Lie algebras and the (co)homology of configuration spaces

Ben Knudsen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Lie algebras and the (co)homology of configuration spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that the identification of configuration space cohomology with Lie algebra cohomology is a proto-theorem with three genuinely different explanations: diagonals and partitions, commutativity and Koszul duality, and…

desk verdict A genuinely useful expert survey, slightly overclaiming the independence of its three routes, but worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14909 v2 pith:FVAZ537U submitted 2024-12-19 math.AT math.GT

Ben Knudsen This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ATmath.GT MSC 55R8017B5655P48

keywords configurationspacesLiealgebracohomologyoperadsKoszuldualityPoincarétwistedcommutativealgebrasspectralArnoldrelation

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 claim is that the slogan 'cohomology of configuration spaces is Lie algebra cohomology' is a proto-theorem with at least three independent explanations, each revealing a different reason Lie algebras must appear. The first route sees configuration spaces as complements of diagonals and builds the cohomology from the combinatorics of partitions, where a Lie algebra can be defined as an algebra over a partition-poset operad. The second route sees the cohomology of ordered configuration spaces as a twisted commutative algebra and invokes Koszul duality, which defines a Lie algebra as the Koszul dual of the commutative operad. The third route sees configurations in Euclidean space as an operad of little cubes and derives Lie algebras from Poincaré duality and the self-duality of that operad. The payoff is a synthetic picture in which known results, from rational stability to sphere-spectrum descriptions, appear as corollaries of one conceptual core.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the symmetric sequence $H^*(F(X))$ of configuration space cohomology, equipped with the structure of a twisted commutative algebra via coordinate projections and with operadic algebra structures via diagonals and little cubes embeddings. The three routes are carried by the poset of partitions (whose associated operad admits Lie algebras as algebras, per [Fre04]), by operadic Koszul duality (which presents the Lie operad as the Koszul dual of the commutative operad, per [GK94]), and by the little cubes operad (whose homology is the shifted Poisson operad and whose self-duality leads, through an inverse limit construction, to the spectral Lie operad). The Arnold relation $\alpha_{ij}\alpha_{j\ell} + \alpha_{j\ell}\alpha_{\ell i} + \alpha_{\ell i}\alpha_{ij} = 0$ serves as the entry point where all three perspectives become visible, and the Chevalley–Eilenberg complex is the common computational expression of Lie algebra cohomology.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to compare the three routes in a setting they are all claimed to cover, such as the integral cohomology of ordered configuration spaces of a closed non-orientable manifold: if the compactly supported answer from the partition-poset route, after enforcing Poincaré duality, failed to match the Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology of the twisted Lie algebra from the Koszul-duality route, the three explanations would diverge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its abstract, is that decades of results identifying configuration space (co)homology with Lie algebra (co)homology should be read as one proto-theorem with three genuinely different explanations. Each explanation anchors the appearance of Lie algebras in a different characterization of what a Lie algebra is: an algebra over an operad built from partition posets; an algebra over the Koszul dual of the commutative operad; and an algebra over the inverse limit of shifted Poisson operads coming from the little cubes operad. The survey traces each characterization back to a proof of the Arnold relation, exhibits the machinery that turns it into a computation of configuration space cohomology, and culminates in a sphere-spectrum formulation in which stable configuration spaces are described by a bar construction on a free spectral Lie algebra. The author's stated aim is curatorial: to show that these are different explanations of one truth, not different notations for the same argument.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three ways the paper describes a Lie algebra—through partitions of a set, through adjointness to commutative algebras, and through embeddings of little cubes—are genuinely the same object in every case covered by the theorem, an equivalence the survey relies on citations for rather than proving; the sphere-spectrum formulation also depends on an announced Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the three routes are genuinely independent, any one of them can serve as a foundation for new results, and a theorem proved through one lens carries a conceptual warrant from the others.
Theorem (K) implies that the stable homotopy type of the ordered or unordered configuration spaces of a manifold of fixed dimension is a proper homotopy invariant.
Noetherianity of the free twisted commutative algebra implies finite generation and representation stability for configuration space cohomology, so the Betti numbers of unordered configuration spaces stabilize.
Smashing the bar construction of Theorem (K) with a homology theory $E$ yields spectral sequences converging to the $E$-(co)homology of configuration spaces whose initial pages are forms of Lie algebra cohomology enriched by power operations.
The three perspectives jointly suggest that the Lie-algebraic description is not a rational coincidence but persists stably and integrally, in the form of the spectral Lie operad and its power operations.

