Templicial nerve of an A-infinity category

Arne Mertens; Violeta Borges Marques

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 10 references

Templicial nerve of an A-infinity category

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every strictly unital $A_\infty$-category admits a templicial nerve that is a quasi-category in vector spaces.

desk verdict A genuine new construction with good consistency checks, but the key Lemma 3.6 is currently unproved for sums, and that gap sits under the whole nerve. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19751 v1 pith:L36NEDLG submitted 2024-11-29 math.CT math.AT

Violeta Borges Marques , Arne Mertens This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CTmath.AT MSC 18G7018N60

keywords A-infinitycategoriestemplicialvectorspacesquasi-categoriesinsimplicialnervedg-nervenecklacesenriched

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

The paper constructs, for every strictly unital $A_\infty$-category $A$ over a field $K$, a templicial vector space $NA^\infty_K(A)$, called its templicial $A_\infty$-nerve. The construction is functorial, and it is a lift of the simplicial $A_\infty$-nerve: the underlying simplicial set of $NA^\infty_K(A)$ is naturally isomorphic to the classical nerve. The main theorem says that $NA^\infty_K(A)$ is a quasi-category in vector spaces, and the same construction recovers the templicial dg-nerve when $A$ is a dg-category. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that $A_\infty$-categories fit into the templicial program, where enriched quasi-categories become amenable to homotopy-theoretic and deformation-theoretic methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the necklace category attached to the nerve, together with the (TAN) relation that defines its hom-objects. A necklace is a wedge of simplices glued at their endpoints; the nerve's value at $T$ is assembled from data on all injective necklace maps $U \hookrightarrow T$, and the (TAN) relation (8) encodes the $A_\infty$-structure as a family of equations indexed by those maps. The canonical isomorphism (10), obtained by the direct divisibility of necklace maps, is shown in Lemma 3.6 to restrict to an isomorphism between nerve subspaces, and this is exactly what makes the composition maps of the necklace category isomorphisms. By the fully faithful embedding of necklace categories into templicial vector spaces (Proposition 2.19), these isomorphisms certify that the construction is a templicial vector space. The proof of the main quasi-category theorem then runs through the horn-filling condition for the necklicial hom-objects, with the (TAN) relation supplying the required filler $z$.

What would settle it

Let $K=\mathbb{Q}$ and let $A$ be a strictly unital $A_\infty$-category with two objects and a single non-identity morphism in degree 1, with $m_2$ nontrivial; compute $NA^\infty_K(A)$ on the two-bead necklace $\Delta^1 \vee \Delta^1$ directly from the (TAN) relation. If the canonical map (10) from the tensor product of the two one-simplex nerves to this subspace is not surjective — for instance, if a sum of two valid tensors fails the relation at the composite vertex — then Lemma 3.6 is false and the nerve construction collapses at Proposition 3.9.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that there is a functor $NA^\infty_K : A_\infty\mathrm{Cat}^{su} \to S\otimes \mathrm{Mod}(K)$ (Proposition 3.17) whose value on any strictly unital $A_\infty$-category is a templicial vector space. For each necklace $T$, the vector space $NA^\infty_K(A)_T$ consists of collections $y=(y_g)$ indexed by injective necklace maps $g: U \hookrightarrow T$, with components in $(sA)_U$, satisfying the (TAN) relation (8). Wedge-together composition is an isomorphism by Lemma 3.6, so the associated necklace category satisfies the condition of Proposition 2.19 and therefore is a templicial vector space. The paper proves that this nerve is a quasi-category in vector spaces (Theorem 4.4), that its underlying simplicial set is exactly the simplicial $A_\infty$-nerve (Corollary 4.2), and that on dg-categories it is isomorphic to the templicial dg-nerve (Corollary 4.3). The nerve also has a workable universal property: maps from any templicial vector space into it are equivalent to quiver maps $\beta_n : X_n \to A_{n-1}$ satisfying equations (12) and (13) (Theorem 4.1).

