Deformation Theory for $(\infty,n)$-categories

Roman Kositsyn

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 28 references

Deformation Theory for $(\infty,n)$-categories

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the stabilization of the overcategory of an (∞,n)-category E is isomorphic to spectrum-valued functors on an explicit twisted arrow category TwAr(E), and uses this to develop deformation theory and characterize…

desk verdict All-n twisted-arrow model for stabilization of overcategories is novel and the paper is honest, but the key comparison in Prop. 6.15 rests on an unproved colimit identification that needs a referee's eyes. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16326 v1 pith:CDQ3VRYA submitted 2025-04-23 math.CT

Roman Kositsyn This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CT

keywords deformationtheory(∞n)-categoriestwistedarrowcategorystabilizationSteinercomplexesspectrum-valuedfunctorslax-idempotentmonadsn-foldSegalspaces

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 tries to establish a uniform deformation theory for (∞,n)-categories: for every (∞,n)-category E, the stabilization of the overcategory Cat_{n,/E} is isomorphic to the (∞,1)-category of spectrum-valued functors on an explicitly constructed twisted arrow category TwAr(E). If true, it reduces questions about infinitesimal deformations of E to computations with spectra over a combinatorial object, and it recovers the known dimension 1 and 2 results as special cases. The paper also derives a formal criterion, Theorem C, for when a functor induces a monomorphism on mapping spaces, and applies it to characterize lax-idempotent monads as algebras over the walking lax-idempotent comonad, Theorem D.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the twisted arrow category $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$, defined through the functors $D_n(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ from $\Delta^{\times n}$ to healthy $\Theta_n$-trees: an $r$-simplex of $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$ is a compatible family of maps from these trees to $E$. The arguments are carried by strong Steiner complexes, meaning augmented directed complexes with strongly loop-free unital bases, which give a computable basis for pasting diagrams that are not corepresentable by disks, together with the identification $\mathrm{Stab}(\mathrm{Cat}_{n,/\theta}) \simeq \mathrm{PSh}_{\mathrm{Sp}}(\Theta^{\mathrm{int},\mathrm{op}}_{n,/\theta})$, obtained through the correspondence between simplicial objects and chain complexes and the duality of [1]. The healthy-tree condition of Definition 5.16 is what guarantees the resulting trees are strong Steiner complexes and remain so under the pushouts that glue them.

What would settle it

Compute the two sides of Theorem A for a small category such as $E = D_3(1,1,1)$ and compare the mapping spaces; alternatively, search for a decorated $\Theta_n$-tree that satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 5.15 but whose associated complex contains a nontrivial loop under $\prec_N$, or a healthy span whose pushout in $\mathrm{Tree}^1_n$ fails to belong to $\mathrm{Tree}^h_n$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem A: for every $E \in \mathrm{Cat}_n$ there is an isomorphism $\mathrm{Stab}(\mathrm{Cat}_{n,/E}) \cong \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Cat}}(\mathrm{TwAr}(E), \mathrm{Sp})$, where $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$ is an explicit $(\infty,1)$-category assembled from healthy $\Theta_n$-trees in Construction 6.11. The paper proves this by first computing the stabilization of slices over single disks $\theta \in \Theta_n$ as presheaves of spectra on $\Theta^{\mathrm{int},\mathrm{op}}_{n,/\theta}$, then gluing these local descriptions along the decomposition of $E$. It also proves Theorem B, that every strong Steiner complex is a free category on its elementary cells, and uses the resulting deformation theory (Theorem C) to identify $\mathbf{B}\Delta^{\mathrm{act}}_{\mathrm{lax}}$ as the walking lax-idempotent comonad (Theorem D).

