A generalization of Carter-Payne homomorphisms

Mart\'in Forsberg Conde

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 19 references

A generalization of Carter-Payne homomorphisms

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that if two multipartitions differ by removing an e-small straight shape and placing it earlier with matching residues, a nonzero graded homomorphism between their Specht modules always exists and sends the generator to a…

desk verdict Strong generalization with a real chance of being right, but a self-contradictory load-bearing lemma means the main theorem is not yet proved as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05800 v1 pith:SDD7CTCF submitted 2025-06-06 math.RT

Martín Forsberg Conde This is my paper

classification math.RT MSC 20C0805E1020C30

keywords quiverHeckealgebrasSpechtmodulesCarter–Paynehomomorphismscyclotomice-smallshapesgradedstubbornstringsmultipartitions

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 proves a theorem about when one Specht module of a cyclotomic quiver Hecke algebra of type A maps into another. If two multipartitions differ by removing an $e$-small straight shape from one component and placing it, with matching residues, at an earlier position, then there is a nonzero homogeneous homomorphism; its grading shift is the explicit number $a-b+2d$, and it sends the generator of the source Specht module to a single standard basis element of the target. This is a full generalization of the classical Carter–Payne theorem for Specht modules of the symmetric group, which moves one row-strip of $d$ nodes under a divisibility condition, and it also covers strips longer than $e$ through a change-of-rings reduction. The interest is that homomorphisms between Specht modules are the basic structural maps of these graded representation categories, and the classical one-row result is here extended to arbitrary $e$-small straight shapes.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the induced Specht module $S^{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, where $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ is the union of the two multipartitions, and builds the operator $L = \varepsilon^d_m e^\lambda_\mu$: the elementary symmetric polynomial of degree $d$ in the dot operators attached to the basic $i_1$-strings, followed by the idempotent that fixes the residues of the extra strings. The heavy lifting is done by a series of diagrammatic lemmas about 'stubborn' and 'immobile' strings — strings whose crossing pattern cannot be changed without making the diagram zero or non-standard — which let the proof immobilize unwanted strings and slide dots through crossings. Lemma 6.3 is the straight-shape replacement of the one-row dot-slide identity; Lemma 6.9 uses a max-flow/min-cut argument to show that too many dots yield zero; Lemma 6.10 shows that no standard tableau with the same residue sequence can move an entry from the largest hook of $[\rho]$ into the second component. Together these verify the three hypotheses (A), (B), (C) of the lifting lemma and force $v_{t_\lambda}L$ to reduce to exactly one standard monomial, $v_{t^*_\mu}$.

