Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Instanton 2-torsion and Dehn surgeries

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a rational surgery on a nontrivial knot with 2-torsion-free framed instanton homology forces the knot to be an instanton L-space knot, and uses this to rule out SU(2)-abelian surgeries at slopes 5 and 11/2 except for…

desk verdict Strong new results in instanton Floer homology, but the proof of the pivotal slope-zero rank inequality (Prop 2.7) is written too loosely to verify without substantial referee work. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03394 v1 pith:PQI2YMSK submitted 2025-08-05 math.GT

Zhenkun Li , Fan Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GT MSC 57K1857K10
keywords instantonFloerhomology2-torsionDehnsurgeryL-spaceknotsrationalsurgeriesSU(2)representationssuturedtauinvariant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper extends an earlier integral-surgery result to every positive rational slope: if the framed instanton homology $I^\sharp(S^3_r(K);\mathbb{Z})$ of a surgery on a non-trivial knot $K$ has no 2-torsion, then $K$ must be an instanton L-space knot, meaning some positive surgery on it has the minimal possible instanton homology, and the slope satisfies $r>2g(K)-1$. This matters because 2-torsion is a sensitive probe: its absence is strong enough to force the knot into a very restricted topological class, and it yields new restrictions on which surgeries can have no irreducible $SU(2)$ representation of the fundamental group. As consequences, every non-trivial knot has 2-torsion for small slopes, and an $SU(2)$-abelian surgery at slope $5$ or $11/2$ can occur only for the unknot or the right-handed trefoil.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of first differentials $\tilde d^{p/q}_{1,+}$ and $\tilde d^{p/q}_{1,-}$ on the instanton knot homology $KHI(-S^3_{-p/q}(K),\tilde K_{-p/q})$, defined by compositions of bypass maps, equivalently contact gluing maps attached to basic slices of $[0,1]\times T^2$. For slope zero these differentials preserve the Alexander grading, and the paper uses their ranks as a stand-in for counts of local maxima and minima of an immersed curve invariant that has not yet been constructed in instanton theory. Proposition 2.7 gives rank lower bounds from dimension gaps between adjacent Alexander gradings, Proposition 2.5 transfers those bounds to arbitrary slopes, and a diagram chase through an octahedral exact triangle proves Proposition 2.7.

