Shifted symplectic structures on derived Quot-stacks I: Differential graded manifolds

Artan Sheshmani; Dennis Borisov; Ludmil Katzarkov

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Shifted symplectic structures on derived Quot-stacks I: Differential graded manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dg manifolds can be organized into a homotopy site whose infinity category of stacks is equivalent to the standard affine derived geometry of finitely generated dg algebras.

desk verdict Valuable bridge between dg manifolds and Toën–Vezzosi stacks, but Theorem 3's proof has unverified combinatorial steps that a specialist referee must check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03021 v3 pith:FYO6IJWC submitted 2019-08-08 math.AG math.ATmath.DG

Dennis Borisov , Ludmil Katzarkov , Artan Sheshmani This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.ATmath.DG MSC 14A2014J3514J4014F05

keywords DerivedQuotschemeStackSimpliciallocalizationdgmanifoldshomotopysitecategoryoffibrantobjectsalgebraicgeometryschemes

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's first step is to make differential graded manifolds—schemes whose ambient underlying scheme is smooth and quasi-projective and whose negative-degree structure sheaf is locally almost free—into a homotopy site, and to prove that the resulting infinity category of stacks is equivalent to the infinity category of stacks on the site of differential non-positively graded algebras whose cohomologies have finitely many generators in each degree. Under this equivalence every dg manifold represents a derived scheme. The point is to supply a concrete, quasi-projective model for derived objects such as Quot-stacks of coherent sheaves, where explicit representatives of shifted symplectic forms can later be constructed. The paper also notes that a previously published dg Quot-scheme construction has a flawed main theorem, so the Quot-scheme application is deferred to a sequel.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the subcategory A of affine dg manifolds, opposite to smooth almost-free dg algebras, together with the functor R: A -> A^$\Delta$ that produces special cosimplicial resolutions entirely inside A (Theorem 3). The subtle point is functoriality: standard free-algebra resolutions leave A, so the proof is a long simplicial construction that keeps every resolution inside A. R lets the mapping spaces in the simplicial localization of A be computed from cosimplicial resolutions as in the ambient model category, proving Theorem 4. On the geometric side, the category-of-fibrant-objects structure on M supplies path objects via 'killing cocycles' and gives cocycle descriptions of mapping spaces; Proposition 6 and the almost-affineness condition then ensure that open affine atlases of a dg manifold form hypercovers, which is what makes the stack comparison work.

What would settle it

Concretely, compute the homotopy type of Map_{L(A)}(X,Y) from the explicit cocycle category and compare it with the homotopy type obtained from the ambient model category of all dg algebras, for a pair of affine dg manifolds X,Y with at least one non-zero negative-degree element; any mismatch would refute Theorem 4 and thus the stack equivalence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the infinity category of stacks on the site of dg manifolds is equivalent to the infinity category of stacks on the site of differential non-positively graded algebras whose cohomologies have finitely many generators in each degree, and that under this correspondence every dg manifold represents a derived scheme. To reach this conclusion, the paper introduces the category M of dg manifolds—dg schemes whose ambient classical scheme is smooth and quasi-projective and whose negative-degree pieces are locally almost free—and equips it with fibrations and weak equivalences so that both M and its affine subcategory A are categories of fibrant objects. It then proves that the inclusions A into M and A into the ambient category of all dg algebras induce homotopically full and faithful functors between simplicial localizations, and that these comparisons respect the etale topologies, giving equivalent categories of stacks. This establishes the first half of a two-step program: the second half, constructing explicit dg Quot-schemes with shifted symplectic forms, is postponed to a later paper.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on Theorem 3's claim that a functorial cosimplicial resolution can be built entirely inside the subcategory of smooth almost-free dg algebras, and if that functoriality fails, the mapping-space equivalences and stack equivalence collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A dg manifold, under the established equivalence, represents a derived scheme in the ambient derived algebraic geometry (Theorem 8).
Stacks on the full category of dg manifolds are Quillen equivalent to stacks on affine dg manifolds (Theorem 6).
Mapping spaces between affine dg manifolds can be computed through the explicit functorial cosimplicial resolutions of Theorem 3, with no loss of homotopical information (Theorem 4).
The essential image of the affine dg manifolds inside all dg algebras consists exactly of dg algebras whose cohomology is finitely generated in each degree, so the equivalence is with that natural site.
The category of dg manifolds supports two compatible categories-of-fibrant-objects structures, one with weak equivalences and one with quasi-isomorphisms, giving flexibility in computing mapping spaces.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the equivalence identifies dg manifolds with derived schemes, the promised dg Quot-schemes should carry the same shifted symplectic forms as their derived-stack counterparts; a natural next test is to compute the form on the dg manifold model directly.
The paper's stated failure of the earlier dg Quot construction means the equivalence alone does not produce derived Quot-stacks; the follow-up must show that the projective system of dg manifolds converges in the stack category to a derived scheme with the correct tangent complex.
The comparison suggests that quasi-projectivity can be used as a technical crutch inside derived geometry: any derived scheme that is quasi-projective over the base should admit a representing dg manifold, making concrete computations possible.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

