Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Moduli of truncated shtukas and displays

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Over an algebraically closed field, every $G$-shtuka and $G$-display of type $[\mu]$ is determined by its $N_0$-truncation, with $N_0 = 2C+1$ a constant built from the root system.

desk verdict A serious frame-based unification of shtukas and displays, but the display-side Traverso bound rests on an unproven mixed-characteristic finiteness transfer. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01740 v1 pith:QUGMZSP6 submitted 2025-06-02 math.AG math.NTmath.RT

Eva Viehmann , Torsten Wedhorn , Appendix by Christopher Lang This is my paper
classification math.AGmath.NTmath.RT MSC 14D2314D2014D2414L1514L3014G3511G18
keywords truncatedlocalshtukasdisplaysframesReesstacksmoduliTraversoboundsaffineDeligne-LusztigvarietiesprismaticF-gauges
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 proves a uniform finite-determination principle for two central objects of arithmetic geometry: local $G$-shtukas (bundles over $R[[z]]$ carrying a Frobenius structure) and $G$-displays (their mixed-characteristic cousins over the Witt vectors $W(R)$). The authors develop one geometric framework, called frames, and show that the moduli stack of $N$-truncated objects of a fixed type $[\mu]$ is an explicit quotient stack $[E_N(G,[\mu])\backslash L^{(N)}G]$ by a concrete affine group scheme, the display group. From this description they prove that for every reductive group $G$ and every conjugacy class $[\mu]$ of cocharacters there is a cutoff $N_0 = 2C+1$, depending only on $G$ and $[\mu]$, such that over any algebraically closed field a $G$-shtuka or $G$-display of type $[\mu]$ is determined up to isomorphism by its $N_0$-truncation. This generalizes the classical Traverso bounds from the special case of $p$-divisible groups to arbitrary reductive structure groups. The same frame formalism also covers prismatic displays and prismatic $F$-gauges, so the paper's structural descriptions apply across several neighbouring theories at once.

What carries the argument

The frame is the central object: a filtered ring $(A,(\mathrm{Fil}^j)_j)$ together with a map $\sigma: \mathrm{Spec}\,A \to \mathfrak{R}(A,(\mathrm{Fil}^j))$ that lands in the open complement of the repeller locus of the Rees stack, where the Rees stack $\mathfrak{R}(A,(\mathrm{Fil}^j)) = [\mathbb{G}_m\backslash\mathrm{Spec}\,\mathrm{Rees}(A,(\mathrm{Fil}^j))]$ is the geometric encoding of the filtration. The attached frame stack $F(A) = \mathrm{colim}(\mathrm{Spec}\,A \rightrightarrows \mathfrak{R}(A,(\mathrm{Fil}^j)))$ is the coequalizer of the two inclusions $\tau$ and $\sigma$, formed in the 2-category of Adams stacks (a framework of algebraic stacks in which these colimits are well defined), and $G$-bundles of type $[\mu]$ on it are classified (Theorem 4.12) as the quotient stack $[E_A(G,[\mu])\backslash L_A G]$ by the display group, the affine group scheme of automorphisms of the standard $G$-bundle of type $[\mu]$. In the shtuka case the filtered ring is $R_N = R[[z]]/(z^N)$ with the $z$-adic filtration and $\sigma$ induced by Frobenius, so the Rees stack is the $N$-truncated Hecke stack $[\mathbb{G}_m\backslash\mathrm{Spec}\,R_N[t,u]/(tu-z)]$ and its frame stack is the $N$-truncated shtuka stack; in the display case the filtered ring is $W_N(R)$ with the filtration by the ideal $I_N(R) = VW_N(R)$ and the Witt Frobenius. The Traverso argument itself rests on Corollary 6.34, affine Deligne–Lusztig finiteness producing a finite set $S$ of cocharacters, and on Lemma 6.35, the surjectivity of $i \mapsto ix\varphi(i)$ for fundamental elements $x$ of the affine Weyl group, which converts isogeny of truncated objects into isomorphism.

