text:
# Segal topoi and stacks over Segal categories

## 1 Introduction

In \[To-Ve$`2`$\] we have developed a homotopy version of sheaf theory, in which not only sheaves of sets are replaced by certain simplicial presheaves (called stacks), but in which, more crucially, the base Grothendieck sites are replaced either by $`S`$-sites, i.e. simplicially enriched categories endowed with a suitable notion of topology, or by model sites, i.e. model categories endowed with a suitable notion of topology. These constructions have led us naturally to the concept of model topos, originally due to C. Rezk (\[Re\]), for which one can prove some generalizations of the basic results in topos theory, as for example the correspondence between topologies and certain localizations of categories of presheaves (see \[To-Ve$`2`$, Theorem 3.8.3\]). However, it seems very uneasy to further develope the theory of model topoi purely in terms of model categories, and one reason for this is the missing theory of internal Hom-objects, or equivalently the non-existence of reasonable model categories of Quillen functors between two model categories. For example, it seems very difficult to construct an analog for model topoi of the $`2`$-category of topoi and geometric morphisms between them. The main purpose of this work is to solve this problem by introducing similar constructions in the context of Segal categories of \[H-S, P\].

Segal categories, Segal sites and stacks. Segal categories are weak form of $`S`$-categories, and behave very much the same way. In fact the theory of Segal categories and of $`S`$-categories are equivalent in some sense (see §4.1), and it is not a bad idea to think of Segal categories as $`S`$-categories, at least as a first approximation. Thanks to the fundational work of C. Simpson, A. Hirschowitz and R. Pellissier (see e.g. \[H-S, P, Si\]), many (if not all) standard categorical notions are available for Segal categories, as for example categories of functors, adjunctions, limits and colimits, Yoneda lemma …(see §3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2). These constructions will allow us to follow the main line of topos theory in the new context of Segal categories.

We define a Segal topology on a Segal category $`T`$ to be a Grothendieck topology on its homotopy category $`\mathrm{Ho}(T)`$ (see Definition 3.3.1). A Segal category endowed with a topology will be called a Segal site. For a Segal site $`(T,\tau )`$, one defines a Segal category of pre-stacks $`\widehat{T}`$, as well as a sub-Segal category of stacks $`T^{,\tau }`$ (see Definition 3.3.2 (3)).

Segal topoi and Segal category of stacks. A Segal topos is defined to be a Segal category equivalent to some exact localization of a Segal category of pre-stacks $`\widehat{T}`$ (see Definition 3.3.3). If $`(T,\tau )`$ is a Segal site, the sub-Segal category $`T^{,\tau }`$ is a left exact localization of $`\widehat{T}`$, and therefore is a Segal topos. Our first result, Theorem 3.3.8 states that a large class of Segal topoi (the ones being $`t`$-complete) are obtained this way. In other words, the map $`\tau T^{,\tau }`$ gives a one-to-one correspondence between topologies on $`T`$ and left exact localizations of $`\widehat{T}`$ which are furthermore $`t`$-complete. The latter result is a generalization to the case of Segal topoi of the well known fact that topologies on a category are in bijection with left exact localizations of its category of presheaves. It also justifies our definition of a topology on a Segal category. We also provide a Giraud’s style statement charaterizing Segal topoi among Segal categories (Conjecture 5.1.1).

Geometric morphisms and the $`2`$-Segal category of Segal topoi. A crucial property of Segal categories is the existence of a reasonable Segal category of morphisms between two Segal categories. Using this construction, as well as the notion of adjunction and limits, we define for two Segal topoi $`A`$ and $`B`$ a Segal category of geometric morphisms $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(A,B)`$ (see Definition 3.4.1). These Segal categories of geometric morphisms assemble together into a $`2`$-Segal category $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖳}`$, of Segal topoi, which is our Segal analog of the $`2`$-category of topoi and geometric morphisms.

Segal topoi and model topoi. Let $`(T,\tau )`$ be an $`S`$-site (i.e. a Segal site where $`T`$ is furthermore an $`S`$-category). On one hand there is the model category of stacks $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}_\tau (T)`$, constructed in \[To-Ve$`2`$, Theorem 3.4.1\], and on the other there is the Segal topos $`T^{,\tau }`$ of stacks over $`(T,\tau )`$ defined in Definition 3.3.2. Using the strictification theorem proved in \[H-S\], we show that there exists a natural equivalence of Segal categories (see Corollary 4.3.1)

$$L(\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}_\tau (T))T^{,\tau },$$

where $`LM`$ is the simplicial localization of a model category $`M`$ as defined in \[D-K$`1`$\]. This shows that the construction $`MLM`$ gives a way to pass from model topoi to Segal topoi. Therefore, if $`M`$ and $`N`$ are two model topoi, one can consider $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(LM,LN)`$, the Segal category of geometric morphisms from $`LM`$ to $`LN`$. This construction gives a solution to our original problem of defining a “category” of geometric morphisms between two model topoi.

An application: Galois interpretation of homotopy theory. As an example of application of our notion of Segal categories of geometric morphisms we provide a Galois interpretation of homotopy theory, extending the well known relations between fundamental groupoids and categories of locally constant sheaves on a space. For a $`CW`$ complex $`X`$, one consider the Segal category $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ of locally constant stacks on $`X`$, which is easily seen to be a Segal topos. For two $`CW`$ complexes $`X`$ and $`Y`$ we prove that $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X),\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ is in fact a Segal groupoid whose geometric realization is equivalent to $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(X,Y)`$ (see Theorem 5.2.1). In particular, taking $`X=`$ we get that $`Y`$ is weakly equivalent to the geometric realization of the Segal groupoid $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ (here $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}:=L\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$ is the Segal category of simplicial sets). This last statement generalizes to the whole homotopy type the fact that the fundamental groupoid of a space is equivalent to the groupoid of fiber functors on its category of locally constant sheaves (see \[SGA1, Exp. V\]).

Homotopy types of Segal topoi. Based on our Galois interpretation of homotopy theory we define for any Segal topos $`T`$ a morphism of Segal categories $`H_T:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$, which has to be thought as some kind of homotopy type of $`T`$; we call $`H_T`$ the homotopy shape of $`T`$ (see Definition 5.3.2). The morphism $`H_T`$ is in fact pro-corepresentable by a pro-homotopy type $`X`$. This pro-homotopy type (which is a pro-object in $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$ rather than a pro-object in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$) is called the homotopy type of the Segal topos $`T`$. When $`T`$ is the Segal topos of stacks over a Grothendieck site, this approach gives a new point of view on homotopy types of sites as defined by Artin and Mazur (\[A-M\]). This also allows us to define the étale pro-homotopy type of the sphere spectrum which seems to us an interesting example to consider (see 5.3.4).

Related works. In \[Si\] C. Simpson investigates Segal pre-topoi and the question of the existence of a theory of Segal topoi is at least implicit in the text, if not clearly stated. In some sense this work, and more precisely our conjecture 5.1.1 gives a possible answer to his question.

As we have already mentioned, in his unpublished manuscript \[Re\] C. Rezk has introduced a notion of homotopy topos, which is a model category version of our definition of Segal topos. More recently, J. Lurie has investigated a notion of $`\mathrm{}`$-topos, equivalent to our notion of Segal topos, and for which he proved a Giraud’s theorem (therefore our conjecture 5.1.1 seems to be a theorem now). He has also related the notion of $`\mathrm{}`$-topos with a different notion of stacks (see \[Lu\]).

Let us also mention that A. Joyal (see \[Jo\]) has developed a theory of quasi-categories, which is expected to be equivalent to the theory of $`S`$-categories and of Segal categories, and for which he has defined a notion of quasi-topos very similar to our notion of Segal topos. The two approaches are expected to be equivalent.

The work of D-C. Cisinski \[Cis\] seems to be closely related to a notion of hypertopology we discuss in Remark 3.3.9.

In his letter to L. Breen (see \[Gr\]), A. Grothendieck proposes some Galois interpretation of homotopy types of sites. We like to consider our Theorem 5.2.1 as a topological version of this (see also the Remark after Corollary 3.2 in \[To\]).

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank the MSRI in Berkeley for invitation to the Program “Stacks, Intersection Theory and Non Abelian Hodge Theory” (January-May 2002).
In particular we wish to acknowledge many fruitful discussions with the participants to the above program. We especially thank A. Joyal, M. Kontsevich, J. Lurie, and C. Rezk for useful exchanges. We are particularly indebted to C. Simpson for suggestions, discussions on our project and for all his deep work on higher categories and higher stacks.

Notations and conventions. We will use the word universe in the sense of \[SGA4-I, Exp. I, Appendice\]. We will fix three universes $`𝕌𝕍𝕎`$, and assume that $`𝕌`$. The category of sets (resp. simplicial sets, resp. …) belonging to a universe $`𝕌`$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌`$, resp. …). The objects of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌`$, resp. …) will be called $`𝕌`$-sets (resp. $`𝕌`$-simplicial sets, resp. …). We will use the expression $`𝕌`$-small set (resp. $`𝕌`$-small simplicial set, resp. …) to mean a set isomorphic to a set in $`𝕌`$ (resp. a simplicial set isomorphic to a simplicial set in $`𝕌`$, resp. …).

Our references for model categories are \[Ho\] and \[Hi\]. By definition, our model categories will always be closed model categories, will have all small limits and colimits and the functorial factorization property. The word equivalence will always mean weak equivalence and will refer to a model category structure.

The homotopy category of a model category $`M`$ is $`W^1M`$ (see \[Ho, Def. $`\mathrm{1.2.1}`$\]), where $`W`$ is the subcategory of equivalences in $`M`$, and it will be denoted as $`\mathrm{Ho}(M)`$. We will say that two objects in a model category $`M`$ are equivalent if they are isomorphic in $`\mathrm{Ho}(M)`$. We say that two model categories are Quillen equivalent if they can be connected by a finite string of Quillen adjunctions each one being a Quillen equivalence.

For the notions of $`𝕌`$-cofibrantly generated, $`𝕌`$-combinatorial and $`𝕌`$-cellular model category, we refer to \[Ho, Hi, Du\] or to Appendix B of \[To-Ve$`2`$\], where the basic definitions and crucial properties are recalled in a way that is suitable for our needs.

For a category $`C`$ in a universe $`𝕌`$, we will denote by $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋}(C)`$ the category of presheaves of $`𝕌`$-sets on $`C`$, $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋}(C):=C^{\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌^{op}}`$.

## 2 Segal categories

As carefully explained in Leinster’s survey \[Le\], there already exist several definitions of higher categories, and most (if not all) of them might be used to develop a theory of higher sites and higher topoi. Because of its degree of advancement and its great flexibility, we have chosen to work with the notion of ($`1`$-)Segal categories, which might be assimilated to $`\mathrm{}`$-categories where all $`i`$-morphisms are invertible as soon as $`i>1`$.

Segal categories were first introduced by W. Dwyer, D. Kan and J. Smith in \[D-K$`2`$\], under the name of special bi-simplicial sets. With the name of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-categories, they were studied in more details by R. Schwänzl and R. Vogt in \[Sc-Vo\], and used in order to deal with homotopy coherence of diagrams. More recently, the homotopy theory of Segal categories was studied by C. Simpson and A. Hirschowitz in \[H-S\], and then reconsidered in great detail by R. Pellissier in \[P\]. They proved in particular the existence of a closed model structure. Using the existence of this model structure they have showed that many of the usual categorical constructions (categories of functors, limits, colimits, adjunctions, stacks …) have reasonable extensions to Segal categories. In this Section we review briefly the main defintions in the theory of Segal categories.

