Exploring Cohomology, Deformations, and Hom-NS Structures in Hom-Leibniz Conformal Algebras through Nijenhuis Operators

Sania Asif

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Exploring Cohomology, Deformations, and Hom-NS Structures in Hom-Leibniz Conformal Algebras through Nijenhuis Operators

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper constructs a cohomology theory for Hom-Nijenhuis-Leibniz conformal algebras and uses it to control formal deformations and to produce Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebras from Nijenhuis, Rota-Baxter, and twisted Rota-Baxter…

desk verdict Proposition 4.2 is false on a simple example, and the cohomology proofs are incomplete; the Hom-NS-Leibniz section is a reasonable exercise. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20428 v1 pith:6ZSR5UP4 submitted 2024-12-29 math.RA math.OA

Sania Asif This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RAmath.OA MSC 11R5215A9917B6717B1016G30

keywords NijenhuisoperatorHom-LeibnizconformalalgebracohomologyformaldeformationHom-NS-LeibnizRota-Baxtertwistedrepresentation

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 aims to build a cohomology theory for Hom-Nijenhuis-Leibniz conformal algebras, objects carrying a Hom-Leibniz conformal bracket together with a Nijenhuis operator. It constructs a total cochain complex by combining the cohomology of the Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra with the cohomology of the Nijenhuis operator, joined by a chain map that twists cochains with the two Nijenhuis maps. The paper then uses this cohomology to show that the first-order term of a one-parameter formal deformation is a 2-cocycle, so equivalent deformations have cohomologous infinitesimals. It also introduces Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebras and proves that Nijenhuis, Rota-Baxter, and twisted Rota-Baxter operators all induce such structures. A reader would care because this supplies the deformation-theoretic invariant for these algebras and specializes to the Leibniz conformal case when the twist map is the identity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the total coboundary operator $d^n_{HNLA}$, assembled from three ingredients: $\delta^n_{HomL}$, the Hom-Leibniz conformal coboundary of Eq. (13); $\partial^{n-1}_{HN}$, the coboundary for the Nijenhuis operator defined through the induced representation $l',r'$ of Proposition 2.13; and $\varphi^n$, a chain map that twists a cochain by inserting $N_h$ into its arguments and applying $N_M$ to its output. The identity $d^n_{HNLA}\circ d^{n+1}_{HNLA}=0$ follows from $\delta^2=0$, $\partial^2=0$, and the intertwining identity $\varphi^{n+1}\circ\delta^n=\partial^n\circ\varphi^n$ of Lemma 3.2. This machinery carries the deformation cocycle result.

What would settle it

Compute $\delta^2_{HomL}$ on a 2-cochain in a concrete Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra, for instance the rank-one Virasoro-type example of Example 2.2, and check whether it vanishes; a nonzero value would invalidate the cochain complex and the deformation cocycle theorem. Alternatively, verify $d^2_{HNLA}\circ d^3_{HNLA}=0$ directly on low-degree cochains for a non-trivial Nijenhuis operator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a Hom-Nijenhuis-Leibniz conformal algebra $(L,[\cdot_\lambda\cdot],\alpha,N_h)$ with representation $(M,l,r,\beta,N_M)$, the map $d^n_{HNLA}$ defined on $C^n_{HNLA}(L,M)=C^n_{HomL}(L,M)\oplus C^{n-1}_{HN}(L,M)$ by $d^n_{HNLA}(f,g)=(\delta^n_{HomL}(f),-\partial^{n-1}_{HN}(g)-\varphi^n(f))$ squares to zero, so $\{C^n_{HNLA}(L,M),d^n_{HNLA}\}$ is a cochain complex. The cohomology of this complex packages the Hom-Leibniz conformal cohomology together with the Nijenhuis operator cohomology. The paper further claims that the first-order term of any formal deformation $((\{\cdot_\lambda\cdot\}_t,N_t)$ is a 2-cocycle in this total complex, and that equivalent deformations have cohomologous infinitesimals. A separate rigidity statement says the algebra is rigid when the second cohomology vanishes, with the proof deferred to a cited argument.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Hom-Leibniz conformal coboundary $\delta_{HomL}$ squares to zero in every degree; the paper proves this only for $n=1$ and states the general case without proof, so all higher cohomology and the deformation cocycle conclusion rest on that unproven identity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The total cohomology $H^n_{HNLA}(L,M)$ is defined for every positive $n$ and packages the Hom-Leibniz conformal and Nijenhuis operator cohomologies into one invariant.
The first-order term $(\{\cdot_\lambda\cdot\}_1,N_1)$ of any formal deformation is a 2-cocycle in the total complex, so equivalent deformations have cohomologous infinitesimals.
A Hom-Nijenhuis-Leibniz conformal algebra with vanishing second cohomology is rigid, meaning every formal deformation is equivalent to the trivial one.
Setting the twist map $\alpha=\mathrm{id}$ recovers the corresponding statements for Nijenhuis operators on Leibniz conformal algebras.
Every Nijenhuis operator, Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\theta$, and twisted Rota-Baxter operator induces a Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra, so these operator structures unify into a single construction.

