Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms

Adam Dauser; Josefien Kuijper

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Two functors determine every six-functor formalism

desk verdict A serious and largely convincing proof of Scholze's conjecture, conditional on an unpublished Liu-Zheng gluing theorem that the authors themselves flag; worth a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15780 v2 pith:ELGEVO5T submitted 2024-12-20 math.AG math.KT

Adam Dauser , Josefien Kuijper This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.KT MSC 14F0818N6019D10

keywords six-functorformalismScholze'sconjecturecohomologicallyproperétaleBeck-ChevalleyconditionsLiu-ZhengconstructionT-theoryalgebraicK-theory

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Scholze's conjecture says that on a geometric category whose allowed morphisms are truncated and factor through prescribed étale and proper classes, a six-functor formalism is fixed by its tensor product and inverse-image functors. This paper proves the conjecture: restriction from formalisms on correspondences to that basic data is an equivalence, so every basic datum extends to exactly one formalism, recovered by the Liu–Zheng construction. The key step is a reformulation of cohomologically proper and étale morphisms as Beck–Chevalley adjointability conditions, which are exactly the gluing data the Liu–Zheng construction uses. The paper also shows that the natural generalisation fails when truncation is dropped, and introduces a K-theoretic invariant that measures the resulting twists. This settles the foundational question of when six-functor formalisms are canonical, and reduces their construction to checking base-change and projection conditions for $f^*$ and $\otimes$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the reformulation of Scholze's cohomologically proper and étale conditions (Definition 2.6) as stable Beck–Chevalley adjointability conditions, shown equivalent to Scholze's original definitions in Proposition 2.13. This puts the conditions in the exact form used by the Liu–Zheng construction, whose restricted-nerve gluing theorem $[LZ15, \text{Theorem 5.4}]$ identifies functors out of the simplicial nerve $\delta^*_3 C(\mathrm{All}^{\mathrm{op}}, I^{\mathrm{op}}, P^{\mathrm{op}})$ with functors out of the correspondence category $\mathrm{Corr}(C,E)$. The proof then chains this with the categorical equivalences of $[Kui24, \text{Theorem 2.3.2}]$ that switch between right- and left-adjointable squares, and with the packaged account of the Liu–Zheng construction in $[Man22]$. The secondary mechanism is the invariant $T(C)=\Omega |\mathrm{Corr}(C)^\otimes|$, identified in Lemma 4.10 with the connective $K$-theory of the stabilisation of the slice category $C_{X/}$, which governs twists when truncation fails.

