Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Thin homotopy and the signature of piecewise linear surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The surface signature is a complete invariant for piecewise linear surfaces up to translation and thin homotopy.

desk verdict A strong, coherent proof of PL surface-signature injectivity that deserves a serious referee; main check is the compatible triangulation lemma. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16657 v1 pith:ZTPZOJJV submitted 2025-06-20 math.AT math.CTmath.DGmath.GT

Francis Bischoff , Darrick Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.ATmath.CTmath.DGmath.GT
keywords surfacesignaturethinhomotopycrossedmodulepiecewiselinearholonomy2-connectioniteratedintegralsgrouphomology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that the surface signature—a formal power series of tensors obtained as surface holonomy of a universal translation-invariant 2-connection—uniquely determines a piecewise linear surface up to translation and thin homotopy (a homotopy that sweeps out no volume, the 2-dimensional analogue of tree-like equivalence for paths). The main theorem states that if the signature of a piecewise linear surface is trivial, then the surface is thinly homotopic to a constant surface. The proof first shows that a closed surface with trivial signature integrates all compactly supported 2-forms to zero, then realizes the surface as an element of a compatible simplicial complex and uses algebraic homotopy theory to collapse it. If correct, the result gives a complete invariant for piecewise linear surfaces, generalizing the classical path-signature theorem and answering a question posed in the literature. It also supplies an explicit decomposition of the signature into a boundary component and a series of surface integrals, which makes the invariant computationally accessible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the crossed module $PL(V) = (\delta: PL_1(V) \to PL_0(V), \triangleright)$, whose group $PL_1(V)$ is generated by kites $(w,b)$: a piecewise linear tail path $w$ carrying a planar loop $b$. The boundary $\delta(w,b)=w b w^{-1}$ records the overall loop, and quotienting by fold relations and the Peiffer identity encodes local and non-local cancellations of surfaces. The argument also relies on two auxiliary mechanisms: a gauge transformation that abelianizes the universal 2-connection so that the signature of a closed surface equals its integrals against all polynomial 2-forms, and the existence of compatible triangulated representatives, which lets every element of $PL_1(V)$ be studied through a simplicial complex whose intersections are common faces.

