Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

A parallel algorithm for the computation of the Jones polynomial

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parallel algorithm computes the exact Jones polynomial by subdividing diagrams into linkoid pieces and gluing their states with a closed-form formula, cutting time exponentially with processor count.

desk verdict The subdivision-and-gluing formalism is real, but the exponential speedup claim rests on an unproven strand-count assumption; worth a demanding review, not immediate acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23101 v1 pith:BA226H25 submitted 2025-05-29 math.GT

Kasturi Barkataki , Eleni Panagiotou This is my paper
classification math.GT MSC 57K1057K1468W10
keywords parallelalgorithmJonespolynomialKauffmanbracketlinkoidsdivideandconquerstate-suminvariantopencurvesplanarcutwidth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces a parallel algorithm for computing the exact Jones polynomial of knots, links, knotoids, linkoids, and collections of open curves in 3-space. The strategy is to cut a diagram into $2^m$ smaller linkoid diagrams, evaluate the Kauffman bracket state sum of each piece on a separate processor, and then reassemble the pieces with a closed-form gluing formula that groups states by how they pair up the cut endpoints. The advertised payoff is a reduction of computational time by an exponential factor depending on the number of processors, despite the Jones polynomial being #P-hard in general. The authors test the algorithm on mathematical knots and on linear polymers in a melt from molecular dynamics simulations, and they argue the same subdivision-and-gluing pattern applies to other state-sum invariants such as the Arrow polynomial and Khovanov homology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linkoid, an open-arc diagram with free endpoints, together with its state permutations. Each smoothing of a piece's crossings produces a state consisting of circles and open strands that pair up endpoints; that pairing is the state permutation $\tau_S$. Grouping all states with the same permutation collapses the exponentially many bracket states of a piece into at most $C_c$ classes. Reassembly is carried out through the gluing permutation $\sigma$ and the segment-cycle count $|E/\langle \prod_i \tau_{S_i}, \sigma\rangle|$, which expresses how many closed loops are formed when the pieces' endpoint pairings are composed with the gluing that rebuilds the original knot. The parallel algorithm alternates between evaluating pieces and performing Cartesian products of permutation classes, with the classes merged at each level.

