On dominant $\ell$--weights and maps between Weyl modules for quantum affine $A_n$

Matheus Brito; Vyjayanthi Chari

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On dominant $\ell$--weights and maps between Weyl modules for quantum affine $A_n$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For quantum affine $A_n$, the dominant $\ell$-weights of a Weyl module form exactly the finite closure $\bar{s}[n]$ of its interval tuple.

desk verdict A serious paper with a new combinatorial mechanism, but the proof of Theorem 1(ii) has a load-bearing gap in the crossed-tensor step that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19313 v1 pith:O3QGZEEH submitted 2025-04-27 math.QA math.RT

Matheus Brito , Vyjayanthi Chari This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.QAmath.RT MSC 17B3717B6781R50

keywords quantumaffinealgebrasWeylmodulesℓ-weightsdominantq-charactersintervaltuplessocleHomspaces

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 determines all dominant $\ell$-weights of the Weyl (standard) modules for the quantum loop algebra of type $A_n$: the answer is a finite combinatorial closure $\bar{s}[n]$ computed from the tuple of intervals that indexes the module. It then proves that the space of homomorphisms from one Weyl module to another has dimension at most one, and is nonzero precisely when the index of the source lies in the closure of the index of the target. As a consequence, every nonzero map between Weyl modules is injective, the socle is a multiplicity-free sum of Weyl modules indexed by the closed elements of the closure, and the socle is a single simple module when $n$ is larger than a bound depending on the tuple. These results provide a complete description of maps between standard modules in this category and yield new tensor subcategories and a vanishing criterion for $\mathrm{Ext}^1$.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the closure $\bar{s}[n]$ of an interval tuple under the operators $\tau_{m,\ell}$. For a connected pair $([i_m,j_m],[i_\ell,j_\ell])$, the operator replaces it with $([i_\ell,j_m],[i_m,j_\ell])$; the closure also records swaps when $j_m=j_\ell$. This finite combinatorial set does two jobs: Theorem 1 shows it enumerates precisely the dominant $\ell$-weights of $W(\omega_s)$, and Theorem 2 shows it is exactly the index set for which a homomorphism into $W(\omega_s)$ exists and is one-dimensional. The proof passes through the path description of the $\ell$-weights of fundamental modules, writing each dominant $\ell$-weight as a product of path monomials $\omega(g)$, and through a tensor-product decomposition of Weyl modules that lets the argument proceed by induction on the length of the tuple.

What would settle it

Take $n=2$ and $s=([0,2],[-1,1])$, a connected pair for which $W(\omega_s)=V(\omega_{0,2})\otimes V(\omega_{-1,1})$ and the theorem predicts $\mathrm{wt}^+_\ell W(\omega_s)=\{\omega_{0,2}\omega_{-1,1},\omega_{-1,2}\omega_{0,1}\}$; computing the $q$-character of this tensor product from the fundamental-module formulas would show a counterexample if any other positive $\ell$-weight monomial appears. Repeating the same check for all tuples with $n\le 3$ would settle the reverse inclusion as well.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $W(\omega_s)$ be the Weyl module attached to a monomial $\omega_s = \omega_{i_1,j_1}\cdots\omega_{i_r,j_r}$, encoded by an ordered tuple $s$ of intervals. The main theorem states that the set of positive $\ell$-weights of $W(\omega_s)$ is exactly $\{\omega_{s'} : s'\in \bar{s}[n]\}$, where $\bar{s}[n]$ is the smallest set of tuples containing $s$ and closed under the operators $\tau_{m,\ell}$ that swap endpoints of a connected pair of intervals and under permutations preserving equal right endpoints. In particular, $W(\omega_s)$ is irreducible exactly when $s$ is closed in this sense. The second theorem says that for Weyl modules $\dim \operatorname{Hom}_{\widehat U_n}(W(\omega_{s'}),W(\omega_s))\le 1$, with equality if and only if $s'\in \bar{s}[n]$; every nonzero such map is injective, and the socle of $W(\omega_s)$ is the direct sum of the Weyl modules indexed by the distinct closed elements of $\bar{s}[n]$, each occurring once. When $n>n(s)$ the closure has a unique closed element and the socle is simple.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's weakest point is its reliance on the previously established path description of the $\ell$-weights of the fundamental modules and on the lemma equating connected interval pairs with the negative-locus condition $c^-_{i,j}$; the induction that proves every dominant $\ell$-weight lies in the closure needs both, and a failure of either leaves only the trivial inclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every nonzero homomorphism between Weyl modules is injective, and there is at most one up to scalar, so maps between standard modules form a rigid combinatorial system.
The socle of $W(\omega_s)$ is known explicitly: it is the multiplicity-free direct sum of the Weyl modules indexed by the closed elements of $\bar{s}[n]$, and it is a single simple module whenever $n>n(s)$.
Irreducibility of a Weyl module is decidable from the tuple: $W(\omega_s)$ is simple exactly when $s$ is closed.
The subcategories $\mathcal{F}_n(s)$ generated by the weights $\omega_{i_p,j_q}$ with $j_q-i_p\le n+1$ are tensor subcategories of $\mathcal{F}_n$, generalizing the previously studied categories $\mathcal{C}_\ell$.
If two closed index sets $J_1,J_2$ are disjoint, then $\mathrm{Ext}^1_{\widehat U_n}(V,W)=0$ for any $V$ in $\mathcal{F}_n(J_1)$ and $W$ in $\mathcal{F}_n(J_2)$, giving a simple splitting criterion for short exact sequences.

