arXiv:1704.03389v1 [math.RT] 11 Apr 2017

Adams operations and symmetries
of representation categories
Ehud Meir and Markus Szymik
April 2017

Adams operations are the natural transformations of the representation ring
functor on the category of finite groups, and they are one way to codify the
usual λ–ring structure on these rings. From the representation theoretic point
of view, they encode some of the symmetric monoidal structure of the representation category. We show that the monoidal structure on the category
alone, regardless of the particular symmetry, determines all the odd Adams
operations. We also give examples of two different symmetries for the same
monoidal structure which produce two different second Adams operations.
Along the way, we classify all possible symmetries and all monoidal autoequivalences of representation categories of finite groups.
MSC: 18D10, 19A22, 20C15.
Keywords: Representation rings, Adams operations, λ–rings, symmetric
monoidal categories

Introduction
Groups describe symmetries, and it is therefore not a surprise that they are studied
using their actions. Linear algebra can be exploited for the purposes of group
theory by considering linear actions, or representations. This raises the question:
1

To what extent are groups determined by their representation theory? The answer
depends, of course, on the way the question is specified.
A basic and fundamental invariant of a finite group G is its representation
ring R(G). The underlying abelian group is free on the set of isomorphism classes
of irreducible representations of the group G, the addition is given by the direct
sum, and the multiplication is given by the tensor product. As a fact of life, this
is far from being a complete invariant for the group G: There are finite groups
that are not isomorphic but have isomorphic representation rings. For instance,
the dihedral group D8 and the quaternion group Q8 of order 8 have isomorphic
representation rings. The problem here is that the representation rings R(G) only
see the objects up to isomorphism, but otherwise ignore the delicate interaction of
the group actions on and the isomorphisms between the representations.
The Adams operations Ψn turn the representation rings R(G) into λ–rings. See
Section 1 for a brief review. It can be shown that the representation rings of the
groups D8 and Q8 are not isomorphic as λ–rings. However, there are also examples (due to Dade [Dad64]) of non-isomorphic finite groups (of order 57 = 78125
and more) with isomorphic representation rings as λ–rings. These examples are
particularly simple from the point of view of the Adams operations because they
are p–groups of exponent p. This implies that the p–th Adams opertion Ψ p is
trivial, and the other Adams operations Ψ` for ` prime to p are given by Galois
actions, regardless of the group. (Dade distinguishes these groups by means of
their Lie rings.) It follows that the representation ring R(G), even when considered as a λ–ring, gives us only partial information about the group G, and the hope
is that categorification gives us a bigger and better picture.
There is a precise sense in which a finite group G is actually determined by
its representation theory: By a theorem of Deligne, the category Rep(G) of
finite-dimensional representations determines the group G up to isomorphism
if the former is considered as a symmetric monoidal category. See the original sources [DM82, Prop. 1.8 on p. 129], [Del90], and Breen’s exposition
in [Bre94], for instance. This implies, in particular, that the representation categories Rep(D8 ) and Rep(Q8 ) are not equivalent as symmetric monoidal categories, and that the representation categories can also tell Dade’s examples apart.
Actually, in these cases, the representation categories are not even equivalent as
2

monoidal categories. Still, for Deligne’s theorem, the symmetry is important: It
is known from the work of Etingof and Gelaki that there are groups G and G0
that are not isomorphic but such that their representation categories Rep(G)
and Rep(G0 ) are equivalent as monoidal categories. See [EG01] for these isocategorical groups. In [GM] it is shown that for isocategorical pairs of groups the
Witt groups of their representation categories are isomorphic.
In this paper, we investigate how far the Adams operations on the representation
ring allow us to recover the canonical symmetry on the monoidal representation
category of a finite group, and hence the group. We review the Adams operations and give a characterization of them in Proposition 1.1 as the natural transformations of the representation ring functor, and offer a representation theoretic
description in Proposition 1.3. This nicely complements the usual formula on the
level of characters. In Section 2 we review the Etingof–Gelaki classification of
isocategorical groups. Building on that, we describe the possible symmetries on
the monoidal representation categories Rep(G) in Theorem 3.1 and the monoidal
auto-equivalences Rep(G) → Rep(G) in Theorem 3.2.
Our main result appears as Theorem 4.1 in the text:
Theorem. If G and G0 are two isocategorical groups, and Rep(G) → Rep(G0 )
is a monoidal equivalence between their representation categories, then the
induced isomorphism R(G) ∼
= R(G0 ) between their representation rings preserves
the Adams operations Ψ p for all odd p.
This shows that the odd Adams operations do not carry additional information on
the symmetry. In Example 5.1 we show that this result is the best possible: There
is a non-symmetric monoidal equivalence Rep(G) → Rep(G0 ) that does not preserve the second Adams operations Ψ2 . One might then wonder if the additional
preservation of the second Adams operation Ψ2 is enough to ensure that we have
a symmetric monoidal equivalence, but we show in Example 5.2 that this is also
not the case. However, in all our examples the groups are isomorphic. This raises
the question: Suppose that G and G0 are isocategorical groups, and assume that
the induced isomorphism R(G) ∼
= R(G0 ) of representation rings arising from a
monoidal equivalence F : Rep(G) → Rep(G0 ) of representation categories preserves (not only the odd Adams operations but also) the second Adams opera3

tion Ψ2 . Do the groups G and G0 have to be isomorphic? As mentioned above, it
is possible that the functor F itself is not symmetric; but it turned out that the categories Rep(G) and Rep(G0 ) can be related by another functor which is symmetric
in all examples that we know of.

