# Introduction

## Introduction

In  Kauffman defines an extension of classical knot diagrams to virtual knot diagrams, motivated by Gauss codes on the one hand and knots in thickened surfaces on the other hand. Several classical knot invariants can be generalized to the virtual theory without much effort, e.g., the knot group and derived invariants such as the Alexander polynomial, the bracket and Jones polynomials, and Vassiliev invariants (which can be introduced in different ways, see  and ).

The present paper deals with a polynomial invariant that is derived from an invariant of links in thickened surfaces introduced by Jaeger, Kauffman, and Saleur in . The determinant formulation of the polynomial immediately generalizes to virtual link diagrams. It is a Laurent polynomial in two variables with integral coefficients that vanishes on the class of classical link diagrams but gives non-trivial information for diagrams that represent non-classical virtual links. Especially, examples can be given that the invariant is sensitive with respect to changes of orientation of a virtual knot. Furthermore, the polynomial fulfills a Conway-type skein relation in one variable and thus it is denoted by the term Conway polynomial.

In the same way as in the classical case, the one-variable Alexander polynomial of a virtual link can be derived from the virtual link group, but the skein-relation for (a normalized version of) the classical Alexander polynomial cannot be extended to the class of virtual links. Therefore, this Alexander polynomial is different from the Conway polynomial mentioned above in a non-trivial way – in contrast to the classical case (and certain generalizations to links 3-manifolds, see for example , Theorem 5.2.11).

This paper is organized as follows. After, in Section 1, a short introduction into the field has been given, the determinant formulation of the Conway polynomial for virtual links is described in Section 2. Some properties of the polynomial are deduced, especially, that the invariant fulfills a Conway-type skein relation, and several example calculations are given. Then, in Section 3, the Alexander invariants derived from the link group, namely, Alexander matrix, Alexander ideal, and Alexander polynomial, are defined and it is shown that the Alexander polynomial does not fulfill any linear skein relation. Finally, in Section 4, general problems in extending certain invariants of classical links to the virtual category are described and the direction of further investigations is indicated.

## 1 Virtual Knots and Links

In classical knot theory, knots and links in 3-dimensional space are examined. As a main tool, projections of such links to an appropriate plane are considered, namely, the so-called link diagrams (see, for example, , , , , , ). The idea of virtual knot theory is to consider link diagrams where an additional crossing type is allowed. Thus, for an oriented diagram, there are three types of crossings: the classical positive or negative crossings and the virtual crossings (see Fig. 1).

For a motivation to introduce virtual crossings resulting from examing knots in thickened surfaces see .

Technically, a virtual link diagram is an oriented 4-valent planar graph embedded in the plane with appropriate orientations of edges and additional crossing information at each vertex as depicted in Fig. 1. Denote the set of virtual link diagrams by $`𝒱𝒟`$. Two diagrams $`D,D^{}𝒱𝒟`$ are called equivalent if one can be transformed into the other by a finite sequence of extended Reidemeister moves (see Fig. 2)

combined with orientation preserving homeomorphisms of the plane to itself. A virtual link is an equivalence class of virtual link diagrams. This gives a purely combinatorial definition of virtual links and, indeed, it is not allowed to perform all the modifications of a virtual link diagram that are inspired by moving objects in 3-space as in classical knot theory. For example, the virtual knots depicted in Fig. 3

are not equivalent, which can be shown by calculating their Conway polynomials defined in Section 2, though they could easily be seen to be equivalent by performing a ”flype” if there were arbitrary classical crossings instead of the two virtual ones.

In  the Jones polynomial is extended to virtual links by making use of the connection with the bracket polynomial. The latter one can be defined for virtual link diagrams in the same way as for classical link diagrams using the bracket skein relation, i.e., every classical crossing is cut open in the two possible ways which results in diagrams having only virtual crossings and therefore being equivalent to crossing-free diagrams.

Extending other well-known link polynomials that can be defined via skein relations, such as HOMFLY and Kauffman polynomials, is much more difficult because it is in general not possible to get a diagram of a trivial link from an arbitrary virtual link diagram by changing some of the diagram’s classical crossings. Therefore, it is a priori not clear which basis can be chosen for the skein module (see ) corresponding to a given skein relation. This problem also arises when defining the Conway polynomial $`_D(z)[z]`$ for a diagram $`D`$ via the skein relation

$$_{D_+}(z)_D_{}(z)=z_{D_0}(z)$$

where $`(D_+,D_{},D_0)`$ is a skein triple, i.e., the three diagrams are identical except in a small disk where they differ as depicted in Fig. 4.

