text:
# A Reciprocity Theorem for Monomer-Dimer Coverings

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Background

The problem of counting the monomer-dimer coverings of a finite patch of a lattice has been examined for many years in the field of statistical mechanics (see ), and has applications in biology, chemistry and physics. The closely related dimer problem, where the number of monomers is zero, was exactly solved for two dimensional lattices by Kasteleyn () and Temperley and Fisher (). While we cannot offer an exact solution to the monomer-dimer problem, even in two dimensions, we can describe a symmetry property that must be satisfied by exact solutions to various restrictions of this problem, in which one considers a sequence of subgraphs of a lattice, where the successive subgraphs grow in one direction while their size in all other directions remains fixed.

In particular, we consider families of subgraphs of lattices indexed by the natural numbers ($`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$), and count the number $`a_n`$ of monomer-dimer coverings of the $`n`$th subgraph. The numbers $`a_n`$ satisfy a linear recurrence with constant coefficients and therefore are given by an exact formula of polynomial-exponential type; one can thus in each individual case write down an exact formula for $`a_n`$, at least in principle, and in particular, one can study symmetries of the resulting function of $`n`$ when $`n`$ is no longer restricted to being a natural number. Alternatively, when $`n`$ is a negative integer, one can often find $`a_n`$ by working directly with the recurrence relation satisfied by the sequence. Surprisingly, we find that the new numbers are related, term by term, to the original sequence of numbers; for instance, in some cases $`a_na_{n2}`$. Richard Stanley’s book , in the context of rational generating functions, devotes an entire section to exploring the relationships (called *reciprocity* relationships) between positively- and nonpositively-indexed terms of a sequence. The nonpositively-indexed terms may even have a nice combinatorial meaning on their own, as seen in the case of Ehrhart reciprocity, for example.111Ehrhart reciprocity describes a relationship between the number of lattice points found in a closed rational polytope, and the number of lattice points found in its interior. See . In this paper we describe a relationship between terms of certain integer sequences $`\{a_n\}`$, $`n`$, as well as give a combinatorial interpretation to the “un-natural” terms.

### 1.2. The Problem

Rather than use the language of statistical mechanics (monomers and dimers on lattices), we will refer to matchings of graphs where we define a *matching* of a graph $`G=(V,E)`$ to be a collection of edges of $`G`$, no two of which share a vertex, together with all the vertices of $`G`$ that are not incident with those edges.222Another equivalent terminology would be to speak of tilings of planar regions where the tile set consists of a domino (2 by 1 rectangle) and a monomino (1 by 1 rectangle). Edges correspond to dimers, isolated vertices correspond to monomers. A matching is called *perfect* if it is composed entirely of edges, as in the dimer problem. If we consider the number of matchings of a rectangular grid-graph of fixed height $`m`$, and varying width $`n`$, we obtain an integer sequence, $`\{a_n\}`$. For example, when $`m=1`$, we obtain the Fibonacci sequence:

$$1,2,3,5,8,\mathrm{}$$

This sequence satisfies a linear recurrence, namely $`a_n=a_{n1}+a_{n2}`$. So we can always obtain the value of a term based on the two terms to the left of it. But similarly, we can obtain the value of a term by the two terms to the right of it, e.g. $`3=85`$, or $`a_n=a_{n+2}a_{n+1}`$. In this way we can extend the Fibonacci sequence to the left and get values for $`a_n`$ when $`n0`$:

$$\mathrm{}8,5,3,2,1,1,0,1,1,2,3,5,8,\mathrm{}$$

So we see that we now have a doubly infinite integer sequence, and that it is symmetric up to sign, i.e. $`a_n=\pm a_{n2}`$. Some natural questions arise: Does this symmetry mean something? Do the values of $`a_n`$ for $`n<0`$, being integers, count something (at least up to sign)? If so, can we extend the result to larger values of $`m`$?

The answer to all the questions is yes. In , Propp considered integer sequences $`N(m,n)`$, generated by perfect matchings of rectangular grid graphs of fixed height, and how they extend to values for $`n<0`$.333His first nontrivial case, $`N(2,n)`$ is also the Fibonacci sequence. He came up with a unified combinatorial object and a way of counting signed matchings of these objects that allowed him to show that any half-infinite sequence given by the number of perfect matchings of a fixed-height grid graph extends to a bi-infinite sequence that does three things:

* It satisfies a linear recurrence relation of finite degree with constant coefficients.
* The numbers obtained when going backwards are unique and are always integers.
* The bi-infinite sequences have a special kind of symmetry, or *reciprocity*, stated roughly as $`|N(m,n)|=|N(m,n2)|`$ for any $`m>0`$.

Matchings in general (of the graphs we will classify) satisfy the same sort of linear recurrence (as we will explain in section 3). But even given that a covering problem satisfies a linear recurrence, integrality is not ensured when running the recurrence backwards.444*A priori* the numbers obtained from running a linear recurrence in reverse need only be rational. If the recurrence is of the form $`a_n=c_1a_{n1}+c_2a_{n2}+\mathrm{}+c_ka_{nk}`$, then to push the sequence backwards we solve for the term of smallest index to get $`a_{nk}=\frac{a_nc_1a_{n1}\mathrm{}c_{k1}a_{nk+1}}{c_k}`$. For a simple example, consider covering a 2-by-$`n`$ grid with monomers and dimers, but only allow the dimers to be vertical. (It is easy to see that the number of coverings is $`2^n`$, but in keeping with the spirit of this article, we ignore the exact formula and work with a linear recurrence instead.) The number of such coverings, $`a_n`$, is governed by $`a_n=2a_{n1}`$. Upon observing that $`a_1=2`$, we can generate the half-infinite sequence $`2,4,8,16,\mathrm{}`$. To work the sequence backwards, we reverse the recurrence by writing it as $`a_n=\frac{1}{2}a_{n+1}`$ and then generate the bi-infinite sequence

$$\mathrm{}\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},1,2,4,8,\mathrm{}$$

For $`n=1`$ we cease to observe integrality. However in the case of monomer-dimer tilings, we can guarantee integrality of the sequences by showing they can be generated by counting matchings of certain graphs for *all* values of $`n`$.

The objects we will present not only ensure integrality, but also give a direct proof of the paper’s main idea: a reciprocity statement for general matchings. This claim would appear to be the least obvious judging by the numerical evidence. Indeed, consider the integer sequence $`M(2,n)`$, the number of matchings of a 2-by-$`n`$ rectangular grid graph. The sequence is governed by the recurrence

$$M(2,n)=3M(2,n1)+M(2,n2)M(2,n3)$$

with initial ‘natural’ values $`M(2,1)=2`$, $`M(2,2)=7`$, and $`M(2,3)=22`$, allowing us to generate the bi-infinite sequence

$$\mathrm{}14,11,2,3,0,1,0,1,2,7,22,71,228,\mathrm{}$$

Although we get integers when going backwards, we seem to lack the symmetry that Stanley and Propp observed for perfect matchings. But a premonition of symmetry can be seen if one considers the parity (odd versus even) of each term; one finds that $`M(2,n)`$ and $`M(2,2n)`$ are congruent mod 2.

Why there should be symmetry (or symmetry mod 2) in integer sequences as above is explained by the answer to the question: what do the numbers, $`M(m,n)`$ for $`n<0`$, count? Propp had an answer for the case of perfect matchings, but it does not directly translate to general matchings. Section 2 outlines the dilemma and gives a solution by way of objects called “empty vertices”. In , weights were not given to isolated vertices, simply because there were none. But when examining matchings as we have defined them (a monomer-dimer model), isolated vertices do have weights, giving rise to the need for empty vertices to explain the observed phenomenon and tell the “proper” combinatorial story. By incorporating empty vertices we will obtain a combinatorial model whose (signed) number of *signed* matchings is $`M(m,n)`$ for all $`n`$. Looking at the signed matchings we will be able to see the symmetry hidden in the terms above:

$$\mathrm{}121107,4130,1210,52,11,1,0,1,1+1,5+2,12+10,41+30,121+107,\mathrm{}$$

This also explains the symmetry mod 2.

