APPROXIMABLE TRIANGULATED CATEGORIES

AND REFLEXIVE DG-CATEGORIES

arXiv:2411.09461v1 [math.AG] 14 Nov 2024

ISAMBARD GOODBODY

Abstract. We produce a condition for a DG-category to be re-

flexive in the sense of Kuznetsov and Shinder using Neeman’s the-
ory of approximable triangulated categories. To do this we provide
another description of the completion of a approximable triangu-
lated category under an additional condition. We apply our results
to proper schemes, proper connective DG-algebras and Azumaya
algebras over proper schemes.

Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Approximable Triangulated categories 2
3. Reflexive DG-categories 5
4. Reflexivity via Approximability 6
5. Examples 9
5.1. Proper Connective DG-algebras 9
5.2. Proper Schemes 10
5.3. Azumaya Algebras over Proper Schemes 11
References 13

1. Introduction
For a projective scheme X, there are two derived categories one tra-
ditionally works with: the perfect complexes D perf (X) and the bounded
derived category of coherent sheaves D b (coh X). Reflexive DG-categories
and approximable triangulated categories are both tools for describing
the relationship between these categories. The aim of this paper is to
compare these two approaches to the same problem.

The theory of approximable triangulated categories makes precise

the idea that D b (coh X) is the completion of a D perf (X) with respect
to a metric (and vice versa). Whereas the the theory of reflexive DG-
categories makes precise the idea that D b (coh X) is the dual of D perf (X)
1
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 2

(and vice versa). Both of these approaches are closely related to rep-
resentability theorems; Neeman showed in [Nee21a] that approximable
triangulated categories satisfy nice representability theorems and being
reflexive means to satisfy a certain representability theorem. We use
this to give a condition for an approximable triangulated category to
be reflexive.

There are some important differences between these two theories.

The first is that reflexive DG-categories are enhanced whereas approx-
imability is concerned with the triangulated structure. The second is
that reflexivity is based on studying finite-dimensional modules over
some field k and so is better suited to proper k-linear things. To over-
come these differences we will mainly be working with proper DG-
enhanced triangulated categories over k.

Both of these approaches come with an abstract construction of

D (coh X) from D perf (X) which makes sense for any (enhanced) trian-
b

gulated category. The main hurdle to overcome in comparing these two

theories is to identify these two different models of a non-commutative
b
Dcoh . We introduce a condition on an approximable triangulated cat-
egory which allows this to be done. The condition makes it easier to
detect if an object is in the aisle of a t-structure. We show it is satisfied
by the main players in commutative and non-commutative algebraic
geometry. As applications we show that proper schemes, proper con-
nective DG-algebras and Azumaya algebras over proper schemes are
reflexive over any field.
Acknowledgements. I’m grateful to Timothy De Deyn, Kabeer Man-
ali Rahul and Greg Stevenson for valuable comments.

2. Approximable Triangulated categories

Developed by Neeman, the theory of approximable triangulated cat-
egories has found many applications which are surveyed in [Nee21a].
The main objects of study here are triangulated categories with coprod-
ucts and t-structures. In order to talk about approximable triangulated
categories we need some notation on how to build objects.
Definition 2.1. Let T be a triangulated category with coproducts,
S ⊆ T a subcategory, and let [a, b] ⊆ Z be an interval.
[a,b]
(1) Let hSi1 ⊆ T consist of all i-th shifts of finite sums of sum-
mands of objects of S where i ∈ [a, b].
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 3