What would settle it

A reader could falsify injectivity by finding a closed piecewise linear surface $X$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ whose signature, computed by the explicit formula of Theorem 5.36, is zero while the corresponding word in $PL_1(V)$ cannot be reduced to the empty word by fold cancellations and the Peiffer identity. Concretely, enumerate triangulated representatives whose 2-simplices cancel in homology and test whether any such class is nonzero in $PL_1(V)$; the theorem predicts none exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is the injectivity of the piecewise linear surface signature $S_{PL,1}: PL_1(V) \to \hat{K}_1(V)$ between the crossed module of piecewise linear surfaces and the completed free crossed module of formal surfaces. Equivalently, Theorem 1.2 says that if $S_1(X)=0$ for a piecewise linear surface $X$, then $X$ is thinly homotopic to the constant surface. The injectivity is proved by lifting a representative of $X$ to the fundamental crossed module of a compatible triangulation, using the classical description of second relative homotopy groups as free crossed modules, showing via the abelianized curvature that the homology class of the lifted surface vanishes, and then killing the fundamental group of the ambient complex to apply the standard comparison between $\pi_2$ and $H_2$. A corollary is that the algebraic relations defining $PL_1(V)$—local fold cancellations plus the Peiffer identity—account for every thin homotopy among piecewise linear surfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires Theorem 6.16: every element of $PL_1(V)$ has a compatible triangulated representative, meaning its simplices intersect only in common faces; if that triangulation construction fails, the reduction to a simplicial complex and the homology argument collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two piecewise linear surfaces with equal surface signature are thinly homotopic after translation, so the signature is a complete invariant for the classification problem.
  • The equivalence conditions in Theorem 6.26 show that word reduction, holonomy triviality, rank-one/rank-two homotopies, image containment, the vanishing of all compactly supported 2-form integrals, and signature triviality all characterize the same thin-null surfaces.
  • The signature splits into the path signature of the boundary and the integrals of monomial 2-forms over the surface obtained by coning off the boundary, giving explicit canonical coordinates for computation.
  • Non-local thin cancellations are not arbitrary: in the embedded case they are governed by the fundamental group of the image and by its group homology $H_3(G)$, giving a geometric interpretation of that homology.
  • The realization map from $PL_1(V)$ into thin homotopy classes of smooth surfaces is injective, so the algebraic crossed module faithfully describes genuine thin homotopy of piecewise linear surfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the piecewise linear injectivity can be transported to smooth surfaces by approximation (the direction the paper points to as future work), the smooth surface signature would inherit completeness, making the two-dimensional signature as discriminating as the path signature.
  • The abelian component of the signature suggests a practical numerical feature for two-dimensional data: truncate the formal symmetric-power series and evaluate the monomial 2-form integrals over the coned surface, bypassing the holonomy differential equation.
  • The group-homology classification suggests a converse route: every class in $H_3(G)$ should be realizable by a thinly null piecewise linear surface over a complex with fundamental group $G$, so group homology could be searched by enumerating surfaces rather than classifying spaces.
  • The equality between the kernel of the algebraic realization map and the kernel of the homology comparison suggests a decision procedure for thin null-homotopy: build a compatible triangulation and test reduction modulo folds and the Peiffer identity, without computing the full signature.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an algebraic crossed module PL(V) of piecewise linear surfaces and defines the piecewise linear surface signature S_PL as a natural transformation extending the path signature. The central result is Theorem 6.1: the map S_PL,1 : PL_1(V) -> hat(K)_1(V) is injective, so a piecewise linear surface with trivial signature is thinly homotopic to the constant surface. The proof combines an abelianization theorem for closed surfaces (Theorem 4.12), a reduction to simplicial complexes via compatible triangulations (Theorem 6.16 and Appendix D), and a Hurewicz argument using Whitehead's free crossed module theorem. The paper also proves uniqueness of the signature as a natural transformation, gives an explicit decomposition of the signature into boundary and abelian components (Theorem 5.36), proposes equivalent definitions of thin homotopy for surfaces (Theorem 6.26), and connects thin null homotopy to group homology in Section 7.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it answers Kapranov's question in the piecewise linear setting and gives a genuine two-dimensional analogue of Chen's injectivity theorem for path signatures. The proof architecture is strong and transparent: the abelianization step reduces the closed-surface case to vanishing of compactly supported 2-form integrals, the simplicial reduction cleanly builds a PLSC model for any element of PL_1(V), and the final Hurewicz step is well motivated. The paper is also explicit about the external results it imports, such as Chen's path signature injectivity, Whitehead's free crossed module theorem, and continuity results from the rough surfaces literature. The decomposition formula in Theorem 5.36 is a useful contribution in itself, as it gives concrete coordinates for computing surface signatures. The main reservations are two-fold: the compatible triangulation lemma that the injectivity proof rests on is only sketched, and one of the claimed equivalent thin-homotopy conditions in Theorem 6.26 is not equivalent as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 6.26, implication (F2) implies (A2)] The proof of (F2) implies (A2) is incorrect for non-closed 2-forms. For a general compactly supported 2-form omega, the assignment that sends a 2-cycle to the integral of the pullback of omega does not define a map on H_2(C;Z) unless d omega = 0. Since condition (A2) requires vanishing of integrals of all compactly supported 2-forms, the hypothesis H_2(f)([S^2]) = 0 is insufficient. A concrete test is any embedded sphere X in R^3 and a compactly supported bump 2-form nu with integral 1 over X; such a nu cannot be closed, and the homology condition cannot force its integral to vanish. Thus the equivalence in Theorem 6.26 as stated is false. The factorization condition needs to be strengthened, for example by requiring vanishing of the induced pairing with all compactly supported 2-forms, or Theorem 6.26 must be modified.
