Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 59 references

A survey of knots and quivers

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 The knot-quiver correspondence claims that every knot's colored HOMFLY-PT generating function is secretly the motivic generating series of a symmetric quiver, and that this rewriting proves the integrality of LMOV BPS invariants.

desk verdict A faithful, useful survey of knots-quivers that overstates one key claim: LMOV integrality is presented as proven when it is conditional on the still-conjectural knot-quiver correspondence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02059 v2 pith:3AVYWWZN submitted 2025-05-04 math.GT hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Shivrat Sachdeva This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GThep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 57K1457K1816G2014N35
keywords knot-quivercorrespondenceHOMFLY-PTpolynomialLMOVinvariantsmotivicDonaldson-Thomassuperpolynomialtriply-gradedhomologyquiverA-polynomialtopologicalstrings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This survey argues that knot polynomials and their homological refinements share a common skeleton with the representation theory of quivers. Its organizing claim is the knot-quiver correspondence: the generating function of a knot's colored HOMFLY-PT polynomials can be rewritten as the motivic generating series of a symmetric quiver, with a finite integer matrix $C_{ij}$ and integer parameters $l_i,a_i,t_i$ read off from the uncolored superpolynomial. Through a fixed change of variables, this rewriting identifies LMOV invariants with motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants, whose known non-negative integrality for symmetric quivers yields the LMOV integrality statement. The survey also assembles the physical and geometric side, where quiver nodes are holomorphic disks ending on the knot conormal and the quiver superpotential is dual to the open Gromov-Witten disk potential. A reader should come away seeing the knot-quiver correspondence as the link that turns BPS-state counting into quiver moduli problems and back.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetric quiver $Q_K$, a directed graph with equal numbers of arrows in both directions between any two nodes, encoded by a symmetric integer adjacency matrix $C_{ij}$. The argument is carried by matching two generating series: the colored HOMFLY-PT series of the knot and the motivic quiver series $P_{Q_K}(x,q) = \sum_{d_1,\dots,d_m \ge 0} (-q)^{\sum_{i,j} C_{ij} d_i d_j} \prod_i x_i^{d_i}/(q^2;q^2)_{d_i}$, with the explicit variable change $x_i = x a^{a_i} q^{l_i-1}(-1)^{t_i}$. The same quiver reappears geometrically as the intersection pattern of $m$ basic holomorphic disks ending on the Lagrangian conormal $L_K$, giving a dictionary: nodes are disks, arrows are linking numbers, $t_i$ counts loops, $l_i$ counts intersections with a 4-chain, and $a_i$ counts winding around the $\mathbb{CP}^1$. The physical engine is the three-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ theory $T[Q_K]$, whose twisted superpotential $W_{T[Q_K]} = \sum_i \operatorname{Li}_2(y_i) + \sum_i \log((-1)^{C_{ii}} x_i)\log y_i + \tfrac12 \sum_{i,j} C_{ij} \log y_i \log y_j$ produces, by saddle point, the quiver $A$-polynomial and, by Legendre transform, the Gromov-Witten disk potential.