Reading between the lines

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

The synthesis suggests a testable prediction: any future proof of the proto-theorem will either fit one of the three molds or require a fourth characterization of Lie algebras, making the search for such a fourth route a well-posed research program.
Families of spaces with twisted commutative algebra cohomology but no visible partition combinatorics, such as projection spaces, indicate that commutativity alone can generate Lie algebras even when diagonals are not in view.
One implicit extension is to ask whether the three explanations remain equivalent after replacing ordinary cohomology with generalized cohomology theories; the spectral Lie operad suggests the sphere-spectrum version is the natural home for that question.
The paper's open problems on power operations and on torus configuration spaces can be read as concrete stress tests: solving them through any one route would strengthen the claim that all three routes explain the same truth.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Knudsen's survey is a genuinely useful map: it organizes the many proofs that configuration space (co)homology is Lie algebra (co)homology into three conceptual routes, and it does so with real expository skill. The paper makes no claim to new results—the author says so outright—so judge it as a survey, not a research preprint. The three proofs of the Arnold relation (Arnold's 1-form, Cohen's symmetry, Sinha's Poincaré duality) are well told and genuinely set up the three perspectives. The connections to partition posets, TCA Noetherianity, and the spectral Lie operad are accurate and carefully attributed. The open problems list is a nice bonus.

The main soft spot, which the stress-test flagged, is the 'genuinely different explanations' thesis. The paper asserts that the three routes are independent explanations, but it never argues for non-redundancy. In particular, Section 4's key step—'essentially every TCA is quasi-isomorphic to a Chevalley–Eilenberg complex'—is quoted from [Knu22] without hypotheses or proof sketch, and if that theorem's proof goes through the partition-poset operad or the Com^! identification, then route 2 is not as independent as advertised. That said, this is a survey; one expects citations to do the heavy lifting. The value of the survey doesn't collapse if the routes are not fully independent, but the central intellectual claim is somewhat under-supported.

A second, minor soft spot: Theorem (K) in Section 6 relies on the announced proof [ACBH] for the equivalence of two definitions of higher enveloping algebras. The paper flags this in a footnote, so it's transparent, but the sphere-spectrum version is conditional.

The citation pattern is healthy: the author cites his own prior work for results he proved, which is legitimate, and the survey gives credit where due. I don't see a circularity problem.

Who is this for? Graduate students and researchers looking for an orienting survey of configuration space cohomology and Lie algebras. It's not a research contribution, but it's a well-crafted one. A serious journal should send it to a referee who knows the literature, mainly to check attributions and the claims about independence. I'd recommend accepting after normal review, with the referee encouraged to ask for more discussion of the Section 4 theorem.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey of results identifying the (co)homology of configuration spaces with Lie algebra (co)homology. It opens with the Arnold relation and three proofs of it (Arnold's 1-form computation, Cohen's symmetry argument, and Sinha's Poincaré duality argument), then presents three conceptual routes to the "proto-theorem": Section 3 via diagonals and partition posets, Section 4 via projections and twisted commutative algebras, and Section 5 via Poincaré duality and little-cubes operads. Section 6 states Theorem (K), a spectral analogue centered on the spectral Lie operad, and Section 7 lists open problems. The paper's explicit thesis is that the three routes are "genuinely different explanations" of the same underlying fact.