Recall from \[P, H-S\] that a Segal pre-category (in $`𝕌`$) is a functor

$$A:\mathrm{\Delta }^o\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌$$

such that $`A_0`$ is a discrete (or constant) simplicial set. The category of Segal pre-categories in $`𝕌`$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}_𝕌`$ (or $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ is the ambient universe $`𝕌`$ is clear).

For any integer $`n0`$, one can consider the $`(n+1)`$-morphisms $`[0][n]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the associated morphism of simplicial sets

$$A_nA_0^{n+1}.$$

As the simplicial set $`A_0`$ is discrete, the existence of the above morphism implies the existence of a natural isomorphism in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$

$$A_n\underset{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)A_0^{n+1}}{}A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)},$$

where $`A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}`$ is the fiber of $`A_nA_0^{n+1}`$ at the point $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)`$.

For a Segal pre-category $`A`$, one should think of $`A_0`$ as the set of objects of $`A`$, and the simplicial set $`A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}`$ should be understood as the space of composable morphisms . In particular, $`A_{(a,b)}`$ is the space of morphisms from $`a`$ to $`b`$. Note for example that the first degeneracy morphism $`A_0A_1`$ gives natural $`0`$-simplices in $`A_{(a,a)}`$ that play the role of identities.

Let us fix a set $`O`$ in $`𝕌`$, and consider the subcategory $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ of Segal pre-categories $`A`$ with $`A_0=O`$ and morphisms inducing the identity on $`O`$. Objects in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ will be called Segal pre-categories over the set $`O`$. Note that, obviously, any Segal pre-category $`A`$ can be considered as an object in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0)`$. A morphism $`f:AB`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ will be called an iso-equivalence (resp. an iso-fibration) if for any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)O^{n+1}`$, the induced morphism

$$f_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}:A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}B_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}$$

is an equivalence (resp., a fibration) of simplicial sets. There exists a simplicial closed model structure on the category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ where the equivalences (resp., the fibrations) are the iso-equivalences (resp., the iso-fibrations). Indeed, the category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ can be identified with a certain category of pointed simplicial presheaves on a certain $`𝕌`$-small category, in such a way that iso-equivalences and iso-fibrations correspond to objectwise equivalences and objectwise fibrations. The category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ with this model structure will be called the objectwise model category of Segal pre-categories over $`O`$. For this model structure, $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ is furthermore a $`𝕌`$-combinatorial and $`𝕌`$-cellular model category in the sense of \[To-Ve$`2`$, Appendix\] or \[Ho, Hi, Du\].

For any integer $`n2`$ and $`0i<n`$, there exists a morphism $`h_i:[1][n]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, sending $`0`$ to $`i`$ and $`1`$ to $`i+1`$. For any $`n2`$ and any $`A\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$, the morphisms $`h_i`$ induces a morphism of simplicial sets

$$A_nA_1^n,$$

called Segal morphism. This morphism breaks into several morphisms of simplicial sets

$$A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}A_{(a_0,a_1)}\times A_{(a_1,a_2)}\times \mathrm{}\times A_{(a_{n1},a_n)},$$

for any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)A_0^{n+1}`$.

For any integer $`n1`$ and any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)A_0^{n+1}`$, the functor

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)& & \mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}& \\ A& & A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}& \end{array}$$

is co-representable by an object $`h_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$. The natural morphisms mentioned above, give rise to morphisms in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$

$$h(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n):h_{(a_0,a_1)}h_{(a_1,a_2)}\mathrm{}h_{(a_{n1},a_n)}h_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}.$$

The set of all morphisms $`h(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)`$, for all $`n2`$, and all $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)O^{n+1}`$, belongs to $`𝕌`$. As the objectwise model category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ is a $`𝕌`$-cellular and a $`𝕌`$-combinatorial model category, the following definition makes sense.

###### Definition 2.0.1

Let $`O`$ be a $`𝕌`$-set. The *model category of Segal pre-categories over* $`O`$ in $`𝕌`$ is the left Bousfield localization of the objectwise model category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ with respect to the morphisms $`h(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)`$, for all $`n2`$, and all $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)O^{n+1}`$. This model category will simply be denoted by $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$.

Notations. The equivalences in the model category structure $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ of Definition 2.0.1 will simply be called equivalences. The homotopy category $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))`$ will always refer to the model structure $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ of the above definition. while the homotopy category of the objectwise model structure will be denoted by $`\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))`$.

It is clear that an object $`A\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$ is fibrant if and only if it satisfies the following two conditions

1. For any $`n1`$ and any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)O^{n+1}`$, the simplicial set $`A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}`$ is fibrant.
2. For any $`n2`$ and any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)O^{n+1}`$, the natural morphism

$$A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}A_{(a_0,a_1)}\times A_{(a_1,a_2)}\times \mathrm{}A_{(a_{n1},a_n)}$$

is an equivalence of simplicial sets.

The general theory of left Bousfield localization (see \[Hi\]) tells us that $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))`$ is naturally equivalent to the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))`$ consisting of objects satisfying condition $`(2)`$ above. Furthermore, the natural inclusion $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))`$ possesses a left adjoint

$$SeCat:\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O))$$

which is the left derived functor of the identity functor on $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(O)`$.

###### Definition 2.0.2

1. A Segal pre-category $`A`$ is a *Segal category* if for any $`n2`$ and any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)A_0^{n+1}`$, the natural morphism

$$A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}A_{(a_0,a_1)}\times A_{(a_1,a_2)}\times \mathrm{}A_{(a_{n1},a_n)}$$

is an equivalence of simplicial sets.
2. The Segal category *associated* to a Segal pre-category $`A`$ over $`A_0`$, is $`SeCat(A)\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0))\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0))`$.

Any $`𝕌`$-small category $`C`$ might be considered as a Segal category, with the same set of objects $`C_0`$ and such that

$$C_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}:=Hom_C(a_0,a_1)\times Hom_C(a_1,a_2)\times \mathrm{}Hom_C(a_{n1},a_n)$$

for any $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)C_0^{n+1}`$. In other words, the simplicial object $`C:\mathrm{\Delta }^o\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$ is simply the nerve of the category $`C`$, which obviously satisfied condition $`(1)`$ of definition 2.0.2 above. This allows us to view the category of $`𝕌`$-small categories as a full subcategory of $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$.

If $`T`$ is an $`S`$-category (in $`𝕌`$), i.e. a categry enriched over simplicial sets, we can consider it as a Segal pre-category $`T:\mathrm{\Delta }^o\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$ by defining

$$T_0:=Ob(T)T_n:=\underset{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)T_0^{n+1}}{}\underset{¯}{Hom}_T(a_0,a_1)\times \mathrm{}\times \underset{¯}{Hom}_T(a_{n1},a_n),$$

the simplicial and degeneracies morphism being induced by the compositions and identities in $`T`$. As a Segal pre-category, $`T`$ has the special property that the natural morphisms

$$T_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}T_{(a_0,a_1)}\times \mathrm{}\times T_{(a_{n1},a_n)}$$

are all isomorphisms of simplicial sets. In particular, $`T`$ is always a Segal category. This allows us to view the category $`S\mathrm{𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ of $`S`$-categories as the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ consisting of objects $`A`$ such that all morphisms

$$A_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}A_{(a_0,a_1)}\times \mathrm{}\times A_{(a_{n1},a_n)}$$

are isomorphisms of simplicial sets.

More generally, a Segal category $`A`$ might be seen as a weak category in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$. Indeed, for any two objects $`(a,b)A_0^2`$, the simplicial set $`A_{(a,b)}`$ can be considered as the space of morphisms from $`a`$ to $`b`$. The composition of morphisms is given by a diagram

where the horizontal morphism is induced by the morphism $`[1][2]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which sends $`0`$ to $`0`$ and $`1`$ to $`2`$. The vertical morphism being an equivalence of simplicial sets, this diagram gives a weak composition morphism, i.e. a morphism $`A_{(a,b)}\times A_{(b,c)}A_{(a,c)}`$, which is well defined only up to equivalence. From this point of view, the higher simplicial identities of $`A`$ should be seen as providing the associativity and higher coherency laws for this composition.

If $`A`$ is a Segal category, one can define the homotopy category $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$, whose set of objects is $`A_0`$ and whose set of morphisms from $`a`$ to $`b`$ is $`\pi _0(A_{(a,b)})`$. The composition of morphisms in $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ is given by the following diagram

where the horizontal morphism is induced by the morphism $`[1][2]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which sends $`0`$ to $`0`$ and $`1`$ to $`2`$.

Any Segal pre-category $`A`$ can be considered as an object in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0)`$, where $`A_0`$ is the set of objets of $`A`$. Applying the functor $`SeCat`$, one finds a natural morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0))`$

$$ASeCat(A).$$

This morphism has to be thought of as a (Segal) categorification of $`A`$. This way, one can define the homotopy category of the Segal pre-category $`A`$ to be $`\mathrm{Ho}(SeCat(A))`$. In the case $`A`$ is already a Segal category, the natural morphism $`ASeCat(A)`$ is an iso-equivalence, and therefore induces an isomorphism $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)\mathrm{Ho}(SeCat(A))`$. This shows that the homotopy category functor $`A\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ is well defined.

An object in a Segal category $`A`$ is an element in $`A_0`$. Most of the time they will be considered up to equivalences, or in other words as isomorphism classes of objects in $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$. In the same way, a morphism $`ab`$ in $`A`$ is a $`0`$-simplex in $`A_{(a,b)}`$, mots often considered as a morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ (i.e. up to homotopy).

A morphism in a Segal category $`A`$ (i.e. an element of $`A_{a,b}`$ for some $`(a,b)A_0^2`$) is called an equivalence if its image in $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ is an isomorphism. There exists a sub-Segal category $`A^{int}`$ of $`A`$, consisting of all objects and equivalences between them. The Segal category $`A^{int}`$ is a Segal groupoid (i.e. all its morphisms are equivalences) and is actually the maximal sub-Segal groupoid of $`A`$ (see \[H-S, §2\]).

Let $`f:AB`$ be a morphism in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$. This morphism induces a morphism of sets $`f:A_0B_0`$, as well as a morphism in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0)`$

$$Af^{}(B),$$

where $`f^{}(B)`$ is defined by the formula

$$f^{}(B)_{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)}:=B_{(f(a_0),\mathrm{},f(a_n)}(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)A_0^{n+1}.$$

Composing with the morphism $`BSeCat(B)`$, one gets a morphism

$$Af^{}(SeCat(B))$$

which is well defined in $`\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0))`$. The Segal pre-category $`f^{}(SeCat(B))`$ is clearly a Segal category, and therefore there exists a unique factorization in $`\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}(A_0))`$

In particular, there are natural morphisms in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})`$

$$SeCat(A)_{(a,b)}SeCat(B)_{(f(a),f(b))}$$

for any $`(a,b)A_0^2`$. The induced morphism on the connected components, together with the map $`A_0B_0`$, give rise to a well defined functor

$$\mathrm{Ho}(f):\mathrm{Ho}(SeCat(A))\mathrm{Ho}(SeCat(B)).$$

###### Definition 2.0.3

Let $`f:AB`$ be a morphism of Segal pre-categories.