Load-bearing premise

The construction depends on Lemma 3.6, which asserts that the canonical isomorphism (10) restricts to an isomorphism between the nerve subspaces; its proof uses that $K$ is a field and verifies only simple tensors, so the surjectivity direction for general sums is not fully demonstrated. If that lemma fails, the composition maps of the necklace category would not be isomorphisms and $NA^\infty_K(A)$ would not be a templicial vector space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under the forgetful functor to simplicial sets, the templicial nerve of $A$ is naturally isomorphic to the simplicial $A_\infty$-nerve, so the new construction is a faithful lift, not a new nerve with different underlying data.
When restricted to dg-categories, the templicial $A_\infty$-nerve is isomorphic to the templicial dg-nerve, so the dg-case is a special case.
Every strictly unital $A_\infty$-category provides an example of a quasi-category in vector spaces, substantially enlarging the supply of such enriched quasi-categories.
The universal property of Theorem 4.1 gives a practical way to construct maps into the nerve: specify quiver maps $\beta_n : X_n \to A_{n-1}$ satisfying the differential equation (13) and the degeneracy conditions (12).

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: because templicial vector spaces are set up to support infinitesimal deformation theory, the nerve functor suggests a route to studying deformations of $A_\infty$-categories via deformations of their templicial nerves, a direction the paper does not explore.
Editorial inference: Remark 3.7 indicates that the field assumption is only used in Lemma 3.6; if that lemma is proved under a flatness assumption over a commutative ring, the whole construction should extend to templicial modules over arbitrary rings.
Editorial inference: the extensive case-checking in the proofs of Lemma 3.4 and Proposition 3.14 hints at a cleaner structural explanation, and the paper itself notes that a general framework for templicial nerves from cosimplicial data should make the verifications formal.
Editorial inference: the existence of a quasi-category in vector spaces for every $A_\infty$-category invites homotopy-theoretic questions the paper does not address, such as whether the nerve preserves or reflects Dwyer-Kan equivalences and whether it induces an equivalence between suitable homotopy theories.

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

The paper builds a templicial lift of Faonte's simplicial A-infinity nerve, landing in templicial vector spaces. That object is genuinely new, and the three main results are exactly the right consistency checks: it recovers Faonte's nerve after applying the underlying simplicial set functor, it agrees with the existing templicial dg-nerve on dg-categories, and every value is a quasi-category in vector spaces. The comparison proofs are substantial and largely direct, and the use of the necklace category framework is natural rather than forced. This is a solid contribution to the templicial program, not a repackaging of known material.

The soft spots are real but localized. Lemma 3.6 is the one that matters. The proof checks only an elementary tensor x⊗y, and for such tensors the TAN equations do split over a field. But the lemma claims an isomorphism of subspaces, not just a pure-tensor criterion. An arbitrary element of NA_{T1∨T2} is a finite sum of elementary tensors, and the TAN conditions for a sum do not follow from the pure-tensor conditions on each summand. The paper needs an argument that the full TAN system forces decomposability, or a different proof of surjectivity. Without that, Proposition 3.9, which identifies the necklace category as a templicial vector space, has no support. The lemma is likely repairable—this looks like a missing argument rather than a false claim—but currently it is unproved at a load-bearing point. There is also a smaller gap in Theorem 4.4, where the TAN relation at g = id is dismissed as "clear" after a nontrivial choice of z_id and z_δj. That calculation should be displayed. The garbled final sentence of Lemma 3.6, which reads as "(x satisfies TAN or y=0) and (x=0 and y satisfies TAN)", does not inspire confidence in the written argument.

The paper leans on the authors' own templicial framework and cites an in-preparation paper for a possible simplification. That is not a flaw; the cited framework is the natural setting, and the core comparison with Faonte's nerve anchors the construction independently.

