THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL RANDOM MATRIX ENSEMBLES
ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG
Abstract. We present a completed classification of the classical random ma- trix ensembles: Hermite (Gaussian), Laguerre (Wishart), Jacobi (MANOVA) and Circular by introducing the concept of the generalized Cartan decompo- sition and the double coset space. Previous authors [8, 40] associate a symmetric space G/K with a random matrix density on the double coset structure K\G/K. However this is incom- plete. Complete coverage requires the double coset structure A = K1\G/K2, where G/K1 and G/K2 are two symmetric spaces. Furthermore, we show how the matrix factorization obtained by the generalized Cartan decomposition G = K1AK2 plays a crucial role in sampling algorithms and the derivation of the joint probability density of A.
1. Introduction In pioneering work by Zirnbauer [40] and Due˜nez[8] connections are made be- tween random matrix ensembles and the symmetric spaces [19, 21] studied in dif- ferential geometry, representation theory, and harmonic analysis. Unfortunately, symmetric spaces alone do not account for a rich enough set of Jacobi ensemble densities (See Figure 1). This work fills this significant gap. Noting that more general tools are needed, we not only take a closer look at the KAK decomposition from the theory of symmetric spaces, but we propose the incorporation of the more recent generalized Cartan decomposition (or the K1AK2 decomposition) [15, 24, 14, 30] especially for complete coverage of the Jacobi ensembles. We show that double coset spaces are rich enough to cover these important matrix ensembles. Furthermore, the key object is not the joint density, per se, but the matrix factorization. To be clear, in the compact cases, one should take a natural matrix factorization such as the eigenvalue or CS decomposition (CSD) arXiv:2011.08087v2 [math-ph] 30 Mar 2021 [36, 6] of a Haar measure unitary. To this end, we introduce the ODO [17] and a new QDQ decomposition for the circular β = 1, 4 cases in Sections 4.1 and 4.3. Similary in the noncompact case, one should take a natural matrix factorization such as the eigenvalue, SVD or hyperbolic CS decomposition (HCSD) [23] of matrices with sufficiently many independent Gaussian elements. In many cases, the forces of history have shoehorned these ensembles into the eigenvalue format, and this has obscured rather than revealed structure.
Date: November 15, 2020. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 15A23, 15B52; Secondary 22E60, 53C35. Key words and phrases. Classical Random Matrix Ensemble, Matrix Factorization, Symmetric Space, Generalized Cartan Decomposition. 1 2 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG
Figure 1. While symmetric spaces served as a classification tool for random matrices for a long time, a slide from the first author’s seminar at MIT [11] in 2014 asks where are the missing Jacobi ensembles and clarification on the Laguerre ensembles. This paper will complete the theory concentrating on the first six rows as examples, but the theory applies to the entire table.
This work also endeavors to make the Lie theory more widely accessible, by rewriting key ideas and reworking the classical proofs in [20] in a way that the authors hope may be more insightful for a much larger audience. Cartan’s theory [3, 4, 5] as developed by Helgason [21] is a crowning mathematical achievement, and it is our hope to open up this theory for the benefit of all. Indeed, in [35, p. 428], Sigurdur Helgason writes about the difficulty of understanding Cartan’s writings: Then there was Elie´ Cartan’s work. But his work was, for one thing, relatively little understood, in spite of its great importance. He was one of the great mathematicians of the period, but his papers were quite a challenge. Hermann Weyl, in reviewing a book by Cartan from 1937 writes: “Cartan is undoubtedly the greatest living master in differential geometry... I must admit that I found the book like most of Cartan’s papers, hard reading.” In the same vein, while we are admirers of Helgason’s extensive work, we authors must admit that we in turn found [21] hard reading as well, and this paper attempts to introduce the theory accessible to a larger community, by couching the ideas in terms of what we call ping pong operators, etc. Summarizing our work, we provide the following: • A complete classification of the classical ensembles, including the full cov- erage of the Jacobi ensemble. (Table 1) THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 3
• Recognition and classification of matrix factorizations hidden in the (gener- alized) Cartan decomposition (including the hyperbolic CS decomposition in Section 8). • Translating some of the key concepts in the Lie theory and the theory of symmetric spaces into easier to follow linear algebra. (Section 3) • Identification of new matrix factorizations (the QDQ decomposition) rele- vant to the sampling of the circular ensembles. (Section 4) The full correspondence with double coset spaces, matrix factorizations, and the classical random matrix ensembles may be found in Table 1.
KAK (K AK ) Decomposition Random Cartan G 1 2 decomposition p = kak−1 β-matrix Type K g = k1ak2 (See Φ in Remark 2.6) ensemble U(n) ODO Unitary symmetric β = 1 AI O(n) decomposition eigendecomposition (COE) β = 2 A U(n) - - (CUE) Circular U(2n) QDQ Unitary self-dual β = 4 AII Sp(n) decomposition eigendecomposition (CSE) CSD of real O(n) Real Compact BDI-I Grassmannian β = 1 O(p) × O(q) CSD (Bi-Stiefel decomp. [22]) U(n) Complex CSD of complex AIII-III β = 2 U(p) × U(q) CSD Grassmannian Sp(n) Quaternion CSD of quaternionic CII-II β = 4
Sp(p) × Sp(q) CSD Grassmannian Jacobi (MANOVA) GL(n, ) Real Symmetric (Pos.def) β = 1 AI R O(n) square SVD eigendecomposition (GOE) GL(n, ) Complex Hermitian (Pos.def) β = 2 A C U(n) square SVD eigendecomposition (GUE) GL(n, ) Quaternion Self-dual (Pos.def) β = 4 AII H Sp(n) square SVD digendecomposition (GSE) Gaussian (Hermite) HCSD of real O(p, q) Real BDI hyperbolic Grassmannian β = 1
Non-compact O(p) × O(q) HCSD ( = Real SVD) HCSD of complex U(p, q) Complex AIII hyperbolic Grassmannian β = 2 U(p) × U(q) HCSD ( = Complex SVD) HCSD of quaternion Sp(p, q) Quaternion CII hyperbolic Grassmannian β = 4 Sp(p) × Sp(q) HCSD Wishart (Laguerre) ( = Quaternion SVD)
Table 1. Correspondence between double coset spaces (which may be a symmetric space), matrix factorizations, and the classical random matrix ensembles. 4 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG
2. Background Our interest in Lie Theory emanates from the fact that the famous K’s, P ’s, and the refinement of the P ’s to the A’s generate so many of the important factorizations of applied mathematics. With symmetric spaces we only have Jacobians as products of sines of the “restricted roots”, but random matrix theory requires cosines in the case of Jacobi, which is where the generalized Cartan decomposition comes in. We start out by introducing the theory related to the generalized Cartan decom- position. For readers without preliminary knowledge in Lie theory, we recommend skipping to Section 3 which follows a more modern linear algebra approach.
2.1. Generalized Cartan decomposition. Let G/Kσ be a Riemannian symmet- ric space with real reductive Lie group G and the maximal compact subgroup Kσ induced by the Cartan involution σ on g := Lie(G). Then g = kσ +pσ is the Cartan decomposition. Let τ be another involution such that τσ = στ and let g = kτ + pτ be the eigenspace decomposition (of eigenvalues ±1) obtained by τ. Denote by Kτ the analytic subgroup of G with tangent space kτ . Suppose a is a maximal abelian subalgebra of pτ ∩ pσ and define A := exp(a). We introduce the generalized Cartan decomposition,
Theorem 2.1 (generalized Cartan decomposition, K1AK2 decomposition). Any reductive Lie group G with τ and σ as above can be decomposed as,
(2.1) G = Kτ AKσ.
