Γ-spaces were introduced by Segal in 1969 as models for what can be now described as commutative ∞-monoids and ∞-groups in cartesian symmetric monoidal ∞-categories, e.g., E_∞-spaces and connective spectra. The word “cartesian” means that the tensor product coincides with the categorical product, i.e., A⊗B := A×B.

In Lurie's Higher Algebra one finds Definition 2.1.3.1, which, combined with Definition 2.0.0.7 and Example 2.1.2.18, gives a model for commutative ∞-monoids in any symmetric monoidal quasicategory. In Theorem 4.1.4.4 Lurie proves that in the case of left proper tractable symmetric monoidal model categories that satisfy the monoid axiom his notion of a commutative monoid is equivalent to the traditional one.

Using Example 4.1.3.6 or Proposition 4.1.3.10, which construct a symmetric monoidal quasicategory from a symmetric monoidal (simplicial) model category, one can try to unfold Lurie's definition and see what it means for the case of a symmetric monoidal quasicategory coming from a symmetric monoidal model category C.

Very roughly speaking, we obtain the data of a functor X from the category of finite (unpointed) sets to C and for any finite family p of finite sets we have a weak equivalence (also known as a Segal map) X_p: X_{∐p} → ⨂_i X_{p_i}, satisfying the obvious associativity conditions.

The above description is simplified quite a bit compared to what actually results from expanding Lurie's definition, but should suffice as the first approximation.

Needless to say, this description closely matches that of a Γ-object in the case of a cartesian monoidal model category. Recall that a Γ-object is, roughly speaking, a functor Y from finite pointed sets to some model category C such that for any finite family p of finite pointed sets the canonical Segal map Y_p: Y_{∐p} → ∏_i Y_{p_i} induced by the canonical maps ∐p → p_i (the ith component is the identity map and all other components are trivial) is a weak equivalence.

It is easy to see how one can construct an object X satisfying the conditions above from a Γ-object Y. The functor X is constructed from the functor Y by adding disjoint basepoints to all finite (unpointed) sets. Likewise, the Segal maps are obtained from the corresponding Segal maps of Y by adding basepoints to the elements of p.

The main difference between these two descriptions is that in the cartesian case all Segal maps can be canonically recovered from the maps ∐p → p_i of pointed finite sets, whereas in the general case they must be supplied as an additional data. (This also explains the choice of unpointed (as opposed to pointed) finite sets in the above description.)

Two earlier papers by Leinster (http://arXiv.org/abs/math/9912084v2, http://arXiv.org/abs/math/0002180v1) also discuss this definition, in the context of categories with weak equivalences that are closed under monoidal products, though unlike Lurie's book they do not construct an equivalence to the usual definition, and the condition on weak equivalences excludes virtually any known example of a monoidal model category (apart from those in which all objects are cofibrant).

Although the above definition of a “monoidal Γ-object” seems to be rather natural, I was unable to locate any references (apart from Lurie's book and Leinster's papers) that mention it or any similar construction in the framework of monoidal model categories.

I am specifically interested in statements that show an equivalence between such a model and the traditional definition. (Lurie's Theorem 4.1.4.4 proves such a statement for a significantly weaker model, with many additional homotopy coherences.)

Another question is whether one can construct a model structure on monoidal Γ-objects so that its bifibrant objects have cofibrant components and all Segal maps are weak equivalences.

**Are there any references that discuss models for commutative ∞-monoids similar to Segal's Γ-spaces in the framework of (noncartesian) monoidal model categories?**