Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

$\mathbb{E}_2$-algebra structures on the derived center of an algebraic scheme

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The Hochschild complex of an associative algebra or smooth scheme is the operadic center of its structure sheaf, hence a canonical $E_2$-algebra whose bracket and cup product agree with the classical Gerstenhaber algebra.

desk verdict A genuinely useful paper on centers and Deligne's conjecture, held back by one unverified rectification hypothesis in the global section that a referee should check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14069 v1 pith:5T5GBK4Y submitted 2025-06-16 math.AT math.AGmath.QA

Sonja Farr This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.ATmath.AGmath.QA MSC 18N7014F08
keywords HochschildcohomologyoperadiccenterE2-algebraDeligneconjectureGerstenhaberalgebrapolydifferentialoperatorsdgsheavesDunnadditivity
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

This paper tries to establish that the Hochschild cochain complex of an associative algebra, and more generally of the structure sheaf of an algebraic scheme, is the universal object acting on that algebra: its operadic center. Because the center of an $E_1$-algebra is automatically an $E_2$-algebra, every Hochschild complex thereby carries an $E_2$-algebra structure in a canonical way, without choices. The paper further claims that in the affine and smooth cases this universal structure specializes on cohomology to the classical Gerstenhaber cup product and bracket, matching the known Braces-algebra solutions to Deligne's conjecture. The construction is also local, so it gives a definition of Hochschild cohomology for quasi-compact separated schemes, even singular ones, by gluing the affine centers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\infty$-operadic center $Z_{E_1}(A)$: the universal associative algebra acting on $A$, defined as a final object in the $\infty$-category of algebra actions. By the Dunn additivity theorem, the center of an $E_1$-algebra is an $E_2$-algebra, so the center automatically carries the higher structure sought by Deligne's conjecture. The paper identifies this center, in the dg setting, with the derived endomorphism object of $A$ as an $A$-bimodule, and then proves a rectification theorem comparing strict algebras over the dg operad of little 1-cubes with algebras over the corresponding $\infty$-operad. This allows the author to compute the $E_2$-bracket as a chain homotopy built from composition and convolution products, and yields a technical corollary that extracts the Gerstenhaber bracket of any $E_2$-algebra obtained from a 2-algebra via Dunn additivity.

