Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that the homological block of a knot complement for G_C=SL(2,C) can be realized as a half-index of a 3d N=2 theory, and that the same half-index integrand yields the colored Jones polynomial when evaluated over a different

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:43 UTC pith:M5QQAWLB

load-bearing objection The residue computations are real and the Jones-polynomial extraction is a genuine external check, but the §2.4 argument for why the z=q^k contour is the abelian branch doesn't sit on the integral's own classical action. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.05236 v2 pith:M5QQAWLB submitted 2026-03-05 hep-th math-phmath.GTmath.MP

3d-3d correspondence and abelian flat connection

Hee-Joong Chung This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.GTmath.MP
keywords 3d-3d correspondenceabelian flat connectionhomological blockinverted Habiro serieshalf-indexcolored Jones polynomialknot complementSL(2,C) Chern-Simons theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to close a gap in the 3d-3d correspondence: previously constructed 3d N=2 theories for knot complements captured non-abelian flat connections but missed the abelian one, the branch associated with the homological block. Working out the figure-eight and both trefoil knots, it shows that the homological block, written as an inverted Habiro series, appears as the half-index of a 3d N=2 theory when the integration contour encloses the poles z=q^k. The very same half-index integrand, evaluated instead over poles z=q^{-k}, yields the n-colored Jones polynomial. From these examples the paper concludes that a single theory T[M^3] knows all branches of flat connections, with the abelian branch selected by contour choice rather than by field content alone, and it proposes a general integral form expected to extend to arbitrary knots.

Core claim

The central claim is that for a knot complement in S^3 with gauge group G_C=SL(2,C), the balanced homological block, expressed as an inverted Habiro series, can be obtained as a half-index of a 3d N=2 theory with specific 2d (0,2) boundary conditions. Concretely, evaluating the integral (2.10) for the figure-eight knot by enclosing the poles z=q^k (k=0,1,...) reproduces the normalized homological block (2.4); the same integrand evaluated at poles z=q^{-k} (k=1,...,n) with x=q^n reproduces the n-colored Jones polynomial (2.18). The pattern repeats for the left- and right-handed trefoil knots, and the paper proposes a general integral form (3.3) expected to hold for arbitrary knots. The abelia

What carries the argument

The key object is the half-index integral with integrand built from q-Pochhammer symbols and a Jacobi theta function. For the figure-eight knot the integral is (q;q)_\infty^2 / ((x;q)_\infty(x^{-1};q)_\infty) times the contour integral of dz/(2πiz) θ((-q^{1/2})z;q)^{-1} (qzx;q)_\infty(qzx^{-1};q)_\infty, where θ(y;q)=(-q^{1/2}y;q)_\infty(-q^{1/2}y^{-1};q)_\infty arises from a 2d boundary chiral multiplet. The poles at z=q^k come from (z^{-1};q)_\infty^{-1} inside θ; enclosing them gives the inverted Habiro series. The poles at z=q^{-k} come from (qz;q)_\infty^{-1}; enclosing them gives the colored Jones polynomial. The inverted Habiro series itself — a sum over k with denominators (x;q)_{k+1

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the contour enclosing z=q^k is the natural convergent contour for the abelian flat-connection branch; the paper supports this only through a deformation-limit heuristic in which the abelian critical point z=1 appears after turning on a refinement parameter and taking the unrefined limit, and the exclusion of certain extra poles in the left-handed trefoil case is justified only by expectation.

