Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Hamiltonian quantization of complex Chern-Simons theory at level-$k$

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs the Hamiltonian quantization of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ Chern-Simons theory at even level and shows that on an $m$-holed sphere the physical Hilbert space carries a Fenchel-Nielsen representation in which…

desk verdict Solid combinatorial quantization paper whose central Hilbert-space identification rests on a spectral theorem imported from the companion paper; a referee should verify that dependency. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16367 v1 pith:JOKVV5BG submitted 2025-04-23 hep-th gr-qcmath.GTmath.QA

Muxin Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qcmath.GTmath.QA
keywords complexChern-SimonstheorycombinatorialquantizationquantumLorentzgroupFenchel-NielsenrepresentationWilsonloopsdilogarithmpantsdecompositionm-holedsphere
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 aims to quantize $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ Chern-Simons theory at even level $k=2N$ by combinatorial quantization: it builds the operator algebra of quantum holonomies on the surface and constructs its infinite-dimensional representations. The central claim is that on an $m$-holed sphere the physical Hilbert space consists of the invariant linear functionals of the quantum Lorentz group and is therefore the infinite-dimensional space $W$. On $W$ the Wilson loop operators winding around the cuts of a pants decomposition are simultaneously diagonalized as multiplication operators $p_I(\chi+\chi^{-1})$, giving what the author calls the Fenchel-Nielsen representation. If correct, this puts even-level complex Chern-Simons theory on the same spectral footing as quantum Teichmüller theory, with physical observables expressed through one spectral variable per cut.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the infinite-dimensional $*$-representation of the quantum Lorentz group on $H\simeq L^2(\mathbb{R})\otimes\mathbb{C}^N$, generated by $u$ and $y$ with $uy=q^2yu$. The argument proceeds by Clebsch-Gordan decomposition of $\pi_{\lambda_1}\otimes\pi_{\lambda_2}$: a unitary map built from the quantum dilogarithm diagonalizes the quadratic Casimir $Q''_2=\lambda_1 u^{-1}+\lambda_1^{-1}u+\lambda_2^{-1}y^{-1}$, which after a Fourier transformation becomes the generalized Dehn-twist operator $L=y^{-1}+y+u$. The eigenfunctions $\psi_\chi$ of $L$ are products of quantum dilogarithms; their spectral decomposition gives the direct-integral form of $H$ and hence the physical Hilbert space $W$. The same spectral variable $\chi$ labels the cuts of the pants decomposition and the simultaneous eigenvalues $\chi+\chi^{-1}$ of the diagonalized Wilson loops.

