Simple algebras and exact module categories

Kevin Coulembier; Mateusz Stroi\'nski; Tony Zorman

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Simple algebras and exact module categories

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exact algebras are exactly finite products of simple ones.

desk verdict Settles Etingof–Ostrik's Conjecture B.6 with a coherent, well-supported proof; the one point a referee should press is the imported Perron–Frobenius argument in Proposition 6.13. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06629 v2 pith:M6SANJY7 submitted 2025-01-11 math.RT math.CTmath.QA

Kevin Coulembier , Mateusz Stroiński , Tony Zorman This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.CTmath.QA MSC 18D2518M05

keywords exactalgebrafinitetensorcategorysimpleJacobsonradicalmoduleC-modulemixedsubfunctornilpotentideal

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 a conjecture from the literature on finite tensor categories: an algebra object is exact if and only if it is a finite direct product of simple algebras. Exactness here means that every module over the algebra is projective in the categorical sense, a property known to hold for products of simples but open in general. The proof introduces a categorical analogue of the Jacobson radical for algebra objects, called the C-module radical, and shows that an algebra is exact precisely when this radical vanishes. This gives a concrete criterion: an algebra has no nonzero nilpotent ideals exactly when it is a finite product of simple algebras. A sympathetic reader should care because this unifies several prior results and settles the structural question for module categories over finite tensor categories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a chain of bijections between three kinds of ideals: two-sided ideals inside the algebra object $A$, mixed subfunctors of the representable presheaf $\mathcal{C}(-,A)$ restricted to projective objects, and $\mathcal{C}_p$-stable ideals in the Kleisli category $\mathrm{Kl}(\mathcal{C}_p \otimes A)$ of free projective $A$-modules. The mixed subfunctor notion is new here; it packages the data of a subfunctor that is simultaneously compatible with both left and right multiplication. The C-module radical $\mathrm{Rad}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ is defined as the ideal corresponding to the largest nilpotent $\mathcal{C}_p$-stable ideal in the Kleisli category, and its vanishing is shown to be equivalent to exactness using minimal projective presentations and a Perron–Frobenius type idempotent imported from earlier work.

What would settle it

Compute whether the module category of $A \otimes A$ over $\mathbb{Z}/2$-graded vector spaces in characteristic 2 contains a non-projective object, where $A = k[x]/(x^2)$ with $x$ odd; the theorem predicts it must, since $A \otimes A$ is not a finite product of simple algebras, so finding every module projective would falsify the converse direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 7.1: for an algebra object $A$ in a finite tensor category $\mathcal{C}$, four conditions coincide — $A$ is exact; the new radical $\mathrm{Rad}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ is zero; $A$ has no nonzero nilpotent ideal objects; and $A$ is a finite direct product of simple algebras. The paper proves the missing direction: any finite product of simple algebras is exact, so exact algebras are precisely the semisimple-like objects. Along the way it establishes a canonical bijection between ideals in $A$ and certain stable ideals in the Kleisli category of free projective $A$-modules, and it shows that $\mathrm{Rad}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ is the largest nilpotent ideal. The result also verifies an equivalent conjecture about quasi-Frobenius algebras in finite tensor categories.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a Perron–Frobenius type idempotent exists in the split Grothendieck semiring of projective objects, so that the imported lemmas apply; if that fails, the proof that exactness forces the new radical to vanish would break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every simple commutative algebra in a braided finite tensor category gives rise to a finite tensor category of modules, since it is exact.
In finite symmetric tensor categories, there is a unique largest simple commutative algebra $F(\mathcal{C})$, and the category of its modules is the unique incompressible quotient of $\mathcal{C}$.
The category of modules over $A/\mathrm{Rad}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ consists exactly of subquotients of objects $Q \rhd L$ with $Q$ projective and $L$ semisimple, giving a maximal-semisimple-quotient picture.
Without assuming a fibre functor, every module over a simple algebra is projective in the categorical sense, extending a classical Hopf-algebra result to arbitrary finite tensor categories.
The equivalence of exactness with having no nonzero nilpotent ideals gives a practical test for exactness of algebra objects.