The properties exhibited by the numbers $`M(m,n)`$ and the objects they count can also be seen in terms of the generating function $`F_m(t,x,y,z)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}f_n(x,y,z)t^n`$. Here $`x`$ is the weight given to horizontal edges, $`y`$ is the weight given to vertical edges, and $`z`$ is the weight given to vertices. The polynomial $`f_n(x,y,z)`$ encodes all of the matchings of an $`m`$ by $`n`$ grid graph. We will show

1. $`F_m(t,1,1,1)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}M(m,n)t^n`$
2. $`F_m(t,1,1,0)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}N(m,n)t^n`$
3. $`F_m(t,x,y,z)F_m(1/t,x,y,z)`$

The second item in the list shows how perfect matchings may be extracted from general matchings. The last item in the list is a heuristic expression of reciprocity that will be made precise in section 4.2.

The theory of empty vertices is applicable to more general situations than simply matchings of rectangular grid graphs. We will prove results for matchings of graphs of the form $`G\times P_n`$, where $`G`$ is an arbitrary finite graph and $`P_n`$ is the path graph of length $`n`$. This is the “box-product” of the two graphs: a vertex of $`G\times P_n`$ is a pair $`(u,v)`$ consisting of a vertex of $`G`$ and a vertex of $`P_n`$, and two such vertices $`(u,v)`$, $`(u^{},v^{})`$ are connected by an edge iff either $`u=u^{}`$ and $`v,v^{}`$ are adjacent in $`P_n`$ or $`v=v^{}`$ and $`u,u^{}`$ are adjacent in $`G`$. We will refer to such graphs as “generalized rectangles”. Notice that an $`m`$ by $`n`$ rectangular grid graph is $`G\times P_n`$ where $`G=P_m`$. If $`M(n)`$ is the number of matchings of $`G\times P_n`$, we can show that there are objects (signed graphs) for which the (signed) number of matchings is $`M(n)`$, i.e., we can give a definition for $`G\times P_n`$. Reciprocity asserts that the (signed) number of signed matchings of $`G\times P_{2n}`$ is equal to (or equal to the negative of) the (unsigned) number of matchings of $`G\times P_n`$. Throughout most of the paper, our proofs will be for generalized rectangles, but examples will usually involve grid graphs.

## 2. Signed Graphs and Signed Matchings

Let us try to deduce the nature of $`m`$ by $`n`$ rectangular grid graphs for all $`n`$, not concerning ourselves with matchings at all. In Figure 1, denote the 2 by 3 grid graph by $`G(2,3)`$. The graph $`G(2,4)`$ is obtained from $`G(2,3)`$ by adding two horizontal edges, a vertical edge, and two vertices as shown. Likewise, we can obtain $`G(2,2)`$ by removing the same set of edges and vertices from the right of $`G(2,3)`$. Then we get $`G(2,1)`$ and $`G(2,0)`$ inductively. But what are we to make of $`G(2,0)`$? It has no vertices, and two “anti-” horizontal edges. How many matchings should this have? What about $`G(2,1)`$? $`G(2,2)`$?

The definitions that Propp created for $`G(m,n)`$ with $`n<0`$ look quite similar to the pictures in Figure 1, except that his horizontal lines are solid and there are vertices on the endpoints of the horizontal edges where there are none in Figure 1 (see Figure 2).

Notice that in Figure 1 the graphs for $`G(2,0)`$ and $`G(2,1)`$ have some horizontal edges that are incident with only one vertex. The meaning of these missing vertices, these places that are “empty” of vertices, is described below. Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a graph in the usual sense, i.e. a set of vertices and edges between them, except that there is more than one kind of vertex and more than one kind of edge (see Figure 3). There are plain vertices, anti-vertices, and empty vertices, as well as plain vertical edges (vedges), anti-vedges, and plain horizontal edges (hedges). For now, plain components are given weight 1, anti-vertices and anti-vedges are given weight -1, and empty vertices have weight zero.555Later we will attach formal variables to edges and vertices, but empty vertices will still have weight zero. Thinking of monomer-dimer coverings, empty vertices represent positions in the lattice that may not be occupied by a monomer.

Define a *signed matching* of a graph $`G`$ to be a collection of non-adjacent edges of $`G`$ and all the vertices not incident with those edges. The weight of the matching is the product of the weights of the components in the matching. Note that this implies that a matching that involves an edge one or both of whose endpoints is an empty vertex has vanishing weight. Matchings of weight zero “do not count” for purposes of weighted enumeration, so in practice it helps to think of empty vertices as being *needy*. For any matching of nonzero weight, empty vertices *need* to have one of their incident edges included.

Define a regular signed graph, $`G(m,n)=P_m\times P_n`$ in the following way. If $`n>0`$, $`G(m,n)`$ is just a rectangular grid graph, i.e., a graph with $`mn`$ plain vertices arranged into $`m`$ rows of $`n`$ vertices each, with plain edges adjoining horizontal and vertical neighbors. Define the conjugate graph of $`G`$, denoted $`G^{}`$, to be the graph obtained by replacing all of the vertices and vedges of $`G`$ with their anti-counterparts (assuming that an anti-anti-vertex is a plain vertex, etc.) but leaving the hedges alone. Under this definition, $`(G(m,n))^{}=G^{}(m,n)`$ is a graph with $`mn`$ anti-vertices arranged into $`m`$ rows of $`n`$ vertices with hedges adjoining horizontal neighbors and anti-vedges adjoining vertical neighbors. Then for $`n0`$, $`G(m,n)`$ is defined to be a copy of $`G^{}(m,n)`$ with a column of $`m`$ empty vertices on the left and $`m`$ empty vertices on the right. Each empty vertex is connected (with a hedge) only to the anti-vertex horizontally adjacent to it (see Figure 4).

For fixed $`m>0`$ and any integer $`n`$, we define the number $`M(m,n)=M(G(m,n))`$ to be the sum of the weights of the signed matchings of $`G(m,n)`$. In general, $`M(G)`$ is the sum of the weights of all of the signed matchings of $`G`$. Some examples are given in Figure 5.

Having made all our definitions in terms of rectangular grid graphs, we would now like to extend them to apply to generalized rectangles. For any finite graph $`G`$, define the generalized rectangle graph $`G\times P_n`$ with $`n>0`$ as follows: Picture $`n`$ copies of $`G`$ lined up side by side. Each vertex in one copy of $`G`$ is connected with an edge to its image in the copies of $`G`$ to the left and right of it. Define all the edges *within* a copy of $`G`$ to be vedges, and the edges *between* copies of $`G`$ to be hedges. With this idea, we can define $`G\times P_n`$ to be $`G^{}\times P_n`$ with $`m`$ ($`=`$ the number of vertices in $`G`$) empty vertices to the left and to the right of it. Each empty vertex is connected to exactly one of the vertices of $`G^{}`$ with a hedge. We shall see that these definitions are the right ones that will enable us to prove statements of reciprocity for more than just grid graphs.

