In his Cohomological methods in intersection theory, Cisinski writes:

"[...] note however that, by Balzin’s work [Bal19, Theorem 2], it is clear that one can go back and forth between the language of fibred $\infty$-categories and the one of algebraic derivators."

By Bal19 he intends Balzin's Reedy model structures in families. Let me quote the abovementioned Theorem 2.

Thm. 2 in Bal19.

Let $\mathsf{E} \to \mathsf{R}$ be a left model Reedy fibration. Then the induced $\infty$-functor $\mathsf{L}\text{Sect}(\mathsf{R}, \mathsf{E}) \to \text{Sect}(\mathsf{R}, \mathsf{LE})$ is an equivalence of quasicategories.

Even though I sense a connection between derivators, fibred $\infty$-categories and this statement, I cannot make it precise. Could someone help me spelling out what Cisinski means precisely?

  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Ask him! You'll get the best possible answer. $\endgroup$ Feb 5 '20 at 9:43

I am no Denis-Charles but given the other paper you quoted let me think of a sketch, perhaps you will be able to make the right out of it.

Let $\mathcal E \to \mathcal C$ be a Quillen presheaf (model categorical fibres, Quillen pairs as transition functors) where each $\mathcal E(c)$ is stable. This would imply, if we had the cofibrant generation in fibres for example, that for any functor $F: \mathcal D \to \mathcal C$, the category of sections $Sect(\mathcal D,F^*\mathcal E)$ is a stable model category. You can then introduce a $2$-functor $\mathbb D: (Cat/ \mathcal C)^{op} \to CAT$ that sends $F: \mathcal D \to \mathcal C$ to the homotopy category $Ho (Sect(\mathcal D,F^*\mathcal E))$ and study its properties. Something like that could be called a relative (pre)derivator (maybe it already is, forgive my ignorance, then) valued in triangulated categories.

We can also start with the infinity-localisation $L \mathcal E \to \mathcal C$ and study its infinity-categorical sections $Sect(\mathcal D,F^* L \mathcal E)$ for functors $F: \mathcal D \to \mathcal C$. Since a localisation of a stable model category is a stable infinity-category (a statement true even without cofibrant generation due to Proposition 3 mentioned below), $L \mathcal E \to \mathcal C$ is a bicartesian fibration with stable fibres and using Section 5 of HTT (co/limits of sections computed fibrewise) we can verify that each $Sect(\mathcal D,F^* L \mathcal E)$ is stable. Taking their homotopy categories would again yield another $2$-functor $\mathbb D':(Cat/ \mathcal C)^{op} \to CAT$ valued in triangulated categories.

Proposition 3 of the Reedy paper means however that $Ho (Sect(\mathcal D,F^*\mathcal E)) \cong Ho (Sect(\mathcal D,F^* L \mathcal E))$ where the latter is the homotopy category of an infinity-category and the former is that of a model category. In other words, the relative derivators $\mathbb D$ and $\mathbb D'$ are equivalent; the equivalence comes from the fairly canonical map $L Sect(\mathcal D,F^*\mathcal E)) \to Sect(\mathcal D,F^* L \mathcal E)$ (universality of localisation is used here) so it should be trackable along base changes. Thus you can study your relative derivators any way you want, via the model-categorical presentation or the infinity-categorical one.

I suppose you get an algebraic derivator if you replace $\mathcal C$ by $Sch$ (no restriction on the size of $\mathcal C$ was made above) and consider something like $QCoh \to Sch$ for the Quillen presheaf, but you will have to take it from here to see if that fits. Maybe I should add something about such relative derivators to the Reedy paper if life permits.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This seems a bit debatable to me. In this answer you start from some kind of model category and you show that you can construct a derivator out of it, or an infinity category. These two object somehow compute the same homotopy theory. I completely agree, but you are STARTING from the wrong data. If I am given a derivator, how do I construct an infinity category? If I am given an infinity category, how do I construct a derivator? $\endgroup$ Oct 13 '21 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't claim I answered anything, so there is not much to debate. One could try proving a statement similar to arXiv:math/0603339 for relative derivators that are presentable biCartesian (to avoid the example of sections of a Cartesian, and not coCartesian, fibration over a simplex that can happen to be presentable). If that was done, then perhaps you could start with an algebraic derivator, check its local presentability so that it comes from a model-categorical bifibration and then use the above to not worry about anything. It seems like a lot of work, maybe something else was meant by DCC. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Oct 19 '21 at 13:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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