Induction for extended affine type A Soergel bimodules: first steps

Marco Mackaay; Pedro Vaz; Vanessa Miemietz

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Induction for extended affine type A Soergel bimodules: first steps

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a monoidal functor from the box tensor product of extended affine type A Soergel categories into the bounded homotopy category, categorifying the parabolic embedding that defines Zelevinsky tensor products.

desk verdict A solid, carefully honest first step toward categorifying Zelevinsky tensor products; the central functor is plausible and the proof style is standard, but the main theorem leans on long diagrammatic computations that deserve close scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02347 v2 pith:QPYGRGW3 submitted 2025-07-03 math.RT math.QA

Marco Mackaay , Vanessa Miemietz , Pedro Vaz This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.QA MSC 20C0818M0518G80

keywords extendedaffineHeckealgebrasSoergelbimodulesRouquiercomplexescategorificationZelevinskytensorproductparabolicinductionbirepresentationstriangulatedorbitcategories

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's goal is to lift parabolic induction for extended affine type A Hecke algebras to the categorical level. For each $0

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a symmetric pair of monoidal functors: two strict monoidal functors $\Psi_L$ and $\Psi_R$ from the diagrammatic Bott-Samelson categories $\mathit{cBS}^{\mathrm{ext}}_k$ and $\mathit{cBS}^{\mathrm{ext}}_{n-k}$ into $K^b(\mathit{bSext}_n)$ whose composites commute up to a natural isomorphism $\zeta$ satisfying the hexagon identities. Lemma 4.4 turns such a pair into one monoidal functor on the box tensor product, and the explicit $\zeta$ constructed in Section 4.2.2 makes $\Psi_{k,n-k}$ monoidal. The technical engine is the Rouquier-Soergel diagrammatic calculus: the new relations in Lemmas 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.11 and 4.12 are proved by the hom-and-dot trick, using Soergel's hom formula to reduce equalities to one-dimensional morphism spaces.

What would settle it

Compute both sides of the equality in Lemma 3.8 for a concrete small instance, say $n=5$, $a=1$, $b=2$, $c=4$, inside $K^b(\mathit{bSext}_5)$; if the two diagrams differ by a non-null-homotopic morphism, then that relation, and with it Theorem 4.9, fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.9: for $0<k<n$, the symmetric pair $\Psi_L,\Psi_R$ gives an $R$-linear monoidal functor $\Psi_{k,n-k}\colon \mathit{bSext}_k \boxtimes \mathit{bSext}_{n-k} \to K^b(\mathit{bSext}_n)$ that categorifies the algebra embedding $\psi_{k,n-k}$. Lemma 4.8 splits the work into well-definedness of the two diagrammatic functors and the existence of a natural braiding $\zeta$ satisfying the hexagon identities; both parts are proved by checking diagram relations. The checks use new relations among Rouquier complexes and the hom-and-dot trick, which compares diagrams in one-dimensional morphism spaces via Soergel's hom formula. The paper also works out the first categorical induction example: the algebra object $Y=\Psi_{1,1}(X\boxtimes X)$ yields a wide finitary birepresentation $\mathsf{U}$ of $\mathit{bSext}_2$ decategorifying the infinite-dimensional module $U$, and a dg-enhanced orbit category $\mathcal{W}$ is conjectured to categorify the induced representation $W=V\odot V$.

Load-bearing premise

The main theorem stands on the correctness of the new diagram relations for Rouquier complexes in extended affine type A; these relations are checked by hand in one-dimensional morphism spaces, so an error in any single relation would invalidate the functor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The functor $\Psi_{k,n-k}$ decategorifies to $\psi_{k,n-k}$, so the diagrammatic construction is a genuine categorification of parabolic induction for extended affine type A.
Algebra objects in $\mathit{bSext}_k \boxtimes \mathit{bSext}_{n-k}$ can be pushed forward to algebra objects in $K^b(\mathit{bSext}_n)$, giving a mechanism to induce birepresentations; the paper's worked example is $W=V\odot V$.
The wide finitary birepresentation $\mathsf{U}$ categorifies the infinite-dimensional module $U$, and Theorem 5.22 determines its indecomposable objects up to isomorphism.
The triangulated orbit category $\mathcal{W}$ is a $\mathit{bSext}_2$-birepresentation, and Conjecture 5.29 predicts its triangulated Grothendieck group is the simple induced module $W_{\mathbb{C}(q)}$.
The paper leaves two extensions for future work: an iterated functor $\Psi_{k_1,\dots,k_m}$ categorifying multi-parameter embeddings, and a natural isomorphism between the two-step composite embeddings.

