format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model of elementary particle physics successfully accounts for all the observed particle properties. Its remarkable success suggests the possibility that it correctly describes the particle properties up to energy scales which far exceed the currently accessible energy scales. Indeed, this possibility has been entertained in the explorations of Grand Unified, and Superstring, Theories. Additionally, the spectacular confirmation of the Standard Model in high energy colliders, as well as the proton longevity and suppression of left–handed neutrino masses, provide strong support for the grand desert scenario and unification. The question then is how are we going to find out whether this is indeed the path chosen by nature, as direct signatures at LHC/NLC will be able to probe the desert only up to a few TeV. Therefore we need new tools to achieve this. An example of such a probe that has been used with great success is that of the gauge coupling unification. The general methodology in this respect is to extract the gauge couplings from experiments that are performed at the accessible energy scales. Based on concrete assumptions in regard to the particle content in the desert, the couplings are then extrapolated to the high energy scale and the unification hypothesis is tested. In this manner the consistency of the specific assumptions in regard to the particle content in the desert with the hypothesis of the gauge coupling unification is subjected to an experimental test. The well known spectacular success of this methodology is in differentiating between gauge coupling unification in supersymmetric and non–supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories . The unification hypothesis is found not to be consistent with the low energy data, unless the minimal particle content is supersymmetric, or is modified in some other way. Our task then is to develop additional tools that can serve as similar useful probes of the desert.

### 1.1  Motivations for this work

In this paper we start applying this philosophy to another physical setting.

A different experimental observation - which also points toward the validity of the big desert scenario - is the existence of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays above the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin cutoff. A plausible explanation for the observation of such cosmic rays is the existence of supermassive metastable states with mass of the order $`10^{12}10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$, and a lifetime that exceeds $`10^{10}y`$. The possibility that such states compose a substantial component of the dark matter as well as that they may explain the observation of UHECR has been discussed elsewhere. It has been further shown that realistic string models often give rise to states with precisely such properties .

The existence of such super–massive, slowly decaying states, may therefore serve as a probe of the grand desert. A plausible explanation of the observed showers in the UHECR is that the original supermassive decaying particle decays into strongly interacting particles which subsequently fragment into hadrons . This hypothesis therefore needs the relevant fragmentation functions at the energy scale of the originally decaying particle. These functions, however, similarly to the case of the gauge couplings considered in much of the literature on unification, are extracted from experiments at the currently accessible (low) energy scales which are much below that of the decaying particle. It is obvious that this points toward the use of the renormalization group (RG) evolution. However, this evolution, as well as the composition of the produced shower, depends on the assumptions made in regard to the composition of the spectrum in the desert. We conclude that similarly to the gauge coupling unification methodology, the evolution of the fragmentation functions by utilizing the renormalization group extrapolation, and the subsequent implementation in the analysis of the UHECR hadronic showers, can serve as a tool that differentiates between different assumptions on the very high energy spectrum.

With these motivations in mind, here we develop the instruments to evolve the fragmentation functions in supersymmetric QCD up to a high energy scale. In particular, in this paper we present for the first time the structure of the supersymmetric DGLAP (Exact Supersymmetric DGLAP or ESAP) equations in the timelike region. We solve them numerically for all flavours and introduce various combinations of non-singlet matrix equations to reach this result. We then study the impact of the new evolution assuming a common scale for susy breaking and restoration, parameterized by the mass of the superpartners, here assumed to be mass degenerate.

### 1.2 Step Approximations

Given the long stretch it takes to proceed with the analysis of the susy evolution, a topic of numerical complexity in its own, the applications to cosmic rays of our work will be presented in a companion paper that will follow shortly. We also have decided to address issues related to the fragmentation region of $`N=1`$ QCD starting from the “low energy” end, since nothing is known of these functions at any scale. The term “low energy” (the results we discuss here are obtained in the $`10^310^8`$ GeV energy range ) \- from the point of view of collider phenomenology - is a misnomer, but it is not in the context of high energy cosmic ray physics. There is also another more direct reason for limiting our analysis to this range. We have discovered some features of the RG evolution which require a special care at such large energies. We find -in our numerical studies- the onset of an instability in the evolution in the singlet sector of the fragmentation which requires an independent investigation. It is not clear to us, at this point, whether this instability is an intrinsic limitation of the algorithm used in the numerical implementation or if the perturbative expansion needs a resummation. At such large scales this last option remains open. We should also mention that we work in “x” space, and this might be a limitation. We hope to return to this issue in the near future.

The analysis of fragmentation functions of Susy QCD is a topic of remarkable phenomenological interest both for collider phenomenology and in the astroparticle context. While - recently - a detailed analysis of the supersymmetric evolution of the parton distributions of Susy QCD has been presented , the study of the evolution of the supersymmetric fragmentation functions is still missing. Of particular interest is the study of a combined QCD/SQCD evolution with intermediate regions in the evolution characterized by partial supersymmetry (SAP) or exact supersymmetry (ESAP) . It is well known that a matching between these regions is possible with specific boundary conditions. These boundary conditions should come from some deeper understanding of the way in which supersymmetry is broken and restored as we run into the different stages of the renormalization group evolution. In a first approximation, however, it is possible to assume that the regular QCD distributions (or fragmentation) functions are continuous at each intermediate region, thereby neglecting threshold effects which can’t be inferred from first principles. As we cross any supersymmetric region, starting, for instance, from the end of the regular QCD evolution, it is possible to assume that supersymmetric distributions and fragmentation functions are generated radiatively. We recall that a similar modeling -which neglects possible effects of higher twist at the thresholds- is well spread in the case of ordinary QCD.

