Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Colored knot Floer homology: structures and examples

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Infinite full-twist limits of cable Floer homology define a triply graded knot invariant that is a module over an explicit algebra, computed exactly for unknots and L-space knots.

desk verdict A genuinely new invariant with a rich algebraic structure; the main caveat is that its well-definedness rests on a same-authors preprint, so it deserves serious refereeing, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21776 v1 pith:WNPA6MPA submitted 2025-08-29 math.GT

Akram Alishahi , Eugene Gorsky , Beibei Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GT MSC 57K1857K10
keywords coloredknotFloerhomologylinkcablelinksfulltwistsalgebraL-spaceknotscolimitsKhovanov-Rozansky
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

Colored invariants label a knot by a representation — here, the $n$-dimensional one — and in quantum topology one realizes such a colored invariant as a limit of ordinary invariants of cables. This paper performs that move inside knot Floer homology: it takes the $(n, mn)$-cable of a knot $K$ ($n$ parallel copies, pairwise linking number $m$), computes the full link Floer homology, and passes to the colimit as $m$ tends to infinity along maps that insert one additional full twist. The paper proves this infinite-full-twist limit is a well-defined triply graded invariant, finite-dimensional in every degree, and a module over an explicitly presented algebra $A^{\mathrm{col}}_n$ with generators $U_1,\ldots,U_n, V_1,\ldots,V_n, A$ and relations $U_i = A \prod_{j \neq i} V_j$. The invariant is computed exactly for the unknot (it is $A^{\mathrm{col}}_n$ itself) and for L-space knots (it is $H_{FL}(K)$ tensored with $A^{\mathrm{col}}_n$), and maps for crossing changes are constructed. If the construction is sound, knot Floer homology gains a colored companion parallel to the $S^n$-colored Khovanov–Rozansky homology, organizing the full-twist behavior of all cable homologies into a single module.

What carries the argument

The $n$-strand cable algebra $A_n$: a triply graded algebra over $F[U_1,\ldots,U_n,V_1,\ldots,V_n]/(U_i V_i = U_j V_j)$ with commuting generators $a_0,\ldots,a_{n-1}$, subject to linear relations $U_I a_{k-1} = V_{\bar I} a_k$ $(|I| = k)$ and quadratic relations $a_i a_j = U^{k\ell - i j} a_k a_\ell$ $(i+j = k+\ell, i \leq k \leq \ell \leq j)$. The generators $a_k$ are realized geometrically as the full-twist cobordism maps $\phi_k$; the localization $A^{\mathrm{col}}_n = A_n[a_0^{-1}] \cong F[U_1,\ldots,U_n,V_1,\ldots,V_n,A]/(U_i = A \prod_{j \neq i} V_j)$, with $A = a_1/a_0$, is the algebra acting on colored homology, where $A$ shifts Alexander degree by $(-1,\ldots,-1)$ and Maslov degree by $-2$. Carrying the argument is the Alexander-degree normalization $s = s - (c_m,\ldots,c_m)$, $c_m = m(n$

What would settle it

Compute the link Floer homology of the $(2,2m)$ cables of the figure-eight knot for $m = 1$ through $6$ by bordered Floer homology, apply the renormalization $s = s - (c_m,c_m)$, and test the stabilization isomorphisms of Theorem 1.2 degree by degree; then check whether the stabilized groups carry the $A^{\mathrm{col}}_2$ action with $A$ of Maslov degree $-2$ and Alexander degree $(-1,-1)$. Failure in any fixed Alexander degree would disprove Theorem 1.2 or Theorem 1.13 for non-L-space knots. A milder check is an independent verification of Proposition 2.7's degree formula on the torus link change $T(2,2) \to T(2,4)$, using

