Algebraic coherators, controlled theories, and Grothendieck realizations

Johnathon Taylor

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 17 references

Algebraic coherators and Grothendieck realizations turn controlled theories into ∞-Lawvere theories whose models are monoidal, symmetric monoidal, group-like, and Picard ∞-groupoids, with a single pushout conjecture implying the Homotopy Hy

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 04:13 UTC pith:FEPPOF2K

load-bearing objection Clean Garner-SOA coherator and UGR/GR functors are real progress; the advertised semi-model payoff is blocked by an unproved monadicity claim plus the usual pushout conjecture. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28540 v1 pith:FEPPOF2K submitted 2026-07-30 math.CT

Algebraic coherators, controlled theories, and Grothendieck realizations

Johnathon Taylor This is my paper

classification math.CT MSC 18N6518C1055U3518N40

keywords Grothendieck ∞-groupoidsalgebraic coheratorcontrolled theories∞-Lawvere theoriesGrothendieck realizationsemi-model structuresHomotopy Hypothesisglobular theories

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper rebuilds the free adjunction of coherence data for Grothendieck ∞-groupoids by running Garner’s algebraic small object argument on sphere-to-disk maps, producing an algebraic coherator. It then combines that coherator with controlled theories to define unreduced and reduced Grothendieck realizations, which are functors sending controlled theories (and connected diagrams of them) to ∞-Lawvere theories. Models of those theories recover monoidal ∞-groupoids, symmetric monoidal ∞-groupoids, coherent ∞-groups, and Picard ∞-groupoids in globular form. The same framework supplies generating cofibrations and weak equivalences for canonical semi-model structures on the categories of models. A single Generalized Pushout Conjecture is shown to imply both the existence of those semi-model structures and the Homotopy Hypothesis for Grothendieck ∞-groupoids.

Core claim

Unreduced and reduced Grothendieck realizations are functors from controlled theories (and their connected diagrams) to ∞-Lawvere theories; their models are the desired higher algebraic structures, and the Generalized Pushout Conjecture alone forces the canonical semi-model structures and the Homotopy Hypothesis.

What carries the argument

The algebraic coherator (fibrant replacement of the initial globular theory under the AWFS generated by sphere-to-disk inclusions) together with the unreduced Grothendieck realization UGR, obtained by applying the fibrant-replacement monad of the controlled-theory AWFS to the initial ∞-Lawvere theory.

Load-bearing premise

Pushouts of generating disk inclusions along maps out of cofibrant objects (or free models of those disks) must remain weak equivalences.

What would settle it

Exhibit a cofibrant Grothendieck ∞-groupoid X and a pushout of a disk inclusion Dn → Dn+1 along a map Dn → X whose resulting map X → X+ fails to induce isomorphisms on all homotopy groups πn.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Canonical semi-model structures exist on ∞Gpd and on Mod(UGR(J)) for every connected diagram J of controlled theories.
The Homotopy Hypothesis holds for Grothendieck ∞-groupoids.
Monoidal, symmetric monoidal, coherent-group, and Picard ∞-groupoids arise as models of explicitly constructed ∞-Lawvere theories.
Group-completion monads exist on monoidal and symmetric monoidal ∞-groupoids via free-forgetful adjunctions.
Both unreduced and reduced realizations extend functorially to connected diagrams of controlled theories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the conjecture holds, the same disk-pushout test should transfer semi-model structures along any monadic forgetful functor out of an ∞-Lawvere theory built by UGR.
The reduced realization’s identification of duplicate lifts may be the precise globular analogue of choosing a single composition operation, suggesting a comparison with classical operadic or type-theoretic coherence.
Failure of the pushout conjecture for some controlled theory would isolate exactly which algebraic operations obstruct homotopy invariance, giving a concrete diagnostic for future coherator designs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

Clean Garner-SOA coherator and UGR/GR functors are real progress; the advertised semi-model payoff is blocked by an unproved monadicity claim plus the usual pushout conjecture.

read the letter

The useful core here is the switch from Cheng distributive series to Garner’s algebraic small-object argument. That produces an algebraic coherator AC that matches Ara’s reduced one, then builds unreduced and reduced Grothendieck realizations as functors from controlled theories (and their connected diagrams) into ∞-Lawvere theories. The globular models for monoidal, symmetric monoidal, coherent-group and Picard ∞-groupoids drop out cleanly once you accept the controlled-theory inputs from the companion paper.