What would settle it

Enumerate, for any pair of $e$-small straight shapes $[\rho]$ and $[\xi]$ with $[\xi]$ not a subshape of $[\rho]$, all standard $(\rho,\xi)$-tableaux sharing the residue sequence of $t_{\xi,\rho}$, and test whether the entry occupying the largest hook of $[\rho]$ in $t_{\xi,\rho}$ can lie in the second component; one such tableau is a counterexample to Lemma 6.10 and blocks condition (C). A direct alternative is to compute $v_{t_\lambda}L$ modulo $\hat{S}^\nu_\mu$ for a small two-component example and check whether any standard monomial other than $v_{t^*_\mu}$ survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms, the central result is Theorem 6.1. Let $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ be $\ell$-multipartitions of $n$ with $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ dominating $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, and suppose $\boldsymbol{\nu} = \boldsymbol{\lambda} \cup \boldsymbol{\mu}$ is a multipartition of $n+\gamma$ such that $[\boldsymbol{\nu}]\setminus[\boldsymbol{\lambda}]$ and $[\boldsymbol{\nu}]\setminus[\boldsymbol{\mu}]$ are congruent removable $e$-small straight shapes. Then there is a nonzero homogeneous homomorphism $\theta \in \operatorname{Hom}_{R^\Lambda_n}(S^{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\langle a-b+2d\rangle, S^{\boldsymbol{\mu}})$, where $a$ and $b$ count addable and removable nodes with residues in $[\boldsymbol{\mu}^*]$ between $[\boldsymbol{\mu}^*]$ and $[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^*]$, and $d$ is the sum of the ranks of the intermediate maximal $e$-small straight shapes. Moreover $\theta(v_{t_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})=v_{t^*_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$, so the map is described by an explicit permutation of the initial tableau rather than only shown to exist. The theorem contains the classical Carter–Payne theorem as the special case of a one-row strip, and it produces new homomorphisms already for the symmetric group.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is a combinatorial claim about how tableaux with matching residue sequences fill two shifted straight shapes: if one shape is not a subshape of the other, no entry belonging to the corner hook of the larger shape can be placed in the second shape. If that claim failed, the constructed operator would not land on a single standard basis vector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The classical one-row Carter–Payne theorem is the special case where the moved shape is a row strip, and the change-of-rings reduction in Section 4 extends the construction to strips longer than $e$, recovering the full classical statement.
Each constructed map is homogeneous of positive degree $a-b+2d$, with the degree read off from residue counts and the intermediate shapes, giving a combinatorial formula for the grading shift.
The explicit target monomial $v_{t^*_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ means the homomorphism can be evaluated by a finite tableau permutation, making the map computable in practice.
In the symmetric-group case, the construction yields homomorphisms that the paper states are new and do not coincide with those from the previously known alternative construction for the symmetric group.
The same techniques specialize to give a new proof of the earlier bipartition result in the straight-shape case, and the author conjectures the full skew-shape generalization.

Reading between the lines

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

The uniqueness of the surviving standard monomial suggests that, in many settings, the Hom-space between these Specht modules is one-dimensional, extending the known one-dimensionality in the symmetric-group case.
A direct quiver-Hecke-algebra proof of the change-of-rings reduction, which the paper notes is missing, would likely preserve degrees and could produce a ladder of homomorphisms as $e$ is reduced one prime factor at a time.
The paper's reflection twist of the main theorem gives homomorphisms between skew Specht modules where the moved shape is a north-west-removable $e$-small shape whose rotation is straight; those maps lie outside the literal statement of Theorem 6.1.
The dot-counting obstruction behind Lemma 6.9 is a general principle: any operation that must move $k$ extra strings into a shape with fewer available flows should vanish, so similar operators may yield homomorphisms for other shapes, or prove their nonexistence.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

The honest headline: this is a serious paper with a real generalization in it, but the proof of the main theorem as printed has a load-bearing gap. Lemma 6.10 is self-contradictory as stated: t_{ξ,ρ} itself satisfies the hypothesis, because for N in H1⊂[ρ], the entry t_{ξ,ρ}(N) is placed back in the first component, and the lemma then excludes t_{ξ,ρ} from its own set T_{t_{ξ,ρ}}. The proof immediately switches H1 to a hook of [ξ] in the second component, so the statement proved is not the statement used. Since condition (C) in Theorem 6.1 uses this lemma to kill all unwanted basis terms, the main theorem is not fully proved as written. The corrected lemma may well be true, but it has to be stated and verified.

That said, the paper is not a throwaway. The main theorem genuinely generalizes Lyle–Mathas from a single e-small row-strip to arbitrary e-small straight shapes at any level and finite e, and it extends Witty's e=∞ bipartition case. The explicit description of the image—θ(v_{t_λ}) lands on a single standard basis element—is a real refinement, and the degree formula a−b+2d is explicit. Section 4's change-of-rings reduction is new and useful; it gives a modular (p,e)=(r,r) homomorphism from an (0,ra) one, and is independently interesting. The proof is mostly detailed, with ten lemmas and worked examples.

