Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

$q$-Series Invariants of Three-Manifolds and Knots-Quivers Correspondence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This thesis shows that the Z-hat q-series of a plumbed three-manifold depends only on the Lie algebra — same for SU(2) and SO(3), for SU(N) and SU(N)/Z_m, and for OSp(1|2) up to q → -q — and extracts quiver matrices for double-twist knots.

desk verdict A thesis-sized compilation of already-published computations; the SU(N)/Z_m claim is interesting but hangs on an unproven interchange of limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10885 v1 pith:KEYTGTUZ submitted 2024-12-14 math-ph hep-thmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA

Sachin Chauhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phhep-thmath.GTmath.MPmath.QA MSC 57K1457K3116G2017B3781T45
keywords WRTinvariantZ-hatGPPVconjectureq-seriesplumbedthree-manifoldsknots-quiverscorrespondencedoubletwistknotscoloredJonespolynomial
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 thesis tests the Gukov–Pei–Putrov–Vafa (GPPV) conjecture, which claims that the Witten–Reshetikhin–Turaev (WRT) invariant of a three-manifold — a complex number defined at roots of unity — can be analytically continued into a convergent $q$-series with integer coefficients, written $\widehat{Z}$. The author carries out this continuation for the gauge groups $SO(3)$, $OSp(1|2)$, and the quotients $SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m$, and finds that the resulting $\widehat{Z}$ series is insensitive to the global form of the group: $\widehat{Z}^{SO(3)} = \widehat{Z}^{SU(2)}$, $\widehat{Z}^{SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m} = \widehat{Z}^{SU(N)}$, and the $OSp(1|2)$ series is obtained from the $SU(2)$ series by $q \to -q$ inside the series, leaving the prefactor untouched. If correct, $\widehat{Z}$ is an invariant of the Lie algebra rather than of the Lie group, so one computation serves every quotient form of a gauge group. The thesis also pursues the knots–quivers correspondence, reversing the Melvin–Morton–Rozansky expansion to propose a recursive block structure for the quiver matrices of the double-twist knots $K(p,-m)$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GPPV decomposition itself: the WRT invariant at a root of unity is rewritten, via the modular $S$-transformation and Gauss-sum reciprocity (equations (2.36) and (2.62)), as a sum of $\widehat{Z}$ $q$-series labelled by $\mathrm{Spin}^c$ structures, with the analytic continuation $\mathbbm{q} \to q$ performed from inside the unit disk; the decisive step is the interchange of limits in equation (3.33), where the regularization parameter $\beta \to 1$ is swapped against the limit $q \to \mathbbm{q}$ as the root of unity is approached. For the $SO(3)$ and $OSp(1|2)$ cases, the machinery also uses the change of variable and color that relate their link invariants to $SU(2)$ colored Jones invariants ($V^{SO(3)}_n = J_{2n}|_{q^2 = Q}$ and $V^{OSp(1|2)}_n = \varepsilon J_{2n}|_{q = -\hat{Q}}$). For the knots–quivers half, the carrying object is the reverse engineering of the Melvin–Morton–Rozansky expansion: the Alexander polynomial $\Delta(K(p,-m); x) = 1 - pm\,X$ seeds a quantum-deformed series whose coefficients are matched to the colored Jones data for $r = 1, 2, 3$, and the resulting motivic generating function is read as the quiver generating series (1.16), yielding the quiver matrix $C^{K(p,-m)}$.