What would settle it

Take a family of $n$-crossing diagrams whose underlying planar graphs are rectangular grids, recursively bisect each into $2^m$ pieces using the minimum-bisection routine, and count the maximum number of boundary strands per piece for $m=1,2,3,\dots$; if that number stays $\Theta(\sqrt{n})$ rather than dropping toward $n/2^{m+1}$, then the Catalan-number bound on per-piece states and the claimed recombination cost are invalid for that family, and the quoted exponential speedup in the processor count would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the exact Jones polynomial of any knot, link, knotoid, linkoid, or collection of open curves can be computed by a divide-and-conquer scheme. A diagram $L$ with $n$ crossings is cut into $2^m$ linkoid pieces $L_i$; each piece's Kauffman bracket state sum is evaluated in parallel, and states that share the same pairing of endpoints (the same state permutation $\tau_{S_i}$) are collected into one class with a combined polynomial coefficient. The pieces are then glued back together in $m$ parallel rounds. The gluing is governed by Theorem 3.1's closed formula, in which the bracket polynomial of the whole diagram is a sum over tuples of piece states of $\prod_i A^{\alpha(S_i)} d^{|S_i|} d^{|E/\langle \prod_i \tau_{S_i}, \sigma\rangle|-1}$, where $\sigma$ is the gluing permutation and the last factor counts how many segment cycles the state endpoints form under the combined permutations. Because the number of distinct state permutations per piece is bounded by the Catalan number $C_c=\frac{1}{c+1}\binom{2c}{c}$, the per-piece work is roughly $2^{n/2^m}$, and the claimed total time is $O(2^{n/2^m+1}) + O(2^{n/\sqrt{2^m}-m})$ (or, with cutwidth-optimal subdivision, approximately $O(2^{n/2^m+1})+O(2^{C\sqrt{32n}-m})$ with $C=6\sqrt2+5\sqrt3$). The paper presents this as, to the authors' knowledge, the first parallel algorithm for exact Jones polynomial computation, and the abstract states that it reduces computational time by an exponential factor depending on the number of processors.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the unproved assertion, labeled 'without loss of generality' in the proof of Theorem 3.2, that a diagram can be split into $2^m$ pieces with at most about $n/2^{m+1}$ strands crossing each piece's boundary; if some diagrams force $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ boundary strands per piece no matter how finely they are split, the recombination step will be much slower than claimed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With $p=2^m$ processors, the per-processor time drops from $O(2^n)$ to roughly $O(2^{n/p})$, so knots and link diagrams with far more crossings become computationally accessible than with the serial state-sum expansion.
  • The same algorithm handles open curves and linkoids, so the Jones polynomial can be used as an entanglement measure for polymer melts, proteins, and other filamentous data with free ends, not just closed knots.
  • The reassembly formula expresses the Jones polynomial of a glued diagram as a linear combination of Jones polynomials of the virtual spectrum of any single linkoid piece, which ties the complexity of a knot to the complexity of its constituent pieces.
  • In special cases, such as when a piece is a disjoint union of knotoids or its virtual spectrum contains only trivial links, the whole invariant reduces to the Jones polynomial of the complementary piece with a modified closure.
  • The subdivision, state-grouping, and parallel reassembly template is transferable to other state-sum invariants, and the paper explicitly points to the Arrow polynomial and Khovanov homology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If recursive bisection cannot keep the number of boundary strands small on worst-case diagrams, the recombination term could dominate and the benefit of extra processors might saturate; the paper's proof assumes without demonstration that the required subdivision exists.
  • The same grouping-by-state-permutation idea could be applied to other invariants whose skein or state-sum expansion has a gluing formula, such as HOMFLY-PT or the Arrow polynomial; the paper suggests the extension but does not develop those algorithms.
  • For open-curve data, where the Jones polynomial is an average over projections, the parallel algorithm makes per-projection computation cheap enough that one could empirically study the full distribution of the invariant across projections, not just its mean.
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 proposes a parallel divide-and-conquer algorithm for the exact computation of the Jones polynomial of knots, links, knotoids, linkoids, and collections of open curves in 3-space. The method subdivides a diagram into 2^m linkoid pieces, computes the bracket state sum on each piece in parallel, groups states by the induced endpoint permutations, and recombines the grouped states through a gluing permutation. The main theoretical claim is Theorem 3.2, which states a time complexity of O(2^{n/2^m + 1}) + O(2^{n/\sqrt{2^m} - m}) on 2^m processors, with cutwidth- and treewidth-based variants in Corollaries 3.1 and 3.2. The paper also reports numerical experiments on knot diagrams and on linear polymer melts, and it makes an implementation available on GitHub.