[a,b]
(2) Let hSin ⊆ T consist of all summands of objects X which fit
into a triangle
X ′ → X → X ′′ →+
[a,b] [a,b]
with X ′ ∈ hSi1 and X ′′ ∈ hSin−1 .
(3) Let hSi[a,b] be the union over n of all hSi[a,b]
n .
[a,b]
(4) Let hSi1 consist of all i-th shifts of sums of summands of
objects of S where i ∈ [a, b].
[a,b]
(5) Let hSin consist of all summands of objects X which fit into
a triangle
X ′ → X → X ′′ →+
[a,b] [a,b]
with X ′ ∈ hSi1 and X ′′ ∈ hSin−1 .
If [a, b] = Z so that all shifts are allowed, we will omit the associated
superscript.
Definition 2.2. A triangulated category is approximable if it has a
compact generator G and a t-structure (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ) and there is an
integer A such that
(1) ΣA G ∈ T ≤0
(2) HomT (Σ−A G, E) = 0 for all E ∈ T ≤0
(3) For every F ∈ T ≤0 there is a triangle
E → F → D →+
[−A,A]
with D ∈ T ≤−1 and E ∈ hGiA
Remark 2.3. By Proposition 8.10 in [Nee21a], approximability is only
a property of the triangulated category and doesn’t depend on a choice
of t-structure or compact generator.
Definition 2.4. Given a t-structure (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ) on a triangulated cat-
egory T , we fix the following notation
T ≤n := Σ−n T ≤0 , T ≥n := Σ−n T ≥0
[ [
T− := T ≤n , T + := T ≥n , T b := T − ∩ T +
n n
Two t-structures (T1≤0 , T1≥0 )
and (T2≤0 , T2≥0 ) on T are equivalent if
there is some N ≥ 0 such that T1≤−N ⊆ T2≤0 ⊆ T1≤N .
Remark 2.5. By Theorem A.1 in [AJS03], any compact object gen-
erates a t-structure. One can check that if G and G′ are two compact
generators of T , then G and G′ generate equivalent t-structures. A
t-structure is in the preferred equivalence class if it is equivalent to
one generated by a compact generator of T . By Proposition 8.10 in
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 4

[Nee21a], any t-structure on an approximable triangulated category T

satisfying the conditions in Definition 2.4, is in the preferred equiva-
lence class.
Example 2.6. The following examples appear in [Nee21a].
(1) If X is a quasi-compact separated scheme then DQcoh (X) is
approximable and the standard t-structure is in the preferred
equivalence class.
(2) If T is a triangulated category with a compact generator such
that HomT (G, Σi G) = 0 for i > 0, then T is approximable. In
this case the t-structure generated by G (which is then in the
preferred equivalence class) is given by
T ≤0 = {X | HomT (G, Σi X) = 0 for i > 0}
T ≥0 = {X | HomT (G, Σi X) = 0 for i < 0}
For example derived categories of connective DG-algebras and
the stable homotopy category are approximable and the stan-
dard t-structures are in the preferred equivalence class.
b
The following is the non-commutative model of Dcoh associated to
an approximable triangulated category.
Definition 2.7. Let T be an approximable triangulated category and
(T ≤0 , T ≥0 ) a t-structure in the preferred equivalence class.
(1) Let Tc− consist of all objects F ∈ T such that for any n > 0
there is a triangle
E → F → D →+
with E ∈ T c and D ∈ T ≤−n−1 .
(2) Let Tcb = Tc− ∩ T b
Remark 2.8. By Remark 8.7 in [Nee21a], the subcategories Tc− and
Tcb only depend on T and not on a choice of t-structure in the preferred
equivalence class.
Example 2.9.
(1) For a quasi-compact separated scheme X, DQcoh (X)bc is the
category of pseudocoherent complexes. So if X is Noether-
ian DQcoh (X)bc = Dcoh
b
(X). See the discussion after Proposition
8.10 in [Nee21a].
(2) If A is a connective E1 -algebra with coherent π∗ , Theorem A.5
in [BCR+ 24] shows that D(A)bc consists of all modules whose
homotopy groups are finitely presented over π0 (A).
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 5