Reading between the lines

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

If the radical theory behaves like the classical one, $\mathrm{Rad}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ could be used to measure how far $\mathrm{mod}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ is from being semisimple, and the quotient $A/\mathrm{Rad}_{\mathcal{C}}(A)$ might play the role of the maximal semisimple quotient in tensor-categorical module theory.
The bijection between ideals in $A$ and $\mathcal{C}_p$-stable ideals suggests that lattice-theoretic questions about module categories reduce to ideal theory in the algebra object; one could test this by computing ideal lattices in examples such as the symmetric category of $\mathbb{Z}/2$-graded vector spaces in characteristic 2.
Remark 6.15 of the paper indicates the radical method might extend to non-finite tensor categories with enough projectives, such as those from Lie superalgebras, except where the finiteness-based Proposition 6.13 fails; finding a concrete category where the Perron–Frobenius idempotent exists but finiteness fails would probe that boundary.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 conjecture is settled, and the proof is as good as the claim. The main theorem — exact iff finite product of simple algebras — is a real advance: before this, the converse was known only under a fibre functor, via Skryabin. The paper gives two independent routes to the key bijection between ideals in A, mixed subfunctors, and C_p-stable ideals (pseudo-Hopf in Section 3, Day convolution in Section 4), then builds a Jacobson-style radical that makes exactness equivalent to vanishing of the radical and to absence of nilpotent ideals. That chain is coherent and genuinely proves the conjecture, not just a reformulation. The applications to incompressible symmetric tensor categories in Appendix B are a nice payoff, and the note connecting the result to Shimizu's quasi-Frobenius conjecture is correct. I also appreciate that the authors are explicit about where they import heavy machinery.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader's stress-test points: Proposition 6.13, the step that converts 'no nilpotent ideals' into a statement about all projective A-modules, rests on two lemmas from Stroinski's paper plus a Perron–Frobenius idempotent whose positivity is asserted rather than proved in the text. Remark 6.14 gives a plausible reduction: finitely many indecomposable projectives, positivity of the idempotent, and the condition that {P ⊳ R} is non-zero for every non-zero projective R. That is probably true, but it is not self-contained, and the cited lemmas are not reproduced. If a specialist found a counterexample to the positivity claim, the implication from (iii) to (i) in Theorem 7.1 would collapse. I would not call this a fatal gap — the argument looks right and the authors clearly thought about the transitivity condition — but it is the load-bearing imported input, and the referee report should ask for a more detailed proof of the positivity claim or at least a precise statement of how [St2, Lemma 4.16] applies.

The rest of the main theorem is comparatively elementary once the bijection and radical are in place, and the diagrammatic proofs are dense but checkable. No circularity: the radical is defined via the bijection, but the equivalence with absence of nilpotent ideals is proved. No fitted parameters, no invented target.

Net: this deserves a serious referee. I would send it out, and if the Proposition 6.13 point survives scrutiny, accept. For my own reading group, I would bring it up. I would also cite it in the next twelve months.

Recommendation: peer review, with focused attention on Section 6.2 and the imported [St2] lemmas.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proves Etingof and Ostrik's Conjecture B.6: an algebra object A in a finite tensor category C is exact if and only if it is a finite direct product of simple algebras. The proof introduces mixed subfunctors of C(-,A) restricted to projective objects, establishes a lattice isomorphism between ideals of A and C_p-stable ideals in the Kleisli category Kl(C_p⊗A) via two independent routes (a pseudo-Hopf algebra argument in Section 3 and a Day-convolution argument in Section 4), and uses this to define a C-module radical Rad_C(A). The main theorem characterizes exactness by Rad_C(A)=0, by absence of nonzero nilpotent ideals, and by decomposability into simple algebras. The paper also derives consequences for the module category of A/Rad_C(A) and for incompressible finite symmetric tensor categories.

