according to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: A Heegaard diagram of L(n, k). The rest of this section is organized as follows. In Section 4.1, we introduce two diagram framings of L(n, k) depending on the parity of k and n − k by explicitly presenting 2-combed Heegaard diagrams. Then, in Section 4.2, we verify the…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: A framed Heegaard diagram of L(n, k) when k is odd. The diagram framing is denoted by fL. There are k1 = k−1 2 I-points to the left of ξ2. In [20, Sec. 2.2], the base point isotopy move among diagram framings of 3-manifolds was introduced. Roughly speaking, if two dia…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The base point isotopy move. Now we perform the base point isotopy move to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: When k is odd, we move the base point of ξ1 to the right k1-times to get this framed Heegaard diagram of fL, where k1 = k−1 2 . In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: A framed Heegaard diagram on L(n, k) when (n − k) is odd. The diagram framing is denoted by fR. There are k0 = n−k−1 2 I-points tot he right of ξ2. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Pulling the right k0 strands of the upper curve through the attaching circles. without the 2-combing is depicted in the left hand side of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: When (n − k) is odd, we perform base point isotopy on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: θµ(pk) = − 1 4 . For n − k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, we have i + k = i + k − n, and we can calculate the change of θµ using the local configuration shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: For n − k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, θµ(pi+k ) = θµ(pi). Summarizing the above two cases, we have shown that if n − k + 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then si+k = si . In particular, if k = n − 1 or k0 = 0, then we have sn = sn−1 = 1, and si−1 = si for all 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, which means si = 1 for all…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: For 1 ≤ i ≤ k0, θµ(pi+k) = θµ(pi) − 1. For k0 + 1 ≤ i ≤ n − k − 1, i + k = i + k, and the local configuration of µ is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: For k0 + 1 ≤ i ≤ n − k − 1, θµ(pi+k) = θµ(pi) + 1. Now we compute θµ(pn−k) and sn−k. By the expression of σD, when we start from pn and travel along µ, the last I-point we encounter (before we go back to ξ2) is pn−k, as k is assumed to be coprime to n. Since {{1, . . …

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: The total rotation number θµ = 1 2 . Finally, we use the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: θµ(p1) = 0, θµ(pk+1) = 1 4 . For 2 ≤ i ≤ n − k, the local picture is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: For 1 ≤ i ≤ n − k, θµ(pi) = θµ(pi+k). there is no I-point between ξ1 and the left attaching circle, and by direct computation, we have θµ(pn) = 1 4 = θµ(pi) for all 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, and θη(pn) = 1 2 . Moreover, the total rotation number of the upper curve is θµ = 1 2 , …

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: For n − k + 2 ≤ i ≤ n − k1, θµ(pi+k ) = θµ(pi) − 1. ξ1 ξ2 pi pi+k [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_21.png]

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: For n − k1 + 1 ≤ i ≤ n, θµ(pi+k ) = θµ(pi) + 1. unchanged for the rest of the points in J (the reason we exclude p1 from J is because it does not follow this pattern). Therefore, the total change of θµ-value of the I-points when we go from p1+k to pn−k+1 is 0, which m…

**Figure 25.** Figure 25: Framed link presentations of Mm,n. presentation [29, Lem. 3.1] (7.1) Γ(p, q, r) := π1(X(p, q, r)) ∼= hx, y, z | x p = y q = z r = xyzi. If we denote the universal covering group of I+(P) by If+(P), then we have X(p, q, r) = Θ(p, q, r)\ I +(P) ∼= Γ(p, q, r)\fI +(P), an…

**Figure 26.** Figure 26: A 2-combed Heegaard diagram for Mm,n. η1 (green) η1 ∩ I p1 p2, ..., pm+3 Total θ 1 4 1 2 1 2 φ 0 0 1 2 η2 (violet) η2 ∩ I q1 q2, ..., qn+3 Total θ 1 4 1 2 1 2 φ 0 0 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_26.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

Aljadeﬀ, P

E. Aljadeﬀ, P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, and D. Nikshych. On twi sting of ﬁnite-dimensional Hopf algebras. J. Algebra, 256(2):484–501, 2002

work page 2002
[2]

Chang and Z

L. Chang and Z. Wang. |ZKup| = |ZHenn|2 for lens spaces. Quantum Topol., 4(4):411–445, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Chen and T

Q. Chen and T. Kerler. Integrality and gauge dependence o f Hennings TQFTs. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 221(11):2689–2751, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Doi and M