That is, for any g ∈ G, we have k1 ∈ Kτ , k2 ∈ Kσ and a ∈ A such that g = k1ak2. Remark 2.2. The name “generalized Cartan decomposition” appeared in Flensted- Jensen’s work [14] is originally intended for cases with noncompact Lie groups G. However the compact analogue (which does not involve Cartan involution) is also denoted with “generalized Cartan decomposition” recently. We will often use the name “K1AK2 decomposition” to denote both noncompact and compact cases. From the space of linear functionals a∗, we collect eigenvalues of an adjoint representation (the commutator) of a on g and call these eigenvalues the roots of the K1AK2 decomposition. By fixing the Weyl chamber, we obtain a set of positive roots Σ+. Details of the theory of the generalized Cartan decomposition and its root system can be found in Flensted-Jensen [15, 14], Matsuki [30, 31, 32] and Kobayashi [29]. The K1AK2 decomposition is also studied in the context of spherical harmonics and intertwining functions [24]. Double coset spaces also appear in [25]. Now let ± mα be the dimensions of the root space of the root α refined by eigenvalues ±1 of στ. Let dkσ, dkτ be Haar measures of Kσ, Kτ , respectively. Assume G noncompact. Theorem 2.3. Let dg be the Haar measure on G and let H ∈ a be such that a = exp(H). Then we have the Jacobian and the integration corresponding to the change of variables associated with the decomposition (2.1), g = kσakτ , Z Z Z Z f(g)dg = f(kσakτ ) dkσ dµ(a) dkτ G Kτ A Kσ where Y m+ m− (2.2) dµ(a) ∝ (sinh α(H)) α (cosh α(H)) α dH. α∈Σ+ THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 5
The proof of (2.2) is attached in the Appendix. The result when G is compact is identical upon replacing sinh α(H) (and cosh α(H)) with sin α(H) (and cos α(H)). If τ = σ, we recover the famous KAK decomposition. Results regarding the KAK decomposition and restricted roots of symmetric spaces can be found in standard Lie group textbooks [20, 19, 28, 18, 2]. In this case, the Jacobian (2.2) reduces down to Q (sinh α(H))mα as it can be found in several references [27, 20, 26]. Since the invariant measure of G/K inherits the Haar measure of G, the same Jacobian is obtained for the decomposition of a symmetric space, Theorem 2.4. For a noncompact symmetric space G/K we have the map Φ, Φ:(K,A) → G/K, Φ(k, a) = kaK. Let H ∈ a with a = exp(H). For the G-invariant measure dx of G/K , Haar measure dk of K and Euclidean measure dH on H, relationship dx = dkdµ(a) holds with Y (2.3) dµ(a) ∝ (sinh α(H))mα dH. α∈Σ+ Similar result is obtained for the compact case. Theorem 2.5. For a compact symmetric space G/K we have the map Φ, Φ:(K,A) → G/K, Φ(k, a) = kaK. Let H ∈ a with a = exp(H). For the G-invariant measure dx of G/K, the Haar measure dk of K and the Euclidean measure dH on H, the relationship dx = dkdµ(a) holds with Y (2.4) dµ(a) ∝ (sin α(H))mα dH. α∈Σ+
Note that the K1AK2 decomposition of compact G will have the Jacobian derived similarly as (2.2), proportional to the following: Y m+ m− (2.5) (sin α(H)) α (cos α(H)) α dH. α∈Σ+ Remark 2.6. Some authors [27, 20, 21, 15] use Q sinh α(H) as the Jacobian, whereas some authors [26, 8, 37] use Q sinh(α(H)/2). This gap is due to the difference in the realization of a symmetric space G/K as a subset P ⊂ G. The former uses the right coset representative, i.e., G/K → P as gK = p where g = pk is its (generalized) polar decomposition. Then the G-action of G on G/K is given as (g1, g2K) 7→ −1 g1g2K. Latter authors use the map G/K → P such that gK 7→ g(σg) where σ is −1 the group level involution. The G-action is (g1, g2) 7→ g1g2(σg1) , g1 ∈ G, g2 ∈ P . In terms of Theorem 2.4, the latter gives the map Φ such that (k, a) 7→ ka2k−1 since g(σg)−1 = pkσ(pk)−1 = pk(p−1k)−1 = pkk−1p = p2 = kak−1kak−1 = ka2k−1 1 and this explains the extra factor 2 applied to H. More importantly, under these identifications the map Φ can be defined in a more intuitive way,Φ: (K,A) → P , such that (2.6) Φ(k, a) 7→ kak−1 or Φ(k, a) 7→ ka2k−1 (depending on the author’s notational choice) and this Φ (with either choice) is listed in the column p = kak−1 in Table 1. 6 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG
Equipped with these tools, we work with 12 double coset spaces which are con- nected to four famous numerical matrix factorizations : unitary eigendecompo- sitions, the CS decomposition, Hermitian eigendecompositions and the SVD (or the hyperbolic CS decomposition). These four factorizations imply the four most famous classical random joint densities: Circular, Hermite (Gaussian), La- guerre (Wishart) and Jacobi (MANOVA) ensembles. Starting from Section 4 the detailed classification and connections will be made. For the double coset space Kτ \G/Kσ, we name the double coset decomposition after the two types of involution from Cartan’s Classification, e.g., O(n)\U(n)/O(n) is denoted compact AI-I.
3. Cartan’s idea with linear algebra
The Jacobian of the KAK Decomposition (and the K1AK2 decomposition), equivalently the determinant of the differential of the map Φ : K × A → P , (See Theorem 2.4, 2.5, and Remark 2.6) is computed with Lie theoretic tools in the Appendix. The proof derives (2.2) by extending the pioneering work of Cartan and Helgason [5, 20]. However the proof can be inaccessible to some audiences. Meanwhile, individual cases of the KAK decomposition, recognized as matrix fac- torizations, show up in many areas of mathematics, and some were discovered in various formats by specialists in numerical linear algebra. Motivated by Random Matrix Theory (and sometimes perturbation theory in numerical analysis), Jaco- bians of these factorizations were often computed case-by-case using the matrix differentials and wedging of independent elements. [16, 9, 13, 33] In this section, we provide a generalization of such individual Jacobian computa- tions and compare it to the general technique Helgason proposed. With appropriate translation of terminologies and maps in Lie theory into linear algebra, we observe both methods are indeed the same process but have been illustrated in different languages for a long time. We start out by introducing some important concepts in Lie theory accessible to an audience with a good background in linear algebra and perhaps some basic geometry. Then, in Table 3, we present a line-by-line cor- respondence between Helgason’s derivation and the proof by matrix differentials.
3.1. The ping pong operator, ping pong vectors and ping pong subspaces. We will start with a concrete 2 × 2 linear operator so as to establish the notions of the ping pong operator, ping pong vectors, ping pong subspaces and the relationship to eigenvectors. Then we will define a “bigger” linear operator adH that acts on 2 × 2 spaces exactly in the manner we are about to describe. We introduce the 2 × 2 matrix 0 α 0 1 M := = α , α 0 1 0
1 0 which we will call a 2 by 2 ping pong operator and we will call and the ping 0 1 pong vectors of M, in that M bounces these two vectors into α times the other,
1 0 0 1 M = α ,M = α . 0 1 1 0 THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 7
1 1 Furthermore M has eigenvectors , , with eigenvalues α, −α. We will call 1 −1 the eigenvalue a root of M. Also worth pointing out are the matrix exponential and matrix sinh of M, cosh α sinh α 1 0 1 eM = and sinh M = (eM + e−M ) = sinh α · , sinh α cosh α 2 1 0 and thus we see that sinh M is another ping pong operator with scaling sinh α. Figure 2 plots the action of a ping pong matrix and its exponential, with notations that we will use in the next sections, i.e, the ping pong operator is denoted adH , pj and kj are the ping pong vectors, and xj and θxj are the eigenvectors. The right side of Figure 2 shows the action of eM and portrays sinh(M) as a projection of M e on the pj direction. We now go beyond 2 × 2 matrices, and suggest the more general 2N × 2N ping pong matrix MN , with N roots, α1, . . . , αN , N pairs of ping pong vectors (k1, p1),..., (kN , pN ) along with eigenvectors (x1, y1),..., (xN , yN ),
0 α1 α1 0 . (3.1) MN = .. 0 αN αN 0
. . . . . . . . 1 0 1 1 (3.2) kj, pj, xj, yj = , , , , j = 1, 2,...,N, 0 1 1 −1 . . . . . . . . where the 2j − 1 and 2j positions are 0 or ±1 and all other entries of these vectors are 0. The matrices exp(MN ) and sinh MN are block versions of the 2 × 2 case. We may define the subspaces, k and p (using the “mathfrak” Fraktur letters “k” and “p”) to be the span of the kj and pj respectively. Notice that k and p are orthogonal complements as subspaces. A key “ping pong” relationship between these subspaces is that MN k ∈ p if k ∈ k,
MN p ∈ k if p ∈ p.
