Equivariant deformation problems and homotopy operators

Jo\~ao Nuno Mestre; Sebasti\'an Daza

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Equivariant deformation problems and homotopy operators

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Using homotopy operators, the paper shows that the space of solutions of an equivariant deformation problem is a smooth manifold around a given solution whenever the governing $L_\infty$-algebra is N-strict and has vanishing first…

desk verdict Clear new technique for explicit Maurer-Cartan parametrization via homotopy operators, but the main theorem is proven only under N-strictness and Theorem 2.14's stated hypothesis is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03967 v1 pith:PR6D43Q7 submitted 2025-06-04 math.DG math.RA

Sebastián Daza , João Nuno Mestre This is my paper

classification math.DGmath.RA MSC 17B5517B70

keywords equivariantdeformationproblemsL-infinityalgebrashomotopyoperatorsMaurer-Cartanequationintegrabilityrigiditysmoothparametrization

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 proves that the space of solutions of an equivariant deformation problem is a smooth manifold near a given solution whenever the associated $L_\infty$-algebra has vanishing first cohomology and is N-strict, meaning all its Taylor coefficients beyond a finite order are zero. The proof is constructive: homotopy operators in degree 1 are used to solve the Maurer-Cartan equations order by order, and a combinatorial bound on the resulting series shows convergence under N-strictness. This yields an explicit smooth embedding of an open ball in $\ker \ell_1$ into the solution space $\sigma^{-1}(0)$. The paper also gives new proofs of rigidity, including a proof for Lie algebras via parallel transport of a connection built from homotopy operators. A reader should care because explicit parametrizations of moduli spaces are rare, and the construction is algorithmic.

What carries the argument

The central objects are homotopy operators for the cochain complex $(V,\ell_1)$: linear maps $h_1\colon V_1\to V_0$ and $h_2\colon V_0\to V_{-1}$ with $\ell_1\circ h_1+h_2\circ\ell_1=\mathrm{Id}$, which exist in finite dimensions precisely when $H^1(V,\ell)=0$. These operators solve the recursive equations $\ell_1(u_{k+1})=-\operatorname{Obs}_k(u_0,\ldots,u_k)$ that extend an infinitesimal deformation to a formal Maurer-Cartan element, where the obstruction classes $\operatorname{Obs}_k$ are explicit partition sums of higher brackets evaluated on earlier coefficients. N-strictness ($\ell_k=0$ for $k\ge N$) makes the growth of the coefficients controllable: the norms are bounded in terms of super-Catalan numbers, which have known asymptotic growth, giving a positive radius of convergence for the formal series. For the Lie algebra rigidity theorem, the machinery is a connection on the tautological bundle of Lie algebra structures, defined using homotopy operators, whose parallel transport along any deformation is a Lie algebra isomorphism when $H^1(\mu_0)=0$.

What would settle it

Find an analytic equivariant deformation problem whose associated $L_\infty$-algebra has $H^1=0$ but has nonzero brackets in every arity, and determine whether $\sigma^{-1}(0)$ is a smooth submanifold near $x_0$; if it is not smooth, the N-strictness hypothesis in the main theorem is essential, and if it is smooth, the theorem is not sharp. A more direct check is to compute $\Psi$ in a concrete N-strict example with a known moduli space and verify that the derivative at $0$ is the identity and that the image covers a neighborhood of zero in the Maurer-Cartan set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 5.18: if $(V,\ell)$ is an N-strict $L_\infty$-algebra with $H^1(V,\ell)=0$, then the map $\Psi\colon B_{h_1,\ell}\to MC(V,\ell)$, $v\mapsto\psi(v)(1)$, restricts to a smooth embedding of a neighborhood of $0$ in $\ker\ell_1$ into the Maurer-Cartan set. Corollary 5.19 converts this into a statement about geometry: for an analytic equivariant deformation problem whose associated $L_\infty$-algebra is N-strict with vanishing first cohomology, the zero set $\sigma^{-1}(0)$ is a smooth submanifold around $x_0$, parametrized by $\varphi^{-1}\circ\Psi$. The paper also claims new, explicit proofs of rigidity: infinitesimal rigidity implies rigidity for equivariant deformation problems, and $H^1(\mathfrak{g})=0$ implies rigidity of a Lie algebra structure, both by constructing homotopy operators rather than relying only on transversality arguments.

