pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04502 · v1 · pith:B6ECY7FHnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🧮 math.AG · math-ph· math.MP

Modeling Rozansky-Witten Theory with Sheaves of Categories

Enoch Yiu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.AG math-phmath.MP
keywords Rozansky-Witten theoryhybrid Lagrangianssheaves of categoriesmatrix factorizationscotangent bundlePerf(X×A¹)algebraic geometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Modules over Perf(X×A¹) model Rozansky-Witten theory of T*X by constructing hybrid Lagrangian objects whose Homs are matrix factorizations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models Rozansky-Witten theory on the cotangent bundle T*X by treating modules over the perfect complexes on X times the affine line as sheaves of categories. It builds the theory's objects using hybrid Lagrangians, treating graphs and conormal bundles as special cases. A consistency check shows that morphisms between these objects arise as suitable matrix factorizations. This construction runs parallel to Tamarkin's sheaf-based treatment of nonconic Lagrangians. A reader would care because the approach supplies a concrete way to enlarge the class of admissible objects while preserving computable morphism spaces.

Core claim

We model Rozansky-Witten theory of T*X using modules over Perf(X×A¹) viewed as sheaves of categories over X×A¹. This is in parallel to Tamarkin's approach to nonconic Lagrangians in T*X via the singular support of sheaves on X×R. More specifically, we construct the objects of Rozansky-Witten theory of T*X given by hybrid Lagrangians of which graphs and conormals are special cases. As a consistency check, we show that Homs between such objects are given by suitable matrix factorizations.

What carries the argument

Hybrid Lagrangians, constructed from modules over Perf(X×A¹) viewed as sheaves of categories over X×A¹, which generalize graphs and conormals as objects in Rozansky-Witten theory.

If this is right

  • Hybrid Lagrangians supply a larger supply of objects in Rozansky-Witten theory than graphs or conormals alone.
  • Morphisms between any two such objects are realized concretely as matrix factorizations.
  • The construction recovers the expected Homs for the special cases of graphs and conormals.
  • The sheaf-of-categories viewpoint on X×A¹ furnishes a direct parallel to Tamarkin's singular-support description of Lagrangians.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same modeling step could be tested on other cotangent bundles or on symplectic manifolds equipped with similar perfect-complex data.
  • Matrix factorizations arising this way might be used to compute Floer-type invariants without passing through the full derived category.
  • The hybrid-Lagrangian construction suggests a possible dictionary between Rozansky-Witten objects and certain objects in derived algebraic geometry over the affine line.

Load-bearing premise

That modules over Perf(X×A¹), when viewed as sheaves of categories over X×A¹, correctly capture the Rozansky-Witten theory of T*X.

What would settle it

Explicitly compute the Hom space between two concrete hybrid Lagrangians (for example, a graph and a conormal) and verify whether it equals the corresponding matrix factorization; a mismatch in a low-dimensional case would falsify the modeling.

read the original abstract

We model Rozansky-Witten theory of $T^*X$ using modules over $\operatorname{Perf}(X\times\mathbb{A}^1)$ viewed as sheaves of categories over $X\times\mathbb{A}^1$. This is in parallel to Tamarkin's approach to nonconic Lagrangians in $T^*X$ via the singular support of sheaves on $X\times\mathbb{R}$. More specifically, we construct the objects of Rozansky-Witten theory of $T^*X$ given by hybrid Lagrangians of which graphs and conormals are special cases. As a consistency check, we show that $\operatorname{Hom}$s between such objects are given by suitable matrix factorizations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper models Rozansky-Witten theory of the cotangent bundle T^*X by viewing modules over Perf(X × A^1) as sheaves of categories over X × A^1. This parallels Tamarkin's singular-support construction for nonconic Lagrangians. The authors introduce hybrid Lagrangians (with graphs and conormals as special cases) as the objects of the theory and verify, as a consistency check, that Hom spaces between such objects are realized by suitable matrix factorizations.