What would settle it

The theorem would be refuted by exhibiting a non-trivial knot $K$ and a rational slope $r\le 2g(K)-1$ with $I^\sharp(S^3_r(K);\mathbb{Z})$ free of 2-torsion. A more local test is to compute the rank of the slope-zero differential $\tilde d^0_{1,+}$ in a grading $h$ with $\tau_I(K)\neq 0$ and compare it with the dimension gap in Proposition 2.7; a violation would show exactly where the main argument breaks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.4: for a non-trivial knot $K\subset S^3$ and $r\in\mathbb{Q}_+$, if $I^\sharp(S^3_r(K);\mathbb{Z})$ has no 2-torsion, then $K$ is an instanton L-space knot and $r>2g(K)-1$. For positive integer slopes the bound improves to $r\ge 2g(K)-1+t_2(S^3_1(K))$, where $t_2(Y)=\frac{1}{2}(\dim I^\sharp(Y;\mathbb{F}_2)-\dim I^\sharp(Y;\mathbb{C}))$, and $t_2(S^3_1(K))\ge 1$; for positive half-integer slopes the bound improves to $r>2g(K)$. The proof reduces rational slopes to integral slopes by the cabling diffeomorphism $S^3_{pq}(K_{p,q})\cong L(p,q)\#S^3_{p/q}(K)$, then uses the first differentials on sutured instanton knot homology to show that absence of 2-torsion forces the knot to be an instanton L-space knot.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on the rank inequalities of Proposition 2.7, which assert that the slope-zero first differentials are large enough to account for every dimension drop between adjacent Alexander gradings; if a sign or grading convention in the bypass picture is wrong, the inequalities fail and the theorem no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every non-trivial knot $K$ has 2-torsion in $I^\sharp(S^3_r(K);\mathbb{Z})$ for every rational slope with $0<|r|\le 2g(K)-1$.
  • If $S^3_r(K)$ is $SU(2)$-abelian and the Alexander polynomial of $K$ satisfies $\Delta_K(\zeta^2)\neq 0$ for every $p$-th root of unity $\zeta$, then $r>2g(K)-1$, with stronger bounds for integer and half-integer slopes.
  • For $r\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{Z}$ with $|r|<6$, an $SU(2)$-abelian surgery occurs only for the unknot or the right-handed trefoil at $r=\pm 5,\pm 11/2$.
  • An $SU(2)$-abelian 7-surgery forces the knot to be the unknot, the right-handed trefoil, or a genus-3 instanton L-space knot with $t_2(S^3_1(K))\le 2$.
  • Together with the Euler characteristic computation for framed instanton homology, the main theorem indicates that among all knot surgery manifolds, the only one with one-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_2$ framed instanton homology would be $S^3$ itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The octahedral proof of Proposition 2.7 suggests that once an immersed curve description of instanton knot homology exists, the rank inequalities should become equalities and should yield the sharper slope bound that the paper leaves open for $r\in(5,7)$.
  • The cabling reduction raises a testable converse: if an integral surgery on the cable $K_{p,q}$ is 2-torsion-free, is the rational surgery on $K$ also 2-torsion-free? The paper proves one direction, and the reverse would make torsion-freeness exactly cable-invariant.
  • Because no closed oriented 3-manifold with $t_2(Y)=1$ or $2$ is known, computing $t_2$ for the remaining genus-3 candidates from the 7-surgery classification would either produce the first examples or eliminate that case.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a rational-surgery extension of the authors' earlier 2-torsion result for framed instanton homology. Theorem 1.4 states that if I^#(S^3_r(K);Z) has no 2-torsion for a positive rational slope r, then K is an instanton L-space knot and r > 2g(K)-1, with stronger bounds when r is an integer or half-integer. The proof strategy is to convert the absence of 2-torsion into a rational dual-Floer-simplicity condition, then study the first differentials on the instanton knot homology of dual knots, especially for slope 0. The main technical engine is Proposition 2.4, which is derived from Propositions 2.5, 2.7, and 2.8 via an octahedral diagram calculus for bypass maps. The paper also derives applications to SU(2)-abelian surgeries, including a resolution of the small-surgery question for slopes 5 and 11/2 up to the unknot and trefoil, and a partial result for slope 7.