Reading between the lines

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

If the unproved general identity $\delta^2_{HomL}=0$ fails at some degree, the higher-degree cohomology would collapse while the degree-2 deformation cocycle result, which is proved directly, might still stand.
The same splicing construction could be applied to other operator cohomologies on Hom-Leibniz conformal algebras, such as Rota-Baxter or O-operators, producing uniform deformation invariants.
The $\vee$-operation of the Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra induced by a Nijenhuis operator appears to be exactly the twisting term $\varphi^2(\{\cdot_\lambda\cdot\}_1)$ from the deformation cocycle, so the NS-structure may encode the first deformation obstruction.
A concrete check would be to compute the total differential square on a low-degree cochain in the rank-one Virasoro-type Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra of Example 2.2 to test the cochain complex in a nonzero example.

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

The short version: the paper's central deformation claim, Proposition 4.2, is false. There's a concrete counterexample. Take L = span{e,f} with [e,f] = e, α = Id, N = Id. Every linear operator on this Lie algebra is Nijenhuis, so N_t = Id + tA with A(e)=e, A(f)=0 is a valid formal deformation with constant bracket. But the alleged 2-cocycle condition fails: d^2_HNLA(0,A) = (0, -∂^1_HN(A)), and ∂^1_HN(A)(e,f) = [e,A(f)] + [A(e),f] = [e,f] = e ≠ 0. So the cohomology defined in Section 3 does not control the deformations claimed in Section 4.

What the paper does well: it introduces Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebras and shows how Nijenhuis, Rota-Baxter, and twisted Rota-Baxter operators induce them. That part is a reasonable exercise, and the constructions are new. The idea of assembling a mapping-cone cochain complex from the Hom-Leibniz cohomology and the Nijenhuis-operator cohomology follows the template from the author's earlier work on Hom-Lie conformal algebras [1], but the adaptation is not automatic.

The soft spots are serious. Theorem 3.1, which is load-bearing for the whole cohomology, only checks the n=1 case and then asserts the general identity. Lemma 3.2, the key intertwining result, is a long unannotated expansion ending in "by using Definition 2.12" without showing the cancellations. Proposition 2.13 has the same shape. These are not just minor gaps: the cochain complex and the deformation cocycle statement rest on them.

The counterexample to Proposition 4.2 is the biggest issue. It is not a matter of a missing proof; the statement is just wrong. The error seems to be in the identification of the cocycle condition: the first-order bracket and Nijenhuis operator do not satisfy d^2_HNLA = 0 for a constant-bracket deformation. The paper would need to either fix the deformation complex or change the definition of formal deformation.

There are also numerous small typos and notation slips (e.g., Proposition 5.11 writes "β(m⊳λ n)=β(m)⊳λ β(n)" twice with different meanings), but those are fixable.