Notation and conventions
Throughout this paper we fix a field K that is algebraically closed and of characteristic zero. For any finite group G, we will denote by Rep(KG) the category of
finite-dimensional G–representations over K. This is more precise than the notation Rep(G) that we have used for the purposes of the introduction only. More
generally, we will use the notation Rep(H) for the category of finite-dimensional
representations of a finite-dimensional Hopf algebra H over K. These representation categories have a canonical structure of a rigid monoidal category. (Rigidity means that each object admits a dual object.) In addition, these representation categories admit a canonical symmetric monoidal structure: For every two
objects V,W in Rep(KG) we have a natural isomorphism σV,W : V ⊗W → W ⊗V
given by v ⊗ w 7→ w ⊗ v. This isomorphism satisfies σV,W σW,V = id. Our analysis of the Adams operations later will lead us to study other symmetric monoidal
structures on Rep(KG) as well.
We will denote by R(G) the Grothendieck ring K0 Rep(KG) of the monoidal category Rep(KG). This is the representation ring of the group G, and (by our
assumptions on the field K) independent of our particular choice, as the notation suggests. It has a canonical Z–basis given by the irreducible representations χ1 , . . . , χr of G. It can be identified with a subring of the ring of class functions on G by means of the character map that sends a representation V to its
character χV : g 7→ tr( g |V ).

1

Representation rings and power operations

In this section we describe the Adams operations as the natural transformations
of the representation ring functor on the category of finite groups. They are an
4

equivalent way of encoding the well-known λ–ring structure. We also give an
interpretation in terms of the representation category, and explain how to determine the order and the exponent of any finite group from them.

1.1

Representation rings as λ–rings

The notion of a λ–ring first arose in Grothendieck’s work [Gro58, 4.2] on vector bundles and K-theory. Nowadays, it is recognized that λ–operations are a
useful additional structure that is present in many other contexts. See [AT69]
and [Ben84] for representation theory. There are many ways to present the
algebraic theory of λ–rings. See Berthelot’s chapter [Ber71] in SGA 6 as well
as [Knu73], [Pat03], and the recent book [Yau10] by Yau. For the purposes of the
present text, it is only important to know about Wilkerson’s criterion [Wil82]:
If a ring is torsion-free as an abelian group, then a λ–ring structure on it is
equivalent to a family ( Ψn | n ∈ Z ) of commuting ring endomorphisms that satisfy Ψmn = Ψm Ψn and such that Ψ p is a Frobenius lift for each prime number p.
In particular, since representation rings are torsion-free, their λ–ring structure is
determined by the Adams operations on them and vice versa.
For a natural number k and a representation V of a finite group G, the λ–
operations on the representation ring R(G) are defined using the exterior powers: we have λk [V ] = [ΛkV ]. Notice that this definition relies on the usual symmetric monoidal structure on the representation category Rep(KG). The corresponding Adams operations are defined on the level of class functions by the formula ΨkG (χ)(g) = χ(gk ). In case the group G is clear from the context, we will
write ΨkG = Ψk . Notice that for every k and every character χ it holds that Ψk (χ)
is a Z–linear combination of the irreducible characters. This is not clear just from
the definition of the Adams operations. It follows from the fact that they correspond to the aforementioned λ–operations. See [Ser67, Ex. 9.3.b], for instance.
Notice that the k–th Adams operation Ψk depends only the class of k modulo the
b
exponent of G, and therefore can be defined for all k in the pro-finite completion Z
of the group Z of integers.

5

The family ( ΨkG | G ) defines a natural endomorphism Ψk : R → R of the representation ring functor R, thought of as a contravariant functor from the category of finite groups and (all) homomorphisms to the category of (commutative)
rings (with unit): Restriction along a group homomorphism G → G0 defines a
ring homomorphism R(G0 ) → R(G). In fact, it is easy to see that this leads to a
characterization of the Adams operations:
Proposition 1.1. The monoid of endomorphisms of the representation ring functor
b The pro-finite
is isomorphic to the multiplicative monoid of pro-finite integers Z.
integer k corresponds to the k–th Adams operation Ψk .
The idea for a proof is very simple: The group Z of integers under addition generates the category of groups (in the sense that it represents the forgetful functor
to sets) and we could detect every natural transformation on this single example.
But the group Z of integers is not finite, and we have to replace it by the family of
its finite quotients, the finite cyclic groups:
Proof. Let us first see that that every natural transformation Φ has the form Ψk
for some pro-finite integer k. Since the restrictions to cyclic subgroups induce an
injection
M
R(C),
R(G) −→
C6G
cyclic

the natural transformation Φ is determined by its behavior on cyclic groups. For
a cyclic group C of order n, the representation ring R(C) is isomorphic to the
group ring Z[C∨ ] of the character group C∨ . This is generated (as a ring) by any
embedding γ : C → K × of groups (and it holds that γn = 1). Then Φ(γ) is also a
unit that is torsion. By Higman’s theorem [Hig40, Thm. 3], for instance, every unit
of Z[C∨ ] that is torsion is trivial in Whitehead’s sense: We have Φ(γ) = ±γkn for
some integer kn . The restriction to the trivial subgroup shows that Φ preserves the
augmentation R(G) → Z of the representation ring R(G) given by the dimension,
so that the sign has to be positive, and ΦC = ΨCkn for all cyclic groups C of order n.
Restriction to subgroups shows that kn is congruent to km modulo m whenever m
divides n, so that the family ( kn ∈ Z/n | n > 1) describes a pro-finite integer k
such that ΦC = ΨCk for all cyclic groups C. As mentioned at the beginning, the
6

equation ΦG = ΨkG for all groups G follows. Conversely, this argument also shows
how to read off k from Ψk .