In the following two sections two different extensions of the classical one-variable Alexander-Conway polynomial are examined. The first one satisfies a Conway-type skein relation in one variable and thus is called Conway polynomial, but it is introduced without using skein theory. The second one is the Alexander polynomial derived from the virtual link group.

## 2 A Polynomial Invariant of Virtual Links

A general method to define invariants of virtual links that very often does work is to apply the definition of an invariant for classical link diagrams to virtual link diagrams by ignoring the virtual crossings. This method is used in what follows to define an invariant for virtual links which is essentialy identical to an invariant for links in thickened surfaces that has been introduced in .

Let $`D`$ be a virtual link diagram with $`n1`$ classical crossings $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_n`$. Define

$$M_+:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1x& y\\ xy^1& 0\end{array}\right)\text{and}M_{}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& x^1y\\ y^1& 1x^1\end{array}\right).$$

For $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, let $`M_i:=M_+`$ if $`c_i`$ is positive and let $`M_i:=M_{}`$ otherwise. Define the $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix $`M`$ as a block matrix by $`M:=diag(M_1,\mathrm{},M_n)`$.

Furthermore, consider the graph belonging to the virtual link diagram where the virtual crossings are ignored, i.e., the graph consists of $`n`$ vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ corresponding to the classical crossings and $`2n`$ edges corresponding to the arcs connecting two classical crossings (the edges possibly intersect in virtual crossings). Subdivide each edge into two half-edges and label the four half-edges belonging to the vertex $`v_i`$ by $`i_l^{}`$, $`i_r^{}`$, $`i_r^+`$, $`i_l^+`$ as depicted in Fig. 5.

A permutation of the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{l,r\}`$ is given by the following assignment: $`(i,a)(j,b)`$ if the half-edges $`i_a^+`$ and $`j_b^{}`$ belong to the same edge of the virtual diagram’s graph. Let $`P`$ denote the corresponding $`2n\times 2n`$ permutation matrix where rows and columns are enumerated $`(1,l)`$, $`(1,r)`$, $`(2,l)`$, $`(2,r)`$, …, $`(n,l)`$, $`(n,r)`$.

Finally, define $`Z_D(x,y):=(1)^{w(D)}det(MP)`$, where $`w(D)`$ denotes the writhe of $`D`$, i.e, the number of positive crossings minus the number of negative crossings in $`D`$. (If $`D`$ has no classical crossings then $`Z_D(x,y)`$ can be defined by $`Z_D(x,y):=0`$, see Theorem 3.)

###### Theorem 1

$`Z:𝒱𝒟[x^{\pm 1},y^{\pm 1}]`$ is an invariant of virtual links up to multiplication by powers of $`x^{\pm 1}`$.

Proof:  The independence of the definition with respect to the ordering of the classical crossings and the invariance of $`det(MP)`$ under Reidemeister moves of type II and III follows exactly as in , the only difference being an exchange of the variable $`x`$ for $`x`$. The behaviour under Reidemeister moves of type I is depicted in Fig. 6.

Since the changes of sign corresponding to Reidemeister moves of type I are compensated by the factor $`(1)^{w(D)}`$ in $`Z_D(x,y)`$ and since the definition of $`M`$ and $`P`$ does not depend on the virtual crossings of the diagram, the statement on $`Z`$ follows immediately.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark  A normalization of the polynomial $`Z_D(x,y)`$ using rotation numbers, as done in , is not possible in the case of virtual link diagrams because of Reidemeister move I’. But due to the change of the variable ”$`x`$” to ”$`x`$” in comparison with , at least the sign of the polynomial is determined.

Define the normalized polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)`$ as follows. If $`Z_D(x,y)`$ is a non-vanishing polynomial and $`N`$ is the lowest exponent in the variable $`x`$ then define $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y):=x^NZ_D(x,y)`$. Otherwise let $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y):=Z_D(x,y)=0`$.

###### Corollary 2

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}:𝒱𝒟[x,y^{\pm 1}]`$ is an invariant of virtual links.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Example  Let $`D`$ be the virtual knot diagram depicted in Fig. 7.

