Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

On representation theory of cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford algebras

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs all simple modules of cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras explicitly, and shows these algebras split when a parameter polynomial is nonzero.

desk verdict The explicit tableau construction and dimension count are real advances, but the braid-relation check in Theorem 4.5 has a genuine gap that needs a filled-in calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06763 v2 pith:GZ55OZKW submitted 2025-01-12 math.RT

Lei Shi , Jinkui Wan This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RT MSC 20C0817B1005E10
keywords cyclotomicHecke-CliffordsuperalgebrasaffineSergeevalgebrasemisimplesimplemoduleconstructionstandardtableauxseparateparameterscompletelysplittablerepresentations
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

The paper gives an explicit construction of every simple module of the non-degenerate and degenerate cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras, over algebraically closed fields of characteristic not equal to 2, under a concrete condition on the defining parameters $q$ and $Q$. The modules are indexed by multipartitions—with one or two strict partitions attached according to the form of the cyclotomic polynomial—and are built from standard tableaux and their residue sequences. A dimension comparison then shows that these modules exhaust all irreducibles, so the algebra is split semisimple whenever the relevant parameter polynomial is nonzero. As a byproduct, the generic versions of both the non-degenerate and degenerate algebras are semisimple.

What carries the argument

The central object is the completely splittable module $D(\lambda)$: a direct sum, over permutations $\tau$ that take the initial standard tableau $t_\lambda$ to another standard tableau, of the twisted irreducible $A_n$-modules $L(\mathrm{res}(t_\lambda))^\tau$, where $L(\mathrm{res}(t))$ is the module on which $X_k$ acts with eigenvalues $b_\pm(\mathrm{res}_t(k))$. The $T_i$ action is defined through two explicit operators $\widetilde{\Xi}_i$ and $\widetilde{\Omega}_i$, and the verification that the braid relations hold uses the intertwining elements $\widetilde{\Phi}_i$. This module construction is what carries the semisimplicity theorem, which is completed by a dimension comparison using standard-tableaux counting formulas.