Load-bearing premise

The construction only works when the deformation problem's Taylor expansion has no terms beyond some finite order (or vanishes on high symmetric powers of the infinitesimal directions); if infinitely many Taylor coefficients are nonzero, the paper gives no convergence argument and hence no smooth parametrization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any analytic equivariant deformation problem satisfying the hypotheses, the solution space $\sigma^{-1}(0)$ acquires an explicit local chart centered at $x_0$, not just an abstract manifold structure.
The recursive construction is algorithmic: every coefficient of the parametrization is obtained by applying a fixed homotopy operator to an explicit obstruction class, so the chart can in principle be computed.
Vanishing $H^1(V,\ell)$ alone gives formal integrability (every infinitesimal deformation extends to a formal one); N-strictness upgrades this formal statement to genuine smooth integrability.
The rigidity theorems recover classical infinitesimal-implies-rigid statements, with the orbit of $x_0$ parametrized directly by homotopy operators in degree 0.
The main conclusion also holds under the weaker condition that the brackets vanish on high symmetric powers of $V_0$, which includes simultaneous deformations of associative or Lie algebras with their morphisms.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not pursue it, but the same recursion would likely run under a summability or decay condition on $\|\ell_k\|/k!$, potentially covering analytic deformation problems with infinitely many nonzero Taylor coefficients.
The explicit convergence radius from the super-Catalan estimates suggests a computational recipe: truncate the recursive series at order $K$ and compare with the true Maurer-Cartan solution in an example whose moduli space is known, giving a numerical test of the parametrization.
The parallel-transport proof of rigidity hints at a broader principle: whenever a deformation problem carries a tautological bundle and homotopy operators, parallel transport may produce equivalence maps directly, bypassing the Maurer-Cartan equation.
Since the analyticity of the Maurer-Cartan map is treated via the domain of convergence, the same argument might extend to curved $L_\infty$-algebras with nonzero curvature, where the base point is not itself a solution.

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

Two things to know. First, the genuinely new content is the explicit embedding Ψ: ker ℓ1 → MC(V,ℓ) built from homotopy operators, together with the super-Catalan convergence bound that makes it work. That is a real and fairly clean piece of work. Second, the headline theorem is conditional on N-strictness, and the paper does not show that condition holds for the analytic deformation problems it is aimed at. The stress-test has this right.

What is good: Sections 5.3–5.4 are coherent. Proposition 5.12 and Lemma 5.14 give a genuine recursive construction of formal Maurer-Cartan solutions, and the use of super-Catalan numbers to control convergence is a nice idea. The smooth embedding in Theorem 5.18 follows from the scaling argument in Lemma 5.17. This is a methodological contribution, even though the rigidity and unobstructedness theorems themselves are known from CSS14 and DMZ07. The paper cites prior work correctly and does not oversell novelty.

The soft spots: N-strictness is doing a lot of work. The constant αℓ = Σ_{i=1}^N ||ℓ_i||/i! is finite only if the L∞ brackets vanish above some order. For a general analytic section σ, the Taylor coefficients d^k σ(0) give infinitely many ℓ_k, and the proof gives no convergence. Remark 5.20 weakens the condition to vanishing on V0, but that is still a strong restriction and the paper offers no general mechanism to verify it. So Corollary 5.19 is not established for the general analytic setting. The presentation should frame this as a theorem about N-strict algebras, not as a general integrability result.

