Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

The motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs the motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints for every smooth variety with a simple normal crossings divisor, and identifies its Betti and de Rham realizations with classical fundamental torsors and bar co

desk verdict Bold, plausible construction of a motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints, but the mixed-Tate truncation step in Theorem 4.3.3 is not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18151 v1 pith:QNM3ENMP submitted 2025-10-20 math.AG math.AT

Sofian Tur-Dorvault This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.AT MSC 14F4214F3514F40
keywords motivicfundamentalgrouptangentialbasepointslogarithmicmotivesbarconstructioniteratedintegralsKato–NakayamaspacelogdeRhamcohomologyChen'stheorem
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 solves a gap in motivic fundamental group theory: previous constructions worked only for ordinary rational points or for special varieties. It encodes a tangential basepoint—a boundary point with a nonzero normal vector—as a log rational point of a log normal space, and converts this into an augmentation of the cohomological motive of the log scheme. Applying the bar construction to the resulting biaugmented algebra defines a motivic pointed path space in the category of log motives. The paper proves that its Betti realization recovers the prounipotent completion of the topological fundamental torsor, its de Rham realization is the bar construction on the logarithmic de Rham complex, and the comparison isomorphism is computed by regularized iterated integrals of logarithmic 1-forms. In the mixed Tate case, zero-truncation yields a motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints.

What carries the argument

The key object is the motivic tangential basepoint $h(x)$: an augmentation $h(X,D) \to \Lambda$ built from the pointed diagram $\ast \leftarrow x^{\log} \to N^{\log}_x(X,D) \to X$, where $N^{\log}_x$ is the log normal space whose log rational points are exactly the tangential basepoints at x. The collapsing of the log normal space to the log point uses the log-cdh descent equivalence $h(A^N) \simeq h(\ast^N)$, and the loop/copath space is then defined by the bar construction $xP^m_y X := h(y) \otimes_{h(X,D)} h(x)$ in the $\infty$-category of log motives. Realizations are produced through the universal property of log motives for log mixed Weil theories: the Betti one uses the Kato–Nakayama space (a real-oriented blow-up), the de Rham one uses the logarith

What would settle it

Compute the Betti realization of $xP^m_y$ for the projective line minus three points with tangential basepoints at 0 and 1, and compare the periods of degree-zero classes against the known regularized multiple zeta values (e.g., the iterated integral of $[\frac{dz}{z} | \frac{dz}{1-z}]$ should yield $\pi^2/6$). A mismatch would refute the period computation; alternatively, constructing two explicit homotopy inverses of $h(N^{\log}_0) \simeq h(0^{\log})$ on $(A^1,\{0\})$ and checking whether the resulting bar constructions are equivalent in $DA(k,\Lambda)$ would test the canonicity of the augmentation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any smooth scheme X of finite type over a field k with a simple normal crossings divisor D and any tangential basepoints x,y, there is a well-defined algebra object $xP^m_y(X\setminus D)$ in the stable $\infty$-category of $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant log motives. Its Betti realization has degree-zero cohomology isomorphic to the coordinate ring of the prounipotent completion of the fundamental torsor of $X(C)\setminus D(C)$ at x,y; its de Rham realization is the bar construction on the log de Rham complex pointed at x,y; and the Betti–de Rham comparison is induced by regularized iterated integration of log 1-forms. The construction is functorial in the tangential datum, and the family of path spaces form

