Semisimplicity of conformal blocks

Pierre Godfard

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Semisimplicity of conformal blocks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every conformal block representation attached to a modular, ribbon, or braided fusion category is semisimple.

desk verdict Likely the right proof of a major open problem, but it needs a few technical gaps filled and one key assertion justified before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06318 v1 pith:WUI3R66I submitted 2025-07-08 math.AG math.GTmath.QA

Pierre Godfard This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.GTmath.QA MSC 18M2014H1014D07

keywords semisimplicityconformalblocksmappingclassgrouprepresentationsbraidmodularfusioncategoriesnon-abelianHodgetheoryOcneanurigiditystructures

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 claims to settle, in the axiomatic setting of fusion categories, the question of whether the quantum representations attached to braided, ribbon, and modular fusion categories are always semisimple—that is, whether every invariant subspace has a complement. Earlier proofs of semisimplicity used unitarity, which is known to fail for general modular categories, so the paper avoids unitarity entirely. It views conformal blocks as flat connections on moduli stacks of curves, deforms each connection canonically to a semisimple one, and then uses the rigidity of fusion categories to show that this deformation changes nothing. If the argument is correct, every such representation decomposes into irreducibles, and previously conditional Hodge-theoretic conclusions about conformal blocks become unconditional.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a canonical, functorial semisimplification of flat connections, drawn from the extension formalism of non-Abelian Hodge theory. To each flat connection $\nabla$ on a smooth proper Deligne-Mumford stack it assigns a unique decomposition $\nabla = D + \eta$, with $D$ flat semisimple and $\eta$ an iterated extension satisfying $D'\eta = 0$, together with a polynomial family $\nabla_h = D + \eta_h$ interpolating from $\nabla_1 = \nabla$ to the semisimple $\nabla_0 = D$. Applied to the conformal-block connections on twisted moduli spaces of curves, this produces, for each $h$, a geometric modular (or genus-zero modular, or braided) functor and hence a fusion category $\mathcal{C}_{V,h}$ whose braiding and twist coincide with those of the original category, so only the associator may move. Ocneanu rigidity—the theorem that fusion categories admit no nontrivial infinitesimal deformations of their associators—then forces $\mathcal{C}_{V,h}\cong\mathcal{C}_V$ for all $h$, transferring semisimplicity from $\nabla_0$ back to $\nabla$.

What would settle it

Compute, for a small modular category such as the tensor product of a unitary level-three $\mathfrak{sl}_2$ category with one of its non-unitary Galois conjugates, the braiding matrix acting on $\operatorname{Hom}(\mu,\lambda_1\otimes\lambda_2)$ from the deformed connection $\nabla_h$ on the twisted moduli space ${}^1M_{0,2}(r)$; if the matrix changes between $h=0$ and $h=1$, the deformed family is not constant and the semisimplicity conclusion would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 1.1, is that for any modular fusion category the associated representations of the central extensions $\widetilde{\mathrm{PMod}}(S_g^n)$ of mapping class groups are semisimple, that for any ribbon fusion category the associated genus-zero mapping class group representations are semisimple, and that for any braided fusion category the associated pure braid group representations are semisimple. The proof comes from a canonical semisimplification of flat connections: every connection on a smooth proper Deligne-Mumford stack deforms polynomially to a semisimple connection, and the deformation is compatible with the tensor products, duals, and pullbacks that make conformal blocks into a geometric modular functor—a compatible family of bundles with flat connections over moduli stacks of curves. The deformed data form a continuous family of fusion categories whose braiding and twist are fixed; rigidity of fusion categories forces the family to be constant, so the original category is isomorphic to its semisimple limit. The paper records the consequence that the monodromy representations can be defined over a CM number field and preserve a non-degenerate Hermitian form.

