On the formal ribbon extension of a quasitriangular Hopf algebra

Quinn T. Kolt

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

On the formal ribbon extension of a quasitriangular Hopf algebra

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every finite-dimensional quasitriangular Hopf algebra can be formally extended to a ribbon Hopf algebra of twice the dimension, and each indecomposable module of the original algebra admits exactly two compatible actions of the extended…

desk verdict Solid, useful representation theory for formal ribbon extensions; main theorem's proof has a repairable gap and Section 4 has a couple of soft spots, but the paper is worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20339 v2 pith:KTJOR2IE submitted 2024-12-29 math.QA math.RAmath.RT

Quinn T. Kolt This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.QAmath.RAmath.RT MSC 16T0518M15

keywords ribbonHopfalgebraquasitriangularformalextensionrepresentationcategorypivotalizationsphericalizationdoubledNicholsfinitetensor

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

Every finite-dimensional quasitriangular Hopf algebra $H$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ can be formally extended to a ribbon Hopf algebra $\tilde H$ of twice the dimension, obtained by adjoining one central element $\tilde v$ with $\tilde v^2 = uS(u)$. The paper's central theorem is that every finite-dimensional $H$-module $M$ admits a compatible $\tilde H$-module structure, and when $M$ is indecomposable there are exactly two such structures up to isomorphism, written $M^+$ and $M^-$. If this is right, the representation theory of $\tilde H$ is completely described by pairs $(M,\text{sign})$, and simple and projective modules pass between the two algebras in a controlled way. The paper also shows that in the semisimple case the construction coincides with pivotalization/sphericalization, and that for odd-index doubled Nichols Hopf algebras the extension differs genuinely from a tensor product with the sign category.

What carries the argument

The central object is the formal ribbon extension $\tilde H = H \oplus H\tilde v$, where $\tilde v$ is central, $\tilde v^2 = uS(u)$ with $u$ the Drinfeld element, and $\Delta(\tilde v) = (R_{21}R)^{-1}(\tilde v \otimes \tilde v)$. The workhorse is Lemma 3.1.1, which asserts that any invertible operator $B$ on a finite-dimensional space over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ has a square root $A$ commuting with the centralizer of $B$ and having no eigenvalue paired with its negative. That $A$ produces the two lifts $M^+$ and $M^-$ by letting $\tilde v$ act as $A$ or $-A$; the no-opposite-eigenvalue condition makes the two lifts non-isomorphic, and the uniqueness result follows from decomposing $M \oplus \tilde v M$ as an $\tilde H$-module.

What would settle it

Take $H = DK_3$ and its indecomposable projective module $P_1$. Enumerate the linear operators $X$ on $P_1$ satisfying $X^2 = uS(u)$ and $Xh = hX$ for every $h \in DK_3$; Theorem 3.1.2 predicts exactly two isomorphism classes of such lifts, the $X$ and $-X$ actions, so finding a third non-isomorphic square root would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the formal ribbon extension is representation-theoretically tame: Theorem 3.1.2 says each indecomposable $H$-module $M$ has exactly two non-isomorphic $\tilde H$-module lifts $M^+$ and $M^-$, the two choices coming from the two signs of the action of $\tilde v$. The direct sum $M^+ \oplus M^-$ is isomorphic to the induced module $M \oplus \tilde v M$. Simple $\tilde H$-modules restrict to simple $H$-modules, projective covers restrict to projective covers, and membership in the M\"uger center (the objects that braid trivially with everything) passes between $H$ and $\tilde H$ without change. In the semisimple case, $\mathrm{Rep}(\tilde H)$ is isomorphic, as a braided fusion category, to the pivotalization/sphericalization of $\mathrm{Rep}(H)$ built by adjoining a square root of the double dual functor.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Theorem 3.1.2 rests on Lemma 3.1.1: every invertible operator $B$ on a finite-dimensional space over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ has a square root $A$ that commutes with the centralizer of $B$ and has no eigenvalue paired with its negative. If some finite-dimensional $H$-module has $uS(u)$ acting without such an $A$, the "exactly two lifts" claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every finite-dimensional quasitriangular Hopf algebra embeds in a ribbon Hopf algebra of twice the dimension whose representation category is known from $\mathrm{Rep}(H)$: each indecomposable module splits into exactly two paired lifts.
For semisimple $H$, the construction recovers the pivotalization/sphericalization of $\mathrm{Rep}(H)$, so it supplies a non-semisimple extension of that spherical-structure construction.
For factorizable $H$, the M\"uger center of $\mathrm{Rep}(\tilde H)$ is exactly $\mathrm{Vec}^-_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$, tensor-generated by the sign module $V^-_1$; consequently $\mathrm{Rep}(\tilde H)$ is never modular.
For odd $n$, the formal ribbon extension of $DK_n$ has eight simple modules and the Cartan matrix recorded in Proposition 4.3.1, so the category does not factor as $\mathrm{Rep}(DK_n) \boxtimes \mathrm{Vec}^-_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$.
The exact sequence $\mathrm{Vec}_{\mathbb{Z}_2} \to \mathrm{Rep}(\tilde H) \to \mathrm{Rep}(H)$ makes $\mathrm{Rep}(\tilde H)$ a braided finite tensor category with a canonical $\mathbb{Z}_2$ subcategory, so it is a ready source of non-semisimple ribbon categories.