Reading between the lines

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

If Theorem 4.9 is correct, the same push-forward of algebra objects through $\Psi_{k,n-k}$ should yield induced triangulated birepresentations for arbitrary finite-dimensional modules, not only for the example $V\odot V$.
The symmetric-pair technique may extend to parabolic embeddings of other types or to longer compositions $k_1+\cdots+k_m=n$, as long as the corresponding $\zeta$-box relations can be proved.
Because the new diagram relations are finite and explicit, machine-checked verification of Lemmas 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.11 and 4.12 would be a natural and feasible next step.
The dg-enhanced orbit-category construction used for $\mathcal{W}$ could serve as a general template for triangulated birepresentations in wide finitary settings, where a balanced box tensor product is not yet available.

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

This paper does what its title says: it takes the first real step toward categorifying the Zelevinsky tensor product for extended affine type A. The new construction is the monoidal functor Psi_{k,n-k} and, more specifically, the symmetric pair (Psi_L, Psi_R) with its braiding zeta. The authors are upfront that the notion of a symmetric pair of monoidal functors seems to have no reference in the literature, and they give a clean abstract justification via Lemma 4.4. That part reads well.

What the paper does best is the concrete example in Section 5. The decategorified story is worked out in enough detail to understand what is being categorified, and the constructions of the wide finitary cover U and the triangulated orbit category W are explicit. Conjecture 5.29 is clearly labeled as a conjecture, and the paper does not overclaim: it says where the missing steps are, including the unproved faithfulness conjecture and the non-trivial extension to K^b. That honesty is a real strength.

The soft spots are exactly where the stress-test note points. Theorem 4.9 rests on Lemma 4.8(b), and the naturality of zeta is proved by the hom & dot trick in most cases, with two exceptional cases (Lemma 4.11) checked by direct diagrammatic computations. The N8 computation is long, and a single misapplied relation would break the symmetric pair condition. This is not a fatal flaw in my reading: the proof strategy is systematic, the one-dimensionality checks are plausible, and the paper states its conventions carefully. But it is a load-bearing computational burden, and it is not machine-checked. The paper also proves well-definedness only for Psi_L, saying Psi_R is very similar; that is a missing detail, though it looks fillable.

I checked the circularity worry and I do not see a real problem. The central claim is a new functor, not a reduction to earlier results. Self-citations to [MMV] and [MaTh] are used as background, and the hom formula is an external benchmark, not a fitted parameter. The citation pattern is normal for an ongoing program.

Who will get value from this? People working on categorical representation theory of Hecke algebras and on birepresentations of wide finitary categories, especially those already following the MMV/MaTh program. For a general representation theorist it is probably too technical, but for the subfield it is a meaningful, honest contribution.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves referee time. Ask the referee to check the N8 computation and the Psi_R well-definedness claim carefully, and consider asking for a supplementary file or an appendix with the full computation. If those checks pass, accept.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a monoidal functor Ψ_{k,n−k} : bSext_k ⊠ bSext_{n−k} → K^b(bSext_n) for 1 ≤ k < n, categorifying the parabolic embedding ψ_{k,n−k} of extended affine type A Hecke algebras. The construction is carried out through a pair of monoidal functors Ψ_L, Ψ_R and a symmetric-pair braiding ζ, with the main theorem (Theorem 4.9) reducing to well-definedness and naturality checks in the diagrammatic Soergel calculus. The paper also develops new diagrammatic relations for Rouquier complexes in extended affine type A, proves the main theorem via those relations, and then works out an explicit example: the categorified Zelevinsky tensor product of the trivial birepresentation of bSext_1 with itself. The example leads to a wide finitary cover U, a triangulated orbit category W, and a conjecture (Conjecture 5.29) relating the triangulated Grothendieck group of W to the decategorified representation W of bH_ext_2.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a significant step toward the categorification of the Zelevinsky tensor product for extended affine type A Hecke algebras, a setting where earlier categorical induction functors for finite type A do not directly apply. The paper is careful to benchmark the construction against the Soergel categorification theorem and Soergel's hom formula, and it clearly separates proved results from conjectures (Conjectures 4.15 and 5.29). The explicit example in Section 5.3, including the construction of the wide finitary cover U and the triangulated orbit category W, is a useful test of the framework. The main weakness is the heavy computational verification burden: many essential diagrammatic identities are summarized rather than fully demonstrated, and the computations are not machine-checked. This makes the proof of Theorem 4.9 convincing only to the extent that the reader is willing to trust the sketched 'hom & dot trick' arguments and the assertion that the Ψ_R check is 'very similar'.

