Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

3-dimensional TQFTs from derived categories of quantum group representations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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 3-dimensional topological field theory from the derived $\infty$-category of any finite modular tensor category, with genus-$g$ state spaces given by derived Homs into powers of the canonical coend, and degree-zero…

desk verdict A substantial and plausible construction of derived 3d TQFTs for finite modular tensor categories; the main load-bearing input is imported abelian LRT theory, and that input deserves careful checking before the rest is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10285 v1 pith:7VLPTOJX submitted 2026-08-10 math.QA math-phmath.ATmath.MP

Cris Negron This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.QAmath-phmath.ATmath.MP MSC 18M1581T4517B3716E40
keywords topologicalquantumfieldtheoryderived∞-categorymodulartensorcategorygrouprepresentationsReshetikhin–TuraevHochschildcohomologymappingclass∞-categories
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

Non-semisimple 3-dimensional TQFTs have until now been built at the abelian level, with projective objects doing specialised work; this paper argues they are shadows of a derived theory. For any finite modular tensor category $A$, it constructs a symmetric monoidal functor from a bordism $\infty$-category of surfaces and 3-manifolds marked by objects of the derived $\infty$-category $D_{\mathrm{fin}}=D^b(A_{\mathrm{fin}})$ to the $\infty$-category of dg vector spaces. The state space of a connected genus-$g$ surface is identified with the derived Hom space $\mathrm{RHom}_A(C^{\otimes g},\mathbf{1})$, where $C$ is the canonical coend, so the torus recovers Hochschild cohomology and the sphere recovers extensions of the unit. Removing the markings by homotopy truncation yields an unmarked theory, and its degree-zero cohomology reproduces the abelian non-semisimple Reshetikhin–Turaev theory. The payoff is a single 3-dimensional home for projective mapping class group actions on cohomology, power-series valued knot and 3-manifold invariants, and a candidate mathematical realisation of derived A-twisted supersymmetric theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the derived $\infty$-category $D_{\mathrm{fin}}=D^b(A_{\mathrm{fin}})$ of a finite modular tensor category $A$, viewed as a framed-disk ($f rDisk$) monoidal $\infty$-category via the duality equivalence between $A^{\mathrm{op}}$ and pro-finite complexes. From any such framed-disk monoidal $\infty$-category one builds a marked bordism $\infty$-category $\mathrm{Bord}^{\mathrm{nc}}_E$: surfaces carry disks labelled by objects, 3-bordisms carry embedded cylinders labelled by morphisms, and homotopies of these cylinders encode skein-like relations. The TQFT is then produced in three moves: localisation along homotopy equivalences yields the homotopy $\infty$-category version, relative Kan extension carries it to the derived $\infty$-category, and a final localisation with homotopy truncation removes the markings. The identity doing the state-space computation is the canonical coend $C=m_R(\mathbf{1})$, defined as the image of the unit under the right adjoint to the multiplication functor; powers $C^{\otimes g}$ feed into the derived Homs $\mathrm{RHom}_A(C^{\otimes g},\mathbf{1})$, making the torus value exactly Hochschild cohomology.

What would settle it

Take $A=(\mathrm{Rep}_q SL_2)_{\mathrm{small}}$ at a root of unity and compute the degree-zero cohomology of $\mathrm{RHom}_A(C^{\otimes 2},\mathbf{1})$ for a genus-2 surface, comparing its dimension with the known state-space dimension of the abelian non-semisimple theory on the same surface; a mismatch of dimensions would falsify the claimed $H^0$ identification. Alternatively, compute the $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ matrices acting on $HH^*(A)$ via the unmarked theory on the torus and compare them with the independently known genus-one action, so that disagreement in any one matrix entry would falsify the projective-action claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a finite modular tensor category $A$ determines a 3-dimensional derived TQFT through its derived $\infty$-category of bounded finite-length complexes. Concretely, there is a symmetric monoidal functor $L_{D_{\mathrm{fin}}}\colon \mathrm{Bord}^{\mathrm{nc}}_{D_{\mathrm{fin}}}\to \mathrm{Vect}$, and for every connected genus-$g$ surface with marking tuple $x$ the state space is naturally $\mathrm{Maps}_{D_{\mathrm{fin}}}(C^{\otimes g}, m_I(x))$, the linearized mapping space of the derived category. Restricting to unit labels and applying homotopy truncation produces an unmarked theory $L_{D_{\mathrm{fin}}}\colon \mathrm{Bord}^{\mathrm{nc}}_{3,2}\to D(\mathrm{Vect})$ whose genus-$g$ state space is $\mathrm{RHom}_A(C^{\otimes g},\mathbf{1})$; the degree-zero part of this theory is the non-compact part of the abelian non-semisimple LRT theory. When $A$ is semisimple, the construction collapses to the non-compact part of classical Reshetikhin–Turaev theory. The paper expects, but does not verify, that the induced projective $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ action on Hochschild cohomology coincides with previously defined actions.