This paper deserves a serious referee. The main idea is good, the consistency results are compelling, and the gap in Lemma 3.6 is specific enough to fix. I would send it to review with a clear request to repair that lemma and expand the "clear" step in Theorem 4.4. Once those are addressed, the paper should be a useful reference for anyone working on enriched quasi-categories and A-infinity nerves.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a functor NA∞_K from the category of strictly unital A∞-categories over a field K to the category of templicial vector spaces over K. For each necklace T, the nerve NA∞_K(A)_T is defined as the subspace of the direct sum over injective necklace maps g: U → T of shifted Hom-spaces, cut out by the 'templicial A∞-nerve' (TAN) relations (8). The authors prove that this assignment is functorial and that the associated necklace category has isomorphism composition maps (Proposition 3.9), yielding a templicial vector space. They also define templicial maps from A∞-functors (Proposition 3.17). The main results are: the underlying simplicial set of NA∞_K(A) is Faonte's simplicial A∞-nerve (Corollary 4.2); on dg-categories the nerve agrees with the templicial dg-nerve (Corollary 4.3); and for every A∞-category the nerve is a quasi-category in K-vector spaces (Theorem 4.4).

Significance. If the technical gaps identified below are repaired, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it provides the first templicial lift of Faonte's A∞-nerve, strengthening the analogy between simplicial quasi-categories and enriched quasi-categories and unifying the A∞-nerve with the templicial dg-nerve. The construction is explicit, the direct verification of the TAN relations is extensive, and the main theorems are clearly stated. The paper also gives a useful universal-property-style description of maps into the nerve (Theorem 4.1). However, the proof of Lemma 3.6 is incomplete at the exact point needed for the templicial structure, so the central construction is not yet fully established.

major comments (2)

[3.1, Lemma 3.6] The proof of Lemma 3.6 only treats elementary tensors x ⊗ y. The canonical map (10) is an isomorphism between direct sums, but the claimed restriction to nerve subspaces is an isomorphism between NA_T1 ⊗ NA_T2 and NA_{T1∨T2}. An element of the target is a finite sum of elementary tensors, and the TAN relations are linear; knowing that each pure tensor satisfies the relations if and only if its factors do does not imply that an arbitrary sum satisfying the relations lies in NA_T1 ⊗ NA_T2. The argument does not show for a general sum ξ that the full TAN system forces ξ to decompose into a sum of pure tensors whose factors satisfy the respective relations, for example by proving (L⊗id)(ξ)=0 and (id⊗R)(ξ)=0 for the defining linear maps and then using injectivity or flatness over K. Consequently, the isomorphism claimed in Lemma 3.6 is not established. This is load-bearing: Proposition 3.9 and Construction 3.8 use this lemma to define the composition isomorphisms that make NA∞_K(A) a templicial vector space. The final sentence beginning 'Since K is a field' is also incorrect as written: it asserts a condition that would force x=0 or y=0 in the pure-tensor case, which conflicts with the intended statement. The gap is likely repairable, but a complete proof is required.
[4, Theorem 4.4] The proof of the horn-filling property in Theorem 4.4 relies on several assertions that are not fully justified. After defining z, the proof states that the TAN relations hold at every g ≠ id, δj because y_i and x_k satisfy them; this requires a compatibility check for the chosen decompositions that is not supplied. The claim that the relation at g = id is 'clear' is not a calculation. The displayed computation for g = δj is the main substance, but it invokes identities such as z_{δi◦δl} = z_{δl◦δi−1} and the TAN relations at δi without spelling out the indexing sets and sign bookkeeping. Since Theorem 4.4 is the central result that NA∞_K(A) is a quasi-category in vector spaces, these omissions should be filled with a more detailed verification.

minor comments (6)