## 2 Initial/Final State Scaling Violations

### 2.1 The Spacelike Evolution

The first analysis of the spacelike evolution was carried out in ref., where simple models -obtained from the analysis of the first 2 moments - of the supersymmetric parton distributions were also presented. A complete strategy to solve these equations and the strategy to generate supersymmetric scaling violations in N=1 QCD was put forward in Refs. . In $`N=1`$ QCD gluons have partners called gluinos (here denoted by $`\lambda `$) and left- and right-handed quarks have complex scalar partners (squarks) which we denote as $`\stackrel{~}{q_L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q_R}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{q}=\stackrel{~}{q}_L+\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ (for left-handed and right-handed squarks respectively).

The interaction between the elementary fields are described by the $`SU(3)`$ color gauge invariant and supersymmetric Lagrangian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_a^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\lambda }_a\left(i\mathit{}\right)\lambda _a`$
$`+i\overline{q}_i\mathit{}q_i+D_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_RD^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}^R+D_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_LD^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_L+ig\sqrt{2}(\overline{\lambda ^a}_R\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}^{}T^aq_{Li}+\overline{\lambda ^a}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}^{}T^aq_{Ri}𝚑.𝚌.)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2\left(\stackrel{~}{q}_{Li}^{}T^a\stackrel{~}{q}_{Li}\stackrel{~}{q}_{Ri}^{}T^a\stackrel{~}{q}_{Ri}^{}\right)^2+\mathrm{𝚖𝚊𝚜𝚜}\mathrm{𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚜},`$
where $`a`$ runs over the adjoint of the color group and $`i`$ denotes the flavours.

$`\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}`$ are the supersymmetric partners of right-handed quarks $`q_{iR}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}`$ are those of the left-handed quarks $`q_{iL}`$.

We remind here that in actual phenomenological applications, it is useful to extract the light-cone dynamics -or parton model picture- of supersymmetric collisions by invoking a factorization of the cross section into hard and soft contributions. Fragmentation functions appear in this context. An integral part of this analysis is the use of renormalization group equations -susy DGLAP- which resum the logarithmic scaling violations and evolve distributions functions and fragmentation functions to the appropriate factorization scale.

These studies require the matrix of the anomalous dimensions (for all the moments), or of the corresponding Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) kernels. We recall that the leading order anomalous dimensions are known  both for a partial susy evolution and for the exact one.

### 2.2 The Timelike Evolution

In this work we focus our attention on the evolution of fragmentation functions in the context of exact supersymmetry, with coupled gluons and squarks.

Fig. 1 summarizes the basic strategy of our work. The figure at the top depicts a regular evolution (a one-phase evolution), while the one at the bottom illustrates a mixed QCD/SQCD evolution (a two-phase evolution). The first stage is supersymmetric, the second one is regular. In the first stage all the partons (susy and not susy) are massless, in the second one only quark and gluons survive. At the end of the first stage the supersymmetric partners are extinct, but their presence at the higher scales is saved in the boundary conditions for the quarks and gluons fragmentation functions, when the second stage of the evolution starts.

Within the approximation implied by the use of a pure SQCD evolution, no missing $`E_t`$ events are allowed along the development of the supersymmetric cascade, since electroweak and flavour mixing effects are not included. Their inclusion is still an open chapter even in (QCD) Monte Carlo event generators for the final state.

The ladder structure of the supersymmetric showers in the leading logarithmic approximation can be easily pictured in terms of symmetric doubling of lines of regular QCD ladders in all the possible allowed cases. Showers can be equally initiated by $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, gluon pairs, gluino pairs or squark pairs. The supersymmetric transition (i.e. those involving supersymmetric partners) stop (see Fig. 1 (bottom)) once the supersymmetry breaking scale $`M_\lambda =M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ is reached.

Similarly to the QCD case, in the case of exact $`N=1`$ supersymmetry we define singlet and non-singlet fragmentation functions $`D_f^h(x,Q^2)`$. They describe the amplitude for a parton of type $`f`$ to fragment into a hadron $`h`$ as a function of the Bjorken variable $`x`$ (fractional energy of the fragment) and initial energy $`Q`$. Their operatorial definition is similar to that of ordinary parton distributions. The evolution equations for these functions are similar to the standard DGLAP equations, but with transposed kernel matrix $`(PP^T)`$. In leading order the analytic continuation (from the spacelike or DIS evolution to the timelike evolution) is straightforward, while some complications appear to next-to-leading order. They involve a breaking of the Drell-Yan-Levy relation, which appears to be violated at parton level . Since our analysis is in the leading logarithmic approximation, we will not consider these aspects in our work any further.

The equations for the timelike evolution are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_g^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}(P_{gg}D_g^h+P_{\lambda g}D_\lambda ^h+P_{qg}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(D_{q_i}^h+D_{\overline{q}_i}^h)`$ (2)
$`+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}g}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}+\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{iL}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{iR}))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_\lambda ^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}(P_{g\lambda }D_g^h+P_{\lambda \lambda }D_\lambda ^h+P_{q\lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(D_{q_i}^h+D_{\overline{q}_i}^h)`$ (3)
$`+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\lambda }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}+\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{iL}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{iR}))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_{q_i}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n_f}}P_{gq}D_g^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n_f}}P_{\lambda q}D_\lambda ^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}q}(D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}}^h+D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}}^h)`$ (4)
$`+P_{qq}D_{q_i}^h)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n_f}}P_{g\stackrel{~}{q}}D_g^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n_f}}P_{\lambda \stackrel{~}{q}}D_\lambda ^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{q\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{q_i}^h`$ (5)
$`+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}}^h)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n_f}}P_{g\stackrel{~}{q}}D_g^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n_f}}P_{\lambda \stackrel{~}{q}}D_\lambda ^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{q\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{q_i}^h`$
$`+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}}^h)`$
In the following we will use the short-hand notation

$$D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^h(x,Q^2)D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iL}}^h(x,Q^2)+D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{iR}}^h(x,Q^2)$$
(7)
to denote the fragmentation functions of squarks of flavour $`i`$ at a fractional energy $`x`$ and momentum $`Q`$. It is also convenient to separate the equations, as usual, into singlet and non singlet sectors using the definitions