Load-bearing premise

The construction leans on the imported identification, stated as Proposition 10.5, that the abelian theory's state space on any marked connected surface is naturally isomorphic to $\mathrm{Hom}^*_{A_{\mathrm{fin}}}(C^{\otimes g}, m_f -)$ and that this is functorial for merging bordisms; if that input fails, the derived state-space formula and the $H^0$ comparison collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For genus one, the unmarked theory makes $\mathrm{RHom}_A(C,\mathbf{1})$, identified with the derived Hochschild cohomology of $A$, carry a projective $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$-action, packaging the known genus-one actions as part of a 3-dimensional field theory.
  • For a connected genus-$g$ surface, every mapping class acts projectively on $\mathrm{RHom}_A(C^{\otimes g},\mathbf{1})$, giving dg representations of the central extension of the mapping class group.
  • When $A$ is semisimple, the derived theory reduces to the non-compact part of the classical Reshetikhin–Turaev theory, and the full theory is its unique extension to closed bordisms.
  • In dimension 3, the theory produces power-series valued invariants of framed knots (genus 1) and of closed 3-manifolds (genus 0); the 3-manifold series is determined by its constant term from the abelian theory, whereas knot series can involve higher Hochschild cohomology.
  • Taking degree-zero cohomology recovers the marked and unmarked non-compact parts of the abelian non-semisimple LRT theory, so the new theory is a genuine derived lift rather than a separate invariant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conjectured unmarked $\infty$-categorical lift exists, the projective mapping class group representations would be the 2-dimensional shadow of a genuine 3-dimensional TQFT, suggesting a fully extended theory whose value on $S^1$ is the derived category itself.
  • The explicit state-space formula makes a concrete numerical check available outside the paper: for $A=(\mathrm{Rep}_q SL_2)_{\mathrm{small}}$, the unknot invariant in genus 1 should have nontrivial $t$-adic higher coefficients governed by $HH^{>0}(A)$, testing whether derived information truly leaks into knot invariants.
  • The same localize-then-Kan-extend template could produce derived lifts of other projective-dependent TQFTs, such as homology-dependent unrolled theories and non-semisimple state-sum theories, since the construction only needs a preceding abelian theory for a marking scheme.
  • The conjectural deformation along local systems suggests the derived theory is the trivial-local-system stalk of a relative TQFT over the moduli of flat connections; a testable precursor would be computing derived skein modules of the solid torus and comparing them with functions on local systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, for any finite modular tensor category A, a symmetric monoidal functor from a marked non-compact 3-dimensional bordism ∞-category to the ∞-category of dg vector spaces, with state spaces identified with linearized mapping spaces of the derived category D^b(A_fin). It then claims that after a homotopy truncation all markings can be removed, yielding an unmarked TQFT Bord^nc_{3,2} -> D(Vect) whose genus-g state spaces are RHom_A(C^{⊗g}, 1), whose H^0 recovers the abelian non-semisimple LRT theory of De Renzi et al., and which produces projective mapping class group actions on Hochschild cohomology as well as power-series valued 3-manifold and knot invariants. The construction proceeds by importing the abelian LRT theory from [22,20], localizing the resulting theory along homotopy equivalences, applying a relative Kan extension to the derived ∞-category, and then localizing further along a class of bordisms with universal skeins to erase markings.

