Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

The Schur-Weyl duality and Invariants for classical Lie superalgebras

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for the classical Lie superalgebras $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$, $\mathfrak{q}_n$, $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m+1|2n}$, and $\mathfrak{p}_n$, every central element of the universal enveloping algebra is the image of a…

desk verdict A genuinely useful unified Schur-Weyl machine for central elements of four classical Lie superalgebras; the p_n triviality proof is a real alternative, though the imported periplectic FFT needs its hypotheses made explicit. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17093 v1 pith:NHQ3EQNO submitted 2024-11-26 math.RT

Yang Luo , Yongjie Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RT MSC 17B3517B1020C30
keywords ClassicalLiesuperalgebrasSchur-WeyldualityBrauerdiagramsCasimirelementsGelfandinvariantscenteroftheenvelopingalgebraperiplecticsuperalgebraqueer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the Schur-Weyl machine produces every central element of the enveloping algebra of a classical Lie superalgebra. The answer proposed here is yes for $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$, $\mathfrak{q}_n$, $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m+1|2n}$, and $\mathfrak{p}_n$: the canonical projection from the tensor algebra $T(\mathfrak{g})$ to the enveloping algebra $\mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ stays surjective after passing to $\mathfrak{g}$-invariants. Consequently every Casimir element can be built from elements of the corresponding centralizer algebra, giving a uniform source of central generators. The same machinery also yields explicit Gelfand invariants, recovers the known generators of the centers for the general linear and queer cases, and supplies an elementary proof that the periplectic superalgebra $\mathfrak{p}_n$ has trivial center.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the super Schur-Weyl duality map $\Psi_k\colon A_k\to\operatorname{End}_{\mathfrak{g}}(V^{\otimes k})$, where $A_k$ is the symmetric group algebra for $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$, the Hecke-Clifford algebra for $\mathfrak{q}_n$, the Brauer algebra for $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m+1|2n}$, and the periplectic Brauer algebra for $\mathfrak{p}_n$. Its surjectivity (imported as Theorem 2.9, with $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m|2n}$ excluded) guarantees that every equivariant endomorphism of the tensor space is accessible from the diagram algebra, and the split projection $\tilde{\pi}$ converts each such endomorphism into a $\mathfrak{g}$-invariant tensor. The supersymmetrization isomorphism from the supersymmetric algebra to the enveloping algebra then lifts these tensor invariants to central elements. For $\mathfrak{p}_n$, the decisive step is Key Lemma 3.19, a sign identity for permutations in $S_{2k}$ established by drawing the closure of a Brauer diagram; it forces every $\mathfrak{p}_n$-invariant in the supersymmetric algebra to equal its negative, so it vanishes.