Significance. If the modeling step is valid, the work supplies a sheaf-theoretic and categorical framework for Rozansky-Witten invariants that connects algebraic geometry constructions with symplectic geometry. The explicit link to matrix factorizations provides a concrete computational handle and an independent consistency test. The analogy with Tamarkin's approach offers a potential route to unify several existing models in the literature.

major comments (1)
  1. The central modeling claim—that modules over Perf(X × A^1), when viewed as sheaves of categories, correctly capture the Rozansky-Witten theory of T^*X—receives no explicit justification or derivation in the manuscript. Without the definition of the hybrid Lagrangian objects or the functor relating them to the Rozansky-Witten category, the consistency check with matrix factorizations cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract is the only text supplied; the manuscript should include at least the definitions of hybrid Lagrangians, the precise category of sheaves of categories, and the statement of the Hom isomorphism before the consistency check can be assessed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for highlighting the central modeling claim. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central modeling claim—that modules over Perf(X × A^1), when viewed as sheaves of categories, correctly capture the Rozansky-Witten theory of T^*X—receives no explicit justification or derivation in the manuscript. Without the definition of the hybrid Lagrangian objects or the functor relating them to the Rozansky-Witten category, the consistency check with matrix factorizations cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The manuscript constructs the hybrid Lagrangian objects explicitly as modules over Perf(X × A¹) viewed as sheaves of categories over X × A¹, with graphs and conormals as special cases; this construction is presented in direct parallel to Tamarkin’s singular-support functor for nonconic Lagrangians on X × ℝ. The modeling step is therefore the same functorial assignment, now applied to the Rozansky-Witten setting, and the consistency check (that Homs are realized by matrix factorizations) is carried out for these objects. If the referee finds the relation between the sheaf-of-categories functor and the Rozansky-Witten category insufficiently spelled out, we are happy to add a short clarifying paragraph or diagram in the introduction. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper models Rozansky-Witten theory of T*X via modules over Perf(X×A¹) viewed as sheaves of categories, constructs hybrid Lagrangians (with graphs and conormals as special cases), and performs a consistency check that Homs recover matrix factorizations. This parallels Tamarkin's singular-support construction on X×R, which is an independent external reference. No equations, self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The modeling assumption is stated explicitly as the starting point rather than derived from the outputs, and the consistency check is a verification step rather than a forced identity. The derivation chain therefore remains non-circular and externally anchored.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5637 in / 1065 out tokens · 29739 ms · 2026-06-28T04:41:57.481767+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (version: 2020-07-24)

    Will Sawin (https://mathoverflow.net/users/18060/will-sawin).Is there an algebraic version of Darboux’s theorem?MathOverflow. (version: 2020-07-24). eprint:https: //mathoverflow.net/q/366422.url:https://mathoverflow.net/q/366422

    2020

  2. [2]

    MathOverflow

    David Ben-Zvi (https://mathoverflow.net/users/582/david-ben-zvi).Defining ind- coherent sheaves and their singular support. MathOverflow. (version: 2012-07-01). eprint:https://mathoverflow.net/q/101025.url:https://mathoverflow.net/ q/101025

    2012

  3. [3]

    The Geometry of Ambiguity: An Introduction to the Ideas of Derived Geometry

    Mathieu Anel. “The Geometry of Ambiguity: An Introduction to the Ideas of Derived Geometry”. In:New Spaces in Mathematics: Formal and Conceptual Reflections. Ed. by Mathieu Anel and Gabriel Catren. Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 505–553

    2021

  4. [4]

    Ko Aoki.Higher presentable categories and limits. 2025. arXiv:2510.13503 [math.CT]. url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13503

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    When is the self-intersection of a subvariety a fibration?