What would settle it

Find a Nagata set-up and a Beck–Chevalley functor whose associated two-functor formalism fails the (Pr-I) or (Ét-I) conditions, or directly exhibit a counterexample to $[LZ15, \text{Theorem 5.4}]$ on a small category; either would falsify Theorem 3.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 3.3. For a Nagata set-up $(C,E,I,P)$, restriction along $C^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathrm{Corr}(C,E)$ and along $C^{\mathrm{op},\sqcup} \to \mathrm{Corr}(C,E)^{\otimes}$ induces equivalences $\mathrm{BCFun}(C,E,I,P) \simeq 2\mathrm{FF}(C,E,I,P)$, $\mathrm{BCFun}^{\mathrm{lax}}(C,E,I,P) \simeq 3\mathrm{FF}(C,E,I,P)$, and $\mathrm{BCFun}^{\mathrm{lax},L}(C,E,I,P) \simeq 6\mathrm{FF}(C,E,I,P)$. Here the left-hand categories are functors $C^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathrm{Cat}_\infty$ (with lax symmetric monoidal structure, and a right-adjoint condition for the last one) satisfying the Beck–Chevalley conditions required by the Liu–Zheng construction, while the right-hand categories are two-, three- and six-functor formalisms in which every morphism in $P$ is stably cohomologically proper and every morphism in $I$ is stably cohomologically étale. In words, a six-functor formalism is uniquely determined by its tensor product and inverse image functors and is obtained by the Liu–Zheng construction. The paper also proves that uniqueness fails without the truncation assumption: Example 4.1 constructs a six-functor formalism on finite anima whose restriction to $C^{\mathrm{op},\sqcup}$ is constant but which differs by Euler-characteristic twists, and it proposes $T$-theory, a connective-spectrum invariant related to algebraic $K$-theory, as the invariant detecting such twists.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the Liu–Zheng restricted-nerve gluing theorem, which the authors themselves note has not appeared in peer-reviewed literature as of 2025; if that theorem has a gap, the main equivalence collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On any Nagata set-up, defining a six-functor formalism reduces to giving $D^*: C^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathrm{Cat}_\infty$ with a lax symmetric monoidal structure and checking the Beck–Chevalley conditions for $P$ and $I$; the exceptional functors $f^!$ are then forced.
Scholze's conjecture is true in its precise form: the Liu–Zheng construction produces exactly the formalisms whose proper and étale maps are cohomologically proper and étale.
Restricting the equivalence to coefficient systems shows that the stable homotopy category $\mathbf{SH}$ is initial among a natural class of six-functor formalisms (Corollary 3.6).
The theorem recovers the weave equivalence between $(\ast,\sharp,\otimes)$-formalisms and weaves without any $(\infty,2)$-categorical machinery (Theorem 3.8).
When the truncation hypothesis is dropped, uniqueness fails, and the failure is measured by maps from the $T$-theory spectrum into the formalism; for truncated set-ups $T=0$, so no twists exist.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the theorem makes the coherence data of six-functor formalisms a derived consequence of the $f^*$ and $\otimes$ data, so future constructions can be specified by a short list of base-change checks instead of by explicitly building all six operations.
Editorial inference: the $T$-theory description suggests that twists such as the determinant twist $f^!(- \otimes \det L_f)$ of Example 4.13 are not ad hoc deformations but exhaust the possible deformations of a fixed $f^*,\otimes$-datum; a testable prediction is that in rigid-analytic or motivic settings the twist group is a $K$-group of the base.
Editorial inference: because the proof's first step is the Liu–Zheng gluing theorem, which the authors report is still unpublished in peer-reviewed form, formalising that theorem or testing it on small model categories would directly determine the status of the conjecture.
Editorial inference: the finite-anima counterexample indicates that spaces with infinite homotopy types can carry twists invisible to $f^*$ and $\otimes$; probing classifying spaces and moduli stacks for Euler-characteristic or Adams-operation twists would test how far the uniqueness theorem extends.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is the real thing. Dauser and Kuijper prove Scholze's conjecture on uniqueness of six-functor formalisms, and they do it by a clean reformulation: cohomologically proper and étale morphisms become stable Beck-Chevalley conditions (Prop 2.13), after which the uniqueness statement reduces to a chain of categorical equivalences. The main theorem (3.3) is exactly the conjecture, and the proof is structurally coherent.

What's genuinely new: the Beck-Chevalley reformulation itself, which turns an inductive definition into a checkable property; the equivalence between BC-functors and Nagata 2/3/6-functor formalisms; the counterexample in Section 4 showing the truncatedness condition is necessary; and the T-theory invariant, which connects the failure of the generalization to K-theory via Lemma 4.10. The counterexample is concrete and convincing. The comparison to coefficient systems and weaves is a bonus.

Soft spots, in proportion. The load-bearing step is [LZ15, Theorem 5.4], an 'exceptionally technical' gluing theorem that remains unpublished as of 2025. The authors apply it twice in the first sentence of the proof of Theorem 3.3 and use it again to identify the last category with Corr(C,E). If that theorem has a gap, everything collapses. They are upfront about this—Section 1.4 says it in plain terms—but it means the central claim is only as secure as an external result they don't reprove. The secondary input, [Kui24, Thm 2.3.2] by the second author, is also a companion preprint. Neither dependency is fatal on its own, but a referee should be asked to verify the application of [LZ15] line by line.

Minor issue: Definition 2.1(4) as printed says 'f∈I if and only if g∘f∈P' for g∈P, which is surely a typo for 'f∈P iff g∘f∈P'. Taken literally it garbles the Nagata set-up condition. They also leave the general construction of twists in Section 4 explicitly unfinished and Conjecture 5.2 open; that part is honest but should not be oversold.

