Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Cohomology, Homotopy, Extensions, and Automorphisms of Nijenhuis Lie Conformal Algebras

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras support a complete cohomological toolkit: extension classes, deformation obstructions, and automorphism lifts all live in cohomology.

desk verdict Sections 3-5 are a solid translation exercise, but the Wells map in Section 6 subtracts non-abelian cocycles in a pointed set, so the automorphism results are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20867 v1 pith:HTP4PJ46 submitted 2025-05-27 math.RA

Sania Asif This is my paper
classification math.RA MSC 17B6517B1017B3817B6914F3518N1018N40
keywords NijenhuisLieconformalalgebraL∞-conformalcohomologyhomotopynon-abelianextensionautomorphisminducibilitycrossedmodule
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

Lie conformal algebras are algebraic models of operator product expansions, and a Nijenhuis operator on such an algebra is a linear map that manufactures new bracket laws while preserving the structure. The paper tries to establish that Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras support the full cohomological package familiar from Lie algebras: a cohomology theory that controls formal deformations, a 2-term homotopy theory matching crossed modules and 3-cocycles, a classification of non-abelian extensions by the second non-abelian cohomology set $H^2_{\mathrm{nab}}(L_N,H_Q)$, and an obstruction map that decides when a pair of automorphisms lifts to an automorphism of an extension. If correct, extension-theoretic and automorphism-theoretic questions about these deformed conformal algebras reduce to cohomological computations, just as they do for ordinary Lie algebras and groups.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are four. First, the total cochain complex $\{C^*_{NL}(L,M),d_{NL}\}$ combines the Lie conformal coboundary $\delta$ with the Nijenhuis coboundary $d_N$ through a comparison map $\xi$; it carries the deformation and obstruction classes. Second, a non-abelian 2-cocycle is a triple $(\chi_\lambda,\rho,\Phi)$ encoding how a chosen section of an extension fails to respect the bracket and the Nijenhuis operator; it is the datum from which the extension is reconstructed. Third, the obstruction map $W:\mathrm{Aut}(H_Q)\times \mathrm{Aut}(L_N)\to H^2_{\mathrm{nab}}(L_N,H_Q)$ twists a cocycle by a pair of automorphisms and measures the difference from the original cocycle; its vanishing is the inducibility criterion. Fourth, a homotopy Nijenhuis operator $(N_0,N_1,N_2)$ on a 2-term $\mathcal{L}_\infty$-conformal algebra connects the skeletal case to third cohomology classes and the strict case to crossed modules.

