A straightening-unstraightening equivalence for $\infty$-operads

Francesca Pratali

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

A straightening-unstraightening equivalence for $\infty$-operads

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 For every $\infty$-operad $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$, operadic left fibrations over $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$ are equivalent to $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$-algebras in spaces, so homotopy-coherent algebraic structures can be studied through fibrations.

desk verdict Honest, well-written paper whose advertised new proof has a genuine gap in Theorem 2.10; the main theorem is already known from Ramzi, so the gap is in the new route, not the destination. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05263 v2 pith:QN3RZNNC submitted 2025-01-09 math.AT math.CT

Francesca Pratali This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ATmath.CT MSC 18N7018N4518N5555P48

keywords ∞-operadsstraightening-unstraighteningequivalenceoperadicleftfibrationsdendroidalalgebrasinspacessymmetricmonoidalenvelopeHinich-MoerdijkcomparisonfunctorscompleteSegal

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 establishes a straightening–unstraightening equivalence for $\infty$-operads: for any $\infty$-operad $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$, the $\infty$-category of operadic left fibrations over $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$ is equivalent to the $\infty$-category of $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$-algebras in spaces. In concrete terms, every homotopy-coherent algebra over an operad can be encoded as a specific fibration over the operad, and vice versa, in a way that preserves all higher homotopies. This extends the classical correspondence between functors into spaces and left fibrations of $\infty$-categories to the operadic setting, giving a general tool for studying algebraic structures in homotopy theory. The proof builds a bridge between two models of $\infty$-operads, the categorical model and the dendroidal tree-shaped model, and uses the symmetric monoidal envelope of an operad.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the comparison between two models of $\infty$-operads, given by the Hinich-Moerdijk adjunction $\delta : \ell\mathrm{Op}_\infty \rightleftarrows \mathrm{DOp}_\infty : \lambda$ between Lurie $\infty$-operads ($\infty$-categories over the category $\mathrm{Fin}_*$ of pointed finite sets) and dendroidal $\infty$-operads (presheaves on the category of trees). Theorem 2.10 shows this adjunction restricts to an equivalence between the $\infty$-categories of operadic and dendroidal left fibrations, using the retract property that every forest is a retract of a forest coming from a simplex of $\mathrm{Fin}_*$. Two further pieces surround it: the symmetric monoidal envelope $\mathrm{Env}(-)^\otimes$, a left adjoint to the forgetful functor from symmetric monoidal $\infty$-categories to $\infty$-operads, which identifies operadic left fibrations with strong symmetric monoidal left fibrations (Proposition 4.6); and the monoidal straightening–unstraightening equivalence for symmetric monoidal $\infty$-categories, which identifies those strong symmetric monoidal left fibrations over $\mathrm{Env}(\mathcal{O}^\otimes)$ with strong monoidal functors $\mathrm{Env}(\mathcal{O}^\otimes) \to \mathcal{S}^\times$. Composing these two equivalences yields the operadic straightening–unstraightening equivalence.