    Dima Arinkin and Andrei C˘ ald˘ araru. “When is the self-intersection of a subvariety a fibration?” In:Advances in Mathematics231.2 (2012), pp. 815–842.issn: 0001-8708. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2012.05.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aim.2012.05.014 2012

  6. [6]

    and Gaitsgory, D

    Dima Arinkin and Dennis Gaitsgory. “Singular support of coherent sheaves and the geometric Langlands conjecture”. In:Sel. Math. New Ser.21 (2015), pp. 1–199.doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00029-014-0167-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00029-014-0167-5 2015

  7. [7]

    Dima Arinkin and Joshua Mundinger.Cartier duality via Mittag-Leffler modules. 2025. arXiv:2512.13856 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13856

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory

    John C. Baez and James Dolan. “Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory”. In:J. Math. Phys.36.11 (Nov. 1995), pp. 6073–6105.doi:https://doi. org/10.1063/1.531236

    work page doi:10.1063/1.531236 1995

  9. [9]

    Six model structures for DG-modules over DGAs: model category theory in homological action

    Tobias Barthel, J. P. May, and Emily Riehl. “Six model structures for DG-modules over DGAs: model category theory in homological action”. In:New York J. Math20 (2014), pp. 1077–1159

    2014

  10. [10]

    Donaldson–Thomas type invariants via microlocal geometry

    Kai Behrend. “Donaldson–Thomas type invariants via microlocal geometry”. In:Ann. of Math.170.3 (2009), pp. 1307–1338.doi:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 4007 / annals . 2009.170.1307

    2009

  11. [11]

    Koszul duality patterns in representation theory

    Alexander Beilinson, Victor Ginzburg, and Wolfgang Soergel. “Koszul duality patterns in representation theory”. In:J. Amer. Math. Soc.9.2 (1996), pp. 473–527

    1996

  12. [12]

    Integral Transforms and Drinfeld Centers in Derived Algebraic Geometry

    David Ben-Zvi, John Francis, and David Nadler. “Integral Transforms and Drinfeld Centers in Derived Algebraic Geometry”. In:J. Amer. Math. Soc.23.4 (Oct. 2010), pp. 909–966.doi:10.1090/S0894-0347-10-00669-7

    work page doi:10.1090/s0894-0347-10-00669-7 2010

  13. [13]

    Loop spaces and connections

    David Ben-Zvi and David Nadler. “Loop spaces and connections”. In:Journal of Topol- ogy5.2 (Mar. 2012), pp. 377–430.issn: 1753-8416.doi:10.1112/jtopol/jts007.url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jts007

    work page doi:10.1112/jtopol/jts007.url: 2012

  14. [14]

    David Ben-Zvi and David Nadler.Potent categorical representations. 2025. arXiv: 2510.07482 [math.RT].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07482

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Integral transforms for coherent sheaves

    David Ben-Zvi, David Nadler, and Anatoly Preygel. “Integral transforms for coherent sheaves”. In:J. Eur. Math. Soc.19.12 (2017), pp. 3763–3812.doi:10.4171/JEMS/753. 34 REFERENCES

    work page doi:10.4171/jems/753 2017

  16. [16]

    Local cohomology and sup- port for triangulated categories

    Dave Benson, Srikanth B. Iyengar, and Henning Krause. “Local cohomology and sup- port for triangulated categories”. In:Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup41 (2008), pp. 575– 621

    2008

  17. [17]

    Equivariant homology and K-theory of affine Grassmannians and Toda lattices

    Roman Bezrukavnikov, Michael Finkelberg, and Ivan Mirkovi´ c. “Equivariant homology and K-theory of affine Grassmannians and Toda lattices”. In:Compositio Mathematica 141.3 (2005), pp. 746–768.doi:10.1112/S0010437X04001228

    work page doi:10.1112/s0010437x04001228 2005

  18. [18]

    Motivic Realizations of Singularity Categories and Vanishing Cycles

    Anthony Blanc et al. “Motivic Realizations of Singularity Categories and Vanishing Cycles”. In:Journal de l’ ´Ecole Polytechnique5 (2018), pp. 651–747

    2018

  19. [19]

    Duality and equivalence of module categories in noncommutative geometry

    Jonathan Block. “Duality and equivalence of module categories in noncommutative geometry”. In:A celebration of the mathematical legacy of Raoul Bott. Vol. 50. CRM Proc. Lecture Notes. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., 2010, pp. 311–339

    2010

  20. [20]