There is also a real misstatement in Theorem 2.14 and Corollary 2.13. The homotopy operators used in Section 2.4 solve the cohomology at the middle degree of C^1 → C^2 → C^3; in standard grading that is H^2(g,g), or H^0(V,ℓ) in the paper's own convention. The stated H^1(g,g) does not follow from the proof and is not the right condition for rigidity. This is fixable, but it should be corrected.

Overall, this is a genuine technique paper for a subfield, not a paradigm shift. It deserves a serious referee; a good referee can push on the N-strictness question and get the Lie algebra statement fixed. I would support sending it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies equivariant deformation problems, i.e. G-equivariant sections σ : M → E of a G-vector bundle with a vector bundle map Φ : E → F satisfying Φ ∘ σ = 0, and asks whether σ^{-1}(0) is smooth around a solution x0. The authors attach to the Taylor expansion of the problem a (curved) L∞-algebra, following Baarsma's thesis, and use homotopy operators for its deformation complex to obtain explicit constructions. Section 2 gives a new proof of rigidity (infinitesimal rigidity implies rigidity) via homotopy operators and a connection/parallel-transport proof of a rigidity criterion for Lie algebras. Section 4 constructs formal Maurer-Cartan elements recursively by solving ℓ1(u_{k+1}) = -Obs_k with u_{k+1} = -h1(Obs_k). Section 5 proves convergence of the resulting series for N-strict L∞-algebras and obtains an explicit smooth embedding Ψ : B_{h1,ℓ} → MC(V,ℓ) (Theorem 5.18), which is transferred to σ^{-1}(0) in Corollary 5.19. The central derivation in Sections 5.3–5.4 is coherent and the super-Catalan bound gives a genuine convergence proof under the stated N-strictness hypothesis.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides an explicit, algebraic route from homotopy operators to rigidity and to a smooth parametrization of the Maurer-Cartan set, with a quantitative convergence proof. The recursive formula u_{k+1} = -h1(Obs_k), the obstruction-cocycle argument in Proposition 4.5, and the use of super-Catalan numbers to bound the formal series are valuable and clearly presented. The paper is also honest in stating N-strictness as a hypothesis in the main theorem. However, the significance is substantially tempered by two issues: the Lie-algebra rigidity statement in Theorem 2.14 appears to be misstated, and the convergence theorem depends on a finiteness condition that is not shown to hold for general analytic equivariant deformation problems, even though the integrability conclusion itself is already available from [CSS14] without that condition. The explicit parametrization is the genuine new content, and the paper should present it as such.

major comments (3)