Load-bearing premise

The whole explicit model of $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$ rests on the healthy-tree condition of Definition 5.16: every decorated $\Theta_n$-tree used in Construction 6.11 must have an associated augmented directed complex whose basis is strongly loop-free, and the class must be closed under the active/inert pushouts that glue trees together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem A is correct, the stabilization of the overcategory of any $(\infty,n)$-category is given by spectrum-valued functors on the explicit twisted-arrow category $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$, so deformation problems in all dimensions $n$ share one computational model.
The uniform construction subsumes the known one-dimensional and two-dimensional twisted-arrow categories, so results proved for $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$ in general specialize to those settings.
Theorem C makes deformation theory in $\mathrm{Cat}_n$ concrete: a map $f \colon E \to D$ is a monomorphism on mapping spaces once the cofiber of the relevant cotangent comparison vanishes and the $(n+1,n)$-truncation of $f$ is a monomorphism.
Theorem D characterizes lax-idempotent monads: the tricategory $\mathbf{B}\Delta^{\mathrm{act}}_{\mathrm{lax}}$ is the walking lax-idempotent comonad, and maps from it into a 3-category are exactly maps from the walking comonad for which the 2-morphism $\delta^2_1$ is left adjoint to $\sigma^0_1$.
Theorem B says every strong Steiner complex is a free category on its elementary cells, which is what lets pasting diagrams outside $\Theta_n$ be computed by basis elements.

Reading between the lines

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

One consequence left implicit by the paper is that the stabilised slice may be blind to non-invertible higher data: the paper's Lemma 2.8 identifies a cell with its groupoid inverse after stabilization, suggesting that $\mathrm{Stab}(\mathrm{Cat}_{n,/E})$ depends only on the homotopy type of $E$.
A testable extension would be to combine Theorem A with spectrum-level computations to extract explicit obstruction classes for extending diagrams of $(\infty,n)$-categories; the paper does not itself carry out such computations.
The healthy-tree condition is the natural place to look for a higher-dimensional failure of the computational model: if a wiring of $\Theta_n$-cells produces a loop analogous to Example 5.7 in dimension greater than three, the explicit model of $\mathrm{TwAr}(E)$ would need an alternative presentation, leaving the isomorphism intact but losing its computational content.

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 main result is a genuine generalization: Theorem A gives an explicit model for Stab(Cat_{n,/E}) as spectrum-valued functors on a twisted arrow category for all n, extending the n=1 and n=2 results. The machinery is new — Construction 6.11, the Steiner-complex formalism, healthy Θ_n-trees, and the lax-idempotent monad application via Theorem D. The paper also deserves credit for disclosing that Theorem B is known in other forms [2], [6], and for warning about the delicate points (Warning 2.11, Example 5.7). I found no circularity: the stabilization is computed against external benchmarks, and TwAr(E) is defined independently of the claimed equivalence.

That said, the paper is huge and the technical core is very hard to check. I could follow the overall shape, but the pivotal step is Proposition 6.15: identifying TwAr(x) with Stein^int_{n,/x}. The proof's downward induction hinges on a colimit identification that is asserted, not demonstrated — the claim that the colimit over s± of mapping spaces from varying A±(s±) into an arbitrary x equals the mapping space from a fixed smaller disk. My review copy truncates inside this proof, so I could not see the missing argument. If that identification fails, the key computation TwAr(x) ≅ Stein^int_{n,/x} loses its force, and Theorem A loses its computational content. This is separate from the healthy-tree condition; even if all trees are healthy, Prop. 6.15 is what makes the model match the stabilization. The healthy-tree machinery is also intricate, but it has more support: Propositions 5.15 and 5.23 at least get checked against examples.

The paper would benefit from a serious referee who knows Steiner complexes and (∞,n)-categories, with enough time to verify Prop. 6.15 and the health condition. If those hold, Theorem A is a strong result. It is not desk-reject material — it deserves a real refereeing effort. I would bring it to a reading group if the group is comfortable with slow, technical reading.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a deformation theory for (∞,n)-categories. For E ∈ Cat_n it defines an (∞,1)-category TwAr(E) by means of healthy Θ_n-trees and strong Steiner complexes, and claims in Theorem A an isomorphism Stab(Cat_{n,/E}) ≅ Hom_Cat(TwAr(E), Sp). The proof strategy is to compute Stab(Cat_{n,/θ}) for θ ∈ Θ_n as spectrum-valued presheaves on Θ^{int,op}_{n,/θ} (Theorem 2.21), introduce an intermediate model TwAr_θ(E) and prove Hom(TwAr_θ(E), Sp) ≅ Stab(Cat_{n,/E}) (Proposition 4.12), and then show that the new model TwAr(E) agrees with TwAr_θ(E) via the computation TwAr(x) ≅ Stein^int_{n,/x} for x ∈ Stein_n (Propositions 4.17 and 6.15). The final section applies the deformation-theoretic criterion to characterize lax-idempotent monads (Theorem D).