Reading between the lines

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

The square-root construction is phrased by the paper for extensions with $a^2 = b$, but the same pattern should extend to adjoining an $n$-th root with $a^n = b$, producing $n$ lifts per indecomposable module; testing this on the explicit presentation of $\widetilde{DK_n}$ would be a direct next step.
Since $\mathrm{Rep}(\tilde H)$ always contains a nontrivial M\"uger-central sign subcategory, these extensions can never be modular; that makes them natural test cases for non-semisimple TQFTs that do not require a modular category.
The explicit four-sign modules $V^\pm_1$, $V^\pm_{K\bar K}$, $V^\pm_K$, and $V^\pm_{\bar K}$ in Section 4 give a small computable family in which to check whether indecomposable $\tilde H$-modules always restrict to indecomposable $H$-modules, the paper's Conjecture 3.1.8.

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

Kolt's paper does something useful: for any finite-dimensional quasitriangular Hopf algebra H, it analyzes representations of the formal ribbon extension H~ (built by adjoining a square root of uS(u)). The main new content is Theorem 3.1.2 — every H-module lifts to an H~-module, and an indecomposable H-module has exactly two lifts — plus the projective cover restriction theorem (3.1.6) and the worked example for odd doubled Nichols Hopf algebras, showing the category does not factor as Rep(DK_n) ⊠ Vec^-_{Z2}. The semisimple comparison with ENO pivotalization (Theorem 3.2.4) is a nice observation. These are real results, and they are stated cleanly.

The core of Section 3 is mostly sound. Lemma 3.1.1 is proved twice (functional calculus plus constructive polynomial argument), and the model-theoretic transfer is legitimate because the statement is first-order for each matrix size. The reader's worry about algebraic closedness is a non-issue; the field hypothesis is exactly what's needed.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The proof of Theorem 3.1.2 does not actually prove 'exactly two' as written. It constructs two lifts M^+ and M^- and shows M ⊕ v~M ≅ M^+ ⊕ M^-. That only classifies direct summands of that particular module. To rule out a third lift, you need to show an arbitrary lift N is a summand of M ⊕ v~M, or give a direct argument that its v~-action equals ±A. The missing step is repairable: if T is the action of v~ on N, then T commutes with A, and T^2 = A^2 = B; indecomposability forces T and A to each have a single eigenvalue, and the no-opposite-pair property forces those eigenvalues to agree, so T-A is nilpotent and T+A is invertible, hence (T-A)(T+A)=0 gives T=A; the other sign gives T=-A. But that argument is not in the manuscript. This needs to be added.

