Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 20 references

The Hopf algebra of formal multiple polylogarithms

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds an explicit Hopf algebra of formal multiple polylogarithms over any field and maps it to mixed Tate motives and Hodge structures.

desk verdict A serious candidate for Goncharov's Hopf algebra with genuinely new specialization maps; the realizations hinge on whether Malkin's theorem covers the collapsed case. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15071 v2 pith:SHWAODTM submitted 2024-11-22 math.NT math.AG

Steven Charlton , Andrei Matveiakin , Danylo Radchenko , Daniil Rudenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NTmath.AG MSC 11G5511M3211R7019F2714F4216T05
keywords multiplepolylogarithmsHopfalgebramixedTatemotivesBlochgroupcorrelatorsiteratedintegralsmotiviccohomologyfunctionalequations
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

Multiple polylogarithm functions satisfy many functional equations, but proving these identities and lifting them to motivic objects is traditionally laborious. This paper gives every infinite field $F$ an elementary Hopf algebra $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$—a graded algebra whose coproduct formalizes how a polylogarithm decomposes into simpler pieces—built from formal iterated integrals, with relations imposed by comparing two limiting values of certain elements over $F(t)$. Inside this algebra the classical five-term, shuffle, quasi-shuffle, distribution, and inversion identities become theorems. The paper then constructs a Hodge realization into framed mixed Hodge–Tate structures when $F\subset\mathbb{C}$ and a motivic realization into mixed Tate motives when $F$ is a number field, and conjectures that the motivic realization is an isomorphism. The central claim, read in good faith, is that $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$ is the conjectural Hopf algebra of framed mixed Tate motives.

What carries the argument

The machine is the pair $(\mathrm{A}(F),\delta)$ of formal correlators with the cut cobracket: an element $((x_0,\dots,x_n))$ records $n+1$ points on a circle, and $\delta$ sums over all ways to cut the circle at a point and split the remaining arc into two smaller circular configurations, exactly the combinatorics of motivic correlators. Relation spaces are then defined by a specialization trick: after passing to $F(t)$, any element whose cobracket vanishes modulo previously defined lower-weight relations is required to have equal specializations at $t=0$ and $t=1$, which encodes the idea that the relation is constant without any general-position assumptions. Finally, the universal coenveloping coalgebra construction turns the Lie coalgebra $\mathrm{L}^f(F)$ into the commutative Hopf algebra $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$, and the classical iterated integrals are lifted uniquely into it on the basis of the correlator cobracket.

What would settle it

Look for an explicit $R\in\mathrm{A}_n(\mathbb{C}(t))$ with $\delta(R)=0$ in the relation quotient for which the Hodge correlator of $\mathrm{Sp}_{t\to 0}R-\mathrm{Sp}_{t\to 1}R$ is nonzero; Proposition 48 predicts this difference always vanishes, so any such element would break the Hodge realization and with it the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the graded Lie coalgebra $\mathrm{L}^f(F)=\mathrm{A}(F)/\mathrm{R}(F)$: $\mathrm{A}(F)$ is the rational vector space spanned by formal correlators $((x_0,\dots,x_n))$ modulo cyclic, translation, homothety, and logarithm relations, with a cobracket that cuts a cyclic configuration into two smaller ones. The relations $\mathrm{R}_n(F)$ are generated inductively by taking $R\in\mathrm{A}_n(F(t))$ whose cobracket lands in $\bigoplus_{k=1}^{n-1}\mathrm{A}_k\wedge\mathrm{R}_{n-k}$ and declaring the specializations at $t=0$ and $t=1$ equal. The Hopf algebra $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$ is the universal coenveloping coalgebra of this Lie coalgebra—the free commutative Hopf algebra with a given Lie coalgebra of indecomposables—so its indecomposables are exactly $\mathrm{L}^f(F)$; iterated integrals and multiple polylogarithms are defined in it and satisfy the expected coproduct, shuffle, and composition laws. The paper proves that the weight-one part is $F^\times_\mathbb{Q}$, the weight-two part is the rationalized Bloch group, and that the Hodge realization $\mathrm{r}^{\mathrm{Q}\text{-}\mathrm{Hod}}$ and the motivic realization $\mathrm{r}^{\mathrm{M}}$ are well-defined Hopf algebra morphisms. The announced conclusion is that every functional equation proven inside $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$ is a genuine relation among framed mixed Hodge–Tate structures and, for number fields, among framed mixed Tate motives.