What would settle it

Take a small negative-definite plumbed three-manifold such as the Poincaré homology sphere, compute the $SU(4)/\mathbb{Z}_2$ WRT invariant at a low renormalized level $k'$ from the vertex and edge factors of the surgery link, and compare it order by order in the $q$-expansion with the right-hand side of equation (3.37) built from the known $SU(4)$ $\widehat{Z}$ series. A single mismatched coefficient — or any graph for which the $\beta \to 1$ series differs from the $q \to \mathbbm{q}$ limit that (3.33) assumes equal — would falsify the claim that $\widehat{Z}$ depends only on the Lie algebra.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For negative-definite plumbed three-manifolds, the thesis derives the $\widehat{Z}$ homological blocks for three gauge groups from their WRT invariants by following the GPPV prescription: write the WRT invariant using the $S$-transformation, apply Gauss-sum reciprocity, then analytically continue the root of unity $\mathbbm{q}$ to a complex $q$ with $|q| < 1$. The results are the equalities $\widehat{Z}^{SO(3)}_b = \widehat{Z}^{SU(2)}_b$ and $\widehat{Z}^{SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m}_b = \widehat{Z}^{SU(N)}_b$ (Proposition 1, equation (3.37)), and a pair of series, $\widehat{Z}^{OSp(1|2)}_b(q) = 2^{-c} q^{\Delta_b} \sum_n a_n q^n$ versus $\widehat{Z}^{SU(2)}_b(q) = 2^{-c} q^{\Delta_b} \sum_n a_n (-q)^n$, so the two homological blocks are identified by $q \to -q$ inside the series with the overall factor untouched. The dependence on $m$ in the WRT invariant enters only through the overall coefficients — the intermediate lattice $P'$ and the renormalized Chern–Simons level $k'$ — which multiply one and the same $q$-series, and the author concludes that $\widehat{Z}$ depends on the Lie algebra alone. In the second half, for the double-twist knots $K(p,-m)$ with $p \geq m$, the thesis conjectures that the quiver matrix $C^{K(p,-m)}$ has a recursive block form generated from a base set of $2m \times 2m$ matrices $X_1$ by $X_k = X_{k-1} + 2(k-1)J$, verified explicitly for $m = 1, 2, 3$ and additional values of $p$.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the GPPV conjecture itself: that the WRT invariant at a root of unity decomposes through the $S$-transform into convergent $\widehat{Z}$ $q$-series, and in particular that the two limits in equation (3.33) — the regularization parameter $\beta \to 1$ and the approach $q \to \mathbbm{q}$ — can be interchanged; if either premise fails, the equalities $\widehat{Z}^{SU(2)} = \widehat{Z}^{SO(3)}$ and $\widehat{Z}^{SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m} = \widehat{Z}^{SU(N)}$ do not attach to a well-defined invariant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\widehat{Z}$ depends only on the Lie algebra, the homological blocks of every global form of a simple group — $SU(N)$, $SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m$, $SO(3)$ — are the same integer-coefficient series, so one $\mathfrak{su}(N)$ computation supplies the blocks for all quotients.
  • The $q \to -q$ relation ties the supergroup $OSp(1|2)$ blocks to the $SU(2)$ blocks, so a categorification (a BPS Hilbert space with the right gradings) for one group transfers to the other with a sign twist.
  • Because the $m$ dependence sits entirely in the prefactor given by the lattice $P'$ and the level $k'$, the WRT invariant still distinguishes quotient groups even though $\widehat{Z}$ does not; group data is carried by the coefficients, not by the series.
  • The recursive block structure means the colored Jones polynomials of the whole double-twist family $K(p,-m)$ with $p \geq m$ admit quiver presentations generated from the single base data $X_1$.
  • The equality $\widehat{Z}^{SU(2)} = \widehat{Z}^{SO(3)}$, together with the Langlands-dual relationship between the two groups, supports the physical picture that $\widehat{Z}$ descends from the 6d $(2,0)$ theory and therefore sees only the ADE Lie algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Lie-algebra dependence survives outside the negative-definite plumbed class, the GPPV decomposition for any closed three-manifold should identify $\widehat{Z}$ across quotient groups as well; the thesis already states the general $SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m$ form as Conjecture 3.2, so testing it on a non-plumbed manifold would be a natural next step.
  • The $q \to -q$ symmetry between $OSp(1|2)$ and $SU(2)$ blocks, a relation the thesis notes was later proved in reference [66], may be a special case of a general pattern connecting $\widehat{Z}$ for a supergroup to its bosonic subgroup, a pattern the same method could test for $OSp(2|2n)$.
  • The quiver recursion $X_k = X_{k-1} + 2(k-1)J$ is conjectured only for $p \geq m$; since $K(p,-m)$ is the mirror of $K(m,-p)$, a mirror-symmetry argument could extend the pattern to $p < m$ and might supply the closed forms for the linear term $\Xi$ and the phase $\Lambda$ that the author could not extract for general $m$.
  • The quiver matrices were extracted from colored Jones data, which sets $a = q^2$ and sidesteps the $a$-dependence the author reports as computationally difficult; verifying that the same matrices survive when the full colored HOMFLY-PT polynomials (with $a$ restored) are used would be the real test of the knots–quivers correspondence for this family.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This thesis (arXiv:2412.10885) develops two themes in quantum topology. The first tests the Gukov-Pei-Putrov-Vafa (GPPV) conjecture, which asserts that the Witten-Reshetikhin-Turaev (WRT) invariant of a 3-manifold at a root of unity decomposes, via an S-transform, into a limit of \hat{Z} q-series with integer coefficients. Chapter 2 constructs WRT invariants for SO(3) and OSp(1|2) from SU(2) colored Jones data using the variable-change identities (2.12) and (2.16), performs the analytic continuation, and obtains \hat{Z}^{SO(3)} = \hat{Z}^{SU(2)} together with the relation \hat{Z}^{OSp(1|2)}(q) = \hat{Z}^{SU(2)}(-q) up to overall coefficients. Chapter 3 repeats this program for the quotient groups SU(N)/Z_m, determining the sublattice P' and the renormalized level k' as in Section 3.2, and concludes in Proposition 1 (eq. (3.37)) that \hat{Z}^{SU(N)/Z_m} = \hat{Z}^{SU(N)}, so that \hat{Z} depends only on the Lie algebra. The second theme, in Chapter 4, studies the knots-quivers correspondence for the double-twist knot family K(p,-m): using the reverse-engineered Melvin-Morton-Rozansky expansion of the r-colored Jones polynomial, the thesis proposes a block-structured quiver matrix C^{K(p,-m)} (Conjecture (4.8)) generated recursively from a small seed set X_1, with explicit verification for m = 1, 2, 3 and p up to 5.