Significance. If correct, the paper resolves a conjecture of Etingof and Ostrik (and the equivalent conjecture of Shimizu) that had been open for finite tensor categories beyond the Hopf-algebraic setting. The main theorem is clean and the proof is well structured. Notably, the crucial bijection between algebra ideals and C_p-stable ideals is supported by two independent derivations, which cross-check each other. The paper also contains a self-contained proof of the known direction that exact algebras decompose into simples (Proposition 7.4), a new Jacobson-radical analogue with applications (Theorem 8.9), and concrete applications to incompressible symmetric tensor categories (Appendix B). These features make the paper a substantial contribution to the theory of module categories over finite tensor categories.

major comments (2)

[§6.2 (Proposition 6.12)] The proof of Proposition 6.12 shows only that every nilpotent C_p-stable ideal is contained in Rad^C_A; it does not show that Rad^C_A is itself nilpotent. The claim that Rad^C_A is the greatest nilpotent C_p-stable ideal, and consequently that Rad_C(A) is nilpotent, is needed for the equivalence (ii)⇔(iii) in Theorem 7.1 and for Lemma 8.8. The missing argument is short: because Kl(C_p⊗A) is Hom-finite with finitely many indecomposables, its Jacobson radical is nilpotent, and Lemma 6.11 gives Rad^C_A ⊆ Rad(Kl(C_p⊗A)), hence Rad^C_A is nilpotent. Please add this justification.
[§6.2 (Proposition 6.13, Remark 6.14)] The proof of Proposition 6.13 imports [St2, Lemma 4.16] and [St2, Lemma 4.11] and argues that the transitivity condition in loc. cit. reduces to the positivity of the Perron–Frobenius idempotent e and to {P⊳R | P∈C_p} ≠ {0}. The non-vanishing condition is indeed immediate, but the positivity of e is only asserted ('by construction'), and the precise way in which [St2, Lemma 4.16] yields a positive idempotent without the transitivity assumption is not demonstrated. Since this step converts the absence of nilpotent ideals into the vanishing of the projective presentation morphism r_1, it is load-bearing. Please spell out the relevant statement from [St2] or provide a direct proof.

minor comments (3)

[§6.2 (Remark 6.14)] In Remark 6.14, consider adding a one-sentence justification of the non-vanishing condition: if R is a nonzero projective A-module, then for a projective cover Q ↠ 1 in C, the map Q⊳R ↠ R is a nonzero epimorphism, so {P⊳R | P∈C_p} ≠ {0}.
[§8 (section title)] The section title 'The radical of a module object and the maximal semisimple qotient' contains a typo: 'qotient' should be 'quotient'.
[§6.2 (proof of Proposition 6.13)] In the proof of Proposition 6.13, the variables S and M are introduced 'using the notation of [St2]' but are not used further in the proof; aligning the notation with the statement of [St2, Lemma 4.16] would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem proves Etingof and Ostrik's external conjecture, and the only load-bearing imported input is a general lemma from the coauthor's prior work, not a restatement of the target.

full rationale

The paper verifies a conjecture of Etingof and Ostrik ([EO2, Conjecture B.6]) rather than inventing its own target, so the principal claim is not manufactured. The new C-module radical is introduced through an explicit chain of bijections: ideals in A correspond to mixed subfunctors of C(−,A)|C_p (Corollary 3.2 and Section 4), which in turn correspond to C_p-stable ideals in Kl C_p⊗A (Theorem 5.9). The identification of Rad_C(A) as the greatest nilpotent ideal object is proved in Proposition 6.12 using those bijections and the product formula of Proposition 6.6, not assumed by definition. The equivalence between exactness and vanishing of the radical is argued directly in Theorem 6.16: exactness forces all Q⊳M to be projective and hence forces Rad_C^A=0, while vanishing of the radical makes the minimal projective presentation of Q⊳X split by Proposition 6.13, giving exactness. The most delicate step, Proposition 6.13, imports [St2, Lemma 4.16] and [St2, Lemma 4.11] from a coauthor's earlier paper; the transitivity hypothesis is addressed only tersely in Remark 6.14 with the sentence 'This latter claim is clearly true in our case'. This is a legitimate point for independent verification, but it is not circular: the cited lemmas are general statements about projective covers and Perron-Frobenius idempotents in module categories, not a restatement of the conjecture, and the paper gives a concrete finiteness argument for the positivity condition. There is no fitted parameter, no quantity predicted from the data used to define it, and no renaming of a known result in new coordinates. The score of 2 reflects the presence of a load-bearing, terse self-citation at a delicate point, while the core derivation retains independent mathematical content.

