Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

A Kohno--Drinfeld Theorem for iquantum Weyl groups

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The boundary Casimir connection and the iota-quantum Weyl group give isomorphic braid group representations for the split symmetric pair $(so_m⊂sl_m)$.

desk verdict A credible proof of a known conjecture in a special case, with one fixable but load-bearing gap in the reduction from the spin fiber to arbitrary modules. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06473 v1 pith:QL4XYLHR submitted 2026-08-06 math.QA math.AGmath.RT

Elijah Bodish , Ivan Motorin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.QAmath.AGmath.RT MSC 17B3720F3681R50
keywords boundaryCasimirconnectioniota-quantumWeylgroupspinHowedualitybraidrepresentationsKohno-DrinfeldtheoremsymmetricpairsquantumgroupsCliffordalgebra
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 establishes a boundary analogue of the Kohno–Drinfeld theorem: for the split symmetric pair $(so_m⊂sl_m)$, the monodromy of the boundary Casimir connection on an integrable module is isomorphic to the braid group representation produced by the iota-quantum Weyl group. The proof works for generic values of the deformation parameter $h$, and also at $h=0$. This makes the geometry of a flat connection on a hyperplane complement carry exactly the same braid group data as a quantum group symmetry, confirming Conjecture 1.1 in this class of cases. The argument uses $(O_m, so_{2n})$ spin Howe duality and the classical Kohno–Drinfeld theorem to transfer a known statement for the Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov connection to the boundary Casimir connection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin module $S$ of the Clifford algebra $Cl(2n)$, viewed as a representation of $so_{2n}$ with a commuting action of $O_m$: this is classical spin Howe duality. On $S ≅ S^{⊗m}$, the paper uses an operator identity relating the KZ connection to the boundary Casimir connection (Proposition 3.25), and the quantum analogue in which $U_{2h}(so_{2n})$ and $U^ι_{2h+πi}(O_m)$ centralize each other (Theorem 5.17). The decisive computation (Theorem 6.3) identifies the $R$-matrix of the spin module with $q^{n/2}$ times the iota-quantum Weyl group generator. A Drinfeld twist from the Kohno–Drinfeld theorem converts KZ monodromy into the $R$-matrix action, and this chain produces the desired isomorphism.

What would settle it

For the defining three-dimensional module of $so_3$ at $h=0$, compare the explicit matrices assigned to the braid word $σ_1σ_2$ by the two constructions: the boundary Casimir monodromy uses the product of $e^{(π/2)b_1}$ and $e^{(π/2)b_2}$, while the iota-quantum Weyl group product uses the $h=0$ limit of the generators from the paper. The theorem predicts the two representations are isomorphic, so a computed mismatch in traces, determinants, or conjugacy for any small module would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any finite-dimensional irreducible integrable module $M$ of $k=so_m$ inside $g=sl_m$, the paper proves an isomorphism of braid group representations $π^h_{bCas,k⊂g} ≅ π^{2πih}_{bW,k⊂g}$, where the left side is the monodromy of the boundary Casimir connection and the right side is obtained by letting the iota-quantum Weyl group generators act on $M$ as a module for the corresponding iota-quantum group. The isomorphism holds for generic $h$ and at $h=0$. The proof embeds $M$ into the spin module $S$ over $so_{2n}$, where quantum spin Howe duality makes the $R$-matrix of the spin representation and the iota-quantum Weyl group generator the same operator up to a scalar, and then transports the classical relation between the KZ and boundary Casimir connections through the Kohno–Drinfeld theorem.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on an external theorem that the monodromy of the KZ connection can be conjugated by a change of basis to the quantum group R-matrix action, and that this change of basis respects both the parity grading and the projection operators that select individual $so_m$-modules; if no such change of basis exists, the chain of isomorphisms in the proof breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conjecture 1.1 is established for every split symmetric pair $(so_m⊂sl_m)$, giving the boundary Casimir connection a monodromic description by iota-quantum Weyl groups in these cases.
  • The braid group representation coming from the boundary connection carries the same spectral and invariant-theoretic content as the spin $R$-matrix representation, so invariants built from either side can be computed through the other.
  • Because the isomorphism holds at $h=0$, the classical limit of the iota-quantum Weyl group action reproduces the monodromy of the boundary Casimir connection at zero parameter, where the monodromy is given by the exponentials of the elements $b_α$.
  • The spin Howe duality embedding provides explicit singular vectors in $S^{⊗2}$, giving a combinatorial template for computing both the monodromy and the iota-quantum Weyl group action on irreducible $so_m$-modules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same comparison should be feasible for nonclassical modules and for quasi-split symmetric pairs once a boundary Casimir connection is defined there, because the only genuinely pair-specific ingredient is the spin-module computation matching the $R$-matrix with the iota-quantum Weyl group generator.
  • Editorial extension: the operator identity $R_{S,S} = q^{n/2} ιT$ suggests a braided category-level statement in which boundary Casimir monodromy is a boundary $R$-matrix; such a functorial statement is not constructed in the paper but could be tested by checking compatibility with tensor products.
  • Editorial extension: the $h=0$ case provides a sharp low-cost test of the whole chain of twists, since at $h=0$ the boundary Casimir monodromy is just the braid action through exponentials of the $b_α$ and the iota-quantum Weyl group action should reduce to the same classical orthogonal reflection action.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proves a Kohno–Drinfeld-type theorem for the boundary Casimir connection in the split symmetric pair case k=so_m⊂sl_m. The authors show that for any finite-dimensional irreducible integrable so_m-module M, the monodromy representation π^h_{bCas} of the boundary Casimir connection on M is isomorphic, for generic h and at h=0, to the braid group representation π^{2πih}_{bW} obtained from the iota-quantum Weyl group action on M. The proof follows Toledano Laredo's strategy: the boundary Casimir connection is related to the KZ connection via classical (O_m, so_{2n}) spin Howe duality, the Kohno–Drinfeld theorem identifies KZ monodromy with the R-matrix of U_{2h}(so_{2n}), and quantum spin Howe duality together with explicit scalar computations identify the R-matrix with the iota-quantum Weyl group generator. The final reduction to arbitrary so_m-modules uses a holomorphic deformation of idempotents.