[3.1, Lemma 3.6] In the statement of Lemma 3.6, the tensor product on the left should be NA∞_K(A)_{T1} ⊗_Ob(A) NA∞_K(A)_{T2}, not NA∞_K(A)_{T1} twice.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'lenght' (Definition 2.10), 'stritcly unital' (Example 2.3), 'generaliszation' (Section 2.3), and 'conecklicial' (Introduction).
[References] The bibliography lists [LM23] as arXiv:2005.04778v3, while the abstract cites version 4 of the same paper; please reconcile the version number.
[3.1, Definition 3.1] In Definition 3.1, the phrase 'Given a necklace T = N ec' should read 'Given a necklace T ∈ N ec'.
[3.1, Construction 3.8] The notation 'Mod(K)^{Nec^op}' in Construction 3.8 is not defined; it should be the functor category Fun(Nec^op, Mod K) or a similar standard notation.
[4, Theorem 4.1] In the proof of Theorem 4.1, the claimed bijection between the collections (α^g_n) and (β_n) is asserted without spelling out the inverse construction; a short explicit description would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the templicial A∞-nerve is constructed directly from the A∞-structure and compared with, not derived from, prior nerves.

full rationale

The central construction (Definition 3.1 and Construction 3.8) is an explicit new formula for a templicial vector space associated to an A∞-category; it does not assume the existence of NA∞_K(A) or its quasi-category property. Corollaries 4.2 and 4.3 are comparisons against Faonte's simplicial A∞-nerve and the templicial dg-nerve, proved from the universal property in Theorem 4.1 rather than used as inputs. Theorem 4.4 is proven by an explicit horn-filling construction using the A∞-relations; the cited [LM24, Cor. 5.3.2] is a general criterion that does not assume the target result. Self-citations to [LM23], [LM24], and [MM24] provide the published templicial/necklace framework and technical lemmas, but none of these citations asserts the existence or quasi-category property of NA∞_K(A). The proof of Lemma 3.6 may be incomplete for arbitrary sums since only elementary tensors are checked, but that is a rigor gap in justifying the templicial structure, not a circular reduction: the lemma is not assumed as an input and its conclusion does not coincide with a premise. The remark about [Mer] is explicitly a future simplification and is not load-bearing evidence.

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

The paper is a pure mathematics construction, so no numbers are fitted to data and no new physical or algebraic entities are postulated. The unproved inputs are prior results from the authors' own templicial framework ([LM23], [LM24], [MM24]) and background on A-infinity categories and necklaces. The independence of the framework matters because several of these inputs are by the same authors; the new content, the TAN relation (8) and the horn-filling proof, is checked directly rather than derived from the target theorem.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The fully faithful embedding (−)^nec identifies templicial vector spaces with necklace categories whose composition maps are isomorphisms (Proposition 2.19 of [LM24]).
Used to define NA∞_K(A) via its necklace category in Construction 3.8 and Proposition 3.9, and to translate templicial maps into necklicial functors.
domain assumption The horn-filling criterion for quasi-categories in vector spaces given in [LM24, Corollary 5.3.2] is valid.
Theorem 4.4 applies this criterion directly to conclude that NA∞_K(A) is a quasi-category in vector spaces.
domain assumption The combinatorial properties of necklaces from [MM24] hold: the (epi,mono) factorization system, direct divisibility with respect to wedge sums, and the dimension and signature identities compiled in Lemma 2.16.
Used throughout Section 3 to define f^* and to prove Lemmas 3.4, 3.6, and Proposition 3.14, as well as the bijections in Lemma 3.13.
domain assumption The templicial dg-nerve of [LM23] satisfies Proposition 3.21 of that paper, which describes maps into the dg-nerve.
Corollary 4.3 identifies the A-infinity nerve with the dg-nerve on dg-categories by invoking this proposition and setting all higher multiplications to zero.
domain assumption The ground field K is a field; Remark 3.7 notes this is used only in Lemma 3.6, and the construction would extend to commutative rings under a flatness hypothesis.
Lemma 3.6 uses the field property of tensor products to control the monoidal structure of the nerve; this is a stated hypothesis rather than an unstated one, but it is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Templicial nerve of an A-infinity category." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L36NEDLG