The constructions themselves look solid: presentability of the spheres and disks, the • and ⋄ globularizations, free adjoining of S-lifts, and the resulting algebraic weak factorization systems are standard and locally justified. Functoriality of UGR and GR is written carefully. That part is worth having on the record.

Two soft spots matter for the homotopy claims. First, Theorem 4.7 (monadicity of the forgetful functor from models of any ∞-Lawvere theory to ∞-groupoids) is stated with no proof and no reference. Theorem 5.8 then transfers the semi-model structure by citing Batanin–White plus that missing lemma; without it the transfer does not go through even if every free-disk pushout is a weak equivalence. Second, the Generalized Pushout Conjecture is left open, as expected in this literature, so the existence of the semi-model structures and the Homotopy Hypothesis remain conditional. Dependence on the concurrent controlled-theories paper is heavy but not circular.

This is for people already working in the Ara–Henry–Lanari–Maltsiniotis line who want a cleaner coherator and a packaged way to realize controlled theories. It deserves a serious referee; the constructive material is real and the gaps are fixable. I would engage, cite the coherator and realization functors, and treat the semi-model theorem as a clean conjecture package rather than a settled result.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs algebraic coherators for Grothendieck ∞-groupoids via Garner’s algebraic small object argument on an explicit set of sphere-to-disk inclusions, replacing earlier distributive-series-of-monads methods. It introduces globularization of limit sketches (• and ⋄), generalized S- and (S,L')-admissible pairs and contractibility, and free adjoining of lifts with a universal property. From a controlled theory Ω it produces unreduced and reduced Grothendieck realizations UGR(Ω) and GR(Ω) as ∞-Lawvere theories (fibrantly replaced / coequalized), extended functorially to connected diagrams. Models recover monoidal, symmetric monoidal, coherent-group, and Picard ∞-groupoids. Canonical semi-model structures on Mod(V) are defined, and a Generalized Pushout Conjecture is stated; Theorem 5.8 asserts that the conjecture implies the semi-model structure on ∞Gpd, the Homotopy Hypothesis, and semi-model structures on Mod(UGR(Γ)).

Significance. If the constructions and the conditional homotopy theorem hold, the paper supplies a cleaner algebraic route to coherators and a uniform way to produce globular algebraic models of monoidal and Picard-type ∞-groupoids from controlled theories, with a clear path (via transfer) to semi-model structures. The shift from distributive series of monads to Garner’s algebraic SOA is a genuine technical improvement in clarity and presentability. Strengths include explicit generating sets I and I_Ω, universal-property treatments of free lifts and •, and an honest framing of the pushout obstruction. The main limitation is that the headline homotopy payoff remains conditional and, even under the conjecture, rests on an unproved monadicity claim, so the bridge from algebraic to homotopical models is not yet complete.

major comments (3)