What would settle it

Evaluate the figure-eight half-index (2.10) along a contour that also passes through the abelian critical point z=1 but encloses a different set of poles — for instance the shifted poles z=-q^{1/2}q^k discussed in section 2.4 — and check whether the result still equals the inverted Habiro series (2.4); if it does not, the claim that this contour is the one carrying the abelian branch is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For the figure-eight and trefoil knots, the balanced homological block is now realized as a half-index, giving the 3d-3d correspondence a physical origin for the abelian flat-connection contribution.
  • The same 3d N=2 theory, with the same integrand, produces the n-colored Jones polynomial by switching to the z=q^{-k} poles, so abelian and non-abelian flat-connection data are unified in one theory.
  • The paper's general integral (3.3) is expected to extend the construction to arbitrary knots, providing a systematic route to T[M^3] that knows all flat-connection branches.
  • Standard S^2 ×_q S^1 index calculations will not see the abelian branch; capturing it requires the homological-block summation (3.6) or a properly regularized state-integral, as the paper discusses.
  • The half-index perspective explains why a state-integral model with an added tanh factor yields the homological block: the theta function in the half-index reduces to cosh in the ℏ→0 limit, producing the same poles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The contour-versus-field-content split may be a general principle: any branch of flat connections that is invisible in the twisted superpotential could still be reachable by a suitable half-index contour, potentially for manifolds beyond knot complements.
  • If (3.3) holds generally, the Habiro coefficients a_{-k-1}(K;q) become boundary-condition data, suggesting a direct dictionary between knot invariants and 3d N=2 boundary degrees of freedom that could be tested knot by knot.
  • The fact that the z=q^{-k} contour works only after specializing x=q^n hints that the 'uncolored' Jones series contains extra branches (like xy+1) that vanish at roots of unity; this might explain similar spurious branches in other knot invariants.
  • One could test the contour mechanism numerically: evaluate (2.10) along a contour that encloses a finite set of z=q^k poles plus the z=q^{-k} poles and see whether the result interpolates between the homological block and the Jones polynomial, giving a physical meaning to finite truncations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the balanced homological block of a knot complement in S^3 for G_C=SL(2,C), expressed as an inverted Habiro series, can be realized as a half-index of a 3d N=2 theory. For the figure-eight and both trefoil knots, the author writes down anomaly-free half-index integrals and shows that residues at z=q^k reproduce the known homological block, residues at z=x q^k reproduce non-abelian branch contributions, and residues at z=q^{-k} with x=q^n reproduce the n-colored Jones polynomial. Section 2.4 attempts to justify the z=q^k contour as the natural contour for the abelian flat connection by tracking a critical point z=1 through a homological-flavor-locking deformation and taking the unrefined limit. Section 3 conjectures a general form for arbitrary knots and discusses the relation to the S^2 x_q S^1 index and to state-integral models.