major comments (3)

[§4.2.1, Lemma 4.8(a)] The well-definedness of the functors is proved only for Ψ_L. The text states: 'The proofs that Ψ_L and Ψ_R preserve all diagrammatic relations are very similar, so we only prove that Ψ_L is well-defined.' Since Lemma 4.8(a) and Theorem 4.9 require both functors, and since Ψ_R is defined by genuinely different formulas on the generators (for example Ψ_R(B_0) = T_0 ... T_{k−1} B_k T^{-1}_{k−1} ... T^{-1}_0 and Ψ_R(B_ρ) = T^{-1}_k ... T^{-1}_1 B_ρ), it is not immediate that the same verification applies, in particular for the relations (34)–(37) and (46) that involve the labels 0 and k−1. The authors should either provide the analogous proof for Ψ_R or exhibit a formal symmetry of the diagrammatic calculus that reduces Ψ_R to Ψ_L.
[§4.2.3, naturality of ζ] The naturality of ζ is the core of the symmetric pair condition in Lemma 4.8(b), and hence of the main theorem, but the proof is not written out in full. Many cases (N3, N4, N5, N9, N10, N11, N12) are summarized with phrases such as 'we use the hom & dot trick' and 'the resulting diagram, in both cases, is ...', without explicitly verifying the two hypotheses of the trick in each case: that the relevant morphism space is one-dimensional and that the dotting operation is injective. Lemma 4.11 identifies the exceptions that need direct checks, but for the remaining cases the verification is left to the reader. For example, in (N3) the equality (108) is asserted after attaching a dot 'to the top endpoints labeled k+1', but no computation is shown to establish that the two resulting diagrams coincide. Since a single misapplied relation in any of these steps would invalidate Theorem 4.9, I ask for a systematic presentation of these checks, or a computer-verified appendix, so that the proof can be independently audited.
[§4.2.2, definition of ζ] The recursive definition of ζ_{X,Y} on arbitrary tensor products via formula (99) is said to satisfy the hexagon identities 'by definition'. The interchange law (95) is used to show that the two expansions (99) and (100) agree, but the well-definedness of the recursion with respect to different bracketing of three or more tensor factors (for example, ((X_1 X_2) X_3)Y versus (X_1 (X_2 X_3))Y) is not demonstrated. In a strict monoidal category the associators are identities, but the composite isomorphisms built from the ζ_{X_i,Y_j} could still depend on the order in which the hexagon identities are applied. The authors should state explicitly that the hexagon identities are being imposed as part of the recursive definition, explain why the resulting assignment is coherent, or cite a standard coherence theorem for braidings that covers this situation.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2] The sentence 'because they m for 1≤m≤n all commute with each other' appears to contain a typo; it should presumably read 'because the y_m for 1≤m≤n all commute with each other'.
[§4.2.3, case (N12)] The phrase 'The cases X=B_0, g= 1/0 and and X=B_ρ, g= n−k−1/0' contains a duplicated 'and'; the second 'and' should be removed.
[§4.2.1, k=2 case] In the displayed computation for the k=2 case of relation (37), the expression 'nX j=2 j 1' would be easier to follow if the summation index and the labels on the strands were clarified; currently the notation is ambiguous because the summands depend on the color j.
[§5.3.2, orbit category] The definition of the orbit category bΩ uses morphisms A → B Y_{r,s}, and composition is defined as in (136). Since the Z^2-action is strong but not strict, the paper should spell out the associativity and unit constraints for the action, because the composition rule in (136) depends on the specific choice of the isomorphisms Y_{r,s}Y_{r',s'} ≅ Y_{r+r',s+s'}.
[§3.2 and §4.2.2] A table summarizing the notation for T_{[a,b]}, the interval diagrams, and the various ζ-box diagrams would improve readability. Many diagrams rely on labels that are only described in the surrounding text, and the reader must frequently switch between the displayed diagrams and the prose to determine the missing labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 4.9 is a new construction checked against external benchmarks; self-citations to [MMV] and [MaTh] are background technical support, not inputs that force the conclusion.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Section 4 defines Ψ_L and Ψ_R diagrammatically, with the object assignment forced by the decategorified algebra embedding ψ_{k,n−k} of Section 2.2, and the main theorem is then proven by (i) checking well-definedness against each diagrammatic relation of the Soergel calculus in Section 4.2.1, and (ii) constructing a natural isomorphism ζ and verifying naturality and hexagon identities in Sections 4.2.2–4.2.3 via one-dimensional hom-space arguments and explicit diagram computations. The hexagon identities are imposed on ζ by the recursive extension in (99)–(100), but the substantive content—that ζ is a well-defined natural isomorphism—is proven, not assumed. The one-dimensionality used in the hom & dot trick comes from Soergel's hom formula in (49), an external theorem (Theorem 3.3), not from the conclusion of Theorem 4.9. The paper's self-citations to [MMV] and [MaTh] supply background diagrammatic calculus, Rouquier-complex relations, and the extended affine Soergel categorification theorem; these are published, parameter-free results and are not the target result of this paper. Section 5's categorified induction example is explicitly conjectural in its final step (Conjecture 5.29), and the paper openly flags incomplete verifications: ψ_R well-definedness is said to be 'very similar' to ψ_L, and naturality for morphisms involving B^{-1}_ρ is summarized as 'easy to check'. These are completeness and correctness risks, not circular reductions. No equation is fitted to make the theorem true, no prediction is renamed as an input, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The central claim therefore has independent content despite relying on previous work for technical infrastructure.