Significance. If Theorem A is correct, it gives a uniform, explicit description of the stabilization of the overcategory of an arbitrary (∞,n)-category, subsuming the known n=1 and n=2 cases and providing a computational tool for deformation theory in all dimensions. The use of strong Steiner complexes and healthy trees is a substantial original contribution, and the connection to lax-idempotent monads in Theorem D is a valuable application. The paper is carefully structured and cross-checks the main construction against lower-dimensional examples. However, the central comparison in Proposition 6.15 contains a missing proof step, and the healthy-tree machinery on which the model is built is extremely intricate; the significance of the paper is therefore conditional on completing and auditing these arguments.

major comments (2)

[§6, Proposition 6.15] After the pullback expression (104) for Hom^-(Y_p(1,s_2,...,s_{n-k}), x), the proof asserts that colim_{s± ∈ Δ^{×(n-k-p-1),op}} Hom^±_{Cat_n}(A±_{n-k-p}(s±), x) ≅ B±, where B± = Hom_{Cat_n}(D_{p+k-1}(1,0,...,0), x). This identification is the pivot of the downward induction: it is used to conclude Z_p(f,g) ≅ Z_{p-1}(f,g), which in turn proves contractibility of Hom_TwAr(x)(f,g) and hence the equivalence TwAr(x) ≅ Stein^int_{n,/x}. The assertion is not a formal consequence of the displayed colimit diagram (103), because the objects A±_{n-k-p}(s±) vary with the parameters s±; mapping spaces from these varying objects into an arbitrary x do not obviously coincide with the mapping space from a fixed smaller disk. The supplied text gives no argument for this equivalence, and the copy truncates inside this proof. Since Proposition 6.15 is load-bearing for Theorem A, this step must be proved in full or replaced by a precise reference.
[§5–§6, healthy-tree machinery (Definitions 5.6, 5.16; Propositions 5.15, 5.23, 6.5)] The well-definedness of the model TwAr(E) in Construction 6.11 depends on the healthy-tree condition: Proposition 5.15 must ensure that the trees generated in Construction 6.11 are strong Steiner complexes, and Proposition 5.23 must ensure that the pushouts used in Construction 6.11 remain in Tree^h_n. I did not find a concrete erroneous step in these propositions, and Example 5.7 shows that the authors are aware of the delicacy of the loop-freeness condition. Nevertheless, these proofs are long informal inductions, and every object produced by Construction 6.11 must satisfy them. I would ask the authors to add a concise verification that the objects D^p_n(q_1,...,q_p) of Construction 6.4 satisfy the conditions of Proposition 5.15, and to explain explicitly why the pushout in Proposition 5.23 lands in Tree^h_n rather than merely in Tree_n. This would make the dependence of Theorem A on the healthy-tree condition directly auditable.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The last sentence contains a grammatical error: 'apply it to given an ∞-categorical characterization' should read 'apply it to give an ∞-categorical characterization'.
[§3, Definition 3.7 and Remark 3.8] The notation Stein_n vs. Stein_n (with and without the overline) is introduced together and the difference is easy to miss; a short reminder at the start of Section 3 would improve readability.
[§4, Proposition 4.17] The proof of Proposition 4.17, especially the portion after diagram (78), is extremely long and difficult to follow; a brief outline of the induction and of which claims are proved by which displayed diagram would greatly help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TwAr(E) is constructed independently of Stab(Cat_{n,/E}), and the comparison is established through auxiliary models and external benchmarks.