Load-bearing premise

The construction depends on the inductively defined relation spaces forming a Lie coideal, and the realization theorems depend on two external inputs—the rigidity of variations of mixed Hodge–Tate structures and the injectivity of the Borel regulator—whose applicability is imported rather than proved here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every functional equation proven inside $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$ (five-term relation, shuffle, quasi-shuffle, distribution, inversion) becomes a theorem about framed mixed Hodge–Tate structures, and about framed mixed Tate motives when $F$ is a number field.
  • Since $\mathrm{H}^f_2(F)$ is the rationalized Bloch group, the algebra gives a uniform home for weight-two regulator and K-theory computations and a model for higher weights.
  • If the conjectured Chern-class isomorphisms hold, the higher cohomology of $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$ computes the $\gamma$-graded algebraic K-theory of $F$, turning the Hopf algebra into a concrete computational target for $K_{2n-i}(F)_\mathbb{Q}$.
  • If the motivic realization is an isomorphism, $\mathrm{H}^f(F)$ supplies an elementary presentation of the Hopf algebra of framed mixed Tate motives for number fields, independent of the full Tannakian category.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next computation would be to implement the relation-space recursion for $F=\mathbb{Q}$ in weights up to five and compare the resulting depth filtration with the known multiple-zeta-value table; the paper's explicit generators make this a finite linear-algebra problem.
  • The same recipe of taking a vanishing-cobracket element over $F(t)$ and identifying its two specializations could plausibly construct Hopf algebras for other families of configuration-space integrals, such as Grassmannian polylogarithms.
  • If the isomorphism conjecture is true, the canonical real period map on the Hodge realization would attach to each formal identity a real number, giving a direct path from algebraic relations in $\mathrm{H}^f(\mathbb{C})$ to Borel-regulator values and special values of $L$-functions.
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 defines, for every infinite field F, a graded connected commutative Hopf algebra Hf(F) of formal multiple polylogarithms, obtained as the universal coenveloping coalgebra of a Lie coalgebra Lf(F). The Lie coalgebra is generated by correlator symbols modulo an inductively defined space of relations Rn(F) that is designed to enforce homotopy invariance under pure transcendental extensions. The paper proves basic structural properties of correlators and iterated integrals, establishes shuffle, reversal, distribution, and quasi-shuffle relations, identifies the weight-two piece with the rational Bloch group, and then constructs a Hodge realization for F ⊂ C and a motivic realization for number fields. It closes with Goncharov-type conjectures relating Hf(F) to algebraic K-theory and to the conjectural Hopf algebra of framed mixed Tate motives.