Reading between the lines

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

The same closure should describe multiplicities in the full $q$-character, not just the dominant set, if the path description of fundamental modules can be refined to count each path monomial with multiplicity.
The one-dimensional Hom spaces suggest a highest-weight-category-like structure; a reciprocity matrix between standard and simple modules could be read off from the closure poset.
For other simply-laced types, the same closure argument is plausible with the connectedness condition replaced by the analogous path datum; the obstacle is the availability of a fundamental path description.
The tensor subcategories $\mathcal{F}_n(s)$ may be cluster categories; one could test whether their Grothendieck rings are cluster algebras of the same finite type as the closure poset.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the short version: this is a serious paper with a real combinatorial mechanism, but the proof of the main classification has a hole that needs to be filled before I'd trust Theorem 1(ii).

The genuinely new content is the determination of the dominant ℓ-weights of all Weyl modules in the Hernandez–Leclerc category for quantum affine A_n, stated as closure of an interval tuple under the maps τ_{m,ℓ}. From that they get the one-dimensional Hom theorem, the socle formula, and applications to tensor subcategories and Ext vanishing. The injective-map half (Theorem 1(i)) is proved by a clean induction using the known tensor-product decompositions, and the reduction to the 'large n' case via the embedding into ˆU_N is convincing. If the main theorem stands, this is a solid advance, not a footnote.

The weak point is in Section 3.6, in the cancellation case of Theorem 1(ii). The proof needs to move a weight from the tensor product V(ω_{i_p,j_p})⊗V(ω_{i_s,j_s}) to the crossed tensor V(ω_{i_p,j_s})⊗V(ω_{i_s,j_p}). The text says this 'follows from (1.2)'. It doesn't. Equation (1.2) is just multiplicativity of weight sets for the given tensor product; it says nothing about the crossed product. No lemma is stated to bridge the two, and the module isomorphism is false in general (already in A_1). This is not a cosmetic gap: the iteration that shifts ω into W(ω_{τ_{p,s}s}) is exactly this step. Unless there is a path-switching identity hiding in the path model of [19] (or in the authors' own preprint [1]), Theorem 1(ii) is not established.

Other soft spots are minor in comparison: Lemma 3.5 is from the authors' own unpublished paper [1] and should either be proved inline or flagged; Section 3.6 ends with a stray sentence about Proposition 3.2 that looks like an editing artifact; reference [11] is 'in preparation.' None of these affect the plausibility of the main results; they are cleanup.