What would settle it

Take the non-abelian extension built from a cocycle $(\chi_\lambda,\rho,\Phi)$ and compute $W(\alpha,\beta)$ for one fixed pair $(\alpha,\beta)$ using two different sections; if the two resulting classes differ, the map is not well-defined and Theorem 6.5 fails as stated, while if they always agree the section-independence claim is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the category of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras is rich enough to carry the classical apparatus of extensions and automorphisms. Concretely, the paper proves that equivalence classes of non-abelian extensions $0\to H_Q\to E_R\to L_N\to 0$ are in bijection with the second non-abelian cohomology set $H^2_{\mathrm{nab}}(L_N,H_Q)$ (Theorem 5.7), and that a pair $(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathrm{Aut}(H_Q)\times \mathrm{Aut}(L_N)$ is inducible if and only if the obstruction map $W(\alpha,\beta)$ vanishes (Theorem 6.5), yielding the exact sequence of Theorem 6.6. Along the way it builds a cohomology $H^*_{NL}$ for these algebras, shows that low-degree cohomology classes obstruct and control deformations of the Nijenhuis operator, and introduces 2-term Nijenhuis $\mathcal{L}_\infty$-conformal algebras whose skeletal representatives are classified by 3-cocycles and whose strict representatives correspond to crossed modules.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that subtracting one non-abelian 2-cocycle from another yields a well-defined element of the second non-abelian cohomology set, even though that set is not an abelian group and has no built-in zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equivalence classes of non-abelian extensions of $L_N$ by $H_Q$ correspond bijectively to elements of $H^2_{\mathrm{nab}}(L_N,H_Q)$, so classifying extensions reduces to solving the four cocycle identities that define a non-abelian 2-cocycle.
  • A pair of automorphisms $(\alpha,\beta)$ lifts to an automorphism of the extension exactly when $W(\alpha,\beta)$ is trivial, and Theorem 6.6 gives the exact sequence linking automorphism groups with $H^2_{\mathrm{nab}}$.
  • The cohomology of the Nijenhuis operator controls deformation theory: each finite-order deformation has an obstruction class in $H^2_N(L,L)$, and the deformation extends exactly when that class vanishes.
  • Skeletal 2-term Nijenhuis $\mathcal{L}_\infty$-conformal algebras are classified by triples $(L_N,M_Q,(g,\tau))$ with $(g,\tau)\in H^3_{NL}(L_N,M_Q)$.
  • Strict 2-term Nijenhuis $\mathcal{L}_\infty$-conformal algebras are in one-to-one correspondence with crossed modules of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras, and each such crossed module produces a non-abelian extension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pointed-set issue in the definition of $W$ is repaired, the natural reading of Theorem 6.5 is that $W(\alpha,\beta)$ equals the class of the original cocycle, and the exact sequence should be stated with $H^2_{\mathrm{nab}}$ treated as a pointed set.
  • The strict/skeletal dichotomy suggests that higher-dimensional Nijenhuis conformal structures would be governed by higher non-abelian cohomology; the crossed-module extension of Example 5.3 is a concrete place to test this.
  • The deformation results give a practical criterion: for a Nijenhuis operator with $H^2_N(L,L)=0$, every finite-order deformation extends, a statement that could be checked on explicit free conformal algebras.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a cohomological and homotopical framework for Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras, i.e., Lie conformal algebras (L, [·_λ·]) equipped with a Nijenhuis operator N. Section 3 defines a cochain complex for such algebras (a total complex combining the Chevalley–Eilenberg-type complex of L with the Nijenhuis-operator complex), connects it to the formal deformation theory of N, and upgrades it to arbitrary Nijenhuis representations. Section 4 introduces 2-term Nijenhuis L∞-conformal algebras and claims that skeletal ones are classified by third cohomology classes of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras, while strict ones are in bijection with crossed modules of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras. Section 5 defines non-abelian 2-cocycles (χ, ρ, Φ) attached to extensions 0 → HQ → ER → LN → 0 and states (Theorem 5.7) a bijection between equivalence classes of non-abelian extensions and the set H^2_nab(LN, HQ); the abelian case is treated as a special case (Theorem 5.8). Section 6 studies the inducibility of pairs (α, β) ∈ Aut(HQ) × Aut(LN), introduces a Wells-type map W : Aut(HQ) × Aut(LN) → H^2_nab(LN, HQ), and claims that (α, β) is inducible if and only if W(α, β) vanishes, together with a Wells exact sequence (Theorems 6.5 and 6.6).