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

The central claim relies on standard background from the Soergel calculus and categorification literature (Soergel categorification, hom formula, minimal complexes, orbit category constructions). No free parameters are fitted. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Soergel categorification theorem for extended affine type A (Theorem 3.3)
Relies on [MaTh, Theorem 2.5] and prior work; gives isomorphism between Hecke algebra and split Grothendieck group.
domain assumption Soergel's hom formula (Equation 49)
Used throughout to compute morphism spaces in K^b(bSext_n).
domain assumption Structure of minimal Rouquier complexes (from [ElWi1, Theorem 6.9], [EMTW])
Used in Lemma 5.16 and Proposition 5.19 to show vanishing of hom-spaces.
domain assumption FKQ Theorem/Definition 1.1 on dg-enhanced orbit categories
Used to construct the triangulated orbit category W in Section 5.3.2.
domain assumption Elias' categorification of H_ext^2 /⟨ρ²−1⟩ via S_ext^2 ([Eli2, Section 3.4])
Used in Section 5.3.2 to reduce the Z²-action to a Z-action.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Induction for extended affine type A Soergel bimodules: first steps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPYGRGW3

@misc{pith2026250702347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Induction for extended affine type A Soergel bimodules: first steps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPYGRGW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02347}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper we take the first steps towards the categorification of the Zelevinsky tensor product of finite dimensional representations of extended affine type A Hecke algebras.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Abram and L

M. Abram and L. Lamberto-Egan and A. Lauda and D. Rose, Categorification of the internal braid group action for quantum groups I: 2-functoriality. Pacific J. Math. 328 (2024), no.1, 1--75. https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2024.328.1 doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2024.328.1

work page doi:10.2140/pjm.2024.328.1 2024
[2]

Balmer, Separability and triangulated categories

P. Balmer, Separability and triangulated categories. Adv. Math. 226 (2011), 4352--4372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2010.12.003 doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2010.12.003

doi:10.1016/j.aim.2010.12.003 2011
[3]

Breaz, The Krull--Remak--Schmidt theorem for idempotent complete categories (2025)

S. Breaz, The Krull--Remak--Schmidt theorem for idempotent complete categories (2025). arXiv: 2503.21216 http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21216

arXiv 2025
[4]

Davydov and D

A. Davydov and D. Nikshych, The Picard crossed module of a braided tensor category. Algebra Number Theory 7(6) (2013), 1365–-1403. https://doi.org/10.2140/ant.2013.7.1365 doi.org/10.2140/ant.2013.7.1365

work page doi:10.2140/ant.2013.7.1365 2013
[5]

Elias, The two-color Soergel calculus

B. Elias, The two-color Soergel calculus. Compositio Mathematica, 152(2) (2016), 327--398. https://doi.org/10.1112/S0010437X15007587 doi.org/10.1112/S0010437X15007587

doi:10.1112/s0010437x15007587 2016
[6]

Gaitsgory's central sheaves via the diagrammatic Hecke category

B. Elias, G aitsgory's central sheaves via the diagrammatic H ecke category (2018). arXiv: 1811.06188v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06188v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[7]