Significance. If the complexity claims were correct, this would be a significant contribution to computational knot theory, since the Jones polynomial is #P-hard and existing exact algorithms are exponential in the number of crossings. The state-sum regrouping identity in Theorem 3.1 is a correct and potentially useful reformulation of the bracket polynomial in terms of linkoid pieces, and the availability of an open-source implementation with experiments on open curves is a practical strength. However, the central exponential-speedup claim depends on an unjustified and internally contradicted assumption about the number of strands in subdivided pieces; as a result, the main theoretical result is not established by the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 3.2, paragraph before Eq. (10)] The 'Without loss of generality' reduction to a 2^{m/2} × 2^{m/2} grid with each piece having c strands is not a WLOG statement; it imposes a strong structural assumption on the subdivision. More seriously, the subsequent assertion c ≤ n/2^{m+1} is not proven and is contradicted by the paper's own Lemma 8.1, which states that a loopless linkoid piece with x crossings has x+1 strands. Braid-like tangles, which occur as pieces of arbitrary diagrams, have c ≈ x = n/2^m, not c ≤ n/2^{m+1}. Since Eq. (11) obtains the recombination term O(2^{n/\sqrt{2^m} - m}) precisely by substituting c = n/2^{m+1}, the exponential speedup claimed in Theorem 3.2 is unsupported.
  2. [Corollary 3.1 and proof, Eq. (12)] The inference that each subdivided piece L_i has C√(n/2^{m-5}) boundary points and C√(n/2^{m-3}) strands does not follow from the cited global cutwidth bound C√n for the whole diagram. Cutwidth bounds for the entire graph do not imply that a piece surviving m recursive bisections has cutwidth O(√(n/2^m)); a recursive separator construction can leave a piece with Θ(√n) boundary vertices regardless of m, because the top-level separator is inherited by all descendant pieces. Consequently the recombination term in Eq. (12), and the analogous term in Eq. (13), are not justified. This is a second independent gap in the complexity analysis.
  3. [Theorem 3.2 and Corollaries 3.1–3.2, overall complexity claim] Even apart from the strand-count bound, the relationship between the stated complexity and the claimed parallel speedup is not made precise. In Theorem 3.2 the second term O(2^{n/\sqrt{2^m} - m}) dominates the first term for every m ≥ 1, while in Corollary 3.1 the second term O(2^{C√(32n) - m}) is independent of m except for the additive -m factor in the exponent. The abstract's statement that the algorithm 'enables the reduction of the computational time by an exponential factor depending on the number of processors' is therefore ambiguous and should be reconciled with the dominant terms in Eqs. (11) and (12).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, §3, and Theorem 3.2] The notation for the second complexity term is inconsistent: the introduction writes O(2^{n√p - log p}) while Theorem 3.2 and Eq. (11) use O(2^{n/√(2^m) - m}); these are very different expressions and should be fixed.
  2. [§3, first paragraph and §4] The text refers to 'Theorem 4.1' when stating the closed-form expression for the Jones polynomial in terms of subdivided pieces; the correct reference is Theorem 3.1. The same misnumbering appears in Section 4.
  3. [Lemma 8.1] The statement of Lemma 8.1 should explicitly state the hypotheses under which the strand count is x+1, since the proof assumes a connected path-like structure with no disjoint components and no loops; these conditions are not satisfied by arbitrary linkoid pieces.
  4. [Algorithm 1, Step 1] The wording 'for i = 1 to m in parallel do' is misleading because the m levels of subdivision are sequential; only the pieces within one level are processed in parallel. The pseudocode should distinguish sequential levels from parallel loops.
  5. [References and typos] There are several small typographical issues, including 'Natoinal' in the acknowledgment and 'of of' in the introduction; reference [41] is cited as 'arXiv preprint, 2025' without an arXiv identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the parallel state-sum formula is derived from the bracket definition, and the complexity estimates are analytic, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The central derivation, Theorem 3.1, expresses the bracket polynomial of a glued linkoid diagram as a sum over products of constituent linkoid state contributions, with the segment-cycle factor |E/⟨∏τS_i,σ⟩| taken directly from Definition 2.4 and equation (7). This is an algebraic regrouping of the state-sum expansion, not a restatement of the desired output, so the main formula is self-contained. The complexity bound in Theorem 3.2 is an analytic estimate based on a stated partition of the diagram into 2^m pieces and a Catalan-number bound on distinct state permutations; it does not fit any parameter to the target result. Corollary 3.1 imports a known cutwidth bound from external sources ([21, 26]) and substitutes a per-piece strand count; whether that substitution is justified is a correctness or rigor concern, not circularity, because the cited bound does not include the paper's claimed speedup. The linkoid formalism and virtual spectrum from the authors' prior work ([6, 8]) is foundational but is independent, parameter-free mathematical theory with stated definitions and does not assume the Jones polynomial result being derived. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no known result merely relabeled. The unsupported 'without loss of generality' claim about per-piece strand counts is a potential gap in the proof of the complexity theorem, but it is not the kind of definitional or self-referential reduction that constitutes circularity under the stated rules.

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

No new physical entities or fitted parameters. The complexity analysis rests on the linkoid invariant from prior work, the Catalan bound, planar cutwidth bounds, and an unproven subdivision assumption that determines the claimed speedup.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Jones polynomial of linkoids and open curves, defined in [6,8], is a well-defined invariant under the relevant Reidemeister moves.
    The entire framework builds on the linkoid bracket polynomial definition from the authors' prior work; if that invariant were not well-defined, the algorithm's output for open curves would be meaningless.
  • standard math The number of distinct state permutations of a c-tangle is bounded by the c-th Catalan number.
    Used in Corollary 8.1 to bound the number of groups after state grouping; the proof via the Catalan recurrence is standard.
  • standard math A 4-valent planar graph on n vertices has a layout with cutwidth at most C*sqrt(n), and recursive planar bisection gives pieces with boundary size O(sqrt(n/2^m)).
    Invoked in Corollaries 3.1 and 3.2 to estimate the number of strands per piece. The cutwidth bound is valid for bounded-degree planar graphs, but the inference about per-piece boundary is used too optimistically in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Any link diagram can be subdivided into 2^m pieces with at most n/2^(m+1) strands per piece, with endpoints uniformly distributed across boundaries.
    This 'without loss of generality' assumption in the proof of Theorem 3.2 is not proven and is not a consequence of the cited separator theorems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A parallel algorithm for the computation of the Jones polynomial." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BA226H25