Significance. If the main theorems were correct, Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras would inherit the full standard apparatus: deformation obstructions (Theorem 3.9), homotopical classifications (Theorems 4.7 and 4.10), non-abelian extension classification (Theorem 5.7), and the automorphism inducibility criterion with an associated exact sequence (Theorems 6.5 and 6.6). The paper is largely a systematic adaptation of known constructions (Frégier's non-abelian cohomology [13]; Sahoo–Das and Baez–Lauda for 2-term L∞-conformal algebras; Wells for automorphisms), and its main virtue is explicitness: concrete cochain formulas, detailed cocycle identities in Lemma 5.4, and a direct construction of the extension from a cocycle in the proof of Theorem 5.7. I find Sections 3 and 4 plausible, with the non-abelian classification of Theorem 5.7 recoverable after a small repair to Definition 5.5. The load-bearing problem is concentrated in Section 6: the stress-test concern about subtracting non-abelian 2-cocycles is confirmed by direct inspection of Definition 6.3 and Eq.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Definition 6.3] Definition 6.3 defines the Wells map by W(α, β) = [(χ^{(α,β)}, ρ^{(α,β)}, Φ^{(α,β)}) − (χ, ρ, Φ)] as an element of H^2_nab(LN, HQ). This is not well-defined. H^2_nab is introduced in Definition 5.6 as the set of equivalence classes of non-abelian 2-cocycles; the paper never equips this set with a group structure, a subtraction, or a zero element. Furthermore, the triple obtained by subtracting two non-abelian 2-cocycles is never shown to be a non-abelian 2-cocycle: Lemma 6.2 proves only that the twisted triple (χ^{(α,β)}, ρ^{(α,β)}, Φ^{(α,β)}) is itself a cocycle. A direct check of Eq. (29) shows the obstruction: subtracting the identity (29) for the twisted cocycle from the identity for the original cocycle leaves cross terms such as ρ^{(α,β)}(p)_λ(ρ(q)_μ h) − ρ(p)_λ(ρ^{(α,β)}(q)_μ h), which do not cancel and are not forced to be of the form [x_{λ+μ} h]_H. Consequently 'W(α, β) = 0' has no defined meaning as written. The proof of Theorem 6.5 silently replaces 'W(α, β) = 0' with the different statement that (χ^{(α,β)}, ρ^{(α,β)}, Φ^{(α,β)}) and (χ, ρ, Φ) are equivalent in the sense of Definition 5.6, and Proposition 6.4 repeats the same subtraction for cocycles coming from two different sections. Since the Wells map and its vanishing are the advertised content of Section 6, Theorems 6.5 and 6.6 are unsupported as stated. The paper's own argument suggests the local fix: regard H^2_nab as a pointed set with basepoint the class of (χ, ρ, Φ), set W(α, β) = [(χ^{(α,β)}, ρ^{(α,β)}, Φ^{(α,β)})], and read 'W(α, β) = 0' as equality with that basepoint; the exact sequence of Theorem 6.6 can then be formulated with 'kernel' interpreted as the preimage of the basepoint. Note that the classification in Theorem 5.7 does not use this subtraction and is not affected by this particular flaw. The abstract's phrase 'second non-abelian cohomology group' should also be corrected to 'set'.
  2. [Section 5, Definition 5.5 / Theorem 5.7] Definition 5.5 declares a triple (χ_λ, ρ, Φ) to be a non-abelian 2-cocycle if it satisfies Eqs. (29)–(32), but it omits the conformal sesquilinearity and conformal skew-symmetry of χ (e.g., χ_{−∂−λ}(q, p) = −χ_λ(p, q)) and the analogous sesquilinearity of ρ. Cocycles obtained from a section of an extension via (26)–(28) automatically satisfy these identities, but the converse direction of Theorem 5.7 constructs the bracket [(p, h)_λ(q, k)]_E := ([p_λ q]_L, ρ(p)_λ k − ρ(q)_{−∂−λ} h + χ_λ(p, q) + [h_λ k]_H) on E = L ⊕ H and asserts, without verification, that this is a conformal skew-symmetric λ-bracket; for an arbitrary triple satisfying only (29)–(32), skew-symmetry can fail. The fix is local: add the conformal conditions to Definition 5.5; the converse construction then goes through.
  3. [Section 5.1, Theorem 5.8] Theorem 5.8 is stated without proof ('Similar to Theorem 5.7 ...'), and the assertion Ext_ab(LN, MQ) ≅ H^2(LN, MQ) requires identifying the equivalence classes of cocycles satisfying (30)–(32) (with trivial bracket on M) with the cohomology of the total complex defined in Section 3.5. This identification is not established: in the abelian case ρ is fixed data of the representation whereas in Section 5 it is part of the cocycle, and the equivalence relations (36)–(37) are not shown to coincide with the coboundary of the total cochain complex, all the more so because the cocycle conditions in Section 5.1 omit the conformal skew-symmetry built into the cochains of Section 3.1. Please supply the proof or a comparison of the two cohomology theories; as it stands, the abelian classification does not follow from Theorem 5.7 as written.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Definition 2.3 vs. Section 3.5] The homomorphism condition is stated inconsistently: Definition 2.3 requires ψ ∘ N = N′ ∘ ψ, while the paragraph before Definition 3.11 writes ψ ∘ N′ = N ∘ ψ. The two conditions are incompatible in general, and the former is the one used in the rest of the paper.
