Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 44 references

A two-vertex Feynman ribbon diagram completely represents every FRD-like knot up to 10 crossings and powers a web tool that builds, evaluates, and identifies their colored Chern–Simons invariants.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 19:18 UTC pith:KLE2YGPG

load-bearing objection Useful integrated FRD→invariant→ID platform and a concrete two-vertex tabulation through 10 crossings; the load-bearing math is parked in a companion still in preparation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23551 v1 pith:KLE2YGPG submitted 2026-07-26 math.GT cs.MShep-thmath-phmath.MPquant-ph

A TQFT-based Platform for Efficient Computation of Knot Invariants

Amena Al Rawi , Hisham Sati , Vivek Kumar Singh This is my paper
classification math.GT cs.MShep-thmath-phmath.MPquant-ph MSC 57K1457K1657K1081T45
keywords Feynman ribbon diagramsarborescent knotscolored Jones polynomialsChern–Simons invariantsTQFT tensor networksknot classificationpretzel knots
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.

The paper offers a browser platform that lets users draw tree-shaped Feynman ribbon diagrams (FRDs) for arborescent knots, turn them into TQFT tensor networks, and compute colored Chern–Simons invariants that identify the knot. Its central mathematical claim is that one compact two-vertex FRD family already covers every FRD-like knot with at most ten crossings, and still identifies many knots at higher crossings. Benchmarks against standard colored-Jones routines show the method is faster on most tested arborescent families. The result matters because colored invariants are powerful but usually expensive; a visual, tree-structured pipeline makes them usable for classification and exploration without hand algebra.

Core claim

Within the class of FRD-like (arborescent) knots, the evolution family of two-vertex Feynman ribbon diagrams Γ(A1; p12; A2) is complete through ten crossings: every such knot admits a representation with four fingers and one propagator for suitable integer twist data. The same architecture, implemented as a TQFT tensor network, yields colored SU(2) Chern–Simons polynomials that identify knots up to thirteen crossings against curated databases and remains effective beyond that range.

What carries the argument

Feynman ribbon diagrams (FRDs)—tree graphs of vertices, fingers, and propagators carrying integer twists—translated into TQFT amplitudes (vertex tensors, leg braiding factors, generalized propagators) whose index contraction produces the colored knot invariant.

Load-bearing premise

The explicit formulas for the TQFT building-block amplitudes and the full proof that two-vertex diagrams cover all FRD-like knots up to ten crossings are deferred to a companion paper still in preparation; if those are wrong, both the engine and the classification fail.

What would settle it

Find an arborescent knot with at most ten crossings that cannot be written as any two-vertex FRD Γ(A1; p12; A2), or compute a colored Jones polynomial with the platform that disagrees term-by-term with an independently verified value for the same diagram.

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

If this is right

  • All FRD-like knots through ten crossings can be tabulated by scanning a finite family of two-vertex parameter lists, as done in the appendix.
  • The same two-vertex scan continues to identify many knots at eleven to thirteen crossings and beyond once database coverage grows.
  • Colored Jones evaluation for pretzel and two-vertex arborescent families becomes faster than general-purpose braid or KnotTheory routines in the reported benchmarks.
  • Future platform updates can swap in SU(N) amplitudes and larger knot tables without changing the diagrammatic workflow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the deferred amplitude formulas hold, the two-vertex parameter space becomes a practical search space for machine-learning models that predict invariants from twist vectors alone.
  • Extending the engine from trees to diagrams with cycles would test whether the same local TQFT blocks still factor once the contraction order is no longer outer-to-inner.
  • The completeness claim suggests a finite check could decide which non-arborescent knots first require three or more vertices, giving a concrete measure of how far the FRD hierarchy reaches.

