Definition 3.1. Let be a derived commutative ring. An -module is perfect if lies in the smallest -subcategory of containing and closed under finite colimits and retracts. For a derived stack , -category is the full -subcategory of consisting of those sheaves whose restriction to any affine over is a perfect module.
3. Perfect Stacks
By an -category, we will always mean an -category without further comment, and refer to Section 2 for an overview of the required aspects of the general theory. For the reader accustomed to working with model categories, it is important to note that in an -category, all tensors, homs, limits, colimits, and other usual operations are taken in a derived or homotopical sense. In other words, coherent homotopies are automatically built in to all definitions, though it may not explicitly appear in the notation. For example, a colimit in the -category obtained as the localization of a model category corresponds to a homotopy colimit in the original model category.
Throughout the rest of the paper, we fix a derived commutative ring (in any of the three senses discussed in Section 2.3) and work relative to . We use the phrase derived commutative -algebra to refer to a commutative algebra object in -modules.
For a commutative -algebra, one can replace -modules with chain complexes over , derived commutative -algebras with commutative differential graded -algebras, and stable -linear -categories with pre-triangulated -linear differential graded categories.
In Section 3.1, we review various notions of when an -category is finitely generated, and introduce the class of perfect stacks to which our results apply. In Section 3.2, we establish base change and the projection formula for perfect morphisms. In Section 3.3, we show that many common classes of stacks are perfect.
3.1. Definition of perfect stacks
Our main objects of study are -categories of quasi-coherent sheaves on derived stacks. For the foundations of derived stacks and quasi-coherent sheaves on them, we refer the reader to [ToVe1, ToVe2, To2]. (Note that a theory of descent for sheaves on higher stacks was developed previously by Hirschowitz and Simpson [HS].)
Given a derived stack , we have the stable symmetric monoidal -category of quasi-coherent sheaves on . To recall its construction, consider first a derived commutative -algebra , and the representable affine derived scheme . In this case, one defines to be the -category of -modules (i.e., module objects over in -modules). Its homotopy category is the unbounded derived category of .
In general, any derived stack can be written as a colimit of a diagram of affine derived schemes . Then one defines to be the limit (in the -category of -categories) of the corresponding diagram of -categories
One can think of an object as collections of quasi-coherent sheaves on the terms together with compatible identifications between their pullbacks under the diagram maps.
When is quasi-compact and has affine diagonal, by choosing an affine cover with induced C̆ech simplicial affine derived scheme , we can realize by a smaller limit, the totalization of the cosimplicial diagram .
An important feature of the -category is that it is cocomplete, that is, closed under all small colimits (or equivalently, since is stable, all small coproducts). Nevertheless, it can be difficult to control algebraically via reasonable generators. In general, it is convenient (and sometimes indispensable) to work with -categories that are “generated by finite objects” in a suitable sense. Let us summarize well known approaches to this idea. In a moment, we will provide a more detailed discussion.
There are two common notions of when a small -subcategory generates an -category . On the one hand, we could ask that be the inductive limit . On the other hand, we could ask that in the right orthogonal of vanishes.
There are three common notions of when an object should be considered finite: perfect objects, dualizable objects, and compact objects, which refer respectively to the geometry, monoidal structure, and categorical structure of .
We now introduce the class of perfect stacks. We will check below that for perfect stacks, the above notions of generators and finite objects all coincide.
Definition 3.2. A derived stack is said to be perfect if it has affine diagonal and the -category is the inductive limit
of the full -subcategory of perfect complexes.
A morphism is said to be perfect if its fibers over affines are perfect.
See [L2, 5.3.5] for the construction of Ind-categories of -categories, and [L3, 8] where it is shown that Ind-categories of stable -categories are stable. Let us mention that in the Ind-category of an -category , morphisms between Ind-objects can be calculated via the expected formula
For the reader unaccustomed to Ind-categories, we will momentarily give an alternative formulation of perfect stack in the more familiar language of compactly generated categories.
We next proceed with a review of the various notions of generators and finite objects. In Section 3.2, we show that perfect morphisms satisfy base change and the projection formula. In Section 3.3, we show that the class of perfect stacks includes many common examples of interest, and check that any morphism between perfect stacks is itself perfect.
