Simple Modules and PI Structure of the Two-Parameter Quantized Algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$

Ritesh Kumar Pandey; Snehashis Mukherjee

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 20 references

Simple Modules and PI Structure of the Two-Parameter Quantized Algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At roots of unity with $r^2 \neq s^2$, the two-parameter algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ becomes a prime PI algebra of PI degree $\operatorname{ord}(r^2s^2)\operatorname{ord}(r^2s^{-2})$ (doubled in certain parity cases), and every…

desk verdict Genuine new classification for two-parameter quantum B2 at roots of unity; the main B-to-U bridge is asserted, not proved, but the gap looks patchable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21856 v2 pith:MA2KXAUA submitted 2025-06-27 math.RT math.QA

Snehashis Mukherjee , Ritesh Kumar Pandey This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.QA MSC 16D6016D7016R2016T2016S85

keywords Two-parameterquantumgroupU+_{rs}(B2)PolynomialidentityalgebraPIdegreeSimplemodulesGeneralizedWeylRootsofunityTorsionclassification

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 studies the positive part of the two-parameter quantum group $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ when the parameters $r$ and $s$ are roots of unity. It proves that in this setting the algebra is a prime PI algebra and computes its PI degree, giving a closed formula in terms of the orders of $r$ and $s$. It then classifies all finite-dimensional simple modules by constructing five explicit families and proving isomorphism criteria for each. If correct, this yields a complete classification of simple modules for a two-parameter quantized algebra of non-simply-laced type, with the $X_3$-torsion cases handed to the previously classified algebra $U^+_{r,s}(\mathfrak{sl}_3)$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the auxiliary subalgebra $B$ generated by $X_1, X_2, X_3$ and $\widetilde W := X_2 + (r^2-s^2)X_4X_1$. This subalgebra has simpler commutation relations than $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$, and its normal element $\widetilde X := \widetilde W X_2 - \frac{s^2(r^2-s^2)}{1-rs^{-1}} X_3X_1$ splits the classification into torsion and torsion-free cases. The bridge to $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ is the localization equality $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)[X_1^{-1}] = B[X_1^{-1}]$, which lets the paper lift every simple $X_1$-torsionfree $B$-module to a simple $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$-module by defining $X_4 = \frac{\widetilde W - X_2}{r^2-s^2} X_1^{-1}$.

What would settle it

Take $m=n=5$ with $r$ a primitive fifth root of unity and $s=r^2$ (so $r^2 \neq s^2$), write the explicit matrices for $X_1$ and $X_4$ from Section 7.1 on the ten-dimensional module $M(\lambda)$ for a generic $\lambda$, and check the defining relation $X_1X_4 - r^2X_4X_1 - X_2 = 0$ on every basis vector; the boundary case $b = m_1-1$ is the sharpest place for a failure, and one failed relation would disprove the lifted module structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that at roots of unity, with $r^2 \neq s^2$, the algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ is a prime affine PI algebra with PI degree $\operatorname{ord}(r^2s^2)\operatorname{ord}(r^2s^{-2})$, multiplied by $2$ when the 2-adic valuations of $\operatorname{ord}(r)$ and $\operatorname{ord}(s)$ differ or are both at least $2$. The paper further proves that every finite-dimensional simple module is isomorphic to exactly one of $M(\lambda)$, $M(\mu)$, $M(\epsilon)$, $M(\nu)$, $M(\xi)$, with explicit bases and actions, and with isomorphism conditions given in Theorems 10.1 through 10.5. The classification proceeds by separating modules according to whether the normal element $X_1$ acts invertibly or nilpotently; the invertible case is reduced to the subalgebra $B$ by localization, while the nilpotent case is constructed directly.