What would settle it

At $N=2$, take a dense family of states $f\in H$ and compute the claimed resolution of identity $\sum_{m_\chi}\int_0^\infty d\mu_\chi\,\varrho(\mu_\chi,m_\chi)^{-1}|\langle\psi_\chi|f\rangle|^2$; if it disagrees with $\|f\|^2$, completeness fails. Alternatively, compute the physical inner product on the three-holed sphere and check that the Wilson loop $W_{2,1}$ acts as multiplication by $\chi+\chi^{-1}$; any mismatch would falsify the Fenchel-Nielsen diagonalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At even level $k=2N$ with $q=\exp[\frac{2\pi i}{k}(1+b^2)]$, $\tilde q=\exp[\frac{2\pi i}{k}(1+b^{-2})]$, $|b|=1$, the paper constructs the $*$-representation of the quantum Lorentz group $\mathcal{U}_{\mathbf{q}}(sl_2)\otimes\mathcal{U}_{\tilde{\mathbf{q}}}(sl_2)$ on $H\simeq L^2(\mathbb{R})\otimes\mathbb{C}^N$ generated by $u,y$ with $uy=q^2yu$. For an $m$-holed sphere, graph-algebra representations and gauge transformations are represented on $H_{\vec\lambda}$, and physical states are the $\mathcal{U}_{\mathbf{q}}(sl_2)\otimes\mathcal{U}_{\tilde{\mathbf{q}}}(sl_2)$-invariant linear functionals on a dense domain; gauge invariance automatically enforces the flatness constraint. The main theorem is that these invariants form the physical Hilbert space $H_{\mathrm{phys}}\simeq W$, with Wilson loops along the pants-decomposition cuts acting as multiplication by $p_I(\chi+\chi^{-1})$ on $L^2(\mathbb{C},d\varrho_\chi)$; this is the Fenchel-Nielsen representation, a level-$N$ generalization of quantum Teichmüller theory that reduces to it at $N=1$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the quoted theorem that the quantum-dilogarithm eigenfunctions of the Dehn-twist operator are complete and orthogonal; if that theorem fails, the direct-integral decomposition and the identification of the physical Hilbert space with $W$ collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The physical Hilbert space of even-level complex Chern-Simons theory on an $m$-holed sphere is infinite-dimensional and isomorphic to $W$, so gauge-invariant observables can be represented by multiplication operators on an $L^2$ space over a spectral contour.
  • The flatness constraint is not an independent condition on physical states: quantum gauge invariance alone implies that the quantized holonomy around the bounding circle acts as the identity.
  • Wilson loops associated with a pants decomposition are mutually commuting and are simultaneously diagonalized, acting as $p_I(\chi+\chi^{-1})$; all higher-spin Wilson loops are determined by the spin-$1/2$ one through the fusion algebra.
  • For a 4-holed sphere, the two Fenchel-Nielsen representations coming from the two pants decompositions are unitarily equivalent, and the unitary map realizes the elementary $A$-move between decompositions.
  • At $N=1$ the Fenchel-Nielsen representation reduces to the standard quantum Teichmüller representation of the modular double of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$, so the level-$N$ theory is a direct generalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical check of the resolution of identity (8.41) for small $N$ would separate the quoted completeness theorem from the rest of the construction; the paper itself does not perform such a check.
  • The unitary parametrization (8.20) of the labels $\lambda_a$ is assumed rather than derived, so the construction may cover only one branch of representation labels; other branches could yield additional superselection sectors not described here.
  • Because the diagonalization argument is local in each pair of pants, the same spectral construction should extend to higher-genus surfaces and to more general 3-manifold decompositions, although the paper only treats the $m$-holed sphere.
  • The diagonalized Wilson loops provide concrete observables whose spectra can be compared with state-integral model results for the same level; such a comparison is not made in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Hamiltonian (combinatorial) quantization of SL(2,C) Chern-Simons theory on an m-holed sphere at even level k=2N. The graph algebra of quantum holonomies is defined from the Fock-Rosly bracket and the R-matrix, and a *-representation is constructed on H ≃ L²(R)⊗C^N that is tied to infinite-dimensional representations π_λ of the quantum Lorentz group U_q(sl2)⊗U_{q̃}(sl2). Physical states are identified with gauge-invariant linear functionals on a dense domain, and the flatness constraint is shown to be automatic for gauge-invariant states (Section 7). The physical Hilbert space is then obtained via a Clebsch-Gordan decomposition of tensor products π_{λ1}⊗π_{λ2} that is built on a spectral decomposition of the generalized Dehn-twist operator L = y^{-1}+y+u (Theorem 8.2, imported from the companion paper [37]), yielding H_phys ≃ W (Sections 8.3–8.6). In Section 9, Wilson loop operators along the cuts of a pants decomposition are shown to be simultaneously diagonalized on W as multiplication operators p_I(χ+χ^{-1}), defining the Fenchel-Nielsen representation, and a crossing-symmetry/A-move statement is sketched in Section 9.3.

Significance. If the analytical input — in particular the completeness of the eigenfunctions ψ_χ — holds, this is a substantial step: a positive-level Hamiltonian quantization of complex Chern-Simons theory on surfaces with holes, linking combinatorial quantization to the quantum Lorentz group, level-N quantum Teichmüller theory, and the modular double of U_q(sl2). The strengths of the paper are its explicit algebraic verification of the graph-algebra representation (Section 6 and Appendix E), the clean reduction of gauge invariance plus flatness to gauge invariance alone (Section 7), the uniqueness result for the invariant bilinear form (Theorem 3.7), the transparent identification of Wilson loops with quadratic Casimirs (Section 9.1), and the fact that the imported spectral theorem is explicitly flagged as the load-bearing input rather than hidden. The claims are falsifiable in a concrete way: any failure of the orthogonality or resolution of identity (8.39)–(8.41), or a change in the density (8.40), would directly alter the physical inner product and the diagonalized Wilson-loop eigenvalues derived from it.

