arXiv:1506.07093v3 [math.AG] 30 Nov 2016

Affine representability results in
A1-homotopy theory I: vector bundles
Aravind Asok∗

Marc Hoyois†

Matthias Wendt‡

Abstract
We establish a general “affine representability” result in A1 -homotopy theory over a general base.
We apply this result to obtain representability results for vector bundles in A1 -homotopy theory. Our
results simplify and significantly generalize F. Morel’s A1 -representability theorem for vector bundles.

Contents
1 Introduction

1

2 Comparing topologies generated by cd-structures

5

3 Fibrancy and cd-structures

10

4 Sites with interval and homotopy localization

16

5 A1 -representability results for vector bundles

19

1

Introduction

From its inception in the classical work of H. Cartan, S. Eilenberg and its development in the work of J.-P.
Serre and H. Bass (among others), the theory of projective modules over a (commutative) ring has drawn
inspiration from the theory of topological vector bundles. J.F. Adams in his MathSciNet review of Bass’s
paper [Bas64] writes that “[t]his leads to the following programme: take definitions, constructions and theorems from bundle-theory; express them as particular cases of definitions, constructions and statements
about finitely-generated projective modules over a general ring; and finally, try to prove the statements under suitable assumptions.” The purpose of this paper is perhaps best understood from the standpoint of this
philosophy: we expose an algebro-geometric analog of the classical Pontryagin–Steenrod representability
theorem for vector bundles [Ste51, 19.3].
To set the stage, fix a commutative Noetherian base ring k and suppose X is a smooth k-scheme. In
this setting, F. Morel and V. Voevodsky [MV99] constructed a homotopy category for schemes H (k) in
which homotopies are, very roughly speaking, parameterized by the affine line A1k . Paralleling the notation
∗

Aravind Asok was partially supported by National Science Foundation Award DMS-1254892.
Marc Hoyois was partially supported by National Science Foundation Award DMS-1508096.
‡
Matthias Wendt was partially supported by EPSRC grant EP/M001113/1.

†

1

2

1 Introduction

in topology, set [X, Y ]A1 := HomH (k) (X, Y ). Write Vr (X) for the set of isomorphism classes of rank
r algebraic vector bundles on X and Grr = colimN →∞ Grr,N for the infinite Grassmannian, which is an
ind-scheme and can also be viewed as an object of H (k).
There is a canonical map Hom(X, Grr ) → Vr (X) defined by pulling back the tautological bundle
on Grr . If X is affine, this map is surjective since one may always choose generating global sections.
On the other hand, there is a canonical map Hom(X, Grr ) → [X, Grr ]A1 given by taking A1 -homotopy
classes. The goal of this paper is to establish the following result, which is the “affine representability”
result mentioned in the title.
Theorem 1 (See Theorem 5.2.3). Suppose k is a Noetherian commutative ring that is regular over a
Dedekind domain with perfect residue fields (e.g., k is any field or k = Z). For any smooth affine kscheme X and any integer r ≥ 0, there is a bijection Vr (X) ∼
= [X, Grr ]A1 such that the following
triangle commutes:
Hom(X, Grr )
PPP
PPP
PPP
PPP

'
∼
=
/ [X, Grr ]
Vr (X)

A1 .

Theorem 1 is essentially the best possible A1 -representability theorem for vector bundles for which
one could hope, for reasons we explain below. It will be established as a consequence of a general representability theorem in A1 -homotopy theory (see Theorem 5.1.3). As with the classical Brown representability theorem, the main idea is to reduce the above result to suitable “Mayer–Vietoris” and “homotopy invariance” properties.
The functor X 7→ Vr (X) cannot be representable on the category of all smooth k-schemes since
“A1 -homotopy invariance” can fail, i.e., the map
(1.1)

Vr (X) −→ Vr (X × A1 )

induced by pullback along the projection X × A1 → X can fail to be a bijection. For example, bijectivity
of (1.1) can fail (i) if k is not regular, or (ii) when r ≥ 2 and X is a smooth k-scheme that is not affine,
even if k is a field (see, e.g., [AD08] for related statements about failure of A1 -homotopy invariance). In
contrast, if one restricts attention to smooth affine schemes, the assertion that the map (1.1) is a bijection
for all r ≥ 2 is effectively the Bass–Quillen conjecture, which is known to hold in a number of cases
[Lin82, Pop89].
If we restrict attention to smooth affine schemes, then the “Mayer–Vietoris property” must be reformulated since, e.g., an open subscheme of an affine scheme need not be affine. Here, Morel had a key insight:
a good candidate for the “Mayer–Vietoris property” for affine schemes should involve squares arising from
certain analytic isomorphisms along non-zero divisors; he dubbed the result the “affine Nisnevich Brown–
Gersten property” [Mor12, Definition A.7]. We prefer to call this property “affine Nisnevich excision” to
more clearly indicate the parallels with the classical topological situation.
Theorem 1 was first established by Morel [Mor12, Theorem 8.1(3)] under the much stricter hypotheses
that k is a perfect field and r 6= 2.1 Morel also states [Mor12, p. 199 footnote] that the result holds in the
case r = 2, but this case depends on unpublished results of L.-F. Moser [Mos11]. The hypothesis that k
1

This form of the statement rests on a strong form of Gabber’s presentation lemma [Mor12, Lemma 1.15], the published proof
of which requires k to be infinite.

3

1 Introduction

be a perfect field arises from Morel’s appeal to the structure theory of strongly and strictly A1 -invariant
sheaves, which he developed in the first six chapters of [Mor12]. The hypothesis that r 6= 2 arises, in
part, from Morel’s reliance on results of T. Vorst regarding a K1 -analog of the Bass–Quillen conjecture
[Vor81, Vor83].
This state of affairs was unsatisfactory: one has the feeling that all hypotheses beyond excision and
homotopy invariance are of a purely technical nature and the case r = 2 is undoubtedly important. Our
goal here is to give a proof of Theorem 1 that justifies this feeling. While affine Nisnevich excision is, not
unexpectedly, central to our discussion, our approach is entirely independent of Morel’s book.
Our proof relies on two ideas. First, instead of working directly with the Grassmannian, we work with
the classifying stack of vector bundles and only mention the Grassmannian at the very end; we learned this
idea from M. Schlichting, who used it to simplify Morel’s proof by avoiding appeal to Vorst’s K1 -analog
of the Bass–Quillen conjecture [Sch15, Theorem 6.22]. This approach places the case r = 2 on the same
footing as r ≥ 3. However, Schlichting’s proof still uses the results of [Mor12, Appendix A] and therefore
implicitly on the results of the first six chapters of [Mor12]; as a consequence, his A1 -representability
results are restricted to infinite perfect base fields.
The second idea appears in the proof of Theorem 3.3.4, which shows that affine Nisnevich excision is
sufficient for “Nisnevich local” representability. Part (i) of Theorem 3.3.4, which is a Zariski version of
the idea just mentioned is, in a sense, “classical”; the idea goes back to Thomason and was exposed in a
special case by Weibel [Wei89], though we believe our proof gets to the heart of the matter as it makes
no mention of homotopy invariance. We view Part (ii) of Theorem 3.3.4 as the key new ingredient (cf.
[Mor12, p. 231 before Theorem A.11]). In turn, the key technical ingredient in the proof of Theorem
3.3.4(ii) is Lemma 2.3.1, which is a geometric result about refining étale neighborhoods. This refinement
result, which is codified in Proposition 2.3.2, is considerably more subtle than its Zariski counterpart (i.e.,
Proposition 2.1.3). Combining these results with ideas of Voevodsky (see Theorem 3.2.5) then yields our
comparison between affine Nisnevich and Nisnevich excision.
Given Theorems 3.3.4 and 4.2.3, the proof of Theorem 1 is, as one would hope, formally reduced to
two classical inputs: (i) descent for vector bundles, which guarantees that affine Nisnevich excision holds,
and (ii) the solution to the Bass–Quillen conjecture, which guarantees that A1 -homotopy invariance holds.
Descent for vector bundles holds in great generality, and the restrictions on k in Theorem 1 are imposed
entirely to allow us to appeal to affirmations of the Bass–Quillen conjecture in the work of H. Lindel and
D. Popescu [Lin82, Pop89].
Theorem 1 is not just of abstract significance. When combined with techniques of obstruction theory,
the representability results above have already been used to make significant progress on a number of classical questions about vector bundles on smooth affine varieties. In brief, [AF14a] establishes a conjecture
of M. Nori on unimodular rows, [AF14b] establishes a cancellation theorem for rank 2 vector bundles on
smooth affine threefolds over algebraically closed fields, [AF14b] establishes the first non-trivial cases of
a splitting conjecture of M.P. Murthy, and [AFH15] describes new obstructions to existence of algebraic
structures on topological vector bundles on smooth affine varieties. Moreover, one can also establish existence results for vector bundles on motivic spheres over Spec Z using a clutching construction [ADF16].
We have focused this paper on representability results for vector bundles with the goal of keeping the
exposition as simple as possible.
Furthermore, the techniques developed in this paper are also very useful. In [AHW15], we will use
Theorem 1 (and some extensions) to establish affine representability results for principal G-bundles and
various homogeneous spaces for linear algebraic groups G. For example, we establish affine representabil-