If Theorem 3 holds, this is an important bridge between explicit dg-manifold models and Toën–Vezzosi derived stacks. But the proof of Theorem 3 as written has combinatorial indexing problems that block verification, so the right call is a specialist referee, not acceptance on faith.

What is new and worthwhile: the category M of dg manifolds with a category-of-fibrant-objects structure, the almost-affineness notion of weak equivalence, and the claimed equivalences St(M) ≃ St(A) ≃ St((rA)^op). Theorems 1, 2, 6, and 8 are sketched plausibly, and the atlas-to-hypercover argument (Lemma 3, Prop. 6, Thm. 5) is a genuinely nice way to get derived schemes out of dg manifolds. If the comparison works, it gives people who want explicit dg models a way into Toën–Vezzosi without redoing the foundations.

The soft spots sit in Theorem 3. The subset-indexed decompositions (10)–(11) are introduced as an 'additional inductive assumption' but the proof never shows the induction preserves them. The isomorphism (12) is asserted without derivation. In the surjectivity argument, α_s and β_{s'} are indexed by subsets of {0,...,n}, while rα and rβ are defined with s ∈ P(0,...,n+1); the union condition s ∪ s' ≠ {0,...,n+1} is then meaningless for subsets of {0,...,n}. The count of n-faces containing a subset of size |s| should be n+2−|s|, not n+1−|s|. These are not cosmetic typos; they occur exactly where the construction must stay inside A. They may be repairable, but as written the proof does not close.

Two smaller caveats. The introduction reports a private communication that the main theorem of [6] is wrong; that is honest, but it also means the title's promise of derived Quot-stacks is not delivered here and the motivating construction rests on unpublished follow-up work. Footnote 2 says the authors 'believe' Theorem 6 survives with ordinary quasi-isomorphisms; that is a work-around, not a proof.

