Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

From Grothendieck cofibrations to factorization systems: a formal 2-monadic account

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that split cofibrations are exactly the strict algebras for the comma 2-monad, and normally cloven cofibrations exactly its normal pseudoalgebras; a change of 2-monads turns cocartesian transport into the cocartesian–vertic

desk verdict A careful, honest 2-monadic account of the cofibration–factorization bridge; the new colax morphism (Dom,κ) is real, and the stress-test worry about the [15] import does not survive contact with the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27541 v1 pith:MDMPWYQE submitted 2026-07-30 math.CT

Fernando Lucatelli Nunes , Walter Tholen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CT MSC 18N1518N1018C1518A3218D30
keywords Grothendieckcofibrationsplitcloven2-monadpseudoalgebrafactorizationsystemorthogonalcomma
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

Grothendieck cofibrations describe how objects in a category varying over a base are transported along arrows of the base; factorization systems instead decompose the arrows of a single category into two complementary classes. The paper proves that both are the same algebraic structure: split cofibrations are precisely the strict algebras for the global comma 2-monad, and normally cloven cofibrations are precisely its normal pseudoalgebras. A canonical colax morphism from the comma 2-monad to the squaring 2-monad then converts the transport action into a factorization action: for every normally cloven cofibration, the chosen transport produces the orthogonal factorization system whose left class is the cocartesian arrows and whose right class is the arrows sent to isomorphisms in the base; for split cofibrations, it produces the strict factorization system of designated cocartesian and vertical arrows. The passage is functorial in charts and 2-cells, so the factorization structure is not an extra choice but a consequence of the transport data.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two 2-monads—strict monads in the 2-category of 2-categories—on the arrow 2-category of small categories: the comma 2-monad C, which sends a functor P:E→B to the comma-category projection Cod P: P↓B→B and remembers successive movement in the base; and the squaring 2-monad S, which sends a category E to its arrow category E² and remembers the middle object of a factorization. The comparison is a colax morphism of 2-monads (Dom, κ), where κ_P(f:x→y) = (x, P f) and Dom is the domain evaluation; restriction of scalars along it converts any C-action into an S-action. The proof also relies on the identity known as absorption—the algebra multiplication law implies the cocart

What would settle it

Find a cofibration P:E→B for which the pair (CoCart(P), P^{-1}Iso(B)) fails the unique-diagonal property—a square from a cocartesian arrow to an arrow lying over an isomorphism with no unique diagonal—or find a normal pseudo-C-algebra whose action violates the absorption identity A(δ,1)=1; either example would refute the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a pair of 2-category isomorphisms over the arrow 2-category (the 2-category of functors between small categories): split cofibrations with cleavage-preserving squares are exactly strict algebras for the comma 2-monad C (CP being the codomain projection of the comma category P↓B onto B), and normally cloven cofibrations with cocartesian-arrow-preserving squares are exactly normal pseudoalgebras for C. The proof passes through the absorption identity that encodes the cocartesian universal property inside the algebra multiplication law. A colax 2-monad morphism (Dom,κ), with κ_P(f) = (x, P f), restricts these actions along the squaring 2-monad S, so that for each cofibr