full rationale

The central object TwAr(E) in Construction 6.11 is defined directly from explicit Θ_n-disks D_n(l,s2,...,sn) and mapping spaces into E; its definition does not mention stabilization, spectrum-valued presheaves, or the limit formula for Stab(Cat_{n,/E}). The stabilization side is computed independently in Section 2: Theorem 2.21 expresses Stab(Cat_{n,/E}) as a limit of PSh(Θ^int,op_{n,/θ}) using the Dold-Kan correspondence (Appendix A), Verdier duality [1], and standard smashing-localization facts about PrCat, none of which presuppose TwAr. Theorem A is then proven by comparing TwAr(E) with the auxiliary model TwAr_θ(E): Proposition 4.12 shows Hom_Cat(TwAr_θ(E),Sp) ≅ Stab(Cat_{n,/E}) by reducing both sides to right Kan extensions from Θ_n and using the independently established isomorphism of Proposition 2.20, while Proposition 6.15 computes TwAr(x) for Steiner complexes as Stein^int_{n,/x}, a genuinely new comparison. The reader-flagged gap in Proposition 6.15—the asserted colimit identification colim Hom^±(A±,x) ≅ B± during the downward induction—is a potential correctness gap or missing proof, not a circularity: it does not identify the claimed theorem with its input, and no fitted parameter or imported uniqueness theorem is involved. The n=1 and n=2 cases are cited as external checks rather than used as load-bearing assumptions. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on background results the paper does not reprove: the identification of (∞,n)-categories with n-fold Segal spaces [14], the algebraic patterns framework [7], Steiner's theory of augmented directed complexes [25], the embedding of Θ_n into Steiner complexes [26], Verdier duality [1], and Postnikov towers for Cat_n [12]. No free parameters are fitted. The paper's own appendix proves the Θ_n Dold-Kan correspondence used in Section 2. The constructions TwAr(E), healthy trees, and D_n(q_1,...,q_n) are explicit rather than postulated, and each carries concrete checks against the known n=1 and n=2 cases; none is an ungrounded entity invoked to force the conclusion.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption (∞,n)-categories are identified with complete n-fold Segal spaces (Seg_n).
Adopted in 'Notation and conventions' following [14]; all statements and proofs take this model.
domain assumption Stabilization of Segal objects over an algebraic pattern O is given by Seg_O(Sp), via smashing localization Sp ⊗ V in PrCat.
Proposition 2.1 proves this from a pullback/pushout argument in PrCat and relies on the description of stabilization as tensoring with Sp from [10].
standard math The theory of algebraic patterns of [7], including extendability of Θ_n and the pattern axioms for Segal objects.
Used throughout: Lemma 2.13 invokes [7, Lemma 9.14] and [7, Example 8.15], and Proposition 3.20 appeals to the saturated algebraic pattern axioms.
standard math Steiner's theory of augmented directed complexes with unital loop-free basis [25].
Definition 3.1 and Construction 3.2 import the notion of strong Steiner complexes and the associated strict ω-category; freeness of K* for unital loop-free bases from [25] is used.
domain assumption Θ_n embeds as a full subcategory of Stein_n (Remark 3.3), following [26].
This identification is used throughout Sections 4-6; it asserts the ADC associated to a disk object has strongly loop-free basis and that morphisms correspond.
standard math Verdier duality results of [1] (Theorems A and B) for Verdier posets.
Used in Lemma 2.19 to identify the duality functors D_el and D'_el as inverses.
standard math Postnikov towers and the Artinian object theorem for Cat_n from [12].
Proposition 4.19 and Lemma 4.16 rely on [12, Theorem 5.2]; Theorem C and the application in Section 7 rely on Postnikov tower convergence in Cat_n.
standard math Dold-Kan correspondence for Θ_n (Appendix A).
Proved in the paper's appendix (Corollary A.10); used in Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 2.8.

invented entities (3)