What would settle it

Compute the colored HOMFLY-PT superpolynomials of a knot beyond the trefoil and unknot, such as the figure-eight knot $4_1$ or the knot $9_{42}$, extract the putative quiver matrix $C_{ij}$ and parameters $l_i,a_i,t_i$ from the uncolored data, and read off the motivic DT invariants from the product formula. The correspondence predicts a finite symmetric matrix and non-negative integer motivic DT invariants at every dimension vector; a knot whose extraction forces negative DT invariants, an asymmetric or infinite matrix, or a mismatch between the quiver $A$-polynomial and the known knot $A$-polynomial would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, presented as the main conjecture of the knot-quiver correspondence, is an explicit identity between knot and quiver generating functions: the colored HOMFLY-PT generating series equals a sum over dimension vectors of a symmetric quiver, with Boltzmann weight $q^{\sum_{i,j} C_{ij} d_i d_j} \prod_i x_i^{d_i} q^{l_i d_i} a^{a_i d_i} (-1)^{t_i d_i}/(q^2;q^2)_{d_i}$. The diagonal entries satisfy $t_i = C_{ii}$, and the variables $x_i$ are tied to the single knot variable $x$ by $x_i = x a^{a_i} q^{l_i-1}(-1)^{t_i}$. After this substitution, the LMOV invariants in the Ooguri-Vafa expansion are precisely the motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants of the quiver; because those invariants are non-negative integers for symmetric quivers, the LMOV conjecture for symmetric representations follows. Geometrically, the same quiver describes holomorphic disks with boundary on the knot conormal: $C_{ij}$ counts self-linking of disk boundaries, $a_i$ counts wrapping around the $\mathbb{CP}^1$ class, and $t_i$ records winding around the two-cycle joining the conormal to itself. The survey works out the trefoil and unknot in detail, including quiver matrices, motivic DT invariants, the quiver $A$-polynomial, and the matching of disk potentials via Legendre transform.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the string-theory description of a knot—wrapping branes on the knot conormal and passing through the geometric transition to a resolved Calabi-Yau—is exact: the open Gromov-Witten partition function of the conormal really equals the quiver generating series after the variable change, and the three-dimensional theory $T[Q_K]$ really is dual to the topological string on that geometry. If that equality fails for some family of knots, the geometric and physical derivations in the survey do not go through, even though the algebraic quiver rewriting could still hold knot by knot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every knot for which the quiver rewriting exists, the colored HOMFLY-PT LMOV invariants are non-negative integers, since they are motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants of a symmetric quiver; this is the LMOV conjecture for symmetric representations.
  • The knot's $A$-polynomial is recovered from a product of quiver $A$-polynomials $y^* = \prod_i y_i^*$, so the quiver data determine the classical algebraic curve encoding the asymptotics of the colored invariants.
  • Framing acts uniformly on the quiver: it shifts every entry of $C_{ij}$ by $f$, equivalently adding $f$ loops at each node and $f$ pairs of oppositely oriented arrows between every pair of nodes.
  • Choosing the unreduced normalization doubles the quiver: the splitting identity turns each node into a pair and produces a larger symmetric quiver whose motivic DT invariants match the unreduced LMOV data, as shown for the unknot.
  • Knots that fail the exponential growth property, such as $9_{42}$, are still covered once the variable change is modified to $x_i \sim x^{n_i}$, accounting for multiply wrapped basic disks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the knot-quiver correspondence is an equivalence of generating functions rather than a bijection of objects, then quiver operations such as unlinking and involution predict families of distinct knots sharing identical quiver invariants; quiver refinements, not knot refinements, would be the constrained direction.
  • Because the quiver $A$-polynomial is computed from the finite data of the uncolored superpolynomial, the correspondence offers a practical route to $A$-polynomials of arbitrary knots; checking it against known $A$-polynomials for knots such as $4_1$ would be a cheap test.
  • The equality of vortex partition functions with quiver generating series suggests that wall-crossing, a standard tool in quiver Donaldson-Thomas theory, could be imported to the LMOV side, with stability changes on the quiver corresponding to framing or normalization changes of the knot invariant.
  • If the geometric reading is correct, disk-counting invariants from knot contact homology should be expressible as Donaldson-Thomas invariants of symmetric quivers, linking two computational worlds that are currently developed separately.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey of knot polynomials and their connection to quivers. It reviews classical polynomial invariants, categorification, the triply-graded superpolynomial and colored differentials of Dunfield-Gukov-Rasmussen, and then focuses on the knots-quivers (KQ) correspondence developed by Kucharski-Reineke-Stosic-Sulkowski and Ekholm-Kucharski-Longhi. The main objects are the conjectural identity (36) between the generating function of colored HOMFLY-PT polynomials and a quiver generating series, the identification of LMOV invariants with motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants, the geometric dual description via open Gromov-Witten theory and Lagrangian conormals, and the 3d N=2 quiver theory T[Q_K]. The paper contains worked examples (trefoil, T(3,4), unknot) and a discussion of framing, unreduced quivers, quiver A-polynomials, and the relation between quiver disk potentials and Gromov-Witten disk potentials. No original research results are claimed; the survey is expository and draws heavily on [4,5,11].