In Section 4, Proposition 4.3.4 has a one-sentence proof — 'one can verify' — which is too thin for a central disproof of a plausible factorization. And Remark 4.3.1 contains a false inference: a Hopf algebra with one simple module need not be semisimple. Neither breaks the main theorem, but both should be fixed.

The paper leans heavily on the author's previous classification of DK_n modules; that's acceptable if the results are correct, but the reader should be able to check the fusion rules without chasing too many black boxes.

Who is this for: anyone working on ribbon categories, non-semisimple TQFTs, or Hopf algebra lifts. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send to peer review, require the Theorem 3.1.2 gap to be closed and Section 4 tidied.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the formal ribbon extension \tilde H of a finite-dimensional quasitriangular Hopf algebra H, obtained by adjoining a central element \tilde v with \tilde v^2 = uS(u). It develops two decompositions of \tilde H (a tensor product with F[Z2] in the ribbon case and a cocycled crossed product in general), and its central result, Theorem 3.1.2, asserts that every finite-dimensional H-module M admits a compatible \tilde H-action, with exactly two such actions up to isomorphism when M is indecomposable. Building on this, the author proves results about simple, projective, and M\"uger central \tilde H-modules, identifies the semisimple case with the pivotalization/sphericalization construction of Etingof\--Nikshych\--Ostrik, and analyzes the formal ribbon extension of odd-index doubled Nichols Hopf algebras DK_n, including a presentation and explicit representation-theoretic computations. Several conjectures are formulated and clearly separated from proved statements.

Significance. If Theorem 3.1.2 is correct, it gives a complete organizational principle for Rep(\tilde H) in terms of Rep(H) together with a Z2 sign, thereby extending sphericalization to non-semisimple braided tensor categories and providing nontrivial examples of non-semisimple ribbon categories. The paper has genuine strengths: Lemma 3.1.1 is proved both by holomorphic functional calculus and by an elementary polynomial/CRT argument in Remark 3.1.1, and the Section 4 calculations are explicit and testable. The significance is conditional, however, because the proof of the central uniqueness statement currently omits an essential reduction, and because the example section relies heavily on the author's unpublished preprint [6] for the classification and fusion rules of DK_n-modules.

major comments (2)

[§3.1, Theorem 3.1.2] The proof of 'precisely two' does not go through as written. After constructing A and the two lifts M^+ and M^-, the argument shows only that M ⊕ \tilde v M ≅ M^+ ⊕ M^-; from this isomorphism one can conclude that every indecomposable direct summand of M ⊕ \tilde v M is isomorphic to M^+ or M^-, but an arbitrary \tilde H-lift N with N|_H ≅ M is not shown to be a direct summand of M ⊕ \tilde v M. The displayed proof therefore does not rule out a third indecomposable lift. This is load-bearing for Theorem 3.1.2 and for all later uses of 'precisely two'. The gap is repairable: since T = \tilde v· on N centralizes B = uS(u)· and A commutes with the centralizer of B, T commutes with A; indecomposability of N forces T to have a single eigenvalue; comparing eigenvalues with the two square roots of B and using nilpotence of T−A or T+A (together with T^2 = A^2) gives T = ±A. I recommend inserting this reduction explicitly into the proof.
[§4.3, Propositions 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.4] The example section is not self-contained at a load-bearing point. Propositions 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 rely on [6, Thm. 7.2.4 and 7.2.5] as black boxes, including the classification of DK_n-modules, the fusion rules, and the Cartan matrix; since [6] is an arXiv preprint, the needed statements should at least be summarized or clearly marked as imported. More seriously, Proposition 4.3.4, which is the paper's explicit demonstration that Rep(\widetilde{DK_n}) does not factor as Rep(DK_n) ⊠ Vec^-_{Z2}, is justified only by the sentence 'One can verify that such an equivalence cannot simultaneously preserve both Isomorphisms (6) and (8).' Because this proposition is the payoff of the example, the verification should be supplied or the result should be labelled as conditional on the cited classification.

minor comments (5)