What would settle it

A direct low-degree computation for $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{gl}_{1|1}$ would settle the main claim: list the $\mathfrak{g}$-invariants of $T(\mathfrak{g})$ through degree 4, apply the projection $\eta'$, and compare the resulting span with the two-variable supersymmetric polynomials that form $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{gl}_{1|1})$ by the Harish-Chandra isomorphism; any central element outside the span disproves Theorem 3.23.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.23: for $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}, \mathfrak{q}_n, \mathfrak{osp}_{2m+1|2n}, \mathfrak{p}_n$, the restriction of the projection $\eta'\colon T(\mathfrak{g})\to \mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ to $T(\mathfrak{g})^{\mathfrak{g}}$ is surjective onto the center $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{g})$; the family $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m|2n}$ is the sole case left unresolved. The proof routes every element of the centralizer algebra $\operatorname{End}_{\mathfrak{g}}(V^{\otimes k})$ through a split projection $\tilde{\pi}\colon \operatorname{End}(V)\to\mathfrak{g}$, turning it into a $\mathfrak{g}$-invariant of $T(\mathfrak{g})$, and then shows that supersymmetrization converts these without loss into central elements. Along the way the paper constructs explicit Gelfand invariants for $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$ and $\mathfrak{osp}_{m|2n}$, identifies the odd-degree elements $Z_k$ as generators of $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{q}_n)$, and proves $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{p}_n)=0$ using a Brauer-diagram sign lemma.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes that the Schur-Weyl action map $\Psi_k$ is surjective, meaning every linear endomorphism of $V^{\otimes k}$ commuting with the superalgebra is realized by the relevant diagram algebra; this assumption is known to fail for $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m|2n}$, which is exactly why that family is excluded, and for $\mathfrak{p}_n$ it is a nontrivial theorem rather than a formality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}$, the elements $\operatorname{Str}(\hat E^k)$ for $k\ge1$ generate the center $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$, giving a direct bridge from $k$-cycles in the symmetric group to Casimir generators.
  • For $\mathfrak{q}_n$, the elements $Z_k$ with odd $k$ generate $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{q}_n)$, while even-degree cycles collapse to zero; this recovers the known center of the queer enveloping algebra.
  • For $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m+1|2n}$, the elements $\operatorname{Str}(\hat F^{2k})$ for $k\ge1$ generate the center, extending the orthosymplectic Gelfand-invariant picture.
  • The center of the periplectic enveloping algebra $\mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{p}_n)$ is trivial, even though $T(\mathfrak{p}_n)^{\mathfrak{p}_n}$ contains many nonzero invariants.
  • The same construction uniformly produces the central generators for the four families, showing that the surjectivity of $\eta'$ is not a case-by-case accident but a consequence of the super Schur-Weyl duality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors leave open the dimension of $(\mathfrak{g}^{\otimes k})^{\mathfrak{g}}$; the same comparison between tensor, supersymmetric, and enveloping invariants suggests an upper bound in terms of the dimension of the relevant centralizer algebra, which would make the open problem computable.
  • For $\mathfrak{osp}_{2m|2n}$, the obstruction is the known failure of the Schur-Weyl map to be surjective; a natural extension is to add the missing endomorphisms to the construction and test whether the surjectivity of $\eta'$ still holds for that family.
  • The Brauer-diagram sign lemma proving the triviality of $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{p}_n)$ is a self-contained statement about $S_{2k}$; similar sign identities could control invariants of other superalgebras with an odd invariant bilinear form and could be checked on small $k$ before seeking a general theorem.