Significance. If the presentation were fully accurate, this survey would be a useful entry point to an active and technical literature at the interface of knot theory, topological strings, and quiver representation theory. Its strengths are the explicit examples, the compilation of the relevant dictionary between knot invariants and quiver data, and the honest labeling of the central identity (36) as a conjecture. The paper also helpfully collects the relevant literature. However, the survey's reliability is currently compromised by several load-bearing imprecisions: an overstatement about proving the LMOV conjecture, an inconsistent formulation of the quiver variable change, and concrete errors in the worked examples and in the unknot quiver superpotential. These issues affect the paper's central expository claims and must be corrected before the survey can be used reliably by non-experts.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, after Eq. (36)] The sentence 'This proves the integrality of BPS states N_{S_r,i,j}, which is the statement of the LMOV conjecture' overstates the logical status of the argument, because the antecedent is precisely the knot-quivers correspondence, which the same paragraph labels 'the main conjecture'. As written, the sentence can be read as claiming an unconditional proof of LMOV integrality, which the field does not currently have. The passage should be reworded to read, for example, 'Conditional on the knot-quivers correspondence, this proves...', and it should explicitly state that the correspondence is conjectural for general knots.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (37) and Section 5.2, Eq. (52)] The variable change defining the quiver variables is garbled and inconsistent between the two equations. Eq. (37) appears to read x_i = x a^{a_i} q^{l_i-1} (-1)^{t_i}, while Eq. (52) gives x_i = x^{n_i} a^{a_i} q^{l_i} (-t)^{C_ii}; the definitions of l_i, q_i, and t_i also conflict with their later use, such as 'l_i = q_i - C_ii' in Section 5.2 versus 'l_i = q_i - t_i' in Section 4.2. Since this dictionary is the core of the correspondence and is used in the trefoil and unknot examples, the notation must be unified and defined unambiguously.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (10) and Section 3.2, Eq. (11)] The displayed superpolynomials for the trefoil and T(3,4) contain typos that matter for the pedagogical exposition: Eq. (10) contains the term 'a^4 a^0 t^3', which is dimensionally inconsistent with the neighboring terms, and Eq. (11) contains a repeated 't^5' and missing q-powers. Because these examples are used to illustrate the action of the colored differentials, the formulas should be checked against the cited source [3] and corrected.
  4. [Section 5.4, Eqs. (68)-(75)] The derivation of the quiver A-polynomial (74) and the disk-potential relation (75) relies on the geometric identification (52) between the open Gromov-Witten partition function and the quiver generating series. This identification is imported from [11] and is itself a form of the KQ correspondence, but the survey presents it as an established fact without flagging its conjectural status. The text should explicitly state that Eqs. (68)-(75) are conditional on the geometric correspondence and on the validity of the large-N transition and brane construction.
  5. [Section 5.6, Eq. (96)] The quiver superpotential for the unknot is written with a CS-coupling term '(1/2) log y_1 log y_1', but for the unreduced unknot quiver the single loop is on node 2 (the quiver matrix is diag(0,1)), so the term should be '(1/2) log y_2 log y_2'. This is a concrete sign error in the central worked example and contradicts the preceding quiver data, in particular Eq. (79).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] Several typos should be fixed: 'refereed' should be 'referred' in the discussion of Gopakumar-Vafa invariants, and 'sympletic' should be 'symplectic' in the introduction to Section 5.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (22)] The exponent n in the exponential growth property is never defined; it should be the color r, since the relation compares the r-colored polynomial with the r-th power of the uncolored polynomial.
  3. [Section 2] The statement that HOMFLY-PT polynomials 'cannot distinguish between mutants' is too strong; HOMFLY-PT distinguishes some pairs of mutants, though not all. The sentence should be made more precise, for example by saying that these invariants do not distinguish certain mutants, or by citing the precise result of [12].
  4. [Section 4.2, Eq. (33)] The notation for motivic Donaldson-Thomas invariants is inconsistent: Eq. (33) defines a generating function Ω_{d,s}^{Q_K} with a spin index s, but the following sentence refers to Ω_{d_1,...,d_m} as the numerical DT invariants without further comment. The relationship between Ω_{d,s} and the numerical invariants should be clarified.
  5. [Section 4.3, Eq. (50)] The splitting identity (47) is applied to the unknot generating function, but the resulting quiver of twice the size is only partially described; the text says 'a detailed analysis has been given in [5]', which is acceptable for a survey, but the two-node case displayed in Eq. (50) could be spelled out more fully for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey transparently imports its central results from [3], [4,5], and [11], none authored by Sachdeva, and its worked examples are explicit algebraic rewritings rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The survey makes no original claim whose derivation could reduce to its own inputs. Its central objects—the superpolynomial unification (§3), the knot-quiver correspondence (Eq. 36), the LMOV/DT dictionary (Eqs. 33–37), and the geometric T[Q_K] description (§5)—are explicitly imported from [3], [4,5], and [11], none of which are authored by Sachdeva. The trefoil example is an explicit algebraic rewriting of the known colored HOMFLY-PT formula (41) via q-binomial identities into the quiver form (44), rather than a fit of quiver data to the target invariant; the unknot computation (§5.6) is a direct check against published unknot invariants. Thus no parameter is fitted and renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation occurs. The only caveat is logical, not circular: Eq. (36) is labeled 'main conjecture,' so the sentence 'This proves the integrality of BPS states' is properly read as conditional on the knot-quiver correspondence holding for the knot in question; a reader who misses the conditional would overstate the result, but this is a presentation issue rather than a derivation that identifies its conclusion with its input.