## 3. Adjunction

Although it seems there are separate definitions for $`G(m,n)`$ (resp. $`G\times P_n`$) when $`n>0`$ and when $`n0`$, we will show they are actually the same object. In Propp’s words, they fit together “seamlessly.” If they fit together this way, then it follows that for any $`G`$, the sequence $`M(G\times P_n)`$ satisfies a linear recurrence of finite degree with constant coefficients. We will omit the proof as it is given in . The method of proof utilizes transfer matrix methods and the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, and it requires only that the family of graphs satisfy the property detailed below.

We begin by making a natural observation about the half-infinite sequence $`M(G(m,n))`$, $`n>0`$, and then we will prove that it actually holds for any $`n`$. In doing so, we will be able to establish that we do indeed have an appropriate definition for $`G(m,n)`$ (resp. $`G\times P_n)`$ with $`n0`$, and all our desires for the doubly infinite sequence—integrality, uniqueness, and reciprocity—will be fulfilled.

We first notice that for positive $`n_1,n_2`$, we can draw the graph $`G(m,n_1+n_2)`$ by placing $`G(m,n_1)`$ and $`G(m,n_2)`$ side by side and using hedges to connect the rightmost $`m`$ vertices of one to the leftmost $`m`$ vertices of the other, as shown in Figure 6. Call this operation *adjunction*. Generally, define the adjunction of two graphs $`H=G\times P_{n_1}`$, $`H^{}=G\times P_{n_2}`$ to be a new graph formed by connecting $`H`$ to $`H^{}`$ with hedges, matching up corresponding vertices. In particular:

* If $`n_1,n_2`$ are positive, connect every vertex in the rightmost copy of $`G`$ in $`H`$ to its image in the leftmost copy of $`G`$ in $`H^{}`$ using a hedge.
* If $`n_1`$ is positive, $`n_2`$ negative, join every vertex $`v`$ in the rightmost copy of $`G`$ in $`H`$ to an empty vertex on the left side of $`H^{}`$ so that $`v`$ is connected to $`v^{}`$ (the anti-vertex corresponding to $`v`$) in the leftmost copy of $`G^{}`$ in $`H^{}`$ by the path hedge-empty vertex-hedge. (Similarly if $`n_1`$ is negative and $`n_2`$ is positive.)
* If $`n_1,n_2`$ are both negative, join every vertex in the rightmost copy of $`G^{}`$ in $`H`$ to its image in the leftmost copy of $`G^{}`$ in $`H^{}`$ by connecting their adjacent empty vertices with a hedge.

We write the adjunction of $`G\times P_{n_1}`$ and $`G\times P_{n_2}`$ as $`(G\times P_{n_1})(G\times P_{n_2})`$.

Returning to case of rectangular grid graphs where $`n_1,n_2`$ are positive, $`G(m,n_1)G(m,n_2)=G(m,n_1+n_2)`$, and naturally, $`M(G(m,n_1)G(m,n_2))=M(G(m,n_1+n_2))`$. This is true more generally, as stated in the following:

###### Theorem 1 (Adjunction).

$$M((G\times P_{n_1})(G\times P_{n_2})\mathrm{}(G\times P_{n_k}))=M(G\times P_{n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_k})$$

for all integers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k.`$ In particular,

$$M(G(m,n_1)G(m,n_2)\mathrm{}G(m,n_k))=M(G(m,n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_k))$$

for all integers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k`$.

The proof of Theorem 1 will require the following two lemmas.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`G`$ be a signed graph where two vertices, $`a`$ and $`b`$, are connected by the path hedge-empty vertex-hedge-empty vertex-hedge. Then $`G`$ has same number of signed matchings as the graph $`G^{}`$, where $`G^{}`$ is identical to $`G`$ except that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are connected with one hedge.

*Proof:* The claim made by Lemma 1 is most easily seen in Figure 7 where we see the immediate bijection. When a matching of $`G`$ does not contain the hedge joining the two empty vertices, then the matching must contain the two edges that join these two empty vertices to $`a`$ and $`b`$. This corresponds to a matching of $`G^{}`$ that contains the hedge joining $`a`$ and $`b`$.

On the other hand, any matching of $`G`$ where the hedge between the empty vertices is present is a matching in which $`a`$ and $`b`$ are connected outwards. Such a matching corresponds to a matching of $`G^{}`$ that does not contain the hedge joining $`a`$ and $`b`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`G`$ be a finite graph with all plain components. Then let $`H`$ be the graph $`(G\times P_{n_1})(G\times P_{n_2})`$ for $`n_1>0>n_2`$. Then $`H`$ has the same number of signed matchings as the graph $`H^{}`$=$`(G\times P_{n_11})(G\times P_{n_2+1})`$.

*Proof:* We begin by examining what happens at each vertex; see Figure 8. Consider the plain vertex $`a`$ of $`G`$ connected to the anti-vertex $`a^{}`$ of $`G^{}`$ by the path hedge-empty vertex-hedge. There are essentially two types of matchings of $`H`$. We will say type 1 matchings include the hedge connecting $`a`$ to the empty vertex and type 2 matchings include the hedge connecting $`a^{}`$ to the empty vertex. Most of the matchings of type 1 will cancel with most of the matchings of type 2.

Given a matching of type 1, there are only three cases for what can happen the anti-vertex $`a^{}`$ of $`G^{}`$: it can be isolated, it can have an anti-vedge incident with it, or it can have a hedge incident with it. Likewise for any matching of type 2, the vertex $`a`$ can be isolated, incident with a vedge or incident with a hedge. If there are $`k`$ signed matchings of type 1 where $`a^{}`$ is isolated, then there are $`k`$ signed matchings of type 2 where $`a`$ is isolated. Similar cancellation occurs between matchings of type 1 where $`a^{}`$ has an anti-vedge and matchings of type 2 where $`a`$ has a vedge (corresponding to the anti-vedge incident with $`a^{}`$).

The only remaining cases are those of type 1 and type 2 where $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ both have hedges. We claim that these matchings are in bijection with the graph where $`a,a^{}`$, all their incident vedges, and the hedges and empty vertex between $`a,a^{}`$ are all replaced with one empty vertex. The correspondence is shown in Figure 8. Since $`a`$ was any vertex of $`G`$, this can be done for every vertex of $`G`$ and the lemma holds. ∎

With the lemmas proved, Theorem 1 is not difficult to show.

*Proof of Theorem 1:* It is easily verified that $`M((G\times P_0)(G\times P_n))=M(G\times P_n)`$, so we may assume all the $`n_i`$ are non-zero. We have that $`M((G\times P_{n_1})(G\times P_{n_2}))=M(G\times P_{n_1+n_2})`$ whenever $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are negative by applying Lemma 1 to each place where adjoining takes place. The case $`n_1,n_2>0`$ is even easier. When $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are of opposite sign, we can apply Lemma 2 repeatedly. Upon each application of Lemma 2 we change neither the number of signed matchings nor the difference between the number of vertices and the number of anti-vertices. ∎

## 4. Reciprocity

### 4.1. Combinatorial Reciprocity

The combinatorial statement of reciprocity is rather obvious given the definition of $`G\times P_n`$ for $`n0`$ and the neediness of empty vertices:

###### Theorem 2 (Reciprocity (I)).

$$M(G\times P_{n2})=M(G^{}\times P_n).$$

In particular,

$$M(G(m,n2))=M(G^{}(m,n)).$$

*Proof:* On the left side of Figure 10 we have $`G(m,n2)`$. But since all the outside edges are forced and have weight 1, the number of signed matchings of $`G(m,n2)`$ is clearly equal to the number of matchings of $`G^{}(m,n)`$. The situation for generalized rectangles is identical. ∎

This statement of reciprocity is the natural extension of the property of dimer coverings observed by Propp (). Indeed, if we were to consider only the perfect matchings of grid graphs, then the statement would be the same:

$$N(G(m,n2))=N(G^{}(m,n)).$$

It is known that any dimer covering can be obtained from any other dimer covering by local moves that leave the parity of vedges unchanged. That is, the sign of every *perfect* matching of $`G^{}(m,n)`$ is the same, so $`|N(m,n)|=|N^{}(m,n)|`$. With less-than-perfect matchings, this is clearly not the case.

