2 typos

Here's an argument that the diagonal Lagrangian correspondence $\Delta$ in $\mathbb{C}P^n \times \mathbb{C}P^n$ is formal. That is, its Floer cochains $CF^\ast(\Delta,\Delta)$, as an $A_\infty$-algebra over the rational Novikov field $\Lambda=\Lambda_\mathbb{Q}$ (say), are quasi-isomorphic to the underlying cohomology algebra $HF^\ast(\Delta, \Delta)\cong QH^\ast(\mathbb{C}P^n; \Lambda)$ with trivial $A_\infty$ operations $\mu^d$ except for the product $\mu^2$.

Be critical; I might have slipped up!

Write $A$ for $QH^\ast(\mathbb{C}P^n; \Lambda)=\Lambda[t]/(t^{n+1}=q)$. Here $q$ is the Novikov parameter. I claim that $A$ is intrinsically formal, meaning that every $A_\infty$-structure on $A$ A$, with$\mu^1=0$and$\mu^2$the products product on$A$A$, can be modified by a change of variable so that $\mu^d=0$ for $d\neq 2$.

Suppose inductively that we can kill the $d$-fold products $\mu^d$ for $3\leq d\leq m$. Then $\mu^{m+1}$ is a cycle for the Hochschild (cyclic bar) complex $C^{m+1}(A,A)$. The obstruction to killing it by a change of variable (leaving the lower order terms untouched) is its class in $HH^{m+1}(A,A)$. But $A$ is a finite extension field of $\Lambda$ (and, to be safe, we're in char zero). So, as proved in Weibel's homological algebra book, $HH^\ast(A,A)=0$ in positive degrees, and therefore the induction works. Taking a little care over what "change of variable" actually means in terms of powers of $q$, once one concludes intrinsic formality.

You made a much more geometric suggestion - to invoke GW invariants. If you want to handle $\Delta_M\subset M\times M$ more generally, I think this is a good idea, though I can't immediately think of a suitable reference. One can show using "open-closed TQFT " arguments that $HF(\Delta_M,\Delta_M)$ is isomorphic to Hamiltonian Floer cohomology $HF(M)$. One could do this at cochain level and thereby show that the $A_\infty$ product $\mu^d$ of $HF(\Delta_M,\Delta_M)$ corresponds to the operation in the closed-string TCFT of Hamiltonian Floer cochains arising from a genus zero surface with $d$ incoming punctures and one outgoing puncture (and varying conformal structure). Via a "PSS" isomorphism with $QH(M)$, these operations should then be computable as genus-zero GW invariants (or at any rate, the cohomology-level Massey products derived from the $A_\infty$-structure should be GW invariants).

1

Here's an argument that the diagonal Lagrangian correspondence $\Delta$ in $\mathbb{C}P^n \times \mathbb{C}P^n$ is formal. That is, its Floer cochains $CF^\ast(\Delta,\Delta)$, as an $A_\infty$-algebra over the rational Novikov field $\Lambda=\Lambda_\mathbb{Q}$ (say), are quasi-isomorphic to the underlying cohomology algebra $HF^\ast(\Delta, \Delta)\cong QH^\ast(\mathbb{C}P^n; \Lambda)$ with trivial $A_\infty$ operations $\mu^d$ except for the product $\mu^2$.

Be critical; I might have slipped up!

Write $A$ for $QH^\ast(\mathbb{C}P^n; \Lambda)=\Lambda[t]/(t^{n+1}=q)$. Here $q$ is the Novikov parameter. I claim that $A$ is intrinsically formal, meaning that every $A_\infty$-structure on $A$ with $\mu^1=0$ and $\mu^2$ the products on $A$ can be modified by a change of variable so that $\mu^d=0$ for $d\neq 2$.

Suppose inductively that we can kill the $d$-fold products $\mu^d$ for $3\leq d\leq m$. Then $\mu^{m+1}$ is a cycle for the Hochschild (cyclic bar) complex $C^{m+1}(A,A)$. The obstruction to killing it by a change of variable (leaving the lower order terms untouched) is its class in $HH^{m+1}(A,A)$. But $A$ is a finite extension field of $\Lambda$ (and, to be safe, we're in char zero). So, as proved in Weibel's homological algebra book, $HH^\ast(A,A)=0$ in positive degrees, and therefore the induction works. Taking a little care over what "change of variable" actually means in terms of powers of $q$, once concludes intrinsic formality.

You made a much more geometric suggestion - to invoke GW invariants. If you want to handle $\Delta_M\subset M\times M$ more generally, I think this is a good idea, though I can't immediately think of a suitable reference. One can show using "open-closed TQFT" arguments that $HF(\Delta_M,\Delta_M)$ is isomorphic to Hamiltonian Floer cohomology $HF(M)$. One could do this at cochain level and thereby show that the $A_\infty$ product $\mu^d$ of $HF(\Delta_M,\Delta_M)$ corresponds to the operation in the closed-string TCFT of Hamiltonian Floer cochains arising from a genus zero surface with $d$ incoming punctures and one outgoing puncture (and varying conformal structure). Via a "PSS" isomorphism with $QH(M)$, these operations should then be computable as genus-zero GW invariants (or at any rate, the cohomology-level Massey products derived from the $A_\infty$-structure should be GW invariants).