Bottom line: this paper deserves a serious referee. The architecture is coherent and the goal is valuable. The referee should be asked to verify Theorem 3 before the stack equivalence is taken as established. I would not cite the equivalence in my own work yet. For a reading group, it is a maybe—good for a group that tolerates thirty pages of simplicial combinatorics.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a theory of dg manifolds, defined as dg schemes whose degree-zero component is a smooth quasi-projective scheme and whose negative-degree components are locally almost free over it. The authors equip the category M of dg manifolds with fibrations and weak equivalences, prove that M is a category of fibrant objects (Theorem 1), and compare the simplicial localization of the affine subcategory A with that of M (Theorem 2) and with the Toen-Vezzosi model category of all non-positively graded dg algebras (Theorem 4). The central technical result is Theorem 3, which constructs a functorial special cosimplicial resolution R: A -> A^Delta staying inside the subcategory A. Using this resolution and an etale topology transferred from the affine dg algebra site, the paper proves a Quillen equivalence between stacks on A and on M (Theorem 6) and shows that stacks represented by dg manifolds are derived schemes (Theorem 8). The paper is the first part of a program toward explicit derived Quot-stacks and shifted symplectic structures; it also announces, based on a private communication, that the main theorem of the earlier derived Quot-scheme paper [6] is incorrect, which motivates deferring part (2) of the program.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a valuable bridge between the explicit, scheme-theoretic dg manifold language of Ciocan-Fontanine-Kapranov and the Toen-Vezzosi derived algebraic geometry framework. Theorems 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 form an elegant conceptual structure: the use of categories of fibrant objects, cocycle categories, and affine atlases giving hypercovers is a sound and useful approach. The construction of Theorem 3, however, is load-bearing for the entire comparison, since Theorems 4, 6, and 8 rely on it. The proof of Theorem 3 is presented as a long combinatorial induction with several steps asserted as "obvious" or "immediate", and the text contains concrete set-theoretic and combinatorial errors at the critical point where the construction must remain in A. Until that proof is repaired or replaced, the central equivalences are conditional. The paper also contains no machine-checked verification of the intricate simplicial construction, which would have been especially helpful here.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, proof of Theorem 3, equations (10)-(12)] The additional inductive assumption (10)-(11), giving decompositions G^k_m = \oplus_{s in P(0,...,m)} G^k_{m,s}, is introduced but the proof never shows that the induction step preserves this decomposition. Equation (12), asserting an isomorphism D^k_{n+1} \simeq \oplus_{s} G^k_{|s|-1,{0,...,|s|-1}}, is stated without derivation from the pullback diagram (9). This is not a cosmetic gap: (12) is exactly what is needed to conclude that each D^k_{n+1} is a finitely generated projective A0-module, and hence that A_{n+1} remains in the subcategory A. A complete proof of (10)-(12) and their preservation under induction is required.
[Section 2, p. 23, surjectivity argument after (13)] The multiplicative compatibility condition is stated as: "if s \cup s' \neq {0,...,n+1}, then at least one of \alpha_s, \beta_{s'} is 0", but s and s' are subsets of {0,...,n}, so their union can never equal {0,...,n+1}. The subsequent definition of r\alpha and r\beta says the internal sums run over all n-faces of \Delta^{n+1} containing s, and the count is given as n+1-|s|; the correct count is n+2-|s|. These errors occur precisely in the step proving r\alpha \cdot r\beta = \alpha \cdot \beta, which is needed to show that A_{n+1} \to M_{n+1} is surjective in negative degrees. Without a corrected and complete argument, the theorem does not establish that the resolution stays inside A.
[Section 2, proof of Theorem 4] The proof asserts "Therefore all maps in this diagram are weak equivalences", based on the preceding compositions and the 2-out-of-6 property. However, the diagrams as drawn do not themselves imply that each individual arrow is a weak equivalence; in particular, the map Hom_{(A)^{op}}(R(X), X1) \to N(D/X1) requires a separate justification beyond the composability of weak equivalences. The proof also depends essentially on the functoriality of R from Theorem 3 and on the injectivity claim of Lemma 2. Since Theorem 4 is the bridge to the Toen-Vezzosi stacks, this step needs to be written out explicitly and rigorously.

minor comments (6)