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

The survey itself introduces no new parameters or entities; it restates definitions, theorems, and conjectures from [3], [4,5], and [11]. The axioms listed are the background assumptions a reader must accept for the survey's presentation to be a correct picture of the field.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The HOMFLY-PT polynomial is a well-defined knot invariant satisfying the skein relation (Eq. 1).
    Used throughout Sections 2-4 as the foundation of all polynomial invariants discussed.
  • standard math Khovanov homology and Khovanov-Rozansky homology categorify the Jones and sl(N) invariants (Eqs. 2-3).
    The survey's presentation of categorification and its examples depend on these known theorems.
  • domain assumption A triply-graded superpolynomial P_K(a,q,t) exists for all knots and specializes to sl(N) Khovanov-Rozansky and knot Floer homology (Eqs. 5-6).
    This is the Dunfield-Gukov-Rasmussen proposal [3]; if it fails, the material in Section 3 collapses.
  • domain assumption For each knot there is a symmetric quiver Q_K whose motivic generating series equals the colored HOMFLY-PT generating function (Eqs. 34-36).
    This is the knots-quivers correspondence conjecture [4,5]; it is the central object reviewed in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The open Gromov-Witten partition function of the knot conormal equals the quiver series under the variable change (52).
    This geometric identification is imported from [11] and underpins the entire geometric picture of Section 5.
  • domain assumption The 3d N=2 quiver gauge theory T[Q_K] with superpotential (70) is dual to the topological string on L_K, and its vortex partition function equals the quiver partition function.
    This physical duality is used in Sections 5.4-5.5 and is not rederived in the survey.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A survey of knots and quivers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3AVYWWZN

@misc{pith2026250502059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A survey of knots and quivers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3AVYWWZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02059}
}
abstract

This survey explores knot polynomials and their categorification, culminating in the homological invariants of knots. We begin with an overview of classical knot polynomials, progressing towards the superpolynomial and its role in unifying various knot homologies. Along the way, we provide physical and geometric insights into the unification of the $sl(N)$ Khovanov-Rozansky and the knot Floer homology. We then turn our attention to the intriguing correspondence between knots and quivers, examining how this perspective sheds light on the integrality of BPS states encoded in the Labastida-Mari\~no-Ooguri-Vafa (LMOV) invariants. We will further investigate the knot-quiver correspondence from a physics and geometric side and study the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ theory $T[Q_K]$ for the quivers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure depicts the various gradings and their connections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Homological diagram for the trefoil with the non-trivial colored differentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Homological diagram for the knot T3,4. The bottommost row has a−grading 6, the leftmost dot has q−grading -6 and the vertical axis of symmetry lies at q−grading 0. By taking the differential with respected to d2 of H∗ and substituting a = q 2 , we get the Khovanov homology , P2(T3,4) = q 6 + q 10t 2 + q 12t 3 + q 12t 4 + q 16t 5 (12) and as before P1(T3,4) = 1, the bottom leftmost dot survives. 3.3 Connection to kno… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Homological diagram for the trefoil knot with respect to the new homological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Knots 31, 41, 51 and 52. Images taken from the Knot Atlas. connection A and the ambient three-manifold is M = S 3 . Then the unreduced HOMFLY￾PT polynomial colored by a representation r of the gauge group U(N) is defined using the holonomy of the gauge connection A alo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trefoil knot and its corresponding quiver [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An equivalence between the respective geometric and physics side of quivers [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    The superpolynomial for knot homologies,