What would settle it

Compute, for a concrete pair such as $G = \mathrm{GL}_h$ with the minuscule cocharacter $\mu_d$, the finite set $S$ of Corollary 6.34 and the resulting constant $C$, and compare $N_0 = 2C+1$ with the classical truncation bounds for $p$-divisible groups of height $h$ and dimension $d$ from [Tra69] and [LNV13]. A direct contradiction of Theorem 6.31 would be two non-isomorphic type-$[\mu]$ shtukas over an algebraically closed field whose $(2C+1)$-truncations are isomorphic; for Theorem 7.14, the decisive check is whether affine Deligne–Lusztig finiteness survives the passage from $k((z))$ to $W(k)$, since a single $\varphi$-conjugacy class over $W(k)$ escaping every finite union of double cosets would break the proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is Theorem 6.31, with display analogue Theorem 7.14: there exists $N_0 \geq 1$, depending only on $G$ and $[\mu]$, such that for every $\infty \geq N' \geq N \geq N_0$ and every algebraically closed extension $k$ of the base field, the truncation map $\mathrm{Bun}^{[\mu]}_G(\mathrm{Sht},N') \to \mathrm{Bun}^{[\mu]}_G(\mathrm{Sht},N)$ — and likewise $\mathrm{Bun}^{[\mu]}_G(\mathrm{Disp},N') \to \mathrm{Bun}^{[\mu]}_G(\mathrm{Disp},N)$ — is bijective on isomorphism classes of $k$-valued points. In words, a local $G$-shtuka or $G$-display of type $[\mu]$ over an algebraically closed field is completely encoded in its $N_0$-truncation. The route is the authors' quotient-stack description (Theorem 6.23 and Theorem 7.9), $\mathrm{Bun}^{[\mu]}_G(\mathrm{Sht},N) \cong [E_N(G,[\mu])\backslash L^{(N)}G]$, where $E_N(G,[\mu])$ is the $N$-truncated display group. Bijectivity of truncation is then reduced to two inputs about the loop group: a finiteness theorem for affine Deligne–Lusztig varieties (Corollary 6.34) giving a finite set $S$ of cocharacters, and a lemma (Lemma 6.35) asserting that for a fundamental element $x$ of the affine Weyl group the map $i \mapsto ix\varphi(i)$ on Iwahori subgroups is surjective. The cutoff is explicit: $N_0 = 2C+1$ with $C = \max_{\alpha,\xi} \langle \alpha,\xi\rangle$ over all roots $\alpha$ and $\xi \in S$, and the isogeny cutoff is $C+1$. For displays, Theorem 7.14 is justified by a single sentence claiming the same proof works with $k[[z]]$ replaced by $W(k)$; that transfer is not otherwise substantiated in the paper.