Bottom line: send it to a serious referee, but the referee should demand a proof of the crossed-tensor membership before accepting Theorem 1(ii). If that gets sorted, I'd be happy to cite it.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies finite-dimensional representations of the quantum affine algebra of type A_n (i.e., U_q(sl_{n+1})) in the Hernandez–Leclerc category F_n. The main results are: Theorem 1 gives a complete description of the dominant ℓ-weights of a Weyl (standard) module W(ω_s) as the finite set {ω_{s'} : s' ∈ \bar{s}[n]}, where \bar{s}[n] is a combinatorial closure of the tuple s under the operations τ_{m,ℓ} and permutations; Theorem 2 proves that Hom(W(ω_{s'}), W(ω_s)) has dimension at most one, with equality exactly when s' ∈ \bar{s}[n], and describes the socle of W(ω_s) as the multiplicity-free direct sum of Weyl modules indexed by the closed elements of the closure, with simplicity in the case n > n(s). Applications include tensor subcategories generalizing the categories C_ℓ, inclusions and quotients for mixed Weyl modules, and a vanishing result for Ext^1 between modules attached to disjoint closed sets. The proofs are built on tensor product decompositions from [3,20], the path description of q-characters from [19], and a new combinatorial analysis of the closure operation developed in Sections 2–3.

Significance. If the main results are correct, the paper provides a complete and explicit combinatorial classification of dominant ℓ-weights of standard modules in type A, together with strong rigidity statements for Hom spaces and a precise description of socles. The closure formalism is elegant and likely to be useful, and the applications to tensor subcategories and Ext vanishing are natural. The paper also makes good use of known external results and presents its claims in a clear, checkable form. However, as detailed in the major comments, the proof of the central classification Theorem 1(ii) contains a significant gap: a load-bearing step in Section 3.6 asserts a membership in the ℓ-weights of a crossed tensor product that does not follow from the cited equation (1.2). Until this gap is repaired, the main theorem cannot be regarded as established.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.6] The assertion beginning 'On the other hand, it follows from (1.2) that ω(g_p)ω(g_s) ∈ wtℓ(V(ω_{i_p,j_s}) ⊗ V(ω_{i_s,j_p}))' is not justified by equation (1.2). Equation (1.2) states multiplicativity of the ℓ-weight set for a fixed tensor product: wtℓ(V ⊗ V') = wtℓ V · wtℓ V'. Applying it to V(ω_{i_p,j_s}) ⊗ V(ω_{i_s,j_p}) expresses its ℓ-weight set in terms of weights of those two modules. Since ω(g_p) is a weight of V(ω_{i_p,j_p}) and ω(g_s) is a weight of V(ω_{i_s,j_s}), the product ω(g_p)ω(g_s) is not known to lie in the crossed tensor product. A separate path-swapping lemma—showing that when two paths cross, the product of their weights is a weight of the crossed tensor product—is required. No such lemma is stated or proved, and it does not follow from Proposition 3.4 as quoted. This step is the mechanism that moves a dominant ℓ-weight of W(ω_s) into W(ω_{τ_{p,s}s}) and iterates the induction; without it, Theorem 1(ii) is not established.
[Section 3.6] The reasoning 'dim V(ω_{i_s,j_s})_{ω(g_s)} = 1, by Proposition 3.4(i), and hence part (ii) implies that ω(g_p)ω(g_s) ∉ wtℓ V(ω_{i_p,j_p}ω_{i_s,j_s})' uses Proposition 3.4(i) beyond its stated scope. Proposition 3.4(i) bounds weight multiplicities only for ω ∈ I^+_n, whereas ω(g_s) is non-dominant because [i_p,j_p] ∈ c^-_{g_s}. Moreover, Proposition 3.4(ii) says only that wtℓ V(ω_s) is contained in the image of the map (g1,g2) ↦ ω(g1)ω(g2) from P_s; it does not assert that the parametrization is injective or that every pair outside P_s produces a monomial not in wtℓ V(ω_s). To conclude that (g_p,g_s) ∉ P_s implies the product weight is absent from V(ω_{i_p,j_p}ω_{i_s,j_s}), the paper needs a uniqueness or bijectivity statement for the path parametrization, or a separate argument. This should be stated and proved or quoted from [19] in its full strength.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.6] The paragraph immediately following the proof of Theorem 1, beginning 'Proposition 3.2 was proved in greater generality in [2]...', appears to be an editorial leftover; it should be removed or rewritten as a proper remark about Proposition 3.2.
[Section 4.1] In equation (4.2), the displayed product defining η is incomplete: it reads 'η = ∏_{s=i}^{j-1} ∏_{m=j}^{j_1}' without the factor α_{s,m}. It should presumably be η = ∏_{s=i}^{j-1} ∏_{m=j}^{j_1} α_{s,m}.
[Section 1.7] The statement 'W(s) ≅ W(ω_{s(0,r_1)}) ⊗ ... ⊗ W(ω_{s(r_{k-1},r_k)})' uses indices r_0, r_1, ..., r_k that are not defined; the partition of {1, ..., r} should be specified.
[References] Reference [11] is cited as 'in preparation' for the example with a two-dimensional family of trivial submodules; if a public version exists, it should be cited, and otherwise the example should be made self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 are derived from external q-character and tensor-product results, with the sole self-citation being an auxiliary combinatorial lemma.