Soft spots beyond Lemma 6.10: the claim that Corollary 4.3 plus Lyle–Mathas recovers the full Carter–Payne theorem is only asserted, with no derivation. That is a smaller issue, but a referee should ask for the details. Also, the proof of condition (C) briefly worries about non-reduced diagrams and then resolves it; that part seems okay but is terse.

Bottom line: the result is important and the bulk of the argument is careful, but Lemma 6.10 is not a cosmetic typo—it is the step that makes the constructed operator land on a single monomial. A referee should send it back for a corrected lemma and a re-verification of condition (C). I'd read the revision; I would not cite the current arXiv version.

Recommendation: send to peer review, not desk reject, but with heavy revision expected.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs graded homomorphisms between Specht modules of cyclotomic quiver Hecke algebras of type A when the two relevant multipartitions differ by a removable e-small straight shape moved to an earlier component with matching residues. The main result, Theorem 6.1, gives an explicit operator, an explicit degree formula, and asserts that the Specht generator is sent to a single standard basis element. The proof follows the Lyle--Mathas strategy: it establishes the three hypotheses of their Lemma 5.3 using a detailed analysis of stubborn, immobile, and inaccessible strings, lemmas on elementary symmetric polynomials and diagrams, and a change-of-rings argument in Section 4 that is claimed to recover the classical Carter--Payne theorem.

Significance. If Theorem 6.1 can be established as stated, this is a substantial contribution to the modular representation theory of cyclotomic Hecke algebras: it unifies and extends the Carter--Payne theorem, the Lyle--Mathas one-row theorem, and part of Witty's skew-shape result, and it provides explicit homomorphisms with explicit degree and image. The paper contains many intricate combinatorial lemmas, and the construction of the map is parameter-free and explicit. The main obstruction is a flaw in a load-bearing lemma used to prove condition (C) of Lemma 5.3; until that lemma is corrected and verified, the central claim is not supported.

major comments (3)

[§6, Lemma 6.10] Lemma 6.10 as stated is self-contradictory. The statement takes H1 to be the largest hook in [ρ], so for t = t_{ξ,ρ} and any N ∈ H1 we have t^{-1}(t_{ξ,ρ}(N)) = N, a node in the first component. Thus t_{ξ,ρ} itself satisfies the hypotheses and the conclusion asserts t_{ξ,ρ} ∉ T_{t_{ξ,ρ}}, contradicting the definition of T. The proof immediately relabels H1,...,Hh as the hooks of [ξ], and later says 'the hook H1 ⊆ [ξ] must fit inside [ρ]', so the statement proved is not the statement stated. This matters because in the proof of condition (C) of Theorem 6.1 the lemma is exactly what makes strings reaching nodes of [ρ_j] outside subshapes of [μ*] immobile; without an immobility claim, the reduction of v_{t_ν_λ}L to the single standard monomial v_{t*_μ} is unsupported. A corrected statement—presumably with H1 the largest hook of [ξ] and a conclusion about those images staying in the second component—must be stated and proved before Theorem 6.1 can be accepted.
[§4, after Example 4.4] The paper claims in the abstract and in Section 4 that Corollary 4.3 together with the Lyle--Mathas theorem gives a full generalization of the classical Carter--Payne theorem. The only justification is the sentence 'In fact, the application of Corollary 4.3 to the main theorem in [LM14] yields a full generalization... We do not write the details because our main theorem is a further generalization.' This is not a derivation: one needs to show how the condition d < e in [LM14, Theorem 3.12] is reduced to arbitrary d via the choice of a with r^a > d, how the divisibility condition in Carter--Payne (Theorem 1.1) matches the degree/order conditions after reduction, and how the residue and row-strip hypotheses of [LM14] are satisfied. Since the claimed full generalization of Carter--Payne is one of the headline assertions of the paper, this argument must be supplied.
[§4, Corollary 4.3] Corollary 4.3 is not well-posed as stated for arbitrary modules. It begins with R^Λ_{n,e}(C)-modules M,N, but M_{F_r} and N_{F_r} are not defined; Proposition 4.1 and the preceding discussion require H^Λ_{n,ζ}(Z[ζ])-modules with a chosen integral form. For Specht modules such integral forms exist, but the corollary as written claims more than is proved. The statement should either be restricted to modules with a fixed stable Z[ζ]-lattice or should spell out the integral forms being used. This is not merely cosmetic, because the Carter--Payne reduction in Section 4 depends on this step.