    A universal characteriza- tion of higher algebraic K-theory

    Andrew J Blumberg, David Gepner, and Gon¸ calo Tabuada. “A universal characteriza- tion of higher algebraic K-theory”. In:Geometry & Topology17.2 (Apr. 2013), pp. 733– 838.issn: 1465-3060.doi:10.2140/gt.2013.17.733.url:http://dx.doi.org/10. 2140/gt.2013.17.733

    work page doi:10.2140/gt.2013.17.733.url:http://dx.doi.org/10 2013

  21. [21]

    A ’Darboux theorem’ for de- rived schemes with shifted symplectic structure

    Christopher Brav, Vittoria Bussi, and Dominic Joyce. “A ’Darboux theorem’ for de- rived schemes with shifted symplectic structure”. In:J. Amer. Math. Soc.32 (2019), pp. 399–443

    2019

  22. [22]

    Symmetries and stabilization for sheaves of vanishing cycles

    Christopher Brav et al. “Symmetries and stabilization for sheaves of vanishing cycles”. In:Journal of Singularities(2015).issn: 1949-2006.doi:10.5427/jsing.2015.11e. url:http://dx.doi.org/10.5427/jsing.2015.11e

    work page doi:10.5427/jsing.2015.11e 2015

  23. [23]

    Truncated Affine Rozansky– Witten Models as Extended TQFTs

    Ilka Brunner, Nils Carqueville, and Daniel Roggenkamp. “Truncated Affine Rozansky– Witten Models as Extended TQFTs”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics 400.1 (Feb. 2023), pp. 371–415.issn: 1432-0916.doi:10.1007/s00220-022-04614-4. url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-022-04614-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-022-04614-4 2023

  24. [24]

    Cedzich, J

    Ilka Brunner et al. “Truncated Affine Rozansky–Witten Models as Extended Defect TQFTs”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics406.2 (Jan. 2025).issn: 1432- 0916.doi:10.1007/s00220- 024- 05164- 7.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00220-024-05164-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220- 2025

  25. [25]

    Vittoria Bussi.Categorification of Lagrangian intersections on complex symplec- tic manifolds using perverse sheaves of vanishing cycles. 2014. arXiv:1404 . 1329 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Groupes alg´ ebriques et groupes formels

    Pierre Cartier. “Groupes alg´ ebriques et groupes formels”. In:Colloq. Th´ eorie des Groupes Alg´ ebriques (Bruxelles, 1962). Louvain: Librairie Universitaire, 1962, pp. 87– 111

    1962

  27. [27]

    The dg Leavitt algebra, singular Yoneda category and singularity category

    Xiao-Wu Chen et al. “The dg Leavitt algebra, singular Yoneda category and singularity category”. In:Advances in Mathematics440 (Mar. 2024), p. 109541.issn: 0001-8708. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2024.109541.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim. 2024.109541

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aim.2024.109541.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim 2024

  28. [28]

    Skew Category, Galois Covering and Smash Product of a k-Category

    Claude Cibils and Eduardo N. Marcos. “Skew Category, Galois Covering and Smash Product of a k-Category”. In:Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society134.1 (2006), pp. 39–50.issn: 00029939, 10886826.url:http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 4098333(visited on 05/13/2026)

    2006

  29. [29]

    Lee Cohn.Differential Graded Categories are k-linear Stable Infinity Categories. 2016. arXiv:1308.2587 [math.AT].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.2587. REFERENCES 35

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Quantization of complex Lagrangian subman- ifolds

    Andrea D’Agnolo and Pierre Schapira. “Quantization of complex Lagrangian subman- ifolds”. In:Advances in Mathematics213.1 (Aug. 2007), pp. 358–379.issn: 0001-8708. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2006.12.009.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim. 2006.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aim.2006.12.009.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim 2007

  31. [31]

    Arun Debray.M392C (Topics in Algebraic Topology) Lecture Notes, lectures by Andrew Blumberg.url:https://adebray.github.io/lecture_notes/m392c_EHT_notes. pdf

  32. [32]

    Arun Debray.M392C Notes: Representation Theory, taught by Sam Gunningham.url: https://adebray.github.io/lecture_notes/m392c_RT_notes.pdf

  33. [33]

    Arun Debray.Spring 2017 Geometric Langlands Seminar, lectures given by David Ben-Zvi.url:https : / / adebray . github . io / lecture _ notes / s17 _ geometric _ Langlands.pdf

