(Twisted) canonical supermultiplets and their resolutions as open-closed homotopy algebras
Abstract.
We argue that some supersymmetric multiplets can naturally be equipped with the structure of an open-closed homotopy algebra. This structure is readily described through the pure spinor superfield formalism, which in particular associates a “canonical multiplet” for each choice of supersymmetry algebra. We study the open-closed homotopy algebra associated to (twists of) (resolutions of) the canonical multiplet, and show that it fits into a span of open-closed homotopy algebras, extending results of Cederwall et al. [1].
Contents
1. Introduction
A well-known challenge in the study of supersymmetric theories is finding viable off-shell representations of the spacetime supersymmetry: in some descriptions, the symmetry algebra is only represented on shell, i.e. after imposing the equations of motion. This difficulty motivated the advancement of the Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) formalism [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], where the introduction of auxiliary fields facilitates an off-shell formulation. In the language of homotopy theory this means one moves to a different (in some suitable sense equivalent) model of the underlying theory.
Relatedly, finding/constructing supersymmetric theories (or even just supermultiplets) using standard techniques is usually a case-by-case endeavour reliant on insight. Therefore, developing systematic and uniform methods for constructing supersymmetric theories is desirable.
The pure spinor superfield formalism (see for example [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and references therein) tackles both these issues simultaneously, that is, it provides a systematic way to construct supersymmetric representations, where the action of supersymmetry is both strict and manifest. The formalism can naively be seen as a generalisation of the above procedure of introducing auxiliary fields. To be a bit more precise, given a supersymmetry algebra , the formalism is a functor from the category of equivariant modules over (a derived replacement of) the ring of regular functions on the Maurer–Cartan variety of to (a certain subcategory of) the category of -multiplets, characterised by homotopy -representations satisfying some “locality” axioms. In fact, it was shown in [11] that this functor defines an equivalence of dg-categories, so that any supermultiplet can be obtained through the pure spinor superfield formalism. Moreover, for any -multiplet obtained through the formalism, one can define an appropriate notion of a “component-field multiplet”.
As emphasised in [1], for each supersymmetry algebra , there exists a “canonical multiplet”111This multiplet was called the “tautological multiplet” in [12]. associated to it: the multiplet associated to itself. Furthermore, the fact that is a ring endows the canonical multiplet with the structure of a commutative dg algebra, or in other words an -algebra which is strict and commutative. By homotopy transfer, the commutative structure on the canonical multiplet gives rise to an -algebra222We should mention here that the transferred structure will in particular be , we will not make this distinction in the sequel. structure on the component fields. In some examples, this structure corresponds to the (colour-stripped333In the sense of [13, 14].) homotopy algebra encoding the interactions of the underlying BV theory [10].
Now, the commutative structure on the canonical multiplet is not freely generated, simply because is not freely generated.444As is the ring of functions on the Maurer–Cartan variety of it can be seen as the quotient of a polynomial ring by the (quadratic) ideal defining the Maurer–Cartan equation. It is interesting to ask whether it is possible to resolve the canonical multiplet by a freely generated commutative dg algebra. This is indeed possible, and a procedure for how was described in [1].555See also [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 9, 22] for related work. There, the authors proceed by considering the Tate resolution [23] of . The resolution is a freely generated commutative dg algebra quasi-isomorphic to . Moreover, the resolution corresponds to a -multiplet which is also endowed with a (freely generated) commutative algebra structure. One of the main results of [1] was the construction of a span of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras.
Theorem ([1]).
There is a span
(1) |
of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras.
(The definition of will be recalled in section 3.3.1 below.)
Given that we now have a class of -multiplets which also carry a multiplicative structure, the canonical multiplet being an important example, it is natural ask about compatibility between these two structures. This is the topic of the present paper.
Consider an ordinary Lie algebra , and a Lie algebra representation of on a vector space . If is equipped with the structure of an associative algebra, a suitable notion for to be an algebra over is to say that the morphism factors through
(2) |
where is the Lie algebra of derivations of the multiplication on . An example is to consider the action of vector fields on the algebra of functions on a manifold.
The appropriate homotopy generalisation of the notion of an associative algebra over a Lie algebra was introduced by Kajiura and Stasheff in [24], where they define the notion of an -algebra over an -algebra. They furthermore observe that this notion is equivalent to what they aptly term an open-closed homotopy algebra (motivated by the work of Zwiebach [25] on open-closed string field theory). Open-closed homotopy algebras moreover provide a “good” homotopy theory, in that homotopy transfer is possible [24, 26].
In this paper we observe that the canonical multiplet, with its commutative structure, is an example of an -algebra over the (strict) -algebra . Homotopy transfer then implies that the component-field multiplet is also an -algebra over .
Using the framework of -algebras over -algebras we extend the above theorem of [1].
Theorem (Theorem 3.6).
There is a span
(3) |
of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras over the (strict) -algebra .
Finally, since the pure spinor formalism provides a natural framework for twisting (see for example [12, 27, 28]). It is thus natural to ask how the span (3) behaves under twisting. As we shall see, the construction of (3), is easily extended to the twisted setting. Our main result is the following theorem.
Theorem (Theorem 3.10).
There is a span
(4) |
of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras over the (strict) -algebra .
(Here, represents a Maurer–Cartan element of the supersymmetry algebra , and the subscript Q denotes an appropriate deformation of the structure with respect to . )
The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we fix conventions related to dg vector spaces, and recall some results about the homological perturbation lemma, (twisting of) (representations of) -algebras, and (twisted) open-closed homotopy algebras. We also give a brief account of homotopy transfer of these structures. In section 3 we go on to shortly describe how supersymmetric representations (supermultiplets) are produced through the pure spinor superfield formalism, and furthermore argue that certain (twisted) supermultiplets naturally carry an open-closed homotopy algebra structure. We then focus on the case of the (twisted) canonical multiplet and explicitly construct the spans (3) and (4) above.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. (dg) vector spaces and algebras
Throughout we work over , the field of complex numbers. Tensor products are taken over unless otherwise specified. Differential graded (dg) vector spaces and their morphisms are -graded. The dual of a graded vector space is taken to be the direct sum of the dual of each graded piece.
Throughout we work with the Koszul sign convention. We let denote the flip map. Similarly, for , the symmetric group on elements, and a graded vector space , we define the map on homogeneous elements as , where is the Koszul sign.
