Lectures on bar and cobar

Fritz H\"ormann

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Lectures on bar and cobar

T0 review · 4 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 All bar and cobar dualities fall out of one ∞-operad construction.

desk verdict Inventive and important framework with a load-bearing deferred proof in the derived bar existence theorem; worth refereeing, but the central claim stays conditional until Cor 4.14 is proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15133 v1 pith:RQPFH5IB submitted 2025-07-20 math.AT math.CT

Fritz Hörmann This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ATmath.CT MSC 18N7018N6055P3518G35

keywords barconstructioncobarinfinity-operadstwistedarrowcategoriesrelativeKanextensionsmonoidalinfinity-categoriesEilenberg-MacLaneAdams

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 that the classical bar and cobar constructions—for simplicial groups and sets and for differential graded (co)algebras—and Lurie's derived bar and cobar dualities are all special cases of a single abstract construction attached to a cofibration of ∞-operads. In this framework the classical adjunction (with cobar left adjoint to a fully faithful bar) and Lurie's derived adjunction (with bar left adjoint to cobar) are both consequences of relative operadic Kan extensions along twisted-arrow operads, giving new existence proofs that avoid the technicalities of earlier arguments. The author also derives the comparison maps between Adams cobar and Kan's loop group—namely the Szczarba and Hess–Tonks maps—from the same formal functoriality. If correct, the paper turns a scattered family of classical constructions into one instance of ∞-operad formalism.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the twisted-arrow (co)operads $\downarrow\uparrow I$ and $\uparrow\downarrow I$ built from an ∞-operad $I$, whose objects are the active morphisms of $I$, together with the relative (operadic) Kan extensions along their projection functors. The classical bar $\tilde{\pi}_1^*$ is a pull-back-like construction that transfers $I$-algebras into $\downarrow\uparrow I$-coalgebras, and the derived bar is the left relative Kan extension of that construction along $\pi_2$, which in the monoidal case becomes the colimit over $\Delta^{\mathrm{op}}$ once the unit is final. The equivalence $\rho^*$ is the hinge that connects the classical and derived constructions by identifying the two diagram shapes, and the paper shows that the same mechanism, with decalage inserted, produces the classical Eilenberg–MacLane bar, Adams cobar, and the geometric cobar underlying Kan's loop group.

What would settle it

Test the equivalence ρ* in a genuinely ∞-categorical example where the unit is final and geometric realizations exist, such as the ∞-category of spaces with Cartesian product, by comparing the mapping spaces between augmented coalgebras on the two sides; if ρ* is not fully faithful or essentially surjective in any such instance, the existence proof for Lurie's bar in Theorem 3.12 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The organizing claim is that a single diagram—a cofibration of ∞-operads $C\to S$ together with a small ∞-operad $I$—supports both a 'classical' and a 'derived' (co)bar adjunction. The classical bar $\tilde{\pi}_1^*$ sends an $I$-diagram of algebras in $C$ to a coalgebra over the twisted-arrow cooperad $\downarrow\uparrow I$, and the classical cobar is its left adjoint, constructed as a relative left Kan extension (Theorem 3.15). The derived bar $\mathrm{Bar} = \pi_{2,!}^{(S^{\mathrm{op}})}\tilde{\pi}_1^*$ is the relative left Kan extension along the projection $\pi_2\colon \downarrow\uparrow I \to I$; when $C\to S$ is a monoidal ∞-category and $I = S = O$, this recovers Lurie's bar construction, and dually for cobar, so the general framework subsumes Lurie's (co)bar duality. The existence proof reduces Lurie's bar to a geometric realization over $\Delta^{\mathrm{op}}$ through the equivalence $\rho^*\colon (C^\vee)^{(\Delta,*)^{\mathrm{op}}} \to (C^\vee)^{(\Delta_{\mathrm{act}},*')^{\mathrm{op}}}$ of Corollary 4.14, which holds when the monoidal unit is final; for ∞-categories this equivalence is stated without proof and flagged as 'omitted for the moment.'