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the assertion that after inverting $X_1$ the algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ equals the subalgebra $B$, and that the formula $X_4 = \frac{\widetilde W - X_2}{r^2-s^2} X_1^{-1}$ turns every simple $X_1$-torsionfree $B$-module into a genuine $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$-module; if that formula violates any defining relation on one such module, the lifted families are not well-defined and the classification collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every finite-dimensional simple $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$-module at roots of unity is either an $X_3$-torsion module over $U^+_{r,s}(\mathfrak{sl}_3)$ or one of the five explicit families $M(\lambda)$, $M(\mu)$, $M(\epsilon)$, $M(\nu)$, $M(\xi)$.
The PI-degree formula provides the exact maximum possible dimension of a simple module, so one can read off when a simple module reaches the bound.
The $X_1$-torsionfree families give fully explicit vector-space models in which the fourth generator $X_4$ acts through the localization formula.
The $X_1$-torsion families describe the nilpotent case, with dimensions $\operatorname{ord}(rs)\operatorname{ord}(r^{-2}s^2)$ and either $\operatorname{lcm}(\operatorname{ord}(rs),\operatorname{ord}(rs^{-1}))$ or $\operatorname{ord}(rs^{-1})$.
The appendix shows that when $r^2 = s^2$ the algebra admits infinite-dimensional simple modules, so the PI and finite-dimensional behavior fails exactly on that boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

Extrapolating from the localization step, a similar subalgebra $B$ constructed by replacing one generator with a combination like $\widetilde W$ may reduce torsion-free module classification for other rank-two two-parameter algebras to a generalized Weyl algebra problem.
Because the module actions are written out with explicit bases, one can test tensor products, extension groups, or Brauer characters; the indecomposable quotients $Q_{k,m}$ from Section 11 give a concrete starting family for such computations.
The parity cases in the PI-degree formula suggest that for $U^+_{r,s}(B_n)$ or $U^+_{r,s}(G_2)$ the PI degree may again decompose into contributions from $\operatorname{ord}(r^2s^2)$ and $\operatorname{ord}(r^2s^{-2})$, though the paper does not address those types.

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

I read the B2 paper. The headline: it's a genuine new classification result for two-parameter quantum groups at roots of unity, and the main structural tool—the subalgebra B and the GWA analysis—is sound. The soft spot is real but patchable: the bridge from B-modules to U-modules (Theorem 4.10) is asserted rather than proved.

What's actually new: the PI degree formula for U+_{r,s}(B2) when r and s are roots of unity with r^2 ≠ s^2, and the classification of X1-torsionfree simple modules into the three families M(λ), M(μ), M(ε), plus the X1-torsion families M(ν) and M(ξ). The isomorphism conditions in Section 10 tie them up cleanly. The paper is honest that X3-torsion modules are covered by the earlier U+_{r,s}(sl3) classification, so the self-contained part is the X1-torsionfree classification plus the nilpotent-X1 construction. That's a solid chunk of work, and the PI-degree computation via De Concini–Procesi with invariant factors is careful; the parity cases are spelled out rather than hand-waved.

Where it gets shaky: Theorem 4.10. The equality U[X1^{-1}] = B[X1^{-1}] is not automatic because X1 is not normal in U; the paper just states it. Then the action of X4 on a B-module is defined by a formula using W̃ and X1^{-1}, but the proof that this satisfies all of U's relations is missing from the theorem. The stress-test note says a direct calculation closes; I believe the statement is true, but the burden is on the authors. If that bridge fails, the lifted families M(λ), M(μ), M(ε) may not be U-modules, and the classification collapses. That's the main thing a referee must check.

The other gap is minor: Theorem 2.4 says PI iff r and s are roots of unity. The necessity proof looks at the subalgebra generated by X2 and X3, which is a quantum plane with parameter rs. But the quantum plane C⟨X2,X3⟩/(X2X3−rsX3X2) is PI when rs is a root of unity, even if r and s are not. So the argument only goes through when rs is not a root of unity. This doesn't affect the main classification (which assumes r and s are roots anyway), but the theorem as stated and proved needs an extra case.

Also, the quotient U+/⟨X3⟩ ≅ U+_{r,s}(sl3) is stated without proof. I know it's standard, but it should be cited or verified.

