A note on general linear link homology

Paul Wedrich

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A note on general linear link homology

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Integral quantum gradings force finite-rank type A link homologies to categorify $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(N))$ rather than $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(N))$, and the paper shows how deformations, functoriality, and skein-module gradings all fall into…

desk verdict Useful expository note: integral gradings naturally point type A link homology to glN, but the abstract oversells the scope and one side claim needs support. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20745 v1 pith:6ZIQU7EB submitted 2025-04-29 math.QA math.GT

Paul Wedrich This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.QAmath.GT MSC 57K1817B37

keywords linkhomologyKhovanovKhovanov–Rozanskyquantumgroupsgl(N)sl(N)foamsskeinmodules

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The note argues that the standard finite-rank type A link homologies—Khovanov homology for rank 2 and Khovanov–Rozansky homology for general rank—are best understood as categorifications of quantum general linear group invariants, not special linear ones. The reason is structural: their local crossing complexes use an integral quantum grading, and the $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(N))$ braiding requires fractional powers $q^{1/N}$, which such complexes cannot express. Once the $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ attribution is adopted, three features become natural: deformation spectral sequences decompose along $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ branching rules (Lee homology for rank 2 splits into $\mathfrak{gl}(1)\oplus\mathfrak{gl}(1)$), functoriality under cobordisms requires breaking the crossing symmetry in a way that encodes the determinant representation, and the resulting skein modules are graded by integral homology rather than torsion groups. A sympathetic reader should care because this reframes a well-studied family of invariants and explains otherwise ad hoc conventions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local crossing chain complex (1.7): a two-term complex over a $\mathbb{Z}$-graded web/foam category with integral quantum and cohomological shifts, whose highlighted term sits in cohomological degree zero. This complex is the categorified avatar of the rescaled Schur–Weyl braiding; its integrality of the quantum grading is what excludes the $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(N))$ braiding, which needs $q^{1/N}$. The paper also uses the Kazhdan–Lusztig basis element $B_1$ of the type $A_1$ Hecke algebra—the quasi-idempotent with eigenvalue $[2]$—to encode the wedge projection, and Robert–Wagner foams as the concrete combinatorial model where functoriality and deformations are verified.

What would settle it

Exhibit a finite-rank type A link homology theory with integral quantum grading whose local crossing complex decategorifies to the $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(N))$ braiding with $q^{1/N}$ without rescaling, or exhibit for some $N>2$ an integral-graded link homology with genuinely $\mathfrak{sl}(N)$ flavour that is not isomorphic to the corresponding $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ theory; either would break the paper's dichotomy. The note itself points to Khovanov's $\mathfrak{sl}(3)$ homology as the only known candidate of the latter kind.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that finite-rank type A link homology theories are associated with $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$, not $\mathfrak{sl}(N)$, in the sense that any construction built from chain complexes with an integral quantum grading—the universal local model (1.7)—is forced to categorify the $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(N))$ skein relation. The paper demonstrates that an $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(N))$-compatible braiding would require rescaling the Schur–Weyl braiding by an $N$-th root of $q$, so the categorified crossing complex would need fractional quantum degree shifts that are absent from the integral grading. It then shows that the deformation theory of these homologies follows the branching rules of $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ representations, that making Khovanov homology functorial requires breaking the symmetry of the crossing complex in a way that encodes the nontrivial determinant of $\mathfrak{gl}(2)$, and that skein modules built from these theories are graded by integral homology ($H_1$ or $H_2$) rather than $\mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that finite-rank type A link homologies are built from chain complexes with an integral quantum grading, as in the local crossing model (1.7), and that this framework is representative; if fractional-graded categorifications or genuinely different constructions are allowed, the forced $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ attribution can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Khovanov homology for $\mathfrak{gl}(2)$ and Khovanov–Rozansky homology for $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ should be regarded as categorifications of $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(N))$ invariants, making the integral quantum grading a feature rather than a convention.
Deformed theories such as Lee homology decompose according to $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ branching rules: the $\mathfrak{gl}(2)$ Lee homology of a knot splits into components labelled by the two roots $\pm 1$, i.e. $\mathfrak{gl}(1)\oplus\mathfrak{gl}(1)$.
Functorial Khovanov homology requires a symmetry-broken crossing complex that encodes the determinant representation of $\mathfrak{gl}(2)$; this fixes sign ambiguities and makes the basepoint action location-independent.
Categorified skein modules built from these theories carry integral homology gradings ($H_1$ for thickened surfaces, $H_2$ for 4-manifold skein modules), and their deformations decompose along branching rules.
No integral-graded construction in this family can categorify the literal $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(N))$ skein relation, since that relation needs $q^{1/N}$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ attribution is right, the common label 'sl(N) link homology' is a misnomer for integral-graded constructions; a genuinely $\mathfrak{sl}(N)$-flavored theory would need a different mechanism, such as fractional quantum gradings or root-of-unity specializations.
The branching-rule picture suggests interpreting deformed homology as a categorified restriction functor from $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ to a direct sum of smaller $\mathfrak{gl}(N_i)$; this could yield explicit spectral sequences from Khovanov–Rozansky homology to tensor products, testable in colored link examples.
The integral $H_1$/$H_2$ gradings imply that $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ categorified invariants see homological information that $\mathfrak{sl}(N)$ versions collapse modulo $N$, potentially sharpening invariants of surfaces in 4-manifolds.
The note works primarily with one concrete foam construction; because isomorphisms to other constructions are rarely canonical and their functoriality is less studied, the $\mathfrak{gl}(N)$ attribution is established for the whole family only insofar as those constructions are equivalent.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a well-written expository note that makes a real conceptual point — integral quantum gradings push type A link homology toward glN rather than slN — and it earns its place more by synthesis than by new theorems. The Section 1 computation is the heart: a rescaled braiding compatible with Uq(slN) forces c^N = ±q, so any categorification with integral q-grading and the standard local crossing complex (1.7) cannot decategorify to the slN braiding. That argument is clean and correct within its stated framework. Sections 2 and 3 are faithful summaries of the deformation and functoriality results in [RW16], [ETW18], [QW21], [MWW22], and the Hopf link examples genuinely illustrate how Lee-type deformations decompose along glN branching rules. The writing is careful, and footnote 1 is an honest scope restriction.