Approximable triangulated categories come with representability the-

orems.
Definition 2.10. For a commutative ring R and an R-linear triangu-
lated category T , a finite homological functor is an R-linear homolog-
ical functor F : T → Mod R such that i F (Σi t) is a finite R module
L
for every t ∈ T .
Theorem 2.11 (Theorem 8.16 in [Nee21a]). Let T be an R-linear
approximable triangulated category for a commutative Noetherian ring
R such that HomT (X, Y ) is a finite R module for all X, Y ∈ T c .
(1) An R-linear homological functor F : (T c )op → Mod R is finite
if and only it is isomorphic to HomT (−, M) for some M ∈ Tcb .
(2) Suppose there is some G ∈ Tcb and N > 0 such that T = hGiN .
Then a homological functor F : Tcb → Mod R is finite if and
only if it is isomorphic to HomT (M, −) for some M ∈ T c .

3. Reflexive DG-categories
We recall some facts about reflexive DG-categories as introduced in
[KS22]. In this section we work over a field k. By a DG-category we
mean a category enriched in chain complexes over k. See [Kel06] for
a survey of DG-categories. If A is a small DG-category over k, we
let D(A) denote its derived category (of right modules), D perf (A) the
compact objects in D(A) and Dfd(A) L the subcategory of D(A) con-
sisting of DG-modules M such that i H i (M(a)) is finite-dimensional
for every object a ∈ A. We view D(A), D perf (A) and Dfd (A) as DG-
categories themselves with their natural enhancements. A DG-category
A is proper if A(a, b) ∈ D b (k), i.e. it has finite-dimensional total coho-
mology, for all a, b ∈ A.
Definition 3.1. A small DG-category A is reflexive if the map
D perf (A) → Dfd(Dfd (A)op )op ; M 7→ RHomA (M, −)
is an equivalence.
Example 3.2.
(1) In Lemma 3.14 of [KS22], it is shown that if A is a proper DG-
category then it is semi-reflexive. i.e. the map in Definition 3.1
is fully faithful.
(2) If X is a projective scheme over a perfect field then it is shown
in Proposition 6.1 of [KS22], using results of [BVdB02], that
D perf (X) is reflexive and Dfd (D perf (X)) ≃ Dcoh
b
(X).
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 6

(3) If A is a proper connective (H ∗ (A) vanishes in positive de-

grees) DG-algebra over a perfect field then by Proposition 6.9
of [KS22], D perf (A) is reflexive.
(4) In [BNP13], it is shown that if X is a proper algebraic space
over a field of characteristic zero then D perf (X) is reflexive and
Dfd (D perf (X)) ≃ Dcoh
b
(X).
Remark 3.3.
(1) Example 3.2 (2) demonstrates that for proper DG-categories A,
b
Dfd (A) is a non-commutative model for Dcoh .
(2) A key feature of a reflexive DG-category A is that there is some
common information between D perf (A) and Dfd (A). It is im-
mediate from the definition that they determine each other.
Theorem 3.17 in [KS22] states that there is a bijection between
the semi-orthogonal decompositions of these two categories. By
Corollary 3.16 in loc. cit. they have the same triangulated au-
toequivalence groups.
(3) In [Goo24], it was shown that reflexive DG-categories are the re-
flexive objects in the closed symmetric monoidal category Hmo
constructed in [Toë07]. Using this, one can prove that D perf (A)
and Dfd(A) have the same Hochschild cohomologies and derived
Picard groups.
Definition 3.4. We say a DG-category A is approximable if D(A) is
an approximable triangulated category.
Remark 3.5. Since approximable triangulated categories admit a sin-
gle compact generator, any approximable DG-category is Morita equiv-
alent to a DG-algebra.

4. Reflexivity via Approximability

In this section we give a condition for a proper approximable DG-
category A to be reflexive. We will use the following notion to iden-
tify D(A)bc with Dfd(A). This definition was inspired by Section 7 of
[BNP13].
Definition 4.1.
(1) Let T be a triangulated category with a compact generator G
and a t-structure (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ). We say that G is aisle-detecting
with respect to (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ) if, for any M ∈ T satisfying
Hom(G, Σi M) = 0 for i > 0
we have that M ∈ T ≤0 .
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 7

(2) We say an approximable triangulated category T admits an

aisle-detecting generator if it admits an aisle-detecting gener-
ator with respect to any of the t-structures in the preferred
equivalence class.
Lemma 4.2 validates (2) of Definition 4.1.

