Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Type $B$ Webs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a diagrammatic web category is equivalent to the full subcategory of quantum so(2n+1) representations generated by the fundamental representations, settling the type B case of a 1996 spider problem.

desk verdict Solves Kuperberg's type B spider problem with a genuinely new, mostly convincing proof, though the injectivity leg leans hard on imported classification theorems that should get referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13252 v1 pith:RWYJ5JYJ submitted 2026-07-14 math.RT math.QA

Elijah Bodish , Ben Elias , David E. V. Rose This is my paper
classification math.RTmath.QA MSC 17B3720G4218M15
keywords typeBwebsquantumgroupsso(2n+1)fundamentalrepresentationsspinrepresentationpivotalcategoriesiota-quantumbraidgroupactions
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 establishes a complete picture of tensor products of fundamental U_q(so_{2n+1})-representations: every morphism between them is written uniquely as a linear combination of planar diagrams subject to a short list of explicit relations. The relevant category of diagrams, called type B webs, is shown equivalent as a pivotal category to the fundamental subcategory of representations. This settles the type B case of the long-open spider problem, after the simply-laced, type A, and type C cases were already known. The proof is built on a duality with a nonstandard quantum group acting on powers of the spin representation, and a byproduct is an explicit action of the braid group on certain previously intractable 'nonclassical' representations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the presented pivotal category Web(so_{2n+1}) itself: objects are monoidally generated by self-dual labels 1,…,n−1 and S, and morphisms by trivalent vertices and caps/cups modulo the relations (1.2). Two mechanisms carry the proof. First, 'ladderization' shows that every endomorphism of S^{⊗m} is generated by 1-labeled rungs connecting adjacent spin strands; this reduces fully-faithfulness to endomorphism algebras of spin powers. Second, those endomorphism algebras are identified with the quotient U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n of the nonstandard quantum group, whose finite-dimensional semisimple representation theory is classified by interlacing half-integer sequences ('spin-

What would settle it

Compare the dimension of End_{Web}(S^{⊗m}) computed from the ladder presentation with the dimension of End_{U_q(so_{2n+1})}(S^{⊗m}) forced by highest weight theory, for a small test case such as n=3 and m=4; any mismatch would falsify the main theorem. More directly, the theorem reduces to injectivity of the algebra map U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n → End(S^{⊗m}), so exhibiting a single nonzero element of its kernel would collapse the equivalence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.6: there is an equivalence of C(q)-linear pivotal categories Web(so_{2n+1}) → FundRep(U_q(so_{2n+1})), sending the generating objects k (1 ≤ k ≤ n−1) to the exterior-power fundamental representations V_{ϖ_k} and S to the spin representation. The web category is presented by self-dual strands labeled 1,…,n−1 and S, trivalent vertices for decompositions such as S⊗S → k, and eleven families of local relations whose coefficients are governed by signed quantum-number products (the 'devil's arithmetic'). Because every irreducible representation of U_q(so_{2n+1}) is a direct summand of some tensor product of these generators, the equivalence gives a diagrammatic descr