[§4, Theorem 4.7; §5, Theorem 5.8] Theorem 4.7 asserts that for any ∞-Lawvere theory H:F_∞→V the forgetful U:Mod(V)→Mod(F_∞) is monadic, but gives no proof, reference, or check of Beck’s criterion (or creation of the coequalizers needed for free algebras). Theorem 5.8’s second clause explicitly combines this with Batanin–White 2.2.2 to transfer the semi-model structure to Mod(UGR(Γ)). Without a verification that U creates the requisite coequalizers and that free models on the disks generating I_V and J_V behave as required, the transfer step fails even if Conjecture 5.7 holds. This is load-bearing for the abstract’s and Theorem 5.8’s claims about semi-model structures on models of Grothendieck realizations.
[§4, Definitions 4.9–4.15 and surrounding text] The definitions and examples of the controlled theories Ω_mon, Ω_cm, Ω_grp and the diagram Γ_pic (Definitions 4.9–4.15) are imported wholesale from the concurrent arXiv:2607.24716 and the thesis, with only citation pointers. For the applications that motivate the whole framework—globular models of monoidal/symmetric monoidal/coherent-group/Picard ∞-groupoids—the paper is not self-contained. At minimum, the generating operations, structure maps, and the precise (P,L)-admissible data used to build I_Ω should be recalled so that UGR(Ω) is checkable from this manuscript alone.
[§5, Conjecture 5.7 and Theorem 5.8] Conjecture 5.7 (Generalized Pushout Conjecture) is correctly flagged as the remaining obstruction for ∞Gpd and the Homotopy Hypothesis, following Henry. The second bullet extends it to free models Fr(D^n) in Mod(UGR(Γ)). The paper should briefly justify why the free-model pushouts are the correct generating data after transfer (i.e., that the left adjoint Fr sends the ordinary disk inclusions to the generators of I_V / J_V up to the monadic comparison), or else note that this identification also depends on the missing content of Theorem 4.7. As written, the reduction “GPC ⇒ semi-model on Mod(UGR(Γ))” is incomplete.

minor comments (6)

[§3, before Definition 3.18] Section 3.18 opens with a stray “latex fragment (“‘latex), apparently a copy-paste artifact; remove it.
[§1.1 and start of §4] Notation 1.1 and the Background Assumptions point to “the controlled theories section of my previous paper” and Garner/Maltsiniotis without restating the few notions (controlled theory, Fr(G), st) actually used in §4. A short self-contained glossary would help readers who have not read the concurrent work.
[§2, Lemma 2.20] Lemma 2.20 claims AC coincides with Ara’s reduced coherator (Example 2.12 of Ara 2013) by “adapting” Maltsiniotis Theorem 3.14; a one-sentence indication of what changes in the adaptation would make the identification easier to check.
[§4, The Reduced Grothendieck Realization] The reduced realization GR is introduced and then immediately set aside (“we will primarily use the unreduced…”). Either give a brief comparison (e.g., when the two agree on models, or why reduction matters for low-dimensional examples) or move GR to a remark to avoid an unused parallel construction.
[Introduction; §4 opening] Several internal cross-references say “constructed in Section 4” for the algebraic coherator, which lives in §2; fix numbering slips (Introduction and start of §4).
[Throughout] Typographical inconsistencies: “infinity” vs “∞”, “Th^≅” rendering, and missing spaces before citations in a few places (e.g., “Structures,we”). Standardize.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Core constructions (algebraic coherator via Garner SOA, UGR/GR as fibrant replacement/coequalizer) are self-contained and non-circular; only moderate self-citation dependence for input controlled theories used in applications.

specific steps

self citation load bearing [Background Assumptions; §§4.9–4.16 (Defs. 4.9–4.15)]
"We assume the reader is familiar with the material from the controlled theories section of my previous paper [Taylor, 2026b]... A model A:UGR(Ω_mon)→Set over UGR(Ω_mon) is called a monoidal ∞-groupoid, where Ω_mon is the controlled theory defined in Example 4.3 of [Taylor, 2026b]."

The concrete controlled theories that feed the flagship applications (monoidal, symmetric monoidal, coherent-group, Picard ∞-groupoids) are not constructed or verified in this paper; their entire content is cited from the author’s concurrent work. UGR itself is well-defined for any controlled theory, so the construction is not circular, but the claim that the framework yields those named higher-algebraic models rests load-bearingly on unchecked self-citation for the input objects.