1.2

A representation theoretic interpretation

We will now explain how to find a nice expression for a matrix that describes
the k–th Adams operation Ψk : R(G) → R(G) on the representation ring R(G)
of a finite group G. To do so we write as before χ1 , . . . , χr for the irreducible
characters of the group G, and write the class function Ψk (χi ) : g 7→ χi (gk ) as a
linear combination
Ψk (χi ) = ∑ Ψki, j χ j
j

of the irreducible characters. This gives the matrix ( Ψki, j | 1 6 i, j 6 r ) of Ψk with
respect to the chosen basis—at least in theory. The scalars Ψki, j can be computed
directly, using representation theory, as follows.
We have the standard inner product
hα|βi =

1
α(g)β(g)
|G| ∑
g

(1.1)

for class functions. The irreducible characters form an orthogonal basis, so that
we can compute
Ψki, j = h χ j | Ψk (χi ) i =

1
χ j (g−1 )χi (gk ).
|G| ∑
g

(1.2)

Let Vi be an irreducible representation that corresponds to the irreducible character χi . Equation (1.2) shows that Ψk1, j is the k–th Frobenius–Schur indicator of V j .
Let σk be the linear operator on the k–th tensor power Vi⊗k that cyclically permutes the factors. Since this is KG–linear, we have an induced map (σk )∗ on the
space HomG (V j ,Vi⊗k ) by post-composition. In order to describe Ψki, j explicitly,
we need the following lemma, whose proof can be found in [KSZ06, Sec. 2.3]:
Lemma 1.2. Given any K–vector space V together with K–linear endomorphisms f1 , . . . , fk : V → V , and σk : V ⊗k → V ⊗k denotes the cyclic permutation,
7

then we have an equality
tr( σk ( f1 ⊗ f2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ fk ) |V ⊗k ) = tr( f1 f2 · · · fk |V )
of traces.
Proposition 1.3. Let V1 , . . . ,Vr be representatives of the isomorphism classes of
irreducible G–representations of a finite group G. Then we have
r

Ψk (Vi ) =



∗
⊗k
tr
σ
|
Hom
(V
,V
)
Vj
G j i
∑
k

j=1

in the representation ring R(G), where σk is the cyclic permutation of the tensor
factors of Vi⊗k .
Proof. Consider the vector space W = HomG (V j ,Vi⊗k ). Notice first that W is
the subspace of G–invariants in the representation U = Hom(V j ,Vi⊗k ) where the
action of the group G is the usual diagonal action. Also, the G–representation U is
naturally isomorphic with V j∗ ⊗Vi⊗k . The projection U → W is given by the action
of the idempotent  = |G|−1 ∑g∈G g. The operator σ∗ commutes with the action
of , and we have tr( σ∗ |W ) = tr( σ∗ |U ). This is in fact true whenever we have
an operator commuting with a projection. As in Lemma 1.2 we compute
tr( σ∗ |W ) = tr( σ∗ |U )
= tr
=

1
∑ g ⊗ gk |V j∗ ⊗Vi
|G| g∈G

!

1
∑ χ j (g−1)χi(gk )
|G| g∈G

= Ψki, j
to finish the proof.
Remark 1.4. We have shown that Ψki, j is the character value of a k–cycle for
some representation of the permutation group Sk . This makes it also clear that
the coefficients Ψki, j are integers: All irreducible representations of Sk are already
realizable over the prime field Q, and character values are always algebraic and
contained in the field of definition.
8

1.3

Order and exponent

Recall that the rank of the representation ring R(G) (as an abelian group) is the
number of conjugacy classes of elements in G, so that this numerical invariant
of G is determined by it.
Proposition 1.5. The λ–ring structure on the representation ring R(G) determines
the exponent of G.
Proof. Let e = exp(G) be the exponent of G. Then gk+e = gk for all elements g
of G, so that we have Ψk+e = Ψk for all integers k. This shows that the family Ψ = ( Ψk | k ∈ Z ) is periodic, and we claim that e is its period.
We can use that Ψ0 = dim is the dimension function R(G) → Z → R(G). Assume
that we have Ψk+ f = Ψk for all integers k. If ρ denotes the character of the regular
representation, then Ψ f (ρ) = Ψ0 (ρ) = dim(ρ) is constant and equals the order
of G. But, on the other hand, we have (Ψ f ρ)(g) = ρ(g f ). Since the character
of the regular representation vanishes away from the neutral element of G, we
deduce g f is the neutral element of the group G for all g so that f is a multiple of
the exponent of G, as claimed.
Remark 1.6. It follows from Shimizu’s work [Shi10] that isocategorical groups
have the same exponent. This shows that the exponent is an invariant which is also
computable from the monoidal category Rep(KG) alone, not using its symmetry.
It is arguably much easier to use the λ–ring structure on R(G), though.
The following result should be well known.
Proposition 1.7. The representation ring R(G) determines the order of G.
Proof. We can identify R(G) with a subring of the ring C ⊗Z R(G) and think of
this as the ring of complex class functions on G. The primitive central idempotents
in C ⊗Z R(G) are the characteristic functions of the conjugacy classes. Let us
write g for the one corresponding to the conjugacy class of the element g. The
inner product (1.1) evaluates to
h χ j | g i =

1
χ j (h−1 )g (h),
|G| ∑
h
9

which is χ j (g−1 )/|G| times the number of conjugates of g in G, or |G/CG (s)|.
Since the irreducible characters form an orthonormal basis, we get the formula
g =

1
χ j (g−1 )χ j .
|CG (g)| ∑
j

For instance, we have 1 = ρ/|G|. In general, the coefficient of the trivial representation is 1/|CG (g)|. Let ng be the minimal positive integer such that ng g
is contained in R(G) or 0 if such an integer does not exist. Then the maximum max{ ng | g ∈ G } is achieved at the identity element, and it is ne = |G|. In
this way we recover |G| just from the ring R(G).