Thus, if we consider MN |k, the restriction of MN to k we have an operator from k to p. Evidently, MN |k as a matrix may be obtained by taking the even rows and odd columns of MN . The result is a diagonal matrix with the αj on the diagonal. Similarly sinh(MN )|k is a diagonal matrix with sinh(αj) on the diagonal. We then get the important result that N Y det(sinh(MN )|k) = sinh αj, j=1 the product of the hyperbolic sines of the roots. Given a linear operator L on a vector space with nonzero eigenvalues ±λ, the following lemma constructs a pair of ping pong vectors from L. 8 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG
Lemma 3.1. For a linear operator L defined on any vector space, assume ±λ are both nonzero eigenvalues of L. Let x and y be the corresponding eigenvectors, i.e., Lx = λx and Ly = −λy. Define two vectors k := x + y, p := x − y. Then, k, p are ping pong vectors. Furthermore we have for the operator exp(L), (3.3) eLk = cosh λk + sinh λp, eLp = sinh λk + cosh λp. The proof is a straightforward extension of the discussion in previous paragraphs. Remark 3.2. For the reader who wants to know the upcoming significance of this fact for Jacobians of matrix factorizations, it turns out (or maybe as the reader already observed in Section 2) that the Jacobian will be the product of sinh α’s. 0 α Just as the matrix sinh takes one of the ping pong vectors to sinh α times α 0 the other, the key piece of the differential map will consist of multiple ping pong relationships, each one sending one ping pong vector to another.
3.2. The Kronecker product, linear operator adX and its exponential. Lie theory picks out operators L that exactly have the properties in Section 3.1. Our vector spaces are now matrix spaces, and our operators are linear operators on a matrix space. We introduce the Lie bracket, denoted by [X,Y ], defined as [X,Y ] = XY − YX(the commutator). The Kronecker product notation is very helpful in this context. We define the Kronecker product notation1 as a linear operator on a matrix space. (3.4) (A ⊗ B)X = BXAT . With this, we can express the Lie bracket with Kronecker products. (3.5) (I ⊗ X − XT ⊗ I)Y = XY − YX. Consider the Lie bracket as a linear operator (determined by X) applied to Y , and call this operator adX . (abbreviation for “adjoint”) T adX = I ⊗ X − X ⊗ I
adX (Y ) = [X,Y ].
This will be the important ping pong operator L. The operator exponential of adX (equivalently, the matrix exponential of I ⊗ X − XT ⊗ I) is given in the following.
n adX P∞ (adX ) Lemma 3.3. For the linear operator adX , the following holds for e := j=0 n! adX − adX and sinh adx = (e + e )/2: (3.6) eadX = exp(I ⊗ X − XT ⊗ I) = (e−X )T ⊗ eX ,
adX X −X X −X −X X (3.7) e Y = e Y e and (sinh adx)Y = (e Y e − e Y e )/2. Proof. The proof is straightforward by the identity (3.4). eX Y e−X = (e−X )T ⊗ − eX Y and eadX Y = exp(I ⊗ X − XT ⊗ I)Y . It is left to prove (e X )T ⊗ eX = exp(I ⊗ X − XT ⊗ I). Since I ⊗ X commutes with XT ⊗ I, we have T exp(I ⊗ X − XT ⊗ I) = eI⊗X e−X ⊗I = (I ⊗ eX )((e−X )T ⊗ I) = (e−X )T ⊗ eX , proving the result. The sinh result follows trivially. 1Many authors would write vec(BXAT ) = (A⊗B)vec(X), but we omit the “vec” as be believe it is always clear from context. In a computer language such as Julia, one would write kron(A,B) * vec(X) = vec(B*X*A’) THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 9
3.3. Antisymmetric and symmetric matrices: an important first example of symmetric space as ping pong spaces. In our first example, our vector space is n × n real matrices. Consider k = {Antisymmetric matrices} p = {Symmetric matrices}.
The ping pong operator that will bounce k and p around will be adH = I ⊗ H − HT ⊗ I, where H is the diagonal matrix h1 .. H = . . hn
Notice that the operator adH sends an antisymmetric matrix to a symmetric matrix, and a symmetric matrix to an antisymmetric matrix. What does this have to do with Jacobians of matrix factorizations such as the symmetric positive definite eigenvalue factorization? Consider a perturbation of Q when forming S = QΛQT . An infinitesimal antisymmetric perturbation QT dQ is mapped into a dS, a infinitesimal symmetric perturbation. This is the very linear map from the tangent space of Q to that of S that we wish to understand, so perhaps it is not surprising we would want to restrict our ping pong operator from k to p. We invite the reader to check that the corresponding eigenmatrices and ping pong matrices of adH which may be found in the first column of Table 2.
3.4. General k and p arise from an involution θ. We proceed to construct more important general operators L that have the property in the assumption of Lemma 3.1. This is where the theory of Lie groups and symmetric spaces need to be brought in. Upon doing so, we will obtain two linear spaces of matrices k, p and also a space a. For the reader not familiar with Lie groups, one need only imagine a continuous set of matrices which are a subgroup of real, complex, or quaternion matrices. The tangent space g is just a vector space of matrix differentials at the identity. One key example is the compact Lie group O(n) (the group of square orthogonal matrices) and its tangent space at the identity gO(n): the set of antisymmetric matrices. Another key example is all n-by-n invertible matrices GL(n, R) (a noncompact Lie group), and its tangent space gGL(n,R), consisting of all n-by-n matrices. Cartan noticed that important matrix factorizations start with two ingredients: the tangent space g (at the identity) of a Lie group G and an involution θ on g. (i.e., θ2 = Id and θ[X,Y ] = [θX, θY ]) An example of θ is θ(X) = −XT on g, for G = GL(n, R). Among matrices in g, we select two kinds of matrices. The ones fixed by the involution θ and the ones negated by θ. Denote each set by k and p. (3.8) k := {g ∈ g|θ(g) = g}, p := {g ∈ g|θ(g) = −g}.
(For GL(n, R), these are the antisymmetric and symmetric matrices respectively.) The next important player is a ⊂ p. Readers familiar with the singular value decomposition know the special role of diagonal matrices in the SVD as they list the very important “singular values”. Diagonal matrices have the nice property that linear combinations are still diagonal, they commute (the Lie bracket of any two are zero), and they are symmetric (the p of our first example). The generalization 10 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG of this is to take a p, and find a maximal subalgebra where every matrix commutes. This is the maximal subspace a ⊂ p such that for all a1, a2 ∈ a,[a1, a2] = 0. If H ∈ a, then S = QΛQT is a symmetric positive definite eigendecomposition, with Λ = eH . In the rest of the section we will be focusing on factorizations of the form QΛQ−1 where Λ is a matrix exponential of H ∈ a. (These will be more general than eigendecompositions, as Q may not be orthogonal, and Λ may not be diagonal.) In particular, we will compute the Jacobian of perturbations with respect to Q, holding H constant, and thus necessarily the Jacobian will be defined in terms of H. From here we assume that the Lie group G is noncompact. The compact case will be discussed after completing the noncompact case. Pick H ∈ a, and recall that adH is a linear operator on g. The operator adH will play the role of L, the ping pong operator. We decompose g into the eigenspaces of adH . For any eigenpair (αj, xj) of adH , i.e., adH (xj) = [H, xj] = αjxj, we observe (for αj =6 0)
adH (θxj) = [H, θxj] = −[−H, θxj] = −[θH, θxj] = −θ([H, xj]) = −αjθxj, which implies the eigenvalues ±αj always exist in pairs, with corresponding eigen- matrices xj and θxj. This satisfies the assumption of Lemma 3.1, from which we can now construct our ping pong matrices,
(3.9) kj := xj + θxj pj := xj − θxj, with the ping pong relationship by the operator adH ,
(3.10) adH kj = αjpj adH pj = αjkj. Also the relationship by the operator eadH follows,
adH (3.11) e kj = cosh αjkj + sinh αjpj,
adH (3.12) e pj = sinh αjkj + cosh αjpj.