* The morphism $`f`$ is *fully faithful* if for any $`(a,b)A_0^2`$, the induced morphism

$$SeCat(A)_{(a,b)}SeCat(B)_{(f(a),f(b))}$$

is an isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})`$.
* The morphism $`f`$ is *essentially surjective* if the induced functor

$$\mathrm{Ho}(SeCat(A))\mathrm{Ho}(SeCat(B))$$

is essentially surjective.
* The morphism $`f`$ is an *equivalence* if it is fully faithful and essentially surjective.

It is important to notice that when $`f:AB`$ is a morphism between Segal categories, then $`A`$ and $`B`$ are iso-equivalent to $`SeCat(A)`$ and $`SeCat(B)`$, and therefore the previous definition simplifies.

###### Theorem 2.0.4

*(\[P, Thm. $`\mathrm{6.4.4}`$\])* There exists a closed model structure on the category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$, of Segal pre-categories (in the universe $`𝕌`$), where the equivalences are those of Definition 2.0.3 and the cofibrations are the monomorphisms. This model category is furthermore simplicial, $`𝕌`$-cellular and $`𝕌`$-combinatorial.

For any $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$, the natural morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}^{iso}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$

$$SeCat(A\times B)SeCat(A)\times SeCat(B)$$

is an isomorphism. This is the product formula of \[P, Thm. $`\mathrm{5.5.20}`$\]. From this, one deduces formally the following very important corollary.

###### Corollary 2.0.5

*(\[P, Thm. $`\mathrm{5.5.20}`$, Thm. $`\mathrm{6.4.4}`$\])* The model category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ is internal (i.e. is a symmetric monoidal model category with the direct product as the monoidal product).

As explained in \[Ho, Thm. $`\mathrm{4.3.2}`$\], the previous corollary implies that the homotopy category $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ is cartesian closed; the correponding internal $`Hom`$-objects will be denoted by $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,B)\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$, for $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$. Recall that $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,B)`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,RB)`$, where $`\underset{¯}{Hom}`$ denotes the internal $`Hom`$’s in the category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ and $`RB`$ is a fibrant model of $`B`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$. For any $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$, one has the derived adjunction formula

$$\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,\underset{¯}{Hom}(B,C))\underset{¯}{Hom}(A\times B,C).$$

The existence of these derived internal $`Hom`$’s is of fundamental importance as it allows one to develop the theory of Segal categories in a very similar fashion as usual category theory. A first example is the following definition. For any category $`C`$ together with a subcategory $`S`$, we denote by $`L(C,S)`$ the Dwyer-Kan simplicial localization of $`C`$ with respect to $`S`$ (see \[D-K$`1`$\]); $`L(C,S)`$ is an $`S`$-category hence a Segal category. When $`C`$ is a model category we will always take $`S`$ to be the subcategory of weak equivalences and we will simply write $`LC`$ for $`L(C,S)`$.

###### Definition 2.0.6

1. The Segal category of $`𝕌`$-small simplicial sets is defined to be

$$\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}:=L(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌).$$
2. Let $`T`$ be a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category. The *Segal category of pre-stacks over* $`T`$ is defined to be

$$\widehat{T}:=\underset{¯}{Hom}(T^{op},\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}).$$

Note that, as usual, if $`T`$ is a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category, then $`\widehat{T}`$ is a $`𝕍`$-small Segal category for $`𝕌𝕍`$.

## 3 Segal topoi

The existence of internal $`Hom`$’s mentioned above, and more generally of the model strcuture on $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$, allows one to extend to Segal categories most of the basic constructions in category theory (for some of these constructions, see \[H-S, Si\]). In this paragraph we will first recall some of the basic extensions and then use them to describe a notion of Segal topos, analogous to the usual notion of topos in the context of Segal categories. We will state the results without proofs.

### 3.1 Adjunctions

Let us start by the definition of adjunction between Segal categories, as introduced in \[H-S, §$`8`$\]. Let $`f:AB`$ be a morphism between fibrant Segal categories. We will say that $`f`$ has a left adjoint, if there exists a morphism $`g:BA`$ and an element $`u\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,A)_{gf,Id}`$ (i.e. a natural transformation $`gfId`$) such that for any $`aA_0`$ and $`bB_0`$, the natural morphism (well defined in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})`$)

is an isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})`$.

One can check that if $`f`$ has a left adjoint, then the pair $`(g,u)`$ is unique up to equivalence. More generally one can show that the Segal category of left adjoints to $`f`$ (i.e. of all pairs $`(g,u)`$ as above) is contractible. This justifies the terminology $`g`$ is the left adjoint of $`f`$, and $`u`$ is its unit, for any such pair $`(g,u)`$.

###### Definition 3.1.1

A morphism $`f:AB`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ *has a left adjoint* if for any $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ fibrant models of $`A`$ and $`B`$, one of its representative $`f:A^{}B^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ has a left adjoint in the sense defined above.

In a dual way one defines the notion of right adjoints.

### 3.2 Limits

Let $`I`$ and $`A`$ be two Segal categories. The natural projection $`I\times AA`$ yields by adjunction a well defined morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$

$$c:A\underset{¯}{Hom}(I,A).$$

The morphism $`c`$ is the constant diagram functor, and sends an object $`aA_0`$ to the constant morphism $`I\{a\}A`$.

###### Definition 3.2.1

1. A Segal category $`A`$ has *limits* (resp. *colimits*) *along a category* $`I`$ if the natural morphism $`c:A\underset{¯}{Hom}(I,A)`$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint. The right adjoint (resp. left adjoint) is then denoted by

$$\mathrm{Lim}_I:\underset{¯}{Hom}(I,A)A(resp.\mathrm{Colim}_I\underset{¯}{Hom}(I,A)A).$$
2. Let $`𝕌𝕍`$ be two universes, and $`A`$ a Segal category in $`𝕍`$, $`A\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}_𝕍)`$. The Segal category $`A`$ has $`𝕌`$*-limits* (resp. $`𝕌`$*-colimits*), if it has limits (resp. colimits) along any $`𝕌`$-small category $`I`$.
3. A Segal category $`A`$ has *finite limits* if it has limits along the categories $`(\text{})`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. A Segal category has *finite colimits* if its opposite Segal category $`A^{op}`$ has finite limits.

When concerned with limits and colimits in Segal categories we will use the same notations as usual. For example, coproducts will be denoted by $``$, fibered products by $`x\times _zy`$, ….

###### Remark 3.2.2

*One can show that any Segal category $`A`$ with finite limits in the sense above has also limits along all categories $`I`$ whose nerve is a finite simplicial set. This justifies the terminology of having finite limits.*

The following proposition is a formal consequence of the definitions and the adjunction formula for internal Hom’s.

###### Proposition 3.2.3

For a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category $`T`$, the Segal category $`\widehat{T}`$ has $`𝕌`$-limits and $`𝕌`$-colimits.

Let $`f:AB`$ be a morphism of Segal categories, and $`I`$ any category such that $`A`$ and $`B`$ have limits along $`I`$. The universal property of adjunction implies that for any $`x_{}\underset{¯}{Hom}(I,A)`$, there exists a well defined and natural morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(B)`$

$$f(\mathrm{Lim}_Ix_i)\mathrm{Lim}_If(x_i).$$

We will say that $`f`$ preserves limits along $`I`$ if for any $`x_{}\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,B)`$, the induced morphism $`f(\mathrm{Lim}_Ix_i)\mathrm{Lim}_If(x_i)`$ is an isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(B)`$. One shows, for example, that a morphism having a left adjoint always preserves limits.

###### Definition 3.2.4

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be two Segal categories with finite limits.

1. A morphism $`f:AB`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ is *left exact* if it preserves limits along  and $`\mathrm{}`$.
2. The Segal category $`A`$ is a *left exact localization of* $`B`$ if there exists a morphism $`i:AB`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$, which is fully faithful and possesses a left adjoint which is left exact.

In a dual way one defines the notion of colimits preserving morphism, right exact morphism and right exact localization.

### 3.3 Topologies and Segal topoi

###### Definition 3.3.1

A *Segal topology on a Segal category* $`T`$ is a Grothendieck topology on the homotopy category $`\mathrm{Ho}(T)`$. A Segal category together with a Segal topology is called a *Segal site*.

The functor $`\pi _0`$, sending a simplicial set to its set of connected components, induces a morphism of Segal categories $`\pi _0:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$. By composition, one gets for any $`𝕌`$-small Segal category $`T`$, a morphism

$$\pi _0^{pr}:\widehat{T}\underset{¯}{Hom}(T,\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝗍})\underset{¯}{Hom}(\mathrm{Ho}(T),\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝗍})\mathrm{𝖯𝗋}(\mathrm{Ho}(T)),$$

where $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋}(\mathrm{Ho}(T))`$ is the category of presheaves of sets on the (usual) category $`\mathrm{Ho}(T)`$.

In the same way, for any simplicial set $`K`$, the exponential functor $`()^K:\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}`$, restricted to the full subcategory of fibrant objects, induces a morphism of Segal categories

$$()^K:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}.$$

By composition, this induces a morphism of Segal categories of pre-stacks

$$()^K:\widehat{T}\widehat{T}.$$

###### Definition 3.3.2

Let $`(T,\tau )`$ be a $`𝕌`$-small Segal site.

1. A morphism $`f:FG`$ in $`\widehat{T}`$ is a $`\tau `$*-local equivalence* if for any integer $`n0`$, the induced morphism of presheaves of sets on $`\mathrm{Ho}(T)`$

$$\pi _0^{pr}(F^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n})\pi _0^{pr}(F^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}\times _{G^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}}G^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n})$$

induces an epimorphism of sheaves on the site $`(\mathrm{Ho}(T),\tau )`$.
2. An object $`F(\widehat{T})_0`$ is called a *stack* for the topology $`\tau `$, if for any $`\tau `$-local equivalence $`f:GH`$ in $`\widehat{T}`$, the induced morphism

$$f^{}:Hom_{\mathrm{Ho}(\widehat{T})}(H,F)Hom_{\mathrm{Ho}(\widehat{T})}(G,F)$$

is bijective.
3. The *Segal category of stacks* on the Segal site $`(T,\tau )`$ is the full sub-Segal category $`T^{,\tau }`$ of $`\widehat{T}`$, consisting of stacks.

As mentioned in the Introduction of \[To-Ve$`2`$\], one possible definition of a usual Grothendieck topos is as a full subcategory of a category of presheaves such that the inclusion functor possesses a left adjoint which is left exact. The following definition is an analog of this for Segal categories.

###### Definition 3.3.3

A $`𝕌`$*-Segal topos* is a Segal category which is a left exact localization of $`\widehat{T}`$, for a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category $`T`$.

###### Remark 3.3.4

* When $`T`$ is a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category, $`\widehat{T}`$ is only $`𝕍`$-small for $`𝕌𝕍`$. Therefore, a $`𝕌`$-Segal topos does not belong to $`𝕌`$ but only to $`𝕍`$.
* By definition of left exact localizations in 3.2.4, a $`𝕌`$-Segal category $`A`$ is a Segal topos if and only if there exists a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category $`T`$ and a morphism $`i:A\widehat{T}`$, which is fully faithful and has a left exact left adjoint. The morphism $`i`$ and the Segal category $`T`$ are however not part of the data.

As a direct consequences of the definition one has the following result.

###### Proposition 3.3.5

A $`𝕌`$-Segal topos has $`𝕌`$-limits and $`𝕌`$-colimits.

