Rank-deficient representations in the Theta correspondence over finite fields arise from quantum codes
Felipe Montealegre-Mora, David Gross

TL;DR
This paper explores the decomposition of tensor power representations of symplectic groups over finite fields, revealing connections to quantum codes and orthogonal group representations, and extends classical duality results to a finite field setting.
Contribution
It demonstrates that rank-deficient components originate from embeddings related to quantum codes, generalizing Howe-Kashiwara-Vergne duality over finite fields.
Findings
Rank-deficient subrepresentations arise from quantum code embeddings.
Irreducible subrepresentations are labeled by orthogonal group irreps.
Results apply in odd characteristic and stable range t <= dim V/2.
Abstract
Let V be a symplectic vector space and let be the oscillator representation of Sp(V). It is natural to ask how the tensor power representation decomposes. If V is a real vector space, then Howe-Kashiwara-Vergne (HKV) duality asserts that there is a one-one correspondence between the irreducible subrepresentations of Sp(V) and the irreps of an orthogonal group O(t). It is well-known that this duality fails over finite fields. Addressing this situation, Gurevich and Howe have recently assigned a notion of rank to each Sp(V) representation. They show that a variant of HKV duality continues to hold over finite fields, if one restricts attention to subrepresentations of maximal rank. The nature of the rank-deficient components was left open. Here, we show that all rank-deficient Sp(V)-subrepresentations arise from embeddings of lower-order tensor products of and…
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.
††thanks: We thank Mateus Araujo, Markus Heinrich, Sepehr Nezami, and Michael Walter for interesting discussions. This work has been supported by the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments (Grant ZUK 81), the ARO under contract W911NF-14-1-0098 (Quantum Characterization, Verification, and Validation), and the DFG (SPP1798 CoSIP, project B01 of CRC 183).
Rank-deficient representations in the
Theta correspondence over finite fields
arise from quantum codes
Felipe Montealegre-Mora
David Gross
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Abstract
Let be a symplectic vector space and let be the oscillator representation of . It is natural to ask how the tensor power representation decomposes. If is a real vector space, then Howe-Kashiwara-Vergne (HKV) duality asserts that there is a one-one correspondence between the irreducible subrepresentations of and the irreps of an orthogonal group . It is well-known that this duality fails over finite fields. Addressing this situation, Gurevich and Howe have recently assigned a notion of rank to each representation. They show that a variant of HKV duality continues to hold over finite fields, if one restricts attention to subrepresentations of maximal rank. The nature of the rank-deficient components was left open. Here, we show that all rank-deficient -subrepresentations arise from embeddings of lower-order tensor products of and into . The embeddings live on spaces that have been studied in quantum information theory as tensor powers of self-orthogonal Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) quantum codes. We then find that the irreducible subrepresentations of are labelled by the irreps of orthogonal groups acting on certain -dimensional spaces for . The results hold in odd charachteristic and the “stable range” . Our work has implications for the representation theory of the Clifford group. It can be thought of as a generalization of the known characterization of the invariants of the Clifford group in terms of self-dual codes.
I Introduction and summary of results
The oscillator representation (also: Schrödinger, Weil, or metaplectic representation) is a representation of the symplectic group over a symplectic vector space . It appears in many contexts, including time-frequency analysis, coding theory, and quantum mechanics.
The starting point of this work is the natural question of how tensor powers decompose into irreducible representations.
One may reformulate this problem in a more geometric and slightly more general way Gurevich and Howe (2017). If is an orthogonal space, then is again symplectic. The tensor power is isomorphic to for a suitable -dimensional space (Corollary II.3). The symmetry group associated with the tensor factors embeds into . Clearly, the restriction of to commutes with the restriction to . One can thus decompose the representation into a direct sum
[TABLE]
where ranges over irreps of , and is a representation of . If is a real vector space, then HKV duality asserts that is again irreducible, and that the correspondence between representations is injective Howe (1989); Kashiwara and Vergne (1978). Over finite fields, the correspondence fails: is in general no longer irreducible, and equivalent representations might appear in for different ’s. Our goal is to understand this situation better.
The main part of this paper is presented in the basis-free notation set out in Ref. Gurevich and Howe (2017). For ease of exposition, we will use more concrete (and slightly less general) constructions in this introductory section. From now on, we assume that is -dimensional over a finite field of odd characteristic, and endowed with a symplectic form.
Reference Gurevich and Howe (2017) introduces a notion of rank for representations. To describe it, recall that the oscillator representation of can be realized over the Hilbert space of complex linear combinations of basis vectors labeled by vectors (Sec. II). Given , we may arrange these vectors as the rows of a matrix . We then obtain an isormorphism
[TABLE]
via the identification
[TABLE]
The rank of an element and of a subspace are defined as, respectively,
[TABLE]
The central result of Ref. Gurevich and Howe (2017) is this:
Theorem I.1** (Gurevich and Howe (2017)).**
Assume . Then contains a unique irreducible representation of rank . The function defines an injective map from the irreducible representations of to the irreducible rank- subrepresentations of in .
The purpose of this work is to understand the rank-deficient -subrepresentations of , i.e. those of that have rank . Key to this are self-orthogonal Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) quantum codes Steane (1996a); Calderbank and Shor (1996); Steane (1996b), which are studied in the theory of quantum error correction Nielsen and Chuang (2010). For now, we will take with the standard orthogonal form . Let be an isotropic subspace of , i.e. such that . To each coset of , one associates the coset state
[TABLE]
Analogous to the construction in Eq. (I.2), we identify
[TABLE]
where is now the matrix whose columns are given by the . The tensor power CSS code associated with is the space with basis
[TABLE]
the set of products of coset states corresponding to the elements of the quotient space .