Load-bearing premise

The display analogue (Theorem 7.14) is justified by a single sentence saying the shtuka proof works identically with the series ring $k[[z]]$ replaced by the Witt vectors $W(k)$; the load-bearing premise is that the finiteness result giving the finite set $S$ (and hence $C$) in the shtuka case still holds for the mixed-characteristic loop group, and the paper supplies neither a reference nor an argument for that transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every reductive group $G$ and every conjugacy class $[\mu]$, the isomorphism classes of local $G$-shtukas of type $[\mu]$ over an algebraically closed field are in bijection with the isomorphism classes of their $N_0$-truncations (Corollary 6.32), so classification is reduced to finite data.
  • The identical statement holds for $G$-displays (Theorem 7.14), extending Traverso-type bounds beyond the classical case of $p$-divisible groups, where $G = \mathrm{GL}_h$ and $[\mu]$ is minuscule.
  • The moduli stack $\mathrm{Bun}^{[\mu]}_G(\mathrm{Sht},N)$ is a smooth algebraic stack of relative dimension zero over the reflex field $\kappa[\mu]$ with geometrically connected components (Theorem 6.23), and its $N = 1$ member is universally homeomorphic to the stack of $G$-zips (Corollary 6.27).
  • Truncation is exhaustive: local $G$-shtukas are the limit of their truncations, $\mathrm{Bun}_G(\mathrm{Sht},\infty) \cong \lim_{N<\infty}\mathrm{Bun}_G(\mathrm{Sht},N)$ (Theorem 6.21), and displays are the limit of their $(N,n)$-truncations (Corollary 7.10).
  • The same frame formalism applies to bounded prisms: prismatic $G$-displays embed fully faithfully into Breuil–Kisin $G$-bundles, and prismatic $F$-gauges map to both, recovering and slightly generalizing known results in the prismatic setting (Section 8, Proposition 8.4).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof makes $N_0 = 2C+1$ explicit in terms of the finite set $S$ of Corollary 6.34, an effective computation of $S$ from the root datum would turn the cutoff into a computable constant; the paper does not compute $S$ for any example, so whether $2C+1$ is anywhere near optimal is an open question.
  • The one-sentence proof of Theorem 7.14 means the display bound inherits an unverified premise: the finiteness of affine Deligne–Lusztig sets over the mixed-characteristic loop group $G(W(k))$. If that premise fails, the display theorem is unsupported, while the equi-characteristic shtuka theorem would still stand on its own.
  • The same frame machinery should yield Traverso-type cutoffs for prismatic displays and prismatic $F$-gauges over algebraically closed (perfectoid) fields; the paper explicitly postpones truncations in the prismatic setting but has already built the required classification theorems.
  • For $G = \mathrm{GL}_h$ with minuscule $[\mu]$, comparing $N_0 = 2C+1$ with the known classical truncation bounds for $p$-divisible groups would calibrate how tight the uniform bound is; a large gap would suggest that the root-theoretic constant is far from optimal.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general formalism of frames and frame stacks to describe moduli spaces of G-bundles on Rees stacks and associated coequalizers, and applies it to truncated local shtukas, truncated displays, and prismatic objects. The central structural results are quotient-stack descriptions: for local shtukas of type [µ], the N-truncated moduli stack is equivalent to [E_N(G,[µ])\L^(N)(G)] (Theorem 6.23), with an analogous description for displays (Theorem 7.9). The headline applications are Traverso-type cutoff theorems: Theorem 6.31 asserts that, for shtukas over an algebraically closed field, isomorphism classes are determined by N0-truncations for N0 = 2C+1, where C is a root-theoretic constant coming from a finite set S; Theorem 7.14 asserts the same for displays over W(k) with the same proof. The paper also identifies 1-truncated shtukas with G-zips and gives applications to prismatic displays and prismatic F-gauges, with an appendix by Christopher Lang comparing the vector-bundle description of GL_h-displays with Bültel--Pappas displays.