full rationale

The central claims do not reduce to their inputs. Theorem 1(ii) is proved by induction: the reverse inclusion uses Theorem 1(i), which is proved from Lemma 3.1 and the external tensor decomposition of Proposition 3.2, and the forward direction writes any dominant ℓ-weight as a product of path weights ω(g_1)⋯ω(g_r), using Proposition 3.4 from [19] to force each non-trivial path factor into a contradiction and to pass to the shorter tuple. Proposition 3.4(i)-(ii) is an external benchmark (Mukhin-Young path description), and Proposition 3.2 is from [3]/[20]. The only self-citation used inside the proof is Lemma 3.5, quoted from Brito-Chari [1], which equates connectedness of intervals with membership in c^-_{i,j}; it is a concrete combinatorial statement that does not encode the dominant ℓ-weight classification or the map rigidity theorem, so citing it is not a circular reduction. No parameter is fitted and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of itself. The one place a reader might worry, Section 3.6, asserts that ω(g_p)ω(g_s) lies in the crossed tensor V(ω_{i_p,j_s})⊗V(ω_{i_s,j_p}) "by (1.2)"; even if that assertion is insufficiently justified, it is a possible gap in the proof rather than a circular identification of the conclusion with an input. Hence the correct finding is no significant circularity; the score of 2 records the presence of one self-citation in an auxiliary lemma, not a circular dependency.

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

The central claim depends on no fitted constants: q is an arbitrary non-zero non-root-of-unity complex parameter fixed by the algebra. Intervals and maps τ_{m,ℓ} are defined by deterministic combinatorial rules, and the closed sets \bar{s}[n] are computed, not chosen. No numbers are tuned to make the theorems true. The axioms listed are established external results or explicit genericity assumptions, with the self-cited Lemma 3.5 called out separately.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption q is a non-zero complex number and is not a root of unity.
Stated in Section 1.1; the representation theory of \hat U_n used throughout is developed under this genericity assumption.
domain assumption Finite-dimensional irreducible \hat U_n-modules are parameterized by a free abelian monoid with generators Ξ_{m,a}, and Weyl modules W(ω) exist with unique irreducible quotient V(ω).
From [5,6,7], used in Section 1.2 to set up the category and the ℓ-highest weight formalism.
domain assumption The Grothendieck ring of F_n is commutative with basis given by simple classes, and character equality forces equality of ℓ-weight spaces and multiplicities, equations (1.1)-(1.2).
From [10], used in Sections 3.6 and 4.2.2 to reduce ℓ-weight computations to tensor products of fundamental modules.
domain assumption Proposition 3.2: under the stated sum-of-endpoints inequality for connected pairs, W(ω_s) is isomorphic to the tensor product of fundamental modules, and if no pairs are connected then W(ω) is simple.
From [3] and [20], used throughout the inductive proofs in Sections 3.3, 4.2.3, and 5.2.
domain assumption Proposition 3.4(i): the ℓ-weights of a fundamental module V(ω_{i,j}) are exactly the path products ω(g), g in P_{i,j}, with ω(g) dominant if and only if ω(g)=ω_{i,j}.
From [19, Theorem 6.1], invoked in Section 3.6; load-bearing for Theorem 1(ii).
domain assumption Lemma 3.5: for i_1+j_1 > i_2+j_2, [i_1,j_1] belongs to c^-_{i_2,j_2} if and only if ([i_1,j_1],[i_2,j_2]) is connected.
Cited to [1], an arXiv preprint by the same authors; used in the contradiction step of Section 3.6.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On dominant $\ell$--weights and maps between Weyl modules for quantum affine $A_n$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3QGZEEH