The codes can be shown to be invariant subspaces of . What is more, we will show:
Lemma** (Lemma II.7, simplified version).**
As a representation of , the restriction of to a tensor power CSS code is isomorphic to , where .
Figure 1 displays graphically the commuting actions of the projector onto an arbitrary CSS code and for an arbitrary . There, we identify
[TABLE]
in an analogous way as above. Each dot in the diagram corresponds to a factor in the left-hand side of (I.4). The tensor factors in the Weil representation act row-wise, highlighted in blue, whereas the projector acts column-wise, highlighted in red.
(We note that in odd characteristic, there are two inequivalent orthogonal geometries in each dimension. They are distinguished by their discriminant, the square class of the determinant of the Gram matrix of any basis. So far, we have only considered the standard orthogonal form on . It turns out that inherits an orthogonal form from – however, it need not be equivalent to the standard one. We will deal with this more general situation in the main part.)
The lemma immediately implies that non-trivial CSS codes carry rank-deficient representations of the symplectic group. Our main result is that this construction is exhaustive.
Theorem I.2** (Main Theorem).**
Assume that and let be an -subrepresentation of of rank . Then is even and is contained in the span of all tensor power CSS codes with .
The result allows us to give an explicit decomposition of in terms of irreducible and inequivalent representation spaces. Indeed, we find (Sec. III.3) that as an representation:
[TABLE]
We have used the following expressions: is the set , where ranges from [math] to the dimension of the largest isotropic subspace in (its isotropy index). For each , we choose some istropic subspace of dimension and set . Then is an orthogonal space of dimension and discriminant . Let be the stabilizer of . Notice that because of a lemma proven by Witt, the group is independent of the choice of , up to isomorphism. This justifies surpressing in our notation. The group acts on as .
Thus any can be interpreted as an -representation, and the induced representation in Eq. (I.5) is hence well-defined. All -irreps appearing in Eq. (I.5) are indeed inequivalent: Those corresponding to different are distinguished by their rank, whereas the inequivalence of summands of the same rank is a consequence of Theorem I.1.
It is natural to ask whether the assumption that is necessary. We show that some constraints on are indeed required, by explicitly constructing rank-[math] subrepresentations for that do not come from CSS codes (Section III.4).
Our work was motivated by recent related observations on tensor powers of the Clifford group Zhu et al. (2016); Helsen et al. (2018); Nezami and Walter (2016); Zhu (2017); Kueng and Gross (2015); Webb (2016); Nebe et al. (2001, 2006); Runge (1993), the group generated by the oscillator representation of and the Weyl representation of the Heisenberg group. In Ref. Gross et al. (2017), it has been shown that the commutant algebra of the Clifford group is generated by projections onto tensor power CSS codes whose isotropic spaces are orthogonal to the all-ones vector ; together with the elements of that preserve . While it was not explicitly worked out in Ref. Gross et al. (2017), their arguments strongly suggest that the commutant of the oscillator representation alone is generated by and tensor power CSS codes, without the constraints involving the -vector. This drew our attention to the action of tensor power representations on CSS code spaces. While the present paper mostly focuses on the symplectic group alone—instead of the full Clifford group—one can in some cases relate the theory for the two groups explicitly (Sec. IV):
Proposition** (Proposition IV.2, simplified version).**
If the characteristic does not divide , there is a one-one correspondence between irreducible components of -th tensor powers of the Clifford goup and irreducible components of for a certain orthogonal space of dimension .
An -representation space is trivial if and only if it has rank equal to [math] Gurevich and Howe (2017). The rank-[math] case connects our results with prior work on the invariants of the Clifford group Nebe et al. (2006); Runge (1993). Indeed, it is well-knwon that the invariants are associated with self-dual CSS codes, i.e. those arising from subspaces with . In this sense, our work can be seen as a generalization of these results to higher ranks.
Our main theorem is based on a careful analysis of the action of certain Fourier transforms in the oscillator representation. The same techniques can be used to find auxilliary results, which may be of independent interest. For example, we show that the “set of ranks” one can associate with an irreducible -subrepresentation of is a contiguous set of integers (Prop. II.10).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: We will introduce the technical background in Sect. II, prove the main theorem in Sec. III, and lay out the connections to the Clifford group in Sec. IV.
This work is written in a basis-free language inspired by Gurevich and Howe (2017). We believe that the results will be of interest to researchers in quantum information theory, who may not be familiar with this point of view. A follow-up paper Montealegre-Mora and Gross (2020) will address a quantum information audience, both in terms of presentation and in terms of applications. In particular, it will also treat the Clifford group in characteristic 2.
II Technical background
In this section, we collect definitions and some technical results.
II.1 General notation
In what follows, is the power of an odd prime , and the finite field of order . We denote the multiplicative group in by . For , the Legendre symbol is \big{(}\frac{\lambda}{q}\big{)}, which is if is a square in , and else. If is clear from the context, we also use the short-hand notation for the Legendre symbol. We write for the the field trace .
The transpose of a linear map is (not to be confused with , which is defined in Eq. (II.18)). A map is symmetric if .
II.2 The oscillator representation
Let be the direct sum of two -dimensional dual vector spaces over . The space carries a symplectic form
[TABLE]
Every symplectic vector space is (non-canonically) of this form. Indeed, the choice of a decomposition is equivalent to fixing a polarization of . From now on, we will assume that dual have been chosen.
The oscillator representation is a representation of on the Hilbert space of complex functions on . The representation depends on a parameter – sometimes referred to as the mass of the representation in mathematical physics Folland (1989) – which defines a character
[TABLE]
of . One can show Gurevich and Howe (2017) that the oscillator representations , are unitarily equivalent if and only if and belong to the same square class. What is more, , i.e. the inverting the sign of the mass corresponds to passing to the complex conjugate representation. From now on, we will write for and respectively.
