Beilinson--Lichtenbaum phenomenon for motivic cohomology

Arnab Kundu; Tess Bouis

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 3 cited by

Beilinson--Lichtenbaum phenomenon for motivic cohomology

T0 review · 2 major / 2 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 The paper proves that over Prüfer rings, p-adic motivic cohomology of ind-smooth schemes is canonically the Nisnevich truncation of syntomic cohomology, with consequences for classical motivic cohomology, purity over perfectoid bases, and…

desk verdict A substantial and well-structured paper, but the proof of the key presentation lemma (Corollary 2.25) has a genuine gap that currently undermines the main comparison theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09910 v2 pith:STYQXACU submitted 2025-06-11 math.AG math.KTmath.NT

Tess Bouis , Arnab Kundu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.KTmath.NT MSC 14F4214F3014F2013F05

keywords motiviccohomologyBeilinson-LichtenbaumconjecturesyntomicvaluationringsPrüferGersteninjectivityGabberpresentationlemmaperfectoid

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 non-noetherian form of the Beilinson–Lichtenbaum conjecture. For every ind-smooth scheme (a filtered colimit of smooth schemes) over a Prüfer ring (a ring whose localisations are valuation rings), p-adic motivic cohomology $Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{mot}$ is shown to be canonically equivalent to the Nisnevich-local truncation $L_\mathrm{Nis}\tau_{\le i}Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{syn}$ of syntomic cohomology, the p-adic cohomology theory extracted from prismatic cohomology, for all weights $i$ and levels $k$. This matters because it anchors the recently introduced non-$\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant motivic cohomology to established invariants: over Dedekind domains it recovers the classical cycle complexes integrally, over perfectoid valuation rings it gives a purity statement relating a scheme to its generic fibre, and over F-smooth valuation rings (a non-noetherian regularity condition) it yields an explicit étale-cohomology description. The proof rests on a new Nisnevich-local version of Gabber's presentation lemma that works over arbitrary commutative bases and with finite residue fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a Nisnevich-local presentation lemma (Theorem E, Corollary 2.25). It says that for a closed immersion $Z\hookrightarrow X$ of positive relative codimension in a smooth $S$-scheme and a point $x\in X$, one can pass to a Nisnevich neighbourhood $X'\to X$, choose a smooth $T$, and find an étale map $\psi:X'\to \mathbb{A}^1_T$ such that $\psi(Z')$ is finite over $T$ and $Z'$ is the pullback of $\psi(Z')$ along $\psi$; equivalently, the resulting square is a Nisnevich square. This lemma is used to prove Gersten injectivity for finitary Nisnevich sheaves satisfying the Horrocks principle (triviality at the $\infty$-section forces triviality on $\mathbb{A}^1$), and then, using the $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle formula satisfied by the motivic presheaves, to reduce vanishing statements to henselian valuation rings, where the comparison is already known. The proof of the lemma combines good compactifications over Prüfer bases, hypersurface-section techniques from the literature, and a presentation lemma over stably coherent rings.