The diagram arises from a diagram of the right-handed trefoil where a positive crossing has been replaced by a virtual one. The corresponding polynomial $`Z_D(x,y)`$ can be calculated by using the definition:

$$(1)^2det\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1x& y& 0& 1\\ xy^1& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 1x& y\\ 0& 1& xy^1& 0\end{array}\right)=x^2+x^2y^1+xyxy^1y1$$

The normalized polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)`$ is identical to the polynomial $`Z_D(x,y)`$ in this case.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`D`$, $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$ be virtual link diagrams and let $`D_1D_2`$ denote the disconnected sum of the diagrams $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$. Then the following hold.

1. $`Z_D(x,y)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)=0`$ if $`D`$ has no virtual crossings
2. $`Z_{D_1D_2}(x,y)=Z_{D_1}(x,y)Z_{D_2}(x,y)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{D_1D_2}(x,y)=\stackrel{~}{Z}_{D_1}(x,y)\stackrel{~}{Z}_{D_2}(x,y)`$

Proof:  Part a) follows as in . Part b) is an immediate consequence of the definition of the matrix $`MP`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark  For a connected sum $`D_1\mathrm{\#}D_2`$ of virtual link diagrams $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, a formula of the form

$$Z_{D_1\mathrm{\#}D_2}(x,y)=cZ_{D_1}(x,y)Z_{D_2}(x,y)$$

with a constant $`c`$ does not hold in general, in contrast to what could be expected at first glance. For example, let $`D_1`$ be a diagram with non-vanishing $`Z`$–polynomial and let $`D_2`$ be a diagram of the trivial knot. Then the equation above obviously gives a contradiction.

Example  The opposite of Theorem 3 a) does not hold in general. A counter-example is given in Fig. 8.

The diagram represents a non-classical link since reversing the orientation of one of the two components yields a virtual link diagram with non-trivial $`Z`$–polynomial, whereas the $`Z`$–polynomial of the diagram with the original choice of orientations vanishes.

###### Theorem 4

Let ($`D_+`$, $`D_{}`$, $`D_0`$) be a skein triple of virtual link diagrams. Then the following skein relation holds:

$$x^{\frac{1}{2}}Z_{D_+}(x,y)x^{\frac{1}{2}}Z_D_{}(x,y)=(x^{\frac{1}{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}})Z_{D_0}(x,y)$$

Proof:  The formula can easily be checked by verifying the corresponding relation for every state $`<v|f>`$ in the state sum model used in  to define the ”partition function” $`Z_D(x,y)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Since a skein relation as in Theorem 4 is fulfilled, in the following $`Z_D(x,y)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)`$ will be called Conway polynomial and normalized Conway polynomial, respectively. A more familiar version of the Conway skein relation can be achieved by setting $`x:=t^2`$ and defining $`Z_D^{}(t,y):=t^{w(D)}Z_D(t,y)`$. Then, considering $`w(D_0)=w(D_+)1=w(D_{})+1`$, Theorem 4 immediately gives the following.

###### Corollary 5

Let ($`D_+`$, $`D_{}`$, $`D_0`$) be a skein triple of virtual link diagrams. Then the following skein relation holds:

$$Z_{D_+}^{}(t,y)Z_D_{}^{}(t,y)=(t^1t)Z_{D_0}^{}(t,y)$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark  Applying the skein relation of Theorem 4 is, of course, very helpful for calculating the Conway polynomial. For example, the virtual link depicted in Fig. 8 can immediately be seen to have vanishing Conway polynomial since changing an arbitrary crossing in the diagram yields the diagram of a Hopf link and cutting open the same crossing gives a diagram of the trivial knot. For the diagram that arises from changing the orientation of one link component, the corresponding skein tree has a branch that ends in a diagram with two virtual and two classical crossings which cannot be simplified by any changes of the classical crossings. Therefore, latter diagram has to be calculated by using the definition of the Conway polynomial.

###### Theorem 6

Let $`D`$ be a virtual link diagram. Then:

1. $`Z_D(x,x)=0`$
2. $`Z_D(x,1)=0`$
3. $`Z_D(1,y)`$ does not depend on the over-under information of the diagram’s classical crossings.

Proof:  Part a) and b) follow from the fact that summing up the columns (rows) of the determinant belonging to $`Z_D(x,x)`$ ($`Z_D(x,1)`$) gives the trivial column (row) vector. Part c) is an immediate consequence of setting $`x=1`$ in Theorem 4 (or in the definition).