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the factorization classes depends on a previously established theorem asserting that normal pseudoalgebras for the squaring 2-monad are exactly orthogonal factorization systems with normalized chosen factorizations; if that correspondence fails in the precise 2-categorical form needed for functoriality, the orthogonal classes (CoCart(P), P^{-1}Iso(B)) would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every split cofibration carries a strict factorization system (ΔP, Vert(P)), where ΔP is the chosen cocartesian arrows and Vert(P) the vertical arrows, and the factorization is functorial in cleavage-preserving squares and in 2-cells.
  • Every normally cloven cofibration determines the orthogonal factorization system (CoCart(P), P^{-1}Iso(B)): the cocartesian arrows form the left class, and the arrows that become isomorphisms in the base form the right class.
  • The Grothendieck construction of a strict indexed functor X:B→CAT factorizes each morphism (u,φ) as (1c,φ) after (u,1), with the factorization being the value of the restricted algebra action, not a separate choice.
  • Restricting to a fixed base, arbitrary cloven cofibrations (not necessarily normal) give the same orthogonal classes, with the pseudoalgebra unit recording the possibly non-normalized factorization of identities.
  • Both strict and pseudo comparisons are isomorphisms over CAT², meaning the identification includes not only objects but also 1-cells and 2-cells.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same change-of-2-monads recipe should generalize to genuine 2-dimensional fibrations (e.g., fibred 2-categories), where the coherent transport would induce a 2-dimensional factorization system with the higher lift cells determined by the 2-monadic comparison.
  • Because the orthogonal classes depend only on the underlying cofibration and not on the cleavage, this gives a clean explanation of why cleavage choices are invisible at the level of ordinary factorization systems: the factorization algebra is a presentation, not a structure imposed on the total category.
  • An enriched (or internal) version of the comma-to-squaring comparison would be expected to produce enriched factorization systems, with the compositor of the pseudoalgebra controlling the coherence of the factorization; checking this in the enrichment of chain complexes or simplicial sets would be a natural test.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper gives a 2-monadic account of the passage from Grothendieck (op)fibrations to factorization systems. The authors construct the global comma 2-monad C on CAT^2, prove that split cofibrations are precisely its strict algebras (Thm 4.8) and normally cloven cofibrations precisely its normal pseudoalgebras (Thm 5.4), with fixed-base arbitrary pseudoalgebras corresponding to arbitrary cleavages (Thm 5.6). They then construct a colax morphism of 2-monads (Dom,κ) from C to the squaring 2-monad S on CAT, and by restriction of scalars obtain 2-functors to Algs(S) and PsAlg_n(S). For a split cofibration this yields the strict factorization system (ΔP, Vert(P)) (Thm 6.9); for a normally cloven cofibration it yields, via Korostenski–Tholen's identification of normal pseudo-S-algebras with orthogonal factorization systems, the orthogonal factorization system (CoCart(P), P^{-1}Iso(B)) (Thm 6.7). The dual statement for split fibrations is recorded in Thm 7.2.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a genuinely unifying 2-categorical framework: the familiar cocartesian–vertical factorization is shown to be forced by a change-of-2-monads construction rather than an ad hoc choice. The main theorems are clean and the 2-monadic formulations (split = strict algebras, normal pseudoalgebras = normal cleavages, restriction of scalars) are natural and likely to be useful. The paper is also careful about two subtle points that are often glossed over: the distinction between unrestricted global pseudoalgebras (which carry coherently trivial base twist) and fixed-base pseudoalgebras, and the strict-vs-orthogonal distinction in factorization systems. The proofs are detailed and, as far as I could check, internally coherent; the transport coherence (Lemma 5.1), pseudo-absorption (Lemma 5.3), and the monad morphism equations (Prop 6.4) are all worked out explicitly.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6.1–6.2, Eq. (6.4), Thm 6.7] The coherent half of the central claim is gated by an imported theorem. Eq. (6.4) invokes Korostenski–Tholen [15, Thm 2.4] to identify PsAlg_n(S) with OFSch, and Thm 6.7 then concludes that the restricted pseudoalgebra gives the OFS (CoCart(P), P^{-1}Iso(B)). The paper checks normality (identity unit) of the restricted algebra and computes the two factor classes, but it does not state the precise normalization hypothesis of [15, Thm 2.4] nor verify it beyond the unit being strict. If [15]'s 'normalized chosen factorization' condition includes more than F(1_x)=x (e.g., a condition on the algebra multiplication cell at identities), the identification would fail exactly at the coherent level. The authors should state the hypothesis verbatim and verify it for the restricted algebra; alternatively they should prove directly that the restricted normal pseudo-S-algebra has the OFS structure wit