[Notation and conventions] The notation "A–pAqop" is confusing; the standard A^op would be clearer, especially since the paper also uses the symbol A for the category of all dg algebras.
[Section 2, p. 22] The symbol "xE0_m" is likely a typo for \bar{E}^0_m or a similar decoration; the reader cannot tell what is intended.
[Section 2, p. 23] The phrase "over all the n-faces of \Delta^{n+1} that contains (or s1 respectively)" is incomplete and should be rewritten.
[Section 1, proofs of Proposition 5] The proofs of parts (1) and (2) contain nearly identical repeated passages; a single lemma isolating the amphicity argument would improve readability.
[Introduction and Remark 9] The paper should state explicitly that the etale topology on M is transferred from the affine site by definition, so the independent content of Theorem 6 lies entirely in Theorem 5 (affine atlases give hypercovers). This would prevent a possible misreading that the topology itself is the main new contribution.
[Introduction, paragraphs after Theorem 8] The announcement that the main theorem of [6] is wrong is based on an unpublished communication; if this fact is needed for the motivation, it should at least be flagged as a personal communication and ideally verified in writing with the authors of [6] before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: stack comparison rests on independent resolution and hypercover theorems; topology transfer is explicitly supplemented by non-formal hypercover proof.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The central comparison St(M) ≃ St((rA)^op) rests on three independent components: (i) the category-of-fibrant-objects structure on M (Thm 1) and homotopical full faithfulness of A→M (Thm 2); (ii) the functorial cosimplicial resolution R within A (Thm 3), an original simplicial construction whose proof is the paper's main technical work; and (iii) the statement that affine atlases give hypercovers (Thm 5), proved via Lemma 3 and Prop. 6. The etale topology on M is indeed defined by the same cohomological conditions as on the affine site, which makes part of the stack comparison formal, but the paper explicitly identifies the non-formal content as Theorem 5 and then proves it; no conclusion is forced by definition alone. The only self-citation to unpublished work ([2]) appears in Prop. 1 for the standard fact that cotangent complexes of objects in A can be computed from Kähler differentials; that fact is independently standard and is not load-bearing for the stack equivalence. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported solely from the authors' prior work, and no equation is exhibited that equates a conclusion with an input by construction. The unproven-looking combinatorial assertions inside Theorem 3 (for example, the decomposition (12)) are potential correctness gaps, not circularity: they do not presuppose the theorem being proved.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted. The paper's claims depend on a characteristic-zero base field, on the restriction to almost free dg structures over smooth quasi-projective schemes, on a deliberately strengthened notion of weak equivalence, and on importing the Toen-Vezzosi etale topology to the new site.

assumptions (7)

standard math Standard ZFC and model-category or simplicial homotopy theory background (Dwyer-Kan, Brown, Hovey, Hirschhorn).
Used throughout; no new foundations are introduced.
standard math Dold-Kan correspondence gives a Quillen equivalence between simplicial commutative algebras and non-positively graded dg algebras.
Invoked in Section 2 to identify affine derived schemes with objects of (A)^op.
domain assumption Ground field F is of characteristic 0.
Stated in the notation and conventions; needed for the geometry and model structures used.
domain assumption Dg manifolds are restricted to smooth quasi-projective ambient schemes with almost free dg structure sheaves.
Definition 2; this restriction is what makes M a category of fibrant objects.
ad hoc to paper Weak equivalences in M are defined as quasi-isomorphisms with an extra 'almost affine' pullback condition.
Definition 4; stronger than quasi-isomorphisms, introduced to make M a category of fibrant objects and to make mapping spaces computable.
domain assumption The etale topology on M is defined by the same cohomological conditions as the Toen-Vezzosi etale topology on A.
Section 3; the comparison of stack categories is meaningful relative to this transferred topology.
standard math Every coherent sheaf on a smooth separated finite-type scheme over F is a quotient of a locally free coherent sheaf (Borelli).
Used in Proposition 2 to kill cocycles with locally free generators.

invented entities (3)

Category of dg manifolds M
purpose: New site for derived geometry with explicit dg structure sheaves
Introduced in Definition 2; its value depends on the theorems proving it is a homotopy site, not on external data.
Weak equivalences defined via almost affineness
purpose: Give M a category of fibrant objects structure with computable mapping spaces
Definition 4; an internal modeling choice, with no falsifiable prediction outside the paper.
Almost affine dg manifolds
purpose: Intermediate class used to characterize weak equivalences
Definition 4 and Proposition 3; technical device with no external handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shifted symplectic structures on derived Quot-stacks I: Differential graded manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYO6IJWC