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the colimit $H_n(K) = \mathrm{colim}_m H_{FL}(K_{n,mn})$ along full-twist cobordism maps $\phi_0$ is a well-defined triply graded invariant with a module structure. With $c_m = m(n-1)/2$ the maps $\phi_0$ preserve the shifted Alexander grading $s = s - (c_m,\ldots,c_m)$, and for fixed $s$ the stabilized groups $H_{FL}^{\mathrm{stab}}(K_{n,mn}, s)$ are isomorphic for all large $m$, proved by an explicit bijection between generators of special Heegaard diagrams. The full-twist maps $\phi_k$, obtained by blowing down a $(-1)$-framed unknot in different $\mathrm{Spin}^c$ structures, satisfy the relations of the cable algebra $A_n$, whose localization $A^{\mathrm{col}}_n = A_n[a_0^{-1}]$ acts on $H_n(K)$. Two cases are computed: the unknot, $H_n(O) \cong A^c$

Load-bearing premise

The construction depends on the authors' companion preprint for the claim that each full-twist cobordism map $\phi_k$ shifts Maslov degree by $-k^2 - k$ and each Alexander degree by $-k + (n-1)/2$ and is injective; if those grading shifts are off, the renormalized colimit and the whole module structure fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Colored knot Floer homology is a genuine knot invariant: for every knot K and every n ≥ 1, H_n(K) is a triply graded F-vector space with finite-dimensional pieces in every Zn⊕Z-degree.
  • The unknot computation fixes the target ring: since H_n(O) ≅ A^col_n, every colored invariant is a module over an algebra with an explicit presentation, so questions about colored invariants become questions about modules over a known ring.
  • For L-space knots the colored invariant is determined by ordinary knot Floer homology: H_n(K) ≅ H_FL(K) ⊗_{F[U,V]} A^col_n with explicit generators and relations, giving a large family of fully computable examples.
  • Crossing changes act on colored homology: there are maps G^col_j: H_n(K_-) → H_n(K_+) and F^col_j: H_n(K_+) → H_n(K_-) of Maslov degree -j²-j that commute with the A^col_n action, a colored analogue of the usual skein-type cobordism maps.
  • Assuming Conjecture 1.3 (the connecting maps are eventually isomorphisms), the Euler characteristic of H_n(K) is (t_1...t_n)^{1/2}χ_K(t_1...t_n), so the colored limit recovers the Alexander polynomial of K, the expected categorified Rosso–Jones relation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tensor-product formula for L-space knots reads like a base change of ordinary knot Floer homology from F[U,V] to A^col_n along U↦A, V↦V_1...V_n. A natural question the paper does not pose: is H_n characterized as the universal A^col_n-module extending H_FL(K) compatibly with cobordism maps — a property that, if true, would make the colored theory a change of base ring rather than genuinely new
  • The stabilization proof in Theorem 3.2 is a combinatorial statement about special Heegaard diagrams. If the same diagrammatic argument extends to the (n, mn+r) families of Conjecture 1.11, the colimit construction would yield colored invariants for every cable slope and would connect the full-version theory here to the hat-version construction of [9].
  • Lemma 1.24 shows the A^col_n relations are exactly a specialization of the relations of the 'y-ified' colored HOMFLY-PT homology of [2, 12]. The concrete test this suggests: compare the graded Euler characteristics of H_FL(T(n,mn)) from Theorem 4.1 with the specialized Poincaré polynomials of the y-ified unknot theory for small n and m, to see whether both stabilizations give the same limit.
  • Read through the sheaf interpretation of Section 1.6, Problem 1.14 — finite generation of H_n(K) over A^col_n — is a finite-type statement for the quasi-coherent sheaf on the chart {a_0 ≠ 0}; the L-space knot theorem is the first family where it holds. A testable route to the general case would be to prove the connecting maps φ_0 are eventually injective in each renormalized degree, using the stab
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. The paper defines a colored knot Floer homology H_n(K) as the colimit, over m, of the link Floer homology of (n,mn)-cables of a knot K, with connecting maps induced by full-twist cobordisms. The main structural results are: (i) a stabilization theorem for the underlying homology groups (Theorem 3.2), giving finite-dimensionality in each grading; (ii) an action of a localized cable algebra A_n^col on the colimit (Theorems 5.1 and 5.2); (iii) a computation of the unknot invariant as a free rank-one module over A_n^col (Theorem 4.12); (iv) a description for L-space knots in terms of HFL(K) tensored with A_n^col (Theorems 6.2 and 6.6); and (v) maps for colored homology of crossing changes (Theorem 7.3). The stabilization argument in Section 3 is self-contained and uses explicit chain-level bijections, but several load-bearing facts about the full-twist cobordism maps are imported from the same-authors preprint [1], and some algebraic steps in the module-structure proofs are incomplete.