What would settle it

Search the category of forests for a finite forest that is not a retract of $w(p)$ for any simplex $p$ of $\mathrm{Fin}_*$. If such a forest exists, the proof of Theorem 2.10 breaks, and the claimed equivalence between operadic and dendroidal left fibrations would be false for the $\infty$-operad corresponding to that forest, which would in turn falsify the straightening–unstraightening equivalence of Theorem 5.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim (Theorem 5.1) is that, for any Lurie $\infty$-operad $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$, there is an equivalence of $\infty$-categories $\mathrm{St}_{\mathcal{O}} : \mathrm{Left}^{\mathrm{opd}}_{\mathcal{O}^\otimes} \simeq \mathrm{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}^\otimes}(\mathcal{S}^\times) : \mathrm{Unst}_{\mathcal{O}}$. Here $\mathrm{Left}^{\mathrm{opd}}_{\mathcal{O}^\otimes}$ is the $\infty$-category of operadic left fibrations over $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$ --- morphisms of $\infty$-operads whose underlying functor of $\infty$-categories is a left fibration --- and $\mathrm{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}^\otimes}(\mathcal{S}^\times)$ is the $\infty$-category of $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$-algebras in spaces, i.e. morphisms of $\infty$-operads from $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$ to the cartesian symmetric monoidal $\infty$-category of spaces. The equivalence is exhibited as a composite: the symmetric monoidal envelope identifies operadic left fibrations over $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$ with strong symmetric monoidal left fibrations over $\mathrm{Env}(\mathcal{O}^\otimes)$, and the monoidal straightening–unstraightening equivalence for symmetric monoidal $\infty$-categories turns these into strong monoidal functors $\mathrm{Env}(\mathcal{O}^\otimes) \to \mathcal{S}^\times$, which by the universal property of the envelope are exactly $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$-algebras in spaces. A corollary is that equivalences between operadic left fibrations are detected on fibres over objects of the underlying category, and for discrete operads the straightening has the explicit value $\mathrm{St}_{\mathcal{O}}(T^\otimes,\alpha^\otimes)(x) \simeq \mathrm{Env}(T) \times_{\mathrm{Env}(O)} \mathrm{Env}(O)_{x/}$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that every forest (a finite disjoint union of trees) is a retract of a forest obtained from some simplex of the category of finite pointed sets via the comparison functor $w$; if any forest lacked this retract property, the proof of Theorem 2.10 would fail and the bridge between operadic and dendroidal left fibrations that underlies the main equivalence would break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$-algebra in spaces can be represented as a left fibration over $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$, so algebraic structures can be manipulated with fibration-theoretic tools such as pullbacks, base change, and fibrewise homotopy equivalences.
Equivalences of operadic left fibrations are detected on fibres over objects of the underlying $\infty$-category $\mathcal{O}$; this gives a concrete criterion for when two operadic fibrations carry the same algebra.
The categorical and dendroidal models of $\infty$-operads agree not only on operads themselves but on their categories of left fibrations, so constructions such as the Grothendieck construction transfer between models.
For discrete operads the straightening functor has the explicit pullback formula $\mathrm{St}_{\mathcal{O}}(T^\otimes,\alpha^\otimes)(x) \simeq \mathrm{Env}(T) \times_{\mathrm{Env}(O)} \mathrm{Env}(O)_{x/}$, making the equivalence computable in classical algebraic examples.

Reading between the lines

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

The equivalence suggests that there is a universal operadic left fibration, analogous to the universal left fibration from pointed spaces, that classifies algebras over any $\infty$-operad; one could test this by asking whether $\mathrm{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}^\otimes}(\mathcal{S}^\times)$ is represented by a morphism in the $\infty$-category of $\infty$-operads.
The proof route through the monoidal straightening–unstraightening suggests the same strategy should work for algebras valued in any symmetric monoidal $\infty$-category $\mathcal{V}^\otimes$, not just spaces, provided a suitable universal fibration over $\mathcal{V}$ exists.
Theorem 2.10 could serve as a bridge to import Quillen model-category presentations of dendroidal left fibrations into the Lurie setting, potentially yielding a model-categorical presentation of the operadic straightening–unstraightening equivalence.
The explicit discrete formula indicates that for discrete operads the equivalence should restrict to the classical Grothendieck construction for categories; computing $\mathrm{St}$ for a small operad such as the associative operad would provide a concrete sanity check of the whole construction.

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

You should know two things. First, the paper is honest about its own footprint: it states plainly that the main straightening–unstraightening equivalence for ∞-operads is a corollary of Ramzi's monoidal Grothendieck construction [Ram22, Cor. C]. Second, the genuinely new part of the proof—Theorem 2.10, comparing operadic and dendroidal left fibrations—has a real gap as written. That gap is load-bearing for the paper's new proof of Theorem 5.1, even though the theorem itself is known.