@misc{pith2026241119751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Templicial nerve of an A-infinity category},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L36NEDLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19751}
}

abstract

The framework of templicial vector spaces was put forth in arXiv:2302.02484v2 as a suitable generalization of simplicial sets in order to develop a theory of enriched quasi-categories, called quasi-categories in vector spaces. We construct a lift of Faonte's $A_{\infty}$-nerve arXiv:1312.2127v2 which lands in templicial vector spaces. Further, we show that when restricted to dg-categories, this nerve recovers the templicial dg-nerve of arXiv:2005.04778v4, and that the nerve of any $A_{\infty}$-category is a quasi-category in vector spaces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Geometry of loop spaces and the cobar cons truction

[Bau80] H. J. Baues. “Geometry of loop spaces and the cobar cons truction”. In: Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 25.230 (1980), pp. ix+171. issn: 0065- 9266,1947-6221. [BV73] J. M. Boardman and R. M. Vogt. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures on topological spaces . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

work page 1980
[5]

Sur les A-inﬁni-cat´ egories

Birkh¨ aser Basel, 1994, pp. 120–139. [Lef03] K. Lef` evre-Hasegawa. “Sur les A-inﬁni-cat´ egories”. T heses. Univer- sit´ e Paris-Diderot - Paris VII, Nov. 2003.url: https://theses.hal.science/tel-0000 [LM23] W. Lowen and A. Mertens. Frobenius templicial modules and the dg-nerve. Version

work page 1994
[6]

Frobenius templicial modules and the dg-nerve

arXiv: arXiv:2005.04778v3 [math.CT] . [LM24] W. Lowen and A. Mertens. “Enriched quasi-categories and t he templicial homotopy coherent nerve”. In: Alg. Geom. Topol. (2024). accepted for publication. [Lur09] J. Lurie. Higher topos theory . Vol

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[9]

Deformations of quasi-categories in modules

arXiv: 2308.09148 [math.CT] . [MM24] V. B. Marques and A. Mertens. “The category of necklaces is Reedy monoidal”. In: Theory Appl. Categ. 41 (2024), Paper No. 3, 71–85. issn: 1201-561X. [Sta63] J. Stasheﬀ. “Homotopy associativity of $H$-spaces. II”. In: Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society 108 (1963), pp. 293–

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[170]

Higher algebra

Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009, pp. xv iii+925. [Lur16] J. Lurie. “Higher algebra”. unpublished

work page 2009
[312]

(Violeta Borges Marques) Universiteit Antwerpen, Departement Wiskunde, Middelheimcampus, Middelheimlaan 1, 2020 Antwerp, Belgiu m Email address : Violeta.BorgesMarques@uantwerpen.be (Arne Mertens) Universiteit Antwerpen, Departement Wiskunde, Middel- heimcampus, Middelheimlaan 1, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium Email address : arne.mertens@uantwerpen.be

work page 2020
[347]

Rigidiﬁcation of quasi-categorie s

Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1973, pp. x+257. [DS11] D. Dugger and D. I. Spivak. “Rigidiﬁcation of quasi-categorie s”. In: Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11.1 (2011), pp. 225–261. [Fao17] G. Faonte. “Simplicial nerve of an A∞-category”. In: Theory Appl. Categ. 32 (2017), Paper No. 2, 31–52. [Fuk93] K. Fukaya. Morse Homotopy, A [inﬁnity]-category, and Floer Ho-...

work page 2011
[1993]

A∞-algebras and the cyclic bar complex

[GJ90] E. Getzler and J. D. S. Jones. “ A∞-algebras and the cyclic bar complex”. In: Illinois J. Math. 34.2 (1990), pp. 256–283. issn: 0019- 2082,1945-6581. [GP23] D. Grady and D. Pavlov. Extended ﬁeld theories are local and have classifying spaces. Version

work page 1990

Show all 10 references

[2012]