Significance. If taken at face value, the paper supplies a concrete and checkable dictionary: a single 3d N=2 theory whose half-index, with different pole prescriptions, returns both the homological block and the colored Jones polynomial. The residue computations in §2.1–2.2 are explicit, the claimed quantum A-polynomial annihilators and their classical limits are given, and the paper honestly flags the known obstruction that abelian branches do not arise from the undeformed twisted superpotential. However, the physical interpretation that the z=q^k contour is naturally attached to the abelian flat connection is not established by the deformation argument, because the deformed superpotential used in §2.4 is not derived from the half-index integrand of the actual theory. The value of the paper is therefore primarily as an exact integral realization of known invariants, with the 3d-3d interpretation as a motivated conjecture rather than a proven correspondence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, after Eq. (2.30)] The argument that the contour enclosing z=q^k is the natural contour for the abelian branch tracks the critical point z=1 through the deformed superpotential W_3l1(z,x,t) in Eq. (2.50). This W is taken from the refined (homological-flavor-locked) colored Jones polynomial, not from the half-index integrand in Eq. (2.30) or Eq. (2.10). The unrefined limit (2.51)–(2.54) relies on cancellation of the (1−z) factor, so the limit does not control the undeformed theory whose twisted superpotential is (2.7)/(2.28)/(2.39); indeed those superpotentials have no abelian critical point, as the paper itself notes. Thus the crucial identification of the pole set z=q^k with the abelian flat connection is not derived. Please either derive the deformed superpotential from the actual half-index field content, or explicitly mark the abelian-contour identification as conjectural.
  2. [§2.1–§3, reverse engineering] For the left-handed trefoil, the integral (2.30) contains an additional z-dependent theta denominator θ((−q^{1/2}) z x^{-2}; q)^{-1}, giving poles at z=x^2 q^k. These poles are excluded by asserting that 'there is no further critical point for z≠0,∞' and that enclosing them 'would not be appropriate.' But a contour in a half-index is defined by the set of poles it encloses; without computing the residues at z=x^2 q^k or showing that they are annihilated by the correct quantum A-polynomial, one cannot conclude that they are unphysical. This exclusion is load-bearing because it is exactly what selects the contour that yields the homological block (2.31).
  3. [§2.1–§3, reverse engineering] The construction is reverse-engineered: for each knot, the charges, boundary conditions, and z-dependent theta factors are chosen so that the residue at z=q^k reproduces the known inverted Habiro series. This is made explicit in Eq. (3.3), where the coefficient a_{−k−1}(K;q) is promoted to a z-dependent function 'a_{−k−1}(K;q)'(z) that is to be guessed so that its value at z=q^k recovers the series. Consequently, the statement that the resulting T[M^3] 'knows all branches of flat connections' is an interpretation of the contour choice rather than a consequence of the field content. The paper should state this more carefully and, ideally, provide at least one example in which the field content is derived from the 3-manifold independently of the target series.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2 title] The section title appears as 'T refoil knots'; it should be 'Trefoil knots.'
  2. [Eq. (2.12)] Please give a more precise reference to [17] (page or equation number) and specify the domain of convergence of the expansion, since the contour integral later uses it on |z|=1.
  3. [Eq. (2.20)] The phrase 'poles z=x^{±1}q^k from (z∓x;q)_∞^{-1}' is a typo: the poles come from (z^{-1}x^{±1};q)_∞^{-1}. Please correct.
  4. [Footnote 5] The remark that the factor (1−x) can be removed by including (qx;q)_∞/(x;q)_∞ in (2.30) should state whether the modified integrand still corresponds to an anomaly-free, physical half-index.
  5. [§3, Eq. (3.3)] The notation 'a_{−k−1}(K;q)'(z) is confusing because it suggests an evaluation of the original series coefficient; a different symbol, such as A_k(z;q), would clarify that this is a new z-dependent object to be engineered.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Half-index/homological-block identity is by construction: the integrand is chosen to reproduce the target inverted Habiro series, and the colored Jones output is the same input via Habiro's expansion; the 'all branches' claim is therefore partially built in.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.4), (2.10), (2.16)]
    "We would like to produce (2.4) as a half-index. We consider an expression ... The integrand of the integral arises from the contributions to the half-index from the field contents ... [after residue evaluation] this agrees with the normalized version of the homological block (2.4) for the figure-eight knot."

    The integrand (2.10) is not derived from an independent 3d N=2 theory; the field content is read off from a chosen integrand whose residues at z=q^k collapse exactly to the target (2.4). Thus the 'realization' of the homological block as a half-index is an ansatz fitted to (2.4), which itself was imported from [7,11]. The equality (2.16)=(2.4) is a q-series identity, not a prediction from first principles.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.1)-(2.2), (2.17)-(2.18)]
    "Interestingly, it is possible to obtain the colored Jones polynomial of the figure-eight knot from (2.10) by choosing another set of poles. ... When x=q^n, this yields ... which agrees with the expression of the n-colored Jones polynomial of the figure-eight knot in [18]."