Significance. If the central construction is sound, this is a valuable explicit candidate for Goncharov's motivic Hopf algebra, and the realization theorems give a concrete mechanism by which functional equations proved in Hf(F) become identities among framed mixed Hodge–Tate structures and, for number fields, among mixed Tate motives. The paper is commendably explicit about its conjectural status and about which properties are built into the definition rather than derived; the weight-two identification with the Bloch group is a concrete nontrivial result, and the treatment of specializations without general-position assumptions is an improvement over earlier constructions. However, the overall claim rests on two kinds of load-bearing support that are not fully supplied: the exact hypotheses of the external specialization theorem used for the Hodge realization, and the proofs of two structural identities that make Lf(F) a Lie coalgebra and make the shuffle product well-defined.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (40), Proposition 48] The Hodge realization depends on the identity Sp_{t→t0}(Cor^{Q-Hod}(f0(t),...,fn(t))) = Cor^{Q-Hod}(Sp_{t→t0}((f0,...,fn))), quoted from [Mal20, Theorem 28]. The paper's specialization map Sp_{t→t0} is deliberately defined without general-position assumptions, and the inductive proof of Proposition 48 needs this identity precisely in the case where several of the f_i(t0) coincide. The manuscript does not state the hypotheses of [Mal20, Theorem 28] and does not verify that they cover this collapsed, potentially non-étale case, nor does it explain how the limiting framed mixed Hodge–Tate structure on the left-hand side is defined. If Malkin's theorem requires the map to the configuration space to be étale at t0, or requires an auxiliary framing that is not tracked here, then statement (ii) of Proposition 48 does not follow, and Proposition 50 inherits the failure through its use of Proposition 48. This is a request for a precise quotation of the theorem and a verification of the non-generic case, not an objection to the use of deep external results.
  2. [§2.1, Lemma 2, and §2.4, Proposition 15] Two structural identities on which the definition of Lf(F) rests are not proved in the manuscript. Lemma 2 leaves the coJacobi identity as an exercise, and Proposition 15 refers to [Gon01a, pp. 437–438] for the combinatorial part; moreover the base case in Proposition 15 currently reads 'The base of induction n = 2 follows from .' with the reference missing. Since Hf(F) is defined as the universal coenveloping coalgebra of Lf(F), the coJacobi identity is part of the definition of the object being studied, and the shuffle relation is used in Lemma 24 to construct the Hopf algebra. These checks should either be carried out in the paper or replaced by a precise statement of the cited result together with a verification that its hypotheses apply to the present relations (A1)–(A6).
  3. [§2.3 and Corollary 11] The homotopy invariance statement Corollary 11 is true by construction, because Rn(F) is defined as the span of Spt→0(R) − Spt→1(R) for δ-closed R. This is a feature of the axiomatic construction, but it should be labelled more explicitly as a built-in property rather than as a derived theorem, since it is the main input that makes the relation spaces mirror the conjectural K-theoretic identification (3). The surrounding discussion does say the definition is guided by Beilinson–Soulé vanishing, but a reader could mistake Corollary 11 for independent evidence for Conjecture 39. Clarifying this distinction would strengthen the paper's conceptual honesty without changing the mathematics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4, Proposition 14 proof] In the displayed computation for the reversal symmetry, the text says 'in the second equality we used the induction assumption, in the second we changed summation indices'; the second occurrence should presumably be 'in the third' or 'in the fourth', depending on the intended numbering of the equalities.
  2. [§3.2, Proposition 27 proof] The notation log^H is used in the identity I(0;0,...,0;x_{n+1}) = (log^H(x_{n+1}))^n/n! but it is not defined before this point; the authors should either define it or replace it with an explicit description in terms of Cor(x0,x1).
  3. [§4.4, Proposition 45 proof] The sentence 'It follows that δ(M2(R)) = 0 and so δ(M2(R)) lies in the kernel ...' should read 'M2(R) lies in the kernel ...', since the condition δ(M2(R)) = 0 is exactly what places M2(R) in the kernel.
  4. [§5.1, paragraph after Eq. (38)] The notation 'C = P1 \ {∞}' is slightly confusing because C is then used both as the complex plane and as the punctured projective line; the intended meaning is clear, but a brief gloss would help.
  5. [§5.2, paragraph before Eq. (42)] The proof of injectivity of the regulator map (42) is stated as a consequence of Borel's theorem; it would be helpful to indicate explicitly that the comparison of Beilinson and Borel regulators is being used to identify the real regulator with the Borel regulator, rather than merely asserting injectivity of the sum of Hodge realizations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Construction is transparent and the realization theorems rest on external results; the main self-definitional element is the relation space R_n, which is an explicit design choice rather than a load-bearing hidden assumption.

  1. self definitional [§2.3, definition of R_n(F), and Corollary 11]
    "The space Rn(F ) is spanned by elements Spt→0(R) − Spt→1(R) ∈ An(F ) for elements R ∈ An(F (t)) with cobracket equal 0 in V2 Lf (F (t)). ... We have δ(R − R′) = 0, so Sp t→s(R − R′) = Sp t→0(R − R′)."