    N. M. Dunfield, S. Gukov, and J. Rasmussen, “The superpolynomial for knot homologies,” 2005.https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0505662

    arXiv 2005

  2. [33]

    Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence,

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, “Physics and geometry of knots-quivers correspondence,”Commun. Math. Phys.379no. 2, (2020) 361–415, arXiv:1811.03110 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,

    E. Witten, “Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial,”Commun. Math. Phys.121(1989) 351–399

    1989

  4. [2]

    A categorification of the jones polynomial,

    M. Khovanov, “A categorification of the jones polynomial,” 1999. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9908171

    arXiv 1999

  5. [4]

    Bps states, knots, and quivers,

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Stoˇ si´ c, and P. Su lkowski, “Bps states, knots, and quivers,”Physical Review D96no. 12, (Dec., 2017) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.121902

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.121902 2017

  6. [5]

    Knots-quivers correspondence,

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Stoˇ si´ c, and P. Su lkowski, “Knots-quivers correspondence,”Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics23no. 7, (2019) 1849–1902.http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2019.v23.n7.a4

    doi:10.4310/atmp.2019.v23.n7.a4 2019

  7. [6]

    M-theory and topological strings–ii,

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “M-theory and topological strings–ii,” 1998. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9812127. 28

    arXiv 1998

  8. [7]

    M theory and topological strings. 1.,

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “M theory and topological strings. 1.,” arXiv:hep-th/9809187

    arXiv

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Knot invariants and topological strings,

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot invariants and topological strings,”Nuclear Physics B 577no. 3, (June, 2000) 419–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00118-8

    2000 doi

  2. [9]

    Polynomial invariants for torus knots¶and topological strings,

    J. M. F. Labastida and M. Mari˜ no, “Polynomial invariants for torus knots¶and topological strings,”Communications in Mathematical Physics217no. 2, (Mar.,

  3. [10]

    Knots, links and branes at large n,

    J. M. Labastida, M. Mari˜ no, and C. Vafa, “Knots, links and branes at large n,” Journal of High Energy Physics2000no. 11, (Nov., 2000) 007–007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2000/11/007

    doi

  4. [12]

    Distinguishing mutants by knot polynomials,

    H. R. MORTON and P. R. CROMWELL, “Distinguishing mutants by knot polynomials,”Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications05no. 02, (1996) 225–238.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218216596000163

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    Four-dimensional topological quantum field theory, hopf categories, and the canonical bases,

    L. Crane and I. B. Frenkel, “Four-dimensional topological quantum field theory, hopf categories, and the canonical bases,”Journal of Mathematical Physics35no. 10, (Oct., 1994) 5136–5154.http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.530746

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    Gauge theory and knot homologies,

    S. Gukov, “Gauge theory and knot homologies,”Fortsch. Phys.55(2007) 473–490, arXiv:0706.2369 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Topological Quantum Field Theory,

    E. Witten, “Topological Quantum Field Theory,”Commun. Math. Phys.117(1988) 353

    1988

  8. [16]

    Monopoles and four-manifolds,

    E. Witten, “Monopoles and four-manifolds,” 1994. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411102

    1994 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Matrix factorizations and link homology,

    M. Khovanov and L. Rozansky, “Matrix factorizations and link homology,” 2004. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0401268

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Khovanov-rozansky homology and topological strings,

    S. Gukov, A. Schwarz, and C. Vafa, “Khovanov-rozansky homology and topological strings,”Letters in Mathematical Physics74no. 1, (Oct., 2005) 53–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11005-005-0008-8

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Sequencing bps spectra,

    S. Gukov, S. Nawata, I. Saberi, M. Stoˇ si´ c, and P. Su lkowski, “Sequencing bps spectra,”Journal of High Energy Physics2016no. 3, (Mar., 2016) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2016)004. 29

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Homological algebra of knots and bps states,

    S. Gukov and M. Stoˇ si´ c, “Homological algebra of knots and bps states,” inProceedings of the Freedman Fest, vol. 18, p. 309–367. Mathematical Sciences Publishers, May, 2013.http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/gtm.2012.18.309

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Lagrangians for the gopakumar–vafa conjecture,

    C. H. Taubes, “Lagrangians for the gopakumar–vafa conjecture,” inThe interaction of finite-type and Gromov–Witten invariants (BIRS 2003), p. 73–95. Mathematical Sciences Publishers, Apr., 2006.http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/gtm.2006.8.73