@misc{pith2026250419313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On dominant $\ell$--weights and maps between Weyl modules for quantum affine $A_n$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3QGZEEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19313}
}

abstract

We determine the set of dominant $\ell$--weights in the Weyl (or standard) modules for quantum affine $A_n$. We then prove that the space of homomorphisms between standard modules is at most one-dimensional and give a necessary and sufficient condition for equality to hold. We also describe the socle of the standard module and prove that the socle is simple for large $n$. Finally, we give applications of our results to mixed Weyl modules, calculating extensions in the category and identify new families of tensor subcategories of finite dimensional representations.

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

On representations of quantum affine $\mathfrak{sl}_2$
math.QA 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

For words built from two-dimensional evaluation modules of quantum affine sl2, the number of trivial submodules is bounded by irreducible and steady arc configuration counts and is nonzero exactly when an arc configur...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[19]

Evgeny Mukhin and Charles A. S. Young, Path description of type B q -characters, Advances in Mathe- matics 231 (2012), 1119–1150

work page 2012
[1]

Matheus Brito and Vyjayanthi Chari, Alternating snake modules and a determinantal formula , arXiv:2412.03750

work page Pith review arXiv
[11]

Andrei Grigorev and Evgeny Mukhin, On representations of quantum aﬃne sl2, in preparation

work page
[2]

Vyjayanthi Chari, On the fermionic formula and the Kirillov-Reshetikhin conj ecture, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (2001), no. 12, 629–654. MR 1836791 (2002i:17019) [3] , Braid group actions and tensor products , Int. Math. Res. Not. (2002), no. 7, 357–382. MR 1883181 DOMINANT ℓ–WEIGHTS AND MAPS BETWEEN WEYL MODULES FOR ˆUq(sln+1) 21

work page 2001
[4]

Vyjayanthi Chari and Sergei Loktev, Weyl, Demazure and fusion modules for the current algebra of slr+1, Adv. Math. 207 (2006), no. 2, 928–960. MR 2271991 (2008a:17029)

work page 2006
[5]

Vyjayanthi Chari and Andrew Pressley, Quantum aﬃne algebras , Comm. Math. Phys. 142 (1991), no. 2, 261–283. MR 1137064

work page 1991
[6]

Proc., vol

, Quantum aﬃne algebras and their representations , Representations of groups (Banﬀ, AB, 1994), CMS Conf. Proc., vol. 16, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1 995, pp. 59–78. MR 1357195 (96j:17009)

work page 1994
[7]

Theory 5 (2001), 191–223 (electronic)

, Weyl modules for classical and quantum aﬃne algebras , Represent. Theory 5 (2001), 191–223 (electronic). MR 1850556 (2002g:17027)

work page 2001

Show all 19 references

[8]

Ghislain Fourier and Peter Littelmann, Weyl modules, Demazure modules, KR-modules, crystals, fus ion products and limit constructions , Adv. Math. 211 (2007), no. 2, 566–593. MR 2323538 (2008k:17005)

2007
[9]

1, 23–57

Edward Frenkel and Evgeny Mukhin, Combinatorics of q-characters of ﬁnite-dimensional repre sentations of quantum aﬃne algebras , Communications in Mathematical Physics 216 (2001), no. 1, 23–57

2001
[10]

Math., vol

Edward Frenkel and Nicolai Reshetikhin, The q-characters of representations of quantum aﬃne algebras an d deformations of W-algebras, Recent developments in quantum aﬃne algebras and related t opics (Raleigh, NC, 1998), Contemp. Math., vol. 248, Amer. Math. Soc., Provi dence, ...