@misc{pith2026250523101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A parallel algorithm for the computation of the Jones polynomial},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BA226H25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23101}
}
read the original abstract

Knots, links and entangled filaments appear in many physical systems of interest in biology and engineering. Classifying knots and measuring entanglement is of interest both for advancing knot theory, as well as for analyzing large data that become available through experiments or Artificial Intelligence. In this context, the efficient computation of topological invariants and other metrics of entanglement becomes an urgent issue. The computation of common measures of topological complexity, such as the Jones polynomial, is #P-hard and of exponential time on the number of crossings in a knot(oid) (link(oid)) diagram. In this paper, we introduce the first parallel algorithm for the exact computation of the Jones polynomial for (collections of) both open and closed simple curves in 3-space. This algorithm enables the reduction of the computational time by an exponential factor depending on the number of processors. We demonstrate the advantage of this algorithm by applying it to knots, as well as to systems of linear polymers in a melt obtained from molecular dynamics simulations. The method is general and could be applied to other invariants and measures of complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Omega moves (Reidemeister moves Ω1, Ω2, Ω3) and forbidden moves (Φ+, Φ−) on linkoid diagrams. The Jones polynomial of a linkoid with respect to a given closure permutation is defined as follows : Definition 2.4. (Jones polynomial of a linkoid with respect to σ ([6], [8])) The Jones polynomial of an oriented linkoid diagram, L, with respect to a closure permutation, σ, is defined as, fLσ = (−A 3 ) − Wr(L) ⟨L σ ⟩, (4)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A diagram of a link(oid) can be seen as the gluing of two linkoid diagrams. (Left) A diagram of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Computational time (in seconds) of the Jones polynomial as a function of the number of crossings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Computational time (in hours) of the Jones polynomial of linear chains in a polymer melt as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Knot Book: An elementary introduction to the mathematical theory of knots

    Colin Conrad Adams. The Knot Book: An elementary introduction to the mathematical theory of knots . American Mathematical Society, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    The BQP-hardness of approximating the Jones polynomial

    Dorit Aharonov and Itai Arad. The BQP-hardness of approximating the Jones polynomial. New Journal of Physics , 13(3):035019, Mar 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    A polynomial quantum algorithm for approximating the Jones polynomial

    Dorit Aharonov, Vaughan Jones, and Zeph Landau. A polynomial quantum algorithm for approximating the Jones polynomial. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, page 427–436, New York, NY, USA, 2006. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Arsuaga, M

    J. Arsuaga, M. Vazquez, P. McGuirk, S. Trigueros, D. W. Sumners, and J. Roca. DNA knots reveal a chiral organization of DNA in phage capsids. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 102:9165–9169, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Fast Khovanov homology computations

    Dror Bar-Natan. Fast Khovanov homology computations. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications, 16(03):243–255, 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Barkataki and E

    K. Barkataki and E. Panagiotou. The Jones polynomial of collections of open curves in 3-space. Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 478, no. 2267, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Barkataki and E

    K. Barkataki and E. Panagiotou. Parallel Jones polynomial computational package, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Kauffman, and Eleni Panagiotou

    Kasturi Barkataki, Louis H. Kauffman, and Eleni Panagiotou. The virtual spectrum of linkoids and open curves in 3-space. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications , 30(03), 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    The Jones polynomial in systems with periodic boundary conditions

    Kasturi Barkataki and Eleni Panagiotou. The Jones polynomial in systems with periodic boundary conditions. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 57(15):155202, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Topological gelation of reconnecting polymers

    Andrea Bonato, Davide Marenduzzo, Davide Michieletto, and Enzo Orlandini. Topological gelation of reconnecting polymers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 119(44):e2207728119, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Benjamin A. Burton. The HOMFLY-PT Polynomial is Fixed-Parameter Tractable. In Bettina Speck- mann and Csaba D. T´ oth, editors,34th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2018), volume 99 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) , pages 18:...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Burton, Ryan Budney, William Pettersson, et al

    Benjamin A. Burton, Ryan Budney, William Pettersson, et al. Regina: Software for low-dimensional topology, 1999–2023

    1999

  5. [13]

    Knot probabilities in random diagrams

    Jason Cantarella, Harrison Chapman, and Matt Mastin. Knot probabilities in random diagrams. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 49(40):405001, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Open and closed random walks with fixed edgelengths in Rd

    Jason Cantarella, Kyle Chapman, Philipp Reiter, and Clayton Shonkwiler. Open and closed random walks with fixed edgelengths in Rd. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 51(43):434002, 2018. 17

