Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

This paper argues that R-twisting, with a specific scaling, turns Argyres–Douglas Seiberg–Witten curves into complements of torus knots, so that 3d theories on these knot complements reproduce the 4d BPS spectrum.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:12 UTC pith:QHLWCIF3

load-bearing objection A suggestive but conjecture-driven proposal: the mapping-torus identification is fixed by hand at Eq. (3.1), and the §4.5 doubling claim doesn't match the explicit trefoil monodromy; the concrete low-order checks justify referee attention, not acceptance. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24037 v1 pith:QHLWCIF3 submitted 2026-07-27 hep-th

R-Twisting, Fibered Knots, and Gauge Theories

Shi Cheng This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords R-twistingArgyres-Douglas theoriesSeiberg-Witten curvesMilnor fibrationtorus knotsmapping toriquantum monodromysupersymmetry enhancement
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.

R-twisting is a way to compactify a 4d theory on a circle while keeping the right supersymmetries; this paper argues that it does much more. With a conjectural rescaling t=αθ of the R-symmetry circle, the phase picked up by the Seiberg–Witten curve is exactly the monodromy of the Milnor fibration of the torus knot T(m,n). The paper concludes that the curve together with the R-twisted circle forms the knot complement S^3\T(m,n), and that the 3d theory on that complement reproduces the full 4d BPS spectrum, with partition function equal to the 4d quantum monodromy. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a concrete topological home for Argyres–Douglas theories, resolves the boundary problem of the domain wall construction, and predicts an N=4 enhancement connecting to rank-zero 3d theories.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that R-twisting is not a trivial product but a nontrivial fibration. With the conjectural scaling t=αθ and α=mn/(m+n), the U(1)_r R-symmetry phase e^{2πiαθ} is reinterpreted as the Milnor-fibration automorphism (x,y)→(e^{2πit/m}x, e^{2πit/n}y). As a result, the Seiberg–Witten curve of an (A_{m−1}, A_{n−1}) Argyres–Douglas theory, combined with the R-twisted circle, is claimed to be the torus knot complement S^3\T(m,n). The 3d theory on this mapping torus then captures the 4d BPS spectrum: its partition function Z_3d(S^3\K)=Ψ(γ_1)…Ψ(γ_μ)Ψ(−γ_1)…Ψ(−γ_μ) equals the 4d quantum monodromy.

What carries the argument

The conjectural scaling t=αθ with α=mn/(m+n) (Eq. 3.1), which identifies the R-twisted circle with the R-symmetry circle at a rate that makes the U(1)_r phase coincide with the Milnor-fibration automorphism. This converts the trivial product Σ_SW×S^1 into the nontrivial mapping torus Σ_SW×_h S^1, whose underlying manifold is the torus knot complement; it also reconciles the order-(m+n) R-symmetry monodromy with the order-mn Milnor monodromy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the conjectural scaling t=αθ with α=mn/(m+n) introduced in Eq. (3.1); nothing in the M5-brane construction fixes this scaling, and if the R-twisted circle cannot be identified with the Milnor base circle in this way, the mapping-torus interpretation and all subsequent 3d theories do not follow.

What would settle it

Compute the R-symmetry monodromy order in the 3d theory on S^3\T(m,n) (e.g., from the Chern–Simons levels or vortex partition function) and check whether it is mn, as the mapping-torus identification demands, rather than m+n, as the bare U(1)_r action would give. Any discrepancy in this order, or in the predicted wall locations t_γ=αθ_γ, would falsify the scaling conjecture.

