Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

On the asymptotic expansion of quantum invariants related to surgeries of Whitehead link I: Relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants and the Turaev-Viro invariants at $e^{\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{N+\frac{1}{2}}}$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For Whitehead-link surgeries, the relative Reshetikhin–Turaev and Turaev–Viro invariants have a complete leading asymptotic expansion whose exponential rate is the hyperbolic complex volume.

desk verdict Solid RT expansion for Whitehead-link surgeries; the TV theorem has a load-bearing existence proof that is only sketched. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10868 v1 pith:FBEWGOAX submitted 2024-12-14 math.GT math.QA

Qingtao Chen , Shengmao Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GTmath.QA MSC 57K3157K3257R5657K14
keywords relativeReshetikhin-TuraevinvariantTuraev-ViroWhiteheadlinkvolumeconjectureChern-SimonssaddlepointmethodquantumdilogarithmDehnsurgery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proves that two families of quantum invariants coming from rational surgeries on the Whitehead link have their large-level behavior controlled by the hyperbolic geometry of the surgered manifold. For the normalized relative Reshetikhin–Turaev invariant of the image knot in the lens space $L(p,q)$, Theorem 1.2 gives a complete leading asymptotic expansion for every surgery coefficient in an explicit set $S$: the exponential factor is $e^{(N+1/2)\zeta(p,q)}$, and Proposition 5.8 identifies $2\pi\zeta(p,q)$ with the complex volume $\mathrm{Vol}(W(p,q))+\sqrt{-1}\,\mathrm{CS}(W(p,q))$ modulo $\sqrt{-1}\pi^2\mathbb{Z}$. This confirms the volume conjecture for these relative invariants. For the Turaev–Viro invariant of the cusped manifold $W(p,q)$, Theorem 1.5 gives the leading asymptotic growth, with the leading exponential $e^{(N+1/2)\mathrm{Vol}(W(p,q))/\pi}$, under a technical large-coefficient condition. The proof is a computation of the state sum as a sum of Fourier integrals whose saddle points are the solutions of the hyperbolic Dehn-filling equations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the potential $V^\pm(p,q;\theta_1,\theta_2)$ of (5.3): a holomorphic function of two complex variables made from quadratic terms in $\theta_1,\theta_2$ and dilogarithms of $e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta_i}$ combinations. The paper proves that the critical point equations of $V^\pm$ are exactly the exponential form of the hyperbolic gluing plus Dehn-filling equations for $W(p,q)$, and that the critical value satisfies the complex-volume identity of Proposition 5.8. The asymptotic machinery is the Poisson summation formula turning the discrete state sum into a sum of Fourier integrals, followed by a two-dimensional saddle point method; positivity of the Hessian restricts the surviving modes to two Fourier coefficients. For Turaev–Viro, the same potential is promoted to a one-parameter family $V^\pm(p,q;x,\theta_1,\theta_2)$, and a Laplace-type sum over $x$ produces the volume growth.