4

1 Introduction

ity results for oriented and symplectic vector bundles in the same generality as Theorem 1, and similar
representability results for more general reductive groups when the base is an infinite field. Not unexpectedly, such generalizations require much more background from the theory of algebraic groups, and
we have chosen to expose them separately to avoid encumbering the main arguments here with additional
terminological baggage.
Overview of sections
The beginning of each section contains more detailed information about its contents. Section 2 recalls
Voevodsky’s theory of cd-structures, which is a convenient language to study the various Grothendieck
topologies that we consider. The only prerequisites for this section are some knowledge about Grothendieck
topologies and some basic algebraic geometry. Section 3 studies fibrancy in the local homotopy theory
of simplicial presheaves and thus requires familiarity with model categories and their localizations and
local homotopy theory ([Hir03] is a standard reference for the former, and [Jar15, Chapters 4-5] provide
a reference for the latter, though we caution the reader familiar with the local homotopy theory to pay
careful attention to our definitions). Section 4 studies a Bousfield localization of the homotopy category
of simplicial presheaves with respect to an “interval”; this abstract setting was studied by Morel and Voevodsky in [MV99], but can be read largely independently of their work. The results of Sections 3 and
4 are written to emphasize their largely formal nature. Finally, Section 5 puts everything together and
requires some familiarity with the definitions of [MV99], but does not use any of the more difficult results
of that paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Fabien Morel for helpful discussions about the results of [Mor12], Marco
Schlichting for helpful discussions about [Sch15], and Oliver Röndigs for helpful comments on a preliminary draft of this work. The authors would also like to heartily thank Brad Drew for a number of
discussions that clarified some technical points and issues of presentation and Mike Hopkins for useful
discussions and encouragement. Finally, we thank the referees for their careful reading of the paper and a
number of suggestions for improvement of the exposition.
Preliminaries/Notation
Throughout this paper, we use the symbol S for a quasi-compact, quasi-separated base scheme. We write
SmS for the category of finitely presented smooth S-schemes, Smsep
S ⊂ SmS for the full subcategory of
sep
for
the full subcategory of affine schemes
⊂
Sm
separated schemes (in the absolute sense), and Smaff
S
S
(again, in the absolute sense).
We use the standard definition of a Grothendieck topology in terms of sieves [AGV72, Exp. II,
Définition 1.1]. If C is a category equipped with a Grothendieck topology t, we call a family of morphisms {Ui → X}i∈I in C a t-cover if it generates a t-covering sieve.
aff
We define the Nisnevich topology on SmS , Smsep
S , and SmS to be generated by finite families of étale
maps {Ui → X} admitting a splitting sequence by finitely presented closed subschemes, in the sense of
[MV99, §3, p. 97]; this definition is studied, for example, in [Lur11, §1]. This definition is equivalent to

5

2 Comparing topologies generated by cd-structures

the standard definition [MV99, §3 Definition 1.2] if S is Noetherian, by [MV99, §3 Lemma 1.5]. In fact,
one can show that they are equivalent even if S is not Noetherian, but we will not need this fact.

2

Comparing topologies generated by cd-structures

In this section, we recall Voevodsky’s definition of a cd-structure on a category and the associated Grothendieck
topology [Voe10, Definition 2.1]. For the purposes of applications in this paper, it suffices to observe that
Voevodsky’s theory provides a convenient axiomatization of topologies similar to the Zariski or Nisnevich
topology; see Example 2.1.2 for more details. Our main goal is to establish various comparison results for
topologies generated by different cd-structures on a given category.
The main result of this section is Proposition 2.3.2, which provides a particularly simple description of
the Nisnevich topology on smooth schemes in terms of a restricted class of “affine” distinguished squares.
As a warm-up to the main result, we begin by establishing Proposition 2.1.3 which provides an analogous
characterization of the Zariski topology in the spirit of our main results. The key technical step in our proof
of Proposition 2.3.2 is Lemma 2.3.1, which provides a refinement result for Nisnevich neighborhoods akin
to that used in the proof of Proposition 2.1.3. To streamline the proof of Lemma 2.3.1, we have collected
various results about henselization of pairs in Subsection 2.2.

2.1 cd-structures: definitions and first comparisons
Definition 2.1.1. Suppose C is a small category that has an initial object ∅.
1. A cd-structure P on C is a collection of commutative squares in C such that, if Q ∈ P , and Q′ is
isomorphic to Q, then Q′ ∈ P ; the squares in P will be called P -squares.
2. If P is a cd-structure on C, then the Grothendieck topology tP on C generated by P is the coarsest
topology such that:
• the empty sieve covers ∅;
• for every square Q ∈ P of the form
(2.1)

W

/V




/ X,

U

the sieve on X generated by U → X and V → X is a tP -covering sieve.
Example 2.1.2. We will consider the following examples of cd-structures.
1. The Zariski cd-structure Zar on SmS consists of Cartesian squares
U ×X V

/V




/X

U

where U, V ⊂ X are open subschemes such that U ∪ V = X.

6

2.1 cd-structures: definitions and first comparisons

2. The Nisnevich cd-structure Nis on SmS consists of Cartesian squares
U ×X V

/V





π

U

j

/X

∼ Z, where Z is
where j is an open immersion, π is étale, and π induces an isomorphism V ×X Z =
the reduced closed complement of j.
3. The restricted Nisnevich cd-structure RNis on Smsep
S has squares as in the Nisnevich cd-structure,
where in addition π is affine.
4. The affine Zariski cd-structure AffZar on Smaff
S consists of Cartesian squares
Spec(Af g )

/ Spec(Ag )




/ Spec(A)

Spec(Af )

where f, g ∈ A generate the unit ideal.
5. The affine Nisnevich cd-structure AffNis on Smaff
S consists of Cartesian squares
Spec(Bf )

/ Spec(B)




Spec(Af )

/ Spec(A)

π

where f ∈ A, π is étale and induces an isomorphism A/f ∼
= B/f .
Note that if π : V → X ← U : j gives rise to a Nisnevich square in SmS , then π induces an
isomorphism V ×X Z → Z for any closed subscheme Z ⊂ X complementary to j, by the topological
invariance of the étale site [Gro67, 18.1.2]. Since U is quasi-compact, there always exists such a Z which
is finitely presented over X [TT90, 2.6.1 (c)].
The topology tZar on SmS generated by the Zariski cd-structure is the usual Zariski topology, since
schemes in SmS are quasi-compact and quasi-separated.
The proof of [MV99, §3 Proposition 1.4, p. 96] shows that the topology tNis on SmS generated by the
Nisnevich cd-structure is the Nisnevich topology. The same proof works if SmS is replaced by Smsep
S , but
it breaks down for Smaff
,
because
an
open
subscheme
of
an
affine
scheme
need
not
be
affine.
Our
main
S
aff
result below is that tAffNis nevertheless coincides with the Nisnevich topology on SmS . Along the way,
we will also show that tAffZar coincides with the Zariski topology on Smaff
S and that tRNis coincides with
the Nisnevich topology on Smsep
.
S
Proposition 2.1.3. The topology tAffZar on Smaff
S coincides with the Zariski topology.
Proof. Set t := tAffZar . By definition, t is coarser than the Zariski topology. Therefore, we have to show
that every Zariski cover in Smaff
S is a t-cover. A general Zariski cover of X = Spec(A) is refined by