@misc{pith2026190803021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shifted symplectic structures on derived Quot-stacks I: Differential graded manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYO6IJWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03021}
}

read the original abstract

A theory of dg schemes is developed so that it becomes a homotopy site, and the corresponding infinity category of stacks is equivalent to the infinity category of stacks, as constructed by Toen and Vezzosi, on the site of dg algebras whose cohomologies have finitely many generators in each degree. Stacks represented by dg schemes are shown to be derived schemes under this correspondence.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[6]

Derived Quot schemes

I.Ciocan-Fontanine, M.Kapranov. Derived Quot schemes. Ann. Sci- ent. ´Ec/ Norm. Sup. 4th series, t. 34 p. 403-440 (2001)

work page 2001
[1]

Some results on ampleness and divisorial schemes

M.Borelli. Some results on ampleness and divisorial schemes. Paciﬁc Journal of Mathematics, vol. 23 no. 2, pp. 217-227 (1967)

work page 1967
[2]

Global shifted potentials on mod- uli spaces of sheaves on Calabi–Yau 4-folds

D.Borisov, A.Sheshmani, S.-T.Yau. Global shifted potentials on mod- uli spaces of sheaves on Calabi–Yau 4-folds. In preparation

work page
[3]

Global shifted potentials for moduli stacks of sheaves on Calabi-Yau four-folds

D.Borisov, A.Sheshmani, S.-T.Yau. Global shifted potentials for mod- uli stacks of sheaves on Calabi-Yau four-folds II (the stable locus) arXiv:2007.13194 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[4]

Homotopy limits, Completions and Local- izations

A.K.Bousﬁeld, D.M.Kan. Homotopy limits, Completions and Local- izations. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 304, Springer (1972)

work page 1972
[5]

Abstract homotopy theory and generalized sheaf cohomol- ogy

K.S.Brown. Abstract homotopy theory and generalized sheaf cohomol- ogy. Transactions of the AMS vol. 186, pp. 419-458 (1973)

work page 1973
[7]

Homotopy Limit Functors on Model Categories and Homotopical Categories

W.G.Dwyer, Ph.S.Hirshhorn, D.M.Kan, J.H.Smith. Homotopy Limit Functors on Model Categories and Homotopical Categories. AMS (2004)

work page 2004
[8]

Simplicial localizations of categories

W.G.Dwyer, D.M.Kan. Simplicial localizations of categories. J. of Pure and Applied Algebra 17, p. 267-284 (1980)

work page 1980

Show all 26 references

[9]

Calculating simplicial localizations

W.G.Dwyer, D.K.Kan. Calculating simplicial localizations. J. of Pure and Applied Algebra 18, p. 17-35 (1980)

1980
[10]

Function complexes in homotopical algebra

W.G.Dwyer, D.K.Kan. Function complexes in homotopical algebra. Topology vol. 19 p. 427-440 (1980)

1980
[11]

A Study in Derived Algebraic Geometry

D.Gaitsgory, N.Rozenblyum. A Study in Derived Algebraic Geometry. Volume II: Deformations, Lie Theory and Formal Geometry. AMS (2017)

2017
[12]

Weighted limits in simplicial homotopy theory

N.Gambino. Weighted limits in simplicial homotopy theory. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 214, pp. 1193-1199 (2010)

2010
[13]

Algebraic geometry

R.Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Springer (1977)

1977
[14]

Model categories and their localizations.AMS (2003)

Ph.S.Hirshhorn. Model categories and their localizations.AMS (2003)

2003
[15]

Model categories

M.Hovey. Model categories. AMS (1999)

1999
[16]

The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves

D.Huybrechts, M.Lehn. The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves. Cambridge University Press (2010)

2010
[17]

Cocycles in categories of ﬁbrant objects

Zh.L.Low. Cocycles in categories of ﬁbrant objects. arXiv:1502.03925 [math.CT]

arXiv
[18]