Load-bearing premise

The proof hinges on the assertion that deforming the conformal-block connections to their semisimple limits leaves the braiding and twist of the associated fusion category unchanged—that is, the commutation and ribbon data stay fixed—so only the associator moves; the paper states this without proof in Section 5.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every representation of a central extension of a mapping class group arising from a modular fusion category decomposes into a direct sum of irreducibles; the same holds for genus-zero mapping class groups from ribbon categories and for pure braid groups from braided categories.
The conformal-block bundles associated to modular and ribbon categories carry rational variations of Hodge structure over a CM number field, so the associated quantum representations can be defined over that field and preserve a non-degenerate Hermitian form.
Semisimplicity does not require unitarity: non-unitary modular categories, including those with no unitary Galois conjugate, still give completely reducible quantum representations.
Because the deformed family of categories is trivial, the semisimple limit $\nabla_0$ is isomorphic to the original connection $\nabla$, so the semisimplification of a conformal-block connection is again a conformal-block connection of the same category.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that semisimplicity together with the preserved non-degenerate Hermitian form forces each irreducible summand to carry a definite (positive- or negative-definite) Hermitian form; the signature of each summand would then be a computable invariant of the representation.
The same deformation strategy might apply to flat connections over other proper stacks whose fundamental groups carry TQFT-type representations; where rigidity of the associated algebraic structure is unavailable, the conclusion would instead be that the semisimplification is a deformation of the original representation.
The theorem makes the paper's conjecture that the fusion category itself is Hermitian and definable over a CM number field more plausible, since all associated monodromies already have those properties, but the step from representations back to categories remains open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

The headline: this is a serious paper, probably the right proof of a long-open problem, but it needs revision before publication. Godfard proves that braid group and mapping class group representations coming from arbitrary braided, ribbon, or modular fusion categories are semisimple. That settles a question Etingof and Varchenko asked, and it goes well beyond the old unitarity-based proofs, which only worked for Lie-algebra categories at a level. The two-step idea—deform flat connections to their canonical semisimple simplification, then use Ocneanu rigidity to show the family is trivial—is genuinely clever, and the categorical framework is set up with care.

What's new: the axiomatic semisimplification via Simpson's non-Abelian Hodge theory, applied to the full stack of conformal blocks, and the use of Ocneanu rigidity to conclude triviality. If correct, this also gives Hodge-theoretic and number-theoretic consequences.

The soft spots. First, Corollary 3.16 claims that the deformation η_h is polynomial by solving the same linear system coefficient-wise. That step is not justified: solvability for each h does not by itself imply each coefficient is solvable. It can be fixed with a Vandermonde argument, but as written it's a gap. Second, the passage to DM stacks in Prop 3.18 is too terse; the descent argument probably works, but a referee will want details. Third, and most important: Section 5 asserts that C_{V,h} has the same braiding and twist, with only the associator varying. The stress-test worry that this might fail is, on reflection, not right: the braiding is encoded by the monodromy of the flat connection on 1M_{0,2}(r)/S2 ≅ Bμ_{2r}, and since that base has finite fundamental group, the local system is already semisimple, so the canonical deformation leaves the connection unchanged there. But the paper doesn't say this, and the assertion is load-bearing. It needs a sentence or two of proof. Fourth, Corollary 4.2 relies on [14, 7.7] from the author's separate paper. That's a delegation, not circular, but the referee should check that statement.

