REVIEW 1 cited by
Nonabelian Hodge isomorphisms for stacks and cohomological Hall algebras
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
In this paper, we complete the nonabelian Hodge theory (NAHT) triangle of isomorphisms for stacks between the Borel-Moore homologies of the Dolbeault, Betti, and de Rham moduli stacks. We first explain how to realise the category of connections on a smooth projective curve as a subcategory of a $2$-Calabi-Yau dg-category satisfying some appropriate geometric conditions. Then, we define a cohomological Hall algebra (CoHA) product on the Borel-Moore homology of the stack of connections on a smooth projective curve. This allows us to not only compare the Borel-Moore homologies of the stacks at the relative and absolute levels for the three sides of NAHT, but also to compare their CoHA structures: they all coincide. To compare the Dolbeault and de Rham sides, we define a relative CoHA for the Hodge-Deligne moduli space parametrising $\lambda$-connections. The Betti and de Rham sides are compared using the (derived) Riemann-Hilbert correspondence. The comparison of the Borel-Moore homologies of the Dolbeault and Betti moduli stacks was previously considered by the author with Davison and Schlegel Mejia (without taking the cohomological Hall algebra structures into account). This paper completes this study and provides a CoHA enhancement of the classical NAHT for curves.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture via limit categories
Limit categories are defined, proven compactly generated and semiorthogonally decomposed into quasi-BPS categories, then proposed as the correct automorphic side of the Dolbeault geometric Langlands conjecture.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.