[§2.3, Example 2.3.3] The example refers to 'Theorem 2.3.1', but the surrounding statement is Proposition 2.3.1; the cross-reference should be corrected.
[§4.2, Lemma 4.2.2] The displayed formula and its proof appear to disagree on whether the summation over ℓ begins at 0 or at 1; the 'Note' acknowledges this, but the derivation should be made consistent because the formula feeds directly into Lemma 4.2.3.
[§3.2, Theorem 3.2.4] The proof asserts rather than verifies that the functors F and G are braided monoidal and mutually inverse; at least the key naturality and monoidality checks should be summarized, especially the computation that φ_N is H-linear and satisfies φ_N^{**}∘φ_N = Φ.
[§3.1, Corollary 3.1.5] The converse implication is compressed: a sentence explaining why dim \tilde H = Σ (dim simple \tilde H-module)^2 for the lifted simples forces H to be semisimple would make the argument easier to follow.
[§4.3, Proposition 4.3.2] The displayed Isomorphisms (4) contain a duplicated formula: the second occurrence appears to be identical to the first, and it should be checked whether one of the two should involve V^s_{\bar K} V^t_{K\bar K} instead.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central Theorem 3.1.2 is self-contained; the only load-bearing self-citation is in the Section 4 DK_n example, and the skeptic's 'exactly two' concern is a proof gap rather than circularity.

self citation load bearing [Section 4.3, Prop. 4.3.1 and Prop. 4.3.2; see also Section 4.1]
"In [6], it is shown that there are four simple DKn-modules, two of which are their own projective covers. ... This follows from the proof of [6, Thm. 7.2.4], noting that ˜k anticommutes with ξi for all i. ... Isomorphisms (2)-(7) almost follow from [6, Thm. 7.2.5] (and the comment after)."

The Section 4 example does not reprove the classification of DK_n modules, the Cartan matrix, or the fusion rules; it imports them from [6], whose authors include the present author (Chang, Kolt, Wang, Zhang). Proposition 4.3.4's conclusion that Rep(ĆDKn) is not equivalent to Rep(DKn) ⊠ Vec_Z2 is verified only through these imported rules, so the example's main assertion is supported by a self-citation rather than by a derivation contained in this paper. This dependence is load-bearing for the example, but it is confined to Section 4 and does not feed back into Theorem 3.1.2, whose proof uses Lemma 3.1.1 and the uniqueness of decompositions with no dependency on [6].

full rationale

The central chain in Section 3 is self-contained: Lemma 3.1.1 produces a square root A of uS(u) acting on M, and Theorem 3.1.2 constructs M^+ and M^- directly from A and -A; no equation from the theorem's conclusion is fed back as an input. The semisimple comparison with pivotalization (Theorem 3.2.4) is established by explicit inverse functors, and the non-factorizability obstruction (Proposition 2.2.2) is a short independent argument. The only substantive self-citation is in Section 4, where the DK_n classification, Cartan matrix, and fusion rules are taken as black boxes from the author's overlapping preprint [6]; this is load-bearing for the example but not for the paper's main theorem. The skeptic's objection to Theorem 3.1.2 is a genuine omitted step -- the proof only shows M ⊕ ṽM decomposes as M^+ ⊕ M^-, and does not explicitly reduce an arbitrary lift to a summand of M ⊕ ṽM -- but this is an incompleteness in justification, not circularity: the missing argument (e.g., using indecomposability and the spectral condition on T) would add content rather than invoke the conclusion. The two conjectures in the paper are openly flagged as unresolved. Accordingly, no derivation reduces to its own inputs; the score reflects the minor self-citation dependence in the example.