    The target (2.4) was constructed from the inverted Habiro series (2.2), which in turn is defined from the Habiro cyclotomic expansion of the colored Jones polynomial (2.1). So evaluating the same reverse-engineered integrand at the complementary poles z=q^{-k} and specializing x=q^n returns the very input that was used to define the homological block. The 'obtaining' of the Jones polynomial is therefore a reformulation of known Habiro data, not an independent output of the half-index.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that it wants to 'produce (2.4) as a half-index,' so the reverse-engineering is explicit. The q-hypergeometric manipulations leading to (2.16) are valid, and the check against the known Jones polynomial in [18] is a nontrivial consistency anchor. However, the advertised conclusion—that T[M^3] knows all branches—rests on choosing contours (z=q^k for the abelian branch, z=q^-k for the Jones polynomial, z=x q^k for non-abelian branches) in an integrand that was fitted to the inverted Habiro series. Since the inverted Habiro series is itself built from the colored Jones input (2.1), both the homological-block identity and the Jones 'prediction' reduce to the same input data. The Sec. 2.4 argument that the z=q^k contour is 'natural' tracks a deformed twisted superpotential (2.50)-(2.54) rather than the classical limit of the actual integrand (2.10); the paper concedes the abelian branch 'does not arise in the twisted superpotential.' That gap is a correctness risk but not in itself a circularity. Because the central all-branches claim is partially built in by the construction, while the explicit identities and external Jones check retain some independent content, the score is moderate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on (i) the target series themselves, taken from [7,11] under Park's inverted-Habiro conjecture; (ii) the engineered integrands whose residue evaluations then force the output; and (iii) the heuristic contour-anchor argument of §2.4. No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the free choices are the contour, the field content, and the overall prefactors. No new physical entities are invented: the theories T[M^3] are built from standard 3d N=2 supermultiplets and 2d (0,2) multiplets.

free parameters (3)
  • Integration contour (choice of poles) = z=q^k (k>=0) for homological block; z=q^-k (k=1..n) for Jones polynomial; z=xq^k for non-abelian branch
    The central result depends on which set of poles the z-integral encloses. The physical justification in §2.4 is heuristic: the undeformed twisted superpotentials (2.7), (2.28), (2.39) contain no abelian critical point, and the argument reconstructs z=1 only through a homological-flavor-locking deformation and its singular unrefined limit.
  • Field content of T[M^3] (charges, boundary conditions, background CS levels)
    For each knot the matter content (U(1)_z vector multiplet, 3d chirals, 2d (0,2) chirals/Fermi multiplets, Chern-Simons levels) is chosen so that the half-index integrand reproduces the target inverted Habiro series. The paper notes an ambiguity in choosing boundary degrees of freedom (§2.2, left-handed trefoil).
  • Overall prefactors = (1-x), (1-x^-1), theta-function ratios, (q;q)_inf factors
    Trefoil homological blocks are matched only 'up to overall factors' (Eqs. (2.31), (2.35), (2.42), (2.46)); the footnote to (2.31) notes the factor (1-x) can be absorbed by adding (qx;q)_inf/(x;q)_inf to the integrand. Signs and q-powers in the Jones polynomial also carry overall factors.
axioms (6)
  • standard math q-series identities (2.12) (Garvan's expansion) and (2.13) (q-binomial) hold on the chosen contours and can be interchanged with the residue sums without regularization issues.
    Used in §2.1 to pass from (2.14) to (2.16); convergence requires |qz|,|qz^-1|<1; the residue evaluation sums an infinite family of poles and the interchange is not justified in the text.
  • domain assumption The 3d-3d dictionary: a half-index of T[M^3] on D^2 x_q S^1 equals the analytically continued Chern-Simons partition function contribution, with the homological block being the abelian flat connection contribution.
    Framework inherited from [1-3,7,15]; the paper's goal is to realize an object of this dictionary, so the dictionary itself is assumed.
  • domain assumption The balanced homological block equals the inverted Habiro series (conjecture of Park [11]); the concrete series (2.4), (2.24), (2.25) are valid inputs.
    Stated in the Introduction as a conjecture ('It was conjectured that the homological block... can be expressed as an inverted Habiro series'); these series are the targets the half-indices are engineered to match.
  • ad hoc to paper The abelian-branch critical point z=1, obtained via homological-flavor-locking deformation and its unrefined limit, survives as the correct contour anchor for the undeformed theory.
    §2.4: the deformed twisted superpotential (2.50) has a solution z=1 whose (1-z) factor cancels in the unrefined limit; the undeformed superpotentials (2.7)/(2.28)/(2.39) do not contain the abelian branch. The survival of this critical point in the undeformed theory is asserted, not derived.
  • domain assumption The anomaly-cancelling background Chern-Simons terms listed for each theory (e.g., f_z(f_z - 4 f_R) + 4 f_x f_R - (15/2) f_R^2 in §2.2) make each half-index well defined.
    The paper asserts anomaly cancellation for each constructed theory; this is a standard consistency requirement taken on trust in the text.
  • standard math The annihilator polynomials (2.5), (2.22), (2.26), (2.37) etc., computed with the HolonomicFunctions package [13], are correct.
    Computer-algebra output invoked without reproduction; standard tooling assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19526 in / 23880 out tokens · 168194 ms · 2026-08-02T18:43:23.328612+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We realize a homological block of a knot complement in $S^3$ for $G_{\mathbb{C}}=SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ as a half-index of a 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ theory via an expression of the homological block as an inverted Habiro series by working out some examples, which we expect to extend to general knots. Also, by choosing a certain set of poles in the integral expression of the half-index, we obtain the colored Jones polynomial.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Three-dimensional TQFTs from Argyres--Douglas theories via the 3d/3d correspondence