What would settle it

Compute a single motivic cohomology group $H^j(Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{mot}(R))$ with $j>i$ for $R$ the henselisation of a local ring of a smooth scheme over a valuation ring of mixed characteristic (for example the ring of integers of an algebraic extension of $\mathbb{Q}_p$); Theorem 5.1 predicts zero, so a nonzero class would refute the main theorem. Alternatively, exhibit a closed immersion $Z\hookrightarrow X$ over a henselian valuation ring and a point $x$ for which no Nisnevich neighbourhood $X'$ and étale map $\psi:X'\to\mathbb{A}^1_T$ exist with $\psi(Z')$ finite over $T$ and $Z'$ isomorphic to the pullback of $\psi(Z')$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.1: if $P$ is a Prüfer ring and $X$ is ind-smooth over $P$, then the Beilinson–Lichtenbaum comparison map $$L_\mathrm{Nis}\tau_{\le i}Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{syn}(X) \to Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{mot}(X)$$ is an equivalence in $D(Z/p^k)$ for all $i\ge 0$ and $k\ge 1$. On a henselian local ring the comparison is already an isomorphism in degrees at most $i$ for formal reasons, so the proof reduces to showing that the motivic cohomology of such rings vanishes in degrees above $i$; this vanishing is obtained from a Gersten-injectivity theorem that itself follows from the presentation lemma. The paper derives from this equivalence an integral identification of the motivic complexes with the classical cycle complexes over Dedekind domains, a purity theorem for perfectoid valuation rings of residue characteristic $p$, and a statement of $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariance for ind-smooth schemes over Dedekind domains and cdh-locally F-smooth Prüfer domains.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on a geometric presentation lemma saying that a positive-codimension closed subscheme of a smooth scheme can, after a Nisnevich localisation, be sent by an étale map into an affine line with finite image over the base; if this lemma fails over a mixed-characteristic or non-noetherian base, the Gersten-injectivity step, and with it Theorem 5.1, collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Over any Dedekind domain, the motivic complexes $Z(i)_\mathrm{mot}$ agree integrally with the classical cycle complexes on ind-smooth schemes, so the new theory genuinely extends classical motivic cohomology.
On ind-smooth schemes over Prüfer rings, the complexes $Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{mot}$ live Nisnevich-locally in degrees at most $i$; this vanishing is exactly what makes the comparison map an equivalence.
For $p$-torsionfree F-smooth valuation rings, motivic cohomology of henselian local ind-smooth algebras is expressed in terms of étale cohomology of the generic fibre, with the cup-product image appearing in degree $i$.
Over perfectoid valuation rings of residue characteristic $p$, the map from a scheme to its generic fibre is an equivalence on $Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{mot}$, giving a purity theorem that does not rely on absolute purity.
On ind-smooth schemes over Dedekind domains and over cdh-locally F-smooth Prüfer domains, the motivic complexes are $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant, partially answering a question about the homotopy invariance of this new motivic cohomology.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the comparison map is an isomorphism in degrees at most $i$ for formal reasons, the paper's real content is a vanishing theorem for higher degrees; the same fibre-sequence argument would extend the comparison to any regular base ring for which the presentation lemma and Gersten injectivity hold.
The purity statement over perfectoid rings implies that high-degree $p$-adic motivic cohomology is insensitive to the special fibre; this suggests that the motivic filtration on algebraic $K$-theory of perfectoid rings is controlled by étale cohomology of the generic fibre in a computable range.
A sharp computational check would be to compute $H^{i+1}(Z/p^k(i)_\mathrm{mot}(R))$ for a rank-two Prüfer ring with finite residue fields: the theorem forces this group to vanish, whereas classical proofs over Dedekind rings give no such prediction.
The presentation lemma is only Nisnevich-local rather than Zariski-local; making it Zariski-local would require new ideas, but would extend the Gersten argument to cohomology theories with only Zariski descent.

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

You should know two things about this paper. First, the results are potentially major: Theorem B extends the Beilinson–Lichtenbaum comparison to smooth schemes over arbitrary valuation rings and Prüfer rings, Theorem A recovers Bloch's cycle complexes over Dedekind domains, and Corollary 5.9 gives a purity statement over perfectoid rings. The overall architecture is coherent and the authors are honest about which inputs come from [Bou24] and from the unpublished [BEM25]. Second, the proof as written has a load-bearing gap in the geometric engine, exactly where the stress-test note points.

Corollary 2.25 is proved by reducing to the case where Z is principal, 'up to replacing Z by a bigger closed subscheme' using [GLL15, Theorem 5.1]. The problem is that the desired conclusion includes the cartesian condition Z' ≅ ψ(Z') ×_{A^1_T} X', equivalently Z' = ψ^{-1}(ψ(Z')). If the lemma is verified for a larger Z^+ ⊃ Z, the same ψ satisfies ψ^{-1}(ψ(Z')) ⊃ Z', possibly strictly. For example, with X' = G_m and ψ(z) = z^2, taking Z = {1} and Z^+ = {1,−1}, the property holds for Z^+ but fails for Z. The paper supplies no descent statement for closed subschemes, and Theorem 3.2's Nisnevich excision step uses exactly this cartesian condition for the original Z. So Theorem 3.5 (Gersten injectivity) and Theorem 5.1 are incomplete as written.