Significance. If the structural results of Chapters 2-3 hold, the conclusion that \hat{Z} is a Lie algebra invariant rather than a Lie group invariant is a substantive statement about the 3d N=2 theory T[M;G]: the global form of the gauge group would enter the GPPV decomposition only through the classical coefficients (lattice data and level), not through the q-series itself. The OSp(1|2)/SU(2) relation is clean and has since been proved in the literature (ref. [66]), which the thesis properly credits. The quiver matrices for double-twist knots, though conjectural, are concrete, reproducible data that extend the known knot-quiver inventory and agree with the twist-knot results of [25] when m=1. The thesis is honest about its main analytic assumption: eq. (3.33) is explicitly labeled as an assumption, and Section 3.4 states that the proof in [73] does not cover quotient groups. The computations are independent of \hat{Z}, since they start from the WRT invariant, so there is no circularity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, eq. (3.33)] The decomposition of the SU(N)/Z_m WRT invariant is completed only through the assumed interchange of limits lim_{\beta\to 1} \sum_{s\in BQ_L+b} \xi^\beta_s q^{-(s,B^{-1}s)/2} = \lim_{q\to q} \sum_{s\in BQ_L+b} \xi^1_s q^{-(s,B^{-1}s)/2}, introduced with the words 'assuming that the following holds'. This interchange is load-bearing for Proposition 1 (eq. (3.37)) and for the abstract's claim that \hat{Z}^{SU(N)/Z_m} = \hat{Z}^{SU(N)}. Section 3.4 correctly notes that the recent proof [73] covers only simply laced algebras and not non-simply connected or quotient groups, so the present setting is not covered by existing results. As written, the main structural conclusion is therefore conditional. The chapter should either supply a proof or a substantive analytic justification for (3.33) in the quotient-group setting, or else the abstract, Proposition 1, and Conjecture 3.2 must be explicitly phrased as conditional on this interchange. The analogous interchange in the SU(2) review, eq. (2.51), belongs to the standing GPPV framework, but the extension to the P'-lattice and the \rho-shift in eqs. (3.29)-(3.34) is new and requires its own justification.
  2. [Section 3.3 (eq. (3.37)) vs. Section 2.3.1 (eq. (2.69))] For N=2, m=2, the group SU(2)/Z_2 is the group SO(3) treated in Chapter 2, yet the two chapters' decompositions do not transparently coincide, and the thesis does not perform this consistency check. Using the paper's own normalizations, (\Lambda_1,\Lambda_1) = 1/2 for su(2), so eq. (3.12) gives \gamma = 4 and eq. (3.13) gives k' = 4k+2, whereas Chapter 2's SO(3) variable satisfies Q = e^{2\pi i/(K+1)} with K even and Q = q^2 for the SU(2) variable q = e^{2\pi i/(2K+2)}. With K = 2k, the Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 variables actually coincide (q = e^{\pi i/(2k+1)}), but the classical-action phases do not: eq. (2.69) contains e^{-\pi i(K+1)(a,B^{-1}a)} = e^{-\pi i(2k+1)(a,B^{-1}a)}, while eq. (3.37) contains e^{-\pi i k'(a,B^{-1}a)} = e^{-\pi i(4k+2)(a,B^{-1}a)}, and for a ranging over Coker B these differ by a factor of two in the exponent. The prefactors also differ in form: (2.69) has (1/2)(q^{1/2}-q^{-1/2})|det B|^{1/2}, while (3.37) has |W|^{-1}|det B|^{-(N-1)/2} times a Weyl-denominator factor, with no normalization dictionary supplied. Because the N=2, m=2 case is the direct bridge between the two chapters and the motivation for Chapter 3, the author should reconcile the level assignments, prefactors, and phases, or state explicitly which normalization difference is responsible.
  3. [Section 4.2, Proposition (4.7) and Conjecture (4.8)] The statement labeled 'Proposition' asserts that the r-colored Jones polynomial of every double-twist knot K(p,-m) with p \ge m admits the quiver presentation (4.7), but the evidence presented is explicit computation only for m = 1, 2, 3 and p up to 5, and for m = 3 the linear and phase data are given without a closed form ('We are not able to infer the closed form from the above data'). The block-structure Conjecture (4.8) and the recursion X_k = X_{k-1} + 2(k-1)J are likewise inferred from finitely many examples. Since this structural pattern is the central claim of Chapter 4, the 'Proposition' should be relabeled as a conjecture, or proved by induction (for instance using the tangle structure of double-twist knots). In addition, the abstract and conclusions should state clearly that the quiver data are obtained for the colored Jones specialization a = q^2, since the a-dependence of the full HOMFLY-PT quiver data is not determined (as acknowledged in Section 4.1.1).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract presents the equalities \hat{Z}^{SU(2)} = \hat{Z}^{SO(3)} and \hat{Z}^{SU(N)/Z_m} = \hat{Z}^{SU(N)} without the conditional clause attached to eq. (3.33); given that the derivations are conditional on the limit interchange, the abstract should carry the same caveat as Section 3.3.
  2. [Notation Guide and eqs. (2.28), (2.29), (2.51), (3.33)] The root-of-unity variable q and the analytic variable q are nearly indistinguishable in the typeset text; typographically distinct symbols should be used throughout.
  3. [Section 2.4, eqs. (2.81)-(2.82)] The q \to -q relation between the OSp(1|2) and SU(2) \hat{Z}-series is reported from 'many examples'; since ref. [66] is cited as a proof, the precise theorem (gauge group, class of manifolds, and the treatment of the overall coefficient) should be stated in the main text rather than leaving the claim in empirical form.
  4. [Appendix D] The step 'Using the q-binomial and q-Pochhammer identities discussed in Ref. [25]' is a black box in the derivation of the 8_3 quiver; naming the specific identities used would substantially improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section 3.3, eqs. (3.30)-(3.31)] The symbol l is used for the rank of the lattice (P')^L in (3.30), while L already denotes the number of vertices of the plumbing graph and also appears as the exponent in (P')^L; a different letter (for example r) would remove a genuine source of confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bZ equalities are computed from WRT invariants within the GPPV framework, and the quiver matrices are fitted to low-color data then validated against independent closed forms; the admitted unproven limit interchange (3.33) is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

  1. other [Section 3.3, eq. (3.33); Section 3.4 (final paragraph)]
    "Now, assuming that the following holds: lim β−→1 Σ_{s∈BQL+b} ξ^β_s q^{−(s,B^{−1}s)/2} = lim q→q Σ_{s∈BQL+b} ξ^1_s q^{−(s,B^{−1}s)/2} , (3.33) ... Although, recently a proof of this conjecture appeared for simply laced Lie alegbras[73] but the proof is not available for non-simply connected groups or quotient groups."