Significance. If the proof obligations flagged below are met, this would be a substantial contribution to non-semisimple TQFT: it provides an explicit homotopical/derived realization of Lyubashenko-Reshetikhin-Turaev theory, identifies state spaces directly with derived mapping spaces, and gives a conceptual mechanism for deriving the projective mapping class group actions on Hochschild cohomology observed in [51,72]. The overall architecture—vertical localization, relative Kan extension, then a further localization in the homotopy category—is coherent and well motivated, and the paper is honest in Remarks 1.7 and 1.8 about which advertised strengthenings are not proved. The main concern is that several load-bearing steps are imported or stated without the proofs needed to verify the central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§10.1–10.3, Theorem 10.1 and Proposition 10.5] The construction of L_{A_fin} rests on two assertions that are not verified in the text. Theorem 10.1 defines the reduction functor p: hBord^nc_{A_fin} -> Bord^nc_{A_fin} and states that well-definedness follows from relations [20, U1, U3] and composition compatibility from [20, U1], but no proof or precise quotation of these relations is given. Proposition 10.5 then imports the state-space identification L_{A_fin}(Σ_-) ≅ Hom^*_{A_fin}(C^{⊗g}, m_f -) from [22, Prop. 4.17] and [20, Thm. 8.5]. This identification is the base for Lemma 10.9, Proposition 13.5, the derived state-space formulas in §15, Proposition 15.8, and Theorem 17.10. If p fails to be functorial, or if Proposition 10.5 fails for some marking type (for instance a projective marking), the derived state spaces and the H^0 comparison with [22] collapse. Please provide a proof, or a complete statement of the imported theorem with its exact hypotheses, and specify whether the cited results cover arbitrary markings or only admissible ones.
  2. [§15–17, Theorem 15.1/15.5 and Theorem 17.10] In the version supplied for review, the derivations leading to the two main theorems are not present as proofs: §15 states Theorem 15.1/15.5 after a Kan-extension argument, and §16–17 state the localization at Θ_D and the unmarking theorem 17.10, including the claimed equivalence hBord^nc_*[Θ_*^{-1}] ≃ Bord^nc_{3,2}, but no verification is included. Since Theorem 17.10 is exactly the step that removes all markings and produces the unmarked TQFT with state spaces RHom_A(C^{⊗g},1), and since the projective mapping class group actions of Corollary 17.13 depend on it, the central advertised result cannot be checked from the submitted material. The full proof of the unmarking equivalence and of the localization construction should be included, or the claims should be explicitly downgraded to conjectures.
  3. [§1.5, Eq. (5), and Remark 1.1] Equation (5) defines the invariant Inv(A|\check M) using determinants of H^n L_{D_fin}(\check M); however Remark 1.1 explicitly allows infinite-dimensional state spaces in the non-compact setting. The paper should either prove that each H^n is finite-dimensional in the cases used for Propositions 19.4 and 19.6, or explain how the determinant is to be understood for infinite-dimensional endomorphisms. Without this, the power-series invariants in dimension 3 are not well-defined.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.8 and Theorem statements] The notation switch from A in the introduction to A^♡ in later sections should be announced before it appears in displayed theorems; a small notation table would avoid confusion.
  2. [§8.3] The composition of mapping complexes by gluing cylindered bordisms is described informally; an associativity/coherence verification or a precise reference to a standard construction would be helpful.
  3. [Abstract and §2.1] There are several typos: 'closed 3-manifold' in the abstract should be 'closed 3-manifolds', and 'dimensiona 4' in Section 2.1 should read 'dimension 4'.
  4. [Remarks 1.7 and 1.8] The unproved expectations, such as agreement of the mapping class group actions with [51,72] and the conjectural ∞-categorical unmarked lift, should be collected in a clearly delimited 'scope and conjectures' subsection so that they are not mistaken for proved results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derived TQFT is built by localization and Kan extension from the independent abelian LRT theories, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is an explicit extension of prior abelian non-semisimple TQFTs rather than a restatement of the target result. Theorem 10.1 says that the field theories “from [22, 20] determine a corresponding symmetric monoidal functor L_{A_fin}”, and Proposition 10.5 explicitly imports the state-space identification: “By [20, Theorem 8.5]–which follows [22, Proposition 4.17]–there is such a natural isomorphism”. These are prior results with stated assumptions that do not include the derived TQFT, so they are legitimate inputs, not circular predictions. From that base the paper proceeds by localization at homotopy equivalences (Proposition 13.3), localization at quasi-isomorphisms, and relative Kan extension (Section 15), and then derives the state-space identifications as theorems rather than imposing them. The H^0 comparison with the abelian theory (Proposition 15.8) is an output of the construction, not an assumption used to build it. No parameters are fitted to the objects being predicted, and the projective mapping class group actions are consequences of the functoriality of the constructed TQFT rather than fitted data. Remarks 1.7 and 1.8 explicitly flag that the ∞-categorical lifting of the unmarking procedure and the identification with the mapping class group actions of [51, 72] are not proved; this honesty further confirms that those strengthenings are not being used as inputs. The reliance on Czenky–Negron [20], co-authored by the present author, is a self-citation, but it is a citation to an independent prior theorem whose assumptions do not include the derived statement, and therefore it does not constitute circularity under the rules. The skeptical concern that the reduction functor p in Theorem 10.1 is asserted rather than verified is a proof-dependency or correctness-risk issue, not a circularity: the paper cites the relations [20, U1, U3] for the verification, and the target claim is not used to justify that citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted and no new physical or algebraic entities are postulated. The construction is an elaboration of a prior abelian TQFT using standard higher algebra, so the ledger is small. The main unpaid upstream input is the external abelian LRT theorem with its state-space formula.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The input is a finite modular tensor category over an algebraically closed field, with tensor categories taken to be presentable, cocomplete, compactly generated, and abelian.
    Definition 3.1 and Remark 1.3 set the input class; the canonical coend C and the finite length subcategory A_fin are used throughout.
  • domain assumption The abelian non-semisimple LRT theory L_A exists with the state-space identification L_{A_fin}(Σ_-) ≅ Hom^*_{A_fin}(C^{⊗g}, m_f -), imported from De Renzi et al. and Czenky-Negron.
    Theorem 10.1 and Proposition 10.5 cite this external result; it is the base theory that the paper later localizes and Kan extends.
  • standard math Hinich's localization theory for monoidal infinity-categories and the envelope equivalence for framed little disks operads are valid as stated in the cited literature.
    Sections 12 and 13 and Theorem 6.8 rely on these results to construct localizations and to identify frDisk-monoidal categories with frE2-monoidal categories.
  • standard math K(A_pro-fin) admits enough K-injectives, yielding a fully faithful lax monoidal right adjoint R: D(A_pro-fin) -> K(A_pro-fin) compatible with the balanced structure.
    Step 2 of Theorem 11.1 uses this adjoint to derive the discrete theory; the infinity-categorical lift in Sections 14 and 15 depends on the same mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3-dimensional TQFTs from derived categories of quantum group representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VLPTOJX