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

No numerical free parameters appear: the proofs are parameter-free and the theorem contains no fitted constants. The axioms are the general setting of finite tensor categories, two imported technical packages from [EO2] and [St2], and standard structural results used in the applications. No new physical or geometric entities are introduced; the key new objects, mixed subfunctors and the C-module radical, are definitions whose properties are proved internally.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption C is a finite tensor category: rigid, k-linear monoidal, equivalent to finitely generated modules over a finite-dimensional algebra, with End(1) = k, enough projectives, finite dimensional Hom spaces, objects of finite length, and finitely many simple objects up to isomorphism.
This is the standing setting stated in Section 2.1 and used throughout the paper.
standard math A finite tensor category with a projective generator P is equivalent to modules over a pseudo-Hopf algebra H = End(P)^op, with tensor product encoded by an (H, H ⊗ H)-bimodule T.
Imported from [EO2, Section 4] and used in Section 3.1 to prove Corollary 3.2. The Day convolution proof in Section 4 provides an alternative route, so the central theorem does not depend solely on this imported construction.
standard math The monoidal category C may be assumed strict, and the subcategory C_p of projective objects is closed under duals.
Assumed at the start of Section 5.1; standard by Mac Lane coherence and rigidity, and it simplifies the computations of the bijection between ideals and C_p-stable ideals.
standard math The technical lemmas from [St2] (Lemma 4.11, Lemma 4.13, Lemma 4.16, Theorem 4.27) and [KL, Proposition 5.1.7] hold in the stated generality.
Used in Proposition 6.13, Lemma 6.2, and Proposition 4.2. The authors discuss the applicability of [St2, Lemma 4.16] in Remark 6.14, arguing that its transitivity hypothesis is automatically satisfied for finite tensor categories.
standard math The Frobenius-Perron dimension of objects is preserved by tensor functors and decreases along surjective tensor functors between finite tensor categories.
Used in Appendix B, Proposition B.1, to show that chains of simple commutative algebras stabilize. This is from [EGNO, Proposition 6.3.4] and [EGNO, Proposition 4.5.7].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simple algebras and exact module categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6SANJY7

@misc{pith2026250106629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simple algebras and exact module categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6SANJY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06629}
}

read the original abstract

We verify a conjecture of Etingof and Ostrik, stating that an algebra object in a finite tensor category is exact if and only if it is a finite direct product of simple algebras. Towards that end, we introduce an analogue of the Jacobson radical of an algebra object, similar to the Jacobson radical of a finite-dimensional algebra. We give applications of our main results in the context of incompressible finite symmetric tensor categories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06629 by the authors.