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

If this is right

  • The 3d partition function on a torus knot complement equals the 4d quantum monodromy, so a single 3d theory encodes both BPS and anti-BPS spectra of the original 4d theory.
  • The domain wall construction gains a circle instead of an interval, eliminating the boundary problem; walls sit at Dehn twists where mutations occur.
  • Mapping tori of torus knots admit transverse holomorphic foliations, implying N=4 supersymmetry enhancement, in agreement with the known enhancement condition for Seifert manifolds.
  • The construction is conjecturally equivalent to the standard reduction to rank-zero 3d theories, with handle slides relating the mixed Chern–Simons levels to those of known models.
  • For (A1,A2n+1) theories the knot complement has two boundary components, giving U(1)×U(1) gauge/flavor symmetries; for (A1,A2n) there is a single boundary and a flavor symmetry from the meridian.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete test of the scaling conjecture would be to measure the wall locations on the base circle: the paper notes the B-field can shift BPS phases, so a localization computation that fixes those phases could verify or refute t=αθ.
  • The same mapping-torus logic may apply to other fibered knots via Murasugi sums, which the paper lists as an open problem; if so, the AD/knot correspondence would extend well beyond torus knots.
  • If Z_3d equals the quantum monodromy, knot-complement partition functions become a tool for detecting chamber structure and dualities; the (A1,A3) case, with its chain quiver, is a natural place to check this.
  • The N=4 enhancement tied to vanishing Euler number suggests a broader principle: any Seifert-fibered three-manifold with zero Euler number could yield rank-zero N=4 theories, not just torus knot complements.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that R-twisting in 4d Argyres-Douglas theories should be implemented with a scaling t = αθ, α = mn/(m+n), so that the Seiberg-Witten curve x^m + y^n is reinterpreted as the Milnor-fibration polynomial of the torus knot T(m,n). On this basis the author argues that Σ_SW ×_h S^1_t is the knot complement S^3\T(m,n), and that 3d theories labelled by these mapping tori capture the 4d BPS spectrum: in particular Eq. (4.36) identifies the 3d partition function with the 4d quantum monodromy. The paper also develops domain-wall, surgery, and supersymmetry-enhancement consequences, and connects the construction to 3d rank-zero theories. Concrete low-order checks include the trefoil monodromy satisfying M^6=1, the (A1,A3) reduction to (A1,A2), and the SQED-XYZ duality for S^3\3_1.

Significance. If the central identification were established, the paper would give a striking bridge between AD Seiberg-Witten geometry and fibered-knot topology, and would offer a principled origin for 3d theories labelled by knot complements as well as a new link to N=4 enhancement and rank-zero theories. The author deserves credit for being explicit that the core move is conjectural, and for checking internal consistency of low-order data (trefoil monodromy order, chamber duality, reduction from (A1,A3) to (A1,A2)). However, the main claim currently rests on an unproven and seemingly ill-defined scaling, and one of the key conclusions is in tension with the paper's own monodromy matrix. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper opens an interesting direction but does not yet establish the mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.1)] The entire construction hinges on the scaling t = αθ, α = mn/(m+n). The paper states this as a conjecture, and no argument from the M5-brane or 6d SCFT setup fixes α. Moreover the map is not a well-defined circle map: with t and θ both in [0,1]/∼, t = αθ has degree α, which is not an integer (e.g. 6/5 for the trefoil). Hence after one full R-symmetry circle the phase in Eq. (3.5) is e^{2πiα}, not 1, and the Milnor-fiber gluing condition is not satisfied. Because Eq. (3.6) and the identification Σ_SW ×_h S^1_t = S^3\T(m,n) are consequences of this choice rather than derived facts, the subsequent 3d theories and Eq. (4.36) rest on the same undetermined input.
  2. [§3.1, order of monodromy] The order-matching between the R-symmetry and the Milnor monodromy is not achieved by the scaling. For T(2,3), α = 6/5. After one R-symmetry circle (θ = 1) the coordinate transformation (3.6) gives t = 6/5, not t = 1; the monodromy is not the Milnor monodromy. The sentence comparing lengths of multiple windings is also not an equality with the stated α: mn·α = (mn)^2/(m+n), not m+n. A reparameterization cannot change the group element produced at θ = 1. Thus the Milnor-fibration identification at the level of the actual base circle is not established.
  3. [§4.5, Eqs. (4.18) and (4.36)] The doubling that leads to Eq. (4.36) is inconsistent with the paper's own monodromy matrix. The trefoil monodromy (4.18) is M = [[1,1],[-1,0]], with M^6=1. A direct calculation gives M^3 = -I, not M = -I. Therefore a single passage around the base S^1_t does not send the charge lattice to its negative, as asserted around Eq. (4.35). The minimal-chamber doubling by one pass to the negative quiver and a second pass back to the original is not realized by this M. Eq. (4.36) is accordingly unsupported by the topological data provided in the paper.
  4. [§4.4, identification of the base S^1_t] The identification of the base of the Milnor fibration with a loop on the Coulomb-branch moduli space is asserted rather than derived. The text states that f/|f| = u/|u| for the deformed curve x^m + y^n + u = 0; this equality is generally not true along the curve, where f is not simply u unless the coordinates satisfy additional constraints. Since this loop is then used to match the monodromy of the mapping torus with the 4d moduli space, the correspondence needs either a precise definition of f on each fiber or a separate derivation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3] There are typos: 'Seiferg-Witten' in the abstract and 'stbtle' in §4.3.
  2. [Eq. (4.26)] The first factor on the right-hand side appears as Ψ(γ1)Ψ(γ1)···; presumably the second factor should be Ψ(γ2).
  3. [§2.3 and §3] The torus-knot parameters are denoted p,q in Eq. (2.9) but m,n in §3; the inconsistent notation is confusing because both pairs are used for the same T(m,n) construction.
  4. [Figures and diagrams] Several inline diagrams, for example (3.7) and (5.4), are not explained in the text; labels such as ω_t in (3.7) are undefined. A separate figure with a clear caption would help.
  5. [§4.2] The wall positions t_{γ_i} in Eq. (4.6) are introduced as data, and §4.3 later states that they cannot be fully determined. The paper should state explicitly that these positions are free input parameters of the construction, since they affect the chamber structure and hence the resulting 3d theory.
  6. [Eq. (4.33)] The range of indices in the product is unclear: for the (A1,An) theory the Milnor number is n, but the notation is not consistently defined before the formula.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The load-bearing scaling t=αθ is chosen so that the R-symmetry phase equals the Milnor-fibration phase; the mapping-torus identification is thereby imposed by definition rather than derived.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eq. (3.1), and §3.1 (R-twisted cycle)]
    "We conjecture that this identification should be slightly scaled to match the gauge theories with the Milnor fibration of (m,n)-torus knots. This scaling is t=αθ, α=mn/(m+n) ... If we rewrite the action of the U(1)_r R-symmetry by a scale, then we get the standard automorphism (2.9) for Milnor fibration: (x,y)→(e^{2πi·t/m}x, e^{2πi·t/n}y), where t=αθ and α:=mn/(m+n)."