  2. [Theorem 6.16 and Appendix D, Lemma D.4] The existence of compatible representatives is the single combinatorial premise on which Proposition 6.17, Proposition 6.18, and therefore Theorem 6.1 rest. The proof of Lemma D.4 is only a sketch: after adding all lines and planes, it asserts that the arrangement decomposes into convex polygons whose vertices lie in the constructed set C_0, but it does not fully prove that the union of the chosen triangulations is a simplicial complex with common-subsimplex intersections in the presence of non-transverse configurations, such as edges lying in polygon planes, overlapping edges, or multiple planes meeting along a common line. Likewise, Lemma D.5 assumes a factorization in the fundamental group of the 1-skeleton and does not spell out how the marked tail paths in FMon(V) are chosen for arbitrary spanning-tree paths. Since a failure of D.4 would invalidate the central injectivity theorem, these constructions require a complete proof or a precise reference.
  3. [Lemma 6.19] The construction of the simply connected complex bC is load-bearing for Proposition 6.20, but as written it is not fully justified. The point x is chosen only so that each triple {x, p_i, p_j} is non-collinear; this does not prevent the new triangles [x, p_i, p_j] from intersecting the existing 2-simplices of C outside the 1-skeleton C_1. In that case the union C union D is not a PLSC in the sense of Definition 6.6, and van Kampen's theorem cannot be applied to the intended decomposition. This can likely be repaired by choosing x in general position away from finitely many planes, but the argument needs to be stated and proved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 6.16] The notation 'C := T(E, V)' should read 'C := T(E, P)', since the second argument is the collection of polygons P, not the vector space V.
  2. [Lemma D.4, Step 3] The sentence 'If two planes in H intersect at a point' is imprecise in higher-dimensional V; two distinct affine planes may intersect in a point, a line, or be disjoint, and the construction should specify which intersections are being added to C_0.
  3. [Definition 6.22] The definition of a smooth piecewise linear surface should explicitly require that the affine maps f_sigma agree on common edges of adjacent simplices; this is implicit but should be stated for rigor.
  4. [Theorem 6.26, condition (F2)] The phrase 'after modifying the boundary using a thin homotopy' is vague; it should be specified how the boundary modification interacts with the factorization X : [0,1]^2 -> S^2 -> C -> V, since condition (F2) already assumes trivial boundary.
  5. [Remark 5.37] In the coordinate-free formula S^Gamma_1(X) = sum_{k >= 0} (1/k!) integral_{C(X)} (id_V)^k, the placement of the tensor and symmetric products should be clarified, since (id_V)^k is being viewed as an element of C^infinity(V) tensor S^k(V).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the injectivity proof is self-contained and depends only on external black boxes; the compatible triangulation lemma is load-bearing but not a restatement of the theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 6.1, is proven by reducing an element of PL1(V) with trivial signature to an element Y in the relative homotopy group pi2(C, C1) of a compatible piecewise linear simplicial complex, then showing H(Y)=0 via integration of compactly supported 2-forms and applying the Hurewicz theorem in a simply connected extension of C. Each input is independently imported: Chen's path signature injectivity, Whitehead's free crossed module theorem, the Hurewicz theorem, and continuity results from the rough surfaces literature. None of these black boxes contains the target injectivity statement, and none is established by a self-referential argument in this paper. The abelianization result Corollary 4.13 is derived from the gauge-transformed universal 2-connection and Kapranov's isomorphism between the kernel of the boundary map and closed polynomial currents; it is not assumed as an input. The only potentially fragile premise is Theorem 6.16 / Lemma D.4, which asserts that every element of PL1(V) has a compatible triangulated representative. That lemma is combinatorial and geometric, and its proof in Appendix D is somewhat sketchy, but it does not presuppose the signature theorem or reduce to the target statement. A failed compatible triangulation would invalidate the proof, but that is a correctness or completeness risk, not circularity. There are no fitted parameters, no predictions forced by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The paper is therefore free of significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard results in algebraic topology (Chen, Whitehead, Hurewicz, Schur, Poincare) and on the rough-path surface signature results of Chevyrev et al. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities in the sense of physical fields or ad hoc constants are postulated. The paper's own lengthy proofs in Appendices B through D provide the remaining support.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Chen's theorem: the path signature injectively characterizes C^1 paths up to translation and thin homotopy.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 (Theorem 2.11, condition S1) and in Step (a) of Section 6 to reduce the injectivity proof to closed surfaces; attributed to Chen [17], Tlas [52], and Hambly and Lyons [32].
  • standard math Whitehead's theorem: the fundamental crossed module of a 2-dimensional CW complex is free, generated by the attaching maps of the 2-cells.
    Used in Theorem 6.11 and Corollary 6.12 to construct the crossed module morphism W from the PLSC C to PL(V); cited to Whitehead [55] and Brown and Huebschmann [10].
  • standard math Hurewicz theorem and the Hopf exact sequence relating pi_2, H_2, and H_3 of the fundamental group.
    Used in Section 6.3 (Lemma 6.19, Proposition 6.20) and in Section 7 (Theorem 7.3) to pass from vanishing H_2(Y) to thin null homotopy; cited to Brown [7].
  • standard math Irreducibility of the GL(V)-representations of closed polynomial 3-forms and Schur's lemma.
    Used in Lemma 4.7 and Theorem 4.8 to identify the abelianized curvature Kab with the identity operator; representation theory cited to Fulton [28].
  • standard math Poincare lemma for polynomial differential forms and GL(V)-equivariant duality between closed currents and closed forms.
    Used in Section 4.2 to define the pairing, the codifferential, and dual bases of closed 2-currents and closed 3-forms; this is standard de Rham theory adapted to polynomial forms and currents.
  • domain assumption Continuity of the smooth surface signature and its universal property, as established in the rough surfaces literature.
    Proposition 3.18 and the naturality of S are taken from Chevyrev, Diehl, Ebrahimi-Fard, and Tapia [38]; the present paper relies on these external results to prove uniqueness of the smooth signature in Theorem 5.21.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thin homotopy and the signature of piecewise linear surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTPZOJJV

@misc{pith2026250616657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thin homotopy and the signature of piecewise linear surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTPZOJJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16657}
}
abstract

We introduce a crossed module of piecewise linear surfaces and study the signature homomorphism, defined as the surface holonomy of a universal translation invariant $2$-connection. This provides a transform whereby surfaces are represented by formal series of tensors. Our main result is that the signature uniquely characterizes a surface up to translation and thin homotopy, also known as tree-like equivalence in the case of paths. This generalizes a result of Chen and positively answers a question of Kapranov in the setting of piecewise linear surfaces. As part of this work, we provide several equivalent definitions of thin homotopy, generalizing the plethora of definitions which exist in the case of paths. Furthermore, we develop methods for explicitly and efficiently computing the surface signature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Collapsing map The map c ◦Y has degree 0 and hence is null-homotopic by the Hurewicz theorem. Therefore, given a map g ′ : S 2 → Rn , the map g ′ ◦ c ◦ Y ◦ q is thinly null-homotopic. Indeed, this homotopy is a ‘fold-cancellation’ given by ‘opening’ the hole at the top of the sphere in order to contract the map to a point. Thus, to show that X RP is thinly null-homotopic, it suffices to construct a thin homotopy bet… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The map g1 Let g1 : RP2 → Rn denote the new map. It is obtained by adding a surface, namely the image of h, to the original map g. Since it sends the boundary of the disc D2 to a single point x0 ∈ Rn it factors as g1 = g ′ ◦ c. Furthermore, the new map g1 is homotopic to g through a homotopy which is restricted to lie within the image of g1. Hence g and g1 are thinly homotopic to each other. This completes the proof… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    The Surface Signature and Rough Surfaces