Perhaps the strength of this result is more obvious when we give all the edges and vertices formal weights and derive a statement of reciprocity in terms of a generating function. Though we could do so for any finite graph of the form $`G\times P_n`$, we will only derive an explicit formula for $`G(m,n)`$.

### 4.2. The Generating Function

For convenience, let the weights of the vertices of $`G(m,n)`$ for $`n>0`$ be indexed by $`\times `$, read from left to right and top to bottom. Notice that the top left vertex is $`z_{1,1}`$ and the bottom right vertex is $`z_{m,n}`$. Then $`x_{i,j}`$ is the weight given to the hedge between $`z_{i,j}`$ and $`z_{i,j+1}`$, and $`y_{i,j}`$ is the weight given to the vedge between $`z_{i,j}`$ and $`z_{i+1,j}`$. To get the weights for vertices of $`G(m,n)`$, we begin by giving the top right anti-vertex weight $`z_{1,0}`$ and we proceed analogously. The weights of $`G(2,3)`$ and $`G(2,5)`$ are shown in Figure 11.

The weight of a matching with formal variables is not exactly like the weight as defined before, as is seen in the following:

###### Definition 1.

If $`\mu `$ is a matching of $`G(m,n)`$, define the weight of $`\mu `$, $`w(\mu )`$, as follows (where $`\mathrm{sgn}(t)=1`$ if $`t`$ is positive, $`1`$ otherwise):

$$w(\mu )=\frac{\left({\displaystyle \underset{\text{hedges in }\mu }{}}x_{i,j}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\text{vedges in }\mu }{}}\mathrm{sgn}(j)y_{i,j}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\text{vertices in }\mu }{}}\mathrm{sgn}(j)z_{i,j}\right)}{{\displaystyle \underset{\text{all hedges in }G(m,n)}{}}x_{i,j}^{(1\mathrm{sgn}(j))/2}}.$$

Notice that for $`n<0`$, there is a monomial denominator in the weights of matchings. By our definition, the matchings shown in Figure 12 have weights

$$x_{1,2}y_{1,1}z_{2,2}z_{2,3}\text{ and }\frac{y_{1,1}z_{2,2}z_{2,3}}{x_{1,1}x_{1,2}x_{1,4}x_{2,1}x_{2,2}x_{2,3}x_{2,4}}$$

With this new definition of weights, we define the matching polynomial. In the literature, there are conventions for describing the matching polynomial of a graph. Our definition does not adhere strictly to these conventions, though it is similar to the partition function for the monomer-dimer model, with distinct formal variables for all monomers and dimers (see ,).

###### Definition 2.

The matching polynomial of $`G(m,n)`$, $`f_n(x_{i,j},y_{i,j},z_{i,j})`$, is given by

$$f_n(x_{i,j},y_{i,j},z_{i,j})=\underset{\text{all matchings }\mu \text{ of }G(m,n)}{}w(\mu )$$

where $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ if $`n>0`$, $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ if $`n<0`$.

Strictly speaking, the matching polynomial is a Laurent polynomial: a polynomial in the variables $`x_{i,j}`$, $`x_{i,j}^1`$, $`y_{i,j}`$, $`z_{i,j}`$. Notice if we set all of the weights equal to 1 we get $`f_n(1,1,1)=M(G(m,n))`$, the number of signed matchings. Similarly if we set all the $`x_{i,j},y_{i,j}`$ equal to 1 but set all the $`z_{i,j}`$ equal to 0, then $`f_n(1,1,0)=N(G(m,n))`$, the number of signed perfect matchings.

By construction the polynomials $`f_n`$ will satisfy a linear recurrence very similar to that which governs $`M(G(m,n))`$. For example, if $`m=1`$, then we get $`f_n=z_{1,n}f_{n1}+x_{1,n1}f_{n2}`$ for all $`n`$. Likewise, there is a link between the polynomials $`f_n`$ and $`f_{n2}`$ for $`n0`$, seen most easily if we let $`x_{i,j}=x`$, $`y_{i,j}=y`$, $`z_{i,j}=z`$ for all $`i,j`$:

(1)
$$f_n(x,y,z)=x^{m(n+1)}f_{n2}(x,y,z).$$

As mentioned in Section 3, for any fixed $`m`$, the numbers $`M(m,n)`$, $`n`$ satisfy a linear recurrence of finite degree with constant coefficients. Therefore there is a rational generating function for the number of weighted matchings,

$$F_m(t,x,y,z)=\underset{n0}{}f_n(x,y,z)t^n.$$

Given (1) it is an easy exercise (see for example , ch. 4) to state a reciprocity theorem for the generating function:

###### Theorem 3 (Reciprocity(II)).

$$x^mt^2F_m(t,x,y,z)=F_m(\frac{1}{tx^m},x,y,z).$$

This completes the main goal of the paper.

## 5. More on Linear Recurrences and Reciprocity

Though we have only proved theorems here for graphs of the type $`G\times P_n`$ (cylinders of fixed circumference and varying height for example), we have also been able to use a modified form of adjunction to build a model for the honeycomb graph of fixed height and width $`n`$. Other graphs that we examined but were unable to apply our methods to include cylinders with fixed height and varying circumference, Möbius strips, tori, and projective planes. We do however feel that there may be a way of dealing with such graphs.

In his unpublished paper , David Speyer developed a matrix method for encoding perfect matchings of a graph. With this method he was able to state theorems about recurrences and reciprocity for a broader range of graphs than those we have handled here. In particular, he was able to make a statement about the Möbius strip and projective plane. An adaptation of his method to general matchings seems promising, though experimentation has shown it to be less than straightforward.

## 6. Acknowledgements

We’d like to thank Jim Propp for introducing us to this problem and for getting us started with the early investigations. Without his REACH program to bring the authors together, this work could not have been done. Thanks also to Harvard University, Brandeis University, the University of Massachusetts-Boston, the University of Wisconsin, the NSF, and the NSA.


format: text

text:
# Growth Rate of Large Scale Structure as a Powerful Probe of Dark Energy

## Abstract

The redshift evolution of the growth rate of the gravitational potential, $`d(D/a)/dz`$, is an excellent discriminator of dark energy parameters and, in principle, more powerful than standard classical tests of cosmology. This evolution is directly observable through the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect in cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies. We consider the prospects of measuring the growth rate via a novel method employed through measurements of CMB polarization towards galaxy clusters. The potentially achievable errors on dark energy parameters are comparable and fully complementary to those expected from other upcoming tests of dark energy, making this test a highly promising tool of precision cosmology.

One of the key issues in modern cosmology is developing efficient and complementary methods to measure cosmological parameters and cosmological functions. In particular, much interest has been devoted to developing methods to constrain the properties of the mysterious dark energy component that causes the recently discovered accelerated expansion of the universe SNe . To this end, it has been pointed out that type Ia supernovae, number counts, and weak gravitational lensing are all very promising probes of the dark energy equation of state $`w`$ and its energy density relative to critical $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ (see HutTur01  and references therein), and that a number of other methods are likely to contribute useful information.