Significance. If the three-route thesis is correct, this survey is a valuable organization of a large and fragmented literature: it isolates the combinatorial, algebraic, and manifold-topological sources of the Lie algebra, gives a concise account of the sphere-spectrum version, and collects open problems. The curatorial originality is real, and the paper is generally careful in attributing results to the literature. However, the claim of genuine difference is only as strong as the independence of the Section 4 route, and that route is currently the least documented. The paper also depends, for its capstone Theorem (K), on an announced proof in [ACBH].

major comments (3)

[Section 4] The assertion, in the paragraph beginning "Returning to our main theme," that "according to [Knu22], essentially every TCA is quasi-isomorphic to a Chevalley–Eilenberg complex" is the sole step that turns the TCA structure coming from projections into Lie algebra cohomology, and it therefore bears the weight of the claim that this route is genuinely different from the others. In the current text this statement appears without theorem statement, hypotheses, or a sketch of the construction of the twisted Lie algebra, and no argument is given that the construction does not pass through the partition-poset or Com^! identifications of Sections 3 and 4. Please either state the theorem precisely, including its hypotheses and the functoriality of the associated Lie algebra, and explain its mechanism, or soften the "genuinely different" claim accordingly.
[Section 6] Theorem (K) is presented as established, but, as footnote 19 acknowledges, the proof relies on the announced equivalence in [ACBH] between two approaches to higher enveloping algebras. As the survey stands, the reader cannot tell which consequences of Theorem (K)—for instance the proper homotopy invariance statement and the claim that the formula recovers all prior additive results—are already unconditional with the methods of [Knu18] and which are conditional on [ACBH]. The theorem should be explicitly labeled as conditional where necessary, or the proof should be reorganized so that the unconditional parts are separable.
[Introduction and Sections 3–5] The central thesis depends on a notion of "genuinely different explanation" that is never made precise. Since the three routes describe equivalent operadic definitions of a Lie algebra (by partition posets, by Com^!, and by inverse limits of shifted Poisson operads), the reader needs a criterion—for example, that the construction of the twisted Lie algebra in each route does not factor through the others, or that each route works in a different generality—before the non-redundancy claim can be evaluated. As written, the paper moves from "different proofs of the Arnold relation" to "different explanations of the proto-theorem" without addressing this distinction.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3] In the definition of the tensor product of symmetric sequences, the right-hand side should read X_i ⊗ Y_j (one factor from X and one from Y), not X_i ⊗ X_j.
[References] Several references lack complete publication data, including [Get], [GJ], [Sin], [SS], [Lur], [Heu], and [Far]; for a journal version these entries should be completed.
[Section 3] In the statement of Theorem (Totaro), the notation H^*(M^{λ_i}; L_n(λ_i)) should specify the relevant group action on the coefficient module more explicitly, since the Σ_{λ_i}-action on L_n(λ_i) is part of the induction formula.
[Section 7] In Problem 3, the connection between the Morava E-theory and K-theory of Ω^k S^n and the preceding spectral sequence for configuration spaces is asserted rather than explained; a one-sentence indication of the role of McDuff's theorem would help the non-specialist reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's three routes rely on published external theorems, and no 'prediction' is an input by construction.

full rationale

This paper is explicitly a survey that disclaims originality beyond curation, and it makes no fitted predictions or new derivations. The proto-theorem is an interpretive slogan rather than a specific equation derived from its own inputs. Each of the three routes is supported by documented external results: the Arnold/Cohen calculations and Totaro's spectral sequence (Section 3), the Noetherianity theorem of Church–Ellenberg–Farb–Nagpal–Snowden together with the TCA-to-Lie-algebra theorem cited from [Knu22] (Section 4), and Cohen's identification of little-cubes homology with the shifted Poisson operad together with the Getzler–Jones self-duality theorem (Section 5). The paper's self-citations, including [Knu17], [Knu18], [Knu22], [DCK17], and [BHK24], are used as statements of published mathematical results rather than as conclusions established in this article; none is defined in terms of the claim it supports. The most delicate step, Theorem (K) in Section 6, is quoted from [Knu18] and explicitly depends on the announced result [ACBH] for the equivalence of two definitions of higher enveloping algebras; footnote 19 candidly records this dependence. That is an incompleteness or verification risk, not a circular reduction, because the paper does not replace that proof with its own conclusion. Whether [Knu22]'s proof itself secretly uses partition combinatorics or operadic Koszul duality is not established by the text, and speculation about the contents of a cited theorem cannot ground a circularity finding. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a quoted reduction, and the honest score is 0.