$`D_{q_V}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\left(D_{q_i}^h(x,Q^2)D_{\overline{q}_i}^h(x,Q^2)\right),`$
$``$ $`D_{q_{NS}}^h`$
$`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_V}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\left(D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^h(x,Q^2)D_{\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_i}^h(x,Q^2)\right)`$
$``$ $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{NS}}^h(x,Q^2)`$
$`D_{q^+}(x,Q^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\left(D_{q_i}^h(x,Q^2)+D_{\overline{q}_i}^h(x,Q^2)\right)`$
$`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^+}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\left(D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^h(x,Q^2)+D_{\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_i}^h(x,Q^2)\right).`$ (8)
The non singlet equations are

$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}Dq_V(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{qq}D_{q_V}^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}q}D_{\stackrel{~}{q_V}}\right)`$
$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_V}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{q\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{q_V}^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q_V}}^h\right),`$
and the singlet matrix equations, which mix $`q_V`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_V`$ with the gluons and the gluinos

$$Q^2\frac{d}{dQ^2}\left[\begin{array}{c}D_g^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_\lambda ^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{q^+}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^+}^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}P_{gg}\hfill & P_{g\lambda }\hfill & P_{gq}\hfill & P_{g\stackrel{~}{q}}\hfill \\ P_{\lambda g}\hfill & P_{\lambda \lambda }\hfill & P_{\lambda q}\hfill & P_{\lambda \stackrel{~}{q}}\hfill \\ P_{qg}\hfill & P_{q\lambda }\hfill & P_{qq}\hfill & P_{q\stackrel{~}{q}}\hfill \\ P_{\stackrel{~}{q}g}\hfill & P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\lambda }\hfill & P_{\stackrel{~}{q}q}\hfill & P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}}\hfill \end{array}\right]^T\left[\begin{array}{c}D_g^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_\lambda ^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{q^{(+)}}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right].$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}T^{\prime \prime }`$ indicates the matrix transposed. To solve for all the flavours, it is convenient to introduce the linear combinations

$`\chi _i(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{q_i^{(+)}}^h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}D_{q^{(+)}}^h`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{(+)}}^h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}^h`$
and the additional singlet equations

$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}D_{q_i^{()}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{qq}D_{q_i^{()}}^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}q}D_{\stackrel{~}{q_i}^{()}}\right)`$
$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{q\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{q_i^{()}}^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}^h\right)`$
and

$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}D_{\chi _i}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{qq}D_{\chi _i}^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}q}D_{\stackrel{~}{\chi _i}}^h\right)`$
$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}D_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{q\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{\chi _i}^h+P_{\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{\stackrel{~}{\chi _i}}^h\right).`$
The general flavour decomposition is obtained by solving the singlet equations for $`D_{q^{(+)}}^h`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}^h`$, then solving the non-singlet equations for $`D_{q_i^{()}}^h`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{(+)}}^h`$ and for $`D_{\chi _i}^h`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}^h`$. The fragmentation functions of the various flavours are extracted using the linear combinations

$`D_{q_i}^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_{q_i^{()}}^h+D_{\chi _i}^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}D_{q^{(+)}}^h\right)`$
$`D_{\overline{q}_i}^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_{q_i^{()}}^hD_{\chi _i}^h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}D_{q^{(+)}}^h\right)`$
and

$`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}^h+D_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}^h\right)`$
$`D_{\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_i}^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}^hD_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}^h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}^h\right)`$
to identify the various flavour components.

There are simple ways to calculate the kernel of the susy DGLAP evolution by a simple extension of the usual methods. The changes are primarily due to color factors. There are also some basic supersymmetric relations which have to be satisfied . They are generally broken in the case of decoupling. We recall that the supersymmetric version of the $`\beta `$ function is given at two-loop level by

$`\beta _0^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(11C_A2n_f2n_\lambda \right)`$
$`\beta _1^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(34C_A^210C_An_f10C_An_\lambda 6C_Fn_f6C_\lambda n_\lambda \right)`$ (16)
where $`n_f`$ is the number of flavours and for Majorana gluinos $`n_\lambda =C_A`$.

The ordinary running of the coupling is replaced by its supersymmetric running

$$\frac{\alpha ^S(Q_0^2)}{2\pi }=\frac{2}{\beta _0^S}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\left(1\frac{\beta _1^S}{\beta _0^S}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}+O(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^2(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)})\right).$$
(17)
The kernels are modified both in their coupling $`(\alpha \alpha ^S)`$ and in their internal structure (Casimirs, color factors, etc.) when moving from the QCD case to the SQCD case. In order to illustrate the approach that we are going to follow in our analysis of the fragmentation functions within a mixed SQCD/QCD evolution, we recall the strategy employed in Refs.  to generate the ordinary supersymmetric distribution functions.

In Ref.  for scaling violations affecting the initial state were introduced 3 regions:

* 1) the QCD region, described by ordinary QCD (Altarelli Parisi or AP) ;
* 2) an intermediate supersymmetric region with coupled gluinos and decoupled squarks (partially supersymmetric AP or SAP);
* 3) the N=1 region (exact supersymmetric AP or ESAP).

The basic idea was to generate these distributions radiatively as usually done in QCD for the gluons, for instance, using the fact that the matrix of the anomalous dimensions is not-diagonal. The most general sequence of evolutions (denoted AP-SAP-ESAP in ) is described by the arrays $`(Q_i,Q_f)_{AP}(Q_i,Q_f)_{SAP}(Q_i,Q_f)_{ESAP}`$, with $`Q_{f,AP}=Q_{i,SAP}=m_{2\lambda }`$ and $`Q_{f,SAP}=Q_{i,ESAP}=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. In this work we limit our analysis to a simpler AP-ESAP evolution and we run the DGLAP equations back starting from known QCD fragmentation functions - for which various sets are available in the literature  \- up to an intermediate supersymmetric scale. From this point on (up in energy) we switch on the ESAP evolution of fragmentation functions. As we run the equations upward, supersymmetric fragmentation functions are generated. The boundary values of the low energy (QCD) functions at the supersymmetry scale $`m_{2\lambda }`$ set the initial condition for the (backward) supersymmetric running up to the final scale. In simple terms: we reach the mountain from the valley, and cross a fence along the way.

