Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Simplicial properadic homotopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 proves that the homotopy category of a new simplicial category of homotopy bialgebras over properads is exactly the localization at quasi-isomorphisms and at infinity-quasi-isomorphisms.

desk verdict Properadic formality toolkit: new, credible, and worth a referee, with a load-bearing transfer from Fresse that needs explicit proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22004 v1 pith:E3NHZY3Z submitted 2025-05-28 math.AT math.CTmath.QA

Eric Hoffbeck , Johan Leray , Bruno Vallette This is my paper
classification math.ATmath.CTmath.QA MSC 18M8514D1516T1017B5518M7018N4018N50
keywords properadshomotopybialgebrasinfinity-morphismsinfinity-quasi-isomorphismszig-zagofquasi-isomorphismssimplicialenrichmentDeligne-Hinichintegrationformality
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 extends to properads — algebraic formats whose operations have several inputs and several outputs, covering bialgebras and related 'gebras' — two results that were previously known only for operads. The first is that two homotopy bialgebra structures are related by an infinity-quasi-isomorphism exactly when they are connected by a zig-zag of strict quasi-isomorphisms. The second is that the category of such structures and their infinity-morphisms admits a simplicial enrichment whose homotopy category is the localization of the category of gebras at quasi-isomorphisms and at infinity-quasi-isomorphisms. If correct, this gives a uniform homotopy theory for Lie bialgebras, Frobenius bialgebras, pre-Calabi-Yau algebras, and other multi-output algebraic structures, and it opens the door to formality statements for them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cofibrant 2-colored dg properad $(\Omega C)_{\bullet\rightsquigarrow\bullet}$, a resolution of the 2-colored properad encoding strict morphisms, whose Maurer-Cartan elements are precisely the infinity-morphisms of $\Omega C$-gebras. Around it the paper builds a convolution $L_\infty$-algebra whose Maurer-Cartan elements are triples $(\alpha,f,\beta)$ with $f$ an infinity-morphism, together with a density filtration on graphs that makes this $L_\infty$-algebra complete. The Deligne-Hinich integration functor $\mathrm{MC}^\bullet$ then converts these curved $L_\infty$-algebras into Kan complexes, and the homotopy invariance of this functor turns filtered infinity-quasi-isomorphisms into weak equivalences of Kan complexes, which is what produces the homotopy category and the localization theorem.