  2. [Sec. 6.3, Prop 6.4, Eq. (6.16)] The proof that (Dom,κ) is a colax morphism checks the unit and multiplication equations as strict equalities. I verified both equations and they are correct. However, the paper never spells out the coherence axioms that a colax morphism of 2-monads must satisfy when the monads are strict. In the strict setting, Eqs. (6.5)–(6.6) are often sufficient, but the reader would benefit from an explicit statement that no additional higher coherence is needed because all data are 2-natural transformations between strict 2-functors and the equations are equalities. This is a presentation issue rather than a mathematical gap.
  3. [Sec. 6.4, Thm 6.9(ii), proof of left class] In the proof of Thm 6.9(ii), the left class is identified with CoCart(P). The argument uses a cancellation property for cocartesian arrows: if e is cocartesian and me is cocartesian then m is cocartesian. This is stated and proved in the paragraph, but the proof as written says 'cocartesianness of me gives a unique k... and cocartesianness of e then gives km=g, and uniqueness for me gives uniqueness of k.' The uniqueness of k seems to require an additional step: the two possible diagonal fillers for me have to be compared after precomposition with e. I believe the argument can be repaired by the standard trick, but as written it is compressed. The same issue appears in the proof of Thm 6.7 where ν_f is shown cocartesian. Please expand the cancellation argument.
  4. [Sec. 6.4, Thm 6.9, Eq. (6.37)–(6.39)] The strict factorization system (ΔP, Vert(P)) is defined with ΔP as the class of designated cocartesian arrows. For a general split cleavage, a P-cocartesian arrow need not itself lie in ΔP; it is a designated lift followed by a vertical isomorphism. The paper correctly distinguishes the strict system from its orthogonal closure, but the terminology 'strict factorization system' as defined by the authors (wide subcategories with unique factorization) is nonstandard: usually one requires both subcategories to contain all isomorphisms or to have the diagonal-filling property. The paper defines its own convention in Sec. 6.4 and then uses it. This is fine, but the authors should flag the nonstandard usage earlier and check that the examples in Cor 6.10 are compatible. This is a presentation issue, not a mathematical error.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 1, Eq. (1.2)] The diagram (1.2) is described as 'commutes', but the lower square involves a 2-functor κ*_ps whose definition is only given later. A forward reference to Prop 6.3 would help.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Definition 2.2] The pseudoalgebra axioms in (2.3)–(2.4) are written in a compact form. It would be helpful to add a sentence saying that the displayed equations are the usual unit and associativity axioms after using 2-naturality to identify the relevant parallel 1-cells.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.6)] The base component ζ of the compositor is initially a 2-cell 1_B ⇒ 1_B, which is automatically the identity. The paper states this and uses it. This is correct, but it would be clearer to say 'there is only the identity natural transformation 1_B ⇒ 1_B' before saying it is forced.
  4. [Sec. 6.4, Thm 6.9] The proof of the right class P^{-1}Iso(B) uses the split cleavage equation δ_{u^{-1}u}^x = δ_{u^{-1}}^{u!x} δ_u^x. The notation is heavy but correct. A small diagram would improve readability.
  5. [References] Reference [15] (Korostenski–Tholen) is central. The paper should give the precise theorem number and page in Sec. 6.1. Currently it only cites 'Theorem 2.4'.
  6. [Sec. 7] The dual theorem 7.2 for fibrations is only stated at the strict level. The reader may wonder whether the normal-pseudoalgebra version also holds by duality. It would be worth a sentence saying it does, or explicitly leaving it out.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparisons and factorization identifications are proved from explicit constructions, with prior theorem imports used as independent evidence.