Significance. If correct, this resolves Conjecture 1.1 for the pair (so_m, sl_m), extending Toledano Laredo's Kohno–Drinfeld theorem for quantum Weyl groups to the iota-quantum setting. The paper is well organized; the explicit computations in Propositions 5.10, 6.1, and 6.2 are detailed and self-contained, and the dependence on external results (the KZ/Kazhdan–Lusztig equivalence, Wenzl's quantum Howe duality, and the Iorgov–Klimyk classification) is clearly identified. There is no circularity: the monodromy representation and the iota-quantum Weyl group representation are defined independently. However, a load-bearing compatibility statement about the Drinfeld twist and the Howe-duality projectors is asserted rather than proved, and there is a sign inconsistency in the proof of Lemma 6.4. These issues are localized and likely fixable, but they currently leave the central comparison incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7, proof of Theorem 7.1, paragraph after Eq. (7.3)] The assertion that F^{(m)}_{2h} e_0 (F^{(m)}_{2h})^{-1} is the quantum isotypic projector for V^{so_{2n}}_{2h,\lambda^\top} is the load-bearing step in reducing from the spin fiber S to an arbitrary so_m-module. The only stated property of F^{(m)}_{2h} is that it commutes with the (Z/2)^m grading, which does not by itself identify the image of the conjugated classical projector with the isotypic component in Wenzl's decomposition (5.14). The authors should either prove that the Drinfeld twist intertwines the classical and quantum projectors (for example, by using naturality of the twist and the correspondence of simple objects under the Kazhdan–Lusztig/Kohno–Drinfeld equivalence) or cite a theorem that directly establishes compatibility of the Kohno–Drinfeld equivalence with the (so_{2n},O_m) Howe duality. Without this, the restricted monodromy could be compared with the wrong quantum isotypic representation.
  2. [Lemma 6.4 and Appendix A.5] The displayed computation for the odd part concludes e^{\pi i E_{1,1}} \iota T^{-1}_{1,Q}(C) = -\iota T^{-1}_{1,q^2}(\tilde C), but the following line asserts that the same quantity equals +\iota T^{-1}_{1,q^2}(\tilde C). The chain of equalities in Appendix A.5 is internally inconsistent unless an additional sign identity or branch choice is supplied. Since Lemma 6.4 is used in Theorem 7.1 to replace \iota T(C) by \iota T(\tilde C) in the comparison with the R-matrix representation, this sign must be resolved.
  3. [§7, final reduction to arbitrary so_m-modules] The holomorphic deformation argument at the end of Theorem 7.1 is only sketched. The authors state that the family End_{U^\iota_{2h}(so_m)}(F^{(m)}_{2h} e'_0 (F^{(m)}_{2h})^{-1} S) is commutative and 1- or 2-dimensional, and that an idempotent \tilde e can locally be chosen holomorphically in h, but no argument or reference is given for the existence of such an idempotent or for the independence of the resulting representation. This step is needed to pass from O_m-isotypic components to irreducible so_m-modules for all generic h and for h=0.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 7.1 statement and abstract] The parameters for the iota-quantum Weyl group representation are inconsistent: the theorem statement defines \pi^{2h}_{bW}, while the abstract and the conclusion use \pi^{2\pi i h}_{bW}. Please harmonize the notation.
  2. [Definition 5.18, Eq. (5.15)] In the definition of \tilde C, the index i is used both for the tensor factor and as the summation index in \sum_{i=1}^n; renaming the summation index would avoid confusion.
  3. [Remark 4.13] The extension of the Drinfeld twist F_h to S^{\otimes m}, denoted F^{(m)}_h, is described informally. Please specify the coherence data (pentagon/hexagon) or state explicitly that the standard associator properties of the Drinfeld twist are being invoked.