What would settle it

Take the 2-colored dg properad $(\Omega C)_{\bullet\rightsquigarrow\bullet}$ and two infinity-morphisms $f,g$ that are homotopic in the Kan complex $\mathrm{MC}^\bullet(\mathfrak{h}_{\alpha,\beta})$; if they cannot be connected by the zig-zag of strict quasi-isomorphisms promised in Proposition 3.9, then the strictification step behind Theorem 3.10 fails, and a concrete place to look is a small example where the path-object property $\mathrm{Path}(\mathrm{End}_{A,B}) \cong \mathrm{End}_{A,\mathrm{Path}(B)}$ is known to break down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.10: the canonical functor from the category of infinity-morphisms of $\Omega C$-gebras to the homotopy category of the simplicial category $\Delta$-$\Omega C$-gebras is the universal functor sending quasi-isomorphisms (respectively infinity-quasi-isomorphisms) to isomorphisms. Equivalently, that homotopy category is precisely the localization at these weak equivalences. The supporting Theorem 1.16 states that two $\Omega C$-gebra structures are infinity-quasi-isomorphic if and only if they are related by a zig-zag of strict quasi-isomorphisms, which makes formality amenable to deformation-theoretic methods. Together these results transfer the operadic homotopy theory of homotopy algebras to properads despite the absence of a rectification functor, a gap that forces the authors to use model structures on 2-colored dg properads and new filtrations on graphs.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof of the localization theorem assumes that a theorem proved for props — converting homotopic morphisms into zig-zags of strict quasi-isomorphisms — still holds for 2-colored dg properads, and the paper invokes this extension by analogy without proving it in detail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Formality for homotopy bialgebras can be established by exhibiting a single infinity-quasi-isomorphism instead of constructing a zig-zag of quasi-isomorphisms.
  • The homotopy category of $\Delta$-$\Omega C$-gebras is a well-defined localization, so homotopy classes of infinity-morphisms form a genuine category in which quasi-isomorphic gebras are indistinguishable.
  • An infinity-morphism is an infinity-quasi-isomorphism exactly when its pullback and pushout maps on mapping spaces are weak equivalences of Kan complexes, giving a homotopy-invariant criterion.
  • The integration-based homotopy transfer theorem produces transferred structures abstractly, complementing the explicit formulas of earlier work.
  • The framework covers associative bialgebras, Lie bialgebras, Frobenius bialgebras, pre-Calabi-Yau algebras, and other properadic structures, so the results apply across those examples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The localization theorem suggests that the simplicial mapping spaces $\mathrm{MC}^\bullet(\mathfrak{h}_{\alpha,\beta})$ are the derived mapping spaces of the properadic model structure, so the paper effectively computes the derived homotopy theory of $\Omega C$-gebras.
  • The density filtration on graphs is likely reusable in other properadic convergence arguments, for instance in spectral sequences computing obstruction classes to formality.
  • One testable consequence is that for cooperads, which are properads concentrated in arities $(1,n)$, the paper's results should specialize to the known operadic theorems; checking this specialization in examples would validate the properadic framework.
  • If the asserted extension of the cited prop-level strictification theorem to 2-colored properads fails, the proof of the localization theorem would need a new strictification step, although the statement itself might still be recoverable by other arguments.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a homotopy theory for ∞-morphisms of gebras over cobar properads ΩC. Its central results are Theorem 1.16, which identifies ∞-quasi-isomorphisms with zig-zags of strict quasi-isomorphisms; Theorem 3.10, which exhibits the homotopy category of a simplicial category Δ-ΩC-gebras as the localization of the category of ΩC-gebras at quasi-isomorphisms and ∞-quasi-isomorphisms; and Theorem 3.12, which characterizes ∞-quasi-isomorphisms via weak equivalences of mapping spaces. The technical apparatus includes a 2-colored cofibrant resolution (ΩC)_{•⇝•}, a convolution L∞-algebra encoding ∞-morphisms, an enrichment over curved L∞-algebras, and the Deligne–Hinich integration functor.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper is a substantial contribution: it extends from operads to properads a package of results (∞-quasi-isomorphism versus zig-zag, simplicial enrichment, and localization) that is essential for formality and deformation-theoretic applications, and it does so without relying on the unavailable rectification procedure. The paper contains detailed and credible proofs of several difficult local statements, including Lemma 1.6 (square-zero differential of the resolution), Proposition 1.10 (cofibrant resolution), and Lemma 3.7 (filtered ∞-quasi-isomorphism of pullback/pushout maps), and it introduces the density filtration (Definition 2.10) as a new tool. However, the main theorems rest on an asserted, unproved extension of Fresse's strictification theorem from props to 2-colored properads, which is load-bearing; the manuscript is therefore not yet complete as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Proposition 3.9] The proof of Proposition 3.9, and hence of Theorem 3.10 and Theorem 3.12, depends on the assertion that [Fre10, Theorem 8.4] extends from dg props to 2-colored dg properads. The only justification given is 'one applies mutatis mutandis the same arguments' together with an identification of underlying total chain complexes under the assignment f⊕g. This is not a routine translation: properads compose along connected graphs, whereas props allow arbitrary compositions, so the endomorphism properads of diagrams and the path-object argument require different bookkeeping. The paper itself concedes in Remark 3.11 that the operadic path-object identification fails for properads, which is precisely why the 2-colored properadic version of [Fre10, Lemmata 8.2 and 8.3] is needed. Please either prove this extension in detail or give a precise reduction to an existing theorem that literally covers 2-colored dg properads.
  2. [Section 1.3, Proposition 1.14 and Theorem 1.16] Theorem 1.16 is one of the two advertised central results, and its proof relies on the same unproved transfer. The proof of Proposition 1.14 states that 'the methods developed in [Fre10, Theorem C & Theorem 8.4] on the level of props hold as well for properads' and refers to Section 5.2.3 of Fre10; the proof of Theorem 1.16 similarly invokes [Fre10, Section 7] 'on the level of props' and asserts the properadic analogue. Since Proposition 1.14 is the step that converts ∞-isotopies into two-arrow zig-zags of strict quasi-isomorphisms, and Theorem 1.16 then uses this to obtain the full zig-zag characterization, the missing extension is load-bearing. The cited passage in Fre10 does not appear to be reproduced or summarized in the manuscript, so the reader cannot verify that it covers the properadic composition rules.