On nerves of enriched categories

isbn: 978-3-642-30361-6. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30362-3 . [Mer] A. Mertens. “On nerves of enriched categories”. In prepar ation. [MLM23] V. B. Marques, W. Lowen, and A. Mertens. Deformations of quasi- categories in modules

doi
[2023]

Quasi-categories and Kan complexes

arXiv: 2011.01208v4 [math.AT] . [Joy02] A. Joyal. “Quasi-categories and Kan complexes”. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 175.1-3 (2002). Special volume celebrating the 70th birth- day of Professor Max Kelly, pp. 207–222. 26 REFERENCES [Kel01] B. Keller. “Introduction to A-inﬁnity alg...

2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Geometry of loop spaces and the cobar cons truction

[Bau80] H. J. Baues. “Geometry of loop spaces and the cobar cons truction”. In: Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 25.230 (1980), pp. ix+171. issn: 0065- 9266,1947-6221. [BV73] J. M. Boardman and R. M. Vogt. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures on topological spaces . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

work page 1980

[2] [5]

Sur les A-inﬁni-cat´ egories

Birkh¨ aser Basel, 1994, pp. 120–139. [Lef03] K. Lef` evre-Hasegawa. “Sur les A-inﬁni-cat´ egories”. T heses. Univer- sit´ e Paris-Diderot - Paris VII, Nov. 2003.url: https://theses.hal.science/tel-0000 [LM23] W. Lowen and A. Mertens. Frobenius templicial modules and the dg-nerve. Version

work page 1994

[3] [6]

Frobenius templicial modules and the dg-nerve

arXiv: arXiv:2005.04778v3 [math.CT] . [LM24] W. Lowen and A. Mertens. “Enriched quasi-categories and t he templicial homotopy coherent nerve”. In: Alg. Geom. Topol. (2024). accepted for publication. [Lur09] J. Lurie. Higher topos theory . Vol

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [9]

Deformations of quasi-categories in modules

arXiv: 2308.09148 [math.CT] . [MM24] V. B. Marques and A. Mertens. “The category of necklaces is Reedy monoidal”. In: Theory Appl. Categ. 41 (2024), Paper No. 3, 71–85. issn: 1201-561X. [Sta63] J. Stasheﬀ. “Homotopy associativity of $H$-spaces. II”. In: Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society 108 (1963), pp. 293–

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [170]

Higher algebra

Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009, pp. xv iii+925. [Lur16] J. Lurie. “Higher algebra”. unpublished

work page 2009

[6] [312]

(Violeta Borges Marques) Universiteit Antwerpen, Departement Wiskunde, Middelheimcampus, Middelheimlaan 1, 2020 Antwerp, Belgiu m Email address : Violeta.BorgesMarques@uantwerpen.be (Arne Mertens) Universiteit Antwerpen, Departement Wiskunde, Middel- heimcampus, Middelheimlaan 1, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium Email address : arne.mertens@uantwerpen.be

work page 2020

[7] [347]

Rigidiﬁcation of quasi-categorie s

Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1973, pp. x+257. [DS11] D. Dugger and D. I. Spivak. “Rigidiﬁcation of quasi-categorie s”. In: Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11.1 (2011), pp. 225–261. [Fao17] G. Faonte. “Simplicial nerve of an A∞-category”. In: Theory Appl. Categ. 32 (2017), Paper No. 2, 31–52. [Fuk93] K. Fukaya. Morse Homotopy, A [inﬁnity]-category, and Floer Ho-...

work page 2011

[8] [1993]

A∞-algebras and the cyclic bar complex

[GJ90] E. Getzler and J. D. S. Jones. “ A∞-algebras and the cyclic bar complex”. In: Illinois J. Math. 34.2 (1990), pp. 256–283. issn: 0019- 2082,1945-6581. [GP23] D. Grady and D. Pavlov. Extended ﬁeld theories are local and have classifying spaces. Version

work page 1990