Reflection Equivariance and the Heisenberg Picture for Spaces of Conformal Blocks

Lukas Woike

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Reflection Equivariance and the Heisenberg Picture for Spaces of Conformal Blocks

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 Reflection equivariance shows modified traces control conformal blocks.

desk verdict A technically serious paper with a plausible central claim—reflection equivariance as homotopy fixed points is equivalent to modified traces and yields a topological characterization of non-semisimple modular categories—but the load-bearing dependence on the unpublished same-group classification [BW22] should not be brushed aside. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22820 v2 pith:U2L5VQXP submitted 2025-07-30 math.QA math-phmath.ATmath.MP

Lukas Woike This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.QAmath-phmath.ATmath.MP

keywords reflectionequivarianceconformalblocksmodifiedtracemodularfunctorcategoryskeinalgebrafactorizationhomologyHeisenbergpicture

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 sets out to prove that orientation reversal of surfaces—the reflection operation on spaces of conformal blocks—is not an extra symmetry imposed by hand, but is already encoded by a standard algebraic structure: the modified trace. In the finite non-semisimple setting, the author shows that a two-sided modified trace on the projective objects, a reflection-equivariant structure on the genus-zero data, and reflection-equivariant isomorphisms for the associated handlebody invariants are equivalent choices. If the category further extends to a modular functor, the paper concludes that its braiding is non-degenerate, so the category is modular, and that the modular functor is the standard one constructed from the category. The consequence is a topological characterization of modular categories, semisimple or not, together with a Heisenberg picture in which conformal blocks are recovered as the unique simple modules over skein algebras. This matters because it makes mapping class group representations and conformal blocks accessible through algebras of observables rather than through generators and relations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the homotopy involution $A \mapsto \overline{A}^{\dagger}$ on cyclic framed $E_2$-algebras: $\overline{A}$ reverses the orientation of surfaces (inverting braiding and balancing), while $A^{\dagger}$ dualizes state spaces and simultaneously reverses and dualizes the boundary labels, using the weak duality of the underlying ribbon category. A reflection-equivariant structure is a homotopy fixed point of this involution, relative to the canonical fixed-point structure that rigidity already provides. The argument converts modified traces into trivializations of the Nakayama functor and of the distinguished invertible object, then uses the classification of cyclic structures over the balanced center to identify the fixed-point data; on the topological side, co-non-degeneracy and cofactorizability are shown to make all handlebody skein modules equivalences, which turns the skein action into an isomorphism with the endomorphism algebra of conformal blocks.

What would settle it

Take a unimodular finite ribbon category with degenerate braiding, for instance finite-dimensional modules over a non-factorizable unimodular ribbon Hopf algebra, and check directly whether its genus-zero theory extends to a modular functor; Proposition 5.8 and Theorem 5.11 predict that it cannot, so a verified extension would refute the paper's characterization. A cheaper check is to compute whether the handlebody skein module for the torus is one-dimensional, as Corollary 5.7 would require for any extension.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a three-way equivalence of structures (Theorem 5.11): for a strongly rigid, simple cyclic framed $E_2$-algebra (a finite ribbon category whose weak duality is a genuine rigid duality and whose unit is simple), the choice of a two-sided modified trace on projective objects, the choice of a reflection-equivariant structure for the cyclic algebra, and the choice of reflection-equivariant isomorphisms for the unique ansular functor extending it amount to the same datum, unique up to a nonzero scalar. If such a structure exists and the algebra extends to a modular functor, then the braiding is non-degenerate and the modular functor agrees with the standard coend-built modular functor; in particular, genus-zero restriction becomes a bijection between strongly rigid, simple reflection-equivariant modular functors and modular categories. The paper further establishes that for every closed surface of such a modular category, the space of conformal blocks is the unique simple module over the skein algebra, with a unique projective mapping class group action making the algebra action equivariant, and that for surfaces with boundary the internal skein algebra is Morita equivalent to the category itself, generated by one simple representation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the classification, quoted from a companion preprint, that a modular functor is uniquely determined up to equivalence by its genus-zero restriction to connected cyclic framed $E_2$-algebras; if that classification has a gap, the lifting of reflection equivariance from spheres to all surfaces and the identification with the standard modular functor lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any finite ribbon category with a two-sided modified trace carries a canonical reflection-equivariant structure, and in the strongly rigid simple case the trace is the only choice, up to a nonzero scalar.
Every modular category is the circle category of exactly one strongly rigid, simple reflection-equivariant modular functor, whose mapping class group representations are the standard ones constructed from the category.
For a closed surface, the skein algebra of a modular category is a matrix algebra; its unique simple module is the space of conformal blocks, and the mapping class group acts by inner automorphisms.
For a surface with boundary, the internal skein algebra is Morita equivalent to the category itself, the conformal block module is simple, and every other module is obtained by tensoring with an object of the category.
In the semisimple case the classification recovers the standard bijection between modular fusion categories and normalized semisimple modular functors.