Load-bearing premise

The equivalence ρ* of Corollary 4.14, which for ∞-categories identifies the diagram shapes $(\Delta,*)^{\mathrm{op}}$ and $(\Delta_{\mathrm{act}},*')^{\mathrm{op}}$ after making the monoidal unit final, is asserted without proof, and the derivation of Lurie's bar as a geometric realization depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Lurie's (co)bar adjunction exists for any monoidal ∞-category with final unit and geometric realizations, without assuming that the tensor product commutes with geometric realizations.
The classical (co)bar adjunction exists for any L-admissible cofibration of ∞-operads, and the classical cobar is computed as a colimit over the category of necklaces ($\downarrow\uparrow\Delta^{\mathrm{op}}_{\mathrm{act}}$).
The Eilenberg–MacLane bar construction, Adams cobar construction, and Kan's loop group are recovered as the same formal construction composed with decalage and the ρ* equivalence.
The Szczarba map and its homotopy inverse, the Hess–Tonks map, are recovered from the functoriality of cobar in A∞-morphisms, without explicit formulas.
The dual classical cobar construction gives a method for constructing cofree coalgebras under hypotheses weaker than the tensor product commuting with countable products.

Reading between the lines

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

If the framework extends as the paper's plan suggests, the same abstract definitions should apply unchanged to symmetric and $E_k$ operads, so Lurie's duality for $E_k$-(co)algebras should follow from the same relative-Kan-extension mechanism.
The main existence theorem for the derived bar rests entirely on the unproved ∞-categorical equivalence ρ* of Corollary 4.14; finding a monoidal ∞-category with final unit where ρ* is not an equivalence would force a replacement for the geometric-realization formula.
The paper's treatment of the classical and derived cobar via decalage suggests testable criteria for when the two cobars agree after localization: one should check that cobar∘ρ*∘dec* preserves weak equivalences on a sufficiently large subcategory of coalgebras.
Since the paper lists Sweedler theory and twisted Cartesian products as planned generalizations, the framework likely recovers those classical constructions as instances of the same twisted-arrow Kan-extension calculus, providing concrete testing ground for the formalism.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a serious, inventive set of lecture notes, not a finished paper. The central idea—deriving both classical and Lurie's (co)bar from twisted arrow ∞-operads and relative Kan extensions—is genuinely new, and the classical adjunction (Thm 3.15) has a real proof. But the new existence proof of Lurie's bar depends on Cor 4.14, and the ∞-categorical part of that proof is explicitly deferred, marked 'needs some careful argument for ∞-categories that is omitted for the moment.' That is a load-bearing gap. If ρ* is not the claimed equivalence, the geometric realization formula for Bar is unsupported and the advertised alternative proof of Lurie's adjunction falls with it. The stress-test note lands. Credit where it is due: the twisted arrow operad formalism is a real contribution, as is the reduction of both adjunctions to relative Kan extensions. The construction of Alexander–Whitney and Eilenberg–Zilber maps from a symmetry principle, without shuffle combinatorics, is elegant and works in non-abelian and abelian settings alike. The Dold–Kan section achieves a clean proof with minimal calculation. The classical cobar comparisons to Kan's loop group and Adams cobar are concrete and the author is transparent about which parts are expository and which are new. The soft spots are real but not all equal. Cor 4.14 is the big one. Proposition 3.23 also has its proof omitted, Lemma 3.38 is left as an exercise, Proposition 2.62 has a 'rigorous proof omitted.' None of these are fatal to the whole enterprise, because the classical half is on solid ground and the framework is likely correct. But they matter: the paper's headline claim of a new conceptual existence proof for Lurie's adjunction is exactly what hangs on the unproven ∞-categorical equivalence. The Hess–Tonks comparison is also flagged by the author as likely but not checked; that one is honestly presented as unfinished. This paper is for homotopy theorists and ∞-categorists working on (co)bar duality. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, but I would send it with the expectation of heavy revision: fill the Cor 4.14 gap or rephrase the theorem as conditional. I would not cite the derived bar existence in my own work until that is settled; the classical side I would use without worry.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an abstract framework for bar and cobar constructions associated to cofibrations of ∞-operads. It claims that both Lurie's derived bar/cobar adjunction for monoidal ∞-categories and the classical bar/cobar adjunctions of Eilenberg–MacLane, Kan, and Adams arise as instances of one general construction, and it offers new existence proofs for both adjunctions. The notes also contain a large amount of surrounding material: a theory of relative Kan extensions, Day convolution for (co)operads, non-Abelian and Abelian Eilenberg–Zilber theorems, Dold–Kan, and comparisons such as the Szczarba and Hess–Tonks maps.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper would provide a genuine conceptual unification of classical and derived (co)bar constructions, with new proofs of Lurie's existence theorem and of the classical cobar existence theorem. The manuscript is impressive in scope and contains many valuable explicit constructions, including a non-Abelian Eilenberg–Zilber theorem, a conceptual treatment of Shih operators, and explicit comparisons with classical constructions. However, several load-bearing ∞-categorical statements are explicitly deferred or left as exercises; the central existence theorem for Lurie's bar construction rests on one such omitted proof. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on completing those arguments.