Significance. If the cited cobordism-map properties are supplied and the algebraic gaps are repaired, this paper introduces a genuinely new invariant with a rich algebraic structure, connecting link Floer homology to cable algebras and to colored Khovanov-Rozansky homology. The explicit stabilization theorem (Theorem 3.2) is a concrete and useful technical contribution, as are the L-space knot computations and the crossing-change maps. The paper is ambitious and opens several directions, including relations to bordered Floer homology and to colored Khovanov-Rozansky homology. However, the dependence on an unreviewed same-author preprint for the fundamental degree and injectivity formulas is a substantial correctness risk, and the proof of the module action over the cable algebra contains a nontrivial logical gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Proposition 2.7] Proposition 2.7 is cited to [1] without proof, but it is load-bearing throughout: the Alexander-degree shift A_i(phi_k) = -k + (n-1)/2 is used in the normalization (4); injectivity of phi_0 is used in Lemma 4.3, Corollary 4.4, Theorem 4.6 Step 1, and Lemma 6.1; and the same facts support Theorems 5.1 and 5.2. Since [1] is a same-authors preprint, this is not an independent check. The authors should either prove these formulas (or at least the special cases used) in the present paper, or explicitly state them as assumptions and mark all downstream results as conditional.
  2. [§4.2, Theorem 4.6 Step 1] The argument that the cobordism maps phi_k satisfy the linear and quadratic relations (22)-(23) is incomplete. The text says that because both sides have the same Alexander and Maslov degrees they coincide, and that homogeneity of the relations implies the maps satisfy them. But homogeneity alone is not a proof of a relation; and for maps between F[U]-towers, equality of degree shifts determines a nonzero map only up to a unit, so one must also prove nonvanishing or otherwise identify the maps. The injectivity quoted from [1] does not by itself imply the relevant compositions U_I phi_{k-1} and V_I phi_k are nonzero. This step underpins Theorem 5.1 and hence the A_n^col-module structure on H_n(K) (Theorem 1.13), so it needs a complete proof.
  3. [§6, Theorem 6.2] The explicit presentation of H_n(K) for L-space knots asserts that "by a similar argument as Theorem 4.1, the relations (28) generate all relations among the generators." No proof of completeness is given. Since Theorem 6.2 is the basis for Theorem 1.17 and Theorem 6.6, this gap should be filled, or the statement should be reduced to a conjecture or conditional result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.2, Eq. (4)] The notation is confusing: the same symbol s is used for both the unnormalized and normalized Alexander grading. Please use distinct notation, e.g., s and \bar{s}, consistently throughout.
  2. [§3.2, proof of Theorem 3.2] eA is written as (eA_1,...,eA_m); it should be (eA_1,...,eA_n). Also, the notation n(\phi) is used without definition; please define it as the total U-exponent.
  3. [§4, Definition 4.10] The definition of A_n^col as the span of Y/a_0^m with tw(Y)=m is not obviously a ring; the subsequent localization statement (Theorem 1.20) fixes this, but it would help to state this explicitly at the definition.
  4. [§5.1, Theorem 5.1] The proof relies on an isotopy changing the order of 2-handle attachment and band attachments, citing [1, Proposition 3.13]. A figure or a more detailed explanation of this isotopy would improve readability and verifiability.
  5. [References] Reference [1] is a preprint by the same authors and is used for several essential facts. The paper should clearly indicate which of its results are proved in [1] and whether [1] is available in a stable, updated form.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-contained stabilization but module structure leans on same-authors preprint [1] for cobordism-map degrees, injectivity, and the key algebra-relations argument.