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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the "TQFT Knot Explorer," a browser-based platform that lets a user draw a Feynman ribbon diagram (FRD) — a tree-shaped presentation of an arborescent knot — as a tensor network, evaluate its SU(2) colored Chern–Simons (colored Jones) invariants symbolically via a hybrid C++/Python (GiNaC/pybind11) engine, and identify the knot by hashing the resulting Laurent polynomial against curated databases (Knotebook colored polynomials up to 10 crossings; adjoint r=2 data up to 13 crossings). The paper describes the diagrammatic calculus (vertices, fingers/legs, propagators), gives explicit leg and generalized-propagator formulas (§3), two algorithms (two-vertex invariant evaluation; canonical enumeration and database identification), benchmark figures, and an appendix tabulating two-vertex FRD parameters for arborescent knots through 10 crossings. The central mathematical claim is Proposition 2.1: the two-vertex evolution family Γ(A1; p12; A2) is complete for FRD-like knots through ten crossings.

Significance. If the components hold up, the work is a useful and concrete contribution: the leg/propagator formulas (P(i,m), P(i,m,n), Prop(t1,t2,b)) and Algorithms 1–2 are stated explicitly enough to be independently implemented and checked; the appendix provides an explicit, verifiable parameter table realizing arborescent knots through 10 crossings in a single compact two-vertex architecture; the identification pipeline is honest about its limitations (invariant-based matching yields candidates, mutants and non-unique polynomials are flagged); and the platform itself, with reduction-based verification tests and mirror detection, is a genuinely reproducible tool. The claim that a single two-vertex FRD family exhausts arborescent knots through 10 crossings, if correct, is a noteworthy classification statement. However, the two load-bearing mathematical inputs — the explicit TQFT block amplitudes and the completeness proof of Proposition 2.1 — are both deferred to a companion paper "in preparation" [25], which substantially limits what this manuscript establishes on its own.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Proposition 2.1 (and §2 'From a diagram to a quantum invariant')] Proposition 2.1 is stated as the paper's 'main finding,' but its proof and the derivation of the block amplitudes Ov, Ff, Pe on which the entire computational engine rests are both postponed to reference [25], listed as 'in preparation.' As written, the manuscript asks the reader to accept (i) that the WZNW conformal-block data reduce to the specific leg/propagator formulas of §3, and (ii) that every FRD-like knot with c(K) ≤ 10 admits a two-vertex representation, on the basis of a citation that does not yet exist. This is load-bearing: if the amplitude conventions or the enumeration argument in [25] change, both the engine and the appendix classification change. At minimum the paper should (a) include a self-contained statement of the amplitude formulas with explicit conventions for the 6j-symbols a(i,j,r), e(i,j,r) and braiding eigenvalues λ± (currently only names are given in §3), and
  2. [§3, 'Computational Scalability' and Figures 5–8] The Introduction and Conclusion state that benchmarks 'against the KnotTheory colored Jones algorithm and the braid-walk method [33, 34] show that our approach is faster in most tested cases,' but Figures 5–7 plot only the authors' own algorithms (pretzel, two-vertex, generalized two-vertex) against the representation parameter r, and Figure 8 compares two of the authors' own algorithms against each other. No timing data for KnotTheory or the braid-walk method appear anywhere in the manuscript — no table, no overlaid curves, no machine specifications, no statement of which knots/colors were compared. The comparative efficiency claim is therefore unsupported by the presented evidence. Either include the actual comparative benchmark data (with problem sizes, color r, hardware, and timing methodology) or restrict the claim to the internal scaling behavior that the figures do show.
  3. [§5, Appendix tables] The appendix tabulates FRD parameters for knots through 10 crossings but silently omits non-arborescent knots (e.g., 8_18; the 10-crossing table jumps from 10_99 to 10_124, omitting 10_100–10_123). Since Proposition 2.1 is quantified over 'FRD-like knots,' the paper should state explicitly how many of the 249 prime knots through 10 crossings are arborescent/FRD-like, that the omitted knots are precisely the non-arborescent ones, and by what criterion (e.g., Conway notation, [22]) this was determined. Without this, the reader cannot tell whether the appendix constitutes a complete classification of the claimed class or a partial list. Relatedly, knots 9_34–9_41, 9_47, 9_49, 10_100–10_123 etc. are absent without comment; a one-line accounting (counts per crossing number, matched against the known count of arborescent primes) would make the completeness claim checkable.