    R_n(F) is defined as precisely the span of differences of specializations of δ-closed elements, and Corollary 11's proof uses exactly the equality Sp_{t→s} = Sp_{t→0} for the δ-closed element R − R′. Thus the homotopy-invariance isomorphism H^1(Lf(F),Q)_n ≅ H^1(Lf(F(s)),Q)_n is true by construction, not derived from independent axioms. The paper is explicit that this definition is 'Guided by this logic' from K-theory and Beilinson–Soulé vanishing, so this is a transparent design choice. It does not feed into the Hodge or motivic realization proofs, which rely on external results (Malkin's specialization theorem, Goncharov's rigidity, Borel's regulator injectivity). The step is therefore self-definitional but not load-bearing for the central realization claims.

full rationale

The central construction is Lf(F) = A(F)/R(F), with R_n(F) defined inductively as the span of differences of specializations of δ-closed elements. Consequently Corollary 11, the invariance of H^1 under purely transcendental extensions, follows immediately from the definition; the paper does not disguise this, as it says 'Guided by this logic, we define the space Rn(F )...' This is a designed feature, not an independent empirical prediction, and it is not used as evidence for the conjectural isomorphism with K-theory. The load-bearing realization statements are proven against independent external objects: Proposition 48 uses Malkin's specialization identity (40) from [Mal20, Theorem 28] and the rigidity lemma [GR18, Lemma 2.7], while Proposition 50 uses the injectivity of the sum of Beilinson and Borel regulators, equation (42), which is a theorem of Borel. These are not consequences of the definition of R_n, so the central claim that Hf(F) maps to framed mixed Hodge–Tate structures and framed mixed Tate motives does not reduce to the construction's inputs. The cited self-references ([Rud23, Proposition 3.9], [CGRR24, Corollary 6]) transfer proofs in closely related settings but are not load-bearing for the main theorems. The skeptics' concern that [Mal20, Theorem 28] may not cover collapsed, non-étale specializations is a substantive correctness risk about the hypotheses of a cited theorem, but it is not a circularity: it does not make the paper's derivation depend on its own conclusion. On balance, the paper is largely self-contained against external benchmarks; the only circularity-adjacent feature is the explicit definitional enforcement of homotopy invariance in R_n, which is minor and non-load-bearing. Score 2 reflects that minor self-definitional element without treating the realizations as circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central construction is axiomatic: the relation spaces R_n(F) are defined inductively to enforce homotopy invariance. The paper's proven theorems rely on standard theorems of Hodge theory, algebraic K-theory, and Goncharov's theory of correlators. No numerical free parameters are fitted; the main unknown is the conjectural isomorphism with the motivic Hopf algebra.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Existence of the category of mixed Tate motives MTM_F for number fields, with Hopf algebra HM(F) and motivic correlators CorM (Levine, Deligne-Goncharov, Goncharov).
    Invoked in §5.2 to define the motivic realization rM and the elements CorM(x0,...,xn). This is a theorem for number fields, but the paper extends the expectation to arbitrary fields only conjecturally.
  • standard math Injectivity of the map (42), the sum of Beilinson and Borel regulators.
    Used in the proof of Proposition 50 to conclude R0 = R1 in Ext^1_MTM_F; this is a theorem of Borel [Bor77].
  • standard math Malkin's specialization formula (40) for Hodge correlators ([Mal20, Theorem 28]).
    Used in the proof of Proposition 48 to identify specializations of Hodge correlators with correlators of specialized tuples. External theorem.
  • standard math Rigidity lemma for variations of mixed Hodge-Tate structures ([GR18, Lemma 2.7], [Gon02, §8]).
    Used in the inductive proof of Proposition 48 to show a variation with zero cobracket is constant.
  • standard math Suslin's theorem on the Bloch group: kernel of δ on B2(F)Q is invariant under pure transcendental extensions (36).
    Used in Proposition 45 to prove Lf_2(F) ≅ B2(F)Q.
  • ad hoc to paper F is assumed infinite; for finite fields, Lf(F) is set to zero by convention.
    §1.2 and §2: 'For a finite field F we put Lf(F) = 0'. This is a convention justified by Proposition 13 but is not derived.
  • standard math Milnor-Moore theorem and the adjunction between universal coenveloping coalgebra and indecomposables.
    Used in §3.3 to define Hf(F) = U^c(Lf(F)) and to lift iterated integrals from Lf(F) to Hf(F).
invented entities (1)
  • Hopf algebra Hf(F) of formal multiple polylogarithms
    purpose: Candidate model for the conjectural Hopf algebra HM(F) of framed mixed Tate motives; provides an algebraic home for multiple polylogarithm identities.
    Defined in §3.3 as U^c(Lf(F)). The paper proves Hodge and motivic realizations exist, but the conjectural isomorphism with HM(F) is not proven, so there is no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Hopf algebra of formal multiple polylogarithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SHWAODTM