Lemma 4.2. Suppose (T1≤0 , T1≥0 ) and (T2≤0 , T2≥0 ) are two equivalent t-
structures on T . If G is an aisle-detecting generator of T with respect to
(T1≤0 , T1≥0 ) then there is an N ≥ 0 such that ΣN G is an aisle-detecting
generator with respect to (T2≤0 , T2≥0 ).

Proof. There exists an N ≥ 0 such that T1≤−N ⊆ T2≤0 . Suppose

HomT (ΣN G, Σi M) = 0 for i > 0. Then HomT (G, Σi (Σ−N M)) = 0
for i > 0. So Σ−N M ∈ T1≤0 . Therefore M ∈ T1≤−N ⊆ T2≤0 . 
Lemma 4.3. Suppose T is an approximable triangulated category and
G is an aisle-detecting generator with respect to a t-structure (T ≤0 , T ≥0 )
which is in the preferred equivalence class. Then there exists an N ≥ 0
such that if X ∈ T ≤0 then Hom(G, Σi X) = 0 for i > N
Proof. Since G is a compact generator, the t-structure it generates is
also in the preferred equivalence class. It follows that there exists an
N ≥ 0 such that T ≤0 ⊆ TG≤N . So if X ∈ T ≤0 then ΣN X ∈ TG≤0 . By
Proposition 8.10 in [Nee21a], the t-structure (TG≤0 , TG≥0 ) satisfies the
conditions of Definition 2.2. So there exists an integer A > 0 such that
Hom(Σ−A G, ΣN Σi X) = 0 for i ≥ 0. Therefore Hom(G, ΣA+N +i X) = 0
for i ≥ 0. 
b
Here we identify our two notions of non-commutative Dcoh . We state
it in greater generality than we need as it may be of independent in-
terest.
Lemma 4.4. Let R be commutative Noetherian ring and T an R-linear
approximable triangulated category with an aisle-detecting generator.
Suppose that for every X, Y ∈ T c , HomT (X, Y ) is a finite R-module.
Then
( )
M
Tcb = t ∈ T | HomT (c, Σi t) is finite over R for any c ∈ T c
i

Remark 4.5. Recall by Definition 4.1 (2), the assumption means that
T admits an aisle-detecting generator with respect to any of the t-
structures in the preferred equivalence class.
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 8

Proof. Let T rhf denote right hand side. By Theorem 2.11, we see that
Tcb ⊆ T rhf . Let G be a compact generator of T and (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ) the t-
structure it generates. Then (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ) is in the preferred equivalence
class and we may use it to define Tcb . Recall that
T ≥0 = {t ∈ T | Hom(G, Σi t) = 0 for i < 0}
and so if X ∈ T rhf it is clearly in T ≥N for some N. Now by assumption
T has an aisle-detecting generator G′ with respect to (T ≤0 , T ≥0 ). If
X ∈ T rhf , then there exists some N such that HomT (G′ , Σi X) = 0 for
i > N. So X ∈ T ≤N . Therefore X ∈ T b .

Now we must check X ∈ Tc− . By assumption, HomT (−, X) is a finite

functor on T c and so by Theorem 2.11, we have a natural isomorphism
α : HomT (−, X ′ ) ≃ HomT (−, X) of functors on T c for some X ′ ∈ Tcb .
Since X and X ′ are not necessarily contained in T c we cannot conclude
they are isomorphic. By Lemma 4.3, there exists an N ≥ 0 such that
for any Y ∈ T ≤k , we have HomT (G′ , Σi Y ) = 0 for i > N + k. Let
n > 0, since X ′ ∈ Tcb , there exists a triangle
f′
→ X ′ → D ′ →+
E−
with E ∈ T c and D ′ ∈ T ≤−n−N −1. Let f = αD (f ′ ) ∈ HomT (E, X)
and let D be the cone of f . By naturality of α the following diagram
commutes for all i.
HomT (G′ , Σi E) HomT (G′ , Σi X ′ ) HomT (G′ , Σi D ′ ) ...
α

HomT (G′ , Σi E) HomT (G′ , Σi X) HomT (G′ , Σi D) ...