What would settle it

Solve equations (7.33)–(7.34) numerically for $x=0.009$ and a pair such as $(p,q)=(1,1000)$; Theorem 1.5 collapses if the solution leaves the stated rectangle $D(x)$ or if a second solution appears. Independently, computing $J_N(W(p,q);t)$ from the finite sum in Proposition 3.4 for small $N$ and checking the $O(1/(N+1/2))$ convergence to the right-hand side of Theorem 1.2 would constitute a direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quantum invariants are asymptotically geometric, with explicit constants. For $(p,q)\in S$, the normalized relative Reshetikhin–Turaev invariant satisfies the expansion of Theorem 1.2, whose prefactor is assembled from $\omega(p,q)$, a rational function of the critical point $(z_1^0,z_2^0)=(e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta_1^0},e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta_2^0})$, and whose exponential rate is $\zeta(p,q)$; the paper proves $2\pi\zeta(p,q)\equiv \mathrm{Vol}(W(p,q))+\sqrt{-1}\,\mathrm{CS}(W(p,q)) \pmod{\sqrt{-1}\pi^2\mathbb{Z}}$, so Corollary 1.3 follows. The essential mechanism is that the critical point equations of the potential $V^\pm$ are equivalent to the hyperbolic gluing and Dehn-filling equations for $W(p,q)$, so the saddle point of the quantum sum is the hyperbolic structure itself. For the Turaev–Viro invariant, the same invariant with the color shifted by $a$ is analyzed as a function of $x=(a+1/2)/(N+1/2)$; summing over $a$ and applying the Laplace method yields the volume exponential of Theorem 1.5.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the potential function has exactly one nondegenerate critical point in the region where the saddle-point expansion is applied; the paper proves this for the Turaev–Viro part only by a sketched estimate for large $|p|$ or $|q|$, so Theorem 1.5 depends on that estimate being correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $(p,q)\in S$, the volume conjecture for relative Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants of the knot $L_2\subset L(p,q)$ holds, with a precise $O(1/(N+1/2))$ error term in the asymptotic expansion.
  • The Turaev–Viro volume conjecture holds for $W(p,q)$ whenever $p\ge 1000$ or $q\ge 1000$, in particular for the complements of twist knots $K_s$ with $|s|\ge 1000$.
  • The asymptotic constants are explicit: volume, Chern–Simons invariant, and the prefactor $\omega(p,q)$ are all computable from the unique solution of the algebraic Dehn-filling equation (5.24).
  • The same two-dimensional saddle point method reduces the entire infinite state sum to two surviving Fourier coefficients, so the same route is available for nearby surgery families.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $p\ge 1000$ or $q\ge 1000$ condition in Theorem 1.5 is a proof artifact: the same formula is recovered for $(p,q)=(1,1)$ in Example 7.12, so the result should extend to every hyperbolic $W(p,q)$ once uniqueness in Proposition 7.4 is checked case by case.
  • The saddle-point dictionary between critical points of the quantum potential and solutions of Dehn-filling equations suggests a general recipe: for any link whose complement has a one-dimensional deformation space controlled by a single holonomy equation, the relative RT and TV invariants should follow the complex volume.
  • A direct numerical check of the ratio $J_N(W(p,q);t)$ divided by the leading term in Theorem 1.2 for a few non-exceptional pairs would independently test the error-term analysis and the numerical constants entering the set $S$.
  • The set $S$ is defined through a volume threshold coming from a general Dehn-filling bound; a finer volume estimate could enlarge $S$ and make Theorem 1.2 unconditional for more surgeries.
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 derives an asymptotic expansion formula (Theorem 1.2) for the normalized relative Reshetikhin–Turaev invariant of the knot L2 in the lens space L(p,q), obtained by p/q-surgery on one component of the Whitehead link, evaluated at t=e^{2π√-1/(N+1/2)}. The leading term is expressed through a critical point of an explicit potential, and Proposition 5.8 identifies the critical value with the complex volume of W(p,q). The paper then studies the Turaev–Viro invariant of W(p,q) via the formula TV = μ^2 Σ |J_{N-a}|^2 and, using a second saddle-point/Laplace analysis, obtains Theorem 1.5 under the large-coefficient assumption p≥1000 or q≥1000. The technical route combines continued-fraction surgery formulas, Poisson summation, Fourier-coefficient estimates, a two-dimensional saddle-point method, and a Neumann–Zagier–Yoshida geometric identification.