  3. [Section 1.2, Proposition 1.7] The cofibrantly generated model structure on 2-colored dg properads is stated with a one-sentence proof that all arguments of [JY09, Theorem 1.1] 'hold as well in this setting'. This model structure underpins Proposition 1.10, where cofibrancy of (ΩC)_{•⇝•} is asserted, and Proposition 3.9, where path objects and homotopy classes of morphisms of 2-colored dg properads are used. Because colored properads have different generating cells and composition operations than colored props, the transfer is not literally automatic. Please provide the generating (trivial) cofibrations, or at least a detailed verification of the small-object argument and the path-object construction for 2-colored dg properads, or a reference that treats this exact category.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.3, Proposition 1.14] In the statement of Proposition 1.14, the displayed zig-zag is labeled with quasi-isomorphisms g and h, and the text says the respective isomorphisms in homology satisfy H(g)=H(h)^{-1}; with the direction of the arrows this reads as a condition rather than a conclusion. Please clarify the direction and the intended composition.
  2. [Section 1.3, proof of Theorem 1.16] In the final diagram of the proof, there is a stray closing bracket after '(H,θ′)' in the right-hand portion of the displayed diagram; this makes the diagram difficult to parse.
  3. [Section 2.4, proof of Lemma 2.25] The sentence 'then applying Δ(q), −Δ(q) and, −d_C for q = 1 to any element' is confusing because q is not introduced as a running index before this clause. Please define the summation ranges explicitly.
  4. [Section 3.2, Remark 3.11] The phrase 'does not hold on the pr-operadic level' contains a typo; it should read 'properadic level'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central localization and zig-zag theorems are derived from independent published ingredients; the main risk is an asserted transfer of Fresse's theorem, which is a proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central results, Theorem 1.16 and Theorem 3.10, are not obtained by fitting a parameter to the data they claim to predict, nor by defining the target relation into the input. The heavy external inputs are the authors' own prior article [HLV21] — a published IMRN paper containing explicit formulas for the homotopy transfer theorem, ∞-morphism composition, and homological invertibility of ∞-quasi-isomorphisms — and Fresse's prop-level results [Fre10], which are by a different author and are invoked as a cited theorem. The proof of Theorem 1.16 reduces an ∞-quasi-isomorphism to a zig-zag of strict quasi-isomorphisms by combining [HLV21, Theorem 4.18], Fresse's transfer constructions, and Proposition 1.14, which is proved internally from path-object and model-categorical arguments. Theorem 3.10 likewise depends on Proposition 3.9, whose proof asserts a 'mutatis mutandis' extension of [Fre10, Theorem 8.4] to 2-colored dg properads. If that extension fails, the proof collapses, but that is a proof gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the paper never quotes an equation of its target theorem as an input, and it does not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. The characterization in Theorem 2.14 is an encoding statement — the convolution L∞-algebra is constructed so that the Maurer–Cartan equation unravels exactly to the ∞-morphism equation — but it is presented honestly as a reformulation, not as an independent discovery, and it is not the paper's headline claim. The acknowledged failure of the operadic path-object identification, stated in Remark 3.11, is a limitation that the authors address by different methods, which further supports the non-circular character of the derivation. No uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Accordingly, the analysis finds no significant circularity; the main unsupported step is the asserted transfer of Fresse's theorem, which should be weighed as a correctness concern rather than a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no postulated new entities such as particles or forces. Its novel technical input is the density filtration (Definition 2.10), which is a construction within the proof rather than an entity with independent empirical content. The central claims rest on a set of background results from the literature, two of which are extended by analogy rather than by full proof, namely the model structure on 2-colored properads and Fresse's strictification theorem.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ground field k has characteristic 0.
    Stated in the Conventions section. It is used throughout to ensure every chain complex is cofibrant and fibrant, so path objects and Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence arguments apply.
  • domain assumption C is a conilpotent dg coproperad.
    Definition 1.9 restricts most theorems (for example Proposition 1.10, Theorem 1.16, Lemma 3.7, and Theorem 3.10) to this class, which guarantees the coradical and density filtrations are increasing, exhaustive, and compatible with the differential.
  • domain assumption The category of 2-colored dg properads admits the model structure described in Proposition 1.7.
    Proposition 1.7 is proved by saying all arguments of [JY09, Theorem 1.1] hold as well; no complete proof for properads is given. This model structure is used to construct cofibrant resolutions and cylinders for the 2-colored properad.
  • ad hoc to paper Fresse's theorems on path objects and strictification extend from props to 2-colored dg properads.
    In Propositions 1.14 and 3.9, the paper invokes [Fre10, Theorem C and Theorem 8.4] mutatis mutandis for 2-colored dg properads without providing the extension. This is the weakest premise in the paper and is load-bearing for the localization theorem.
  • standard math The Deligne-Hinich integration functor satisfies homotopy invariance for curved L-infinity algebras.
    Theorem 3.2 and Proposition 3.8 depend on the Goldman-Millson type theorem of Dolgushev-Rogers [DR15] and on the Kan complex property proved by Hinich, Getzler, and Roca i Lucio [RiL24]. These are cited prior results, not re-proved here.
  • standard math The homotopy transfer theorem and homological invertibility of infinity-quasi-isomorphisms for Omega-C-gebras hold as established in [HLV21].
    Theorem 1.16 and Proposition 1.14 rely on [HLV21, Theorem 4.14 and 4.18] for the existence of transferred structures and inverses up to homotopy. These results are published and are not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simplicial properadic homotopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3NHZY3Z