[§2.4, Theorem 2.14 and Corollary 2.13] The statement "If H^1(g)=0 then g is rigid" is not supported by the proof. The homotopy operators used in the proof, h1 : C^2(g) → C^1(g) and h2 : C^3(g) → C^2(g), are homotopy operators in degree 2 in the sense of Definition 2.7; by Proposition 2.8 their existence is equivalent to H^2(g,g)=0, not H^1(g,g)=0. The key identity in Proposition 2.12, namely (d_{μ_t} ∘ h1^{μ_t})(∂_t μ_t) = ∂_t μ_t, is precisely the statement that h1 is a right inverse on the kernel of d_{μ_t}Jac, i.e. the H^2=0 condition. Thus the proof establishes the classical rigidity criterion H^2(g,g)=0. The stated H^1 hypothesis should be corrected, or the theorem should be reformulated.
[§5.4, Theorem 5.16 and Corollary 5.19] The convergence proof relies on the finite constant α_ℓ = Σ_{i=1}^N ||ℓ_i||/i!, which exists only under N-strictness (Definition 5.15) or the weaker condition in Remark 5.20. For a general analytic equivariant deformation problem, the components ℓ_k on V_0 are the Taylor coefficients of σ at x0, and there is no reason for them to vanish for k ≥ N; the paper provides no mechanism to verify N-strictness for the general analytic setting. Since [CSS14, Prop. 4.4] already gives maximal integrability under H^1=0 for arbitrary analytic σ, the substantive new contribution is the explicit recursive parametrization in the N-strict case, not the existence of the smooth structure itself. The abstract and introduction should state this restriction explicitly, and the paper should either prove N-strictness for natural classes of examples or explain how analyticity of σ can replace the finite-sum bound.
[§5.4, proof of Corollary 5.19] The assertion that the embedding φ^{-1}∘Ψ parametrizes all local zeros of σ is abbreviated. Since σ^{-1}(0) is not yet known to be a manifold, it does not follow from d0Ψ = id alone; one needs to show that every nearby zero lies in the image. The proof says this follows by "the same argument" as in Theorem 2.6, but that argument should be written out, for instance by choosing a complement of ker ℓ1 and applying the implicit function theorem to σ. This is a short but load-bearing step in the main geometric conclusion.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Introduction] The unqualified phrase "equivariant deformation problem" in the abstract overstates the scope of the parametrization result; the N-strictness hypothesis should be mentioned there.
[§2.4, Corollary 2.13 and Theorem 2.14] The notation H^1(μ0) is ambiguous because the cohomology of the complex C^1(g) → C^2(g) → C^3(g) is not defined explicitly in this section; please clarify that the relevant group is the middle cohomology H^2(g,g).
[§5.4, Remark 5.20] The claimed extension to the weaker condition ℓ|_{⊙^k V_0} = 0 for k ≥ N is stated without proof; please provide details or a precise reference.
[§5.3, Eq. (5.3)] The norm ||h1|| is used without specifying that it is the operator norm of h1 : V1 → V0; a brief statement of the chosen norms in Section 5.4 would improve readability.
[§5.4, Theorem 5.16] The choice of the interval [0,2) is only implicitly justified by the radius bound; a sentence noting that the bound ||u1|| < 1/(12||h1||α_ℓ) makes the radius of convergence larger than 2 would help.
[§2.3, Definition 2.7] The phrase "homotopy operators in degree k" is potentially confusing, since for vanishing of H^k the two operators are h^{k+1} and h^k; consider adding a small diagram or examples.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the parametrization is constructed from homotopy operators and L∞-algebra data; hypotheses are genuine, not imported conclusions.

full rationale

The central derivation (Theorem 5.16 and Theorem 5.18) is constructive rather than tautological. Given H^1(V,ℓ)=0, Proposition 2.8 produces homotopy operators, and Proposition 5.12 recursively defines u_{k+1}=-h1(Obs_k), solving the cohomological equation (4.4) coefficient by coefficient. Convergence is proved under the N-strict hypothesis using the super-Catalan bound (Lemma 5.14, Theorem 5.16); the map Ψ(v)=ψ(v)(1) is then shown smooth and immersive at 0. The image of Ψ lies in MC(V,ℓ) because the analytic Maurer-Cartan function has vanishing Taylor coefficients, not because MC was defined as the image of Ψ. The key hypotheses H^1=0 and N-strictness are conditions on the given L∞-algebra, and their restrictiveness is acknowledged as a hypothesis (Definition 5.15, Remark 5.20), not smuggled in as a conclusion. All external inputs ([Baa19, Theorem 5.25]; [CSS14, Proposition 4.4]; [Cra04]) are by other authors, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no parameter fitting or renamed prediction occurs. Two separate correctness caveats, neither affecting the circularity score: Theorem 2.14 states 'If H^1(g)=0 then g is rigid' but its homotopy-operator identity δh1+h2δ=Id on C^2 corresponds to vanishing H^2(g,g), a cohomological-degree mismatch; and Corollary 5.19's surjectivity assertion is compressed to 'the same argument...' and may need a fuller proof. These are proof/hypothesis issues, not circular reductions.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new postulated entities. Its main dependency is the external theorem from [Baa19] that attaches an L∞-algebra to an analytic equivariant deformation problem; N-strictness is an additional ad hoc convergence assumption. The standard mathematical background (inverse function theorem, constant rank theorem, super-Catalan growth, perturbation lemma) is treated as given.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption V is finite dimensional and homotopy operators exist when the corresponding cohomology vanishes (Proposition 2.8).
The constructions of h_1, h_2 in Sections 2.3 and 5.3 require finite dimensionality; the paper states 'As long as V is finite dimensional' in the introduction.
domain assumption Analyticity of the equivariant deformation problem (Definition 5.8) and existence of the associated curved L∞-algebra (V,ℓ) with σ^{-1}(0) locally bijective to MC(V,ℓ) (Theorem 5.10 from [Baa19]).
This is the bridge between sections σ and Maurer-Cartan elements; the paper cites [Baa19] without proof.
ad hoc to paper N-strictness of the L∞-algebra (ℓ_k=0 for k≥N, Definition 5.15) or the weaker ℓ restricted to high symmetric powers of V_0 (Remark 5.20).
This condition is imposed to guarantee convergence of the formal Maurer-Cartan series via the finite bound α_ℓ; it is not derived from the geometry of the deformation problem.
standard math Asymptotic growth of super-Catalan numbers C_k ~ W(3+√8)^k/k^{3/2} (Proposition A.6, from OEIS A001003).
Used in Theorem 5.16 to establish the convergence radius; values are taken from OEIS without proof.
standard math The perturbation lemma of [Cra04] (cited as Proposition 3.4) is used to propagate homotopy operators along the Lie algebra deformation complex in Section 2.4.
Relied upon for Proposition 2.12 and Corollary 2.13.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equivariant deformation problems and homotopy operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PR6D43Q7

