For a Seifert matrix $V$ of a knot $K$, the Alexander module has presentation matrix $VtV^T$. The determinant of this matrix is the Alexander polynomial, which is the order of the Alexander module. In particular, the Alexander module is a torsion module, and has a linking form, called the Blanchfield pairing. The Sequivalence class of the Seifert matrix is an invariant of the knot, and uniquely characterizes the Blanchfield pairing. There is a bijective correspondence between Sequivalence classes of Seifert matrices and Blanchfield pairings.
Trotter gave examples of knots with the same Alexander polynomial but nonSequivalent Seifert matrices. My question is what additional information we need to reconstruct the Blanchfield pairing (Seifert matrix up to Sequivalence) from the Alexander polynomial.



The Blanchfield pairing has many formulations, I like to think of it as a sesquilinear form: $$ A \otimes A \to \Lambda / \mathbb Z[t^\pm] $$ where $A$ is the Alexander module and $\Lambda$ is the field of fractions of $\mathbb Z[t^\pm]$. This pairing has to be a duality isomorphism, ie: the adjoint $$ \overline{A} \to Hom_{\mathbb Z[t^\pm]} (A, \Lambda/\mathbb Z[t^\pm]) $$ is an isomorphism of $\mathbb Z[t^\pm]$modules. $\overline{A}$ is $A$ but given the opposite action of $\mathbb Z[t^\pm]$ (you substitute $t \longmapsto t^{1}$ before multiplication by a polynomial) The Blanchfield pairing can be anything of that form. So you take the Alexander module, and soup it up with such an isomorphism between $\overline{A}$ and its ``Ext dual'' $Hom_{\mathbb Z[t^\pm]} (A, \Lambda/\mathbb Z[t^\pm]) $. That is the extra information in the Sequivalence class. edit: the pairing has a nice geometric interpretation. $A$ is $H_1(\tilde C)$ where $\tilde C \to C$ is the universal abelian cover of the knot complement. Since $A$ is $\mathbb Z[t^\pm]$torsion, given any $[x] \in A$ let $p$ be such that $px = \partial X$. Then you define the pairing $\langle x, y\rangle = (\sum_i (X \cap t^{i}y)t^i)/p$ provided $X$ and $y$ are transverse representatives when projected to $C$ (in any way that that makes sense). Here $\cap$ is the standard algebraic intersection number of transverse chains. 


Clearly the signature, and more generally the TristramLevine signatures, would be needed. 