In a similar way as in \[To-Ve$`2`$, Def. 3.8.2\], we define the notion of truncated objects in a Segal category $`A`$. An object $`aA`$ is $`n`$-truncated, if for any $`xA`$ the simplicial set $`A_{(x,a)}`$ is $`n`$-truncated. An object will be simply called truncated if it is $`n`$-truncated for some $`n`$.

###### Definition 3.3.6

A Segal category $`A`$ is $`t`$*-complete* if truncated objects detect isomorphisms in $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ (i.e. a morphism $`u:xy`$ is an isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ if and only if $`u^{}:[y,a]_{\mathrm{Ho}(A)}[x,a]_{\mathrm{Ho}(A)}`$ is bijective for any truncated object $`a\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$).

The fundamental example of a $`t`$-complete Segal category is the following.

###### Proposition 3.3.7

1. Let $`(T,\tau )`$ be $`𝕌`$-small Segal site. The natural inclusion functor $`T^{,\tau }\widehat{T}`$ has a left exact left adjoint.
2. The Segal category $`T^{,\tau }`$ of stacks on $`(T,\tau )`$ is a $`t`$-complete $`𝕌`$-Segal topos.

Proof: It is a consequence of the corresponding fact in the context of model categories (see \[To-Ve$`2`$, Proposition 3.4.10 (2)\] and \[To-Ve$`2`$, Theorem 3.8.3\]) and the comparison theorem 4.3.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to state the analog of Theorem 3.8.3 of \[To-Ve$`2`$\] for Segal categories. We fix a $`𝕌`$-small Segal category $`T`$. Any topology $`\tau `$ on $`T`$ gives a full subcategory of stacks $`T^{,\tau }`$, which by the previous proposition, is a $`t`$-complete left exact localization of $`\widehat{T}`$. The proof of the following theorem can be established, with some work, using the same statement for $`S`$-categories (proved in \[To-Ve$`2`$, Theorem 3.8.3\]), and the comparison result of Corollary 4.3.1.

###### Theorem 3.3.8

With the above notations, the rule $`\tau T^{,\tau }`$ establishes a bijection between Segal topologies on $`T`$ and (equivalence classes) of $`t`$-complete left exact localizations of $`\widehat{T}`$.

###### Remark 3.3.9

*The hypothesis of $`t`$-completeness in Theorem 3.3.8 might appear unnatural, and it would be interesting to understand whether there exists a kind of “topologies” on $`T`$ which are in bijection with arbitrary left exact localizations of $`\widehat{T}`$. As explained in \[To-Ve$`2`$\] Remark 3.8.7 (3), one way to proceed would be to introduce a hyper-topology on a Segal category, a notion suggested to us by some remarks of V. Hinich, A. Joyal and C. Simpson. A hyper-topology on a (Segal) category would consist in specifying directly the hypercovers (and not only the coverings, like in the case of a topology). The data of these hypercovers should satisfy appropriate conditions ensuring that the “correponding” left Bousfield localization is indeed exact. Then, it seems reasonable that Theorem 3.3.8 can be generalized to a bijective correspondence between hyper-topologies on $`T`$ and arbitrary left exact Bousfield localizations of $`\widehat{T}`$.*

*Theorem 3.3.8 suggests also a way to think of higher topologies on $`n`$-Segal categories (and of higher topoi) for $`n1`$ as appropriate left exact localizations. We address the reader to \[To-Ve$`2`$, Remark 3.8.7 (4)\] for a brief discussion on this point.*

### 3.4 Geometric morphisms

The main advantage of Segal categories with respect to $`S`$-categories is the existence of a reasonable theory of internal $`Hom`$’s (see Corollary 2.0.5). For the purpose of topos theory, this will allow us to define the notion of geometric morphisms between Segal topoi, and more generally of the Segal category of geometric morphisms between two Segal topoi.

###### Definition 3.4.1

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be two $`𝕌`$-Segal topoi.

1. A morphism $`f:BA`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ is called *geometric* if it is left exact and has a right adjoint.
2. The full sub-Segal category of $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(B,A)`$ consisting of geometric morphisms will be denoted by $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(A,B)`$.

###### Remark 3.4.2

1. *As one uses the internal $`Hom`$’s for Segal categories in order to define the $`2`$-Segal category of Segal categories (see \[H-S, §$`2`$\]), one can use the notion of geometric morphisms between Segal topoi to define the $`2`$-Segal category of Segal topoi. More precisely, one defines the $`2`$-Segal category of $`𝕌`$-Segal topoi $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖳}_𝕌`$ as follows. Its objects are the fibrant Segal categories in $`𝕍`$ which are $`𝕌`$-Segal topoi. For $`A`$ and $`B`$ two $`𝕌`$-Segal topoi, the $`1`$-Segal category of morphisms is $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(A,B)`$, the full sub-Segal category of $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(B,A)`$ consisting of geometric morphisms. Note that $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖳}_𝕌`$ is an element of $`𝕎`$, for a universe $`𝕎`$ such that $`𝕌𝕍𝕎`$.*
2. *In part $`(1)`$ of Definition 3.4.1, the right adjoint is not part of the data of a geometric morphism. Strictly speaking, this might differ from the original definition of geometric morphisms, but the uniqueness of adjoints implies that the two notions are in fact equivalent (i.e. give rise to equivalent $`2`$-categories of topoi).*
3. *There is also a notion of essential geometric morphism of topoi as described for example, in \[M-M, p. 360\]. In the same way one can define the refined notion of essential geometric morphisms of Segal topoi. They form a full sub-Segal category of the Segal category of geometric morphisms.*

The standard example of a geometric morphism of Segal topoi is given by continuous morphisms of Segal sites. Let $`(T,\tau )`$ and $`(T^{},\tau ^{})`$ be two $`𝕌`$-small Segal sites, and $`f:TT^{}`$ be a morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$. The morphism $`f`$ induces a morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ between the corresponding Segal categories of pre-stacks

$$f^{}:\widehat{T^{}}\widehat{T}.$$

We say that the morphism $`f`$ is continuous if it preserves the full sub-Segal category of stacks. In this case, it induces a well defined morphim in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$

$$f^{}:(T^{})^{,\tau ^{}}T^{,\tau }.$$

One can show that this morphism is left exact and possesses a left and a right adjoint, $`f_!`$ and $`f_{}`$. In particular, $`f^{}`$ defines a geometric morphism $`T^{,\tau }(T^{})^{,\tau }`$.

## 4 Comparison between model topoi and Segal topoi

### 4.1 $`S`$-categories vs. Segal categories

As we already observed, any $`S`$-category (i.e. simplicially enriched category) is in a natural way a Segal category. Furthermore, it is clear that a morphism $`TT^{}`$ between $`S`$-categories is an equivalence if and only if it is an equivalence in the model category $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$. Therefore, the inclusion functor $`j:S\mathrm{𝖢𝖺𝗍}\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ induces a well defined functor on the level of homotopy categories

$$j:\mathrm{Ho}(S\mathrm{𝖢𝖺𝗍})\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}).$$

This functor is known to be an equivalence of categories (see \[Si, p. $`7`$\]). Since we know that $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ is cartesian closed, then so is $`\mathrm{Ho}(S\mathrm{𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$.

Let $`C`$ be a $`𝕌`$-small category, $`SC`$ a subcategory (that we may suppose to contain all the isomorphisms) and $`L(C,S)`$ its simplicial localization, considered as a Segal category and therefore as an object in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$. It comes equipped with a natural localization morphism $`L:C\mathrm{L}(C,S)`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ defined by the diagram

where the horizontal map is induced by the identity functor on $`C`$ and the vertical equivalence in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$ is adjoint to the (usual) equivalence of categories $`\pi _0L(C,\mathrm{iso})C`$.

The following proposition says that $`C\mathrm{L}(C,S)`$ is the universal construction in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ which formally inverts the morphisms in $`S`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.1

*(\[H-S, Prop. $`8.6`$, Prop. $`8.7`$\])* For any $`A\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$, the natural morphism

$$L^{}:\underset{¯}{Hom}(\mathrm{L}(C,S),A)\underset{¯}{Hom}(C,A)$$

is fully faithful. Its essential image consists of those morphisms $`CA`$ mapping elements of $`S`$ to equivalences in $`A`$.

Proposition 4.1.1 has the following important corollary.

###### Corollary 4.1.2

Let $`(C,S)`$ (resp. $`(D,T)`$) be a $`𝕌`$-small category with a subcategory $`SC`$ (resp. $`TD`$). Then, the natural morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$

$$L(C\times D,S\times T)L(C,S)\times L(D,T)$$

is an isomorphism.

### 4.2 The strictification theorem

Let $`T`$ be a $`𝕌`$-small $`S`$-category, and $`M`$ be a simplicial model category which will be assumed to be $`𝕌`$-cofibrantly generated. The category of simplicial functors from $`T`$ to $`M`$ is denoted by $`M^T`$, and is endowed with its projective objectwise model structure: equivalences and fibrations are defined objectwise. We consider the evaluation functor

$$M^T\times TM,$$

as a morphism in $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍}`$. This functor clearly sends objectwise equivalences in $`M^T\times T`$ to equivalences in $`M`$, and therefore induces a well defined morphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$ between the corresponding simplicial localizations along equivalences

$$L(M^T\times T)L(M^T)\times TLM,$$

which yields, by adjunction, a morphism

$$L(M^T)\underset{¯}{Hom}(T,LM).$$

The strictification theorem is the following statement. It says that the Segal category of functors from $`T`$ to $`LM`$ can be computed using the model category $`M^T`$ of $`T`$-diagrams in $`M`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.1

*(Strictification theorem)* Under the previous hypotheses and notations, the natural morphism

$$L(M^T)\underset{¯}{Hom}(T,LM)$$

is an isomorphism.

Sketch of proof: The theorem is proved in \[H-S, Theorem 18.6\] when $`T`$ is a Reedy category. In the general case, one can find a Reedy category $`C`$ and a subcategory $`SC`$ together with an equivalence $`L(C,S)T`$. The theorem now follows from the case of a Reedy category, Proposition 4.1.1 and its analog for model categories (see \[To-Ve$`2`$, Theorem 2.3.5\] for references). $`\mathrm{}`$

This theorem is the central result needed to compare the construction of the category of stacks on an $`S`$-site (\[To-Ve$`2`$, §3\]) to the theory of stacks over Segal sites presented here. Note that Theorem 4.2.1 implies that

$$\widehat{T}L(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}^T)=L(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}^{T^{op}})=L(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋}(T,\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})).$$

The strictification theorem 4.2.1 has one fundamental consequence which is the Yoneda lemma for Segal categories proved in \[Si\]. Let $`A`$ be a Segal category (say in $`𝕌`$); we know that we can find an $`S`$-category $`A^{}`$ and an equivalence $`A^{}A`$. For the $`S`$-category $`A^{}`$ one has a natural simplicially enriched Yoneda morphism $`(A^{})^{op}\times A^{}\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌`$. By adjunction this gives a well defined morphism of $`S`$-categories $`A^{}\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌^{(A^{})^{op}}`$. Composing this with the morphism of Theorem 4.2.1, we get a morphism of Segal categories

$$h:AA^{}\widehat{A^{}}\widehat{A},$$

well defined in the homotopy category of Segal categories. Now, Theorem 4.2.1, results of \[D-K$`3`$\] and again the simplicially enriched Yoneda lemma together imply that the morphism $`h`$ is fully faithful. This is the Yoneda lemma for the Segal category $`A`$ of \[Si\]. More generally, the same kind of argument proves the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.2.2

*(Yoneda lemma)* Let $`A`$ be a Segal category, and $`aA`$ an object. Let $`F\widehat{A}`$ be a morphism from $`A^{op}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$. There exists a natural equivalence of simplicial sets

$$F(a)\widehat{A}_{(h_a,F)}.$$

We finish this subsection with the following definition of representable and corepresentable functors.