Given a graded vector space , we denote the free graded symmetric algebra on by , for which we let denote the graded-commutative product. Similarly, we denote the graded skew-symmetric algebra on a vector space by , and the graded skew-symmetric product by . Unless explicitly stated, a (skew-)symmetric map, is always taken to be graded (skew-)symmetric.
A (commutative) dg algebra ((c)dga) , is a dg vector space , equipped with a (symmetric) bilinear map such that is a derivation with respect to . A semifree cdga is a freely generated cdga, that is, a cdga whose underlying graded commutative algebra is the free graded symmetric algebra on some graded vector space .
Let be the one-dimensional graded vector space concentrated in degree . For any vector space we define , so that as vector spaces.
We will sometimes consider graded vector spaces equipped with an additional grading called weight. When we do, each graded piece of a graded vector space has a decomposition . We should remark that the weight grading do not affect potential Koszul signs, rather it just provides an additional bookkeeping tool.666This grading convention differs from, but is equivalent to, the conventions of most literature on the pure spinor superfield formalism. In our conventions, the degree and weight are, for those well versed in the pure spinor literature, the totalised (i.e. ghost number) and (the negative of the) internal degree, respectively. Our conventions match the Tate bigrading of [1]. The aforementioned structures of dg vector spaces and (c)dgas are trivially generalised to this setting by assigning weight zero to the differential and multiplications, respectively. We adopt the convention that taking duals reverse the weight grading, thus;
(5) |
2.2. The homological perturbation lemma
A (deformation) retract of dg vector spaces and is a diagram
(6) |
where and are morphisms of dg vector spaces, and is a degree map such that and . If moreover the side conditions hold, the retract is called a strong (deformation) retract. Similarly, for and associative dg algebras, a strong (deformation) retract of associative dg algebras or a strong multiplicative retract [29], is a strong deformation retract of the underlying dg vector spaces, with the additional condition that and are algebra morphisms, and is a -derivation.777If is an associative algebra and , then is called an -derivation if . The following result is then standard in the literature.
Proposition 2.1 (Homological perturbation lemma, [29, 30]).
Let
(7) |
be a strong (multiplicative) retract. Let be a perturbation to the differential , that is . If the sum is well-defined, there exist maps
(8) |
such that
(9) |
is a strong (multiplicative) retract.
Given a dg vector space , it is always possible [31] to define a deformation retract to the cohomology of ;
(10) |
2.3. -algebras
-algebras are a homotopy generalisation of the notion of a Lie algebra.
Definition 2.2.
An -algebra is a graded vector space together with a family of skew-symmetric, multilinear maps of degree for that satisfy, for all , the identity
(11) |
where is the map defined in section 2.1
We will oftentimes abbreviate algebras by just their underlying vector space, e.g. we may refer to an -algebra as just , leaving the additional structure implicit. An -algebra is called strict if for all , and minimal if . Note that, the relations (11) imply that is a dg vector space.
An -algebra structure on a graded vector space can equivalently be described by the datum of a degree one square-zero derivation (i.e. ) on the free algebra , preserving the augmentation (see for example [32]). The semifree cdga , is usually called the (Chevalley–Eilenberg) cochains of . This correspondence between semifree cdgas and -algebras is an instance of the Koszul duality between commutative algebras and Lie algebras.888The interested reader can look at [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 31, 39] for some selected works related to Koszul duality. We say that and are Koszul dual.
Remark 2.3.
An -algebra whose cochains do not preserve the augmentation is equipped with a curvature; a map , of degree 2. Such algebras are called curved -algebras, their homotopy Jacobi identities are identical to (11), but where the sum is valid for all . See for example [40] for further details on curved -algebras.
A morphism of -algebras (or -morphism) is a degree 0 morphisms of the corresponding cochains
(12) |
such that . The definition of a morphism of -algebras is equivalent to a family of skew-symmetric multilinear maps
(13) |
of degree satisfying some quadratic coherence relations involving the brackets of and . In particular, is a morphism of the underlying cochain complexes. The explicit relations are not of interests to us in this paper and we refrain from writing them out, the reader is referred to [40] for more details.
We call an -morphism an -(quasi-)isomorphism if the first component map is a (quasi-)isomorphism of the underlying cochain complexes.
2.3.1. Twisting -algebras
-algebras admit a notion of “twist” with respect to a Maurer–Cartan element; see for example [41, 40] for reviews. In the definitions below, for an -algebra , we assume that is equipped with a complete descending filtration; that is, a filtration of , compatible with the -structure, and such that
(14) |
and .
Definition 2.4.
Let be an -algebra with a complete descending filtration. The space of Maurer–Cartan elements of is defined as
(15) |
Definition 2.5 ([41]).
Let be an -algebra with a complete descending filtration. Let be a Maurer–Cartan element. The twist of with respect to is the -algebra , defined on the graded vector space , with brackets defined by
(16) |
2.4. -representations
The notion of a representation of (or module over) a Lie algebra generalizes to the setting of homotopy algebras as follows. Recall that a representation of a Lie algebra on a vector space is a Lie algebra homomorphism , where is given a Lie algebra structure through the commutator bracket. More generally, if is a dg vector space, then is given the structure of a dg Lie algebra, with differential .
Definition 2.6.
Let be an -algebra. An -representation (or -module, or -module) of on a dg vector space is an -morphism
(17) |
The definition of an -module is equivalent to a family of component maps (sometimes referred to as higher actions)
(18) |
of degree , which, together with the ’s, satisfy some quadratic coherence relations (see e.g. [40], and references therein). We refer to an -module as strict if for .
Similarly, to the definition of a morphism of -algebras, a morphism of -modules is a family of component maps , satisfying some quadratic coherence relations [42]. Furthermore, if the zeroth component is a (quasi-)isomorphism of the underlying cochain complexes, is called a (quasi-)isomorphism of -modules.
Remark 2.7.
There are other equivalent definitions of modules of -algebras. For example it can be shown that an -algebra module can be encoded as a particular -algebra structure on the direct sum , see [43] for details on this construction. The -module coherence relations then correspond to the homotopy Jacobi identities (11) of the -algebra.
2.4.1. Twisting -representations
2.5. -algebras over -algebras
Given an algebra and a representation , of a Lie algebra on the underlying vector space of , a suitable notion for to be an algebra over is to say that the morphism factors through
(20) |
where is the Lie algebra of derivations of the multiplication on . An example of this is the adjoint representation of on itself; because of the Jacobi identity acts through derivations. Another perhaps less trivial example is to consider the action of vector fields on the algebra of functions on a manifold.