Significance. If the arguments are completed, the paper would confirm the Wong–Yang relative volume conjecture for an infinite family of Dehn fillings of the Whitehead link and would give the first Turaev–Viro asymptotic expansion for non-figure-eight cusped manifolds obtained by rational surgery. The manuscript has genuine strengths: the potential V±(p,q;θ1,θ2) is written explicitly; the Hessian computations in Section 6.1 and Section 7.2 are concrete; the volume threshold 3.374482 and the constants c0=0.122532 and x0=0.01 function as proof thresholds rather than fitted parameters; and Example 7.12 recovers the known figure-eight knot asymptotic of Wong–Au. These merits are substantial. However, several estimates that are load-bearing for the main theorems are asserted with only a reference or a summary, and the proof of Theorem 1.5 depends on an existence/uniqueness statement whose verification is not supplied in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.3, Proposition 7.4 and Eqs. (7.33)–(7.36)] Proposition 7.4 is the sole support for the critical point (θ1(x),θ2(x)) used in Theorem 7.5 and hence in Theorem 1.5, but its proof is only a summary: the bounding rectangle (7.35)–(7.36) is stated without derivation, the inequalities needed for the Poincaré–Miranda theorem are not displayed, and uniqueness is deferred to a comparison with the proof in [7]. Moreover, θ1 and θ2 are complex variables, while the intervals in (7.35)–(7.36) appear to constrain only their real parts; the imaginary parts are not specified. If the solution is non-unique or exits D(x) for some admissible (p,q,x), then ζ(p,q;x) and h(x) in Theorem 7.5 are not well-defined, the Hessian positivity of Proposition 7.3 cannot be invoked at the actual critical point, and the Laplace expansion (7.82) has no basis. This is a load-bearing gap: the large-coefficient assumption p≥1000 or q≥1000 is introduced specifically to make this proposition true, but no independent derivation or numerical verification is included.
  2. [Section 6.3.2, Proposition 6.10] Proposition 6.10 asserts that all Fourier coefficients with (s,m1)≠(s±,m±1) are exponentially small compared with the main term. The proof is omitted: the text says only that it follows directly from the proof of Proposition 6.6 in [26]. This proposition is load-bearing for Theorem 1.2, because the final proof in Section 6.4 keeps only the two coefficients h_N(s+,m+,1) and h_N(s-,m-,1). The manuscript should either provide the full proof, with the deformed contours and the estimates on Re V(s,θ1,θ2;m1,1), or state the exact proposition from [26] and verify that its hypotheses hold in the present setting, including the different root of unity and the rational-surgery coefficients appearing here.
  3. [Section 6.4, Eq. (6.59)] In the final step of the proof of Theorem 1.2, the equality h_N(s+,m+,1)=h_N(s-,m-,1) is invoked with the comment 'as shown in [26]', but it is not proved in this paper. This equality is needed to combine the two main Fourier coefficients into the stated form of the asymptotic expansion and to identify the phase CN(p,q). Since CN(p,q) is claimed to be a constant of norm 1 independent of the geometric structure, the phase matters only for the subleading term, but the equality is still needed for the displayed expression (1.6). A proof or an exact reference with a statement in the current notation should be supplied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1, Eqs. (6.9)–(6.10)] In the definitions of c and d, the numerators contain sin(2πθ1R), but they should be sin(2πθ2R), since c and d are imaginary parts of functions of θ2 only.
  2. [Section 3.2, formula (3.52)] In case (4) of the definition of VN, the argument of the first φN term is written as 1−θ2−θ2−...; the second θ2 should presumably be θ1.
  3. [Section 7.5, text before Eq. (7.73)] The phrase 'By Proposition ,' is missing the proposition number; it should refer to Proposition 7.10 or an analogous statement.
  4. [Section 8.1, Corollary 8.2] The finite exceptional cases are excluded by an appeal to volume computations in Snappy, but the numerical values for the excluded pairs are not reported. Including a short table would make the definition of the set S verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the leading asymptotic is a saddle-point evaluation of an exact finite sum, and the complex volume is identified through independent Neumann–Zagier geometry, not by fitting the predicted constants.

full rationale

The main derivation is self-contained as an asymptotic calculation. Proposition 3.4 is an exact skein-theoretic summation formula for J_N(W(p,q);t); Section 4 rewrites it with Poisson summation; Section 6 applies a two-dimensional saddle-point method and Theorem 1.2 is the resulting one-term expansion. The constant ζ(p,q) is the critical value of the explicit potential V±, and Proposition 5.8 identifies 2πζ(p,q) with the complex volume by comparing the critical-point equations (5.8)–(5.9) with the Neumann–Reid gluing/Dehn-filling equations (5.24), then invoking the Neumann–Zagier potential. That comparison is external and geometric, not a refitting of the invariant: no term of the predicted asymptotics is chosen to match J_N after the fact. The Turaev–Viro result Theorem 1.5 is obtained by summing |J_{N-a}|^2 and applying Laplace's method with the maximum at x=0; the prefactor and exponential rate are evaluated at the same geometric critical point, so they are not fitted to TV_r. The only manuscript passage that invites caution is Proposition 7.4, where the existence/uniqueness of the x-dependent critical point is summarized by 'tedious estimation ... via Poincaré–Miranda Theorem' and uniqueness is deferred as 'similar to the proof in [7]'. This is a proof-completeness gap for Theorem 1.5, not a circularity: [7] supplies an analogous analytic method, not formula (1.12), and no input constant is renamed as the target volume. The self-citations to [6,7] therefore do not carry the mathematical content that makes the asymptotic equal to volume. Overall the argument is essentially non-circular; the score 2 reflects the minor self-citations and the condensed Proposition 7.4 proof rather than any reduction-by-construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are derived from a chain of prior theorems: the skein definition of relative RT invariants, Wong-Yang's continued-fraction lemmas, Habiro's colored Jones formula for the Whitehead link, quantum dilogarithm asymptotics, and the Neumann-Zagier complex volume formalism. The only numbers introduced in this paper are proof thresholds and a numerical volume bound; none are fitted to the invariants being predicted. No new physical or mathematical entities are proposed.