Significance. If the two identified gaps are closed, the paper would constitute a substantial advance: it gives a common geometric language for shtukas, displays, and prismatic objects; recovers and extends results of Lau, Daniels, Yaylali, and Ito; and provides explicit, group-theoretic Traverso bounds for arbitrary reductive groups and arbitrary cocharacter classes. The extensive use of established external theorems (Lau's display groups, Yaylali's zip stacks, Cornut--Nicole and Hamacher--Viehmann affine Deligne--Lusztig finiteness, Nie's fundamental elements, and Ito's prismatic displays) is a strength, as is the explicit finite set S and the resulting explicit cutoff. The paper is carefully organized and the Adams-stack framework is used systematically. However, the display-side Traverso theorem rests on a one-sentence transfer from equal characteristic to mixed characteristic, and the shtuka-side quotient-stack theorem invokes Assumption 4.10(c) without verification; these are load-bearing points that need to be addressed before the main claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.2, Theorem 7.14] The proof of Theorem 7.14 is literally 'the same proof as for Theorem 6.31, replacing k[[z]] by W(k)'. This is not a routine transfer. The proof of Theorem 6.31 depends on Corollary 6.34, which is derived from affine Deligne–Lusztig finiteness over k((z)) (Theorem 6.33, citing [CN16, Prop. 8] and [HV20, Lemma 5.3]), and on Lemma 6.35, whose base case is the equal-characteristic fundamental-alcove statement [GHN15, Thm. 3.3.1]. For displays one would need the analogous finiteness statement for the Witt-vector loop group G(W(k)[1/p]) with the p-Frobenius, namely a finite S such that every b bounded by µ is σ-conjugate via g ∈ ∪_{ξ∈S} Kξ(p)K to a chosen fundamental representative b0, as well as a mixed-characteristic version of Lemma 6.35 for I_n = ker(I(W(k)) → I(W(k)/p^n)). Neither is cited, and the objects used in §6.4 (affine Grassmannian over k[[z]], Iwahori subgroups, Newton points) do not have Witt-vector analogues that are explicitly developed here. Since Theorem 7.14 is one of the two headline Traverso bounds, this gap is load-bearing and must be fixed by a proof or a precise citation.
  2. [§4.3 and §6.3, Theorem 6.23] Theorem 6.23 is stated as a special case of Theorem 4.12, but Assumption 4.10(c) (the equivalence B(LAG) → LA(BG)) is never verified for the equi-characteristic shtuka functor A_R = R[[z]] or its truncations. In the display case the analogous condition is explicitly checked in the proof of Theorem 7.9 via [BH20, 2.12]; no such verification appears in Section 6. Because the quotient-stack description of Bun^[µ]_G(Sht, N) is used in Proposition 6.29 and therefore feeds into the shtuka cutoff proof, the authors should either prove Assumption 4.10(c) in this setting or provide a precise reference for it.
  3. [§6.3, Theorem 6.23 for N = ∞] Assumption 4.10(a) requires that R ↦ Fil^i A_R be representable by an affine scheme. For A_R = R[[z]], this functor is R ↦ R[[z]], which is not an affine scheme in the usual sense, and for N = ∞ the paper does not state a limit or pro-version of the hypotheses of Theorem 4.12. The construction of E∞ as a pro-affine limit in Proposition 6.10 suggests a limiting argument is intended, but this is not spelled out. Thus the part of Theorem 6.23 asserting the quotient description for Bun^[µ]_G(Sht, ∞) is not justified by the cited theorem as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.4, proof of Theorem 6.31] The sentence 'For every C < n ∈ N' is terse; it would help to define n and N0 explicitly at the point where the bounds C + 1 and 2C + 1 are first used.
  2. [§1.2, Example 1.4] There is a typo: 'reppeler' should be 'repeller'.
  3. [§7.2, Theorem 7.9] The stack topologies are stated carefully in the theorem, but the notation Bun^[µ]_G(Disp, N, n) and Bun^[µ]_G(Disp, N) is introduced with two different topologies (p-completely flat vs. fpqc) in Definition 7.5; a short reminder near Theorem 7.9 would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix C] The notion of a normal decomposition of a pair is taken from [Hof25] but is not recalled in Appendix C; since the proof of Proposition C.2 relies on it, a one-sentence definition would make the appendix more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: self-citations are to prior external theorems, and the one-sentence display-side transfer is a gap, not a circle.