Since D ′ ∈ T ≤−n−N −1 , we have that HomT (G′ , Σi D ′ ) = 0 for i > −n −

1. So by exactness of the rows in the above diagram, Hom(G′ , Σi D) = 0
for i > −n−1. Therefore we have that D ∈ T ≤−n−1 and so X ∈ Tcb . 
This lemma says that once you can detect boundedness, you can
detect “coherence” for free.

L In the description
Remark 4.6. of Tcb in Lemma 4.4, it is equivalent
to ask for i Hom(c, Σi t) to be finite over R for all c contained in a
compact generating set.
In the presence of enhancements we get the following description.
Corollary 4.7. Suppose A is a proper approximable DG-category. If
D(A) admits an aisle-detecting generator, then D(A)bc = Dfd (A).
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 9

Proof. The representables A(−, a) for a ∈ A form a set of compact gen-

erators for D(A). Then the result follows since HomD(A) (A(−, a), Σi M) =
H i (M(a)). 
Theorem 4.8. Suppose A is a proper approximable DG-category such
that D(A) admits an aisle-detecting generator. If there is an object
G ∈ Dfd (A) such that D(A) = hGin , then A is reflexive.
Proof. By Corollary 4.7, we have that D(A)bc = Dfd (A). As A is
proper, by Lemma 3.14 in [KS22], its enough to show the map in Def-
inition 3.1 is essentially surjective. Suppose that F ∈ Dfd (Dfd (A)op ) =
Dfd(D(A)bc ). Then H 0 (F ) : D(A)bc → Mod k is a homologically finite
functor. Theorem 2.11 gives that H 0 (F ) ≃ HomD(A) (M, −) for some
M ∈ D perf (A). It follows (by e.g. the dual of Lemma 2.2 in [KS22]),
that F ≃ RHomA (M, −) ∈ Dfd (Dfd (A)op ). 

5. Examples
We apply the results of Section 4 to three examples, proper connec-
tive DGAs, proper schemes and Azumaya algebras over proper schemes.
5.1. Proper Connective DG-algebras.
Proposition 5.1. Let T be a R-linear triangulated category for a Noe-
therian commutative ring R with a compact generator G such that
HomT (G, Σi G) = 0 for i > 0 and HomT (G, Σi G) is finite over R for
all i. Then
M
Tcb = {X | HomT (G, Σi X) is finite over R}.
i

Proof. By the description of the aisle in Example 2.6 (2), G is an aisle-

detecting generator with respect to the t-structure it generates. There-
fore Lemma 4.4 applies. 
This removes the perfect field assumption from Example 3.2.
Corollary 5.2. If A is a proper connective DG-algebra then A is re-
flexive.
Proof. By Example 2.6, D(A) is approximable. By Proposition 5.1 and
Theorem 4.8, it is enough to check there is a generator G ∈ Dfd (A) such
that D(A) = hGin . By Corollary 3.12 of [RS20] we can assume that
A is a finite-dimensional DG-algebra. Then every module M ∈ D(A)
admits a finite radical filtration by powers of the DG-radical rad(A)− .
By Proposition 2.16 of [Orl20], the quotient A/ rad(A)− is a semisimple
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 10

DG-algebra and so the factors of the filtration are in hA/ rad(A)− i1 .

Therefore D(A) = hA/ rad(A)− in where rad(A)n+1 = 0. 