Overall: this is a serious paper with a real result. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review, with the clear instruction that the proof of Theorem 4.10 must be completed—either by checking the four relations directly or by a localization/universal-property argument—and the necessity proof of Theorem 2.4 fixed.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-parameter quantized algebra U^+_{r,s}(B_2) at roots of unity with r^2 ≠ s^2. It proves a PI criterion (Theorem 2.4), computes the PI degree explicitly (Theorem 3.2) by the De Concini–Procesi method, introduces a subalgebra B, establishes a correspondence between X_1-torsionfree simple B-modules and X_1-torsionfree simple U-modules (Theorem 4.10), constructs and classifies five families of simple modules M(λ), M(μ), M(ε), M(ν), M(ξ), gives isomorphism criteria (Theorems 10.1–10.5), and constructs a family of indecomposable modules (Section 11). The X_3-torsion simple modules are not classified in the paper; they are delegated to the classification of U^+_{r,s}(sl_3) in [5].

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper provides the first explicit classification of finite-dimensional simple modules for the two-parameter B_2 positive part at roots of unity, together with an explicit PI degree formula. The strategy of approximating U by a GWA subalgebra B and lifting modules is natural, and the paper contains many explicit basis actions and detailed verifications for one of the module families. The explicit PI degree computation via invariant factors is a useful contribution, and the module dimension formulas are consistent with the PI degree bound in the examples checked. However, several load-bearing arguments are missing or contain algebraic errors, so the contribution is conditional on those being repaired.

major comments (4)

[§4, Eq. (4.2), Theorem 4.10] The equality U^+_{r,s}(B_2)[X_1^{-1}] = B[X_1^{-1}] is asserted without proof. Since X_1 is not a normal element of U^+_{r,s}(B_2) (the relation X_1X_4 = r^2X_4X_1 + X_2 in (2.1) has a lower term), localization at the powers of X_1 is not a routine Ore localization; the equality must be justified, for example inside the Goldie division ring. More importantly, the proof of the lifting direction defines vX_4 = (vW - vX_2)X_1^{-1}/(r^2-s^2) and asserts that every X_1-torsionfree simple B-module becomes a U-module, but it does not verify that this operator satisfies the six relations in (2.1). Theorem 7.1 supplies this verification only for the family M(λ); for M(μ), M(ε), M(ν), and M(ξ) the paper merely says the check is easy. Since Theorem 4.10 is the bridge that turns the B-module classification into the U-module classification, a complete verification (or a localization/universal-property argument) is required.
[§2.3, Theorem 2.4] The necessity proof considers the subalgebra generated by X_2 and X_3, which is the quantum plane C⟨X_2,X_3⟩/⟨X_2X_3 - rs X_3X_2⟩, and invokes [8, Proposition I.14.2]. That result shows non-PI only when the parameter rs is not a root of unity. If r and s are individually not roots of unity but rs is a root of unity (for example s = r^{-1}), the cited result gives no information, so the stated 'if and only if' is not proved. The theorem may be true, but the necessity direction needs a different argument or a restricted hypothesis.
[§9, Theorem 9.1 and abstract] Theorem 9.1 claims that every simple X_1-torsion U-module is isomorphic to M(ν) or M(ξ). Both families are X_3-torsionfree: in M(ν), X_3 acts as (rs)^a ν_2 on e(a,b), and in M(ξ) as (rs)^{-a} ξ_1, with ν_2, ξ_1 nonzero. The paper itself states in the introduction that X_3-torsion simple modules are exactly the simple modules of U^+_{r,s}(B_2)/⟨X_3⟩ ≅ U^+_{r,s}(sl_3), classified in [5], and these are not among the families constructed here. Thus Theorem 9.1 should be restricted to X_3-torsionfree X_1-torsion modules, and the abstract's 'complete classification' should be qualified accordingly.
[§3.2, Subcase 2.3] The chain of equalities leading to gcd(h_2,l) is invalid. From 4 gcd((a+b)(a-b)/h_1^2, l/4) the paper passes to gcd((a+b)(a-b)/(h_1/2)^2, l/2); these are not equal in general, since the former is gcd(4A,l) while the latter is gcd(4A,l/2) with A=(a+b)(a-b)/h_1^2. The subsequent identity gcd(ab,l/2)=gcd(a,l/2)gcd(b,l/2) is applied to a=(s_1k_1+s_2k_2)/(h_1/2) and b=(s_1k_1-s_2k_2)/(h_1/2), which are not coprime. For example, with m=24, n=8, r=q^5, s=q^{15} for a primitive 24th root q, the left side is 8 while the middle expression is 4. The final formula in Theorem 3.2 may still be correct, but the proof as written does not establish it.

