The BV formalism for \(L_\infty \)-algebras (Q2363404)

This paper studies a relationship between the category of \(L_\infty\) algebras and a partially defined category of commutative \(BV_\infty\) algebras. Previous constructions of other authors described how to pass from an \(L_\infty\) algebra to a commutative \(BV_\infty\) algebra (via the Chevalley--Eilenberg complex). This work shows that these constructions constitute a faithful enveloping functor to commutative \(BV_\infty\) algebras. It characterizes the essential image of this enveloping functor explicitly in terms of straightforward criteria on a commutative \(BV_\infty\) algebra or morphism. Then using a higher derived bracket formalism, it constructs two functors in the opposite direction. The first is more or less a right adjoint on the partially defined category of \(BV_\infty\) algebras. The second, closely related to the first, is an inverse equivalence functor only defined on the essential image of the enveloping functor. This fits into a literature in homotopical operadic algebra where forgetful and inductive adjoint functor pairs between two categories of algebras arising from a morphism of operads are upgraded to adjoint pairs between the corresponding two categories of homotopy algebras. As is remarked by the authors here, there is always a naive upgrade to the homotopical setting arising from a lifted morphism of operads between the corresponding infinity versions. However, this naive upgrade is always between the wrong categories---morphisms are too strict. There are folklore versions of this upgrade to the right categories but they seem to require either significant restrictions on the operads involved (not satisfied in this case) or else must explicitly use very large models for the homotopy theories, defeating the purpose of finding parsimonious models. So far there is no systematic way available in the literature to construct the correct adjoint pair at the homotopical level, and no ad hoc method applicable in this case. For this reason, it is important and useful to provide an explicit construction. The fact that commutative \(BV_\infty\) algebras as used here do not form a category means that the various statements need to be interpreted with delicacy. The alternative, working with a much more unwieldy category of \(BV_\infty\) algebras, would require a good deal more in the way of background, not to mention in the data and conditions for the constructions. Moreover, commutative \(BV_\infty\) algebras suffice for many applications. Therefore this choice seems a relatively small price to pay to have access to the much cleaner characterizations of the algebras, morphisms, and functors.