Next, we recall Gurevich and Howe (2017); Gérardin (1977) the explicit form of the oscillator representation on the following three subsets, which taken together generate .
[TABLE]
The sets and are subgroups and generate the Siegel parabolic, with the Abelian the unipotent radical of the parabolic group. We write, respectively, for the elements of that appear above. Let and let the indicator function at . Then the action of the oscillator representation is
[TABLE]
where is a less-confusing notation for , and where
[TABLE]
is the Gauss sum corresponding to .
We will frequently make use of the fact that the oscillator representation of block matrices factorizes.
Lemma II.1**.**
Let be a direct sum of vector spaces. Then we have an orthogonal decomposition of into symplectic subspaces . As a representation of the subgroup , the oscillator representation factorizes
[TABLE]
Let be the projections onto the -th direct summand. An isomorphism
[TABLE]
realizing Eq. (II.13) is given by
[TABLE]
This factorization property is well-known – see e.g. Ref. (Gérardin, 1977, Corollary 2.5). We give a short self-contained proof in Appendix A.1.
II.3 The rank of a representation
We consider the subgroups of given in Eqs. (II.6), (II.9).
If is a representation of on some Hilbert space , then the restriction of to the Abelian group decomposes into a direct sum of one-dimensional representations. Every character of is of the form
[TABLE]
for some symmetric , which we will refer to as an -weight. With each representation space , we can thus associate an -weight such that
[TABLE]
Reference Gurevich and Howe (2017) defines the -spectrum of as the set of -weights, counted with multiplicities, that occur in the decomposition of .
The set of -weights decomposes into a union of orbits under the action , . This follows from the fact that normalizes :
[TABLE]
so that if carries the -weight , then is associated with the -weight . From the theory of quadratic forms, it is well-known that the orbits are labelled by the rank and the discriminant of (c.f. Section II.5).
The rank of is the maximum of the rank taken over the -spectrum. If all -weights of maximal rank have the same discriminant , is said to have discriminant or type .
As an example, we compute the -spectrum of the oscillator representation. By Eq. (II.11), the delta functions diagonalize the restriction of to . We can re-write
[TABLE]
The map is the most general form of a symmetric map of rank and of discriminant . Since lead to the same , the -spectrum consists of the following -orbits: occurs once, and the set of non-zero rank-1 ’s of discriminant occurs twice.
II.4 Orthogonal spaces and higher-rank representations
We recall some standard facts about discrete orthogonal spaces (see e.g. Lam (2005); Cameron (2000); Chan ) and fix notation.
Let with be a -dimensional -vector space with non-degenerate symmetric form . Let be a basis of . The square class of the determinant of the matrix with elements does not depend on the basis. It is called the discriminant of the form . Quadratic spaces are characterized up to isometries by their dimension and discriminant. The discrimant is multiplicative: if is an orthogonal sum, then
[TABLE]
One can find an orthogonal basis that diagonalizes the form in that
[TABLE]
for suitable . From the discussion above, it follows that one can choose
[TABLE]
and we will usually do so.
An important orthogonal space is the hyperbolic plane , which has dimension and discriminant .
For a subspace , the space orthogonal to it is . The space is isotropic if . From the relation , valid for any non-degenerate form, one finds the dimension bound for isotropic spaces:
[TABLE]
We will use the symbol both to refer to the form and to the induced isomorphism
[TABLE]
For maps , we will write
[TABLE]
With and , this implies in particular
[TABLE]
If the form is degenerate, then the quotient space of up to the radical of is non-degenerate. The rank and the discriminant of are then defined to be the dimension and the discriminant of the quotient space.
A symmetric map defines a quadratic form on a linear space . Below, we will often be concerned with forms defined as for some . In this case, we have
[TABLE]
so that the rank and discriminant of such are the rank and the discriminant of as a subspace of .
Given a space and an orthogonal space , the tensor product is again a direct sum of dual spaces and thus carries a symplectic form. Indeed,
[TABLE]
and the pairing between (factorizing) elements of the two summands is just
[TABLE]
We will usually make the identification
[TABLE]
Then the pairing (II.21) between and takes the form
[TABLE]
It follows that there is an oscillator representation of on .
From Eq. (II.21), one sees that embeds into . The main goal of this work is to understand the restriction of to .
We compute the -spectrum and rank of as an -representation. To this end, we must find the eigenspaces of . Under the identification (II.20),
[TABLE]
Thus, the embedding of into is again an element of the unipotent radical. The action of is thus also given by Eq. (II.11), this time acting on . Let . With Eq. (II.22), we can express the quadratic form in Eq. (II.11) as
[TABLE]
The -weight on is thus given by
[TABLE]
Its rank is upper-bounded by . From now on, we will focus on the case where (this is referred to as the stable range in Gurevich and Howe (2017)), and call a representation of rank strictly smaller than rank-deficient. It follows that the representation space
[TABLE]
on which acts with -weight is equal to the span of the ’s with .
II.5 Representations associated with direct sums of orthogonal spaces
The original motivation of this work was to understand tensor power representations . The more geometric language employed e.g. in Ref. Gurevich and Howe (2017) relates tensor factors to direct summands of orthogonal spaces. The following corollary of Lemma II.1 makes the connection precise.
Corollary II.2**.**
Assume is an orthogonal direct sum. Then, as a representation of , the oscillator representation factorizes as
[TABLE]
Let be the projections onto the direct summands. An isomorphism
[TABLE]
realizing Eq. (II.25) is defined by
[TABLE]
Proof.
By assumption, both terms are non-degenerate -spaces, so we have a canonical identifications and . The latter identification satisfies that for any and any , it holds that (and the same statement holds if we exchange and ).
