Continuous six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces

Qingchong Zhu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Continuous six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the functor $X\mapsto \mathrm{Shv}(X;\mathrm{Sp})$ is the initial continuous six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces, so every such formalism computes sheaf (co)homology.

desk verdict A well-organized, important-looking theorem that is not yet established: the stalkwise verification in Lemma 4.16 and Theorem 5.20 compares source and target stalks instead of showing the constructed map is stalkwise an equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13537 v2 pith:DYRJGKY4 submitted 2025-07-17 math.KT math.ATmath.CT

Qingchong Zhu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.KTmath.ATmath.CT MSC 18F1018N6055N3019D10

keywords six-functorformalismspectralsheaveslocallycompactHausdorffspacesinitialobject∞-categorieslocalizinginvariantsalgebraicK-theorydescent

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

The paper's central claim is that the functor sending each locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ to its $\infty$-category of spectral sheaves (sheaves with values in spectra) $\mathrm{Shv}(X;\mathrm{Sp})$ is the initial object among all continuous six-functor formalisms on locally compact Hausdorff spaces. A continuous six-functor formalism is a package of the six operations on each space, valued in dualizable presentable stable $\infty$-categories, that is compatible with open/closed decompositions, filtered unions of opens, inverse limits of compact Hausdorff spaces, and hypercovers. If the claim is right, every such formalism receives a unique structure-preserving comparison map from spectral sheaves, and the four standard (co)homology functors of the formalism coincide with sheaf cohomology, compactly supported sheaf cohomology, sheaf homology, and locally finite homology. The paper also derives a formula for finitary continuous localizing invariants on such formalisms, recovering and generalizing a known computation of the algebraic $K$-theory of sheaves.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral sheaf functor $X \mapsto \mathrm{Shv}(X;\mathrm{Sp})$ itself, equipped with the six operations on locally compact Hausdorff spaces. The proof has two stages. First, the functor is shown to be initial among cocomplete coefficient systems by the generic pullback-formalism construction, which provides the unique natural transformation on representable sheaves $\Sigma^\infty_+ \mathrm{Map}(-,U)$. Second, Theorem 4.18 upgrades this to a six-functor formalism by checking compatibility with proper pushforwards; the check reduces from arbitrary spaces to compact ones, then to the Hilbert cube $[0,1]^I$, then by profinite descent to finite-dimensional cubes $[0,1]^n$, where hyperdescent permits stalkwise verification. For the localizing-invariant formula, the operative mechanism is the Calkin construction, which measures a dualizable presentable stable $\infty$-category by a category of compact objects and turns continuous invariants into ordinary localizing invariants on small categories.

What would settle it

Construct a continuous six-functor formalism $D$ with $D(\mathrm{pt}) \simeq \mathrm{Sp}$ and compute the canonical morphism $S \to \mathcal{D}(F)$ of Lemma 4.16 on stalks of $[0,1]^n$; if any stalk map is not an equivalence, the lemma's stalkwise criterion is invalid and Theorem 4.18 loses its proof. More directly, exhibit any two sheaves on $[0,1]$ with the same constant stalks and a non-equivalence morphism between them, which would show the stalkwise criterion itself is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 4.18: the object $\mathrm{Shv}(-;\mathrm{Sp})$ is initial in the $\infty$-category $6\mathrm{FF}(\mathrm{LCH})^{\mathrm{cont}}$ of continuous six-functor formalisms on locally compact Hausdorff spaces. This means that for every such formalism $D$, there is a unique colimit-preserving natural transformation $\mathrm{Shv}(-;\mathrm{Sp}) \to D$ that respects all six operations. From this universal property, Proposition 4.22 concludes that the cohomology, compactly supported cohomology, homology, and locally finite homology functors of $D$ agree with the standard sheaf-theoretic ones, and Theorem 4.28 concludes that every continuous six-functor formalism is homotopy invariant. The paper further proves Theorem 5.23: for any finitary continuous localizing invariant $F^{\mathrm{cont}}$ and any such $D$, one has $F^{\mathrm{cont}}(D(X)) \simeq \Gamma_c(X, F^{\mathrm{cont}}(D(\mathrm{pt})))$, which recovers the known algebraic $K$-theory computation for sheaves as a special case.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the claim that a morphism of sheaves whose source and target have stalks equivalent to the same constant sheaf is itself an equivalence; this is false for arbitrary morphisms, and the paper does not verify that the specific comparison map induces stalkwise equivalences on the infinite-dimensional cube used in the proof or on $[0,1]^n$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every continuous six-functor formalism $D$, the four standard (co)homology functors agree with sheaf cohomology, compactly supported cohomology, sheaf homology, and locally finite homology with coefficients $D(\mathrm{pt})$ (Proposition 4.22).
Every continuous six-functor formalism is homotopy invariant: the pullback along $X\times \mathbb{R} \to X$ is fully faithful (Theorem 4.28).
For any finitary continuous localizing invariant $F^{\mathrm{cont}}$ and any continuous six-functor formalism $D$, $F^{\mathrm{cont}}(D(X)) \simeq \Gamma_c(X, F^{\mathrm{cont}}(D(\mathrm{pt})))$ (Theorem 5.23).
Taking $F^{\mathrm{cont}} = K^{\mathrm{cont}}$ and $D = \mathrm{Shv}(-;\mathcal{C})$ recovers the equivalence $K^{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathrm{Shv}(X;\mathcal{C})) \simeq \Gamma_c(X, K^{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathcal{C}))$ (Corollary 5.24).
Spectral sheaves with any dualizable coefficient $\mathcal{C}$ form the free continuous six-functor formalism generated by $\mathcal{C}$, so the universal property is entirely determined by the value at a point (Proposition 4.19 and Corollary 4.21).