Significance. If the proof is correct, the paper is a significant advance: it extends the 2-torsion-free surgery obstruction from integral to all rational slopes, gives new small-surgery obstructions that sharpen results of Kronheimer--Mrowka, Baldwin--Sivek, and Baldwin--Li--Sivek--Ye, and introduces a slope-0 first-differential framework that may be useful beyond this paper. The authors are explicit that the central new ingredient is Proposition 2.7, which plays the role of an immersed-curve local-maximum/local-minimum statement in a setting where immersed curve theory is not yet available. The paper is well structured and connects cleanly to prior work; the reduction to established invariants such as tau_I and t_2, and the use of Gordon's cabling formula, give the argument independent grounding. However, the load-bearing propositions are proved through an informal bypass-map and octahedral-diagram calculus in which maps are defined only up to units and key rank computations are not fully pinned down; the proof therefore needs substantial repair before the main theorem can be regarded as established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.1, proof of Proposition 2.7] The decisive displayed rank computation contains an algebraic error and an unjustified equality. The line `dim im(β∘α) = dim im β - dim im β` should involve the quotient `im β / im(β∘α)`, and the subsequent equality to `rk β - (dim(L1/im α) - dim ker β)` requires `im α ∩ ker β = 0`, which is not established. The final lower bound may be salvageable from surjectivity of the induced map, since the kernel of that induced surjection has dimension `dim ker β - dim(ker β ∩ im α) ≥ 0`, but the written proof does not exhibit this. Because this computation is the step that upgrades the rank information to the genus bound, it must be corrected and fully justified.
  2. [§2 and §5.1, grading shift for slope 0] There is an apparent inconsistency in the grading shift of the slope-0 first differentials. Formula (2.5) and Remark 3.5 say that for p/q = 0 the first differentials preserve the Alexander grading, while the octahedral proof of Proposition 2.7 uses `d0_{1,+} = β∘α : L(0,h) -> L(0,h+1)` and compares dim KHI(h) with dim KHI(h+1). Moreover, Proposition 2.8 asserts that `d0_{1,+}` has positive rank at the top grading `h = g-1/2`; if the shift were +1, its target would be zero, contradicting positivity. The authors need to state the actual grading shift for slope 0 and reconcile (2.5), Proposition 2.7, and Proposition 2.8.
  3. [§3.2, octahedral diagram] The proof of Proposition 2.7 relies on the octahedral exact triangles (3.14) and (3.15), which are asserted from diagram chasing or [LY24, Proposition 3.6], and on dimension identities (5.3) obtained from [KM16, Lemma 10.3]. All the commutative diagrams in the octahedron hold only up to multiplication by a unit (Remark 3.1), and the signs of the bypass maps are convention-dependent. Since a sign error or a unit ambiguity that introduces an extra term in one of the rank identities would invalidate Proposition 2.7 and therefore Theorem 1.4, the octahedral data should be stated with explicit maps, domains, codomains, and grading shifts, and the diagram chasing should be either proved in the text or supplied with a complete reference.
  4. [§5.3, proof of Corollary 1.8] The proof claims that because the instanton chain complex of an SU(2)-abelian surgery has exactly p generators and Euler characteristic p, there is no differential over any coefficients. This implication is not valid as stated: differentials can cancel generators in pairs while preserving the Euler characteristic. The conclusion that t2(S^3_r(K)) = 0 needs an independent grading argument, for example that all reducible generators lie in the same mod-2 grading, or a citation to the precise theorem in [BS23] or [BLSY24]. Since Corollaries 1.9 and 1.11 depend on this step, this is a load-bearing point.
  5. [§5.2, proof of the half-integer case] The proof of the half-integer bound in Theorem 1.4 uses `[Bha24, Theorem 1.1]` for the exact triangle computing `I^#(S^3_{(4g-1)/2}(K);F2)`. This is an unpublished preprint. The authors should state the status of [Bha24] and either include the exact statement of the theorem used or otherwise make the proof independent of an unavailable reference; as written, the half-integer portion of the main theorem is conditional on an external verification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, proof of Proposition 2.7] The diagram in (5.2) is very hard to parse as typeset; the domains and codomains of the arrows β1, η1, θ2, and α2 are not visually clear. Please redraw it with explicitly labeled maps and targets, and check that the composition `β1∘θ2 = η1∘α2` has a common target.
  2. [§5.2, Lemma 5.1] The final sentence of the proof of Lemma 5.1 says `t2(Y#L(p,q);F2) = 0`, but t2 is defined as a difference of F2- and C-dimensions, not as an F2-valued quantity. This should read `t2(Y#L(p,q)) = 0`.
  3. [§2, Proposition 2.5] In the statement of Proposition 2.5, the display `τ = τI(K) = -τI(K)` appears to be missing the mirror notation; it should presumably read `τ = τI(\bar K) = -τI(K)`. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [References] Several central references are to arXiv preprints, including [Bha24], [LY21], [LY24], and [LY25b]. Please indicate which of these are published or accepted, and update the citation data accordingly, so that the reader can verify the results on which the proof depends.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central 2-torsion-to-L-space argument reduces to independent prior results and internal diagram chases, not to its own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's main theorem (Theorem 1.4) is an implication from vanishing 2-torsion in I^#(S^3_r(K); Z) to K being an instanton L-space knot with r > 2g(K)-1. Its proof chain is: no 2-torsion implies rationally dually Floer simple (via Lemmas 2.2-2.3 and the spectral sequences (2.3)); Proposition 2.4 then upgrades rational dual Floer simplicity to the L-space-knot conclusion using Propositions 2.5, 2.7 and 2.8. Proposition 2.7 is proved internally by an octahedral diagram chase using the bypass exact triangles (3.14)-(3.15), the 4-periodic complex lemma [KM16, Lemma 10.3], and Corollary 4.5, whose proof is given in Section 4 from the surgery exact triangle (4.1) and prior GLW24 estimates. None of these steps assumes the conclusion of Theorem 1.4. The rational-to-integral reduction uses Gordon's cabling formula (2.1), an external diffeomorphism, together with Lemma 5.1 for connected sums with lens spaces; this is independent input. The invariants t2, tau_I and the dimensions of KHI are fixed invariants, not fitted parameters, and no 'prediction' is obtained by renaming a fitted quantity. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' earlier work (LY25a, LY22, LY24, LY21, BLSY24), but those citations supply background constructions and previously established theorems; they are not used to prohibit alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem that replaces an argument. The reviewer's concern that the proof of Proposition 2.7 contains an opaque rank computation or a possible unit sign issue (Remark 3.1) is a correctness risk, not a circularity: even if Proposition 2.7 failed, the derivation would not reduce to its inputs. Accordingly, the paper is assigned a low score reflecting only the presence of extensive self-citation without any load-bearing circular reduction.