This way, the advertised claim is a consequence of Corollary II.1 for the decomposition
[TABLE]
which give rise to the following decomposition into symplectic subspaces
[TABLE]
∎
Iterating this observation over an orthogonal basis gives the connection between and tensor powers of .
Corollary II.3**.**
As a representation of , we have that
[TABLE]
Let be an orthogonal basis of as in Eq. (II.16). An isomorphism
[TABLE]
realizing Eq. (II.27) is defined by
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set , so that . The projections are given by
[TABLE]
Iterating Corollary II.2 thus gives an isomorphism
[TABLE]
defined by
[TABLE]
We may identify with via . This induces an isomorphism
[TABLE]
Finally, let and, using Eq. (II.12), let be acting on the -th tensor factor. Then the advertised isomorphism is . ∎
Note that the standard inner product on has an orthonormal basis, and thus discriminant . Therefore,
[TABLE]
We end this section by analyzing , where is the hyperbolic plane. To this end, define the permutation representation of as the map that acts on by sending the delta function at to
[TABLE]
Lemma II.4**.**
Let be the hyperbolic plane. We then have:
As a representation of , is isomorphic to the permutation representation. 2. 2.
If is an isotropic space, then acts trivially on
[TABLE]
The second part of the lemma makes a connection between rank-deficient subrepresentations and isotropic spaces. Generalizations of this will be the central theme in the rest of this work.
The lemma is most easily proved by invoking the Weyl representation of the Heisenberg group introduced in Sec. II.2.
Proof.
By Eq. (IV.2), the adjoint representation on permutes the Weyl operators and is thus isomorphic to the permutation representation . But by Corollary II.3,
[TABLE]
This proves the first claim.
Next, note that the adjoint representation acts trivially on . Our strategy is to show that for every isotropic space , one can choose the isomorphisms employed in the first part, to map to . Indeed, the isomorphism is implemented by
[TABLE]
where is the map acting on as . Choose an orthogonal basis as in Eq. (II.16) and let be the associated isomorphism defined in Corollary II.3. Then
[TABLE]
where is isotropic. Finally, any isotropic can be written this way, with a suitable choice of orthogonal basis and associated isomorphism . ∎
II.6 Quotient spaces and self-orthogonal Calderbank-Shor-Steane codes
In this section, we will introduce the type of spaces that will turn out to contain all rank-deficient representations. In the field of quantum error correction, these spaces are called (tensor powers of) self-orthogonal Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) codes Steane (1996a); Calderbank and Shor (1996); Steane (1996b).
Definition II.5**.**
Let be an isotropic space. The self-orthogonal CSS code associated with is the space
[TABLE]
of functions whose support is contained in and which are constant on cosets of .
We will require an extension of this definition to functions on the tensor product space .
Definition II.6**.**
Let be an isotropic space. The tensor power CSS code associated with is the subspace of all functions satisfying
[TABLE]
Using Lemma II.1, one can see that the codes defined above are indeed tensor powers of the self-orthogonal CSS codes of Definition II.5. We also note that projectors onto tensor powers of CSS codes have previously been identified in the commutant of the Clifford group Nebe et al. (2006); Zhu (2017); Gross et al. (2017).
Tensor power CSS codes carry a representation of that is associated with the orthogonal space :
Lemma II.7**.**
Let be an isotropic space.
The quotient space inherits an orthogonal form with dimension and discriminant given by, respectively
[TABLE]
The stabilizer group of acts on . The maps that arise this way are exactly .
The restriction of to acts on . As a representation of , it is equivalent to .
In view of this Lemma, we will say that a tensor power CSS code has rank , if it carries a rank- represetation, or, equivalently, if .
Proof.
Let be a basis of . There exist such that
[TABLE]
(because, for each , Eq. (II.32) is an underdetermined system of linear equations for ). Then is a hyperbolic plane, and we arrive at an orthogonal decomposition
[TABLE]
where is the orthogonal complement of the hyperbolic planes. Equation (II.33) implies: (1) The discriminant of is , and (2) the orthogonal complement equals , and we thus have . Because the form on is inherited from the one of , it is clear that acts isometrically on . Let be the homomorphism that maps elements of to their action on . Then is onto: If , then, using the decomposition (II.33), we can embed as into .
By Corollary II.2,
[TABLE]
By Lemma II.4, acts trivially on
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
on which acts as . ∎
In the remainder of this section, we introduce two concepts that will be used in Section III to reconstruct the codes a rank-deficient representation lives on.
A natural orthogonal basis on a tensor power CSS code is given by coset states (the generalization of Eq. (I.3)). Given an isotropic subspace , an , and a coset
[TABLE]
the associated tensor power coset state is
[TABLE]
We will occassionally write , if the vector space is not unambiguously clear from context. The set
[TABLE]
is an orthogonal basis for . Note that if , then for some and thus
[TABLE]
In particular, carries the -weight .
With each , we associate the isotropic space
[TABLE]
which is the radical of the range of .
Lemma II.8**.**
Let be such that . Then we have the dimension bound
[TABLE]
Proof.
We decompose as , where , is a complement to in , and a complement to in (c.f. Fig. 2). By construction, the space is non-degenerate and of dimenesion , which implies that is -dimensional and non-degenerate. Thus is isotropic and contained in a -dimensional non-degenerate space, which implies by Eq. (II.17) that . ∎
II.7 Fourier transforms
Central to the proof of our main result will be the fact that subrepresentations of the oscillator representation are closed under certain Fourier transforms. By a Fourier transform, we mean a map of the form defined in Eq. (II.10), for symmetric and invertible.
A standard result from harmonic analysis says that the support of a function is contained in a vector space if and only if its Fourier transform is supported on a (suitably defined) orthogonal complement. The version we will require below reads:
Lemma II.9**.**
Let be symmetric and invertible, let , and let be a subspace.