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    String theory and math: Why this marriage may last. Mathematics and dualities of quantum physics,

    M. Aganagic, “String theory and math: Why this marriage may last. Mathematics and dualities of quantum physics,”Bull. Am. Math. Soc.53no. 1, (2016) 93–115, arXiv:1508.06642 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A new point of view in the theory of knot and link invariants,

    J. M. F. Labastida and M. Marino, “A new point of view in the theory of knot and link invariants,” 2001.https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0104180

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Knots, bps states, and algebraic curves,

    S. Garoufalidis, P. Kucharski, and P. Su lkowski, “Knots, bps states, and algebraic curves,”Communications in Mathematical Physics346no. 1, (July, 2016) 75–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2682-z

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Plane curves associated to character varieties of 3-manifolds,

    D. Cooper, M. Culler, H. Gillet, D. D. Long, and P. B. Shalen, “Plane curves associated to character varieties of 3-manifolds,”Inventiones mathematicae118no. 1, (Dec, 1994) 47–84.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01231526

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    Large n duality, mirror symmetry, and a q-deformed a-polynomial for knots,

    M. Aganagic and C. Vafa, “Large n duality, mirror symmetry, and a q-deformed a-polynomial for knots,” 2012.https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4709

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Super-A-polynomial,

    H. Fuji and P. Sulkowski, “Super-A-polynomial,”Proc. Symp. Pure Math.90(2015) 277–304,arXiv:1303.3709 [math.AG]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    3d analogs of argyres-douglas theories and knot homologies,

    H. Fuji, S. Gukov, M. Stoˇ si´ c, and P. Sulkowski, “3d analogs of argyres-douglas theories and knot homologies,”Journal of High Energy Physics2013no. 1, (Jan., 2013) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2013)175

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Cohomological hall algebra of a symmetric quiver,

    A. I. Efimov, “Cohomological hall algebra of a symmetric quiver,”Compositio Mathematica148no. 4, (May, 2012) 1133–1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/S0010437X12000152

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Stability structures, motivic donaldson-thomas invariants and cluster transformations,

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman, “Stability structures, motivic donaldson-thomas invariants and cluster transformations,” 2008.https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2435

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zonotopal algebras, orbit harmonics, and donaldson–thomas invariants of symmetric quivers,

    M. Reineke, B. Rhoades, and V. Tewari, “Zonotopal algebras, orbit harmonics, and donaldson–thomas invariants of symmetric quivers,”International Mathematics Research Notices2023no. 23, (03, 2023) 20169–20210, https://academic.oup.com/imrn/article-pdf/2023/23/20169/54019853/rna...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Quiver diagonalization and open bps states,

    J. Jankowski, P. Kucharski, H. Larragu´ ıvel, D. Noshchenko, and P. Su lkowski, “Quiver diagonalization and open bps states,”Communications in Mathematical Physics402 no. 2, (June, 2023) 1551–1584.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-023-04753-2

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Donaldson-thomas invariants versus intersection cohomology of quiver moduli,

    S. Meinhardt and M. Reineke, “Donaldson-thomas invariants versus intersection cohomology of quiver moduli,” 2016.https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4062

    2016 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Semistable chow–hall algebras of quivers and quantized donaldson–thomas invariants,

    H. Franzen and M. Reineke, “Semistable chow–hall algebras of quivers and quantized donaldson–thomas invariants,”Algebra & Number Theory12no. 5, (July, 2018) 1001–1025.http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/ant.2018.12.1001

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Quadruply-graded colored homology of knots,

    E. Gorsky, S. Gukov, and M. Stosic, “Quadruply-graded colored homology of knots,” 2013.https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3481

    2013 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Bps counting for knots and combinatorics on words,

    P. Kucharski and P. Su lkowski, “Bps counting for knots and combinatorics on words,” Journal of High Energy Physics2016no. 11, (Nov., 2016) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2016)120

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    Integrality structures in topological strings i: framed unknot,

    W. Luo and S. Zhu, “Integrality structures in topological strings i: framed unknot,” 2016.https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06506

    2016 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Topological strings, quiver varieties and rogers-ramanujan identities,

    S. Zhu, “Topological strings, quiver varieties and rogers-ramanujan identities,” 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00831

    2018 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Unlinking symmetric quivers,