    The parameter α is introduced for the sole purpose of making the R-symmetry phase in (3.5) equal to the Milnor-fibration phase: e^{2πiαθ}f becomes e^{2πit}f when t=αθ, and the R-symmetry action (3.4) becomes exactly the Milnor automorphism (2.9). Thus S^1_t is, by construction, the base of the Milnor fibration of f=x^m+y^n, and the monodromy h is the Milnor monodromy. The central identification Σ_SW ×_h S^1_t ≅ S^3\T(m,n) is therefore not an output of R-twisting but is encoded in the chosen scaling. The paper explicitly labels this a 'conjecture'; no independent M5-brane or gauge-theory input fixes α. If α differed, the mapping-torus interpretation would not follow. The later checks do not determine α, so the main claim reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The central derivation of the paper is Eq. (3.1) plus the reinterpretation in §3.1. There the paper sets α=mn/(m+n) so that the U(1)_r R-symmetry transformation (3.4) coincides with the Milnor-fibration automorphism (2.9). This is a genuine algebraic identity, but it is an identity manufactured by the choice of α: the phase e^{2πiαθ} is literally e^{2πit} after substituting t=αθ. Hence the conclusion that R-twisting turns the SW curve into the mapping torus of the torus knot is true by construction, not by physical derivation. This is the load-bearing step for the later identification of 3d theories with S^3\T(m,n) and for Eq. (4.36). The Milnor fibration theorem itself is external and valid; what is circular is the physical identification of the R-symmetry circle with that fibration's base. The SQED-XYZ duality (4.32), the trefoil monodromy computation (4.18), and the Schur-index comparison (6.5)–(6.6) are consistency checks that do not fix α, so they provide independent content but do not remove the definitional character of the central premise. Separately, §4.5's claim that one loop around the base sends the BPS quiver to its negative is not supported by the trefoil monodromy matrix M in (4.18), for which M^3=-I and M^6=I; this is a correctness concern in the argument for Eq. (4.36), not a circularity. The paper's self-citations ([20], [21]) support Kirby-move manipulations but are not load-bearing for the central mapping-torus claim. Overall: partial circularity, score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard low-dimensional topology (Milnor fibration, mapping tori, Dehn twists), standard AD engineering assumptions, and one ad hoc input—the R-twist scaling α=mn/(m+n)—plus an asserted equality between 3d partition functions and 4d quantum monodromy.