7

2.2 Preliminaries on henselization of pairs

one of the form {Xf1 , . . . , Xfn } where (f1 , . . . , fn ) = A. We prove that such a cover is a t-cover by
induction on n. For n ≤ 2, there is nothing to prove. Choose g ∈ (f1 , . . . , fn−1 ) such that (g, fn ) = A.
Then {Xg , Xfn } is a t-cover of X. By the induction hypothesis, {Xgf1 , . . . , Xgfn−1 } is a t-cover of Xg .
Hence, {Xgf1 , . . . , Xgfn−1 , Xfn } is a t-cover which refines the original cover.
Proposition 2.1.4. The topology tRNis on Smsep
S coincides with the Nisnevich topology.
Proof. Set t := tRNis . By definition, t is coarser than the Nisnevich topology. We first show that t is
finer than the Zariski topology. Any Zariski cover of X ∈ Smsep
S is refined by an affine open cover
{U1 , . . . , Un }. We prove that this is a t-cover by induction on n. If n ≤ 2, there is nothing to prove. Let
Y = U1 ∪ · · · ∪ Un−1 . Then {Y, Un } is a t-cover of X, since X is separated. By the induction hypothesis,
{U1 , . . . , Un−1 } is a t-cover of Y . Thus, {U1 , . . . , Un } is a t-cover of X, as was to be shown.
We now prove that t is finer than the Nisnevich topology. Since the latter is generated by the Nisnevich
cd-structure, it suffices to show that, for every Nisnevich square (2.1), U = {j, π} is a t-cover of X. Let
{Vi }i∈I be an affine open cover of V , and let Xi = π(Vi ) ⊂ X. Since X is separated, the induced map
Vi → Xi is affine. Then {U, Xi }i∈I is a Zariski cover of X, hence a t-cover. The restriction of U to U is a
cover for any topology, and the restriction of U to Xi is refined by the t-cover {U ∩ Xi → Xi , Vi → Xi }.
Hence, U is a t-cover.
aff
Corollary 2.1.5. For every restricted Nisnevich square Q as in (2.1) with X ∈ Smaff
S , let UQ ⊂ SmS /X
be the Nisnevich cover consisting of V → X and all affine schemes mapping to U . Then the covers UQ ,
together with the empty cover of ∅, generate the Nisnevich topology on Smaff
S .

Proof. Let t be the topology generated by such covers. We must show that t is finer than the Nisnevich
topology. For every X ∈ Smsep
S , let J(X) be the collection of sieves R on X such that, for every
aff
f : Y → X with Y ∈ SmS , f ∗ (R) ∩ Smaff
S is a t-covering sieve of Y . It is straightforward to verify
sep
that J is a Grothendieck topology on SmS (in fact, it is the finest topology for which the inclusion
sep
(Smaff
S , t) ⊂ (SmS , J) is cocontinuous, cf. [AGV72, Exp. III, 3.7]). By definition of t, the covering
sieves in J contain all sieves generated by restricted Nisnevich squares, as well as the empty sieve on ∅.
Hence, by Proposition 2.1.4, J is finer than the Nisnevich topology. In particular, if R is a Nisnevich
sep
covering sieve of X in Smaff
S and R̂ is the sieve in SmS generated by R, then R̂ is a J-covering sieve.
By definition of J, this implies that R = R̂ ∩ Smaff
S is a t-covering sieve of X, as desired.

2.2 Preliminaries on henselization of pairs
Next, we would like to compare the affine Nisnevich cd-structure with the Nisnevich topology on Smaff
S .
To do this, we recall some facts about henselization of closed subschemes and henselian pairs. We will
only consider the affine case: a pair (X, Z) is an affine scheme X together with a closed subscheme Z. A
morphism of pairs (Y, W ) → (X, Z) is a morphism Y → X such that the composite W ⊂ Y → X factors through Z. Recall the definition of a henselian pair from, e.g., [Sta15, Tag 09XD Definition 15.7.1].
The following lemma summarizes some properties of henselian pairs.
Lemma 2.2.1. The following statements are true.
(i) A pair (X, Z) is henselian if and only if, given any affine étale map π : V → X, any map Z → V
over X extends to a section of π.

8

2.3 Refining Nisnevich neighborhoods

(ii) If (X, Z) is a henselian pair and if X ′ → X is an integral morphism, then the pair (X ′ , Z ×X X ′ )
is also a henselian pair.
(iii) If (X, Z) and (Z, W ) are both henselian pairs, then (X, W ) is a henselian pair.

Proof. The first statement is contained in [Sta15, Tag 09XD Lemma 15.7.7]. The second is [Sta15, Tag 09XD Lemma 15.7.9
For the third statement, given π : V → X an étale affine morphism, set π ′ : Z ×X V → Z and consider
the diagram
/V
Z ×X V
π

π′

W




/Z

/ X.

A morphism W → V over X factors through a morphism W → Z ×X V over Z. Because (Z, W )
is a henselian pair, the forward implication in (i) implies that the morphism W → Z ×X V extends to
a section of π ′ and this section of π ′ yields a morphism Z → V over X. Since (X, Z) is a henselian
pair, the forward implication in (i) again yields a section of π. Since V → X was arbitrary, the reverse
implication of (i) then allows us to conclude that (X, W ) is also a Henselian pair.
The forgetful functor from the category of henselian pairs to the category of pairs has a right adjoint
sending a pair (X, Z) to its henselization (XZh , Z). The details of the construction will be important
below. Suppose X is an affine scheme and Z ⊂ X is a closed subscheme. A Nisnevich neighborhood
of Z in X is a pair (V, π) where V is an affine scheme and π : V → X is an étale morphism inducing
∼
an isomorphism V ×X Z → Z. Nisnevich neighborhoods of (X, Z) form a category Neib(X, Z), where
a morphism is a commuting triangle. The category Neib(X, Z) is cofiltered since it has finite limits,
and it is essentially small since affine étale morphisms are finitely presented. By the proof of [Sta15,
Tag 09XD Lemma 15.7.13], the affine scheme XZh is described explicitly as the limit over the category
Neib(X, Z) of the diagram (V, π) 7→ V . For completeness, we record the following formal consequence
of the adjunction just described.
Lemma 2.2.2. If (X, Z) is a pair, then the henselian pair (XZh , Z) is universal among henselian pairs
over (X, Z): any morphism of pairs from a henselian pair (Y, W ) to (X, Z) factors uniquely through a
morphism of pairs (Y, W ) → (XZh , Z).
Lemma 2.2.3. If X is an affine scheme and W ⊂ Z ⊂ X is a chain of closed subschemes, then the
canonical map
h
(XZh )hW −→ XW
,
arising from the universal property of the right-hand side, is an isomorphism.
Proof. The pair ((XZh )hW , W ) satisfies the universal property for the henselization of X at W .

2.3 Refining Nisnevich neighborhoods
We now prove that the cd-structure tAffNis on Smaff
S generates the Nisnevich topology. To see what the
difficulty is, consider a Nisnevich square (2.1) where X and V are affine and U is the union of two affines
U1 and U2 . Then V , U1 , and U2 form a Nisnevich cover of X in Smaff
S . However, {V, U1 } and {V, U2 }
need not be Nisnevich squares over X, because V → X is only required to be an isomorphism over the

9

2.3 Refining Nisnevich neighborhoods

complement of U . The next result shows that V → X can be refined by a composition of affine étale
maps V2 → V1 → X such that {V1 , U1 } is a Nisnevich square over X and {V2 , U2 ×X V1 } is a Nisnevich
square over V1 . Thus, V2 , U1 , and U2 ×X V1 form a tAffNis -cover of X that refines the given Nisnevich
cover.
Lemma 2.3.1. If X is an affine scheme, Z1 , Z2 ⊂ X are closed subschemes, and π : V → X is an affine
étale map that is an isomorphism over Z1 ∩ Z2 , then there exists a commutative square
π2

V2

/ V1
π1





π

V

/ X,

of affine schemes with the following properties:
(a) the morphism π1 is étale and is an isomorphism over Z1 ;
(b) the morphism π2 is étale and is an isomorphism over Z2 ×X V1 .
Proof. By two applications of Lemma 2.2.3, the canonical map
((XZh1 )hZ2 ×

h
X XZ

)hZ1 ∩Z2 −→ XZh1 ∩Z2
1

is an isomorphism. Thus, there is a canonical map
XZh1 ∩Z2 −→ (XZh1 )hZ2 ×

(2.2)

h
X XZ

1

exhibiting the left-hand side as the henselization of the right-hand side at Z1 ∩ Z2 . We claim that the
map (2.2) is an isomorphism. By the universal property of henselization (i.e., Lemma 2.2.2), this claim is
equivalent to the claim that the pair
((XZh1 )hZ2 ×

h
X XZ

, Z1 ∩ Z2 )
1

is henselian. This pair is the composition of the pairs
((XZh1 )hZ2 ×

h
X XZ

, Z2 ×X XZh1 )

(Z2 ×X XZh1 , Z1 ∩ Z2 ).

and

1

By Lemma 2.2.1 (iii), it suffices to show that both pairs are henselian. The first is henselian by definition.
The second is the pullback of the henselian pair (XZh1 , Z1 ) by a closed immersion, and hence is also
henselian by Lemma 2.2.1 (ii).
To complete the proof we need to use the explicit description of the henselization as a limit. The pair
(V, π) is an object in Neib(X, Z1 ∩ Z2 ), so that we have a canonical projection XZh1 ∩Z2 → V . On the
other hand, since (2.2) is an isomorphism,
XZh1 ∩Z2 ∼
=

lim

h ,Z × X h )
(V ′ ,π ′ )∈Neib(XZ
2 X Z
1

V ′.