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark  By Theorem 6, $`Z_D(1,y)[y^{\pm 1}]`$ is an invariant of virtual links that is invariant with respect to changes of classical crossings, too. Thus $`Z_D(1,y)`$ can give information to distinguish those ”basic links” whose Conway polynomials must be calculated by the determinant formulation instead of applying the skein relation, i.e., generating elements of the virtual skein module related to the Conway skein relation. For example, the value of $`Z_D(1,y)`$ for the non-trivial diagram at the leaf of the skein tree that has been mentioned in the previous remark is non-zero. Therefore, the corresponding generating element is different from the trivial knot.

For a virtual link diagram $`D`$, let $`\overline{D}`$ denote the mirror image of $`D`$, i.e., the diagram that arises from $`D`$ by changing the over-under information of every classical crossing. If $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ are equivalent then $`D`$ is called amphicheiral and otherwise chiral. Furthermore, let $`D^{}`$ be the inverse of $`D`$, i.e., the diagram with inverse orientation for every component of $`D`$. If $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are equivalent then $`D`$ is called invertible and otherwise non-invertible.

In the case of classical links, it is known that Kauffman and HOMFLY polynomials, and therefore the Conway polynomial too, are insensitive with respect to invertibility of a knot or link (indeed, this is true for any invariant derived from quantum groups, see , ). Surprisingly, the Conway polynomial of a virtual knot can be different from the polynomial of its inverse.

Example  The virtual knot with diagram $`D`$ that is depicted in Fig. 9

is chiral as well as non-invertible. Calculating normalized Conway polynomials of $`D`$, $`\overline{D}`$, $`D^{}`$, $`\overline{D}^{}`$ gives the following result:

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)=(x1)^2(y+1)(x^2y^21),\stackrel{~}{Z}_D^{}(x,y)=y\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)$$

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\overline{D}}(x,y)=(x1)^2(y^21)(xy^1+1),\stackrel{~}{Z}_{\overline{D}^{}}(x,y)=y^1\stackrel{~}{Z}_D(x,y)$$

Thus the four diagrams under consideration represent pairwise different virtual knots.

## 3 The Alexander Polynomial Derived from the Link Group

In the same way as for classical links, the (virtual) link group can be defined via the Wirtinger presentation of a virtual link diagram, i.e., a group generator is assigned to each arc of the diagram and a group relation can be read off at each classical crossing corresponding to the rules shown in Fig. 10

(for details see ). The link group is an invariant of virtual links.

The above definition of the link group is a purely combinatorial one and it has, in general, nothing to do with the complement of a link in 3-space as in classical knot theory. Indeed, it can be shown that there exists a virtual knot group which is not the fundamental group of any 3-manifold. Related work on virtual knot groups can be found in  and .

As explained in , the Alexander matrix corresponding to a group presentation can be calculated via a differential calculus. For a presentation with $`n`$ generators and $`m`$ relations, it is a $`m\times n`$ matrix with entries from the ring $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$. The (first) Alexander ideal $`(D)`$ of a diagram $`D`$ is generated by the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ minors of the Alexander matrix for the corresponding link group and the (first) Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D(t)[t^{\pm 1}]`$ is the greatest common divisor of $`(D)`$. The Alexander ideal is an invariant of virtual links and the Alexander polynomial is an invariant up to sign and up to multiplication by powers of $`t^{\pm 1}`$.

Remark  In  Alexander polynomials derived from an extended Alexander group of a virtual link diagram are considered. Indeed, the Conway polynomial $`Z_D`$ is related to the 0th virtual Alexander polynomial of , see Remark 4.2 therein.

In contrast to the classical Alexander polynomial, the Alexander polynomial for virtual links does not fulfill any linear skein relation as stated in the next theorem. Therefore it is crucially different from the Conway polynomial defined in Section 2.

###### Theorem 7

For any normalization $`A_D(t)`$ of the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D(t)`$, i.e., $`A_D(t)=\epsilon _Dt^{n_D}\mathrm{\Delta }_D(t)`$ with some $`\epsilon _D\{1,1\}`$ and $`n_D`$, the equation

$$p_1(t)A_{D_+}(t)+p_2(t)A_D_{}(t)+p_3(t)A_{D_0}(t)=0\text{with }p_1(t),p_2(t),p_3(t)[t^{\pm 1}]$$

has only the trivial solution $`p_1(t)=p_2(t)=p_3(t)=0`$.