What the paper does well: the exposition is clear, the strategy via the symmetric monoidal envelope is sensible, and Proposition 3.8 (characterizing strong monoidal unstraightening) is a useful and apparently correct addition. The paper also honestly relates itself to Ramzi, Hinich, Boavida–Moerdijk, and the dendroidal model. The self-citation [Pra25] is used only for the discrete-case corollary and is not needed for the main theorem, so that is not a problem.

The soft spot is Theorem 2.10. The proof shows that L-locality of a dendroidal left fibration implies I-locality of its operadic image. For the converse, it invokes [HM24, Lemma 3.1.2] to assert every forest is a retract of a forest of the form w(p), and concludes that I-locality transfers back to L-locality. That step is not justified. The leaf-assignment ℓ is not functorial on arbitrary forest maps: a retract diagram F → w(p) → F need not give compatible maps on leaf inclusions ℓ(F) → ℓ(w(p)) → ℓ(F). To transfer locality you need the leaf inclusions of all forests to lie in the weakly saturated class generated by leaf inclusions of the w(p), or a retract diagram that is compatible with leaves. The paper supplies neither. Since the converse half of Theorem 2.10 is what identifies dendroidal left fibrations with operadic ones, it underpins Corollary 2.11, the conservativity of G in Proposition 4.6, and the new proof of Theorem 5.1. The statement of Theorem 5.1 is safe because it follows from Ramzi, but the paper's own route is incomplete.

I have not checked every cited black box ([HM24, Lemma 3.1.2], [HK24, Prop. 2.4.3]), but the local arguments I can see are coherent and the reliance on published heavy machinery is reasonable.

Who this is for: anyone working on operadic straightening/unstraightening, especially in the dendroidal vs. Lurie formalism. It deserves a serious referee, but with a request for major revision: the author should either prove the missing retract-compatiblity lemma or supply a different argument for the converse in Theorem 2.10. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would engage with a corrected version.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a straightening–unstraightening equivalence for Lurie ∞-operads: for any ∞-operad O⊗, the ∞-category of operadic left fibrations over O⊗ is equivalent to the ∞-category of O⊗-algebras in spaces. The strategy is to define operadic left fibrations and prove, via the Hinich–Moerdijk comparison functors, an equivalence with dendroidal left fibrations (Theorem 2.10); to characterize the essential image of the monoidal unstraightening functor restricted to strong monoidal functors (Proposition 3.8); to use the symmetric monoidal envelope to identify operadic left fibrations with strong symmetric monoidal left fibrations over the envelope (Proposition 4.6); and to compose the resulting equivalences to obtain Theorem 5.1. A formula for the straightening functor in the discrete case is given in Corollary 5.2.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the result gives a new ∞-categorical straightening–unstraightening theorem for Lurie ∞-operads, with an explicit algebra-valued description. The main theorem is not new in itself, since it can be deduced from Ramzi’s O-monoidal Grothendieck construction [Ram22, Cor. C], but the paper’s route is independent and offers a useful comparison between operadic and dendroidal left fibrations. The paper is careful with attributions and builds on published results rather than ad hoc assumptions. The proposed equivalence is falsifiable through the explicit unstraightening formula. However, the proof of Theorem 2.10 contains a gap in the transfer of locality, and this gap is load-bearing for the new proof.

major comments (2)