In [24], motivated by the open-closed string field theory of Zwiebach [25], Kajiura and Stasheff generalise this construction to the case when is an -algebra and is an -algebra. Recall that, similarly to the definition of an -algebra, an -algebra on a vector space is a family of degree multilinear maps , satisfying some quadratic coherence relations [31]. is then called an -algebra over an -algebra, and the way acts is through what are called homotopy derivations999This was later generalised to homotopy derivations of -algebras in [44] and to algebras over an operad in [45].; that is, the higher action maps are derivations with respect to each product, only up to homotopy.
Definition 2.8 ([24]).
Let be an -algebra. A homotopy derivation of , is a collection of degree multilinear maps
(21) |
satisfying coherence relations of the form
(22) |
The explicit signs can be found in [24].
In particular, if is a strict -algebra, with differential and multiplication (that is, an associative dga), (22) implies [24], for ,
(23) |
We thus see that of (LABEL:eq:strictder) is a derivation of only up to homotopy, controlled by . We will call a homotopy derivation strict if for all .
Definition 2.9 ([24]).
An -algebra over an -algebra is the data of a graded vector space , an -algebra , and a family of partially skew-symmetric multilinear maps
(24) |
of degree , satisfying coherence relations of the form
(25) | ||||
where denotes the flip map. The explicit signs can be found in [24].
As mentioned in [24], the definition of an -algebra over an -algebra encodes several substructures. In particular, the relations (25) imply that is a cochain complex. Furthermore, the maps define an -algebra structure on , and the maps define an -representation of the -algebra on the graded vector space . The additional maps then correspond to higher maps of homotopy derivations, controlling the failure of the to act through strict derivations.
It is clear that, given a (dg) Lie algebra , the above notion of an algebra over (i.e. (20)) is a special case of an -algebra over an -algebra. Indeed, a (dg) Lie algebra is in particular an -algebra, and a (dg) associative algebra is a special case of an -algebra. Moreover, having act through (strict) derivations is equivalent to an -algebra over an -algebra where only (,) , , (,) and are nonzero.
Analogous to the fact that an -module structure on of an -algebra can be encoded as an -algebra structure on the direct sum (see remark 2.7), it can be shown [24] that the structure of an -algebra over an -algebra is equivalent to an algebraic structure on . In particular, the summand encodes the -algebra structure on and the maps of (24) are then seen as products on , satisfying the coherence relations of (25). The data of such an algebraic structure is what Kajiura and Stasheff call an open-closed homotopy algebra.
Definition 2.10 ([24]).
An open-closed homotopy algebra is a graded vector space , together with an -algebra structure on , and a family of partially skew-symmetric multilinear maps
(26) |
of degree , satisfying the coherence relations of (25).
Similarly to how morphisms of -algebras are defined by a family of component maps, morphisms of open-closed homotopy algebras are also defined through a family of component maps. Explicitly, a morphism of open-closed homotopy algebras is a family of maps
(27) |
for and , satisfying quadratic coherence relations involving the products on the two open-closed homtopy algebras [24]. In particular, the coherence relations say that is a morphism of the underlying cochain complexes, and so, analogous to -algebras, a (quasi-)isomorphism of open-closed homotopy algebras is a morphism of open-closed homotopy algebras, such that is a (quasi-)isomorphism [24].
As open-closed homotopy algebras are equivalent to -algebras over -algebras, we take the definition of a ((quasi-)iso)morphism of -algebras over -algebras to be a ((quasi-)iso)morphism of the corresponding open-closed homotopy algebras.
2.5.1. Twisting of open-closed homotopy algebras
Kajiura and Stasheff [24] also provide an appropriate definition of Maurer–Cartan elements for an open-closed homotopy algebra.
Definition 2.11 ([24]).
Let be an open-closed homotopy algebra, with -algebra maps , and maps . An element is a Maurer–Cartan element of the open-closed homotopy algebra if is a Maurer–Cartan element of the -algebra , and the following equation holds
(28) |
Using the definition of Maurer–Cartan elements of open-closed homotopy algebras one can then define the notion of twisting of open-closed homotopy algebras in an analogous fashion to twisting of -algebras and their representations [24]. As an open-closed homotopy algebra in particular encodes an -representation of on this also includes the notion of twisting of -representations. Explicitly, the element , where is a Maurer–Cartan element of the -algebra , defines a Maurer–Cartan element of the open-closed homotopy algebra . The twisted open-closed homotopy structure corresponds to an open-closed homotopy algebra on , whose -algebra structure is the twisted one of (16) and whose higher maps are, for and ,
(29) |
We see that, for , (29) is nothing other than (19), the component maps for the -action of the twisted -algebra on .
2.6. Homotopy transfer
Throughout the rest of the paper we will make heavy use of the homotopy transfer theorem [31]. Roughly what this says is that given a “sufficiently nice”101010More properly an algebra over a Koszul operad [31]. algebraic structure on a dg vector space , and a deformation retract of dg vector spaces
(30) |
one can transfer this structure along the retract (30) to obtain an (in a suitable sense) equivalent algebraic structure on . The structure of relevance in this paper is that of (representations of) -algebras, -algebras, and open-closed homotopy algebras, all of which are examples of “sufficently nice” algebraic structures.
Let us sketch how this works for -algebras, the generalisation to other algebraic structures is straightforward. Let in (30) be an -algebra , such that . By virtue of the homotopy transfer theorem [31], there exists an -algebra structure on and an -quasi-isomorphism
(31) |
such that . Furthermore, the -algebra structure on and the -quasi-isomorphism are expressible using the homotopy data and the -algebra structure of [31], e.g. using the tensor trick [30], and can be interpreted as a sum over trees. For example the ternary bracket , is (modulo relative signs) the sum
(32) |
More generally, is computed by a sum over all rooted trees with leaves, where one decorates the leaves with , the -ary vertices with , the internal edges with , and the root with .
Similarly, if is an -algebra, we, instead of summing over all rooted trees, sum over all planar trees to obtain an -algebra structure on [31].
It was shown in [24] that homotopy transfer of open-closed homotopy algebras is possible111111See also, [26]. The way homotopy transfer works for open-closed homotopy algebras is analogous to that of -algebras and -algebras. However, now we assume that there is a splitting , and we are to sum over trees built from corollas of the form
(33) |
where again we attach to the internal edges, to the leaves and to the root.