The ping pong matrices kj, pj, eigenmatrices xj, θxj and the relationships (3.10), (3.11) are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The eigenmatrices xj , θxj and ping pong matrices kj , pj (3.9) in the tangent space g. The operators are illustrated in blue lines. The operator adH and ping pong relationship (left, (3.10)), the operator ad e H on kj to pj (right, (3.11)). THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 11
As we mentioned in Remark 3.2 and Section 3.3, the role of ping pong matrices adH kj, pj are crucial. The map e (particularly, sinh adH ) is the main ingre- dient constructing the differential map dΦ of the factorization Φ : (Q, Λ) 7→ −1 adH QΛQ . The operator e is applied to kj and then projected to the span of pj as in Figure 2 (right), leaving only the sinh αj factor. We now compute the full basis of k and p. The collection ∪j{xj, θxj} is a full basis for the union of eigenspaces with nonzero eigenvalues. Since span({xj, θxj}) = span({kj, pj}) for any j, ∪j{kj, pj} is another full basis for the eigenspaces with nonzero eigenvalues. Interestingly, we observe θkj = kj and θpj = −pj, which identifies ∪j{kj} and ∪j{pj} as subsets of the basis of k and p respectively. The remaining case is the zero eigenspace. When αj = 0, there are two possibilities. Firstly, if xj and θxj are independent of each other, we can still obtain kj and pj as before and add them to ∪j{kj} and ∪j{pj}. Secondly, if xj and θxj are collinear, θxj is either xj or −xj. If θxj = xj we collect such xj and name the set Kz. Similarly, if θxj = −xj then we put them in Pz. Since we analyzed both nonzero and zero eigenspaces, we have obtained a full basis of g, which is ∪j {kj, pj} ∪Kz ∪Pz. Refining once more, span (∪j{kj}) ∪ Kz = k and span (∪j{pj}) ∪ Pz = p.
adH 3.5. The operators adH , e , and the subspaces k, p. In Section 3.4, we ob- tained the basis of k and p, in terms of ping pong matrices, by linearly combining eigenmatrices of the operator adH . We now illustrate the relationship of the basis adH of k and p under e , just like we illustrated the operator MN in Section 3.1. In the k1, . . . , kN and p1, . . . , pN basis we have the following. k1 cosh α1 sinh α1 k1 p1 sinh α1 cosh α1 p1 adH . . . (3.13) e . = .. . kN cosh αN sinh αN kN pN sinh αN cosh αN pN We are now ready to carefully investigate the map dΦ, using (3.13).
Remark 3.4. Results in Lie theory imply that the eigenmatrices xj and θxj of adH are independent of the choice of H ∈ a. In other words, the complete basis of g and k, p obtained above does not care about the specific choice of H. Furthermore, the eigenvalues ±αj are functions of H ∈ a and these eigenvalue assigning functions α˜j : H 7→ αj ∈ R are more properly called the restricted roots. It can be inferred from the separation of the basis that k and p together form the whole tangent space g. (3.14) g = k ⊕ p. 3.6. Symmetric spaces. The reader may have noticed that our discussions have focused on the Lie algebras rather than the Lie groups themselves. It is point of fact, that Lie groups are mostly useful to define the factorizations of our interest, but Lie algebras are where the Jacobian “lives” and hence this is the most important place to concentrate. For the interested reader, the subgroup K of G is picked such that its tangent space is exactly k (one easy way to imagine such a subgroup is to define K := exp(k)), and we now obtain the symmetric space G/K. It can be proven that for the noncompact Lie group, there exists a unique in- volution θ such that the subgroup K is the maximal compact subgroup of G. We 12 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG call θ the Cartan involution and (3.14) is called the Cartan decomposition. Furthermore the subset P := exp(p) plays an important role as its elements serve as representatives of the cosets in G/K. Regarding the identification of G/K as elements in P , refer to the remark 2.6, where we point out as an example, taking G/K = GL(n, R)/O(n) that an element of G/K has the form of a coset gK, then ggT may be a representative of the coset in p. While some authors use (ggT )1/2, the key point being each choice is well-defined independent of choice of representative. 3.7. When G is a compact Lie group. Upon considering the compact cases, it is helpful to make use of a certain duality between compact and noncompact symmetric spaces. We again start with a compact Lie group GC (to emphasize that now the group is compact) and an involution θ. In the tangent space gC , we define kC and pC exactly the same way we did in the noncompact case. Then, we think about a new tangent space,
(3.15) g := kC ⊕ ipC , where i is the imaginary unit.
Figure 3. The duality of tangent spaces. g = k ⊕ p and gC = k ⊕ ip
Another result in Lie theory implies that the new vector space g is the tangent space of some noncompact Lie group G. (See Figure 3.) Furthermore, the vector spaces in the previous section, k and p, correspond to kC and ipC . Matrixwise, the ping pong matrices kj ∈ k, pj ∈ p of g are brought back to a new set of ping pong matrices kj ∈ kC , ipj ∈ pC in gC . Let’s denote them by k˜j := kj andp ˜j := ipj. The role of the subspace a is now played by ia. replacing adH by adiH . We deduce a set of similar relationships for k˜j, p˜j under adiH ,
(3.16) adiH (k˜j) = αjp˜j, adiH (˜pj) = −αjk˜j. In matrix form, k˜j 0 αj k˜j (3.17) adiH = , p˜j −αj 0 p˜j which leads to the compact version of (3.11) and (3.12), k˜j cos αj sin αj k˜j (3.18) exp(adiH ) = . p˜j − sin αj cos αj p˜j
At the group level,the symmetric spaces G/K and GC /K are called the duals of each other, and they appear in the same row of standard symmetric space charts. An example of eigenmatrices xj, θxj and ping pong matrices for some symmetric spaces and their duals are presented in Table 2. THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 13
G GL(n, R) U(n) O(p, q) O(n) K O(n) O(n) O(p) × O(q) O(p) × O(q) 0 0 j k j k j k j 1 1 j 0 1 k −1 1 xl - j0 1 1 - k 0 0 k0 1 −1
0 0 j k j k j k j 1 −1 j 0 0 k −1 −1 θxl - j0 −1 1 - k −1 0 k0 −1 −1
0 0 0 0 j k j k j k j k j k j k j 1 j 1 j 0 1 j 0 1 k −1 k −1 kl j0 1 j0 1 k −1 0 k −1 0 k0 −1 k0 −1
0 0 0 0 j k j k j k j k j k j k j 1 j 1 j 0 1 j 0 i k 1 k 1 pl j0 1 j0 −1 k 1 0 k i 0 k0 1 k0 −1
Table 2. Examples of eigenmatrices xl, θxl and ping pong matrices kl, pl. kl = xl + θxl and pl = xl − θxl as defined in (3.9). kl, pl are normalized to have ±1 entries. A block structure on row/columns j, k and j0 := p + j and k0 := p + k are filled up with 0 and ±1.
3.8. Jacobian of the map Φ. We provide a generalized algorithm for finding a Jacobian of the decomposition Φ(Q, Λ) = QΛQ−1 (as we defined in (2.6)) where Λ ∈ A := exp(a),Q ∈ K. The k and p from the previous section are the tangent spaces of K and P , respectively. As mentioned, we follow Helgason’s derivation ([20], Ch.I, Theorem 5.8) and start by directly translating his proof into simple linear algebra terms. In Table 3, we have Helgason’s derivation (Left) compared in the same row with linear algebra (Right). Table 3 is using the noncompact symmetric space G/K but the compact case are identical with replacing sin αj by sinh αj. From the last line of Table 3 we can finish the story with two different directions, depending on the choice of the volume measure. First, if we use a G-invariant measure (the “canonical measure”) of p, the measure is invariant under the map dτ 1 or dτ˜ (by definition of the invariant measure). Thus we can disregard dτ˜(QΛ 2 )(or dτ(ka)) so that the Jacobian of dΦ˜ (or dΦ) only depends on the differential map kj 7→ (sinh αj)pj. Since ∪j{kj} and ∪j{pj} are both orthonormal bases, we obtain the Jacobian (2.3) Y sinh α(H). α∈Σ+ The second choice of measure is the Euclidean measure, which is a wedge prod- uct of independent entrywise differentials. In this case the procedure is identical up 1 to the factor sinh αj, but the map dτ˜(QΛ 2 ) (equivalently dτ(ka)) cannot be ignored. 1 1 1 −1 One needs to carefully compute the differential map dτ˜(QΛ 2 )pj = QΛ 2 pjΛ 2 Q under the Euclidean measure. We can further use the fact that conjugation by the 14 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG
Lie theoretic notation Linear algebra notation ([20, p.187], proof of Theorem 5.8, Ch.I) (Matrix factorizations) Definitions Φ: K × A → G/K Φ:˜ K × A → P
−1 1 Φ:(k, a) 7→ kaK Φ:(˜ Q, Λ) 7→ QΛQ (Λ 2 = a, Q = k) −1 dτ(g0):(G/K)o → (G/K)g0·o dτ˜(g0): X 7→ g0X(θg0) −1 dπ : g → (G/K)o (θk = k, k ∈ K, θp = p , p ∈ P , θ(g1g2) = θg1θg2) α At k ∈ K, fix a tangent vector dτ(k)Ti At Q ∈ K, fix a tangent vector dQ α −1 At the identity, basis element Ti ∈ k At the identity, basis element Q dQ = kj ∈ k Derivations α ? ˜ −1 2dΦ(dτ(k)Ti , 0) dΦ(dQ, 0) = d(QΛQ ) (With dΛ = 0) α −1 −1 = dπ(2kTi a) = dQΛQ + QΛdQ −1 α ?? 1 − 1 −1 −1 − 1 ♦ = dτ(ka)dπ(2Ad(a )Ti ) = dτ˜(QΛ 2 ) Λ 2 (Q dQΛ + ΛdQ Q)Λ 2 −1 α α 1 − 1 1 1 − 1 = dτ(ka)dπ(Ad(a )Ti − Ad(a)Ti ) = dτ˜(QΛ 2 ) Λ 2 kj Λ 2 − Λ 2 kj Λ 2 1 1 1 1 Let H be such that exp(H) = a = Λ 2 Note that dτ˜(QΛ 2 )X = QΛ 2 XΛ 2 Q−1
−adH α adH α 1 T = dτ(ka)dπ(e Ti − e Ti ) = dτ˜(QΛ 2 )[exp(H ⊗ I − I ⊗ H)kj T − exp(I ⊗ H − H ⊗ I)kj ] (by (3.7)) −1 α 1 = dτ(ka)dπ(−α(H) [H,Ti ]2 sinh α(H)) = dτ˜(QΛ 2 ) (−2 sinh αj )pj (by (3.13)) ? 1 ♦ Since Λ 2 = a, we have 2dΦ = dΦ˜ Both dQΛQ−1 and QΛdQ−1 are at QΛQ−1, should ?? −1 α This is (dτ(ka) ◦ dπ)(Ad(a )Ti ) be brought back to identity(inside square brackets).