    Flagged under the review rule as a load-bearing assumption with admitted missing proof; it is not itself a circular reduction. The beta-regularization (3.22-3.26) resolves Weyl-wall poles, and the interchange (3.33)/(2.51) is the step converting the WRT sum into the bZ series; all claimed equalities (SO(3), OSp(1|2), SU(N)/Z_m) pass through it, yet the thesis states a proof exists only for simply laced algebras [73] and is 'not available for non-simply connected groups or quotient groups.' So the central claims are conditional on an unverified analytic step - a rigor gap, not a circular definition, hence a low circularity score.

full rationale

This thesis is a compilation of the author's own published papers ([59]=Ch.2, [60]=Ch.3, Singh et al.=Ch.4), but the derivations are self-contained in the text. For SO(3) and OSp(1|2), WRT invariants are set up from the variable/color relations (2.12) and (2.16) that reduce those link invariants to colored Jones polynomials, followed by Gauss reciprocity and the same regularization used in the SU(2) case; the resulting q-series bZ^SO(3)=bZ^SU(2) (Sec. 2.3.1) and bZ^OSp(1|2)(q) to bZ^SU(2)(-q) (Sec. 2.3.2-2.4) come from independent computations and are corroborated by external works ([65] for SO(3); the q to -q relation 'recently been proved by Costantino et al.' [66]). For SU(N)/Z_m the WRT data (lattice P', level k'=gamma k+N) are computed explicitly (Sec. 3.2, App. B), and the decomposition (3.37) is obtained by an explicit Gauss-reciprocity computation; the m-independence visible in the read-off (3.36) is the framework's output, conditioned only on the interchange (3.33), which the paper explicitly flags as assumed and as unproved for quotient groups (Sec. 3.4). That is a correctness risk, not circularity. In Ch. 4 the reverse-MMR parameters are 'determined by comparing them with r = 1,2,3' and the resulting quiver matrices are then checked against closed-form polynomials [78] and against further knots K(3,-2), K(3,-3) (App. D), so the quiver data are fitted-then-validated, not predictions renamed from fits. Self-citations ([59],[60]) are primary sources of the included chapters and carry no load-bearing circular evidence. Overall, no claim reduces to its own input by construction; the honest finding is low circularity (score 2), with the unproven limit interchange (3.33) as the notable caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central Z-hat claims rest on the GPPV conjecture framework and an assumed limit interchange, not on new free parameters. The quiver results, however, fit explicit matrix entries and linear/phase parameters to known colored Jones data; these are free parameters in the sense of being tuned to reproduce polynomial data.

free parameters (2)
  • Quiver matrix entries C_{ij}^{K(p,-m)} = explicit for m<=3, p<=5
    Determined by matching the reverse MMR reconstruction to known r-colored Jones/Jones polynomials for small r; block structure is extrapolated to all p,m.
  • Quiver linear/phase parameters xi_i, gamma_i = explicit for m<=3
    Fitted to reproduce known colored Jones polynomials for r=1,2,3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPPV conjecture: WRT invariant decomposes into Z-hat q-series via S-transform and analytic continuation
    Used throughout Chapters 2 and 3 to extract Z-hat from WRT; if false, the equalities are not about a well-defined invariant.
  • ad hoc to paper The limit interchange in eq. (3.33): lim_{beta->1} sum ... = lim_{q->q} sum ...
    Assumed without proof; needed to identify the WRT decomposition with the Z-hat series.
  • domain assumption Restriction to negative definite plumbed 3-manifolds
    All WRT/Z-hat computations are performed only for this class; the GPPV conjecture for general 3-manifolds is not addressed.
  • domain assumption Knots-quivers correspondence conjecture holds for the computed knots
    The quiver representations are assumed to exist and to be encoded by the motivic series; this is the framework of [25].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $q$-Series Invariants of Three-Manifolds and Knots-Quivers Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEYTGTUZ

@misc{pith2026241210885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $q$-Series Invariants of Three-Manifolds and Knots-Quivers Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEYTGTUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10885}
}
abstract