Soft spots, in proportion. The word “forced” in the abstract and Section 1 is stronger than what is actually shown. What is shown is that the Robert–Wagner foam framework, or any construction whose crossing complex has the form (1.7) with integral shifts, must see glN rather than slN. That covers a lot, but not demonstrably everything called “type A link homology”; footnote 1 says so, yet the abstract still speaks of “the bigraded type A link homology theories”. I’d soften that.

The other thing that should be fixed is the claim in Section 3.1 that for N>2 there only exists one link homology with a distinct slN flavour, namely Khovanov’s sl3 homology. That is a survey-level assertion with no citation or argument. It may be true under a precise notion of “flavour”, but as written it reads like an opinion stated as fact. Either add the definition and supporting evidence, or cut it.

The heavy self-citation is not a problem here: the cited results are published, the summaries are accurate, and the paper is explicit about being a note. Nothing in the mathematics strikes me as wrong. The limitations are about scope and framing, not correctness.

Bottom line: if you work in link homology or teach it, this is a useful reference for why the glN convention is natural. I would send it to a referee — it deserves one — but I’d ask for a minor revision that aligns the abstract’s scope with what Section 1 actually proves and deletes or supports the sl3 uniqueness remark.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This expository note argues that finite-rank type A link homology theories—such as Khovanov homology and Khovanov–Rozansky homology—are more naturally understood as categorifications of Uq(glN) invariants than of Uq(slN) invariants. Section 1 gives the main conceptual argument: a local crossing complex of the form (1.7) with integral quantum and cohomological shifts, together with the MOY calculus, can only decategorify to a braiding of glN type, because an slN-compatible rescaling would require c^N = ±q and hence a fractional power q^{1/N}. Section 2 reviews deformed Khovanov–Rozansky homologies and uses Hopf-link examples to illustrate how Lee-type deformations decompose according to glN branching rules. Section 3 discusses functoriality: symmetry breaking in the crossing complex, the basepoint action, and skein modules graded by integral homology, all of which are presented as glN-specific phenomena. The note is an expository survey that draws heavily on the author's prior work with collaborators, and it makes no claim to prove new theorems.

Significance. If the paper's perspective is accepted, it would reframe a substantial body of work on type A link homology: integral quantum gradings, deformation behavior, functoriality, and skein-module gradings would all be viewed as natural consequences of a glN rather than slN attribution. The paper has clear strengths: the local computation in Section 1 is transparent and the conventions are stated explicitly; the examples in Section 2 are well chosen and illustrate the branching-rule viewpoint concretely; and the bibliography is comprehensive. The note also gives credit appropriately by relying on published results such as [RW16, Theorem 1.1], [ETW18], [QW21], and [MWW22] rather than claiming new proofs. Its main weakness is the gap between the framework-specific argument in Section 1 and the universal phrasing of the thesis in the abstract, together with an unsupported survey claim in Section 3.1. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the core exposition.