Table 3. Translating the Lie Theoretic proof to linear algebra (non- compact) matrix Q always preserves the Euclidean measure, since the subgroup K is always a set of matrices with an Orthogonal/Unitary type of property. Thus, one needs to 1 1 2 2 Q compute the map pj 7→ Λ pjΛ and multiply its Jacobian by α∈Σ+ sinh α(H).
Remark 3.5. For the compact Lie group G, we have sinh αj replaced by sin αj 1 1 everywhere. Moreover, the last Jacobian computation step pj 7→ Λ 2 pjΛ 2 can be 1 omitted for the compact cases, since Λ 2 is an orthogonal/Unitary matrix for the 1 compact cases. The map dτ˜(Λ 2 ) preserves the Euclidean measure as dτ˜(Q). 3.9. Extension to the generalized Cartan decomposition. In the previous paragraphs, we studied the Jacobian of the usual Cartan decomposition. We now proceed to consider the generalized Cartan decomposition (2.1), its Jacobian (2.2) and the extension of Table 3. The derivations are analogous, analyzing subspaces of g but one should now proceed with four tangent subspaces, kτ ∩ kσ, kτ ∩ pσ, pτ ∩ kσ, pτ ∩ pσ. Earlier work on these Jacobian related derivations may be found in [15]. The maximal subspace a is now defined inside pτ ∩ pσ. We start with the same strategy: the tangent space g is decomposed into the eigenspaces of the linear operator adH with H ∈ a. The eigenvalues ±αj still come in pairs but we have two eigenmatrices xj, τσxj for eigenvalue αj, and two eigenmatrices τxj, σxj for eigenvalue −αj. We define four vectors v1, v2, w1, w2 with the same roles as kj and THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 15 pj played before,
v1 := xj + τxj + σxj + τσxj ∈ kτ ∩ kσ, v2 := xj − τxj − σxj + τσxj ∈ pτ ∩ pσ w1 := xj − τxj + σxj − τσxj ∈ pτ ∩ kσ, w2 := xj + τxj − σxj − τσxj ∈ kτ ∩ pσ and these have similar ping pong relationships by adH like kj and pj,
adH (v1) = αjv2 adH (v2) = αjv1
adH (w1) = αjw2 adH (w2) = αjw1. We can similarly extend (3.13) and other relationships, and proceed as in Table 3 to obtain a result (2.2). For further details please refer to the Appendix.
4. Compact AI-I, A, AII-II Remark 4.1. Some of the results in Section 4, 5 may be found in the nice thesis of Due˜nez[7]. We include the results here for completeness, and also cover the KAK factorizations with discussions about sampling methodologies. The joint probability distribution of the β-circular ensemble is defined as,
β Y iθj iθk β (4.1) En (θ) = Cn,β |e − e | . j ihj A = {Diagonal matrices with entries e , where hj ∈ R}. From Theorem 2.1, we obtain U = O1DO2, a factorization of a unitary matrix into the product of two orthogonal O1,O2 ∈ O(n) and a unit complex diagonal matrix D ∈ A. It first appears in [17] and we will call this the ODO decomposition. The corresponding Jacobian factor (up to constant) using (2.4) and (4.2) with β = 1 is (with change of variable θj = 2hj), Y Y iθj iθk sin(hj − hk) dh1 ··· dhn ∝ |e − e |dθ1 ··· dθn, j S with real eigenvectors. Speaking of the algorithm, we can utilize both matrix factorizations to obtain the COE, as follows: • Two times the angles in D of the ODO decomposition of U ∈ Haar(U(n)). • The angles of (unit) eigenvalues of the unitary symmetric matrix obtained from UU T , with Haar distributed unitary matrix U. Remark 4.2. The second algorithm above would be obvious since the days of Dyson [10] while we are not aware of the first algorithm appearing in the literature. 4.2. A, β = 2 CUE. For the symmetric space of compact type A, G/K = U(n) × U(n)/U(n) and the corresponding tangent space involution is X 7→ −XH , an iden- tity map. The restricted root system returns to the usual root system An of classical Lie algebra. The maximal torus of U(n) is a Cartan subalgebra of U(n). The Jaco- bian of Weyl’s integration formula agrees with (2.4) endowing the circular unitary ensemble (CUE), which is just the eigenvalues of unitary matrices with normal- ized Haar measure. The derivation of the CUE is found in many standard random matrix textbooks. [1, 16, 33] T T 4.3. AII-II(=AII), β = 4 CSE. As in Section 4.1, the involution X 7→ −Jn X Jn, J := 0 In on the tangent space of U(2n) has no free parameters. The double n −In 0 coset space is given as Sp(n)\U(2n)/Sp(n) where Sp(n) = Sp(n, C) ∩ U(2n). The abelian torus A is ˜ ˜ ˜ ih1 ihn A = {diag(D, D) | D = diag(e , . . . , e ), hj ∈ R}. Again from the KAK decomposition we obtain U = Q1DQ2, a factorization of a unitary matrix into the product of two unitary symplectic matrices Q1,Q2 ∈ Sp(n) and a unit complex diagonal matrix D ∈ A. We call this the QDQ decomposi- tion. From (2.4) and (4.2) with β = 4 the probability density (up to a constant) on A is, Y 4 Y iθj iθk 4 sin (hj − hk) dh1 ··· dhn ∝ |e − e | dθ1 ··· dθn, j 5. Compact BDI-I,AIII-III,CII-II The joint probability distribution of the β-Jacobi ensemble is defined as, s Y Y β (a+1)−1 β β,s β 2 2 (b+1)−1 (5.1) Ja,b (x) = Ca,b,β,s |xj − xk| xj (1 − xj) . j CII-II are exactly the CS decomposition [36, 6] of orthogonal/unitary/symplectic matrices. We assume r ≥ p ≥ q ≥ s, and n = p + q = r + s throughout the section. We note that with the KAK decomposition, only the limited cases (p = r, q = s) of the Jacobi ensembles can be obtained. The root system of the double coset space and their dimensions are α(H) ±(θj ± θk) ±θj ±2θj (5.2) mα,1 β β(p − s) β − 1 mα,−1 0 β(q − s) 0 with 1 ≤ j < k ≤ s. For all three β we have an identical maximal abelian subgroup A, CS A = {n-by-n Matrices with block structure Ip−q } −SC s×s with C,S ∈ R being diagonal matrices with cosine and sine values of θ1, . . . , θs. 5.1. BDI-I, β = 1 Jacobi. Let Ipq := diag(Ip, −Iq). With the involution X 7→ IpqXIpq on the tangent space of O(n) we obtain the symmetric space BDI, G/K = O(n)/O(p)×O(q). With two symmetric pairs (O(n), O(p)×O(q)) and (O(n), O(r)× O(s)), we obtain the K1AK2 decomposition which is the CSD of an orthogonal matrix, CS n-by-n O O = p I r . Orthogonal O n−2s O q −SC s From (2.4) and using the β = 1 roots (5.2), we obtain the measure on A, Y Y (p−s) (q−s) dµ(a) = sin(θj − θk) sin(θj + θk) (sin θj) (cos θj) dθ1 . . . dθs, j 2 and by using trigonometric identities with the change of variables xj = cos θj = 1+cos(2θj ) 2 , a = q − s and b = p − s we obtain Y 1 (a+1)−1 1 Y 2 2 (b+1)−1 dµ(a) ∝ xj (1 − xj) |xj − xk|dx1 . . . dxs, j j 1,s which exactly is a joint density of the β-Jacobi ensemble Ja,b . This result agrees with [12, Theorem 1.5], where squared cosine values of the CSD of a Haar dis- tributed orthogonal matrix gives the eigenvalue distribution of the β-Jacobi en- semble with β = 1. Moreover, recall the fact that the QL decomposition (a lower triangular analogue of the QR decomposition) of an n-by-n independent Gaussian matrix is used to obtain a Haar distributed orthogonal matrix. Since the generalized singular value decomposition (GSVD) [38, 34] is equivalent to the combination of a QL decomposition and a CSD, one can take the GSVD of a matrix with indepen- dent Gaussian entries to obtain the β-Jacobi ensemble. Speaking of the numerical 1,s algorithm, the following are the ways to obtain Ja,b . • Squared cosine CS values of a Haar distributed m-by-m orthogonal matrix (m = 2s + a + b) with partitions (s + a, s + b) and (s, s + a + b) • Squared cosine values, where tangent values are the generalized singular values of Gaussian distributed (s + a)-by-s and (s + b)-by-s matrices. 