free parameters (3)
  • c0 = 0.122532 = 0.122532
    Hand-chosen threshold defining the dominant region D0/D'_0 in Lemma 4.1 and used in the volume comparison. It is a proof constant, not fitted to the asymptotic formula.
  • x0 = 0.01 = 0.01
    Hand-chosen cutoff in Section 7 restricting the color ratio x=(a+1/2)/(N+1/2) where the saddle point and Hessian estimates are proved for the Turaev-Viro expansion.
  • Volume threshold 3.374482 = 3.374482/(2*pi)
    Numerical value used to compare the non-dominant Fourier region with the volume lower bound in Proposition 4.3. It is verified for the remaining finite pairs by SnapPy without shipped data.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Kauffman bracket skein definition of relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants and the skein algebra B=C[z], including the Kirby color formula (2.3)-(2.5).
    The invariant is defined from this skein formalism, citing Blanchet-Habegger-Masbaum-Vogel and Lickorish; used throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption Wong-Yang continued-fraction lemmas: injectivity of I(s), existence and congruences for J(s), K(s), and the closed form for S(n_l) in Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3.
    Imported without proof from [26]; the whole expression of J_N as a sum over s,n',i' depends on these lemmas.
  • domain assumption Habiro's formula (3.19) for the pairing <e_{N-1}, e_{n_l}>_W for the Whitehead link.
    This is the entry point for the Whitehead-link-specific computation and is cited to [12].
  • standard math Quantum dilogarithm asymptotic lemmas 2.3-2.5, including uniform convergence to the dilogarithm and estimates of Re Li2.
    These are established results from Ohtsuki, Chen-Murakami, and Wong-Yang, used to replace quantum factorials by exponentials and to bound Fourier coefficients.
  • domain assumption Neumann-Zagier potential function and Yoshida's complex volume formula, equations (5.35)-(5.37).
    Needed in Proposition 5.8 to identify the critical value with Vol + i CS; imported from [19,28] in the form used by [26].
  • domain assumption Futer-Kalfagianni-Purcell Dehn filling volume bound and the cusp length data for the Whitehead link complement used in Theorem 8.1.
    Provides the volume lower bound that separates dominant from negligible Fourier modes; the cusp length data is taken from Neumann-Reid.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness of the geometric solution z0 with Im(z0)<0 to equation (5.24), attributed to Neumann-Reid [18], and transferred to the critical point equations in Corollary 5.7.
    Without this uniqueness the saddle point (theta1, theta2) is not controlled; this is a load-bearing geometric input.
  • domain assumption Turaev-Walker, Roberts, Benedetti-Petronio identity TV_r(M\L) = C mu_r^2 sum_m |RT_r(M,L,m)|^2, equation (2.7).
    Used to convert the Turaev-Viro invariant into a sum of relative RT invariants; cited to [24,23,3,10].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the asymptotic expansion of quantum invariants related to surgeries of Whitehead link I: Relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants and the Turaev-Viro invariants at $e^{\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{N+\frac{1}{2}}}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBEWGOAX

@misc{pith2026241210868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the asymptotic expansion of quantum invariants related to surgeries of Whitehead link I: Relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants and the Turaev-Viro invariants at $e^\frac2\pi\sqrt-1N+\frac12$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBEWGOAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10868}
}
read the original abstract