  • The coexistence of nontrivial $\mathfrak{p}_n$-invariants in the tensor algebra with a trivial center suggests that tensor invariants encode module-theoretic or categorical information invisible to Casimir elements, a distinction that the construction makes sharp.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper develops a uniform Schur-Weyl framework for the classical Lie superalgebras g in {gl_{m|n}, q_n, osp_{m|2n}, p_n}. Using the split surjection pi~: End(V) -> g of Proposition 2.1 and the canonical isomorphism Omega_k: End_g(V^{⊗k}) ≅ [End(V)^{⊗k}]^g, each element of the relevant centralizer algebra A_k (symmetric group algebra, Hecke-Clifford algebra, Brauer algebra, or periplectic Brauer algebra) is converted into a g-invariant of T(g), S(g), and U(g). The main results are: (i) Theorem 3.4 and Proposition 3.15, relating the supersymmetrization of invariants to sums of z_σ = η'∘π∘Ω∘Ψ(σ); (ii) Theorem 3.23, asserting that the canonical projection η': T(g)^g -> Z(g) is surjective for gl_{m|n}, q_n, osp_{2m+1|2n}, and p_n, with osp_{2m|2n} as the sole exception; (iii) generators of Z(g) in the non-exceptional cases (Str E-hat^k for gl_{m|n}; Z_k with k odd for q_n; Str F-hat^{2k} for osp_{2m+1|2n}), verified through the Harish-Chandra isomorphism; and (iv) Theorem 3.18, a new proof, based on the combinatorial Key Lemma 3.19 about Brauer diagrams, of Scheunert's theorem that Z(p_n) is trivial.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a genuinely unified construction of Gelfand-type invariants for four families of classical Lie superalgebras, and its explicit generators reproduce and tie together known theorems (Sergeev for Z(q_n), Scheunert for Z(p_n), Molev-type invariants for gl_{m|n} and osp_{2m+1|2n}); the honest scoping (osp_{2m|2n} excluded, in agreement with the super-Pfaffian phenomenon) is a strength. The approach is also cross-validated: the Harish-Chandra isomorphism is used as an independent check on generation, and Example 3.24 gives a fully explicit sign computation in the p_n case. The principal new technical content is the reduction of the triviality of Z(p_n) to a symmetric-group/Brauer-diagram lemma; this is the part that most needs careful verification (see Major comments 1 and 3). The p_n argument's reliance on the imported periplectic FFT qualifies the paper's 'purely algebraic' framing, since the completeness of the spanning set comes from a deep external theorem rather than from the elementary part of the proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 / Theorem 2.9] The p_n clauses of Theorems 3.18 and 3.23 rest on the assertion that {σ·c^{⊗k}}_{σ∈S_{2k}} spans (V^{⊗2k})^{p_n} for every k (Section 3.4), a deep result: the first fundamental theorem (FFT) for the periplectic supergroup, imported from [5, Lemma 8.1.4] and [7, Section 5.3]. The manuscript does not state the exact hypotheses under which those sources prove the theorem, in particular whether k is unrestricted or a stability range k ≤ n is required, and whether the cited results are for the supergroup P(n) rather than the Lie superalgebra p_n (with the equality of the two invariant spaces on V^{⊗2k} left implicit). Theorem 2.9 packages the same surjectivity claim as a black box labeled '[Schur-Sergeev duality]' with no citation. Since the spanning claim is needed in every degree of S(p_n) for the triviality conclusion, this load-bearing import must be stated precisely: the exact theorem, its hypotheses, and the identification of supergroup and Lie-superalgebra invariants. If the periplectic FFT had a hidden restriction (for instance n ≥ k), the proof of Theorem 3.18 as written would not establish the full result.
  2. [Section 3.3] The statement 'By [7, Section 3], the set {σ·c^{⊗k}} spans (V^{⊗2k})^{OSP(V)}' is made for the ortho-symplectic supergroup without qualification. This conflicts with the super-Pfaffian exception for osp_{2m|2n}, which the paper itself acknowledges in the Introduction and in Theorem 2.9; for those algebras Brauer-type spanning is known to fail. The argument in Section 3.3 is used only to reach the conclusion for osp_{2m+1|2n}, so the theorem is not endangered, but the spanning claim should be stated in the precise form that is actually true and actually used (odd first index), with the citation matched to that case.
  3. [Key Lemma 3.19 / Theorem 3.18] Key Lemma 3.19 is the technical core of the advertised new proof of the triviality of Z(p_n), and Theorem 3.18 reduces to it. Its proof, however, is completed by several steps that are only asserted: the reduction of the general case to a single circle, the claim that the lemma propagates from S_{2l} × S_l to S_{2k} × S_k when λ_l > 0, and the final 'one can check' verification for σ = (2l 2l-1···3 2). The statements (I)-(III) about the actions on Brauer diagrams and the double-coset decomposition (3.42) also need justification. The lemma may well be true (the small cases k = 1, 2 check out), but the written proof is not complete enough for a reader to verify, which is a real defect in a paper whose central selling point is this elementary reduction; please provide full details or cite a published proof.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 2.1.2] The paragraph beginning 'Moreover, End(V) = q_n ⊕ q_n^⊥ ...' is duplicated verbatim; please delete the repetition.