These cosmological tests probe various fundamental quantities. For example, type Ia supernovae effectively measure the luminosity distance, number counts are sensitive to a combination of the volume element and the growth of density perturbations, while cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy effectively determines the distance to the surface of last scattering. While these tests are well understood and pursued in various observational programs, the information one can extract from these measurements is limited by the presence of fundamental degeneracies of cosmological parameters that enter the observable quantity in question.

It is typically advantageous when the measurements involve not the quantity itself but rather its derivatives with respect to time or redshift, since in that case the dependence on the equation of state $`w(z)`$ is more direct. For example, the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ is more sensitive to the equation of state than the comoving distance $`r(z)`$ since $`r(z)=𝑑z/H(z)`$, but the latter has the advantage of being readily and accurately measurable. In this respect, the linear growth factor of density perturbations provides important information since it is a function of the Hubble parameter and the equation of state of dark energy $`w`$ (see below).

As we will show, the rate of evolution of the growth factor with redshift is a tremendous tool for measuring dark energy parameters. We will further suggest the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW; SacWol67 ) effect as a probe for this purpose and propose polarization measurements of CMB anisotropy towards galaxy clusters. The latter provides an indirect method to extract the temperature quadrupole associated with the ISW effect as a function of the cluster redshift, with a reduction in the cosmic variance which plagues large scale temperature anisotropy measurements. To make this study practical, we consider the prospects of upcoming arcminute scale CMB polarization observations with instruments such as the South Pole Telescope (SPT) and the planned CMBPol satellite mission.

To begin, we review aspects related to the growth of large scale structure. In linear theory, all Fourier modes of the density perturbation, $`\delta (\delta \rho _\mathrm{M}/\rho _{rmM})`$, grow at the same rate: $`\delta _k(a)=D(a)\delta _k(a=1)`$, where $`D(a)`$ is the growth factor normalized to unity today and $`a=(1+z)^1`$ is the scale factor. In the matter-dominated era $`D(a)=a`$, while in the presence of a smooth dark energy component perturbation growth slows and $`D(a)`$ increases less rapidly with $`a`$. In general, the growth function can be computed by solving the linear perturbation equation $`\ddot{\delta }_k+2(\dot{a}/a)\dot{\delta }_k4\pi G\rho _\mathrm{M}\delta _k=0`$ where dot is the derivative with respect to physical time.

Defining the growth suppression rate (growth rate relative to that in a flat, matter-dominated universe) as $`g(a)D(a)/a`$, and still allowing for a general $`w(a)`$, one can write

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2g}{d\mathrm{ln}a^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`\left[53w(a)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}(a)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{d\mathrm{ln}a}}+`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`3\left[1w(a)\right]\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}(a)g=0,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}(a)`$ is the fractional dark energy density at the scale factor $`a`$. For constant $`w`$, the solution is given in terms of the hypergeometric function Pad03 , while to compute $`g(a)`$ and/or $`D(a)`$ for a non-constant $`w(a)`$ one can either solve Eq. (1) numerically or use analytic approximations WanSte98 .

It has long been known that the growth function strongly depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, the fractional density in matter, and $`w`$. Also, the strength of several cosmological tests, such as number counts Haietal00 , clustering measured in redshift slices Cooetal01  and weak lensing Hu\_WLtomo  comes primarily from their dependence on the growth function $`D(z)`$. On the other hand, it has been known that redshift or time derivatives of distance are more directly related to dark energy parameters; in particular, the equation of state $`w(z)`$ is directly related to the first and second derivatives of distance with respect to redshift HutTur99 . Unfortunately, the derivatives are not directly measured but are obtained by taking numerical derivatives of noisy data, which significantly increases the error in the reconstructed $`w(z)`$.

It is interesting to examine the sensitivity of the rate of change of the growth suppression factor to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`w`$. To do this, we first consider constant $`w`$, and then a two-parameter description of time-varying $`w`$. For the latter we do not choose the commonly used $`w(z)=w_0+w^{}z`$ CooHut99 , but rather $`w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)`$ Lin03  which is bounded at high redshift and facilitates the integration of Eq. (1). \[For $`w^{}`$ aficionados, we mention that the error in $`w_a`$ is roughly twice the error in $`w^{}`$.\] Fig. 1 shows the error bars in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$$`w`$ plane (top) and $`w_0`$$`w_a`$ plane (bottom) using various classical tests assuming a fiducial model of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$ and $`w=1`$; we use the same fiducial model throughout the paper. The calculation uses the Fisher matrix formalism and assumes 10% measurements in a given quantity at each interval of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.1`$ in redshift between $`z=0.1`$ and $`z=2`$. We show a variety of quantities, including the distance $`r(z)`$, the volume element $`r^2(z)/H(z)`$ and the growth factor $`D(z)`$, which are the most commonly considered probes of dark energy. We also consider $`dD/d\eta `$ ($`\eta `$ is conformal time) and $`dg/dz`$. As emphasized in Ref. PeeKno02 , $`dD/d\eta `$, which is measured by large-scale velocities, is mostly sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and not $`w`$. What Fig. 1 illustrates is that $`dg/dz`$ is much more powerful than other probes due to the specific way the degeneracy is broken. For example, for the same relative accuracy in observations, $`dg/dz`$ is about 15 times stronger than the comoving distance $`r(z)`$! Of course, this comparison is not necessarily fair, since enormous amount of work has gone into developing methods to determine distances, which are now expected to be measurable to an accuracy of about 1% (per interval of 0.1 in redshift) by SNAP SNAP , making them the most direct probes of the cosmological expansion history, while not much attention has been devoted to the more esoteric quantity $`dg/dz`$. In the remainder of this paper we show that there indeed exists a very promising cosmological test which is sensitive to $`dg/dz`$.

The above discussion indicates that it would be ideal to have a cosmological probe of the evolution of growth suppression, $`dg/dz`$. It turns out that just such a probe exists in a universe that is not matter-dominated at late times. The dark energy domination causes the time-variation of the gravitational potential, which in turn contributes to CMB anisotropies through the ISW effect SacWol67 . The resulting temperature fluctuation is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T^{\mathrm{ISW}}(\widehat{𝐧})=2_0^{r_{\mathrm{rec}}}𝑑r^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(r^{})}{dr^{}},$$
(2)
where $`r_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is the radial comoving distance to last scattering with $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}=1100`$. From Poisson’s equation, $`^2\mathrm{\Phi }=3/2H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(\delta /a)`$, it follows that the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to the growth suppression $`g`$. The ISW effect therefore gives a direct measure of the integral of $`dg/dr`$ (or $`dg/dz`$) computed over some effective time (or redshift) interval.

While the ISW effect determined at the present time can be used as a probe of dark energy Coretal03 , its contribution to CMB temperature fluctuations is dwarfed by the primordial anisotropy contribution at last scattering. Though the cross-correlation between the large scale structure and CMB anisotropy fluctuations has been considered as a method to extract the ISW contribution CriTur96 , such correlations are affected by the dominant noise contribution related to primary anisotropies Coo02 .

There is another way of extracting information captured in the ISW effect: through the measurement of CMB polarization towards galaxy clusters CooBau03 . The polarization signal is generated by rscattering of the temperature quadrupole seen by free electrons in the cluster frame Challinor . Provided that the optical depth to scattering in individual clusters is determined a priori by other methods, such as the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ; SunZel80 ) effect, one can measure the quadrupole at the cluster location with a reduction in cosmic variance KamLoe97 . Note that the quadrupole measured from a cluster at high redshift is not the same quadrupole as one observes today due to the difference in the projected length scales. Since the ISW effect contributes a significant fraction of the quadrupolar anisotropy at late times, cluster polarization provides an indirect probe of dark energy. Because clusters can be selected over a wide range in redshift, the polarization signal can be measured as a function of redshift and inverted to reconstruct the evolution of the ISW quadrupole CooBau03 .