TwAr(E), the twisted arrow (∞,1)-category of an (∞,n)-category E independent evidence
purpose: The object whose spectrum-valued functors compute Stab(Cat_{n,/E}) in Theorem A
Explicitly constructed in Construction 6.11 via D_n tree objects and healthy trees; reduces for n=1 to the ordinary twisted arrows category [11] and matches the n=2 case [24], giving external checks.
The category of healthy Θ_n-trees (Tree^h_n) independent evidence
purpose: Provides the generating shapes for TwAr(E); ensures the associated Steiner complexes have strongly loop-free bases
Defined in Definition 5.16 with a checkable characterization: every object satisfying the health conditions is a strong Steiner complex (Proposition 5.15). A counterexample would show the condition under-inclusive, so the claim is falsifiable.
D_n(q_1,...,q_n) tree objects and their Σ^k_θ variants independent evidence
purpose: Explicit generating objects used to present mapping spaces in TwAr(E)
Closed-form combinatorial description in Construction 6.4 and Proposition 6.7; the elementary cell poset is computed explicitly and the comparison with Stein^int for these objects (Propositions 4.17 and 6.15) is checkable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformation Theory for $(\infty,n)$-categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDQ3VRYA

@misc{pith2026250416326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformation Theory for $(\infty,n)$-categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDQ3VRYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16326}
}

abstract

For an $(\infty,n)$-category $\mathscr E$ we define an $(\infty,1)$ category $\mathrm{TwAr}(\mathscr E)$ and provide an isomorphism between the stabilization of the overcategory of $\mathscr E$ in $\mathrm{Cat}_{(\infty,n)}$ and the $\infty$-category of spectrum-valued functors on $\mathrm{TwAr}(\mathscr E)$. We use this to develop the deformation theory of $(\infty,n)$-categories and apply it to given an $\infty$-categorical characterization of lax-idempotent monads.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[2]

A categorical characterization of strong stei ner ω -categories

Dimitri Ara, Andrea Gagna, Viktoriya Ozornova, and Mart ina Rovelli. A categorical characterization of strong stei ner ω -categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , 227(7):107313, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

An p8, n q-categorical pasting theorem

Timothy Campion. An p8, n q-categorical pasting theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00200 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[1]

Posets for which verdier duality holds

Ko Aoki. Posets for which verdier duality holds. Selecta Mathematica, 29(5):78, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Fibrations of 8-categories

David Ayala and John Francis. Fibrations of 8-categories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02681 , 2017

arXiv 2017
[4]

Conﬁguration spaces a nd θn

David Ayala and Richard Hepworth. Conﬁguration spaces a nd θn. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 142(7):2243–2254, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Stratified noncommutative geometry

David Ayala, Aaron Mazel-Gee, and Nick Rozenblyum. Stra tiﬁed noncommutative geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14602, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1910
[7]

Homotopy-coherent algebra via Segal conditions

Hongyi Chu and Rune Haugseng. Homotopy-coherent algebr a via segal conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.03977 , 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1907
[8]

Homology of symmetric products and other functors of complexes

Albrecht Dold. Homology of symmetric products and other functors of complexes. Annals of Mathematics , 68(1):54–80, 1958

work page 1958

Show all 28 references

[9]

Unifying notions of pasting diagrams

Simon Forest. Unifying notions of pasting diagrams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00282 , 2019

1903 arXiv
[10]

Unive rsality of multiplicative inﬁnite loop space machines

David Gepner, Moritz Groth, and Thomas Nikolaus. Unive rsality of multiplicative inﬁnite loop space machines. Algebraic & Geometric Topology, 15(6):3107–3153, 2016

2016
[11]

The abs tract cotangent complex and quillen cohomology of enriched categories

Yonatan Harpaz, Joost Nuiten, and Matan Prasma. The abs tract cotangent complex and quillen cohomology of enriched categories. Journal of Topology , 11(3):752–798, 2018

2018
[12]

On k-in variants for ( 8, n)-categories

YONATAN HARPAZ, JOOST NUITEN, and MATAN PRASMA. On k-in variants for ( 8, n)-categories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.12723, 2020

2011 arXiv
[13]