Y. Doi and M. Takeuchi. Multiplication alteration by two -cocycles—the quantum version. Comm. Algebra , 22(14):5715–5732, 1994

work page 1994
[5]

Etingof and S

P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. On ﬁnite-dimensional semisimp le and cosemisimple Hopf algebras in positive charac- teristic. Internat. Math. Res. Notices , (16):851–864, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

Etingof and S

P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. On families of triangular Hopf a lgebras. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2002(14):757–768, 2002

work page 2002
[7]

Etingof and V

P. Etingof and V. Ostrik. Finite tensor categories. Mosc. Math. J. , 4(3):627–654, 782–783, 2004

2004
[8]

Fenn and C

R. Fenn and C. Rourke. On Kirby’s calculus of links. Topology, 18(1):1–15, 1979

work page 1979

Show all 47 references

[9]

Frobenius and I

G. Frobenius and I. Schur. ¨Uber die reellen darstellungen der endlichen gruppen. Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , pages 186–208, 1906

1906
[10]

Fuchs, A

J. Fuchs, A. C. Ganchev, K. Szlach´ anyi, and P. Vecserny ´ es.S4 symmetry of 6 j symbols and Frobenius-Schur indicators in rigid monoidal C ∗ categories. J. Math. Phys. , 40(1):408–426, 1999

1999
[11]

Fuchs and C

J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert. Category theory for conform al boundary conditions. In Vertex operator algebras in mathematics and physics (Toronto, ON, 2000) , volume 39 of Fields Inst. Commun. , pages 25–70. Amer. Math. Soc., 2003

2000
[12]

P. M. Gilmer and J. M. Harris. On the kauﬀman bracket skei n module of the quaternionic manifold. J. Knot Theory Ramiﬁcations, 16(1):103–125, 2007

2007
[13]

Hennings

M. Hennings. Invariants of links and 3-manifolds obtai ned from Hopf algebras. J. London Math. Soc. (2) , 54(3):594–624, 1996

1996
[14]

Kashina, S

Y. Kashina, S. Montgomery, and S.-H. Ng. On the trace of t he antipode and higher indicators. Israel J. Math. , 188:57–89, 2012

2012
[15]

Kashina, Y

Y. Kashina, Y. Sommerh¨ auser, and Y. Zhu. On higher Frob enius-Schur indicators. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 181(855):viii+65, 2006

2006
[16]

C. Kassel. Quantum groups, volume 155 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

1995
[17]

L. H. Kauﬀman and D. E. Radford. Invariants of 3-manifol ds derived from ﬁnite-dimensional Hopf algebras. J. Knot Theory Ramiﬁcations , 4(1):131–162, 1995

1995
[18]

R. Kirby. A calculus for framed links in S3. Invent. Math. , 45(1):35–56, 1978

1978
[19]

Kuperberg

G. Kuperberg. Involutory Hopf algebras and 3-manifold invariants. Internat. J. Math. , 2(1):41–66, 1991

1991
[20]

Kuperberg

G. Kuperberg. Noninvolutory Hopf algebras and 3-manif old invariants. Duke Math. J. , 84(1):83–129, 1996

1996
[21]

R. G. Larson and D. E. Radford. Finite-dimensional cose misimple Hopf algebras in characteristic 0 are semisim- ple. J. Algebra, 117(2):267–289, 1988

1988
[22]

R. G. Larson and D. E. Radford. Semisimple cosemisimple Hopf algebras. Amer. J. Math. , 110(1):187–195, 1988

1988
[23]

C. Lescop. On homotopy invariants of combings of three- manifolds. Canad. J. Math. , 67(1):152–183, 2015. 57

2015
[24]

Linchenko and S

V. Linchenko and S. Montgomery. A Frobenius-Schur theo rem for Hopf algebras. Algebr. Represent. Theory , 3(4):347–355, 2000. Special issue dedicated to Klaus Rogge nkamp on the occasion of his 60th birthday

2000
[25]

Z. Liu, S. Ming, Y. Wang, and J. Wu. Alterfold toplogical quantum ﬁeld theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06477 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[26]

S. Majid. Foundations of quantum group theory . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

1995
[27]

Mason and S.-H

G. Mason and S.-H. Ng. Central invariants and Frobenius -Schur indicators for semisimple quasi-Hopf algebras. Adv. Math. , 190(1):161–195, 2005

2005
[28]

Matveev and M

S. Matveev and M. Polyak. A geometrical presentation of the surface mapping class group and surgery. Commun. Math. Phys. , 160(3):537–550, 1994

1994
[29]