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

The ledger contains no free parameters because the paper fits nothing to data and no fitted constants enter the statements. No new entities are invented; the spectral Lie operad and higher enveloping algebras are prior constructions attributed to [Chi05, Knu18]. The axioms listed are the main external theorems the survey relies on, each attributed in the text.

assumptions (8)

standard math Fadell-Neuwirth theorem: for a manifold, F_k(M) -> F_{k-1}(M) is a fiber bundle.
Used in Section 2 to start the Leray-Hirsch computation of H^*(F_k(R^n)).
standard math Leray-Hirsch theorem applies to configuration space cohomology.
Used in Section 2 and Cohen's proof to identify generators and rank of H^{2(n-1)}(F_3(R^n)).
domain assumption Arnold's relation alpha_ij alpha_jl + alpha_jl alpha_li + alpha_li alpha_ij = 0 holds and generates the cohomology ring.
The starting example in Section 2, attributed to [Arn69] and [Coh76]; the survey builds all three perspectives on it.
domain assumption Getzler's identification: the E2-page of Totaro's spectral sequence is the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex of a twisted Lie algebra.
Stated in Section 3 with citation [Get99, Get]; the first perspective rests on this identification.
standard math The twisted commutative algebra S is Noetherian (Church-Ellenberg-Farb-Nagpal-Snowden).
Used in Section 4 to derive finite generation and representation stability of H^*(F(M)).
domain assumption Getzler-Jones: in characteristic zero, the Koszul dual of the En operad is s^{-n} En.
Used in Section 5 to locate the Lie operad through Poincaré duality.
domain assumption McDuff scanning map is a weak equivalence for connected X.
Used in Section 5 to connect configuration spaces to section spaces and hence rational homotopy theory.
domain assumption Theorem (K): the stable homotopy type of configuration spaces is a bar construction on the spectral Lie operad (Knu18).
Stated as Theorem (K) in Section 6; it is quoted from the author's prior paper and depends on the announced proof [ACBH], not proved in this survey.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lie algebras and the (co)homology of configuration spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVAZ537U

@misc{pith2026241214909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lie algebras and the (co)homology of configuration spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVAZ537U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14909}
}

read the original abstract

We survey decades of research identifying the (co)homology of configuration spaces with Lie algebra (co)homology. The different routes to this one proto-theorem offer genuinely different explanations of its truth, and we attempt to convey some sense of the conceptual core of each perspective. We close with a list of problems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Antolin-Camarena, The mod 2 homology of free spectral Lie algebras, Trans

[AC20] O. Antolin-Camarena, The mod 2 homology of free spectral Lie algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (2020). [ACBH] O. Antolin-Camarena, L. Brantner, and G. Heuts, Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorems in higher algebra, arXiv:2501:03116. [ADCK20] B. H. An, G. C. Drummond-Cole, and B. Knudsen,Edge stabilization in the homology of graph braid groups, Geom. Topo...

work page 2020
[7]

[Knu22] , Projection spaces and twisted Lie algebras, Contemp. Math. (2022), To ap- pear. [Kon99] M. Kontsevich, Operads and motives in deformation quantization, Lett. Math. Phys. 48 (1999), 35–72. [Kri94] I. Kriz, On the rational homotopy type of configuration spaces, Ann. of Math. (2)139 (1994). [Lan93] L. Langsetmo, The K-theory localization of loops o...

work page 2022
[1969]

Bendersky and S

[BG91] M. Bendersky and S. Gitler, The cohomology of certain function spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 326 (1991). [BG23] C. Bibby and N. Gadish, A generating function approach to new representation sta- billity phenomena in orbit configuration spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.10 (2023), 241–287. [BHK24] L.Brantner, J.Hahn, andB.Knudsen, The Lubin–Tate theor...