major comments (4)

[§4.2, Corollary 4.14] Corollary 4.14 is the key step in the claimed new existence proof of Lurie's bar construction: Theorem 3.12(1) cites it directly, and the formula Bar = colim_{Δ^op} ∘ (ρ*)^{-1} ∘ ̃π*_1 depends on ρ* being an equivalence of ∞-categories. The proof is not given: the text states that it 'needs some careful argument for ∞-categories that is omitted for the moment.' Lemma 4.13 gives a generators-and-relations description only in the 1-categorical setting, and it does not by itself establish the required ∞-operadic universal property, nor does the paper construct the inverse to ρ* as an ∞-functor. Since Corollary 3.13 and the headline claim of a new existence proof of Lurie's adjunction rest on this equivalence, a complete proof or a precise reference is needed before the central claim can be accepted.
[§3.5, Proposition 3.23] Proposition 3.23 identifies the refined pairing for an adjunction Q ⊣ R with the pairing represented by (Q̃π*_1, π*_2), and it is the basis for the functorial and non-connected derived (co)bar constructions, including Corollary 3.25 and Example 3.26. The proof is omitted with the sentence 'The proof is omitted for the moment.' Without this proposition, the existence of Bar_Q and Cobar_R as adjoint functors is not established in the manuscript, so the non-connected and functorial versions of the main theorem are currently unsupported.
[§3.7, Lemma 3.38] Lemma 3.38 is formulated as an exercise but is load-bearing for Theorem 3.37, the construction of cofree coalgebras in Abelian tensor categories. The proof of Theorem 3.37 explicitly says that the lemma is used at two places: to commute the relevant limits with ⊗ and to construct the fiber-wise Kan extension. An exercise is not a proof, especially in a paper that advertises a theorem as proved. The lemma should either be proved in the text or Theorem 3.37 should be restated as conditional on that lemma.
[§2.7, Proposition 2.62] Proposition 2.62 is a general interchange isomorphism between oplax limits and oplax colimits, and it is used in the proof of Corollary 2.65, which in turn is used in the proof of Proposition 3.3 identifying the derived (co)bar pairing. The text says 'A rigorous proof is omitted for the moment' and gives only a sketch via adjunctions. Since this interchange is a nontrivial ∞-categorical statement and is part of the infrastructure for the main pairing identification, it should be proved or replaced by a precise reference rather than left as a sketch.

minor comments (5)