###### Definition 4.2.3

Let $`A`$ be a Segal category and $`F\underset{¯}{Hom}(A^{op},\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$ be an object. $`F`$ is called *representable* if it is equivalent to $`h_a`$ for some $`aA`$.

Dually, an object $`F\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$ is called *corepresentable* if it is representable when considered as a functor from $`(A^{op})^{op}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$ (i.e. equivalent to $`h_a`$ for some $`aA^{op}`$).

### 4.3 Comparison

Recall from \[To-Ve$`2`$, §3.8\] that a ($`t`$-complete) model topos is a model category Quillen equivalent to the model category $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}_\tau (T)`$ of stacks over some $`S`$-site $`(T,\tau )`$. The results of the previous subsection imply that the notions of model topos and of Segal topos are related via the functor $`L`$, which sends a model category to its simplicial localization (along equivalences). More presicely, if one starts with a $`𝕌`$-small $`S`$-site $`(T,\tau )`$, then one has the model categories of pre-stacks $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}(T)`$ and of stacks $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}_\tau (T)`$ on $`T`$, as defined in \[To-Ve$`2`$, §3\]. One the other hand, the $`S`$-site $`(T,\tau )`$ might be considered in a trivial way as a $`𝕌`$-small Segal site, and one can consider the associated Segal categories of pre-stacks $`\widehat{T}`$ and of stacks $`T^{,\tau }`$. Theorem 4.2.1 implies the following comparison result.

###### Corollary 4.3.1

1. If $`M`$ is a $`𝕌`$-model topos then $`LM`$ is a $`𝕌`$-Segal topos.
2. Let $`(T,\tau )`$ be a $`𝕌`$-small $`S`$-site. There exists natural isomorphisms in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})`$

$$L(\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}(T))\widehat{T}L(\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}_\tau (T))T^{,\tau }.$$

Therefore the theory of model topoi, investigated in \[To-Ve$`2`$\], embeds in the present theory of Segal topoi where it actually finds a richer environment, mainly because when viewed as Segal topoi (via the simplicial localization $`L`$), two model topoi do have a Segal category of geometric morphisms between them (as explained in Definition 3.4.1) while it is not clear what a model category of geometric morphisms between model topoi should be.

Let us also mention that all results and constructions of \[To-Ve$`2`$\] provide through corollary 4.3.1 analogs results and constructions in the context of Segal topoi. This way, we obtain the existence of internal Hom’s, a theory of truncated objects and truncation functors ….

Finally, corollary 4.3.1 together with theorem 3.3.8 implies the following important fact.

###### Corollary 4.3.2

A $`t`$-complete $`𝕌`$-Segal topos is a presentable Segal category in the sense of Lurie (\[Lu, Prop. 1.4.1\]).

Proof: Indeed, $`T`$ is equivalent to some $`LSPr_\tau (T)`$. As $`SPr_\tau (T)`$ is a cofibrantly generated model category, $`T`$ is a presentable Segal category (see \[Si\] for details). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.3.3

*Corollary 4.3.2 states that any $`t`$-complete Segal topos is a presentable Segal category. The question whether any Segal topos is a presentable Segal category is open.*

## 5 Further examples and applications

In this last section we give some further materials and some examples of applications of the theory of Segal topoi.

### 5.1 Giraud’s theorem

In order to state the conjectural Giraud’s theorem for Segal topoi, we need some preliminaries notations and definitions.

* A simplicial set is called *essentially $`𝕌`$-small* if it is equivalent to a $`𝕌`$-small simplicial set.
* A coproduct $`_{iI}x_i`$ in a Segal category $`A`$ with inital object $`\mathrm{}`$ is called *disjoint* if for any $`ij`$ the square

is cartesian in $`A`$.
* Let $`X_{}:\mathrm{\Delta }^{op}A`$ be a simplicial object in a Segal category $`A`$. We say that $`X_{}`$ is a *groupoid object* if it satisfies the following two conditions.

1. The Segal morphisms (defined as in §2)

    $$X_n\underset{ntimes}{\underset{}{X_1\times _{X_0}X_1\mathrm{}\times _{X_0}X_1}}$$

    are equivalences (this condition includes the fact that the fibered product of the left hand side exists in $`A`$).
    2. The morphism

    $$d_2\times d_1:X_2X_1\times _{d_0,X_0,d_1}X_1$$

    is an equivalence.
* Finally, let $`A`$ be a $`𝕍`$-small Segal category whose simplicial sets of morphisms are essentially $`𝕌`$-small. A $`𝕌`$-small set of strong generators for $`A`$ is a $`𝕌`$-small set $`E`$ of objects in $`A`$ (considered as a full sub-Segal category of $`A`$), such that the natural morphism

$$A\widehat{A}\widehat{E}$$

is fully faithful (the first morphism is the Yoneda embedding $`h`$ of Proposition 4.2.2, and the second one is the restriction morphism from $`A`$ to $`E`$).

The analog of Giraud’s theorem for Segal categories is the following.

###### Conjecture 5.1.1

*(Giraud’s theorem for Segal topoi)* Let $`A`$ be a $`𝕍`$-small Segal category. Then $`A`$ is a $`𝕌`$-Segal topos if and only if it satisfies the following conditions.

1. The simplicial sets of morphisms in $`A`$ are essentially $`𝕌`$-small.
2. The Segal category $`A`$ has all $`𝕌`$-small colimits, and coproducts in $`A`$ are disjoint.
3. For all groupoid objects $`X_{}`$ in $`A`$, the natural morphism

$$X_{}N(X_0|X_{}|)$$

is an equivalence of simplicial objects in $`A`$ (here $`|X_{}|`$ is the colimit of the simplicial diagram $`X_{}`$ and $`N(X_0|X_{}|)`$ is the nerve of the natural morphism $`X_0|X_{}|`$).
4. Colimits in $`A`$ are stable by pullbacks. In other words, for any $`𝕌`$-small category $`I`$, any $`I`$-diagram $`x_{}`$ in $`A`$, and any morphisms , the natural morphism

$$\mathrm{Colim}_{iI}\left(x_i\times _zy\right)\left(\mathrm{Colim}_{iI}x_i\right)\times _zy$$

is an equivalence.
5. The Segal category $`A`$ has a $`𝕌`$-small set of strong generators.

Conjecture 5.1.1 can be directly compared with Theorem $`1`$ of the appendix of \[M-M\]. It can also be compared with the version of Giraud’s theorem in the context of model topoi stated by C. Rezk (unpublished). A proof of the conjecture 5.1.1 have been recently given by J. Lurie in \[Lu\] (at least for presentable Segal categories).

Finally, one can easily prove the following proposition, which together with the previous conjecture would give a Giraud’s theorem of $`t`$-complete Segal topoi, and therefore, by Theorem 3.3.8, a characterization of Segal categories of the form $`T^{,\tau }`$.

For this, let us recall that a morphism $`f:FG`$ in a Segal topos $`A`$ is an *epimorphism* if the natural morphism

$$|N(FG)|G,$$

from the geometric realization of the nerve of $`f`$ down to $`G`$, is an equivalence in $`A`$. We will then say that an augmented simplicial object $`X_{}Y`$ in a Segal topos $`A`$ is a *hyper-cover* if for any $`n0`$ the induced morphism

$$X_{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}X_{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}\times _{Y^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}}Y^{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}$$

is an epimorphism.

###### Proposition 5.1.2

A Segal topos $`A`$ is $`t`$-complete if and only if for all hyper-cover $`X_{}Y`$ the induced morphism

$$|X_{}|Y$$

is an equivalence.

### 5.2 A Galois interpretation of homotopy theory

In this number, we will give an application of the notion of geometric morphisms between Segal topoi to the Galois interpretation of homotopy theory of \[To\].

Let $`X`$ be a CW complex in $`𝕌`$, and $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}(X)`$ be the category of $`𝕌`$-simplicial presheaves on $`X`$ (i.e. presheaves of $`𝕌`$-small simplicial sets on the site of open subsets of $`X`$). The category $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}(X)`$ is endowed with its local projective model structure of \[Bl\]. We consider the full subcategory $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝖯𝗋}(X)`$, consisting of locally $`h`$-constant objects in the sense of \[To\]. They are the simplicial presheaves $`F`$ which are, locally on $`X`$, equivalent (for the local model structure) to a constant simplicial presheaf. We define $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X):=L\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$, the simplicial localization of $`\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ along the local equivalences, and we view it as a $`𝕍`$-small Segal category.

The following theorem is the higher analog of the Galois interpretation of the theory of fundamental groupoids explored by Grothendieck in \[SGA1\]. It is also an extension of the main theorem of \[To\] to the case of unbased spaces.

###### Theorem 5.2.1

1. The Segal category $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ is a $`t`$-complete $`𝕌`$-Segal topos.
2. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be two $`𝕌`$-small $`CW`$-complexes. The Segal category $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X),\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ is a Segal groupoid (i.e. its homotopy category is a groupoid, or equivalentely all its morphisms are equivalences).
3. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be two $`𝕌`$-small $`CW`$-complexes. There exists a natural isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})`$

$$\underset{¯}{Hom}(X,Y)|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X),\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))|,$$

where $`|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X),\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))|`$ is the geometric realization (see \[H-S, §2\]) of the Segal category $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X),\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$.
4. The functor

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}:& \mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})& & \mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖳}_𝕌)\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖯𝗋𝖲𝖾𝖢𝖺𝗍})\\ & X& & \mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)\end{array}$$

is fully faithful.

Sketch of proof: The theorem is mainly a consequence of results in \[To\].

$`(1)`$ This follows from \[To, Theorem 2.13, 2.22\] and the strictification theorem 4.2.1, which shows that $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ is equivalent to $`\widehat{BG}`$, where $`G`$ is the simplicial group of loops on $`X`$ (we assume here that $`X`$ is connected for the sake of simplicity), and $`BG`$ is the Segal category with a unique object and $`G`$ as the endomorphism simplicial monoid.

$`(2)`$ As above, let us write $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)\widehat{BG}\underset{¯}{Hom}(BG^{op},\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$. By adjunction one has

$$\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X),\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))\underset{¯}{Hom}(BG,\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)).$$

As $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}()\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$, this shows that one can assume $`X=`$. One can also clearly assume that $`Y`$ is connected. Therefore, it is enough to show that all objects in $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ are equivalent (compare with \[SGA1, Corollary 5.7\]).

Let $`yY`$ be a base point and $`\omega _y:\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$ the fiber-at-$`x`$ morphism. We will prove that any $`\omega \underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ is equivalent to $`\omega _y`$. Indeed, by \[To, Theorem 2.22\] we know that $`\omega _y`$ is co-represented by some $`E\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)`$, corresponding to the action of the loop group of $`Y`$ on itself. Since $`E\mathrm{}`$, the exactness assumption on $`\omega `$ implies that $`\omega (E)\mathrm{}`$. The Yoneda lemma 4.2.2 implies that $`\omega (E)\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))_{(\omega _y,\omega )}`$, and therefore one sees that there exists a morphism $`u:\omega _y\omega `$. We need to show that $`u`$ is an equivalence, or equivalentely that for any $`F\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)`$, the induced morphism $`u_F:F_y\omega (F)`$ is an equivalence of simplicial sets. Considering this morphism on the level of $`\pi _0`$, and using \[SGA1, Corollary 6.3\], one sees that for any $`F\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)`$ the induced morphism $`\pi _0(u_F):\pi _0(F_y)\pi _0(\omega (F))`$ is bijective. Moreover, applying this to $`F^K`$, for $`K`$ a finite simplicial set, and using exactness of $`\omega `$ we see that $`F_y\omega (F)`$ is in fact an equivalence.