The central argument holds up. The gaps are technical, and the braiding issue is more a presentation problem than a mathematical one. This is a major result for tensor categories, quantum representations, and conformal blocks. It deserves a serious referee, and I'd bring it to the reading group. I'd also cite it once the details are cleaned up.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims a proof of Theorem 1.1: braid group representations associated to braided fusion categories, genus-zero mapping class group representations associated to ribbon fusion categories, and mapping class group representations associated to modular fusion categories are always semisimple. The strategy is to pass from a fusion category to its geometric functor (a collection of flat bundles over twisted moduli spaces of curves), then use Simpson's non-Abelian Hodge theory to deform every flat connection to its canonical semisimple simplification. This produces a family of geometric functors V_h and hence a family of fusion categories C_{V,h}. The author asserts that in this family only the associator varies, invokes Ocneanu rigidity (Corollary 4.2) to conclude C_{V,h} is isomorphic to C_V, and deduces that the original monodromy representations are semisimple. The paper also states that the semisimplicity result, combined with the author's earlier work [14], gives rational Hodge structures over CM fields and pseudo-unitary forms for these representations.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.1 would resolve a question of Etingof and Varchenko and substantially generalize the known unitarity-based semisimplicity results for quantum groups to arbitrary modular, ribbon, and braided fusion categories, including non-unitary ones. The proposed mechanism—canonical semisimplification of flat connections plus Ocneanu rigidity—is conceptually elegant and, if made rigorous, would be a powerful new bridge between non-Abelian Hodge theory and tensor categories. The paper also clearly formulates consequences for Hodge structures and pseudo-unitary representations. However, the proof as written contains a load-bearing unproven assertion about the braiding of the deformed family and a nontrivial gap in the polynomiality argument; these must be addressed before the claims are established.

major comments (3)

[§5 (proof of Theorem 1.1)] The statement 'C_{V,h} has the same underlying braiding (and twist) as C_V, and only the associator may vary' is asserted without proof and is load-bearing. In §2.4 the braiding is defined through parallel transport on 1M_{0,2}(r)/S2 ≅ Bμ_{2r}; the deformation ∇_h = D + η_h changes the flat connection and in general changes the monodromy around the generator of π_1(Bμ_{2r}). Since Corollary 4.2 applies only to families in which only associators vary, the argument as written does not go through. For example, for a non-semisimple rank-two local system on a curve, the canonical semisimplification deformation changes the off-diagonal monodromy with h, and no argument is given that the braiding monodromy is immune. The author should either prove the h-independence of the braiding (and twist) or state and prove a version of Ocneanu rigidity for continuous families of braided/ribbon categories in which the braiding is also allowed to vary.
[§3.3 (Corollary 3.16)] The proof of polynomiality of h ↦ ∇_h is incomplete. In the induction step the author assumes that D + η_h has the same block-upper-triangular form with respect to a fixed decomposition E = E_0 ⊕ ... ⊕ E_d; this is not established. Uniqueness of η_h from the condition [η_h] = h[η] does not by itself imply that η_h lies in the same filtration component as η. Consequently the linear system (1) is not well-posed without this filtration statement, and the coefficient-wise inference 'by linearity of (1)' from pointwise solvability is unjustified. The polynomiality is used to assert that the family (C_{V,h}) is continuous, which is needed for Corollary 4.2, so this gap is load-bearing. The author should either show that the canonical lift respects the filtration or supply a different argument for polynomiality (or at least continuity) of the family.
[§4 (Corollary 4.2)] The rigidity step is not self-contained. The proof of Corollary 4.2 refers entirely to the author's unpublished manuscript [14, 7.7], which is stated to be a corollary of Theorem 4.1 but whose proof is not reproduced. Moreover, the statement speaks of a 'continuous family' of ribbon or braided fusion categories without specifying the topology on the relevant groupoid. Since this corollary is the step that turns the continuous deformation into a trivial family, the paper should include the proof or at least state the precise topological setup and give a reference that is accessible to the reader. As written, a central part of the argument is delegated.

minor comments (5)