In fact, as open-closed homtopy algebras in particular encode the structure of a -module on the underlying vector space of , it is clear that homotopy transfer of open-closed homotopy algebras specialises to homotopy transfer of -modules. Similarly, as open-closed homotopy algebras also encode an -algebra structure on , homotopy transfer of open-closed homotopy algebras specialises to homotopy transfer of -algebras.
3. Open-closed homotopy algebras in the pure spinor superfield formalism
Let us now apply the toolbox of open-closed homotopy algebras to physics. We will work in the pure spinor superfield formalism [8, 10, 11]. Let us briefly review how this construction works.
3.1. Supersymmetry algebras
Recall that a supersymmetry algebra can be defined as follows [10, 11]. Let be a Lie algebra in degrees one and two121212To keep with current conventions in the literature we shall use the notation , and . Then can be seen as a central extension of the abelian Lie algebra by :
(34) |
Choosing bases and for and , respectively, the Lie bracket can be written as
(35) |
where are the coefficients of the map 131313Recall that is the graded skew-symmetric product and since is in degree one this map is in fact symmetric. defining the extension (34). We call such an algebra a supertranslation algebra. They cover any example of supersymmetry algebra with any amount of supersymmetry [10]. We can further extend by including the Lie algebra of (even) derivations of in degree zero:
(36) |
We call an algebra of the form (36) a super-Poincaré algebra [11]. For future convenience, also define a weight grading , whereby we let , , and . We can then define a -bigrading141414We should mention here that our grading conventions differs from, but is equivalent to, the conventions appearing in most literature on the pure spinor superfield formalism. In our conventions, the degree and weight are, for those well versed in the pure spinor literature, the totalised (i.e. ghost number) and (the negative of the) internal degree, respectively. Our conventions match the Tate bigrading of [1].
(37) |
We should clarify that the weight grading w does not affect any potential Koszul signs; the Koszul signs are solely determined by the degree of the objects.
The Chevalley–Eilenberg cochains of take the form
(38) |
where . The generators of , denoted , sit in bidegree , whilst the generators of , denoted , sit in bidegree . In these generators the differential on looks like . The cochains can then be written as
(39) |
In particular, the degree zero cohomology of this complex is the ring
(40) |
of functions on the space of Maurer–Cartan elements of . (Since has trivial differential, Maurer–Cartan elements are just elements satisfying .) Notice that, by virtue of (40), there exists a map witnessing as a -module.
In [10, 11] the authors defined the notion of a -multiplet as a local -module151515that is, a vector bundle on whose sections acts through differential operators with some additional structure. We will in the following only be concerned with -module structures, as described in section 2.4, although we believe most of the construction goes through when considering -multiplets. For simplicity we will also work algebraically, i.e. with polynomial functions, rather than in the smooth setting.
3.2. The pure spinor construction
Given a super-Poincaré algebra we will use the notation for the space of Maurer-Cartan elements. The pure spinor functor [10, 11] associates, to any -equivariant -module161616A -module is said to be -equivariant if is also a -module, and the -action map is equivariant with respect to this structure, where is a -module by the extension of the coadjoint action of on . , the corresponding -module
(41) |
where, by letting and denote coordinate functions of and , respectively, is the algebra of functions on .171717Physically thought of as flat superspace. Thus, acts on . Specifically, and acts by rotations and translations, respectively. Moreover, and act through the module structure on defined by the input data, and trivially on . Even though we are only concerned with -module structures in this work, we still refer to modules obtained through the pure spinor construction as (-)multiplets. To avoid clutter in equations, when no confusion may arise we will oftentimes omit writing out the explicit indices.
The action of on is the tensor product of the action on with the action on taken to be the trivial extension of the action of to . Explicitly, the generators of act as
(42) |
We extend the bigrading (37) by assigning and to have bidegree , respectively. Then the differential has bidegree .
3.2.1. The canonical multiplet
For each choice of super-Poincaré algebra there exists a canonical multiplet [1]181818This was referred to as the “tautological multiplet” in [12]. defined by taking as the -equivariant -module, the ring of functions on (cf. section 3.1). As is concentrated in degree 0, acts trivially and the canonical multiplet takes the form
(43) |
3.2.2. Minimal models in the pure spinor construction
A method was described in [10, 11], for how to extract a “component field” multiplet (physically thought of as the space of component fields of a BV-theory) from the pure spinor multiplet . Let us briefly sketch how this works. For simplicity, let us assume that is concentrated in degree 0191919The procedure is in full generality defined for any -equivariant -module . However, when is concentrated in more than one degree, one proceeds in two steps. We refer the reader to [11] for details., then acts trivially, and the differential on is
(44) |
Note that decomposes as , where squares to zero by itself. Thus , can be seen as a perturbation to . We first consider the complex
(45) |
The component-field multiplet is then obtained by first taking the cohomology of . One can then define a deformation retract to the cohomology, and by introducing the perturbation one obtains, by the homological perturbation lemma, a retract
(46) |
where is the differential induced by the homological perturbation lemma of the deformation . As described in [10] we can now transfer the -module structure along (46) to obtain a -module structure on the component fields. This -module
(47) |
3.2.3. Open-closed homotopy algebras in the pure spinor superfield formalism
The canonical multiplet , carries some additional structure; it is in fact a cdga (or equivalently; a strict -algebra, whose binary product is commutative), the multiplication taken to be the tensor product of the algebra structure on and . It was explained in [10, 11] that, since is in particular an -algebra, letting in (46), we can transfer this structure along (46) to obtain an -algebra structure on .202020We should mention here that, since is comutative, the transferred structure will in particular be , we will not make this distinction in the sequel. This -structure corresponds, in some examples, to the (colour-stripped [13, 14]) interaction terms for the underlying field theory. We refer the reader to [10, 11] and references therein for details on this.
However, there is in fact a richer structure present: as acts through (strict) derivations with respect to the product on we have that the canonical multiplet is in fact an -algebra over the -algebra . Equivalently, there is an open-closed homotopy algebra structure on . Explicitly, in the notation of section 2.5, is the Lie algebra (that is, strict ) structure on , encodes the action of on , , is the product on , and all other . Consequently, since is an -algebra over the -algebra , or equivalently, is an open-closed homotopy algebra, by homotopy transfer there is an open-closed homotopy algebra structure on . In particular, the induced products will then encode the homotopy action of on , and the maps correspond to the -algebra structure on . However, in general there are also maps
(48) |
These maps then encode the compatibility between the homotopy action of and the -algebra structure on . This provides a precise framework for including interactions in a supersymmetric theory as discussed in for example [11, Remark 2.1].