work page 1991
[1972]

McDuff, Configuration spaces of positive and negative particles, Topology 14 (1975), 91–107

[McD75] D. McDuff, Configuration spaces of positive and negative particles, Topology 14 (1975), 91–107. [MM65] J. Milnor and J. C. Moore, On the structure of Hopf algebras, Ann. of Math. (2)81 (1965), no. 2, 211–264. [MW19] J. Miller and J. Wilson, Higher order representation stability and ordered configura- tion spaces of manifolds, Geom. Topol.23 (2019)...

work page 1975
[1976]

Ching and P

[CS22] M. Ching and P. Salvatore, Koszul duality for topologicalEn-operads, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (2022). [CT78] F. R. Cohen and L. R. Taylor, Computations of Gelfand–Fuks cohomology, the co- homology of function spaces, and the cohomology of configuration spaces, Geometry Applications of Homotopy Theory I, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 657, Springer,

work page 2022
[1978]

Chen and A

[CZ22] M. Chen and A. Zhang, Mod p homology of unordered configuration spaces of surfaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc (2022), to appear. [DCK17] G. C. Drummond-Cole and B. Knudsen, Betti numbers of configuration spaces of surfaces, J. London Math. Soc.96 (2017), no. 2, 367–393. [Far] B. Farb, Representation stability, Contribution to the proceedings of the ICM...

arXiv 2022
[1994]

Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory: part I, Geom

[Wei99] M. Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory: part I, Geom. Topol. 3 (1999), 67–101. [Yam88] A. Yamaguchi, Morava K-theory of iterated loop spaces of spheres, Math. Z. 199 (1988). [Zha21] A. Zhang, Quillen homology of spectral Lie algebras with application to modp homol- ogy of labeled configuration spaces, Alg. Geom. Topol. (20...

work page 1999
[1998]

Randal-Williams, Homological stability for unordered configuration spaces, Q

[RW13] O. Randal-Williams, Homological stability for unordered configuration spaces, Q. J. Math. 64 (2013), 303–326. [RW24] , Configuration spaces as commutative monoids, Bull. London Math. Soc. (2024). [RWW17] O. Randal-Williams and N. Wahl, Homological stability for automorphism groups, Adv. Math. (2017), no. 534–626. [Sal01] P. Salvatore, Configuration...

work page 2013

Show all 13 references

[2000]

Fulton and R

[FM94] W. Fulton and R. MacPherson, A compactification of configuration spaces, Ann. of Math. (2) 139 (1994), no. 1, 183–225. [FN62] E. Fadell and L. Neuwirth, Configuration spaces, Math. Scand.10 (1962), 111–118. [Fre04] B. Fresse, Koszul duality of operads and homology of pa...

1994
[2001]

Segal, Categories and cohomology theories, Topology 13 (1974), no

[Seg74] G. Segal, Categories and cohomology theories, Topology 13 (1974), no. 3, 293–312. [Sin] D. Sinha, The homology of the little disks operad, arXiv:0610236. [Sin04] , Manifold-theoretic compactifications of configuration spaces, Selecta Math. 10 (2004), no. 3, 391–428. [S...

1974 arXiv
[2004]

[FT00] Y

[Fre10] , Koszul duality ofEn-operads, Selecta Math.17 (2010), 363–434. [FT00] Y. Félix and J.-C. Thomas, Rational Betti numbers of configuration spaces, Topology Appl. 102 (2000), 139–149. [FT04] , Configuration spaces and Massey products, Int. Math. Res. Not.33 (2004), 1685–...

