Let $X$ be an algebraic variety over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $0$. A locally trivial $\mathbf{A}^n$-fibration is a morphism $\pi \colon Y \to X$ such that $\pi^{-1}(U)\cong U\times \mathbf{A}^n$, and that $\pi\colon U\times \mathbf{A}^n \to U$ is the projection onto the second factor, for every open set $U\subseteq X$ in some Zariski open covering of $X$.

It is proved in Fulton's Intersection Theory that any such $\pi$ induces surjections on the Chow groups via pull-back $\pi^*\colon A^*(X) \to A^*(Y)$, and that this map is an isomorphism if $\pi$ admits a structure of vector bundle.

I would like to know whether $\pi^*$ is an isomorphism in general or not.

I suspect it to be so: Recall that $M^c(X)$ is the motive with compact support of $X$ in the sense of Voevodsky. He proved that there are

  1. Localisation sequences for any closed subscheme $Z\subset X$ and its complement $U$ $$M^c(Z) \to M^c(X) \to M^c(U) \to, $$
  2. Pull-back morphisms for any flat morphism $f\colon Y\to X$ of equidimension $n$ $$M^c(X)(n)[2n]\to M^c(Y),$$
  3. Isomorphisms $M^c(X)(n)[2n]\cong M^c(X\times \mathbf{A}^n)$, and
  4. Comparisons $\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbf{DM}^-}(\mathbf{Z}(k)[2k], M^c(X))\cong A^{\dim X-k}(X)$.

It appears to me that one can apply 1., 2., and 3. to obtain an isomorphism $M^c(X)(n)[2n]\to M^c(Y)$ for the locally trivial $\mathbf{A}^n$-fibration $\pi$, and then use 4. to conclude the isomorphisms $$A^{k}(X)\cong\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbf{DM}^-}(\mathbf{Z}(\dim X-k)[2(\dim X-k)], M^c(X))\cong\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbf{DM}^-}(\mathbf{Z}(\dim Y-k)[2(\dim Y-k)], M^c(X)(n)[2n])\cong\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbf{DM}^-}(\mathbf{Z}(\dim Y-k)[2(\dim Y-k)], M^c(Y))\cong A^{k}(Y).$$ Is anything wrong with the above arguments?

  • $\begingroup$ Singularities?? $\endgroup$ Commented May 11, 2015 at 12:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I didn't find any assumption on the singularities imposed in each of the statements 1., 2., 3., 4. in the literature, either in Mozza-Voevodsky-Weibel, or in Voevodsky-Suslin-Friedlander. Only the resolution of singularity is assumed for the ground field. $\endgroup$
    – Wille Liu
    Commented May 11, 2015 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ I would prefer to write the right hand side of (4) as $A_k(X)$ (since $X$ does not have to be equi-dimensional); everything else seems to be fine. $\endgroup$ Commented May 12, 2015 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yeah, I should have written in that way. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Wille Liu
    Commented May 12, 2015 at 23:07

1 Answer 1


Not sure if your argument is correct, but the statement is Lemma 2.2 in Totaro's Group cohomology and algebraic cycles.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I just want to make sure whether I use the results correctly, as I haven't gone through all the materials of motivic cohomology. $\endgroup$
    – Wille Liu
    Commented May 11, 2015 at 14:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.