2

Isocategorical groups and symmetries

We have already mentioned in the course of the introduction that the representation category Rep(KG) of a finite group G, as a symmetric monoidal category,
determines G up to isomorphism. Let us be more precise now. Deligne [Del90]
constructed a symmetric monoidal forgetful functor F : Rep(KG) → Rep(K),
showed that it is unique, and that the group G is isomorphic to the group of
monoidal automorphisms of F. The symmetric monoidal structure is crucial here.
It is possible that Rep(KG) and Rep(KG0 ) will be equivalent as monoidal categories without the two groups G and G0 being isomorphic. To state this in different
words, it is possible that a representation category Rep(KG) admits another symmetry for the monoidal structure which will come from a different group G0 . Two
groups G and G0 are called isocategorical in case Rep(KG) and Rep(KG0 ) are
equivalent as monoidal categories. In [EG01] Etingof and Gelaki constructed all
examples of non-isomorphic isocategorical finite groups.
Example 2.1. It is shown in [GM] that the smallest examples of isocategorical
groups have order 64. Of the 267 isomorphism classes of groups of that order,
these are the two groups named Γ26 a2 and Γ26 a3 by Hall and Senior [HS64],
or SmallGroup(64,136) and SmallGroup(64,135) in [GAP], respectively. They both have exponent 8 and representations rings of rank 16, but the
ranks of their Burnside rings differ: They are 76 and 73, respectively. These

10

groups can also be distinguished by looking at their homology H3 (G ; Z) or cohomology H3 (G ; Z/2).
We now review the work [EG01] of Etingof and Gelaki that describes how all
groups isocategorical to a given group G can be constructed.
First of all, there is a presentation
1 −→ A −→ G −→ Q −→ 1
of the group G as an extension of some group Q by an abelian group A. Let us
write A∨ = Hom(A, K × ) for the character group of the kernel. Let
α : A∨ × A∨ −→ K ×
be a non-degenerate 2–cocycle for the character group. (This means that the
twisted group algebra K α A is isomorphic to a matrix algebra.) In addition, the
cohomology class [α] is Q–invariant. It thus represents a class in H2 (A∨ ; K× )Q .
By Q–invariance, we have [q(α)] = [α] for all q in Q. Thus, we can choose, for
each element q in the quotient group Q, a 1–cochain z(q) : A∨ → K × such that
dz(q) =

q(α)
α

in the standard cochain complex C1 (A∨ ; K × ) → C2 (A∨ ; K × ). We will work with
one such chosen family ( z(q) | q ∈ Q ) from now on.
We define, for all elements p, q in Q,
b(p, q) =

z(pq)
: A∨ → K × .
z(p)p(z(q))

(2.1)

Such a function is a 1–cochain, and a direct calculation shows that the differential
vanishes on it: d(b(p, q))(ϕ) = 1 for all ϕ ∈ A∨ , so that b is a 1–cocycle, that is
a character of A∨ . In other words, the function b assigns to any pair of elements
in Q an element in (A∨ )∨ = A. It turns out that b is a 2–cocycle of Q, and we can
think of it as having values in A, that is b ∈ Z2 (Q ; A).
Remark 2.2. Notice that the map H0 (Q ; H2 (A∨ ; K × )) → H2 (Q ; H1 (A∨ ; K × ))
which sends [α] to [b] also arises as the first differential on the second page of the
Lyndon–Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence for the split extension
1 −→ A∨ −→ A∨ o Q −→ Q −→ 1.
11

Now that we have described the cocycle b, we can use it to define an isocategorical
group Gb . It has the same underlying set as the group G, but its multiplication ·b
is defined by the rule
g ·b h = b(ḡ, h̄)gh,
(2.2)
where g 7→ ḡ is the projection G → Q.
Theorem 2.3. (Etingof–Gelaki [EG01, Theorem 1.3]) Two finite groups G and G0
are isocategorical if and only if the group G0 is isomorphic to a group of the
form Gb for some b, where the group A has order 22m for some m.
For the easier direction, note that a monoidal equivalence
Fb : Rep(KG) → Rep(KGb )

(2.3)

between the representation categories is given in the following way: If V is a G–
representation, then Fb (V ) = V has the same underlying vector space, but the
action of an element g in Gb is given as follows: If
V=

M

V (ϕ)

ϕ∈A∨

is the isotypical decomposition of V as an A–representation, then
g ·b v =

1
gv
z(ḡ)(ḡ(ϕ))

(2.4)

for the elements v ∈ V (ϕ). For this monoidal equivalence Fb , a monoidal isomorphism Fb (V ⊗W ) → Fb (V ) ⊗ Fb (W ) is given by
v ⊗ w 7−→

1
v⊗w
α(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )

where v ∈ V (ϕ1 ) and w ∈ W (ϕ2 ). For the rest of this paper, we will call a functor
of the form Fb an Etingof–Gelaki equivalence.
Remark 2.4. In order to have an equivalence, it is not necessary that A is
a 2–group. If b0 is the resulting cocycle from a different choice of the family ( z(q) | q ∈ Q ), then [b] = [b0 ] and there exists a canonical isomorphism of
groups ρ : Gb0 ∼
= Gb . The functor Fb0 will then be isomorphic to the composition
ρ∗

F

b
Rep(KG) −→
Rep(KGb ) −→ Rep(KGb0 ).

12

In particular, if b is trivial (which is always the case, for instance, when the order
of A is odd), we will get in this way an auto-equivalence of Rep(KG). However,
in case A is non-trivial, the resulting auto-equivalence will be monoidal but not
symmetric.
The induced symmetry on the category Rep(KG) arising from conjugating the
symmetry on Rep(KGb ) with the equivalence Rep(KG) → Rep(KGb ) will be
v ⊗ w 7→

α(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )
w ⊗ v.
α(ϕ2 , ϕ1 )

Notice that even if b is a trivial cocycle we might get a new non-trivial symmetry
on the category Rep(KG).
In the next section, we will show that these are all possible symmetric monoidal
structures that arise from equivalences between representation categories of finite
groups. We shall also classify all monoidal auto-equivalences of them.