Reading between the lines

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

One could try to read the modified trace directly off handlebody skein modules, turning a purely algebraic structure into a topological observable in logarithmic theories.
The paper leaves open whether reflection equivariance forces rigidity in the absence of an assumed rigid duality; the natural conjecture suggested by the semisimple rigidity result is that any reflection-equivariant cyclic framed $E_2$-algebra is automatically rigid.
For a concrete test outside the paper's examples, the trace-to-skein dictionary should reproduce the admissible skein module decompositions for connected sums of three-manifolds; carrying this out for the small quantum group at roots of unity would probe the non-semisimple content.
The uniqueness of the equivariant mapping class group action on conformal blocks suggests that skein algebras can serve as a definition of conformal blocks in logarithmic conformal field theory, bypassing explicit construction of the projective representations.

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 paper does something genuinely new. It packages reflection equivariance as a homotopy fixed point structure for the orientation-reversal involution combined with the †-operation, then proves that this is equivalent to choosing a two-sided modified trace (Theorem 5.11). That this single algebraic input controls the whole surface-level structure is a real conceptual step. The topological characterization of modular categories (Theorem 5.9) and the Heisenberg picture for conformal blocks via skein algebras (Theorems 6.8 and 6.10) are strong payoffs, and they generalize the AGS picture and Faitg's results beyond Hopf algebras. The writing is careful, the hypotheses are stated, and the proof outlines are mostly detailed. I found no internal contradiction; the logic from the stated assumptions through to the conclusions holds up on reading.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. The central theorems are conditional on a classification theorem from [BW22, Theorem 6.8], a preprint by the same research group that is not proved here. That classification is used essentially to transfer reflection equivariance from genus zero to all surfaces, and if it has a gap, Theorems 4.23, 5.9, 5.11, 6.9, and 6.10 lose their foundation. The paper is transparent about this—it cites the theorem explicitly and summarizes the mechanism in Section 4.10—but the dependence is so load-bearing that a referee should push to have the classification either made public with full proof or at least clearly flagged as an external input rather than an internal theorem. There are also a few compressed verifications (for instance the gluing computation in Lemma 3.5 and the step in Theorem 4.12 relying on [GKPM22, Theorem 6.2]), but those are minor in comparison.

The self-citation pattern is not a flaw in itself—the cited results are central and the paper engages with them honestly. The main issue is that the reader cannot, from this paper alone, verify the foundational step. That is normal for a cutting-edge preprint, but it means the correct verdict is a conditional accept: the structure is good, the ideas are new, and the claims are likely correct if the classification holds.