Load-bearing premise

The injectivity half of the proof leans on imported classification and semisimplicity results for finite-dimensional modules of the quotient U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n, together with a folklore basis theorem for tangles modulo the BMW skein relation; if any of those inputs fails, the proof of full faithfulness breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every morphism between tensor products of fundamental U_q(so_{2n+1})-representations is determined, up to linear combinations, by the diagrammatic generators and relations of Definition 1.1.
  • The equivalence upgrades to ribbon categories, so braidings and twists on all objects of the fundamental subcategory have explicit formulas in the web calculus.
  • The long-suspected surjection from the quotient of the nonstandard quantum group onto End(S^{⊗m}) is an isomorphism, giving a finite linear basis for each such endomorphism space.
  • Finite-dimensional type I nonclassical representations of U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m) carry an explicit m-strand braid group action, via nonclassical iota-divided powers.
  • The special cases n=1 and n=2 recover the Temperley–Lieb category and the classical rank-2 spider calculus, so the presentation is compatible with known low-rank theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: If the web equivalence can be made integral over the localization of Z[q^{±1}] inverting the devil's central binomial coefficients, then specializing to any field should identify the Karoubi closure of the fundamental subcategory with the category of tilting modules; the paper proves this conditional statement, not the integral functor itself.
  • Extension: The explicit braid group action on nonclassical modules is a natural testbed for constructing quasi K-matrices, integral forms, and canonical bases for nonclassical iota-quantum group representations, a program the paper states as conjectural.
  • Extension: The devil's arithmetic signs likely arise as traces of a folding symmetry on categorified type A webs; checking the folding conjecture in the first open case would give independent evidence for the presentation's coefficients.
  • Extension: The ladder bases give a concrete route to rotation-invariant non-elliptic web bases in all type B morphism spaces, since every fundamental is a summand of S⊗S; such bases would extend low-rank combinatorics to all n.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines a C(q)-linear pivotal category Web(so_{2n+1}) by explicit generators and relations (Definition 1.1) and proves (Theorem 1.6) that it is equivalent to the fundamental subcategory FundRep(U_q(so_{2n+1})) of finite-dimensional type I representations tensor-generated by the fundamental representations. The proof proceeds in four steps: (1) construction of an essentially surjective pivotal functor via previously known intertwiners and compatibility checks (§4); (2) reduction of full faithfulness to the endomorphism algebras End(S^{⊗m}) of spin powers (Proposition 6.2); (3) a 'ladderization' theorem showing these endomorphism algebras are generated by simple rung diagrams (Theorem 6.7); and (4) an injectivity argument using the iota-quantum-group duality U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n → End_{U_q(so_{2n+1})}(S^{⊗m}) (Corollary 7.67), established from finite-dimensionality, semisimplicity, and a matching of irreducible representations. The paper also derives explicit braid group symmetries on nonclassical representations of U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m) (Theorem 1.14) and recovers Kuperberg's rank-2 spiders in the cases n=1,2.

Significance. If correct, this is a major advance: it resolves the type B case of Kuperberg's 1996 spider problem, gives an explicit diagrammatic presentation of the fundamental subcategory of U_q(so_{2n+1}), and promotes the equivalence to a braided/ribbon structure. The paper also proves Wenzl's folk conjecture that the iota-quantum-group action on spin powers is full, and uses it to construct relative braid group symmetries on nonclassical representations. The overall architecture is coherent and many of the computations are explicit and detailed; the reduction to spin endomorphism algebras and the ladderization strategy are elegant. However, the injectivity half