1

Since finitely presented O(X)-algebras are compact objects in the category of O(X)-algebras, finitely
presented affine X-schemes are cocompact in the category of affine X-schemes. In particular, there exists
a factorization
XZh1 ∩Z2 −→ V ′ −→ V

10

3 Fibrancy and cd-structures

for some (V ′ , π ′ ) ∈ Neib(XZh1 , Z2 ×X XZh1 ). Since
XZh1 =

lim

(V1 ,π1 )∈Neib(X,Z1 )

V1 ,

and since π ′ : V ′ → XZh1 is finitely presented, it follows from [Gro64, 1.8.4.2] that π ′ is the pullback of a
finitely presented affine map π2 : V2 → V1 for some (V1 , π1 ) ∈ Neib(X, Z1 ).
Refining V1 if necessary, it will automatically be the case that π2 is étale (by [Gro67, 17.7.8]), that it is
an isomorphism over Z2 ×X V1 (by [Gro66, 8.8.2.4]), and that π1 ◦π2 factors through π (by cocompactness
of V ).
Proposition 2.3.2. The topology tAffNis on Smaff
S coincides with the Nisnevich topology.
Proof. Set t := tAffNis . Suppose X ∈ Smaff
S , Z ⊂ X is a finitely presented closed subscheme, and
π : V → X is an affine étale map that is an isomorphism over Z. Let U be the Nisnevich cover of X in
Smaff
S consisting of π and of all affine schemes mapping to X \ Z. By Corollary 2.1.5, it will suffice to
show that U is a t-cover. We establish this statement by induction on the minimal number n of generators
of the ideal of Z.
If n = 0, then Z = X and π is an isomorphism and there is nothing to check. If n = 1, then X \ Z =
Xf for some f ∈ O(X), so U is a t-cover by definition of the affine Nisnevich cd-structure. Suppose that
n ≥ 2, and choose f1 , . . . , fn ∈ O(X) such that Z = V (f1 , . . . , fn ). Let Z1 = V (f1 , . . . , fn−1 ) and
Z2 = V (fn ), so that Z = Z1 ∩ Z2 . By Lemma 2.3.1, π : V → X is refined by a composite of affine étale
maps π2 : V2 → V1 and π1 : V1 → X, where π1 is an isomorphism over Z1 and π2 is an isomorphism over
Z2 ×X V1 . Note that {V2 , V1 \ (Z2 ×X V1 )} is a t-cover of V1 . Applying the induction hypothesis, we
see that {V1 , X \ Z1 } is refined by a t-cover of X. Thus, {V2 , V1 \ (Z2 ×X V1 ), X \ Z1 } is refined by a
t-cover of X, which clearly refines U. Hence, U is a t-cover.

3

Fibrancy and cd-structures

In this section, we study simplicial presheaves on a category equipped with a topology generated by a
cd-structure. Such categories may be equipped with a model structure for which the weak equivalences
are defined “locally” with respect to the topology. The main goals of this section are to establish Theorem
3.2.5 and Theorem 3.3.4.
Theorem 3.2.5 is a variant of a result of Voevodsky characterizing fibrant objects in this local model
structure in terms of a simple “excision” condition. Subsection 3.1 recalls some basic definitions from
local homotopy theory required to precisely formulate this result; as we hope is clear from the proof,
this result holds in great generality. We refer the reader to Remark 3.1.4 for a comparison of the local
homotopy theory we use to other commonly used versions in the literature.
The other main result of this section is Theorem 3.3.4. For this result, we restrict our attention to
the local homotopy theory of simplicial presheaves on smooth schemes with respect to the Zariski or Nisnevich topologies. Building on Theorem 3.2.5 and using the characterizations of the Zariski and Nisnevich
topologies on smooth schemes established in Propositions 2.1.3 and 2.3.2, this result essentially provides
a convenient characterization of fibrancy in the local model structure in terms of the affine Zariski or
Nisnevich squares introduced in Example 2.1.2.

11

3.1 Descent

3.1 Descent
Let C be a small category. We denote by sPre(C) the category of simplicial presheaves on C, which we
regard as a model category with the injective model structure: the weak equivalences are the objectwise
weak equivalences, the cofibrations are the monomorphisms, and the fibrations are determined by the right
lifting property. We denote by Map(F, G) the derived mapping space between two simplicial presheaves
F and G, in the sense of [Hir03, Notation 17.4.2].
The model category sPre(C) is simplicial, proper, and combinatorial [Lur09, Proposition A.2.8.2].
In particular, we may use the machinery of left Bousfield localizations [Lur09, §A.3.7], which we briefly
recall. For any set S of morphisms in sPre(C), a simplicial presheaf F is S-local if, for every f : G → H
in S, the induced map
f ∗ : Map(H, F) −→ Map(G, F)
is a weak equivalence. A morphism f : G → H is an S-equivalence if, for every S-local F, the above
map is a weak equivalence. The S-equivalences are the weak equivalence of a new model structure
S −1 sPre(C) on sPre(C), called the S-local model structure. The cofibrations in S −1 sPre(C) are still
the monomorphisms, and the fibrant objects are the fibrant objects in sPre(C) that are S-local. The
identity functors form a Quillen adjunction
sPre(C) o

/ S −1 sPre(C).

Moreover, the right derived functor Ho(S −1 sPre(C)) → Ho(sPre(C)) is fully faithful and its essential
image is precisely the subcategory of S-local objects.
Definition 3.1.1. Let C be a small category and t a Grothendieck topology on C. Let St be the set of
covering sieves for t, viewed as monomorphisms of simplicial presheaves R ֒→ X with X representable.
We say that a simplicial presheaf on C satisfies t-descent or is t-local if it is St -local, and we say that a
morphism of simplicial presheaves is a t-local weak equivalence if it is an St -equivalence. We denote by
Rt a fibrant replacement functor in the St -local model structure.
Example 3.1.2. If F is a presheaf of sets, viewed as a discrete simplicial presheaf, then F is t-local if and
only if it is a t-sheaf. Moreover, Rt F is weakly equivalent to the ordinary sheafification of F . Indeed, the
canonical map from F to its sheafification is a t-local weak equivalence, by [DHI04, Theorem A.5]. In
particular, a morphism between presheaves of sets is a t-local weak equivalence if and only if it becomes
an isomorphism after sheafification.
If U = {Ui → X}i∈I is a family of maps in C, we denote by Č(U) its Čech nerve, which is a
simplicial presheaf on C with an augmentation to X (see [DHI04, §4.1]). The following result gives a
useful characterization of t-local objects in terms of “Čech descent.”
Lemma 3.1.3. Suppose C is a small category. For every X ∈ C, let K(X) be a set whose elements
are families of maps {Ui → X}i∈I with target X. Suppose that, for every {Ui → X}i∈I in K(X) and
every map Y → X in C, the fiber products Ui ×X Y exist and {Ui ×X Y → Y }i∈I is in K(Y ) (up
to reindexing). Let t be the coarsest topology on C such that the elements of K(X) are t-covers for all
X ∈ C, and let
S = {Č(U) → X|X ∈ C, U ∈ K(X)}.

12

3.2 Excision and descent

A simplicial presheaf F on C is t-local if and only if it is S-local, i.e., if and only if for every X ∈ C and
every {Ui → X}i∈I ∈ K(X), the canonical map
Y
F (Ui0 ×X · · · ×X Uin ).
F (X) −→ holimn∈∆
i0 ,...,in ∈I

is a weak equivalence.
Proof. For any U ∈ K(X), the map Č(U) → X factors through the sieve R generated by U, and the resulting map Č(U) → R is a weak equivalence [DHI04, Proposition A.1]. Hence, up to weak equivalence,
S is a subset of the set of all t-covering sieves. By assumption, the sieves in S are stable under pullbacks
and generate the topology t. The result now follows from [Hoy14, Corollary C.2].
Remark 3.1.4. The t-local model structure on simplicial presheaves defined above should not be confused
with the Jardine model structure defined in [Jar87] (which is Quillen equivalent to the Joyal model structure on simplicial sheaves used in [MV99]). The Jardine model structure is the left Bousfield localization
of sPre(C) whose local objects are the simplicial presheaves satisfying t-hyperdescent, i.e., descent for
arbitrary hypercovers. Furthermore, for sites with enough points, the weak equivalences in the Jardine
model structure are precisely the stalkwise weak equivalences.
In general, the Jardine model structure is a left Bousfield localization of the t-local model structure
we consider, and the two model structures may actually differ: see [DHI04, Example A.9] for an explicit
example. However, if S is a Noetherian scheme of finite Krull dimension, C = SmS and t is the Nisnevich
topology, then the two model structures are equivalent: given the characterization of Nisnevich-local
objects provided by Theorem 3.2.5 below, this is the statement of [MV99, §3, Lemma 1.18]; see also
[DHI04, Example A.10] for more discussion of this point.