Who gets value from this: anyone working on non-semisimple TQFTs, skein algebras, or conformal blocks. It deserves a serious referee—not a desk rejection. I would send it to a careful referee who can check the dependence on [BW22] and the key trace-theoretic equivalences, and would recommend acceptance once that dependence is clarified.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a homotopy-theoretic notion of reflection equivariance for cyclic framed E2-algebras and for modular functors: orientation reversal of surfaces is combined with the dualizing / duality operation on state spaces, and homotopy fixed point structures are singled out. For the strongly rigid, simple case, the paper proves that such reflection equivariant structures are equivalent to the choice of a two-sided modified trace (Theorem 4.12 and Theorem 5.11), and that, when the cyclic algebra extends to a modular functor, the circle category must be a modular category and the resulting modular functor is the Lyubashenko one (Theorems 5.9 and 5.11). The second half of the paper uses this to give a 'Heisenberg picture' description of conformal blocks: for a modular category the internal skein algebra action on the conformal block functor is an isomorphism, the conformal block is the unique simple module, and the mapping class group action is by inner automorphisms (Theorems 6.8-6.10). Several examples are worked out, including the Feigin-Fuchs boson and small quantum groups, and a VOA-theoretic corollary is derived.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, this is a significant advance. The paper gives a genuinely new topological characterization of non-semisimple modular categories and connects modified traces, an established algebraic invariant, to reflection equivariance and to mapping class group representations. The Heisenberg-picture results generalize classical work of Alekseev-Grosse-Schomerus and Faitg to arbitrary modular categories, and the concrete examples show that the framework applies beyond the Hopf-algebraic setting. The manuscript is careful in stating hypotheses, and many of the new proofs are written out in detail. The main caveat is that the paper relies heavily on an unpublished classification theorem [BW22, Theorem 6.8] by the same research group; the internal proofs from Section 4 onward are coherent, but they inherit every assumption of that classification. I therefore regard the results as conditional on [BW22] and recommend major revision rather than acceptance.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4.10, (4.12)] The classification theorem (4.12), cited as [BW22, Theorem 6.8], is the single most load-bearing external input in the paper. It is not proved here and is cited from a preprint of the same research group. It is used essentially in the proofs of Theorem 4.23, Theorem 5.9, Theorem 5.11, and in the skein statements of Section 6. If the classification has a gap, for example if the extension of a connected cyclic framed E2-algebra to a modular functor is not unique, or if connectedness is not sufficient, then the paper's main consequences lose their foundation. Please either include a complete statement and proof sketch of the classification, or restate the affected theorems as conditional on [BW22] and make the precise dependence explicit at each point where the theorem is invoked. The current summary in Section 4.10 is not sufficient for independent verification.
[Sec. 5.2, Proposition 5.6] The proof of Proposition 5.6 replaces Φ_A(f.H; P∨) by Φ_{A†}(f.H; P∨) 'thanks to Theorem 4.23'. However, Theorem 4.23 is stated for a strongly rigid simple modular functor, whereas Proposition 5.6 is stated for an arbitrary unimodular finite ribbon category and does not assume that the category extends to a modular functor. The step can be justified without the modular-functor hypothesis by Theorem 4.12 together with the equivalence between cyclic framed E2-algebras and ansular functors (3.8). Please correct the citation and add the missing justification; as written the proof has a gap in the logical order of the arguments.
[Sec. 5.3, proof of Proposition 5.8] The construction of the nonzero map σ from the admissible-skein pairing is compressed. The text asserts that the Drinfeld map yields a natural transformation (5.3) and then, 'by reflection equivariance of A and Proposition 4.15', a map σ : Φ_A(H) → Φ_A(overline{H}'). The relevant reflection equivariant structure on A has not been assumed in the statement of Proposition 5.8; it should be obtained from Theorem 4.12, but the argument should say so explicitly and should spell out how the reflection equivariance is used to pass from the admissible-skein description to the map σ. Please also justify carefully why σ is nonzero and why σ is an isomorphism if and only if the Drinfeld map is an isomorphism.
[Sec. 6.2, diagram (6.6)] The genus-zero induction in the proof of Theorem 6.5 is not fully transparent. The text says that Σ_{0,n} is obtained by gluing a cylinder to one boundary component, and then says 'cap off both gluing boundaries ... with a disk' to obtain Σ_{0,n-1} ⊔ D^2; the topological description of this decomposition is ambiguous, and the commuting diagram (6.6) is not self-evident. Since this induction is the basis for Φ-invertibility, which is used in Corollary 6.6 and all subsequent skein results, please spell out the gluing pattern (which ends are glued, which are capped, and how the handlebody H' is induced) and verify the diagram and its module-map structure in detail.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 6.2, paragraph after Corollary 6.6] There is a typo: 'we will spell out a the full argument' should read 'we will spell out the full argument'.