What would settle it

Find one affine open $U=\mathrm{Spec}(A)$ where the local projective model structure on dg presheaves fails to admit a lax symmetric monoidal fibrant replacement, or where the rectification theorem does not apply; then the equivalence $R\Gamma_U(Z(\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_X))\simeq Z(\tilde{A})$ would not follow from the stated machinery. Alternatively, compute directly from the center action the $E_2$-bracket on $C^*(A,A)$ for a small algebra such as $k[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2$ and compare it with the signed Gerstenhaber bracket; any mismatch would disprove Corollary 4.50.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem C: for a smooth quasi-compact separated finite-type scheme $X$ over a characteristic-zero field $k$, the sheaf of polydifferential operators $D_{\mathrm{poly}}(X)$ is equivalent to the $E_1$-center $Z_{E_1}(\mathcal{O}_X)$ of the structure sheaf in the $\infty$-category of dg sheaves. Since the center of an $E_1$-algebra is an $E_2$-algebra by the Dunn additivity theorem, this equips $D_{\mathrm{poly}}(X)$ with an $E_2$-algebra structure whose underlying Gerstenhaber algebra in the homotopy category is the classical one coming from the Braces-algebra structure. In the affine case (Theorem A), the same statement holds for the Hochschild complex $C^*(A,A)$ of any associative $k$-algebra $A$, viewed as the center of $A$ in the derived $\infty$-category of chain complexes. The construction is local: for an affine open $U = \mathrm{Spec}(A)$ of a quasi-compact separated scheme, $R\Gamma_U(Z(\tilde{\mathcal{O}}_X)) \simeq Z(\tilde{A})$ (Theorem B), so singularities do not obstruct the definition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the model category of dg presheaves with the local projective structure satisfies the technical hypotheses of the rectification theorem, including a lax symmetric monoidal fibrant replacement, and the paper mostly cites earlier work for these checks rather than verifying them directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deligne's conjecture is recovered as a formal consequence: the Hochschild complex of any associative $k$-algebra is an $E_2$-algebra by construction, because it is a center.
  • For smooth schemes, the sheaf of polydifferential operators inherits the universal $E_2$-structure, so the classical Gerstenhaber bracket used in deformation quantization is the shadow of a canonical $\infty$-categorical structure.
  • The definition of Hochschild cohomology as the center of $\mathcal{O}_X$ works without smoothness; for a quasi-compact separated scheme the center is local and restricts to the affine Hochschild complex on affine opens.
  • The comparison to the Braces-algebra structure means the new structure is not a different exotic structure but the same Gerstenhaber algebra in cohomology, so existing deformation-quantization results can be reinterpreted in terms of centers.
  • The main technical corollary about extracting the bracket of an $E_2$-algebra applies to any $E_2$-algebra obtained via Dunn additivity, not only to Hochschild complexes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identification is correct, the Hochschild complex of any algebra over a characteristic-zero field is equipped with an essentially universal $E_2$-structure; this suggests a route to lifting known group actions on formality isomorphisms to an action on centers.
  • The locality result suggests that the derived center of the structure sheaf is the right global Hochschild complex even for singular schemes, where the sheaf of polydifferential operators is not available; one could test this by computing the center for a singular affine variety and comparing with known Hochschild cohomology.
  • One could extend the comparison beyond cohomology: the paper compares the Gerstenhaber algebra in the homotopy category, but the full chain-level $E_2$-structure may differ from any chosen Braces-algebra solution by a non-trivial homotopy, and quantifying that difference could connect to associator dependence.
  • The bracket-extraction corollary may give a practical formula for computing $E_2$ brackets in any symmetric monoidal dg model category, since the bracket is expressed as a sum of four explicit chain homotopies.
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 develops a comparison between Lurie's higher-center construction and classical Hochschild cohomology. In the affine case, it identifies the Hochschild complex of an associative k-algebra with the E1-center of the algebra in the derived ∞-category, thereby obtaining an E2-algebra structure, and it proves that the induced Gerstenhaber bracket and cup product agree with the classical ones. In the global case, the paper defines the Hochschild complex of a quasi-compact separated scheme as the E1-center of its structure sheaf in the ∞-category of dg sheaves, proves a locality theorem for affine opens (Theorem 5.61), and, for smooth schemes, identifies the resulting object with the sheaf of polydifferential operators Dpoly(X) (Theorem 5.69, Corollary 5.73). A separate technical result (Corollary 3.33) describes how to extract the bracket operation of an E2-algebra obtained via Lurie's Dunn Additivity from the underlying 2-algebra.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a conceptual, canonical framework for Deligne's conjecture and extends it to schemes without smoothness assumptions. The affine part appears well-motivated and largely sound, and the extraction of the Gerstenhaber bracket from the higher Eckmann-Hilton argument is a useful contribution. The paper makes explicit and productive use of Lurie's Higher Algebra, Hinich's rectification, and Yekutieli's identification of the bar complex of a scheme; it does not fit parameters or tune structures to force agreement. However, the global results, especially Theorem C, rest on the applicability of a rectification theorem whose hypotheses are not verified for the local projective model structure on presheaves, and this is the main correctness risk.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 and §4.2] The global construction of the center of OX uses Theorem 4.38 with C equal to dgPSh(X) equipped with the local projective model structure. The hypotheses of Theorem 4.38 require that C be cofibrantly generated and symmetrically flat, that C*(O) be admissible and well-pointed in the sense of [PS18a, Definition 6.1], and that C admit a lax symmetric monoidal fibrant replacement. Proposition 5.56 establishes that dgPSh(X) is a closed symmetric monoidal dg model category, and Lemma 5.59 proves admissibility and strong admissibility of CX(C*(E1)), but the paper never verifies symmetrically flatness, well-pointedness of C*(E1), or the existence of a lax symmetric monoidal fibrant replacement for the local projective model structure. Since the local projective structure is a left Bousfield localization of the projective structure, its fibrant replacement is not the identity and is not automatically lax symmetric monoidal. As Theorem 5.69 and Corollary 5.73 depend on the equivalence Φ of Theorem 4.38, this is a load-bearing gap in the proof of the main global claims.