Elias and M

B. Elias and M. Hogancamp, Drinfeld centralizers and Rouquier complexes. arXiv: 2412.20633 http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20633

arXiv
[8]

Elias, S

B. Elias, S. Makisumi, U. Thiel, G. Williamson, Introduction to Soergel bimodules RSME Springer Series, volume 5 , Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48826-0 doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48826-0

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48826-0 2020

Show all 31 references

[9]

Elias and G

B. Elias and G. Williamson, Hodge theory for Soergel bimodules. Ann. of Math. (2) 180 (2014), no. 3, 1089--1136. https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2014.180.3.6 doi.org/10.4007/annals.2014.180.3.6

2014 doi
[10]

Enomoto and S

H. Enomoto and S. Saito Grothendieck monoids of extriangulated categories. arXiv: 2208.02928 http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02928

arXiv
[11]

Hoek, Drinfeld centers for bimodule categories, Bachelor's Thesis, The Mathematical Sciences Institute, Australian National University, 2019

K. Hoek, Drinfeld centers for bimodule categories, Bachelor's Thesis, The Mathematical Sciences Institute, Australian National University, 2019. url https://tqft.net/web/research/students/KeeleyHoek/thesis.pdf

2019
[12]

L. Fan, B. Keller and Y. Qiu. Dg-enhanced orbit categories and applications. arXiv: 2405.00093 http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00093

arXiv
[13]

Basic concepts of enriched category theory

G.\ M.\ Kelly. Basic concepts of enriched category theory. Repr. Theory Appl. Categ. No. 10 (2005). Reprint of the 1982 original

2005
[14]

Krull--Schmidt categories and projective covers

H.\ Krause. Krull--Schmidt categories and projective covers. Expo. Math. 33 (2015), 535--549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exmath.2015.10.001 doi.org/10.1016/j.exmath.2015.10.001

2015 doi
[15]

Pretriangulated 2 -representations via dg algebra 1 -morphisms

R.\ Laugwitz, V.\ Miemietz. Pretriangulated 2 -representations via dg algebra 1 -morphisms. arXiv: 2205.09999 http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09999

arXiv
[16]

Leclerc, M

B. Leclerc, M. Nazarov and J.-Y. Thibon, Induced representations of affine Hecke algebras and canonical bases of quantum groups. Studies in memory of Issai Schur (Chevaleret/Rehovot, 2000) 115--153. Progr. Math. 210 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0045-1_6 doi.org/1...

2003 doi
[17]

Libedinsky and G

N. Libedinsky and G. Williamson, Standard objects in 2-braid groups. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 109 (2014), no. 5, 1264--1280. https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/pdu022 doi.org/10.1112/plms/pdu022

2014 doi
[18]

Stoppel and P

Yu Leon Liu, Aaron Mazel-Gee, David Reutter, C. Stoppel and P. Wedrich, A braided monoidal ( ,2) -category of Soergel bimodules (2024). arXiv: 2401.02956 http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02956

2024 arXiv
[19]

Lusztig, Hecke algebras with unequal parameters

G. Lusztig, Hecke algebras with unequal parameters. CRM Monograph Series , 18, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. (updated version cited in this paper at arXiv:math/0208154 http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0208154) https://doi.org/10.1090/crmm/018 doi.org/10.1090/crmm/018

2003 arXiv
[20]

Mackaay, V

M. Mackaay, V. Miemietz and P. Vaz, Evaluation birepresentations of affine type A Soergel bimodules. Adv. Math. 436 (2024), Paper No. 109401, 68 pp. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2023.109401 doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2023.109401

2024
[21]

Mackaay, V

M. Mackaay, V. Mazorchuk, V. Miemietz, D. Tubbenhauer, Simple transitive 2-representations via (co-)algebra 1-morphisms. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 68(1) (2019), 1--33. https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.2019.68.7554 doi.org/10.1512/iumj.2019.68.7554

2019 doi
[22]

Mackaay, V

M. Mackaay, V. Mazorchuk, V. Miemietz, D. Tubbenhauer, X. Zhang, Simple transitive 2 -representations of Soergel bimodules for finite Coxeter types. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 126(5) (2023), 1585--1655. https://doi.org/10.1112/plms.12515 doi.org/10.1112/plms.12515

2023 doi
[23]