minor comments (4)

[Theorem 6.1, notation] The notation for the permutations in Theorem 6.1 is inconsistent: the theorem first defines σ_{ξ_j,μ*}, then the formula for t*_μ uses σ_{μ*,ξ_j}, while Lemma 6.5 uses σ_{ξ,ρ} for analogous permutations. The notation should be aligned for readability.
[Example 5.2] In the final paragraph of Example 5.2 the author states that for e=p=2 there is a homomorphism of degree 7 and gives a direct computation, but no computation or reference is shown. Since this illustrates the change-of-rings result, a brief justification or a precise reference for the direct computation would be helpful.
[Lemma 6.3] The notation i_□^□ in Lemma 6.3 is explained in words, but the superscript/subscript convention is difficult to follow in the displayed diagrams. An explicit formula for the residue of the node in position (r,c) of [ξ] would improve readability.
[Theorem 6.1, end of proof] After the construction of v'', the proof states without further explanation that since v_{t_ν_λ}L gives a single standard monomial v'' modulo Ŝ^ν_μ, it follows that θ(v_{t_λ}) is given by the basic strings of v''. This identification is one of the paper's new claims and deserves a short justification: Lemma 5.3 alone only gives existence of a nonzero map, so one needs to explain why the quotient condition preserves the explicit monomial.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main theorem is proved by an explicit operator construction and verification of an imported Lyle–Mathas criterion, with no fitted parameters, no self-citation chain, and no prediction that reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is input-to-output. Theorem 6.1 is proved by constructing L = ε^d_m e^λ_μ and verifying conditions (A), (B), and (C) of Lemma 5.3, which is an imported criterion from Lyle and Mathas. The homomorphism is built explicitly from diagrammatic operations; no parameter is fitted to the target Specht module, and the existence of the homomorphism is never assumed as an input. The external imports (Brundan–Kleshchev, KMR basis, Lyle–Mathas Lemma 5.3, Curtis–Reiner, Nazarov–Tarasov, Witty) are cited as theorems proved elsewhere, and none is a self-citation of the present author or a citation that smuggles in the target result. Section 4's change-of-rings argument goes from a known non-zero homomorphism at e = r^a to one at e = r; this is a one-way transfer, not a circular reduction. The paper also openly flags the limitation that Corollary 4.3 lacks a quiver-Hecke-level proof and that the degree is not generally preserved under the transfer—this is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular step. The most intricate combinatorial input, Lemma 6.10, is proved in the text and is used to control immobility of strings in the proof of condition (C); even if the printed statement is internally inconsistent as a skeptic contends, that would be a correctness gap, not a case of the theorem assuming its own conclusion. No step in the paper fits the enumerated circularity patterns: there is no self-definitional identification, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction is self-contained given standard background theorems. No free parameters are fitted. The proof imports prior theorems as axioms: the Brundan-Kleshchev isomorphism, the KMR standard basis and Specht relations, the Lyle-Mathas lifting criterion, the Curtis-Reiner base change theorem, and the Nazarov-Tarasov rank identity. All are external results cited with references. The e-small straight-shape hypothesis and the existence of the ambient multipartition nu are domain assumptions of the main theorem.