What would settle it

Work in the affine algebra $H_\Delta(3)$ and expand both sides of the displayed identity after (4.10) in the standard basis $X^\alpha C^\beta T_w$; the identity must hold identically for generic $q$. Equivalently, choose $\lambda = ((1,1,1))$ with $\bullet = 0$ and $n = 3$, build $D(\lambda)$ by (4.7), and compute the matrix of $T_1 T_2 T_1 - T_2 T_1 T_2$ on an explicit simultaneous eigenvector of $X_1, X_2, X_3$; any nonzero entry would disprove the braid relation and with it the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 states that for $q \neq \pm 1$ and $Q = (Q_1,\dots,Q_m) \in (K^*)^m$, if $f = f_Q^{(\bullet)}$ with $\bullet \in \{0,s,ss\}$ and $P_n^{(\bullet)}(q^2,Q) \neq 0$, then $H_{\Delta}^{f}(n)$ is a split semisimple superalgebra. The modules $D(\lambda)$, one for each $\lambda$ in $P_n^{\bullet,m}$, form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible modules; $D(\lambda)$ is of type M exactly when $\#D_\lambda$ is even and of type Q exactly when $\#D_\lambda$ is odd. The degenerate analogue, for cyclotomic Sergeev algebras, holds with $P_n^{(\bullet)}(1,Q) \neq 0$ in place of $P_n^{(\bullet)}(q^2,Q)$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the proposed $T_i$ action satisfies the braid relation depends on an identity stated without proof as a 'tedious calculation': $\widetilde{\Phi}_i \widetilde{\Phi}_{i+1} \widetilde{\Phi}_i - \widetilde{\Phi}_{i+1} \widetilde{\Phi}_i \widetilde{\Phi}_{i+1}$ equals $(T_i T_{i+1} T_i - T_{i+1} T_i T_{i+1}) Z'$ on the relevant eigenvectors, and if this identity fails the module construction and the semisimplicity conclusion would not be established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whenever $P_n^{(\bullet)}(q^2,Q) \neq 0$, the irreducible modules of $H_{\Delta}^{f}(n)$ are explicitly parameterized by the multipartitions in $P_n^{\bullet,m}$, with dimension formula $2^{n-\lfloor \#D_\lambda/2 \rfloor}|\mathrm{Std}(\lambda)|$.
  • The center of a semisimple cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford algebra is spanned by symmetric polynomials in $X_i + X_i^{-1}$ (or in $x_i^2$ in the degenerate case), with dimension equal to the number of such multipartitions.
  • For generic parameters—$q$ and $Q_i$ algebraically independent over $\mathbb{Z}$—both the non-degenerate and degenerate cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras are semisimple.
  • Under the same polynomial condition every irreducible module is completely splittable: $X_1,\dots,X_n$ act semisimply.
  • The same construction and dimension argument work for degenerate cyclotomic Sergeev algebras, with the polynomial $P_n^{(\bullet)}(1,Q)$ replacing $P_n^{(\bullet)}(q^2,Q)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: if the authors' conjecture that $P_n^{(\bullet)}(q^2,Q) \neq 0$ is also necessary for semisimplicity is true, the semisimplicity of these superalgebras becomes a decidable condition on given $q$ and $Q$, parallel to the classical criterion for cyclotomic Hecke algebras.
  • Going beyond the paper: the explicit tableaux realization gives a natural path to cellular or seminormal bases for these superalgebras, and hence to modular branching rules for spin representations of symmetric groups in a deformed setting.
  • Going beyond the paper: the same 'separation prevents degeneracy' mechanism might supply simple-module constructions for other cyclotomic superalgebras of types A and C, since only the residue separation and the intertwiner identities are used.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs explicit irreducible modules D(λ) for the non-degenerate cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras H_f^Δ(n) associated with the three polynomial types f^(0), f^(s), f^(ss), under the parameter condition P_n^{(•)}(q^2,Q) ≠ 0. A dimension comparison using standard tableaux for multipartitions, strict partitions, and doubled strict partitions is then used to prove that these modules exhaust the simples and that the algebra is semisimple. The same program is carried out for the degenerate (Sergeev) case, with a parallel condition P_n^{(•)}(1,Q) ≠ 0. The main statements are Theorem 1.1, Theorem 4.10, and Theorem 5.21; genericity corollaries are derived in Example 3.16, Remark 4.15, and Example 5.16.