@misc{pith2026260810285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3-dimensional TQFTs from derived categories of quantum group representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VLPTOJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10285}
}
abstract

For any finite modular tensor category A, we show that the associated derived $\infty$-category D(A) supports a topological quantum field theory in dimension 3. This TQFT takes the form of a symmetric monoidal functor from an $\infty$-category of surfaces with markings by objects in D(A), and appropriately decorated bordisms, to the $\infty$-category of dg vector spaces. We show that the state spaces in this theory are naturally identified with linearized mapping spaces for D(A). Though our TQFT requires markings from the derived $\infty$-category, we show that all markings can be removed after taking a homotopy truncation. The resulting unmarked TQFT produces projective mapping class group actions on cohomology in dimension 2, and in particular a projective SL_2(Z)-action on Hochschild cohomology. We expect these mapping class group actions to recover those of Lentner et al. arxiv:2003.06527 and Schweigert-Woike arxiv:2004.14343. In dimension 3 we obtain power-series valued knot invariants, and power-series valued invariants for modular tensor categories. We also obtain power-series invariants for closed 3-manifold, though these can already be calculated at the abelian level. Our derived field theories are proposed as mathematical formalizations for topological A-twists of certain N=4 supersymmetric QFTs, in dimension 3. Following physical principles, we discuss the possibility of deforming our TQFTs along local systems via an analogous (conjectural) deformation of quantum group representations along the Langlands dual group.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Czenky and C

    A. Czenky and C. Negron. Cochain valued TQFTs from nonsemisimple modular tensor cat- egories.preprintarXiv:2507.17169

    arXiv

  2. [22]

    De Renzi, A

    M. De Renzi, A. M. Gainutdinov, N. Geer, B. Patureau-Mirand, and I. Runkel. 3-dimensional TQFTs from non-semisimple modular categories.Sel. Math. New Ser., 28(2):42, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Ayala and J