The Gukov-Pei-Putrov-Vafa (GPPV) conjecture is a relationship between two three-manifold invariants: the Witten-Reshetikhin-Turaev (WRT) invariant and the \(\widehat{Z}\) (``Z-hat'') invariant. In fact, WRT invariant is defined at roots of unity, $\mathbbm{q}\left(\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i}{k+2}\right),~k\in\mathbb{Z}_+,~\text{for}~SU(2)\right)$, and is generally a complex number, whereas $\widehat{Z}$-invariant is a $q$-series with integer coefficients such that $|q|<1$. Therefore, $\widehat{Z}$-invariant can be obtained from WRT-invariant by performing a particular analytic continuation, $\mathbbm{q}\rightarrow q$. In this thesis, we first examine this conjecture for $SO(3)$ and the ortho-symplectic supergroup $OSp(1|2)$. This is done by setting up the WRT invariant for the respective groups and then performing the particular analytic continuation to extract $\widehat{Z}$. As a result of this exercise, we found that $\widehat{Z}^{SU(2)}=\widehat{Z}^{SO(3)}$ and identified a relation between $\widehat{Z}^{SU(2)}$ and $\widehat{Z}^{OSp(1|2)}$. Motivated by the equality of $\widehat{Z}$ for $SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$ groups, we study this conjecture for $SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m$ groups, where $\mathbb{Z}_m$ is a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}_N$, in our second paper. We subsequently found that $\widehat{Z}^{SU(N)/\mathbb{Z}_m}=\widehat{Z}^{SU(N)}$. Another theme of the thesis is to study a conjecture between knot theory and quiver representation theory. More precisely, this conjecture relates the generating function of the symmetric $r$-colored HOMFLY-PT polynomial with the motivic generating series associated with a symmetric quiver. In particular, we obtain a quiver representation for a family of knots called double twist knots $K(p,-m)$. Primarily, we exploit the reverse engineering of Melvin-Morton-Rozansky (MMR) formalism to deduce the pattern of the matrix for these quivers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10885 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Diagrams of knots shown via their projection onto a plane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. An example of a plumbing graph Γ (left) and the corresponding link L (Γ) of framed unknots in S 3 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Kirby-Neumann moves that relate plumbing graphs which result in homeomorphic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Examples of double twist knots K(p,−m) p full twists p m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_4_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [66]

    Non-semisimple topological field theory and bZ-invariants from osp(1|2),

    F. Costantino, M. Harper, A. Robertson, and M. B. Young, “Non-semisimple topological field theory and bZ-invariants from osp(1|2),” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12181

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [25]

    Knots-quivers correspondence,

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Stoši ´c, and P. Sułkowski, “Knots-quivers correspondence,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 23 no. 7, (2019) 1849–1902. http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2019.v23.n7.a4

    doi:10.4310/atmp.2019.v23.n7.a4 2019

  3. [73]

    Homological blocks with simple Lie algebras and Witten--Reshetikhin--Turaev invariants

    Y . Murakami and Y . Terashima, “Homological blocks with simple lie algebras and witten–reshetikhin–turaev invariants,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04010 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

    String Theory and Math: Why This Marriage May Last

    M. Aganagic, “String theory and math: Why this marriage may last. Mathematics and dualities of quantum physics,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 53 no. 1, (2016) 93–115, arXiv:1508.06642 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [2]

    A panorama of physical mathematics c. 2022,

    I. Bah, D. S. Freed, G. W. Moore, N. Nekrasov, S. S. Razamat, and S. Schafer-Nameki, “A panorama of physical mathematics c. 2022,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.04467 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  6. [3]

    Elementare begründung der knotentheorie,

    K. Reidemeister, “Elementare begründung der knotentheorie,” Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg 5 no. 1, (1927) 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02952507

    doi:10.1007/bf02952507 1927

  7. [4]

    Topological invariants of knots and links,

    J. W. Alexander, “Topological invariants of knots and links,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 30 no. 2, (1928) 275–306. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1989123

    work page arXiv 1928

  8. [5]

    A polynomial invariant for knots via von Neumann algebras,

    V . F. R. Jones, “A polynomial invariant for knots via von Neumann algebras,”Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 12 no. 1, (1985) 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-1985-15304-2

    doi:10.1090/s0273-0979-1985-15304-2 1985

Show all 88 references
  1. [6]

    A new polynomial invariant of knots and links,

    P. Freyd, D. Yetter, J. Hoste, W. B. R. Lickorish, K. Millett, and A. Ocneanu, “A new polynomial invariant of knots and links,”Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Society 12 no. 2, (1985) 239 – 246

    1985

  2. [7]

    Invariants of links of conway type,

    J. H. Przytycki and P. Traczyk, “Invariants of links of conway type,” Geometric Topology (1988) . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117083333

    1988

  3. [8]

    Kauffman, on knots,

    H. Louis, “Kauffman, on knots,” Annals of Math. Studies 115

  4. [9]

    The Yang-Baxter equation and invariants of links,

    V . G. Turaev, “The Yang-Baxter equation and invariants of links,”Invent. Math. 92 (1988) 527–553

    1988

  5. [10]

    Quantum field theory and the jones polynomial,

    E. Witten, “Quantum field theory and the jones polynomial,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 121 no. 3, (1989) 351–399. 83 REFERENCES 84

    1989

  6. [11]

    A categorification of the jones polynomial,

    M. Khovanov, “A categorification of the jones polynomial,” Duke Mathematical Journal 101 no. 3, (2000) 359–426

    2000

  7. [12]

    Webster, Knot invariants and higher representation theory, vol

    B. Webster, Knot invariants and higher representation theory, vol. 250. American Mathematical Society, 2017

    2017

  8. [13]

    Categorification of the jones–wenzl projectors,

    B. Cooper and V . Krushkal, “Categorification of the jones–wenzl projectors,”Quantum Topology 3 no. 2, (2012) 139–180

    2012

  9. [14]

    Categorifying fractional euler characteristics, jones–wenzl projectors and 3 j-symbols,

    I. B. Frenkel, C. Stroppel, and J. Sussan, “Categorifying fractional euler characteristics, jones–wenzl projectors and 3 j-symbols,” Quantum Topology 3 no. 2, (2012) 181–253

    2012

  10. [15]

    Matrix factorizations and link homology,

    M. Khovanov and L. Rozansky, “Matrix factorizations and link homology,” arXiv preprint math/0401268 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  11. [16]

    M theory and topological strings. 2.,

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “M theory and topological strings. 2.,” arXiv:hep-th/9812127

    arXiv

  12. [17]