Remark 3.1.
One might ask what the appropriate physical interpretation of these ’s is. An -module explains the appearance of linearised on-shell symmetries in physics (see for example [10]). It is thus natural to expect that; just as the higher component maps of a homotopy action compensate for the fact that only closes modulo the linearised equations of motion, the should now, in the presence of interactions, compensate for the fact that the symmetry algebra closes modulo the full equations of motion.
Remark 3.2.
The above discussion is not limited to the canonical multiplet but works with any -equivariant -algebra, as long as the action is through strict derivations with respect to the multiplication.
3.2.4. Twists of supermultiplets in the pure spinor formalism
As the pure spinor construction produces strict -modules, twisting in this formalism is simple: given a -multiplet from a -equivariant -module , the twist of by a Maurer–Cartan element is the -module
(49) |
where , and is defined in (41). We should mention here that the differential no longer respects the weight grading , simply because does not. This issue is well-known, and can be resolved by introducing a formal variable of bidegree , and letting see e.g. [12, 46] for more details on this. We will, with slight abuse of notation, not write in equations and instead think of has having bidegree . Since the action of on is strict, the action of on is still strict, and defined through the same map (cf. section 2.4.1).
The twisted canonical multiplet is again a cdga; acts through derivations, and so the perturbed differential on will still be a derivation. In [12], these cdgas were studied in detail, for various examples of super-Poincaré algebras.
Moreover, since the action of is defined through the same map as the action of , and the underlying commutative algebra structure of is the same as that of , it is clear that is now an -algebra over , or equivalently, there is an open-closed homotopy algebra structure on . (This is equivalent to twisting the open-closed homotopy algebra structure on by the element , as described in section 2.5.1.)
3.3. Resolving the canonical multiplet
As mentioned above, the canonical multiplet is in particular a cdga. However, it is not freely generated as an algebra, simply because is not. It is interesting however to try to further resolve by a freely generated cdga. A procedure for how to go about this was described in [1]. There, the authors proceed by taking the Tate resolution [23] of . Let us briefly recall how this works.
3.3.1. The Tate resolution
Given a polynomial ring and a homogeneous ideal , the Tate resolution [23] constructs a multiplicative resolution of the quotient ring in free -modules, that is, a semifree cdga over . We construct the resolution iteratively, by “killing cohomology” degree by degree. The starting point for the resolution is , we can endow it with the structure of a cdga by declaring that the differential is zero on all generators of . (On free algebras, derivations are uniquely defined by their actions on generators.) The (degree zero) cohomology is then . To construct a resolution of we now adjoin generators of degree that are mapped by the differential to the generators of , generating a semifree cdga whose degree zero cohomology is . (Note that, for the case at hand here, the resulting cdga is just .)
However, with the introduction of new generators of degree , it may happen that , the cohomology in degree , is non-zero. When this happens, we choose a set of generators of , and adjoin degree generators to the cdga which are mapped to the generators of by the differential. The resulting semifree cdga then has empty cohomology in degree , while the degree zero cohomology is still . Proceeding in this fashion by adding new generators to kill cohomology in negative degrees, the Tate resolution produces a semifree resolution of .
We call the procedure of introducing new generators a stage. We number the stages so that at, stage , generators in degree are introduced. Thus, at stage we have a freely generated cdga whose degree zero cohomology is , and whose cohomology in degrees is zero. ( itself is then stage zero.) In the present example, the first stage is , the second stage adds generators to kill , and so on.
Recall that, in our example, and . Thus, both and are graded by weight. We can define the Tate resolution so as to respect this weight grading as follows. The generators adjoined at stage one (i.e. the generators in ) have weight two (as the generators of have weight two). Similarly, at higher stages, the weight of any new generator is equal to the weight of the cohomology it kills. The differential can then be seen as having bidegree .
The resulting algebra is a semifree cdga , where are the generators adjoined at stage , with a differential defined by the above procedure. By the discussion of section 2.3 this algebra can then be interpreted as the Chevalley–Eilenberg cochains of a (minimal i.e. zero differential) -algebra (minimality follows from the construction of the Tate resolution, see [1]). We thus refer to the resolution as . The -algebra can be characterised [1] by a short exact sequence of -algebras
(50) |
where is the -algebra defined through the Tate resolution from stage and onwards. The vector space is then spanned by the shifted duals of the for . It defines an ideal in spanned by the generators of degree 3 and higher.
The weight grading defined through the Tate resolution defines a weight grading on . Moreover, the weight grading is preserved by the brackets of the -algebra (by construction the Chevalley–Eilenberg differential has weight zero). Taking the associated filtration to this gradation endows with a complete descending filtration.
Since the first stage of the Tate resolution is precisely , there is a natural map witnessing as a (-equivariant) -module. As such we can plug it in to . The resulting multiplet;
(51) |
(where is the Chevalley–Eilenberg differential on ) is a semifree cdga with a strict action of .
Now, note that , , and are all cdgas, thus they are in particualr -algebras. One of the main results of [1] is the construction of a span of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras.
Theorem 3.3 ([1]).
There is a span
(52) |
of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras.
As the pure spinor functor preserves quasi-isomorphisms [11], it is clear that and are quasi-isomorphic as -modules. Furthermore, by homotopy transfer along the right leg of (52), there is a -module structure on . This structure is, by the general theory of homotopy transfer [31], quasi-isomorphic to the -module structure on and . Now, as we saw in section 3.2.3, is in fact an -algebra over the (strict) -algebra . Analogously, so is . We will in the following show that theorem 3.3 can be lifted to a span of -algebras over -algebras, and in fact show that this construction naturally extends to twisting of the multiplets.
3.4. Spans of open-closed homotopy algebras
3.4.1. and the (twisted) canonical multiplet
As and are both examples of -algebras over , there are open-closed homotopy algebra structures on and , respectively. Moreover, because the action of is through (strict) derivations with respect to the multiplications on and , the twists and by an element will be -algebras over the -algebra (cf. section 3.2.4). In the setting of open-closed homotopy algebras, after twisting there are open-closed homotopy algebra structures on and , characterised by exactly the same maps as their untwisted counterparts, apart from the differentials, which are deformed according to the twisting procedure of -algebras and their modules (see section 2)212121This is also equivalent to twisting the open-closed homotopy algebras by the element as discussed in section 3.2.4.. Explicitly we have, as dg vector spaces,
(53) | ||||
(54) |
Proposition 3.4.
and are quasi-isomorphic as open-closed homotopy algebras.