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

The central proof rests on a large edifice of prior instanton Floer homology results, several by the same authors and some still in preprint form. No numerical constants are fitted to data, and no new geometric entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bypass maps form exact triangles and commute up to multiplication by a unit (LY22 Proposition 4.14, Lemmas 4.33 and 4.34).
    Core to the diagrammatic calculus in Section 3.2 and to the proofs of Propositions 2.5 and 2.7; cited from prior work rather than re-proved.
  • domain assumption Surgery exact triangles for framed instanton homology exist (Sca15 Section 7.5, Bhat 2024 Theorem 1.1).
    Used in Lemmas 5.1, 5.2, and in the half-integral case of Theorem 1.4. Bhat's result is a preprint (arXiv:2311.04242 v2).
  • domain assumption Spectral sequences from KHI(-S^3_{-p/q}(K), rK_{-p/q}) to I^#(-S^3_{-p/q}(K); C) exist and give dimension inequalities (LY21 Theorem 3.20).
    Used to translate rationally dually Floer simple into vanishing of the first differentials in Proposition 2.4.
  • standard math Classification of tight contact structures on [0,1] x T^2 and the vanishing of contact elements for overtwisted structures (Honda 2000, BS16b).
    Used in Section 3.1 to define first differentials and in Section 3.2 to justify the bypass-map picture and the square-zero property.
  • domain assumption Alexander grading properties and V-shape of KHI dimension sequences (LY22 Theorem 2.21, LY25a Lemma 2.5, Lemma 4.3 of this paper).
    Used in Proposition 2.8, Proposition 2.4, and Lemma 5.3 to identify tau_I with the minimum of the V-shape.
  • domain assumption Classification of instanton L-space knots of low genus (BS16a, FRW24 Corollary 1.4).
    Used in Corollary 1.9 to reduce candidates to the unknot, the trefoil, and T(2,5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instanton 2-torsion and Dehn surgeries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQI2YMSK

@misc{pith2026250803394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instanton 2-torsion and Dehn surgeries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQI2YMSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03394}
}
abstract