[§2.3, proof of Theorem 2.10] The converse direction of the locality transfer is not justified as written. The argument invokes [HM24, Lemma 3.1.2] to make any forest F a retract of some w(p), and then immediately concludes that I-locality of λ(Y,f) implies L-locality of (Y,f). However, the leaf-assignment ℓ is not functorial on φ: a forest morphism F → w(p) or w(p) → F need not send leaves to leaves. A retract of objects does not by itself produce a retract of the leaf-inclusion arrows ℓ(F)→F inside ℓ(w(p))→w(p) in the arrow category of φ. To transfer L-locality one must show that the class of leaf inclusions is contained in, or is a retract-closure of, the class generated by the leaf inclusions of w(p); no such argument is supplied. Since this converse is the step that identifies dendroidal with operadic left fibrations, Theorem 2.10 is incomplete as written. Corollary 2.11, the conservativity of G in Proposition 4.6, and the proof of Theorem 5.1 all inherit this gap. Please either prove the retract-compatibility directly or cite a lemma from [HM24] that establishes exactly this arrow-level statement.
[§4.2, Proposition 4.6] The proof of essential surjectivity uses conservativity of the right adjoint G, which in turn relies on Corollary 2.11 and hence on the converse in Theorem 2.10. If Theorem 2.10 is repaired, this step is sound; as written, the proof inherits the gap identified above. Please make the dependence explicit and ensure that the repaired Theorem 2.10 is used in a way that does not implicitly assume the leaf-inclusion transfer that is at issue.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The symbol 8 appears where ∞ is clearly intended in many places (e.g., “8-category”, “8-operads” in the abstract and Section 1); if this is not a PDF-extraction artifact, please correct it throughout.
[§4.2, proof of Proposition 4.6] The proof cites [HK24, Proposition 2.4.3] as a statement about the slice over Comm⊗ only, but full faithfulness is needed for slices over arbitrary O⊗; please cite the general consequence stated in Proposition 4.4 directly or explain how the Comm⊗ case implies the general case.
[§2.3, proof of Theorem 2.10] In the large commutative diagram, the label “qi” for the leaf-inclusion map is unclear and should be written more explicitly; the vertical arrows marked “≃” should also name the two equivalences being composed.
[§5, Corollary 5.2] The corollary contains the typo “explicitely” and relies on [Pra25], which is outside the main theorem; please mark the corollary as depending on [Pra25] so that the reader knows it is not needed for Theorem 5.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is a composition of external results and independent comparisons, and the sole self-citation is supplementary.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: Theorem 5.1 is obtained by composing Proposition 4.6 with Proposition 3.8 and Theorem 3.2; Proposition 4.6 reduces to Corollary 2.11 and Lemma 4.5, and Corollary 2.11 rests on Theorem 2.10. The latter is proved using the external Hinich–Moerdijk equivalence (Theorem 2.9, from [HM24]) and the external retract lemma [HM24, Lemma 3.1.2], not on the operadic straightening equivalence being proved. Proposition 3.8 is a characterization of strong monoidal functors under the monoidal un/straightening of [Hin15] and [Ram22]; it does not assume the target equivalence. The only self-citation is [Pra25], invoked in Corollary 5.2 to give an explicit formula in the discrete case; that corollary is not needed for Theorem 5.1 and the formula is not used as an input to the proof. The paper itself notes that Theorem 5.1 is independently deducible from [Ram22, Cor C], but presents a new route through the envelope. The skeptic's concern about Theorem 2.10 — that a retract of forests may not by itself transfer L-locality — is a proof-completeness issue about the applicability of an external lemma, not a circularity: no equation in the paper defines 'operadic left fibration' in terms of 'dendroidal left fibration', nor defines the algebra category as the left-fibration category by fiat. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The paper introduces no empirical free parameters or invented physical entities. It does rely on several substantial published theorems as black boxes, the most fragile being the retract lemma of Hinich-Moerdijk and the full faithfulness of the envelope on slices.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Hinich-Moerdijk equivalence δ: ℓOp8 ≃ DOp8 (Theorem 2.9, [HM24, Theorem 3.1.4])
This is the main bridge between Lurie infinity-operads and dendroidal infinity-operads; the paper cites it as a black box.
domain assumption Full faithfulness of the symmetric monoidal envelope on slices (Proposition 4.4, from [HK24, Proposition 2.4.3])
Essential for Proposition 4.6 and therefore for the main theorem.
domain assumption Hinich's monoidal straightening-unstraightening equivalence (Theorem 3.2, [Hin15, A.2])
Provides the equivalence smLeft_{C^⊗} ≃ Fun^{lax}(C^⊗, S^×), the base of the operadic un/straightening.
domain assumption The retract lemma [HM24, Lemma 3.1.2]: every forest is a retract of a forest of the form w(p)
Load-bearing in the proof of Theorem 2.10, extending local-object equivalence to all forests.
standard math Standard infinity-categorical machinery (left fibrations, slices, localizations, Yoneda, etc., from [Lur09b])
Throughout, the paper works within Lurie's infinity-category framework and uses its standard properties.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A straightening-unstraightening equivalence for $\infty$-operads." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QN3RZNNC