In general, if we split the intermediate susy scale into 2 sectors $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}<<m_{2\lambda }`$ (ESAP-SAP-AP evolution) in this (general) case the solution is built by sewing the three regions as

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}D_{q_V}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_V}^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}D_{q_V}^h(x,Q_0^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]+{\displaystyle _{Q_0^2}^{m_{2\lambda }^2}}d\mathrm{log}Q^2P_{AP}^{T,NS}(x,\alpha (Q^2))\left[\begin{array}{c}D_{q_V}^h(x,Q^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{m_{2\lambda }^2}^{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}d\mathrm{log}Q^2P_{SAP}^{T,NS}(x,\alpha ^S(Q^2))\left[\begin{array}{c}D_{q_V}^h(x,Q^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{m_{2\lambda }^2}^{Q_f^2}}d\mathrm{log}Q^2P_{ESAP}^{T,NS}(x,\alpha ^{ES}(Q^2))\left[\begin{array}{c}D_{q_V}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^V}^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right]`$ (30)
in the non singlet and

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}D_G^h(x,Q_f^2)\\ D_\lambda ^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{q^+}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^+}^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}D_G^h(x,Q_f^2)\\ 0\\ D_{q^+}^h(x,Q_f^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]+{\displaystyle _{Q_0^2}^{m_{2\lambda }^2}}d\mathrm{log}Q^2P_{T,AP}^{NS}(x,\alpha (Q^2))\left[\begin{array}{c}D_G^h(x,Q_f^2)\\ 0\\ D_{q^+}^h(x,Q^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{m_{2\lambda }^2}^{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}}d\mathrm{log}Q^2P_{T,SAP}^{NS}(x,\alpha ^S(Q^2))\left[\begin{array}{c}D_G^h(x,Q_f^2)\\ D_\lambda ^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{q^+}^h(x,Q^2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{m_{2\lambda }^2}^{Q_f^2}}d\mathrm{log}Q^2P_{T,ESAP}^{NS}(x,\alpha ^{ES}(Q^2))\left[\begin{array}{c}D_G^h(x,Q_f^2)\\ D_\lambda ^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{q^+}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^+}^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right]`$ (54)
for the singlet solution. The zero entries in the arrays for some of the distributions are due to the boundary conditions, since all the supersymmetric partners are generated, in this model, by the evolution.

The general structure of the algorithms that solves these equations is summarized below. We start from the non singlet sector and then proceed to the singlet. From now on, to simplify our notation, we will omit at times the index “$`h`$” from the fragmentation functions when obvious. We define $`D_{q^{NS}}(x,Q^2)=(D_{q_V}(x,Q^2),D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_V}(x,Q^2))^T`$ and $`DA_n(x)=(DA_n^{q_V},DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_V})^T`$ and introduce the ansatz

$$D_{q^{NS}}(x,Q^2)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}\frac{A_n(x)}{n!}\mathrm{log}^n\left(\frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{\alpha (Q_0^2)}\right),$$
(56)
where $`n_0`$ is an integer at which we stop the iteration, which usually ranges up to 20. The first coefficient of the recursion is determined by the initial condition

$$DA_0(x)=U(x)D_q^{NS}(x,Q_0^2),$$
(57)
where

$`U_1(x)`$ $``$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\delta (1x)\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right]`$ (60)
$`U_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}(x)`$ $``$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\delta (1x)\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \delta (1x)\hfill \end{array}\right].`$ (63)
The recursion relations are given by

$$DA_{n+1}(x)=\frac{2}{\beta _0}P_{AP}^{T,NS}DA_n(x)$$
(64)
The solution in the first (DGLAP) region at the first matching scale $`m_{2\lambda }`$ is given by

$$D_{q^{NS}}(x,m_{2\lambda })=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}\frac{DA_n^{AP}(x)}{n!}\mathrm{log}^n\left(\frac{\alpha (m_{2\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}{\alpha (Q_0^2)}\right).$$
(65)
At the second stage the (partial) supersymmetric coefficients are given by (S is a short form of $`SAP`$)

$`DA_0^{S,NS}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U(x)D_q(x,m_{2\lambda ^2})`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{S,NS}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _0^S}}P_S^{T,NS}(x)DA_n^{S,NS}(x).`$
We construct the boundary condition for the next stage of the evolution using the intermediate solution

$$D_q(x,Q^2)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}\frac{DA_n^S(x)}{n!}\left(\frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{\alpha (m_{2\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\right).$$
(67)
evaluated at the next threshold $`m_{2\lambda }`$.

$$D_q(x,Q^2)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}\frac{DA_n^S(x)}{n!}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{\alpha (m_{2\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\right).$$
(68)
The final solution is constructed using the recursion relations

$`DA_0^{ES}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U(x)q(x,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}})`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{ES}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^{ES}}}P_{ES}^{NS}(x)DA_n^{ES}(x)`$
The final solution is written as

$`D_{q^{NS}}(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{q^{NS}}(x,Q_0^2)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_0}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{DA_n(x)}{n!}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (m_{2\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}{\alpha (Q_0^2)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_0}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{DA_n^S(x)}{n!}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^S(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2)}{\alpha ^S(m_{2\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_0}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{DA_n^{ES}(x)}{n!}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{ES}(Q_f^2)}{\alpha ^{ES}(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}}\right)`$
As we have already mentioned above, in the analysis presented below the two susy scales will be collapsed into one ($`m_{2\lambda }`$).