18 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG 5.2. AIII-III, β = 2 Jacobi. Two symmetric pairs of compact AIII type are (U(n), U(p) × U(q)) and (U(n), U(r) × U(s)). The K1AK2 decomposition is ex- actly the CSD of unitary matrices. Using (2.4) on β = 2 root system (5.2) and a similar change of variable as above, we obtain the measure dµ(a), Y 2 Y 2(p−s) 2(q−s) sin(θj − θk) sin(θj + θk) (sin θj) (cos θj) sin(2θj) dθ1 . . . dθs j 2,s which has normalized Jacobian equivalent to Ja,b .(a = q −s, b = p−s) Numerically, • The squared cosine CS values of a Haar distributed m-by-m unitary matrix (m = 2s + a + b) with partitions (s + a, s + b) and (s, s + a + b) • The squared cosine values, where the tangent values are the GSVD values of (complex) Gaussian distributed (s + a)-by-s and (s + b)-by-s matrices. 5.3. CII-II, β = 4 Jacobi. The β-Jacobi ensemble with β = 4 is similarly ob- tained from two symmetric spaces Sp(n)/Sp(p) × Sp(q) and Sp(n)/Sp(r) × Sp(s). However we identify Sp(n) as the quaternionic unitary group, U(n, H) := {g ∈ D GL(n, H)|g g = In}. The generalized Cartan decomposition gives the CSD of quaternionic unitary matrices and using (2.4) with β = 4 roots (5.2), we obtain the measure on A, Y 4 Y 4(p−s) 4(q−s) 3 sin(θj − θk) sin(θj + θk) (sin θj) (cos θj) sin (2θj) dθ1 . . . dθs j 4,s which is a β-Jacobi ensemble Ja,b , when normalized. Again the algorithm is, • The squared cosine CS values of Haar distributed m-by-m quaternion uni- tary matrix (m = 2s + a + b) with partition (s + a, s + b) and (s, s + a + b) s is the Jacobi ensemble Ja,b Remark 5.1. One can use the GSVD on quaternionic unitary matrices to obtain the β = 4 Jacobi ensemble density. 6. Noncompact Lie groups and probability measure Hermite and Laguerre eigenvalue distributions arise as a result of (2.3), if applied to a decomposition of a noncompact Lie group or symmetric space. As opposed to the compact Lie groups and compact symmetric spaces where the Haar measure and G-invariant measure are normalized by a constant to a probability measure, corresponding measures on noncompact manifolds cannot be normalized to one by a constant. A normalizing factor S should be introduced to complete the construction of a probability measure. Therefore, random matrices on noncompact manifolds face an innate problem: • The choice of the probability measure on noncompact G or G/K is not unique. THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 19 As we push the measure forward to the subgroup A, the resulting measure should be a symmetric function of independent generators of A. Hence a choice of prob- ability measure I(g) of a random matrix is Haar or G-invariant measure on G or G/K, multiplied by a symmetric function S on A, I(g) = S(a)µ(g), −1 where g = k1ak2 or g = kak and µ(g) is an invariant measure. Using (2.3), the measure on A is induced, Y I(g) = dk ·S(a) sinh α(H) dH1 ··· dHdim(A), α∈Σ+ which means even though the measure I changes, the measure on A still differs only by a normalization function. The traditional choice of S has been made such that I(g) can be constructed from independent Gaussian distributions endowed on matrix entries. Two classical ensembles, Hermite and Laguerre are equipped with independent Gaussian distri- butions on the entries of a noncompact symmetric space G/K. For the Hermite (Gaussian) ensembles, the symmetric spaces G/K are sets of symmetric/Hermitian/self- dual positive definite matrices, and I(g) are independent Gaussian measures im- posed on upper triangular entries, 2 ∗ Y Y −g /(2+2δjk) I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) dgjk = e jk dgjk . j≤k j≤k The variance 2 on the diagonal makes S(g) a symmetric function of entries of a ∈ A. For the Laguerre (Wishart) ensemble, coset representatives of G/K are, √ I + XX∗ X √ |X ∈ p×q X∗ I + X∗X F and the measure I(g) are independent Gaussian measures imposed on the upper right p by q block, √ ∗ Y −X2 /2 I + XX X I(g) = e jk dX , where g = √ jk X∗ I + X∗X j≤p (6.1) k≤q T Y = exp(− Tr(X X)/2) dXjk. j≤p k≤q Remark 6.1. Another natural approach to consider is to put the measure on the Lie algebra, as suggested in [40]. In this case, we can use the formula introduced in Helgason’s 1962 book [21], Chapter X, Section 1.4. 7. Noncompact AI, A, AII The joint probability distribution of the β-Hermite ensemble is defined as, Y P 2 β β − λj /2 (7.1) Hn (λ) = Cn,β |λj − λk| e . j hj A = {Diagonal matrices with entries e , where hj ∈ R}. 7.1. AI, β = 1 GOE. As a dual of the compact symmetric space AI, the noncom- pact symmetric space AI is given as G/K = GL(n, R)/O(n), represented by the set Sn of all symmetric positive definite matrices. The joint (unnormalized) probabil- ity measure is composed of independent Gaussian measures endowed on the upper T Q triangular entries of g ∈ Sn, I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) j≤k dgjk. Observe that the (n+1) − 2 Q invariant measure on Sn is µ(g) = (det g) j≤k dgjk. Using (2.3) on µ with (7.2) β = 1, T (n+1) I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2)(det g) 2 µ(g) T (n+1) Y hj − hk − P λ2/2 Y = exp(− Tr(g g)/2)(det g) 2 sinh = e j |λ − λ |, 2 j k j Remark 7.2. Another point we wish to discuss here is the positivity of λj in the above derivation with symmetric spaces whereas the Gaussian ensembles have no such restriction. One way to handle this disparity is to notice that the Euclidean measure is invariant under translations, so that a shift by a multiple of the iden- tity gives the exact same Jacobian formula. By shifting any open set of symmetric matrices to an open set in G/K (or using a sequence with decreasing tails) the Jacobian of the eigenvalues of the Gaussian ensembles can be derived. An alter- native approach suggested by [40], discussed in Remark 6.1, is to place a Gaussian measure directly on the Lie algebra which has no positivity constraint. 