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the frame formalism through the quotient-stack descriptions to the Traverso bounds. The central classification results, Theorems 3.29 and 4.12, are formal consequences of the definition of the display group as Hom into [µ]\G plus the henselian lifting results quoted from Wed24; the display group is not secretly defined as the output of the classification. Theorem 6.23 and Theorem 7.9 are direct applications of Theorem 4.12, not circular redefinitions. The equi-characteristic Traverso bound, Theorem 6.31, rests on the finite set S supplied by Corollary 6.34, which in turn cites Cornut-Nicole [CN16, Prop. 8] and Hamacher-Viehmann [HV20, Lemma 5.3], plus Nie's fundamental-element theory [Nie15]. Although HV20 includes the first author and Wed24 is by the second author, these are prior independent results with stated hypotheses; they do not presuppose the cutoff theorem being proved, so citing them is not circular. The only notable weakness is Theorem 7.14, which asserts the display analogue in one sentence: 'the same proof as for Theorem 6.31, replacing k[[z]] by W(k)'. This delegates a mixed-characteristic analogue of Corollary 6.34 without citing or proving it, and the Section 6.4 proof is formulated with k[[z]]-specific objects. That is an unsupported transfer and a correctness risk, but it is not circular: the paper never derives the display statement from the shtuka statement by equating quantities or by defining the W(k) cutoff in terms of the target claim. Appendix C is self-contained and does not reintroduce the target result as an assumption. Accordingly, no step reduces the paper's claims to their own inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the effective constant N0 = 2C+1 is derived, not tuned. The central claims depend on a substantial external library: Schäppi's Adams stacks, Wedhorn's G-bundle extension machinery, Deligne-Lusztig finiteness (Cornut-Nicole, Hamacher-Viehmann), Nie's fundamental elements, Yaylali's zips, and Ito's prismatic displays. The paper-introduced assumption is 4.10(c), which is only partially verified. The invented entities are definitions whose evidence is internal to the theory.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The 2-category of Adams stacks is complete and cocomplete, and colimits are recognized via Vec (Schäppi, Theorem A.7).
    Invoked in Section 1.4, Proposition 5.17, and Theorem 6.21 to identify colim_n Spec R_n with Spec R[[z]] and colim_N RSht,N with RSht,∞.
  • domain assumption Extension and lifting theorems for G-bundles over henselian graded rings (Wedhorn, [Wed24, 2.6 and 1.7]).
    Underlies Corollary 3.3, Theorem 3.29 (Bun^µ(A) = B E_A), and full faithfulness in Proposition 5.12; the second author's own preprint is a stated input.
  • domain assumption Finiteness of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties: X_µ(b) is contained in a finite union of J_b·Kξ(z)K cells (Cornut-Nicole, Hamacher-Viehmann).
    Input to Corollary 6.34 that produces the finite set S; the constant C in the cutoff N0 = 2C+1 is defined from S.
  • domain assumption Fundamental elements of the extended affine Weyl group satisfy the Iwahori double-coset surjectivity property (Nie, [Nie15, Thm 1.4]).
    Used in Lemma 6.35 to prove surjectivity of I_n → I_n x I_n, which gives the injectivity part of Theorem 6.31.
  • domain assumption G-zips over R are G-bundles on the zip stack RZip (Yaylali, [Yay24, A.5]).
    Needed in Corollary 6.27 to translate the 1-truncated shtuka stack into the existing zip language.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4.10(a)-(c): representability of Fil^i, henselian pairs, and B(L_A G) → L_A(BG) being an equivalence.
    Hypotheses of the general classification Theorem 4.12; (a) and (b) are immediate in the applications, (c) is cited to [BH20, 2.12] for displays but not verified in the shtuka section.
invented entities (4)
  • Frame and frame stack F(A) (Definitions 4.1 and 4.6).
    purpose: Packages a filtered ring and a Frobenius-like map σ into an algebraic object whose G-bundles are shtukas, displays, or prismatic objects.
    A mathematical definition rather than a physical postulate; its justification is internal coherence and the classification theorems, with no falsifiable handle outside the paper.
  • Display group E_A(G,[µ]) (Definition 3.18).
    purpose: Automorphism group of the standard G-bundle of type [µ] on the frame; used to present moduli as [E_A \ L_A G].
    Generalizes Lau's display group; evidence for its usefulness is the proved representability by affine group schemes and the quotient-stack theorems.
  • Truncated moduli stacks RSht,N and RDisp,N (Definitions 6.18 and 7.1.2).
    purpose: Geometric houses for N-truncated shtukas and displays; the colimit and limit statements with N = ∞ replace classical objects.
    New geometric objects whose existence is established by the paper; the equivalence with frame stacks is the intended content, not an external check.
  • Prismatic, Breuil-Kisin, and syntomic frame stacks ADisp, ABK, ASyn (Section 8).
    purpose: Transport the frame formalism to prismatic displays, Breuil-Kisin modules, and F-gauges.
    Defined to match existing objects (Ito, Bhatt) after geometrization; no external falsifiable handle is supplied beyond matching those definitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moduli of truncated shtukas and displays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUGMZSP6