## 3 QCD Evolution of the Fragmentation Functions

As we have already mentioned, the timelike and the spacelike evolution, in leading order, are essentially the same. The singlet kernels are just the transposed of the kernels describing the evolution of the parton distributions. The ordinary QCD kernels, in leading order, are given by

$`P_{qq,NS}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+x^2}{1x}}\right)_+`$
$`=`$ $`C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1x)_+}}1x+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\delta (1x)\right)`$
$`P_{qq}^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{qq,NS}^{(0)}`$
$`P_{qg}^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`n_f\left(x^2+(1x)^2\right)`$
$`P_{gq}^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1x)^2}{x}}`$
$`P_{gg}^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2N_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)_+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}2+x(1x)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _o}{2}}\delta (1x)`$ (71)
with $`\beta _0=11/3C_A4/3T_Rn_f`$ being the first coefficient of the QCD $`\beta `$-function and $`T_R=1/2`$. $`n_f`$ is the numbers of flavours. The equations for the fragmentation functions in QCD are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_{q_i}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{qq}D_{q_i}^h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n_f}}P_{gq}D_g^h\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}D_g^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}\left(P_{qg}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(D_{q_i}^h+D_{\overline{q}_i}^h\right)+P_{gg}D_g^h\right)`$
and, as usual, can be decomposed into a non-singlet and a singlet sector

$`Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dQ^2}}D_{q_i^{()}}^h(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (Q^2)}{2\pi }}P_{qq,NS}(x,\alpha (Q^2))D_{q_i^{()}}^h(x,Q^2)`$ (73)
for the non-singlet distributions and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{log}(Q^2)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}D_{q^{(+)}}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_g^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}P_{qq}& P_{gq}\\ P_{qg}& P_{gg}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}D_{q^{(+)}}^h(x,Q^2)\\ D_g^h(x,Q^2)\end{array}\right)`$ (80)
for the singlet sector, where

$$D_{q_i^{()}}^h(x,Q^2)=D_{q_i}^hD_{\overline{q}_i}^h.$$
(82)
A fast strategy to solve these equations, as discussed in , where a complete leading order evolution has been implemented, is to solve the recursion relations numerically. In the timelike case -that we are considering- these relations are obtained as linear combinations of the spacelike ones. We get

$`DA_{n+1}^{q_i^{()}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{q_i^{()}}(y)xDA_n^{q_i^{()}}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{q_i^{()}}(x)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{q_i^{()}}(y)3{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{q_i^{()}}(x)`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{q^{()}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{q^{()}}(y)xDA_n^{q^{()}}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{q^{()}}(x)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{q^{()}}(y)3{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{q^{()}}(x).`$
A similar expansion is set up for the non-singlet variable $`\chi _i=q_i^{(+)}1/n_fq^{(+)}`$

$`DA_{n+1}^{\chi _i}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{\chi _i}(y)xDA_n^{\chi _i}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{\chi _i}(x)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{\chi _i}(y)3{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{\chi _i}(x).`$
Similarly, the singlet equations generate recursion relations of the form

$`DA_{n+1}^{q^{(+)}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{q^{(+)}}(y)xDA_n^{q^{(+)}}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(x)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(y)3{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(x)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}}DA_n^g(y)`$
$`DA_{n+1}^g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^g(y)xDA_n^g(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^g(x)`$ (85)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(z^2+(1z)^2\right)DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(y)DA_n^g(x)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}2+z(1z)\right)DA_n^g(y).`$
The coefficients of the various flavours both for $`D_{q_i}^h`$ and $`D_{\overline{q}_i}^h`$ are then obtained from the relations

$`DA_n^{q_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(DA_n^{\chi _i}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}DA_n^{q_i^{()}}\right)`$
$`DA_n^{\overline{q}_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(DA_n^{\chi _i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_f}}DA_n^{q_i^{()}}\right)`$ (86)
## 4  The ESAP ($`N=1`$ QCD) Fragmentation

Moving to $`N=1`$ QCD, we introduce recursion relations for appropriate linear combinations of non-singlet fragmentation functions

$`DA_{n+1}^{\chi _i}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{\chi _i}(y)xDA_n^{\chi _i}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{\chi _i}(x)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{\chi _i}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}zDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}(y)+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _o}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{\chi _i}(y)`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}(y)xDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}(x)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}zDA_n^{\chi _i}(y)+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _o}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{\chi _i}}(y)`$
and two similar non-singlet equations for $`D_{q_i^{()}}^h`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}^h`$

$`DA_{n+1}^{q_i^{()}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{q_i^{()}}(y)xDA_n^{q_i^{()}}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{q_i^{()}}(x)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{q_i^{()}}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}zDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(y)+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _o}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{q_i^{()}}(y)`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(y)xDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(x)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}zDA_n^{q_i^{()}}(y)+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _o}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}(y).`$
Analogous equations are satisfied by the combinations $`D_{q^{()}}^h`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{()}}^h`$ by replacing in (LABEL:one) and (LABEL:two) $`D_{q_i^{()}}^hD_{q^{()}}^h`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{()}}^hD_{\stackrel{~}{q}^{()}}^h`$.

Moving to the singlet sector we obtain

$`DA_{n+1}^g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^g(y)xDA_n^g(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^g(x)DA_n^g(x)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^g(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}+z2\right)DA_n^g(y)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(z^2+(1z)^2\right)DA_n^g(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(z^2+(1z)^2\right)DA_n^q(y)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(z^2+(1z)^2\right)DA_n^\lambda (y)4{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}z\left(1z\right)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}}(y)`$
$`DA_n^\lambda (x)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}+z2\right)DA_n^g(y)4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{DA_n^\lambda (y)xDA_n^\lambda (x)}{yx}}`$ (92)
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^\lambda (x)+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^\lambda (y)DA_n^\lambda (x)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1z\right)DA_n^q(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}zDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}}(y)`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{q^{(+)}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}+z2\right)DA_n^g(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1z\right)DA_n^\lambda (y)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{q^{(+)}}(y)xDA_n^{q^{(+)}}(x)}{yx}}4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(x)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(1+z\right)DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{q^{(+)}}(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}zDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}(y)`$
$`DA_{n+1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}2\right)DA_n^g(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(DA_n^\lambda (x)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}(y)\right)`$ (94)
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}}(y)xDA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}}(x)}{yx}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}}(y)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}\mathrm{log}(1x)DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}(y)2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\beta _0}}DA_n^{\stackrel{~}{q}^{(+)}}(x)`$
where $`zx/y`$.

