My question concerns the Propsition 5.12 of the paper of Bhatt-Mathew on arc-topology where they claim that the functor $X\mapsto D^b_{\text{cons}}(X,\Lambda)^{[-n,n]}$ which assigns to a qcqs scheme $X$ the subcategory of the full derived category $D(X_{ét},\Lambda)$ of étale sheaves of $\Lambda$-modules of amplitude in $[-n,n]$ spanned by those objects which are bounded with constructible cohomology. Here they claim that this functor satisfies $v$-descent and this automatically implies $v$-hyperdescent. In the proof they use the fact this functor is bounded(in the derived category) and hence takes values in $\text{Cat}_{2n+2}$ the ($\infty$)-category of $2n+2$-categories. It seems to me that we can generalise the situation as follows.

Let functor $\mathcal{F}\colon\text{Sch}_R\to\mathcal{C}$(+ some properties) be a functor where $\mathcal{C}$ is an infinity category(+ some properties) and $\tau$ be a Grothendieck topology on $\text{Sch}_R$. Then I want to study the implication ``$\tau$-descent $\implies$ $\tau$-hyperdescent''.

  • Here I assume that $\mathcal{F}$ is locally of finite presentation(``finitary'' according to loc. cit.).
  • In what generality of $\mathcal{C}$ is it is true ? I think I can prove the implication in small cases like when $\mathcal{C}=\text{Cat}_1$.


We say that $\mathcal{F}$ satisfies $\tau$-descent if for each $\tau$-covering $X'\to X$ the natural map $$ \mathcal{F}(X) \to\lim(\mathcal{F}(X')\rightrightarrows\mathcal{F}(X'\times_X X')\rightrightarrows \cdots)$$ is an equivalence in $\mathcal{C}$. The functor is said to satisfy $\tau$-hyperdescent if for every hypercover $$X_{.}=(\cdots \rightrightarrows X_1 \rightrightarrows X_0 \to X_{-1}=X)$$ of $X$ in the $\tau$-topology we have that $$ \mathcal{F}(X)\to \lim(\mathcal{F}(X_0)\rightrightarrows \mathcal{F}(X_1) \rightrightarrows\cdots)$$ is an equivalence in $\mathcal{C}$.


1 Answer 1


It is certainly true that descent implies hyperdescent whenever $\mathcal C$ is a $n$-category for some $n<\infty$ (it wasn't clear from your question whether you knew this or not). This is because, for any $\infty$-site $\mathcal A$:

  1. A presheaf $F:\mathcal A^{op}\to\mathcal C$ is a sheaf or hypersheaf if and only if $\mathrm{Map}(c, F(-)):\mathcal A^{op}\to\mathcal S$ is for all $c\in\mathcal C$.

  2. Every sheaf $F:\mathcal A^{op} \to \mathcal S_{\leq n}$ is a hypersheaf, because truncated objects in an $\infty$-topos are hypercomplete.

Here is a more general condition. Suppose that $\mathcal C$ is generated under colimits by cotruncated objects, i.e., truncated objects in $\mathcal C^{op}$. Any $n$-category satisfies this, but also the $\infty$-category of coconnective spectra in any presentable $\infty$-category (and this is usually not an $n$-category for any finite $n$). For example, if $R$ is a ring then $D(R)_{\leq 0}$ is compactly generated by cotruncated objects; many sheaves in the paper of Bhatt and Mathew take values in this $\infty$-category.

Under this condition on $\mathcal C$, every sheaf $F:\mathcal A^{op}\to\mathcal C$ is a hypersheaf. Indeed, suppose $X_\bullet\to X$ is a hypercover. We want to show that the map $F(X) \to \mathrm{lim}_{n\in\Delta^{op}} F(X_n)$ is an equivalence in $\mathcal C$. Since $\mathcal C$ is generated under colimits by cotruncated objects, it suffices to check after applying $\mathrm{Map}(c,-)$ for $c$ cotruncated. This means that $\mathrm{Map}(c,-)$ takes values in $n$-truncated spaces for some $n$ (depending on $c$). In particular $\mathrm{Map}(c,F(-))$ is a hypersheaf, whence the result. For related observations see Definition 3.1.4 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.11647.pdf and the following results.


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.