In this article, we obtain an asymptotic expansion formula for the relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant in the case that the ambient 3-manifold is gained by doing rational surgery along one component of Whitehead link. In addition, we obtain an asymptotic expansion formula for the Turaev-Viro invariant of the cusped 3-manifold which is gained by doing rational surgery along one component of the Whitehead link.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10868 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. The Whitehead link W component L1 of the Whitehead link. The p q -surgery along the unknot in S 3 gives the lens space L(p, q), so W(p, q) is the complement of the knot L2 in lens space L(p, q). For brevity, we let J¯N+1(W(p, q);t) = RTr(L(p, q), L2; N) be the r-th relative Reshetikhin￾Turaev invariant of L2 with color N in L(p, q), where t = e 4π √ −1 r and r = 2N + 1. Then the normalized relative Reshetikhin-Turae… view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. The core curve z Then z n means n-parallel copies of z. Moreover, we have B = C[z]. We define the skein elements en ∈ B recursively by e0 = 1, e1 = z and en = zen−1 −en−2 for n ≥ 2. The Kirby color Ωr ∈ B is defined by Ωr = µr Xr−2 n=0 (−1)n (2.3) [n + 1]en, where µr = sin 2π √ r r , and [n] is the quantum integer given by [n] = t n 2 − t − n 2 t 1 2 − t − 1 2 (2.4) . Note that we fix the convention t = A4 = e 4π √ … view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Doing p q -surgery along the component L1 Since the p q -surgery along the unknot in S 3 gives the lens space L(p, q), so W (p, q) is the complement of the knot L2 in lens space L(p, q). From [22], we know that doing a p q -surgery along the component L1 is equivalent to doing a surgery along a framed link L ′ 1 of l-components with framings b1, ...., bl from the continued fraction p q = bl − 1 bl−1 − 1 ···− 1 b1 (3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: Doing integral surgery along L ′ 1 A direct computation shows that ⟨Ωr⟩U+ = e −( 3 r + r+1 4 )π √ −1 (3.17) . Let σ = σ(L ′ 1 ) be the signature of the linking matrix of the framing link L ′ 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3_2.png]
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: The region D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4_1.png]
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: The region D′ 0 and D′′ 0 Then we have Lemma 4.1. The region {(θ1, θ2) ∈ D|v(θ1, θ2) > 3.374482 2π (4.10) } is included in the region D0. Proof. We consider the region R+ = EF G ∪ BCD, and R− = E ′F ′G ∪ B′C ′D′ as show in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4_2.png]
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: The region DH 6.2. Fourier coefficients that can be neglected. Motivated by Lemma 2.2, we intro￾duce the following function for (θ1R, θ2R) ∈ D. (6.13) F(X1, X2; m1, m2) =    0 (if X2 − X1 ≥ 0)  θ2R − θ1R − 1 2  (X2 − X1) (if X2 − X1 < 0) +     1 2 − (θ2R + θ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    On the asymptotic expansions of various quantum invariants I: the colored Jones polynomial of twist knots at the root of unity $e^{\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{N+\frac{1}{2}}}$

    Q. Chen and S. Zhu, On the asymptotic expansion of various quantum invariants I: the colored Jones polynomial of twist knots at the root of unity e 2π√−1 N + 1 2 , arXiv:2307.12963

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [26]

    Asymptotic Behavior of Colored Jones polynomial and Turaev-Viro Invariant of figure eight knot

    K. Wong and K. Au, Asymptotic Behavior of the Colored Jones polynomials and Turaev-Viro In- variants of the figure eight knot , arXiv:1711.11290v3

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [1]

    Fathi Ben Aribi, Fran¸ cois Gu´ eritaud, Eiichi Piguet-Nakazawa, Geometric triangulations and the Teichm¨ uller TQFT volume conjecture for twist knots, arXiv:1903.09480

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

  4. [2]

    Belletti, R

    G. Belletti, R. Detcherry, E. Kalfagianni and T. Yang,Growth of quantum 6j-symbols and applications to the Volume Conjecture , J. Differential Geom. 120 (2022) 199-229

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    Benedetti and C

    R. Benedetti and C. Petronio, On Roberts’ proof of the Turaev-Walker theorem . J. Knot Theory Ramifications 5 (1996), no. 4, 427-439

    work page 1996

  6. [4]

    Blanchet, N

    C. Blanchet, N. Habegger, G. Masbaum and P. Vogel: Three-manifold invariants derived from the Kauffman bracket. Topology 31(4), 685–699 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [5]

    Asymptotics of quantum $6j$ symbols

    Q. Chen and J. Murakami, Asymptotics of quantum 6j symbols, J. Differential Geom. 123 (1) 1-20, 1 January 2023. arxiv: 1706.04887

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    Chen and T

    Q. Chen and T. Yang, Volume conjectures for the Reshetikhin-Turaev and the Turaev-Viro invariants, Quantum Topol. 9 (2018), 419–460

    work page 2018

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Chen and S

    Q. Chen and S. Zhu, On the asymptotic expansion of quantum invariants related to surgeries of Whitehead link II: relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants at the root of unity e 2π√−1 N + 1 2M and colored Jones polynomial at the root of unity e 2π√−1 N , in preparation

  2. [9]

    Chen and S

    Q. Chen and S. Zhu, On the asymptotic expansion of quantum invariants related to surgeries of Whitehead link III: the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants at the root of unity e 4π√−1 r , in preparation