major comments (2)

[Abstract; Section 1, Eq. (1.7); Conventions] The paper's central claim is stated more broadly than the argument supports. The conclusion that integral quantum gradings force a categorification of the Uq(glN) skein relation is derived under the explicit hypothesis that the local crossing complex has the form (1.7) with integral q- and t-shifts. The Conventions restrict the discussion to the Robert–Wagner foam construction and to constructions proven to yield isomorphic chain complexes on links, with footnote 1 conceding that such isomorphisms are rarely canonical and that functoriality is not well understood in other constructions. The paper does not establish that every finite-rank bigraded type A link homology, including the Khovanov sl3 homology mentioned in Section 3.1, admits a local presentation of the form (1.7). Consequently, the abstract's reference to 'the bigraded type A link homology theories' overreaches the demonstrated scope. Please either prove representativeness of the local model for the theories covered or explicitly scope the abstract and Section 1 conclusions to the Robert–Wagner foam framework and its isomorphic variants.
[Section 3.1] The assertion that for N > 2 'there only exists one example of a link homology ... that has a distinct slN flavour, namely Khovanov's sl3 homology' is presented without a citation, a proof, or a precise definition of 'distinct slN flavour.' This claim is load-bearing for the paper's suggestion that the glN perspective is universal. Please provide a reference for such a classification or a precise criterion (for example, non-existence of a local crossing complex of the form (1.7)), or rephrase the sentence as an observation about the particular constructions compared in this note. If no classification exists, the sentence should be softened accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typos that should be corrected: 'Acknowleding' (Section 1.1), 'requries' (Section 1), 'additionl' (Section 3.1), 'intergral' (Abstract), and 'acound' (Section 3.3).
[Section 1.1] The third displayed relation after (1.2), printed as 'c^{-1} - c = (q - q^{-1})', is not explained in the text. As typeset, it is unclear how it follows from the relations in (1.2) and what role it plays in the subsequent rescaling computation; please clarify or correct the display.
[Section 1.2] The sentence 'the only major difference is that the determinant now becomes trivial' should be made more precise: ∧^N_q(V) is isomorphic to the tensor unit as a Uq(slN)-representation, but the isomorphism φ is additional data, and the computation leading to (1.5) depends on the naturality of the braiding with respect to this identification.
[Section 2.1] In Examples 1 and 2, the claim that the Lee-homology summands are 'naturally parametrized by colorings' is asserted rather than proved. For an expository note this is acceptable, but a pointer to the specific statements in [BM06] and [RW16] that justify the splitting would make the examples easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gl(N)-forcing argument in Section 1 is self-contained, and the cited prior work is independent published mathematics.

full rationale

The central derivation in Section 1 is self-contained: starting from the integral-shift local model (1.7), the paper computes that an U_q(sl_N)-compatible rescaling of the standard braiding would require c = ±q^{1/N} (the displayed relation c^N = ±q), whereas any decategorification of a Z-graded complex such as (1.7) has only integral powers of q. This is a genuine conditional argument within an explicitly stated framework, not an assumption of the conclusion. Section 2's branching-rule interpretation rests on Rose–Wedrich [RW16, Theorem 1.1], a published theorem with an independent proof, which the rules here count as independent support rather than circular self-citation. Section 3's functoriality discussion uses the self-contained Section 1 analysis and published constructions by the author and others (ETW18, QW21, MWW22), and the local Blanchet-complex argument is presented explicitly. The paper is expository and qualifies its scope in footnote 1; the claim that only Khovanov's sl_3 homology has a distinct sl_N flavour for N > 2 is an unsupported survey assertion, but that is a breadth-of-evidence or correctness concern, not circularity, since no equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input or to an assumed conclusion. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new fitted parameters, axioms, or entities are introduced. The note relies on standard quantum group and web-category background, on the Robert-Wagner foam model chosen in the Conventions, and on the integral-grading assumption from Section 1. The integral-grading assumption is the load-bearing axiom: without it, the claim that constructions are forced to categorify Uq(glN) does not follow.