@misc{pith2026250522004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simplicial properadic homotopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3NHZY3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22004}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we settle the homotopy properties of the infinity-morphisms of homotopy (bial)-gebras over properads, i.e. algebraic structures made up of operations with several inputs and outputs. We start by providing the literature with characterizations for the various types of infinity-morphisms, the most seminal one being the equivalence between infinity-quasi-isomorphisms and zig-zags of quasi-isomorphisms which plays a key role in the study the formality property. We establish a simplicial enrichment for the categories of gebras over some cofibrant properads together with their infinity-morphisms, whose homotopy category provides us with the localisation with respect to infinity-quasi-isomorphisms. These results extend to the properadic level known properties for operads, but the lack of the rectification procedure in this setting forces us to use different methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22004 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An element of M✁(3) N. Recall from [HLV21, Definition 3.13] that the left and right infinitesimal decomposition maps of a coaugmented coproperad ( C, Δ, 𝜀) are defined respectively by Δ(∗) : C C⊠ C C✁(∗) C , Δ (∗) : C C⊠ C C (∗)✄ C , Δ ( 𝜀;id)⊠id Δ id⊠( 𝜀;id) which can be extended to C by setting the image of I to be trivial. Similarly, they are made up of the following components, for 𝑛 ⩾ 1: Δ(𝑛) : C C⊠ C C✁(𝑛) C ,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Infinitesimal H opf algebras