@misc{pith2026250601740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moduli of truncated shtukas and displays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUGMZSP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01740}
}
read the original abstract

We study moduli spaces of truncated local shtukas and truncated displays and describe them as concrete quotient stacks. To do this, we develop a general formalism of frames that can be applied in both cases and is also used to study prismatic displays and prismatic F-gauges.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reduction modulo p of crystalline Galois representations via {\mu}_p-equivariance

    math.NT 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Crystalline Galois representations acquire mu_p-equivariant Breuil-Kisin module reductions, yielding the ↑ constraint on inertial weights and proving weight elimination for a general Serre weight conjecture.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Jarod Alper, Daniel Halpern-Leistner, and Jochen Heinloth, Existence of moduli spaces for algebraic stacks, Invent. Math. 234 (2023), no. 3, 949--1038. 4665776

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Jarod Alper, Jack Hall, and David Rydh, The \'e tale local structure of algebraic stacks , arXiv preprint arXiv: 1912.06162v3 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Jarod Alper, Good moduli spaces for A rtin stacks , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 63 (2013), no. 6, 2349--2402. 3237451

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    , Adequate moduli spaces and geometrically reductive group schemes, Algebr. Geom. 1 (2014), no. 4, 489--531. 3272912

    2014

  5. [5]

    Dan Abramovich, Martin Olsson, and Angelo Vistoli, Tame stacks in positive characteristic, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 58 (2008), no. 4, 1057--1091

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Oliver Bueltel and Mohammad Hadi Hedayatzadeh, (g, ) -windows and deformations of (g, ) -displays, arXiv :2011.09163, 2020

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Bhargav Bhatt, Prismatic F -gauges , 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Patrick Bieker, Integral models of moduli spaces of S htukas with deep B ruhat- T its level structures , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2024), no. 14, 10559--10596. 4775669

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Bhargav Bhatt and Jacob Lurie, Absolute prismatic cohomology, arXiv :2201.06120, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C hapters 1--7 , Elements of Mathematics (Berlin), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, Translated from the French, Reprint of the 1989 English translation

    Nicolas Bourbaki, Commutative algebra. C hapters 1--7 , Elements of Mathematics (Berlin), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998, Translated from the French, Reprint of the 1989 English translation. 1727221

    1998

  3. [11]

    B\"ultel and G

    O. B\"ultel and G. Pappas, (G, ) -displays and R apoport- Z ink spaces , J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 19 (2020), no. 4, 1211--1257. 4120808

    2020

  4. [12]

    Bhargav Bhatt and Peter Scholze, Prisms and prismatic cohomology, Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022), no. 3, 1135--1275. 4502597

    2022

  5. [13]

    Alexis Bouthier and Kestutis C esnavi c ius, Torsors on loop groups and the H itchin fibration , Ann. Sci. \' E c. Norm. Sup\' e r. (4) 55 (2022), no. 3, 791--864. 4553656

    2022

  6. [14]

    26, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

    Brian Conrad, Ofer Gabber, and Gopal Prasad, Pseudo-reductive groups, second ed., New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 26, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015. 3362817

    2015

  7. [15]