assumptions (6)

standard math Brundan-Kleshchev isomorphism identifies integral cyclotomic Hecke algebras with cyclotomic quiver Hecke algebras over a field.
Invoked in Section 2.3 and Section 4 to transfer homomorphisms between the Hecke and quiver Hecke settings.
standard math Standard basis and Specht relations (equations (8)-(10)) from Kleshchev-Mathas-Ram describe Specht modules S^lambda.
The diagrammatic computations in Sections 5 and 6 rely on these relations to decompose monomials.
standard math Lemma 5.3 (Lyle-Mathas) gives a sufficient criterion for nonzero homomorphisms from S^lambda to S^mu via lifting to a larger multipartition nu.
This is the black-box engine of Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 6.1.
standard math Curtis-Reiner base change theorem [CR81, Theorem 2.38] preserves nonzero Hom spaces under extension of scalars.
Used in Section 4 to reduce to integral coefficient rings.
standard math Nazarov-Tarasov rank identity b_{lambda*} - a_{lambda*} = Rank(lambda*) [NT02, Theorem 1.4].
Used in the final paragraph of the proof of Theorem 6.1 to establish strict positivity of the degree.
domain assumption The moved shape [mu*] is a removable e-small straight shape and [nu] = [lambda] union [mu] is a multipartition.
This is the hypothesis of Theorem 6.1; the proof constructs L = epsilon^d_m e^lambda_mu only under this combinatorial setup.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A generalization of Carter-Payne homomorphisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDD7CTCF

@misc{pith2026250605800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A generalization of Carter-Payne homomorphisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDD7CTCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05800}
}

abstract

We construct graded homomorphisms between Specht modules of quiver Hecke algebras of type A that differ by an ``$e$-small'' partition-shaped removable set of nodes by expanding on methods by Lyle and Mathas. Our main result constitutes a full generalization of the classical result by Carter and Payne for Specht modules of the symmetric group.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Brundan and A

J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-009-0204-8 Blocks of cyclotomic Hecke algebras and Khovanov -- Lauda algebras , Invent.\ Math. 178 (2009), no. 3, 451--484

work page doi:10.1007/s00222-009-0204-8 2009
[2]

Brundan, A

J. Brundan, A. Kleshchev, and W. Wang, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CRELLE.2011.033 Graded Specht modules , J.\ Reine Angew.\ Math. 655 (2011), 61--87

doi:10.1515/crelle.2011.033 2011
[3]

Carter and G

R.W. Carter and G. Lusztig, On the modular representations of the general linear and symmetric groups https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01214125 , Mathematische Zeitschrift 136 (1974), 193--242

work page doi:10.1007/bf01214125 1974
[4]

Carter and M

R.W. Carter and M. T. J. Payne, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100056851 On homomorphisms between Weyl modules and Specht modules , Math.\ Proc.\ Cambridge Philos.\ Soc. 87 (1980), no. 3, 419--425

work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100056851 1980
[5]

Curtis and I

C.W. Curtis and I. Reiner, Methods of representation theory , vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, 1981

work page 1981
[6]

Dixon, Some results concerning Verma modules , Ph.D

J.P. Dixon, Some results concerning Verma modules , Ph.D. thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

Dipper and A

R. Dipper and A. Mathas, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002090100371 Morita equivalences of Ariki -- Koike algebras , Math.\ Z. 240 (2002), no. 3, 579--610

work page doi:10.1007/s002090100371 2002
[8]

Ellers and J

H. Ellers and J. Murray, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2006.07.032 Branching rules for S pecht modules , J. Algebra (2007), no. 307, 278--286

work page doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2006.07.032 2007

Show all 19 references

[9]

Fayers and S

M. Fayers and S. Martin, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00209-004-0662-z Homomorphisms between Specht modules , Math.\ Z. 248 (2004), no. 2, 395--421

2004 doi
[10]

Kac, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626234 Infinite dimensional Lie algebras , third ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

V. Kac, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626234 Infinite dimensional Lie algebras , third ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

1990 doi
[11]

Khovanov and A

M. Khovanov and A. Lauda, http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S1088-4165-09-00346-X A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups I , Represent.\ Theory 13 (2009), 309--347

2009 doi
[12]