@misc{pith2026250603967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equivariant deformation problems and homotopy operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PR6D43Q7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03967}
}

abstract

We use homotopy operators for the $L_\infty$-algebra associated with an equivariant deformation problem in order to describe a smooth parametrization of the space of structures around a given one. Along the way we give new algebraic and explicit proofs of rigidity and unobstructedness theorems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

A. G. Baarsma. Deformations and L_ -algebras of F r \'e chet type . PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 2019. Available at https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/386311

work page 2019
[2]

Bochnak, M

J. Bochnak, M. Coste, and M.-F. Roy. Real algebraic geometry. Transl . from the French . , volume 36 of Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., 3. Folge . Berlin: Springer, rev. and updated ed. edition, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

M. Crainic. On the perturbation lemma, and deformations. Preprint, arXiv :math/0403266 [math. AT ] (2004), 2004

arXiv 2004
[4]

Crainic, F

M. Crainic, F. Sch \"a tz, and I. Struchiner. A survey on stability and rigidity results for Lie algebras. Indag. Math., New Ser. , 25(5):957--976, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

P. Deligne. Letter to J . M illson and W . G oldman. https://publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/millson.pdf, 1986

work page 1986
[6]

Doubek, M

M. Doubek, M. Markl, and P. Zima. Deformation theory (lecture notes). Arch. Math. (Brno) , 43(5):333--371, 2007

work page 2007
[7]

Drinfeld

V. Drinfeld. A letter from Kharkov to Moscow . EMS Surv. Math. Sci. , 1(2):241--248, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Fr \'e gier, M

Y. Fr \'e gier, M. Markl, and D. Yau. The $L_ $ -deformation complex of diagrams of algebras. New York J. Math. , 15:353--392, 2009

work page 2009

Show all 26 references

[9]

Fr \"o licher and A

A. Fr \"o licher and A. Nijenhuis. A theorem on stability of complex structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 43:239--241, 1957

1957
[10]

Fr \'e gier and M

Y. Fr \'e gier and M. Zambon. Simultaneous deformations of algebras and morphisms via derived brackets. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 219(12):5344--5362, 2015

2015
[11]

Gerstenhaber

M. Gerstenhaber. The cohomology structure of an associative ring. Ann. Math. (2) , 78:267--288, 1963

1963
[12]