$`(3)`$ As above, one can suppose that $`X=`$ and that $`Y`$ is connected. Let us write $`YBG`$, where $`G`$ is a simplicial group. Using \[To, Theorem 2.13.,2.22\], we need to show that the natural morphism

$$BG\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\widehat{BG})$$

is an equivalence of Segal categories. The fact that this morphism is fully faithful is \[To, Corollary 3.2\]. On the other hand, point $`(2)`$ above shows that all objects in $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\widehat{BG})`$ are equivalent, i.e. that the above morphism is also essentially surjective.

$`(4)`$ The functor

$$\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}:\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖾𝖳}_𝕌)$$

has a right adjoint, sending a Segal topos $`A`$ to the geometric realization of the Segal groupoid $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},A)^{int}`$ (the interior of the Segal category $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},A)`$, see \[H-S, §2\]. It is the maximal sub-Segal groupoid of $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},A)`$). The fact that the adjunction morphism $`X|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X))|`$ is an isomorphism for any $`X`$ in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$ is the content of point $`(3)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

¿From Theorem 5.2.1 $`(4)`$, one deduces the following reconstruction result. Note that the Segal category $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}=L\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍}_𝕌`$ of simplicial sets is equivalent to $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}()`$, $``$ denoting the one-point space.

###### Corollary 5.2.2

The Segal topos $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ determines $`X`$. More precisely, there exists a natural isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖲𝖲𝖾𝗍})`$

$$X|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X))|.$$

In particular, if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are two $`𝕌`$-small $`CW`$-complexes such that the Segal categories $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(X)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)`$ are equivalent, then $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are homotopy equivalent.

### 5.3 Homotopy types of Segal sites

The reconstruction of a homotopy type from the Segal category of locally constant stacks on it explained in the last subsection suggests that one could try to extend homotopy theory to Segal sites, in the same way as the theory of fundamental group is extended to the more general setting of \[SGA1, Exp. V\]. For nice enough Grothendieck sites, a pro-homotopy type has been constructed in \[A-M\]. However, the approach of \[A-M\] is very different from the galoisian point of view originally adopted in \[SGA1, Exp. V\], and no relations have still been made explicit between certain stacks on the site and certain stacks on its associated homotopy type, as, for example, locally constant sheaves corresponds to continuous representations of the fundamental group. Moreover, the construction of \[A-M\] only gives a pro-object in the homotopy category of spaces, whereas various works on étale homotopy theory and pro-finite completions suggest that one should actually expect an object in the homotopy category of pro-spaces instead.

In this last part we propose a very general approach to define homotopy types of Segal sites, which follows the original galoisian point of view of \[SGA1\] and \[To\]. Not all the details of the construction will be presented here.

Let $`T`$ be a $`𝕌`$-Segal topos. We assume that $`T`$ is presentable Segal category in the sense of \[Lu\] (e.g. $`T`$ is a $`t`$-complete Segal topos, see Corollary 4.3.2).

We wish to define an associated morphism of Segal categories $`H_T:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$.
For a $`𝕌`$-small simplicial set $`Y`$, we consider $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)`$, the Segal category of locally constant stacks on its geometric realization (by \[To, Theorem 2.13\] $`\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y)`$ is also equivalent to the comma Segal category $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}/Y`$ of objects over $`Y`$) and the Segal category of geometric morphisms $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$.

On the other hand we can look at the unique geometric morphism $`p:T\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$, with inverse image $`p^{}:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}T`$, and define the cohomology of $`T`$ with coefficients in a $`𝕌`$-small simplicial set $`Y`$ as

$$(T,Y):=T_{(,p^{}(Y))}.$$

Note that, as the simplicial sets of morphisms in $`T`$ are essentially $`𝕌`$-small, so is $`(T,Y)`$. We have the following comparison result.

###### Lemma 5.3.1

The Segal category $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ is a Segal groupoid whose geometric realization is naturally equivalent to the cohomology space of $`T`$ with coefficients in $`Y`$

$$|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))|(T,Y).$$

Proof: Let us first describe the natural morphism

$$\varphi _{T,Y}:|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))|(T,Y).$$

First of all, by \[To, Theorem 2.13\], one has a natural equivalence between $`Loc(Y)_{(,\underset{¯}{Y})}`$ and $`Map(Y,Y)`$, where $`\underset{¯}{Y}`$ is the constant stack on $`Y`$ with fiber $`Y`$. Therefore, the identity provides a natural element $`c_YLoc(Y)_{(,\underset{¯}{Y})}`$. Now, if $`f^{}:Loc(Y)T`$ is the inverse image of a geometric morphism $`f\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$, the image of $`c_Y`$ by $`f^{}`$ gives an element in $`T_{(,f^{}(\underset{¯}{Y}))}(T,Y)`$. This defines the morphism $`\varphi _{T,Y}`$.

To prove that $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ is a Segal groupoid and that $`\varphi _{T,Y}`$ is an equivalence, one writes $`T`$ as a left localization of $`\widehat{B}`$, for some Segal category $`B`$. Then, $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$ is a left exact localization of $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\widehat{B},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$, and using the functoriality of $`\varphi _{T,Y}`$ in $`T`$ one is reduced to the case where $`T`$ is of the form $`\widehat{B}`$ where the lemma follows easily from the adjunction formula

$$\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(\widehat{B},\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))\underset{¯}{Hom}(B^{op},\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(Top,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))),$$

and theorem 5.2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$.

We define $`H_T(Y)`$ as the geometric realization of the Segal groupoid $`\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))`$:

$$H_T(Y):=|\underset{¯}{Hom}^{geom}(T,\mathrm{𝖫𝗈𝖼}(Y))|\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}.$$

This defines a morphism $`H_T:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$, which is abstractly considered as “some” homotopy type associated to the Segal topos $`T`$. By the previous lemma, one also has a natural equivalence $`H_T(Y)(T,Y)`$, for any $`𝕌`$-small simplicial set $`Y`$.

###### Definition 5.3.2

The *homotopy shape* of the Segal topos $`T`$ is defined to be the object $`H_T\underset{¯}{Hom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$ defined above.

A fundamental consequence of Theorem 5.2.1 is that if $`T`$ is the Segal topos of stacks over the Grothendieck site of a CW complex $`X`$, then $`H_T`$ is corepresented by the homotopy type of $`X`$. In general we do not expect $`H_T`$ to be corepresentable, but one can prove that $`H_T`$ is pro-corepresentable in the context of Segal categories. This last fact is more or less equivalent to the fact that the morphism $`H_T`$ is left exact, which follows from lemma 5.3.1. Let us be more precise.

A Segal category $`K`$ is called finite, if for any filtered system of Segal categories $`\{B_i\}_{iI}`$, the natural morphism

$$Colim_{iI}\underset{¯}{Hom}(K,B_i)\underset{¯}{Hom}(K,Colim_{iI}B_i)$$

is an equivalence. A Segal category $`A`$ is left filtered if for any finite Segal category $`K`$ and any $`K`$-diagram $`x\underset{¯}{Hom}(K,A)`$, there exists an object $`aA`$ and a morphism $`ax`$ in $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(K,A)`$ (here, $`a`$ also denotes the constant $`K`$-diagram in $`A`$ with value $`a`$).

###### Proposition 5.3.3

Let $`T`$ be a $`𝕌`$-Segal topos which is a presentable Segal category (e.g. a $`t`$-complete Segal topos). There exists a left filtered $`𝕌`$-small Segal category $`A`$ and an $`A`$-diagram $`\chi (T)\underset{¯}{Hom}(A,\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$ such that for any $`YTop`$ there is a natural equivalence

$$H_T(Y)Colim_{aA^{op}}\underset{¯}{Hom}(\chi (T)_a,Y).$$

In the other words, the two endomorphisms of $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$

$$YH_T(Y)YColim_{aA^{op}}\underset{¯}{Hom}(\chi (T)_a,Y)$$

are equivalent as objects in $`\underset{¯}{Hom}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉},\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$.

Sketch of proof: Let us recall that we have assumed $`T`$ to be a presentable Segal category. Therefore, there exists a regular cardinal $`\alpha 𝕌`$ such that, for any simplicial set $`Y`$, $`H_T(Y)Colim_{Y_i}H_T(Y_i)`$, where $`Y_i`$ runs through the sub-simplicial sets of $`Y`$ whose cardinality is less than $`\alpha `$ (chose $`\alpha `$ so that $``$ is a $`\alpha `$-small object in $`T`$ and observe that $`H_T(Y)T_{(,\underset{¯}{Y})}`$).

We now consider $`H_T`$, restricted to the full sub-category $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}_\alpha `$ of $`\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$ consisting of simplicial sets of cardinality less than $`\alpha `$. We define $`A`$ to be the Segal category of objects of the morphism $`H_T:\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}_\alpha \mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}`$. In other words, $`A`$ is the Segal category of pairs $`(Y,x)`$, where $`Y\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉}_\alpha `$ and $`xH_T(Y)`$ (the Segal category $`A`$ is also denoted by $`H_T`$ in \[H-S\]). As $`H_T`$ is left exact and by the choice of the cardinal $`\alpha `$, one sees that $`A`$ satisfies the conditions of the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

The diagram $`\chi (T)`$ of proposition 5.3.3 is called the pro-homotopy type of the Segal topos $`T`$. It is not a pro-simplicial in the usual sense, as the indices live in a filtered Segal category $`A`$ rather than in an actual filtered category. However, this seems to be not of so much importance, as pro-objects in the Segal setting behave very much the same way as usual pro-objects. Also, as argued in \[Lu\], it seems that the two notions are more or less equivalent, and that the Segal category $`A`$ of proposition 5.3.3 can in fact be chosen to be a usual filtered category.

In any case, when $`A`$ is a filtered Segal category then its homotopy category $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$ is a filtered category in the usual sense. Therefore, the $`A`$-diagram $`\chi (T)`$ of proposition 5.3.3 induces a $`\mathrm{Ho}(A)`$-diagram in $`\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{𝖳𝗈𝗉})`$, i.e. a pro-object in the homotopy category of spaces. When $`T`$ is the Segal topos of stacks over a locally connected Grothendieck site, we suspect that this induced pro-object is equivalent to the one constructed by Artin and Mazur in \[A-M\]. The pro-homotopy type $`\chi (T)`$ of the Segal topos $`T`$ is therefore a refinement and a generalization of Artin-Mazur’s construction.

An interesting example of application of homotopy types of Segal topoi would be the study of the étale homotopy type of the sphere spectrum, defined by using the Segal site $`(Spec𝕊,\text{ét})`$ defined in \[To-Ve$`2`$, §5\]. We can, for example, ask the following more precise question.

###### Question 5.3.4

Let $`T:=Spec𝕊^{,\text{ét}}`$ be the small étale Segal topos of the sphere spectrum defined in \[To-Ve$`\mathit{2}`$, §5\], and $`𝕊^{,\text{ét}}:=\chi (T)`$ be its pro-homotopy type as defined above. Describe $`𝕊^{,\text{ét}}`$, and in particular compare it with the etale homotopy type of $`Spec`$.