This is not a trivial typo: it is the main geometric input. It might well be repairable—perhaps by proving a more precise version of the presentation lemma directly for Z, or by showing the bigger subscheme can be chosen to preserve the fibre-product condition—but the current text does not do that. The paper also clearly flags its dependence on unpublished work: the A1-invariance result (Theorem 6.9) is conditional on [BEM25], which is not public. That is a lesser issue, but worth noting.

For all that, the paper deserves a serious referee. The intended results are important, the authors know the surrounding literature, and the framework (deflatable sheaves, Gersten injectivity via a presentation lemma) is promising. I would send it to a strong referee, but with the expectation of major revision. The referee should focus first on whether Corollary 2.25 can be fixed; if it cannot, the main theorem falls. I would also bring it to a reading group: the gap is instructive and the geometric arguments elsewhere are worth studying.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims a non-noetherian Beilinson-Lichtenbaum comparison for the non-A^1-invariant motivic cohomology of Bouis and Elmanto-Morrow. The central result, Theorem B (Theorem 5.1), asserts that over an ind-smooth scheme over a Prüfer ring, the comparison map L_Nis tau_{<=i} Z/p^k(i)_syn(X) -> Z/p^k(i)_mot(X) is an equivalence in D(Z/p^k). The proof reduces this to a vanishing statement H^j(Z/p^k(i)_mot(R)) = 0 for j > i on henselian local ind-smooth algebras, and obtains that vanishing from a new Gersten injectivity theorem (Theorem 3.5). The Gersten theorem is in turn derived from a Nisnevich-local presentation lemma (Corollary 2.25, Theorem E) whose proof combines a good compactification result with an enlargement step borrowed from [GLL15, Theorem 5.1]. The paper also derives consequences including the comparison with Bloch's cycle complexes over Dedekind domains (Theorem A/6.1), an étale description over F-smooth valuation rings (Theorem C), purity over perfectoid valuation rings (Corollary 5.9), and partial A^1-invariance (Theorem 6.9).

Significance. If the main comparison theorem is correct, it is a substantial extension of the Beilinson-Lichtenbaum phenomenon from fields and discrete valuation rings to arbitrary valuation rings and other non-noetherian Prüfer bases. The paper is carefully structured: Theorem 5.1 is transparently reduced to a vanishing statement, the dependence on [Bou24] is explicit, and the abstract and introduction accurately describe the main dependencies. The geometric engine, however, is a single presentation lemma, and the proof of that lemma contains a load-bearing gap. Because the Gersten injectivity argument and hence the main comparison theorem rest on that lemma, the manuscript is not yet established as written.

major comments (2)

[Section 2, proof of Corollary 2.25] The reduction 'By [GLL15, Theorem 5.1], up to replacing Z by a bigger closed subscheme of X, we can assume that the closed immersion Z -> X is principal' is not justified. The desired conclusion includes the cartesian condition Z' = psi(Z') x_{A^1_T} X' for the original closed subscheme Z. If Corollary 2.21 and Theorem 2.24 are applied only to a larger closed subscheme Z^+ containing Z, they produce a Nisnevich square for Z'^+ := Z^+ x_X X', not for Z'. For an etale morphism psi, the preimage psi^{-1}(psi(Z')) can be strictly larger than Z', for instance when Z' is a single closed point lying in a fibre of psi with more than one point. No lemma is supplied showing that the presentation property descends from a larger closed subscheme to a smaller one, and such a descent statement is false in this generality. This is not a harmless enlargement: the groups F_{Z^+}(X) and F_Z(X) differ in general, so a class in F_Z(X) need not survive the replacement. The proof of Corollary 2.25 is therefore incomplete.
[Section 3, Theorems 3.2 and 3.5] The Gersten injectivity proof applies Nisnevich excision to identify F_{psi(Z')}(A^1_T) with F_{Z'}(X') for the original closed immersion Z. Because Corollary 2.25 has not been proved for that Z, the reduction of a class [sigma] to A^1_T is unjustified. The same gap propagates to Theorem 3.5's vanishing statement for henselian local ind-smooth P-algebras and then to Theorem 5.1, where the vanishing H^j(Z/p^k(i)_mot(R)) = 0 for j > i is the only new ingredient used in the comparison. Thus the main Beilinson-Lichtenbaum comparison is not established as written. A repair would require either a version of Theorem 2.24 that directly handles the original closed immersion, or a proof that the enlargement can be chosen so that the sheaf F_Z is unchanged, e.g. by ensuring that the complement X' \ Z' is unchanged. Neither is present in the manuscript.