7.2. A, β = 2 GUE. The noncompact symmetric space A is G/K = GL(n, C)/U(n), represented by Hn, the set of Hermitian positive definite matrices. Again, the initial measure for g ∈ Hn is T Y T n I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) dgjk = exp(− Tr(g g)/2)(det g) µ(g), j≤k where µ(g) is the G-invariant measure and dgjk = dRe(g)dIm(g). Using (2.3) and roots from (7.2) β = 2, T n Y 2 hj − hk − P λ2/2 Y 2 I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2)(det g) sinh = e j |λ − λ | , 2 j k j 7.3. AII, β = 4 GSE. The noncompact symmetric space AII is given as G/K = GL(n, H)/U(n, H). We use U(n, H) instead of Sp(n) to clarify the quaternionic representation. G/K can be represented by a set of Quaternionic Hermitian positive definite matrices, QHn. The initial probability measure is T Y T 2n−1 I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) dgjk = exp(− Tr(g g)/2)(det g) µ(g), j≤k for g ∈ QHn and the G-invariant measure µ. For a quaternion entry gjk ∈ H, dgjk is the Euclidean measure on R4, i.e., dgjk = dRe(g)dIm1(g)dIm2(g)dIm3(g). Using (2.3) and the roots from (7.2) β = 4, − Y 4 hj − hk − P 2 Y I(g) = exp(− Tr(gT g)/2)(det g)(2n 1) sinh = e λj /2 |λ − λ |4, 2 j k j 8. Noncompact BDI,AIII,CII The joint probability distribution of the β-Laguerre (Wishart) ensemble is, q β − P β Y β Y 2 (a+1) 1 − λj /2 (8.1) La,q(λ) = Ca,q,β |λj − λk| λj e . j Wishart ensembles with β = 1, 2, 4 and parameters p, q arise from independent Gaussian measures endowed on the matrix A ∈ Fp×q, with F = R, C, H. Equiva- lently, the eigenvalues of the matrix A∗A ∈ Fq×q is frequently used for sampling, where ∗ is the (conjugate) transpose of the real/complex/quaternion matrix. The KAK decomposition of the noncompact symmetric spaces BDI, AIII, CII is the hyperbolic CS decomposition (HCSD) [23], and the map Φ of (2.6) on the symmet- ric space G/K is equivalent to the SVD of a p-by-q matrix with F = R, C, H. In the SVD form, these decompositions sample square roots of the eigenvalues of the Wishart ensemble. The structure of A for all β is, CS n×n 2 2 A = { In−2q ∈ R |C − S = Iq}, SC for p+q = n, p ≥ q. C,S are diagonal matrices with cosh, sinh values of h1, . . . , hq, where the restricted root systems of the noncompact BDI, AIII, CII (β = 1, 2, 4) are, α(H) ±(h ± h ) ±h ±2h (8.2) j k j j mα β β(p − q) β − 1 22 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG 8.1. BDI, β = 1 Laguerre. The noncompact symmetric space BDI is G/K = O(p, q)/O(p)×O(q). The KAK decomposition of the indefinite orthogonal (pseudo- orthogonal, J-orthogonal) group O(p, q) is the HCSD of J-orthogonal matrices in numerical linear algebra. The map Φ of (2.6) on the symmetric space is the HCSD of the symmetric J-orthogonal matrix, 1 T 2 ˜ T T (I + gg ) g OpCOp OpSOq T T 1 = T T T , g (I + g g) 2 OqS Op OqCOq p×q T which is isomorphic to the SVD of the upper right block g ∈ R , g = OpSOq . Here the matrices C˜ and S are defined as p × p and p × q matrices, to match the block sizes. The probability measure endowed on G/K is a product of independent T Q Gaussian measures on the entries of g, I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) dgjk. In terms T Q of the G-invariant measure µ, I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) cosh hjµ(g). Using (2.3) with (8.2) β = 1 and applying hyperbolic trigonometric identities, P p−q−1 − λj /2 Y 2 Y I(g) ∝ e λj (λj − λk)dλ1 ··· dλq, j j 2 where λj = sinh hj, squared singular values of g. With normalization, this is 1 exactly the Laguerre distribution Lp−q,q. 8.2. AIII, β = 2 Laguerre. The noncompact symmetric space AIII is G/K = U(p, q)/U(p)×U(q). Similarly, the KAK decomposition is the HCSD of a J-unitary matrix and Theorem 2.4 is equivalent to the complex SVD on the upper left block. H Q H The initial measure is I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) dgjk = exp(− Tr(g g)/2)µ(g) for g ∈ Cp×q and the G-invariant measure µ on G/K. Again using (2.3) with (8.2) 2 β = 2 and the change of variables λj = sinh hj, P − λj /2 Y p−q Y 2 I(g) ∝ e λj |λj − λk| dλ1 ··· dλq, j j 2 which gives us the eigenvalue density of the complex Laguerre ensemble Lp−q,q, as squared singular values of the complex Gaussian random matrix g. 8.3. CII, β = 4 Laguerre. The noncompact symmetric space CII is G/K = Sp(p, q)/Sp(p) × Sp(q). Note that in this section we identify Sp(p, q) as a sub- group of Hn×n, and Sp(p), Sp(q) as quaternionic unitary groups, U(p, H), U(q, H). Analogously, we observe the KAK decomposition is the HCSD of the quaternionic J-unitary matrix and Theorem 2.4 as the quaternionic SVD [39]. The initial mea- sure on g ∈ Hp×q is endowed as D Y D Y −2 I(g) = exp(− Tr(g g)/2) dgjk = exp(− Tr (g g)/2) cosh hjµ(g). Using (2.3) with the roots (8.2) β = 4, P − λs/2 Y 2(p−q)+1 Y 4 I(g) ∝ e λs |λs − λt| dλ1 ··· dλq, s s 4 which is the joint eigenvalue density of the quaternion Laguerre ensemble Lp−q,q. THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 23 9. Appendix : Proof of Theorem 2.3 This appendix provides an introduction on the theory of the generalized Cartan decomposition and the detailed derivation of (2.2) by expanding [15]. The proof follows the notations and flow used in [20]. Let G be a noncompact semisimple Lie group and g be its Lie algebra. Let (τ, σ) be two involutions (including the Cartan involution) of g which commute and (G, Kτ ), (G, Kσ) be two symmetric spaces obtained by the two involutions, respectively. Let g = gτ ⊕ g−τ = gσ ⊕ g−σ be the decomposition of g into the +1 and -1 eigenspaces of τ, σ, respectively. Let a be a maximal abelian subspace of g−τ ∩ g−σ. Then we define root spaces similar as before, gα = {X ∈ g | [Y,X] = α(Y )X for all Y ∈ a}, where α : a → iR. Let Σ be the set of all nonzero roots with nontrivial root spaces, ∗ Σ = {α ∈ ia − {0} | gα =6 {0}}. In [15], it has been shown that we have a root space decomposition M g = gλ. α∈Σ∪{0} Using eigenspaces of the involution στ, we get M g = gα,λ , α∈Σ λ=±1 where gα,λ = {X ∈ gα | στX = λX}. Additionally, let mα,λ be the dimension of gα,λ, which adds up to the root space dimension mα. The symmetric space G/Kσ admits a polar coordinate map, Φ:(Kτ /M, A) → G/Kσ, (kM, a) 7→ kaKσ which makes it diffeomorphic to (Kτ /M) × A, where A = exp(a) and M is a cen- tralizer of A inside Kτ . Now we present the proof of Theorem 2.3 by mimicking [20], p187. Proof of Theorem 2.3. First let’s refine gα,λ. It is clear that σ τ −σ −τ M (g ∩ g ) ⊕ (g ∩ g ) = gα,1 , α∈Σ∩{0} σ −τ −σ τ M (g ∩ g ) ⊕ (g ∩ g ) = gα,−1 . α∈Σ ++ σ τ 2 The map X 7→ X + σX sends gα,1 to gα := {X ∈ g ∩ g | ad(H) X = α(H)2X, ∀H ∈ a}. If we fix a positive Weyl chamber then for α ∈ Σ+ this ++ map is a bijection from gα,1 to gα . Applying the same map to gα,−1 we obtain +− −+ −− gα . Similarly, gα and gα can be obtained from gα,−1, gα,1, respectively, by the ++ σ τ +− σ −τ −+ −σ +τ map X 7→ X − σX. Note that gα ⊂ g ∩ g , gα ⊂ g ∩ g , gα ⊂ g ∩ g , −− −σ −τ ++ −− gα ⊂ g ∩ g . Also ad(H) is a bijective map between gα and gα , and −+ +− between gα and gα . α α α α We now proceed as in [20]. Let e1 , . . . , e ++ and f1 , . . . , f −+ be an or- dim gα dim gα ++ −+ thonomal basis of gα and gα , respectively. Let H1,...,Hdim a be an orthonomal 24 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG basis of a. Let t(g0) be the translation map on the homogeneous space G/K by t(g0): gK 7→ g0gK, and let π : G → G/Kσ be the natural quotient map. α α Choose a vector e from {ej } ∪ {fj }, and consider the curve s 7→ k exp(se)M in + Kτ /M which has the tangent vector dt(k)e at s = 0. For a = exp(H),H ∈ a , (9.1) Φ(k exp(se)M, a) = k exp(se)a · o = ka exp(sAd(a−1)e) · o, where o is the identity element of a coset space G/Kσ. Also for the tangent map dΦ, −1 (9.2) dΦ(kM,a)(dt(k)e, 0) = dt(ka)dπ(Ad(a )e). 