3.1.1. Finite objects
We review here the three common notions of finite objects and their interrelations (See [L3, 17] and [L4, 4.7] for more details, as well as [BV, HPS, Ke, LMS] among many other sources). We remind the reader that we are working in the context of -categories, so constructions such as colimits correspond to homotopy colimits in the context of model categories.
- (1)
Definition 3.3. An object of a stable -category is said to be compact if commutes with all coproducts (equivalently, with all colimits).
- (2)
An object of a stable symmetric monoidal -category is said to be (strongly) dualizable if there is an object and unit and trace maps
such that the composite map
is the identity.
Suppose is a stable presentable -category (such as ). Then an object is compact if and only if maps from to any small coproduct factor through a finite coproduct. Furthermore, a functor between stable presentable -categories that preserves finite colimits preserves small colimits if and only if it preserves small coproducts. (See [L3, Proposition 17.1].)
In a closed symmetric monoidal -category (such as ), an object is dualizable if and only if there exists a coevaluation map
satisfying the appropriate conditions (since one already has an evaluation map). If an object is dualizable, then we can turn internal Hom from into tensor product with in the sense that there is a canonical equivalence
In particular, this implies that preserves colimits and preserves limits:
It is enlightening to note the following characterization of dualizable objects, which parallels the definition of compact objects (but will not be used in this paper).
Lemma 3.4. Let be a symmetric monoidal presentable stable -category, whose monoidal structure distributes over colimits. An object of is then dualizable if and only if tensoring with preserves all limits.
Proof. The necessity of preserving limits is noted above ( is closed by virtue of being presentable with monoidal structure distributing over colimits, see [L4, Proposition 2.1.12]). To demonstrate sufficiency, assume that preserves limits, and then consider the endofunctor of defined by tensoring with . By assumption on and , this functor preserves all limits and colimits. We may now apply the adjoint functor theorem of [L2] to deduce the existence of a left adjoint to . Denote by the value of applied to the unit of . The existence of unit and trace maps is now a particular instance of the unit and counit maps for this adjunction, which implies that and are in duality. Hence is dualizable.
∎
In a general stable presentable symmetric monoidal -category , the classes of compact and dualizable objects do not coincide. In particular, the monoidal unit is always dualizable but not necessarily compact.
In the case of a derived stack , the unit is compact if and only if the global sections functor preserves colimits. (This fails if the global sections are too big such as in the following examples: ind-schemes such as the formal disk ; the classifying space of a topological group such as ; the classifying space of finite groups in modular characteristics.) However, if the unit is itself compact then all dualizable objects are compact, since Hom from a dualizable object is the composition of the colimit preserving functors internal Hom and global sections .
Proof. First, note that the free module , which is the monoidal unit, is clearly compact. Hence all dualizable objects are compact. Moreover, we can write any object as a colimit of free modules. For compact, the identity map has to factor through a finite colimit, showing that is perfect. Finally, perfect modules are dualizable since we can explicitly exhibit their dual as a finite limit of free modules. ∎
It is useful to note that the notion of dualizable is local. On the one hand, pullback for any map of stacks (for example, restriction to an affine) preserves dualizable objects. On the other hand, a dual object with its unit and trace maps is functorially characterized, thus if it exists locally, it will glue together to a global object. This observation leads to the identification of perfect and dualizable objects in for any :
Proposition 3.6. For a derived stack , an object of is dualizable if and only if it is perfect.
Proof. Let be dualizable with dual . Then for any map , the pullback is dualizable with dual . Dualizable objects of are perfect, hence is perfect and so by definition, is perfect.
Now suppose is perfect. Recall that by definition, we have
Since is perfect, for any map , the pullback is perfect, hence dualizable. We take the value of the dual along a map to be the dual of the pullback . Note that is well-defined, since for any composite , there is a natural equivalence .