minor comments (3)

[Remark 2.3] Remark 2.3 states that if r and s are p-th roots of unity then X_i^p are central; for different orders m and n, the correct statement is that X_i^l are central for l = lcm(m,n).
[Notation throughout] The notation M(λ) is used for the B-module M_1(λ), for the lifted U-module, and again for the induced module in Section 11; this reuse is confusing and should be changed.
[Various] There are several typos: 'equitation' in Section 3.2, 'Corollay' in reference [20], 'Sinxe' in Section 9, and the year of reference [6] is inconsistent (2011 in the bibliography vs 2025 on the arXiv).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the PI-degree computation and simple-module classification are derived from the defining relations, standard external results, and explicit module constructions; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are not circular. The PI-degree computation in Section 3 applies the De Concini–Procesi method via Proposition 3.1 from [18] and the standard reference [8], computing invariant factors from the skew-symmetric matrix associated to the PBW generators; this does not presuppose the final formula. The special case rs=1 is quoted from the earlier published result [17], which is an external parameter-free theorem for the one-parameter algebra U_r(B2), so this is a legitimate citation rather than a self-referential reduction. The simple-module classification is self-contained for X1-torsionfree modules: Theorem 4.10 establishes a correspondence between simple X1-torsionfree B-modules and simple X1-torsionfree U-modules by localizing at the normal element X1, and Sections 5-7 explicitly construct modules and verify the defining relations (2.1) in Theorem 7.1. The X3-torsion case is delegated to the previously classified quotient U^+_{r,s}(sl3) in [5], which is a different algebra and not the target result. Isomorphism theorems in Section 10 are proved by explicit module isomorphisms, not by definitional fiat. The only notable gap is a rigor issue: in the proof of Theorem 4.10, the assertion 'Thus N becomes an U^+_{r,s}(B2)-module' is made without displaying the verification that the defined X4 action satisfies all relations of (2.1); this is an omitted proof, not a circular step, because the X4 action is derived from the localization formula rather than assumed as an input. Overall, no step reduces by construction or by self-citation to the paper's own conclusions.

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

The paper introduces the auxiliary subalgebra B and generator W̃, but these are mathematical constructions internal to the proof, not free parameters or new physical entities. No data fitting occurs; the parameters λ, μ, ϵ, ν, ξ parametrize the classified modules rather than being fitted.

assumptions (4)

standard math PBW-type Lyndon basis for U^+_{r,s}(B2) with generators X1,X2,X3,X4 (from [20, Corollary 1.1])
Used throughout to define the algebra as an iterated Ore extension and to set up the PBW basis for modules. Cited from Tang [20], not reproved.
standard math De Concini-Procesi PI-degree formula for quantum affine spaces (Proposition 3.1, from [18, Lemma 5.7])
The PI degree computation in Section 3 rests on this formula for the quantum affine space associated to the iterated Ore extension.
domain assumption U^+_{r,s}(B2)/⟨X3⟩ is isomorphic to U^+_{r,s}(sl3), whose simple modules are classified in [5]
This is asserted in the introduction to cover the X3-torsion case needed for completeness; no proof or verification of parameter conventions is given in this paper.
domain assumption Standing assumption r^2≠s^2
All module constructions divide by r^2-s^2 and by 1-rs^{-1}; the r^2=s^2 case is argued separately in the appendix to be non-PI.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simple Modules and PI Structure of the Two-Parameter Quantized Algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MA2KXAUA