  3. [10]

    Detcherry, E

    R. Detcherry, E. Kalfagianni and T. Yang, Turaev-Viro invariants, colored Jones polynomials and volume, Quantum Topol. 9 (2018), no. 4, 775–813

    2018

  4. [11]

    Futer, E

    D. Futer, E. Kalfagianni and J. Purcell, Dehn filling, volume, and the Jones polynomial, J. Differential Geom. 78 (2008), no. 3, 429–464

    2008

  5. [12]

    K. Habiro, On the colored Jones polynomial of some simple links , In: Recent Progress Towards the Volume Conjecture, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) Kokyuroku 1172, September 2000

    2000

  6. [13]

    Habiro, A unified Witten-Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant for integral homology spheres , Invent

    K. Habiro, A unified Witten-Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant for integral homology spheres , Invent. Math. 171 (2008), no. 1, 1-81

    2008

  7. [14]

    Kashaev, The hyperbolic volume of knots from the quantum dilogarithm , Lett

    R. Kashaev, The hyperbolic volume of knots from the quantum dilogarithm , Lett. Math. Phys. 39 (1997), no. 3, 269–275

    1997

  8. [15]

    Lickorish, The skein method for three-manifold invariants

    W. Lickorish, The skein method for three-manifold invariants . J. Knot Theory Ramif. 2(2), 171-194 (1993)

    1993

  9. [16]

    Masbaum, Skein-theoretical derivation of some formulas of Habiro

    G. Masbaum, Skein-theoretical derivation of some formulas of Habiro . Algebraic & Geometric Topol- ogy, 3 (2003), 537-55603

    2003

  10. [17]

    Murakami and J

    H. Murakami and J. Murakami, The colored Jones polynomials and the simplicial volume of a knot , Acta Math. 186 (2001), no. 1, 85–10

    2001

  11. [18]

    W. D. Neumann and A. W. Reid, Arithmetic of hyperbolic manifolds , Topology ’90, de Gruyter, Berlin, (1992) 273-310

    1992

  12. [19]

    Neumann and D

    W. Neumann and D. Zagier, Volumes of hyperbolic three-manifolds, Topology 24 (1985), no.3, 307- 332

    1985

  13. [20]

    Ohtsuki, On the asymptotic expansion of the Kashaev invariant of the 52 knot, Quantum Topol

    T. Ohtsuki, On the asymptotic expansion of the Kashaev invariant of the 52 knot, Quantum Topol. 7 (2016), no. 4, 669–735

    2016

  14. [21]

    Ohtsuki and Y

    T. Ohtsuki and Y. Yokota, On the asymptotic expansion of the Kashaev invariant of the knots with 6 crossings, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. (2018), 165, 287–339

    2018

  15. [22]

    Rolfsen, Knots and links , 2nd printing with corrections, Mathematics Lecture Series 7, Publish or Perish, Inc

    D. Rolfsen, Knots and links , 2nd printing with corrections, Mathematics Lecture Series 7, Publish or Perish, Inc. (1990)

    1990

  16. [23]

    Roberts, Skein theory and Turaev–Viro invariants

    J. Roberts, Skein theory and Turaev–Viro invariants . Topology 34 (1995), no. 4, 771-787

    1995

  17. [24]

    V. G. Turaev, Quantum invariants of knots and 3-manifolds . De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics,

  18. [25]

    MR 1292673 Zbl 0812.57003

    Walter de Gruyter Co., Berlin, 1994. MR 1292673 Zbl 0812.57003. 66 QINGTAO CHEN AND SHENGMAO ZHU

    1994

  19. [27]

    K. H. Wong and T. Yang, On the Volume Conjecture for hyperbolic Dehn-filled 3-manifolds along the figure-eight knot , Preprint, arXiv:2003.10053

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. H. Wong and T. Yang, Relative Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants, hyperbolic cone metrics and dis- crete Fourier transforms I , Communications in Mathematical Physics 400 (2023) 1019-1070

    2023

  21. [29]

    Yoshida, The η-invariant of hyperbolic 3-manifolds , Invent

    T. Yoshida, The η-invariant of hyperbolic 3-manifolds , Invent. Math. 81 (1985), no. 3, 473–514. Department of Pure Mathematics, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou Jiangsu, China Email address : Qingtao.Chen@xjtlu.edu.cn,chenqtao@hotmail.com Department of Mathematics,...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.