2 2 α Now since ad(H) e = α(H) e, if e ∈ {ej } we have 1 dt(ka)dπ(Ad(a−1)eα) = dt(ka)dπ( (Ad(a−1)eα − σAd(a−1)eα)) j 2 j j 1 (9.3) = dt(ka)dπ( (exp(−adH)eα − exp(adH)eα)) 2 j j −1 α = dt(ka)dπ(−α(H) [H, ej ] sinh(α(H))), α and if e ∈ {fj } we have 1 dt(ka)dπ(Ad(a−1)f α) = dt(ka)dπ( (Ad(a−1)f α − σAd(a−1)f α) j 2 j j 1 (9.4) = dt(ka)dπ( (exp(−adH)f α + exp(adH)f α) 2 j j α = dt(ka)dπ(cosh(α(H))fj ). Also for the curve s 7→ a exp sHj in A which has the tangent vector dt(a)Hj at s = 0, (9.5) Φ(kM, a exp sHj) = ka exp(sHj) · o. Similarly for dΦ, (9.6) dΦ(kM,a)(0, dt(a)Hj) = dt(ka)dπ(Hj). −1 α −σ −τ α {−α(H) [H, ej ]} and {Hj} form an orthonormal basis of g ∩ g and {fj } is an orthonormal basis of g−σ ∩ gτ . So together they form an orthonormal basis of g−σ and since dπ, dt(ka) are isometries we conclude Y m+ m− (9.7) J(a) = | det dΦ(kM,a)| = (sin iα(H)) α (cos iα(H)) α . α∈Σ+ Acknowledgements We thank Martin Zirnbauer for the lengthy email thread from 2001, where he patiently explained which random matrix ensembles seemed to be covered by sym- metric spaces. We thank Due˜nezfor another lengthy email thread back in 2013. We thank Pavel Etingof for suggesting the K1AK2 decomposition and pointing us to key references, Bernie Wang for so very much and the Fall 2020 Random Ma- trix Theory class (MIT 18.338) for valuable suggestions. We also thank Sigurdur Helgason for lively discussions by email. THE GENERALIZED CARTAN DECOMPOSITION FOR CLASSICAL ENSEMBLES 25 References [1] Gordon Blower. Random Matrices: High Dimensional Phenomena, volume 367. Cambridge University Press, 2009. [2] Daniel Bump. Lie Groups. Springer, 2004. [3] Elie´ Cartan. Sur une classe remarquable d’espaces de Riemann. Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Math´ematiquede France, 54:214–264, 1926. [4] Elie´ Cartan. Sur une classe remarquable d’espaces de Riemann. II. Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Math´ematiquede France, 55:114–134, 1927. [5] Elie´ Cartan. Sur la d´etermination d’un syst`eme orthogonal complet dans un espace de Riemann sym´etrique clos. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940), 53(1):217–252, 1929. [6] Chandler Davis and William M Kahan. The rotation of eigenvectors by a perturbation. III. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 7(1):1–46, 1970. [7] Eduardo Due˜nez. Random Matrix Ensembles associated to Compact Symmetric Spaces. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2001. [8] Eduardo Due˜nez.Random matrix ensembles associated to compact symmetric spaces. Com- munications in mathematical physics, 244(1):29–61, 2004. [9] Ioana Dumitriu and Alan Edelman. Matrix models for beta ensembles. Journal of Mathe- matical Physics, 43(11):5830–5847, 2002. [10] Freeman J Dyson. Statistical theory of the energy levels of complex systems. I. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 3(1):140–156, 1962. [11] Alan Edelman. Hermite, Laguerre, Jacobi: “Listen to random matrix theory. it’s trying to tell us something”. MIT Probability Seminar, 2014. [12] Alan Edelman and Brian D Sutton. The beta-Jacobi matrix model, the CS decomposi- tion, and generalized singular value problems. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 8(2):259–285, 2008. [13] Alan Edelman and Yuyang Wang. Random hyperplanes, generalized singular values & “what’s my β?”. In 2018 IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (SSP), pages 458–462. IEEE, 2018. [14] Mogens Flensted-Jensen. Spherical functions on a real semisimple Lie group. a method of reduction to the complex case. Journal of Functional Analysis, 30(1):106–146, 1978. [15] Mogens Flensted-Jensen. Discrete series for semisimple symmetric spaces. Annals of Mathe- matics, pages 253–311, 1980. [16] Peter J Forrester. Log-gases and Random Matrices. Princeton University Press, 2010. [17] Hartmut F¨uhrand Ziemowit Rzeszotnik. A note on factoring unitary matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 547:32–44, 2018. [18] Robert Gilmore. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Some of their Applications. Courier Corpo- ration, 2012. [19] Sigurdur Helgason. Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces. Academic press, 1978. [20] Sigurdur Helgason. Groups & Geometric Analysis: Radon Transforms, Invariant Differential Operators and Spherical Functions: Volume 1. Academic press, 1984. [21] Sigurdur Helgason. Differential Geometry and Symmetric Spaces, volume 341. American Mathematical Soc., 2001. [22] Carl S Herz. Bessel functions of matrix argument. Annals of Mathematics, pages 474–523, 1955. [23] Nicholas J Higham. J-orthogonal matrices: Properties and generation. SIAM review, 45(3):504–519, 2003. [24] Bob Hoogenboom. Intertwining functions on compact Lie groups, I. Stichting Mathematisch Centrum. Zuivere Wiskunde, (ZW 185/83), 1983. [25] Alan T James and Alan Graham Constantine. Generalized Jacobi polynomials as spheri- cal functions of the Grassmann manifold. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(1):174–192, 1974. [26] Aleksandre A Kirillov. Representation Theory and Noncommutative Harmonic Analysis II: Homogeneous Spaces, Representations and Special Functions. Springer, 1995. [27] Anthony W Knapp. Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups: An Overview based on Examples, volume 36. Princeton university press, 2001. 26 ALAN EDELMAN AND SUNGWOO JEONG [28] Anthony W Knapp. Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction, volume 140. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. [29] Toshiyuki Kobayashi. A generalized Cartan decomposition for the double coset space (U(n1)× U(n2)×U(n3))\U(n)/(U(p)×U(q)). Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, 59(3):669– 691, 2007. [30] Toshihiko Matsuki. Double coset decompositions of algebraic groups arising from two invo- lutions I. Journal of Algebra, 175(3):865–925, 1995. [31] Toshihiko Matsuki. Double coset decompositions of reductive Lie groups arising from two involutions. Journal of Algebra, 197(1):49–91, 1997. [32] Toshihiko Matsuki. Classification of two involutions on compact semisimple Lie groups and root systems. J. Lie Theory, 12(1):41–68, 2002. [33] Madan Lal Mehta. Random Matrices. Elsevier, 2004. [34] Christopher C Paige and Michael A Saunders. Towards a generalized singular value decom- position. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 18(3):398–405, 1981. [35] Joel Segel. Recountings: conversations with MIT mathematicians. CRC Press, 2009. http: //www-math.mit.edu/~helgason/helgason_interview.pdf. [36] Gilbert W Stewart. On the perturbation of pseudo-inverses, projections and linear least squares problems. SIAM review, 19(4):634–662, 1977. [37] Audrey Terras. Harmonic Analysis on Symmetric Spaces—Higher Rank Spaces, Positive Definite Matrix Space and Generalizations. Springer, 2016. [38] Charles F Van Loan. Generalizing the singular value decomposition. SIAM Journal on nu- merical Analysis, 13(1):76–83, 1976. [39] Fuzhen Zhang. Quaternions and matrices of quaternions. Linear algebra and its applications, 251:21–57, 1997. [40] Martin R Zirnbauer. Riemannian symmetric superspaces and their origin in random-matrix theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 37(10):4986–5018, 1996. Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Email address: [email protected] Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Email address: [email protected]