full rationale

The paper's main isomorphisms (SCoFib ≅ Alg_s(C), NClCoFib ≅ PsAlg_n(C)) are established by direct, constructive proofs: a cleavage is converted into an action and vice versa, with unit, multiplication, morphism, and 2-cell conditions verified in the paper (Theorems 4.8, 5.4). The passage from transport to factorization is then literally the restriction of scalars along the colax morphism (Dom, κ): the action is F_P = L_P κ_P, and the selected factorization of f is f = ν_f δ^x_{P f} by equations (6.21)–(6.29). This is unpacking the definitions of the cleavage and κ, not fitting a parameter and relabeling it as a prediction. The only genuinely external load-bearing input is Korostenski–Tholen [15, Theorem 2.4] identifying normal pseudo-S-algebras with OFS_ch. That is a prior published theorem with fixed, parameter-free assumptions; it is not derived from the present paper's cofibration setup, and it does not depend on the results being claimed here. Its use is therefore independent support, not a self-citation chain. Other self-citations, such as Perrone–Tholen [21, Theorem A.7], are explicitly generalized in Theorem 6.3 rather than assumed, and Rosický–Tholen [26] is cited only to acknowledge the classical prefibrational factorization. No derivation step reduces, by the paper's own equations, to its own input; the coherent-level class identification (CoCart(P), P^{-1}Iso(B)) is computed from the definitions of ν_f and δ^x_{P f} after the external OFS correspondence is invoked. Accordingly, no circularity is present.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper's theoretical input consists of standard 2-categorical structure plus a chosen cleavage; the central external dependency is the Korostenski–Tholen correspondence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A fixed enlargement of Grothendieck universes contains all categories and comma objects under consideration (Section 1, Size convention).
    Needed for CAT and CAT^2 to be 2-categories and for free algebras to exist.
  • standard math Standard strict 2-monad theory: strict algebras, pseudoalgebras, normal pseudoalgebras, and Eilenberg–Moore 2-categories as in Blackwell–Kelly–Power [1].
    Used in Definitions 2.1–2.2 and throughout the comparisons.
  • standard math Cocartesian uniqueness and right cancellation: two cocartesian arrows over the same base arrow with the same domain coincide; if e and me are cocartesian with e cocartesian, then m is cocartesian.
    Used to prove absorption (Lemma 4.1), pseudo-absorption (Lemma 5.3), and the class computations in Theorems 6.7 and 6.9.
  • domain assumption Korostenski–Tholen [15, Theorem 2.4]: normal pseudo-S-algebras are isomorphic to OFSch.
    Imported in Section 6.1, Eq (6.4), to interpret restricted algebras as orthogonal factorization systems.
  • domain assumption The existence of a chosen cleavage (normal or split) is part of the data of a (normally) cloven/split cofibration.
    Definitions 2.4 and 5.2; the entire comparison is parametric in the chosen lifts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Grothendieck cofibrations to factorization systems: a formal 2-monadic account." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDMPWYQE

@misc{pith2026260727541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Grothendieck cofibrations to factorization systems: a formal 2-monadic account},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDMPWYQE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27541}
}
read the original abstract

Grothendieck cofibrations describe transport in a category varying over a base, while factorization systems organize the arrows of a category into two complementary classes. We give a fully 2-categorical account of the passage from the former structure to the latter. The global comma 2-monad on the arrow 2-category encodes Grothendieck transport, whereas the squaring 2-monad encodes factorizations. We prove that split cofibrations are precisely the strict algebras for the comma 2-monad, including their 1-cells and 2-cells, and that normally cloven cofibrations are precisely its normal pseudoalgebras. A canonical colax morphism from the comma 2-monad to the squaring 2-monad then turns cocartesian transport into the cocartesian-vertical factorization of arrows in the total category. At the strict level, this yields the strict factorization system of designated cocartesian and vertical arrows; at the coherent level, it yields the orthogonal factorization system whose left class consists of all cocartesian arrows and whose right class consists of the arrows sent to isomorphisms in the base. We also separate unrestricted global pseudoalgebras, which retain a coherently trivial base action, from fixed-base pseudoalgebras, which correspond to arbitrary cleavages, and record the dual strict result for fibrations. This places the classical cofibration-factorization interaction, in all these variants, within a single change-of-2-monads construction and relates it directly to the existing fibrational and factorization literature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Factorization systems as Eilenberg–Moore algebras.J