@misc{pith2026250621856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simple Modules and PI Structure of the Two-Parameter Quantized Algebra $U^+_r,s(B_2)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MA2KXAUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21856}
}

abstract

We study the two-parameter quantized enveloping algebra $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ at roots of unity and investigate its structure and representations. We first show that when $r$ and $s$ are roots of unity, the algebra becomes a PI algebra, and we compute its PI degree explicitly using De Concini-Procesi method. We construct and classify finite-dimensional simple modules for $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$ by analyzing a subalgebra $B\subset U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$. Simple modules are categorized into torsion-free and torsion types with respect to a distinguished normal element. We classify all torsion-free simple $B$-modules and lift them to $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$. The remaining simple modules are constructed in the nilpotent case. This work provides a complete classification of simple $U^+_{r,s}(B_2)$-modules at roots of unity and contributes to the understanding of two-parameter quantum groups in type $B_2$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[5]

Quantum Heisenberg enveloping algebras at roots of unity.J

Sanu Bera, Sugata Mandal, and Soumendu Nandy. Quantum Heisenberg enveloping algebras at roots of unity.J. Algebra, 649:223–244, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Two-parameter quantum groups of exceptional type E-series and convex PBW-type basis.Algebra Colloq., 15(4):619–636, 2008

Xiaotang Bai and Naihong Hu. Two-parameter quantum groups of exceptional type E-series and convex PBW-type basis.Algebra Colloq., 15(4):619–636, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

V. V. Bavula. Global dimension of generalized Weyl algebras. InRepresentation theory of algebras. Seventh international conference, August 22-26, 1994, Cocoyoc, Mexico, pages 81–107. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1996

work page 1994
[3]

Representations of two-parameter quantum groups and Schur-Weyl duality

Georgia Benkart and Sarah Witherspoon. Representations of two-parameter quantum groups and Schur-Weyl duality. InHopf algebras, volume 237 ofLecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., pages 65–92. Dekker, New York, 2004

work page 2004
[4]

Two-parameter quantum groups and drinfeld doubles

Georgia Benkart and Sarah Witherspoon. Two-parameter quantum groups and drinfeld doubles. Algebr. Represent. Theory, 7(3):261–286, 2004

work page 2004
[6]

U + q (B2) and its representations

Sanu Bera and Snehashis Mukherjee. U + q (B2) and its representations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21170, 2011

arXiv 2011
[7]

Drinfeld doubles and lusztig’s symme- tries of two-parameter quantum groups.J

Nantel Bergeron, Yun Gao, and Naihong Hu. Drinfeld doubles and lusztig’s symme- tries of two-parameter quantum groups.J. Algebra, 301(1):378–405, 2006

work page 2006
[8]

Brown and Ken R

Ken A. Brown and Ken R. Goodearl.Lectures on algebraic quantum groups. Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2002

work page 2002

Show all 20 references

[9]

De Concini and C

C. De Concini and C. Procesi. Quantum groups. InD-modules, representation theory, and quantum groups (Venice, 1992), volume 1565 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 31–140. Springer, Berlin, 1993

1992
[10]

Two-parameter quantum affine algebra Ur,s(ˆsln), Drinfeld realization and quantum affine Lyndon basis.Comm

Naihong Hu, Marc Rosso, and Honglian Zhang. Two-parameter quantum affine algebra Ur,s(ˆsln), Drinfeld realization and quantum affine Lyndon basis.Comm. Math. Phys., 278(2):453–486, 2008

2008
[11]

The two-parameter quantum group of exceptional type G2 and Lusztig’s symmetries.Pacific J

Naihong Hu and Qian Shi. The two-parameter quantum group of exceptional type G2 and Lusztig’s symmetries.Pacific J. Math., 230(2):327–345, 2007

2007
[12]

On the centre of two-parameter quantum groupsUr,s(g) for typeBn with n even

Naihong Hu and Yuxing Shi. On the centre of two-parameter quantum groupsUr,s(g) for typeBn with n even. J. Geom. Phys., 86:422–433, 2014. 38

2014
[13]

Convex PBW-type Lyndon basis and restricted two-parameter quantum groups of typeG2