3

Symmetries and monoidal auto-equivalences

A fusion category over K is a semi-simple rigid monoidal K–linear category with
finitely many simple objects and finite-dimensional Hom spaces [ENO05]. A
guiding example to keep in mind is the representation category Rep(KG) of a
finite group G. A fiber functor on a fusion category is a K–linear exact faithful monoidal functor T : D → Rep(K). (The target category Rep(K) is just the
category of vector spaces over the ground field K.) The endomorphism algebra EndK (T ) has a canonical structure of a Hopf algebra, and the functor T
induces an equivalence of monoidal categories between D and Rep(EndK (T )).
This is what is known as Tannaka reconstruction for Hopf algebras.
If now D1 and D2 are two fusion categories, and F : D1 → D2 is a monoidal functor between them, and T : D2 → Rep(K) is a K–linear monoidal functor, then F
induces a Hopf algebra morphism EndK (T ) → EndK (T F) and the following dia-

13

gram is commutative up to a natural equivalence:
/

D1

/

Rep(End(T F))

D2


Rep(End(T ))

where the lower horizontal arrow is restriction of representations.
Let us specialize these considerations to the case where H is a finite-dimensional
semi-simple Hopf algebra over the field K, and where T : Rep(H) → Rep(K) is
the forgetful functor. Then a monoidal auto-equivalence L : Rep(H) → Rep(H) is
given by a pair (T 0 , Φ), where the first entry T 0 : Rep(H) → Rep(K) is a K–linear
monoidal functor (which will become the composition T L) and the second entry is
an isomorphism Φ : H ∼
= EndK (T 0 ) of Hopf algebras. One can show that (T 0 , Φ)
will define the identity auto-equivalence if and only if T 0 ∼
= T , and under this
isomorphism it holds that Φ corresponds to an automorphism of H which arises
from conjugation by a group-like element.
Consider now the case where the Hopf algebra H = KG is the group algebra of a finite group G. Following the works of Movshev [Mov93], and also
of Ostrik [Ost03a, Ost03b], and of Natale [Nat03], we know that fiber functors F : Rep(KG) → Rep(K) are in one-to-one correspondence with pairs of the
form (A, [ψ]) where A is a subgroup of G and [ψ] ∈ H2 (A ; K × ) is a cohomology
class of a non-degenerate 2–cocycle. Two pairs (A1 , [ψ1 ]) and (A2 , [ψ2 ]) define
isomorphic functors if and only if they differ by conjugation in G. For instance,
the pair (1, [1]) consisting of the trivial subgroup and the trivial 2–cocycle on it
corresponds to the forgetful functor Rep(KG) → Rep(K). Furthermore, the Hopf
algebra that one receives from Tannaka reconstruction is again a group algebra if
and only if the subgroup A is abelian and normal, and the cohomology class of
the 2–cocycle ψ is invariant under the action of the group G.
In the case of abelian groups the cocycle ψ amounts to a skew-symmetric pairing
on A, given by
ψ(a, b)
.
(a, b) 7−→
ψ(b, a)
In case ψ is non-degenerate, this gives us an isomorphism S : A ∼
= A∨ . The 2–
cocycle (S−1 )∗ (ψ) is then exactly the 2–cocycle which appears in the Etingof–
14

Gelaki classification of isocategorical groups mentioned in the previous section.
This discussion leads to the following results:
Theorem 3.1. Assume that σ is a symmetric monoidal structure on Rep(KG).
Assume also that the exterior powers ΛnV (defined using the symmetry) satisfy ΛnV = 0 for every object V and large enough n (depending on V ). Then there
exists a normal abelian subgroup A of G and a G/A–invariant non-degenerate
cohomology class of a 2–cocycle α : A∨ × A∨ → K × such that σ is given by
v ⊗ w 7−→

α(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )
w ⊗ v,
α(ϕ2 , ϕ1 )

where A acts on v via the character ϕ1 and on w via the character ϕ2 .
Proof. Assume first that σ is a symmetric monoidal structure of the aforementioned form. By Deligne (see [Del90]) we know that there exists an equivalence of
symmetric monoidal categories (Rep(KG), σ) → (Rep(KG0 ), σ0 ) where σ0 is the
regular symmetry on Rep(KG0 ) for some finite group G0 . By the above discussion
and the classification of fiber functors on Rep(KG) we know that every monoidal
equivalence between Rep(KG) and Rep(KG0 ) is an Etingof–Gelaki equivalence.
This implies that the symmetric monoidal structure is of the above form.
Theorem 3.2. Any monoidal auto-equivalence Rep(KG) → Rep(KG) is given
by a triple (A, α, ϕ) consisting of an abelian normal subgroup A of G, a G/A–
invariant non-degenerate 2–cocycle α on A∨ and an isomorphism ϕ : G → Gb ,
where b is the 2–cocycle from the Etingof–Gelaki construction. Moreover, two
tuples (A, α, ϕ) and (A0 , α0 , ϕ0 ) will define isomorphic equivalences if and only
if A = A0 , α = α0 and ϕ differs from ϕ0 by conjugation with an element of the
group G.
Proof. The proof of this is similar to the one before.
Remark 3.3. It is worth mentioning the connection between the group of
monoidal auto-equivalences of the fusion category Rep(KG) that appears here and
the Brauer–Picard group BrPic(Rep(KG)) that has been introduced in [ENO10].
We have a natural homomorphism of groups
Φ : Aut⊗ (Rep(KG)) −→ BrPic(Rep(KG))
15