Then the support of is contained in the space if and only if the support of the Fourier transform is contained in .
What is more, is the indicator function on if and only if is the indicator function on .
Since the proof follows the standard template for such results in harmonic analysis, we have deferred it to Appendix A.2.
Inspecting the generators in Sec. II.2, it is clear that only Fourier transforms – i.e. generators from – can possibly affect the rank of an element . This is the reason such maps figure prominently in our argument. By analyzing the action of Fourier transforms, one can easily derive further statements about the “rank spectrum” of representation spaces. The following proposition is one such example.
Proposition II.10**.**
Let be an irreducible -subrepresentation of , where . Let
[TABLE]
be the set of values the rank takes on the -spectrum of the representation. Then is a contiguous range of integers.
As the rest of the arugment will not rely on Proposition II.10, its proof is given in Appendix A.3.
III The classification of rank-deficient subrepresentations
III.1 Informal outline of the main proof
Let be a representation space of rank . We aim to show that there is some can be written as a linear combination
[TABLE]
of components in suitable tensor power CSS code spaces . This, together with Lemma II.7, will imply the Main Theorem.
One of the defining properties of elements of is that they are constant on cosets of . It is not obvious how one can derive such invariance properties from rank deficiency.
To achieve this, we rely on the fact that is closed under certain Fourier transforms. More precisely, if we decompose as a direct sum , then any can be written as the sum of two blocks with (Fig. 3). Now fix some and consider the dependency of on the first block alone. It turns out that rank deficiency imposes linear constraints on the maps that can appear in the support of . But, as we have recalled in Sec. II.7, if the support of a function is contained in a linear subspace, then its Fourier transform is invariant under translations along the orthogonal complement. Closure of under Fourier transforms then implies invariances of the type that occur in CSS codes for any . This first step of recovering a CSS code structure is made precise in Lemma III.1.
The next challenge we are facing is that is a linear combination of elements from different codes, so that there is no single space under which is invariant. Indeed, the symmetries found in the first step are only “local” in that they depend on the fixed block . To get some feeling for what we can expect, we look at the simplest non-trivial example: with the hyperbolic plane.
The plane has a orthogonal basis , with
[TABLE]
There are two isotropic spaces, (c.f. Fig 3). It follows that there are two tensor power CSS codes in . They are one-dimensional, proportional to the vectors defined in Lemma II.4. Thus, for , the vector
[TABLE]
carries a rank-[math] representation (and we will see that these are the only rank-deficient subrepresentation of ). Using Lemma II.4
[TABLE]
a situation sketched in Fig. 3. Embracing a horticultural analogy, is constant on the two “branches” , while the values add up on the “stem” , where the spaces intersect.
This structure generalizes to higher-dimensional orthogonal spaces . Define the “generalized branches” to be
[TABLE]
Then Lemma III.2 states that on each , a vector in a rank-deficient representation exhibits the invariance under that is characteristic of elements of the code . More precisely:
[TABLE]
Thus is well-defined on sets .
After this, we “prune off the branches” by setting
[TABLE]
The right-hand summand involves the coset states , which are elements of the respective code . The support of the remainder is thus contained in the “stem”. We conclude the argument by showing that representations with rank do not contain non-zero vectors supported on such a stem, so in fact .
This final step again relies on Fourier transforms. Roughly, the “stem” is a “small” space, so that by the uncertainty principle, Fourier transforms will have “large” support – so large, in fact, that they are guaranteed to contain higher-rank elements.
III.2 Proof of the Main Theorem
Lemma III.1**.**
Let be a subrepresentation of rank . Let and such that , and let be as in eqn. (II.36). If is such that
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set . The assumption (III.3) implies that there is a complement of contained in . This choice induces a decomposition with , .
Let be invertible, let be the associated Fourier transform, and let be the isomorphism (II.14). By Section II.7 and Lemma II.1, the vector
[TABLE]
is an element of . Thus, by the assumption on the rank of the representation, has support only on maps with .
If for some , then
[TABLE]
The condition is equivalent to demanding that has rank at most as an orthogonal space. This implies
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
so that the preceding discussion implies that . Thus Lemma II.9 implies that is constant on cosets of , a space which includes . ∎
The next lemma extends the invariances – essentially by using the fact that there is a some freedom in choosing the complement to that appears in the proof above.
Lemma III.2**.**
Let be a representation of rank , and . Let be an isotropic space, and set
[TABLE]
Then on , is invariant under :
[TABLE]
The proof uses the probabilistic method Alon and Spencer (2004): The strategy is to ascertain the (deterministic) exsistence of an object by showing that a randomized construction yields one with positive probability. Presumably an explicit construction would offer us more insight into the structure of the problem. We leave such a derandomization for future work.
Proof.
Let be as in Eq. (III.5). The aim is to show that there exists a “mid-point” such that both with , as well as with fulfill the assumptions of Lemma III.1. It then follows that .
We claim that if is chosen uniformly at random from , then, with probability strictly larger than , it holds that , i.e. Lemma III.1 applies to .
Before turning to the analysis of the randomized procedure, we state two preparatory facts. First, for each subspace , it holds that
[TABLE]
Second, for each , Lemma II.8 gives the dimension bound
[TABLE]
Now assume is distributed uniformly at random. From the previous equation, any -dimensional subspace will occur within with equal probability. By Eq. (III.6), if for some such , then the assumption of Lemma III.1 is met.
There are one-dimensional spaces in a -dimensional vector space. Thus, the probability that any fixed one-dimesional subspace is contained in a randomly chosen -dimensional one is . By the union bound, the probability that at least one element of a fixed -dimensional space is contained in a -dimensional random one is therefore upper-bounded by
[TABLE]
This establishes the claim made at the beginning of the proof.