Gerstenhaber

M. Gerstenhaber. On the deformation of rings and algebras. Ann. Math. (2) , 79:59--103, 1964

1964
[13]

V. Hinich. DG coalgebras as formal stacks. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 162(2-3):209--250, 2001

2001
[14]

Kodaira and D

K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer. On deformations of complex analytic structures. I , II . Ann. Math. (2) , 67:328--401, 1958

1958
[15]

Kodaira and D

K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer. On deformations of complex analytic structures. III : Stability theorems for complex structures. Ann. Math. (2) , 71:43--76, 1960

1960
[16]

Kuranishi

M. Kuranishi. On the locally complete families of complex analytic structures. Ann. Math. (2) , 75:536--577, 1962

1962
[17]

Lada and J

T. Lada and J. Stasheff. Introduction to sh Lie algebras for physicists. Int. J. Theor. Phys. , 32(7):1087--1103, 1993

1993
[18]

A. S. Losev and T. V. Sulimov. Maurer- Cartan methods in perturbative quantum mechanics. Theor. Math. Phys. , 221(3):2155--2164, 2024

2024
[19]

J. Lurie. Derived algebraic geometry X : Formal moduli problems . available at the author's webpage.http://people.math.harvard.edu/ lurie/papers/DAG-X.pdf, 2011

2011
[20]

M. Manetti. Lie methods in deformation theory . Springer Monogr. Math. Singapore: Springer, 2022

2022
[21]

Nijenhuis and R

A. Nijenhuis and R. W. jun. Richardson. Cohomology and deformation of algebraic structures. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. , 70:406--411, 1964

1964
[22]

Nijenhuis and R

A. Nijenhuis and R. W. jun. Richardson. Cohomology and deformations in graded Lie algebras. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. , 72:1--29, 1966

1966
[23]

OEIS Foundation Inc. (2025) . Entry A001003 in T he O n- L ine E ncyclopedia of I nteger S equences. https://oeis.org/A001003

2025
[24]

J. P. Pridham. Unifying derived deformation theories. Adv. Math. , 224(3):772--826, 2010

2010
[25]

D. Quillen. Rational homotopy theory. Ann. Math. (2) , 90:205--295, 1969

1969
[26]

Schlessinger and J

M. Schlessinger and J. Stasheff. Deformation theory and rational homotopy type. University of N orth C arolina preprint. Updated version at ar X iv:1211.1647, 1979

1979 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A. G. Baarsma. Deformations and L_ -algebras of F r \'e chet type . PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 2019. Available at https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/386311

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Bochnak, M

J. Bochnak, M. Coste, and M.-F. Roy. Real algebraic geometry. Transl . from the French . , volume 36 of Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., 3. Folge . Berlin: Springer, rev. and updated ed. edition, 1998

work page 1998

[3] [3]

M. Crainic. On the perturbation lemma, and deformations. Preprint, arXiv :math/0403266 [math. AT ] (2004), 2004

arXiv 2004

[4] [4]

Crainic, F

M. Crainic, F. Sch \"a tz, and I. Struchiner. A survey on stability and rigidity results for Lie algebras. Indag. Math., New Ser. , 25(5):957--976, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

P. Deligne. Letter to J . M illson and W . G oldman. https://publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/millson.pdf, 1986

work page 1986

[6] [6]

Doubek, M

M. Doubek, M. Markl, and P. Zima. Deformation theory (lecture notes). Arch. Math. (Brno) , 43(5):333--371, 2007

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Drinfeld

V. Drinfeld. A letter from Kharkov to Moscow . EMS Surv. Math. Sci. , 1(2):241--248, 2014

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Fr \'e gier, M

Y. Fr \'e gier, M. Markl, and D. Yau. The \(L_ \) -deformation complex of diagrams of algebras. New York J. Math. , 15:353--392, 2009

work page 2009