Say I have a category $\mathcal{C}$ and a full subcategory $\mathcal{D}$, and suppose I have a model category structure on $\mathcal{D}$. Under what conditions is it possible to extend the model structure to the whole of $\mathcal{C}$? And when/if this can be done, is it possible to characterize the fibrations, cofibrations and, most importantly, the weak equivalences?

Remark 1: For the first part of the question, I know that if I have an adjunction between $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ (where the left adjoint is most probably the inclusion, i.e. a forgetful functor of some kind), then often it is possible to transfer the model structure along the adjunction. Are there other ways to do this?

Remark 2: You are allowed to use any of the various sets of axioms of model categories. If you really want, you can suppose that the $\mathcal{D}$ is a simplicial model category (but I'd rather not, as it seem a bit restrictive).


There is a sense in which you question becomes trivial, but I bet that's not what you want :-)

There is another way in which you can use the transport theorem, but there are a lot of things to check; let $i : {\cal D} \to {\cal C}$ be your functor; it is necessary that $\cal C$ is cocomplete to become a model category. So there is an adjunction $L\dashv N$, $$ \text{Lan}_y i \dashv \hom(i,1) : [{\cal D}^\text{op}, {\bf sSets}] \rightleftarrows \cal C $$ between the Yoneda extension of $i$ and the functor $N = \lambda d.\lambda c.\hom(i(d),c)$.

$[{\cal D}^\text{op}, {\bf sSets}]$ has the projective model structure that you can (left) Bousfield-localize to take into account that $\cal D$ has one too. This results in adding weak equivalences (you want each $\hom(-,d)\to \hom(-,d')$ to become a weak equivalence when $d\to d'$ is) and gives you a model category ${\bf L}_y\cal D = {\cal D}^\odot$.

Now let's establish a notation and a few assumptions:

  1. Let's assume that $\cal D$ is cofibrantly generated by $I$ (generating cofibrations) and $J$ (generating trivial cofibrations). $\cal D^\odot$ is cofibrantly generated by $I^\odot, J^\odot$.

  2. Let's call $Wk_{\cal C}, Fib_{\cal C}$ the classes of maps $N^\leftarrow(Wk_\odot), N^\leftarrow(Fib_\odot)$ respectively

Now, the Crans transfer machinery says that there is a model structure $(Wk_{\cal C}, Fib_{\cal C}, Cof_{\cal C} = \textsf{llp}(Wk_{\cal C}\cap Fib_{\cal C}))$ on $\cal C$ if

  1. $\hom(i,1)$ commutes with filtered colimits (this boils down to assumptions on $i$, which "behaves like" the inclusion of a subcategory of compact objects) and
  2. the closure under sequential colimits and pushouts of $\{L(j) \mid j\in J^\odot\}$ is a subset of $Wk_{\cal C}$.

If all this works, I bet I'm only rewriting in an ignorant way some results in Rezk's Model topoi.

Hope it helps!

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! It will take me a while to absorb all of this. I'll try to see if it works in the concrete example I'm considering. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Robert-Nicoud Oct 18 '16 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ I've been told that there is a flaw I'm not able to avoid: if $\cal D$ is model, it is cocomplete, and hence small iff it is a poset. This is a size-issue preventing $[{\cal D}^\text{op}, {\bf sSets}]$ from having the projective model structure. If there isn't a way to corcumvent this problem this idea probably doesnt work. $\endgroup$ – Fosco Oct 18 '16 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, but I don't see why a small cocomplete category must be a poset. What would be the order on the elements? If it's given by the arrows in some way (which would be kind of logic to me), then isomorphic objects should pose a problem (the ordering would not be antisymmetric)... $\endgroup$ – Daniel Robert-Nicoud Oct 21 '16 at 5:56

Your Answer

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

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