Overall: the Hom-NS-Leibniz section might be salvageable, but the cohomology and deformation sections are not supported. I would not cite this in its current form. A serious referee should see it, because the counterexample is exactly the kind of thing peer review is for. I'd recommend major revision at most, probably reject and resubmit after a full rewrite of Sections 3 and 4.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Nijenhuis operators on Hom-Leibniz conformal algebras, defines representations and two cochain complexes (one for the Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra via δ_HomL, one for the Nijenhuis operator via ∂_HN), assembles them into a total complex C^*_HNLA, and uses this cohomology to study formal deformations. It then defines Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebras and shows that Nijenhuis, Rota-Baxter, and twisted Rota-Baxter operators induce such structures. The central claims are Theorem 3.4, asserting that the total complex is a cochain complex, and Proposition 4.2, asserting that the infinitesimal of a formal deformation is a 2-cocycle; Section 5 contains additional structural results.

Significance. If the cohomology theory were correct, it would provide a unified deformation invariant for Hom-Leibniz conformal algebras equipped with Nijenhuis operators and would extend earlier Hom-Lie conformal results. The paper does contain explicit attempts at proof and some concrete identities, such as the relations between Nijenhuis and Rota-Baxter operators in Proposition 2.10 and the induced Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra structures in Propositions 5.4 and 5.5. However, the load-bearing cohomological statements are not proved, and the deformation-cocycle assertion in Section 4 is false; the counterexample in the major comments below shows that the advertised deformation theory does not follow from the constructed cohomology.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Theorem 3.1 and Eq. (13)] Theorem 3.1 claims that δ_HomL squares to zero, but the proof verifies only the n=1 case. The displayed computation ends at Eq. (15), and the conclusion "Thus, our conclusion holds" is asserted after a single case. No induction, degree-by-degree argument, or reference to a known proof is provided for general n. Since δ_HomL is the differential of the cochain complex C^*_HomL and is used in Definition 3.3 and Theorem 3.4, the cochain complex property is unproven.
[Section 3, Lemma 3.2] Lemma 3.2 is essential for Theorem 3.4 because it identifies φ^{n+1}∘δ^n_HomL with ∂^n_HN∘φ^n. The proof is a multi-page unannotated expansion that ends with the sentence "By using the Definition (2.12), we obtain the desired result." No cancellation scheme is exhibited, and the reader cannot verify the equality from the displayed terms. As written, the lemma is not established, and therefore Theorem 3.4, which relies on it, is not established.
[Section 4, Proposition 4.2] Proposition 4.2 is false. Let L=span{e,f} with the only nonzero bracket [e,f]=e, and let α=Id, realized in Cur(L) as in Example 2.3. Every linear operator on L is Nijenhuis: for N(e)=ae+cf and N(f)=be+df, one has [N(e),N(f)]=(ad-bc)e and N([N(e),f]+[e,N(f)]-N[e,f])=N(de-cf)=(ad-bc)e. Take N=Id, A(e)=e, A(f)=0, set N_t=Id+tA, and keep the bracket constant: {·λ·}_t={·λ·}. This is a one-parameter formal deformation in the sense of Definition 4.1. Proposition 4.2 then asserts that ({·λ·}_1,N_1)=(0,A) is a 2-cocycle, i.e., d^2_HNLA(0,A)=0. Using Definition 3.3, δ^2_HomL(0)=0 and φ^2(0)=0, so d^2_HNLA(0,A)=(0,-∂^1_HN(A)). In the adjoint representation with NM=N=Id, ∂^1_HN(A)(e,f)=l'(e)_λ A(f)+r'(A(e))_λ f=[e,0]+[e,f]=e, which is nonzero. Thus the infinitesimal of a valid deformation is not a 2-cocycle, contradicting Proposition 4.2. This invalidates the deformation-cohomology correspondence and the rigidity criterion Theorem 4.4.