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper delivers a Young-tableaux model for a full set of simple modules in a large parameter region of cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras, gives a sufficient semisimplicity criterion, and proves generic semisimplicity in both the non-degenerate and degenerate settings. The explicit dimension formula (4.3), the transparent dimension count via Lemma 4.8, and the polynomial criterion of Proposition 3.11 are valuable and checkable components. However, the central verification that the proposed operators satisfy the Hecke braid relation is not supplied in the manuscript, and this gap is load-bearing for Theorems 1.1 and 4.10; the degenerate analogue Theorem 5.18 inherits the same issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Theorem 4.5, Case II after Eq. (4.10)] The verification of the braid relation T_i T_{i+1} T_i = T_{i+1} T_i T_{i+1} for the module action (4.7) is incomplete. The asserted identity "~Φ_i ~Φ_{i+1} ~Φ_i − ~Φ_{i+1} ~Φ_i ~Φ_{i+1} = (T_i T_{i+1} T_i − T_{i+1} T_i T_{i+1}) Z′" is not proved. Read as an identity inside H_Δ(n), it is vacuous because the left side vanishes by (3.20) and the right side by (3.1); read as an identity for the operators defined by (4.7), it must be checked before the braid relation is known to hold, and no such operator-level calculation is given. Moreover, the preceding use of (3.20) to rewrite the products of ~Φ's is circular in this context, since (3.20) is itself derived from the T-braid relation in H_Δ(n). This is not a mere presentation issue: the braid relation is exactly the step that turns the auxiliary operator calculation (4.10) into the required relation for the T_i action, so the proof of Proposition 4.7(1) and hence of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 4.10 depends on this missing computation.
  2. [§4.1, Theorem 4.5, relations (3.5) and (3.7)] The proof also omits the verification of relation (3.5), T_i X_{i+1} = X_i T_i + ǫ(1 + C_i C_{i+1})X_{k+1}, and of one half of relation (3.7), stating only that they follow by "similar and easier" calculations. Given that the delicate braid check is already left unproved, the omitted relation checks should either be written out or reduced to an explicit calculation. The same omission appears in the degenerate Theorem 5.18, which is asserted to follow as in [Wa, Theorem 4.5] without showing the braid verification for s_i s_{i+1} s_i = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1} on the module D(λ).
  3. [§5.5, Theorem 5.18] Theorem 5.18 is stated as provable "in a similar way" and inherits the missing braid-relation verification from the non-degenerate case. Since Theorem 5.21 and its corollaries depend on Theorem 5.18, the degenerate semisimplicity result should not be considered established until the braid-relation check for the action (5.26) is supplied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Theorem 4.10, Case 1] The displayed computation begins with ∑_{λ∈P^m_n} dim D(λ), but the subsequent equalities use (dim D(λ))^2; this should be corrected to (dim D(λ))^2.
  2. [§5.5, Lemma 5.15] The statement reads "q(res(t)) ≠ q(res(t)) if t ≠ t′"; it should read "q(res(t)) ≠ q(res(t′))".
  3. [§4.1, Proposition 4.7(2)] The notation "End_{H_Δ(n)}(D(λ))" should presumably be "End_{H_Δ^f(n)}(D(λ))" to match the cyclotomic algebra; the same notational slip appears in the surrounding text.
  4. [§3.3, Lemma 3.8] The sentence "the eigenvalue of X_k acting on ... is b±(rest(k)" has an unmatched parenthesis and should read b±(rest(k)).
  5. [Throughout, §3 and §5] The notation P_n^{(•)}(q^2,Q) and P_n^•(q^2,Q) is used interchangeably; standardizing the superscript notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Braid-relation verification in Theorem 4.5 contains a circular/tautological identity; the rest of the construction and dimension comparison are self-contained.