  4. [Appendix A.4] The induction in the proof of Proposition 6.2 is carried out for k ≥ 0, and the extension to negative k is delegated to the reader. Since the proposition is stated for all k, the negative-k check should be included or the statement should be restricted to the range actually used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the monodromy comparison is built from independent external theorems and direct computations.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Theorem 7.1 does not define either representation in terms of the other. The boundary Casimir monodromy is reduced to KZ monodromy by the Clifford-algebra identity (Proposition 3.25 / Corollary 3.28), which is proved by a direct computation and does not assume the iota-quantum Weyl group result. The KZ monodromy is then identified with the R-matrix representation via the external Kohno–Drinfeld equivalence (Theorem 4.12); the Drinfeld twist is constructed from associator data, not from the target monodromy. Theorem 6.3 identifies the R-matrix on S⊗2 with the iota-quantum Weyl group generator by separate eigenvalue computations (Propositions 5.10, 6.1, 6.2); the iota-quantum Weyl group generator is defined by divided powers of the coideal generators, not by the boundary Casimir monodromy. The main unproved point is the sentence in Section 7 that F^{(m)}_{2h}e_0(F^{(m)}_{2h})^{-1} is the quantum Howe duality projector; this is a genuine correctness gap, because it does not follow from the preceding statement that F^{(m)}_{2h} commutes with the (Z/2)^m grading, but it is not circular, since the conclusion is not assumed in that premise and no fitted parameter or renamed monodromy is involved. Self-citations to [8] and [6,7] supply the conjecture and some Clifford-duality infrastructure, but the load-bearing Kohno–Drinfeld theorem and Wenzl's duality are external, and the paper reproduces the key Clifford computation as a proof sketch. The paper is therefore not circular; the skeptical concern should be evaluated as a proof gap under correctness, not as circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. It relies on deep external theorems (Kohno-Drinfeld, Howe duality, quantum symmetric pair classification) which are standard in the field and explicitly cited. The load-bearing assumptions are these external theorems and the claimed holomorphic properties of the Drinfeld twist.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Kohno-Drinfeld theorem (Theorem 4.12) provides an equivalence between the monodromy of the KZ connection and the R-matrix representation of U_q(g).
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 7.1 to replace π^{2h}_{KZ} with π^{2πih}_{R,so_{2n}}, a load-bearing step in the isomorphism chain.
  • domain assumption Wenzl's quantum spin Howe duality (Theorem 5.17) gives the double centralizer decomposition of S under (U_{2h}(so_{2n}), U^ι_{2h+πi}(O_m)).
    Used to restrict connections and braid group actions to isotypic components and to identify commuting actions.
  • domain assumption Iorgov-Klimyk classification (Lemma 4.25) gives U^ι_h-module structures on irreducible so_m-modules.
    Needed to define the iota-quantum Weyl group representation on the arbitrary integrable module M.
  • domain assumption Classical spin Howe duality (Theorem 3.20) and Proposition 3.25 relate the KZ connection to the boundary Casimir connection.
    Establishes the initial bridge (7.1) between the two connections, a necessary step for the whole proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Kohno--Drinfeld Theorem for iquantum Weyl groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QL4XYLHR