  4. [§2, 'From an invariant to a knot name' and Database subsection] The identification pipeline matches a computed colored polynomial against a database entry and reports a knot name. The text acknowledges non-uniqueness in general, but the practical reliability of the reported identifications depends on details not given: (i) which normalization/framing conventions the platform's Laurent polynomials use and how they are reconciled with the conventions of the Knotebook [26] and Zenodo adjoint [35] databases (a framing mismatch would produce systematic false negatives or, worse, false positives); (ii) which color(s) r are used for identification at each crossing range and what the collision rate is within the database at that color. Since the platform's headline function is knot identification, the paper should document the validation of the identifier — e.g., run the appendix parameter list through the engine and report the fraction correctly identified,
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and §1] Typo in the abstract: 'unifies the construction Feynman ribbon diagrams' is missing 'of.' Also 'theTQFT Knot Explorer' (missing space) occurs several times in §§1–2, and 'Topological quantum Field theory' in §1 has inconsistent capitalization.
  2. [§2, Figure 1] The figure caption refers to 'the knot 10 93' with a spurious space (should be 10_93); the same subscript formatting problem affects knot names throughout (e.g., '9 42 and 1071' in footnote 2).
  3. [§3, definitions of P(i,m) and P(i,m,n)] The summation range s = 0,...,r and the conditions on admissible internal states (which s actually occur in r ⊗ r̄ for symmetric r) are not stated; for SU(2) the multiplicity-free structure makes this harmless, but since the formulas are advertised as SU(N)-ready, the admissibility conditions should be made explicit. Similarly, the sign (−1)^r in H^gen_2V and the normalization relating A_R(Γ) to ⟨W_R[K]⟩ should be pinned down rather than left as 'depends on conventions.'
  4. [§3, Algorithm 2] The pair pool requires m ≠ 0, yet the appendix tables contain many legs of the form (m, 0) with various m and also (−1, 0) etc. — consistent — but also appear to require pairs with n = 0 to be generated; the enumeration of pairs with |m| + |n| = c for c = 1,...,S−3 implicitly includes n = 0 cases, which should be stated. Also, the bridge exponent b is 'treated as a fixed scan parameter,' but the appendix shows b = ±1 only; the paper should state the range of b scanned and why |b| ≤ 1 suffices through 10 crossings.
  5. [§2, 'What the Explorer returns'] The determinant is defined as 'the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients of the invariant,' which for the colored Jones at general r is not the classical knot determinant; the caveat given (agreement for the ordinary Jones of alternating knots) should be strengthened to avoid confusion, or the quantity renamed.
  6. [Figures 5–8] The figures as reproduced lack visible axis labels/units in the text description; please ensure axes (running time in seconds vs. r, which knots) are legible and that the caption states the hardware and whether times are wall-clock averages over multiple runs.
  7. [References] Reference [25] ('in preparation') carries the paper's central mathematical content; if it is not yet available, the manuscript should at least give a precise statement of what it will contain. Also, [24] (Mironov–Morozov–Morozov–Ramadevi–Singh–Sleptsov) already tabulates arborescent knot polynomials via evolution methods; the novelty of the present two-vertex completeness result relative to [24] should be stated more sharply than 'has not previously been presented in this unified form.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No derivation-by-construction circularity; mild load-bearing dependence on authors’ companion paper [25] in preparation for amplitudes and the full completeness argument.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§2 (From a diagram to a quantum invariant); Prop. 2.1 and following paragraph]
    "Using the amplitudes of these fundamental building blocks, described in detail in Ref. [25], one can compute the full amplitude associated with any given tree-shaped FRD. The amplitudes of the individual blocks are derived from the conformal blocks, braiding operators, and fusion data of the corresponding four-point SU(N) WZNW conformal field theory. The complete derivation, together with the conventions and explicit tensor formulas, will be presented in a companion work [25]. ... Our main finding here is the following (which we will expand on in [25]): Proposition 2.1."