  2. [Lemma 5.4, Eq. (31)] Equation (31) has an unbalanced parenthesis ('− Q((ρ(p)_λ h)') and the placement of the Q-terms should be rewritten to match the calculation in the proof; as printed, the identity is hard to parse and verify.
  3. [Definition 3.5, Theorem 3.6] The equivalence of deformations in Definition 3.5 fixes the first-order term of ψ_t to be t[p_λ −] for a single p ∈ L, whereas the standard notion allows an arbitrary first-order term ψ_1 ∈ C^1(L, L). With this restricted notion, Theorem 3.6's claim that the cohomology class of N_1 depends only on the equivalence class of the deformation is established only for the restricted family.
  4. [Section 5.1, abelian Eq. (32)] In the displayed abelian version of Eq. (32) in Section 5.1, the term 'Q[p_λ q]_L' should evidently be 'Φ([p_λ q]_L)': as printed, Q (a map on M) is applied to the L-element [p_λ q]_L.
  5. [Section 6, Theorem 6.6] The Wells exact sequence is stated without proof; even after the pointed-set reformulation of Major Comment 1, the exactness assertions need at least a brief argument.
  6. [References] Reference [27] contains a duplicated fragment: 'Mathematical Society, 108(2), pp.293-312.' appears twice at the end of the entry.
  7. [Abstract and notation] The symbols H^2_NL, H^2(LN, MQ), and H^2_nab denote three different objects and should be distinguished by notation; the abstract also calls H^2_nab a 'group' although Definition 5.6 defines only a set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivations are direct verifications or external imports, and the Wells-map subtraction issue is a well-definedness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's constructions are definition-driven rather than circular. The cohomology of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras is built from two standard cochain complexes (delta and d_N), with d_{NL}^2 = 0 verified directly in Theorem 3.16; no self-cited result is used to establish d^2 = 0. The skeletal and strict 2-term classifications are unpackings of the defining identities: Proposition 4.6 identifies the cocycle equations coming from the skeletal identities, and Theorem 4.10 establishes the crossed-module equivalence by explicit inverse constructions. The non-abelian extension classification in Theorem 5.7 imports the cocycle equations and Jacobi identity from Fregier [13], an external source, and then verifies section-independence and the inverse maps internally; the equivalence relation in Definition 5.6 is not defined in terms of extension equivalence, so the bijection has independent content. The Wells map in Definition 6.3 is a reformulation of Proposition 6.1, showing that inducibility is equivalent to equivalence of the original and twisted cocycles; although the stated subtraction of non-abelian 2-cocycles is not rigorously justified, that is a correctness or well-definedness defect rather than a circular reduction of the theorem to its own input. The self-citations [1] through [6] appear only as contextual references in the introduction and for standard conformal sesquilinearity conditions, and none carries a load-bearing step. There are no fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' own prior work. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters, as it is a structural algebra paper. It relies on standard definitions of conformal algebras and L-infinity conformal algebras, on imported non-abelian cocycle equations, and on an explicit C[∂]-split assumption for extensions. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or other invented entities appear.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Definitions of Lie conformal algebras, representations, and their standard cohomology from [18,19] are taken as background.
    Used throughout Section 3 without reproof; standard in the literature.
  • domain assumption The definition and identities for L-infinity conformal algebras and 2-term structures are imported from [25] and [8].
    Section 4 adopts these identities as the definition of the objects whose Nijenhuis versions are then studied.
  • domain assumption The non-abelian 2-cocycle equations (29) and (30) are taken from Fregier [13] for Lie conformal algebras.
    Section 5 builds the classification on these imported equations without deriving them.
  • domain assumption Extensions are assumed to be C[∂]-split; the paper notes this restriction around Definition 5.1.
    The classification in Theorem 5.7 applies only to split conformal module extensions, so the scope of the theorem is narrower than the unqualified wording suggests.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cohomology, Homotopy, Extensions, and Automorphisms of Nijenhuis Lie Conformal Algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTP4PJ46