@misc{pith2026260806473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Kohno--Drinfeld Theorem for iquantum Weyl groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QL4XYLHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06473}
}
abstract

We prove that two finite-dimensional linear representations of the braid group are isomorphic. One representation comes from the monodromy of the boundary Casimir connection, and the other comes from the $\iota$quantum Weyl group. Both representations are defined for any split symmetric pair $\mathfrak{k}\subset \mathfrak{g}$ and for any integrable representation of $\mathfrak{k}$. Our proof uses $(O_m,\mathfrak{so}_{2n})$ spin Howe duality, so it is only for the pair $\mathfrak{so}_m\subset \mathfrak{sl}_m$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. to the diagram in [33, §1]. π h bCas : BrSm → GL(M) π 2h KZ,so2n : BrSm → GL(S ⊗m) π 2πih R,so2n : BrSm → GL(S ⊗m) π 2πih bW : BrSm → GL(M) (Om, so2n) spin Howe duality Kohno–Drinfeld quantum spin Howe duality q n/2 ιT = RS,S π h bCas ∼= π 2πih bW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Skew Howe duality for Types $\mathbf{BD}$ via $q$-Clifford algebras

    W. Aboumrad. Skew Howe duality for typesBDviaq-Clifford algebras, 2022.arXiv:2208.09773

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Appel and V

    A. Appel and V. Toledano Laredo. Coxeter categories and quantum groups.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 25(3):Paper No. 44, 97, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Appel and V

    A. Appel and V. Toledano Laredo. Monodromy of the Casimir connection of a symmetrisable Kac-Moody algebra. Invent. Math., 236(2):549–672, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    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

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    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

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bodish, B

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

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Type $B$ Webs

    E. Bodish, B. Elias, and D. E. V. Rose. TypeBwebs, 2026.arXiv:2607.13252

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    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

    work page 2025

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Brieskorn

    E. Brieskorn. Die Fundamentalgruppe des Raumes der regul¨ aren Orbits einer endlichen komplexen Spiegelungs- gruppe.Invent. Math., 12:57–61, 1971

    1971

  2. [10]

    S. Cautis. Clasp technology to knot homology via the affine Grassmannian.Math. Ann., 363(3-4):1053–1115, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Chari and A

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

    1994

  4. [12]

    X. Chen, M. Lu, and W. Wang. A Serre presentation for theıquantum groups.Transform. Groups, 26(3):827–857, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Cheng and W

    S.-J. Cheng and W. Wang.Dualities and representations of Lie superalgebras, volume 144 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/144

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Danilenko

    I. Danilenko. Stable envelopes for slices of the affine Grassmannian.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 30(4):Paper No. 73, 77, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Dobson and S

    L. Dobson and S. Kolb. Factorisation of quasiK-matrices for quantum symmetric pairs.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 25(4):Paper No. 63, 55, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    V. G. Drinfeld. Quasi-Hopf algebras.Algebra i Analiz, 1(6):114–148, 1989

    1989

  9. [17]

    Enriquez

    B. Enriquez. Quasi-reflection algebras and cyclotomic associators.Selecta Math. (N.S.), 13(3):391–463, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    Etingof, I

    P. Etingof, I. Motorin, A. Varchenko, and I. Zhu. Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations in Deligne Categories.Comm. Math. Phys., 407(6):Paper No. 116, 23, 2026

    2026

  11. [19]

    Felder, Y

    G. Felder, Y. Markov, V. Tarasov, and A. Varchenko. Differential equations compatible with KZ equations.Math. Phys. Anal. Geom., 3(2):139–177, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    Fulton and J

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

    2004

  13. [21]

    Gautam and V

    S. Gautam and V. Toledano Laredo. Monodromy of the trigonometric Casimir connection forsl2. InNoncommutative birational geometry, representations and combinatorics, volume 592 ofContemp. Math., pages 137–176. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    R. Howe. Perspectives on invariant theory: Schur duality, multiplicity-free actions and beyond. InThe Schur lectures (1992) (Tel Aviv), volume 8 ofIsrael Math. Conf. Proc. Bar-Ilan Univ., Ramat Gan, pages 1–182, 1995