minor comments (2)

[Section 2, Corollary 2.25] In part (b) of the corollary, the integer d in A^{d-1}_{S'} is not defined in the statement; it should be d := dim(X_s) (or dim(X_s) is implicitly understood).
[Section 3, Remark 3.14] The name 'Khan' in 'Colliot-Thélène--Hoobler--Khan' should be 'Kahn', matching the reference [CTHK97].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 5.1 bootstraps prior theorems of [Bou24] and [Kun25] rather than reducing to its inputs, and the skeptical concern about Corollary 2.25 is a correctness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

No load-bearing circular step is exhibited by the paper's own equations or by a self-citation chain that presupposes the target theorem. The Beilinson-Lichtenbaum comparison map (4.1.1) is constructed from the fibre sequence of Theorem 4.1(3), quoted from [Bou24, Theorem 5.10], and the valuation-ring case of the needed vanishing is imported as Remark 4.2 from [Bou24, Section 11.3]. These are prior theorems with stated assumptions that do not include Theorem 5.1; the same-author citation is substantial, but it supplies independent (if unpublished) support rather than a self-referential premise. The genuinely new Gersten step (Theorem 3.5) is derived from the presentation lemma Corollary 2.25, whose proof builds on [GLL15, Theorem 5.1], [Ces22a, Lemmas 6.1 and 6.3], and [Kun25, Theorem 2.15]. No displayed construction or definition in the paper is defined in terms of the statement it is supposed to prove, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The skeptical concern about 'replacing Z by a bigger closed subscheme' in the proof of Corollary 2.25 identifies a potential non-hereditary reduction: the cartesian condition Z' = psi^{-1}(psi(Z')) need not descend from a larger closed subscheme. That is a mathematical correctness gap, not a circularity, so under the stated rules it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric parameters are fitted. The paper's central claim rests on a sequence of imported foundations: the first author's construction of Z_mot and the comparison fiber sequence, Bhatt-Lurie's syntomic cohomology, and several geometric results used in the presentation lemma. The only genuinely new entity introduced is a Nisnevich-local Gabber presentation lemma, which is proved in the paper. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or unexplained objects are postulated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The motivic complexes Z(i)_mot exist for all qcqs schemes and satisfy Theorem 4.1: Nisnevich sheaf property, P1-bundle formula, Adams decomposition, and the fiber sequence Z/p^k(i)_mot -> Z/p^k(i)_syn -> L_cdh tau_{>i} Z/p^k(i)_syn with the comparison map an isomorphism in degrees at most i.
Imported from [Bou24, Corollary 4.60, Theorems 5.10, 8.7, 8.16], authored by the first-named author. The comparison map (4.1.1) in Section 4 is built from this, and Theorem 5.1 reduces to proving vanishing above degree i.
domain assumption Bhatt-Lurie syntomic cohomology Z/p^k(i)_syn exists on qcqs schemes and has the local degree behavior used in Corollary 5.6 and Section 5.
Background from [BL22, Section 8.4]; the paper does not re-prove the construction or its étale-local vanishing.
domain assumption The geometric inputs [GLL15, Theorem 5.1], [Ces22a, Lemmas 6.1 and 6.3], and [Kun25, Theorem 2.15] hold over stably coherent, pictorsion, and Prüfer bases in the stated generality.
These are the engine of the good compactification theorem and Corollary 2.25; Section 2 imports them as black boxes.
domain assumption Geisser's Beilinson-Lichtenbaum comparison for Bloch complexes over Dedekind domains [Gei04] and the underlying Bloch-Kato results are valid.
Used in the proof of Theorem 6.1 to identify Fp(i)_cla with the truncation of syntomic cohomology Nisnevich-locally.
domain assumption The F-smooth ring results of [BM23], especially Theorem 1.8 computing tau_{<=i} Z/p^k(i)_syn in terms of étale cohomology, and the A1-invariance theorem of [BEM25, Theorem 6.7] hold.
Theorem C and Theorem 6.9 depend on these; [BEM25] is listed as 'In preparation' and has no public proof in the present paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beilinson--Lichtenbaum phenomenon for motivic cohomology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STYQXACU