@misc{pith2026250520867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cohomology, Homotopy, Extensions, and Automorphisms of Nijenhuis Lie Conformal Algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTP4PJ46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20867}
}
abstract

This paper explores various algebraic and homotopical aspects of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras, including their cohomology theory, $\mathcal{L}_\infty$-structures, non-abelian extensions, and automorphism groups. We define the cohomology of a Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebra and relate it to the deformation theory of such structures. We also introduce $2$-term Nijenhuis $\mathcal{L}_\infty$-conformal algebras and establish their correspondence with crossed modules and $3$-cocycles in the cohomology of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras. Furthermore, we develop a classification theory for non-abelian extensions of Nijenhuis Lie conformal algebras via the second non-abelian cohomology group. Finally, we study the inducibility problem for automorphisms under such extensions, introducing a Wells-type map and deriving an associated exact sequence.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Fr´ egier, Non-abelian cohomology of extensions of Lie algebras as Deligne groupoid, J

    Y. Fr´ egier, Non-abelian cohomology of extensions of Lie algebras as Deligne groupoid, J. Algebra 398 (2014), 243-257

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Exploring Cohomology, Deformations, and Hom-NS Structures in Hom-Leibniz Conformal Algebras through Nijenhuis Operators

    Asif, S., 2025. Exploring Cohomology, Deformations, and Hom-NS Structures in Hom-Leibniz Conformal Algebras through Nijenhuis Operators. Complex Analysis and Operator Theory

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    and Wang, Y., 2025

    Asif, S. and Wang, Y., 2025. Rota-Baxter Operators and Loday-Type Algebras on the BiHom-Associative Conformal Algebras. Complex Analysis and Operator Theory, 19(2), pp.1-32

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Cohomology and Homotopification of averaging operators on the Lie conformal algebras

    Asif, S. and Wu, Z., 2024. Cohomology and Homotopification of averaging operators on the Lie conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20433

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    and Wu, Z., 2024

    Asif, S., Wang, Y. and Wu, Z., 2024. RB-operator and Nijenhuis operator on Hom-associative conformal algebra. Journal of Algebra and its Applications, 23(11), p.2450175

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    and Yuan, L., 2024

    Asif, S., Wang, Y. and Yuan, L., 2024. Nijenhuis-operator on Hom-Lie conformal algebras. Topology and its Applications, 344, p.108817

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Cohomology and deformation theory of $\mathcal{O}$-operators on Hom-Lie conformal algebras

    Asif, S., Wang, Y., Mosbahi, B. and Basdouri, I., 2023. Cohomology and deformation theory of O-operators on Hom-Lie conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04121

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    and Hohm, O., 2020

    Bonezzi, R. and Hohm, O., 2020. Leibniz gauge theories and infinity structures. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 377(3), pp.2027-2077

    work page 2020

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    and Lauda, A.D., 2004

    Baez, J.C. and Lauda, A.D., 2004. Higher-dimensional algebra. V: 2-Groups. Theory and Applications of Categories [electronic only], 12, pp.423-491

    2004

  2. [9]

    Cohomology theory of Nijenhuis Lie algebras and (generic) Nijenhuis Lie bialgebras

    Das, A., 2025. Cohomology theory of Nijenhuis Lie algebras and (generic) Nijenhuis Lie bialgebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16257

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Controlling structures, deformations and homotopy theory for Nijenhuis algebras

    Das, A., 2023. Controlling structures, deformations and homotopy theory for Nijenhuis algebras. arXiv e-prints, pp.arXiv-2303

    2023

  4. [11]

    and Sahoo, A., 2023

    Das, A. and Sahoo, A., 2023. Homotopification and categorification of Leibniz conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02116

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    and Sen, S., 2024

    Das, A. and Sen, S., 2024. 2-term Averaging L∞-algebras and non-abelian extensions of Nijenhuis Lie algebras. Journal of Algebra, 644, pp.126-151

    2024

  6. [14]

    On the deformation of rings and algebras

    Gerstenhaber, M., 1964. On the deformation of rings and algebras. Annals of Mathematics, pp.59-103

    1964

  7. [15]