    The platform’s invariant engine and the claimed two-vertex completeness rest on TQFT block amplitudes and an expanded classification argument that this paper does not derive; both are justified only by the authors’ own companion [25] still in preparation. This is load-bearing self-dependence on unverified overlapping-author work, not a by-construction identity of prediction with fitted input. The algorithms and Appendix table still have independent content once those amplitudes are granted.

full rationale

The paper’s operational chain—build an FRD, contract stated TQFT blocks (leg functions P, generalized propagator Prop, Algorithms 1–2), normalize the Laurent polynomial, and hash-match against external knot databases (Knotebook, Zenodo adjoint data, KnotInfo diagrams)—does not redefine knots as whatever the formula outputs, nor does it fit parameters and relabel the fit as a prediction. Completeness of the two-vertex family (Prop. 2.1) is supported by an explicit parameter table in the Appendix obtained by enumeration plus database lookup, which is empirical classification rather than a self-definitional loop. Benchmarks against KnotTheory CJP and braid-walk methods are external checks. The only circularity-adjacent issue is that the explicit block amplitudes, conventions, and the expanded completeness/higher-crossing argument are deferred to the same authors’ companion [25] “in preparation,” so the engine’s mathematical foundation is not fully self-contained here. That is incomplete externalization of a premise, not a forced identity between input and claimed output. Score 2 reflects one mild load-bearing self-citation pattern without central results reducing by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper sits on standard Chern–Simons/Reshetikhin–Turaev and WZNW conformal-block machinery, plus the established identification of arborescent knots with tree-like double-fat/FRD presentations. Computational claims further assume correctness of external polynomial databases and of amplitude formulas only fully specified in a companion in preparation. No numerical free parameters are fitted to force classification; twist integers are discrete inputs, not continuum fits.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Chern–Simons expectation values of Wilson loops equal (normalized) Reshetikhin–Turaev / colored Jones–HOMFLY invariants built from quantum-group or WZNW braiding and fusion data.
    Invoked throughout §1–2 as the bridge from FRD tensor networks to Laurent-polynomial invariants; standard in the field but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Arborescent (double-fat) knots admit presentations as tree-structured Feynman ribbon diagrams assembled from vertices, fingers, and propagators with integer twists.
    Stated in §1–2 citing Conway, Caudron, Bonahon–Siebenmann and prior evolution-family papers; defines the class the platform and Prop. 2.1 address.
  • ad hoc to paper Explicit SU(2)/SU(N) block amplitudes Ov, Ff, Pe (including 6j-symbols a,e and braiding eigenvalues λ±) are correctly given by the formulas of companion [25] and related works [27–31].
    §2 states amplitudes are ‘described in detail in Ref. [25]’ and only schematic contractions appear here; the engine’s correctness rests on that unpublished specification.
  • domain assumption Agreement of normalized colored polynomials (and mirrors) with curated databases identifies the knot up to the known incompleteness of those invariants (e.g., mutants).
    Database section and footnote on strong invariants; authors note mutants and non-uniqueness, so identification is invariant-matching, not a complete knot invariant.
  • ad hoc to paper Closed cyclic FRDs are excluded; only tree factorizations are contracted with the present engine.
    Explicit boundary in §2 ‘Build your own’; limits the represented class relative to all diagrams.
invented entities (2)
  • TQFT Knot Explorer platform (unified FRD canvas + symbolic engine + knot ID database) independent evidence
    purpose: Provide interactive construction, evaluation, and identification of FRD-like knots in one workflow.
    Main delivered artifact [1]; not a physical entity but a new engineered system claimed as first of its combination.
  • Independent-index two-vertex invariant Hgen_2V with generalized propagator Prop(t1,t2,b) no independent evidence
    purpose: Compute colored Jones for two-vertex evolution families with separate internal states on each vertex.
    Algorithm 1 formalizes a computational object used for enumeration and benchmarks; builds on prior evolution-family ideas rather than a new physical degree of freedom.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 23592 in / 3778 out tokens · 73386 ms · 2026-07-30T19:18:43.499693+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an interactive web platform that unifies the construction Feynman ribbon diagrams (FRDs), the evaluation of higher-rank Chern--Simons knot invariants, and the identification of FRD-like knots at higher crossing numbers. These tree-structured diagrams naturally represent arborescent knots, which we refer to throughout as FRD-like knots. Within a single visual environment, users can construct an FRD as a tensor network, evaluate its associated Chern--Simons invariants, and use the resulting invariant data to distinguish and identify the corresponding knot. To our knowledge, this is the first platform to combine diagrammatic construction, tensor-network evaluation, invariant computation, and knot identification within a unified workflow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23551 by Amena Al Rawi, Hisham Sati, Vivek Kumar Singh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three complementary views of the knot 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The basic structure of a FRD. Blue lines are fingers, red lines are propagators, and gray dots are vertices. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A two-vertex Feynman ribbon diagram with four fingers and a connecting propagator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The web interface showing (left) the Pretzel explorer, (right) the 2-vertex explorer, and (bottom) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Running time of the single-vertex pretzel algorithm ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Running time of the 2-vertex 2-parameter tree propagator algorithm ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Running time of the 2-vertex 2-parameter general tree propagator algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the single-vertex pretzel algorithm and the 2-vertex 2-parameter tree propagator algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. A. Rawi, H. Sati, and V . K. Singh,TQFT Knot Explorer, available at: [tqft-knot-explorer-559830223866.me-central1.run.app]