    M theory and topological strings. 1.,

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “M theory and topological strings. 1.,” arXiv:hep-th/9809187

    arXiv

  13. [19]

    Fivebranes and knots,

    E. Witten, “Fivebranes and knots,” Quantum Topology 3 no. 1, (2011) 1–137

    2011

  14. [20]

    Polynomial invariants for torus knots and topological strings,

    J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, “Polynomial invariants for torus knots and topological strings,” Commun. Math. Phys. 217 (2001) 423–449, arXiv:hep-th/0004196

    2001 arXiv

  15. [21]

    On link invariants and topological string amplitudes,

    P. Ramadevi and T. Sarkar, “On link invariants and topological string amplitudes,”Nucl. Phys. B 600 (2001) 487–511, arXiv:hep-th/0009188

    2001 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Knots, links and branes at large N,

    J. M. F. Labastida, M. Marino, and C. Vafa, “Knots, links and branes at large N,” JHEP 11 (2000) 007, arXiv:hep-th/0010102

    2000 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Khovanov-Rozansky homology and topological strings,

    S. Gukov, A. S. Schwarz, and C. Vafa, “Khovanov-Rozansky homology and topological strings,” Lett. Math. Phys. 74 (2005) 53–74, arXiv:hep-th/0412243

    2005 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Lectures on knot homology,

    S. Nawata and A. Oblomkov, “Lectures on knot homology,” Contemp. Math. 680 (2016) 137, arXiv:1510.01795 [math-ph] . REFERENCES 85

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bps states, knots, and quivers,

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Stoši ´c, and P. Sułkowski, “Bps states, knots, and quivers,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (Dec, 2017) 121902. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.121902

    2017 doi

  20. [27]

    Cohomological hall algebra of a symmetric quiver,

    A. I. Efimov, “Cohomological hall algebra of a symmetric quiver,” Compositio Mathematica 148 no. 4, (2012) 1133–1146

    2012

  21. [28]

    Generalized knots-quivers correspondence,

    M. Stoši ´c, “Generalized knots-quivers correspondence,” arXiv:2402.03066 [math.QA]

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    Knot homologies and generalized quiver partition functions,

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, “Knot homologies and generalized quiver partition functions,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 113 no. 6, (2023) 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005-023-01733-4

    2023 doi

  23. [30]

    Branches, quivers, and ideals for knot complements,

    T. Ekholm, A. Gruen, S. Gukov, P. Kucharski, S. Park, M. Stoši´c, and P. Sułkowski, “Branches, quivers, and ideals for knot complements,” J. Geom. Phys. 177 (2022) 104520, arXiv:2110.13768 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence,

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, “Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 379 (2020) 361 – 415

    2020

  25. [32]

    Donaldson–thomas invariants versus intersection cohomology of quiver moduli,

    S. Meinhardt and M. Reineke, “Donaldson–thomas invariants versus intersection cohomology of quiver moduli,” Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) 2019 no. 754, (2019) 143–178

    2019

  26. [33]

    Semistable chow–hall algebras of quivers and quantized donaldson–thomas invariants,

    H. Franzen and M. Reineke, “Semistable chow–hall algebras of quivers and quantized donaldson–thomas invariants,”Algebra & Number Theory 12 no. 5, (2018) 1001–1025

    2018

  27. [34]

    Rational links and DT invariants of quivers,

    M. Stosic and P. Wedrich, “Rational links and DT invariants of quivers,”Int. Math. Res. Not. 2021 no. 6, (2021) 4169–4210, arXiv:1711.03333 [math.QA]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Revisiting the melvin-morton-rozansky expansion, or there and back again,

    S. Banerjee, J. Jankowski, and P. Sułkowski, “Revisiting the melvin-morton-rozansky expansion, or there and back again,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2020 no. 12, (2020)

    2020

  29. [36]

    Die Gruppe der Abbildungsklassen: Das arithmetische Feld auf Flächen,

    M. Dehn, “Die Gruppe der Abbildungsklassen: Das arithmetische Feld auf Flächen,” Acta Mathematica 69 no. none, (1938) 135 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02547712

    1938 doi

  30. [37]

    Cinquième complément à l’analysis situs,

    M. H. Poincaré, “Cinquième complément à l’analysis situs,” Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940) 18 (1904) 45–110. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:123674841

    1904

  31. [38]

    Eight faces of the poincare homology 3-sphere,

    R. Kirby and M. Scharlemann, “Eight faces of the poincare homology 3-sphere,” in Geometric Topology, J. C. CANTRELL, ed., pp. 113–146. Academic Press, 1979. https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780121588601500150

    1979

  32. [39]

    A representation of orientable combinatorial 3-manifolds,

    W. B. R. Lickorish, “A representation of orientable combinatorial 3-manifolds,” Annals of Mathematics 76 no. 3, (1962) 531–540. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1970373

    1962

  33. [40]

    Modifications and cobounding manifolds,

    A. H. Wallace, “Modifications and cobounding manifolds,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics 12 (1960) 503–528

    1960

  34. [41]

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

    N. Reshetikhin and V . Turaev, “Invariants of 3 - manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups invent,”Inventiones Mathematicae 103 (12, 1991) 547–597

    1991

  35. [42]

    Computation of Lickorish’s three manifold invariants using Chern-Simons theory,

    P. Ramadevi and S. Naik, “Computation of Lickorish’s three manifold invariants using Chern-Simons theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 209 (2000) 29–49, arXiv:hep-th/9901061