Now set . The distribution of is the same as the distribution of . Thus Lemma III.1 applies to with the same probability.
We conlcude by the union bound that the probability of the construction working in both cases simultaneously is strictly larger than . ∎
Proof (of the Main Theorem).
Let carry an -weight of rank . By Lemma III.1 and Lemma III.2, is well-defined on cosets . Set
[TABLE]
We will prove that is actually equal to zero, using a Fourier-transform argument as in Lemma III.1.
For the sake of reaching a contradiction, assume that and choose an such that
[TABLE]
As in the proof of Lemma III.1, set , choose some complement to , an invertible symmetric , set , and define as
[TABLE]
Then, with , it holds that
[TABLE]
We decompose as , where , is a complement to in , and a complement to in (c.f. Fig. 2). Let , be an element of . Because restricted to is non-degenerate, it follows from that . By Eq. (III.9), . From Lemma III.1, is invariant under . Thus is proportional to the indicator function on . Hence is proportional to the indicator function on . But contains the -dimensional non-degenerate space and has dimension . Therefore, as an orthogonal space, has rank strictly larger than and hence contains a non-isotropic vector . If has in its range, then . But by Eq. (III.10), appears in the support of , contradicting the assumption that has rank .
It follows that is in the span of the rank- tensor power CSS codes . If is irreducible, then it is spanned by the orbit . But Lemma II.7 says that is invariant under the action, so . By the same lemma, is even. The Main Theorem therefore holds for irreps, and hence for all representations. ∎
III.3 The connection to the correspondence
Here, we will combine the respective main results of this work and of Ref. Gurevich and Howe (2017) to arrive at a complete decomposition of
in terms of irreducible subrepresentations.
One can generate -subrepresentations by choosing an isotropic subspace and a , and then embeddeding into the code . Isotropic spaces of the same dimension will give rise to isomorphic -representations. The main observation of the next lemma is that, while in general different CSS codes may have non-trivial intersections, the representation spaces arising in the way just described are linearly independent. This allows us to identify the joint action of and on their span as a certain induced representation.
Recall that by Lemma II.7, there is a homomorphism from the stabilizer group of an isotropic subspace onto the orthogonal group of . Thus, if is a representation of , then represents . In this section, we will implicitly make this identification and we will not distinguish notationally between and .
Lemma III.3**.**
Let be an isotropic space and let .
Let be the subspace on which acts as . Then, as an -representation,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set . By Lemma II.7 and Theorem I.1, there is a unique -representation space of type in .
The isotropic Grassmanian
[TABLE]
can be identified with the cosets . Let be a choice of representatives for each coset. Define
[TABLE]
As -representation spaces, the are all equivalent to . Conversely, from Theorem I.2, every -representation of type is contained in their span. Therefore,
[TABLE]
We claim that the spaces are linearly independent.
Indeed: We need to show that for each , the sapce intersects the span of the other spaces only at . Since acts transitively on the , it is enough to treat the case . As and are representation spaces, and because is irreducible, we have the alternatives
[TABLE]
It thus suffices to show that contains one vector that is not an element of . Let carry an -weight of rank , let . There is some that is maximal in the sense (rather than its range being a strict subset of ). Since , there must be some complement of in for which . From the decomposition it is clear that there exists a for which is maximal. By the invariance property of CSS codes, , i.e. the inner product . In contrast, let for . Then . But , so that . It follows that , as claimed.
The space is therefore a direct sum of the . We will now compute the action of on this direct sum. It suffices to consider vectors of the form
[TABLE]
which span . For each , there is a permutation and elements such that for each . Thus
[TABLE]
But this is the action of the advertised induced representation. ∎
By Lemma II.7, the space is an orthogonal space of dimension and discriminant , with . In particular, up to orthogonal maps, only depends on . With this in mind, we suppress the dependency on in our notation, and define to be for some isotropic of dimension . In the same vein, any two isotropic spaces of the same dimension have conjugate stabilizer groups, and thus the isomorphism class of the induced representation in Eq. (III.11) does not depend on . Again, this justifies defining to be for some isotropic of dimension .
Theorem I.1, Theorem I.2, and the preceding lemma then yield the decomposition
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
All -irreps appearing in Eq. (III.13) are indeed inequivalent: Those corresponding to different are distinguished by their rank, whereas the inequivalence of summands of the same rank is a consequence of Theorem I.1.
As an -representation,
[TABLE]
is just with degeneracy equal to the number of isotropic subspaces of dimension .
A comparison with Theorem I.1 shows that the -representations in are exactly those , where appears in . In terms of character inner products, and using Frobenius reciprocity:
[TABLE]
As an example, we consider the case where is the trivial representation of . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
has a number of components equal to the isotropy index of .
III.4 A non-CSS type rank-deficient subrepresentation
Our main theorem makes statements only in the regime . Here, we show that it indeed cannot be extended to all pairs . To this end, we construct a rank-[math] subrepresentation of , i.e. for the case of and . Here, is an arbitrary odd prime. This is incompatible with Theorem I.2, which posits that be even. Thus, more general subrepresentations can occur for .
Set and with the standard orthogonal form . The oscillator representation thus acts on .
Our construction depends111Numerically, it appears that the resulting representation space is actually independent of the choice of . Numerical investigations also indicate that when substituting (which has discriminant ) by a three-dimensional with discriminant a non-square, then will still act trivially on if . On the other hand, for , it holds that does not afford any trivial representation space. We will neither use, nor attempt to prove, these statements. on the choice of an isotropic vector . Define by
[TABLE]
In particular, is supported on the set of isotropic vectors in , and restricts to a Legendre symbol on every ray.
Proposition III.4**.**
The representation acts trivially on .
Proof.