full rationale

The paper’s main technical chain is definitional construction, not a prediction that collapses to its inputs. The algebraic coherator AC is obtained by applying Garner’s algebraic small-object argument to an explicit, independently described generating set I of sphere-to-disk inclusions in Th_Θ₀^op; that it is an (∞,0)-coherator follows from the universal property of the SOA (Lemma 2.20, adapting Maltsiniotis), and the honest identification with Ara’s reduced coherator is a comparison, not a renaming used as a derivation. Unreduced/reduced Grothendieck realizations are likewise defined as the fibrant-replacement monad (resp. a coequalizer identifying duplicate lifts) relative to a generating set I_Ω built from a controlled theory; functoriality on connected diagrams is by the universal property of those colimits. Naming Mod(UGR(Ω_mon)) “monoidal ∞-groupoids” etc. is stipulative definition, not a circular claim that an external object has been derived. The Homotopy Hypothesis / semi-model existence statement (Theorem 5.8) is explicitly conditional on the new Generalized Pushout Conjecture and on external results (Henry, Batanin–White); it does not smuggle the conclusion into the hypotheses. The only circularity-adjacent feature is ordinary author self-citation: the ambient notion of controlled theory and the concrete examples Ω_mon, Ω_cm, Ω_grp, Γ_pic are imported wholesale from the author’s concurrent arXiv:2607.24716 / thesis rather than re-derived. That makes the applications non-self-contained, but those citations supply input data to a functor, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter that forces the central claim. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no ansatz smuggled as external fact. Score 2 reflects minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the constructive core.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 5 invented entities

The paper rests on standard higher-categorical machinery (globular theories, limit sketches, Garner's algebraic SOA, Lawvere theories), on the author's prior definition of controlled theories and their examples, and on an explicit new unproved conjecture that carries the homotopy conclusions. No numeric free parameters. Invented entities are definitional constructions inside the paper's framework rather than physical posits.

axioms (7)

standard math Garner's algebraic small object argument produces an algebraic weak factorization system and fibrant-replacement monad from an admissible set of maps on a locally presentable category.
Used throughout §2 and §4 to build AC and R_Ω; cited as Garner 2009b.
domain assumption Background theory of globular theories, (∞,0)-coherators, and models as product-preserving functors (Maltsiniotis, Ara, Bourke).
Section 2 reviews and relies on this; AC is identified with Ara's reduced coherator Ex. 2.12.
domain assumption Controlled theories Ω = ⟨G: P → Fr(G) → L⟩ and the concrete examples Ω_mon, Ω_cm, Ω_grp, Γ_pic are as defined in Taylor 2026b.
Entire §4–5 application layer imports these objects; paper explicitly assumes familiarity with that prior section.
ad hoc to paper Generalized Pushout Conjecture: pushouts of disk inclusions (or free models thereof) along maps from cofibrant objects remain weak equivalences, for ∞-groupoids and for Mod(UGR(Γ)).
Conjecture 5.7; sole hypothesis of Theorem 5.8; analogue of Henry's pushout conjecture.
domain assumption Henry's results that his pushout conjecture implies the semi-model structure on ∞-groupoids and the Homotopy Hypothesis (Henry 2016; Henry–Lanari 2023).
Invoked to reduce the ∞Gpd half of Theorem 5.8 to the generalized conjecture via Henry Cor. 5.3.13.
domain assumption Transfer/semi-model existence results for algebras (Batanin–White 2022 Thm 2.2.2) apply once monadicity (Thm 4.7) and the pushout conjecture hold.
Used in the proof sketch of Theorem 5.8 for Mod(UGR(Γ)).
standard math Funny tensor product and free completion under globular products and specified limits yield the globularization Θ₀^op • E and the bifunctor • on theories.
Section 3 setup; standard categorical constructions, though packaging is paper-specific.

invented entities (5)

Algebraic coherator AC independent evidence
purpose: Fibrant replacement of the initial globular theory under the AWFS generated by sphere-to-disk maps j_{p⃗,k}; supplies the ∞-groupoid shape for later realizations.
Defined in §2 via algebraic SOA; claimed to coincide with Ara's reduced coherator.
Unreduced / reduced Grothendieck realizations UGR(Ω), GR(Ω) no independent evidence
purpose: Turn controlled theories (and connected diagrams) into ∞-Lawvere theories whose models are the desired higher-algebraic globular objects.
Core new functors of §4; reduced version coequalizes duplicate lifts.
S-admissible and (S,L')-admissible pairs; generalized contractibility no independent evidence
purpose: Specify which parallel pairs must receive lifts when globular theories are combined with E-theories.
Definitions 3.14–3.17; drive the generating set I_Ω.
Canonical semi-model structure on Mod(V) for ∞-Lawvere theories V no independent evidence
purpose: Proposed homotopy theory with weak equivalences via π₀/π_n and generating sets I_V, J_V.
Definition 5.6; existence only conjectural via 5.7.
Group completion monads on MonGpd_∞ and SMG_∞ no independent evidence
purpose: Monadicity of free-forgetful adjunctions into Grp_∞ and Pic_∞.
Definition 4.18; formal consequence of stated adjunctions if those categories are as claimed.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 17901 in / 4428 out tokens · 63367 ms · 2026-07-31T04:13:08.506532+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