  2. [2]

    Reidemeister, Elementare Begr¨undung der Knotentheorie, Abhand

    K. Reidemeister, Elementare Begr¨undung der Knotentheorie, Abhand. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg,5 (1927), 24–32, [doi:10.1007/BF02952507]

    doi:10.1007/bf02952507 1927

  3. [3]

    Hoste, M

    J. Hoste, M. B. Thistlethwaite, and J. Weeks, The first 1,701,936 knots, Math. Intelligencer 20 (1998) 33–48, [doi:10.1007/BF03025227]

    doi:10.1007/bf03025227 1998

  4. [4]

    J. W. Alexander, Topological invariants of knots and links, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (1928), no. 2, 275– 306, [doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-1928-1501429-1]

    work page doi:10.1090/s0002-9947-1928-1501429-1 1928

  5. [5]

    V . F. R. Jones,A polynomial invariant for knots via von Neumann algebras, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.12 (1985), no. 1, 103–111, [doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1985-15304-2]

    doi:10.1090/s0273-0979-1985-15304-2 1985

  6. [6]

    Hoste, A

    P. Hoste, A. Ocneanu, K. Millett, P. Freyd, W. B. R. Lickorish, and D. Yetter, A new polynomial invariant of knots and links, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1985), no. 2, 239–246, [doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1985-15361-3]

    doi:10.1090/s0273-0979-1985-15361-3 1985

  7. [7]

    J. H. Przytycki and P. Traczyk, Invariants of links of Conway type, Kobe J. Math. 4 (1987), no. 2, 115–139, [lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/da/kernel/E0034661]

    1987

  8. [8]

    Witten, Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial, Commun

    E. Witten, Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial, Commun. Math. Phys. 121 (1989), no. 3, 351– 399, [doi:10.1007/BF01217730]

    doi:10.1007/bf01217730 1989

  9. [9]

    Guadagnini, M

    E. Guadagnini, M. Martellini, and M. Mintchev, Wilson lines in Chern–Simons theory and link invariants , Phys. Lett. B 235 (1990) 275–281, [doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90124-V]; N. Yu. Reshetikhin and V . G. Turaev, Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups , Commun. Math. Phys. 127 (1990), no. 1, 1–26, [doi:10.1007/BF02096491]

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90124-v 1990

  10. [10]

    N. Yu. Reshetikhin and V . G. Turaev, Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups , Invent. Math. 103 (1991), no. 3, 547–597, [doi:10.1007/BF01239527]

    doi:10.1007/bf01239527 1991

  11. [11]

    D. S. Freed and R. E. Gompf, Computer calculation of Witten’s 3-manifold invariant, Commun. Math. Phys. 141 (1991), 79-117, [projecteuclid:cmp/1104248195]

    arXiv 1991

  12. [12]