assumptions (6)

standard math The representation category of gl_N generated by the fundamental representation is captured by webs with the rank condition ∧^{N+i}(V)=0.
Invoked in Section 1 to set up the web calculus for type A link homologies.
standard math Quantum Schur-Weyl duality and the Hecke relation (T1-q)(T1+q^{-1})=0 describe the braiding on V⊗V.
Used in Section 1 to define q-exterior powers and to compute the rescaled braiding.
domain assumption Categorification complexes take the local form (1.7) with integral q and t shifts.
This is the load-bearing assumption of Section 1; excluding fractional q-gradings makes the glN skein relation appear forced.
domain assumption The Robert-Wagner closed foam evaluation [RW20] with functoriality from [ETW18] is a faithful model for finite-rank type A link homologies.
Conventions; the note's conclusions are stated for this construction, with only non-canonical extension to other constructions.
standard math Deformations KhRΣ decompose as in [RW16, Theorem 1.1] along gl_N branching rules.
Used in Section 2 to interpret deformed homology summands as smaller-rank gl_N homologies.
standard math The web category relations of [CKM14] hold at generic q.
Used in Section 1 to justify diagrammatic identities for higher exterior powers and the braiding.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A note on general linear link homology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZIQU7EB

@misc{pith2026250420745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A note on general linear link homology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZIQU7EB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20745}
}

read the original abstract

This expository note outlines why it is sometimes useful to consider the bigraded type A link homology theories as associated with the Lie algebras gl(N) instead of sl(N).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Lectures on SL(3) foams and link homology
math.QA 2025-07 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

This is an expository review of SL(3) foam evaluation and its use in categorifying the Kuperberg quantum invariant, with no new theorems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Categorification of the Kauffman bracket skein module ofI-bundles over surfaces

[APS04] Marta M. Asaeda, J ´ozef H. Przytycki, and Adam S. Sikora. “Categorification of the Kauffman bracket skein module ofI-bundles over surfaces”. Algebr. Geom. Topol.vol. 4 (2004), pp. 1177–1210. [Bar05] Dror Bar-Natan. “Khovanov’s homology for tangles and cobordisms”. Geom. Topol. vol. 9 (2005), pp. 1443–1499. [BHPW23] Anna Beliakova, Matthew Hoganca...

work page 2004
[6]

Skein modules of 3-manifolds

[Prz91] J ´ozef H. Przytycki. “Skein modules of 3-manifolds”. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. vol. 39 (1-2) (1991), pp. 91–100. [PT88] J ´ozef H. Przytycki and Paweł Traczyk. “Invariants of links of Conway type”. Kobe J. Math. vol. 4 (2) (1988), pp. 115–139. [QW21] Hoel Queffelec and Paul Wedrich. “Khovanov homology and categorification of skein modules”. Q...

work page 1991
[7]

Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups

[RT90] Nicolai Yu. Reshetikhin and Vladimir G. Turaev. “Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups”. Comm. Math. Phys. vol. 127 (1) (1990), pp. 1–26. [RW16] David E.V . Rose and Paul Wedrich. “Deformations of colored sl(N) link homologies via foams”. Geom. Topol. vol. 20 (6) (2016), pp. 3431–3517. [RW20] Louis-Hadrien Robert and Emmanu...

arXiv 1990
[8]

Fixing the functoriality of Khovanov homology: a simple approach

[San21] Taketo Sano. “Fixing the functoriality of Khovanov homology: a simple approach”. J. Knot Theory Ramifications vol. 30 (11) (2021), Paper No. 2150074,

work page 2021
[10]

Skein quantization of Poisson algebras of loops on surfaces

13 [Tur91] Vladimir G. Turaev. “Skein quantization of Poisson algebras of loops on surfaces”. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) vol. 24 (6) (1991), pp. 635–704. [TVW17] Daniel Tubbenhauer, Pedro Vaz, and Paul Wedrich. “Super q-Howe duality and web categories”. Algebr. Geom. Topol.vol. 17 (6) (2017), pp. 3703–3749. [Vog20] Pierre Vogel. “Functoriality of Kho...

work page 1991
[12]

Braiding on type A Soergel bimodules: semistrictness and naturality

[SW24] Catharina Stroppel and Paul Wedrich. Braiding on type A Soergel bimodules: semistrictness and naturality. arXiv:2412.20587

arXiv
[66]

Equivariant colored sl(N)-homology for links

[Wu12] Hao Wu. “Equivariant colored sl(N)-homology for links”. J. Knot Theory Ramifications vol. 21 (2) (2012), pp. 1250012,

work page 2012
[2004]

An invariant of link cobordisms from Khovanov homology

[Jac04] Magnus Jacobsson. “An invariant of link cobordisms from Khovanov homology”. Algebr. Geom. Topol. vol. 4 (2004), pp. 1211–1251. [Kho00] Mikhail Khovanov. “A categorification of the Jones polynomial”. Duke Math. J. vol. 101 (3) (2000), pp. 359–426. [Kho04] Mikhail Khovanov. “sl(3) link homology”. Algebr. Geom. Topol.vol. 4 (2004), pp. 1045–1081. [Kh...

arXiv 2004

Show all 11 references

[2016]

Functoriality of colored link homologies

[ETW18] Michael Ehrig, Daniel Tubbenhauer, and Paul Wedrich. “Functoriality of colored link homologies”. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) vol. 117 (5) (2018), pp. 996–1040. [FYHLMO85] P . Freyd, D. Yetter, J. Hoste, W. B. R. Lickorish, K. Millett, and A. Ocneanu. “A new polynomial i...