Disks, duality and θ-categories

Andr´ e Joyal. Disks, duality and θ-categories. preprint, 2:12–16, 1997

1997
[14]

Quasi-categories vs se gal spaces

Andr´ e Joyal and Myles Tierney. Quasi-categories vs se gal spaces. Contemporary Mathematics, 431(277-326):10, 2007

2007
[15]

Functors involving css complexes

Daniel M Kan. Functors involving css complexes. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 87(2):330–346, 1958

1958
[16]

Monads for which structures are adjoint to units

Anders Kock. Monads for which structures are adjoint to units. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , 104(1):41–59, 1995

1995
[17]

Combinatorial categoric al equivalences of dold–kan type

Stephen Lack and Ross Street. Combinatorial categoric al equivalences of dold–kan type. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 219(10):4343–4367, 2015

2015
[18]

Higher algebra, september 2017

Jacob Lurie. Higher algebra, september 2017. available at his webpage https://www. math. ias. edu/˜ luri e

2017
[19]

On the classiﬁcation of topological ﬁeld t heories

Jacob Lurie. On the classiﬁcation of topological ﬁeld t heories. Current developments in mathematics , 2008(1):129–280, 2008

2008
[20]

Higher topos theory

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

2009
[21]

Spectral algebraic geometry

Jacob Lurie. Spectral algebraic geometry. preprint, 2018

2018
[22]

Arrangements of hyperplan es, higher braid groups and higher bruhat orders

Yu I Manin and VV Schechtman. Arrangements of hyperplan es, higher braid groups and higher bruhat orders. 1989

1989
[23]

Adjoint functor theorems for 8-categories

Hoang Kim Nguyen, George Raptis, and Christoph Schrade . Adjoint functor theorems for 8-categories. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 101(2):659–681, 2020

2020
[24]

Quillen cohomology of ( 8, 2)-categories

JJ Nuiten et al. Quillen cohomology of ( 8, 2)-categories. Higher Structures , 3(1):17–66, 2019

2019
[25]

Omega-categories and chain complexe s

Richard Steiner. Omega-categories and chain complexe s. 2004

2004
[26]

Simple omega-categories and chain co mplexes

Richard Steiner. Simple omega-categories and chain co mplexes. arXiv preprint math/0608680 , 2006

2006 arXiv
[27]

The algebra of oriented simplexes

Ross Street. The algebra of oriented simplexes. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , 49(3):283–335, 1987

1987
[28]

Homotopy coherent theorems of dold–kan ty pe

Tashi W alde. Homotopy coherent theorems of dold–kan ty pe. Advances in Mathematics , 398:108175, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

A categorical characterization of strong stei ner ω -categories

Dimitri Ara, Andrea Gagna, Viktoriya Ozornova, and Mart ina Rovelli. A categorical characterization of strong stei ner ω -categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , 227(7):107313, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [6]

An p8, n q-categorical pasting theorem

Timothy Campion. An p8, n q-categorical pasting theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00200 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [1]

Posets for which verdier duality holds

Ko Aoki. Posets for which verdier duality holds. Selecta Mathematica, 29(5):78, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [3]

Fibrations of 8-categories

David Ayala and John Francis. Fibrations of 8-categories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02681 , 2017

arXiv 2017

[5] [4]

Conﬁguration spaces a nd θn

David Ayala and Richard Hepworth. Conﬁguration spaces a nd θn. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 142(7):2243–2254, 2014

work page 2014

[6] [5]

Stratified noncommutative geometry

David Ayala, Aaron Mazel-Gee, and Nick Rozenblyum. Stra tiﬁed noncommutative geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14602, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1910

[7] [7]

Homotopy-coherent algebra via Segal conditions

Hongyi Chu and Rune Haugseng. Homotopy-coherent algebr a via segal conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.03977 , 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1907

[8] [8]

Homology of symmetric products and other functors of complexes

Albrecht Dold. Homology of symmetric products and other functors of complexes. Annals of Mathematics , 68(1):54–80, 1958

work page 1958