@misc{pith2026250105263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A straightening-unstraightening equivalence for $\infty$-operads},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QN3RZNNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05263}
}

abstract

We provide a straightening-unstraightening adjunction for $\infty$-operads in Lurie's formalism, and show it establishes an equivalence between the $\infty$-category of operadic left fibrations over an $\infty$-operad $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$ and the $\infty$-category of $\mathcal{O}^\otimes$-algebras in spaces. In order to do so, we prove that the Hinich-Moerdijk comparison functors induce an equivalence between the $\infty$-categories of operadic left fibrations and dendroidal left fibrations over an $\infty$-operad, and we characterize, for any symmetric monoidal $\infty$-category $\mathcal{C}^\otimes$, the essential image of the monoidal unstraightening functor restricted to strong monoidal functors $\mathcal{C}^\otimes\to \mathcal{S}^\times$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

From operator categories to higher operads

Clark Barwick. From operator categories to higher operads. Geometry & Topology , 22(4):1893--1959, 2018. Publisher: Mathematical Sciences Publishers

1959
[2]

Dendroidal spaces, -spaces and the special B arratt- P riddy- Q uillen theorem

Pedro Boavida de Brito and Ieke Moerdijk. Dendroidal spaces, -spaces and the special B arratt- P riddy- Q uillen theorem. Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) , 2020(760):229--265, 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Envelopes for algebraic patterns

Shaul Barkan, Rune Haugseng, and Jan Steinebrunner. Envelopes for algebraic patterns. arXiv:2208.07183 , 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[4]

Segal objects and the Grothendieck construction

Pedro Boavida de Brito. Segal objects and the Grothendieck construction, November 2017. arXiv:1605.00706

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[5]

Boardman and Rainer M

John M. Boardman and Rainer M. Vogt. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures on topological spaces , volume 347. Springer, 2006

work page 2006
[6]

Two models for the homotopy theory of -operads

Hongyi Chu, Rune Haugseng, and Gijs Heuts. Two models for the homotopy theory of -operads. Journal of Topology , 11(4):857--873, December 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Higher categories and homotopical algebra , volume 180

Denis-Charles Cisinski. Higher categories and homotopical algebra , volume 180. Cambridge University Press, 2019

2019
[8]

Dendroidal sets as models for homotopy operads

Denis-Charles Cisinski and Ieke Moerdijk. Dendroidal sets as models for homotopy operads. Journal of Topology , 4(2):257--299, 2011

work page 2011

Show all 26 references

[9]

Dendroidal segal spaces and -operads

Denis-Charles Cisinski and Ieke Moerdijk. Dendroidal segal spaces and -operads. Journal of Topology , 6(3):675--704, 2013

2013
[10]

A short course on -categories

Moritz Groth. A short course on -categories. In Handbook of homotopy theory , pages 549--617. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2020

2020
[11]

-operads via symmetric sequences

Rune Haugseng. -operads via symmetric sequences. Mathematische Zeitschrift , 301(1):115--171, 2022

2022
[12]

Algebras over -operads

Gijs Heuts. Algebras over -operads. arXiv:1110.1776 , 2011

2011 arXiv
[13]

On the equivalence between Lurie 's model and the dendroidal model for infinity-operads

Gijs Heuts, Vladimir Hinich, and Ieke Moerdijk. On the equivalence between Lurie 's model and the dendroidal model for infinity-operads. Advances in Mathematics , 302:869--1043, 2016