    2017

  34. [34]

    Jean Dieudonn´ e.Introduction to the theory of formal groups. Vol. 20. Pure and Applied Mathematics. Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1973

    1973

  35. [35]

    Torus fibrations, gerbes, and duality

    Ron Donagi and Tony Pantev. “Torus fibrations, gerbes, and duality”. In:Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.193.901 (2008).doi:https://doi.org/10.1090/memo/0901

    work page doi:10.1090/memo/0901 2008

  36. [36]

    I.,Cyclic homology of categories of matrix factorizations, Int

    Alexander I. Efimov. “Cyclic homology of categories of matrix factorizations”. In:Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN2018.12 (June 2018), pp. 3834–3869.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1093/imrn/rnw332

    work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw332 2018

  37. [37]

    Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group representations

    David Eisenbud. “Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group representations”. In:Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.260 (1980), pp. 35–64

    1980

  38. [38]

    Systems of fixed point sets

    Anthony Elmendorf. “Systems of fixed point sets”. In:Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.277.1 (1983), pp. 275–284

    1983

  39. [39]

    An introduction to derived (algebraic) geome- try

    Jon Eugster and Jonathan Pridham. “An introduction to derived (algebraic) geome- try”. In:Rend. Mat. Appl. (7)45.1-2 (2024), pp. 1–109

    2024

  40. [40]

    Li Fan, Bernhard Keller, and Yu Qiu.Dg enhanced orbit categories and applications

  41. [41]

    arXiv:2405.00093 [math.RT].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00093

    arXiv

  42. [42]

    A categorification of Morelli’s theorem

    Bohan Fang et al. “A categorification of Morelli’s theorem”. In:Inventiones mathe- maticae186.1 (Feb. 2011), pp. 79–114.issn: 1432-1297.doi:10.1007/s00222-011- 0315-x.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-011-0315-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00222-011- 2011

  43. [43]

    Ind-Coherent Sheaves

    Dennis Gaitsgory. “Ind-Coherent Sheaves”. In:Moscow Mathematical Journal13.3 (2013), pp. 399–528

    2013

  44. [44]

    Sheaves of categories and the notion of 1-affineness

    Dennis Gaitsgory. “Sheaves of categories and the notion of 1-affineness”. In:Contem- porary Mathematics(2015), pp. 127–225.doi:https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/643

    work page doi:10.1090/conm/643 2015

  45. [45]

    Dennis Gaitsgory and Nick Rozenblyum.A Study in Derived Algebraic Geometry: Volumes I and II. Vol. 221. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Math- ematical Society, 2017, p. 969

    2017

  46. [46]

    Enriched model categories in equivariant contexts

    Bertrand Guillou, J. P. May, and Jonathan Rubin. “Enriched model categories in equivariant contexts”. In:Homology, homotopy, and applications21 (2019), pp. 213– 246

    2019

  47. [47]

    Sam Gunningham and Pavel Safronov.Deformation quantization and perverse sheaves

  48. [48]

    arXiv:2312.07595 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07595

    arXiv

  49. [49]

    Benjamin Hennion, Julian Holstein, and Marco Robalo.Gluing invariants of Donaldson–Thomas type – Part I: the Darboux stack. 2025. arXiv:2407 . 08471 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08471. 36 REFERENCES

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Benjamin Hennion, Julian Holstein, and Marco Robalo.Gluing invariants of Donaldson–Thomas type – Part II: Matrix factorizations. 2025. arXiv:2503 . 15198 [math.AG].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15198

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Compact Exact Lagrangian Intersections in Cotangent Bundles via Sheaf Quantization

    Yuichi Ike. “Compact Exact Lagrangian Intersections in Cotangent Bundles via Sheaf Quantization”. In:Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences 55.4 (Oct. 2019), pp. 737–778.issn: 1663-4926.doi:10.4171/prims/55- 4- 3.url: http://dx.doi.org/10.4171/PRIMS/55-4-3

    work page doi:10.4171/prims/55- 2019

  52. [52]

