Tangent $\infty$-categories and Goodwillie calculus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We make precise the analogy between Goodwillie's calculus of functors in homotopy theory and the differential calculus of smooth manifolds by introducing a higher-categorical framework of which both theories are examples. That framework is an extension to infinity-categories of the tangent categories of Cockett and Cruttwell (introduced originally by Rosický). The basic data of a tangent infinity-category consist of an endofunctor, that plays the role of the tangent bundle construction, together with various natural transformations that mimic structure possessed by the ordinary tangent bundles of smooth manifolds. The role of the tangent bundle functor in Goodwillie calculus is played by Lurie's tangent bundle for infinity-categories, introduced to generalize the cotangent complexes of André, Quillen and Illusie. We show that Lurie's construction admits the additional structure maps and satisfies the conditions needed to form a tangent infinity-category which we refer to as the Goodwillie tangent structure. Cockett and Cruttwell (and others) have started to develop various aspects of differential geometry in the abstract context of tangent categories, and we begin to apply those ideas to Goodwillie calculus. For example, we show that the role of Euclidean spaces in the calculus of manifolds is played in Goodwillie calculus by the stable infinity-categories. We also show that Goodwillie's n-excisive functors are the direct analogues of n-jets of smooth maps between manifolds; to state that connection precisely, we develop a notion of tangent (infinity,2)-category and show that Goodwillie calculus is best understood in that context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".