  1. self citation load bearing [Proposition 2.7 (Section 2.3); used in eq. (4), Theorem 1.1, Theorem 4.6 Step 1, Corollary 4.4, Lemma 6.1]
    "Proposition 2.7. [1] Given an n-component link L in the three sphere, the cobordism maps φk : HFL(L) → HFL(L) induced from the (−1)-surgery on the unknot with 0 ≤ k ≤ n − 1 satisfy the following grading properties: grw(φk) = −k^2 − k, Ai(φk) = −k + (n − 1)/2"

    The degree formulas and the injectivity of the full-twist cobordism maps φk are not proved here; they are cited to [1], an arXiv preprint by the same three authors. These facts are load-bearing: eq. (4) defines the normalized Alexander grading using the degree shift, so Theorem 1.1's grading claim depends on them; Theorem 4.6 Step 1 uses injectivity plus the same degrees to prove the φk satisfy the cable algebra relations; and Corollary 4.4, Theorem 4.12, and Lemma 6.1 rely on the same facts to identify the unknot and L-space colimits. If [1]'s degree formula were wrong, the normalized grading and the A_n^col-module structure would collapse. This is not a definitional equivalence—the cited formulas concern geometrically defined cobordism maps and are externally checkable—but it is a load-b

  2. self citation load bearing [Theorem 5.1 proof (Section 5.1)]
    "We closely follow the proof of [1, Proposition 3.13]."

    The proof of Theorem 5.1—the central step establishing that for an arbitrary link L the cobordism maps φk satisfy the defining relations (22) and (23) of the cable algebra, and hence that the colored homology is an A_n^col-module—is not carried out independently. The verification that the maps commute and satisfy the algebra relations is delegated to [1, Proposition 3.13], a same-authors preprint. While the present paper supplies naturality and cobordism diagrams, the key model-case relation check is imported from [1], so the module-structure claim is not fully self-contained. It is still a genuine external claim about cobordism maps rather than a restatement of the target result, so this raises the score without making the theorem definitionally circular.

full rationale

The core stabilization theorem (Theorem 1.2 / Theorem 3.2) is self-contained: it constructs an explicit bijection on generators of special Heegaard diagrams and verifies the chain map property, so the finite-dimensionality of the colimit in each normalized Alexander degree does not reduce to the paper's own definitions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The unknot and L-space computations rest on published external theorems [5] and [13] for lattice homology and L-space cables; despite overlapping authorship, these are independent, parameter-free results about known invariants, not restatements of the target colored homology. The only circularity-adjacent issue is the load-bearing reliance on the same-authors preprint [1] for (a) the Alexander/Maslov degree formulas of the full-twist cobordism maps (Proposition 2.7), which are used to define the normalized grading and to identify colimit generators, and (b) injectivity and commutation arguments in Theorem 4.6 and Theorem 5.1, with the latter explicitly following '[1, Proposition 3.13]'. Because [1] is not reproduced here and is itself the source of the model-case relations, the module-structure claim is not fully self-contained. However, the cited facts are general cobordism-map statements, externally checkable and not equivalent to the target theorems, so this is a self-citation burden (score 4) rather than definitional circularity (score 6+).

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

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters; the normalization shifts c_m = m(n-1)/2 and the constant C in Lemma 3.5 are structural bounds, not fitted values. The axioms listed are the established Heegaard Floer framework, the same-author preprint [1] for cobordism map degrees, and prior L-space cable results by the authors and collaborators.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Full link Floer homology HFL(L) and Zemke's cobordism maps exist, are functorial, and satisfy the stated grading-change formulas (Section 2.2, Section 2.3; refs [38,39]).
    The entire construction is built on the multi-pointed link Floer complex and its cobordism maps; the paper does not rederive this theory.
  • domain assumption The full-twist cobordism maps phi_k have Alexander/Maslov degrees grw(phi_k)=-k^2-k and A_i(phi_k)=-k+(n-1)/2, and are injective on HFL for negative definite cobordisms (Proposition 2.7 and Theorem 4.6 Step 1, cited to [1]).
    This is the load-bearing premise for the colimit normalization and the cable algebra action; [1] is a preprint by the same authors.
  • domain assumption For an L-space knot K, the cable K_{n,mn} is an L-space link for m sufficiently large, and its h-function is a sum of h-functions of K (Section 6, citing [13]).
    This is used to compute H_n(K) explicitly; it is a prior theorem by one of the present authors and Hom.
  • domain assumption The link Floer homology of a plumbed L-space link T(n,mn) is determined by its h-function and is free of rank 1 over F[U] in each Alexander degree (Section 4, citing [5]).
    Used to compute HFL(T(n,mn)) and the unknot example; [5] includes one of the present authors as coauthor.
invented entities (2)
  • Colored knot Floer homology H_n(K) independent evidence
    purpose: New knot invariant defined as colimit of HFL over (n,mn)-cables, carrying A_n^col module structure.
    Well-defined gradings are proven (Theorem 1.1) and it is computed for unknot and L-space knots, giving explicit concrete structures beyond the definition itself.
  • Cable algebra A_n and its localization A_n^col independent evidence
    purpose: Algebraic structure governing the action of full-twist cobordism maps on cabled and colored homology.
    Defined by explicit generators and relations; shown to act on TWD(L) and HD(L) (Theorems 5.1, 5.2) and to match known Khovanov-Rozansky specializations (Lemma 1.24).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Colored knot Floer homology: structures and examples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNPA6MPA