3.2 Excision and descent
Definition 3.2.1. Let C be a small category with an initial object ∅ and let P be a cd-structure on C. A
simplicial presheaf F on C satisfies P -excision if
• F (∅) is weakly contractible;
• for every square Q in P , F (Q) is homotopy Cartesian.
Remark 3.2.2. Simplicial presheaves that satisfy excision as in Definition 3.2.1 have been given various
different names. In [Voe10], Voevodsky calls such presheaves P -flasque. Morel and Voevodsky [MV99,
§3.1] and Morel [Mor12, Appendix A] use different terminology, which pays homage to the foundational
work of Brown and Gersten.
Definition 3.2.3 ([Bor94, Definition 3.4.6]). An initial object ∅ of a category C is called strict if any
morphism X → ∅ is an isomorphism.
Remark 3.2.4. Equivalently, the definition can be restated as saying that if X → ∅ is any morphism, then
X is initial. The condition that an initial object is strict means that the canonical map ∅ → Y is always
a monomorphism. If C is a Grothendieck topos, then by [Bor94, Proposition 3.4.7] the initial object is
strict.
The following theorem is a variant of [Voe10, Corollary 5.10]; note that its hypotheses hold for each
cd-structure considered in Example 2.1.2.

13

3.2 Excision and descent

Theorem 3.2.5 (Voevodsky). Let C be a small category with a strictly initial object and let P be a cdstructure on C such that:
1. every square in P is Cartesian;
2. pullbacks of squares in P exist and belong to P ;
3. for every square (2.1) in P , U → X is a monomorphism;
4. for every square (2.1) in P , the square
W

/V

∆

∆




W ×U W

/ V ×X V

is also in P .
Then a simplicial presheaf F on C satisfies P -excision if and only if it satisfies tP -descent.
Proof. Suppose Q is a square in P as in (2.1). Let UQ = {U → X, V → X} be the tP -cover defined
by Q, and let cQ : Č(UQ ) → X be its Čech nerve. By (1) we know that Q is Cartesian, so we can write
W = U ×X V . Let KQ be the homotopy pushout of the diagram
U ←− U ×X V −→ V.
The map from the homotopy pushout to the ordinary pushout induced by the universal property yields a
map kQ : KQ → X.
Let e be the map from the empty presheaf to the presheaf represented by the initial object of C (this
map is never an isomorphism). Consider the sets of maps
C = {cQ |Q ∈ P } ∪ {e}

and

K = {kQ |Q ∈ P } ∪ {e}

in sPre(C). By (2) and the assumption that the initial object of C is strictly initial, the tP -covers UQ ,
together with the empty cover of the initial object, satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma 3.1.3. It follows that
a simplicial presheaf F satisfies tP -descent if and only if it is C-local. On the other hand, by definition,
F satisfies P -excision if and only if it is K-local. Thus, to establish the claim, it will suffice to show that
every map in K is a C-equivalence, and conversely that every map in C is a K-equivalence.
For Q as above and Y ∈ {U, V, U ×X V }, the cover {U ×X Y → Y, V ×X Y → Y } is split, and
therefore its Čech nerve cQ×X Y : Č(UQ ) ×X Y → Y has an additional degeneracy; in particular, cQ×X Y
is a weak equivalence. Form the homotopy Cartesian square of simplicial presheaves:
Č(UQ ) ×hX KQ

p2

/ KQ

p1

kQ



Č(UQ )


cQ

/ X.

Since homotopy base change preserves homotopy colimits in the category of simplicial sets (see, e.g.,
[Rez98, Theorem 1.4]), we can conclude that the projection p2 is the homotopy pushout of the three maps
cQ×X Y : Č(UQ ) ×X Y → Y , for Y ∈ {U, V, U ×X V }, all of which are weak equivalences. Thus, p2 is a
weak equivalence. By 2-out-of-3, it remains to show that p1 is both a K-equivalence and a C-equivalence.

14

3.3

A criterion for Descent

For i, j ≥ 0 and i + j ≥ 1, let Qi,j = Q ×X U i ×X V j , where U i is the i-fold fiber product of U
with itself over X and similarly for V j . The map p1 is the homotopy colimit over n ∈ ∆op of the maps
`
i+j=n+1 kQi,j . Since each square Qi,j is in P , by (2), this shows that p1 is a K-equivalence.
Assume for a moment that both legs in Q are monomorphisms. Then one of the legs of Qi,j is
always an isomorphism. For such squares it is clear that kQi,j is a weak equivalence, so that p1 is a weak
equivalence. This shows that kQ is a C-equivalence for such Q.
Let us prove that, in general, p1 is a C-equivalence. Since U → X is a monomorphism by (3), one of
the legs of Qi,j is an isomorphism as soon as i ≥ 1, so we only have to show that kQ0,j is a C-equivalence
for j ≥ 1. The square Q0,j is the lower square in the following diagram:
V j−1 ×X W

/ V j−1 ×X V




/ V j−1 ×X (V ×X V )

V j−1 ×X (W ×U W )


/ V j−1 ×X V.



V j−1 ×X W

Let Q′ be the top square. Since the composite of the vertical morphisms are the identity maps, kQ0,j is
a retraction of a homotopy cobase change of kQ′ . Therefore, it suffices to show that kQ′ is a C-equivalence.
By (4) and (2), the top square Q′ is in P , and by (3) its legs are monomorphisms. We have already proved
that kQ′ is a C-equivalence for such Q′ .
Remark 3.2.6. The conditions of Theorem 3.2.5 imply by [Voe10, Lemma 2.5 and 2.11] that the cdstructure P on C is complete and regular. Voevodsky also introduces the notion of a bounded cd-structure
[Voe10, Definition 2.22] and shows that, for P a bounded, complete and regular cd-structure, a Jardine
weak equivalence between P -excisive simplicial presheaves is a weak equivalence [Voe10, Lemma 3.5].
This means that for such a cd-structure, P -excision is equivalent to tP -hyperdescent (cf. Remark 3.1.4).
Theorem 3.2.5 shows that boundedness of P is not relevant for the equivalence of P -excision and tP descent.

3.3 A criterion for Descent
Let us denote by
i : Smaff
S ֒−→ SmS
the inclusion functor. It induces an adjunction
i∗ : sPre(SmS ) o

/ sPre(Smaff ) : i .
∗
S

Since i∗ preserves weak equivalences and cofibrations, (i∗ , i∗ ) is a Quillen adjunction, and we will denote
by (i∗ , Ri∗ ) the derived adjunction. The functor Ri∗ is given by homotopy right Kan extension along i:
if F ∈ sPre(Smaff
S ) and Y ∈ SmS , then
Ri∗ F (Y ) = holimX∈Smaff /Y F (X).
S

15

3.3

A criterion for Descent

Lemma 3.3.1. The functor Ri∗ is fully faithful.
Proof. The claim is equivalent to the assertion that the counit map i∗ Ri∗ → id is an isomorphism. To
demonstrate this latter statement, simply observe that if Y is affine, then the category Smaff
S /Y has Y as
a final object, and therefore holimX∈Smaff /Y F (X) ≃ F (Y ).
S