## 5 Numerical Results

As an illustration of the procedure we adopt in our studies, let’s consider the decay of a hypothetical massive state of mass 1 TeV into supersymmetric partons. The decay can proceed, for instance, through a regular $`q\overline{q}`$ channel and a shower is developed starting from the quark pair. The $`N=1`$ DGLAP equation describes in the leading logarithmic approximation the evolution of the shower which accompanies the pair, and we are interested in studying the impact of the supersymmetry breaking scale ($`m_\lambda `$) on the fragmentation. In our runs we have chosen the initial set of Ref. . The parameterizations are shown in the appendix just for illustrative purposes. In our analysis we focus on proton fragmentation functions. As in Ref. , we introduce the scaling variable

$$\overline{s}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu _0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}\right)}.$$
(95)
In LO we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(5)}=88`$ MeV . We use three different values for $`\mu _0`$, namely

$`\mu _0`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}\text{GeV},\text{if}\hfill & a=u,d,s,g\hfill \\ m(\eta _c)=2.9788\text{GeV},\text{if}\hfill & a=c\hfill \\ m(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})=9.46037\text{GeV},\text{if}\hfill & a=b\hfill \end{array}.`$ (99)
This leads to three different definitions of $`\overline{s}`$. For definiteness, we use the symbol $`\overline{s}_c`$ for charm and $`\overline{s}_b`$ for bottom along with $`\overline{s}`$ for the residual partons. We parameterize the f.f.’s as

$$D(x,\mu ^2)=Nx^\alpha (1x)^\beta \left(1+\frac{\gamma }{x}\right)$$
(100)
and express the coefficients $`N`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ as polynomials in $`\overline{s}`$, $`\overline{s}_c`$, and $`\overline{s}_b`$. For $`\overline{s}=\overline{s}_c=\overline{s}_b=0`$, the parameterizations agree with Eq. (2) of Ref.  in combination with the appropriate entries in Table 2 of that paper. The charm and bottom parameterizations must be put to zero by hand for $`\overline{s}_c<0`$ and $`\overline{s}_b<0`$, respectively.

Typical fragmentation functions in QCD involve final states with $`p`$, $`\overline{p}`$, $`\pi ^\pm ,\pi ^0`$ and kaons $`k^\pm `$. We have included the relevant sets from ref.  that we have employed in our numerical analysis in an appendix. We refer to the original literature for a list of all the fragmentation sets. We have chosen an initial evolution scale of $`10`$ GeV and varied both the mass of the susy partners (we assume for simplicity that these are all degenerate) and the final evolution scale. Since our concern is in establishing the impact of supersymmetric evolution and compare it to standard QCD evolution across large evolution intervals, we plot the initial fragmentation functions, the regularly evolved QCD functions and the SQCD/QCD evolved ones. The latter two are originated from the same low energy form of Ref. . The figures show that the effects of supersymmetric evolution are small within the range described by the factorization scales $`Q_f`$ and $`Q_i`$ ($`Q_f=10^3`$ GeV, $`Q_i=200`$ GeV). We mention that $`Q_f`$ is the starting scale (the highest scale) at which the decay of the supersymmetric partons starts. $`Q_i`$ is fixed by the gluino/squark masses and coincides with them. It is possible to include in the evolution of the fragmentation functions also different thresholds associated with more complex spectra in which the susy partners are not degenerate. These effects are negligible. Threshold enhancements may require a more accurate treatment and will be discussed elsewhere, however we don’t expect them to play any important role, especially since we are interested in very extended renormalization group runnings. Fig. 2 shows the initial condition for the up quark fragmentation function. We have chosen $`Q_0=10`$ GeV, extrapolated from collider data in Ref.  in their global analysis. The evolution of this function follows QCD from this lowest scale up to a scale of $`400`$ GeV $`(m_{2\lambda })`$. Above this scale we use the full $`N=1`$ evolution. The initial fragmentation scale, here denoted by $`Q_f`$ is 1 TeV. In general, the small-x (diffractive) region gets slightly enhanced. The highest scale is not large enough to allow a discrimination of susy effects from the non supersymmetric ones. The trend of the two evolved curves is similar. In Fig. 3 an analogous behaviour is found for the fragmentation functions of charm and strange quarks. Again, small-x enhancements are seen, but regular and susy evolution are hardly distinguishable. The situation appears to be completely different for the gluon fragmentation functions (f.f’s) (Fig. 4). The regular and the SQCD evolved f.f.’s differ largely in the diffractive region, and this clearly will show up in the spectrum of the primary protons if the decaying state has a supersymmetric content. As we raise the final evolution scale we start seeing more pronounced differences between regular and supersymmetric distributions. We have shown in Fig. 5 the squark f.f.’s for all the flavours and the one of the gluino for comparison. The scalar charm distribution appear to grow slightly faster then the remaining scalar ones. The gluino f.f. is still the fastest growing at small-x values.

