Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 28 references

Abstract Six-Functor Formalisms: Extension to Ind- and Pro- Categories and Functorial Cohomological Purity

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 This paper proves that abstract six-functor formalisms extend to ind- and pro-categories of geometric setups under cohomological purity, and that cohomological purity is itself functorial.

desk verdict A plausible and useful extension of six-functor formalisms to Ind/Pro categories, but the written proof leaves the load-bearing Theorem 3.1.1 as a sketch, so the main results are not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09726 v1 pith:YN7FTRXT submitted 2026-08-10 math.AG math.KT

Chirantan Chowdhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.KT MSC 14F4214A2014F08
keywords six-functorformalismind-categoriespro-categoriescohomologicalpuritymotivicstablehomotopytheoryHeckestackmultisimplicialsetsalgebraicstacks
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

This paper claims that an abstract six-functor formalism--a symmetric monoidal package of pullback, pushforward, and exceptional functors satisfying base change and projection formulas--can be extended from a geometric category to categories of projective and inductive systems of its objects, under a cohomological purity hypothesis on the transition maps. The extension theorems (Theorem 4.2.1) construct presentable six-functor formalisms on $\mathrm{Pro}^K_S(C)$ and on $\mathrm{Ind}^K_{\tilde P}(C)$ from any presentable formalism coming from a Nagata setup. The paper also upgrades the pointwise purity isomorphism $f^\# \cong f^!\Sigma_f$ to a natural transformation between functors (Theorem 3.3.1), so purity can be chosen compatibly across compositions. If these results are correct, motivic stable homotopy theory $SH(-)$ becomes a six-functor formalism on ind-pro algebraic stacks such as the Hecke stack, yielding a spectral Satake category, and rational motives on pro-algebraic stacks generalize from $\mathbb{N}$-indexed systems to arbitrary filtered indexing categories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multisimplicial set formalism of [15]: marked and tiled simplicial sets, the poset $\mathrm{Cart}_n$ of up-sets of $[n]\times[n]$, and right Kan extensions along the map $\sigma_n: [n]\times[n] \to \mathrm{Cart}_n$. Inside this language, Theorem 3.1.1 is the technical engine: a lifting theorem along $p^{\mathrm{cart}}$ for non-admissible edges, which takes a functor defined on the tiled subcomplex $\delta^*_2 C^{Q,\mathrm{cart}}_{E_1,E_2}$ (squares satisfying the $\mathrm{Ex}^{\#!}$ equivalence) and extends it to $\delta^*_2 C^R_{E_1,E_2}$ (squares whose decomposition has one pullback in $Q$). This theorem upgrades the pointwise purity isomorphism to the natural transformation $\mathrm{Pur}_D$ and supplies the coherence needed to assemble the colimit and limit formulas for pro- and ind-objects. The construction of $\mathrm{Pur}_D$ in Section 3.3 then defines the natural transformation by gluing the relevant simplices in the tiled simplicial set.