To exhibit and as dual to one another, we must construct the requisite unit and counit maps and . Again using the definition of as a limit, to produce one of these maps, it suffices to define analogous maps for the pullbacks under each which themselves are compatible under pullbacks. But the existence of such maps are an immediate consequence of the definition . Finally, to verify that the usual composititions and are equivalences, it suffices to check under pullbacks to affines. But this is a direct consequence of our definition of and the fact that pullbacks preserve tensor products. ∎
3.1.2. Generators
Now we review notions of what it means for compact objects to generate a stable -category. (See [L3, 17] for more details, and [L2, 5.5.7] for the general setting of presentable -categories.)
Definition 3.7. A stable category is said to be compactly generated if there is a small -category of compact objects whose right orthogonal vanishes: if satisfies , for all , then .
As explained in [L3, Remark 17.3], whether a stable -category is compactly generated can be studied completely in the underlying homotopy category. In particular, the notion for stable -categories is compatible with that for triangulated categories.
Example 3.8. For a commutative derived ring , the stable -category of -modules is compactly generated. In fact, it is generated by the free module itself.
On the one hand, for a stable small -category , the inductive limit is a compactly generated stable presentable -category. Furthermore (see [L2, 5.3.4]), if is closed under finite colimits and idempotent complete, then it can be recovered as the compact objects of . In particular, we have that is the Ind-category of its compact objects .
On the other hand, given a stable -category with a small full -subcategory of compact generators, one can recover all compact objects of by a result of Neeman [N1] (see also [L2, Proposition 5.3.4.17]): the compact objects are precisely direct summands of the objects of the smallest stable -subcategory containing (that is, they are direct summands of finite iterated extensions of objects of ). In particular, if is stable and idempotent complete, then it consists precisely of the compact objects of .
If we further assume that is a presentable stable -category with a small full -subcategory of compact generators, then a theorem of Schwede and Shipley [SSh] guarantees that we can recover as the cocompletion of (see [L4, 4.4] for the -categorical version, and [Ke] for the differential graded version). In other words, we recover by passing to the category of colimit preserving -linear functors to -modules
In particular, we now can check that our notion of perfect stack is equivalent to more familiar assumptions on a symmetric monoidal -category.
Proposition 3.9. For a derived stack with affine diagonal, the following are equivalent:
- (1)
is perfect.
- (2)
is compactly generated, and its compact and dualizable objects coincide.
Proof. If is perfect, so that , we claim that compact and dualizable objects agree, and hence compact objects generate, so that (1) implies (2).
To see the claim, it suffices to show that the full -subcategory of dualizable objects of is idempotent complete (since it is also stable). Since is idempotent complete, this is equivalent to showing that dualizable objects are closed under retracts. However, for a retract of a dualizable object one can explicitly write down the unit and trace maps for and confirm the necessary conditions. We leave this to the reader.
Conversely, if is compactly generated, then is the Ind-category of its compact objects, and hence by assumption also the Ind-category of its dualizable objects, so that (2) implies (1). ∎
3.2. Base change and the projection formula
In this section, we collect properties of the pushforward along a perfect stack, as summarized in the following proposition:
Proposition 3.10. Let be a perfect morphism. Then commutes with all small colimits and satisfies the projection formula. Furthermore, if is any map of derived stacks, the resulting base change map is an equivalence.
Remark 3.11. The conclusions of the proposition in fact do not require the full strength of the assumption that be perfect. The only hypothesis needed is that preserve colimits, or equivalently that the unit is relatively compact.
Remark 3.12. In the setting of simplicial commutative rings, and for a bounded, separated, quasi-compact relative derived algebraic space, the following results can essentially be found in Proposition 5.5.5 of Lurie’s thesis. The arguments in this section are an expanded version of parts of the arguments there, which extend largely unchanged to any reasonable setting for derived algebraic geometry such as -ring spectra.
Let us first consider the case when is affine, so that is perfect over . Then the pushforward coincides with the global sections functor . Over an affine base, is colimit preserving if and only if the structure sheaf (which is always dualizable) is a compact object of , which follows from being perfect.
Lemma 3.13. Let , and let . Then the natural projection map is an equivalence.
Proof. Tensor products and pullbacks always preserve colimits, and in our setting is colimit preserving as well. Therefore for any the functors and define colimit preserving endofunctors of . Hence both functors are determined by their value on , and canonically take the value . We find that the natural map is an equivalence. ∎
Let us continue with as above, and consider an arbitrary map of affine derived schemes. Consider the Cartesian square.