Overall: no circularity, no invented evidence, and the K-theory section, while conjectural in parts, contains a real invariant. The paper deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it out, with a referee note asking specifically whether [LZ15, Thm 5.4] is published or will be cited in a form the referee can check. If that dependency is acceptable, the main theorem is likely correct.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a reformulation of Scholze's notions of cohomologically proper and cohomologically étale morphisms in terms of Beck–Chevalley conditions for two-, three-, and six-functor formalisms. The central result, Theorem 3.3, asserts that for a 'Nagata set-up' (C,E,I,P), restriction along C^op → Corr(C,E) (and its symmetric monoidal variant) induces equivalences between the categories BCFun(C,E,I,P), BCFun_lax(C,E,I,P), BCFun_lax,L(C,E,I,P) and the corresponding categories 2FF, 3FF, 6FF of Nagata two-, three-, and six-functor formalisms. Thus a six-functor formalism is uniquely determined by the tensor product and inverse image functors, and it is obtained from the Liu–Zheng construction. The paper also contains a counterexample showing that the truncatedness hypothesis is necessary, and it proposes a K-theoretic 'twist' invariant conjecturally measuring the failure of uniqueness in the non-truncated setting.

Significance. If Theorem 3.3 is correct, it resolves Scholze's conjecture in a clean way and gives a practical criterion: for Nagata set-ups, six-functor formalisms are equivalent to BCFun data. The paper is genuinely useful in comparing several existing frameworks (Liu–Zheng, Mann, coefficient systems of Drew–Gallauer, and Khan's weaves), and it provides explicit comparisons in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. The authors are transparent about the main external dependency, [LZ15, Theorem 5.4], and they formulate clearly what remains conjectural in the K-theory part. The counterexample in Example 4.1 is a valuable concrete illustration of why the truncatedness condition is needed. I would evaluate the paper as a significant contribution to the six-functor formalism literature, provided the external dependencies and the local gaps listed below are addressed.

major comments (4)

[§1.4, proof of Theorem 3.3] The proof of Theorem 3.3 applies [LZ15, Theorem 5.4] twice in its first sentence to obtain the equivalences δ*_3 C(All^op,I^op,P^op) ≃ δ*_2 C(All^op,I^op) ≃ C^op, and later applies the same theorem together with Theorem 4.27 to identify δ*_3 C(All^op,I^op,P) with Corr(C,E). The authors themselves state in Section 1.4 that [LZ15, Theorem 5.4] has not appeared in the peer-reviewed literature as of 2025, and the present paper gives no verification of its hypotheses or an independent proof. Since every subsequent step, including the passage through Fun_{2,R}/Fun_{3,R} via [Kui24, Theorem 2.3.2], presupposes these categorical equivalences, the main theorem is presently conditional on an unverified external theorem. I ask the authors to supply a precise statement of the needed form of [LZ15, Theorem 5.4], to spell out why its hypotheses hold in each of the three applications, and to state explicitly the status of [Kui24, Theorem 2.3.2] as an external black box.
[Definition 2.1(4) and Definition 2.14] Definition 2.1(4), as printed, says: 'given f:X→Y in C and g:Y→Z in P, we have f∈I if and only if g∘f∈P'. This statement mixes I and P in both directions and cannot be the intended right-cancellation axiom; presumably it should read 'f∈P if and only if g∘f∈P'. Since the Nagata set-up is the standing hypothesis of Theorem 3.3, this must be corrected. Similarly, Definition 2.14 contains two consecutive clauses, both naming 'stably cohomologically proper', with the second clause evidently intended to define 'stably cohomologically étale'; the equivalences should be between (Pr-I)/(Pr-II) for proper and (Ét-I)/(Ét-II) for étale, respectively.
[Proof of Theorem 3.3, final paragraph] In the last paragraph of the proof, after writing f = p∘i with i∈I and p∈P, the text claims 'f^! = i^!∘f^!' and that this is a composite of left adjoints. Under the convention f^!: D(X)→D(Y) used throughout, functoriality gives f^! ≃ p^!∘i^!, not i^!∘f^!. Moreover, the adjunction statements immediately preceding do not show that this composite is a left adjoint in the sense required for a six-functor formalism. As written, this step does not justify the restriction to 6FF in the third equivalence; the composition order and adjunction direction need to be repaired.
[Section 4, Theorem 4.14 and Remark 4.9] The K-theory part of the paper is explicitly incomplete: Remark 4.9 warns that the construction of the twisted three-functor formalism is not provided, and Conjecture 5.2 is left open. This is appropriately disclosed, but it means the introduction's claim of 'a measure of this failure in terms of K-theory' is only a proposal. More specifically, the proof of Theorem 4.14 asserts that if 0→Y is n-truncated then Ω^{n-1}(Y)=0; this does not follow from n-truncatedness as defined, which controls higher homotopy groups but not the indicated loop-space levels. Since Theorem 4.14 is the only argument that T(C,E)=0 in the truncated setting, it needs a corrected proof or a precise reference.