From the explicit definitions in Section II.2, one can easily see that affords trivial actions by the subgroups (using isotropy of the support) and (using the multiplicativity of the Legendre symbol). All elements of the subgroup can be written as a product of an element from with , where is the canonical identification of with . It therefore remains to be shown that is stabilized by .
We begin by deriving a more convenient expression for . The standard form in is isomorphic to . In other words, there exists a basis with respect to which the standard form on is
[TABLE]
In this basis, define
[TABLE]
By enumerating all points in projective space , one may easily convince oneself that every isotropic vector in is a multiple of exactly one , for . We can choose the basis change such that the vector that appers in (III.17) is mapped to the vector as defined here.
For ,
[TABLE]
so that the Legendre symbol of the inner products is constant:
[TABLE]
With these definitions, takes a simple form:
[TABLE]
We evaluate the Fourier transform on an isotropic vector, using Eq. (II.10): For , it holds that
[TABLE]
where we have used the standard properties of quadratic Gauss sums. Restricted to the support of , this is the required eigenvalue equation.
In particular, we have found that coincides with on the support of . Because the oscillator representation acts isometrically, must thus also have the same support as . ∎
IV The connection to the Clifford group
The motivation for this work was to understand the appearance of projections onto CSS codes in the commutant of tensor power representations of the Clifford group Gross et al. (2017). While we have opted to state our main results for representations of the symplectic group, the two cases can sometimes be precisely linked. This is the purpose of Proposition IV.2, which will be developed in this section.
We start by recalling the basic definitions. In addition to the oscillator representation, the Hilbert space also carries a representation of the Heisenberg group over . The Heisenberg group is the set with group law
[TABLE]
For , the Weyl representation of mass on is
[TABLE]
As is true for the oscillator representation (Sec. II.2), we again have that is the complex conjugate of , and again we will omit the superscript for the mass- version. Two Weyl representations of different mass are inequivalent Gérardin (1977). The Weyl and the oscillator representations are compatible in that
[TABLE]
for all . The semi-direct product with automorphism
[TABLE]
is the Jacobi group over . By Eq. (IV.2), the map
[TABLE]
thus defines a representation of the Jacobi group on . The operators realizing this representation form the Clifford group. Because the maps form a basis in , Eq. (IV.2) determines up to a phase factor.
As embeds into (Sec. II.4), so too can one embed the Heisenberg group into . However, the embedding we will use is no longer canonical, but depends on the choice of a vector . Roughly, we use to lift to . Given , define
[TABLE]
This is a homomorphism:
[TABLE]
from which one verifies that we have a representation
[TABLE]
of the Jacobi group over on . It again fulfills a factorization property, generalizing Corollaries II.2 and II.3.
Lemma IV.1**.**
Assume is an orthogonal direct sum and let with . Then, under the same ismorphism as introduced in Corollary II.2,
[TABLE]
If for an orthogonal basis as in (II.16), then
[TABLE]
In particular, if and is the standard orthonormal basis, then
[TABLE]
Proof (of Lemma IV.1).
The symplectic subgroup of the Clifford group factorizes according to Corollary II.2. It remains to be shown that the same is true for the image of under the isomorphism (II.26). Using :
[TABLE]
The second part is proven analogously to Corollary II.3. ∎
The lemma gives a correspondence between the tensor powers of the symplectic group and the tensor powers of the Clifford group. Assume that is not a multiple of . Let be the standard orthonormal basis of . Then is not isotropic, so we can decompose
[TABLE]
Then Lemma IV.1 gives
[TABLE]
where we have used that and that . In Eq. (IV.3), the action of the Heisenberg group has been compressed to the first tensor factor. This yields:
Proposition IV.2**.**
Let be non-isotropic, let . There is a one-one correspondence between
representation spaces of the symplectic group acting via on , and 2. 2.
representation spaces of the Jacobi group acting via on .
In particular, if does not divide , there is a one-one correspondence between irreducible subrepresentations of and irreducible subrepresentations of .
Proof.
As is non-isotropic, we have the orthogonal direct sum
[TABLE]
As in the proof of Corollary II.3, the ismorphism
[TABLE]
defined by
[TABLE]
realizes
[TABLE]
In the one direction, let be invariant under . Then
[TABLE]
is invariant under . In the other direction, let
[TABLE]
be invariant under . Then, because the Weyl representation acting on the first tensor factor is irreducible, must factorize as
[TABLE]
with a suitable invariant under . Thus Eq. (IV.5) defines a one-one correspondence as advertised.
For the second part, assume that does not divide . Let with standard basis , and set . Then , which is non-zero by assumption. The claim now follows from the first part and Lemma IV.1. ∎
If is a multiple of , the situation is more complicated. In that case, is isotropic, which reflects the fact that in this case the representation
[TABLE]
is Abelian. The smallest non-degenerate subspace containing is then a hyperbolic plane. Following the same recipe as above, we can therefore arrange for the Heisenberg group to act only on the first two copies of . However, the action of the Clifford group on these two copies is its adjoint action (as in Lemma II.4). This action, unlike the case treated in Proposition IV.2, is reducible. We will analyze this situation elsewhere Montealegre-Mora and Gross (2020).
We close this section with a sample application of Proposition IV.2. Our goal is to directly see the equivalence of two well-known facts: (1) The Clifford group forms a unitary -design Dankert et al. (2009); Gross et al. (2007), i.e. its second tensor power decomposes into a direct sum of two irreducible representations, supported on the -dimensional symmetric subspace, and the -dimensional anti-symmetric one. Here, the (anti-)symmetry is w.r.t. to an exchange of tensor factors. (2) The Weil representation of the symplectic group decomposes as the direct sum of two irreducible spaces, namely the -dimensional subspace of of functions that are symmetric under the reflection , and the -dimensional subspace of anti-symmetric functions. The correspondence in Proposition IV.2 maps these two decompositions onto each other:
[TABLE]
As a consistency check: the ortho-complement of is spanned by . The interchange of tensor factors acts trivially on , but changes the sign of . Thus, the two notions of (anti-)symmetry are indeed mapped onto each other.