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper's method generalizes as its outlook suggests, the same initiality statement may hold for formalisms satisfying only localization plus descent along the specific inverse limits and hypercovers used in the proof, not the full triplet of descent conditions.
A consequence is that any two continuous six-functor formalisms with the same value at a point are indistinguishable to every continuous localizing invariant; the space $X$ and the point value $D(\mathrm{pt})$ carry all the invariant-theoretic information.
A concrete test of the framework is to take $D$ to be a category of constructible sheaves with the usual six operations: Theorem 5.23 would predict that $F^{\mathrm{cont}}$ of that category is the compactly supported sections of the constant sheaf with value $F^{\mathrm{cont}}(D(\mathrm{pt}))$, a statement that can be checked against standard sheaf-theoretic computations.

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

The headline is exactly what the title says: spectral sheaves are initial among continuous six-functor formalisms on locally compact Hausdorff spaces, and the localizing-invariant formula is a genuine generalization of Efimov's K-theory computation. If the proof were complete this would be a major organizing result. But there is a real gap in the stalkwise verification, and it is load-bearing.

What is new is the initiality theorem itself, plus Corollary 5.23 for arbitrary finitary continuous localizing invariants. The paper is well-structured and honest about its dependencies. The high-level strategy—embedding into coefficient systems, using Drew–Gallauer's universal coefficient system, then passing to six-functor formalisms via Dauser–Kuijper—is sensible and the right way to approach the problem.

The soft spot is in Lemma 4.16 and again in Theorem 5.20. After constructing a morphism S → D(F), the proof attempts to show it is an equivalence by noting that both S and D(F) have stalks equivalent to S. That criterion is false for a given morphism: the zero endomorphism of the constant sheaf has the same source and target stalks. Lemma 2.13 only says a map is an equivalence if it induces stalkwise equivalences; the paper never proves the constructed map does. The same sentence appears verbatim in Theorem 5.20 and is used in 5.21 and 5.23. Since Lemma 4.16 is the key step for initiality, the central claims are not established as written.

A secondary issue is the reduction to the Hilbert cube. The step 'if the equivalence holds on a compact space, it holds on each of its closed subspaces' needs more care, since a closed subspace of a connected space need not be connected, and global sections of a constant sheaf on a disconnected space are a product, not the constant value. This is minor compared with the stalk gap, but it is part of the same argument.

The paper also leans on several recent or unpublished sources (DK25, KNP24, Efi25). That is not by itself a flaw—those are available and the citations look appropriate—but a referee should verify those dependencies.