What would settle it

Take $D = SH$ on schemes, let $S$ be the class of smooth morphisms, and compute the two sides of the functorial purity natural transformation on a composable pair $X_0 \to X_1 \to X_2$: the triangle comparing $D^\Sigma_!(X_0) \to D^\Sigma_!(X_2)$ with $D^\#(X_0) \to D^\#(X_2)$ must commute after identifying each object via $f^\# \cong f^!\Sigma_f$. If, for an explicit pair such as $\mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^2$ followed by the structure map $\mathbb{A}^2 \to \mathrm{pt}$, the triangle fails to commute in $SH$, then Theorem 3.3.1 is false; and since Theorem 4.2.1 reduces to the same lifting theorem, that computation would also falsify the pro-extension.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes Theorem 1.1.3 (= Theorem 4.2.1): if $D: \mathrm{Corr}(C)_{E,\mathrm{all}} \to \mathrm{Pr}^L_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is a presentable six-functor formalism arising from a Nagata setup and $S \subset E \cap HL$ is a weakly stable class satisfying cohomological purity, then $D$ extends to a presentable six-functor formalism $D_{\mathrm{pro}}: \mathrm{Corr}(\mathrm{Pro}^K_S(C))_{\mathrm{Adj}^!_!(E),\mathrm{All}} \to \mathrm{Pr}^L_{\mathrm{cl}}$, with $D_{\mathrm{pro}}(X) \cong \mathrm{colim}^*_{k} D(X_k)$; and for $\tilde P \subset P$ a pullback-stable subclass, $D$ extends to $D_{\mathrm{ind}}: \mathrm{Corr}(\mathrm{Ind}^K_{\tilde P}(C))_{E,\mathrm{Adj}^*_!(\mathrm{All})} \to \mathrm{Pr}^L_{\mathrm{cl}}$, with $D_{\mathrm{ind}}(Y) \cong \mathrm{lim}^!_{k} D(Y_k)$. The paper also proves functorial cohomological purity: the equivalence $f^\# \cong f^!\Sigma_f$, one morphism at a time, is upgraded to a natural transformation $\mathrm{Pur}_D$ between the functors $D^\#$ and $D^\Sigma_!$, and this functoriality is what makes the colimit formula $\mathrm{colim}^* \cong \mathrm{colim}^!$ valid for pro-objects indexed by an arbitrary filtered $K$. As an application, $SH(-)$ (and similarly $DM(-)$) extends to ind-pro algebraic stacks with the loop-group transition maps, so the Hecke stack receives a spectral Satake category $SH(Hk_G)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a functor known on the well-behaved squares of a diagram extends to all squares even when the smooth-like morphisms are not required to be admissible, and both headline results reduce to that extension, whose proof is only sketched and defers key lemmas to earlier work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $SH(-)$ and $DM(-)$ become six-functor formalisms on the category of $K$-ind-pro algebraic stacks with smooth and closed transition maps, so in particular the Hecke stack $Hk_G$ has a presentable stable symmetric monoidal category $SH(Hk_G)$.
  • The pro-extension generalizes the earlier rational-motive theory for pro-algebraic stacks from $\mathbb{N}$-indexed projective systems to arbitrary filtered $\infty$-categories $K$, via the equivalence $\mathrm{colim}^* \cong \mathrm{colim}^!$ supplied by functorial purity.
  • For any pro-object $X_\bullet$ in $\mathrm{Pro}^K_S(C)$, the identity $D^\#(X_\bullet) \cong D^!(X_\bullet)$ holds functorially, so pullback and exceptional pullback computations agree on such pro-systems.
  • The extension procedures are compatible with nice geometric pairs and exceptional pairs, so the formalism can be iterated, for example from schemes to algebraic stacks and then to ind-pro stacks.
  • For any object of this ind-pro category, $SH(X)$ is presentable and stable, because it is computed as filtered colimits of presentable stable categories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The functorial purity natural transformation should also provide a uniform replacement for the $\mathbb{N}$-indexing trick in other contexts: any six-functor formalism whose relevant class $S$ is cohomologically pure should satisfy continuity-like $\mathrm{colim}^*$-versus-$\mathrm{colim}^!$ identities on arbitrary filtered diagrams, without needing a total order on the index category.
  • Inference: Because the lifting theorem is stated for any $\infty$-category $D$ and any pullback-stable class $E_2$, the same proof strategy could yield functorial purity for formalisms valued in other targets, such as derived categories of sheaves with supports, as long as the $\mathrm{Ex}^{\#!}$ ambidexterity square is an equivalence.
  • Inference: A concrete stress test would be to compute the natural transformation $\mathrm{Pur}_D$ on a two-simplex of smooth maps in $SH$ and verify the associativity and composition triangle; the paper does not spell out this explicit triangle, and its validity would exercise exactly the gluing identities that Section 3.3 sketches.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper claims two theorems about abstract six-functor formalisms (6FFs). The first (Theorem 3.0.1 and Theorem 3.3.1) upgrades the pointwise cohomological purity equivalence f^# ≅ f^!Σ_f to a natural transformation PurD between the functors D^# and D^Σ_!, where D^Σ_! is a functor on C^{E∩S} built via the multisimplicial and 2-tiled simplicial machinery of Liu–Zheng. The construction rests on a new lifting theorem (Theorem 3.1.1) that extends a functor along p^cart without assuming admissibility of the second edge class and without a truncation condition. The second (Theorem 1.1.3 / Theorem 4.2.1) extends a presentable 6FF arising from a Nagata setup to pro-systems and ind-systems of objects, producing Dpro on Corr(Pro^K_S(C))_{Adj^!_!(E),All} and Dind on Corr(Ind^K_{\tilde P}(C))_{E,Adj^∗_!(All)}; the pro-extension uses functorial purity (Proposition 4.1.10) to identify colim^∗ with colim^! for arbitrary filtered indexing categories K, generalizing Yaylali's N-indexed result. These results are applied to Borel motivic stable homotopy theory, defining SH(−) for ind-pro algebraic stacks such as the Hecke stack (Theorem 5.2.4).