1998
[12]

Maxim Gurevich, On the hecke-algebraic approach for general linear groups o ver a p-adic ﬁeld , Interactions of Quantum Aﬃne Algebras with Cluster Algebras, Current Alg ebras and Categoriﬁcation, in honor of Vyjayanthi Chari, Progress in Mathematics 337, 2021

2021
[13]

David Hernandez and Bernard Leclerc, Cluster algebras and quantum aﬃne algebras , Duke Math. J. 154 (2010), no. 2, 265–341. MR 2682185

2010
[14]

, A cluster algebra approach to q-characters of Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules , Journal of the European Mathematical Society 18 (2013)

2013
[15]

5, 1039–1077

Masaki Kashiwara, Myungho Kim, Se-jin Oh, and Euiyong P ark, Monoidal categoriﬁcation and quantum aﬃne algebras , Compositio Mathematica 156 (2020), no. 5, 1039–1077

2020
[16]

3, 301–372 (English)

Masaki Kashiwara, Myungho Kim, Se jin Oh, and Euiyong Pa rk, Cluster algebra structures on module categories over quantum aﬃne algebras , Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 124 (2022), no. 3, 301–372 (English)

2022
[17]

Erez Lapid and Alberto M ´ ınguez,On a determinantal formula of Tadi´ c, American Journal of Mathematics 136 (2014), 111–142

2014
[18]

, Geometric conditions for □ -irreducibility of certain representations of the general linear group over a non-archimedean local ﬁeld , Advances in Mathematics 339 (2018), 113–190

2018
[20]

Varagnolo and E

M. Varagnolo and E. Vasserot, Standard modules of quantum aﬃne algebras , Duke Math. J. 111 (2002), no. 3, 509–533. MR 1885830 Departamento de Matematica, UFPR, Curitiba - PR - Brazil, 81 530-015 Email address : mbrito@ufpr.br Department of Mathematics, University of Californi...

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

Evgeny Mukhin and Charles A. S. Young, Path description of type B q -characters, Advances in Mathe- matics 231 (2012), 1119–1150

work page 2012

[2] [1]

Matheus Brito and Vyjayanthi Chari, Alternating snake modules and a determinantal formula , arXiv:2412.03750

work page Pith review arXiv

[3] [11]

Andrei Grigorev and Evgeny Mukhin, On representations of quantum aﬃne sl2, in preparation

work page

[4] [2]

Vyjayanthi Chari, On the fermionic formula and the Kirillov-Reshetikhin conj ecture, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (2001), no. 12, 629–654. MR 1836791 (2002i:17019) [3] , Braid group actions and tensor products , Int. Math. Res. Not. (2002), no. 7, 357–382. MR 1883181 DOMINANT ℓ–WEIGHTS AND MAPS BETWEEN WEYL MODULES FOR ˆUq(sln+1) 21

work page 2001

[5] [4]

Vyjayanthi Chari and Sergei Loktev, Weyl, Demazure and fusion modules for the current algebra of slr+1, Adv. Math. 207 (2006), no. 2, 928–960. MR 2271991 (2008a:17029)

work page 2006

[6] [5]

Vyjayanthi Chari and Andrew Pressley, Quantum aﬃne algebras , Comm. Math. Phys. 142 (1991), no. 2, 261–283. MR 1137064

work page 1991

[7] [6]

Proc., vol

, Quantum aﬃne algebras and their representations , Representations of groups (Banﬀ, AB, 1994), CMS Conf. Proc., vol. 16, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1 995, pp. 59–78. MR 1357195 (96j:17009)

work page 1994

[8] [7]

Theory 5 (2001), 191–223 (electronic)

, Weyl modules for classical and quantum aﬃne algebras , Represent. Theory 5 (2001), 191–223 (electronic). MR 1850556 (2002g:17027)

work page 2001