    Rama Devi, T

    P. Rama Devi, T. R. Govindarajan, and R. K. Kaul, Three-dimensional Chern–Simons theory as a theory of knots and links. III. Compact semisimple group, Nucl. Phys. B 402 (1993) 548–566, [doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90652-6], [arXiv:hep-th/9212110]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  13. [13]

    H. R. Morton and P. R. Cromwell, Distinguishing mutants by knot polynomials, J. Knot Theory Ramifications 5 (1996), no. 2, 225–238, [doi:10.1142/S0218216596000163]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218216596000163 1996

  14. [14]

    H. R. Morton, The coloured Jones function and Alexander polynomial for torus knots, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 146 (2009), no. 1, 95–107, [doi:10.1017/S0305004100072959]

    work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100072959 2009

  15. [15]

    N. M. Dunfield, S. Gukov and J. Rasmussen, The superpolynomial for knot homologies, Experiment. Math. 15 (2006), no. 2, 129–159, [doi:10.1080/10586458.2006.10128956]. 18

    arXiv 2006

  16. [17]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and A. Sleptsov, Genus expansion of HOMFLY polynomials , Theor. Math. Phys. 177 (2013), no. 2, 1435–1470, [doi:10.1007/s11232-013-0115-0], [arXiv:1303.1015]; A. Mironov, A. Morozov and A. Sleptsov, On genus expansion of knot polynomials and hidden structure of Hurwitz tau-functions , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2492, [ doi:10.1140/ep...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [18]

    Gopakumar and C

    R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (1999), 1415–1443, [doi:10.4310/ATMP.1999.v3.n5.a5], [hep-th/9811131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  18. [19]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Knot invariants and topological strings , Nucl. Phys. B577 (2000) 419–438, [doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00118-8], [hep-th/9912123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  19. [20]

    J. H. Conway, An enumeration of knots and links, and some of their algebraic properties , in Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, ed. J. Leech, Pergamon Press, Oxford–New York (1970) 329–358, [doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-012975-4.50034-5]

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-012975-4.50034-5 1970

  20. [21]

    Caudron, Classification des nœuds et des enlacements , Publ

    A. Caudron, Classification des nœuds et des enlacements , Publ. Math. Orsay 82-4, Universit´e de Paris XI, Orsay, 1982, [mathdoc.fr/PMO/afficher notice.php?id=PMO 1982 A2]

    1982

  21. [22]

    Bonahon and L

    F. Bonahon and L. C. Siebenmann, New geometric splittings of classical knots and the classification and sym- metries of arborescent knots, [bcf.usc.edu/∼fbonahon/Research/Preprints/BonSieb.pdf], 2010

    2010

  22. [23]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and An. Morozov, Evolution method and ”differential hierarchy” of colored knot polynomials, AIP Conf. Proc. 1562 (2013) 123, [doi:10.1063/1.4828688], [arXiv:1306.3197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [24]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, An. Morozov, P. Ramadevi, V . K. Singh and A. Sleptsov, Tabulating knot poly- nomials for arborescent knots , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 (2017), no. 8, 085201, [ arXiv:1601.04199], [doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa5574]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [25]

    A. A. Rawi, H. Sati, and V . K. Singh, Classification of Feynman Ribbon Diagrams for Higher-Crossing Knots, in preparation

  25. [26]

    Knotebook: Tables of Colored Knot Polynomials, [wwwth.mpgnet.ru/knotebook]

  26. [27]

    Nawata, P

    S. Nawata, P. Ramadevi, and Zodinmawia, Multiplicity-free quantum 6 j-symbols for U q(slN), Lett. Math. Phys. 103 (2013), no. 12, 1389–1398, [doi:10.1007/s11005-013-0651-4], [arXiv:1302.5143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [28]

    Alekseev, A

    V . Alekseev, A. Morozov, and A. Sleptsov, Multiplicity-free Uq(slN) 6 j symbols: Relations, asymptotics, symmetries, Nucl. Phys. B 960 (2020) 115164, [doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115164]

    arXiv 2020

  28. [29]