major comments (4)
  1. [§8.2, Theorem 8.2 and Eqs. (8.39)–(8.41)] The orthogonality (8.39) and resolution of identity (8.41) of the generalized eigenfunctions ψ_χ of L = y^{-1}+y+u are stated to be 'proven in [37]' and are then used as the foundation of the direct integral (8.16), the unitarity of V_ψ, the measure dρ_χ (8.46), and, through Sections 8.3–9.3, the identification H_phys ≃ W and the Fenchel-Nielsen representation (9.22)–(9.23). The present paper states neither the precise hypotheses (domain of L, normalization of the quantum dilogarithm γ, role of the ε-regulator) nor the exact theorem statement as proved in [37]; footnote 7 concedes that the domain analysis is carried over only by assertion ('turns out to be still valid'). Because a failure of completeness or a different density ρ would invalidate the central construction, the manuscript should either prove Theorem 8.2 in an appendix or state the theorem and its hypotheses precisely and point to the exact statement in [37] with matching conventions.
  2. [§8.2, Eq. (8.20)] The restriction of the representation labels to the parametrized family λ_a = exp(2πi/N(−ibμ_a−m_a)) is assumed rather than derived. The unitarity of S_{λ2} and D_{λ1} (8.21), the reduction of Q''_2 to the Dehn-twist operator L (8.26)–(8.27), and hence the spectral decomposition defining W and the Fenchel-Nielsen representation are all valid only for this family. The footnote under (8.20) gives a heuristic justification via the annulus phase space, but the λ_a attached to the holes of an m-holed sphere are a priori unrestricted C^× labels, and for m ≥ 3 the paper does not show that the quantization forces (8.20). The authors should either derive this restriction from the quantization of the m-holed sphere phase space or state explicitly that the main results hold only for labels in this family.
  3. [§9.1–9.2, Eqs. (9.8), (9.16)–(9.17), (9.20), (9.22)–(9.23)] There is an internal sign inconsistency in the eigenvalues of the diagonalized Wilson loops. Equation (9.8) gives Tr^{1/2}_q[R'R] = −Q, so by (9.4) the operator D(W^{1/2}_{m,m−1}) equals −Q_{12}, whose eigenvalue is −(χ_{m−1}+χ^{-1}_{m−1}) by (8.6) and (8.33); equations (9.16)–(9.17) keep this minus sign. Equations (9.10), (9.20), and (9.22)–(9.23), however, state the eigenvalue as +p_I(χ+χ^{-1}) with no minus. These two lines cannot both be correct: the fusion algebra p_I p_J = Σ_K p_K forces the eigenvalue of W^I to be p_I evaluated at the fundamental eigenvalue, and since p_{1/2}(x) = x is odd while p_1(x) = x²−1 is even, the sign discrepancy affects precisely half-integer-spin Wilson loops. The sign can plausibly be absorbed by composing the spectral coordinate with χ → −χ, but as written the displayed formulas of Section 9.2 are mutually inconsistent and must be reconciled.
  4. [§9.3, Eqs. (9.24)–(9.33)] The crossing-symmetry subsection asserts that the A-move is realized by U_T^{-1}U_S, but no computation substantiates this. Equation (9.33) equates conjugate images of W^I_S and W^I_T even though the two sides act on different direct-integral spaces ((9.25) versus (9.30)); the identification of these spaces is claimed rather than derived. In particular, the nontrivial content of the A-move — the integral kernel (quantum dilogarithm/pentagon identity) relating the two spectral decompositions — is not computed. The section should either be presented as an outline or the intertwiners should actually be constructed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.4, Theorem 3.7] The uniqueness statement claims uniqueness 'in the space of linear functionals on D2', but the proof fixes Ψ only on the algebraic tensor-product subspace U^{-1}(D⊗D); without continuity — which is established only for the constructed Ψ_λ in Lemma 3.6 — the values of a general linear functional on the remaining elements of D2 are not determined. Uniqueness among continuous invariant functionals follows by density and should be stated in that form.
  2. [§8.2, Eq. (8.33)] In the antilinear eigen-equation 'ẽLψ_χ = (ẽχ+ẽχ^{-1})ψ_r', the symbol ψ_r should be ψ_χ; the same typo appears in the sentence following (8.34).
  3. [§8.1, after Eq. (8.14)] The sentence 'where µ is the spectral measure' uses the symbol µ, which conflicts with the L²(R) coordinate µ used throughout; this should be dρ_χ.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (3.48)] The relation 'f_±(ν,n+N) = ± f_±(ν,n+N)' is trivially self-referential; it should presumably read f_±(ν,n+N) = ±f_±(ν,n).
  5. [§3.1] The sentence 'The Hermite functions e^{−µ²/2}H_n(µ), n = 1,...,∞...' should index the Hermite functions starting at n = 0.
  6. [§9.1, Eqs. (9.10)–(9.11)] The third equality in (9.10) and (9.11) involves dP_{χ_m}, but the spectral parameter in this line is χ_{m−1}; the symbol χ_m is not defined in this context.
  7. [§8.6, below Eq. (8.88)] The sentence 'We obtain the equivalence O†∼O†' is self-referential as printed and is likely meant to relate the induced operator on W with O acting on H; the notation O' for the induced operator is also easily confused with the adjoint O† and should be changed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the construction depends heavily on the author's own companion paper [37] for the spectral theorem, but that is an independent imported theorem, not a self-referential fit.