Naihong Hu and Xiuling Wang. Convex PBW-type Lyndon basis and restricted two-parameter quantum groups of typeG2. Pacific J. Math., 241(2):243–273, 2009

2009
[14]

Convex PBW-type Lyndon bases and restricted two-parameter quantum groups of typeB

Naihong Hu and Xiuling Wang. Convex PBW-type Lyndon bases and restricted two-parameter quantum groups of typeB. J. Geom. Phys., 60(3):430–453, 2010

2010
[15]

Lopes, and Alexandra Rogers

Stéphane Launois, Samuel A. Lopes, and Alexandra Rogers. A deleting derivations algorithm for quantum nilpotent algebras at roots of unity.Annals of Representation Theory, 1:567–594, 2024

2024
[16]

J. C. McConnell and J. C. Robson.Noncommutative Noetherian rings, volume 30 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, revised edition, 2001. With the cooperation of L. W. Small

2001
[17]

Construction of simple modules over the quantum affine space.Algebra Colloq., 31(1):1–10, 2024

Snehashis Mukherjee and Sanu Bera. Construction of simple modules over the quantum affine space.Algebra Colloq., 31(1):1–10, 2024

2024
[18]

Representations of quantum nilpotent algebras at roots of unity and their completely prime quotients.PhD Thesis, Univ

Alexandra Rogers. Representations of quantum nilpotent algebras at roots of unity and their completely prime quotients.PhD Thesis, Univ. Kent, 2019

2019
[19]

The prime ideal stratification and the automorphism group ofU + r,s(B2)

Xin Tang. The prime ideal stratification and the automorphism group ofU + r,s(B2). https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.264, 2011

2011
[20]

Derivations of the two-parameter quantized enveloping algebraU + r,s(B2)

Xin Tang. Derivations of the two-parameter quantized enveloping algebraU + r,s(B2). Comm. Algebra, 41(12):4602–4621, 2013. Snehashis Mukherjee1 Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, Box: 208016, India. Ritesh Kumar Pandey2 Indian Institute of...

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Quantum Heisenberg enveloping algebras at roots of unity.J

Sanu Bera, Sugata Mandal, and Soumendu Nandy. Quantum Heisenberg enveloping algebras at roots of unity.J. Algebra, 649:223–244, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Two-parameter quantum groups of exceptional type E-series and convex PBW-type basis.Algebra Colloq., 15(4):619–636, 2008

Xiaotang Bai and Naihong Hu. Two-parameter quantum groups of exceptional type E-series and convex PBW-type basis.Algebra Colloq., 15(4):619–636, 2008

work page 2008

[3] [2]

V. V. Bavula. Global dimension of generalized Weyl algebras. InRepresentation theory of algebras. Seventh international conference, August 22-26, 1994, Cocoyoc, Mexico, pages 81–107. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1996

work page 1994

[4] [3]

Representations of two-parameter quantum groups and Schur-Weyl duality

Georgia Benkart and Sarah Witherspoon. Representations of two-parameter quantum groups and Schur-Weyl duality. InHopf algebras, volume 237 ofLecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., pages 65–92. Dekker, New York, 2004

work page 2004

[5] [4]

Two-parameter quantum groups and drinfeld doubles

Georgia Benkart and Sarah Witherspoon. Two-parameter quantum groups and drinfeld doubles. Algebr. Represent. Theory, 7(3):261–286, 2004

work page 2004

[6] [6]

U + q (B2) and its representations

Sanu Bera and Snehashis Mukherjee. U + q (B2) and its representations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21170, 2011

arXiv 2011

[7] [7]

Drinfeld doubles and lusztig’s symme- tries of two-parameter quantum groups.J

Nantel Bergeron, Yun Gao, and Naihong Hu. Drinfeld doubles and lusztig’s symme- tries of two-parameter quantum groups.J. Algebra, 301(1):378–405, 2006

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Brown and Ken R

Ken A. Brown and Ken R. Goodearl.Lectures on algebraic quantum groups. Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2002

work page 2002