  1. other [§4.1, proof of Theorem 4.5, Case II, after Eq. (4.10)]
    "Recalling the intertwining elements ~Φ_i from (3.16), we see that ˆT_i zτ = ~Φ_i 1/z_i^2 zτ ... A tedious calculation shows that ~Φ_i~Φ_{i+1}~Φ_i − ~Φ_{i+1}~Φ_i~Φ_{i+1} = (T_iT_{i+1}T_i − T_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1})Z′. Therefore we obtain (T_iT_{i+1}T_i − T_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1})zτ = 0."

    In H_Δ(n), the asserted identity is vacuous as an algebra equality: the left side is zero by the already stated braid relation (3.20) for the ~Φ_i, and the right side is zero by the defining braid relation (3.1) for the T_i. Read in the algebra, it cannot be used to prove that the operators defined by (4.7) satisfy the T-braid relation, because the assignment T_i ↦ (4.7) has not yet been shown to factor through H_Δ(n). Read instead as an operator identity on D(λ) before the braid relation is known, it is exactly the target statement (multiplied by the nonzero scalar Z′) and is asserted without an operator-level computation. The proof therefore relies on the very relation it is checking.

full rationale

The paper's main conditional statement, Theorem 1.1, is not a fitted-input claim: the hypothesis P_n^(•)(q^2,Q) ≠ 0 is an explicit, independently stated condition, and the authors even conjecture that it is necessary, which would be meaningless if it were invented to force the conclusion. The D(λ) construction is explicit, the irreducibility and type arguments are self-contained, and the semisimplicity conclusion follows from a Wedderburn dimension comparison using external combinatorial identities (Lemma 4.8). The one genuinely circular spot is the braid-relation verification inside Theorem 4.5: the identity used to transfer from the ~Φ_i braid relation to the T_i braid relation is tautological when read in H_Δ(n), and unproved when read as an operator identity on D(λ). Since this verification is load-bearing for the module structure, the central claim is not fully supported as written; however, this is a localized circular step rather than a global reduction of the theorem to its own assumptions. The degenerate analogue inherits the same issue by deferring to 'a similar way'.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard superalgebra decomposition theorems, the published basis theory of Brundan-Kleshchev, and combinatorial formulas for tableaux. The only condition specific to this paper is the 'separate parameters' condition, which is introduced as a hypothesis and encoded in the polynomial P_n^(•); it is not an invented entity or a fitted parameter. There are no free parameters because the q and Q are defining data of the algebra, not numbers tuned to make a conclusion work. No new particles, dimensions, or forces are introduced; the constructed modules D(λ) are built from existing combinatorial objects.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Wedderburn theory for finite-dimensional associative superalgebras, as used in Corollary 2.3.
    The dimension comparison in Theorem 4.10 concludes semisimplicity from the equality between the sum of squared dimensions of constructed modules (with a factor 1/2 for type Q modules) and the dimension of the algebra. This relies on the superalgebra version of Wedderburn's theorem, which the paper cites from Kleshchev [K1].
  • standard math The basis theorem and center description for cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras from Brundan-Kleshchev [BK1] (Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.2).
    The dimension of H_Δ^f(n) is computed directly from the basis in Lemma 3.6, and the center in Corollary 4.14 uses the description in Lemma 3.2. These are external foundational results used as inputs.
  • standard math The classification of irreducible A1-modules and the tensor product structure An ≅ A1 ⊗ ... ⊗ A1.
    Equations (3.12) and Corollary 3.4 build the An-module L(a) from the known irreducible A1-modules. This classification is proved in the paper as Lemma 3.3, and the irreducibility of tensor products follows from Lemma 2.4, which is standard.
  • standard math Combinatorial dimension formulas for standard tableaux of multipartitions and strict partitions, Lemma 4.8.
    The identities sum over λ in P^m_n of |Std(λ)|^2 = n! m^n and the shifted variant from [DJM] and [Sa] are used in the dimension comparison. They are external results, cited clearly.
  • domain assumption The field is algebraically closed of characteristic not equal to 2 and q ≠ ±1.
    This assumption is stated at the beginning of the paper and is needed for the classification of allowed polynomials f (Section 3.3) and for the split semisimplicity conclusion. It is a standard domain assumption for this area.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On representation theory of cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZ55OZKW

@misc{pith2026250106763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On representation theory of cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZ55OZKW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06763}
}
abstract

In this article, we give an explicit construction of the simple modules for both non-degenerate and degenerate cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras over an algebraically closed field of characteristic not equal to $2$ under certain condition in terms of parameters in defining these algebras. As an application, we obtain a sufficient condition on the semi-simplicity of these cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras via a dimension comparison. As a byproduct, both generic non-degenerate and degenerate cyclotomic Hecke-Clifford superalgebras are shown to be semisimple.

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. On the generalized graded cellular bases for cyclotomic quiver Hecke-Clifford superalgebras

    math.RT 2026-04 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cyclotomic quiver Hecke-Clifford superalgebras of affine types A, C, A2 and D2 are generalized graded cellular (under Q-unremovable conditions) via semisimple deformations, with a unified bi-weight dimension formula.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ariki, On the semi-simplicity of the Hecke algebra of ( /r ) _n , J

    S. Ariki, On the semi-simplicity of the Hecke algebra of ( /r ) _n , J. Algebra, 169 (1994), 216--225

    1994

  2. [2]

    Ariki, Lectures on Cyclotomic Hecke Algebras Quantum Groups and Lie Theory, 1--22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542848.002

    S. Ariki, Lectures on Cyclotomic Hecke Algebras Quantum Groups and Lie Theory, 1--22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542848.002

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542848.002

  3. [3]

    Ariki and K

    S. Ariki and K. Koike, A Hecke algebra of ( /r ) _n and construction of its representations , Adv. Math., 106 (1994), 216--243