In our earlier work on $2$-torsion in instanton Floer homology, we considered only integral surgeries on a knot $K\subset S^3$ and showed that the absence of $2$-torsion forces $K$ to be fibered. The present paper extends the result to all rational surgeries. We prove that if the framed instanton homology $I^{\sharp}(S^3_r(K);\mathbb{Z})$ is $2$-torsion-free for some $r\in \mathbb{Q}_+$, then $K$ is an instanton L-space knot and $r>2g(K)-1$. Leveraging this $2$-torsion perspective, we also obtain new small-surgery obstructions: If either $S^{3}_{5}(K)$ or $S^{3}_{11/2}(K)$ is $SU(2)$-abelian, then $K$ must be the unknot or the right-handed trefoil. This result sharpens the small-$SU(2)$-abelian surgery theorems of Kronheimer--Mrowka, Baldwin--Sivek, and Baldwin--Li--Sivek--Ye.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two angles correspond to the restrictions of the two bypass maps on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: two choices of the angle when h 1 has one or two choices; Middle: examples of triangles; Right: examples of compositions. The signs are for bypass maps in (3.9) and (3.10). (3) For two arcs Lpp{q, hq and Lpp 1 {q 1 , h1 q that satisfy q 1p ´ p 1 q “ 1 and share one endpoint, there is a unique arc connecting the remaining endpoints of the two arcs, denoted by Lpp 2 {q 2 , h1 q. The assumption q 1p ´ p 1 q “ 1 i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: the angles corresponding to the first differentials for slope 0. Right: the six arcs forming a parallelogram, where the numbers denote the index. Then there exists an octahedral diagram L5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The angle maps related to Lpp{qq and Lp0q. Proof. For simplicity, we write Lpp{q, hq for SHIp´M, ´Γp{q , hq, Lpp{qq for SHIp´M, ´Γp{q q, and adopt the notation of angle maps as in §3.2. In particular, the maps drp{q 1,´| h` ´1`p 2 and dr0 1,`|h´ 1 2 are the angle maps …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The angle maps related to Lp8q, Lp0q, and Lpkq. Middle: the angle maps related to Lp0q, Lpkq, and Lpp{qq. Right: the angle maps related to Lp0q, Lpp{qq, and Lpk ` 1q. Note that we have an identity ψ µ ´,k “ Ψ0 `,k ˝ ψ µ ´,0 as a special case of (3.11) that is ill…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The graphic illustration for the octahedral diagram. with a graphic illustration in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Surgery exact triangles in instanton theory

    Deeparaj Bhat. Surgery exact triangles in instanton theory. ArXiv: 2311.04242, v2, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Baldwin, Zhenkun Li, Steven Sivek, and Fan Ye

    John A. Baldwin, Zhenkun Li, Steven Sivek, and Fan Ye. Small D ehn surgery and SU (2) . Geom. Topol. , 28(4):1891--1922, 2024

    work page 1922

  3. [3]

    Baldwin and Steven Sivek

    John A. Baldwin and Steven Sivek. Naturality in sutured monopole and instanton homology. J. Differential Geom. , 100(3):395--480, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Baldwin and Steven Sivek

    John A. Baldwin and Steven Sivek. A contact invariant in sutured monopole homology. Forum Math. Sigma , 4:e12, 82, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Baldwin and Steven Sivek

    John A. Baldwin and Steven Sivek. Instanton F loer homology and contact structures. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 22(2):939--978, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Baldwin and Steven Sivek

    John A. Baldwin and Steven Sivek. Framed instanton homology and concordance. J. Topol. , 14(4):1113--1175, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Baldwin and Steven Sivek

    John A. Baldwin and Steven Sivek. Framed instanton homology and concordance II . arXiv: 2206.11531, v1, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Baldwin and Steven Sivek

    John A. Baldwin and Steven Sivek. Instantons and L -space surgeries. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 25(10):4033--4122, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Michael Wong

    Aliakbar Daemi, Tye Lidman, David Shea Vela-Vick, and C.-M. Michael Wong. Ribbon homology cobordisms. Adv. Math. , 408:Paper No. 108580, 68, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Fixed-point-free pseudo- A nosov homeomorphisms, knot F loer homology and the cinquefoil

    Ethan Farber, Braeden Reinoso, and Luya Wang. Fixed-point-free pseudo- A nosov homeomorphisms, knot F loer homology and the cinquefoil. Geom. Topol. , 28(9):4337--4381, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Decomposing sutured monopole and instanton F loer homologies

    Sudipta Ghosh and Zhenkun Li. Decomposing sutured monopole and instanton F loer homologies. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 29(3):Paper No. 40, 60, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Michael Wong

    Sudipta Ghosh, Zhenkun Li, and C.-M. Michael Wong. On the tau invariants in instanton and monopole F loer theories. J. Topol. , 17(2):Paper No. e12346, 53, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    C. McA. Gordon. Ribbon concordance of knots in the 3 -sphere. Math. Ann. , 257(2):157--170, 1981

    1981

  6. [14]

    C. McA. Gordon. Dehn surgery and satellite knots. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 275(2):687--708, 1983

    1983

  7. [15]