Proof.
We will proceed as in [1]. Recall that, since is a resolution of , we can find a strong retract
(55) |
Tensoring (55) with , and taking the direct sum with the trivial retract relating with itself, yields a retract
(56) |
We now perturb the differential on the left of (56) by adding the twisted differential
(57) |
By the homological perturbation lemma, induces a differential on the summand , for which the first term is
(58) |
which is precisely the form of the twisted differential of the twist of the canonical multiplet (49). The higher deformations of the form , are all zero by the same argument as in [1, Prop. 3.2]: the image of lies inside the ideal of generated by the elements of strictly negative degrees, that is, . Or in other words, the elements in the image of always contain at least one power of or for . By defining a weight grading such that and , we have that the terms of either have weight 0 or 1, and the weight of each component of is always greater than or equal to 1. By slight abuse of notation we will write to mean that each component of has weight at least one. Now, projects down to the component and thus all terms with at least one must vanish. We thus end up with a deformation retract
(59) |
where
(60) | ||||
Observe that all higher corrections of are zero, by the same argument as for why the higher corrections to the differential are zero.
Now, the left side of (59) is equipped with the structure of an open-closed homotopy algebra. In particular, the -algebra structure is given by that on , the -algebra structure is given by that on , and the action of , which is given by strict derivations, is just the strict one defined through the pure spinor construction. That is, all maps , apart from , ,and , are zero. By homotopy transfer this gives rise to an open-closed homotopy algebra structure on . However, there is already an open-closed homotopy algebra defined on this vector space; the one described in section 3.2.3. To show that we indeed have an equivalence of -algebras over an -algebra we must show four things:
-
(1)
The -structure induced on , transferred along (59), coincides with the one already defined.
-
(2)
The -structure induced on , transferred along (59), coincides with the one already defined.
-
(3)
The -module structure induced on , transferred along (59), coincides with the one already defined.
-
(4)
No higher maps , for and appear through homotopy transfer along (59).
The first point is trivially checked. Indeed, the homotopy acting on is just zero, and so, no higher brackets can appear. The binary bracket is just the one already defined.
The binary product induced on is
(61) |
where is the product on . This coincides with the binary product already defined on .
The linear part of the transferred action of on coincides with that defined through the pure spinor construction: the action of on is given by
(62) | ||||
where we used that the second term of the second equality of (3.4.1) is zero: and , thus when projecting with to these terms are killed. The result of (3.4.1) coincides with the action of on through the pure spinor construction.222222It should perhaps not come as a surprise that and are equivalent as -modules; the pure spinor functor preserves quasi-isomorphisms, and it can also be shown that twisting of -modules preserves quasi-isomorophisms [40, 42, 47].
Finally, to show that we actually have an equivalence of -algebras over -algebras, or open-closed homotopy algebras, the only thing left to show is that no higher maps of the form
(63) |
for and (no higher -products), and (no higher actions), and and (no higher ’s, cf. (48)), can appear through homotopy transfer of open-closed homotopy algebras. Indeed all these maps vanish. To see this, we note that any such map can be represented by a diagram with a root of the form:
(64) |
where is the multiplication on , and is the action of . But again, and . Thus, all trees of this form are ultimately killed by .
3.4.2. Spans of untwisted open-closed homotopy algebras
It should be noted that it was nowhere assumed that . Hence, 3.4 has the following immediate corollary.
Corollary 3.5.
and are quasi-isomorphic as open-closed homotopy algebras.
Now, theorem 3.3 tells us that and are quasi-isomorphic as -algebras. Let us sketch how this works, and see that the generalisation to open-closed homotopy algebras follows immediately.
Recall that, as a dg vector space
(65) |
It was observed in [1] that, since is semifree it constitutes the Chevalley–Eilenberg cochains of a (nonminimal) -algebra, . As a cochain complex
(66) |
where . It is thus clear that and it was moreover proved that , with its -algebra structure given by restriction, is in fact a minimal model of .
To see this we simply observe that, since , there exists (cf. [30, 29, for example]232323this result is sometimes referred to as the “tensor trick”.) a strong multiplicative retract
(67) |
We can choose a decomposition of , where elements of the last summand always contain at least one power of , , , or . is then the projection onto the first summand, and the injection. Furthermore, we have, modulo coefficients, , where the diacritic invokes the -derivation property (cf. section 2.2). We can now add the rest of the differential on , that is, we consider a perturbation of the differential , of the form
(68) |
By the homological perturbation lemma this induces a differential on , which, by the results of [1], yields the Chevalley–Eilenberg differential defining the -algebra structure on . Moreover, by the homological perturbation lemma, the resulting retract
(69) |
is a strong multiplicative retract and the deformed maps and constitute -quasi-isomorphisms of the underlying -algebras of and [30, 29].
Now, since is an open-closed homotopy algebra, we can, analogous to the proof of 3.4, extend the deformation retract (69) by taking the direct sum on each side with . We can then transfer open-closed homotopy algebras along this extended retract to obtain an open-closed homotopy algebra on . In particular, since the retract (69) is strong and multiplicative, the induced -algebra structure on coincides with the binary one already defined. As open-closed homotopy algebras are equivalent to -algebras over -algebras (see section 2.5), the following theorem is then immediate.
Theorem 3.6.
There is a span
(70) |
of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras over the (strict) -algebra .
3.4.3. and
We will here generalise the right leg of (70) to also allow for arbitrary twists. This yields a quasi-isomorphism of -algebras over -algebras between and , where is with a particular deformed differential, soon to be defined.
In the previous section we saw that, by considering the perturbation (68) of the differential on the left side of (67), we have an equivalence between and . Now, instead of just considering the perturbation (68), what if we also include the term coming from twisting? That is, what if we add the perturbation
(71) |
to the left side of (67) and see what it induces on ?
Proposition 3.7.
Proof.
The new differential is given as a sum of terms
(73) |
The term for gives back the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential on . Indeed, . All terms but are zero under , that is their image lies inside , and composed with is zero.