    Marcelo Aguiar. Infinitesimal H opf algebras. In New trends in H opf algebra theory ( L a F alda, 1999) , volume 267 of Contemp. Math. , pages 1--29. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    The higher algebra of topological recursion

    Ga\"etan Borot and Bruno Vallette. The higher algebra of topological recursion. to appear , 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Homological algebra related to surfaces with boundary

    Kai Cieliebak, Kenji Fukaya, and Janko Latschev. Homological algebra related to surfaces with boundary. Quantum Topol. , 11(4):691--837, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Real homotopy theory of K \"ahler manifolds

    Pierre Deligne, Phillip Griffiths, John Morgan, and Dennis Sullivan. Real homotopy theory of K \"ahler manifolds. Invent. Math. , 29(3):245--274, 1975

    1975

  5. [5]

    Dolgushev, Alexander E

    Vasily A. Dolgushev, Alexander E. Hoffnung, and Christopher L. Rogers. What do homotopy algebras form? Adv. Math. , 274:562--605, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Dolgushev and Christopher L

    Vasily A. Dolgushev and Christopher L. Rogers. A version of the G oldman- M illson theorem for filtered L_ -algebras. J. Algebra , 430:260--302, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Dolgushev and Christopher L

    Vasily A. Dolgushev and Christopher L. Rogers. On an enhancement of the category of shifted L_ -algebras. Appl. Categ. Structures , 25(4):489--503, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Maurer- Cartan methods in deformation theory

    Vladimir Dotsenko, Sergey Shadrin, and Bruno Vallette. Maurer- Cartan methods in deformation theory. The twisting procedure , volume 488 of Lond. Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    The deformation complex is a homotopy invariant of a homotopy algebra

    Vasily Dolgushev and Thomas Willwacher. The deformation complex is a homotopy invariant of a homotopy algebra. In Developments and retrospectives in Lie theory. Algebraic methods. Retrospective selected papers based on the presentations at the seminar ``Lie groups, Lie algebra...

    1991

  2. [10]

    Kaledin classes and formality criteria

    Coline Emprin. Kaledin classes and formality criteria. ArXiv preprint , 2024. Available at arXiv:2404.17529 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17529

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Properadic coformality of spheres

    Coline Emprin and Alex Takeda. Properadic coformality of spheres. ArXiv preprint , 2025. Available at arXiv:2503.04297 https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04297

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Operadic cobar constructions, cylinder objects and homotopy morphisms of algebras over operads

    Benoit Fresse. Operadic cobar constructions, cylinder objects and homotopy morphisms of algebras over operads. In Alpine perspectives on algebraic topology , volume 504 of Contemp. Math. , pages 125--188. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Props in model categories and homotopy invariance of structures

    Benoit Fresse. Props in model categories and homotopy invariance of structures. Georgian Math. J. , 17(1):79--160, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Lie theory for nilpotent L_ -algebras

    Ezra Getzler. Lie theory for nilpotent L_ -algebras. Ann. of Math. (2) , 170(1):271--301, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Goldman and John J

    William M. Goldman and John J. Millson. The deformation theory of representations of fundamental groups of compact K \"ahler manifolds. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (67):43--96, 1988

    1988

  8. [16]

    Derived deformation theory of algebraic structures, 2019

    Gregory Ginot and Sinan Yalin. Derived deformation theory of algebraic structures, 2019. Available at arXiv:1910.07255 https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.07255

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Descent of D eligne groupoids

    Vladimir Hinich. Descent of D eligne groupoids. International Mathematics Research Notices , (5):223--239, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Properadic homotopical calculus