full rationale

The central claim—physical Hilbert space H_phys ≃ W and the Fenchel-Nielsen representation where Wilson loops are multiplication operators—is obtained by applying a unitary spectral transform to the quadratic Casimirs. The transform is supplied by Theorem 8.2: 'The eigenstates ψχ satisfy the orthogonality' and 'the resolution of identity on H', stated as 'proven in [37]' (Section 8.2, Eqs. (8.39)–(8.41)). The paper also imports from [37] the Clebsch–Gordan unitary U12, the domain bijection 'U12 : S12 → S12′′', and the relations (8.6)–(8.11), as well as integral identities used in Appendix F ('We use the result in [37]', 'The following relations are shown in [37]'). These are genuine dependencies on the author's companion paper, but they are not circular: the imported theorem concerns the generalized eigenfunctions of L = y^{-1}+y+u and their completeness with an explicit density ϱ(μχ,mχ); it does not assume the m-holed-sphere physical Hilbert space, the Wilson-loop diagonalization, or the quantities derived in Sections 8–9. The measure dϱχ is not fitted to the Wilson-loop eigenvalues; rather, the Wilson-loop operators are first shown to equal functions of the transformed Casimir Q2′′, and only then represented as multiplication by pI(χ+χ^{-1}) after the unitary map Vψ. The parametrization assumption (8.20), λa = exp[(2πi/N)(−ibμa−ma)], is an explicit stated restriction on representation labels with a quantization rationale in a footnote, not a hidden input. No self-definitional step, no fitted input dressed as a prediction, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern as a new derivation was found. The paper is not self-contained because its key spectral theorem is delegated to [37], and the 4-holed-sphere FN representation was already introduced there; this raises the dependency flag but does not constitute circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the infinite-dimensional representation theory of the quantum Lorentz group, mostly imported from the companion paper [37], plus the even-level restriction and the unitary parametrization (8.20). No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • λ (representation label)
    A free label parametrizing the infinite-dimensional representations π_λ of the quantum Lorentz group; later restricted by assumption (8.20) to λ=exp(2πi/N(-ib μ - m)) with μ∈R, m∈Z/NZ. Not fitted to data but chosen to make translation operators unitary.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The operators x,y,ex,ey on L^2(R)⊗C^k form an irreducible *-representation of the q,eq-Weyl algebra (Lemma 3.3).
    Cited to [37]; used to construct π_λ and prove irreducibility. The Fréchet domain D0 and the density conditions are assumed.
  • domain assumption The eigenstates ψ_χ of the generalized Dehn-twist operator satisfy orthogonality and resolution of identity (Theorem 8.2).
    Stated as proven in [37]; underpins the direct integral decomposition (8.16) and the identification H_phys≃W. This is the load-bearing external input.
  • domain assumption The level k is even, k=2N, and the physical Hilbert space H is the even eigenspace H+ of e^{-iπm}.
    The whole construction of irreducible representations of U_q(sl2)⊗U_q̃(sl2) on H≃L^2(R)⊗C^N requires even level; odd level is deferred.
  • ad hoc to paper The representation labels λ_a are parametrized by (8.20).
    Introduced in Section 8.2 with 'we further assume' to make S_λ and D_λ unitary; not derived from classical discrete connections.
  • standard math Standard results of quantum group theory: quasi-triangular Hopf algebras, R-matrix, Clebsch-Gordan maps, quantum traces.
    Used throughout Sections 2, 5, 9; accepted as background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian quantization of complex Chern-Simons theory at level-$k$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOKVV5BG