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the results would be valuable: functorial cohomological purity is a structural upgrade over pointwise purity, and the Ind/Pro extension of 6FFs with an arbitrary filtered indexing category is a useful generalization with concrete applications such as SH of the Hecke stack and DM of pro-algebraic stacks. The paper is honest about its limitations: Section 3.2 is explicitly a sketch, key combinatorial lemmas (Proposition 3.1.5(3), Lemma 3.1.8(3)) are quoted without proof, and the author refers to his own preprints [4]-[8] for the underlying compactification and partial-adjoint theorems. The architecture is coherent, and there is no observable circularity or parameter fitting. However, the written proofs do not yet establish the central claims, because the load-bearing lifting theorem and the main extension functors are not fully proved within the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1-3.2 (Theorem 3.1.1)] Theorem 3.1.1 is load-bearing for both Theorem 3.0.1 (existence of D^Σ_!) and, through Proposition 4.1.10 and the proof of Theorem 4.2.1(1), for the Pro-extension, yet its proof in Section 3.2 is explicitly 'just a sketch'. The sketch relies on inputs that are not proved in the manuscript: Proposition 3.1.5(3) (contractibility of Kart(τ)), Lemma 3.1.8(3) (inner anodicity of the inclusion ⊞^n_cart ↪ Cart_n), and the statement in the proof of Proposition 3.1.12 that parts (2)-(3) 'just exactly follows as the arguments in [6]'. Since the advertised novelty of Theorem 3.1.1 is precisely the removal of the admissibility of E2 and of the truncation condition, a blanket citation of [6, Thm B] does not cover the new content. The manuscript needs a complete proof of Theorem 3.1.1, or a precise reduction to numbered statements in [6]/[15] with a verification of their hypotheses in the non-admissible case.
  2. [§4.1-4.2 (Prop. 4.1.10, Thm 4.2.1(1))] The hypotheses of the extension theorems are weaker than what the proofs use. Theorem 1.1.3 and Theorem 4.2.1(1) assume pointwise cohomological purity (Definition 4.1.1(2): Pur_f and Σ_f equivalences for each f ∈ S), whereas Proposition 4.1.10 invokes Theorem 3.3.1, whose hypothesis is the global ambidexterity condition that Ex^#_! be an equivalence for all relevant pullback squares (Theorem 3.0.1(2)). Remark 4.1.2(2) only proves the implication ambidexterity ⇒ purity; the converse is asserted nowhere. Without a proof that pointwise purity implies the functorial/ambidexterity condition for the classes used (or a strengthening of the theorem statements to include ambidexterity), the functor-level identification D^#(X•) ≅ D^!(X•) and the colimit equivalence colim^∗ ≅ colim^! in Proposition 4.1.10 are not justified under the stated hypotheses.
  3. [§4.1 (Propositions 4.1.4 and 4.1.5)] These propositions are the technical input to the proof of Theorem 4.2.1 (via the maps α'_Pro and their duals), but each proof consists of the single sentence that it is 'just a variant' of [7, Theorem 5.2.3] or of the previous proposition. What needs to be checked is the assembly of a functor with mixed directions ((−)_!, (−)^*, (−)^*) into δ^*_3 tiled simplicial sets from the partial-adjoint and compactification theorems, including the behavior of the tilings □_S and the (3,4)-direction compatibility. These are exactly the points where the extension to Ind/Pro categories could fail, so the reduction to [7] should be carried out explicitly, or the relevant numbered statements in [6]/[7] should be cited with their hypotheses verified.