Lemma 3.14. The natural base change morphism is an equivalence.
Proof. Since is affine and hence is as well, the fiber product can be identified with the relative spectrum of a commutative algebra object , and induces an equivalence . Furthermore, the pullback can be described as tensoring with , and thus in particular . However, the global sections functor takes fiber products to tensor products, so we can identify . Applying the previously established projection formula twice, we can now compute , completing the proof. ∎
Now consider the general case where is any perfect morphism. Let us define a pushforward functor by requiring it to satisfy base change for affine derived schemes over . That is, for any , let us define to take the value , for any . As a corollary of the previous lemma, we can verify that this definition is sensible.
Corollary 3.15. is a well-defined quasi-coherent sheaf on .
Proof. Since , the claim that forms a quasi-coherent sheaf on is equivalent to the claim that for any diagram of the form
is canonically equivalent to . Unraveling these formulas, by definition we have that and that . By the previous lemma, these are equivalent by base change in the left hand square: is perfect, and so . ∎
Lemma 3.16. The natural transformation is an equivalence of functors.
Proof. Take any and . First note that for any quasi-coherent sheaf , there is an equivalence . Thus we calculate
To prove the lemma, it thus suffices to show that the natural map is an equivalence.
This is a consequence of the stronger claim that the functor is an equivalence. Since the functor takes all colimits of stacks to limits, it therefore suffices to show that the natural map is an equivalence. This limit can be calculated by picking an affine cover , and realizing as the geometric realization of the usual simplicial object . Finally, since geometric realization commutes with fiber products we are done. ∎
Since was defined to satisfy base change and preserve colimits, we now have the following.
Proof of Proposition 3.10. The first assertions were proved above. Since base change is local in the target, one can prove the final statement for an arbitrary by choosing a cover of by an affine , thus reducing to the case which was proved above. ∎
3.3. Constructions of perfect stacks
In this section, we construct many examples of perfect stacks.
Throughout what follows, by a derived scheme, we mean a derived stack which admits a Zariski open covering by affine derived schemes. Recall that a morphism is Zariski open if it induces a Zariski open morphism on the underlying truncated underived stacks, as well as isomorphisms of the higher homotopy groups of the structure sheaves over the Zariski open. Equivalently, one can think of a derived scheme in terms of the underlying truncated underived scheme equipped with a derived enhancement of the structure sheaf. Following usual conventions, we say that a derived scheme is quasi-compact if any Zariski open cover admits a finite refinement.
We begin with two lemmas needed to show quasi-compact derived schemes with affine diagonal are in fact perfect.
Lemma 3.17. For a quasi-compact derived scheme with affine diagonal the global sections functor is colimit preserving.
Proof. We briefly sketch the argument of [L1, Proposition 5.5.5]. The derived global sections functor preserves finite colimits. Thus it suffices to show preserves small coproducts: we must check that the natural map is an equivalence, i.e., that the induced map on homotopy groups is an equivalence. Since is colimit preserving, it suffices to check that the individual terms each preserve small coproducts.
This is shown in two steps. First, one checks that for concentrated in a single degree, there exists such that is zero for all . Thus to establish the assertion, it suffices to work in the subcategory for which is concentrated in bounded degrees.
Next, one chooses a finite affine cover giving the usual simplicial object , and thus an identification . The resulting Bousfield-Kan, or C̆ech, spectral sequence has -term given by the , and converges to . (The construction of the -term evidently commutes with coproducts in , since pullback to an affine is colimit preserving.) Using the previous step, only finitely many terms in the spectral sequence may involve differentials affecting a particular group . Therefore we have expressed as a finite limit of terms which preserved colimits in and so the result follows. ∎
The following shows that we can glue derived schemes with finite colimits rather than geometric realizations. We state it in the simplest form applicable to the assertions which follow.
Lemma 3.18. Suppose is a derived scheme, and is an open Zariski cover. Then the following is a colimit diagram
Proof. It suffices to show that the following diagram of algebra objects is Cartesian
Let denote the cover. Since the restriction is conservative and preserves finite limits, it suffices to show that the restriction of the above diagram is Cartesian. But this is nothing more than the clearly Cartesian diagram
∎
Proposition 3.19. Quasi-compact derived schemes with affine diagonal are perfect.