    Mironov, A

    A. Mironov, A. Morozov, An. Morozov, P. Ramadevi and V . K. Singh, Colored HOMFLY polynomi- als of knots presented as double fat diagrams , JHEP 07 (2015) 109, [ doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)109], [arXiv:1504.00371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [30]

    Gu and H

    J. Gu and H. Jockers, A note on colored HOMFLY polynomials for hyperbolic knots from WZW models , Commun. Math. Phys. 338 (2015), 393–456, [doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2322-z], [arXiv:1407.5643]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [31]

    Mironov and A

    A. Mironov and A. Morozov, Universal Racah matrices and adjoint knot polynomials: Arborescent knots , Phys. Lett. B 755 (2016) 47–57, [doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.063], [arXiv:1511.09077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [32]

    Ramadevi, T

    P. Ramadevi, T. R. Govindarajan and R. K. Kaul, Chirality of knots 942 and 1071 and Chern-Simons theory, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9 (1994), 3205-3218, [doi:10.1142/S0217732394003026]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732394003026 1994

  32. [33]

    Bar-Natan, S

    D. Bar-Natan, S. Morrison, et al., The Knot Atlas, [katlas.org]. 19

  33. [34]

    Hajij and J

    M. Hajij and J. Levitt, An Efficient Algorithm to Compute the Colored Jones Polynomial, preprint, [arXiv:1804.07910]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [35]

    Hughes, V

    M. Hughes, V . Jejjala, P. Ramadevi, P. Roy, and V .K. Singh,Jones Polynomials in Fundamental and Adjoint Representations, Dataset, Zenodo, 2025. [ doi:10.5281/zenodo.14900936]

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14900936 2025

  35. [36]

    Livingston and A

    C. Livingston and A. H. Moore, KnotInfo: Table of Knot Invariants, [knotinfo.org]

  36. [37]

    Kucharski, M

    P. Kucharski, M. Reineke, M. Sto ˇsi´c, and P. Sułkowski, Knots–quivers correspondence, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 23(7) (2019), 1849–1902, [doi:10.4310/ATMP.2019.v23.n7.a4]

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

  37. [38]

    Sto ˇsi´c and P

    M. Sto ˇsi´c and P. Wedrich, Tangle addition and the knots–quivers correspondence , J. London Math. Soc. 104(1) (2021), 341–361, [doi:10.1112/jlms.12433]

    work page doi:10.1112/jlms.12433 2021

  38. [39]

    Chauhan, P

    S. Chauhan, P. Kucharski, D. Noshchenko, R. Pichai, V . K. Singh, and M. Stoˇsi´c, Full twists and stability of knots and quivers, [arXiv:2508.18417]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [40]

    Craven, V

    J. Craven, V . Jejjala, and A. Kar, Disentangling a deep learned volume formula , J. High Energy Phys. 06, 040 (2021), [doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)040]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2021)040 2021

  40. [41]

    Craven, M

    J. Craven, M. Hughes, V . Jejjala, and A. Kar,Illuminating new and known relations between knot invariants, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 5(4), 045061 (2024), [doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad95d9]

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad95d9 2024

  41. [42]

    Hughes, V

    M. Hughes, V . Jejjala, P. Ramadevi, P. Roy, and V . K. Singh, Colored Jones polynomials and the vol- ume conjecture, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 30(5), 1487–1518 (2026), [doi:10.4310/ATMP.260604140314], [arXiv:2502.18575]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [43]

    L. H. Kauffman, Quantum Computing and the Jones Polynomial, [arXiv:math/0105255]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [44]

    Passante, O

    G. Passante, O. Moussa, C. A. Ryan, and R. Laflamme, Experimental approximation of the Jones polynomial with one quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 250501 (2009), [doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.250501]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.250501 2009

  44. [45]

    Rasetti, S

    M. Rasetti, S. Garnerone and A. Marzuoli, An Efficient Quantum Algorithm for Colored Jones Polynomials,” Int. J. Quant. Inf. 06, 773-778(2008), [doi:10.1142/s0219749908004092], [arXiv:quant-ph/0606167]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008