Motivation $\newcommand{\T}{\mathscr{T}}$
-----------------------------------------


I have many times found myself saying some variant of the following. Let $\T\_g$ be the Teichmüller space of a surface of genus $g$, and $\Gamma\_g$ its mapping class group. The quotient $\T\_g/\Gamma\_g$ is the moduli space of curves $M\_g$. It is a deep fact that $\T\_g$ is in fact diffeomorphic a ball, which implies that $M\_g$ is a model for the classifying space $B\Gamma\_g$ of the mapping class group. In particular, the cohomology of $M\_g$ is just the group cohomology of $\Gamma\_g$.


...well, almost. Since $\Gamma\_g$ does not act freely, $M\_g$ is in fact not a $B\Gamma\_g$. However, all the stabilizers are finite groups, and this implies via a spectral sequence argument that the *rational* cohomology of $M\_g$ coincides with the rational cohomology of $\Gamma\_g$. 


Most algebraic geometers seem to ignore these issues by working instead with stacks or orbifolds. Indeed, the *stack quotient* $[\T\_g/\Gamma\_g]$ is the *moduli stack* of curves $\mathcal M\_g$, which is in any case the more fundamental object of study. 


Question
--------


My question is whether the topological arguments in the first two paragraph can be carried out in a more highbrow way using orbifolds or topological stacks. I am vaguely aware that Noohi's work on topological stacks includes setting up a homotopy theory of topological stacks, but I know almost nothing about any of this. So the question should be interpreted as "does there exist a developed homotopy theory of topological stacks where the following question can be asked and answered".



> 
> **Question 1**. Are any two quotients $[E/G]$ and $[E'/G]$, where $E$ and $E'$ are contractible spaces with a not necessarily free group action by $G$, homotopy equivalent as topological stacks?
> 
> 
> 


My second question is more speculative since I know even less about rational homotopy theory.



> 
> **Question 2**. Let $\mathcal X$ be a topological stack, with coarse moduli space $X$. Suppose that all isotropy groups of $\mathcal X$ are torsion. Is $\mathcal X \to X$ a rational homotopy equivalence?
> 
> 
> 



Homotopy theory of topological stacks/orbifolds
Here is a simple way to talk about the homotopy type of a stack. Let $\mathfrak{X}$ be a stack and $f: U \to \mathfrak{X}$ a representable surjective submersion (an atlas) from a space $U$ (e.g., the map from the Teichmuller space to the moduli stack.) Now, form the pullback of $f$ along itself: $U\times\_{\mathfrak{X}} U$. This comes with two maps to $U$ and there is a diagonal map from $U \to U\times\_{\mathfrak{X}} U$. All together, these maps give a topological groupoid. The nerve of this topological groupoid is a simplicial space and the geometric realization of which is a space that one can regard as representing the homotopy type of the stack. 


Here are some easy/nice properties of the above notion of homotopy type that are easy to check.


1. Given a space $X$ with a $G$ action, the homotopy type of $[X/G]$ is the Borel construciton, aka homotopy quotient, $EG \times\_G X$. In particular, the answer to your Question 1 is affirmative, and the homotopy type of the moduli stack of curves is exactly $B\Gamma\_g$.
2. One can define singular and de Rham cohomology of a stack and these invariants coincide with the integral and rational cohomology of the homotopy type of the stack. This is in fact almost a tautology since, for example, the de Rham cohomology can be defined by taking a covering by a manifold, forming iterated pullbacks (to produce a simplicial manifold), taking the de Rham algebra of this simplicial manifold to get a cosimplicial dga, and then taking the totalization to get a dga.
3. It follows from property 1 above that the answer to your question 2 is also affirmative.
4. [Edit] This notion of homotopy type is well-defined because one can check that any two atlases determine Morita equivalent topological groupoids which then have weakly equivalent nerves.


If I remember correctly, Noohi uses a slightly more sophisticated notion of homotopy type. He defines a universal weak equivalence to be a representable morphism from a space $U$ to a stack $\mathfrak{X}$ such that the pullback along any morphism from a space to $\mathfrak{X}$ is a weak equivalence. $U$ can then be regarded as the homotopy type of the stack. I think this is more of less equivalent to the naive version I explained above, but it has the advantage of being a bit more functorial and there might be some other technical advantages I can't remember. David Carchedi will probably be able to give more details.