    Mareli Korostenski and Walter Tholen. Factorization systems as Eilenberg–Moore algebras.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 85(1):57–72, 1993. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(93)90171-O

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-4049(93)90171-o 1993

  2. [1]

    Max Kelly, and A

    Robert Blackwell, G. Max Kelly, and A. John Power. Two-dimensional monad theory.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 59(1):1–41, 1989. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(89)90160-6

    doi:10.1016/0022-4049(89)90160-6 1989

  3. [2]

    Fibred 2-categories and bicategories.J

    Mitchell Buckley. Fibred 2-categories and bicategories.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 218(6):1034–1074,

  4. [3]

    Lax orthogonal factorisation systems

    Maria Manuel Clementino and Ignacio López Franco. Lax orthogonal factorisation systems. Adv. Math., 302:458–528, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2016.07.028. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1503.06469

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Lax comma 2-categories and admissible 2-functors.Theory Appl

    Maria Manuel Clementino and Fernando Lucatelli Nunes. Lax comma 2-categories and admissible 2-functors.Theory Appl. Categ., 40(6):180–226, 2024. doi: 10.70930/tac/re3rk47b. URLhttps://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/40/6/40-06abs.html

    work page doi:10.70930/tac/re3rk47b 2024

  6. [5]

    A comonad for Grothendieck fibrations.Theory Appl

    Jacopo Emmenegger, Luca Mesiti, Giuseppe Rosolini, and Thomas Streicher. A comonad for Grothendieck fibrations.Theory Appl. Categ., 40(13):371–389, 2024. doi: 10.70930/tac/3d9q6q64

    work page doi:10.70930/tac/3d9q6q64 2024

  7. [6]

    Geometric constructions preserve fibrations

    Bertfried Fauser and Steven Vickers. Geometric constructions preserve fibrations. arXiv:1411.2457 [math.CT], 2014. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2457

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Natural weak factorization systems.Arch

    Marco Grandis and Walter Tholen. Natural weak factorization systems.Arch. Math. (Brno), 42 (4):397–408, 2006. URLhttps://eudml.org/doc/249802. 44

    2006

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    John W. Gray. Fibred and cofibred categories. InProceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra, La Jolla, 1965, pages 21–83. Springer, New York, 1966. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-99902-4_ 2

    1965 doi

  2. [9]

    Catégories fibrées et descente

    Alexander Grothendieck. Catégories fibrées et descente. InRevêtements ètales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1), volume 224 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 145–194. Springer, Berlin, 1971. doi: 10.1007/BFb0058662

    1971 doi

  3. [10]

    Some properties of Fib as a fibred 2-category.J

    Claudio Hermida. Some properties of Fib as a fibred 2-category.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 134(1): 83–109, 1999. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4049(97)00129-1

    1999 doi

  4. [11]

    North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1999

    Bart Jacobs.Categorical Logic and Type Theory, volume 141 ofStudies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1999. ISBN 0-444-50170-3

    1999

  5. [12]

    Functorial factorization, well-pointedness and separabil- ity.J

    George Janelidze and Walter Tholen. Functorial factorization, well-pointedness and separabil- ity.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 142(2):99–130, 1999. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4049(98)00095-4

    1999 doi

  6. [13]

    Max Kelly and Ross Street

    G. Max Kelly and Ross Street. Review of the elements of 2-categories. In G. Max Kelly, editor, Category Seminar, Sydney 1972/1973, volume 420 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 75–103. Springer, Berlin, 1974. doi: 10.1007/BFb0063101

    1972 doi

  7. [14]

    Monads for which structures are adjoint to units.J

    Anders Kock. Monads for which structures are adjoint to units.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 104(1): 41–59, 1995. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(94)00111-U

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    Pseudoalgebras and non-canonical isomorphisms.Appl

    Fernando Lucatelli Nunes. Pseudoalgebras and non-canonical isomorphisms.Appl. Categ. Structures, 27(1):55–63, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s10485-018-9541-3

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    CHAD for expressive total languages.Math