In Figs. 6 and 7 this trend is quite evident for the quark and gluon fragmentation functions respectively. The latter is the distributions which remains by far the most sensitive to changes in the highest fragmentation scale. It is therefore very likely that the spectrum of final protons is substantially modified by this fast modifications of the gluon density. A sustained stability -as we raise the supersymmetric scale - of all the distributions is also noticed. In fact, in Fig. 8 we vary the gluino mass for a fixed final highest scale and notice a mild variation of the fragmentation function of the up quark. A similar behaviour is recorded in Fig. 9, where we compare the fragmentation functions of the up quark and of its superpartner at various $`m_\lambda `$’s. The shape of the gluino density as a function of the the initial fragmentation scale is shown in Fig. 10. The growth appears to be fast and is rather pronounced. Fig. 11 finally illustrates the behaviour of f.f’s of all types at a large initial fragmentation scale. In order to illustrate the different behaviours that the quark/squark sector has compared to the gluon/gluino sector, we have shown the f.f.’s for the $`b`$ quark and the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ squark. Although all the functions get a small-x enhancement or are more supported in this x-region, the largest fragmentation appears to come from the gluon-gluino sector.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a first detailed study of the fragmentation functions of susy QCD in the leading logarithmic approximation and presented, for the first time, results for the f.f.’s of all the partons into protons within a radiatively generated model. Our analysis is motivated by the growing interest that high energy cosmic rays experiments will be receiving in the next several years from the astroparticle/high energy physics community. There are hints, from this work, that supersymmetric effects may affect substantially the fragmentation region and the spectra of the hadronic component of cosmic rays which is expected to play a dominant role as one approaches the GZK cutoff. Our analysis indicates that fragmentation probabilities are redistributed among the various open channel and have an impact on the spectrum of the primaries. Compared to initial state scaling violations where only a gluino of small mass seems to enhance the radiative structure of parton distributions , the cosmic ray story clearly points to another direction. Given the very large energy available in the fragmentation region, and assuming a supersymmetry breaking scale of the order of 1 TeV, the f.f’s, which control the multiplicities of the hadron component of the various channels are substantially affected by the presence of a supersymmetric scale at the highest energy. The natural question to ask is then: what are the distributions of supersymmetric partons in a decaying metastable state of very large mass prior to fragmentation? At such large scales, so far from the 1 TeV scale preferred by many standard supersymmetric arguments, the Renormalization Group strategy can be easily embraced to its fullest extent with sizeable consequences on the low energy end. On this and other related issues we hope to return in more detail in the near future.

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Sarkar and R. Toldra for discussions. C.C. and A.F. thank respectively the Theory Groups at Oxford and Lecce for hospitality. The work of C.C. is supported in part by INFN (iniziativa specifica BARI-21) and by MURST. The work of A.F. is supported by PPARC.

## 7 Appendix 1. Input Functions

For convenience we have included below the list of f.f.’s taken from Ref.  that we have used

* $`D_u^{p/\overline{p}}(x,\mu ^2)=2D_d^{p/\overline{p}}(x,\mu ^2)`$:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`0.402110.21633\overline{s}0.07045\overline{s}^2+0.07831\overline{s}^3`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.85973+0.13987\overline{s}0.82412\overline{s}^2+0.43114\overline{s}^3`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2.80160+0.78923\overline{s}0.05344\overline{s}^2+0.01460\overline{s}^3`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0.05198\overline{s}0.04623\overline{s}^2`$ (101)
* $`D_s^{p/\overline{p}}(x,\mu ^2)`$:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`4.078852.97392\overline{s}0.92973\overline{s}^2+1.23517\overline{s}^3`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.09735+0.25834\overline{s}1.52246\overline{s}^2+0.77060\overline{s}^3`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`4.99191+1.14379\overline{s}0.85320\overline{s}^2+0.45607\overline{s}^3`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0.07174\overline{s}0.08321\overline{s}^2`$ (102)
* $`D_c^{p/\overline{p}}(x,\mu ^2)`$:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`0.110610.07726\overline{s}_c+0.05422\overline{s}_c^20.03364\overline{s}_c^3`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`1.543400.20804\overline{s}_c+0.29038\overline{s}_c^20.23662\overline{s}_c^3`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`2.20681+0.62274\overline{s}_c+0.29713\overline{s}_c^20.21861\overline{s}_c^3`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0.00831\overline{s}_c+0.00065\overline{s}_c^2`$ (103)
* $`D_b^{p/\overline{p}}(x,\mu ^2)`$:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`40.0971123.531\overline{s}_b+128.666\overline{s}_b^229.1808\overline{s}_b^3`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.742491.29639\overline{s}_b3.65003\overline{s}_b^2+3.05340\overline{s}_b^3`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`12.37291.04932\overline{s}_b+0.34662\overline{s}_b^21.34412\overline{s}_b^3`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0.04290\overline{s}_b0.30359\overline{s}_b^2`$ (104)
* $`D_g^{p/\overline{p}}(x,\mu ^2)`$:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`0.739531.64519\overline{s}+1.01189\overline{s}^20.10175\overline{s}^3`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.769863.58787\overline{s}+13.8025\overline{s}^213.8902\overline{s}^3`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`7.690792.84470\overline{s}0.36719\overline{s}^22.21825\overline{s}^3`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`1.26515\overline{s}1.96117\overline{s}^2`$ (105)

## 8 Appendix 2. The Weights of the N=1 Kernels

We briefly recall the numerical strategy employed in this analysis. A more detailed description will be given elsewhere. We just mention that the radiative generation of supersymmetric distributions requires special accuracy since these scaling violations grow up very slowly. We define $`\overline{P}(x)xP(x)`$ and $`\overline{A}(x)xA(x)`$. We also define the convolution product

$$J(x)_x^1\frac{dy}{y}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)P\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)\overline{A}(y).$$
(106)
The integration interval in $`y`$ at any fixed x-value is partitioned in an array of increasing points ordered from left to right $`(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,x_{n+1})`$ with $`x_0x`$ and $`x_{n+1}1`$ being the upper edge of the integration region. One constructs a rescaled array $`(x,x/x_n,\mathrm{},x/x_2,x/x_1,1)`$. We define $`s_ix/x_i`$, and $`s_{n+1}=x<s_n<s_{n1}<\mathrm{}s_1<s_0=1`$. We get

$$J(x)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^{x_{i+1}}\frac{dy}{y}\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)P\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)\overline{A}(y)$$
(107)
At this point we introduce the linear interpolation

$$\overline{A}(y)=\left(1\frac{yx_i}{x_{i+1}x_i}\right)\overline{A}(x_i)+\frac{yx_i}{x_{i+1}x_i}\overline{A}(x_{i+1})$$
(108)
and perform the integration on each subinterval with a change of variable $`y>x/y`$ and replace the integral $`J(x)`$ with its discrete approximation $`J_N(x)`$ to get