  2. [Section 2.1.3] The root systems listed for the two ortho-symplectic families are scrambled; for example, the even roots given for osp_{2m+1|2n} include ±2ǫ_p, which is not a root of type B_m, and the second positive system likewise needs correction (the correct data are D_m × C_n for osp_{2m|2n} and B_m × C_n for osp_{2m+1|2n}).
  3. [Section 3.3] In the conclusion 'the set {ψ∘η∘π(θ_σ) | σ ∈ S_k, k ∈ Z+} spans the center Z(osp_{2m+1|2n})', the index set should be σ ∈ S_{2k}, since θ_σ is defined for σ ∈ S_{2k} in this section.
  4. [Theorem 3.4] The statement writes (1/k!)Σ z_{τ^{-1}στ} while the proof derives (1/k!)Σ z_{τ^{-1}σ^{-1}τ}; the two forms are equivalent as σ ranges over S_k, but statement and proof should be aligned for readability.
  5. [Sections 3.3-3.4] In the sentence 'spans all the invariants in S(p_n)' (and its analogue in Section 3.3), the invariant subalgebra should be written S(p_n)^{p_n} explicitly, and the sentence should indicate that the FFT input discussed in Major comment 1 is being used at that point.
  6. [Corollaries 3.9 and 3.17] The step from 'top-degree components of the Harish-Chandra images generate S(h)^W' to 'the elements generate Z(g)' uses the standard associated-graded filtration argument; please state it in one sentence for completeness.
  7. [Theorem 2.9 / equation (3.14)] The exception in Theorem 2.9 and the formula in (3.14) would be clearer stated in terms of the Brauer parameter: for g = osp_{m|2n} the parameter is δ = m − 2n, and the surjectivity of Ψ_k fails precisely when δ is an even integer (equivalently, the first index is even).
  8. [General] Proposition 2.1 is referred to in Section 3 as 'Lemma 2.1'; please fix the cross-reference, and please render the commutative diagrams in the Introduction with standard diagram macros, as the current arrows do not display.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain rests on external Schur-Weyl duality and Harish-Chandra isomorphism results, with no fitted inputs or author self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central construction takes the surjectivity of the Schur-Weyl action map Ψ_k (Theorem 2.9), the Harish-Chandra isomorphism (Theorem 2.5), and the spanning statements for invariants of tensor powers from [7, Section 5.3] and [5, Lemma 8.1.4] as independent inputs. These are external theorems, not results of the present paper, and none of them assumes the target theorem that η′ is surjective or that Z(p_n) is trivial. The chain z_a = η′∘π∘Ω∘Ψ(a) is a definition, not a fit: the paper then proves by direct calculation (Theorem 3.4, Proposition 3.15) that the symmetrized image of these elements spans the relevant invariant subalgebra, and it verifies generator claims by computing top-degree Harish-Chandra images (Corollaries 3.9 and 3.17, Section 3.2). For p_n, the triviality of the center is proved from a new combinatorial Key Lemma 3.19 about signs in S_{2k}; the imported spanning statement is about tensor-power invariants and is not equivalent to the center being trivial. No parameter is fitted to the quantity that is later called a prediction, and the authors do not rely on any of their own prior work in a load-bearing way. The only caveats, such as the exact hypotheses of the periplectic FFT and the unproved osp_{2m|2n} case, are ordinary correctness and exposition risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard duality and invariant-theory theorems from the literature, not on any fitted constants or invented entities. No free parameters are introduced, and the only new combinatorial tool is the Key Lemma, which is proven within the paper.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Schur-Sergeev duality: A_k -> End_g(V^{⊗k}) is surjective for g = gl_{m|n}, q_n, osp_{2m+1|2n}, p_n (Theorem 2.9).
    Imported from Cheng-Wang, Moon, Sergeev; the paper's invariant construction depends on every invariant endomorphism being realized by the diagram algebra. The osp_{2m|2n} exception is exactly where this surjectivity fails.
  • domain assumption First fundamental theorem for osp and p_n: the set {σ·c^{⊗k}} spans (V^{⊗2k})^g (Deligne-Lehrer-Zhang [7], Coulembier [5]).
    Used to pass from invariants of V^{⊗2k} to invariants of End(V)^{⊗k}, which then feed the tensor-algebra construction.
  • standard math Harish-Chandra isomorphism: Z(g) is isomorphic to S(h)^W_sup for gl, osp, q (Theorem 2.5, Gorelik-Kac-Sergeev).
    Used to check that the constructed elements generate the center by comparing top-degree components.
  • standard math PBW and supersymmetrization: ψ: S(g) -> U(g) is a g-module isomorphism.
    Allows the transfer of invariant statements between the symmetric algebra and the enveloping algebra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Schur-Weyl duality and Invariants for classical Lie superalgebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHQ3EQNO