@misc{pith2026241115071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Hopf algebra of formal multiple polylogarithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SHWAODTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15071}
}
read the original abstract

We define a Hopf algebra of polylogarithms of an arbitrary field, which is a candidate for a conjectural Hopf algebra of framed mixed Tate motives. Our definition is elementary and mimics Goncharov's construction of higher Bloch groups. We also discuss the Hodge and motivic realizations of the Hopf algebra of polylogarithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A term in the cobracket for n = 5, j = 1, i = 2. We cut the circle from a labeled point to an arc, and make two new circles with labeled points. The cobracket is obtained by summing over all such cuts. Lemma 2. The map δ is well-defined and satisfies the coJacobi identity. Proof. To see that δ is well-defined, we need to check that it respects relations (A1)–(A6). We check that for (A4); the rest is trivial. First, … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    [Gon95a] A

    doi:10.1090/pspum/055.2/1265551. [Gon95a] A. B. Goncharov. Geometry of configurations, polylogarithms, and motivic cohomology. Adv. Math. , 114(2):197–318,

    doi:10.1090/pspum/055.2/1265551

  2. [9]

    [Gon01a] A. B. Goncharov. The dihedral Lie algebras and Galois symmetries of π(l) 1 (P1 − ({0, ∞} ∪µN )). Duke Math. J., 110(3):397–487, 2001, arXiv:math/0009121. [Gon01b] A. B. Goncharov. Multiple polylogarithms and mixed Tate motives, 2001, arXiv:math/0103059. [Gon02] A. B. Goncharov. Periods and mixed motives, 2002, arXiv:math/0202154. [Gon05] A. B. Go...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  3. [12]

    On the Goncharov Depth Conjecture and polylogarithms of depth two

    [CGRR24] S. Charlton, H. Gangl, D. Radchenko, and D. Rudenko. On the Goncharov depth conjecture and polyloga- rithms of depth two.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 30(2):Paper No. 27, 7, 2024, arXiv:2210.11938. doi:10.1007/s00029- 024-00918-6. [CH22] S. Charlton and M. E. Hoffman. Symmetry results for multiple t-values, 2022, arXiv:2204.14183. [Cha24] S. Charlton. Sy...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [1965]

    [MR22] A

    doi:10.2307/1970615. [MR22] A. Matveiakin and D. Rudenko. Cluster Polylogarithms I: Quadrangular Polylogarithms, 2022, arXiv:2208.01564. [Pan17] E. Panzer. The parity theorem for multiple polylogarithms. J. Number Theory , 172:93–113, 2017, arXiv:1512.04482. doi:10.1016/j.jnt.2016.08.004. THE HOPF ALGEBRA OF FORMAL MULTIPLE POLYLOGARITHMS 27 [Rap88] M. Ra...

    arXiv 2022

  5. [1971]

    [DG05] P

    URL http: //www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1971__40__5_0. [DG05] P. Deligne and A. B. Goncharov. Groupes fondamentaux motiviques de Tate mixte. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) , 38(1):1–56, 2005, arXiv:math/0302267. doi:10.1016/j.ansens.2004.11.001. [Dup21] C. Dupont. Progr` es r´ ecents sur la conjecture de Zagier et le programme de Goncharov [d’apr` es G...