@misc{pith2026250609910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beilinson--Lichtenbaum phenomenon for motivic cohomology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STYQXACU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09910}
}

abstract

The goal of this paper is to study non-$\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant motivic cohomology, recently defined by Elmanto, Morrow, and the first-named author, for smooth schemes over possibly non-discrete valuation rings. We establish that the cycle class map from $p$-adic motivic cohomology to a suitable truncation of Bhatt--Lurie's syntomic cohomology is an isomorphism, thereby verifying the Beilinson--Lichtenbaum conjecture in this generality. As a first consequence, we prove that this motivic cohomology integrally recovers the classical definition of motivic cohomology in terms of Bloch's cycle complexes, whenever the latter is defined. As a second consequence, we show a purity theorem for this cohomology theory over perfectoid rings, thus motivically refining a result of Nizio\l{} in algebraic $K$-theory. The key ingredient in our approach is a version of Gabber's presentation lemma applicable in mixed characteristic, non-noetherian settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

$\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant motivic cohomology of schemes
math.KT 2025-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

A new A1-invariant motivic cohomology for all qcqs schemes is constructed from the slice filtration of KGL, with a spectral sequence to homotopy K-theory and etale/syntomic comparisons.
Finite-coefficient Gersten injectivity fails in ramified mixed characteristic
math.KT 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper constructs a nonzero mod-3 K_2 class on a ramified regular local ring that dies in the fraction field, disproving finite-coefficient Gersten injectivity in this setting.
Weibel vanishing and the projective bundle formula for mixed characteristic motivic cohomology
math.AG 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Mixed characteristic motivic cohomology satisfies Weibel vanishing, the projective bundle formula, comparison to Milnor K-theory, and pro cdh descent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Motivic Steenrod operations at the characteristic via infinite ramification

[AE25] Toni Annala and Elden Elmanto. Motivic Steenrod operations at the characteristic via infinite ramification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05585,

arXiv
[4]

Dirigé par M

Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois-Marie 1963–1964 (SGA 4). Dirigé par M. Artin, A. Grothendieck et J. L. Verdier. Avec la collaboration de P. Deligne et B. Saint-Donat. [Spi18] Markus Spitzweck. A commutative P1-spectrum representing motivic cohomology over Dedekind domains.Mém. Soc. Math. Fr. (N.S.), 157:110,

work page 1963
[5]

Absolute prismatic cohomology

[BL22] Bhargav Bhatt and Jacob Lurie. Absolute prismatic cohomology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06120,

arXiv
[6]

The arc topology

[BM21] Bhargav Bhatt and Akhil Mathew. The arc topology. Duke Math. J., 170(9):1899–1988,

work page 1988
[7]

Motivic cohomology of mixed characteristic schemes

[Bou24] Tess Bouis. Motivic cohomology of mixed characteristic schemes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06635,

arXiv
[8]

A K-theoretic approach to Artin maps.https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07842,

[Cla17] Dustin Clausen. A K-theoretic approach to Artin maps.https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07842,

arXiv
[10]

Motivic cohomology of equicharacteristic schemes

[EM23] Elden Elmanto and Matthew Morrow. Motivic cohomology of equicharacteristic schemes. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2309.08463,

arXiv
[18]

Directed by A

Séminaire de géométrie algébrique du Bois Marie 1960–61. Directed by A. Grothendieck, with two papers by M. Raynaud, updated and annotated reprint of the 1971 original. [SGA4] Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas. Tome

work page 1960

Show all 19 references

[1973]

Values of zeta-functions at nonnegative integers

[Lic84] Stephen Lichtenbaum. Values of zeta-functions at nonnegative integers. In Number theory, Noordwijkerhout 1983 (Noordwijkerhout, 1983), volume 1068 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 127–138. Springer, Berlin,

1983
[1986]

Be˘ ılinson

[Be˘ ı87] Alexander A. Be˘ ılinson. Height pairing between algebraic cycles. In Current trends in arithmetical algebraic geometry (Arcata, Calif., 1985), volume 67 ofContemp. Math., pages 1–24. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,

1985
[1988]

Crystalline cohomology and p-adic Galois-representations

[Fal89] Gerd Faltings. Crystalline cohomology and p-adic Galois-representations. In Algebraic analysis, geometry, and number theory (Baltimore, MD, 1988), pages 25–80. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD,