  2. [§4.2, proof of Theorem 4.38] The proof of Theorem 4.38 is not carried out to the standard required for a central result. Steps (a)-(c) of [Lur17, Theorem 4.5.4.7] are said to be proven 'exactly like' in the reference, step (d) uses [PS18a, Proposition 7.9], and step (e) is delegated to Hinich's Lemma 4.3.4 with the comment that 'one readily sees that all his arguments still work for any symmetric monoidal dg model category C.' Since the theorem is used both to make OX into an E1-algebra in Sh∞(X) and to strictify the resulting E2-algebra, the manuscript should either provide the full verification of the hypotheses of [Lur17, Corollary 4.7.3.16] and the conservativity of the forgetful functor, or cite a precise theorem from the literature that applies verbatim to the local projective model structure on dgPSh(X).
  3. [§5.4, Lemma 5.72 and Corollary 5.73] The comparison between the center E2-algebra structure and the classical Gerstenhaber structure on Dpoly(X) is not fully justified. Lemma 5.72 says that a homotopy H defined locally on B(A) 'glues together to yield a global homotopy', but the gluing of these chain homotopies across affine opens, and their compatibility with the equivalence Dpoly(X) ≃ ZE1(OX), is asserted rather than proven. Corollary 5.73 then invokes Corollary 4.43 to conclude that the bracket is the classical one, but Corollary 4.43 applies to a 2-algebra in the dg nerve of a symmetric monoidal dg model category, and the proof does not identify the global homotopy class in the mapping complex of Dpoly(X) with the image of the double twist under the E2-algebra structure. This is a gap in the proof of the agreement of Gerstenhaber structures, which is part of the statement of Theorem C.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The phrase 'Bordmann-Vogt tensor products' should read 'Boardman-Vogt tensor products'.
  2. [§5.1] The sentence 'If X is a quasi-compact seperable scheme over k' contains a typo: 'seperable' should be 'separated'.
  3. [Introduction] The phrase 'changing the Dulfo element' should be 'changing the Duflo element'.
  4. [§5.3, proof of Theorem 5.69] The reference to [Yek02, Corollary 2.9] should be stated explicitly, since the quoted result is the key input that identifies ∆∗Dpoly(X) with RHomOX×kX(∆∗OX, ∆∗OX); the reader should not have to locate the precise corollary in Yekutieli's paper.
  5. [§4.5, Corollary 4.50] The phrase 'naturally carries the structure of a C∗(E2)-algebra' is imprecise: what is constructed is an E2-algebra in the derived ∞-category, and the strictification via Theorem 4.38 is not explicitly written down on the level of the concrete complex Homk(A⊗∗, A). A precise statement of which model is strictified would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the center-to-Hochschild identifications and Gerstenhaber-bracket comparison are proved from the universal property of the center using external foundational theorems, and the classical structure is the target of comparison, not an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The affine claim is proved by verifying the universal property of the infinity-operadic center for the Hochschild complex: Theorem 4.47 shows that ev makes Map_{Ch(A^e)}(P,P) a center, using rectification of algebras and modules from Hinich and Pavlov-Scholbach, together with the dg morphism-object theorem 4.42. The center is not defined as the Hochschild complex; the equivalence is deduced from the uniqueness of final objects only after this verification. The E2-structure is inherited from Lurie's Dunn Additivity Theorem 2.19, and the comparison with Gerstenhaber's classical cup product and bracket is a separate computation: Corollaries 3.33 and 4.43 extract the bracket from Eckmann-Hilton 2-simplices, and Corollary 4.50 matches the resulting chain homotopies with the classical Hochschild formulas (including signs) rather than importing the classical bracket. The global case follows the same pattern: Theorem 5.69 uses Yekutieli's identification of Dpoly(X) with the diagonal endomorphism complex as an external input, and Corollary 5.73 repeats the comparison to the classical Gerstenhaber structure. There are no fitted parameters, no prediction from a subset of data, and every load-bearing cited result (Lurie, Hinich, Pavlov-Scholbach, Yekutieli, Witherspoon) is external to the paper and does not presuppose the theorem being proved. The main risk identified by a skeptical reading, namely that the hypotheses of Rectification Theorem 4.38 for the local projective model structure on dgPSh(X) are not checked in detail, is a proof-completeness and correctness concern, not circularity, because Theorem 4.38 is an imported external result rather than a restatement of the paper's conclusion. No self-citation is used as load-bearing evidence.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new postulated entities. Its load-bearing inputs are standard theorems in infinity-operad theory, rectification results for dg model categories, the characteristic-zero assumption, and Yekutieli's comparison for polydifferential operators. These are all external to the paper and are cited rather than proved from scratch.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Lurie's Higher Algebra framework for infinity-operads, algebras, modules, and the Dunn Additivity Theorem (Lur17, Theorem 5.1.2.2).
    Used throughout: centers are E2-algebras because E1-algebras in E1-algebras are E2-algebras, and Theorem 2.19 is the bridge.
  • domain assumption The rectification and admissibility hypotheses of Hinich and Pavlov-Scholbach: the dg model categories Ch(k) and dgPSh(X) are cofibrantly generated, symmetrically flat, with admissible and well-pointed C*(O)-operads and a lax symmetric monoidal fibrant replacement.
    Theorem 4.38 and Proposition 5.56 need these hypotheses to compare strict C*(E1)-algebras with infinity-operadic algebras in Sh∞(X).
  • domain assumption The base field k has characteristic zero.
    Stated in Conventions; used for Sigma-cofibrancy of operads and formality-type arguments, for example in Lemma 4.48 and in the use of Tamarkin's theorem.
  • domain assumption Yekutieli's local equivalence between Δ* Dpoly(X) and RHom_{O_{X×X}}(Δ* O_X, Δ* O_X).
    Theorem 5.69 and Lemma 5.71 import this comparison to identify the center of OX with polydifferential operators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\mathbb{E}_2$-algebra structures on the derived center of an algebraic scheme." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5T5GBK4Y