One could also ask, for each rational prime $`p`$, a similar question for the $`p`$-localized sphere spectrum $`𝕊_p`$; in this case it seems natural to ask whether the corresponding pro-corepresentative space is determined by the Morava $`K`$-theories $`K(n)`$ or $`E`$-theories $`E(n)`$, $`n0`$, in analogy with the standard chromatic picture.


format: text

text:
# Measurement of the 𝐵⁰ Meson Lifetime with Partial Reconstruction of 𝐵⁰→𝐷^∗⁻𝜋⁺ and 𝐵⁰→𝐷^∗⁻𝜌⁺ Decays

BABAR-PUB–02/013

SLAC-PUB-9602

The BABAR Collaboration

## Abstract

The neutral $`B`$ meson lifetime is measured with the data collected by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II storage ring during the years 1999 and 2000, with a total integrated luminosity of 20.7 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The decays $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ are selected with a partial-reconstruction technique, yielding samples of $`6970\pm 240`$ and $`5520\pm 250`$ signal events, respectively. With these events, the $`B^0`$ lifetime is measured to be $`1.533\pm 0.034(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.038(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{ps}`$. This measurement serves as a test and validation of procedures required to measure the $`CP`$ violation parameter $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\gamma )`$ with partial reconstruction of these modes.

preprint: BABAR-PUB-02/013preprint: SLAC-PUB-9602

The neutral $`B`$ meson decay modes ref:ft1  $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h^+`$, where $`h^+`$ is a light hadron ($`\pi ^+,\rho ^+,a_1^+`$), have been proposed for use in theoretically clean measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\gamma )`$ ref:book , where $`(2\beta +\gamma )`$ is a combination of angles of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa ref:km  unitarity triangle. Since the time-dependent $`CP`$ asymmetries in these modes are expected to be of order 2%, large data samples and multiple decay channels are required for a statistically significant measurement. The technique of partial reconstruction of $`D^{}`$ mesons, in which only the soft pion $`\pi _s`$ from the decay $`D^{}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}\pi _{s}^{}`$ is reconstructed, has already been used to select large samples of $`B`$ meson candidates ref:cleo-dstpi . This technique is applied here to the decays $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ in order to measure the $`B^0`$ lifetime. This analysis constitutes a first step toward measuring $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta +\gamma )`$, validating the procedures developed for candidate reconstruction, background characterization, vertex reconstruction, and fitting of decay time distributions. These procedures address the main complications introduced by partial reconstruction, namely the large background and the tracks originating from the unreconstructed $`\overline{D}^0`$, which may affect the vertex reconstruction.

The analyses applied to the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ modes are similar. Detailed differences between them are the result of optimization in the presence of the different background characteristics in the two modes. Additional details regarding the analysis procedures can be found in Refs. ref:dstpiconf  and ref:dstrhoconf .

The data used in this analysis were collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy storage ring during the years 1999 and 2000. The data consist of 22.7 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20.7 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. In addition, 2.6 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ of “off-resonance” data were collected about 40 MeV below the resonance. Samples of simulated $`B\overline{B}`$ and continuum $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ events, where $`q`$ stands for a $`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$, or $`c`$ quark, were generated using a GEANT3-based detector simulation ref:geant  and processed through the same reconstruction and analysis chain as the data. The equivalent luminosity of the simulated events is approximately one third the data luminosity. We also used signal Monte Carlo samples with an equivalent luminosity several times larger than that of the data.

The BABAR detector, described in detail elsewhere ref:nim , consists of five subdetectors. Charged particle trajectories are measured by a combination of a five-layer silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH) in a 1.5 T solenoidal magnetic field. Tracks with low transverse momentum are reconstructed by the SVT alone, thus extending the charged particle detection down to transverse momenta of $`50`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. Photons and electrons are detected in a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), with photon energy resolution $`\sigma _E/E=0.023(E/\mathrm{GeV})^{1/4}0.019`$. A ring-imaging Cherenkov detector (DIRC) is used for charged particle identification. The instrumented flux return (IFR) is equipped with resistive plate chambers to identify muons.

In the partial reconstruction of a $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h^+`$ candidate, only the hadron $`h`$ and the $`\pi _s`$ tracks are reconstructed. The angle between the momenta of the $`B`$ and the $`h`$ in the center-of-mass (CM) frame is then computed:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Bh}=\frac{M_D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^2M_{B^0}^2M_h^2+E_{\mathrm{CM}}E_h}{2p_B|\stackrel{}{p}_h|},$$
(1)
where $`M_x`$ is the mass of particle $`x`$, $`E_h`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_h`$ are the measured CM energy and momentum of the hadron $`h`$, $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ is the total CM energy of the beams, and $`p_B=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2/4M_{B^0}^2}`$. All masses refer to the nominal values ref:pdg , except in the case $`h=\rho `$, where the measured $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ invariant mass $`m(\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ is used. Events are required to be in the physical region $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Bh}|<1`$. Given $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Bh}`$ and the measured four-momentum of $`h`$, the $`B`$ four-momentum can be calculated up to an unknown azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ around $`\stackrel{}{p}_h`$. For every value of $`\varphi `$, the expected $`\overline{D}^0`$ four-momentum $`𝒫_D(\varphi )`$ is determined from four-momentum conservation, and the $`\varphi `$-dependent “missing mass” is calculated, $`m(\varphi )\sqrt{|𝒫_D(\varphi )|^2}`$. We define the missing mass $`m_{\mathrm{miss}}\frac{1}{2}\left[m_{\mathrm{max}}+m_{\mathrm{min}}\right]`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are the maximum and minimum values of $`m(\varphi )`$. In signal events, this variable peaks at the nominal $`\overline{D}^0`$ mass $`M_{D^0}`$, with a spread of about 3 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ (3.5 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ref:ft2 , while the distribution of background events is broader. The missing mass is the main variable used to distinguish signal from background.

We define the $`D^{}`$ helicity angle $`\theta _D^{}`$ to be the angle between the directions of the $`\overline{D}^0`$ and the $`B^0`$ in the $`D^{}`$ rest frame. This variable is used in the event selection described below. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ analysis, $`\theta _D^{}`$ is computed assuming that the B momentum lies in the plane defined by the $`h`$ and $`\pi _s`$ momenta in the CM frame. This assumption also yields the $`\overline{D}^0`$ direction. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ analysis, the value of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D^{}`$ is computed by applying the constraint $`m_{\mathrm{miss}}=M_{D^0}`$ giving two possible solutions for the $`\overline{D}^0`$ direction ref:cleo-dstpi . In $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$, the $`\rho `$ helicity angle $`\theta _\rho `$ is defined as the angle between the directions of the $`\pi ^0`$ (from the decay of the $`\rho `$) and the CM system in the $`\rho `$ rest frame.

We select events in which the ratio of the 2nd to the 0th Fox-Wolfram moment ref:R2 , computed using charged particles, is smaller than 0.35. The candidate $`B^0`$ daughter tracks are required to originate within 1 cm (1.5 cm) of the interaction point in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane (the plane perpendicular to the beams), and within $`\pm 4`$ cm ($`\pm 10`$ cm) of the interaction point along the direction of the beams. Tracks are rejected if they are highly likely to be a kaon or a lepton on the basis of their ionization, Cherenkov angle, energy deposited in the EMC, and pattern of hits in the IFR.

$`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ candidates are rejected if another track is found within 0.4 rad of the momentum of the hard pion $`\pi _h`$ ref:ft3  in the CM frame. This requirement helps to reject continuum events, where tracks tend to be clustered in jets. A Fisher discriminant ref:fisher  $`F_\pi `$ is computed from 15 event shape variables. Among these variables is the scalar sum of the CM momenta of all tracks and neutral candidates in nine $`20^{}`$ single-sided cones around the $`\pi _h`$ direction. We require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _D^{}|`$ to be larger than 0.4. A cut on $`F_\pi `$ is used to reduce the continuum background.

In the reconstruction of $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ candidates, the charged $`\rho `$ candidates are identified by their decay to a hard charged pion $`\pi _h`$ and a $`\pi ^0`$. To suppress fake $`\pi ^0`$ candidates, the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum in the CM frame is required to be greater than 400$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. The invariant mass of the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ candidate must be within 20$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass ref:pdg . The invariant mass $`m(\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ of the $`\rho `$ candidate must be between 0.45 and 1.10 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. To suppress combinatoric background, we require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho |>0.3`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _D^{}|>0.3`$, and also reject events that satisfy both $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho >0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _D^{}<0.3`$. A Fisher discriminant $`F_\rho `$ is computed using the scalar sum of the CM momenta of all tracks and neutrals in nine $`10^{}`$ double-sided cones around the $`\rho `$ direction. In about 10% of the events, more than one partially reconstructed candidate per event satisfies all the requirements. In such events only the candidate with the smallest value of $`|m_{\mathrm{miss}}M_{D^0}|`$ in the event is used.

The decay position $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ of the partially reconstructed $`B`$ candidate along the beam direction is determined by constraining the $`\pi _h`$ and the $`\pi _s`$ tracks (only the $`\pi _h`$ track for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$) to originate from the beam-spot in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. The beam spot is determined on a run-by-run basis using two-prong events ref:nim . Its size in the horizontal direction is 120 $`\mu `$m. Although the beam spot size in the vertical direction is only a few microns, a beam spot constraint of 30 $`\mu `$m is applied, so as to account for the flight of the $`B^0`$ in the vertical direction.

The decay position $`z_{\mathrm{other}}`$ of the other $`B`$ meson along the beam direction is measured with all tracks, excluding $`\pi _h`$, $`\pi _s`$, and any track whose CM angle with respect to the $`\overline{D}^0`$ direction (either of the two calculated directions in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ case) is smaller than 1 radian. This “cone cut” reduces significantly the number of $`\overline{D}^0`$ daughter tracks used in the other $`B`$ vertex. The tracks satisfying this requirement are fit with a constraint to the beam-spot in the $`xy`$ plane. The track with the largest contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$ of the vertex, if greater than 6, is removed from the vertex, and the fit is carried out again, until no track fails this requirement. $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ candidates are required to have at least two tracks remaining in the other B vertex.

The $`z`$ distance between the two $`B`$ decay vertices, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=z_{\mathrm{rec}}z_{\mathrm{other}}`$, is computed. Fitting the residual $`\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{\Delta }z_{\mathrm{true}}`$ in simulated events, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{\mathrm{true}}`$ is the true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, with the sum of two Gaussians, we find that 67% (57%) of the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ ($`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$) events lie in the core Gaussian of width $`116\mu `$m ($`178\mu `$m). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ resolution is dominated by the measurement of $`z_{\mathrm{other}}`$, and by the $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ measurement when the $`\pi _h`$ transverse momentum is below about 400 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$.

The decay time difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is then calculated using the approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }z/(\gamma \beta c)`$, where the CM frame boost $`\gamma \beta `$ is determined from the beam energies, and has an average value of 0.55. This approximation results in a 0.2 ps r.m.s. spread in the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.

For $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ candidates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is computed applying an event-by-event correction to the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. This correction, determined from the simulated signal sample as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, removes the bias in $`z_{\mathrm{other}}`$ due to the tracks coming from the $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay. Without correction, the effect of this bias would be to reduce the measured lifetime by approximately 4%. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ analysis a different correction is applied to the measured lifetime value, as explained later.