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the log normal space at a divisor point has the same motive as the log point, and that the augmentation $h(x)$ built from this equivalence is well defined up to homotopy; if either fails, the motivic pointed path space and all its claimed realizations collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the construction is sound, any smooth variety with a simple normal crossings divisor—including ones with no rational points, such as many moduli spaces—acquires a motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints.
  • The Betti–de Rham comparison gives a general version of the classical iterated-integral theorem for forms with logarithmic poles, so the periods of the motivic groupoid are regularized iterated integrals.
  • In the mixed Tate case the groupoid lives in mixed Tate motives, generalizing the known case of the projective line minus three points to arbitrary mixed Tate varieties and to any tangential basepoints.
  • The realization functors for log motives provide a single framework in which Betti and de Rham cohomologies of log schemes are compared functorially, recovering the usual comparison for ordinary basepoints as a special case.
  • The motivic fundamental torsors come with composition, inversion, and unit operations, i.e., an honest groupoid structure in the pro-motivic category.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the encoding of tangential basepoints is purely logarithmic and scheme-theoretic, the same approach should extend to étale and crystalline realizations, and to base schemes beyond fields, once the corresponding log motive categories and realizations are available.
  • A natural test of the construction is the case of the projective line minus three points: the periods should reproduce the regularized multiple zeta values computed in the curve case, and the resulting groupoid should agree with the one defined by motivic tubular neighbourhoods.
  • The paper leaves the independence of the motivic augmentation from the chosen homotopy inverse at the ∞-categorical level; if this can be promoted to a canonical equivalence, the functoriality of the groupoid would be strengthened and comparisons with other approaches simplified.
  • One could try to extend the notion of motivic pointed path space to non-log-smooth schemes using virtual morphisms, unifying the pointed-diagram and virtual-point perspectives in the motivic setting.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a general construction of the motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints for a smooth scheme X over a field k with a simple normal crossings divisor D. Tangential basepoints are encoded through logarithmic geometry: the paper introduces the log normal space N^log_x(X,D), shows that its log-rational points are tangential basepoints, and repackages the data as a pointed diagram. Using Binda-Park-Østvær and Park's A^1-invariant log motives, it defines a motivic tangential augmentation h(x): h(X,D) → Λ and then the motivic pointed path space xP^m_y X as a bar construction (relative tensor product). The main theorem asserts that, for k⊂C and Λ=Q, the Betti realization of H^0 of this object is the prounipotent completion of the fundamental torsor of X(C)\D(C); that the de Rham realization is the bar construction on the logarithmic de Rham complex; and that the comparison isomorphism is given by regularized iterated integrals, yielding a general form of Chen's theorem. In the presence of a motivic t-structure, truncation is claimed to produce the motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints.