@misc{pith2026250821776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Colored knot Floer homology: structures and examples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNPA6MPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21776}
}
abstract

Inspired by the $S^n$ colored version of Khovanov and Khovanov-Rozansky homology, we define a colored version of knot Floer homology by studying the colimit of a directed system of link Floer homology with infinite full twists. Specifically, our $n$-colored knot Floer homology of a knot $K$ is then defined as the colimit of the link Floer homology of $(n, mn)$-cables of $K$ by fixing $n$ and letting $m$ goes to infinity. We show that the colimit of the infinite full twists is a module over the colored knot Floer homology of the unknot. In addition, we give an explicit description of colored Heegaard Floer homology for L-space knots, and maps for colored knot Floer homology of crossing changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graph associated to the link L and the disk D, shaded red. Let HG = (Σ, αG = {α1, · · · , αg}, βG = {β1, · · · , βg}, z, w = {w1, · · · , wn}) be a Heegaard diagram for GL,D where z is the basepoint corresponding to the thick edge. From HG we construct a Heegaard diagram for L as follows. First, replace z with n basepoints z = {z1, · · · , zn} in the same connected component of Σ \ {α, β}. Let D′ ⊂ Σ be a small disk… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trading an intersection point of ai and bj with extra genus, and α and β circles Then, add α- and β-circles αg+1, · · · , αg+n−1 and βg+1, · · · , βg+n−1 such that • αg+i and βg+i bound disks containing ai and bi , respectively, • For any 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n−1, if i ̸= j then αg+i ∩βg+j = ∅. Otherwise, αg+i intersects βg+i in exactly 4 points, as vertices of two bigons, one containing zi and another containing wi . See [P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In this figure n = 3 and arcs ai and bi connecting zi and wi are dashed red and blue, respectively. Shaded areas are not necessarily disks and could include α- or β-circles. z3 z2 z1 w1 w2 w3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Local figure for m = 2. A Heegaard diagram Hm for Lm is obtained from H by twisting βg+1, βg+2, · · · , βg+n−1 around z￾basepoints m times as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: labeling of intersection points between αg+1, · · · , αg+n−1 and βg+1, · · · , βg+n−1. Lemma 3.1. For any 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ m, let Hℓ m+1 be the Heegaard diagram obtained from Hm+1 by moving the basepoints z to the (ℓ + 1)−th winding block as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ℓ-th winding block and placement of z basepoints in the diagram Hℓ m+1 Let G o ℓ (Hm+1) ⊂ G(Hm+1) denote the set of intersection points x that do not contain any points in the i-th winding block for i ≥ ℓ + 1 and x ∩ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Special case: ℓ = m − 1 The chain complex CFL(Hm+1, s) is generated by pxx where the monomial px is equal to px =   Y i∈Is(x) U Ai(x)−si i     Y i∈Js(x) V si−Ai(x) i   . Here, Is(x) = {1 ≤ i ≤ n | Ai(x) > si} and Js(x) = {1, 2, · · · , n} \ Is. Similarly, CFL(H…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Local coefficients of a disk φ ∈ π2(x, x ′ ) for n = 3; the regions containing z3 and z m 3 are colored green, the regions containing z2 and z m 2 are colored yellow, and the regions containing z1 and z m 1 are colored gray. □ Lemma 3.4. For any intersection point of t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Intersection points θ + j , Ej and E¯ j and the small triangular domain connecting them, colored yellow Then, by [39, Formula 5.2] we have A ℓ i (x) = A ℓ i (y) + A ℓ i (θ) + nwi (φ) − nz ℓ i (φ) + ⟨c1(sw(φ)), [Fˆℓ i ]⟩ − [Fˆℓ ] · [Fˆℓ i ] 2 . Here, F ℓ i denotes the c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Suppose n = 3 and m = 1. In the Heegaard diagram H2, if x is the intersection point represented by the black triangles in the winding region, then, x 1 is obtained from x by replacing black triangles with black dots. Concatenating the Whitney with the yellow shaded do…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Splitting maps in link Floer homology and integer points in permutahedra