Lemma 3.3.2. Let t be either the Zariski or the Nisnevich topology. The functors i∗ and Ri∗ preserve t-local simplicial presheaves and they restrict to an equivalence between the full subcategories
of Ho(sPre(SmS )) and Ho(sPre(Smaff
S )) spanned by the t-local simplicial presheaves.
Proof. That i∗ preserves t-local presheaves follows at once from the characterization of t-local presheaves
in terms of Čech descent (Lemma 3.1.3). Since
Map(X, Ri∗ (F )) ≃ Map(i∗ (X), F ),
Ri∗ preserves t-local objects if and only if, for every t-covering sieve R ֒→ X on SmS , the restriction
i∗ (R) ֒→ i∗ (X) is a t-local weak equivalence. Recall from Example 3.1.2 that t-local weak equivalences
between discrete simplicial presheaves are simply the t-local isomorphisms. That i∗ sends t-covering
sieves to t-local isomorphisms is in turn equivalent to i∗ preserving t-sheaves of sets; this follows from
[AGV72, Exp. III, 2.2] together with the fact that i is cocontinuous for either topology.
Thus, the derived adjunction i∗ ⊣ Ri∗ restricts to an adjunction between the subcategories of t-local
presheaves, where the right adjoint is fully faithful (by Lemma 3.3.1). To conclude that it is an equivalence,
it remains to show that the left adjoint is conservative. Indeed, given an adjunction (F, G) with G fully
faithful and F conservative, it follows from the commutativity of the triangle
F ❏❏ / F ◦ G ◦ F
❏❏
❏❏
❏❏
id ❏❏❏ 
%
F
that G is a quasi-inverse to F .
Let f be a morphism between t-local simplicial presheaves on SmS such that i∗ (f ) is a weak equivalence. Since any separated scheme admits a t-cover whose Čech nerve consists of affine schemes, it
follows that f is a weak equivalence on Smsep
S . Similarly, since any scheme admits a t-cover whose Čech
nerve consists of separated schemes, we deduce that f is a weak equivalence on all of SmS .
Remark 3.3.3. In [Mor12, §A.2], the simplicial presheaf Ri∗ i∗ (F ) is called the affine replacement of F .
The first part of the following theorem is a strengthening of [Mor12, Lemma A.10]; Schlichting gives
a different proof of this result in [Sch15, Theorem A.2]. The second part of the next result is a significant
generalization of [Mor12, Theorem A.14]; in particular, it provides an answer to the question posed in
[Mor12, Remark A.15].
Theorem 3.3.4. Let F be a simplicial presheaf on SmS .
(i) If F satisfies affine Zariski excision, then, for every X ∈ Smaff
S , the map

F (X) −→ RZar F (X)
is a weak equivalence.

16

4 Sites with interval and homotopy localization

(ii) If F satisfies affine Nisnevich excision, then RZar F is Nisnevich-local.
Proof. (i) We consider the commutative square
i∗ (F )

/ i∗ (RZar F )




/ RZar i∗ (RZar F )

RZar i∗ (F )

∗
in sPre(Smaff
S ). By Proposition 2.1.3 and Theorem 3.2.5, i (F ) is Zariski-local, so the left vertical map
is a weak equivalence.
By Lemma 3.3.2, i∗ (RZar F ) is Zariski-local, so the right vertical map is a weak equivalence. Since
Ri∗ preserves Zariski-local objects (Lemma 3.3.2), i∗ preserves Zariski-local weak equivalences, so the
bottom horizontal map is a weak equivalence. Hence, the top horizontal map is a weak equivalence, as
desired.
(ii) By Proposition 2.3.2 and Theorem 3.2.5, i∗ (F ) is Nisnevich-local. By part (i), we deduce that
∗
i (RZar F ) is Nisnevich-local. By Lemma 3.3.2, RZar F ≃ Ri∗ i∗ (RZar F ) and Ri∗ preserves Nisnevichlocal objects. Hence, RZar F is Nisnevich-local.

4

Sites with interval and homotopy localization

The main goal of this section is to establish Theorem 4.2.3, which is an abstract form of a result due
originally to Schlichting. Morel and Voevodsky initially constructed categories like the A1 -homotopy
category in the more general context of “sites with interval” and we work roughly in this setting. We use
a variant of the notion of an interval object that is slightly more restrictive than that considered by Morel–
Voevodsky; see Section 4.1 for more details. The homotopy category of a site with interval is obtained as a
Bousfield localization of the local model structure on simplicial presheaves on a site (with interval) which
forces the interval object to be contractible. Essentially, Theorem 4.2.3 provides a convenient framework
for producing fibrant objects in this further localized model structure, though it is not phrased in this
way. In fact, the proof of Theorem 4.2.3 can be read independently of the main results of Section 3.
Furthermore, Corollary 4.2.4 places the general result in the form in which it will be used in the remainder
of the paper.

4.1 Interval objects and the singular construction
Definition 4.1.1. Let C be a small category. A representable interval object in C is a quadruple (I, m, i0 , i1 )
consisting of a presheaf I on C, a morphism m : I×I → I (“multiplication”), and morphisms i0 , i1 : ∗ → I
(“endpoints”) such that the following statements are true:
1. for every X ∈ C, the presheaf X × I is representable;
2. if p : I → ∗ is the canonical morphism, then there are equalities of the form:
• m(i0 × id) = m(id × i0 ) = i0 p, and
• m(i1 × id) = m(id × i1 ) = id;
`
`
3. the morphism i0 i1 : ∗ ∗ → I is a monomorphism.

17

4.2 Excision and the singular construction

Remark 4.1.2. The notion above is a special case of the notion of interval object studied in [MV99, §2.3
p. 85], which omits the first condition. The third condition is not needed in any of the arguments below
and is included only to conform to the definition in loc. cit.
1
Example 4.1.3. If C = SmS or Smaff
S , then I = AS with its usual monoid structure is a representable
interval object. Indeed, there is nothing to check in the former case. In the latter case, since A1S → S is an
1
affine morphism, if X ∈ Smaff
S , then the fiber product X ×S AS is affine over X and thus affine.

Definition 4.1.4. Let C be a small category and I a representable interval object in C. Let SI be the set
of all projections X × I → X with X ∈ C. We say that a simplicial presheaf on C is I-invariant if it is
SI -local. In other words, F ∈ sPre(C) is I-invariant if, for every X ∈ C, the projection X × I → X
induces a weak equivalence F (X) ≃ F (X × I).
Using the two endpoints i0 , i1 : ∗ → I, one defines a cosimplicial presheaf I• on C with In = I×n (see
[MV99, §2.3.2 p. 88] where the notation ∆•I is used for this cosimplicial object). We define the functor
SingI: sPre(C) → sPre(C) by the formula:
SingI F (X) = diag F (X × I• ).
There is an obvious natural map F → SingI F , and for every F ∈ sPre(C):
• SingI F is I-invariant (see [MV99, §2 Corollary 3.5]);
• the map F → SingI F is an SI -equivalence (see [MV99, §2 Corollary 3.8]).
These properties imply that SingI preserves weak equivalences and that the induced endofunctor of the
homotopy category Ho(sPre(C)) is left adjoint to the inclusion of the subcategory of I-invariant simplicial
presheaves.

4.2 Excision and the singular construction
Lemma 4.2.1. Assume given a commutative diagram of bisimplicial sets of the form
Z∗12

/ Z1
∗




/ Z0
∗

Z∗2

that is degreewise homotopy Cartesian. If π0 (Z∗0 ) and π0 (Z∗1 ) are constant simplicial sets, then the
induced diagram
/ diag(Z 1 )
diag(Z∗12 )
∗


diag(Z∗2 )


/ diag(Z 0 )
∗

is homotopy Cartesian.
Proof. This is a consequence of the Bousfield–Friedlander theorem [BF78, §B.4]. By assumption, the
map π0 (Z∗1 ) → π0 (Z∗0 ) is a map of constant simplicial sets and thus a fibration. It remains to show that a

18

4.2 Excision and the singular construction

bisimplicial set Z∗ such that π0 (Z∗ ) is constant satisfies the π∗ -Kan condition. Such a bisimplicial set can
be written as a coproduct, indexed by the set π0 (Z0 ), of bisimplicial sets W∗ with π0 (Wm ) = ∗ for all m.
It is proved in [BF78, §B.3] that such a W∗ satisfies the π∗ -Kan condition. To conclude, one observes that
the π∗ -Kan condition is preserved under coproducts.
Remark 4.2.2. In [Rez, Proposition 5.4], it is shown that the conclusion of Lemma 4.2.1 holds assuming
only that π0 (Z∗0 ) is constant. This also follows from [Lur16, Lemma 5.5.6.17] applied to the ∞-topos of
presheaves on π0 (Z00 ).
The following result, which abstracts some ideas of [Sch15, Proof of Theorem 6.22], gives a general
procedure to produce spaces having the affine Nisnevich excision property.
Theorem 4.2.3. Let C be a small category with a strictly initial object, I a representable interval object
in C, and P a cd-structure on C such that
Q ∈ P ⇒ Q × I ∈ P.
If F is a simplicial presheaf on C satisfying P -excision such that π0 (F ) is I-invariant, then SingI F also
satisfies P -excision.
Proof. Let ∅ ∈ C be the initial object. Since ∅ × In maps to ∅, it is initial. It follows that SingI F (∅) is
weakly contractible. Let Q be a square
/V
W



/X

U

in P . The square SingI F (Q) is the diagonal of the square of bisimplicial sets
/ F (U × I• )

F (X × I• )





F (V × I• )
/

F (W × I• )

which is degreewise homotopy Cartesian by the assumption on P . Moreover, since π0 (F ) is I-invariant,
the π0 of each entry is a constant simplicial set. By Lemma 4.2.1, we deduce that SingI F (Q) is homotopy
Cartesian.
Corollary 4.2.4. Let F be a simplicial presheaf on Smaff
S . Suppose that F satisfies affine Zariski (resp.
1
1
affine Nisnevich) excision and that π0 (F ) is A -invariant. Then SingA F satisfies affine Zariski (resp.
affine Nisnevich) excision.
Proof. Via Example 4.1.3, this result follows immediately from Theorem 4.2.3.