minor comments (4)

[§3.1] The sentence 'see see [Gal21, Remark 3.4]' contains a duplicated 'see'; and in Theorem 3.5, 'the subcategory spanned Nagata six-functor formalisms' should read 'spanned by'.
[Notation 2.2] The notation C^{op,⊔,op} is overloaded and likely to confuse readers; a single symbol with an explicit explanation of the two opposites would improve readability.
[Remark 4.7] The statement that [LZ15, Theorem 5.4] directly implies a uniqueness result for fixed data on I and P would be easier to evaluate if the precise consequence and its hypotheses were spelled out there, rather than left as an assertion.
[Lemma 4.10] The proof appeals to Quillen's Theorem A and identifies the relevant comma-categories as contractible anima 'just [as] the anima of left Kan-extensions'; this step is very terse and would benefit from a few more sentences or a diagram.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main equivalence is proved via external categorical machinery; the only self-citation supplies a distinct technical equivalence, not the uniqueness claim.

full rationale

The proof of Theorem 3.3 does not reduce to its inputs: it proves an equivalence between BCFun and 2FF/3FF/6FF by transporting functor categories through the external gluing theorem [LZ15, Theorem 5.4] and the categorical equivalence [Kui24, Theorem 2.3.2]. The latter is a self-citation by the second author, but it is used for an equivalence between Fun_{2,R} and Fun_{3,R} (and for notation), not for the uniqueness statement itself; the theorem being proved is nowhere assumed as an input. The Nagata conditions of Definition 2.15 and the Beck-Chevalley conditions of Definition 3.1 are independent definitions, and their identification is argued substantively via Proposition 2.13, Corollary 2.17, and the essential-surjectivity portion of the proof rather than imposed by definition. Section 1.4 explicitly flags that [LZ15, Theorem 5.4] has not appeared in the peer-reviewed literature as of 2025; this is a genuine fragility/correctness concern, but it is not a circularity. The apparent typo in Definition 2.1(4) is a presentational defect, not a circular step. There are no fitted parameters, no predictions made from the data used to fit them, and no known result is merely renamed.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The main theorem is a proof of a conjecture, so it has no fitted parameters. Its key input is the external Liu-Zheng Theorem 5.4, which the authors themselves flag as unpublished. The T-theory and twists are new mathematical objects, not backed by a completed construction.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Liu-Zheng Theorem 5.4 (gluing restricted nerves of ∞-categories) supplies the categorical equivalences used in the proof of Theorem 3.3.
Applied twice at the start of the proof of Theorem 3.3. The paper says in Section 1.4 that this theorem has not appeared in peer-reviewed literature as of 2025.
standard math Lurie's HTT and Higher Algebra provide the theory of ∞-categories, ∞-operads, adjunctions, and symmetric monoidal structures used throughout.
Background framework for all definitions, especially Definition 2.4 and Notation 2.2.
domain assumption Mann's formulation of the Liu-Zheng construction (Man22, Theorem A.5.10) and the notion of geometric set-up are taken as given.
The paper defines Nagata set-ups relative to this and uses Corr(C,E)^⊗ etc.

invented entities (2)