[§1.5] The introduction explicitly states that the notes 'are far from complete' and lists several planned topics. This is honest but should be clarified in the abstract or introduction so that readers know which results are final and which are deferred.
[Example 2.38] The displayed formula for the Day convolution product contains a visibly corrupted passage with repeated symbols; the intended formula should be restored.
[§1.4] The claim that the comparison map 'is very likely ... the Hess-Tonks map, although this remains to be checked in detail' is a conjecture rather than a theorem; the wording should distinguish established results from conjectural identifications.
[§1.5] The text contains typos such as 'prinicipal twisted Cartesian products'; a careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.
[§3.6, Proposition 3.29] The proof is labeled 'Sketch' and relies on Lemma 3.30, whose proof is also only sketched. These should be completed or clearly marked as conditional, given that the proposition is used for the Cartesian-case results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bar/cobar framework is a reduction of known constructions to relative Kan extensions; the main deferred step (Cor. 4.14) is an unproved ∞-categorical coherence lemma, not an input renamed as a conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation defines Bar as colim_{Δ^op} ∘ (ρ*)^{-1} ∘ ̃π*_1 and Cobar dually, then proves existence via relative Kan extension criteria (Cor. 2.69, Prop. 2.76). No fitted parameter is later called a prediction, and no definition of a bar/cobar functor contains the target adjunction as a hypothesis. The only load-bearing step that is not proved is Corollary 4.14, where the author writes: 'That is an obvious consequence of Lemma 4.13 in the 1-categorical case but needs some careful argument for ∞-categories that is omitted for the moment.' This is a genuinely load-bearing gap for the claimed new proof of Lurie's adjunction, because (ρ*)^{-1} is used to turn the classical bar diagram into a Δ^op-shaped geometric realization. But it is not circular: Cor. 4.14 is a statement about an equivalence of coalgebra diagram ∞-categories under a final-unit hypothesis, not the same statement as the existence of Bar or of the adjunction. Citations to [41] are to the theorem being reproved, not used as a premise; attributions to [43, §13] and [52] concern inspiration for symmetry and decalage ideas and are not load-bearing. Other deferred proofs (Prop. 3.23, Lemma 3.38, several 'Exercise' proofs) are incompletenesses, not reductions by construction. Hence no step in the claimed derivation is equivalent to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constructions rely on standard infinity-categorical foundations, namely Lurie's theory of infinity-operads and Kan extensions, plus one unproved equivalence specific to this paper. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The infinity-categorical version of the equivalence rho*: (C∨)^{(Δ,*)^op} → (C∨)^{(Δ_act,*')^op} holds when the monoidal unit is final.
Invoked in Theorem 3.12 to express Lurie's bar as a colimit over Δ^op; Corollary 4.14 states it but the proof is omitted for infinity-categories.
standard math Relative (operadic) Kan extensions exist under the L-admissibility or R-admissibility conditions stated in Corollary 2.69 and Proposition 2.76.
This is the existence mechanism used for both classical and derived (co)bar; it is standard infinity-category theory from Lurie [41].
standard math The twisted arrow infinity-operads ↑↓I and ↓↑I satisfy the localization properties of Lemmas 2.50 and 2.51, relating them to the usual twisted arrow category.
These lemmas underpin the identification of the pairing and the reduction to Kan extensions; proofs are sketched in Sections 2.6.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lectures on bar and cobar." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQPFH5IB

@misc{pith2026250715133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lectures on bar and cobar},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQPFH5IB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15133}
}

read the original abstract

We discuss Lurie's (derived) bar and cobar constructions, the classical ones for simplicial groups and sets (due to Eilenberg-MacLane and Kan), and the classical ones for differential graded (co)algebras (due to Eilenberg-MacLane and Adams) and their relations, putting them into an abstract framework which makes sense much more generally for any cofibration of infinity-operads. Along these lines we give new and rather conceptual existence proofs of Lurie's adjunction (where bar is left adjoint) and the classical adjunction (where bar is right adjoint). We also recover various classical comparison maps, e.g. the Szczarba and Hess-Tonks maps comparing Adams cobar with Kan's loop group.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15133 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

Abell´ an, A

F. Abell´ an, A. Gagna, and R. Haugseng. Straightening for lax transfor- mations and adjunctions of (∞, 2)-categories. Preprint, arXiv:2404.03971 [math.CT] (2024), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03971

arXiv 2024
[2]

Abell´ an Garc ´ ıa

F. Abell´ an Garc ´ ıa. Marked colimits and higher cofinality. J. Homotopy Relat. Struct., 17(1):1–22, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

J. F. Adams. On the cobar construction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 42: 409–412, 1956. URL www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534237

work page 1956
[4]

M. Anel. Cofree coalgebras over operads and representative functions. Preprint, arXiv:1409.4688 [math.CT] (2014), 2014. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1409.4688

arXiv 2014
[5]

Sweedler Theory for (co)algebras and the bar-cobar constructions

M. Anel and A. Joyal. Sweedler Theory for (co)algebras and the bar-cobar constructions. Preprint, arXiv:1309.6952 [math.CT] (2013), 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6952

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[6]

Ayala and J

D. Ayala and J. Francis. Fibrations of ∞-categories. High. Struct. , 4(1): 168–265, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Barkan and J

S. Barkan and J. Steinebrunner. Segalification and the Boardman-Vogt tensor product. Preprint, arXiv:2301.08650 [math.AT] (2023), 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08650

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

M. Barr. Exact categories. Exact Categories and Categories Sheaves, Lect. Notes Math. 236, 1-120 (1971)., 1971

work page 1971

Show all 54 references

[9]

M. Barr. Acyclic models, volume 17 of CRM Monogr. Ser. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2002

2002
[10]

H. J. Baues. Geometry of loop spaces and the cobar construction , volume 230 of Mem. Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 1980

1980
[11]