    Darrick Lee. The Surface Signature and Rough Surfaces. arXiv.2406.16857, June 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    The A ∞ de Rham Theorem and Integration of Representations up to Homotopy

    Camilo Arias Abad and Florian Schätz. The A ∞ de Rham Theorem and Integration of Representations up to Homotopy. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2013(16):3790–3855, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    Higher Gauge Theory: 2-Connections on 2-Bundles

    John Baez and Urs Schreiber. Higher Gauge Theory: 2-Connections on 2-Bundles. arXiv:hep-th/0412325, December 2004

    arXiv 2004

  4. [3]

    J. W. Barrett. Holonomy and path structures in general relativity and Yang-Mills theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 30(9):1171–1215, September 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [4]

    Jonathan Block and Aaron M. Smith. The higher Riemann–Hilbert correspondence. Advances in Mathematics , 252:382–405, February 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    The signature of a rough path: Uniqueness

    Horatio Boedihardjo, Xi Geng, Terry Lyons, and Danyu Yang. The signature of a rough path: Uniqueness. Adv. Math., 293:720–737, April 2016

    2016

  7. [6]

    Francis C. S. Brown. Multiple zeta values and periods of moduli spaces M0,n. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) , 42(3):371–489, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    Kenneth S. Brown. Cohomology of Groups. Springer Science & Business Media, October 1982

    work page 1982

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Brown, P .J

    R. Brown, P .J. Higgins, and R. Sivera. Nonabelian Algebraic Topology: Filtered Spaces, Crossed Complexes, Cubical Homotopy Groupoids. EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society, 2011

    2011

  2. [9]

    On the Second Relative Homotopy Group of an Adjunction Space: An Exposition of a Theorem of J

    Ronald Brown. On the Second Relative Homotopy Group of an Adjunction Space: An Exposition of a Theorem of J. H. C. Whitehead. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , s2-22(1):146–152, August 1980

    1980

  3. [10]

    Identities among relations

    Ronald Brown and Johannes Huebschmann. Identities among relations. Low dimensional topology, Ed. R. Brown and TL Thickstun, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes , 46:153–202, 1982

    1982

  4. [11]

    Caetano and R

    A. Caetano and R. F. Picken. An axiomatic definition of holonomy. International Journal of Mathematics, 05(06):835– 848, December 1994

    1994

  5. [12]

    A. P . Caetano and R. F. Picken. On a family of topological invariants similar to homotopy groups. Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste, 30:81–90, 1998

    1998

  6. [13]

    J. W. Cannon and G. R. Conner. The combinatorial structure of the Hawaiian earring group. Topology and its Applications, 106(3):225–271, October 2000

    2000

  7. [14]

    Jacobiennes généralisées, monodromie unipotente et intégrales itérées

    Pierre Cartier. Jacobiennes généralisées, monodromie unipotente et intégrales itérées. Number 161-162, pages Exp. No. 687, 3, 31–52. 1988. Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1987/88

    1988

  8. [15]

    Fonctions polylogarithmes, nombres polyzêtas et groupes pro-unipotents

    Pierre Cartier. Fonctions polylogarithmes, nombres polyzêtas et groupes pro-unipotents. Number 282, pages Exp. No. 885, viii, 137–173. 2002. Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 2000/2001

    2002

  9. [16]

    Iterated Integrals and Exponential Homomorphisms†

    Kuo-Tsai Chen. Iterated Integrals and Exponential Homomorphisms†. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. , s3-4(1):502–512, 1954

    1954

  10. [17]

    Integration of paths – a faithful representation of paths by noncommutative formal power series

    Kuo-Tsai Chen. Integration of paths – a faithful representation of paths by noncommutative formal power series. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 89(2):395–407, 1958

