Resolving Irreducible $\mathbb{C}S_n$-Modules by Modules Restricted from $GL_n(\mathbb{C})$
Christopher Ryba

TL;DR
This paper constructs a resolution of irreducible complex representations of the symmetric group by restricting representations from the general linear group, providing a categorification of recent results and minimal resolutions of simple modules.
Contribution
It introduces a new method to resolve irreducible $S_n$-modules via restrictions from $GL_n(C)$, linking representation theory of symmetric groups and general linear groups.
Findings
Constructed explicit resolutions of irreducible $S_n$-modules
Categorifies recent combinatorial results of Assaf and Speyer
Provides minimal resolutions of simple modules in the category of finite sets
Abstract
We construct a resolution of irreducible complex representations of the symmetric group by restrictions of representations of (where is the subgroup of permutation matrices). This categorifies a recent result of Assaf and Speyer. Our construction also gives minimal resolutions of simple -modules (here is the category of finite sets).
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Algebra and Geometry · Algebraic structures and combinatorial models · Homotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Resolving Irreducible -Modules by Modules Restricted from
Christopher Ryba
Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Abstract.
We construct a resolution of irreducible complex representations of the symmetric group by restrictions of representations of (where is the subgroup of permutation matrices). This categorifies a recent result of Assaf and Speyer. Our construction also gives minimal resolutions of simple -modules (here is the category of finite sets).
1. Introduction
The symmetric group may be viewed as the subgroup of the general linear group consisting of permutation matrices. We may therefore consider the restriction to of irreducible representations. Let denote the irreducible representation of indexed by the partition (so necessarily is the size of ). Let denote the Schur functor associated to a partition , so that is an irreducible representation of , provided that . Let us write for the image of a module in the Grothendieck ring of -modules. Thus, the restriction multiplicities are defined via
[TABLE]
Although a positive combinatorial formula for the restriction multiplicities is not currently known, there is an expression using plethysm of symmetric functions (see [Mac95] Chapter 1 Section 8 for background about plethysm). Let us write for the Schur functions (indexed by partitions ). The complete symmetric functions, , are the Schur functions indexed by the one-part partitions . We recall the Schur functions form an orthonormal basis of the ring of symmetric functions with respect to the usual inner product, denoted (see [Mac95] Chapter 1 Section 4). Let denote the plethysm of a symmetric function with another symmetric function . Then,
[TABLE]
see [Gay76] or Exercise 7.74 of [SF97]. We will need to consider the Lyndon symmetric function,
[TABLE]
where is the Möbius function and is the -th power-sum symmetric function. It is important for us that is the character of the degree components of the free Lie algebra on (see the first proof of Theorem 8.1 of [Reu93], which proves this to deduce a related result). For convenience we define the total Lyndon symmetric function ; this is the character of the (whole) free Lie algebra on .
Instead of asking for the restriction coefficients , we may ask the inverse question: how can one express in terms of ? This question was recently answered by Assaf and Speyer in [AS18]. For a partition of any size, let denote (a partition of provided that ). Assaf and Speyer showed
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
The notation means that the diagram of may be obtained from the diagram of by adding boxes, no two in the same row, and primes indicate dual partitions.
It is more convenient to work with
[TABLE]
which decompose into the irreducible via the Pieri rule:
[TABLE]
Here, means that the diagram of may be obtained from the diagram of by adding boxes, no two in the same column. The formula for is equivalent to the following statement (see Theorem 3 and Proposition 5 of [AS18]):
[TABLE]
The purpose of this note is to give a a categorification of this answer, namely a (minimal) resolution of by restrictions of ; this is accomplished in Theorem 3.2. Along the way, this explains the presence of the character of the free Lie algebra in the formula, and constructs projective resolutions in the category of -modules (over ) introduced by Wiltshire-Gordon in [WG14].
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Gurbir Dhillon for helpful comments on this paper.
2. The Resolution
We begin by calculating the cohomology of the free Lie algebra on a fixed vector space. Although this result is very well known, it is instrumental in what follows, so we include it for completeness.
Let be the free Lie algebra on . Then is again a Lie algebra. It has an action of by permuting the summands, coming from an action of that does not respect the Lie algebra structure. We consider the Lie algebra cohomology of (with coefficients in the trivial module).
Recall that the Lie algebra cohomology is . We first consider the case for , so . Now is just the tensor algebra of , which we denote . We therefore have a (graded) free resolution
[TABLE]
Here, (product in ), while simply projects onto the degree zero component. Crucially, acts by automorphisms on (which was the free Lie algebra on ), and the above complex is equivariant for this action. The Lie algebra cohomology is given by the cohomology of the complex
[TABLE]
We easily see the differential is zero because any element of is zero on a positive degree element of , but the image of is contained in degrees greater than or equal to . We thus conclude that , and , with all higher cohomology vanishing. Next, we obtain the Lie algebra cohomology of .
Proposition 2.1**.**
For :
[TABLE]
where is the sign representation of , and is the trivial representation of . Further, for , the cohomology vanishes.
Proof.