    D. Ayala and J. Francis. Factorization homology of topological manifolds.J. Topol., 8(4):1045–1084, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [2]

    Bakalov and A

    B. Bakalov and A. A. Kirillov.Lectures on tensor categories and modular functors, volume 21. American Mathematical Society Providence, RI, 2001

    work page 2001

  5. [3]

    Barkan, R

    S. Barkan, R. Haugseng, and J. Steinebrunner. Envelopes for algebraic patterns.Algebr. Geom. Topol., 25(9):5319–5388, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [4]

    Bartlett, C

    B. Bartlett, C. L. Douglas, C. J. Schommer-Pries, and J. Vicary. Modular categories as representations of the 3-dimensional bordism 2-category.preprintarXiv:1509.06811

    arXiv

  7. [5]

    Beliakova and M

    A. Beliakova and M. De Renzi. Kerler–Lyubashenko functors on 4-dimensional 2- handlebodies.Int. Math. Res. Not., 2024(13):10005–10080, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    Blanchet, F

    C. Blanchet, F. Costantino, N. Geer, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Non-semi-simple TQFTs, Reidemeister torsion and Kashaev’s invariants.Adv. Math, 301:1–78, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 80 references
  1. [7]

    Brochier, D

    A. Brochier, D. Jordan, P. Safronov, and N. Snyder. Invertible braided tensor categories. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 21(4):2107–2140, 2021. TQFTS FROM DERIVED QUANTUM GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 151

    2021

  2. [8]

    Brochier, D

    A. Brochier, D. Jordan, and N. Snyder. On dualizability of braided tensor categories.Compos. Math., 157(3):435–483, 2021

    2021

  3. [9]

    Brochier and L

    A. Brochier and L. Woike. A classification of modular functors via factorization homology. Geom. Topol., 30(6):2157–2216, 2026

    2026

  4. [10]

    Brown and B

    J. Brown and B. Ha ¨ ıoun. Skein categories in non-semisimple settings.Sel. Math., 32(2):34, 2026

    2026

  5. [11]

    Cisinski.Higher categories and homotopical algebra, volume 180

    D.-C. Cisinski.Higher categories and homotopical algebra, volume 180. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    Cisinski and H

    D.-C. Cisinski and H. K. Nguyen. The universal coCartesian fibration.preprint arXiv:2210.08945

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Cordier and T

    J.-M. Cordier and T. Porter. Vogt’s theorem on categories of homotopy coherent diagrams. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 100, pages 65–90. Cambridge University Press, 1986

    1986

  8. [14]

    Costantino, N

    F. Costantino, N. Geer, B. Ha ¨ ıoun, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Skein (3 + 1)-TQFTs from non-semisimple ribbon categories.SIGMA, 22:034, 2026

    2026

  9. [15]

    Costantino, N

    F. Costantino, N. Geer, B. Patureau-Mirand, and A. Virelizier. Non compact (2 + 1)-TQFTs from non-semisimple spherical categories.preprintarXiv:2406.08956

  10. [16]

    Costello

    K. Costello. TheA-infinity operad and the moduli space of curves.available online arXiv:0402015

  11. [17]

    Creutzig, T

    T. Creutzig, T. Dimofte, N. Garner, and N. Geer. A qft for non-semisimple tqft.Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 28(1):161–405, 2024

    2024

  12. [18]

    Creutzig, A

    T. Creutzig, A. M. Gainutdinov, and I. Runkel. A quasi-Hopf algebra for the triplet vertex operator algebra.Commun. Contemp. Math., 22(03):1950024, 2020

    2020

  13. [19]

    Creutzig and M

    T. Creutzig and M. Rupert. Uprolling unrolled quantum groups.Commun. Contemp. Math., 24(04):2150023, 2022

    2022

  14. [21]

    De Renzi

    M. De Renzi. Extended TQFTs from non-semisimple modular categories.Indiana University Mathematics Journal, 70(5):1769–1811, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    De Renzi, N

    M. De Renzi, N. Geer, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Renormalized hennings invariants and 2 + 1- TQFTs.Comm. Math. Phys., 362(3):855–907, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    De Renzi, N

    M. De Renzi, N. Geer, and B. Patureau-Mirand. Nonsemisimple quantum invariants and TQFTs from small and unrolled quantum groups.Algebr. Geom. Topol., 20(7):3377–3422, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Drinfeld