free parameters (2)
  • R-twist scaling α = α = mn/(m+n)
    Introduced as a conjecture in Eq. (3.1) to make the R-symmetry phase e^{2πiαθ} coincide with the Milnor-fibration automorphism and to reconcile the monodromy orders (m+n) and mn. This is the central tuning of the paper, not derived from the brane construction.
  • wall positions t_γ_i on S^1_t = 0 < t_γ_1 < ... < t_γ_μ < 2π (order only)
    In §4.3 the walls are placed by requiring T_γ⋆ to sit at t⋆=αθ⋆, where θ⋆ cancels the phase of the corresponding BPS state; the absolute positions are not determined because a background B-field can adjust the phases.
axioms (8)
  • standard math Milnor fibration theorem: for an isolated singularity f, S^3\K fibers over S^1 with the Seifert surface as fiber.
    Theorem 1, §2.3; basis for identifying the SW curve with the knot complement.
  • standard math Fibered knot complements are mapping tori: M_h = Σ_{g,1} ×_h S^1 = S^3\K.
    Eq. (2.3), §2.1–2.2; the central topological equivalence used throughout.
  • domain assumption For (A_{m-1}, A_{n-1}) AD theories the Seiberg–Witten curve is f(x,y)=x^m+y^n with R-charges [x]=n/(m+n), [y]=m/(m+n).
    Used in §3 to write the R-symmetry phase (3.5); standard in the AD literature but not derived here.
  • domain assumption The 4d U(1)_r R-symmetry is realized as the rotation of a plane in the internal R^5 of M5-brane engineering.
    §3.1; needed to interpret S^1_θ and its phase action on the SW curve.
  • ad hoc to paper The R-twisted circle is identified with the R-symmetry circle via the scaling t=αθ with α=mn/(m+n).
    Eq. (3.1); stated as a conjecture with no derivation; the entire mapping-torus construction depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The base S^1_t of the Milnor fibration is a loop on the AD moduli space via f/|f| = u/|u|.
    §4.4 'the base S^1_t should be a loop on the u-plane'—assumes the deformation parameter u of the SW curve plays the role of f in the Milnor fibration.
  • domain assumption On each wall only the BPS state undergoing the flip survives as a massless 3d state.
    Taken from [1] and used in §4.2 to select the 3d BPS spectrum from the infinite 4d BPS spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3d partition function equals the ordered product of quantum operators and hence the full 4d quantum monodromy.
    Eqs. (4.33) and (4.36); asserted from the M2/M5 picture rather than derived from a Lagrangian or localization computation.
invented entities (1)
  • R-twisted mapping torus Σ_SW ×_h S^1_t = S^3\T(m,n) no independent evidence
    purpose: New 3-manifold label for 3d gauge theories; its pages host M5-branes, its walls host 3d BPS states, and its monodromy encodes quiver mutations.
    Proposed in §3.1 on the basis of the scaling conjecture; no falsifiable handle outside the internal consistency of the construction itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20953 in / 16671 out tokens · 131825 ms · 2026-07-31T23:12:28.301440+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We argue that R-twisting implies the Seiberg-Witten curves of 4d Argyres-Douglas theories could be combined with the R-twisted circle to form the mapping tori of torus knots, inspired by Milnor fibration theorem. Then 3d gauge theories labeled by mapping tori are generated, which in the IR capture 4d BPS spectrum and mutations. This construction addresses the boundary problem of the domain wall approach in \cite{Cecotti:2011iy}. These 3d theories show a supersymmetry enhancement, and are related to 3d rank zero theories.

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

34 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cecotti, C

    S. Cecotti, C. Cordova, and C. Vafa,Braids, Walls, and Mirrors,arXiv:1110.2115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Dimofte, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Terashima and M

    Y. Terashima and M. Yamazaki,sl(2,R)chern-simons, liouville, and gauge theory on duality walls,Journal of High Energy Physics2011(2011), no. 8 135, [arXiv:1103.5748]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Benini, Y

    F. Benini, Y. Tachikawa, and D. Xie,Mirrors of 3d Sicilian theories,JHEP09(2010) 063, [arXiv:1007.0992]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Gang and M

    D. Gang and M. Yamazaki,Three-dimensional gauge theories with supersymmetry enhancement,Physical Review D98(2018), no. 12 121701, [arXiv:1806.07714]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Dedushenko,On the 4d/3d/2d view of the SCFT/VOA correspondence, arXiv:2312.17747

    M. Dedushenko,On the 4d/3d/2d view of the SCFT/VOA correspondence, arXiv:2312.17747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Cecotti and C

    S. Cecotti and C. Vafa,BPS Wall Crossing and Topological Strings,arXiv:0910.2615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Cecotti, A

    S. Cecotti, A. Neitzke, and C. Vafa,R-Twisting and 4d/2d Correspondences, arXiv:1006.3435

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    J. W. Milnor,Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces, vol. 61 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, 1968

    1968

  10. [10]

    Assel, Y

    B. Assel, Y. Tachikawa, and A. Tomasiello,OnN= 4 supersymmetry enhancements in three dimensions,JHEP03(2023) 170, [arXiv:2209.13984]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Akbulut and B

    S. Akbulut and B. Ozbagci,Lefschetz fibrations on compact stein surfaces: erratum, Geometry and Topology5(Dec., 2001) 939–945

    2001

  12. [12]