5 A1 -representability results for vector bundles

19

5

A1 -representability results for vector bundles

The goal of this section is to establish our general representability result in the A1 -homotopy category
and then to specialize this result to obtain the geometric representation of vector bundles on smooth affine
schemes discussed in Theorem 1. We begin by establishing Theorem 5.1.3, which contains a general
“affine representability result”. This result relies on the main results of the previous sections, namely
Theorem 3.3.4 and Corollary 4.2.4. Finally, we establish Theorem 5.2.3, which, building on some commutative algebra results related to the Bass–Quillen conjecture (see Theorem 5.2.1), is deduced by suitably
specializing Theorem 5.1.3 to classifying spaces for vector bundles.

5.1 A general representability result
We now apply our results in the context of A1 -homotopy theory. The A1 -homotopy category H (S) is
constructed as the homotopy category of a left Bousfield localization of sPre(SmS ). Recall from Definitions 3.1.1 and 4.1.4 that SNis is the set of Nisnevich covering sieves R ֒→ X and that SA1 is the set of
projections X × A1 → X. We define

H (S) := Ho((SNis ∪ SA1 )−1 sPre(SmS )).
Using the adjunction described at the beginning of Section 3.1, we may identify H (S) with the full
subcategory of Ho(sPre(SmS )) consisting of Nisnevich-local and A1 -invariant simplicial presheaves. If
X , Y ∈ sPre(SmS ), we set
[X , Y ]A1 := HomH (S) (X , Y ).
Recall that this can be computed as follows: if Y → Y ′ is an (SNis ∪ SA1 )-equivalence where Y ′ is
Nisnevich-local and A1 -invariant, then
[X , Y ]A1 ∼
= HomHo(sPre(SmS )) (X , Y ′ ).
In particular, if X ∈ SmS , then [X, Y ]A1 ∼
= π0 Y ′ (X).
Remark 5.1.1. Note that our definition of H (S) differs slightly from that studied in [MV99, §3,2.1].
Indeed, Morel and Voevodsky define the A1 -homotopy category as the homotopy category of a left Bousfield localization of the Joyal model structure on simplicial Nisnevich sheaves on SmS . However, they
assume from the outset that the base scheme S is Noetherian and has finite Krull dimension. Under these
assumptions, their category is equivalent to ours (see Remark 3.1.4).
Lemma 5.1.2. Let F be a Zariski-local simplicial presheaf on SmS . If F is A1 -invariant on affines (i.e.,
1
1
for any X ∈ Smaff
S , the map F (X) → F (X × A ) is a weak equivalence), then F is A -invariant.
Proof. We must show that the map F (−) → F (− × A1 ) is a weak equivalence. This is a map between
Zariski-local simplicial presheaves that is a weak equivalence on affines, hence it is a weak equivalence
by Lemma 3.3.2.
Theorem 5.1.3. Let F a simplicial presheaf on SmS . Suppose that
(i) F satisfies affine Nisnevich excision;
(ii) π0 (F ) is A1 -invariant on affine schemes.

20

5.2 Homotopy invariance and geometric representability

1

Then RZar SingA F is Nisnevich-local and A1 -invariant. Moreover, for every U ∈ Smaff
S , the canonical
map
π0 F (U ) −→ [U, F ]A1
is an isomorphism.
1

Proof. By Corollary 4.2.4, SingA F satisfies affine Nisnevich excision. Therefore, applying Theorem 3.3.4
1
(ii), we conclude that RZar SingA F is Nisnevich-local. On the other hand, Theorem 3.3.4 (i) shows that
the map
(5.1)

1

1

SingA F (U ) → RZar SingA F (U )
1

is a weak equivalence for every affine U . Since SingA F is A1 -invariant by definition, it follows immedi1
1
ately that RZar SingA F is A1 -invariant on affines. Applying Lemma 5.1.2 we conclude that RZar SingA F
is also A1 -invariant. Now, taking the connected components of (5.1), we see that for U affine,
1
π0 SingA F (U ) ∼
= [U, F ]A1 .

Moreover, condition (ii) of the statement implies that
1
π0 F (U ) ∼
= π0 SingA F (U )

for affine U , and this is precisely what we wanted to prove.
Remark 5.1.4. Condition (ii) of Theorem 5.1.3 cannot be dropped: even if F is a Nisnevich-local sim1
plicial presheaf, RNis SingA F need not be A1 -invariant. One example of this phenomenon is given in
[MV99, §3 Example 2.7]. For an example where F is a smooth projective scheme over C, see [BHS15,
§4.1].

5.2 Homotopy invariance and geometric representability
Suppose r ≥ 0 is an integer. If X is a scheme, write Vr (X) for the set of isomorphism classes of rank r
vector bundles on X. Let A be a commutative ring. Say that the Bass–Quillen conjecture holds for A in
rank r if, for every integer n ≥ 0, the map

Vr (Spec A) −→ Vr (Spec A[t1 , . . . , tn ])
is a bijection. We recall the following result regarding the Bass–Quillen conjecture.
Theorem 5.2.1 (Lindel, Popescu). Let A be a ring such that, for every maximal ideal m ⊂ A, Am is
ind-smooth over a Dedekind ring with perfect residue fields (for example, Am is Noetherian and regular
over such a Dedekind ring). Then the Bass–Quillen conjecture holds for A in every rank r ≥ 0.
Proof. The fact that every regular ring map (see, e.g., [Sta15, Tag 07BY Definition 15.32.1] for a definition) between Noetherian rings is ind-smooth is Popescu’s desingularization theorem [Sta15, Tag 07GC Theorem 16.12.1].
By Quillen’s patching theorem [Lam06, Theorem V.1.6], we may assume that A is ind-smooth over a
Dedekind ring R with perfect residue fields. Since any finitely generated projective module over a filtered
colimit of rings is extended from some ring in the diagram, we may further assume that A is smooth over
R. In that case, we can apply [Pop89, Theorem 4.1] (see also [Swa98, Theorem 2.2] for clarifications).

21

5.2 Homotopy invariance and geometric representability

Example 5.2.2. The Bass–Quillen conjecture holds for any regular Noetherian ring A such that for every
prime p ∈ Z, A/pA is regular. Indeed, such a ring is a direct product of rings that are regular over Z or
over Fp for some prime p.
For U ∈ SmS , write Vectr (U ) for the groupoid of rank r vector bundles over U . The groupoids
Vectr (U ) are the fibers of a category fibered in groupoids over SmS that we denote by Vectr . These
fibers are only functorial in U in a weak sense, but this is easily rectified by considering the equivalent
groupoids Γ(SmS /U, Vectr ), which are strictly functorial in U ; this trick is due to Grayson and we refer
the reader to [Gra95, p. 169-170] or [FS02, C.4] for more details. We write BVectr for the simplicial
presheaf on SmS whose value on U is the nerve of the latter groupoid. Thus, by construction, π0 BVectr
is isomorphic to the presheaf U 7→ Vr (U ).
Let Grr be the infinite Grassmannian colimN Grr,N , considered as a colimit of representable presheaves
on SmS . The tautological vector bundles on the Grassmannians Grr,N induce a morphism
γr : Grr → BVectr
in sPre(SmS ). By [MV99, §4, Proposition 2.6], γr is an isomorphism in H (S).2 For any X ∈ SmS ,
composition with γr gives a map Hom(X, Grr ) → Vr (X), which is surjective if X is affine.
Theorem 5.2.3 (Affine representability for vector bundles). Let r ≥ 0 be an integer. Suppose that, for
aff
every X ∈ Smaff
S , the Bass–Quillen conjecture holds for O(X) in rank r. Then, for every X ∈ SmS ,
there is a bijection
Vr (X) ∼
= [X, Grr ]A1
such that the following triangle commutes:
Hom(X, Grr )
PPP
PPP
PPP
PPP

'
∼
=
/ [X, Grr ]
Vr (X)

A1 .