    1958

  11. [18]

    A multiplicative surface signature through its Magnus expansion

    Ilya Chevyrev, Joscha Diehl, Kurusch Ebrahimi-Fard, and Nikolas Tapia. A multiplicative surface signature through its Magnus expansion. arXiv.2406.16856, June 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Characteristic functions of measures on geometric rough paths

    Ilya Chevyrev and Terry Lyons. Characteristic functions of measures on geometric rough paths. The Annals of Probability, 44(6):4049–4082, 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    Signature Moments to Characterize Laws of Stochastic Processes

    Ilya Chevyrev and Harald Oberhauser. Signature Moments to Characterize Laws of Stochastic Processes. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 23(176):1–42, 2022

    2022

  14. [21]

    Über Systeme von liearren partiellen Differentialgleichungen erster Ordnung

    Wei-Liang Chow. Über Systeme von liearren partiellen Differentialgleichungen erster Ordnung. Mathematische Annalen, 117(1):98–105, December 1940

    1940

  15. [22]

    Categorifying the Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov connection

    Lucio Simone Cirio and João Faria Martins. Categorifying the Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov connection. Differential Geometry and its Applications, 30(3):238–261, June 2012. THIN HOMOTOPY AND THE SIGNATURE OF PIECEWISE LINEAR SURFACES 77

    2012

  16. [23]

    G. A. Demessie and C. Sämann. Higher Poincaré lemma and integrability. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 56(8):082902, August 2015

    2015

  17. [24]

    On the signature of an image

    Joscha Diehl, Kurusch Ebrahimi-Fard, Fabian Harang, and Samy Tindel. On the signature of an image. arXiv:2403.00130, February 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Two-parameter sums signatures and corresponding quasisymmetric func- tions

    Joscha Diehl and Leonard Schmitz. Two-parameter sums signatures and corresponding quasisymmetric func- tions. arXiv:2210.14247 [math], October 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Friz and Martin Hairer

    Peter K. Friz and Martin Hairer. A Course on Rough Paths: With an Introduction to Regularity Structures. Universitext. Springer International Publishing, 2 edition, 2020

    2020

  20. [27]

    Friz and Nicolas B

    Peter K. Friz and Nicolas B. Victoir. Multidimensional Stochastic Processes as Rough Paths: Theory and Applications . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  21. [28]

    Young Tableaux: With Applications to Representation Theory and Geometry

    William Fulton. Young Tableaux: With Applications to Representation Theory and Geometry . London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996

    1996

  22. [29]

    A topological approach to mapping space signatures

    Chad Giusti, Darrick Lee, Vidit Nanda, and Harald Oberhauser. A topological approach to mapping space signatures. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 163:102787, February 2025

    2025

  23. [30]

    V . K. A. M. Gugenheim. On Chen’s iterated integrals. Illinois J. Math., 21(3):703–715, 1977

    1977

  24. [31]

    Iterated Integrals and Homotopy Periods

    Richard Martin Hain. Iterated Integrals and Homotopy Periods. American Mathematical Soc., 1984

    1984

  25. [32]

    Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group

    Ben Hambly and Terry Lyons. Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group. Ann. of Math., 171(1):109–167, 2010

    2010

  26. [33]

    Fundamentalgruppe und zweite Bettische Gruppe

    Heinz Hopf. Fundamentalgruppe und zweite Bettische Gruppe. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, 14(1):257–309, December 1941

    1941

  27. [34]

    Membranes and higher groupoids

    Mikhail Kapranov. Membranes and higher groupoids. arXiv:1502.06166 [math], February 2015

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Signatory: Differentiable computations of the signature and logsignature trans- forms, on both {CPU} and {GPU}

    Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons. Signatory: Differentiable computations of the signature and logsignature trans- forms, on both {CPU} and {GPU}. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  29. [36]