[Sec. 5.1, Example 5.5] The letter H is used both for a Hopf algebra and for the three-manifolds in the formula sk_A(M#N) ≅ sk_A(M\B; H^*) ⊗_H sk_A(N\B; H). Please rename the Hopf algebra (or the manifolds) to avoid confusion.
[Sec. 1, paragraph after (∗)] The assertion that 'If (∗) holds for all objects, then the underlying balanced braided category is necessarily semisimple' is stated without proof or reference. Since this claim is used to motivate the restriction to projective objects, a short explanation or a citation would be helpful.
[Sec. 4.10, definition of connectedness] The definition of connectedness is phrased informally: 'if for each surface Σ all Φ_A(H) for all handlebodies H with boundary Σ are isomorphic as module maps'. Please make precise the groupoid of module maps and the sense in which all handlebodies are considered, since this notion is used in an essential way in the proofs of Theorem 5.9 and Proposition 5.8.
[Sec. 3.4, equation (3.9)] Equation (3.9) is justified by 'a computation similar to (3.6)', but the reduction to projective labels and the gluing compatibility are not displayed. A brief indication of the argument would improve readability and verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reflection equivariance and modified traces are connected through independent classification results, not by definition or by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central equivalence Theorem 5.11 is assembled from Theorem 4.12 (modified trace iff cyclic reflection equivariance), the ansular extension equivalence (3.8), Theorem 4.23 (transfer to modular functors via (4.12)), Proposition 5.8 (modularity from extendability), and Theorem 5.9 (classification of modular categories). None of these steps defines its conclusion into its hypotheses: reflection equivariance is defined as a homotopy fixed point for the involution A maps to ¯A†, while modified traces are defined independently via cyclicity, non-degeneracy, and the partial trace property; the equivalence between them is proved using external classifications of cyclic structures ([MW24c, Theorem 4.2]) and of modified traces ([GKPM22, Theorem 6.2], [SS23]). The use of [BW22, Theorem 6.8] is load-bearing for transferring genus-zero statements to arbitrary surfaces, but that classification is a separate result whose assumptions do not include reflection equivariance or modified traces, so it is independent evidence rather than a self-citation loop. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is merely relabeled. The appropriate verdict is no significant circularity; the reliance on same-group preprints such as [BW22] is a verification and correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical or fitted parameters appear; the paper is a pure mathematics proof. The central claim rests on a chain of external theorems, most prominently the [BW22] classification of modular functors, the [MW23a] description of cyclic framed E2-algebras, the [MW24c] torsor description of cyclic structures, and the [SS23] and [GKPM22] dictionary between modified traces and Nakayama trivializations. These are all domain assumptions inherited from the literature; no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Rexf-valued modular functors are classified by connected cyclic framed E2-algebras via genus zero restriction ([BW22, Theorem 6.8]).
Invoked in Section 4.10 and used in Theorem 4.23, Proposition 5.8, Theorem 5.9, and Theorem 6.9; it is a preprint by Brochier and Woike and is not re-proved.
domain assumption Cyclic framed E2-algebras in Rexf are the same as ribbon Grothendieck-Verdier categories ([MW23a]).
Used throughout to translate between surface data and category data, especially in Section 3 and Definition 4.10.
domain assumption Ansular functors, modular algebras over the handlebody operad, are equivalent to cyclic framed E2-algebras via modular extension ([MW24b]).
Used in Section 3.3 and in the equivalence between reflection equivariance of A and of its ansular functor in Theorem 5.11.
domain assumption Cyclic structures on a fixed non-cyclic framed E2-algebra form a torsor over the Picard groupoid of the balanced Müger center ([MW24c, Theorem 4.2]).
Used in the proof of Theorem 4.12 to convert reflection equivariance into trivialization of the distinguished invertible object.
domain assumption Two-sided modified traces correspond to trivializations of the distinguished invertible object and to Nakayama functor trivializations ([GKPM22, Theorem 6.2], [SS23], [SW23]).
Used in Theorem 4.12 to equate reflection equivariance with modified traces.
domain assumption The admissible skein module of S^3 is one-dimensional for unimodular finite ribbon categories ([CGPM23, Corollary 3.2]).
Used in Corollary 5.7 and Proposition 5.8 to obtain the scalar by which the Drinfeld map acts.
domain assumption A finite ribbon category has non-degenerate braiding iff the Drinfeld map is an isomorphism ([Shi19]).
Used at the end of Proposition 5.8 to conclude modularity from the invertibility of the Drinfeld map.
standard math Standard finite tensor category facts: Radford S4 formula and distinguished invertible object ([ENO04]), and progenerator reconstruction ([EGNO15, Chapter 7]).
Used in Theorem 4.12 and Lemma 6.11 to identify the distinguished invertible object and to show any nonzero object generates the regular module category.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reflection Equivariance and the Heisenberg Picture for Spaces of Conformal Blocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2L5VQXP