5.2. Proper Schemes.

Lemma 5.3. Let T be a triangulated category with coproducts and let
X, X ′ , Y, Y ′ ∈ T .
(1) If HomT (X, Σi Y ) = 0 for i > 0 and X ′ ∈ hXi(−∞,N ], then
HomT (X ′ , Σi Y ) = 0 for i > N.
(2) If X is compact and HomT (X, Σi Y ) = 0 for i > 0 and Y ′ ∈
[−N,∞)
hY i then HomT (X, Σi Y ′ ) = 0 for i > N.
Proof. For (1), let C be the class of objects c ∈ T with HomT (c, Σi Y ) =
0 for i > N, then C is closed under summands, extensions, nega-
tive shifts and it contains ΣN X. Since X ′ ∈ hXi(−∞,N ] we have that
X ′ ∈ hΣN Xi(−∞,0] . The latter is the smallest subcategory containing
ΣN X closed under summands extensions and negative shifts and so it
is contained in C. Therefore X ′ ∈ C.
For (2), let C denote the class of objects such that HomT (X, Σi c) = 0
for i > N. Then C is closed under coproducts, extensions and positive
[−N,∞)
shifts and it contains Σ−N Y . As above it contains hY i . 
The following proposition is taken from [BNP13]. We reproduce it
here only since our claim requires us to keep track of the upper bound.
Proposition 5.4 (Proposition 7.0.2 in [BNP13]). If X is a quasi-
compact quasi-separated scheme then DQcoh (X) admits an aisle-detecting
generator with respect to the standard t-structure.
Proof. By [Nee22] Theorem 3.2 iii), the standard t-structure on DQcoh (X)
is in the preferred equivalence class. Therefore there is a compact gen-
erator G of DQcoh (X) which is a generator of the standard t-structure.

Now G∗ := RHomX (G, OX ) ∈ D perf (X) so there exists some N0 ≥ 0

such that G∗ ∈ hGi(−∞,N0] . If j : U ֒→ X is an affine open, then
Rj∗ preserves bounded complexes and so Rj∗ OU ∈ DQcoh (X)≤NU for
some NU . Take a finite affine cover {Ui } of X and let N be the sum
of each of the NUi and N0 . We claim that ΣN G is aisle-detecting.
Suppose that HomDQcoh (X) (ΣN G, Σi M) = 0 for i > 0. i.e. that
HomDQcoh (X) (G, Σi M) = 0 for i > −N. By Lemma 5.3, it follows
that
(1) HomDQcoh (X) (OX , Σi G ⊗LX M) = HomDQcoh (X) (G∗ , Σi M)
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 11

vanishes for i > N0 − N. In particular, it vanishes for all i > −NU for
any U in the affine cover. Let j : U ֒→ X be any of the affine opens in
the cover. We claim that j ∗ M ∈ DQcoh (U)≤0 . Since OU = j ∗ OX , we
have
HomDQcoh (U ) (OU , Σi j ∗ M) = HomDQcoh (X) (OX , Σi Rj∗ j ∗ M)
= HomDQcoh (X) (OX , Σi (Rj∗ OU ) ⊗LX M)

using the projection formula. Now Rj∗ OU ∈ DQcoh (X)≤NU . Therefore

[−NU ,∞) [−NU ,∞)
Rj∗ OU ∈ hGi . It follows that Rj∗ OU ⊗LX M ∈ hG ⊗LX Mi .
Lemma 5.3 and the vanishing of Equation 1 imply that
HomDQcoh (X) (OX , Σi (Rj∗ OU ) ⊗LX M) = 0 for i > 0.
Therefore j ∗ M ∈ DQcoh (U)≤0 for all affines in the cover. So if x ∈
X then there exists an affine open U around x such that j ∗ (M) ∈
DQcoh (U)≤0 . Therefore H i (M)x = H i (j ∗ M)x vanishes for i > 0. So it
follows that H i (M) = 0 for i > 0 as required. 