J. Milnor. On the 3-dimensional Brieskorn manifolds M (p, q, r). In Knots, groups, and 3-manifolds (Papers dedicated to the memory of R. H. Fox) , Ann. of Math. Stud., No. 84, pages 175–225. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975

1975
[30]

Montgomery

S. Montgomery. Hopf algebras and their actions on rings , volume 82 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sci ences, Washington, DC, 1993

1993
[31]

Montgomery

S. Montgomery. Representation theory of semisimple Ho pf algebras. In Algebra—representation theory (Con- stanta, 2000) , volume 28 of NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem. , pages 189–218. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dor- drecht, 2001

2000
[32]

Ng and P

S.-H. Ng and P. Schauenburg. Frobenius-Schur indicato rs and exponents of spherical categories. Adv. Math. , 211(1):34–71, 2007

2007
[33]

Ng and P

S.-H. Ng and P. Schauenburg. Central invariants and hig her indicators for semisimple quasi-Hopf algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 360(4):1839–1860, 2008

2008
[34]

W. D. Nichols and M. B. Zoeller. A Hopf algebra freeness t heorem. Amer. J. Math. , 111(2):381–385, 1989

1989
[35]

P. Orlik. Seifert manifolds . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 291. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972

1972
[36]

D. E. Radford. The order of the antipode of a ﬁnite dimens ional Hopf algebra is ﬁnite. Amer. J. Math. , 98(2):333– 355, 1976

1976
[37]

D. E. Radford. The group of automorphisms of a semisimpl e Hopf algebra over a ﬁeld of characteristic 0 is ﬁnite. Amer. J. Math. , 112(2):331–357, 1990

1990
[38]

D. E. Radford. The trace function and Hopf algebras. J. Algebra, 163(3):583–622, 1994

1994
[39]

Raymond and A

F. Raymond and A. T. Vasquez. 3-manifolds whose univers al coverings are Lie groups. Topology Appl., 12(2):161– 179, 1981

1981
[40]

Reidemeister

K. Reidemeister. Zur dreidimensionalen Topologie. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg , 9(1):189–194, 1933

1933
[41]

D. Rolfsen. Knots and links. Publish or Perish, Inc., Berkeley, Calif., 1976

1976
[42]

Saveliev

N. Saveliev. Lectures on the topology of 3-manifolds . De Gruyter Textbook. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, revised edition, 2012. An introduction to the Casson invari ant

2012
[43]

Schauenburg

P. Schauenburg. Hopf bi-Galois extensions. Comm. Algebra, 24(12):3797–3825, 1996

1996
[44]

K. Shimizu. On indicators of Hopf algebras. Israel J. Math. , 207(1):155–201, 2015

2015
[45]

J. Singer. Three-dimensional manifolds and their Heeg aard diagrams. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 35(1):88–111, 1933

1933
[46]

M. E. Sweedler. Cohomology of algebras over Hopf algebr as. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 133:205–239, 1968

1968
[47]

E. J. Taft. The order of the antipode of ﬁnite-dimension al Hopf algebra. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 68:2631– 2633, 1971. 58 Nankai University, School of Mathematical Sciences and LPM C, Tianjin, China Email address : changliang996@nankai.edu.cn Louisiana State University,...

1971

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aljadeﬀ, P

E. Aljadeﬀ, P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, and D. Nikshych. On twi sting of ﬁnite-dimensional Hopf algebras. J. Algebra, 256(2):484–501, 2002

work page 2002

[2] [2]

Chang and Z

L. Chang and Z. Wang. |ZKup| = |ZHenn|2 for lens spaces. Quantum Topol., 4(4):411–445, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Chen and T

Q. Chen and T. Kerler. Integrality and gauge dependence o f Hennings TQFTs. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 221(11):2689–2751, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Doi and M

Y. Doi and M. Takeuchi. Multiplication alteration by two -cocycles—the quantum version. Comm. Algebra , 22(14):5715–5732, 1994

work page 1994

[5] [5]

Etingof and S

P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. On ﬁnite-dimensional semisimp le and cosemisimple Hopf algebras in positive charac- teristic. Internat. Math. Res. Notices , (16):851–864, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [6]

Etingof and S

P. Etingof and S. Gelaki. On families of triangular Hopf a lgebras. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2002(14):757–768, 2002

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Etingof and V

P. Etingof and V. Ostrik. Finite tensor categories. Mosc. Math. J. , 4(3):627–654, 782–783, 2004

2004

[8] [8]

Fenn and C

R. Fenn and C. Rourke. On Kirby’s calculus of links. Topology, 18(1):1–15, 1979

work page 1979