The estimated error $`\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}`$ in the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is calculated from the uncertainties in the parameters of the tracks used in the two vertex fits. A requirement on the vertex fit probabilities removes badly reconstructed vertices. For both modes we also require $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<15`$ ps and $`\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}<2.4`$ ps ($`\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}<4`$ ps for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$).

After applying all the above requirements, we find four broadly-defined types of events that contribute to the background: (1) continuum events; (2) combinatoric $`B\overline{B}`$ background due to random $`h`$ and $`\pi _s`$ combinations; (3) $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ ($`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_1^+`$) decays in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ ($`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$) sample; (4) peaking $`B\overline{B}`$ events, which are distributed as a broad peak in the $`m_{\mathrm{miss}}`$ spectrum. The peaking background is mostly due to $`BD^{}\pi `$ decays in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$sample. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ sample, it is due to signal events in which the $`\pi _h`$ candidate originates from the other $`B`$.

The lifetime $`\tau _{B^0}`$ is obtained from an unbinned maximum likelihood fit, as described below, with a probability density function (PDF) $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}},\xi )`$. Here $`\xi `$ refers to the kinematic variables used to distinguish signal from background. For $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ we set $`\xi =m_{\mathrm{miss}}`$; for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ we set $`\xi =(m_{\mathrm{miss}},m(\pi ^+\pi ^0),F_\rho )`$. The PDF has the form

$`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{cont}}𝒦_{\mathrm{cont}}(\xi )_{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`f_{\mathrm{comb}}𝒦_{\mathrm{comb}}(\xi )_{\mathrm{comb}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$
$`+`$ $`f_{D^{}X}𝒦_{D^{}X}(\xi )_{D^{}X}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$
$`+`$ $`f_{\mathrm{peak}}𝒦_{\mathrm{peak}}(\xi )_{\mathrm{peak}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$
$`+`$ $`f_{\mathrm{sig}}𝒦_{\mathrm{sig}}(\xi )_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}),`$
where subscripts refer to the four types of backgrounds enumerated above and to signal events. For each event type $`i`$, $`f_i`$ is the relative population of these events in the data sample, $`𝒦_i(\xi )`$ is their kinematic-variables PDF, and $`_i(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ is their time-dependent PDF. The constraint $`f_i=1`$ is enforced.

For $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$, $`𝒦_i(m_{\mathrm{miss}})`$ consists of binned histograms obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation. For $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ candidates, we use the product $`𝒦_i(\xi )=_i(m_{\mathrm{miss}})_i(m(\pi ^+\pi ^0))𝒟_i(F_\rho )`$, where $`_i(m_{\mathrm{miss}})`$ is the sum of a bifurcated Gaussian and an ARGUS function ref:argus , $`_i(m(\pi ^+\pi ^0))`$ is the sum of a parabolic background and a relativistic $`P`$-wave Breit-Wigner, and $`𝒟_i(F_\rho )`$ is a bifurcated Gaussian function.

For each event type $`i`$, $`_i(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ is the convolution $`NP(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})R((\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})/\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}`$ of the “true” distribution $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})`$ and the detector resolution function $`R((\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})/\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$, which is parameterized as the sum of three Gaussian distributions. $`N`$ is a normalization constant. The parameters of $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})`$ and $`R((\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})/\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are obtained separately for each event type. For signal events of both modes we take $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})=e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}|/\tau _{_{B^0}}}`$. This functional form is also used for the combinatoric and peaking backgrounds in $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$, but with independent parameters. In $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$, the source of the peaking background motivates its distribution to be $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})=\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})`$, and the distribution used for the combinatoric background is $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})=ae^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}|/\tau ^{}}+(1a)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})`$, with an effective lifetime parameter $`\tau ^{}`$. $`_{D^{}X}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ is assumed to be identical to $`_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$. The continuum background is modelled as $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})=be^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}}|/\tau _{\mathrm{cont}}}+(1b)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})`$.

Several subsamples are defined and used in the lifetime fit. Events with a candidate in which the $`h`$ and $`\pi _s`$ have opposite charges and with $`m_{\mathrm{miss}}>1.860`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`m_{\mathrm{miss}}>1.845\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$) constitute the “signal region” sample. Those satisfying $`1.820<m_{\mathrm{miss}}<1.850`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`1.810<m_{\mathrm{miss}}<1.840\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) constitute the “sideband”. Events in which $`h`$ and $`\pi _s`$ have the same charge are labeled as “same-charge”. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ analysis, we apply a requirement on the Fisher discriminant that suppresses $`B\overline{B}`$ events, to select a “$`B\overline{B}`$-depleted” sample that is enriched in continuum events. The sideband, same-charge, and $`B\overline{B}`$-depleted samples serve as control samples for studying the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distributions of the backgrounds.

In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$analysis, about 11.5% of the partially reconstructed signal events are also fully reconstructed in the $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay modes $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{0}K^+\pi ^{}`$ or $`K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. This yields a sample that, while relatively small, has a low background contamination of about 5%. This clean signal sample is used in the fits described below, improving the determination of the signal PDF parameters.

The $`B^0`$ lifetime $`\tau _{_{B^0}}`$ is obtained in a three-step procedure using signal region and control sample events.

In the first step, the fractions $`f_i`$ in the signal region and in the different control samples are obtained from kinematic-variable fits conducted simultaneously on the on- and off-resonance samples (and the fully reconstructed sample for the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ signal region). The fit PDF is that of Eq. (2), but with all $`_i(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ replaced by unity. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ analysis this fit determines $`f_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{cont}}`$. The fraction of $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ events $`f_{D^{}X}`$ in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ sample is assumed to be 16.8%, as predicted by the Monte Carlo simulation and the relative branching ratio ref:pdg  . This fit (Fig. 1(a)) yields $`6970\pm 240`$ signal $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ events. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ analysis the kinematic-variable fit determines $`f_{\mathrm{cont}}`$, as well as all the parameters of $`𝒦_{\mathrm{cont}}(\xi )`$, $`_{\mathrm{sig}}(m_{\mathrm{miss}})`$, and $`_{\mathrm{sig}}(m(\pi ^+\pi ^0))`$. The parameters of $`𝒟_{\mathrm{sig}}(F_\rho )`$, $`𝒦_{\mathrm{comb}}(\xi )`$, and $`𝒦_{\mathrm{peak}}(\xi )`$, as well as $`f_{\mathrm{peak}}/f_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ (9.7%) and $`f_{D^{}a_1}/f_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ (11.6%), are obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation. The kinematic-variable fit to the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ sample (Figs. 2(a), (b) and (c)) yields $`5520\pm 250`$ $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ events, including $`691\pm 36`$ fully reconstructed events.

In the second step, all the parameters determined in the first step are fixed, and the parameters of $`_i(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ of the backgrounds are determined entirely from the control data samples. In the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ case, the parameters of $`_{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are obtained from a fit to the $`B\overline{B}`$-depleted sample, and those of the $`_{\mathrm{comb}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are obtained from the same-charge sample. The parameters of $`_{\mathrm{peak}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are assumed to be identical to $`_{\mathrm{comb}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$. In $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$, the parameters of $`_{\mathrm{comb}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are determined from the sideband sample, and those of $`_{\mathrm{peak}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are obtained from the same-charge sample. Each of the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ control sample fits is conducted simultaneously on the on- and off-resonance data, and the parameters of $`_{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ are determined for each control sample simultaneously with the $`B\overline{B}`$ PDF parameters.

In the final step, using the background $`_i(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ parameters obtained in the previous step, the signal region sample is fit to extract the signal $`_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ parameters. In $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ this fit has six free parameters describing $`_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$. In $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$, the fit is done simultaneously to on- and off-resonance events, as well as fully reconstructed events, and has 15 free parameters describing $`_{\mathrm{sig}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ and $`_{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$.

The results of the last fit step, shown in Figs. 1(b) and 2(d), are $`\tau _{_{B^0}}=1.510\pm 0.040`$ps for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\tau _{_{B^0}}=1.616\pm 0.064`$ ps for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$, where the errors are statistical only. These results are obtained after a correction of $`0.014\pm 0.020`$ ps ($`+0.071\pm 0.028`$ ps for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$), determined from the Monte Carlo simulation. The correction accounts for biases due to the fit procedure, the event selection and, in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ case, the effect of $`\overline{D}^0`$ daughter tracks passing the cone cut and being used for the determination of the other $`B`$ vertex. The errors in the corrections are propagated to the final result as systematic errors.

The systematic uncertainties are listed in Table 1, and described here. (1) The fractions and the PDF parameters of the background components were varied by their statistical errors, taking into account mutual correlations, obtained from the fits of the first two analysis steps. (2) The PDF parameters and lifetime corrections that were obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation were varied by the statistical error in the Monte Carlo fits. The full analysis chain, including event reconstruction and selection, was tested with the Monte Carlo simulation, and the statistical precision of the consistency between the generated and fit lifetimes was assigned as a systematic error. The Monte Carlo statistical errors in the evaluation of the various corrections described above were propagated to the final result. (3) The level of $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ ($`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_1^+`$) background in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ ($`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$) sample was varied by the relevant branching fraction errors ref:pdg , and the fraction of $`BD^{}\rho ^+`$ background events in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ sample was varied between 0 and 40% of the signal yield. (4) The number of $`\overline{D}^0`$ tracks satisfying the cone cut in the simulated sample was varied by $`\pm 5\%`$ and the associated bias was reevaluated. (5) The parameters of $`_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ that were fixed in the fits were varied within conservative ranges. (6) Extensive parameterized Monte Carlo simulation studies were conducted to evaluate statistical biases in the fits due to limited data sample size or as the result of changes in the functional form of $`R((\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})/\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$. (7) The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ fit range was varied between $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<10`$ ps and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<20`$ ps. (8) The $`z`$ length scale of the detector has been determined with an uncertainty of 0.4% from the reconstruction of secondary interactions with a beam pipe section of known length ref:sin2b-prd . The systematic uncertainties related to the detector alignment (9) and beam energy uncertainty ref:nim  (10) were also taken into account. The total systematic error in the $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ ($`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$) analysis is 0.041 ps (0.075 ps).

Several cross-checks were conducted to ensure the validity of the result. The data were fit in bins of the lab frame polar angle, azimuthal angle, and momentum of the $`\pi _h`$, and in subsamples corresponding to different SVT alignment calibrations. The fit was repeated with different values of the cone cut ranging from 0.75 to 2.00 radians (0.6 to 1.2 radians for $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$). Different functional forms of $`R((\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{true}})/\sigma _{_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}})`$ were used in the fit. In all cases, no statistically significant variation of the result was observed, beyond those already accounted for in the systematic errors.

In summary, in a sample of 22.7 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, we identify $`6970\pm 240`$ $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`5520\pm 250`$ $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ partially reconstructed decays. These events are used to measure the $`B^0`$ lifetime, obtaining $`\tau _{_{B^0}}=1.510\pm 0.040(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.041(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{ps}`$ in $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\tau _{_{B^0}}=1.616\pm 0.064(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.075(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{ps}`$ in $`B^0D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\rho ^+`$ . The combined measurement, taking into account correlated errors, is

$$\tau _{_{B^0}}=1.533\pm 0.034(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.038(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{ps}.$$

This result is in good agreement with the world average $`B^0`$ lifetime $`\tau _{_{B^0}}=1.542\pm 0.016\mathrm{ps}`$ ref:pdg  and with other recent BABAR measurements bbrtaub0 , confirming the validity of using partially reconstructed events in time dependent measurements.

We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF and DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.