  4. [§3.3 (Theorem 3.3.1)] The construction of Pur'_D, which is the core of the natural transformation PurD, is not verified. The proof asserts that the simplices defined by the case split in equations (90)-(92) 'glue together to form ∆^m × ∆^1 → δ^*_2 C_{S,E}', but no check of the compatibility of those squares with the tiling and two-marked simplicial structure is given, and the naturality of the resulting PurD (needed for the functor-level claim in Proposition 4.1.10) is asserted rather than proved. In addition, the case split contains an evident typo: both (b) and (c) are labeled 'a>b', yet case (c) contains 'b=i+1, a=i', which is only possible for a<b. A complete and corrected verification of the gluing and naturality is required.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§4.2] Theorem 4.2.1(2) writes the morphism class of the ind-extension as Adj^∗_∗(All), whereas Definitions 1.1.1(2)(b), 4.1.8(2), Theorem 1.1.3(2) and Notation 5.2.3 use Adj^∗_!(All); the notation should be made uniform.
  2. [§4.2 (Theorem 4.2.3)] The proof of Theorem 4.2.3 says 'one checks' that the corresponding pairs on Pro-categories are again nice geometric/exceptional pairs; this check should be included or sketched, since the applications in Section 5 depend on it. Also, the statement of part (1) writes the nice geometric pair as (C,S,E) ⊂ (C,S',E'), whereas Definition 2.4.1(1) allows a different ambient category (C',S',E'); the application to Sch ⊂ AlgSt requires the general form.
  3. [§4.1 (Example 4.1.9)] Example 4.1.9(1) describes cohomological purity as 'f^! ≅ f^∗', which is not Definition 4.1.1(2), where purity is f^# ≅ f^!Σ_f with Σ_f an equivalence; moreover the displayed chain of isomorphisms 'fk! p! ∼= fk′! p! p! ∼= ...' is garbled as printed. Both the terminology and the display need correction.
  4. [§1.1, §3.2, §4.2] Several cross-references are wrong or missing: Theorem 1.2.1 is labeled '(??)'; the proof of Theorem 4.2.1(1)(a) refers to a non-existent 'Theorem 4.1.3'; and Theorem 3.1.1 refers to 'Theorem 3.0.2' where Notation 3.0.2 is meant. These should be fixed.
  5. [§1.2, §4.1] The definition of Σ_f is not uniform: Eq. (13) and Eq. (46) define Σ_f as pr1_#δ_{f!}, while Definition 4.1.1(2)(b) writes Σ_f := pr2_#∆_{f!}; the convention should be made consistent, and the directions of the projections in diagram (49) should be aligned with the chosen definition.
  6. [§3.1 (Theorem 3.1.1)] The theorem does not say which of the classes E1 and E2 corresponds to S and to E in the application to Theorem 3.0.1; since the hypotheses differ (E1 admissible, E2 merely weakly stable), a remark identifying the classes and verifying the hypotheses, in particular the admissibility of E1, is needed.
  7. [§3 and §4.1] Theorem 3.0.1 and Theorem 3.3.1 are stated with target Cat_∞, while Proposition 4.1.10 needs equivalences in Fun(K^op, Pr^L) and colimits in Pr^L_cl; the compatibility of the constructed functors and of PurD with the Pr^L-structure should be stated explicitly.