Approximability then gives a result along the lines of Proposition

3.0.9 in [BNP13].
Corollary 5.5. Suppose X is a proper scheme over a field k and M ∈
DQcoh (X) is such that RHomX (N, M) ∈ D b (k) for any N ∈ D perf (X),
b
then M ∈ Dcoh (X).
Proof. This follows Proposition 5.4, Lemma 4.4 and the fact from
[Nee21a] that DQcoh (X)bc = Dcoh
b
(X). 
Corollary 5.6. If X is a proper scheme over a field k then D perf (X)
is reflexive.
Proof. By Example 2.6, DQcoh (X) is approximable. By Theorem 2.3 of
[Nee21b] there is some object
G ∈ Dfd (D perf (X)) = D(D perf (X))bc ≃ DQcoh (X)bc = Dcoh
b
(X)

such that hGin = D(D perf (X)). We are done by Theorem 4.8 and
Proposition 5.4. 

5.3. Azumaya Algebras over Proper Schemes.

Definition 5.7. A mild non-commutative scheme (A, X) is a scheme
X with a quasi-coherent sheaf A of (not necessarily commutative) OX
algebras.
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 12

Section 3 of [DLR24a] has some background on mild non-commutative

schemes in this context. Let (A, X) be a quasi-compact quasi-separated
mild non-commutative scheme i.e. assume X is quasi-compact and
quasi-separated. Let DQcoh (A, X) denote the derived category of A-
modules with quasi-coherent cohomology. The compact objects in
DQcoh (A, X) are the perfect complexes which we denote D perf (A, X).
b
If X is Noetherian and A ∈ coh(X), then Dcoh (A, X) will denote the
subcategory of DQcoh (A, X) consisting bounded complexes with coher-
ent cohomology. The category of quasi-coherent A-modules form a
Grothendieck category and so all of these derived categories are well
defined and admit DG-enhancements.
Proposition 5.8. Suppose (A, X) is a quasi-compact quasi-separated
mild non-commutative scheme. Then DQcoh (A, X) admits an aisle-
detecting generator with respect to the standard t-structure.
Proof. Since X is a quasi-compact quasi-separated scheme DQcoh (X)
admits an aisle-detecting generator G with respect to the standard t-
structure by Proposition 5.4. There is a structure map π : (X, A) → X
which induces an adjoint pair of functors
Lπ ∗
DQcoh (X) ⇄ DQcoh (A, X)
π∗

Now by Remark 3.14 of [DLR24a], Lπ ∗ G is a compact generator of

DQcoh (A, X). We claim it is aisle-detecting with respect to the standard
t-structure on DQcoh (A, X). Indeed if HomDQcoh (A,X) (Lπ ∗ G, Σi M) = 0
for i > 0 then HomDQcoh (X) (G, Σi π∗ M) = 0 for i > 0. So π∗ M ∈
DQcoh (X)≤0 . Since π∗ is a forgetful functor it reflects being bounded
above at zero. Therefore M ∈ DQcoh (A, X)≤0. 
Definition 5.9. An Azumaya algebra over a proper scheme (A, X) is
a mild non-commutative scheme such that X is proper over a field k,
A is a coherent sheaf of OX algebras and Ax is a central separable
algebra over OX,x for every x ∈ X.
Corollary 5.10. Suppose (A, X) is an Azumaya algebra over a proper
scheme, then D perf (A) is reflexive.
Proof. Let π : (A, X) → X be the structure morphism. If M, N are
any two coherent A-modules, then π∗ (M) and π∗ (N) are coherent
OX modules since A is a coherent OX -module. Since X is proper,
HomA (M, N) ⊆ HomX (π∗ M, π∗ N) is finite-dimensional. It follows
that ExtiA (M, N) is finite-dimensional for all i and so by using the
standard t-structure, HomDQcoh (A,X) (L, K) is finite-dimensional for any
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 13

L, K ∈ Dcoh b
(A, X). Now if M, N ∈ D perf (A, X) ⊆ Dcoh
b
(A, X) then
i
HomDQcoh (A,X) (M, Σ N) vanishes for all but finitely many i and so
D perf (A, X) is a proper DG-category.