Significance. If the construction is correct, this is a substantial step: it provides the first general, functorial motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints, extending work of Deligne-Goncharov and Levine beyond special cases. The paper is also valuable for giving a purely logarithmic-geometric interpretation of tangential basepoints and for connecting the construction to existing bar-complex and regularized-integral computations. The main claims are checked against independent classical objects: Beilinson's theorem for the Betti realization, the logarithmic de Rham bar construction, and Chen's iterated integrals. However, the proof of the motivic groupoid in arbitrary characteristic zero currently relies on an unproved conservativity statement for the Betti realization, and the construction itself is only shown to be well defined up to a chosen homotopy inverse. These points make the paper's central claim conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Theorem 4.3.3] The proof that H^i_mot(xP^m_y X)_\'et = 0 for i<0 says: 'We only need to check that the Betti realization of this motive is concentrated in nonpositive degree because the Betti realization is conservative.' This is not established in the stated generality. The Betti realization R_B is constructed in §5.2 only under the hypothesis k⊂C (stated at the start of §5.2), whereas Theorem 4.3.3 is proved for any field k satisfying Beilinson-Soulé. Even when k⊂C, the paper neither proves nor cites conservativity, t-exactness, or faithfulness of R_B on DMT(k,Q). Since Definition 4.3.4 of the motivic fundamental groupoid depends on this vanishing, the groupoid is not yet rigorously defined in the claimed range. Please either prove the required property of R_B, restrict the theorem to k⊂C, or replace the Betti argument by a weight-theoretic one.
  2. [§3.3, Definition 3.3.5 and Remarks 3.3.4/3.3.6] The motivic tangential augmentation h(x): h(X,D) → Λ is defined by composing the equivalence h(N^log_x(X,D)) ≃ h(x^log) with a chosen homotopy inverse. Remark 3.3.4 acknowledges the dependence but only asserts that different choices lead to homotopy equivalent constructions. The paper does not prove that the resulting bar construction xP^m_y X, and hence the Betti, de Rham, and period statements in §5, are independent of this choice up to equivalence, nor does it specify the ∞-categorical coherence data needed for the claimed functor to CAlg(DA^log(k,Λ))/Λ. Since every subsequent theorem concerns this object, this is a load-bearing point. Please provide a precise invariance statement, e.g. contractibility of the space of quasi-inverses and functoriality of the bar construction up to coherent equivalence.
  3. [§4.1, Theorem 4.1.5 and following paragraph] The paper explicitly states that the homotopy Hopf algebroid structure is defined only in the homotopy category and that 'our notion is not as rigorous as it could be.' The proof verifies equations in ho(C) rather than ∞-categorical coherences. This limitation should be addressed, because Theorem 4.3.3 and Proposition 4.3.5 use this structure to produce a groupoid. It may well be sufficient that H^0_mot lands in a 1-category, but the paper should explain why homotopy-category checks imply the groupoid axioms after applying H^0_mot, or otherwise upgrade the coherence argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.1, after Definition 5.2.3] The composition of paths based at tangential basepoints is only sketched for higher-dimensional X; the paper says the definition 'can be deduced' from the P^1 case by viewing X locally as a product with A^1. A precise construction or a complete reference should be supplied.
  2. [§4.2.1, Remark 4.2.2] The notation xP^m_y X is defined as h(y) Bar h(x), which the author notes is the opposite of the convention in [DG05, BGF25]. This is a recurring source of confusion in the introduction and theorem statements; it should be flagged already in Theorem 1.0.1.
  3. [§5.5, Theorem 5.5.10] The pairing is written using C[π1(X(C)\D(C),x,y)] in the theorem but Q[π1(...)] in Theorem 1.0.1. Please clarify the coefficient change and tensor products.
  4. [References] Several central tools are imported from unpublished preprints ([Par22], [Par24a], [Par24b], [BPØ25], [DPP23], [BGF25]). The final version should update these references and identify precisely which results are assumed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the motivic pointed path space is defined as a bar construction and its Betti/de Rham/period identifications are checked against independent classical theorems (Beilinson, Chen, Kato–Nakayama); reliance on prior log-motive papers is external, not self-citational.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a bar construction: xP^m_y X := h(y) Bar_{h(X)} h(x) (Definition 4.2.1, Definition 1.3.1), with h(x) built from the log-normal-space equivalence h(N^log_x) ≃ h(x^log) (Corollary 3.2.5, itself from Park's log-cdh descent). No parameter is fitted and no target object is used as an input: the Betti statement H^0(R_B xP^m_y X) ≃ O(π^un_1(...)) is obtained by identifying R_B(xP^m_y X) with the classical Betti bar construction xP^B_y X (Theorem 5.2.11) and then applying Beilinson's theorem; the de Rham statement verifies that the independently constructed R_dR preserves the bar construction and sends h(X) to Ω_{(X,D)/k}; the period statement is a computation of the canonical comparison via regularized iterated integrals (Theorem 5.5.10), not an input to the construction. Citations to Binda–Park–Østvær, Drew, Dupont–Panzer–Pym, etc. are to external preprints; the present author has no author overlap with them, so this is external support rather than self-citation. The admitted homotopy choice in Remark 3.3.4 affects canonicity but two choices are asserted homotopy equivalent, so it does not make the output equal to an input by construction. The only substantive concern is non-circular: Theorem 4.3.3's proof that H^i_mot(xP^m_y X) = 0 for i<0 says this follows because "the Betti realization is conservative," but R_B is constructed only for k⊂C (Section 5.2) and its conservativity/t-exactness is neither proved nor cited; for arbitrary fields (as stated in Theorem 1.0.1) this truncation step is unsupported. This is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction, so it does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