Beardsley and M

J. Beardsley and M. P´ eroux. Koszul duality in higher topoi. Homology Homotopy Appl. , 25(1):53–70, 2023

2023
[12]

Berger and I

C. Berger and I. Moerdijk. On an extension of the notion of Reedy category. Math. Z. , 269(3-4):977–1004, 2011

2011
[13]

J. E. Bergner and C. Rezk. Reedy categories and the Θ-construction. Math. Z., 274(1-2):499–514, 2013

2013
[14]

J. D. Berman. On lax limits in ∞-categories. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. , 152 (12):5055–5066, 2024

2024
[15]

J. M. Boardman and R. M. Vogt. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures on topological spaces , volume 347 of Lect. Notes Math. Springer, Cham, 1973. 211

1973
[16]

A. M. Cegarra and J. Remedios. The relationship between the diagonal and the bar constructions on a bisimplicial set. Topology Appl., 153(1): 21–51, 2005

2005
[17]

M. Ching. Bar-cobar duality for operads in stable homotopy theory. J. Topol., 5(1):39–80, 2012

2012
[18]

Cisinski

D.-C. Cisinski. Higher categories and homotopical algebra , volume 180 of Camb. Stud. Adv. Math. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019

2019
[19]

Cordier and T

J.-M. Cordier and T. Porter. Homotopy coherent category theory. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 349(1):1–54, 1997

1997
[20]

Dugger and D

D. Dugger and D. I. Spivak. Rigidification of quasi-categories. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 11(1):225–261, 2011

2011
[21]

J. Duskin. Simplicial methods and the interpretation of ”triple” cohomology, volume 163 of Mem. Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI: American Mathemat- ical Society (AMS), 1975

1975
[22]

Eilenberg and S

S. Eilenberg and S. MacLane. On the groups H(Π, n). I. Ann. Math. (2) , 58:55–106, 1953

1953
[23]

M. Franz. Koszul duality for tori . Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre Verlag; Kon- stanz: Univ. Konstanz (Thesis), 2001

2001
[24]

M. Franz. Szczarba’s twisting cochain and the Eilenberg-Zilber maps. Col- lect. Math., 72(3):569–586, 2021

2021
[25]

M. Franz. Szczarba’s twisting cochain is comultiplicative. Homology Ho- motopy Appl. , 26(1):287–317, 2024

2024
[26]

Gagna, Y

A. Gagna, Y. Harpaz, and E. Lanari. Fibrations and lax limits of (∞, 2)- categories. Preprint, arXiv:2012.04537 [math.AT] (2020), 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.04537

2020 arXiv
[27]

Gagna, Y

A. Gagna, Y. Harpaz, and E. Lanari. Cartesian fibrations of (∞, 2)- categories. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 24(9):4731–4778, 2024

2024
[28]

Godement

R. Godement. Topologie alg´ ebrique et th´ eorie des faisceaux, volume 13 of Publ. Inst. Math. Univ. Strasbourg . Hermann, Paris, 1958

1958
[29]

P. G. Goerss and J. F. Jardine. Simplicial homotopy theory . Mod. Birkh¨ auser Class. Basel: Birkh¨ auser, reprint of the 1999 original edition, 2009

1999
[30]

Haugseng, F

R. Haugseng, F. Hebestreit, S. Linskens, and J. Nuiten. Two-variable fibrations, factorisation systems and ∞-categories of spans. Forum Math. Sigma, 11:70, 2023. Id/No e111. 212

2023
[31]

Haugseng, F

R. Haugseng, F. Hebestreit, S. Linskens, and J. Nuiten. Lax monoidal adjunctions, two-variable fibrations and the calculus of mates. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 127(4):889–957, 2023

2023
[32]

Hebestreit and J

F. Hebestreit and J. Steinebrunner. A short proof that Rezk’s nerve is fully faithful. Preprint, arXiv:2312.09889 [math.CT] (2023), 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09889

2023 arXiv
[33]

Hess and A

K. Hess and A. Tonks. The loop group and the cobar construction. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. , 138(5):1861–1876, 2010

2010
[34]

Hoffbeck and I

E. Hoffbeck and I. Moerdijk. Homology of infinity-operads. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 75(3):929–965, 2025

2025
[35]

H¨ ormann

F. H¨ ormann. Six-functor-formalisms and fibered multiderivators. Sel. Math., New Ser. , 24(4):2841–2925, 2018

2018
[36]