V Summary and Outlook
Reference Gurevich and Howe (2017) introduced a notion of rank for -representations, and showed that there is a one-one correspondence between irreps of and highest-rank -irreps in . Here, we have classified the rank-deficient components and have achieved a decomposition of in terms of irreducible and inequivalent -representations.
A number of natural directions deserve further attention. Most importantly from the point of view of quantum information theory, one must treat the case of characteristic . We will pursue this in an upcoming paper, which will also be written in a language better-suited for consumption by physicists Montealegre-Mora and Gross (2020). While we have occassionally remarked on connections between this paper and previous works from quantum information (e.g. Ref. Gross et al. (2017)) and coding theory (e.g. Ref. Nebe et al. (2006)), the relation between their respective approaches and the one taken in this paper should be made more explicit. Lastly, the joint action of should be worked out more explicitly.
Appendix A Deferred Proofs
A.1 Factorization property of the oscillator representation
It is possible to prove Lemma II.1 by directly verifying the claim on a set of generators (as in Eqs. (II.6), (II.3), and (II.9)) for . Our approach is based on realizing that it suffices to check the factorization property for Weyl operators (as in Eq. (IV.1)), and then use Eq. (IV.2) to “lift” it to the oscillator representation.
Proof of Lemma II.1.
Assume that and that is the resulting decomposition of . By computing the action on basis vectors, it is immediate that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
is the isomoprhism introduced in Eq. (II.14).
Let , then, using Eq. (IV.2),
[TABLE]
Since the Weyl operators for a basis for , this implies
[TABLE]
for some scalar function . We now show for all .
Unitarity implies that . Because
[TABLE]
is a representation, must also be a (one dimensional) representation of . Let be the Siegel parabolic of with its unipotent radical.
Since is a one dimensional representation, it must contain only one weight associated to . This -weight must have a trivial orbit under conjugation by transformations, and thus . But is generated by -conjugates, so . ∎
A.2 Fourier transforms and invariance
Here, we prove Lemma II.9.
We begin by noting that turns into an orthogonal space with form given by
[TABLE]
Let . In the following we will show that
for any , if and only if is invariant under translations, 2. 2.
.
These two claims imply the first statement of the lemma
For the first claim, start with the “only if” direction. Apply the inverse map (associated with ) to a function with the invariance stated. Then
[TABLE]
Conversely, the set of ’s with support in is a vector space of dimension . At the same time, the set of solutions we have identified in the direct direction has dimension
[TABLE]
so we have found all solutions.
Now we prove the second claim. Assume is such that for all , and choose for and . Note that
[TABLE]
where we used the fact that is symmetric. Hence
[TABLE]
Because and are arbitrary, and because is surjective, it follows that and with this the claim also follows.
Now on to the second statement of the lemma. Acting explicitly on the indicator function of we get
[TABLE]
where we used the first statement to restrict the sum over . Notice that by the definition of , every coefficient in the expression above is 1, so that
[TABLE]
as claimed.
A.3 Contiguity of ranks
In this section we prove Proposition II.10. Our strategy will be to find a set of generators for which consists of elements that either keep the rank of an -weight invariant, or change it by at most one. It then follows that if the ranks of the -spectrum has a gap, then the representation is reducible.
Recall that is an irreducible representation of rank , and
[TABLE]
Let be the subspace of that is spanned by -weights of rank . This space is invariant under the action of the parabolic subgroup . We will analyze its image under the Fourier transforms .
Let be an arbitrary basis of and be its dual. For any isomorphism , there is a satisfying
[TABLE]
Using the isomorphism in Eq. (II.14), we find that there exist a set of for which
[TABLE]
where . It follows that is generated by the parabolic subgroup together with any (sometimes referred to as single-system Fourier transform in quantum information theory). Let , , and let be the corresponding decomposition of phase space. Let , be the projections associated with the decomposition . We see that
[TABLE]
Throughout the rest of the argument, let .
Now, is either equal to or it is a subspace of the latter with co-dimension 1. Thus . Furthermore, either or
[TABLE]
is a subspace of co-dimension 1. Thus,
[TABLE]
for any . This implies that
[TABLE]
If for some it held that then the spaces and would be invariant under all generators (and thus subrepresentations). Since is irreducible by assumptiuon, this cannot happen.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Gurevich and Howe (2017) Shamgar Gurevich and Roger Howe, “Small representations of finite classical groups,” in Representation Theory, Number Theory, and Invariant Theory (Springer, 2017) pp. 209–234.
- 2Howe (1989) Roger Howe, “Remarks on classical invariant theory,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 313 , 539–570 (1989).
- 3Kashiwara and Vergne (1978) Masaki Kashiwara and Michele Vergne, “On the Segal-Shale-Weil representations and harmonic polynomials,” Invent. Math. 44 , 1–47 (1978).
- 4Steane (1996 a) Andrew M Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 , 793 (1996 a) . · doi ↗
- 5Calderbank and Shor (1996) A Robert Calderbank and Peter W Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,” Phys. Rev. A 54 , 1098 (1996) . · doi ↗
- 6Steane (1996 b) Andrew Steane, “Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction,” in Proc. Royal Soc. A , Vol. 452 (The Royal Society, 1996) pp. 2551–2577. · doi ↗
- 7Nielsen and Chuang (2010) Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
- 8Zhu et al. (2016) Huangjun Zhu, Richard Kueng, Markus Grassl, and David Gross, “The Clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design,” ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1609.08172 (2016).