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

No free parameters are fitted and no new physical or algebraic entities are postulated beyond the formal ribbon element \tilde v, which is part of the known Reshetikhin-Turaev construction. The paper is a pure mathematics proof; the central results depend on standard theorems such as model completeness and the Kauffman-Radford criterion, and on the author's earlier classification of DK_n modules for the worked example.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption F is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0.
Stated in Section 2.1; needed for Lemma 3.1.1 to ensure every invertible endomorphism has a square root with no opposite eigenvalue pair, which is required for the two-lift theorem.
domain assumption H is finite-dimensional and quasitriangular with R-matrix R.
The formal ribbon extension is defined only for such H; the whole paper operates in this setting.
standard math Completeness of the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0.
Used in the proof of Lemma 3.1.1 to transfer the square root result from C to arbitrary algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0.
standard math Kauffman-Radford criterion [17, Thm. 3] for ribbon structures on Drinfeld doubles.
Invoked in Theorem 4.2.1 to prove DK_n is not ribbon for odd n; the criterion is cited but not restated.
domain assumption Classification of simple and projective DK_n-modules and their fusion rules from [6].
Section 4.3 uses [6, Thm. 7.2.4] and [6, Thm. 7.2.5] as black boxes for the Cartan matrix and fusion rules of DK_n; these results are not proven in the present paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the formal ribbon extension of a quasitriangular Hopf algebra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTJOR2IE

@misc{pith2026241220339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the formal ribbon extension of a quasitriangular Hopf algebra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTJOR2IE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20339}
}

abstract

Any finite-dimensional quasitriangular Hopf algebra $H$ can be formally extended to a ribbon Hopf algebra $\tilde H$ of twice the dimension. We investigate this extension and its representations. We show that every indecomposable $H$-module has precisely two compatible $\tilde H$-actions. We investigate the behavior of simple, projective, and M\"uger central $\tilde H$-modules in terms of these $\tilde H$-actions. We also observe that, in the semisimple case, this construction agrees with the pivotalization/sphericalization construction introduced by Etingof, Nikshych, and Ostrik (2003). As an example, we investigate the formal ribbon extension of odd-index doubled Nichols Hopf algebras $D\mathcal K_n$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[6]

Modular data of non-semisimple modular categories

L. Chang, Q. T. Kolt, Z. Wang, and Q. Zhang. Modular data of non -semisimple modular categories. arXiv:2404.09314, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

A. L. Agore. Crossed Product of Hopf Algebras. Communications in Algebra , 41(7):2519–2542, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

A. L. Agore and G. Militaru. Extending structures II: The quant um version. Journal of Algebra , 336(1):321–341, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Andruskiewitsch, I

N. Andruskiewitsch, I. Angiono, A. Garc ´ ıa Iglesias, B. Torrecilla s, and C. Vay. From Hopf Algebras to Tensor Categories. In Conformal Field Theories and Tensor Categories , pages 1–31. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014

work page 2014
[4]

R. J. Blattner, M. Cohen, and S. Montgomery. Crossed produc ts and inner actions of Hopf algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 298(2):671–711, 1986

work page 1986
[5]

Brugui` eres and S

A. Brugui` eres and S. Natale. Exact Sequences of Tensor Cat egories. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2011(24):5644–5705, 01 2011

work page 2011
[7]

Cohen and S

M. Cohen and S. Westreich. Characters and a Verlinde-type for mula for symmetric Hopf algebras. Journal of Algebra , 320(12):4300–4316, 2008. 21

work page 2008
[8]

Costantino, N

F. Costantino, N. Geer, B. Ha ¨ ıoun, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Skein (3+1)-TQFTs from non-semisimple ribbon categories. arXiv:2306.03225, 2023

arXiv 2023

Show all 24 references

[9]

Crane, L

L. Crane, L. H. Kauﬀman, and D. N. Yetter. State-sum invarian ts of 4-manifolds. Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramiﬁcations , 06(02):177–234, 1997

1997
[10]

De Renzi, A

M. De Renzi, A. M. Gainutdinov, N. Geer, B. Patureau-Mirand, a nd I. Runkel. 3-Dimensional TQFTs from non-semisimple modular categories. Selecta Mathematica, 28(2):42, Jan 2022

2022
[11]

Etingof, S

P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik. Tensor categories , volume 205 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015

2015
[12]