    A. Alishahi, E. Gorsky, B. Liu. Splitting maps in link Floer homology and integer points in permutahedra. arXiv:2307.07741

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [5]

    Lattice homology, formality, and plumbed L-space links

    M. Borodzik, B. Liu, I. Zemke. Lattice homology, formality, and plumbed L-space links. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (2024), arXiv:2210.15792

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Stable deformed $\mathfrak{gl}_N$ homology of torus knots

    W. Ballinger, E. Gorsky, M. Hogancamp, J. Wang. Stable deformed glN homology of torus knots. arXiv:2507.00175

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [3]

    A proof of Dunfield-Gukov-Rasmussen Conjecture

    A. Beliakova, K. Putyra, L.-H. Robert, E. Wagner. A proof of Dunfield-Gukov-Rasmussen Conjecture. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (2025), arXiv:2210.00878

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Borodzik and E

    M. Borodzik and E. Gorsky. Immersed concordances of links and Heegaard Floer homology. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 67 (2018), no. 3, 1039–1083

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    D. Chen, I. Zemke, H. Zhou. L-space satellite operators and knot Floer homology. arXiv:2412.05755

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    S. Cautis. Clasp technology to knot homology via the affine Grassmannian. Mathematische Annalen 363 (2015): 1053– 1115

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    L. Conners. Row–column mirror symmetry for colored torus knot homology. Selecta Mathematica 30 (5), article 97

    work page

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Cooper, R

    B. Cooper, R. Deyeso. Holonomicity from a Heegaard-Floer Perspective. arXiv:2501.01519

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cooper, V

    B. Cooper, V. Krushkal. Categorification of the Jones–Wenzl projectors. Quantum Topology 3.2 (2012): 139–180

    2012

  3. [11]

    Dunfield, S

    N. Dunfield, S. Gukov, J. Rasmussen. The superpolynomial for knot homologies. Experimental Mathematics 15.2 (2006): 129–159. COLORED KNOT FLOER HOMOLOGY: STRUCTURES AND EXAMPLES 31

    2006

  4. [12]

    Gorsky, M

    E. Gorsky, M. Hogancamp. Hilbert schemes and y-ification of Khovanov-Rozansky homology. Geom. Topol. 26 (2022), no. 2, 587–678

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gorsky, J

    E. Gorsky, J. Hom. Cable links and L-space surgeries. Quantum Topology 8 (2017), no.4, 629–666

    2017

  6. [14]

    Gorsky, A

    E. Gorsky, A. Negut ,, J. Rasmussen. Flag Hilbert schemes, colored projectors and Khovanov-Rozansky homology. Advances in Mathematics 378 (2021): 107542

    2021

  7. [15]

    Gorsky, A

    E. Gorsky, A. Oblomkov, J. Rasmussen. On stable Khovanov homology of torus knots. Experimental Mathematics 22.3 (2013): 265–281

    2013

  8. [16]

    M. Hedden. On knot Floer homology and cabling Algebraic & Geometric Topology 5 (2005), 1197–1222

    2005

  9. [17]

    M. Hedden. On knot Floer homology and cabling. II. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2009, no. 12, 2248–2274

    2009

  10. [18]

    Hogancamp

    M. Hogancamp. Categorified Young symmetrizers and stable homology of torus links. Geometry & Topology 22 (2018) 2943–3002