Proof. The result for ordinary (non-derived) schemes is a theorem of Neeman [N2], extending ideas of Thomason [TT]. (In fact, Neeman proves that for quasi-compact, quasi-separated schemes, is compactly generated, and dualizable and compact objects coincide. We assume has affine diagonal only because the definition of perfect stack requires it.)
A modified exposition of Neeman’s argument appears in the work of Bondal-Van den Bergh [BV], who in fact prove that is generated by a single perfect object. One can translate the latter proof, which occupies [BV, Section 3.3], directly into the derived setting, substituting Lemma 3.17 above for its underived version [BV, Corollary 3.3.4], and using the natural identification instead of [BV, Corollary 3.3.5]. (In the derived setting, there is no general notion of the abelian category of quasi-coherent sheaves, so we do not need to worry about the potential distinction between its derived category and the quasi-coherent derived category). In what follows, we sketch the argument for the reader’s convenience, keeping the notation from [BV].
The proof that is generated by a single perfect (dualizable) object is an induction on the number of opens in an affine cover of . The base case of an affine derived scheme is Lemma 3.5. For the inductive step, we write with open and affine (putting us in the context of Lemma 3.18), and assume that has a perfect generator . By [BoN, Proposition 6.1], there is an explicit compact generator for the kernel of the restriction from to the intersection . (One can think of as a form of the structure sheaf of the closed complement ). The key to the inductive step is Neeman’s abstract categorical form [N1, Theorem 2.1] of Thomason’s extension theorem for compact objects. This allows us to extend to a compact (hence perfect) object on , and then to glue the latter to to obtain a perfect object on all of . (Note that we extend rather than itself since K-theoretic obstructions vanish for the former.) One then checks by a Mayer-Vietoris argument that the sum of and the pushforward of (which is itself compact and perfect by support considerations) to generates all of .
By Lemma 3.17, we know that is compact, and hence that dualizable complexes are compact. The assertion that compact objects are dualizable follows from [N1]: if a set of compact objects generates , then all compact objects of are summands of finite colimits of objects of and their shifts. Since is generated by a perfect object, we conclude that all compact objects are summands of perfect objects, which allows one to check locally that they are indeed perfect. ∎
We next make a simple observation about compact objects.
Lemma 3.20. Suppose is a perfect morphism over a perfect base. Then compact and dualizable objects of coincide.
Proof. First note that pushforward along the perfect morphism is colimit preserving, hence (by adjunction) the pullback of a compact object is compact. In particular we find that the structure sheaf (the monoidal unit) on is compact, and hence that all dualizable objects are compact. Note also that the pullback of a dualizable object is always dualizable.
Now suppose that is any affine mapping to , and consider the base change of to . By the definition of a perfect morphism applied to , this base change is itself a perfect stack. Let denote the base change morphism, which is affine since has affine diagonal. If is any compact object and is its pullback to , then is itself compact since preserves colimits:
Since itself is perfect, it follows that is dualizable and (by Proposition 3.6) perfect. We now show that the pullback of to any affine is perfect. Assume that the map is surjective, so as a consequence is also surjective. Now let be any affine mapping to . We may form the Cartesian diagrams:
We now verify that is perfect, given the hypotheses above. The fiber product is affine, since has affine diagonal, and the map is surjective since is. Since is perfect, is perfect, as well. Thus, in summary, we know that is perfect, where is surjective, and hence is perfect. Since the pullback of to any affine is perfect, therefore is itself perfect by Definition 3.1 and hence (again by Proposition 3.6) dualizable. ∎
Proposition 3.21. Let be a perfect stack and a relative quasi-compact derived scheme with affine diagonal and a relatively ample family of line bundles (for example, quasi-projective, or in particular affine). Then is perfect.