Let us now consider the higher corrections , for . The first correction looks like
(74) |
As the image of will never contain any powers of , we can effectively replace the first occurence of with . Now, crucially, to have something nonzero under implies there can be no in the expression. By working backwards one can try to identify which terms produce a possible nonzero image under . The only part of which does not produce any such terms is . Hence
(75) |
where we used the fact that the composition always contains or , which is zero under . Similarly, the composition always carries an which is also zero under . Moreover, the -derivation property vanishes in the last step because of the identity .
The following lemma computes the general form for the higher terms of .
Lemma 3.8.
Let , for . Then we have,
(76) |
Proof.
The proof is done by induction. The base case was shown in (75). Assume now . Then we have,
(77) |
where the -derivation property vanishes in the last step because of the identity . ∎
By lemma 3.8, we thus have that the total transferred differential takes the form:
(78) |
However, the expression after must carry at least one , in order to create something nontrivial, and it cannot contain any as these will be killed under . Thus, the only surviving terms are those encoding brackets which take at least one element of and the rest in . Hence, we retrieve (72). ∎
3.4.4. Koszul duals of twisted canonical multiplets
Recall that , as graded vector spaces. Moreover, if is a Maurer–Cartan element of then is also a Maurer–Cartan element of . The twist of by is then the -algebra defined on the vector space , with brackets
(79) |
As forms an -algebra ideal inside it is clear from (79) that the underlying graded vector space , with its -algebra structure defined by restriction of (79), also forms an ideal inside . Let us denote this -algebra . The cochains of are then the symmetric algebra , equipped with a differential . Let us choose a basis for and let denote the shifted duals of , then the differential on can be written as
(80) |
where the ’s are, modulo signs and combinatorial factors, the structure constants of , so that .
Let us now see what brackets the extra term of (72) defines. Using the same bases and , we have
(81) |
Substituting (81) in (72) forces and we get a sum over and . The result is
(82) |
from which we can read off that the “new” -algebra structure on , defined by , is precisely that of . We thus obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3.9.
The -algebra Koszul dual to is the -algebra ; the subalgebra ideal of generated by .
Now, by the same reasoning as in section 3.4.2, the homological perturbation lemma tells us there exists a strong multiplicative retract
(83) |
along which (after taking the direct sum with the retract identifying with itself) we can transfer open-closed homotopy algebra structures. Since the retract is in fact strong and multiplicative, that is, and are (strict) algebra morphisms, we have in particular that the induced -algebra structure on is the binary one already defined. We have thus established the following theorem.
Theorem 3.10.
There is a span
(84) |
of quasi-isomorphisms of -algebras over the (strict) -algebra .
Remark 3.11.
Let us briefly also consider ; this is again a semifree cdga, which means it constitutes the Chevalley–Eilenberg cochains of an -algebra. The underlying vector space of this -algebra is again . From the equation of we can read off the -algebra structure;
(85) |
In particular, we see that we have a term which does not preserve the augmentation (cf. remark 2.3), and so will be a curved -algebra. In particular, the curvature is
(86) |
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Leverhulme Research Project Grant RPG–2021–092. The author would like to thank Charles Young, Hyungrok Kim, Ingmar Saberi, Martin Cederwall, Jakob Palmkvist, and Tommaso Franzini for valuable discussions. Special thanks to Charles Young and Tommaso Franzini for their helpful comments on the draft.
References
- [1] M. Cederwall, S. Jonsson, J. Palmkvist, and I. Saberi, Canonical supermultiplets and their Koszul duals, Comm. Math. Phys., 405, 127, (2024), DOI:10.1007/s00220-024-04990-z, [2304.01258].
- [2] I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Relativistic -matrix of dynamical systems with boson and fermion constraints, Phys. Lett. B, 69, 3, (1977), DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90553-6.
- [3] I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Gauge algebra and quantization, Phys. Lett. B, 102, 1, (1981), DOI:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90205-7.
- [4] I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Quantization of gauge theories with linearly dependent generators, Phys. Rev. D, 28, 10, (1983), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D 30, 508, (1984)], DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2567.
- [5] I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Closure of the gauge algebra, generalized Lie equations and Feynman rules, Nucl. Phys. B, 234, 1, (1984), DOI:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90227-X.
- [6] I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Existence theorem for gauge algebra, J. Math. Phys., 26, 1, (1985), DOI:10.1063/1.526780.
- [7] Martin, B. E. W. Nilsson, and D. Tsimpis, Spinorial cohomology and maximally supersymmetric theories, JHEP, 02, 009, (2002), DOI:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/009, [hep-th/0110069].
- [8] M. Cederwall, Pure spinor superfields: An overview, In: S. Belluci (eds) Breaking of Supersymmetry and Ultraviolet Divergences in Extended Supergravity, Springer Proc. Phys., 153, 61–93, (2014), DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-03774-5_4, [1307.1762].
- [9] S. Jonsson, Supermultiplets and Koszul duality: Super-Yang–Mills and supergravity using pure spinors, Master’s thesis, Chalmers U. Tech., (2021).
- [10] R. Eager, F. Hahner, I. Saberi, and B. R. Williams, Perspectives on the pure spinor superfield formalism, J. Geom. Phys., 180, 104626, (2022), DOI:10.1016/j.geomphys.2022.104626, [2111.01162].
- [11] C. J. Elliott, F. Hahner, and I. Saberi, The derived pure spinor formalism as an equivalence of categories, SIGMA, 19, 022, (2023), DOI:10.3842/SIGMA.2023.022, [2205.14133].
- [12] I. Saberi and B. R. Williams, Twisting pure spinor superfields, with applications to supergravity, Pure Appl. Math. Q., 20, 2, 645–701, (2024), DOI:10.4310/PAMQ.2024.v20.n2.a2, [2106.15639].
- [13] B. Jurčo, T. Macrelli, C. Sämann, and M. Wolf, Loop amplitudes and quantum homotopy algebras, JHEP, 2020, 3, (2020), DOI:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)003, [1912.06695].
- [14] L. Borsten, B. Jurčo, H. Kim, T. Macrelli, C. Sämann, and M. Wolf, Double copy from homotopy algebras, Fortsch. Phys., 69, 2100075, (2021), DOI:10.1002/prop.202100075, [2102.11390].
- [15] M. Chesterman, Ghost constraints and the covariant quantization of the superparticle in ten-dimensions, JHEP, 02, 011, (2004), DOI:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/02/011, [hep-th/0212261].