    2018

  11. [19]

    Hogancamp

    M. Hogancamp. A polynomial action on colored sl2 link homology. Quantum Topol. 10 (2019), no. 1, 1–75

    2019

  12. [20]

    Khovanov

    M. Khovanov. A categorification of the Jones polynomial. Duke Math. J. 101 (2000), no. 3, 359–426

    2000

  13. [21]

    Khovanov, L

    M. Khovanov, L. Rozansky. Matrix factorizations and link homology. Fund. Math. 199 (2008), no. 1, 1–91

    2008

  14. [22]

    Khovanov, L

    M. Khovanov, L. Rozansky. Matrix factorizations and link homology. II Geom. Topol. 12 (2008), no. 3, 1387–1425

    2008

  15. [23]

    J. Licata. Heegaard Floer homology of ( n, n)-torus links: computations and questions. arXiv:1208.0394

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lipshitz

    R. Lipshitz. A cylindrical reformulation of Heegaard Floer homology. Geom. Topol. 10 (2006) 955-1096

    2006

  17. [25]

    Y. Liu. L-space surgeries on links. Quantum Topol. 8 (2017), no. 3, 505–570

    2017

  18. [26]

    Melvin, H

    P. Melvin, H. Morton. The coloured Jones function. Comm. Math. Phys. 169 (1995), no. 3, 501–520

    1995

  19. [27]

    Ozsv´ ath, Z

    P. Ozsv´ ath, Z. Szab´ o. Holomorphic disks and knot invariants. Adv. Math. 186 (2004), no.1, 58–116

    2004

  20. [28]

    Ozsv´ ath, Z

    P. Ozsv´ ath, Z. Szab´ o. Holomorphic disks and three-manifold invariants: properties and applications. Ann. of Math. (2) 159 (2004), no.3, 1159–1245

    2004

  21. [29]

    Ozsv´ ath, Z

    P. Ozsv´ ath, Z. Szab´ o. On knot Floer homology and lens space surgeries. Topology 44 (2005), no.6, 1281–1300

    2005

  22. [30]

    Ozsv´ ath, Z

    P. Ozsv´ ath, Z. Szab´ o. Holomorphic disks, link invariants and the multi-variable Alexander polynomial. Algebr. Geom. Topol. 8 (2008), no. 2, 615–692

    2008

  23. [31]

    Rasmussen

    J. Rasmussen. Floer homology and knot complements. PhD thesis, Harvard University, 2003

    2003

  24. [32]

    Rasmussen

    J. Rasmussen. Some differentials on Khovanov–Rozansky homology. Geometry & Topology, 19(6), 3031–3104

  25. [33]

    N. Y. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev. Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups. Comm. Math. Phys. 127 (1990), 1–26

    1990

  26. [34]

    Rosso and V

    M. Rosso and V. F. R. Jones. On the invariants of torus knots derived from quantum groups. Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications 2 (1993), 97–112

    1993

  27. [35]

    Rozansky

    L. Rozansky. An infinite torus braid yields a categorified Jones–Wenzl projector. Fundamenta Mathematicae 225 (2014): 305–326

    2014

  28. [36]

    A. Wildi. On Categorifications and Applications of Knot Invariants. PhD thesis, University of Z¨ urich, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    I. Zemke. Graph cobordisms and Heegaard Floer homology. arXiv:1512.01184

  30. [38]

    I. Zemke. Link cobordisms and functoriality in link Floer homology. J. Topol. 12 (2019), no. 1, 94–220

    2019

  31. [39]

    I. Zemke. Link cobordisms and absolute gradings on link Floer homology. Quantum Topol. 10 (2019), no. 2, 207–323

    2019

  32. [40]

    I. Zemke. Quasistabilization and basepoint moving maps in link Floer homology. Algebraic & Geometric Topology 17 (2017), no. 6, 3461 – 3518

    2017

  33. [41]

    I. Zemke. Bordered manifolds with torus boundary and the link surgery formula. arXiv:2109.11520. Department of Mathematics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 USA Email address: akram.alishahi@uga.edu Department of Mathematics, University of California Davis, One Shields ...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.