    Rolfsen,Knots and Links, vol

    D. Rolfsen,Knots and Links, vol. 7 ofMathematics Lecture Series. Publish or Perish, Inc., Berkeley, California, 1976

    1976

  13. [13]

    Saveliev,Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds: An Introduction to the Casson Invariant

    N. Saveliev,Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds: An Introduction to the Casson Invariant. Walter de Gruyter, 1999

    1999

  14. [14]

    M. Alim, S. Cecotti, C. Cordova, S. Espahbodi, A. Rastogi, and C. Vafa,BPS Quivers and Spectra of Complete N=2 Quantum Field Theories,Commun. Math. Phys.323(2013) 1185–1227, [arXiv:1109.4941]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    M. Alim, S. Cecotti, C. Cordova, S. Espahbodi, A. Rastogi, and C. Vafa,N= 2quantum field theories and their BPS quivers,Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.18(2014), no. 1 27–127, [arXiv:1112.3984]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Dimofte, D

    T. Dimofte, D. Gaiotto, and R. van der Veen,RG Domain Walls and Hybrid Triangulations, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.19(2015) 137–276, [arXiv:1304.6721]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Espahbodi, B. Haghighat, A. Rastogi, and C. Vafa,Tangles, Generalized Reidemeister Moves, and Three-Dimensional Mirror Symmetry,JHEP05(2014) 014, [arXiv:1211.3730]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Xie and S.-T

    D. Xie and S.-T. Yau,4d N=2 SCFT and singularity theory Part I: Classification, arXiv:1510.01324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Gadde, S

    A. Gadde, S. Gukov, and P. Putrov,Fivebranes and 4-manifolds,Prog. Math.319(2016) 155–245, [arXiv:1306.4320]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Cheng,Surgery and Matter for 3d Theories,arXiv:2310.07624

    S. Cheng,Surgery and Matter for 3d Theories,arXiv:2310.07624

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Cheng,Fusions and Dualities for 3d TheoriesT[M 3],arXiv:2410.03852

    S. Cheng,Fusions and Dualities for 3d TheoriesT[M 3],arXiv:2410.03852

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Closset, T

    C. Closset, T. T. Dumitrescu, G. Festuccia, and Z. Komargodski,Supersymmetric field theories on three-manifolds,Journal of High Energy Physics2013(May, 2013)

    2013

  23. [23]

    Closset, T

    C. Closset, T. T. Dumitrescu, G. Festuccia, and Z. Komargodski,The geometry of supersymmetric partition functions,Journal of High Energy Physics2014(Jan., 2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Moser,Elementary surgery along a torus knot,Pacific Journal of Mathematics38(1971), no

    L. Moser,Elementary surgery along a torus knot,Pacific Journal of Mathematics38(1971), no. 3 737–745

    1971

  25. [25]

    Martelli,An Introduction to Geometric Topology

    B. Martelli,An Introduction to Geometric Topology. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016

    2016

  26. [26]

    Gaiotto and H

    D. Gaiotto and H. Kim,3D TFTs from 4dN= 2 BPS particles,JHEP03(2025) 173, [arXiv:2409.20393]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    D. Gang, H. Kim, and S. Stubbs,Three-Dimensional Topological Field Theories and Nonunitary Minimal Models,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024), no. 13 131601, [arXiv:2310.09080]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    C´ ordova and S.-H

    C. C´ ordova and S.-H. Shao,Schur indices, BPS particles, and Argyres-Douglas theories, Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016), no. 1 40, [arXiv:1506.00265]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Foda and R.-D

    O. Foda and R.-D. Zhu,Closed form fermionic expressions for the macdonald index,Journal of High Energy Physics2020(2020), no. 6 157, [arXiv:1912.01896]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Gukov, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Gukov, D

    S. Gukov, D. Pei, P. Putrov, and C. Vafa,BPS spectra and 3-manifold invariants,J. Knot Theor. Ramifications29(2020), no. 02 2040003, [arXiv:1701.06567]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Gabai,The murasugi sum is a natural geometric operation, inLow-Dimensional Topology, vol

    D. Gabai,The murasugi sum is a natural geometric operation, inLow-Dimensional Topology, vol. 20 ofContemporary Mathematics, pp. 131–143. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1983

    1983

  33. [33]

    J. R. Stallings,Constructions of fibred knots and links, inAlgebraic and Geometric Topology, vol. 32 ofProceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, pp. 55–60. American Mathematical Society, 1978

    1978

  34. [34]

    P. Shan, D. Xie, and W. Yan,Mirror symmetry for circle compactified 4dN= 2 SCFTs, JHEP05(2026) 015, [arXiv:2306.15214]. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026