Proof:  Assume the above skein relation has a non-trivial solution. Consider the skein triples $`(D_+,D_{},D_0)`$ where $`D`$ is a classical knot diagram with one crossing and $`(D_+^{},D_{}^{},D_0^{})`$ where $`D^{}`$ is a standard diagram, with arbitrary orientations of the components, of the Hopf link (the latter triple corresponding to an arbitrary of the diagram’s two crossings). Then the related Alexander polynomials have values, up to normalization, as follows.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_+}(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_D_{}(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_0^{}}(t)=1,\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_0}(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_D_{}^{}(t)=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_+^{}}(t)=t1$$

Inserting these values, each multiplied by a factor $`\epsilon t^n`$, into the skein relation immediately shows that, up to normalization, $`p_2(t)=p_1(t)`$ and $`p_3(t)=(t1)p_1(t)`$. Thus the skein relation is equivalent to the classical Alexander skein relation:

$$A_{D_+}(t)A_D_{}(t)=(t1)A_{D_0}(t)$$

Finally, let $`D^{\prime \prime }`$ be the virtual link diagram arising from $`D^{}`$ by changing an arbitrary classical crossing to a virtual crossing. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_+^{\prime \prime }}(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_{}^{\prime \prime }}(t)=t1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_0^{\prime \prime }}(t)=1`$. Inserting these values, each multiplied by a factor $`\epsilon t^n`$, into the Alexander skein relation yields a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark  The proof of Theorem 7 shows that the classical Alexander skein relation is, up to a factor, the unique one that holds for the Alexander polynomial of classical links, and this skein relation cannot be extended to the class of virtual links.

Example  The virtual knot with diagram $`D`$ which is depicted in Fig. 9 cannot be distinguished from its inverse by Alexander polynomials since the Alexander ideals are identical:

$$(D)=(D^{})=(2,t^2+t+1)$$

Example 

The virtual knot with trivial knot group and trivial Jones polynomial investigated in , see Fig. 11, has non-vanishing normalized Conway polynomial

$$(x1)(x^2y^2)(1+y^1)$$

and therefore it does not represent a classical knot. This is a result that could not be achieved with the means of .

## 4 Concluding Remarks

As mentioned in , the Alexander-Conway polynomial for links in thickened surfaces can be defined in the multivariable case as well and the construction analogously yields a multivariable Conway polynomial for virtual links. Also the multivariable Alexander polynomial can be derived from the virtual link group and it is an invariant that is different from the Conway polynomial as has been seen above for the one-variable case.

It is quite natural to consider generalizations of HOMFLY and Kauffman polynomials to virtual links next. Besides the definition of these polynomials via skein relations, there are several state models for them, see , , , , , , and also  and citations therein. But, when trying to generalize any of these approaches, one meets with at least one of the following three obstacles. First, a virtual link diagram in general cannot be unknotted by classical crossing changes. Therefore it is necessary to find a basis for the virtual skein module corresponding to the HOMFLY and Kauffman skein relations, respectively, which is not yet known. Secondly, some models make use of the signed graph corresponding to a black-and-white colouring of the plane, but it is not clear how to handle virtual crossings in a generalized model. And finally, state models mostly rely on rotation numbers which are not invariant with respect to Reidemeister moves of type I’.

It should be mentioned that missing invariance under Reidemeister moves of type I and I’ is a more serious problem when defining virtual link invariants than missing invariance under Reidemeister moves of type I when defining classical link invariants. For example, having in mind Theorem 7, it is not possible to derive a linear skein relation for the Alexander polynomial from the virtual link group. The proof that is given by Hartley  for the classical case cannot be extended to virtual link diagrams because it intrinsically uses a normalization of the Alexander polynomial via rotation numbers during the proof. Observe that in classical knot theory a result by B. Trace  assures that a regular isotopy invariant can always be made to an ambient isotopy invariant using writhe and rotation number of an oriented link diagram.

A more general class of invariants that may be generalized to virtual links are quantum link invariants. In  it is described how to define such invariants via $`R`$-matrices and the abstract tensor approach, see also . Again, the invariance under Reidemeister moves of types I and I’ causes difficulties and thus the virtual quantum link invariants under consideration are only invariant with respect to virtual regular isotopy, i.e., the two troublemaking moves are avoided.

The Conway polynomial for virtual links that has been introduced in the present paper also arises from a quantum link invariant (see ) but it is not difficult to get control over its behaviour with respect to Reidemeister moves of types I and I’. It is left to further investigations which (quantum link) invariants have similar properties and can be extended to full invariants of virtual links.

## Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Saziye Bayram for finding an error in a calculation, and Dan Silver for informing him about his results.