@misc{pith2026250614069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\mathbbE_2$-algebra structures on the derived center of an algebraic scheme},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5T5GBK4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14069}
}
abstract

This paper provides an explicit interface between J. Lurie's work on higher centers, and the Hochschild cohomology of an algebraic $\mathbb{k}$-scheme within the framework of deformation quantization. We first recover a canonical solution to Deligne's conjecture on Hochschild cochains in the affine and global cases, even for singular schemes, by exhibiting the Hochschild complex as an $\infty$-operadic center. We then prove that this universal $\mathbb{E}_2$-algebra structure precisely agrees with the classical Gerstenhaber bracket and cup product on cohomology in the affine and smooth cases. This last statement follows from our main technical result which allows us to extract the Gerstenhaber bracket of any $\mathbb{E}_2$-algebra obtained from a 2-algebra via Lurie's Dunn Additivity Theorem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The element µ0 ∈ MapE2 (⟨2⟩,⟨1⟩)0. Note that for k ≥ 1, we have a homotopy equivalence MulEk (⟨2⟩,⟨1⟩) ≃ S k−1 . To construct this, fix a circumscribed (k−1)-sphere about [0, 1]k . Then to each point in MulEk (⟨2⟩,⟨1⟩) ≃ E T k (2) given by a rectangular embedding of two k-squares into a k-square, assign the intersection S k−1 ∩ r21⃗ , where r21⃗ is the ray through the centers of the two embedded copies of [0, 1]k wh… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kontsevich's wheels and invariant polynomial functions on the dual of L ie algebras