The anisotropy quadrupole, $`C_2(z)`$, has two contributions: one at the surface of last scattering due to the Sachs-Wolfe (SW) effect, $`C_2^{\mathrm{SW}}(z)`$, and another at late times due to the ISW effect, $`C_2^{\mathrm{ISW}}(z)`$. We write these two contributions to the power spectrum, projected to a redshift $`z`$, respectively as

$`C_2^{\mathrm{SW}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{9}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^2(k,r_{\mathrm{rec}})j_2^2[k(r_{\mathrm{rec}}r)]\mathrm{and}`$
$`C_2^{\mathrm{ISW}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^2(k,r_{\mathrm{rec}})\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _r^{r_{rec}}}𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g(z_{\mathrm{rec}})}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr^{}}}g(z^{})j_2(k(r^{}r))\right]^2.`$
Here $`r`$ is the radial comoving distance out to redshift $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^2(k,r_{\mathrm{rec}})(k^3P_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}(k,r_{\mathrm{rec}})/2\pi ^2)`$ is the logarithmic power spectrum of fluctuations in the potential field at the last scattering surface. We will concentrate on the dark energy properties, whose effects are dominant at low redshifts, and assume that the parameters that define the power spectrum, such as the normalization, spectral tilt, and physical matter and baryon densities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}h^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, are known to the accuracy expected from the Planck mission with polarization information HETW . Given these priors, the SW contribution is then known to a few percent accuracy. Also note that, conveniently, only the large scales in the power spectrum contribute to the ISW effect, so that we do not need to consider thorny issues related to small-scale non-linear structures and additional parameters such as the neutrino mass.

The galaxy cluster polarization signal arises from the rescattering of the quadrupole which receives a contribution from $`C_2^{\mathrm{ISW}}(z)`$ at low redshifts. Ref. CooBau03  discussed how well this quadrupole can be measured as a function of redshift with Planck and a ground-based experiment with significant instrumental noise. In the top panel of Fig. 2 we show the projected ISW contribution to the temperature quadrupole as a function of redshift, and expected errors for a ground-based survey targeting clusters down to a mass limit of $`10^{14}M_{}`$ in a total area of 104 deg2 with an instrumental noise for polarization observations of 0.1 $`\mu `$K. As in CooBau03 , we assume four channels for these observations so that the ISW quadrupole can be separated from the contribution of the kinematic quadrupole. The latter has a distinct spectrum and the separation based on frequency information leads to an overall increase in noise by a factor of 2 to 3 depending on the exact frequencies of channels selected. Note that we have assumed an instrumental noise of 0.1 $`\mu `$K for these observations. While a polarization sensitive detector array on the SPT can be expected to reach noise levels of $``$ 1 $`\mu `$K or less per pixel, we have assumed an order of magnitude reduction in noise, as expected from the planned CMBPol satellite mission. Since the expected noise level for arcminute scale polarization observations from such a mission is not currently defined, and to consider ground-based efforts such as the SPT, we have considered the range of values between 0.1 and 1 $`\mu `$K so as to obtain some guidance on how well cluster polarization measurements with noise in this range can be used to probe dark energy.

In addition to instrumental noise, the polarization measurements are subject to cosmic variance. This variance is determined by the number of independent volumes that last scattering spheres of individual clusters, in some redshift bin, occupy KamLoe97 . Dotted lines in the top panel of Fig. 2 show the cosmic variance contribution for an all-sky experiment. As one moves to higher redshift, the number of independent samplings of the local quadrupole increases, leading to a reduction in cosmic variance. The expected redshift distribution of clusters peaks at redshifts around 1–1.5 where it provides the best estimate of the local quadrupole, while errors increase at very low and high redshift due to the smaller number of clusters.

To consider how well these observations can be used to understand dark energy parameters, we again perform a Fisher matrix calculation. The bottom panels of Fig. 2 show how well $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`w`$ (assuming a flat universe and constant $`w`$), and $`w_0`$ and $`w_a`$ (assuming a two-parameter description of $`w(z)`$ as before and a prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ of 0.01) can be measured. While the errors are fairly large with a 1 $`\mu `$K noise level per pixel, improving this noise threshold to 0.1 $`\mu `$K leads to significant gains in the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`w`$. Note also that these errors roughly scale as the inverse square root of the area of sky covered, and with all-sky coverage the errors are expected to decrease by a factor of two. With an order of magnitude improvement in noise, the redshift evolution of the ISW effect extracted from polarization measurements becomes a powerful probe of dark energy providing significant estimates of parameters, comparable and complementary to type Ia supernovae.

To conclude, we have argued that the rate of evolution of the growth suppression factor, $`dg/dz`$, is a very powerful probe of dark energy. We have shown that the polarization signal from a large number of galaxy clusters is directly related to this quantity, and can be used to constrain dark energy parameters. In the next decade, the planned mission CMBPol is expected to reach a sensitivity of order 0.1 $`\mu `$K at arcminute resolution and have all-sky coverage, providing polarization measurements of a significant number $`(10^4)`$ of clusters, from which the quadrupole can be reconstructed as a function of redshift. Although our study is preliminary, we have shown that this method can provide constraints on the dark energy equation of state and its time variation comparable and complementary to those from type Ia supernovae and other well-studied probes of dark energy. More importantly, this method is entirely different from most of the others both in its theoretical underpinnings and in the systematic errors expected. Combining this method with others opens the exciting possibility of significantly improving the constraints on $`w`$ and helps usher a new era in our exploration of dark energy.

We thank I. Maor, A. Melchiorri and J. Ruhl for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by DoE (AC and DH) and the Sherman Fairchild foundation (AC). AC thanks the Particle Astrophysics Group at CWRU for hospitality while this work was initiated.


text:
# Energy distribution in the dyadosphere of a charged black hole

## 1 Introduction

Ruffini introduced a new concept of *dyadosphere* of an electromagnetic black hole to explain gamma ray bursts. He defined the dyadosphere as the region just outside the horizon of a charged black hole whose electromagnetic field strength is larger than the well-known Heisenbeg-Euler critical value

$$_{crit}=\frac{m_e^2c^3}{e\mathrm{}}$$
(1)
for electron-positron pair production ($`m_e`$ and $`e`$ respectively denote mass and charge of an electron.) For a Reissner-Nordström space-time, the dyadosphere is described by the radial interval $`r_+rr_{ds}`$ where the horizon

$$r_+=\frac{GM}{c^2}\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{q^2}{GM^2}}\right),$$
(2)
forms the inner radius of the dyadosphere, while its outer radius is given by

$$r_{ds}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_ec}\right)\left(\frac{GM}{c^2}\right)\left(\frac{m_p}{m_e}\right)\left(\frac{e}{q_p}\right)\left(\frac{Q}{\sqrt{G}M}\right)},$$
(3)
where $`M`$ and $`Q`$ are mass and charge parameters, $`m_p=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}`$ and $`q_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c}`$ are respectively the Planck mass and Planck charge (see in ). Ruffini, and Preparata *et al.* have investigated certain properties of the dyadosphere corresponding to the Reissner-Nordström space-time (see also Ruffini *et al.*). They found that the electron-positron pair creation process occur over the entire dyadosphere, excluding the horizon, where the electromagnetic field is Heisenberg-Euler overcritical. The total energy of electron-positron pairs converted from static electric energy and deposited within the dyadosphere is calculated to be:

$$E_{dya}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{Q^2}{r_+}(1\frac{r_+}{r_{ds}})\left[1\left(\frac{r_+}{r_{ds}}\right)^2\right].$$
(4)
Several studies show that, in the presence of a strong electromagnetic field, the velocity of light propagation depends on vacuum polarization states (Birula and Birula, Adler, De Lorenci *et al.*). Drummond and Hathrell showed that the effect of vacuum polarization may lead to superluminal photon propagation. Daniels and Shore investigated photon propagation around a charged black hole. Their results show that the effect of one-loop vacuum polarization on photon propagation in Reissner-Nordström space-time makes superluminal photon propagation possible. Vacuum polarisation effects thus violate the Principle of Equivalence in interacting field theories. It is therefore of interest to examine further properties of the region where the electromagnetic field exceeds the Euler-Heissenberg critical limit. In this paper we investigate the energy distribution in the dyadosphere of a Reissner-Nordström space-time using the energy-momentum complexes of Einstein, Landau-Lifshitz, Papapetrou, and Weinberg.