of the proof rests on substantial imported results — the Iorgov–Klimyk classification of irreducible representations and Wenzl's transfer of the b_1-spectrum — whose exact hypotheses and sign conventions are not verified in the manuscript. A second load-bearing external input is the folklore tangle-basis theorem used in ladderization. These points need to be tightened before the central claim can be regarded as fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.3, Corollary 7.67] The injectivity of φ∘ψ_{≤n} is the decisive step. It depends on Proposition 7.54, which asserts that the irreducible representations of U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n are exactly the M_a with a∈SP^{≤n}_m. This uses [31, Thm. 4 and Cor.] for classification and complete reducibility and [57, Thm. 3.11(d)] to transfer the b_1-spectrum to all b_i. The manuscript states in words that the conventions are obtained by replacing q with −q^2 and identifying the generators with i I_{i+1,i}, but it does not prove that the hypotheses of those theorems match Definition 7.9. If, for instance, the spectrum of b_i in the quotient were not exactly the listed set, or if complete reducibility failed for nonclassical modules, Lemma 7.55 would have no fallback and full faithfulness would fail. Please add a precise compatibility lemma or quote the exact theorem statements and verify each hypothesis. This is not an exposit
  2. [Proposition 7.22] The proof of finite-dimensionality of U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n is too quick. From the Iorgov–Klimyk PBW basis and the relations p_{n+1}(H_{i,j})=0, the text concludes that the finite set of ordered monomials with all exponents ≤ n spans the quotient. This is not automatic: reducing a factor H_{i,j}^N inside an ordered monomial and then re-expressing the resulting products in the PBW basis can in principle reintroduce high powers of H_{i,j}. The argument needs an induction on the PBW order, or a cited theorem for cyclotomic quotients of this PBW algebra, showing that bounded exponents indeed give a finite spanning set. Since Proposition 7.22 is used to obtain semisimplicity (Corollary 7.41) and hence injectivity, this gap is load-bearing.
  3. [Lemma 6.13] The ladderization theorem (Theorem 6.7) relies on Lemma 6.13, the assertion that tangles modulo the BMW skein relation, the circle relation, and the listed Reidemeister moves have a basis of lifted reduced matchings. This is cited as a 'standard folklore fact' with references [6,59,44], but the exact statement used here — with the particular framed/unoriented conventions and the circle relation (2.7) — is not proved. Since this lemma controls the reduction of all-black tangles in the central ladderization argument, the authors should either prove it or give a precise theorem with hypotheses and reference, rather than a folklore citation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 7.56] In the sentence after (7.25), 'type I classical representation M_a' should presumably read 'type I nonclassical representation M_a'; the surrounding context and Proposition 7.54 concern nonclassical representations.
  2. [Definition 1.1 / §2.2] The graphical relations (1.2) are dense and some labels are easy to misread; a short paragraph explaining the drawing conventions (e.g., all unlabeled black strands are 1-labeled, gray strands are S-labeled, and how to interpret zero labels) would improve readability. Some of this is in Convention 1.2, but a consolidated list would help.
  3. [Step 1, Theorem 6.7] The claim that (2.9) can be used to rewrite any (S,S,k+1) trivalent vertex into (S,S,1) and (S,S,k) vertices is not immediately apparent from the displayed relation (2.9), which involves only black strands. Please add a sentence or diagram indicating the composition used.
  4. [Remark 5.10 / Corollary 8.2] The paper correctly notes that the c_{S,S} tangle relations are not used in the proof of Theorem 1.6 and are deduced only afterward. This is methodologically sound, but because those relations appear earlier (Proposition 5.6), a forward reference explaining that their use is non-circular would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equivalence is proved against independent representation-theoretic targets, and self-citations used are prior independent work rather than the theorem being proved.