    Didier Arnal and Nabiha Ben Amar. Kontsevich's wheels and invariant polynomial functions on the dual of L ie algebras. Lett. Math. Phys. , 52(4):291--300, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    The K ashiwara- V ergne conjecture and D rinfeld's associators

    Anton Alekseev and Charles Torossian. The K ashiwara- V ergne conjecture and D rinfeld's associators. Ann. of Math. (2) , 175(2):415--463, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    On the derived category of an algebra over an operad

    Clemens Berger and Ieke Moerdijk. On the derived category of an algebra over an operad. Georgian Math. J. , 16(1):13--28, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    On A ssociators and the G rothendieck- T eichmuller group

    Dror Bar-Natan. On A ssociators and the G rothendieck- T eichmuller group. I . Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 4(2):183--212, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    The cyclic Deligne conjecture and Calabi-Yau structures

    Christopher Brav and Nick Rozenblyum . The cyclic Deligne conjecture and Calabi-Yau structures . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2305.10323, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Integral transforms and D rinfeld centers in derived algebraic geometry

    David Ben-Zvi, John Francis, and David Nadler. Integral transforms and D rinfeld centers in derived algebraic geometry. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 23(4):909--966, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Cohen, Thomas J

    Frederick R. Cohen, Thomas J. Lada, and J. Peter May. The homology of iterated loop spaces , volume Vol. 533 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics , chapter The homology of C_ n+1 -Spaces, n 0 , pages vii+490. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1976

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    Hochschild cohomology and A tiyah classes

    Damien Calaque and Michel Van den Bergh. Hochschild cohomology and A tiyah classes. Adv. Math. , 224(5):1839--1889, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    V. A. Dolgushev, C. L. Rogers, and T. H. Willwacher. Kontsevich's graph complex, GRT , and the deformation complex of the sheaf of polyvector fields. Ann. of Math. (2) , 182(3):855--943, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    The tangent complex and hochschild cohomology of E _n -rings

    John Francis. The tangent complex and hochschild cohomology of E _n -rings. Compositio Mathematica , 149(3):430–480, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Modules over operads and functors , volume 1967 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    Benoit Fresse. Modules over operads and functors , volume 1967 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009

    1967

  4. [12]

    The cohomology structure of an associative ring

    Murray Gerstenhaber. The cohomology structure of an associative ring. Ann. of Math. (2) , 78:267--288, 1963

    1963

  5. [13]

    Grothendieck

    A. Grothendieck. On the de R ham cohomology of algebraic varieties. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (29):95--103, 1966

    1966

  6. [14]

    Murray Gerstenhaber and Samuel D. Schack. Algebraic cohomology and deformation theory. In Deformation theory of algebras and structures and applications ( I l C iocco, 1986) , volume 247 of NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C: Math. Phys. Sci. , pages 11--264. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dord...

    1986

  7. [15]

    Deformations of sheaves of algebras

    Vladimir Hinich. Deformations of sheaves of algebras. Adv. Math. , 195(1):102--164, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Rectification of algebras and modules

    Vladimir Hinich. Rectification of algebras and modules. Doc. Math. , 20:879--926, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Po Hu, Igor Kriz, and Alexander A. Voronov. On K ontsevich's H ochschild cohomology conjecture. Compos. Math. , 142(1):143--168, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Model categories , volume 63 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs

    Mark Hovey. Model categories , volume 63 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999

    1999

  11. [19]

    Cyclic operads and algebra of chord diagrams

    Vladimir Hinich and Arkady Vaintrob. Cyclic operads and algebra of chord diagrams. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 8(2):237--282, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Differential calculus of H ochschild pairs for infinity-categories