[Section 4, proof of Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 4.4] Independently of the counterexample, the proof of Proposition 4.2 does not correctly derive its conclusion from Eq. (20). The displayed rearrangement contains terms such as N({pλq}_1) without the corresponding N({Npλq}_1) structure, and the final implication "φ^2({·λ·}_1)=-∂^1_HN(N_1)" is not justified by the preceding algebra. Theorem 4.4 is then stated with a proof that only cites Theorem 5.5 of [14]; since Proposition 4.2 is false, the rigidity statement is unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[Definition 5.1] The identities in Eq. (22) use the symbols a and c in places where p and r are expected, and the phrase "in which L is skew-symmetric" is unclear; this makes the definition of Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra difficult to read.
[Section 3, cochain spaces] The notation ∧⊗^n L for the domain of cochains is ambiguous. For Leibniz-type algebras, cohomology is normally defined on tensor powers L^{⊗n} without skew-symmetrization; the paper should clarify whether exterior powers are intended and, if so, why they are appropriate for a non-skewsymmetric bracket.
[Example 2.2] The statement that every rank-one Leibniz conformal algebra is isomorphic to the Virasoro Lie conformal algebra is too strong as written and needs a precise hypothesis or a citation; as stated it is not established.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical issues, including "quardruple" in Definition 2.12, inconsistent use of ∂_HN versus ∂, and "Nijehnuis" in Proposition 2.9; these should be corrected in any revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cohomology and deformation results are explicit algebraic constructions, not disguised fits or self-citation reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central construction defines δ_HomL by an explicit formula (Eq. 13), defines ∂_HN as the coboundary of the induced representation (bracket [·,·]_Nh and l', r' from Propositions 2.9 and 2.13), defines φ^n explicitly, and packages these into the mapping-cone differential d^n_HNLA(f,g)=(δ^n f, -∂^{n-1}g - φ^n f) in Definition 3.3. Theorem 3.4 is then a formal consequence of Lemma 3.2 plus the asserted δ^2=0; no target cohomology class is inserted as an input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Proposition 4.2 likewise derives the 2-cocycle condition from the n=1 coefficients of the deformation equations (19)-(20) rather than assuming that condition. The self-citations to [1], [3] and [4] supply analogy and technique, but the relevant formulas are reproduced in this paper, so the load-bearing algebra is not reduced to an unverified self-citation. The higher-degree identity δ^{n+1}_HomL∘δ^n_HomL=0 is asserted without proof beyond n=1, and the proof of Theorem 4.4 is delegated to [14]; these are correctness gaps, not circularity. The skeptic's concrete counterexample, if valid, shows Proposition 4.2 may be false, but falsehood by miscalculation is distinct from circularity. Under the quote-and-reduction standard, no step reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's contributions rest entirely on algebraic definitions and on the assumed validity of two computational claims: δ_HomL²=0 and Lemma 3.2. The only genuinely new structural object is the Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra, which is introduced by definition and carries no independent evidence.