    V. Drinfeld. DG quotients of DG categories.J. Algebra, 272(2):643–691, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Etingof, S

    P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, and V. Ostrik.Tensor categories, volume 205. American Mathematical Soc., 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Etingof and V

    P. Etingof and V. Ostrik. Finite tensor categories.Mosc. Math. J, 4(3):627–654, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    B. L. Feigin and S. D. Lentner. Coupling a vertex algebra to a large center.AAMP, 16(1):17, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    D. S. Freed and C. Teleman. Relative quantum field theory.Comm. Math. Phys., 326(2):459– 476, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Fresse.Homotopy of operads and Grothendieck-Teichm¨ uller groups

    B. Fresse.Homotopy of operads and Grothendieck-Teichm¨ uller groups. Part 1, volume 217 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    E. M. Friedlander and A. Suslin. Cohomology of finite group schemes over a field.Invent. Math., 127(2):209–270, 1997

    1997

  24. [32]

    Fuchs, I

    J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert. TFT construction of RCFT correlators I: partition functions.Nucl. Phys. B, 646(3):353–497, 2002

    2002

  25. [33]

    A. M. Gainutdinov, S. Lentner, and T. Ohrmann. Modularization of small quantum groups. preprintarXiv:1809.02116

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gaiotto.S-duality of boundary conditions and the geometric Langlands program

    D. Gaiotto.S-duality of boundary conditions and the geometric Langlands program. In String-Math 2016, volume 98 ofProc. Symp. Pure Math., pages 139–180. American Mathe- matical Soc., 2018

    2016

  27. [35]

    D. Gaiotto. Twisted compactifications of 3dN= 4 theories and conformal blocks.J. High Energy Phys., 2019(2):61, Feb 2019. 152 CRIS NEGRON

    2019

  28. [36]

    Garner, N

    N. Garner, N. Geer, and M. B. Young.B-twisted Gaiotto–Witten theory and topological quantum field theory.Comm. Math. Phys., 406(2):29, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Geer and B

    N. Geer and B. Patureau-Mirand.Quantum topology via modified traces: From semisimple to non-semisimple. American Mathematical Soc., to appear

  30. [38]

    Geer and M

    N. Geer and M. B. Young. Three dimensional topological quantum field theory from Uq(gl(1|1)) andU(1|1) Chern–Simons theory.Adv. Math, 460:110044, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Ha ¨ ıoun

    B. Ha ¨ ıoun. Non-semisimple WRT at the boundary of Crane-Yetter.preprint arXiv:2503.20905

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Haugseng

    R. Haugseng. The higher Morita category ofE n-algebras.Geom. Topol., 21(3):1631–1730, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Haugseng and J

    R. Haugseng and J. Kock.∞-operads as symmetric monoidal∞-categories.Publ. Mat., 68(1):111–137, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Hebestreit, G

    F. Hebestreit, G. Heuts, and J. Ruit. A short proof of the straightening theorem.Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 12(19):697–747, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    V. Hinich. Dwyer-kan localization revisited.Homology Homotopy Appl., 18(1):27–48, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    even higher

    T. Johnson-Freyd and C. Scheimbauer. (op)lax natural transformations, twisted quantum field theories, and “even higher” Morita categories.Adv. Math, 307:147–223, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    A. Joyal. Quasi-categories and kan complexes.J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 175(1-3):207–222, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Kapustin and E

    A. Kapustin and E. Witten. Electric-magnetic duality and the geometric Langlands program. preprintarXiv:0604151

  39. [47]

    P. Kinnear. Non-semisimple Crane-Yetter theory varying over the character stack.preprint arXiv:2404.19667

  40. [48]

    Kriz and J

    I. Kriz and J. P. May.Operads, algebras, modules and motives. Soci´ et´ e math´ ematique de France, 1995

    1995

  41. [49]

    Lachowska and Y

    A. Lachowska and Y. Qi. Remarks on the derived center of small quantum groups.Sel. Math., 27(4):68, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Lagiotis

    T. Lagiotis. Non-compact 3D TQFT and non-semisimplicity.preprintarXiv:2512.23698

  43. [51]

    Lentner, S

    S. Lentner, S. N. Mierach, C. Schweigert, and Y. Sommerh¨ auser.Hochschild cohomology, modular tensor categories, and mapping class groups I, volume 44. Springer Nature, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    S. D. Lentner. Quantum groups and Nichols algebras acting on conformal field theories.Adv. Math, 378:107517, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Li and S