Einstein’s formulation of energy-momentum covariant conservation laws $`_aT^{ab}=0`$ ($`T^{ab}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter and all nongravitational fields) in the form of Poynting theorem ($`_a\mathrm{\Theta }_b^a=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b^a`$ is known as the Einstein energy-momentum complex) to include contributions from gravitational field involved the introduction of a pseudotensorial quantity. Owing to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_a_b`$ is not a true tensor (although covariant under linear transformations), Levi-Civita, Schrödinger, and Bauer expressed some doubts at the importance of Einstein’s local energy-momentum conservation laws (see in Cattani and De Maria ). Einstein showed that his energy-momentum complex provides satisfactory expression for the total energy and momentum of isolated systems. This was followed by many prescriptions: e.g. Landau and Lifshitz, Papapetrou, Weinberg, and many others (see in Refs. ). Most of these prescriptions are coordinate dependent and others are not. The physical meaning of these was questioned, and the large number of energy-momentum prescriptions not only fuelled scepticism that different energy-momentum definitions could give unacceptable different energy distributions for a given space-time, but also lead to diverse viewpoints on the possibility of localization of energy-momentum. In a series of papers, Cooperstock hypothesized that in general relativity energy and momentum are located only to the regions of nonvanishing energy-momentum tensor and that consequently the gravitational waves are not carriers of energy and momentum. Although recent results of Xulu and Bringley support this hypothesis, further investigation of this hypothesis is still required.

The main weaknesses of energy-momentum complexes is that most of these restrict one to make calculations in “Cartesian coordinates”. The alternative concept of quasi-local mass is more attractive because these are not restricted to the use of any special coordinate system. There is also a large number of definitions of quasi-local masses. It has been shown that for a given space-time, many quasi-local mass definitions do not give agreed results. On the other hand, the pioneering contributions of Virbhadra and co-workers () encouarged numerous researchers (see  and references therein) to show that for many space-times several energy-momentum complexes give the same and acceptable energy-momentum distribution for a given space-time. Inspired by Virbhadra’s result, Chang, Nester and Chen demonstrated that by associating each of the energy-momentum complexes of Einstein, Landau and Lifshitz, Møller, Papapetrou, and Weinberg with a legitimate Hamiltonian boundary term, each of these complexes may be said to be quasi-local. Quasi-local energy-momentum are obtainable from a Hamiltonian. This important paper of Chang,et al dispels the doubts about the physical meaning of these energy-momentum complexes. Hence, below we use energy-momentum complexes to obtain energy distribution in the dyadosphere of a Reissner-Nordström space-time. In the rest of this paper we use $`G=1,c=1`$ units and follow the convention that Latin indices take values from $`0`$ to $`3`$ and Greek indices take values from $`1`$ to $`3`$.

## 2 The De Lorenci *et al.* Metric

De Lorenci, Figueiredo, Fliche and Novello  calculated the correction for the Reissner-Nordström metric from the first contribution of the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and obtained the following metric

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\frac{\sigma Q^4}{5r^6}\right)dt^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\frac{\sigma Q^4}{5r^6}\right)^1dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\text{.}$$
(5)
By making $`\sigma =0`$ we again obtain the Reissner-Nordström metric. De Lorenci *et al.* showed that the correction term $`\frac{\sigma Q^4}{5r^6}`$ is of the same order of magnitude as the Reissner-Nordström charge term $`\frac{Q^2}{2r^2}`$.

In order to compute the energy distribution using the energy-momentum complexes of Einstein, Landau-Lifshitz, Papapetrou, and Weinberg we are restricted to the use of “Cartesian coordinates”. Therefore we can express the above metric (5) in $`T,x,y,z`$ coordinates. The coordinates transformation is:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`t+r{\displaystyle \left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\frac{\sigma Q^4}{5r^6}\right)^1𝑑r},`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta \text{.}`$ (6)
Thus one has the metric in $`T,x,y,z`$ coordinates:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dT^2dx^2dy^2dz^2`$ (7)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma Q^4}{5r^6}}\right)\times \left[dT{\displaystyle \frac{xdx+ydy+zdz}{r}}\right]^2.`$
## 3 Einstein energy-momentum complex

The Einstein energy-momentum complex is given as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_i{}_{}{}^{k}=\frac{1}{16\pi }H_{i,l}^{kl},$$
(8)
where

$$H_i^{kl}=H_i^{lk}=\frac{g_{in}}{\sqrt{g}}\left[g\left(g^{kn}g^{lm}g^{ln}g^{km}\right)\right]_{,m}.$$
(9)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ^{0}`$ denote for the energy and momentum density components, respectively. (Virbhadra mentioned that though the energy-momentum complex found by Tolman differs in form from the Einstein energy-momentum complex, both are equivalent in import.) The energy-momentum components are expressed by

$$P_i=\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{0}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3.$$
(10)
Further Gauss’s theorem furnishes

$$P_i=\frac{1}{16\pi }H_i^{0\alpha }\mu _\alpha 𝑑S\text{,}$$
(11)
where $`\mu _\alpha `$ is the outward unit normal vector over the infinitesimal surface element $`dS`$. $`P_\alpha `$ give momentum components $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ and $`P_0`$ gives the energy.

The only required components of $`H_i^{jk}`$ in the calculation of energy are the following:

$`H_0^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma x\text{,}`$
$`H_0^{02}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma y\text{,}`$
$`H_0^{03}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma z\text{,}`$ (12)
where

$$\gamma =\frac{4M}{r^3}\frac{2Q^2}{r^4}+\frac{2Q^4\sigma }{5r^8}.$$
(13)
For a surface given by parametric equations $`x=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ $`y=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$ $`z=r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (where $`r`$ is constant) one has $`\mu _\beta =\{x/r,`$ $`y/r,`$ $`z/r\}`$ and $`dS=r^2sin\theta d\theta d\varphi `$. Now using (12) in (11) over a surface $`r=const.`$, we obtain:

$$E_{\mathrm{Einst}}=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\sigma Q^4}{10r^5}$$
(14)
In the next Section we obtain the energy distribution for the same metric in Landau and Lifshitz formulation.