assumptions (5)

standard math All vector spaces, tensor products and maps are over a field K of characteristic 0
Stated in the introduction; fixes the ground field for all definitions.
domain assumption The λ-bracket of a Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra satisfies conformal sesqui-linearity, multiplicativity and the Hom-Leibniz conformal identity (Definition 2.1)
Definition 2.1, used in every proposition and theorem.
domain assumption The Nijenhuis operator identity (2) and multiplicativity α∘Nh=Nh∘α hold
Definition 2.4, central to the deformed bracket in Proposition 2.9.
domain assumption Representation axioms (5)-(11) hold for l,r,β
Definition 2.11, required for all cohomology constructions.
ad hoc to paper The map δ_HomL defined by Eq (13) squares to zero for all n
Theorem 3.1 asserts this but proves only the n=1 case; the general statement is assumed without a completed proof.

invented entities (1)

Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra
purpose: Unifies structures induced by Nijenhuis, Rota-Baxter, and twisted Rota-Baxter operators on Hom-Leibniz conformal algebras
A new algebraic definition (Definition 5.1); no external falsifiable consequences are given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Cohomology, Deformations, and Hom-NS Structures in Hom-Leibniz Conformal Algebras through Nijenhuis Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZSR5UP4

@misc{pith2026241220428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Cohomology, Deformations, and Hom-NS Structures in Hom-Leibniz Conformal Algebras through Nijenhuis Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZSR5UP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20428}
}

read the original abstract

This paper studies the Nijenhuis operator on Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra, defining their representations and cohomologies. We determine the cohomologies for both Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra and Nijenhuis operators on Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra. Subsequently, establishing the cohomology of Hom-Nijenhuis-Leibniz conformal algebras. As an application to this cohomology, we study formal deformations of the Nijenhuis operator on Hom-Leibniz conformal algebra. Additionally, we introduce Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebra and explore how various operators such as Rota-Baxter operator, Twisted Rota Baxter operator, and Nijenhuis operators can provide Hom-NS-Leibniz conformal algebras.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

and Yuan, L., 2024

Asif, S., Wang, Y. and Yuan, L., 2024. Nijenhuis-operator on Hom-Lie conformal algebras. Topology and its Applicatio ns, 344, p.108817

work page 2024
[14]

and Saha, R., 2024

Mondal, B. and Saha, R., 2024. Nijenhuis operators on Lei bniz algebras. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 196, p.1050 57

work page 2024
[2]

and Wang, Y., 2023

Asif, S. and Wang, Y., 2023. On the Lie triple derivation of Hom-Lie superalgebras. Asian-European Journal of Mathema tics, 16(10), p.2350193

work page 2023
[3]

and Basdouri, I., 2023

Asif, S., Wang, Y., Mosbahi, B. and Basdouri, I., 2023. Coh omology and deformation theory of O-operators on Hom-Lie conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04121

arXiv 2023
[4]

and Wu, Z., 2024

Asif, S., Wang, Y. and Wu, Z., 2024. RB-operator and Nijenh uis operator on Hom-associative conformal algebra. Journa l of Algebra and its Applications, 23(11), p.2450175

work page 2024
[5]

Bloh, On a generalization of the concept of Lie algebra. Do kl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 165 (1965), 471-473

work page 1965
[6]

and Voronov, A.A., 1999

Bakalov, B., Kac, V.G. and Voronov, A.A., 1999. Cohomolog y of conformal algebras. Communications in mathematical ph ysics, 200, pp.561-598

work page 1999
[7]

and Sahoo, A., 2023

Das, A. and Sahoo, A., 2023. Homotopiﬁcation and categori ﬁcation of Leibniz conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02116

arXiv 2023

Show all 24 references

[8]

On the deformation of rings and al gebras

Gerstenhaber, M., 1964. On the deformation of rings and al gebras. Annals of Mathematics, pp.59-103

1964
[9]

and Wang, S., 2024

Guo, S. and Wang, S., 2024. Twisted relative Rota-Baxter o perators on Leibniz conformal algebras. Communications in Algebra, pp.1-14

2024
[10]

and Yuan, L., 2021

Hong, Y. and Yuan, L., 2021. Uniﬁed products of Leibniz co nformal algebras. Communications in Algebra, 49(5), pp.20 74-2090

2021
[11]

and Pirashvili, T., 1993

Loday, J.L. and Pirashvili, T., 1993. Universal envelop ing algebras of Leibniz algebras and (co) homology. Mathema tische Annalen, 296, pp.139-158

1993
[12]

and Bai, C.M., 2016

Liu, J.F., Sheng, Y.H., Zhou, Y.Q. and Bai, C.M., 2016. Ni jenhuis operators on n-Lie algebras. Communications in The oretical Physics, 65(6), p.659

2016
[13]

and Silvestrov, S.D., 2008

Makhlouf, A. and Silvestrov, S.D., 2008. Hom-algebra st ructures. Journal of Generalized Lie Theory and Applicatio ns, 2(2), pp.51-64

2008
[15]

and Richardson, R.W., 1966

Nijenhuis, A. and Richardson, R.W., 1966. Cohomology an d deformations in graded Lie algebras. Bulletin of the Ameri can Mathematical Society, 72(1), pp.1-29