**Figure 4.1.** Verification of condition (M2). To verify condition (M3), let 𝑔 ∈ J(𝑃) and 𝑓 ∈ Hom𝐴−(𝐴 ⊲ 𝑄, 𝐴 ⊲ 𝑃). We have ( 𝐴 𝑔 ◦ 𝑓 ) = 𝜇𝐴 ◦ (id𝐴 ⊗𝑔) ◦ (𝑓 ◦ 𝜂𝐴 ⊗ 𝑄), which lies in J(𝑄) by applying condition (D3) to the morphisms 𝜑, 𝑔′ , and ℎ ′ , by setting ℎ ′ = 𝑔, 𝑔 ′ = id𝐴, and 𝜑 = 𝑓 ◦ (𝜂𝐴 ⊗ 𝑄). □ Lemma 4.6. A mixed subfunctor J gives a collection of subspaces J(𝑃) ⊆ C(𝑃, 𝐴), for 𝑃 ∈ C𝑝 determining a representable ideal in C(−… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.2.** Verification of condition (D2). 5. Mixed subfunctors and C𝑝-stable ideals 5.1. From C𝑝-stable ideals to mixed subfunctors. Recall that C𝑝 is closed under taking duals. Since the bijection we aim to establish is invariant under monoidal equivalence, we may assume C to be strict, in particular that 𝑋 ⊗ 1 = 𝑋 = 1 ⊗ 𝑋 for 𝑋 ∈ C, and (𝑃 ⊗ 𝑄) ⊳ 𝑀 = 𝑃 ⊳ (𝑄 ⊳ 𝑀) for 𝑀 ∈ modC(𝐴). Definition 5.1. Let J be a C𝑝-stable ideal in… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 5.1.** Figure 5.1: Verification of the first part of condition (M3). 5.2. From mixed subfunctors to C𝑝-stable ideals. Definition 5.4. Let I be a mixed subfunctor of C(−, 𝐴)|C𝑝 . We define a C𝑝-stable ideal R(I) in KlC𝑝⊗𝐴 by (5.2) R(I)(𝑃, 𝑄) = { ((𝑄 ⊗ 𝑓 ) ◦ (coev𝑄 ⊗ 𝑃))𝐴 | 𝑓 ∈ I( ∨𝑄 ⊗ 𝑃…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Absolutely flat algebras in tensor categories
math.RT 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

For well-fibered pretannakian tensor categories, commutative ind-algebras are semisimple exactly when they are products of simple algebras and exactly when they are absolutely flat.
Clifford and Weyl algebras in symmetric tensor categories
math.RT 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

For a symplectic object V in a Frobenius exact symmetric tensor category with finite symmetric algebra, the Weyl algebra A(V) is Azumaya, and the resulting symplectic Witt group is described by Stiefel-Whitney classes...
Relative Invertibility and Full Dualizability of Finite Braided Tensor Categories
math.QA 2025-06 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

A finite braided tensor category is fully dualizable in the Morita 4-category of braided pre-tensor categories whenever its symmetric center is separable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Assem, D

I. Assem, D. Simson, A. Skowronski. Elements of the representation theory of associative algebras. Vol. 1. Techniques of representation theory. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 65. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Benson, P

D. Benson, P. Etingof: Symmetric tensor categories in characteristic 2. Adv. Math. 351 (2019), 967--999

2019
[3]

Benson, P

D. Benson, P. Etingof, V. Ostrik: New incompressible symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic. Duke Math. J. 172 (2023), no. 1, 105--200

2023
[4]

Coulembier: Monoidal abelian envelopes

K. Coulembier: Monoidal abelian envelopes. Compos. Math. 157 (2021), no. 7, 1584--1609

2021
[5]

Coulembier: Commutative algebra in tensor categories

K. Coulembier: Commutative algebra in tensor categories. arXiv:2306.09727

arXiv
[6]

Coulembier, P

K. Coulembier, P. Etingof, V. Ostrik: Incompressible tensor categories. Adv. Math. 457 (2024), Paper No. 109935, 65 pp

2024
[7]

Creutzig, R

T. Creutzig, R. McRae, K. Shimizu, H. Yadav: Commutative algebras in Grothendieck-Verdier categories, rigidity, and vertex operator algebras. arXiv:2409.14618

work page arXiv
[8]

Deligne: Cat\'egories tensorielles

P. Deligne: Cat\'egories tensorielles. Mosc. Math. J. 2 (2002), no. 2, 227--248

2002

Show all 23 references

[9]

Etingof, S

P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, V. Ostrik. Tensor categories. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 205 . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015

2015
[10]

Etingof, V

P. Etingof, V. Ostrik: Finite tensor categories. Mosc. Math. J. 4 (2004), no. 3, 627--654, 782--783

2004
[11]