## 4 Energy distribution in Landau and Lifshitz Formulation

The symmetric energy-momentum complex of Landau and Lifshitz may be written as

$$L^{ij}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\mathrm{}_{,kl}^{ikjl}$$
(15)
where

$$\mathrm{}^{ikjl}=g(g^{ij}g^{kl}g^{il}g^{kj}).$$
(16)
$`L^{00}`$ is the energy density and $`L^{0\alpha }`$ are the momentum (energy current) density components. $`\mathrm{}^{mjnk}`$ has symmetries of the Riemann curvature tensor. The expression

$$P^i=L^{i0}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3$$
(17)
gives the energy $`P^0`$ and momentum $`P^\alpha `$ components. Thus after applying the Gauss theorem, the energy expression is given by

$$E_{LL}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\mathrm{}_{,\alpha }^{0\alpha 0\beta }\mu _\beta 𝑑S,$$
(18)
where $`\mu _\beta `$ is the outward unit normal vector over an infinitesimal surface element $`dS`$. In order to calculate the energy component for the De Lorenci *et al.* metric expressed by the line element $`(\text{7})`$, we need the following non-zero components of $`\mathrm{}^{ikjl}`$

$`\mathrm{}^{0101}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{r^2}}\right)\gamma \text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{0102}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xy\gamma }{r^2}}\text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{0103}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xz\gamma }{r^2}}\text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{0202}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{r^2}}\right)\gamma \text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{0203}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{yz\gamma }{r^2}}\text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{0303}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{r^2}}\right)\gamma \text{,}`$ (19)
Equation (15) with eqs. (16) and (19) gives the energy density component:

$$L^{00}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[\frac{Q^2}{r^4}\frac{Q^4\sigma }{r^8}\right].$$
(20)
Using equations $`(\text{19})`$ in $`(\text{18})`$ over a surface $`r=const.`$, we obtain:

$$E_{\mathrm{LL}}=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\sigma Q^4}{10r^5}$$
(21)
Thus we find the same energy distribution we obtained in the last section. In the next Section we obtain the energy distribution for the same metric in Papapetrou formulation.

## 5 Energy distribution in Papapetrou formulation

The Papapetrou energy-momentum complex:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{ij}=\frac{1}{16\pi }𝒩_{,kl}^{ijkl}$$
(22)
where

$$𝒩^{ijkl}=\sqrt{g}\left(g^{ij}\eta ^{kl}g^{ik}\eta ^{jl}+g^{kl}\eta ^{ij}g^{jl}\eta ^{ik}\right)$$
(23)
is also symmetric in its indices. $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0}`$ are the energy and momentum density components. Energy and momentum components $`P^i`$ are given by

$$P^i=\mathrm{\Omega }^{i0}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3.$$
(24)
Applying the Gauss theorem, the energy $`E`$ for a stationary metric is given by the expression

$$E_P=\frac{1}{16\pi }𝒩_{,\beta }^{00\alpha \beta }\mu _\alpha dS.$$
(25)
To find the energy component of the line element $`(\text{7})`$, we require the following non-zero components of $`𝒩^{ijkl}`$ :

$`𝒩^{0011}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma x^2}{r^3}}\text{,}`$
$`𝒩^{0012}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma xy}{r^3}}\text{,}`$
$`𝒩^{0013}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma xz}{r^3}}\text{,}`$
$`𝒩^{0022}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma y^2}{r^3}}\text{,}`$
$`𝒩^{0023}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma yz}{r^3}}\text{,}`$
$`𝒩^{0033}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma z^2}{r^3}}\text{,}`$ (26)
Using the above results in (22) and (23), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{00}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[\frac{Q^2}{r^4}\frac{Q^4\sigma }{r^8}\right]$$
(27)
Thus we find the same energy density as we obtained in the last section. We now use Eq. $`(\text{26})`$ in $`(\text{25})`$ over a 2-surface (as in the last Section) and obtain

$$E_{\mathrm{Pap}}=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\sigma Q^4}{10r^5},$$
(28)
which is the same as obtained in the previous section. In the next Section we obtain the energy distribution for the same metric in Weinberg formulation.

## 6 Energy distribution in Weinberg formulation

The symmetric energy-momentum complex of Weinberg  is :

$$W^{ik}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\mathrm{}_{,l}^{ikl}$$
(29)
where

$$\mathrm{}^{ikl}=\frac{h_a^a}{x_i}\eta ^{lk}\frac{h_a^a}{x_l}\eta ^{ik}+\frac{h^{al}}{x^a}\eta ^{ik}\frac{h^{ai}}{x^a}\eta ^{lk}+\frac{h^{ik}}{x_l}\frac{h^{lk}}{x_i}$$
(30)
and

$$h_{ij}=g_{ij}\eta _{ij}\text{.}$$
(31)
$`\eta _{ij}`$ is the Minkowski metric. The expression

$$P^i=W^{i0}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3.$$
(32)
gives the energy $`P^0`$ and momentum $`P^\alpha `$ components. Once more Gauss’s theorem furnishes the following expression for the energy $`E`$ of a stationary metric:

$$E_W=\frac{1}{16\pi }\mathrm{}^{\alpha 0k}\mu _\alpha 𝑑S.$$
(33)
To find the energy component of the line element $`(\text{7})`$, we require the following non-zero components of $`\mathrm{}^{ijk}`$:

$`\mathrm{}^{100}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma x\text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{200}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma y\text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{}^{300}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma z\text{,}`$ (34)
where $`\gamma `$ is given by Eq. (13). To find the energy density component $`W^{00}`$, we use Eq. (29) with (30) and (34) and get

$$W^{00}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[\frac{Q^2}{r^4}\frac{Q^4\sigma }{r^8}\right],$$
(35)
which agrees with energy density components of the Landau-Lifshitz and the Papapetrou energy-momentum complexes. Now using (34) in (33) we obtain

$$E_\mathrm{W}=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\sigma Q^4}{10r^5}.$$
(36)
which is also the same as in the above sections.

## 7  <br>Conclusion

Misner et al  argued that to look for a local energy-momentum is looking for the right answer to the wrong question. They further argued that energy is only localizable for spherical systems. Cooperstock and Sarracino  countered this point of view, arguing that if energy is localizable in spherical systems then it is localizable in any space-times. Bondi pleaded that a nonlocalizable form of energy is not admissible in general relativity. The viewpoints of Misner et al discouraged further study of energy localization and on the other hand an alternative concept of energy, the so-called quasi-local energy, was developed. To date, a large number of definitions of quasi-local mass have been proposed. The uses of quasi-local masses to obtain energy in a curved space-time are not limited to a particular coordinates system whereas many energy-momentum complexes are restricted to the use of “Cartesian coordinates.” Penrose emphasized that quasi-local masses are conceptually very important. Nevertheless, the present quasi-local mass definitions still have inadequacies. For instance, Bergqvist studied seven quasi-local mass definitions and concluded that no two of these definitions give agreed results for the Reissner-Nordstrøm and Kerr space-times. The shortcomings of the seminal quasi-local mass definition of Penrose in handling the Kerr metric are discussed in Bernstein and Tod, and in Virbhadra. On the contrary, the remarkable work of Virbhadra, and some others, and recent results of Chang, Nester and Chen have revived the interest in various energy-momentum complexes. Recently Virbhadra stressed that although the energy-momentum complexes of Einstein, Landau-Lifshitz, Papapetrou, and Weinberg are nontensorial (under general coordinate transformations), these do not violate the principle of covariance as the equations describing the conservation laws with these objects are true in any coordinates systems.

In this paper we obtained the energy distribution in De Lorenci *et al.* spacetime using the energy-momentum complexes of Einstein, Landau-Lifshitz, Papapetrou, and Weinberg. All four prescriptions give the same distribution of energy ($`E_{Einst}=E_{LL}=E_{Pap}=E_W`$) given as:

$$E=M\frac{Q^2}{2r}+\frac{\sigma Q^4}{10r^5}\text{.}$$
(37)
It is obvious that in the dyadospheric region (where $`r`$ is small) the last term plays a very important role. As expected, $`\sigma =0`$ gives the energy distribution for the Reissner-Nordström metric.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Prof. K. S. Virbhadra for some discussions on dyadosphere.