    Eric Hoffbeck, Johan Leray, and Bruno Vallette. Properadic homotopical calculus. Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2021(5):3866--3926, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Johnson and Donald Yau

    Mark W. Johnson and Donald Yau. On homotopy invariance for algebras over colored PROPs . J. Homotopy Relat. Struct. , 4(1):275--315, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Deformation quantization of P oisson manifolds

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

    2003

  13. [21]

    Airy structures and symplectic geometry of topological recursion

    Maxim Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman. Airy structures and symplectic geometry of topological recursion. In Topological recursion and its influence in analysis, geometry, and topology , volume 100 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. , pages 433--489. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Smooth Calabi - Yau structures and the noncommutative Legendre transform

    Maxim Kontsevich , Alex Takeda , and Yiannis Vlassopoulos . Smooth Calabi - Yau structures and the noncommutative Legendre transform. ArXiv preprint , 2023. Available at arXiv:2301.01567 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01567

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Pre- Calabi - Yau algebras and topological quantum field theories

    Maxim Kontsevich, Alex Takeda, and Yiannis Vlassopoulos. Pre- Calabi - Yau algebras and topological quantum field theories. Eur. J. Math. , 11(1):101, 2025. Id/No 15

    2025

  16. [24]

    Protoperads II : Koszul duality

    Johan Leray. Protoperads II : Koszul duality. J. \'E c. Polytech., Math. , 7:897--941, 2020

    2020

  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-Verlag, Berlin, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Pre- C alabi-- Y au algebras and homotopy double P oisson gebras

    Johan Leray and Bruno Vallette. Pre- C alabi-- Y au algebras and homotopy double P oisson gebras. ArXiv preprint , 2023. Available at arXiv:2203.05062 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05062

    2023

  19. [27]

    Deformation theory of representations of prop(erad)s

    Sergei Merkulov and Bruno Vallette. Deformation theory of representations of prop(erad)s. I . J. Reine Angew. Math. , 634:51--106, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    Deformation theory of representations of prop(erad)s

    Sergei Merkulov and Bruno Vallette. Deformation theory of representations of prop(erad)s. II . J. Reine Angew. Math. , 636:123--174, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Balanced infinitesimal bialgebras, double P oisson gebras and pre- C alabi-- Y au algebras

    Alexandre Quesney. Balanced infinitesimal bialgebras, double P oisson gebras and pre- C alabi-- Y au algebras. ArXiv preprint , 2023. Available at arXiv:2312.14893 https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14893

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The integration theory of curved absolute \( L _ \) -algebras

    Victor Roca i Lucio. The integration theory of curved absolute \( L _ \) -algebras. Adv. Math. , 448:85, 2024. Id/No 109718

    2024

  23. [31]

    Higher L ie theory

    Daniel Robert-Nicoud and Bruno Vallette. Higher L ie theory. ArXiv preprint , 2020. Available at arXiv:2010.10485 https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10485

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    G\`ebres

    Jean-Pierre Serre. G\`ebres. Enseign. Math. (2) , 39(1-2):33--85, 1993

    1993

  25. [33]

    Infinitesimal computations in topology

    Dennis Sullivan. Infinitesimal computations in topology. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. , (47):269--331 (1978), 1977

    1978

  26. [34]

    Algebraic string operations

    Thomas Tradler and Mahmoud Zeinalian. Algebraic string operations. \(K\)-Theory , 38(1):59--82, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    A K oszul duality for props

    Bruno Vallette. A K oszul duality for props. Trans. of Amer. Math. Soc. , 359:4865--4993, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Homotopy theory of homotopy algebras

    Bruno Vallette. Homotopy theory of homotopy algebras. Ann. Inst. Fourier , 70(2):683--738, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    C.A. Weibel. An introduction to homological algebra , volume 38 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994

    1994

  30. [38]

    Realization spaces of algebraic structures on cochains

    Sinan Yalin. Realization spaces of algebraic structures on cochains. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (1):236--291, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

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