In particular, this holds for all r if S is ind-smooth over a Dedekind ring with perfect residue fields.
Remark 5.2.4. Theorem 5.2.3 is trivially true when r = 0. When r = 1, the bijection of Theorem 5.2.3
holds for S regular and X an arbitrary smooth S-scheme, by [MV99, §4 Proposition 3.8].
Proof. Consider the commutative square
(5.2)

Hom(X, Grr )

/ [X, Grr ] 1
A




/ [X, BVectr ] 1 ,
A

Vr (X)

where X ∈ Smaff
S and the vertical maps are induced by γr . Since γr is an isomorphism in H (S), the right
vertical map is a bijection. It remains to show that the bottom horizontal map is a bijection.
2

In [MV99], it is assumed that S is Noetherian and has finite Krull dimension, but this is not used in the proof.

22

REFERENCES

The classical theory of faithfully flat descent for vector bundles shows that Vectr is a stack for the
étale topology on SmS . By [Hol08, Theorem 1.1], this is equivalent to BVectr being étale-local, in the
sense of Definition 3.1.1. In particular, by Theorem 3.2.5, BVectr satisfies Nisnevich excision. The
hypothesis regarding the Bass–Quillen conjecture guarantees that π0 BVectr is A1 -invariant on affine
schemes. Therefore, the simplicial presheaf BVectr satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 5.1.3 and we
conclude that the bottom map in (5.2) is a bijection, as desired. The final statement follows immediately
from Theorem 5.2.1.

References
[AD08] A. Asok and B. Doran. Vector bundles on contractible smooth schemes. Duke Math. J., 143(3):513–530, 2008. 2
[ADF16] A. Asok, B. Doran, and J. Fasel. Smooth models of motivic spheres and their vector bundles. Int. Math. Res. Not.
IMRN, 2016. Online First http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnw065. 3
[AF14a] A. Asok and J. Fasel. Algebraic vector bundles on spheres. J. Topol., 7(3):894–926, 2014. 3
[AF14b] A. Asok and J. Fasel. A cohomological classification of vector bundles on smooth affine threefolds. Duke Math. J.,
163(14):2561–2601, 2014. 3
[AFH15] A. Asok, J. Fasel, and M.J. Hopkins. Obstructions to algebraizing topological vector bundles. Preprint, available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08111, 2015. 3
[AGV72] M. Artin, A. Grothendieck, and J.-L. Verdier. Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas, volume 269 of
Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, 1972. 4, 7, 15
[AHW15] A. Asok, M. Hoyois, and M. Wendt. Affine representability results in A1 -homotopy theory II: principal bundles and
homogeneous spaces. 2015. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/math/1507.08020. 3
[Bas64] H. Bass. K-theory and stable algebra. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (22):5–60, 1964. 1
[BF78] A. K. Bousfield and E. M. Friedlander. Homotopy theory of Γ-spaces, spectra, and bisimplicial sets. In Geometric
applications of homotopy theory (Proc. Conf., Evanston, Ill., 1977), II, volume 658 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages
80–130. Springer, Berlin, 1978. 17, 18
[BHS15] C. Balwe, A. Hogadi, and A. Sawant. A1 -connected components of schemes. Adv. Math., 282:335–361, 2015. 20
[Bor94] F. Borceux. Handbook of categorical algebra. 3, volume 52 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. Categories of sheaves. 12
[DHI04] D. Dugger, S. Hollander, and D.C. Isaksen. Hypercovers and simplicial presheaves. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos.
Soc., 136(1):9–51, 2004. 11, 12
[FS02]

E. M. Friedlander and A. Suslin. The spectral sequence relating algebraic K-theory to motivic cohomology. Ann. Sci.
École Norm. Sup. (4), 35(6):773–875, 2002. 21

[Gra95] D. R. Grayson. Weight filtrations via commuting automorphisms. K-Theory, 9(2):139–172, 1995. 21
[Gro64] A. Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. I.
Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (20):259, 1964. 10
[Gro66] A. Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. III.
Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (28):255, 1966. 10
[Gro67] A. Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. IV.
Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (32):361, 1967. 6, 10
[Hir03] P. S. Hirschhorn. Model categories and their localizations, volume 99 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs.
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. 4, 11
[Hol08] Sharon Hollander. A homotopy theory for stacks. Israel J. Math., 163(1):93–124, 2008. 22
[Hoy14] M. Hoyois. A quadratic refinement of the Grothendieck–Lefschetz–Verdier formula. Alg. Geom. Top., 14(6):3603–
3658, 2014. 12

23

REFERENCES

[Jar87]

J. F. Jardine. Simplicial presheaves. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 47(1):35–87, 1987. 12

[Jar15]

J. F. Jardine. Local homotopy theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2015. 4

[Lam06] T. Y. Lam. Serre’s problem on projective modules. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2006. 20
[Lin82] H. Lindel. On the Bass-Quillen conjecture concerning projective modules over polynomial rings. Invent. Math.,
65(2):319–323, 1981/82. 2, 3
[Lur09] J. Lurie. Higher topos theory, volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ, 2009. 11
[Lur11] J. Lurie.
Derived algebraic geometry XI: Descent theorems.
2011.
http://www.math.harvard.edu/˜lurie/papers/DAG-XI.pdf. 4

Preprint,

available at

[Lur16] J. Lurie. Higher Algebra. 2016. Preprint, available at http://www.math.harvard.edu/˜lurie/papers/HA.pdf.
18
[Mor12] F. Morel. A1 -algebraic topology over a field, volume 2052 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg,
2012. 2, 3, 4, 12, 15
[Mos11] L.-F. Moser. A1 -locality results for linear algebraic groups [draft]. Preprint, 2011. 2
[MV99] F. Morel and V. Voevodsky. A1 -homotopy theory of schemes. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (90):45–143
(2001), 1999. 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21
[Pop89] D. Popescu. Polynomial rings and their projective modules. Nagoya Math. J., 113:121–128, 1989. 2, 3, 20
[Rez]

C. Rezk.
When are homotopy colimits compatible with homotopy pullback?
Preprint, available at
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/˜rezk/i-hate-the-pi-star-kan-condition.pdf. 18

[Rez98] C. Rezk.
Fibrations and homotopy colimits of simplicial sheaves.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9811038. 13

1998.

Preprint available at

[Sch15] M. Schlichting. Euler class groups, and the homology of elementary and special linear groups. Preprint, available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05424, 2015. 3, 4, 15, 18
[Sta15] The Stacks Project Authors. Stacks Project. http://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2015. 7, 8, 20
[Ste51] N. Steenrod. The Topology of Fibre Bundles. Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 14. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N. J., 1951. 1
[Swa98] R. G. Swan. Néron-Popescu desingularization. In Algebra and geometry (Taipei, 1995), volume 2 of Lect. Algebra
Geom., pages 135–192. Int. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. 20
[TT90] R. W. Thomason and T. Trobaugh. Higher algebraic K-theory of schemes and of derived categories. In The Grothendieck
Festschrift III, volume 88 of Progress in Mathematics, pages 247–435. Birkhäuser, 1990. 6
[Voe10] V. Voevodsky. Homotopy theory of simplicial presheaves in completely decomposable topologies. J. Pure Appl. Alg.,
214(8):1384–1398, 2010. 5, 12, 14
[Vor81] T. Vorst. The general linear group of polynomial rings over regular rings. Comm. Algebra, 9(5):499–509, 1981. 3
[Vor83] T. Vorst. The Serre problem for discrete Hodge algebras. Math. Z., 184(3):425–433, 1983. 3
[Wei89] C. A. Weibel. Homotopy algebraic K-theory. In Algebraic K-theory and algebraic number theory (Honolulu, HI,
1987), volume 83 of Contemp. Math., pages 461–488. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989. 3
A. Asok, D EPARTMENT OF M ATHEMATICS , U NIVERSITY
2532, U NITED S TATES ; E-mail address: asok@usc.edu

OF

S OUTHERN C ALIFORNIA , L OS A NGELES , CA 90089-

M. Hoyois, D EPARTMENT OF M ATHEMATICS , M ASSACHUSETTS I NSTITUTE
02139-4307, U NITED S TATES ; E-mail address: hoyois@mit.edu

OF

T ECHNOLOGY, C AMBRIDGE , MA

M. Wendt, M ATHEMATICS I NSTITUTE , Z EEMAN B UILDING , U NIVERSITY OF WARWICK , C OVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK;
E-mail address: M.Wendt@warwick.ac.uk