Proof. By Lemma 3.20, we know that compact and dualizable objects in coincide. Thus we need only to check that is compactly generated. The pullbacks of compact (hence dualizable) objects on are dualizable, hence compact, as are the line bundles in the given relatively ample family. We claim the -category of compact objects generates . The argument is as above in the case of an external product: let be right orthogonal to the compact objects, so that . We first find by adjunction and the fact that is compactly generated that . Since the objects form a relatively ample family of line bundles this forces . ∎
Corollary 3.22. In characteristic zero, the quotient of a quasi-projective derived scheme by a linear action of an affine algebraic group is perfect.
Proof. First note that in characteristic zero, is clearly perfect: the compact and dualizable objects are both finite dimensional representations which generate.
If is an affine algebraic group, we can embed as a subgroup of for some . Thus we obtain a morphism with fiber . By a theorem of Chevalley [Ch], is a quasi-projective variety, and so by Proposition 3.21, itself is perfect.
Finally, for a quasi-projective derived scheme with a linear action of , the morphism is quasi-projective, so applying Proposition 3.21 again, we conclude that is perfect. ∎
Corollary 3.23. Let be a morphism between perfect stacks. Then is perfect.
Proof. Let be a morphism from an affine derived scheme to the base, and the base change of . Since has affine diagonal, is affine as is the base change morphism . In particular Proposition 3.21 (again in the basic case of an affine morphism) applies to , so that the total space is perfect. ∎
Proposition 3.24. The product of perfect stacks is perfect. More generally, for maps , if has affine diagonal, then is perfect.
Proof. The second assertion follows from the first and Proposition 3.21, since is an affine morphism for with affine diagonal.
To prove the first assertion, note that has affine diagonal. Applying Lemma 3.20 to the projection to a factor, we see that compact and dualizable objects of coincide. Thus to confirm that is perfect, it suffices to show that is compactly generated.
Let us first check that the external product of compact objects is again compact. By assumption, compact objects on the factors are dualizable, so is dualizable (it is the tensor product of pullbacks, and both operations preserve dualizabie objects), and hence compact.
Now let us check that external products of compact objects generate . The argument is a modification of the argument of Bondal-Van den Bergh [BV] in the case of a single compact generator. Namely, let be right orthogonal to , so that in particular for all . By adjunction, we have
for all , so that since such generate . For any affines and , we therefore have
for all . Since the latter objects generate it follows (upon restricting to ) that , whence (by affineness of ) that , and finally (since affines of the form cover ) that . ∎
Corollary 3.25. Let be a perfect stack, and let be a finite simplicial set. Then the mapping stack is perfect.
Finally, we consider arbitrary quotients by finite group schemes in good characteristics.
Proposition 3.26. Let be a perfect stack with an action of an affine group scheme for which
- (1)
The global functions is a perfect complex.
- (2)
The unit on is compact (equivalently, the trivial -module is perfect).
Then is perfect.
Proof. We leave to the reader the exercise of checking that has affine diagonal since has affine diagonal and is affine.
We will first prove that condition (1) implies is generated by compact dualizable objects. Since is affine, we have the identification .
We claim that the algebra object is perfect (or equivalently, dualizable). To see this, consider the pullback square of derived stacks
Via base change, we obtain an equivalence , or in other words, an equivalence of -algebras . By assumption, is a perfect complex, and is conservative and preserves perfect complexes, so we conclude that the pushforward is perfect. Now consider the pullback square of derived stacks
Since is perfect, is perfect. By base change, we have the equivalence , and thus we conclude that is perfect.
Next observe that the right adjoint to the pushforward can be calculated explicitly by
It follows immediately that preserves colimits. It also follows that is conservative since a diagram chase with the above identities leads to the identity
The unit gives a factorization of the identity map
and taking duals, a factorization of the identity map of through the dual . Hence if were trivial, then would also be trivial, but is conservative. Thus we conclude takes a generating set of compact objects to a generating set of compact objects.
We now appeal to condition that the unit in is compact, hence so are all dualizables in . In the case when is a point, the above arguments show that is compactly generated. Furthermore, it shows that all compacts are in fact dualizable (since is a compact dualizable generator), and hence itself is perfect. The morphism is then a perfect morphism with perfect base. Thus by Lemma 3.20 compact and dualizable objects in coincide. This implies (in combination with the compact generation of above) that is perfect as asserted. ∎
Original source: arXiv:0805.0157v5