    Equivalence of the Derived Category of a Variety with a Sin- gularity Category

    Mehmet Umut Isik. “Equivalence of the Derived Category of a Variety with a Sin- gularity Category”. In:International Mathematics Research Notices2013.12 (May 2012), pp. 2787–2808.issn: 1073-7928.doi:10 . 1093 / imrn / rns125.url:https : //doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rns125

    work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rns125 2012

  53. [53]

    A classical model for derived critical loci

    Dominic Joyce. “A classical model for derived critical loci”. In:Journal of Differential Geometry101.2 (2015), pp. 289–367

    2015

  54. [54]

    2013.url: https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/joyce/PGhandout.pdf

    Dominic Joyce.Shifted symplectic geometry, Calabi–Yau moduli spaces, and gener- alizations of Donaldson–Thomas theory: our current and future research. 2013.url: https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/joyce/PGhandout.pdf

    2013

  55. [55]

    Rozansky–Witten invariants via Atiyah classes

    Mikhail Kapranov. “Rozansky–Witten invariants via Atiyah classes”. In:Composi- tio Math.115.1 (1999), pp. 71–113.doi:http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1023 / A : 1000664527238

    1999

  56. [56]

    Three-dimensional topological field theory and symplectic algebraic geometry II

    Anton Kapustin and Lev Rozansky. “Three-dimensional topological field theory and symplectic algebraic geometry II”. In:Communications in Number Theory and Physics 4.3 (2010), pp. 463–549.doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.4310/CNTP.2010.v4.n3.a1

    work page doi:10.4310/cntp.2010.v4.n3.a1 2010

  57. [57]

    Three-dimensional topological field theory and symplectic algebraic geometry I

    Anton Kapustin, Lev Rozansky, and Natalia Saulina. “Three-dimensional topological field theory and symplectic algebraic geometry I”. In:Nuclear Physics B816.3 (2009), pp. 295–355.issn: 0550-3213.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009. 01.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009 2009

  58. [58]

    Masaki Kashiwara and Pierre Schapira.Sheaves on Manifolds. 1st ed. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990

    1990

  59. [59]

    On triangulated orbit categories

    Bernhard Keller. “On triangulated orbit categories”. In:Doc. Math.10 (2005), pp. 551– 581.doi:10.4171/DM/199

    work page doi:10.4171/dm/199 2005

  60. [60]

    An Introduction to Derived Algebraic Geometry

    Adeel A. Khan. “An Introduction to Derived Algebraic Geometry”. In:Moduli Spaces, Virtual Invariants and Shifted Symplectic Structures. Ed. by Young-Hoon Kiem. Sin- gapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2025, pp. 1–35.isbn: 978-981-97-8249-9.doi:10. 1007/978-981-97-8249-9_1.url:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-8249- 9_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8249- 2025

  61. [61]

    Spectral Deferred Correction Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations

    Maxim Kontsevich. “Operads and Motives in Deformation Quantization”. In:Letters in Mathematical Physics48.1 (Apr. 1999), pp. 35–72.issn: 1573-0530.doi:10.1023/a: 1007555725247.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007555725247

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 1999

  62. [62]

    Rozansky–Witten invariants via formal geometry

    Maxim Kontsevich. “Rozansky–Witten invariants via formal geometry”. In:Com- positio Math.115.1 (1999), pp. 115–127.doi:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1023 / A : 1000619911308

    1999

  63. [63]

    Exact WKB Analysis, Microlocal Analysis, Painlev´ e Equations and Related Topics

    Tatsuki Kuwagaki.An introduction to sheaf quantization. to appear in the proceed- ings of Takei 60 “Exact WKB Analysis, Microlocal Analysis, Painlev´ e Equations and Related Topics”.url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02661

    arXiv

  64. [64]

    K-theory Schubert calculus of the affine Grassmannian

    Thomas Lam, Anne Schilling, and Mark Shimozono. “K-theory Schubert calculus of the affine Grassmannian”. In:Compositio Mathematica146.4 (Jan. 2010), pp. 811–852. REFERENCES 37 issn: 1570-5846.doi:10.1112/s0010437x09004539.url:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1112/S0010437X09004539

    work page doi:10.1112/s0010437x09004539.url:http://dx.doi.org/10 2010

  65. [65]