1966
[16]

and Nirenberg, L., 1957

Newlander, A. and Nirenberg, L., 1957. Complex analytic coordinates in almost complex manifolds. Annals of Mathema tics, 65(3), pp.391-404

1957
[17]

and Liu, J., 2019

Wang, Q., Sheng, Y., Bai, C. and Liu, J., 2019. Nijenhuis o perators on pre-Lie algebras. Communications in Contempor ary Mathematics, 21(07), p.1850050

2019
[18]

Leibniz H-pseudoalgebras

Wu, Z., 2015. Leibniz H-pseudoalgebras. Journal of Alge bra, 437, pp.1-33

2015
[19]

Leibniz conformal algebras of rank three

Wu, Z., 2021. Leibniz conformal algebras of rank three. I n Ring Theory 2019: Proceedings of the Eighth China-Japan-K orea International Symposium on Ring Theory (pp. 214-231)

2021
[20]

and Zhang, X., 2024

Wu, H., Guo, S. and Zhang, X., 2024. Crossed Modules and No n-Abelian Extensions of Diﬀerential Leibniz Conformal Alg ebras. Axioms (2075-1680), 13(10)

2024
[21]

Hom Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebras and Hom -Lie conformal algebras

Yuan, L., 2014. Hom Gel’fand-Dorfman bialgebras and Hom -Lie conformal algebras. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 55(4), p.043507. 24 SANIA ASIF 1

2014
[22]

On the cohomology of Leibniz conformal a lgebras

Zhang, J., 2015. On the cohomology of Leibniz conformal a lgebras. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 56(4)

2015
[23]

and Chen, L., 2018

Zhao, J., Yuan, L. and Chen, L., 2018. Deformations and ge neralized derivations of Hom-Lie conformal algebras. Scie nce China Mathematics, 61, pp.797-812

2018
[24]

and Hong, Y., 2019

Zhou, J. and Hong, Y., 2019. Quadratic Leibniz conformal algebras. Journal of Algebra and Its Applications, 18(10), p.1950195. 1Institute of Mathematics, Henan Academy of Sciences, Zheng zhou 450046, P. R. China. Email address : 111835037@zju.edu.cn, 200036@nuist.edu.cn

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

and Yuan, L., 2024

Asif, S., Wang, Y. and Yuan, L., 2024. Nijenhuis-operator on Hom-Lie conformal algebras. Topology and its Applicatio ns, 344, p.108817

work page 2024

[2] [14]

and Saha, R., 2024

Mondal, B. and Saha, R., 2024. Nijenhuis operators on Lei bniz algebras. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 196, p.1050 57

work page 2024

[3] [2]

and Wang, Y., 2023

Asif, S. and Wang, Y., 2023. On the Lie triple derivation of Hom-Lie superalgebras. Asian-European Journal of Mathema tics, 16(10), p.2350193

work page 2023

[4] [3]

and Basdouri, I., 2023

Asif, S., Wang, Y., Mosbahi, B. and Basdouri, I., 2023. Coh omology and deformation theory of O-operators on Hom-Lie conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04121

arXiv 2023

[5] [4]

and Wu, Z., 2024

Asif, S., Wang, Y. and Wu, Z., 2024. RB-operator and Nijenh uis operator on Hom-associative conformal algebra. Journa l of Algebra and its Applications, 23(11), p.2450175

work page 2024

[6] [5]

Bloh, On a generalization of the concept of Lie algebra. Do kl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 165 (1965), 471-473

work page 1965

[7] [6]

and Voronov, A.A., 1999

Bakalov, B., Kac, V.G. and Voronov, A.A., 1999. Cohomolog y of conformal algebras. Communications in mathematical ph ysics, 200, pp.561-598

work page 1999

[8] [7]

and Sahoo, A., 2023

Das, A. and Sahoo, A., 2023. Homotopiﬁcation and categori ﬁcation of Leibniz conformal algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02116

arXiv 2023