Etingof, V

P. Etingof, V. Ostrik: On the Frobenius functor for symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic. J. Reine Angew. Math. 773 (2021), 165--198

2021
[12]

J. R. Fisher. A Jacobson Radical for Hopf Module Algebras. J. Algebra 34 (1975), 217--231

1975
[13]

Kerler, V

T. Kerler, V. V. Lyubashenko. Non-semisimple topological quantum field theories for 3-manifolds with corners. Lecture Notes in Math. 1765 (2001)

2001
[14]

Kildetoft, M

T. Kildetoft, M. Mackaay, V. Mazorchuk, J. Zimmermann. Simple transitive 2-representations of small quotients of Soergel bimodules. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 371 (2019), no. 8, 5551--5590

2019
[15]

Krause, Krull--Schmidt categories and projective covers, Expo

H. Krause, Krull--Schmidt categories and projective covers, Expo. Math. 33 (2015), no. 4, 535--549

2015
[16]

Linchenko, S

V. Linchenko, S. Montgomery and L.W. Small, Stable Jacobson’s radicals and semiprime smash products, Bull. London Math. Soc. 37 (2005) 860--872

2005
[17]

Mazorchuk, V

V. Mazorchuk, V. Miemietz. Transitive 2-representations of finitary 2-categories. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), no. 11, 7623--7644

2016
[18]

Shimizu: Quasi-Frobenius algebras in finite tensor categories

K. Shimizu: Quasi-Frobenius algebras in finite tensor categories. arXiv:2402.02929

arXiv
[19]

Shimizu, H

K. Shimizu, H. Yadav: Commutative exact algebras and modular tensor categories. arXiv:2408.06314

arXiv
[20]

Skryabin: Projectivity and freeness over comodule algebras

S. Skryabin: Projectivity and freeness over comodule algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), no. 6, 2597--2623

2007
[21]

Stroi \' n ski

M. Stroi \' n ski. Module categories, internal bimodules, and Tambara modules. Proc. London Math. Soc., 128: e12596
[22]

Stroi \' n ski

M. Stroi \' n ski. Identity in the Presence of Adjunction. In: International Mathematics Research Notices (Aug. 2024). issn: 1073-7928. doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnae166. url: https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnae166

2024 doi
[23]

Stroi \' n ski, T

M. Stroi \' n ski, T. Zorman. Reconstruction of module categories in the infinite and non-rigid settings. arXiv:2409.00793

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Assem, D

I. Assem, D. Simson, A. Skowronski. Elements of the representation theory of associative algebras. Vol. 1. Techniques of representation theory. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 65. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Benson, P

D. Benson, P. Etingof: Symmetric tensor categories in characteristic 2. Adv. Math. 351 (2019), 967--999

2019

[3] [3]

Benson, P

D. Benson, P. Etingof, V. Ostrik: New incompressible symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic. Duke Math. J. 172 (2023), no. 1, 105--200

2023

[4] [4]

Coulembier: Monoidal abelian envelopes

K. Coulembier: Monoidal abelian envelopes. Compos. Math. 157 (2021), no. 7, 1584--1609

2021

[5] [5]

Coulembier: Commutative algebra in tensor categories

K. Coulembier: Commutative algebra in tensor categories. arXiv:2306.09727

arXiv

[6] [6]

Coulembier, P

K. Coulembier, P. Etingof, V. Ostrik: Incompressible tensor categories. Adv. Math. 457 (2024), Paper No. 109935, 65 pp

2024

[7] [7]

Creutzig, R

T. Creutzig, R. McRae, K. Shimizu, H. Yadav: Commutative algebras in Grothendieck-Verdier categories, rigidity, and vertex operator algebras. arXiv:2409.14618

work page arXiv

[8] [8]

Deligne: Cat\'egories tensorielles

P. Deligne: Cat\'egories tensorielles. Mosc. Math. J. 2 (2002), no. 2, 227--248

2002