Who this is for: experts in six-functor formalisms, stable homotopy theory, and K-theory of large categories. The result, if repaired, is important enough for a serious referee. I would send it to peer review, but with a clear request to fix the stalkwise argument in Lemma 4.16 and Theorem 5.20. The architecture is plausible and likely correct, but the current proof does not establish it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper aims to prove that the functor X ↦ Shv(X; Sp) is initial among all continuous six-functor formalisms on the category of locally compact Hausdorff spaces, where continuity means dualizable stable values plus canonical descent, profinite descent, and hyperdescent. The main theorem (Theorem 4.18) is used to identify the four standard (co)homology functors of any continuous six-functor formalism with sheaf-theoretic ones (Proposition 4.22), to deduce homotopy invariance (Theorem 4.28), and to generalize Efimov's computation of algebraic K-theory to all continuous localizing invariants (Theorem 5.23). The strategy is to first establish initiality of Shv(−; Sp) among cocomplete coefficient systems using Drew–Gallauer's framework, then to extend this to six-functor formalisms by proving compatibility with proper pushforwards, and finally to apply Efimov's continuous localizing invariants and a Verdier-duality/cosheaf argument.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a genuine universal six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces and would unify and generalize several recent results in the field. It draws on a large body of recent work by Drew–Gallauer, Dauser–Kuijper, Efimov, Krause–Nikolaus–Pützstück, and Volpe, and it makes an ambitious and interesting claim. The paper is genuinely constructive: it gives explicit maps from spectral sheaves to any continuous six-functor formalism and derives concrete consequences for cohomology and K-theory. No circularity is apparent; the descent axioms are imposed by definition and the proofs use external theorems rather than assuming the conclusion. However, as detailed below, a load-bearing stalkwise verification in the proof of the central theorem is missing or incorrect, so the main claims are not established as written.

major comments (3)

[§4, Lemma 4.16] The proof of the equivalence S → D(F) contains the following assertion: 'Since both S and D(F) have stalks equivalent to S, the morphism is indeed an equivalence.' This criterion is false: for example, the zero endomorphism of the constant sheaf on a nonempty hypercomplete space has source and target stalks equivalent to the same spectrum, but is not an equivalence. Lemma 2.13 permits one to check equivalences stalkwise only in the sense that a morphism f: F → G is an equivalence if each induced stalk map x*F → x*G is an equivalence. The proof does not compute, or prove anything about, the stalk maps of the particular morphism S → D(F). The same gap is repeated in Lemma 4.17 and is then used critically in the proof of Theorem 4.18. Thus the initiality theorem is not established by the present argument.
[§5, Theorem 5.20] The proof of Theorem 5.20 reproduces the same stalkwise fallacy: it asserts that the morphism F(pt) → D(F) is an equivalence because both F(pt) and D(F) have stalks equivalent to F(pt). The stalkwise criterion requires the induced map on each stalk to be an equivalence, not merely that the source and target stalks are abstractly equivalent. Theorem 5.21 follows the same pattern with E-valued sheaves. Since Theorem 5.23 and its corollaries depend on these results, the localizing-invariant formula is not established by the proof as written.
[§4, Lemma 4.16] The reduction from the Hilbert cube [0,1]^I to finite-dimensional cubes [0,1]^n is also not fully justified. The sentence 'By Proposition 2.10 together with the profinite descent property of the continuous six-functor formalism, it is enough to verify the claim for each [0,1]^n' requires an argument that the morphism S → D(F) on the inverse limit is the compatible limit of the corresponding morphisms on the finite stages. Proposition 2.10 concerns global sections of a fixed constant sheaf, and profinite descent concerns the formalisms D(X_i), not the constructed sheaf D(F) as a sheaf on the limit. Please supply the needed naturality or compatibility argument.

minor comments (5)