    arXiv 2005

  6. [1980]

    [MM65] J

    doi:10.1016/0001-8708(80)90056-0. [MM65] J. W. Milnor and J. C. Moore. On the structure of Hopf algebras. Ann. of Math. (2) , 81:211–264,

    work page doi:10.1016/0001-8708(80)90056-0

  7. [1985]

    [Sus90] A

    doi:10.4153/CJM-1985- 029-x. [Sus90] A. A. Suslin. K3 of a field, and the Bloch group.Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov., 183:180–199, 229,

    work page doi:10.4153/cjm-1985- 1985

  8. [1988]

    [Rud23] D. Rudenko. On the Goncharov depth conjecture and a formula for volumes of orthoschemes. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 36(4):1003–1060, 2023, arXiv:2012.05599. doi:10.1090/jams/1011. [Sou85] C. Soul´ e. Op´ erations en K-th´ eorie alg´ ebrique.Canad. J. Math. , 37(3):488–550,

    arXiv 2023

Show all 20 references
  1. [1990]

    Steklov Inst

    Translated in Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 1991, no. 4, 217–239, Galois theory, rings, algebraic groups and their applications (Russian). [Yam13] S. Yamamoto. Interpolation of multiple zeta and zeta-star values. J. Algebra , 385:102–114, 2013, arXiv:1203.1118. doi:10.1016/j.jalge...

    1991 arXiv

  2. [1991]

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0457-2

    doi

  3. [1993]

    doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0695-7

    doi

  4. [1994]

    [Be ˘ ı84] A

    doi:10.1090/pspum/055.2/1265552. [Be ˘ ı84] A. A. Be ˘ ılinson. Higher regulators and values of L-functions. In Current problems in mathematics, Vol. 24 , Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki, pages 181–238. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vsesoyuz. Inst. Nauchn. i Tekhn. Inform., Moscow,

    doi

  5. [1995]

    [Gon95b] A

    doi:10.1006/aima.1995.1045. [Gon95b] A. B. Goncharov. Polylogarithms in arithmetic and geometry. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Z¨ urich, 1994), pages 374–387. Birkh¨ auser, Basel,

    1995

  6. [1998]

    [Mal20] N

    doi:10.1090/surv/057. [Mal20] N. Malkin. Shuffle relations for Hodge and motivic correlators, 2020, arXiv:2003.06521. [Mic80] W. Michaelis. Lie coalgebras. Adv. in Math. , 38(1):1–54,

    2020 arXiv

  7. [2002]

    [Bor77] A

    doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(01)00159-2. [Bor77] A. Borel. Cohomologie de SL n et valeurs de fonctions zeta aux points entiers. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) , 4(4):613–636,

    doi

  8. [2004]

    [Gon93] A

    doi:10.1112/S0010437X03000125. [Gon93] A. B. Goncharov. Hyperlogarithms, mixed Tate motives and multiple ζ-numbers,

    doi

  9. [2007]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30308-4

    doi

  10. [2013]

    [Gon19a] A

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2013.03.018. [Gon19a] A. B. Goncharov. Hodge correlators. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 748:1–138, 2019, arXiv:0803.0297. doi:10.1515/crelle-2016-0013. [Gon19b] A. B. Goncharov. Motivic fundamental group of Gm \ µn and modular manifolds, 2019, arXiv...

    2013 arXiv

  11. [2016]

    doi:10.1142/9634. (Charlton) Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Vivatsgasse 7, 53111 Bonn, Germany Email address : charlton@mpim-bonn.mpg.de (Matveiakin) Email address : a.matveiakin@gmail.com (Radchenko) Laboratoire Paul Painlev´e, Universit´e de Lille, F-59655 Villeneuve ...

    doi

  12. [2020]

    [Lev93] M

    ©2020, arXiv:1805.12464. [Lev93] M. Levine. Tate motives and the vanishing conjectures for algebraic K-theory. In Algebraic K-theory and algebraic topology (Lake Louise, AB,

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.