    Fernando Lucatelli Nunes and Matthijs Vákár. CHAD for expressive total languages.Math. Structures Comput. Sci., 33(4–5):311–426, 2023. doi: 10.1017/S096012952300018X. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2110.00446

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Monoidal closure of Grothendieck constructions via Σ-tractable monoidal structures and Dialectica formulas.Theory Appl

    Fernando Lucatelli Nunes and Matthijs Vákár. Monoidal closure of Grothendieck constructions via Σ-tractable monoidal structures and Dialectica formulas.Theory Appl. Categ., 44(35):1153– 1217, 2025. URLhttps://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/44/35/44-35abs.html

    2025

  11. [19]

    Cauchy completeness, lax epi- morphisms and effective descent for split fibrations.Bull

    Fernando Lucatelli Nunes, Rui Prezado, and Lurdes Sousa. Cauchy completeness, lax epi- morphisms and effective descent for split fibrations.Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin, 30(1): 130–139, 2023. doi: 10.36045/j.bbms.221021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12021

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Monoidal Grothendieck construction.Theory Appl

    Joe Moeller and Christina Vasilakopoulou. Monoidal Grothendieck construction.Theory Appl. Categ., 35(31):1159–1207, 2020. URL https://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/35/31/ 35-31abs.html

    2020

  13. [21]

    Kan extensions are partial colimits.Appl

    Paolo Perrone and Walter Tholen. Kan extensions are partial colimits.Appl. Categ. Structures, 30(4):685–753, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10485-021-09671-9

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Diagrams, fibrations, and the decomposition of colimits

    George Peschke and Walter Tholen. Diagrams, fibrations, and the decomposition of colimits. arXiv:2006.10890 [math.CT], 2020. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10890

    2006 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Robert Rosebrugh and R. J. Wood. Coherence for factorization algebras.Theory Appl. Categ., 10(6):134–147, 2002. doi: 10.70930/tac/g0lqukuu. 45

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    Robert Rosebrugh and R. J. Wood. Distributive laws and factorization.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 175(1–3):327–353, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4049(02)00140-8

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    Lax factorization algebras.J

    Jiˇ rí Rosický and Walter Tholen. Lax factorization algebras.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 175(1–3): 355–382, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4049(02)00141-X

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    Factorization, fibration and torsion.J

    Jiˇ rí Rosický and Walter Tholen. Factorization, fibration and torsion.J. Homotopy Relat. Struct., 2(2):295–314, 2007. URLhttps://eudml.org/doc/230964

    2007

  19. [27]

    The formal theory of monads.J

    Ross Street. The formal theory of monads.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 2(2):149–168, 1972. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(72)90019-9

    1972 doi

  20. [28]

    Fibrations and Yoneda’s lemma in a 2-category

    Ross Street. Fibrations and Yoneda’s lemma in a 2-category. In G. Max Kelly, editor,Category Seminar, Sydney 1972/1973, volume 420 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 104–133. Springer, Berlin, 1974. doi: 10.1007/BFb0063102

    1972 doi

  21. [29]

    Fibrations in bicategories.Cah

    Ross Street. Fibrations in bicategories.Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég., 21(2):111–160, 1980. URL https://www.numdam.org/item/CTGDC_1980__21_2_111_0/

    1980

  22. [30]

    Ross Street and R. F. C. Walters. The comprehensive factorization of a functor.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 79(5):936–941, 1973. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1973-13268-9

    1973 doi

  23. [31]

    On enriched fibrations.Cah

    Christina Vasilakopoulou. On enriched fibrations.Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég., 59(4): 354–387, 2018. URL https://cahierstgdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ Vasilakopoulou-LIX-4.pdf

    2018

  24. [32]

    Doctrines on 2-categories.Math

    Volker Zöberlein. Doctrines on 2-categories.Math. Z., 148(3):267–279, 1976. doi: 10.1007/ BF01214522. 46

    1976

  25. [2014]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6283

    doi: 10.1016/j.jpaa.2013.11.002. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6283

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.