    Christophe Cornut and Marc-Hubert Nicole, Cristaux et immeubles, Bull. Soc. Math. France 144 (2016), no. 1, 125--143. 3481264

    2016

  8. [16]

    Jean Cotner, Hom schemes for algebraic groups, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2309.16458v1 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Patrick Daniels, A T annakian framework for G -displays and R apoport- Z ink spaces , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2021), no. 22, 16963--17024. 4349214

    2021

  10. [18]

    III : S tructure des sch\'emas en groupes r\'eductifs , S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie 1962/64 (SGA 3)

    Michel Demazure and Alexandre Grothendieck, Sch\'emas en groupes. III : S tructure des sch\'emas en groupes r\'eductifs , S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie 1962/64 (SGA 3). Dirig\'e par M. Demazure et A. Grothendieck. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 15...

    1962

  11. [19]

    Daniel Ferrand, Conducteur, descente et pincement, Bull. Soc. Math. France 131 (2003), no. 4, 553--585. 2044495

    2003

  12. [20]

    Jean-Marc Fontaine and Uwe Jannsen, Frobenius gauges and a new theory of p -torsion sheaves in characteristic p , Doc. Math. 26 (2021), 65--101. 4246397

    2021

  13. [21]

    Ulrich G\"ortz, Xuhua He, and Sian Nie, P -alcoves and nonemptiness of affine D eligne- L usztig varieties , Ann. Sci. \'Ec. Norm. Sup\'er. (4) 48 (2015), no. 3, 647--665. 3377055

    2015

  14. [22]

    Gelfand and Yuri I

    Sergei I. Gelfand and Yuri I. Manin, Methods of homological algebra, second ed., Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. 1950475

    2003

  15. [23]

    S chemes---with examples and exercises , second ed., Springer Studium Mathematik---Master, Springer Spektrum, Wiesbaden, [2020] 2020

    Ulrich G\" o rtz and Torsten Wedhorn, Algebraic geometry I . S chemes---with examples and exercises , second ed., Springer Studium Mathematik---Master, Springer Spektrum, Wiesbaden, [2020] 2020. 4225278

    2020

  16. [24]

    C ohomology of S chemes---with examples and exercises , Springer Studium Mathematik---Master, Springer Spektrum, Wiesbaden, [2023] 2023

    , Algebraic geometry II . C ohomology of S chemes---with examples and exercises , Springer Studium Mathematik---Master, Springer Spektrum, Wiesbaden, [2023] 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Daniel Halpern-Leistner and Anatoly Preygel, Mapping stacks and categorical notions of properness, Compos. Math. 159 (2023), no. 3, 530--589. 4560539

    2023

  18. [26]

    Manuel Hoff, On parahoric ( G , ) -displays , arXiv :2311.00127, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alg\'ebrique 9 (2025), Art

    Manuel Hoff, The EKOR stratification on the S iegel modular variety with parahoric level structure , \'Epijournal G\'eom. Alg\'ebrique 9 (2025), Art. 5, 36. 4883881

    2025

  20. [28]

    Paul Hamacher and Eva Viehmann, Finiteness properties of affine D eligne- L usztig varieties , Doc. Math. 25 (2020), 899--910. 4148693

    2020

  21. [29]

    Kazuhiro Ito, Prismatic G -displays and descent theory , arXiv :2303.15814, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sigma 13 (2025), Paper No

    Kazuhiro Ito, Deformation theory for prismatic G -displays , Forum Math. Sigma 13 (2025), Paper No. e61, 57

    2025

  23. [31]

    9, 2315--2355

    Eike Lau, Higher frames and G -displays , Algebra Number Theory 15 (2021), no. 9, 2315--2355. 4355476

    2021

  24. [32]

    Eike Lau, Marc-Hubert Nicole, and Adrian Vasiu, Stratifications of N ewton polygon strata and T raverso's conjectures for p -divisible groups , Ann. of Math. (2) 178 (2013), no. 3, 789--834. 3092471