No numeric parameters are fitted to data. The paper's constructions rely on choices (homotopy inverse, regularization section) that are fixed by hand rather than fitted, plus a foundational stack of theorems from the log-motives school. The newly introduced objects all carry independent realizations (Betti/de Rham cohomology, period pairing), so they are not gratuitous postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • Choice of homotopy inverse in Definition 3.3.5 (h(N^log_x(X,D)) ≃ h(x^log))
    The motivic tangential augmentation h(x) is constructed via an unspecified quasi-inverse of the equivalence h(N^log_x) ≃ h(x^log); different choices are asserted to yield homotopy equivalent augmentations (Remark 3.3.4). This is a hand-chosen datum, not a fitted constant, but it is load-bearing for the definition of xP^m_y X.
  • Regularization section s on Δ^n (Definition 5.5.4) = -∂/∂t_1 on ∂_1Δ^n; ∂/∂t_i − ∂/∂t_{i+1} on ∂_iΔ^n; ∂/∂t_n on ∂_nΔ^n
    This choice of inward normal vectors defines the regularized iterated integrals and is required for Proposition 5.5.7 to hold. It follows standard conventions (matching [BGF25] for P^1 minus three points), so it is a chosen convention rather than a fit to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The six-functor formalism for logarithmic motives DA^log(k,Λ) exists and has the properties used (proper base change, projection formula, log-cdh descent), established in [Par22, Par24a, Par24b, BPØ22, BPØ25].
    The entire construction lives in DA^log; if Park's formalism fails, the paper collapses. These foundational results are cited as preprints, not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption The Kato–Nakayama space functor (−)^KN and the log de Rham functor RΓ(−,Ω_-/k) satisfy dNis-descent, ver-invariance, and A^1-invariance (Propositions 5.2.8, 5.3.3, from [KN99, BPØ22, DPP23]).
    Needed to construct the Betti and de Rham realization functors as log mixed Weil theories via Drew's formalism.
  • domain assumption Beilinson–Soulé vanishing conjecture holds for the base field k whenever the motivic fundamental groupoid is defined (Section 4.3).
    The paper explicitly says 'Suppose now that k satisfies the Beilinson–Soulé vanishing conjecture' before defining π^m_1.
  • domain assumption The Betti realization is conservative on the relevant subcategory of mixed Tate motives (used in the proof of Theorem 4.3.3).
    Invoked without proof or reference, and it implicitly requires an embedding k⊂C not stated in the theorem's hypotheses.
  • domain assumption The bijection between tangential basepoints and virtual morphisms / log points of N^log_x(X,D) (Lemma 2.1.7, Theorem 2.2.3), from [DPP24, Theorem 3.5].
    This translates classical tangential basepoints into the log-geometric data that feeds the motivic construction.
  • standard math Beilinson's theorem (isomorphism between the bar-construction Betti cohomology and the prounipotent completion of the fundamental group) applies to the Kato–Nakayama space X^KN, a manifold with boundary (Proposition 5.2.6, from [DG05, Proposition 3.4]).
    Used to identify the Betti realization of the motivic pointed path space with O(π^un_1).
invented entities (4)
  • Log normal space N^log_x(X,D) independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes the data of a point of an SNC divisor and a normal direction as a log scheme whose log rational points are exactly tangential basepoints (Definition 2.1.4, Lemma 2.1.7).
    Its log rational points are in bijection with tangential basepoints, and its Kato–Nakayama fiber over x is (S^1)^j, matching Deligne's picture.
  • Motivic tangential augmentation h(x): h(X)→Λ independent evidence
    purpose: Replaces the absent rational point of X\D by an augmentation of the log motive, making tangential basepoints internal to DA^log (Definition 3.3.5).
    For x∈X\D it reduces to the classical augmentation (Remark 3.3.7), and its Betti and de Rham realizations are computed in Theorems 5.2.11 and 5.3.6.
  • Motivic pointed path space xP^m_y X independent evidence
    purpose: Bar construction of h(X) with two tangential augmentations; the central new object whose Betti/de Rham realizations and periods are computed (Definition 4.2.1, Theorems 5.2.11, 5.3.6, 5.5.10).
    Betti realization recovers O(π^un_1), de Rham realization is the bar construction on the log de Rham complex, and the period pairing matches regularized iterated integrals.
  • Motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints π^m_1 independent evidence
    purpose: Spec of H^0_mot of the pointed path spaces in the mixed Tate case; yields a groupoid in pro-MT(k,Q) (Definition 4.3.4, Proposition 4.3.5).
    Its Betti and de Rham realizations are identified with the topological and de Rham fundamental groupoids, and its structure maps satisfy the groupoid axioms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNM3ENMP

@misc{pith2026251018151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNM3ENMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18151}
}
abstract