    2018

  7. [15]

    ‘Mind blowing’: quantum computer untangles the mathematics of knots

    Davide Castelvecchi. ‘Mind blowing’: quantum computer untangles the mathematics of knots. Nature, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Mean unknotting times of random knots and embeddings

    Yao-ban Chan, Aleksander L Owczarek, Andrew Rechnitzer, and Gordon Slade. Mean unknotting times of random knots and embeddings. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , 2007(05):P05004, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    The Book of Numbers

    John H Conway and Richard Guy. The Book of Numbers . Springer Science & Business Media, 1998

    1998

  10. [18]

    Parameterized algorithms

    Marek Cygan, Fedor V Fomin, Lukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, D´ aniel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Micha l Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. Parameterized algorithms. Springer, 5(4), 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Y. Diao. The knotting of equilateral polygons in R3. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications , 4:189–96, 1995

    1995

  12. [20]

    Jones polynomial of knots formed by repeated tangle replacement operations

    Y Diao, C Ernst, and U Ziegler. Jones polynomial of knots formed by repeated tangle replacement operations. Topology and its Applications, 156(13):2226–2239, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Crossing numbers and cutwidths

    Hristo Djidjev and Imrich Vrt’o. Crossing numbers and cutwidths. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 7(3):245–251, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    H. A. Dye and L. H. Kauffman. Virtual crossing number and the arrow polynomial. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications , 18(10):1335–1357, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    S. F. Edwards, H. Takano, and E. M. Terentjev. Dynamic mechanical response of polymer networks. J. Chem. Phys. , 113:5531, 2000

    2000

  16. [24]

    Efficient computation of the kauffman bracket

    Lauren Ellenberg, Gabriella Newman, Stephen Sawin, and Jonathan Shi. Efficient computation of the kauffman bracket. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications , 23(05):1450026, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    A polylogarithmic approximation of the minimum bisection

    Uriel Feige and Robert Krauthgamer. A polylogarithmic approximation of the minimum bisection. SIAM Journal on Computing , 31(4):1090–1118, 2002

    2002

  18. [26]

    Planar separators and the euclidean norm

    Hillel Gazit and Gary L Miller. Planar separators and the euclidean norm. In International Symposium on Algorithms, pages 338–347. Springer, 1990

    1990

  19. [27]

    G¨ ug¨ umcu and L

    N. G¨ ug¨ umcu and L. H. Kauffman. New invariants of knotoids. European Journal of Combinatorics , 65:186–229, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    G¨ ug¨ umc¨ u and L

    N. G¨ ug¨ umc¨ u and L. H. Kauffman. Parity, virtual closure and minimality of knotoids.Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications , 30(11):2150076, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    G¨ ug¨ umcu and S

    N. G¨ ug¨ umcu and S. Lambropoulou. Knotoids, braidoids and applications.Symmetry, 9:315, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Hagberg, Daniel A

    Aric A. Hagberg, Daniel A. Schult, and Pieter J. Swart. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In Ga¨ el Varoquaux, Travis Vaught, and Jarrod Millman, editors,Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference , pages 11 – 15, Pasadena, CA USA, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    E. J. Hanse van Rensburg, D. W. Sumners, E. Wasserman, and S. G. Whittington. Entanglement complexity of self-avoiding walks. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , 25:6557, 1992

    1992

  24. [32]

    A fast algorithm for computing Jones polynomials of Montesinos links

    Masao Hara, Masahiko Murakami, Seiichi Tani, and Makoto Yamamoto. A fast algorithm for computing Jones polynomials of Montesinos links. Scientiae Mathematicae Japonicae, 69(1):1–26, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    On the computational complexity of the Jones and Tutte polynomials

    Fran¸ cois Jaeger, Dirk L Vertigan, and Dominic JA Welsh. On the computational complexity of the Jones and Tutte polynomials. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , volume 108, pages 35–53. Cambridge University Press, 1990. 18

    1990

  26. [34]

    On computing Kauffman bracket polynomial of Montesinos links

    Xian’An Jin and Fuji Zhang. On computing Kauffman bracket polynomial of Montesinos links. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications , 19(08):1001–1023, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    V.F.R. Jones. A polynomial invariant of knots via von Neumann algebras. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 12:103–112, 1985

    1985

  28. [36]

    L. H. Kauffman. State models and the Jones polynomial. Topology, 26:395–407, 1987

    1987

  29. [37]