@misc{pith2026250722820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reflection Equivariance and the Heisenberg Picture for Spaces of Conformal Blocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2L5VQXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22820}
}

abstract

Monoidal product, braiding, balancing and weak duality are pieces of algebraic information that are well-known to have their origin in oriented genus zero surfaces and their mapping classes. More precisely, each of them correspond to operations of the cyclic framed $E_2$-operad. We extend this correspondence to include another algebraic piece of data, namely the modified trace, by showing that it amounts to a homotopy fixed point structure with respect to the homotopy involution that reverses the orientation of surfaces and dualizes the state spaces. We call such a homotopy fixed point structure reflection equivariance. As an application, we describe the effect of orientation reversal on spaces of conformal blocks and skein modules in the non-semisimple setting, throughout relying on their factorization homology description. This has important consequences: For a modular functor that is reflection equivariant relative to a rigid duality, i) the circle category is modular, and the resulting mapping class group representations are automatically the ones built by Lyubashenko, and ii) the modules over the internal skein algebras are generated by one simple representation, carrying a unique projective mapping class group representation making the action equivariant. While i) is a new topological characterization of not necessarily semisimple modular categories, ii) generalizes the implicit description of spaces of conformal blocks purely through the representation theory of moduli algebras given by Alekseev-Grosse-Schomerus from rational conformal field theories admitting a Hopf algebra description to finite rigid logarithmic conformal field theories. This also generalizes several results of Faitg from ribbon factorizable Hopf algebras to arbitrary modular categories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22820 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An example of a morphism in Graphs. A modular operad with values in a (higher) symmetric monoidal category M is a symmetric monoidal functor O : Graphs −→ M that also comes with operadic identities (we explain the latter in Remark 2.1 below). It is always understood that O is a symmetric monoidal functor up to coherent isomorphism (the symmetric monoidal 1-category Graphs is seen here as symmetric monoidal higher ca… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The Construction of Correlators in Finite Rigid Logarithmic Conformal Field Theory
math.QA 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

For any non-semisimple modular category, special symmetric Frobenius algebras now give all consistent open-closed correlators, with a holographic description and a Batalin-Vilkovisky structure on local operators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[6]

Costello

[Cos04] K. Costello. The A-infinity operad and the moduli space of curves. arXiv:math/0402015 [math.AG],

arXiv
[9]

Etingof, D

[ENO04] P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik. An analogue of Radford’sS4 formula for finite tensor categories. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2004(54):2915–2933,

work page 2004
[15]

Müller and L

[MW23b] L. Müller and L. Woike. The Dehn twist action for quantum representations of mapping class groups. Accepted for publication inJ. Top.arXiv:2311.16020 [math.QA],

work page arXiv
[16]

Müller and L

[MW24a] L. Müller and L. Woike. Admissible skein modules and ansular functors: A comparison. arXiv:2409.17047 [math.QA],

arXiv
[20]

2-dimensional TFTs via modular $\infty$-operads

[Ste25] J. Steinebrunner. 2-dimensional TFTs via modular ∞-operads. arXiv:2506.22104 [math.CT],

work page Pith review arXiv
[1972]

[McR21] R. McRae. On rationality for C2-cofinite vertex operator algebras. arXiv:2108.01898 [math.QA],

arXiv
[1973]

Brochier and L

[BW22] A. Brochier and L. Woike. A classification of modular functors via factorization homology. arXiv:2212.11259 [math.QA],

arXiv
[1988]

[Shi17] K. Shimizu. On unimodular finite tensor categories. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2017(1):277–322,

work page 2017

Show all 22 references

[1989]

Müller, C

[MSWY23] L. Müller, C. Schweigert, L. Woike, and Y. Yang. The Lyubashenko modular functor for Drinfeld centers via non-semisimple string-nets. arXiv:2312.140109 [math.QA],

arXiv
[1990]