B. Keller. Introduction to A-infinity algebras and modules. Homology Homotopy Appl., 3(1):1–35, 2001. URL https://eudml.org/doc/229468

2001
[37]

G. M. Kelly. Basic concepts of enriched category theory , volume 64 of Lond. Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. London Mathematical Society, London, 1982

1982
[38]

Loday and B

J.-L. Loday and B. Vallette. Algebraic operads, volume 346 of Grundlehren Math. Wiss. Berlin: Springer, 2012. URL hdl.handle.net/21.11116/ 0000-0004-1D0F-D

2012
[39]

Lowen and A

W. Lowen and A. Mertens. Enriched quasicategories and the templicial homotopy coherent nerve. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 25(2):1029–1074, 2025

2025
[40]

J. Lurie. Higher topos theory, volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

2009
[41]

J. Lurie. Higher algebra. preprint, http://www.math.harvard.edu/ ~lurie/, 2011

2011
[42]

Markl, S

M. Markl, S. Shnider, and J. Stasheff. Operads in algebra, topology and physics, volume 96 of Math. Surv. Monogr. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2002

2002
[43]

J. P. May. Classifying spaces and fibrations , volume 155 of Mem. Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 1975

1975
[44]

A. Mertens. Nerves of enriched categories via necklaces. Preprint, arXiv:2408.10049 [math.CT] (2024), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2408.10049

2024 arXiv
[45]

J.-P. Meyer. Bar and cobar constructions. I. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 33: 163–207, 1984. 213

1984
[46]

J.-P. Meyer. Bar and cobar constructions. II. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 43: 179–210, 1986

1986
[47]

Minichiello, M

E. Minichiello, M. Rivera, and M. Zeinalian. A detailed look at the Szczarba map. Preprint, arXiv:2305.13638 [math.AT] (2023), 2023. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2305.13638

2023 arXiv
[48]

Ozornova and M

V. Ozornova and M. Rovelli. The unit of the total d´ ecalage adjunction. J. Homotopy Relat. Struct. , 15(2):333–349, 2020

2020
[49]

P´ eroux

M. P´ eroux. The coalgebraic enrichment of algebras in higher categories.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 226(3):11, 2022. Id/No 106849

2022
[50]

M. Rivera. Adams’ cobar construction revisited. Doc. Math., 27:1213–1223, 2022

2022
[51]

W. Shih. Homologie des espaces fibr´ es. Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes ´Etud. Sci., 13:93–176, 1962. URL https://eudml.org/doc/103830

1962
[52]

Stevenson

D. Stevenson. D´ ecalage and Kan’s simplicial loop group functor. Theory Appl. Categ., 26:768–787, 2012

2012
[53]

R. H. Szczarba. The homology of twisted cartesian products. Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 100:197–216, 1961

1961
[54]

M. Zisman. Comparaison de deux diagonales pour un ensemble bisimplicial. J. Homotopy Relat. Struct. , 10(4):1013–1021, 2015. 214

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abell´ an, A

F. Abell´ an, A. Gagna, and R. Haugseng. Straightening for lax transfor- mations and adjunctions of (∞, 2)-categories. Preprint, arXiv:2404.03971 [math.CT] (2024), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03971

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Abell´ an Garc ´ ıa

F. Abell´ an Garc ´ ıa. Marked colimits and higher cofinality. J. Homotopy Relat. Struct., 17(1):1–22, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

J. F. Adams. On the cobar construction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 42: 409–412, 1956. URL www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534237

work page 1956

[4] [4]

M. Anel. Cofree coalgebras over operads and representative functions. Preprint, arXiv:1409.4688 [math.CT] (2014), 2014. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1409.4688

arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Sweedler Theory for (co)algebras and the bar-cobar constructions

M. Anel and A. Joyal. Sweedler Theory for (co)algebras and the bar-cobar constructions. Preprint, arXiv:1309.6952 [math.CT] (2013), 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6952

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

Ayala and J

D. Ayala and J. Francis. Fibrations of ∞-categories. High. Struct. , 4(1): 168–265, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Barkan and J

S. Barkan and J. Steinebrunner. Segalification and the Boardman-Vogt tensor product. Preprint, arXiv:2301.08650 [math.AT] (2023), 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08650

work page arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

M. Barr. Exact categories. Exact Categories and Categories Sheaves, Lect. Notes Math. 236, 1-120 (1971)., 1971

work page 1971