2010 arXiv
[2013]

[Mal23] C.Malin, The stable embedding tower and operadic structures on configuration spaces, Homol. Homot. Appl. (2023). [May72] J. P. May, The Geometry of Iterated Loop Spaces, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 271, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany,

2023
[2017]

Bianchi and A

[BS24] A. Bianchi and A. Stavrou, Homology of configuration spaces of surfaces modulo an odd prime, J. Reine Angew. Math. (2024). [CEF15] T. Church, J. S. Ellenberg, and B. Farb,FI-modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups, Duke Math. J.164 (2015), no. 9, 1...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Antolin-Camarena, The mod 2 homology of free spectral Lie algebras, Trans

[AC20] O. Antolin-Camarena, The mod 2 homology of free spectral Lie algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (2020). [ACBH] O. Antolin-Camarena, L. Brantner, and G. Heuts, Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorems in higher algebra, arXiv:2501:03116. [ADCK20] B. H. An, G. C. Drummond-Cole, and B. Knudsen,Edge stabilization in the homology of graph braid groups, Geom. Topo...

work page 2020

[2] [7]

[Knu22] , Projection spaces and twisted Lie algebras, Contemp. Math. (2022), To ap- pear. [Kon99] M. Kontsevich, Operads and motives in deformation quantization, Lett. Math. Phys. 48 (1999), 35–72. [Kri94] I. Kriz, On the rational homotopy type of configuration spaces, Ann. of Math. (2)139 (1994). [Lan93] L. Langsetmo, The K-theory localization of loops o...

work page 2022

[3] [1969]

Bendersky and S

[BG91] M. Bendersky and S. Gitler, The cohomology of certain function spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 326 (1991). [BG23] C. Bibby and N. Gadish, A generating function approach to new representation sta- billity phenomena in orbit configuration spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.10 (2023), 241–287. [BHK24] L.Brantner, J.Hahn, andB.Knudsen, The Lubin–Tate theor...

work page 1991

[4] [1972]

McDuff, Configuration spaces of positive and negative particles, Topology 14 (1975), 91–107

[McD75] D. McDuff, Configuration spaces of positive and negative particles, Topology 14 (1975), 91–107. [MM65] J. Milnor and J. C. Moore, On the structure of Hopf algebras, Ann. of Math. (2)81 (1965), no. 2, 211–264. [MW19] J. Miller and J. Wilson, Higher order representation stability and ordered configura- tion spaces of manifolds, Geom. Topol.23 (2019)...

work page 1975

[5] [1976]

Ching and P

[CS22] M. Ching and P. Salvatore, Koszul duality for topologicalEn-operads, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (2022). [CT78] F. R. Cohen and L. R. Taylor, Computations of Gelfand–Fuks cohomology, the co- homology of function spaces, and the cohomology of configuration spaces, Geometry Applications of Homotopy Theory I, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 657, Springer,

work page 2022

[6] [1978]

Chen and A

[CZ22] M. Chen and A. Zhang, Mod p homology of unordered configuration spaces of surfaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc (2022), to appear. [DCK17] G. C. Drummond-Cole and B. Knudsen, Betti numbers of configuration spaces of surfaces, J. London Math. Soc.96 (2017), no. 2, 367–393. [Far] B. Farb, Representation stability, Contribution to the proceedings of the ICM...

arXiv 2022

[7] [1994]

Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory: part I, Geom

[Wei99] M. Weiss, Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory: part I, Geom. Topol. 3 (1999), 67–101. [Yam88] A. Yamaguchi, Morava K-theory of iterated loop spaces of spheres, Math. Z. 199 (1988). [Zha21] A. Zhang, Quillen homology of spectral Lie algebras with application to modp homol- ogy of labeled configuration spaces, Alg. Geom. Topol. (20...

work page 1999

[8] [1998]

Randal-Williams, Homological stability for unordered configuration spaces, Q

[RW13] O. Randal-Williams, Homological stability for unordered configuration spaces, Q. J. Math. 64 (2013), 303–326. [RW24] , Configuration spaces as commutative monoids, Bull. London Math. Soc. (2024). [RWW17] O. Randal-Williams and N. Wahl, Homological stability for automorphism groups, Adv. Math. (2017), no. 534–626. [Sal01] P. Salvatore, Configuration...

work page 2013