Why FHE takes modulo space $\Bbb Z_p$ as $[−p/2,p/2)$ rather than $[0,p)$? Why doesn't FHE scheme see a modulus space $\Bbb Z_p$ as $[0,p)$ ?
Instead, it consider $\Bbb Z_p$ as $\left[-\frac{p}{2},\frac{p}{2}\right)$.

What's the concrete reason?
What happens if I use $[0,p)$?
The notation

Many works on FHE use a function of $a$ and $p$ giving how far above or below the nearest multiple of $p$ the quantity $a$ is. Craig Gentry and Shai Halevi note that quantity as $[a]_p$ in Implementing Gentry's Fully-Homomorphic Encryption Scheme (extended abstract in proceedings of Eurocrypt 2011). It replaces $((a+\lfloor p/2\rfloor)\bmod p)-\lfloor p/2\rfloor$. This $[a]_p$ belongs to $[−p/2,p/2)$.

Nathanael Black in Homomorphic Encryption and the Approximate GCD Problem (page vii) go as far as using $a\bmod p$ rather than $[a]_p$:


  $a\bmod p\;\;$ Denotes reducing $a$ modulo $p$ into the interval $(-p/2, p/2]$


which is equivalent to
$$(a\bmod p)=r\;\iff\;p\text{ divides }a-r\;\text{ and }\;r\in(-p/2, p/2]$$
(the difference in interval boundaries is immaterial for odd $p$).

Alternatively, that variant $[a]_p$ of $a\bmod p$ could be defined as $a-p\cdot\lceil a/p\rfloor$, where $\lceil x\rfloor$ denotes rational $x$ rounded to the nearest integer (rounding up for Gentry et al.). This is similar to the standard $a\bmod p\;=\;a-p\cdot\lfloor a/p\rfloor$.

For both the standard and alternate definitions of operator $\bmod$, it holds that:
$$\begin{align}
((a+b)\bmod p)&amp;=(((a\bmod p)+b)\bmod p)\\
&amp;=(((a\bmod p)+(b\bmod p))\bmod p)\\
\end{align}$$
$$\begin{align}
((a\cdot b)\bmod p)&amp;=(((a\bmod p)\cdot b)\bmod p)\\
 &amp;=(((a\bmod p)\cdot(b\bmod p))\bmod p)\\
\end{align}$$
$$\begin{align}
(a\bmod p)&amp;\equiv a&amp;\pmod p\\
((a+b)\bmod p)&amp;\equiv a+b&amp;\pmod p\\
((a\cdot b)\bmod p)&amp;\equiv a\cdot b&amp;\pmod p\\
\end{align}$$
Note: In the above the notation $r\equiv a\pmod p$ means that $p$ divides $a-r$, and needs no adaptation. It is recognizable from operator $\bmod$ by the use of an opening parenthesis immediately on the left of $\bmod$, and (sometime: or) the use of an $\equiv$ sign somewhere on the left of and paired with $\bmod$.



Why it is useful

With the alternate definition $[a]_p$ of $a\bmod p$ comes an additional useful property, that does not hold for the standard $\bmod$: when $p$ is odd, for all $a$, it holds that $[-a]_p=-[a]_p$. That also holds for large even $p$ and most $a$.

The concept allows an easy extension to signed numbers and subtraction of one of the simplest (partially) homomorphic encryption system: Paillier's encryption. All it takes is defining a modified decryption as $D'(c)=[D(c)]_n$ and restriction of plaintext range; see this.

In some FHE systems, $[a]_p$ matches a signed noise term algebraically added to a signal aligned to multiples of $p$, and $a-[a]_p$ is the pristine signal recovered from the noisy $a$, minimizing the absolute value of noise $[a]_p$.