Etingof, D

P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik. An analogue of Radford ’sS4 formula for ﬁnite tensor categories. International Mathematics Research Notices , 2004(54):2915–2933, 01 2004

2004
[13]

Etingof, D

P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik. On fusion categories. Journal of Algebra , 162:581–642, 2005

2005
[14]

Etingof and V

P. Etingof and V. Ostrik. Finite tensor categories. Moscow Mathematical Journal , 4(3):627–654, 782– 783, 2004

2004
[15]

Farsad, A

V. Farsad, A. M. Gainutdinov, and I. Runkel. The symplectic fer mion ribbon quasi-Hopf algebra and the SL p2,Zq-action on its centre. Advances in Mathematics , 400:108247, 2022

2022
[16]

Henriques, D

A. Henriques, D. Penneys, and J. E. Tener. Categoriﬁed trac e for module tensor categories over braided tensor categories. Documenta Mathematica, pages 1089–1149, 2015

2015
[17]

L. H. Kauﬀman and D. E. Radford. A necessary and suﬃcient co ndition for a ﬁnite-dimensional Drinfeld double to be a ribbon Hopf algebra. Journal of Algebra , 159(1):98–114, 1993

1993
[18]

T. Kerler. Homology TQFT’s and the Alexander-Reidemeister inva riant of 3-manifolds via Hopf algebras and skein theory. Canadian Journal of Mathematics , 55(4):766–821, 2003

2003
[19]

Panaite and F

F. Panaite and F. Van Oystaeyen. Quasitriangular structures for some pointed Hopf algebras of dimen- sion 2 n. Commununications in Algebra , 27(10):4929–4942, 1999

1999
[20]

Reshetikhin and V

N. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev. Invariants of 3-manifolds via lin k polynomials and quantum groups. Inventiones mathematicae, 103(1):547–597, Dec 1991

1991
[21]

N. Y. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev. Ribbon graphs and their inva riants derived from quantum groups. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 127(1):1–26, 1990

1990
[22]

D. Reutter. Semisimple four-dimensional topological ﬁeld theor ies cannot detect exotic smooth structure. Journal of Topology , 16(2):542–566, 2023

2023
[23]

K. Shimizu. Non-degeneracy conditions for braided ﬁnite tenso r categories. Advances in Mathematics , 355:106778, 36, 2019

2019
[24]

V. G. Turaev. Modular categories and 3-manifold invariants. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 06(11n12):1807–1824, 1992. Email address : quinn@math.ucsb.edu Department of Mathematics, University of California, Sant a Barbara, CA 93106, USA 22

1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Modular data of non-semisimple modular categories

L. Chang, Q. T. Kolt, Z. Wang, and Q. Zhang. Modular data of non -semisimple modular categories. arXiv:2404.09314, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

A. L. Agore. Crossed Product of Hopf Algebras. Communications in Algebra , 41(7):2519–2542, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [2]

A. L. Agore and G. Militaru. Extending structures II: The quant um version. Journal of Algebra , 336(1):321–341, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [3]

Andruskiewitsch, I

N. Andruskiewitsch, I. Angiono, A. Garc ´ ıa Iglesias, B. Torrecilla s, and C. Vay. From Hopf Algebras to Tensor Categories. In Conformal Field Theories and Tensor Categories , pages 1–31. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [4]

R. J. Blattner, M. Cohen, and S. Montgomery. Crossed produc ts and inner actions of Hopf algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 298(2):671–711, 1986

work page 1986

[6] [5]

Brugui` eres and S

A. Brugui` eres and S. Natale. Exact Sequences of Tensor Cat egories. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2011(24):5644–5705, 01 2011

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Cohen and S

M. Cohen and S. Westreich. Characters and a Verlinde-type for mula for symmetric Hopf algebras. Journal of Algebra , 320(12):4300–4316, 2008. 21

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Costantino, N

F. Costantino, N. Geer, B. Ha ¨ ıoun, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Skein (3+1)-TQFTs from non-semisimple ribbon categories. arXiv:2306.03225, 2023

arXiv 2023