which sends an automorphism ψ to the quasi-trivial bimodule Rep(KG)ψ . The
kernel of this homomorphism contains all auto-equivalences that are given (up to
isomorphism) by conjugation with an invertible object in the category Rep(KG).
Since the category Rep(KG) is symmetric, the homomorphism Φ is in fact injective, and we can consider the group Aut⊗ (Rep(KG)) as a subgroup of the Brauer–
Picard group BrPic(Rep(KG)). The image of the homomorphism Φ is denoted
by Out(Rep(KG)). An element in the Brauer–Picard group is given by a module
category M over Rep(KG) together with an equivalence between Rep(KG) and
the dual Rep(KG)M . Equivalence classes of module categories over Rep(KG)
for which the dual is equivalent to Rep(KG0 ) for some group G0 are given by
pairs (A, ψ) where A is an abelian normal subgroup, and ψ is a 2–cocycle, not
necessarily non-degenerate. We see that the image of Φ contains all the bimodule
categories in which the cocycle ψ is non-degenerate (and for which the resulting group is isomorphic to G). For a deeper study of the Brauer–Picard group
of Rep(KG) we refer the reader to the paper [NR14].

4

Preservation of the odd Adams operations

The purpose of this section is to prove the following result.
Theorem 4.1. If G and G0 are two isocategorical groups, then there is a monoidal
equivalence Rep(G) ' Rep(G0 ) between their representation categories such that
the induced isomorphism R(G) ∼
= R(G0 ) between their representation rings preserves the Adams operations Ψ p for all odd p.
Let us begin with the following statement.
Lemma 4.2. Assume that we have a short exact sequence 1 → A → G → Q → 1, a
non-degenerate 2–cocycle [α] ∈ H2 (A∨ ; K × )Q , and b : Q×Q → A the resulting 2–
cocycle from the Etingof–Gelaki construction. If b0 : Q × Q → A is the resulting 2–
cocycle from a different choice of family ( z(q) | q ∈ Q ), then for every integer k
the functor Fb will preserve Ψk if and only if the functor Fb0 will preserve Ψk .
Proof. This follows directly from Remark 2.4 and the fact that symmetric
monoidal equivalences F : Rep(KG) → Rep(KG0 ) preserve all Adams opera16

tions: The Adams operations are determined by the λ–ring structure, and this
structure in turn is determined by the symmetric monoidal structure.
We can (and will) therefore assume that we are dealing with an Etingof–
Gelaki equivalence between the finite groups G and Gb which arises from a
short exact sequence 1 → A → G → Q → 1, a Q–invariant cohomology class [α]
in H2 (A∨ ; K × ), and a 2–cocycle b as above. We also assume here that the group A
is a 2–group.
Lemma 4.3. We can choose the functions z(q) : A∨ → K × in such a way that we
have z(q)(ϕ) = 1 whenever q(ϕ) = ϕ.
Proof. For a given element q ∈ Q, pick any function z(q) that satisfies the
equation dz(q) = q(α)/α. The restriction of z(q) to the q–invariant subgroup B(q) = (A∨ )q is then a character of the abelian group B(q). Indeed, we
calculate
q(α|B(q) )
= 1,
d(z(q)|B(q) ) =
α|B(q)
by invariance. Since the field K is assumed to be algebraically closed, its group
of units is divisible, so that any character on B(q) can be extended to a character
on A∨ . By multiplying z(q) with the inverse of the extended character, we do
not change the 2–cocycle dz(q), but we assure that we have z(q)|B(q) = 1, as
desired.
From now on we assume that z(q)(ϕ) = 1 whenever q(ϕ) = ϕ. Under this
assumption, we can prove the following lemma:
Lemma 4.4. The isomorphism R(G) ∼
= R(Gb ) induced by Fb is the identity.
Since Gb is equal to G as a set, this formulation makes sense.
Proof. Let V be a representation of the group G with character χ. Recall our
notation B(q) = (A∨ )q for elements q in the quotient Q = G/A. When we look
at the way that an element g of G permutes the isotypical summands V (ϕ) of V ,

17

the only places where we will get a contribution to the character are those V (ϕ)
which are stable under the action of ḡ. Therefore, we can write
χ(g) =

tr( g |V (ϕ) ).

∑
ϕ∈B(ḡ)

Let χb be the character of the Gb –representation F(V ). We then have
χb (g) =

1
tr( g |V (ϕ) )
z(ḡ)(ḡ(ϕ))
ϕ∈B(ḡ)

∑

by the definition (2.4) of the new action on V when restricted to the subspace V (ϕ). Since we can assume, by Lemma 4.3, that we have z(ḡ)(ϕ) = 1
whenever ḡ fixes ϕ, we deduce χ = χb as functions on G = Gb and we are
done.
Now that we have an explicit model for an isomorphism between the representation rings R(G) and R(Gb ), we can check that it respects the odd Adams operations:
Proof of Theorem 4.1. Let k be an odd integer. We have (Ψk χ)(g) = χ(gk ) by
definition of the Adams operations and similarly for Ψk χb . We already know
that χb = χ by the previous lemma, so that the only possible difference is in the
power gk of g: It is calculated once in the group G and once in the group Gb ,
respectively. We can assume that k is a positive integer. When we calculate gk
using the multiplication (2.2) in Gb , we find
b(ḡ, ḡ) · b(ḡ2 , ḡ) · . . . · b(ḡk−1 , ḡ) · gk
in terms of G. If we use formula (2.1), we can cancel repeating terms, and we get
z(ḡk )
· gk .
z(ḡ) · g(z(ḡ)) · . . . · gk−1 (z(ḡ))
The fractional part here is an element of A, described as a character A∨ → K × ,
and to finish the proof it suffices to show that this element is the unit.
As in the proof of the previous lemma, we know that
χ(gk ) =

tr( gk |V (ϕ) ).