    Kazez, and Gordana Mati\'c

    Ko Honda, William H. Kazez, and Gordana Mati\'c. The contact invariant in sutured F loer homology. Invent. Math. , 176(3):637--676, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    The knot F loer complex and the smooth concordance group

    Jennifer Hom. The knot F loer complex and the smooth concordance group. Comment. Math. Helv. , 89(3):537--570, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    On the classification of tight contact structures I

    Ko Honda. On the classification of tight contact structures I . Geom. Topol. , 4:309--368, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    On the classification of tight contact structures

    Ko Honda. On the classification of tight contact structures. II . J. Differential Geom. , 55(1):83--143, 2000

    2000

  11. [19]

    Holomorphic discs and sutured manifolds

    Andr\' a s Juh\' a sz. Holomorphic discs and sutured manifolds. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 6:1429--1457, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Problems in low-dimensional topology

    Rob Kirby. Problems in low-dimensional topology. In Geometric topology ( A thens, GA , 1993) , volume 2.2 of AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. , pages 35--473. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997

    1993

  13. [21]

    Kronheimer and Tomasz S

    Peter B. Kronheimer and Tomasz S. Mrowka. Dehn surgery, the fundamental group and SU (2) . Math. Res. Lett. , 11(5-6):741--754, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Kronheimer and Tomasz S

    Peter B. Kronheimer and Tomasz S. Mrowka. Knots, sutures, and excision. J. Differ. Geom. , 84(2):301--364, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    P. B. Kronheimer and T. S. Mrowka. Exact triangles for SO(3) instanton homology of webs. J. Topol. , 9(3):774--796, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Kronheimer, Tomasz S

    Peter B. Kronheimer, Tomasz S. Mrowka, Peter S. Ozsv\' a th, and Zolt\' a n Szab\' o . Monopoles and lens space surgeries. Ann. of Math. (2) , 165(2):457--546, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Contact structures, excisions and sutured monopole F loer homology

    Zhenkun Li. Contact structures, excisions and sutured monopole F loer homology. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 20(5):2553--2588, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Gluing maps and cobordism maps in sutured monopole and instanton F loer theories

    Zhenkun Li. Gluing maps and cobordism maps in sutured monopole and instanton F loer theories. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 21(6):3019--3071, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Knot homologies in monopole and instanton theories via sutures

    Zhenkun Li. Knot homologies in monopole and instanton theories via sutures. J. Symplectic Geom. , 19(6):1339--1420, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    SU (2) representations and a large surgery formula

    Zhenkun Li and Fan Ye. SU (2) representations and a large surgery formula. arXiv:2107.11005, v1, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Instanton F loer homology, sutures, and H eegaard diagrams

    Zhenkun Li and Fan Ye. Instanton F loer homology, sutures, and H eegaard diagrams. J. Topol. , 15(1):39--107, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Knot surgery formulae for instanton Floer homology I: the main theorem

    Zhenkun Li and Fan Ye. Knot surgery formulae for instanton Floer homology I: the main theorem . arXiv:2206.10077, v3, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2-torsion in instanton F loer homology

    Zhenkun Li and Fan Ye. 2-torsion in instanton F loer homology. Adv. Math. , 472:Paper No. 110289, 55, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Knot surgery formulae for instanton F loer homology II : applications

    Zhenkun Li and Fan Ye. Knot surgery formulae for instanton F loer homology II : applications. Math. Ann. , 391(4):6291--6371, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Elementary surgery along a torus knot

    Louise Moser. Elementary surgery along a torus knot. Pacific J. Math. , 38:737--745, 1971

    1971

  26. [34]

    Moving basepoints and the induced automorphisms of link Floer homology

    Sucharit Sarkar. Moving basepoints and the induced automorphisms of link Floer homology . Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 15(5):2479--2515, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Christopher W. Scaduto. Instantons and odd K hovanov homology. J. Topol. , 8(3):744--810, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    A menagerie of SU(2) -cyclic 3-manifolds

    Steven Sivek and Raphael Zentner. A menagerie of SU(2) -cyclic 3-manifolds. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , 2022(11):8038--8085, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.