    P. Kucharski, H. Larraguıvel, D. Noshchenko, and P. Su lkowski, “Unlinking symmetric quivers,”arXiv:2312.14905 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    Permutohedra for knots and quivers,

    J. Jankowski, P. Kucharski, H. Larragu´ ıvel, D. Noshchenko, and P. Su lkowski, “Permutohedra for knots and quivers,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 8, (2021) 086017, arXiv:2105.11806 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Topological strings, d-model, and knot contact homology,

    C. Vafa, M. Aganagic, T. Ekholm, and L. Ng, “Topological strings, d-model, and knot contact homology,”Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics18no. 4, (2014) 827–956.http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2014.v18.n4.a3

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    Skeins on branes,

    T. Ekholm and V. Shende, “Skeins on branes,” 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08027

    2025 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Vortex counting and lagrangian 3-manifolds,

    T. Dimofte, S. Gukov, and L. Hollands, “Vortex counting and lagrangian 3-manifolds,”Letters in Mathematical Physics98no. 3, (Oct., 2011) 225–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11005-011-0531-8. 31

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    sl (2,R) chern-simons, liouville, and gauge theory on duality walls,

    Y. Terashima and M. Yamazaki, “sl (2,R) chern-simons, liouville, and gauge theory on duality walls,”Journal of High Energy Physics2011no. 8, (Aug., 2011) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2011)135

    2011 doi

  37. [46]

    3d tqft from 6d scft,

    J. Yagi, “3d tqft from 6d scft,”Journal of High Energy Physics2013no. 8, (Aug.,

  38. [47]

    3d chern-simons theory from m5-branes,

    S. Lee and M. Yamazaki, “3d chern-simons theory from m5-branes,”Journal of High Energy Physics2013no. 12, (Dec., 2013) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2013)035

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    Complex chern-simons from m5-branes on the squashed three-sphere,

    C. Cordova and D. L. Jafferis, “Complex chern-simons from m5-branes on the squashed three-sphere,” 2013.https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2891

    2013 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Fundamental vortices, wall-crossing, and particle-vortex duality,

    C. Hwang, P. Yi, and Y. Yoshida, “Fundamental vortices, wall-crossing, and particle-vortex duality,”Journal of High Energy Physics2017no. 5, (May, 2017) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2017)099

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    Higher genus knot contact homology and recursion for colored homfly-pt polynomials,

    T. Ekholm and L. Ng, “Higher genus knot contact homology and recursion for colored homfly-pt polynomials,” 2020.https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04011

    2020 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Mirror symmetry, d-branes and counting holomorphic discs,

    M. Aganagic and C. Vafa, “Mirror symmetry, d-branes and counting holomorphic discs,” 2000.https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0012041

    2000 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Disk instantons, mirror symmetry and the duality web,

    M. Aganagic, A. Klemm, and C. Vafa, “Disk instantons, mirror symmetry and the duality web,”Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A57no. 1–2, (Feb., 2002) 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zna-2002-1-201

    2002 doi

  44. [53]

    Donaldson-thomas invariants, torus knots, and lattice paths,

    M. Panfil, M. Stoˇ si´ c, and P. Su lkowski, “Donaldson-thomas invariants, torus knots, and lattice paths,”Physical Review D98no. 2, (July, 2018) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.026022

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    Topological strings, strips and quivers,

    M. Panfil and P. Su lkowski, “Topological strings, strips and quivers,”Journal of High Energy Physics2019no. 1, (Jan., 2019) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2019)124

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    Knot homologies and generalized quiver partition functions,

    T. Ekholm, P. Kucharski, and P. Longhi, “Knot homologies and generalized quiver partition functions,” 2022.https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12645

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Holomorphic blocks in three dimensions,

    C. Beem, T. Dimofte, and S. Pasquetti, “Holomorphic blocks in three dimensions,” Journal of High Energy Physics2014no. 12, (Dec., 2014) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2014)177

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    Factorization of the 3d superconformal index,

    C. Hwang, H.-C. Kim, and J. Park, “Factorization of the 3d superconformal index,” 2013.https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6023. 32

    2013 arXiv

  49. [58]

    On f-term contribution to effective action,

    S. Shadchin, “On f-term contribution to effective action,”Journal of High Energy Physics2007no. 08, (Aug., 2007) 052–052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/052. 33

    2007 doi

  50. [2001]

    423–449.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002200100374

    doi

  51. [2013]

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2013)017

    2013 doi

Pith tools

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