    2000 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Three-manifold invariants from Chern-Simons field theory with arbitrary semi-simple gauge groups,

    R. K. Kaul and P. Ramadevi, “Three-manifold invariants from Chern-Simons field theory with arbitrary semi-simple gauge groups,” Commun. Math. Phys. 217 (2001) 295–314, arXiv:hep-th/0005096

    2001 arXiv

  37. [44]

    A calculus for framed links in s 3,

    R. Kirby, “A calculus for framed links in s 3,” Inventiones mathematicae 45 no. 1, (1978) 35–56

    1978

  38. [45]

    Modular forms and quantum invariants of 3-manifolds,

    R. Lawrence and D. Zagier, “Modular forms and quantum invariants of 3-manifolds,” Asian Journal of Mathematics 3 no. 1, (1999) 93–108

    1999

  39. [46]

    On the quantum invariant for the brieskorn homology spheres,

    K. Hikami, “On the quantum invariant for the brieskorn homology spheres,” International Journal of Mathematics 16 no. 06, (2005) 661–685. REFERENCES 87

    2005

  40. [47]

    Quantum invariant, modular form, and lattice points,

    K. Hikami, “Quantum invariant, modular form, and lattice points,” International Mathematics Research Notices 2005 no. 3, (2005) 121–154

    2005

  41. [48]

    Quantum invariants, modular forms, and lattice points ii,

    K. Hikami, “Quantum invariants, modular forms, and lattice points ii,” Journal of mathematical physics 47 no. 10, (2006)

    2006

  42. [49]

    On the quantum invariants for the spherical seifert manifolds,

    K. Hikami, “On the quantum invariants for the spherical seifert manifolds,” Communications in mathematical physics 268 (2006) 285–319

    2006

  43. [50]

    3-Manifolds and 3d Indices,

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto, and S. Gukov, “3-Manifolds and 3d Indices,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 17 no. 5, (2013) 975–1076, arXiv:1112.5179 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Gauge Theories Labelled by Three-Manifolds,

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto, and S. Gukov, “Gauge Theories Labelled by Three-Manifolds,” Commun. Math. Phys. 325 (2014) 367–419, arXiv:1108.4389 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [52]

    V ortex Counting and Lagrangian 3-manifolds,

    T. Dimofte, S. Gukov, and L. Hollands, “V ortex Counting and Lagrangian 3-manifolds,” Lett. Math. Phys. 98 (2011) 225–287, arXiv:1006.0977 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Fivebranes and 3-manifold homology,

    S. Gukov, P. Putrov, and C. Vafa, “Fivebranes and 3-manifold homology,”Journal of High Energy Physics 2017 no. 7, (Jul, 2017) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2017)071

    2017 doi

  47. [54]

    BPS spectra and 3-manifold invariants,

    S. Gukov, D. Pei, P. Putrov, and C. Vafa, “BPS spectra and 3-manifold invariants,”J. Knot Theor. Ramifications 29 no. 02, (2020) 2040003, arXiv:1701.06567 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Higher rank hat z and fk,

    S. Park, “Higher rank hat z and fk,” SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications 16 (2020) 044

    2020

  49. [56]

    Supergroups, q-Series and 3-Manifolds,

    F. Ferrari and P. Putrov, “Supergroups, q-Series and 3-Manifolds,” Annales Henri Poincare 25 no. 5, (2024) 2781–2837, arXiv:2009.14196 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Towards a q-series for osp (2| 2n),

    J. Chae, “Towards a q-series for osp (2| 2n),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09868 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Duality in osp (1|2) conformal field theory and link invariants,

    I. P. Ennes, P. Ramadevi, A. V . Ramallo, and J. M. Sanchez de Santos, “Duality in osp (1|2) conformal field theory and link invariants,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13 (1998) 2931–2978, arXiv:hep-th/9709068

    1998 arXiv

  52. [59]

    bZ-invariant for so(3) and osp(1|2) groups,

    S. Chauhan and P. Ramadevi, “ bZ-invariant for so(3) and osp(1|2) groups,” in Annales Henri Poincaré, pp. 1–25, Springer. 2023. REFERENCES 88

    2023

  53. [60]

    Gukov–pei–putrov–vafa conjecture for $$su(n)/{\mathbb {z}}_m$$,

    S. Chauhan and P. Ramadevi, “Gukov–pei–putrov–vafa conjecture for $$su(n)/{\mathbb {z}}_m$$,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 114 no. 2, (2024) 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11005-024-01791-2

    2024 doi

  54. [61]

    Branes And Supergroups,

    V . Mikhaylov and E. Witten, “Branes And Supergroups,”Commun. Math. Phys. 340 no. 2, (2015) 699–832, arXiv:1410.1175 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [62]

    A two-variable series for knot complements,

    S. Gukov and C. Manolescu, “A two-variable series for knot complements,” Quantum Topol. 12 no. 1, (2021) 1–109, arXiv:1904.06057 [math.GT]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Higher rank hat z and fk,

    S. Park et al., “Higher rank hat z and fk,” SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications 16 (2020) 044

    2020

  57. [64]

    BPS Invariants for Seifert Manifolds,

    H.-J. Chung, “BPS Invariants for Seifert Manifolds,” JHEP 03 (2020) 113, arXiv:1811.08863 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Non-Semisimple TQFT’s and BPSq-Series,

    F. Costantino, S. Gukov, and P. Putrov, “Non-Semisimple TQFT’s and BPSq-Series,” SIGMA 19 (2023) 010, arXiv:2107.14238 [math.GT]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Relative quantum field theory,