    Isamu Iwanari. Differential calculus of H ochschild pairs for infinity-categories. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. , 16:Paper No. 097, 57, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Deformation quantization of P oisson manifolds

    Maxim Kontsevich. Deformation quantization of P oisson manifolds. Lett. Math. Phys. , 66(3):157--216, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    Cyclic homology, a survey

    Jean-Louis Loday. Cyclic homology, a survey. In Geometric and algebraic topology , volume 18 of Banach Center Publ. , pages 281--303. PWN, Warsaw, 1986

    1986

  15. [23]

    Higher topos theory , volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies

    Jacob Lurie. Higher topos theory , volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Higher algebra

    Jacob Lurie. Higher algebra. Unpublished. Available online at https://www.math.ias.edu/ lurie/, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Algebraic operads , volume 346 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]

    Jean-Louis Loday and Bruno Vallette. Algebraic operads , volume 346 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    The A tiyah class, H ochschild cohomology and the R iemann- R och theorem

    Nikita Markarian. The A tiyah class, H ochschild cohomology and the R iemann- R och theorem. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 79(1):129--143, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Sheaves in geometry and logic

    Saunders Mac Lane and Ieke Moerdijk. Sheaves in geometry and logic . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. A first introduction to topos theory, Corrected reprint of the 1992 edition

    1994

  20. [28]

    McClure and Jeffrey H

    James E. McClure and Jeffrey H. Smith. A solution of D eligne's H ochschild cohomology conjecture. In Recent progress in homotopy theory ( B altimore, MD , 2000) , volume 293 of Contemp. Math. , pages 153--193. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002

    2000

  21. [29]

    Admissibility and rectification of colored symmetric operads

    Dmitri Pavlov and Jakob Scholbach. Admissibility and rectification of colored symmetric operads. J. Topol. , 11(3):559--601, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Homotopy theory of symmetric powers

    Dmitri Pavlov and Jakob Scholbach. Homotopy theory of symmetric powers. Homology Homotopy Appl. , 20(1):359--397, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Ramadoss

    Ajay C. Ramadoss. The big C hern classes and the C hern character. Internat. J. Math. , 19(6):699--746, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    On the R ozansky- W itten weight systems

    Justin Roberts and Simon Willerton. On the R ozansky- W itten weight systems. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 10(3):1455--1519, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Richard G. Swan. Hochschild cohomology of quasiprojective schemes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 110(1):57--80, 1996

    1996

  26. [34]

    Tamarkin

    Dmitry E. Tamarkin . Another proof of M. Kontsevich formality theorem . arXiv Mathematics e-prints , page math/9803025, 1998

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Action of the Grothendieck-Teichmueller group on the operad of Gerstenhaber algebras

    Dimitri Tamarkin . Action of the Grothendieck-Teichmueller group on the operad of Gerstenhaber algebras . arXiv Mathematics e-prints , page math/0202039, 2002

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Tamarkin

    Dmitry E. Tamarkin. Formality of chain operad of little discs. Lett. Math. Phys. , 66(1-2):65--72, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    A. A. Voronov and M. Gerstenkhaber. Higher-order operations on the H ochschild complex. Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. , 29(1):1--6, 96, 1995

    1995

  30. [38]

    Alexander A. Voronov. Homotopy G erstenhaber algebras. In Conf\'erence M osh\'e F lato 1999, V ol. II ( D ijon) , volume 22 of Math. Phys. Stud. , pages 307--331. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2000

    1999

  31. [39]

    Monoidal B ousfield localizations and algebras over operads

    David White. Monoidal B ousfield localizations and algebras over operads. In Equivariant topology and derived algebra , volume 474 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. , pages 180--240. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Witherspoon

    Sarah J. Witherspoon. Hochschild cohomology for algebras , volume 204 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2019] 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    The continuous H ochschild cochain complex of a scheme

    Amnon Yekutieli. The continuous H ochschild cochain complex of a scheme. Canad. J. Math. , 54(6):1319--1337, 2002

    2002

Pith tools

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