  8. [throughout] There are numerous typos and small inconsistencies, e.g., 'multiplicaltion map' in Remark 2.3.4, 'induced age' in Notation 2.1.5, 'Algst' versus 'AlgSt', and the unnumbered Theorem 1.2.1; I recommend a careful editorial pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the extension and functorial-purity results are not restatements of their inputs; the main caveat is an explicitly sketched proof, which is a completeness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce any central claim to its own input. Theorem 4.2.1 constructs the Pro- and Ind-extensions from the existing six-functor formalism via the multisimplicial lifting theorem (Theorem 3.1.1) and functorial purity (Theorem 3.3.1); neither theorem is assumed in the hypotheses, and the morphism classes Adj^!_!(E) and Adj^*_!(All) are defined by Beck-Chevalley conditions on the original D, not by the functor being constructed. The pointwise purity equivalence f^# = f^! Sigma_f is derived from the Ex#! assumption, while the functorial enhancement PurD is an additional construction, not the identity or a renamed assumption. The paper does contain heavy self-citations to the author's prior preprints ([4], [6], [7]) for the compactification and partial-adjoint machinery, and Section 3.2 explicitly says 'we just give a sketch of the main points of the proof' of Theorem 3.1.1, deferring details to [6, Thm B] and [4, Theorem 4.1.1]. This is a genuine omitted-proof risk: if those deferred verifications fail, Theorems 3.0.1 and 4.2.1(1) would collapse. But a proof gap is not circularity: Theorem 3.1.1 is not an input to itself, and the cited prior results are parameter-free theorems with stated assumptions that do not include the conclusions of the present paper. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own work to force a choice, and no known result merely renamed in new coordinates. The central claims therefore have independent mathematical content, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters appear; the paper's inputs are categorical choices (K, S, \tilde P, the six-functor formalism D). The central claim rests on the Nagata-setup hypotheses and on multisimplicial lifting results that are partly cited from the author's previous work rather than proved here.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The setup (C,E,I,P) is a Nagata setup in the sense of Definition 2.2.3.
    Assumed throughout; used in Theorems 3.0.1, 4.2.1, and 4.2.3.
  • domain assumption There is a class S of morphisms in E ∩ HL with f^* admitting a left adjoint f^# satisfying base change and projection formula, and S satisfies cohomological purity (Pur_f and Σ_f are equivalences).
    Introduced in Definition 4.1.1 and Theorem 1.1.3; this is what makes the Pro-extension and the D^Σ_! construction go through.
  • domain assumption The exchange transformation Ex^#_! is an equivalence for the relevant pullback squares (ambidexterity).
    Condition 2 of Theorem 3.0.1 and Theorem 1.2.1; used to identify f^# with f^!Σ_f.
  • domain assumption The indexing ∞-category K is filtered and admits an initial object.
    Used in Definition 1.1.1 and Theorem 4.2.1 to ensure colimits over K are well-behaved.
  • standard math The multisimplicial lemmas hold: Kart(τ) is weakly contractible (Proposition 3.1.5.3) and the inclusion ⊞^n_cart ↪ Cart_n is inner anodyne (Lemma 3.1.8.3).
    Quoted without proof and used in Section 3.2 to construct the dotted arrow in the extension theorem; they are necessary for Theorem 3.1.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Abstract Six-Functor Formalisms: Extension to Ind- and Pro- Categories and Functorial Cohomological Purity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YN7FTRXT