[§5] The text says 'We can thus apply Theorem 4.2' but Theorem 4.2 is a corollary; this should read 'Corollary 4.2'.
[§3.4] Proposition 3.18 refers to 'as defined in Theorem 3.16' but Theorem 3.16 is Corollary 3.16; the cross-reference should be corrected.
[§3.3] Corollary 3.16 begins 'In the same context as in Theorem 3.15' but the statement referred to is Corollary 3.15; the numbering should be checked throughout.
[§3.1] Proposition 3.6 says 'As a direct corollary of Theorem 3.3' but Theorem 3.3 is Lemma 3.3; the cross-reference is off by one.
[§2.4] The definition of the braiding uses both the path in 1M_{0,2}(r) and the quotient by S2; the text is somewhat compressed and would benefit from an explicit statement that the braiding map is the monodromy of the descent connection on 1M_{0,2}(r)/S2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: semisimplicity is transferred by Ocneanu rigidity, never assumed. Two load-bearing gaps (braiding invariance in §5, self-cited rigidity corollary) affect completeness, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The target semisimplicity is never an input: Proposition 3.18 constructs a canonical deformation ∇_h = D + η_h with ∇_1 = ∇ and ∇_0 = D flat semisimple, so V_0 has semisimple monodromy by construction; Ocneanu rigidity is then used to show C_{V,0} ≅ C_V, transferring semisimplicity to the original representation. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and the Hodge-theoretic semisimplification has independent content. The main self-citations ([14, 5.9], [14, 7.7], [14, 3.20]) are delegations to the author's prior work, but each is presented as a consequence of external results (Bakalov–Kirillov, Etingof–Nikshych–Ostrik, Simpson), so they do not form a self-supporting loop. Two load-bearing concerns are nevertheless worth flagging explicitly, and both are correctness risks rather than circularity. First, Section 5 asserts without proof: 'C_{V,h} has the same underlying braiding (and twist) as C_V, and only the associator may vary.' This is not justified by the paper's own definitions: in Section 2.4 the braiding is defined as the monodromy action of e^{iπ/r} on the fibers of ⊕_{λ1,λ2} V(μ;λ1,λ2) over 1M_{0,2}(r)/S2 ≅ Bμ_{2r}, and since ∇_h changes the connection, that monodromy can depend on h. If so, the hypothesis of Corollary 4.2 is not automatically satisfied. Second, the proof of Corollary 4.2 delegates to '[14, 7.7]', an unpublished self-citation; because [14, 7.7] is said to be a corollary of the external Ocneanu rigidity theorem, this is a delegation rather than a circular reduction. Both issues affect whether the proof is complete, not whether the conclusion is assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several major external theorems: Ocneanu rigidity, Simpson's non-Abelian Hodge theory and descent formalism, and the equivalence of geometric modular functors with fusion categories. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The paper also relies on the author's previous work [14] for the rigidity corollary and Hodge-theoretic consequences.

assumptions (5)

standard math Ocneanu rigidity: a fusion category has no nontrivial infinitesimal deformations; the number of categories with a given Grothendieck ring is finite.
Used in Corollary 4.2 to conclude that the continuous family C_h is isomorphic to C_0. Stated as Theorem 4.1.
standard math Simpson's formality quasi-equivalences for semisimple local systems on compact Kähler manifolds (Theorem 3.12).
Provides the canonical semisimplification and deformation used throughout Section 3. Cited from [23].
standard math Hypercovering descent for vector bundles, connections, and differential forms on smooth proper DM stacks (Simpson [22]).
Used in Proposition 3.18 to reduce the DM stack case to projective smooth varieties.
domain assumption Equivalence of geometric modular/ribbon/braided functors with modular/ribbon/braided fusion categories (Theorem 2.17).
Allows passage from deformed flat bundles V_h to fusion categories C_h. Based on [2] and [9].
domain assumption Corollary [14, 7.7]: isomorphism class of a ribbon/braided fusion category is constant along arcs in a continuous family where only associators vary.
Used as the key rigidity statement in the proof of Corollary 4.2; delegated to the author's previous paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semisimplicity of conformal blocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUI3R66I

@misc{pith2026250706318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semisimplicity of conformal blocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUI3R66I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06318}
}

read the original abstract

We prove that braid group representations associated to braided fusion categories and mapping class group representations associated to modular fusion categories are always semisimple. The proof relies on the theory of extensions in non-Abelian Hodge theory and on Ocneanu rigidity. By combining this with previous results on the existence of variations in Hodge structures, we further show that such a braid group or mapping class group representation preserves a non-degenerate Hermitian form and can be defined over some CM number field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06318 by the authors.