Kleshchev, A

A. Kleshchev, A. Mathas, and A. Ram, http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/plms/pds019 Universal graded Specht modules for cyclotomic Hecke algebras , Proc.\ London Math.\ Soc. 105 (2012), 1245--1289

2012 doi
[13]

Lyle and A

S. Lyle and A. Mathas, http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S1088-4165-2014-00450-3 Cyclotomic Carter -- Payne homomorphisms , Represent.\ Theory 18 (2014), 117--154

2014 doi
[14]

Lyle, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CRELLE.2007.054 Some q -analogues of the Carter--Payne theorem , J.\ Reine Angew.\ Math

S. Lyle, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CRELLE.2007.054 Some q -analogues of the Carter--Payne theorem , J.\ Reine Angew.\ Math. 608 (2007), 93--121

2007 doi
[15]

Mathas, http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/ulect/015 Iwahori-- Hecke algebras and Schur algebras of the symmetric group , University Lecture Series, vol

A. Mathas, http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/ulect/015 Iwahori-- Hecke algebras and Schur algebras of the symmetric group , University Lecture Series, vol. 15, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999

1999 doi
[16]

30, World Sci.\ Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2015, pp

, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789814651813_0005 Cyclotomic quiver Hecke algebras of type\ A , Modular representation theory of finite and p -adic groups, Lect.\ Notes Ser.\ Inst.\ Math.\ Sci.\ Natl.\ Univ.\ Singap., vol. 30, World Sci.\ Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2015, pp. 165--266

doi
[17]

R. Muth, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10468-018-9808-2 Graded skew Specht modules and cuspidal modules for Khovanov--Lauda--Rouquier algebras of affine type\ A , Algebr.\ Represent.\ Theory 22 (2019), no. 4, 977--1015

2019 doi
[18]

Nazarov and V

M. Nazarov and V. Tarasov, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0012039 On irreducibility of tensor products of Yangian modules associated with skew Young diagrams , Duke Mathematics Journal 112 (2002), 343--378

2002 doi arXiv
[19]

Witty, Homomorphisms between specht modules of KLR algebras , Ph.D

G.S. Witty, Homomorphisms between specht modules of KLR algebras , Ph.D. thesis, University of East Anglia, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Brundan and A

J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-009-0204-8 Blocks of cyclotomic Hecke algebras and Khovanov -- Lauda algebras , Invent.\ Math. 178 (2009), no. 3, 451--484

work page doi:10.1007/s00222-009-0204-8 2009

[2] [2]

Brundan, A

J. Brundan, A. Kleshchev, and W. Wang, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CRELLE.2011.033 Graded Specht modules , J.\ Reine Angew.\ Math. 655 (2011), 61--87

doi:10.1515/crelle.2011.033 2011

[3] [3]

Carter and G

R.W. Carter and G. Lusztig, On the modular representations of the general linear and symmetric groups https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01214125 , Mathematische Zeitschrift 136 (1974), 193--242

work page doi:10.1007/bf01214125 1974

[4] [4]

Carter and M

R.W. Carter and M. T. J. Payne, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100056851 On homomorphisms between Weyl modules and Specht modules , Math.\ Proc.\ Cambridge Philos.\ Soc. 87 (1980), no. 3, 419--425

work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100056851 1980

[5] [5]

Curtis and I

C.W. Curtis and I. Reiner, Methods of representation theory , vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, 1981

work page 1981

[6] [6]

Dixon, Some results concerning Verma modules , Ph.D

J.P. Dixon, Some results concerning Verma modules , Ph.D. thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Dipper and A

R. Dipper and A. Mathas, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002090100371 Morita equivalences of Ariki -- Koike algebras , Math.\ Z. 240 (2002), no. 3, 579--610

work page doi:10.1007/s002090100371 2002

[8] [8]

Ellers and J

H. Ellers and J. Murray, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2006.07.032 Branching rules for S pecht modules , J. Algebra (2007), no. 307, 278--286

work page doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2006.07.032 2007