∑
ϕ∈B(ḡk )

18

A similar expression holds for Ψk (χb ). We thus need only to consider characters ϕ
which are fixed by gk . By the assumption that we made (after Lemma 4.3) on the
functions z(q), we get z(ḡk )(ϕ) = 1 in the numerator since ϕ ∈ A∨ is fixed by gk .
In the denominator we get
z(ḡ)(ϕ)z(ḡ)(g(ϕ)) · · · z(ḡ)(gk−1 (ϕ)).

(4.1)

Let us write Z for the expression (4.1). We shall prove now that Z = 1. On the
one hand, the order of Z is 2m for some m. This follows from the fact that A is
a 2–group and that all the values of α and of z(q) can be chosen to have values
which are 2l roots of unity, for some l. (In case the group A has odd order we can
choose a representative of [α] which is Q–invariant as a function. It is then easy
to prove that in this case all Adams operations are being preserved). On the other
hand, we will show now that Z k = 1. Since k is odd, this will finish the proof.
To prove Z k = 1, we first extend the 2–cocycle α in the following way:
if ϕ1 , ϕ2 , . . . ϕk all lie in A∨ , then we define
α(ϕ1 , ϕ2 , . . . , ϕk ) = α(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )α(ϕ1 ϕ2 , ϕ3 ) . . . α(ϕ1 ϕ2 · · · ϕk−1 , ϕk ).
In other words, if we think of the 2–cocycle α as realizing an extension
1 −→ K × −→ Γ −→ A∨ −→ 1
then we have that s(ϕ1 ) · · · s(ϕk ) = α(ϕ1 , . . . , ϕk )s(ϕ1 ϕ2 · · · ϕk ) where the
map ϕ 7→ s(ϕ) is a set-theoretical section of the projection Γ → A∨ .
We have the formula
α(ϕ, ψ)
z(ḡ)(ϕ)z(ḡ)(ψ)
=
.
z(ḡ)(ϕψ)
α(g(ϕ), g(ψ))
By using it repeatedly, we get
Z=

α(ϕ, g(ϕ), . . . , gk−1 (ϕ))
.
α(g(ϕ), . . . , gk−1 (ϕ), ϕ)

We have also used here the fact that z(ḡ)(ϕg(ϕ) · · · gk−1 (ϕ)) = 1. This is because
the character ϕg(ϕ) · · · gk−1 (ϕ) is g–invariant, and by Lemma 4.3 we can assume
that the value of z(ḡ) on it is 1.
19

For every j = 1, . . . k − 1 we can also write
Z = z(ḡ)(g j (ϕ) · · · z(ḡ)(g j+k−1 (ϕ))).
By doing the same calculation again, we get
Z=

α(g j (ϕ), . . . , g j+k−1 (ϕ))
α(g j+1 (ϕ), . . . , g j+k (ϕ))

for every j. We multiply all these expression for Z. They cancel each other, and
we are left with Z k = 1. This finishes the proof.

5

Examples and remarks

The following examples illustrate the subtlety of the situation.
Example 5.1. Let D8 again denote the dihedral group of order 8. We will describe
a non-symmetric monoidal auto-equivalence of Rep(D8 ) which does not preserve Ψ2 , We will use the following presentation:
D8 = h x, y, q | x2 = y2 = q2 = 1, [x, y] = 1, [q, y] = 1, [q, x] = y i.
The subgroup A = h x, y i is a normal subgroup isomorphic to the Klein group.
Let us denote a dual pair of generators of A∨ by ν, µ. The group H2 (A∨ ; K × )
has order 2. A generator is given by α(νa µb , νc µd ) = (−1)bc . This cohomology class must be G/A–invariant. We choose z(q)(νa µb ) = ib . We then
get that z satisfies the condition of Lemma 4.3. The resulting 2–cocycle b is
given by b(q, q) = y. Notice that b is a trivial cocycle since in G the equation (qx)2 = y holds and therefore the function G → Gb given by sending xi y j qk
to xi y j+k qk is an isomorphism of groups. However, the resulting monoidal equivalence Rep(KG) → Rep(KGb ) → Rep(KG) is not symmetric and it does not preserve the second Adams operation. Indeed, the group G has four 1-dimensional
irreducible representations V00 ,V01 ,V10 ,V11 and a unique two dimensional irreducible representation W . The element xi y j qk acts on Vab by the scalar (−1)ai+kb .
A direct calculation shows that
Ψ2 (W ) = V00 +V10 +V01 −V11
20

while F(W ) = W and
F(Ψ2 (W )) = V00 −V10 +V01 +V11
is different from Ψ2 (F(W )).
Example 5.2. There are examples of monoidal equivalences which preserve all
Adams operations, but which are not symmetric. Indeed, there are Etingof–Gelaki
equivalences that preserve all Adams operations without being symmetric. To
see this, consider the case where the quotient Q is trivial but the subgroup A is
not. The cocycle b is then of course trivial, and the functor Fb preserves trivially all the Adams operations. However, since the abelian subgroup A is not
trivial, α is not trivial, and the functor Fb is not symmetric. The smallest such
example is the Klein 4–group C2 × C2 . This group has four 1–dimensional irreducible representations, which we shall denote by Vi j for i, j ∈ {0, 1}. On the
category Rep(K(C2 × C2 )) we have two different symmetries. The regular symmetry Vi j ⊗Vkl ∼
= Vkl ⊗Vi j is given by
x ⊗ y 7−→ y ⊗ x,
and the second symmetry is given by
x ⊗ y 7−→ (−1)il+ jk y ⊗ x.
However, with respect to both symmetries, the Adams operation Ψk is the identity
for every odd k, and Ψk (Vi j ) = V00 for every even k.
Remark 5.3. In all examples of monoidal equivalences F : Rep(G) → Rep(G0 )
that preserve all Adams operations that we have seen so far, the groups G and G0
are isomorphic. If F is symmetric, then this is clear: an isomorphism is induced by
the functor F, because the groups G and G0 are isomorphic to the automorphism
groups of the fiber functors. In the Examples 5.2, we have G ∼
= G0 by construction.
The preceding remark may be taken as evidence for an affirmative answer to the
question in the introduction. Here is more that may be considered in support of it:
Remark 5.4. Let G be a group with two G–representations V and W . Using
the notation of Section 2, for any isocategorical group Gb , we have two corresponding Gb –representations Vb and Wb . A slight variation of the results of Section 1.2 allows us to deduce the following: For every permutation σ in Sn , we
21