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Brundan and A

    J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, Hecke-Clifford superalgebras, crystals of type A^ (2) _ 2l , and modular branching rules for S _n , Repr. Theory 5 (2001), 317--403

    2001

  5. [5]

    Brundan and A

    J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, Representation theory of symmetric groups and their double covers, Groups, Combinatorics and Geometry (Durham, 2001), pp. 31--53, World Scientific, Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2003

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Cherednik, Special bases of irreducible

    I. Cherednik, Special bases of irreducible

    work page

  7. [7]

    Cherednik, A new interpretation of Gel'fand-Tzetlin

    I. Cherednik, A new interpretation of Gel'fand-Tzetlin

    work page

  8. [8]

    Drinfeld, Degenerate affine Hecke algebras and

    V. Drinfeld, Degenerate affine Hecke algebras and

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Dipper, G.D

    R. Dipper, G.D. James and A. Mathas, Cyclotomic q-Schur algebras , Math. Zeit., 229 (3)(1998), 385--416

    1998

  2. [10]

    Evseev and A

    A. Evseev and A. Mathas, Content systems and deformations of cyclotomic KLR algebras of type A and C , Ann. Represent., Volume 1, issue 2 (2024), 193--297

    2024

  3. [11]

    D. Hill, J. Kujawa, J. Sussan,

  4. [12]

    D. Hill, J. Kujawa and J. Sussan, Degenerate affine Hecke-Clifford algebras and type Q Lie superalgebras , Math. Z 268 (2011), 1091--1158

    2011

  5. [13]

    Hu and A

    J. Hu and A. Mathas, Graded cellular bases for the cyclotomic Khovanov-Lauda-Rouquier algebras of type A , Adv. Math., 225 (2) (2010), 598--642

    2010

  6. [14]

    Hu and A

    J. Hu and A. Mathas, Seminormal forms and cyclotomic quiver H ecke algebras of type A , Math. Ann., 364 (2016), 1189--1254

    2016

  7. [15]

    Jones, M

    A. Jones, M. Nazarov, Affine Sergeev algebra and q -analogues of the Young symmetrizers for projective representations of the symmetric group, Proc. London Math. Soc. 78 (1999), 481--512

    1999

  8. [16]

    Kleshchev, Completely splittable representations of symmetric groups , J

    A. Kleshchev, Completely splittable representations of symmetric groups , J. Algebra 181 (1996), 584--592

    1996

  9. [17]

    Kleshchev, Linear and Projective Representations of Symmetric Groups , Cambridge University Press, 2005

    A. Kleshchev, Linear and Projective Representations of Symmetric Groups , Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Kleshchev, Representation Theory of symmetric groups and related Hecke algebras , Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Society 47 (2010), 419--481

    A. Kleshchev, Representation Theory of symmetric groups and related Hecke algebras , Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Society 47 (2010), 419--481. Volume 47, Number 3, July 2010, Pages 419–481

    2010

  11. [19]

    Kleshchev and M

    A. Kleshchev and M. Livesey, RoCK blocks for double covers of symmetric groups and quiver Hecke superalgebras , arXiv:2201.06870

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kleshchev, A

    A. Kleshchev, A. Ram, Homogeneous representations of Khovanov-Lauda

  13. [21]

    Leclerc, Dual canonical bases, quantum

    B. Leclerc, Dual canonical bases, quantum

  14. [22]

    Lusztig, Affine Hecke algebras and their

    G. Lusztig, Affine Hecke algebras and their

  15. [23]

    Mathas, The representation theory of the Ariki-Koike and cyclotomic q -Schur algebras , Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, Adv

    A. Mathas, The representation theory of the Ariki-Koike and cyclotomic q -Schur algebras , Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, Adv. Studies Pure Math., 40 (2004), 261--320

    2004

  16. [24]

    Mathas, Matrix units and generic degrees for the Ariki-Koike algebras , J

    A. Mathas, Matrix units and generic degrees for the Ariki-Koike algebras , J. Algebra, 281 (2004), 695--730

    2004

  17. [25]