    Hochschild and J.-P

    G. Hochschild and J.-P. Serre, Cohomology of group extensions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1953), 110-134

    1953

  8. [16]

    and Bai, C., 2021

    Hong, Y. and Bai, C., 2021. On antisymmetric infinitesimal conformal bialgebras. Journal of Algebra, 586, pp.325-356

    2021

  9. [17]

    and Zhao, J., 2024

    Hou, B. and Zhao, J., 2024. Crossed modules, non-abelian extensions of associative conformal algebras, and wells exact se- quences. Journal of Algebra and Its Applications, p.2650033

    2024

  10. [18]

    Vertex algebras for beginners (No

    Kac, V.G., 1998. Vertex algebras for beginners (No. 10). American Mathematical Society

    1998

  11. [19]

    Associative conformal algebras with finite faithful representation

    Kolesnikov, P.S., 2006. Associative conformal algebras with finite faithful representation. Advances in Mathematics, 202(2), pp.602-637

    2006

  12. [20]

    and Schnitzer, J., 2024

    Kraft, A. and Schnitzer, J., 2024. An introduction to L∞-algebras and their homotopy theory for the working mathematician. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 36(1), pp.2330006-170

    2024

  13. [21]

    and Stasheff, J., 1993

    Lada, T. and Stasheff, J., 1993. Introduction to SH Lie algebras for physicists. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 32, pp.1087-1103

    1993

  14. [22]

    On conformal bialgebras

    Liberati, J.I., 2008. On conformal bialgebras. Journal of Algebra, 319(6), pp.2295-2318

    2008

  15. [23]

    Cohomology theory in abstract groups

    MacLane, S., 1949. Cohomology theory in abstract groups. III. Annals of Mathematics, 50(3), pp.736-761

    1949

  16. [24]

    and Yadav, M.K., 2010

    Passi, I.B.S., Singh, M. and Yadav, M.K., 2010. Automorphisms of abelian group extensions. Journal of Algebra, 324(4), pp.820-830

    2010

  17. [25]

    and Das, A., 2023

    Sahoo, A. and Das, A., 2023. Homotopy conformal algebras. arXiv e-prints, pp.arXiv-2308

    2023

  18. [26]

    and Zhu, C., 2021

    Sheng, Y., Tang, R. and Zhu, C., 2021. The controlling L∞-algebra, cohomology and homotopy of embedding tensors and Lie-Leibniz triples. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 386(1), pp.269-304

    2021

  19. [27]

    Homotopy associativity of H-spaces

    Stasheff, J.D., 1963. Homotopy associativity of H-spaces. II. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 108(2), pp.293-312.Mathematical Society, 108(2), pp.293-312

    1963

  20. [28]

    and Zhou, G., Cohomology theory of Nijenhuis algebras, L∞-structures and homotopy Nijenhuis algebras

    Wang, K. and Zhou, G., Cohomology theory of Nijenhuis algebras, L∞-structures and homotopy Nijenhuis algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11618, 2

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Automorphisms of group extensions

    Wells, C., 1971. Automorphisms of group extensions. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, pp.189-194. 26 SANIA ASIF1

    1971

  22. [30]

    and Richardson, R.W., 1966

    Nijenhuis, A. and Richardson, R.W., 1966. Cohomology and deformations in graded Lie algebras. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 72(1), pp.1-29

    1966

  23. [31]

    and Nirenberg, L., 1957

    Newlander, A. and Nirenberg, L., 1957. Complex analytic coordinates in almost complex manifolds. Annals of Mathematics, 65(3), pp.391-404

    1957

  24. [32]

    and Saha, R., 2024

    Mondal, B. and Saha, R., 2024. Nijenhuis operators on Leibniz algebras. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 196, p.105057

    2024

  25. [33]

    Conformal Lie 2 −algebras and conformal omni-Lie algebras

    Zhang, T., 2022. Conformal Lie 2 −algebras and conformal omni-Lie algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06903. 1 Institute of Mathematics, Henan Academy of Sciences, Zhengzhou, 450046, P.R. China. Email address : 111835037@zju.edu.cn

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.