- [16] N. Berkovits and N. A. Nekrasov, The character of pure spinors, Lett. Math. Phys., 74, 1, (2005), DOI:10.1007/s11005-005-0009-7, [hep-th/0503075].
- [17] Y. Aisaka, E. A. Arroyo, N. Berkovits, and N. Nekrasov, Pure spinor partition function and the massive superstring spectrum, JHEP, 08, 50, (2008), DOI:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/08/050, [0806.0584].
- [18] M. Movshev and A. Schwarz, On maximally supersymmetric Yang–Mills theories. Nucl. Phys. B, 681, 03, 324–350, (2004). DOI:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.12.033, [hep-th/0311132].
- [19] M. Movshev and A. Schwarz, Algebraic structure of Yang-Mills theory, In: P. Etingof, V. Retakh, I. M. Singer (eds) The Unity of Mathematics, Progr Math., 244, (2006), DOI:10.1007/0-8176-4467-9_14, [hep-th/0404183].
- [20] M. Movshev and A. Schwarz, Supersymmetric Deformations of Maximally Supersymmetric Gauge Theories, JHEP, 2012, 136, (2012), DOI:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)136, [0910.0620].
- [21] M. Movshev, Yang–Mills theories in dimensions 3, 4, 6, and 10 and bar-duality, (2005), [hep-th/0503165].
- [22] M. Cederwall and J. Palmkvist, Superalgebras, constraints and partition functions, JHEP 2015, 36, (2015), DOI:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)036, [1503.06215].
- [23] J. Tate, Homology of Noetherian rings and local rings, Illinois J. of Math., 1, 1, 14 – 27, (1957), DOI:10.1215/ijm/1255378502.
- [24] H. Kajiura and J. Stasheff, Homotopy Algebras Inspired by Classical Open-Closed String Field Theory, Comm. Math. Phys., 263, 5, 553–581, (2006), DOI:10.1007/s00220-006-1539-2, [math/0410291].
- [25] B. Zwiebach, Oriented open-closed string theory revisited, Ann. Physics, 267, 2, 193–248, (1998), DOI:10.1006/aphy.1998.5803, [hep-th/9705241].
- [26] E. Hoefel and M. Livernet, Open–closed homotopy algebras and strong homotopy Leibniz pairs through Koszul operad theory, Lett. Math. Phys., 101, 01, (2011), DOI:10.1007/s11005-012-0556-7, [1104.3607].
- [27] F. Hahner and I. Saberi, Eleven-dimensional supergravity as a Calabi-Yau twofold, (2023), [2304.12371].
- [28] S. Jonsson, H. Kim, and C. A. S. Young, Homotopy representations of extended holomorphic symmetry in holomorphic twists, (2024), [2408.00704].
- [29] J. Chuang and A. Lazarev, On the perturbation algebra, J. Algebra, 519, 1, 130–148, (2019), DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2018.10.032, [1703.05296].
- [30] A. Berglund, Homological perturbation theory for algebras over operads, Algebr. Geom. Topol., 14, (2014), DOI:10.2140/agt.2014.14.2511, [0909.3485].
- [31] J.-L. Loday and B. Vallette, Algebraic operads, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, (2012).
- [32] B. Reinhold, -algebras and their cohomology, EmSci, 3, 4, (2019), DOI:10.1051/emsci/2019003.
- [33] S. B. Priddy, Koszul resolutions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 152, 1, 39–60, (1970), DOI:10.2307/1995637.
- [34] Gunnar Fløystad, Koszul duality and equivalences of categories, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 358, 6, 2373–2398, (2006), DOI:10.1090/S0002-9947-05-04035-3, [math/0012264].
- [35] A. Beilinson, V. Ginzburg, and W. Soergel, Koszul duality patterns in representation theory, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 9, 2, 473–527, (1996), DOI:10.1090/S0894-0347-96-00192-0.
- [36] L. Positselski, Nonhomogeneous quadratic duality and curvature, (2014), Reprint of the 1993 article in Functional Analysis and its Applications, [1411.1982].
- [37] L. Positselski, Two kinds of derived categories, Koszul duality, and comodule-contramodule correspondence, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 212, 996, (2011), DOI:10.1090/S0065-9266-2010-00631-8, [0905.2621].
- [38] V. Ginzburg and M. Kapranov, Koszul duality for operads, Duke Math. J., 76, 1, 203 – 272, (1994), DOI:10.1215/S0012-7094-94-07608-4, [0709.1228].
- [39] N. M. Paquette and B. R. Williams, Koszul duality in quantum field theory, Confluentes Math., 14, 2, (2022), DOI:10.5802/cml.88, [2110.10257].
- [40] A. Kraft and J. Schnitzer, An introduction to -algebras and their homotopy theory for the working mathematician, Rev. Math. Phys., 36, 01, 2330006, (2024), DOI:10.1142/S0129055X23300066, [2207.01861].
- [41] V. Dotsenko, S. Shadrin, and B. Vallette, Maurer–Cartan Methods in Deformation Theory: The Twisting Procedure, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge., 2023, DOI:10.1017/9781108963800, [2212.11323].
- [42] V. Dolgushev, A formality theorem for Hochschild chains, Adv. Math., 200, 1, 51–101, (2006), DOI:10.1016/j.aim.2004.10.017, [math/0402248].
- [43] T. J. Lada, -algebra representations, Appl. Categ. Structures, 12, 29–34, (2004), DOI:10.1023/B:APCS.0000013809.71153.30.
- [44] T. J. Lada and M. Tolley, Derivations of homotopy algebras, Arch. Math. (Brno), 49, 05, 309–315, (2013), DOI:10.5817/AM2013-5-309.
- [45] M. Doubek and T. J. Lada, Homotopy derivations, J. Homotopy Relat. Struct., 11, 599–630, (2016), DOI:10.1007/s40062-015-0118-7, [1409.1691].
- [46] K. Costello and C. Scheimbauer, Lectures on mathematical aspects of (twisted) supersymmetric gauge theories, In: D. Calaque and T. Strobl (eds) Mathematical Aspects of Quantum Field Theories, 57–87, Springer, Cham, (2015), DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-09949-1_3.
- [47] C. Esposito and N. de Kleijn, -resolutions and twisting in the curved context, Rev. Mat. Iberoam., 37, 4, 1581–1598, (2021), DOI:10.4171/RMI/1239.