@misc{pith2026250416367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian quantization of complex Chern-Simons theory at level-$k$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOKVV5BG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16367}
}
abstract

This paper develops a framework for the Hamiltonian quantization of complex Chern-Simons theory with gauge group $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ at an even level $k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$. Our approach follows the procedure of combinatorial quantization to construct the operator algebras of quantum holonomies on 2-surfaces and develop the representation theory. The $*$-representation of the operator algebra is carried by the infinite dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{\vec{\lambda}}$ and closely connects to the infinite-dimensional $*$-representation of the quantum deformed Lorentz group $\mathscr{U}_{\mathbf{q}}(sl_2)\otimes \mathscr{U}_{\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}}(sl_2)$, where $\mathbf{q}=\exp[\frac{2\pi i}{k}(1+b^2)]$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}=\exp[\frac{2\pi i}{k}(1+b^{-2})]$ with $|b|=1$. The quantum group $\mathscr{U}_{\mathbf{q}}(sl_2)\otimes \mathscr{U}_{\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}}(sl_2)$ also emerges from the quantum gauge transformations of the complex Chern-Simons theory. Focusing on a $m$-holed sphere $\Sigma_{0,m}$, the physical Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{phys}$ is identified by imposing the gauge invariance and the flatness constraint. The states in $\mathcal{H}_{phys}$ are the $\mathscr{U}_{\mathbf{q}}(sl_2)\otimes \mathscr{U}_{\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}}(sl_2)$-invariant linear functionals on a dense domain in $\mathcal{H}_{\vec{\lambda}}$. Finally, we demonstrate that the physical Hilbert space carries a Fenchel-Nielsen representation, where a set of Wilson loop operators associated with a pants decomposition of $\Sigma_{0,m}$ are diagonalized.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Representations of a quantum-deformed Lorentz algebra, Clebsch-Gordan map, and Fenchel-Nielsen representation of complex Chern-Simons theory at level-${N}$

    M. Han, Representations of a quantum-deformed Lorentz algebra, Clebsch-Gordan map, and Fenchel-Nielsen representation of quantum complex flat connections at level- k, arXiv:2402.08176

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Chern and J

    S.-S. Chern and J. H. Simons, Characteristic forms and geometric invariants , Annals of Mathematics 99 (1974), no. 1 48–69

    work page 1974

  3. [2]

    Witten, Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial , Communications in Mathematical Physics 121 (1989) 351–399

    E. Witten, Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial , Communications in Mathematical Physics 121 (1989) 351–399

    work page 1989

  4. [3]

    N. Y. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev, Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups, Inventiones mathematicae 103 (1991), no. 1 547–597

    work page 1991

  5. [4]

    Elitzur, G

    S. Elitzur, G. W. Moore, A. Schwimmer, and N. Seiberg, Remarks on the Canonical Quantization of the Chern-Simons-Witten Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 326 (1989) 108–134

    1989

  6. [5]

    G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, Taming the Conformal Zoo , Phys. Lett. B 220 (1989) 422–430

    1989

  7. [6]

    Witten, 2+ 1 dimensional gravity as an exactly soluble system , Nuclear Physics B (1988)

    E. Witten, 2+ 1 dimensional gravity as an exactly soluble system , Nuclear Physics B (1988)

    work page 1988

  8. [7]

    Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity

    T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity . Cambridge University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Engle, K

    J. Engle, K. Noui, A. Perez, and D. Pranzetti, The SU(2) Black Hole entropy revisited , JHEP 1105 (2011) 016, [ arXiv:1103.2723]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Witten, Three lectures on topological phases of matter , Riv

    E. Witten, Three lectures on topological phases of matter , Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39 (2016), no. 7 313–370, [arXiv:1510.07698]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Wen, Topological orders and edge excitations in fractional quantum Hall states , Advances in Physics 44 (Sept., 1995) 405–473, [ cond-mat/9506066]