1988
[1992]

[GL87] Henri Gillet and Marc Levine

Corrected reprint of the 1972 edition. [GL87] Henri Gillet and Marc Levine. The relative form of Gersten’s conjecture over a discrete valuation ring: the smooth case. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 46(1):59–71,

1972
[2001]

Classical

[Lic73] Stephen Lichtenbaum. Values of zeta-functions, étale cohomology, and algebraic K-theory. InAlgebraic K-theory, II: “Classical” algebraicK-theory and connections with arithmetic (Proc. Conf., Battelle Memorial Inst., Seattle, Wash., 1972), Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 3...

1972
[2018]

p-adic periods and p-adic étale cohomology

[FM87] Jean-Marc Fontaine and William Messing. p-adic periods and p-adic étale cohomology. In Current trends in arithmetical algebraic geometry (Arcata, Calif., 1985), volume 67 of Contemp. Math., pages 179–207. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,

1985
[2020]

A motivic filtration on the topological cyclic homology of commutative ring spectra.https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11208,

[HRW22] Jeremy Hahn, Arpon Raksit, and Dylan Wilson. A motivic filtration on the topological cyclic homology of commutative ring spectra.https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11208,
[2021]

Hoobler, and Bruno Kahn

[CTHK97] Jean-Louis Colliot-Thélène, Raymond T. Hoobler, and Bruno Kahn. The Bloch-Ogus-Gabber theorem. InAl- gebraic K-theory (Toronto, ON, 1996), volume 16 ofFields Inst. Commun., pages 31–94. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,

1996
[2022]

[Be˘ ı86] Alexander A

To appear. [Be˘ ı86] Alexander A. Be˘ ılinson. Notes on absolute Hodge cohomology. InApplications of algebraicK-theory to algebraic geometry and number theory, Part I, II (Boulder, Colo., 1983), volume 55 ofContemp. Math., pages 35–68. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,

1983
[2023]

TheK-theory of perfectoid rings.Doc

[AMM22] Benjamin Antieau, Akhil Mathew, and Matthew Morrow. TheK-theory of perfectoid rings.Doc. Math., 27:1923– 1952,

1923
[2024]

Isotropic Torsors on Smooth Algebras over Prüfer Rings

[Kun25] Arnab Kundu. Isotropic Torsors on Smooth Algebras over Prüfer Rings. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04760v2,

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Motivic Steenrod operations at the characteristic via infinite ramification

[AE25] Toni Annala and Elden Elmanto. Motivic Steenrod operations at the characteristic via infinite ramification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05585,

arXiv

[2] [4]

Dirigé par M

Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois-Marie 1963–1964 (SGA 4). Dirigé par M. Artin, A. Grothendieck et J. L. Verdier. Avec la collaboration de P. Deligne et B. Saint-Donat. [Spi18] Markus Spitzweck. A commutative P1-spectrum representing motivic cohomology over Dedekind domains.Mém. Soc. Math. Fr. (N.S.), 157:110,

work page 1963

[3] [5]

Absolute prismatic cohomology

[BL22] Bhargav Bhatt and Jacob Lurie. Absolute prismatic cohomology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06120,

arXiv

[4] [6]

The arc topology

[BM21] Bhargav Bhatt and Akhil Mathew. The arc topology. Duke Math. J., 170(9):1899–1988,

work page 1988

[5] [7]

Motivic cohomology of mixed characteristic schemes

[Bou24] Tess Bouis. Motivic cohomology of mixed characteristic schemes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06635,

arXiv

[6] [8]

A K-theoretic approach to Artin maps.https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07842,

[Cla17] Dustin Clausen. A K-theoretic approach to Artin maps.https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07842,

arXiv

[7] [10]

Motivic cohomology of equicharacteristic schemes

[EM23] Elden Elmanto and Matthew Morrow. Motivic cohomology of equicharacteristic schemes. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2309.08463,

arXiv

[8] [18]

Directed by A

Séminaire de géométrie algébrique du Bois Marie 1960–61. Directed by A. Grothendieck, with two papers by M. Raynaud, updated and annotated reprint of the 1971 original. [SGA4] Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas. Tome

work page 1960