[§4, Lemmas 4.14, 4.16, 4.17; §4, Proposition 4.22] The word 'formulism' is used several times (e.g., Lemmas 4.14, 4.16, 4.17 and Proposition 4.22); it should be 'formalism'.
[§4, Lemma 4.14] The proof states 'using j∗=j! since j is proper'; it would be helpful to note explicitly that a closed inclusion into a locally compact Hausdorff space is proper, which is true but not stated.
[§5, Theorem 5.20] The letter F is used both for the continuous localizing invariant and for the cosheaf Open(X) → Sp defined in the proof; this clash makes the proof harder to follow.
[§4, Definition 4.11 and throughout] The notation for the subcategory of continuous six-functor formalisms is inconsistent: both '6FF(LCH)cont' and '6FF(LCH) cont' appear. Please choose one notation and use it uniformly.
[§4, Lemma 4.15] In the verification that the constructed functor is a cosheaf, the equivalence D(U) ≃ colim D(U_i) under filtered unions is asserted from the localization axiom, which is stated as a limit along right adjoints; the passage to a filtered colimit along left adjoints should be justified explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the initiality and localizing-invariant results are derived from external theorems and imposed axioms, not from the conclusions being proved; the stalkwise proof gap is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.9, the initiality of Shv(-;Sp) among cocomplete coefficient systems, is an adaptation of Drew-Gallauer's external theorem [DG22, Theorem 7.3], and the nontrivial open-cover descent check is derived from the localization axiom rather than presupposed. Theorem 4.18 extends this to 6FF(LCH)^cont: Shv(-;Sp) is already initial as a coefficient system, and the genuinely new content is compatibility with proper pushforwards, which the proof attempts to establish via Lemmas 4.16-4.17 using Verdier duality and the descent axioms of the arbitrary formalism D. The class of 'continuous' six-functor formalisms is defined by dualizability, canonical descent, profinite descent, and hyperdescent; these are hypotheses restricting the class, not conclusions or restatements of initiality. Likewise, Theorem 5.23 derives the formula F^cont(D(X)) ≃ Γ_c(X, F^cont(D(pt))) from the cosheaf property of U ↦ F(D(U)) (Lemma 5.18), Verdier duality, and the descent axioms; it is not identical to Definition 5.12 or Definition 4.11. All citations are to external works, none authored by the present author, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The serious gap identified by the reader—comparing stalks of source and target sheaves rather than proving the specific constructed map induces stalkwise equivalences, in Lemma 4.16 and Theorem 5.20—is a mathematical correctness problem in the proof as written, but it is not circularity: the equivalence S → D(F) is claimed, not assumed as an input. The paper's central claims do not reduce by construction or by definition to their inputs.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The paper depends on a web of external results (DG22, DK25, Efi25, KNP24, Vol23, Lurie), several of which are recent preprints or unpublished manuscripts; these are explicit dependencies, not hidden assumptions.

assumptions (7)

standard math Lurie's infinity-category theory (HTT, HA) as foundational framework
The entire paper is written in the language of infinity-categories; all statements presuppose Lurie's definitions and results.
domain assumption Verdier duality: Shv(X;C) ≃ CoShv(X;C) for locally compact Hausdorff X and stable C
Invoked in Lemma 4.16 and Theorem 5.20 to convert spectral cosheaves into sheaves and identify D(F)(K) with F(X)/F(X\K); cited to [Lur17, Thm 5.5.5.1] and [Vol23, Thm 5.10].
domain assumption Initiality of Shv(-;Sp) in the category of cocomplete coefficient systems (Theorem 3.9)
Adapted from [DG22, Prop 7.13]; it is the starting point for proving initiality in 6FF^cont; if the adaptation to LCH fails, Theorem 4.18 collapses.
domain assumption Equivalence between Nagata six-functor formalisms and lax Beck-Chevalley functors (Theorem 4.8)
Cited to [DK25, Thm 3.3]; identifies 6FF(LCH) with BCFun^{lax,L}(LCH), allowing the paper to reduce the initiality check to compatibility with proper pushforwards.
domain assumption Profinite descent and hyperdescent for sheaves (Prop 2.9, Lemma 2.13)
Cited to [KNP24]; these descent results underlie the reduction to Hilbert cubes and stalkwise verification used throughout the proofs of Theorem 4.18 and Theorem 5.23.
domain assumption Calkin construction and continuous localizing invariants (Prop 5.11, Thm 5.16)
Cited to [Efi25]; these results define F^cont and ensure it is a continuous localizing invariant, underpinning the application in Theorem 5.23.
standard math Every compact Hausdorff space embeds into a Hilbert cube, and [0,1]^n is hypercomplete
Used in Lemma 4.16 and Theorem 5.20 to reduce the stalkwise check to finite-dimensional cubes; relies on Urysohn's lemma and [Lur09, Thm 7.2.3.6].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYRJGKY4

@misc{pith2026250713537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous six-functor formalism on locally compact Hausdorff spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYRJGKY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13537}
}

abstract

We show that the functor sending a locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ to the $\infty$-category of spectral sheaves $\mathrm{Shv}(X; \mathrm{Sp})$ is initial among all continuous six-functor formalisms on the category of locally compact Hausdorff spaces. Here, continuous six-functor formalisms are those valued in dualizable presentable stable $\infty$-categories and satisfying canonical descent, profinite descent, and hyperdescent. As an application, we generalize Efimov's computation of the algebraic $K$-theory of sheaves to all localizing invariants on continuous six-functor formalisms. Our results show that localizing invariants behave analogously to compactly supported sheaf cohomology theories when evaluated on continuous six-functor formalisms on locally compact Hausdorff spaces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

work page
[2]