    Formality of the little N-disks operad

    Pascal Lambrechts and Ismar Voli´ c. “Formality of the little N-disks operad”. In:Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.230.1079 (2014).doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1090/memo/1079

    work page doi:10.1090/memo/1079 2014

  66. [66]

    Global Matrix Factorizations

    Kevin H. Lin and Daniel Pomerleano. “Global Matrix Factorizations”. In:Math Re- search Letters20 (), pp. 91–106

  67. [67]

    Jacob Lurie.Derived Algebraic Geometry II: Noncommutative Algebra. 2007. arXiv: math/0702299 [math.CT].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [68]

    Jacob Lurie.Higher Algebra.url:https://www.math.ias.edu/ ~lurie/papers/HA. pdf

  69. [69]

    Annals of Mathematics Studies 170

    Jacob Lurie.Higher Topos Theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies 170. Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  70. [70]

    On the Classification of Topological Field Theories

    Jacob Lurie. “On the Classification of Topological Field Theories”. In:Current devel- opments in mathematics. Ed. by David Jerison et al. Vol. 2008. International Press of Boston, Inc., 2008, pp. 129–280.doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.4310/CDM.2008. v2008.n1.a3

    work page doi:10.4310/cdm.2008 2008

  71. [71]

    J. P. May.Derived categories from a topological point of view.url:https://www. math.uchicago.edu/~may/MISC/DerivedCats.pdf

  72. [72]

    J. P. May et al.Equivariant homotopy and cohomology theory. Vol. 91. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. 1996

    1996

  73. [73]

    Constructible sheaves and the Fukaya category

    David Nadler and Eric Zaslow. “Constructible sheaves and the Fukaya category”. In: J. Amer. Math. Soc.22 (2009), pp. 233–286.doi:https://doi.org/10.1090/S0894- 0347-08-00612-7

    work page doi:10.1090/s0894- 2009

  74. [74]

    Nolan.GRT Seminar Sp24 Notes.url:https : / / github

    John S. Nolan.GRT Seminar Sp24 Notes.url:https : / / github . com / eruditeandroid/GRTnotes/blob/main/sp24.pdf

  75. [75]

    Matrix factorizations for nonaffine LG–models

    Dmitri Orlov. “Matrix factorizations for nonaffine LG–models”. In:Mathematische Annalen353.1 (May 2011), pp. 95–108.issn: 1432-1807.doi:10.1007/s00208-011- 0676-x.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00208-011-0676-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00208-011- 2011

  76. [76]

    Triangulated categories of singularities and D-branes in Landau- Ginzburg models

    Dmitri Orlov. “Triangulated categories of singularities and D-branes in Landau- Ginzburg models”. In:Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.246.3 (2004), pp. 227–248

    2004

  77. [77]

    Shifted symplectic structures

    Tony Pantev et al. “Shifted symplectic structures”. In:Publ. Math. IHES117.1 (2013), pp. 271–328

    2013

  78. [78]

    Combinatorial model categories are equivalent to presentable quasi- categories

    Dmitri Pavlov. “Combinatorial model categories are equivalent to presentable quasi- categories”. In:Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra229.2 (Feb. 2025), p. 107860.issn: 0022-4049.doi:10.1016/j.jpaa.2024.107860.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpaa.2024.107860

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jpaa.2024.107860.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 2025

  79. [79]

    Homotopy theory of diagrams and CW-complexes over a cate- gory

    Robert J. Piacenza. “Homotopy theory of diagrams and CW-complexes over a cate- gory”. In:Canad. J. Math.43.4 (1991), pp. 814–824

    1991

  80. [80]

    Stacks of quantization-deformation modules on complex symplectic manifolds

    Pietro Polesello and Pierre Schapira. “Stacks of quantization-deformation modules on complex symplectic manifolds”. In:International Mathematics Research Notices 2004.49 (2004), pp. 2637–2664.doi:10.1155/S1073792804132819

    work page doi:10.1155/s1073792804132819 2004

Showing first 80 references.