have χU (σ) = tr( σ |U ) = tr( σ |Ub ) = χUb (σ) when we consider the action of σ
on the spaces U = HomG (V,W ⊗n ) and Ub = HomGb (Vb ,Wb⊗n ). Since the permutation groups Sn are finite and the ground field is of characteristic zero, this already
means that U and Ub are actually isomorphic as Sn –representations.

Acknowledgment
Both authors were supported by the Danish National Research Foundation through
the Centre for Symmetry and Deformation (DNRF92). The first author was also
supported by the Research Training Group 1670 “Mathematics Inspired by String
Theory and Quantum Field Theory.” The first author thanks Victor Ostrik for
discussions. The second author thanks Björn Schuster for discussions.

References
[Ben84] D.J. Benson. Lambda and psi operations on Green rings. J. Algebra 87
(1984) 360–367.
[Bre94]

L. Breen. Tannakian categories. Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991) 33–376.
Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 55, Part 1. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, 1994.

[AT69]

M.F. Atiyah, D.O. Tall. Group representations, λ–rings and the J–
homomorphism. Topology 8 (1969) 253–297.

[Ber71]

P. Berthelot. Généralités sur les λ–anneaux. Exposé V. Théorie des
Intersections et Théorème de Riemann-Roch (SGA 6) 297–364. Lecture Notes in Mathematics Volume 225. Springer, 1971.

[Dad64] E.C. Dade. Answer to a question of R. Brauer. J. Algebra 1 (1964) 1–4.
[Del90]

P. Deligne. Catégories tannakiennes. The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol.
II, 111–195. Progr. Math., 87. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990.

22

[DM82] P. Deligne, J. Milne. Tannakian categories. Hodge cycles, motives, and
Shimura varieties, 101–228. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982.
[EG01]

P. Etingof, S. Gelaki. Isocategorical groups. Internat. Math. Res.
Notices (2001) 59–76.

[ENO05] P.I. Etingof, D.A. Nikshych, V. Ostrik. On fusion categories. Ann. of
Math. 162 (2005) 581–642.
[ENO10] P.I. Etingof, D.A. Nikshych, V. Ostrik. Fusion categories and homotopy
theory. With an appendix by E. Meir. Quantum Topol. 1 (2010) 209–
273.
[GAP]

The GAP Group. GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming.
www.gap-system.org

[GM]

I. Goyvaerts, E. Meir. The Witt group of a braided monoidal category.
arXiv:1412.3417

[Gro58] A. Grothendieck. La théorie des classes de Chern. Bull. Soc. Math.
France 86 (1958) 137–154.
[HS64]

M. Hall, J.K. Senior. The groups of order 2n (n 6 6). Collier–Macmillan, London, 1964.

[Hig40] G. Higman. The units of group-rings. Proc. London Math. Soc. 46
(1940) 231–248.
[KSZ06] Y. Kashina, Y. Sommerhäuser, Y. Zhu. On higher Frobenius–Schur
indicators. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 181 (2006) 855.
[Knu73] D. Knutson. λ–rings and the representation theory of the symmetric
group. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 308. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New
York, 1973.
[Mov93] M.V. Movshev. Twisting in group algebras of finite groups. Funct. Anal.
Appl. 27 (1993) 240–244.
[Nat03]

S. Natale. On group theoretical Hopf algebras and exact factorizations
of finite groups. J. Algebra 270 (2003) 199–211.
23

[NR14]

D. Nikshych, B. Riepel. Categorical Lagrangian Grassmannians and
Brauer–Picard groups of pointed fusion categories. J. Algebra 411
(2014) 191–214.

[Ost03a] V. Ostrik. Module categories, weak Hopf algebras and modular invariants. Transformation Groups 8 (2003) 177–206.
[Ost03b] V. Ostrik. Module categories over the Drinfeld double of a finite group.
Int. Math. Res. Notices 27 (2003) 1507–1520.
[Pat03]

F. Patras. Lambda-rings. Handbook of algebra, Vol. 3, 961–986, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 2003.

[Ser67]

J.-P. Serre. Représentations linéaires des groupes finis. Hermann, Paris,
1967.

[Shi10]

K. Shimizu. Monoidal Morita invariants for finite group algebras. J.
Algebra 323 (2010) 397–418.

[Wil82]

C. Wilkerson. Lambda-rings, binomial domains, and vector bundles
over CP(∞). Comm. Algebra 10 (1982) 311–328.

[Yau10] D. Yau. Lambda-rings. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2010.
Ehud Meir
Department of Mathematics
University of Hamburg
22529 Hamburg
GERMANY
meirehud@gmail.com
Markus Szymik
Department of Mathematical Sciences
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
7491 Trondheim
NORWAY
markus.szymik@ntnu.no
24