**Figure 2.1.** Path in 1M0,3(r) corresponding to moving the point marked λ2 from the point marked λ1 to the point marked λ3. To define the associator, note that by parallel transport along the connection on V(µ; λ1, λ2, λ3), we can identify the stalk of this bundle at 2 of the boundary points x and y by the path in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Modular functors from conformal blocks of rational vertex operator algebras
math.QA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Spaces of conformal blocks of a strongly rational vertex operator algebra form a modular functor, giving the module category a modular fusion structure and a 3D topological field theory extension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[14]

Hodge structures on conformal blocks, June 2024

Pierre Godfard. Hodge structures on conformal blocks, June 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Compactifying the space of stable maps.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 15(1):27–75, January 2002

Dan Abramovich and Angelo Vistoli. Compactifying the space of stable maps.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 15(1):27–75, January 2002

work page 2002
[2]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, November 2000

Bojko Bakalov and Alexander Kirillov.Lectures on Tensor Categories and Modular Functors, volume 21 ofUniversity Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, November 2000

work page 2000
[3]

Unitarity of the KZ/Hitchin connection on conformal blocks in genus 0 for arbitrary Lie algebras.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 98(4):367–389, October 2012

Prakash Belkale. Unitarity of the KZ/Hitchin connection on conformal blocks in genus 0 for arbitrary Lie algebras.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 98(4):367–389, October 2012

work page 2012
[4]

Stable twisted curves and their r-spin structures.Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 58(5):1635–1689, 2008

Alessandro Chiodo. Stable twisted curves and their r-spin structures.Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 58(5):1635–1689, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

Real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds.Inventiones mathematicae, 29(3):245–274, October 1975

Pierre Deligne, Phillip Griffiths, John Morgan, and Dennis Sullivan. Real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds.Inventiones mathematicae, 29(3):245–274, October 1975

work page 1975
[6]

Toledo invariants of Topological Quantum Field Theo- ries, July 2022

Bertrand Deroin and Julien Marché. Toledo invariants of Topological Quantum Field Theo- ries, July 2022. SEMISIMPLICITY OF CONFORMAL BLOCKS 21

work page 2022
[7]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, July 2015

PavelEtingof, ShlomoGelaki, DmitriNikshych, andVictorOstrik.Tensor Categories, volume 205 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, July 2015

work page 2015

Show all 25 references

[8]

On fusion categories.Annals of Mathe- matics, 162(2):581–642, September 2005

Pavel Etingof, Dmitri Nikshych, and Viktor Ostrik. On fusion categories.Annals of Mathe- matics, 162(2):581–642, September 2005

2005
[9]

Rigidity of non-negligible objects of moderate growth in braided categories, December 2024

Pavel Etingof and David Penneys. Rigidity of non-negligible objects of moderate growth in braided categories, December 2024

2024
[10]

Periodic and quasi-motivic pencils of flat connec- tions, December 2023

Pavel Etingof and Alexander Varchenko. Periodic and quasi-motivic pencils of flat connec- tions, December 2023

2023
[11]

Instantons and framed sheaves on Kähler Deligne– Mumford stacks.Annales de la Faculté des sciences de Toulouse : Mathématiques, 27(3):599– 628, September 2018

Philippe Eyssidieux and Francesco Sala. Instantons and framed sheaves on Kähler Deligne– Mumford stacks.Annales de la Faculté des sciences de Toulouse : Mathématiques, 27(3):599– 628, September 2018

2018
[12]

Finkelberg

M. Finkelberg. An equivalence of fusion categories.Geometric and Functional Analysis, 6(2):249–267, March 1996

1996
[13]

Construction of Hodge structures on theSO(3)modular functors, February 2024

Pierre Godfard. Construction of Hodge structures on theSO(3)modular functors, February 2024

2024
[15]

Drinfeld centers of fusion categories arising from gen- eralized Haagerup subfactors.Quantum Topology, 13(4):593–668, January 2023