We introduce a construction of algebraic coherators for Grothendieck $\infty$-groupoids using the algebraic small object argument, replacing previous approaches we have used based on distributive series of monads with a more direct method for freely adjoining coherence data. Given a controlled theory, we define unreduced and reduced Grothendieck realizations, producing $\infty$-Lawvere theories and extending this construction functorially to connected diagrams of controlled theories. We apply this framework to construct globular models for monoidal $\infty$-groupoids, symmetric monoidal $\infty$-groupoids, coherent $\infty$-groups, and Picard $\infty$-groupoids. We define canonical semi-model structures on categories of models over $\infty$-Lawvere theories and formulate a generalized pushout conjecture that implies the existence of these semi-model structures and the Homotopy Hypothesis for Grothendieck $\infty$-groupoids.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

[1]

Ad\' a mek and J

J. Ad\' a mek and J. Rosick\' y , Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994

1994
[2]

Ara, On the homotopy theory of Grothendieck -groupoids

D. Ara, On the homotopy theory of Grothendieck -groupoids. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 217 (2013), no. 7, 1237--1278

2013
[3]

Batanin and D

M. Batanin and D. White, Homotopy Theory of Algebras of Substitudes and Their Localisation. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 375 (2022), no. 5, 3569--3640

2022
[4]

Bourke, Note on the construction of globular weak omega-groupoids from types, topological spaces,

J. Bourke, Note on the construction of globular weak omega-groupoids from types, topological spaces, . Cahiers Topologie G\'eom. Diff\'erentielle Cat\'eg. 57 (2016), no. 4, 281--294

2016
[5]

P. M. Bressie, The -categorification of Algebraic Theories. Available at arXiv:2006.07191 [math.CT], 2020

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[6]

Cheng, Iterated Distributive Laws

E. Cheng, Iterated Distributive Laws. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 150 (2011), no. 3, 459--487

2011
[7]

Garner, Understanding the Small Object Argument

R. Garner, Understanding the Small Object Argument. Appl. Categ. Structures 17 (2009), no. 3, 247--285

2009
[8]

Grothendieck, Pursuing Stacks (\`a la poursuite des champs)

A. Grothendieck, Pursuing Stacks (\`a la poursuite des champs). Vol. I. Documents Math\'ematiques 20. Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France, Paris, 2022

2022
[9]

Henry, Algebraic Models of Homotopy Types and the Homotopy Hypothesis

S. Henry, Algebraic Models of Homotopy Types and the Homotopy Hypothesis. Available at arXiv:1609.04622 [math.AT], 2016

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[10]

Henry and E

S. Henry and E. Lanari, On the homotopy hypothesis for 3-groupoids. Theory Appl. Categ. 39 (2023), Paper No. 26, 735--768

2023
[11]

Lanari, A semi-model structure for Grothendieck weak 3-groupoids

E. Lanari, A semi-model structure for Grothendieck weak 3-groupoids. Preprint, 2018

2018
[12]

F. W. Lawvere, Functorial semantics of algebraic theories. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 50 (1963), 869--872

1963
[13]

Leinster, Higher Operads, Higher Categories

T. Leinster, Higher Operads, Higher Categories. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 298. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

2004
[14]

Maltsiniotis, La th\'eorie de l'homotopie de Grothendieck

G. Maltsiniotis, La th\'eorie de l'homotopie de Grothendieck. Ast\'erisque 301 (2005), vi+140 pp

2005
[15]

Maltsiniotis, Grothendieck -groupoids, and still another definition of -categories