    1992

  15. [23]

    Humphreys.Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory, volume 9 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics

    J.E. Humphreys.Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory, volume 9 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1972. 31

    1972

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Jantzen.Lectures on Quantum Groups, volume 6 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics

    J.C. Jantzen.Lectures on Quantum Groups, volume 6 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, first edition, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    Kamnitzer and P

    J. Kamnitzer and P. Tingley. The crystal commutor and Drinfeld’s unitarizedR-matrix.J. Algebraic Combin., 29(3):315–335, 2009. arXiv:0707.2248

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kirillov and N

    A.N. Kirillov and N. Reshetikhin.q-Weyl group and a multiplicative formula for universalR-matrices.Comm. Math. Phys., 134(2):421–431, 1990

    1990

  20. [28]

    Knizhnik and A

    V. Knizhnik and A. Zamolodchikov. Current algebra and Wess-Zumino model in two dimensions.Nuclear Phys. B, 247(1):83–103, 1984

    1984

  21. [29]

    T. Kohno. Integrable connections related to Manin and Schechtman’s higher braid groups.Illinois J. Math., 34(2):476–484, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    Kohno.Quantized universal enveloping algebras and monodromy of braid groups

    T. Kohno.Quantized universal enveloping algebras and monodromy of braid groups. PhD thesis, Nagoya University,

  23. [31]

    S. Kolb. Quantum symmetric Kac-Moody pairs.Adv. Math., 267:395–469, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Toledano Laredo

    V. Toledano Laredo. Flat connections and quantum groups. volume 73, pages 155–173. 2002. The 2000 Twente Conference on Lie Groups (Enschede)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Toledano Laredo

    V. Toledano Laredo. A Kohno-Drinfeld theorem for quantum Weyl groups.Duke Math. J., 112(3):421–451, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Toledano Laredo

    V. Toledano Laredo. The trigonometric Casimir connection of a simple Lie algebra.J. Algebra, 329:286–327, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Toledano Laredo

    V. Toledano Laredo. Quasi-Coxeter quasitriangular quasibialgebras and the Casimir connection, 2016. arXiv:1601.04076

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Levendorskii and Y

    S. Levendorskii and Y. Soibelman. The quantum Weyl group and a multiplicative formula for theR-matrix of a simple Lie algebra.Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen., 25(2):73–76, 1991

    1991

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    Maulik and A

    D. Maulik and A. Okounkov. Quantum groups and quantum cohomology.Ast´ erisque, (408):ix+209, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    McNamara and A

    P. McNamara and A. Savage. The spin Brauer category.Forum Math. Sigma, 12:Paper No. e98, 50, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    McNamara and A

    P. McNamara and A. Savage. The quantum spin Brauer category, 2025.arXiv:2504.16618

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Neshveyev and L

    S. Neshveyev and L. Tuset. Notes on the Kazhdan–Lusztig theorem on equivalence of the Drinfeld category and the category ofU q(g)-modules.Algebras and Representation Theory, 14:897–948, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Schechtman and A

    V. Schechtman and A. Varchenko. Arrangements of hyperplanes and Lie algebra homology.Invent. Math., 106(1):139–194, 1991

    1991

  35. [43]

    W. Wang. Quantum symmetric pairs. InProceedings of ICM, volume 4, pages 3080–3102, Berlin, 2023. EMS Press. arXiv:2112.10911

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wang and W

    W. Wang and W. Zhang. Relative braid group symmetries on modified iquantum groups and their modules, 2025. arXiv:2508.12041

    2025

  37. [45]

    Watanabe

    H. Watanabe. Based modules over theıquantum group of type AI.Math. Z., 303(2):Paper No. 43, 73, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

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

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhang.Relative braid group symmetries onιquantum groups

    W. Zhang.Relative braid group symmetries onιquantum groups. PhD thesis, University of Virginia, March 2023. Available athttps://doi.org/10.18130/hn08-4h31

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    W. Zhang. Quantum Howe duality and Schur duality of type AIII.Math. Z., 312(2):Paper No. 53, 33, 2026. Department of Mathematics, Indiana University Bloomington, Rawles Hall, Bloomington, IN 47405-47405- 7000, USA Email address:ebodish@iu.edu Department of Mathematics, Massach...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.