    2013

  25. [33]

    170, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

    Jacob Lurie, Higher topos theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 170, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009. 2522659

    2009

  26. [34]

    Ruben Mu \ n oz-Bertrand, Characterising properties of commutative rings using W itt vectors , arXiv :2025.20115, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Tasos Moulinos, The geometry of filtrations, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 53 (2021), no. 5, 1486--1499. 4335221

    2021

  28. [36]

    Niko Naumann, The stack of formal groups in stable homotopy theory, Adv. Math. 215 (2007), no. 2, 569--600. 2355600

    2007

  29. [37]

    Sian Nie, Fundamental elements of an affine W eyl group , Math. Ann. 362 (2015), no. 1-2, 485--499. 3343886

    2015

  30. [38]

    Richard Pink, Torsten Wedhorn, and Paul Ziegler, F -zips with additional structure , Pacific J. Math. 274 (2015), no. 1, 183--236. 3347958

    2015

  31. [39]

    Algebraic Geom

    Timo Richarz, Spaces with G_m -action, hyperbolic localization and nearby cycles , J. Algebraic Geom. 28 (2019), no. 2, 251--289. 3912059

    2019

  32. [40]

    Sigma 8 (2020), Paper No

    Timo Richarz and Jakob Scholbach, The intersection motive of the moduli stack of shtukas, Forum Math. Sigma 8 (2020), Paper No. e8, 99. 4061978

    2020

  33. [41]

    Daniel Sch \"a ppi, Descent via T annaka duality , arXiv :1505.05681, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Daniel Sch\" a ppi, Constructing colimits by gluing vector bundles, Adv. Math. 375 (2020), 107394, 85. 4170218

    2020

  35. [43]

    II : G roupes de type multiplicatif, et structure des sch\'emas en groupes g\'en\'eraux , S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie 1962/64 (SGA 3)

    Sch\'emas en groupes. II : G roupes de type multiplicatif, et structure des sch\'emas en groupes g\'en\'eraux , S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie 1962/64 (SGA 3). Dirig\'e par M. Demazure et A. Grothendieck. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 152, Springe...

    1962

  36. [44]

    I : P ropri\'et\'es g\'en\'erales des sch\'emas en groupes , S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie 1962/64 (SGA 3)

    Sch\'emas en groupes. I : P ropri\'et\'es g\'en\'erales des sch\'emas en groupes , S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie 1962/64 (SGA 3). Dirig\'e par M. Demazure et A. Grothendieck. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 151, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970. MR027...

    1962

  37. [45]

    The Stacks Project Authors , Stacks Project , https://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Scuola Norm

    Carlo Traverso, Sulla classificazione dei gruppi analitici commutativi di caratteristica positiva, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (3) 23 (1969), 481--507. 260757

    1969

  39. [47]

    Michael Temkin and Ilya Tyomkin, Ferrand pushouts for algebraic spaces, Eur. J. Math. 2 (2016), no. 4, 960--983. 3572553

    2016

  40. [48]

    Torsten Wedhorn, Extension and lifting of g -bundles for stacks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05151v2 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Qijun Yan, A relation between zip stacks and moduli stacks of truncated local shtukas, arXiv :2308.12204, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Alg\'ebrique 8 (2024), Art

    Can Yaylali, Derived F -zips , \'Epijournal G\'eom. Alg\'ebrique 8 (2024), Art. 5, 72. 4765408

    2024

  43. [51]

    Paul Ziegler, Graded and filtered fiber functors on T annakian categories , J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 14 (2015), no. 1, 87--130. 3284480

    2015

  44. [52]

    278, 2002, Cohomologies p -adiques et applications arithm\'etiques, I, pp

    Thomas Zink, The display of a formal p -divisible group , no. 278, 2002, Cohomologies p -adiques et applications arithm\'etiques, I, pp. 127--248. 1922825

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.