    X.-G. Wen, Topological orders and edge excitations in fractional quantum Hall states , Advances in Physics 44 (Sept., 1995) 405–473, [ cond-mat/9506066]. – 63 –

    1995 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Topological Quantum Computation, quant-ph/0101025

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Witten, Quantization of chern-simons gauge theory with complex gauge group , Communications in Mathematical Physics 137 (1991), no

    E. Witten, Quantization of chern-simons gauge theory with complex gauge group , Communications in Mathematical Physics 137 (1991), no. 1 29–66

    1991

  6. [13]

    Witten, Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory , Chern-Simons Gauge Theory: 20 years after (2010) 347–446, [ arXiv:1001.2933]

    E. Witten, Analytic Continuation Of Chern-Simons Theory , Chern-Simons Gauge Theory: 20 years after (2010) 347–446, [ arXiv:1001.2933]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Dimofte and S

    T. Dimofte and S. Gukov, Quantum field theory and the volume conjecture , Contemp.Math. 541 (2011) 41–67, [arXiv:1003.4808]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [15]

    R. M. Kashaev, The Hyperbolic Volume of Knots from the Quantum Dilogarithm , Letters in Mathematical Physics 39 (Feb., 1997) 269–275, [ q-alg/9601025]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Murakami and J

    H. Murakami and J. Murakami, The colored Jones polynomials and the simplicial volume of a knot , arXiv Mathematics e-prints (May, 1999) math/9905075, [math/9905075]

    1999 arXiv

  10. [17]

    H. M. Haggard, M. Han, W. Kaminski, and A. Riello, SL(2,C) Chern-Simons Theory, a non-Planar Graph Operator, and 4D Loop Quantum Gravity with a Cosmological Constant: Semiclassical Geometry , Nucl. Phys. B900 (2015) 1–79, [ arXiv:1412.7546]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Han, Four-dimensional spinfoam quantum gravity with a cosmological constant: Finiteness and semiclassical limit, Phys

    M. Han, Four-dimensional spinfoam quantum gravity with a cosmological constant: Finiteness and semiclassical limit, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 10 104035, [ arXiv:2109.00034]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Dimofte, D

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

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Cordova and D

    C. Cordova and D. L. Jafferis, Complex Chern-Simons from M5-branes on the Squashed Three-Sphere , JHEP 11 (2017) 119, [ arXiv:1305.2891]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Dimofte, Quantum Riemann surfaces in Chern-Simons theory , Adv.Theor.Math.Phys

    T. Dimofte, Quantum Riemann surfaces in Chern-Simons theory , Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 17 (2013) 479–599, [arXiv:1102.4847]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Dimofte, Complex Chern-Simons Theory at Level k via the 3d-3d Correspondence , Commun

    T. Dimofte, Complex Chern-Simons Theory at Level k via the 3d-3d Correspondence , Commun. Math. Phys. 339 (2015), no. 2 619–662, [ arXiv:1409.0857]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Ellegaard Andersen, A

    J. Ellegaard Andersen, A. Malus` a, and G. Rembado, Genus-one complex quantum Chern–Simons theory, arXiv e-prints (Dec., 2020) arXiv:2012.15630, [ arXiv:2012.15630]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    J. E. Andersen and S. Marzioni, Level n teichm¨ uller tqft and complex chern-simons theory, arXiv:1612.06986

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Ellegaard Andersen and R

    J. Ellegaard Andersen and R. Kashaev, Complex Quantum Chern-Simons , ArXiv e-prints (Sept., 2014) [arXiv:1409.1208]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bar-Natan and E

    D. Bar-Natan and E. Witten, Perturbative expansion of chern-simons theory with noncompact gauge group, Communications in Mathematical Physics 141 (1991), no. 2 423–440

    1991

  20. [27]

    Dimofte, S

    T. Dimofte, S. Gukov, J. Lenells, and D. Zagier, Exact results for perturbative Chern-Simons theory with complex gauge group , Commun.Num.Theor.Phys. 3 (2009) 363–443

    2009

  21. [28]