full rationale

The central claim Theorem 1.6 is established by constructing an explicit functor to the independently defined representation category FundRep(U_q(so_{2n+1})) and then proving full faithfulness. The construction of the functor does use previous work [9] and [13] to verify that the spin and non-spin relations hold under explicit intertwiners, but those results are prior independent computations about spin link homology and orthogonal webs; they do not assume Theorem 1.6, so citing them is not circular. Full faithfulness is reduced via monoidal duality to showing End_Web(S^{⊗m}) → End_U(S^{⊗m}) is an isomorphism. The ladderization theorem identifying End_Web(S^{⊗m}) with Lad_m is proved diagrammatically using braiding moves and the independent BMW skein basis folklore result. Surjectivity comes from Wenzl's surjectivity theorem, while injectivity comes from Corollary 7.67, which shows Wenzl's map U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n → End_U(S^{⊗m}) is an isomorphism. That corollary relies on external classification and semisimplicity results of Iorgov–Klimyk and Wenzl, plus a combinatorial weight matching (Theorem 7.66) that is independent of the functor φ. No defining relation is chosen so that the target morphism spaces are forced by construction; the relations are checked against the representation theory of U_q(so_{2n+1}). The paper's self-citations are substantive prior work, not placeholders for the theorem being proved, and the appended limitations concern conjectural categorification and integral forms, not the circularity of the main derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorem does not fit any numerical parameters to data; the coefficient functions (devil's arithmetic, quantum integers) are defined, not fitted. The main axioms are the standard semisimple representation theory of U_q(so_{2n+1}) and the external classification/duality results for U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m). The only newly invented formal object is the web category itself, which is justified by the main theorem.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Finite-dimensional irreducible U_q(so_{2n+1})-modules over C(q) are semisimple and classified by dominant weights; the relevant tensor products decompose by the standard formulas, e.g. S⊗S ≅ V_{2ϖ_n} ⊕ ⊕ V_i and V_λ⊗S ≅ ⊕_{μ∈wt(S), λ+μ dominant} V_{λ+μ}.
    Used to define the functor φ in §4, to prove the braiding formulas in §5, and in the combinatorial matching Lemma 7.62. This is standard quantum-group/Lie-theory background from e.g. [18,22,51].
  • domain assumption Wenzl's surjectivity theorem U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m) → End_{U_q(so_{2n+1})}(S^⊗m) from [56, Theorem 5.2], and the agreement of φ∘ψ with Wenzl's map from [9, Proposition B.10].
    Load-bearing for surjectivity of φ and for the double-centralizer argument in Proposition 7.5 and Proposition 7.56. The agreement is quoted from the authors' own prior work [9].
  • domain assumption Iorgov–Klimyk classification: finite-dimensional irreducible representations of U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m) are classical or nonclassical, are completely reducible, and the type I nonclassical irreducibles are indexed by m-spin-partitions [31].
    Used to prove semisimplicity of U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n (Corollary 7.41), to identify its irreducibles (Proposition 7.54), and to construct the matching with summands of S^⊗m (Theorem 7.49 and Proposition 7.56).
  • domain assumption Iorgov–Klimyk PBW basis for U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m) (Theorem 7.19, from [30]) and its use in proving finite-dimensionality of the quotient U^ι_{-q^2}(so_m)≤n (Proposition 7.22).
    The PBW basis theorem is external; Proposition 7.22 combines it with p_{n+1}(H_{i,j})=0, which is proved in the paper using the quotient relations and the conjugation results of Proposition 7.20.
  • domain assumption The reduced-matching basis theorem for tangles modulo the BMW skein relation, the circle relation, and the 1-labeled Reidemeister moves (Lemma 6.13).
    Used in Step 4 of the ladderization proof of Theorem 6.7. The paper states this is a standard folklore fact and cites [6,44,59] rather than proving it.
invented entities (1)
  • Web(so_{2n+1}): the new C(q)-linear pivotal category with formal objects 1,...,n−1,S and relations (1.1)–(1.2) independent evidence
    purpose: To serve as the diagrammatic presentation claimed to be equivalent to FundRep(U_q(so_{2n+1})).
    It is a newly constructed formal object, but its correctness is independently evidenced by the proven equivalence to a pre-existing representation category, whose morphism spaces and decompositions are known from quantum-group theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Type $B$ Webs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWYJ5JYJ

@misc{pith2026260713252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Type $B$ Webs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWYJ5JYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13252}
}
abstract

We solve the type $B$ case of the main open problem from Kuperberg's 1996 paper "Spiders for rank 2 Lie algebras." That is, we define a $\mathbb{C}(q)$-linear pivotal category $\mathbf{Web}(\mathfrak{so}_{2n+1})$ and prove that it is equivalent to the full subcategory of finite-dimensional representations of $U_q(\mathfrak{so}_{2n+1})$ tensor-generated by the fundamental representations. A consequence of our main result is an explicit construction of braid group symmetries for nonclassical finite-dimensional representations of the $\iota$quantum group ${U}^{\iota}_{-q^2}(\mathfrak{so}_m)$, which may be of independent interest.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Balagovi´ c and S

    M. Balagovi´ c and S. Kolb. Universal K-matrix for quantum symmetric pairs.J. Reine Angew. Math., 747:299–353, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Bao and W

    H. Bao and W. Wang. Canonical bases arising from quantum symmetric pairs.Invent. Math., 213(3):1099–1177, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Bao and W

    H. Bao and W. Wang. A new approach to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory of typeBvia quantum symmetric pairs. Ast´ erisque, (402):vii+134, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Berenstein and S

    A. Berenstein and S. Zwicknagl. Braided symmetric and exterior algebras.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 360(7):3429– 3472, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    Berman and W

    C. Berman and W. Wang. Formulae ofı-divided powers inU q(sl2).J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 222(9):2667–2702, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Birman and H

    J. Birman and H. Wenzl. Braids, link polynomials and a new algebra.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 313(1):249–273, 1989

    1989

  7. [7]