2016
[14]

Rectification of algebras and modules

Vladimir Hinich. Rectification of algebras and modules. Documenta Mathematica , 20(2015):879--926, 2015

2015
[15]

-operads as symmetric monoidal -categories

Rune Haugseng and Joachim Kock. -operads as symmetric monoidal -categories . Publicacions Matemàtiques , 68(1):111 -- 137, 2024

2024
[16]

Simplicial and dendroidal homotopy theory , volume 75 of Ergeb

Gijs Heuts and Ieke Moerdijk. Simplicial and dendroidal homotopy theory , volume 75 of Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb., 3. Folge . Cham: Springer, 2022

2022
[17]

On the equivalence of lurie's -operads and dendroidal -operads

Vladimir Hinich and Ieke Moerdijk. On the equivalence of lurie's -operads and dendroidal -operads. Journal of Topology , 17(4):e70003, 2024

2024
[18]

Monoidal envelopes and G rothendieck construction for dendroidal S egal objects

David Kern. Monoidal envelopes and G rothendieck construction for dendroidal S egal objects. arXiv:2301.10751 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[19]

-operadic foundations for embedding calculus

Manuel Krannich and Alexander Kupers. -operadic foundations for embedding calculus. arXiv:2409.10991 , 2024

2024
[20]

Higher Algebra

Jacob Lurie. Higher Algebra . Academic Search Complete. Princeton University Press, 2009

2009
[21]

Higher topos theory

Jacob Lurie. Higher topos theory . Princeton University Press, 2009

2009
[22]

The geometry of iterated loop spaces , volume 271

J Peter May. The geometry of iterated loop spaces , volume 271. Springer, 2006

2006
[23]

Dendroidal sets

Ieke Moerdijk and Ittay Weiss. Dendroidal sets. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 7:1441--1470, 2007

2007
[24]

Rectification of dendroidal left fibrations

Francesca Pratali. Rectification of dendroidal left fibrations. arXiv:2502.17415 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[25]

A monoidal G rothendieck construction for -categories

Maxime Ramzi. A monoidal G rothendieck construction for -categories. arXiv:2209.12569 , 2022

2022
[26]

A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory

Charles Rezk. A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 353(3):973--1007, 2001

2001

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

From operator categories to higher operads

Clark Barwick. From operator categories to higher operads. Geometry & Topology , 22(4):1893--1959, 2018. Publisher: Mathematical Sciences Publishers

1959

[2] [2]

Dendroidal spaces, -spaces and the special B arratt- P riddy- Q uillen theorem

Pedro Boavida de Brito and Ieke Moerdijk. Dendroidal spaces, -spaces and the special B arratt- P riddy- Q uillen theorem. Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) , 2020(760):229--265, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Envelopes for algebraic patterns

Shaul Barkan, Rune Haugseng, and Jan Steinebrunner. Envelopes for algebraic patterns. arXiv:2208.07183 , 2022

work page arXiv 2022

[4] [4]

Segal objects and the Grothendieck construction

Pedro Boavida de Brito. Segal objects and the Grothendieck construction, November 2017. arXiv:1605.00706

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[5] [5]

Boardman and Rainer M

John M. Boardman and Rainer M. Vogt. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures on topological spaces , volume 347. Springer, 2006

work page 2006

[6] [6]

Two models for the homotopy theory of -operads

Hongyi Chu, Rune Haugseng, and Gijs Heuts. Two models for the homotopy theory of -operads. Journal of Topology , 11(4):857--873, December 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Higher categories and homotopical algebra , volume 180

Denis-Charles Cisinski. Higher categories and homotopical algebra , volume 180. Cambridge University Press, 2019

2019

[8] [8]

Dendroidal sets as models for homotopy operads

Denis-Charles Cisinski and Ieke Moerdijk. Dendroidal sets as models for homotopy operads. Journal of Topology , 4(2):257--299, 2011

work page 2011