Mackaay, V

M. Mackaay, V. Mazorchuk, V. Miemietz, D. Tubbenhauer, X. Zhang, Finitary birepresentations of finitary bicategories. Forum Mathematicum 33(5) (2021), 1261--1320. https://doi.org/10.1515/forum-2021-0021 doi.org/10.1515/forum-2021-0021

2021 doi
[24]

Mackaay and A.-L

M. Mackaay and A.-L. Thiel, Categorifications of the extended affine Hecke algebra and the affine q -Schur algebra S (n,r) for 3 r<n . Quantum Topol., 8(1):113--203, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4171/QT/88 doi.org/10.4171/QT/88

2017 doi
[25]

Macpherson, 2-Representations and associated coalgebra 1-morphisms for locally wide finitary 2-categories

J. Macpherson, 2-Representations and associated coalgebra 1-morphisms for locally wide finitary 2-categories. J. Pure Appl. algebra, 226(11): Paper nº. 107081, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpaa.2022.107081 doi.org/10.1016/j.jpaa.2022.107081

2022
[26]

Mazorchuk and V

V. Mazorchuk and V. Miemietz, Transitive 2-representations of finitary 2-categories. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368(11) (2016), 7623--7644. https://doi.org/10.1090/tran/6583 doi.org/10.1090/tran/6583

2016 doi
[27]

Riehl, Categorical homotopy theory

E. Riehl, Categorical homotopy theory. New Mathematical Monographs, 24. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107261457 doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107261457

2014 doi
[28]

arXiv: 1109.2040 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2040

A note on the Grothendieck group of an additive category (2011). arXiv: 1109.2040 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2040

2011 arXiv
[29]

Homotopy categories and idempotent completeness, weight structures and weight complex functors (2011)

O.\ Schn\"urer. Homotopy categories and idempotent completeness, weight structures and weight complex functors (2011). arXiv: 1107.1227 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1227

2011 arXiv
[30]

Stoppel and P

C. Stoppel and P. Wedrich, Braiding on type A Soergel bimodules: semistrictness and naturality (2024). arXiv: 2412.20587 http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20587

2024 arXiv
[31]

Zelevinsky, Induced representations of reductive p -adic groups II

A. Zelevinsky, Induced representations of reductive p -adic groups II. On irreducible representations of GL(n) , Ann. Sci. E.N.S., 13(2) (1980), 165--210. https://doi.org/10.24033/asens.1379 doi.org/10.24033/asens.1379 macros-etal/defs.tex00006640000000000000000000050443150314...

1980 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abram and L

M. Abram and L. Lamberto-Egan and A. Lauda and D. Rose, Categorification of the internal braid group action for quantum groups I: 2-functoriality. Pacific J. Math. 328 (2024), no.1, 1--75. https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2024.328.1 doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2024.328.1

work page doi:10.2140/pjm.2024.328.1 2024

[2] [2]

Balmer, Separability and triangulated categories

P. Balmer, Separability and triangulated categories. Adv. Math. 226 (2011), 4352--4372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2010.12.003 doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2010.12.003

doi:10.1016/j.aim.2010.12.003 2011

[3] [3]

Breaz, The Krull--Remak--Schmidt theorem for idempotent complete categories (2025)

S. Breaz, The Krull--Remak--Schmidt theorem for idempotent complete categories (2025). arXiv: 2503.21216 http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21216

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Davydov and D

A. Davydov and D. Nikshych, The Picard crossed module of a braided tensor category. Algebra Number Theory 7(6) (2013), 1365–-1403. https://doi.org/10.2140/ant.2013.7.1365 doi.org/10.2140/ant.2013.7.1365

work page doi:10.2140/ant.2013.7.1365 2013

[5] [5]

Elias, The two-color Soergel calculus

B. Elias, The two-color Soergel calculus. Compositio Mathematica, 152(2) (2016), 327--398. https://doi.org/10.1112/S0010437X15007587 doi.org/10.1112/S0010437X15007587

doi:10.1112/s0010437x15007587 2016

[6] [6]

Gaitsgory's central sheaves via the diagrammatic Hecke category

B. Elias, G aitsgory's central sheaves via the diagrammatic H ecke category (2018). arXiv: 1811.06188v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06188v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Elias and M

B. Elias and M. Hogancamp, Drinfeld centralizers and Rouquier complexes. arXiv: 2412.20633 http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20633

arXiv

[8] [8]

Elias, S

B. Elias, S. Makisumi, U. Thiel, G. Williamson, Introduction to Soergel bimodules RSME Springer Series, volume 5 , Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48826-0 doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48826-0

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48826-0 2020