    E. Bodish. Triple clasp formulas forC 2 webs.J. Algebra, 604:324–361, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    E. Bodish. Web calculus and tilting modules in typeC 2.Quantum Topol., 13(3):407–458, 2022

    2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Bodish, B

    E. Bodish, B. Elias, and D. E. V. Rose. Spin link homology.arXiv:2407.00189

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bodish, B

    E. Bodish, B. Elias, D. E. V. Rose, and L. Tatham. TypeCwebs.arXiv:2103.14997

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bodish, B

    E. Bodish, B. Elias, D. E. V. Rose, and L. Tatham. Decreasing subsequences and Viennot for oscillating tableaux. Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg., 95(2):161–179, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Bodish and A

    E. Bodish and A. Kalmykov. Orthogonal Howe duality and dynamical (split) symmetric pairs.Comm. Math. Phys., 406(12):Paper No. 301, 67, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Bodish and H

    E. Bodish and H. Wu. Webs for the quantum orthogonal group.Adv. Math., 480:Paper No. 110514, 65, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Bodish and H

    E. Bodish and H. Wu. Triple clasp formulas forG 2.Quantum Topology, 17(1):189–237, 2026

    2026

  7. [15]

    R. Brauer. On algebras which are connected with the semisimple continuous groups.Ann. of Math. (2), 38(4):857– 872, 1937

    1937

  8. [16]

    J. Brundan. Representations of the oriented skein category, 2017.arXiv:1712.08953

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cautis, J

    S. Cautis, J. Kamnitzer, and S. Morrison. Webs and quantum skew Howe duality.Math. Ann., 360(1-2):351–390,

  10. [18]

    Chari and A

    V. Chari and A. Pressley.A guide to quantum groups. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994

    1994

  11. [19]

    L. Chekhov. Teichm¨ uller theory of bordered surfaces.SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl., 3:Paper 066, 37, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    X. Chen, M. Lu, and W. Wang. Serre-Lusztig relations forıquantum groups.Comm. Math. Phys., 382(2):1015–1059, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    B. Elias. Light ladders and clasp conjectures.arXiv:1510.06840

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    P. Etingof. Lie groups and Lie algebras.arXiv:2201.09397

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris.Representation Theory: A First Course. Springer, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    Gaetz, O

    C. Gaetz, O. Pechenik, S. Pfannerer, J. Striker, and J. Swanson. Rotation-invariant web bases from hourglass plabic graphs.Invent. Math., 243(2):703–804, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    Gavrilik and A

    A.M. Gavrilik and A. U. Klimyk.q-deformed orthogonal and pseudo-orthogonal algebras and their representations. Letters in Mathematical Physics, 21(3):215–220, 1991

    1991

  18. [26]

    I. M. Gelfand and M. L. Cetlin. Finite-dimensional representations of the group of unimodular matrices.Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.), 71:825–828, 1950

    1950

  19. [27]

    Higgins and H

    V. Higgins and H. Wu. TypeCskein modules and transparent elements.arXiv:2509.11590

  20. [28]

    Hopkins and J

    S. Hopkins and J. Humphreys. Dual versions of ”folding” symmetric ADE Dynkin diagrams?https:// mathoverflow.net/questions/111469/dual-versions-of-folding-symmetric-ade-dynkin-diagrams, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    N. Z. Iorgov and A. U. Klimyk. Nonclassical type representations of theq-deformed algebraU ′ q(son).Czechoslovak J. Phys., 50(1):85–90, 2000. Quantum groups and integrable systems (Prague, 1999)

    2000

  22. [30]

    N. Z. Iorgov and A. U. Klimyk. The nonstandard deformationU ′ q(son) forqa root of unity.Methods Funct. Anal. Topology, 6(3):56–71, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    N. Z. Iorgov and A. U. Klimyk. Classification theorem on irreducible representations of theq-deformed algebra U ′ q(son).Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., (2):225–262, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    V. Jones. Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and link polynomials.Ann. of Math., 126:335–388, 1987

    1987

  25. [33]

    Juteau, C

    D. Juteau, C. Mautner, and G. Williamson. Parity sheaves and tilting modules.Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4), 49(2):257–275, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Kauffman