    Hard unknots and collapsing tangles

    Louis H Kauffman and Sofia Lambropoulou. Hard unknots and collapsing tangles. Introductory lectures on knot theory, Ser. Knots Everything , 46:187–247, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs

    Brian W Kernighan and Shen Lin. An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. The Bell system technical journal , 49(2):291–307, 1970

    1970

  31. [39]

    A categorification of the Jones polynomial

    Mikhail Khovanov. A categorification of the Jones polynomial. Duke Math. J. , 101(3):359–426, 2000

    2000

  32. [40]

    Treewidth: computations and approximations

    Ton Kloks. Treewidth: computations and approximations . Springer, 1994

    1994

  33. [41]

    Less quantum, more advantage: An end-to-end quantum algorithm for the jones polynomial

    Tuomas Laakkonen, Enrico Rinaldi, Chris N Self, Eli Chertkov, Matthew DeCross, David Hayes, Brian Neyenhuis, Marcello Benedetti, and Konstantinos Meichanetzidis. Less quantum, more advantage: An end-to-end quantum algorithm for the jones polynomial. arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    A separator theorem for planar graphs

    Richard J Lipton and Robert Endre Tarjan. A separator theorem for planar graphs. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 36(2):177–189, 1979

    1979

  35. [43]

    Y. Liu, M. O’Keeffe, M. Treacy, and O. Yaghi. The geometry of periodic knots, polycatenanes and weaving from a chemical perspective: a library for reticular chemistry. Chemical Society Reviews , 47:4642–4664, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Coloured Tutte polynomials and Kauffman brackets for graphs of bounded tree width

    Johann A Makowsky. Coloured Tutte polynomials and Kauffman brackets for graphs of bounded tree width. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 145(2):276–290, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Manouras, S

    M. Manouras, S. Lambropoulou, and L. H. Kauffman. Finite type invariants for knotoids. European Journal of Combinatorics , 98:103402, dec 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Micheletti, D

    C. Micheletti, D. Marenduzzo, and E. Orlandini. Polymers with spatial or topological constraints: theoretical and computational results. Physics Reports, 504:1–73, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Computing the Jones polynomial on bipartite graphs

    John Mighton. Computing the Jones polynomial on bipartite graphs. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications, 10(05):703–710, 2001

    2001

  40. [48]

    Calculating the 2-variable polynomial for knots presented as closed braids

    Hugh R Morton and HB Short. Calculating the 2-variable polynomial for knots presented as closed braids. Journal of Algorithms , 11(1):117–131, 1990

    1990

  41. [49]

    Fast algorithms for computing Jones polynomials of certain links

    Masahiko Murakami, Masao Hara, Makoto Yamamoto, and Seiichi Tani. Fast algorithms for computing Jones polynomials of certain links. Theoretical computer science, 374(1-3):1–24, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    Panagiotou and L

    E. Panagiotou and L. H. Kauffman. Knot polynomials of open and closed curves. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 476:20200124, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Panagiotou, M

    E. Panagiotou, M. Kr¨ oger, and K. C. Millett. Writhe and mutual entanglement combine to give the entanglement length. Phys. Rev. E , 88:062604, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    Panagiotou, K

    E. Panagiotou, K. C. Millett, and P. J. Atzberger. Topological methods for polymeric materials: char- acterizing the relationship between polymer entanglement and viscoelasticity. Polymers, 11:11030437, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Qin and S

    J. Qin and S. T. Milner. Counting polymer knots to find the entanglement length. Soft Matter, 7:10676– 93, 2011. 19

    2011

  46. [54]

    Geometric learning of knot topology

    Joseph Lahoud Sleiman, Filippo Conforto, Yair Augusto Gutierrez Fosado, and Davide Michieletto. Geometric learning of knot topology. Soft Matter , 20(1):71–78, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    J. I. Sulkowska, E. J. Rawdon, K. C. Millett, J. N. Onuchic, and A. Stasiak. Conservation of complex knotting and slipknotting in patterns in proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 109:E1715, 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    V. Turaev. Knotoids. Osaka Journal of Mathematics , 49:195–223, 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Computation of the Jones polynomials for pretzel links

    T Utsumi. Computation of the Jones polynomials for pretzel links. IPSJ SIG Tech. Rep. , 85:43–48, 2002

    2002

  50. [58]

    On the universality of knot probability ratios

    EJ Janse Van Rensburg and A Rechnitzer. On the universality of knot probability ratios. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 44(16):162002, 2011. 20

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.