    D. S. Freed and C. Teleman, “Relative quantum field theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 326 no. 2, (2014) 459–476

    2014

  60. [68]

    3d Modularity,

    M. C. N. Cheng, S. Chun, F. Ferrari, S. Gukov, and S. M. Harrison, “3d Modularity,” JHEP 10 (2019) 010, arXiv:1809.10148 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    3d TQFTs from Argyres–Douglas theories,

    M. Dedushenko, S. Gukov, H. Nakajima, D. Pei, and K. Ye, “3d TQFTs from Argyres–Douglas theories,” J. Phys. A 53 no. 43, (2020) 43LT01, arXiv:1809.04638 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Chern-Simons-Witten invariants of lens spaces and torus bundles, and the semiclassical approximation,

    L. C. Jeffrey, “Chern-Simons-Witten invariants of lens spaces and torus bundles, and the semiclassical approximation,” Commun. Math. Phys. 147 (1992) 563–604

    1992

  63. [71]

    Topological Gauge Theories and Group Cohomology,

    R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, “Topological Gauge Theories and Group Cohomology,” Commun. Math. Phys. 129 (1990) 393. REFERENCES 89

    1990

  64. [72]

    On reciprocity,

    F. Deloup and V . Turaev, “On reciprocity,”Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 208 no. 1, (2007) 153–158. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022404905002963

    2007

  65. [74]

    Permutohedra for knots and quivers,

    J. Jankowski, P. Kucharski, H. Larraguível, D. Noshchenko, and P. Sułkowski, “Permutohedra for knots and quivers,” Phys. Rev. D 104 (Oct, 2021) 086017. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.086017

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    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

  67. [76]

    Tabulating knot polynomials for arborescent knots,

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Morozov, P. Ramadevi, V . K. Singh, and A. Sleptsov, “Tabulating knot polynomials for arborescent knots,”J. Phys. A 50 no. 8, (2017) 085201, arXiv:1601.04199 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Tangle addition and the knots-quivers correspondence,

    M. Stosic and P. Wedrich, “Tangle addition and the knots-quivers correspondence,” Journal of the London Mathematical Society 104 (2021)

    2021

  69. [78]

    Cyclotomic expansions for the colored homfly-pt invariants of double twist knots,

    Q. Chen, K. Liu, and S. Zhu, “Cyclotomic expansions for the colored homfly-pt invariants of double twist knots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03616 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  70. [79]

    On knots, complements, and 6j-symbols,

    H. E. Wang, Y . J. Yang, H. D. Zhang, and S. Nawata, “On knots, complements, and 6j-symbols,” Annales Henri Poincare (2021) (12, 2020) , 2012.12008. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.12008.pdf

    2021 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Knot invariants and topological strings,

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot invariants and topological strings,” Nucl.Phys.B 577 (2000) 419–438, hep-th/9912123. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9912123.pdf

    2000 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Degenerate cohomological Hall algebra and quantized Donaldson-Thomas invariants for m-loop quivers,

    M. Reineke, “Degenerate cohomological Hall algebra and quantized Donaldson-Thomas invariants for m-loop quivers,” Doc. Math. 17 (2012) 1–22. https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2889742

    2012

  73. [82]

    Cohomological Hall algebra, exponential Hodge structures and motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants,

    M. Kontsevich and Y . Soibelman, “Cohomological Hall algebra, exponential Hodge structures and motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants,”Commun. Number Theory Phys. 5 REFERENCES 90 no. 2, (2011) 231–352. https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2851153

    2011

  74. [83]

    Cohomological Hall algebra of a symmetric quiver,

    A. I. Efimov, “Cohomological Hall algebra of a symmetric quiver,” Compos. Math. 148 no. 4, (2012) 1133–1146. https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2956038

    2012

  75. [84]

    Three dimensional chern-simons theory as a theory of knots and links iii : Compact semi-simple group,

    P. R. Devi, T. R. Govindarajan, and R. K. Kaul, “Three dimensional chern-simons theory as a theory of knots and links iii : Compact semi-simple group,” Nucl.Phys. B402 (1993) 548–566, hep-th/9212110. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9212110.pdf

    1993 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Super-a-polynomials for twist knots,

    S. Nawata, P. Ramadevi, Zodinmawia, and X. Sun, “Super-a-polynomials for twist knots,” JHEP 1211 (2012) 157, 1209.1409. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1409.pdf

    2012 arXiv

  77. [86]

    The colored Jones polynomial and Kontsevich-Zagier series for double twist knots,

    J. Lovejoy and R. Osburn, “The colored Jones polynomial and Kontsevich-Zagier series for double twist knots,” J. Knot Theory Ramifications 30 no. 5, (2021) Paper No. 2150031, 28. https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=4284605

    2021

  78. [87]

    Relations between Witten–Reshetikhin–Turaev and nonsemisimple sl(2) 3–manifold invariants,

    F. Costantino, N. Geer, and B. Patureau-Mirand, “Relations between Witten–Reshetikhin–Turaev and nonsemisimple sl(2) 3–manifold invariants,”Algebraic & Geometric Topology 15 no. 3, (2015) 1363 – 1386

    2015

  79. [88]

    Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence,

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, “Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence,” Commun. Math. Phys. 379 no. 2, (2020) 361–415, arXiv:1811.03110 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [95]

    REFERENCES 86

    https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fjhep12%282020%29095. REFERENCES 86

Pith tools

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