    Mathas, Cyclotomic quiver Hecke algebras of type A , preprint, arXiv:1310.2142, 2013

    A. Mathas, Cyclotomic quiver Hecke algebras of type A , preprint, arXiv:1310.2142, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mathieu, On the dimension of some modular irreducible representations of the symmetric group , Lett

    O. Mathieu, On the dimension of some modular irreducible representations of the symmetric group , Lett. Math. Phys. 38 (1996), 23--32

    1996

  19. [27]

    Nazarov, Young's orthogonal form of irreducible projective representations of the symmetric group , J

    M. Nazarov, Young's orthogonal form of irreducible projective representations of the symmetric group , J. London Math. Soc. (2) 42 (1990), no. 3, 437--451

    1990

  20. [28]

    Nazarov, Young's symmetrizers for projective representations of the symmetric group , Adv

    M. Nazarov, Young's symmetrizers for projective representations of the symmetric group , Adv. Math. 127 (1997), no. 2, 190--257

    1997

  21. [29]

    Okounkov and A

    A. Okounkov and A. Vershik, A new approach to

  22. [30]

    Olshanski, Quantized universal enveloping superalgebra of type Q and a super-extension of the Hecke algebra , Lett

    G.I. Olshanski, Quantized universal enveloping superalgebra of type Q and a super-extension of the Hecke algebra , Lett. Math. Phys. 24 (1992), 93--102

    1992

  23. [31]

    Ram, Skew shape representations are irreducible , (English summary) Combinatorial and geometric representation theory (Seoul, 2001), 161--189, Contemp

    A. Ram, Skew shape representations are irreducible , (English summary) Combinatorial and geometric representation theory (Seoul, 2001), 161--189, Contemp. Math., 325, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003

    2001

  24. [32]

    Ram, Affine Hecke algebras and generalized standard Young

    A. Ram, Affine Hecke algebras and generalized standard Young

  25. [33]

    Ruff, Completely splittable representations of symmetric groups and affine Hecke aglebras , J

    O. Ruff, Completely splittable representations of symmetric groups and affine Hecke aglebras , J. Algebra 305 (2006), 1197--1211

    2006

  26. [34]

    Sagan, Shifted tableaux, S chur Q -functions, and a conjecture of R

    B. Sagan, Shifted tableaux, S chur Q -functions, and a conjecture of R . S tanley , J. Combin. Theory Ser. 45 (1987), 62--103

    1987

  27. [35]

    Schur, \"Uber die Darstellung der symmetrischen und der alternierenden Gruppe durch gebrochene lineare Substitutionen , J

    I. Schur, \"Uber die Darstellung der symmetrischen und der alternierenden Gruppe durch gebrochene lineare Substitutionen , J. Reine Angew. Math. 139 (1911), 155--250

    1911

  28. [36]

    Ryba, Fibonacci representations of the symmetric

    A. Ryba, Fibonacci representations of the symmetric

  29. [37]

    Wales, Some projective representations of

    D. Wales, Some projective representations of

  30. [38]

    Wan, Completely splittable representations of affine H ecke- C lifford algebras , J

    J. Wan, Completely splittable representations of affine H ecke- C lifford algebras , J. Algebraic Combin. 32 (2010), 15--58

    2010

  31. [39]

    Wan and W

    J. Wan and W. Wang, Lectures on spin representation theory of symmetric groups , Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics Academia Sinica New Series 7 (2012), no. 1, 91--164

    2012

  32. [40]

    Wan and W

    J. Wan and W. Wang, Frobenius character formula and spin generic degrees for Hecke–Clifford algebra , Proc. London Math. Soc., 106 (3) (2013), 287--317

    2013

  33. [41]

    Wang, Double affine Hecke-Clifford algebras for the spin symmetric group , preprint, math.RT/0608074, 2006

    W. Wang, Double affine Hecke-Clifford algebras for the spin symmetric group , preprint, math.RT/0608074, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.