@misc{pith2026260809726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Abstract Six-Functor Formalisms: Extension to Ind- and Pro- Categories and Functorial Cohomological Purity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YN7FTRXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09726}
}
read the original abstract

In this article, we study two consequences of abstract six-functor formalisms. Firstly, we show that an abstract six-functor formalism can be extended to specific Ind- and Pro- categories of geometric setups. As an application, we can define the motivic stable homotopy theory for ind-pro-algebraic stacks such as the Hecke stack. Secondly, we also show that Cohomological Purity is functorial using the multisimplicial language developed by Liu-Zheng.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Six-Functor Formalisms I : Constructing functors using category of simplices

    C. Chowdhury. Six-Functor Formalisms I : Constructing functors using category of simplices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11742, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [8]

    Non-representable six-functor formalisms

    C. Chowdhury and A. D’Angelo. Non-representable six-functor formalisms.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2409.20382, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [6]

    Six-Functor Formalisms II : The $\infty$-categorical compactification

    C. Chowdhury. Six-functor formalisms ii : The∞-categorical compactification.https://arxiv. org/abs/2412.03231, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [15]

    Liu and W

    Y. Liu and W. Zheng. Enhanced six operations and base change theorem for higher artin stacks, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [7]

    Six-Functor Formalisms III: The construction and extension of 6FFs

    C. Chowdhury. Six-functor formalisms iii: The construction and extension of 6ffs.https://arxiv. org/abs/2412.20548, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [1]

    J. Ayoub. Les six op ´erations de Grothendieck et le formalisme des cycles ´evanescents dans le monde motivique. I.Ast´ erisque, (314):x+466 pp., 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [2]

    J. Ayoub. Les six op ´erations de Grothendieck et le formalisme des cycles ´evanescents dans le monde motivique. II.Ast´ erisque, (315):vi+364 pp., 2007

    work page 2007

  8. [3]

    Bouthier, D

    A. Bouthier, D. Kazhdan, and Y. Varshavsky. Perverse sheaves on infinite-dimensional stacks, and affine springer theory.Advances in Mathematics, 408:108572, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [5]

    Chowdhury

    C. Chowdhury. Motivic Homotopy Theory of Algebraic Stacks.Annals of K-Theory, 9(1):1–22, May 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Dauser and J

    A. Dauser and J. Kuijper. Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms.https://arxiv.org/abs/2412. 15780, 2025. 36 REFERENCES Six-func on ind-pro cat

    2025

  3. [10]

    Deshmukh and J

    N. Deshmukh and J. Hall. On the motivic homotopy type of algebraic stacks (with an appendix joint with jack hall).https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Heyer and L

    C. Heyer and L. Mann. 6-functor formalisms and smooth representations.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.13038, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M. Hoyois. The six operations in equivariant motivic homotopy theory.Adv. Math., 305:197–279, 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    A. A. Khan and C. Ravi. Generalized cohomology theories for algebraic stacks.Adv. Math. (N. Y.), 458(109975):109975, Dec. 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Liu and W

    Y. Liu and W. Zheng. Gluing restricted nerves of∞-categories.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.5294. pdf, Nov. 2012

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lurie.Higher topos theory, volume 170 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies

    J. Lurie.Higher topos theory, volume 170 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    J. Lurie. Higher algebra.http://people.math.harvard.edu/ ∼lurie/papers/HA.pdf, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    J. Lurie. Kerodon.https://kerodon.net/kerodon.pdf#nameddest=0000, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    J. Lurie. Spectral algebraic geometry.https://www.math.ias.edu/ ∼lurie/papers/SAG-rootfile. pdf, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    L. Mann. Ap-adic 6-functor formalism in rigid-analytic geometry.https://arxiv.org/abs/2206. 02022, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Morel and V

    F. Morel and V . Voevodsky.A1-homotopy theory of schemes.Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci., (90):45–143, 1999

    1999

  14. [22]

    RICHARZ and J

    T. RICHARZ and J. SCHOLBACH. The intersection motive of the moduli stack of shtukas.Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 8, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Richarz and J

    T. Richarz and J. Scholbach. The motivic satake equivalence.Mathematische Annalen, 380(3- 4):1595–1653, May 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    M. Robalo. Th ´eorie homotopique motivique des espaces noncommutatifs.https://webusers. imj-prg.fr/∼marco.robalo/these.pdf, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    P . Scholze. Berkovich motives.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 39(3):697–764, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    A. Soor. A six-functor formalism for quasi-coherent sheaves and stratifications on rigid-analytic varieties.https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07592, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    C. Yaylali. Motives on pro-algebraic stacks.Higher Structures, 10(1):99–125, 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    X. Zhu. Tame categorical local langlands correspondence.https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07482, 2025. 37

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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