@misc{pith2026241117093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Schur-Weyl duality and Invariants for classical Lie superalgebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHQ3EQNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17093}
}
abstract

In this article, we provide a comprehensive characterization of invariants of classical Lie superalgebras from the super-analog of the Schur-Weyl duality in a unified way. We establish $\mathfrak{g}$-invariants of the tensor algebra $T(\mathfrak{g})$, the supersymmetric algebra $S(\mathfrak{g})$, and the universal enveloping algebra $\mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ of a classical Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$ corresponding to every element in centralizer algebras and their relationship under supersymmetrization. As a byproduct, we prove that the restriction on $T(\mathfrak{g})^{\mathfrak{g}}$ of the projection from $T(\mathfrak{g})$ to $\mathrm{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ is surjective, which enables us to determine the generators of the center $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{g})$ except for $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{osp}_{2m|2n}$. Additionally, we present an alternative algebraic proof of the triviality of $\mathcal{Z}(\mathfrak{p}_n)$. The key ingredient involves a technique lemma related to the symmetric group and Brauer diagrams.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Segal-Sugawara vectors for orthosymplectic Lie superalgebras

    math.RT 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Explicit Segal-Sugawara vectors for the affine vertex algebra of osp_{M|2n} at the critical level are constructed using a new extended Brauer-type algebra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    Coulembier, The periplectic Brauer algebra

    K. Coulembier, The periplectic Brauer algebra. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 117 (2018), 441- 482. 29

    work page 2018

  2. [7]

    Deligne, G

    P. Deligne, G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, The first fundamental th eorem of invariant theory for the orthosymplectic super group. Adv. Math. 327 (2018), 4-24

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    On a super-analog of the Schur-Weyl Duality

    Y. Borodin and N. Rozhkovskaya, On a super-analog of the Schu r-Weyl duality. (2022), arXiv:2208.07434

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [2]

    R. W. Carter, Lie algebras of finite and affine type. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 96 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. xviii+632 pp

    work page 2005

  5. [3]

    Cheng, W

    S.-J. Cheng, W. Wang, Dualities and representations of Lie super algebras. Grad. Stud. Math. 144 American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2012), xviii+302 pp

    work page 2012

  6. [4]

    Coulembier, Tensor ideals, Deligne categories and invariant the ory

    K. Coulembier, Tensor ideals, Deligne categories and invariant the ory. Selecta Math. (N.S.) 24 (2018), 4659-4710

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Ehrig, C

    M. Ehrig, C. Stroppel, Schur-Weyl duality for the Brauer algebr a and the ortho- symplectic Lie superalgebra. Math. Z. 284 (2016), 595-613

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Georelik, The center of a simple P -type Lie superalgebra

    M. Georelik, The center of a simple P -type Lie superalgebra. J. Algebra 246 (2001), 414-428

    work page 2001

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Iorgov, A

    N. Iorgov, A. I. Molev, E. Ragoucy, Casimir elements from the Br auer-Schur-Weyl duality. J. Algebra 387 (2013), 144-159

    2013

  2. [10]

    P. D. Jarvis, H. S. Green, Casimir invariants and characteristic identities for generators of the general linear, special linear and orthosymplectic graded Lie algebras. J. Math. Phys. 20 (1979), 2115-2122

    1979

  3. [11]