We apply the Künneth theorem in an -equivariant way. The sign representation arises because of the Koszul sign rule (cohomology is only graded commutative). ∎
Now let us compute the Lie algebra cohomology of using the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex [Wei95]. Recall that the -th cochain group is
[TABLE]
and the differential is given by the formula
[TABLE]
where hats indicate omitted arguments. This differential is -equivariant and homogeneous in terms of the grading on (the grading corresponds to the action of ).
Note that is graded in strictly positive degrees. As an algebraic representation of , the -th cochain group,
[TABLE]
is contained in degrees . This means that if we are interested only in the degree component of the cohomology, we may truncate the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex after steps. Thus, if we write a subscript to indicate the degree component of an representation, we obtain the following.
Proposition 2.2**.**
The complex (with differential inherited from the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex)
[TABLE]
has cohomology on the far left, and zero elsewhere.
3. Resolving the -modules
Let us take the multiplicity space of the -irreducible .
Proposition 3.1**.**
The multiplicity space in the cohomology is
[TABLE]
Proof.
We apply Schur-Weyl duality to Proposition 2.1, noting that :
[TABLE]
Hence, the multiplicity space is . ∎
Because the complex we constructed in Proposition 2.2 is equivariant, taking cohomology commutes with taking the multiplicity space. We immediately obtain the following.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Consider the complex of representations
[TABLE]
for with maps induced by the differential of the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex. This is a resolution of by representations restricted from .
Proof.
This is immediate from Proposition 3.1 and Proposition 2.2. ∎
Should we wish to resolve the irreducible , rather than , we simply take so that .
We now take the Euler characteristic of our complex, viewed as an element of the Grothendieck ring of -modules tensored with the Grothendeick ring of -modules; we view the latter as the ring of symmetric functions. In the language of symmetric functions, the Schur function corresponds to the irreducible representation (strictly speaking, we must quotient out for with more parts than , but this will never be an issue). We express the cohomology groups in terms of symmetric functions; as in the proof of Proposition 3.1, Schur-Weyl duality gives
[TABLE]
Letting and passing to Grothendieck rings, this becomes , where a Schur function indicates a representation of (the inverted variables account for the dualised space ). Calculating the Euler characteristic directly from the cochain groups, we consider the -th exterior power of ,
[TABLE]
which gives . The actual chain groups are the duals of these exterior powers, so we replace the symmetric function variables with their inverses . When we introduce a factor of from the signs in the Euler characteristic, we obtain
[TABLE]
Thus the coefficient of in is the coefficient of in , which gives us
[TABLE]
This provides an alternative proof the formula from [AS18] for expressing the irreducible representation of in terms of restrictions . This construction addresses a remark of Assaf and Speyer by explaining the presence of the character of the free Lie algebra (namely, ) in the formula.
4. Application to -modules
Let denote the category of finite sets. An -module is a functor from to vector spaces over a fixed field. These were introduced in [WG14], and their homological algebra was studied over . An -module consists of a -module for each together with suitably compatible maps between them. (This is because the image of an -element set carries an action of .) When is a partition different from (i.e. not a single column), (considered for fixed but varying ) defines an irreducible -module, by demanding that an -element set in map to (see Theorem 5.5 of [WG14]). Furthermore, in this category, objects obtained by restricting to are projective (see Definition 4.8 and Proposition 4.12 of [WG14]). Our resolution (provided we replaces all instances of with ) therefore gives a projective resolution of these simple -modules . This resolution is in fact minimal (in the sense that each step in the projective resolution is as small as possible). This follows from the following two facts. Firstly, the -th term in the resolution of is a sum of with , which is a consequence of Equation 1. In particular, such a module with fixed can only appear in one step of the resolution. Secondly, a theorem of Littlewood (Theorem XI of [Lit58]), states that the restriction multiplicity is equal to if . Thus, are linearly independent elements of the Grothendieck ring of -modules, provided is sufficiently large. Furthermore, the should only occur in the resolution in order of decreasing (as in our resolution). Together with Observation 4.25 of [WG14], which provides a projective resolution of certain -modules (which can be thought of as substitutes for when ), we obtain minimal projective resolutions of all finitely-generated -modules over .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[AS 18] Sami H Assaf and David E Speyer. Specht modules decompose as alternating sums of restrictions of schur modules. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1809.10125 , 2018.
- 2[Gay 76] David A. Gay. Characters of weyl group of s u ( n ) 𝑠 𝑢 𝑛 su(n) on zero weight spaces and centralizers of permutation representations. Rocky Mountain J. Math. , 6(3):449–456, 09 1976.
- 3[Lit 58] DE Littlewood. Products and plethysms of characters with orthogonal, symplectic and symmetric groups. Canad. J. Math , 10:17–32, 1958.
- 4[Mac 95] I . G. Macdonald. Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials . Oxford mathematical monographs. Clarendon Press New York, Oxford, second edition, 1995.
- 5[Reu 93] C. Reutenauer. Free Lie Algebras . LMS monographs. Clarendon Press, 1993.
- 6[SF 97] R.P. Stanley and S. Fomin. Enumerative Combinatorics, Volume 2 . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
- 7[Wei 95] C.A. Weibel. An Introduction to Homological Algebra . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- 8[WG 14] John D Wiltshire-Gordon. Uniformly presented vector spaces. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1406.0786 , 2014.