A universal characterization of higher algebraic k-theory

Andrew J Blumberg, David Gepner, and Gonçalo Tabuada. A universal characterization of higher algebraic k-theory. Geometry & Topology , 17(2):733–838, April 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Hermitian k-theory for stable -categories ii: Cobordism categories and additivity, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07224 arXiv:2009.07224

Baptiste Calmès, Emanuele Dotto, Yonatan Harpaz, Fabian Hebestreit, Markus Land, Kristian Moi, Denis Nardin, Thomas Nikolaus, and Wolfgang Steimle. Hermitian k-theory for stable -categories ii: Cobordism categories and additivity, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07224 arXiv:2009.07224

arXiv 2025
[4]

The universal six-functor formalism

Brad Drew and Martin Gallauer. The universal six-functor formalism. Annals of K-Theory , 7(4):599–649, December 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15780 arXiv:2412.15780

Adam Dauser and Josefien Kuijper. Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15780 arXiv:2412.15780

arXiv 2025
[6]

Motivic hodge modules, 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10129 arXiv:1801.10129

Brad Drew. Motivic hodge modules, 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10129 arXiv:1801.10129

arXiv 2018
[7]

Alexander I. Efimov. K-theory and localizing invariants of large categories, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12169 arXiv:2405.12169

arXiv 2025
[8]

Sheaves on manifolds

Achim Krause, Thomas Nikolaus, and Phil Pützstück. Sheaves on manifolds. https://www.uni-muenster.de/IVV5WS/WebHop/user/nikolaus/Papers/sheaves-on-manifolds.pdf, July 2024

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[9]

Higher Topos Theory (AM-170)

Jacob Lurie. Higher Topos Theory (AM-170) . Princeton University Press, 2009

2009
[10]

Higher algebra

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

2017
[11]

Gluing restricted nerves of -categories, 2015, http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5294 arXiv:1211.5294

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

2015 arXiv
[12]

Enhanced six operations and base change theorem for higher artin stacks, 2024, http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5948 arXiv:1211.5948

Yifeng Liu and Weizhe Zheng. Enhanced six operations and base change theorem for higher artin stacks, 2024, http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5948 arXiv:1211.5948

2024 arXiv
[13]

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
[14]

The fundamental theorem of localizing invariants

Victor Saunier. The fundamental theorem of localizing invariants. Annals of K-Theory , 8(4):609–643, December 2023

2023
[15]

Six-functors formalisms

Peter Scholze. Six-functors formalisms. https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/scholze/SixFunc2022, 2022. Lecture notes

2022
[16]

The six operations in topology, 2023, http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10212 arXiv:2110.10212

Marco Volpe. The six operations in topology, 2023, http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10212 arXiv:2110.10212

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

work page

[2] [2]

A universal characterization of higher algebraic k-theory

Andrew J Blumberg, David Gepner, and Gonçalo Tabuada. A universal characterization of higher algebraic k-theory. Geometry & Topology , 17(2):733–838, April 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Hermitian k-theory for stable -categories ii: Cobordism categories and additivity, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07224 arXiv:2009.07224

Baptiste Calmès, Emanuele Dotto, Yonatan Harpaz, Fabian Hebestreit, Markus Land, Kristian Moi, Denis Nardin, Thomas Nikolaus, and Wolfgang Steimle. Hermitian k-theory for stable -categories ii: Cobordism categories and additivity, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07224 arXiv:2009.07224

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

The universal six-functor formalism

Brad Drew and Martin Gallauer. The universal six-functor formalism. Annals of K-Theory , 7(4):599–649, December 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15780 arXiv:2412.15780

Adam Dauser and Josefien Kuijper. Uniqueness of six-functor formalisms, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15780 arXiv:2412.15780

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Motivic hodge modules, 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10129 arXiv:1801.10129

Brad Drew. Motivic hodge modules, 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10129 arXiv:1801.10129

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Alexander I. Efimov. K-theory and localizing invariants of large categories, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12169 arXiv:2405.12169

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Sheaves on manifolds

Achim Krause, Thomas Nikolaus, and Phil Pützstück. Sheaves on manifolds. https://www.uni-muenster.de/IVV5WS/WebHop/user/nikolaus/Papers/sheaves-on-manifolds.pdf, July 2024

work page 2024