We give a general construction of the motivic fundamental groupoid at tangential basepoints, extending previous works of P. Deligne, A. B. Goncharov, and M. Levine, which were limited to ordinary basepoints or to specific varieties. Given a smooth variety over a field endowed with a simple normal crossings divisor, we encode its tangential basepoints using the language of logarithmic geometry. Building on the recent construction by F. Binda, D. Park, and P. A. {\O}stv{\ae}r of a stable $\infty$-category of $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant logarithmic motives and its comparison with the usual $\infty$-category of motives, we define in a functorial manner the associated motivic pointed path spaces. In the presence of a motivic $t$-structure, truncating yields the motivic fundamental groupoid. In general, we construct Betti and de Rham realization functors for logarithmic motives (linearizing the construction of F. Binda, D. Park and P. A. {\O}stv{\ae}r for the Betti case) and we show that the periods of the motivic fundamental groupoid are given by regularized iterated integration of logarithmic differential $1$-forms, thus yielding a general version of Chen's theorem with tangential basepoints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The topological space X′ The topological space X′ has the homotopy type of X(C)\D(C), so Deligne defines the fundamental group of X(C) \ D(C) at x as π1(X′ , v) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sigma10(2022), 182 (English), Id/No e61

    [AGV22] Joseph Ayoub, Martin Gallauer, and Alberto Vezzani,The six-functor formalism for rigid analytic motives, Forum Math. Sigma10(2022), 182 (English), Id/No e61. [Ara23] Kensuke Arakawa,Homotopy Limits and Homotopy Colimits of Chain Complexes, Preprint, arXiv:2310.00201 [math.AT] (2023),

    arXiv 2022

  2. [4]

    Math., Cham: Springer, 2019 (English)

    [CD19] Denis-Charles Cisinski and Fr´ ed´ eric D´ eglise,Triangulated categories of mixed motives, Springer Monogr. Math., Cham: Springer, 2019 (English). [CGP21] Melody Chan, Søren Galatius, and Sam Payne,Tropical curves, graph complexes, and top weight cohomology ofM g, J. Am. Math. Soc.34(2021), no. 2, 565–594 (English). [Che77] Kuo-Tsai Chen,Iterated ...

    arXiv 2019

  3. [7]

    [DPP24] ,Logarithmic morphisms, tangential basepoints, and little disks, Preprint, arXiv:2408.13108 [math.AG] (2024),

    arXiv 2024

  4. [11]

    [GM15] W. D. Gillam and Samouil Molcho,Log differentiable spaces and manifolds with corners, Preprint, arXiv:1507.06752 [math.DG] (2015),

    arXiv 2015

  5. [14]

    [Iwa14] Isamu Iwanari,Bar construction and Tannakization, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.50 (2014), no. 3, 515–568 (English). [Iwa20] ,Motivic rational homotopy type, High. Struct.4(2020), no. 2, 57–133 (English). [Kat89] Kazuya Kato,Logarithmic structures of Fontaine-Illusie, Algebraic analysis, geometry, and number theory: proceedings of the JAMI inaugural ...

    2014

  6. [16]

    [Par24a] ,Log motivic exceptional direct image functors, Preprint, arXiv:2403.06692 [math.AG] (2024),

    arXiv 2024

  7. [17]

    [Par24b] ,Motivic six-functor formalism for log schemes, Preprint, arXiv:2403.07645 [math.AG] (2024),

    arXiv 2024

  8. [18]

    [Pet21] Alexander Petrov,Universality of the Galois action on the fundamental group ofP 1 \ {0,1,∞}, Preprint, arXiv:2109.09301 [math.NT] (2021),

    arXiv 2021

Show all 23 references
  1. [19]

    [Rob12] Marco Robalo,Noncommutative Motives I: A Universal Characterization of the Motivic Stable Homotopy Theory of Schemes, Preprint, arXiv:1206.3645 [math.AG] (2012),

    2012 arXiv

  2. [21]

    [Shu22] Georgii Shuklin,A Voevodsky motive associated to a log scheme, Preprint, arXiv:2209.03720 [math.AG] (2022),

    2022 arXiv

  3. [22]

    [Spi10] Markus Spitzweck,Derived Fundamental Groups for Tate Motives, Preprint, arXiv:1005.2670 [math.AG] (2010),

    2010 arXiv

  4. [1989]

    Goncharov,Mixed Tate motivic fundamental groups., Ann

    [DG05] Pierre Deligne and Alexander B. Goncharov,Mixed Tate motivic fundamental groups., Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4)38(2005), no. 1, 1–56 (French). [DPP23] Cl´ ement Dupont, Erik Panzer, and Brent Pym,Regularized integrals and manifolds with log corners, Preprint, arXiv:...