2018 arXiv
[2020]

©2020, pp. xxv+588. [EST16] Michael Ehrig, Catharina Stroppel, and Daniel Tubbenhauer. Generic gl2-foams, web and arc algebras. arXiv:1601.08010

2020 arXiv
[2024]

Standard objects in 2-braid groups

[LW14] Nicolas Libedinsky and Geordie Williamson. “Standard objects in 2-braid groups”. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) vol. 109 (5) (2014), pp. 1264–1280. [MOY98] Hitoshi Murakami, Tomotada Ohtsuki, and Shuji Yamada. “Homfly polynomial via an invariant of colored plane graphs”. En...

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Categorification of the Kauffman bracket skein module ofI-bundles over surfaces

[APS04] Marta M. Asaeda, J ´ozef H. Przytycki, and Adam S. Sikora. “Categorification of the Kauffman bracket skein module ofI-bundles over surfaces”. Algebr. Geom. Topol.vol. 4 (2004), pp. 1177–1210. [Bar05] Dror Bar-Natan. “Khovanov’s homology for tangles and cobordisms”. Geom. Topol. vol. 9 (2005), pp. 1443–1499. [BHPW23] Anna Beliakova, Matthew Hoganca...

work page 2004

[2] [6]

Skein modules of 3-manifolds

[Prz91] J ´ozef H. Przytycki. “Skein modules of 3-manifolds”. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. vol. 39 (1-2) (1991), pp. 91–100. [PT88] J ´ozef H. Przytycki and Paweł Traczyk. “Invariants of links of Conway type”. Kobe J. Math. vol. 4 (2) (1988), pp. 115–139. [QW21] Hoel Queffelec and Paul Wedrich. “Khovanov homology and categorification of skein modules”. Q...

work page 1991

[3] [7]

Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups

[RT90] Nicolai Yu. Reshetikhin and Vladimir G. Turaev. “Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups”. Comm. Math. Phys. vol. 127 (1) (1990), pp. 1–26. [RW16] David E.V . Rose and Paul Wedrich. “Deformations of colored sl(N) link homologies via foams”. Geom. Topol. vol. 20 (6) (2016), pp. 3431–3517. [RW20] Louis-Hadrien Robert and Emmanu...

arXiv 1990

[4] [8]

Fixing the functoriality of Khovanov homology: a simple approach

[San21] Taketo Sano. “Fixing the functoriality of Khovanov homology: a simple approach”. J. Knot Theory Ramifications vol. 30 (11) (2021), Paper No. 2150074,

work page 2021

[5] [10]

Skein quantization of Poisson algebras of loops on surfaces

13 [Tur91] Vladimir G. Turaev. “Skein quantization of Poisson algebras of loops on surfaces”. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) vol. 24 (6) (1991), pp. 635–704. [TVW17] Daniel Tubbenhauer, Pedro Vaz, and Paul Wedrich. “Super q-Howe duality and web categories”. Algebr. Geom. Topol.vol. 17 (6) (2017), pp. 3703–3749. [Vog20] Pierre Vogel. “Functoriality of Kho...

work page 1991

[6] [12]

Braiding on type A Soergel bimodules: semistrictness and naturality

[SW24] Catharina Stroppel and Paul Wedrich. Braiding on type A Soergel bimodules: semistrictness and naturality. arXiv:2412.20587

arXiv

[7] [66]

Equivariant colored sl(N)-homology for links

[Wu12] Hao Wu. “Equivariant colored sl(N)-homology for links”. J. Knot Theory Ramifications vol. 21 (2) (2012), pp. 1250012,

work page 2012

[8] [2004]

An invariant of link cobordisms from Khovanov homology

[Jac04] Magnus Jacobsson. “An invariant of link cobordisms from Khovanov homology”. Algebr. Geom. Topol. vol. 4 (2004), pp. 1211–1251. [Kho00] Mikhail Khovanov. “A categorification of the Jones polynomial”. Duke Math. J. vol. 101 (3) (2000), pp. 359–426. [Kho04] Mikhail Khovanov. “sl(3) link homology”. Algebr. Geom. Topol.vol. 4 (2004), pp. 1045–1081. [Kh...

arXiv 2004