    Formal connections, higher holonomy functors and iterated integrals

    Toshitake Kohno. Formal connections, higher holonomy functors and iterated integrals. Topology and its Applica- tions, 313:107985, May 2022

    2022

  30. [37]

    Diagram Complexes, Formality, and Configuration Space Integrals for Spaces of Braids

    Rafal Komendarczyk, Robin Koytcheff, and Ismar Voli´ c. Diagram Complexes, Formality, and Configuration Space Integrals for Spaces of Braids. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 71(2):729–779, June 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Random Surfaces and Higher Algebra

    Darrick Lee and Harald Oberhauser. Random Surfaces and Higher Algebra. arXiv:2311.08366, November 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    The Signature Kernel, May 2023

    Darrick Lee and Harald Oberhauser. The Signature Kernel, May 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Differential equations driven by rough signals

    Terry Lyons. Differential equations driven by rough signals. Rev. Mat. Iberoam., 14(2):215–310, 1998

    1998

  34. [42]

    Differential Equations Driven by Rough Paths

    Terry Lyons, Michael Caruana, and Thierry Lévy. Differential Equations Driven by Rough Paths . Éc. Été Probab. St.-Flour. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    On two-dimensional holonomy

    João Faria Martins and Roger Picken. On two-dimensional holonomy. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 362(11):5657–5695, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Surface holonomy for non-abelian 2-bundles via double groupoids

    João Faria Martins and Roger Picken. Surface holonomy for non-abelian 2-bundles via double groupoids. Ad- vances in Mathematics, 226(4):3309–3366, March 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Signature methods in machine learning

    Andrew McLeod and Terry Lyons. Signature methods in machine learning. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences, February 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Thin homotopy and the holonomy approach to gauge theories

    Claudio Meneses. Thin homotopy and the holonomy approach to gauge theories. Contemporary Mathematics , 775:233–253, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Dimensions and characters of the derived series of the free Lie algebra

    Christophe Reutenauer. Dimensions and characters of the derived series of the free Lie algebra. In Mots, Lang. Raison. Calc., pages 171–184. Hermès, Paris, 1990

    1990

  40. [48]

    Lie Groups: An Introduction through Linear Groups

    Wulf Rossmann. Lie Groups: An Introduction through Linear Groups . Oxford University Press, January 2002

    2002

  41. [49]

    Towards an M5-Brane Model II: Metric String Structures

    Christian Sämann and Lennart Schmidt. Towards an M5-Brane Model II: Metric String Structures. Fortschritte der Physik, 68(8):2000051, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Smooth functors vs

    Urs Schreiber and Konrad Waldorf. Smooth functors vs. differential forms. Homology, Homotopy and Applications, 13(1):143–203, January 2011

    2011

  43. [51]

    Lie Algebras and Lie Groups: 1964 Lectures given at Harvard University

    Jean-Pierre Serre. Lie Algebras and Lie Groups: 1964 Lectures given at Harvard University . Springer, February 2009

    1964

  44. [52]

    On the holonomic equivalence of two curves

    Tamer Tlas. On the holonomic equivalence of two curves. International Journal of Mathematics, 27(06):1650055, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Seq2Tens: An Efficient Representation of Sequences by Low-Rank Tensor Projections

    Csaba Toth, Patric Bonnier, and Harald Oberhauser. Seq2Tens: An Efficient Representation of Sequences by Low-Rank Tensor Projections. arXiv:2006.07027 [cs, stat], 2020. 78 FRANCIS BISCHOFF AND DARRICK LEE

    2006 arXiv

  46. [54]

    On a non-Abelian Poincaré lemma

    Theodore Voronov. On a non-Abelian Poincaré lemma. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 140(8):2855–2872, August 2012

    2012

  47. [55]

    J. H. C. Whitehead. Combinatorial homotopy. II. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 55(5):453–496, May 1949. Email address: francis.bischoff@uregina.ca Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Regina, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, C anada Email address: darric...

    1949

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.