By Proposition 3.13 and Remark 3.14 in [DLR24a], D perf (A, X)

is a compact generating set of DQcoh (A, X). By Proposition 4.1 of
[DLR24a] and its proof, DQcoh (A, X) is approximable and the stan-
dard t-structure is in the preferred equivalence class. By Proposition
5.8, DQcoh (A, X) ≃ D(D perf (A, X)) admits an aisle-detecting gener-
ator with respect to a t-structure in the preferred equivalence class.
b
Then by Proposition 4.2 of [DLR24a] and Corollary 4.7, Dcoh (A, X) =
b perf
DQcoh (A, X)c = Dfd (D (A, X)). By the proof of Theorem 3.15 in
[DLR24b], there is a G ∈ Dfd (D perf (A, X)) ≃ Dcohb
(A, X) such that
perf perf
D(D (A, X)) = hGin . So Theorem 4.8 implies D (A, X) is reflex-
ive. 

References
[AJS03] Leovigildo Alonso, Ana Jeremias, and Maria Jose Souto Salorio. Con-
struction of t-structures and equivalences of derived categories. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc., pages 2523–2543, 2003.
[BCR+ 24] Rudradip Biswas, Hongxing Chen, Kabeer Manali Rahul, Chris J.
Parker, and Junhua Zheng. Bounded t-structures, finitistic dimensions,
and singularity categories of triangulated categories. arXiv preprint:
2401.00130, 2024.
[BNP13] D. Ben-Zvi, D. Nadler, and A. Preygel. Integral transforms for coherent
sheaves. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 19, 12 2013.
[BVdB02] A. Bondal and M. Van den Bergh. Generators and Representability
of Functors in Commutative and Noncommutative Geometry. Moscow
Mathematical Journal, 3:1:36, 05 2002.
[DLR24a] Timothy De Deyn, Pat Lank, and Kabeer Manali Rahul. Approximabil-
ity and Rouquier dimension for noncommutative algebras over schemes.
arXiv preprint: 2408.04561, 2024.
[DLR24b] Timothy De Deyn, Pat Lank, and Kabeer Manali Rahul. Descent and
generation for noncommutative coherent algebras over schemes. arXiv
preprint: 2410.01785, 2024.
[Goo24] I. Goodbody. Reflexivity and Hochschild cohomology. arXiv:
2403.09299, 2024.
[Kel06] B. Keller. On differential graded categories. International Congress of
Mathematicians. Eur. Math. Soc., pages 151–190, 2006.
[KS22] A. Kuznetsov and E. Shinder. Homologically finite-dimensional objects
in triangulated categories. arXiv: 2211.09418, 2022.
[Nee21a] Amnon Neeman. Approximable triangulated categories. Representations
of Algebras, Geometry and Physics, Contemp. Math., pages 111–155,
2021.
 APPROXIMABILITY AND REFLEXIVITY 14

[Nee21b] Amnon Neeman. Strong generators in Dperf (x) and Dcoh b

(x). Ann. of
Math., pages 689–732, 2021.
[Nee22] Amnon Neeman. Bounded t-structures on the category of perfect com-
plexes. arXiv preprint: 2202.08861, 2022.
[Orl20] D. Orlov. Finite-dimensional differential graded algebras and their geo-
metric realizations. Advances in Mathematics, 366:107096, jun 2020.
[RS20] T. Raedschelders and G. Stevenson. Proper connective differential
graded algebras and their geometric realizations. arXiv: 1903.02849,
2020.
[Toë07] B. Toën. The homotopy theory of dg -categories and derived Morita
theory. Invent. Math., 167(3):615–667, March 2007.

Isambard Goodbody, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Univer-

sity of Glasgow, University Place, Glasgow G12 8QQ