T-theory T(C) = Ω|Corr(C)^⊗| independent evidence
purpose: Invariant measuring failure of uniqueness of six-functor formalisms when truncatedness fails; defined in Definition 4.3.
Lemma 4.10 identifies Ω|Corr(C_X/)^⊗| with K(Stab(C_{X/,/X})), and Proposition 4.12 computes T_(C,E)(Spec R) = K(R), giving independent computational evidence.
Universal twist T_C and twists of three-functor formalisms
purpose: Proposed classification of six-functor formalisms with the same underlying tensor and inverse image data but different exceptional pushforwards; defined in Definition 4.8.
The formal construction of the twisted formalism is not provided (Remark 4.9 warns 'we don't provide a formal construction ... in this article in this generality'), and Conjecture 5.2 remains open.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELGEVO5T

@misc{pith2026241215780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELGEVO5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15780}
}

read the original abstract

We present an alternative formulation of Scholze's notions of cohomologically proper and cohomologically \'etale with respect to an abstract six-functor formalism. These conditions guarantee canonical isomorphisms between the direct and exceptional direct images for certain "proper" morphisms, and between the inverse and exceptional inverse images for certain "\'etale" morphisms. Using this framework, we prove Scholze's conjecture, showing that a six-functor formalism with sufficiently many cohomologically proper and \'etale morphisms is uniquely determined by the tensor product and inverse image functors, and can be obtained by a construction of Liu-Zheng and Mann. Additionally, we show that a generalisation of the conjecture fails, and propose a measure of this failure in terms of K-theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Continuous six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces
math.KT 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Spectral sheaves on locally compact Hausdorff spaces are initial among continuous six-functor formalisms, forcing all such formalisms to agree with sheaf (co)homology and to satisfy a universal localizing-invariant formula.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Theorie de Topos et Cohomologie Etale des Schemas I , II , III , volume 269, 270, 305 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

Michael Artin, Alexander Grothendieck, and Jean-Louis Verdier. Theorie de Topos et Cohomologie Etale des Schemas I , II , III , volume 269, 270, 305 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, 1971

work page 1971
[2]

Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( I )

Joseph Ayoub. Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( I ). Astérisque , 314, 2018. https://doi.org/10.24033/ast.751 doi:10.24033/ast.751

work page doi:10.24033/ast.751 2018
[3]

Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( II )

Joseph Ayoub. Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( II ). Astérisque , 315, 2018. https://doi.org/10.24033/ast.752 doi:10.24033/ast.752

work page doi:10.24033/ast.752 2018
[4]

On the algebraic K -theory of higher categories

Clark Barwick. On the algebraic K -theory of higher categories. Journal of Topology , 9(1):245–347, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jtv042 doi:10.1112/jtopol/jtv042

work page doi:10.1112/jtopol/jtv042 2016
[5]

On the Q -construction for exact -categories

Clark Barwick and John Rognes. On the Q -construction for exact -categories. https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/ cbarwick/papers/qconstr.pdf

work page
[6]

Triangulated Categories of Mixed Motives

Denis-Charles Cisinski and Frédéric Déglise. Triangulated Categories of Mixed Motives . Springer International Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33242-6 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33242-6

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33242-6 2019
[7]

Universality of span 2-categories and the construction of 6-functor formalisms, 2025

Bastiaan Cnossen, Tobias Lenz, and Sil Linskens. Universality of span 2-categories and the construction of 6-functor formalisms, 2025. arXiv:2505.19192 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19192

arXiv 2025
[8]

The universal six-functor formalism

Brad Drew and Martin Gallauer. The universal six-functor formalism. Annals of K-Theory , 7(4):599–649, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2140/akt.2022.7.599 doi:10.2140/akt.2022.7.599

work page doi:10.2140/akt.2022.7.599 2022

Show all 21 references

[9]

Motivic H odge modules, 2018

Brad Drew. Motivic H odge modules, 2018. arXiv:1801.10129 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10129

2018 arXiv
[10]

An introduction to six-functor formalisms, 2021

Martin Gallauer. An introduction to six-functor formalisms, 2021. arXiv:2112.10456 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.10456