Pinhas Grossman and Masaki Izumi. Drinfeld centers of fusion categories arising from gen- eralized Haagerup subfactors.Quantum Topology, 13(4):593–668, January 2023

2023
[16]

Kazhdan and G

D. Kazhdan and G. Lusztig. Tensor structures arising from affine Lie algebras. IV.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 7(2):383–453, 1994

1994
[17]

A. A. Kirillov. On inner product in modular tensor categories. II: Inner product on conformal blocks and affine inner product identities.Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2:155–180, 1998

1998
[18]

On an inner product in modular tensor categories.Journal of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 9(4):1135–1169, 1996

Alexander Kirillov. On an inner product in modular tensor categories.Journal of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 9(4):1135–1169, 1996

1996
[19]

Non-cyclotomic fusion categories.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 364(9):4713–4733, September 2012

Scott Morrison and Noah Snyder. Non-cyclotomic fusion categories.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 364(9):4713–4733, September 2012

2012
[20]

The ‘Harder-Narasimhan trace’ and unitarity of the KZ/Hitchin con- nection: Genus 0.Annals of Mathematics, 169(1):1–39, January 2009

Trivandrum Ramadas. The ‘Harder-Narasimhan trace’ and unitarity of the KZ/Hitchin con- nection: Genus 0.Annals of Mathematics, 169(1):1–39, January 2009

2009
[21]

Reshetikhin and V

N. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev. Invariants of 3-manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups.Inventiones mathematicae, 103(1):547–597, December 1991

1991
[22]

Local Systems on Proper Algebraic V -manifolds.Pure and Applied Mathe- matics Quarterly, 7(4):1675–1760, 2011

Carlos Simpson. Local Systems on Proper Algebraic V -manifolds.Pure and Applied Mathe- matics Quarterly, 7(4):1675–1760, 2011

2011
[23]

Carlos T. Simpson. Higgs bundles and local systems.Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS, 75:5–95, 1992

1992
[24]

Turaev.Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds

Vladimir G. Turaev.Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds. De Gruyter, July 2016

2016
[25]

Hans Wenzl.C* tensor categories from quantum groups.Journal of the American Mathe- matical Society, 11(2):261–282, 1998

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Hodge structures on conformal blocks, June 2024

Pierre Godfard. Hodge structures on conformal blocks, June 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Compactifying the space of stable maps.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 15(1):27–75, January 2002

Dan Abramovich and Angelo Vistoli. Compactifying the space of stable maps.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 15(1):27–75, January 2002

work page 2002

[3] [2]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, November 2000

Bojko Bakalov and Alexander Kirillov.Lectures on Tensor Categories and Modular Functors, volume 21 ofUniversity Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, November 2000

work page 2000

[4] [3]

Unitarity of the KZ/Hitchin connection on conformal blocks in genus 0 for arbitrary Lie algebras.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 98(4):367–389, October 2012

Prakash Belkale. Unitarity of the KZ/Hitchin connection on conformal blocks in genus 0 for arbitrary Lie algebras.Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 98(4):367–389, October 2012

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Stable twisted curves and their r-spin structures.Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 58(5):1635–1689, 2008

Alessandro Chiodo. Stable twisted curves and their r-spin structures.Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 58(5):1635–1689, 2008

work page 2008

[6] [5]

Real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds.Inventiones mathematicae, 29(3):245–274, October 1975

Pierre Deligne, Phillip Griffiths, John Morgan, and Dennis Sullivan. Real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds.Inventiones mathematicae, 29(3):245–274, October 1975

work page 1975

[7] [6]

Toledo invariants of Topological Quantum Field Theo- ries, July 2022

Bertrand Deroin and Julien Marché. Toledo invariants of Topological Quantum Field Theo- ries, July 2022. SEMISIMPLICITY OF CONFORMAL BLOCKS 21

work page 2022

[8] [7]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, July 2015

PavelEtingof, ShlomoGelaki, DmitriNikshych, andVictorOstrik.Tensor Categories, volume 205 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, July 2015

work page 2015