Topological Andr´ e–Quillen cohomology andE8 Andr´ e– Quillen cohomology

M.A.Mandell. Topological Andr´ e–Quillen cohomology andE8 Andr´ e– Quillen cohomology. Adv. Math. 177 no. 2, pp. 227-279, (2003)

2003
[19]

T.Pantev, B.To¨ en, M.Vaqui´ e, G.Vezzosi.Shifted symplectic struc- tures. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. 117, pp. 271-328 (2013). 34 SHIFTED SYMPLECTIC STRUCTURES ON DERIVED QUOT-STACKS I

2013
[20]

Homotopical algebra

D.Quillen. Homotopical algebra. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 43, Springer (1967)

1967
[21]

Equivalences of monoidal model categories

S.Schwede, B.Shipley. Equivalences of monoidal model categories. Al- gebraic & Geometric Topology vol. 3, p. 287-334 (2003)

2003
[22]

EMS Surv

B.To¨ en.Derived algebraic geometry. EMS Surv. Math. Sci. 1, no. 2, pp. 153-240 (2014)

2014
[23]

B.To¨ en, M.Vaqui´ e.Moduli of objects in dg-categories. Ann. Scient. ´Ec. Norm. Sup. 4th series, t. 40, p. 387-444 (2007)

2007
[24]

Advances in Mathematics 193, pp

B.To¨ en, G.Vezzosi.Homotopical algebraic geometry I: topos theory. Advances in Mathematics 193, pp. 257-372 (2005)

2005
[25]

B.To¨ en, G.Vezzosi.Homotopical algebraic geometry II: Geometric stacks and applications. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 193, no. 902 (2008)

2008
[26]

To¨ en.Simplicial presheaves and derived algebraic geometry

B. To¨ en.Simplicial presheaves and derived algebraic geometry. pp. 119-186 in I.Moerdijk, B.To¨ en. Simplicial methods for operads and algebraic geometry. Birkh¨ auser (2010). 0 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Wind- sor, 401 Sunset A ve., Windsor Ontar...

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Derived Quot schemes

I.Ciocan-Fontanine, M.Kapranov. Derived Quot schemes. Ann. Sci- ent. ´Ec/ Norm. Sup. 4th series, t. 34 p. 403-440 (2001)

work page 2001

[2] [1]

Some results on ampleness and divisorial schemes

M.Borelli. Some results on ampleness and divisorial schemes. Paciﬁc Journal of Mathematics, vol. 23 no. 2, pp. 217-227 (1967)

work page 1967

[3] [2]

Global shifted potentials on mod- uli spaces of sheaves on Calabi–Yau 4-folds

D.Borisov, A.Sheshmani, S.-T.Yau. Global shifted potentials on mod- uli spaces of sheaves on Calabi–Yau 4-folds. In preparation

work page

[4] [3]

Global shifted potentials for moduli stacks of sheaves on Calabi-Yau four-folds

D.Borisov, A.Sheshmani, S.-T.Yau. Global shifted potentials for mod- uli stacks of sheaves on Calabi-Yau four-folds II (the stable locus) arXiv:2007.13194 [math.AG]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007

[5] [4]

Homotopy limits, Completions and Local- izations

A.K.Bousﬁeld, D.M.Kan. Homotopy limits, Completions and Local- izations. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 304, Springer (1972)

work page 1972

[6] [5]

Abstract homotopy theory and generalized sheaf cohomol- ogy

K.S.Brown. Abstract homotopy theory and generalized sheaf cohomol- ogy. Transactions of the AMS vol. 186, pp. 419-458 (1973)

work page 1973

[7] [7]

Homotopy Limit Functors on Model Categories and Homotopical Categories

W.G.Dwyer, Ph.S.Hirshhorn, D.M.Kan, J.H.Smith. Homotopy Limit Functors on Model Categories and Homotopical Categories. AMS (2004)

work page 2004

[8] [8]

Simplicial localizations of categories

W.G.Dwyer, D.M.Kan. Simplicial localizations of categories. J. of Pure and Applied Algebra 17, p. 267-284 (1980)

work page 1980