2021 arXiv
[11]

Gaitsgory and N

D. Gaitsgory and N. Rozenblyum. A Study in Derived Algebraic Geometry: Volume I: Correspondences and Duality . Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2019

2019
[12]

Introduction to stable -categories

Yonatan Harpaz. Introduction to stable -categories. https://www.math.univ-paris13.fr/ harpaz/stable_infinity_categories.pdf
[13]

Adeel Khan. Weaves. https://www.preschema.com/papers/weaves.pdf, 2023

2023
[14]

An axiomatization of six-functor formalisms, 2024

Josefien Kuijper. An axiomatization of six-functor formalisms, 2024. arXiv:2309.11449v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11449

2024 arXiv
[15]

Higher Topos Theory

Jacob Lurie. Higher Topos Theory . Annals of mathematics studies. Princeton University Press, 2009

2009
[16]

Higher A lgebra

Jacob Lurie. Higher A lgebra. https://www.math.ias.edu/ lurie/papers/HA.pdf, 2017

2017
[17]

Gluing restricted nerves of -categories, 2015

Yifeng Liu and Weizhe Zheng. Gluing restricted nerves of -categories, 2015. arXiv:1211.5294v4 https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5294

2015 arXiv
[18]

Enhanced six operations and base change theorem for higher artin stacks, 2017

Yifeng Liu and Weizhe Zheng. Enhanced six operations and base change theorem for higher artin stacks, 2017. arXiv:1211.5948v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5948

2017 arXiv
[19]

A p-Adic 6-Functor Formalism in Rigid-Analytic Geometry

Lucas Mann. A p-Adic 6-Functor Formalism in Rigid-Analytic Geometry . PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 2022

2022
[20]

Six-functors formalisms

Peter Scholze. Six-functors formalisms. https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/scholze/SixFunctors.pdf, 2022. Lecture notes

2022
[21]

Poincar \'e Duality in abstract 6-functor formalisms , 2023

Bogdan Zavyalov . Poincar \'e Duality in abstract 6-functor formalisms , 2023. arXiv:2301.03821v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.03821

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Theorie de Topos et Cohomologie Etale des Schemas I , II , III , volume 269, 270, 305 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

Michael Artin, Alexander Grothendieck, and Jean-Louis Verdier. Theorie de Topos et Cohomologie Etale des Schemas I , II , III , volume 269, 270, 305 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, 1971

work page 1971

[2] [2]

Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( I )

Joseph Ayoub. Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( I ). Astérisque , 314, 2018. https://doi.org/10.24033/ast.751 doi:10.24033/ast.751

work page doi:10.24033/ast.751 2018

[3] [3]

Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( II )

Joseph Ayoub. Les six opérations de G rothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique ( II ). Astérisque , 315, 2018. https://doi.org/10.24033/ast.752 doi:10.24033/ast.752

work page doi:10.24033/ast.752 2018

[4] [4]

On the algebraic K -theory of higher categories

Clark Barwick. On the algebraic K -theory of higher categories. Journal of Topology , 9(1):245–347, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jtv042 doi:10.1112/jtopol/jtv042

work page doi:10.1112/jtopol/jtv042 2016

[5] [5]

On the Q -construction for exact -categories

Clark Barwick and John Rognes. On the Q -construction for exact -categories. https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/ cbarwick/papers/qconstr.pdf

work page

[6] [6]

Triangulated Categories of Mixed Motives

Denis-Charles Cisinski and Frédéric Déglise. Triangulated Categories of Mixed Motives . Springer International Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33242-6 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33242-6

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33242-6 2019

[7] [7]

Universality of span 2-categories and the construction of 6-functor formalisms, 2025

Bastiaan Cnossen, Tobias Lenz, and Sil Linskens. Universality of span 2-categories and the construction of 6-functor formalisms, 2025. arXiv:2505.19192 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19192

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

The universal six-functor formalism

Brad Drew and Martin Gallauer. The universal six-functor formalism. Annals of K-Theory , 7(4):599–649, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2140/akt.2022.7.599 doi:10.2140/akt.2022.7.599

work page doi:10.2140/akt.2022.7.599 2022