G. Maltsiniotis, Grothendieck -groupoids, and still another definition of -categories. Available at arXiv:1009.2331 [math.CT], 2010

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[16]

Taylor, Controlled Theories and Infinity Lawvere Theories: Weakening Axioms in the Globular Setting

J. Taylor, Controlled Theories and Infinity Lawvere Theories: Weakening Axioms in the Globular Setting. Ph.D. thesis, Case Western Reserve University, 2026

2026
[17]

Taylor, Controlled theories, categorification, and homotopification

J. Taylor, Controlled theories, categorification, and homotopification. Available at arXiv:2607.24716 [math.CT], 2026. references* document

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[1] [1]

Ad\' a mek and J

J. Ad\' a mek and J. Rosick\' y , Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994

1994

[2] [2]

Ara, On the homotopy theory of Grothendieck -groupoids

D. Ara, On the homotopy theory of Grothendieck -groupoids. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 217 (2013), no. 7, 1237--1278

2013

[3] [3]

Batanin and D

M. Batanin and D. White, Homotopy Theory of Algebras of Substitudes and Their Localisation. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 375 (2022), no. 5, 3569--3640

2022

[4] [4]

Bourke, Note on the construction of globular weak omega-groupoids from types, topological spaces,

J. Bourke, Note on the construction of globular weak omega-groupoids from types, topological spaces, . Cahiers Topologie G\'eom. Diff\'erentielle Cat\'eg. 57 (2016), no. 4, 281--294

2016

[5] [5]

P. M. Bressie, The -categorification of Algebraic Theories. Available at arXiv:2006.07191 [math.CT], 2020

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

[6] [6]

Cheng, Iterated Distributive Laws

E. Cheng, Iterated Distributive Laws. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 150 (2011), no. 3, 459--487

2011

[7] [7]

Garner, Understanding the Small Object Argument

R. Garner, Understanding the Small Object Argument. Appl. Categ. Structures 17 (2009), no. 3, 247--285

2009

[8] [8]

Grothendieck, Pursuing Stacks (\`a la poursuite des champs)

A. Grothendieck, Pursuing Stacks (\`a la poursuite des champs). Vol. I. Documents Math\'ematiques 20. Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France, Paris, 2022

2022

[9] [9]

Henry, Algebraic Models of Homotopy Types and the Homotopy Hypothesis

S. Henry, Algebraic Models of Homotopy Types and the Homotopy Hypothesis. Available at arXiv:1609.04622 [math.AT], 2016

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[10] [10]

Henry and E

S. Henry and E. Lanari, On the homotopy hypothesis for 3-groupoids. Theory Appl. Categ. 39 (2023), Paper No. 26, 735--768

2023

[11] [11]

Lanari, A semi-model structure for Grothendieck weak 3-groupoids

E. Lanari, A semi-model structure for Grothendieck weak 3-groupoids. Preprint, 2018

2018

[12] [12]

F. W. Lawvere, Functorial semantics of algebraic theories. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 50 (1963), 869--872

1963

[13] [13]

Leinster, Higher Operads, Higher Categories

T. Leinster, Higher Operads, Higher Categories. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 298. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

2004

[14] [14]

Maltsiniotis, La th\'eorie de l'homotopie de Grothendieck

G. Maltsiniotis, La th\'eorie de l'homotopie de Grothendieck. Ast\'erisque 301 (2005), vi+140 pp

2005

[15] [15]

Maltsiniotis, Grothendieck -groupoids, and still another definition of -categories

G. Maltsiniotis, Grothendieck -groupoids, and still another definition of -categories. Available at arXiv:1009.2331 [math.CT], 2010

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

[16] [16]

Taylor, Controlled Theories and Infinity Lawvere Theories: Weakening Axioms in the Globular Setting

J. Taylor, Controlled Theories and Infinity Lawvere Theories: Weakening Axioms in the Globular Setting. Ph.D. thesis, Case Western Reserve University, 2026

2026

[17] [17]

Taylor, Controlled theories, categorification, and homotopification

J. Taylor, Controlled theories, categorification, and homotopification. Available at arXiv:2607.24716 [math.CT], 2026. references* document

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026