    2005

  5. [2001]

    Hain,The de Rham homotopy theory of complex algebraic varieties

    [Hai87a] Richard M. Hain,The de Rham homotopy theory of complex algebraic varieties. I,K- Theory1(1987), no. 3, 271–324 (English). 58 SOFIAN TUR-DOR V AULT [Hai87b] ,The de Rham homotopy theory of complex algebraic varieties. II,K-Theory1 (1987), no. 5, 481–497 (English). [HOR...

    1987 arXiv

  6. [2010]

    188– 238 (English)

    [Voe00] Vladimir Voevodsky,Triangulated categories of motives over a field, Cycles, transfers, and motivic homology theories, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 188– 238 (English). [Woj93] Zdzis law Wojtkowiak,Cosimplicial objects in algebraic geometry, Algeb...

    2000

  7. [2012]

    [Rob15] ,K-theory and the bridge from motives to noncommutative motives, Adv. Math. 269(2015), 399–550 (English). [Sch22] Peter Scholze,Six-functor formalisms,

    2015

  8. [2015]

    [Gon01] A. B. Goncharov,Multiple polylogarithms and mixed Tate motives, Preprint, arXiv:math/0103059 [math.AG] (2001),

    2001 arXiv

  9. [2017]

    [Ogu18] Arthur Ogus,Lectures on logarithmic algebraic geometry, Camb. Stud. Adv. Math., vol. 178, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018 (English). [Par22] Doosung Park,A 1-homotopy theory of log schemes, Preprint, arXiv:2205.14750 [math.AG] (2022),

    2018 arXiv

  10. [2018]

    [EL11] H´ el` ene Esnault and Marc Levine,Tate motives and the fundamental group, Cycles, mo- tives and Shimura varieties. Proceedings of the international colloquium, Mumbai, India, January 3–12, 2008, New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House/Published for the Tata Insti- tute of F...

    2008 arXiv

  11. [2021]

    [EL23] ,Natural transformations relating homotopy and singular homology functors, Preprint, arXiv:2301.01157 [math.AT] (2023),

    2023 arXiv

  12. [2022]

    Schlank,Rational motivic path spaces and Kim’s rela- tive unipotent section conjecture, Rend

    [DCS22] Ishai Dan-Cohen and Tomer M. Schlank,Rational motivic path spaces and Kim’s rela- tive unipotent section conjecture, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova148(2022), 117–172 (English). [Del89] P. Deligne,Le groupe fondamental de la droite projective moins trois points. (Fundam...

    2022

  13. [2023]

    [Ayo10] Joseph Ayoub,Notes on Grothendieck’s operations and Betti realizations, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu9(2010), no. 2, 225–263 (French). [Azn87] Vicente Navarro Aznar,Sur la th´ eorie de Hodge–Deligne, Inventiones mathematicae90 (1987), no. 76, 11–67. [BGF25] Jos´ e Ignacio Bur...

    2010

  14. [2024]

    [Dre18] Brad Drew,Motivic Hodge modules, Preprint, arXiv:1801.10129 [math.AG] (2018),

    2018 arXiv

  15. [2025]

    Blumberg, David Gepner, and Gon¸ calo Tabuada,A universal characterization of higher algebraicK-theory, Geom

    [BGT13] Andrew J. Blumberg, David Gepner, and Gon¸ calo Tabuada,A universal characterization of higher algebraicK-theory, Geom. Topol.17(2013), no. 2, 733–838 (English). [BGT14] ,Uniqueness of the multiplicative cyclotomic trace, Adv. Math.260(2014), 191– 232 (English). [Big07...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.