    Gukov, M

    S. Gukov, M. Mari˜ no, and P. Putrov,Resurgence in complex chern–simons theory , Annales Henri Poincar´ e18 (2017), no. 4 1117–1169, [ arXiv:1605.07615]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    V. V. Fock and A. A. Rosly, Poisson structure on moduli of flat connections on Riemann surfaces and r matrix, Am. Math. Soc. Transl. 191 (1999) 67–86, [ math/9802054]

    1999 arXiv

  23. [30]

    A. Y. Alekseev, H. Grosse, and V. Schomerus, Combinatorial quantization of the Hamiltonian Chern-Simons theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 172 (1995) 317–358, [ hep-th/9403066]. – 64 –

    1995 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A. Y. Alekseev, H. Grosse, and V. Schomerus, Combinatorial quantization of the Hamiltonian Chern-Simons theory. 2. , Commun. Math. Phys. 174 (1995) 561–604, [ hep-th/9408097]

    1995 arXiv

  25. [32]

    A. Y. Alekseev and V. Schomerus, Representation theory of Chern-Simons observables , q-alg/9503016

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Buffenoir, K

    E. Buffenoir, K. Noui, and P. Roche, Hamiltonian quantization of Chern-Simons theory with SL(2,C) group, Class.Quant.Grav. 19 (2002) 4953, [ hep-th/0202121]

    2002 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Podles and S

    P. Podles and S. Woronowicz, Quantum deformation of Lorentz group , Commun.Math.Phys. 130 (1990) 381–431

    1990

  28. [35]

    Buffenoir and P

    E. Buffenoir and P. Roche, Harmonic analysis on the quantum Lorentz group , Commun.Math.Phys. 207 (1999) 499–555, [ q-alg/9710022]

    1999 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Gaiotto and J

    D. Gaiotto and J. Teschner, Schur Quantization and Complex Chern-Simons theory , arXiv:2406.09171

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. E. Derkachov and L. D. Faddeev, 3j-symbol for the modular double of SLq(2, R) revisited, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 532 (2014) 012005, [ arXiv:1302.5400]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kashaev, The Quantum Dilogarithm and Dehn Twists in Quantum Teichm¨ uller Theory, pp

    R. Kashaev, The Quantum Dilogarithm and Dehn Twists in Quantum Teichm¨ uller Theory, pp. 211–221. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    Nidaiev and J

    I. Nidaiev and J. Teschner, On the relation between the modular double of Uq(sl(2,R )) and the quantum Teichmueller theory, arXiv:1302.3454

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Podle´ s and S

    P. Podle´ s and S. L. Woronowicz,Quantum deformation of Lorentz group , Comm. Math. Phys. 130 (1990), no. 2 381–431

    1990

  34. [42]

    Majid, Foundations of Quantum Group Theory

    S. Majid, Foundations of Quantum Group Theory . Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  35. [43]

    V. V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, The quantum dilogarithm and representations of quantum cluster varieties, Inventiones Mathematicae 175 (Sept., 2008) 223–286, [ math/0702397]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. K. Molnar, Semi-direct products of hopf algebras , Journal of Algebra 47 (1977), no. 1 29–51

    1977

  37. [45]

    I. M. Gelfand and G. E. Shilov, Generalized functions, Vol.4. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1967

    1967

  38. [46]

    R. M. Kashaev, On the spectrum of Dehn twists in quantum Teichmuller theory , math/0008148

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ponsot and J

    B. Ponsot and J. Teschner, Clebsch-Gordan and Racah-Wigner coefficients for a continuous series of representations of U(q)(sl(2,R)), Commun. Math. Phys. 224 (2001) 613–655, [ math/0007097]

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Faddeev, Discrete Heisenberg-Weyl group and modular group , Lett.Math.Phys

    L. Faddeev, Discrete Heisenberg-Weyl group and modular group , Lett.Math.Phys. 34 (1995) 249–254, [hep-th/9504111]

    1995 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Giulini and D

    D. Giulini and D. Marolf, On the generality of refined algebraic quantization , Class. Quant. Grav. 16 (1999) 2479–2488, [ gr-qc/9812024]

    1999 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hsiao and Q

    C.-H. Hsiao and Q. Pan, Quantum Curved Tetrahedron, Quantum Group Intertwiner Space, and Coherent States, arXiv:2407.03242

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, Classical and Quantum Conformal Field Theory , Commun. Math. Phys. 123 (1989) 177. – 65 –

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.