    H. Li and S. Sugimoto. A Lie algebraic pattern behind logarithmic CFTs.preprint arXiv:2409.07381

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    E. L. Lima. On the local triviality of the restriction map for embeddings.Comment. Math. Helv., 38(1):163–164, 1963

    1963

  47. [55]

    Losev, A

    I. Losev, A. Tsymbaliuk, and T. Vu. On De Concini-Kac forms of quantum groups.preprint arXiv:2601.06696

  48. [56]

    Lurie.Higher topos theory

    J. Lurie.Higher topos theory. Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  49. [57]

    J. Lurie. Higher algebra.www.math.ias.edu/ lurie/papers/HA.pdf, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    J. Lurie. Kerodon.https://kerodon.net, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    N. Marcus. The other topological twisting ofN= 4 Yang-Mills.Nucl. Phys. B, 452(1-2):331– 345, 1995

    1995

  52. [60]

    R. McRae. On rationality forC 2-cofinite vertex operator algebras.preprint arXiv:2108.01898

  53. [61]

    McRae and J

    R. McRae and J. Yang. The non-semisimple Kazhdan-Lusztig category for affinesl 2 at ad- missible levels.Proc Lond Math Soc, 130(4):e70043, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    M¨ uller and L

    L. M¨ uller and L. Woike. Cyclic framed little disks algebras, Grothendieck–Verdier duality and handlebody group representations.Q. J. Math., 74(1):163–245, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    C. Negron. Log-modular quantum groups at even roots of unity and the quantum Frobenius I.Comm. Math. Phys., 382(2), 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    C. Negron. Quantum Frobenius and modularity for quantum groups at arbitrary roots of 1. J. Reine Angew. Math., 2026(388):1–65, 2026

    2026

  57. [65]

    Nikolaus and P

    T. Nikolaus and P. Scholze. On topological cyclic homology.Acta Math., 221(2):203–409, 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    Ostrik and A

    V. Ostrik and A. Utiralova. A non-semisimple Witt class.preprintarXiv:2602.10519

  59. [67]

    R. S. Palais. Local triviality of the restriction map for embeddings.Comment. Math. Helv., 34(1):305–312, 1960. TQFTS FROM DERIVED QUANTUM GROUP REPRESENTATIONS 153

    1960

  60. [68]

    Roberts and S

    J. Roberts and S. Willerton. On the Rozansky–Witten weight systems.Algebr. Geom. Topol., 10(3):1455–1519, 2010

    2010

  61. [69]

    I. Runkel. On topological field theory construction of correlators (talk at institut pascal). recordings available online (youtube), 2025

    2025

  62. [70]

    Sajan.in progress

    A. Sajan.in progress

  63. [71]

    Salvatore and N

    P. Salvatore and N. Wahl. Framed discs operads and Batalin–Vilkovisky algebras.Q. J. Math., 54(2):213–231, 2003

    2003

  64. [72]

    Schweigert and L

    C. Schweigert and L. Woike. Homotopy coherent mapping class group actions and excision for hochschild complexes of modular categories.Adv. Math, 386:107814, 2021

    2021

  65. [73]

    Steinebrunner

    J. Steinebrunner. 2-dimensional TFTs via modular∞-operads.preprintarXiv:2506.22104

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Sugimoto

    S. Sugimoto. On the Feigin–Tipunin conjecture.Sel. Math., 27(5):86, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Takeuchi

    M. Takeuchi. Morita theorems for categories of comodules.J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, 24, 1977

    1977

  68. [76]

    V. Turaev. Homotopy field theory in dimension 3 and crossed group-categories.arXiv preprint math/0005291, 2000

    2000 arXiv

  69. [77]

    K. Walker. On Witten’s 3-manifold invariants.unpublished, 1991

    1991

  70. [78]

    K. Walker. TQFTs [early incomplete draft] version 1h.unpublished, 2006

    2006

  71. [79]

    C. A. Weibel.An introduction to homological algebra, volume 38. Cambridge university press, 1995

    1995

  72. [80]

    E. Witten. Introduction to cohomological field theories.Internat. J. Modern Phys. A, 6(16):2775–2792, 1991. Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007 Email address:cnegron@usc.edu

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.