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    The twisted circle reduction of the (A1,A2n) Argyres-Douglas theory is realized as a DGG abelian Chern-Simons-matter theory on the lens space L(2n+3,2k), with maximal (one-less-than-maximal) monopole superpotential fl...

  2. 3d-3d correspondence for knot complements with finite and large $N$

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The SU(N) homological block in inverted-Habiro form equals a half-index of an explicit 3d N=2 theory for the figure-eight and the two trefoil knots, with a conjectural all-knot extension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dimofte, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Dimofte, S

    T. Dimofte, S. Gukov and L. Hollands,Vortex counting and lagrangian 3-manifolds, 1006.0977v1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Terashima and M

    Y. Terashima and M. Yamazaki,Sl(2,r) chern-simons, liouville, and gauge theory on duality walls,1103.5748v1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Chung, T

    H.-J. Chung, T. Dimofte, S. Gukov and P. Su lkowski,3d-3d Correspondence Revisited,JHEP 04(2016) 140, [1405.3663]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Gukov, P

    S. Gukov, P. Putrov and C. Vafa,Fivebranes and 3-manifold homology,JHEP07(2017) 071, [1602.05302]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Gukov, D

    S. Gukov, D. Pei, P. Putrov and C. Vafa,BPS spectra and 3-manifold invariants,J. Knot Theor. Ramifications29(2020) 2040003, [1701.06567]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Gukov and C

    S. Gukov and C. Manolescu,A two-variable series for knot complements,Quantum Topol.12 (2021) 1–109, [1904.06057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Gukov, M

    S. Gukov, M. Marino and P. Putrov,Resurgence in complex Chern-Simons theory, 1605.07615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Chung,Resurgent Analysis for Some 3-manifold Invariants,JHEP05(2021) 106, [2008.02786]

    H.-J. Chung,Resurgent Analysis for Some 3-manifold Invariants,JHEP05(2021) 106, [2008.02786]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Chung,3d-3d correspondence and 2dN= (0, 2) boundary conditions,JHEP03(2024) 085, [2307.10125]

    H.-J. Chung,3d-3d correspondence and 2dN= (0, 2) boundary conditions,JHEP03(2024) 085, [2307.10125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Park,Inverted state sums, inverted Habiro series, and indefinite theta functions, 2106.03942

    S. Park,Inverted state sums, inverted Habiro series, and indefinite theta functions, 2106.03942

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Habiro,On the quantumsl 2 invariants of knots and integral homology spheres, in Invariants of knots and 3-manifolds (Kyoto, 2001), vol

    K. Habiro,On the quantumsl 2 invariants of knots and integral homology spheres, in Invariants of knots and 3-manifolds (Kyoto, 2001), vol. 4 ofGeom. Topol. Monogr., pp. 55–68. Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 2002. DOI