    P. D. Jarvis, M. K. Murray, Casimir invariants, characteristic id entities, and tensor op- erators for ”strange” superalgebras. J. Math. Phys. 24 (1983), 1705-1710

    1983

  4. [12]

    Kac, Lie superalgebras

    V. Kac, Lie superalgebras. Adv. Math. 16 (1977), 8-96

    1977

  5. [13]

    Kerov, G

    S. Kerov, G. Olshanski, Polynomial functions on the set of Youn g diagrams, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I Math. 319 (1994), 121-126

    1994

  6. [14]

    G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, The second fundamental theorem of invariant theory for the orthogonal group. Ann. of Math. 176 (2012), 2031-2054

    2012

  7. [15]

    G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, The Brauer category and invariant theory. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 17 (2015), 2311-2351

    2015

  8. [16]

    G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, Invariants of the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebra and super Pfaffians. Math. Z. 286 (2017), 893-917

    2017

  9. [17]

    G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, The first fundamental theorem of invariant theory for the orthosymplectic supergroup. Comm. Math. Phys. 349 (2017), 661-702

    2017

  10. [18]

    G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, The second fundamental theorem of invariant theory for the orthosymplectic supergroup. Nagoya Math. J. 242 (2021), 52-76

    2021

  11. [19]

    G. I. Lehrer, R. B. Zhang, Polar Brauer categories, infinitesim al braids and Lie superal- gebra repesentations. (2024), arXiv: 2404.00515

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    MacDonald, Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials

    Ian G. MacDonald, Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials. Oxford University Press, Second edition (1995), 475pp

    1995

  13. [21]

    A. I. Molev, Sugawara operators for classical Lie algebras. Math. Surveys Monogr. 229 American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2018), xiv+304 pp

    2018

  14. [22]

    A. I. Molev, V. Retakh, Quasideterminants and Casimir elements for the general linear Lie superalgebra. Int. Math. Res. Not. 13 (2004), 611-619

    2004

  15. [23]

    Moon, The product representations of the Lie siperalgebra pn and their centralizers

    D. Moon, The product representations of the Lie siperalgebra pn and their centralizers. Comm. Algebra 31 (2003), 2095-2140

    2003

  16. [24]

    I. M. Musson, Lie superalgebras and enveloping algebras. Grad. Stud. Math. 131 Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2012), xx+488 pp

    2012

  17. [25]

    Nazarov, A

    M. Nazarov, A. N. Sergeev, Centralizer construction of the Y angian of the queer Lie superalgebra. Progr. Math., 243 Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2006, 417-441. 30

    2006

  18. [26]

    Okounkov, Quantum immanants and higher Capelli identities

    A. Okounkov, Quantum immanants and higher Capelli identities. Transform. Groups 1 (1996), 99-126

    1996

  19. [27]

    Okounkov, G

    A. Okounkov, G. Olshanksi, Shifted Schur functions. St. Petersburg Math. J. 9 (1998), 239-300

    1998

  20. [28]

    Scheunert, Eigenvalues of Casimir operators for the gener al linear, the special linear, and the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebras J

    M. Scheunert, Eigenvalues of Casimir operators for the gener al linear, the special linear, and the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebras J. Math. Phys. 24 (1983), 2681-2688

    1983

  21. [29]

    Scheunert, Invariant supersymmetric multilinear forms and the Casimir elements of P -type Lie superalgebras

    M. Scheunert, Invariant supersymmetric multilinear forms and the Casimir elements of P -type Lie superalgebras. J. Math. Phys. 28 (1987), 1180-1191

    1987

  22. [30]

    A. N. Sergeev, The center of enveloping algebra for Lie supera lgebraQ(n, C). Lett. Math. Phys. 7 (1983), 177-179

    1983

  23. [31]

    A. N. Sergeev, Tensor algebra of the identity representation as a module over the Lie superalgebras GL(n,m ) and Q(n). Math. Sb. (N. S.) 123 (1984), 422-430. 31

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.