    L.H. Kauffman. State models and the Jones polynomial.Topology, 26(3):395–407, 1987

    1987

  27. [35]

    Koike and I

    K. Koike and I. Terada. Young-diagrammatic methods for the representation theory of the classical groups of type Bn,C n,D n.J. Algebra, 1987. 65

    1987

  28. [36]

    Kolb and J

    S. Kolb and J. Pellegrini. Braid group actions on coideal subalgebras of quantized enveloping algebras.J. Algebra, 336:395–416, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    Kolb and M

    S. Kolb and M. Yakimov. Short star products for quantum symmetric pairs and applications.arXiv:2603.06132, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kuperberg

    G. Kuperberg. Spiders for rank 2 Lie algebras.Comm. Math. Phys., 180(1):109–151, 1996. arXiv:9712003

    1996

  31. [39]

    Lehrer and R

    G. Lehrer and R. Zhang. The Brauer category and invariant theory.J. Eur. Math. Soc., 17:2311–2351, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Lusztig.Introduction to quantum groups, volume 110 ofProgress in Mathematics

    G. Lusztig.Introduction to quantum groups, volume 110 ofProgress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993

    1993

  33. [41]

    McNamara and Alistair Savage

    Peter J. McNamara and Alistair Savage. The quantum spin Brauer category, 2025.arXiv:2504.16618

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. I. Molev. Gelfand-Tsetlin bases for classical Lie algebras. InHandbook of algebra. Vol. 4. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    A. I. Molev and E. Ragoucy. Symmetries and invariants of twisted quantum algebras and associated Poisson algebras. Rev. Math. Phys., 20(2):173–198, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    H. Morton. A basis for the Birman-Wenzl algebra.arXiv:1012.3116

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. Noumi. Macdonald’s symmetric polynomials as zonal spherical functions on some quantum homogeneous spaces. Adv. Math., 123(1):16–77, 1996

    1996

  38. [46]

    Okounkov and A

    A. Okounkov and A. Vershik. A new approach to representation theory of symmetric groups.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 2(4):581–605, 1996

    1996

  39. [47]

    Queffelec and D

    H. Queffelec and D. E. V. Rose. Thesl n foam 2-category: a combinatorial formulation of Khovanov-Rozansky homology via categorical skew Howe duality.Adv. Math., 302:1251–1339, 2016. arXiv:1405.5920

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    I. Recio. Higher idempotent completion for Soergel bimodules.arXiv:2508.00767

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    N. Yu. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev. Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups.Comm. Math. Phys., 1:1–26, 1990

    1990

  42. [50]

    Selinger

    P. Selinger. Autonomous categories in whichA ∼= A∗. InProceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic, pages 151–160, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    Snyder and P

    N. Snyder and P. Tingley. The half-twist forU q(g) representations.Algebra & number theory, 3(7):809–834, 2009

    2009

  44. [52]

    Stembridge

    J. Stembridge. Folding by automorphisms.https://websites.umich.edu/ ~jrs/papers/folding.pdf

  45. [53]

    W. Wang. Quantum symmetric pairs. InICM—International Congress of Mathematicians. Vol. 4. Sections 5–8. EMS Press, Berlin, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Wang and W

    W. Wang and W. Zhang. An intrinsic approach to relative braid group symmetries onıquantum groups.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 127(5):1338–1423, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Wang and W

    W. Wang and W. Zhang. Relative braid group symmetries on modified iquantum groups and their modules. arXiv:2508.12041, 2026

    2026

  48. [56]

    H. Wenzl. Dualities for spin representations.arXiv:2005.11299

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    H. Wenzl. On representations ofU ′ qson.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 373(5):3295–3322, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Westbury

    Bruce W. Westbury. Invariant tensors for the spin representation ofso(7).Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 144(1):217– 240, 2008

    2008

  51. [59]

    Williamson

    G. Williamson. An introduction to the Brauer and BMW algebras.https://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/geordie/ papers.html. Department of Mathematics, Indiana University Bloomington, Rawles Hall, Bloomington, IN 47405-7106, USA Email address:ebodish@iu.edu Department of Mathematics, U...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.