    2001

  13. [13]

    Koutschan,HolonomicFunctions (user’s guide), Tech

    C. Koutschan,HolonomicFunctions (user’s guide), Tech. Rep. 10-01, RISC Report Series, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 2010. – 21 –

    2010

  14. [14]

    H. Fuji, S. Gukov and P. Sulkowski,Super-A-polynomial for knots and BPS states,Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 506–546, [1205.1515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    C. Beem, T. Dimofte and S. Pasquetti,Holomorphic Blocks in Three Dimensions,JHEP12 (2014) 177, [1211.1986]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    M. C. N. Cheng, S. Chun, B. Feigin, F. Ferrari, S. Gukov, S. M. Harrison et al.,3-Manifolds and VOA Characters,2201.04640

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    F. G. Garvan,New combinatorial interpretations of ramanujan ’s partition congruences mod 5,7 and 11,Transactions of the American Mathematical Society305(1988) 47–77

    1988

  18. [18]

    Garoufalidis and T

    S. Garoufalidis and T. T. Le,The colored jones function is q-holonomic,Geom. Topol.9 (2005) 1253–1293, [math/0309214v3]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Dimofte, D

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto and N. M. Paquette,Dual boundary conditions in 3d SCFT’s,JHEP 05(2018) 060, [1712.07654]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Aganagic and S

    M. Aganagic and S. Shakirov,Knot Homology and Refined Chern-Simons Index,Commun. Math. Phys.333(2015) 187–228, [1105.5117]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Awata, S

    H. Awata, S. Gukov, P. Sulkowski and H. Fuji,Volume Conjecture: Refined and Categorified, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.16(2012) 1669–1777, [1203.2182]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Witten,Fivebranes and knots,Quantum Topol.3(2012) 1–137, [1101.3216v1]

    E. Witten,Fivebranes and knots,Quantum Topol.3(2012) 1–137, [1101.3216v1]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Dimofte, D

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto and S. Gukov,3-Manifolds and 3d Indices,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 17(2013) 975–1076, [1112.5179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Kim,The Complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons theory,Nucl

    S. Kim,The Complete superconformal index for N=6 Chern-Simons theory,Nucl. Phys. B821(2009) 241–284, [0903.4172]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [25]

    Imamura and S

    Y. Imamura and S. Yokoyama,Index for three dimensional superconformal field theories with general R-charge assignments,JHEP04(2011) 007, [1101.0557]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Kapustin and B

    A. Kapustin and B. Willett,Generalized Superconformal Index for Three Dimensional Field Theories,1106.2484

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    M. C. Cheng, S. Chun, F. Ferrari, S. Gukov and S. M. Harrison,3d Modularity,JHEP10 (2019) 010, [1809.10148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Garoufalidis, J

    S. Garoufalidis, J. Gu, M. Marino and C. Wheeler,Resurgence of Chern-Simons theory at the trivial flat connection,2111.04763

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Gadde, S

    A. Gadde, S. Gukov and P. Putrov,Walls, Lines, and Spectral Dualities in 3d Gauge Theories,JHEP05(2014) 047, [1302.0015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Yoshida and K

    Y. Yoshida and K. Sugiyama,Localization of three-dimensionalN= 2supersymmetric theories onS 1 ×D 2,PTEP2020(2020) 113B02, [1409.6713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Chung,BPS invariants for a Knot in Seifert manifolds,JHEP12(2022) 122, [2201.08351]

    H.-J. Chung,BPS invariants for a Knot in Seifert manifolds,JHEP12(2022) 122, [2201.08351]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Witten,Analytic continuation of Chern-Simons theory, inChern-Simons gauge theory: 20 years after, vol

    E. Witten,Analytic continuation of Chern-Simons theory, inChern-Simons gauge theory: 20 years after, vol. 50 ofAMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., pp. 347–446. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011. – 22 –

    2011