Demirdilek and C

[DS25] M. Demirdilek and C. Schweigert. Surface diagrams for Frobenius algebras and Frobenius-Schur indi- cators in grothendieck-verdier categories. arXiv:2503.13325 [math.CT],

arXiv
[1994]

Runkel, C

[RST24] I. Runkel, C. Schweigert, and Y. H. Tham. Excision for spaces of admissible skeins. arXiv:2407.09302 [math.QA],

arXiv
[2001]

[Wal] K. Walker. TQFTs. Notes available at http://canyon23.net/math/tc.pdf. [Woi24] L. Woike. The cyclic and modular microcosm principle. Accepted for publication in Canad. J. Math. arXiv:2408.02644 [math.QA],

arXiv
[2004]

Etingof and D

[EP24] P. Etingof and D. Penneys. Rigidity of non-negligible objects of moderate growth in braided categories. arXiv:2412.17681 [math.QA],

arXiv
[2009]

Logarithmic tensor category theory, VIII: Braided tensor category structure on categories of generalized modules for a conformal vertex algebra

[HLZ11] Yi-Zhi Huang, James Lepowsky, and Lin Zhang. Logarithmic tensor category theory, VIII: Braided tensor category structure on categories of generalized modules for a conformal vertex algebra. arXiv:1110.1931 [math.QA],

1931 arXiv
[2013]

Bartlett, C

[BDSPV15] B. Bartlett, C. L. Douglas, C. Schommer-Pries, and J. Vicary. Modular categories as representations of the 3-dimensional bordism category. arXiv:1509.06811 [math.AT],

arXiv
[2015]

Brown and B

[BH24] J. Brown and B. Haïoun. Skein categories in non-semisimple settings. arXiv:2406.08956 [math.QA],
[2018]

Costantino, N

[CGHPM23] F. Costantino, N. Geer, B. Haïoun, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Skein (3+1)-TQFTs from non-semisimple ribbon categories. arXiv:2306.03225 [math.GT],

arXiv
[2019]

Damiolini and L

[DW25] C. Damiolini and L. Woike. Modular functors from conformal blocks of rational vertex operator algebras. arXiv:2507.05845 [math.QA],

arXiv
[2020]

[Fai25] M. Faitg. Derived representations of quantum character varieties. arXiv:2502.04267 [math.QA],
[2021]

Schweigert and L

[SW23] C. Schweigert and L. Woike. The trace field theory of a finite tensor category. Alg. Rep. Theory, 26:1931–1949,

1931
[2023]

Costantino, N

[CGPM23] F. Costantino, N. Geer, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Admissible skein modules. arXiv:2302.04493 [math.GT],

arXiv
[2024]

Müller and L

38 [MW24b] L. Müller and L. Woike. Classification of consistent systems of handlebody group representations.Int. Math. Res. Not., 2024(6):4767–4803,

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [6]

Costello

[Cos04] K. Costello. The A-infinity operad and the moduli space of curves. arXiv:math/0402015 [math.AG],

arXiv

[2] [9]

Etingof, D

[ENO04] P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik. An analogue of Radford’sS4 formula for finite tensor categories. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2004(54):2915–2933,

work page 2004

[3] [15]

Müller and L

[MW23b] L. Müller and L. Woike. The Dehn twist action for quantum representations of mapping class groups. Accepted for publication inJ. Top.arXiv:2311.16020 [math.QA],

work page arXiv

[4] [16]

Müller and L

[MW24a] L. Müller and L. Woike. Admissible skein modules and ansular functors: A comparison. arXiv:2409.17047 [math.QA],

arXiv

[5] [20]

2-dimensional TFTs via modular $\infty$-operads

[Ste25] J. Steinebrunner. 2-dimensional TFTs via modular ∞-operads. arXiv:2506.22104 [math.CT],

work page Pith review arXiv

[6] [1972]

[McR21] R. McRae. On rationality for C2-cofinite vertex operator algebras. arXiv:2108.01898 [math.QA],

arXiv

[7] [1973]

Brochier and L

[BW22] A. Brochier and L. Woike. A classification of modular functors via factorization homology. arXiv:2212.11259 [math.QA],

arXiv

[8] [1988]

[Shi17] K. Shimizu. On unimodular finite tensor categories. Int. Math. Res. Not., 2017(1):277–322,

work page 2017