$`J_N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{A}(x_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s_1}}{\displaystyle _{s_1}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}P(y)(ys_1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{A}(x_i){\displaystyle \frac{s_i}{s_is_{i+1}}}{\displaystyle _{s_{i+1}}^{s_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}P(y)(ys_{i+1})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{A}(x_i){\displaystyle \frac{s_i}{s_{i1}s_i}}{\displaystyle _{s_i}^{s_{i1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}P(y)(ys_{i1})`$
with the condition $`\overline{A}(x_{N+1})=0`$. Introducing the coefficients $`W(x,x)`$ and $`W(x_i,x)`$, the integral is cast in the form

$$J_N(x)=W(x,x)\overline{A}(x)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}W(x_i,x)\overline{A}(x_i)$$
(110)
where

$`W(x,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s_1}}{\displaystyle _{s_1}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}(ys_1)P(y),`$
$`W(x_i,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_i}{s_is_{i+1}}}{\displaystyle _{s_{i+1}}^{s_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(ys_{i+1}\right)P(y)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_i}{s_{i1}s_i}}{\displaystyle _{s_i}^{s_{i1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\left(ys_{i1}\right)P(y).`$
We recall that

$$_0^1𝑑x\frac{f(x)}{(1x)_+}=_0^1𝑑y\frac{f(y)f(1)}{1y}$$
(112)
and that

$$\frac{1}{(1x)_+}f(x)_x^1\frac{dy}{y}\frac{yf(y)xf(x)}{yx}+f(x)\mathrm{log}(1x)$$
(113)
as can can be shown quite straightforwardly.

We also introduce the expressions

$`In_0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s_1}}\mathrm{log}(s_1)+\mathrm{log}(1s_1)`$
$`Jn_i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_is_{i+1}}}\left[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s_{i+1}}{1s_i}}\right)+s_{i+1}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s_i}{1s_{i+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{i+1}}{s_i}}\right)\right]`$
$`Jnt_i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{i1}s_i}}[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s_i}{1s_{i1}}}\right)+s_{i1}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_i}{s_{i1}}}\right)+s_{i1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s_{i1}}{1s_i}}\right)],i=2,3,..N`$
$`Jnt_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s_1}}\mathrm{log}s_1.`$
Using the linear interpolation formula (108) we get the relation

$`{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{yA_n(y)xA_n(x)}{yx}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}(1x)A_n(x)+A_n(x)In_0(x)`$ (115)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_n(x_i)\left(Jn_i(x)Jnt_i(x)\right)`$
which has been used for a fast and accurate numerical implementation of the recursion relations.


text:
# Black hole horizon in superstring inspired 𝐷-dimensional dilaton gravity

## Abstract

In $`D`$-dimensional dilaton gravitational model stationary Schwarzschild type solutions (centrally symmetrical solutions in vacuum) are obtained. They contain the two-parameter set of solutions: the first parameter is proportional to a central mass and the second one describes intensity of the dilaton field. If the latter parameter equals zero we have pure Schwarzschild solution with the black hole and constant dilaton field. But when the mentioned parameter is non-zero and the dilaton is non-constant, the black hole horizon vanishes.

Tver State University, Sadovyj per., 35, 170002, Tver, Russia.

Introduction

The considered dilaton gravitational model is the consequence of the string theory in the low-energy limit . Here we study the generalization of the Schwarzschild solution (that is stationary centrally symmetrical solution in vacuum) for $`D`$-dimensional dilaton gravity.

We start from the following action :

$$S=\sqrt{|g|}e^{2\varphi (x)}\left[R+4(\varphi )^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]d^{n+1}x.$$
(1)
Here $`\varphi (x)`$ is the scalar dilaton field in $`n+1`$ \- dimensional ($`D=n+1`$) pseudoriemann manifold $`M_{1,n}`$ with coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`g=`$det $`|g_{\mu \nu }|`$, spatial dimensionality equals $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$, (the $`1+1`$ dimensional case was studied previously in details), $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`(\varphi )^2=g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the constant. In Sects. 1,2 we concentrate on the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

We use here and below the string frame for the action (1) keeping in mind that it may be conformally transformed $`g_{\mu \nu }e^{r\varphi }g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`r=4/(D2)`$ to the Einstein frame .

The equations of evolution for this model

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{\mu \nu }+2\varphi _{;\mu \nu }=0,\\ R+4(\varphi )^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }.\text{}\end{array}$$
(2)
are obtained from action (1) by the variation of the gravitational field $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the dilaton field $`\varphi `$ accordingly. Here $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Ricci tensor, $`\varphi _{;\mu \nu }`$ is the covariant derivative.

1. Schwarzschild-type solutions, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$

We search stationary Schwarzschild-type solutions of Eqs. (2), that is centrally symmetrical solutions in vacuum. So the metric in the pseudoriemannian spherically symmetric manifold $`M_{1,n}`$ with signature $`+,,,\mathrm{}`$ may be taken in the form

$`ds^2=e^{2\alpha (r)}dt^2e^{2\beta (r)}dr^2`$
$`r^2\left[d\theta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\theta _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{n2}d\theta _{n1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right].`$ (3)
Here $`t`$, $`r`$ and $`\theta _i`$ are time-like, radial and angular coordinates accordingly.

We suppose below $`n2`$. The case $`n=1`$ resulting at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ in “two-dimensional” black hole $`ds^2=\mathrm{tanh}^2r\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}dt^2dr^2`$, was investigated in detail previously .

When we substitute this metric and the corresponding nonzero Ricci tensor components

$`R_{00}=e^{2\alpha 2\beta }[\alpha ^{\prime \prime }+(\alpha ^{})^2\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}]+(n1)\alpha ^{}/r,`$
$`R_{11}=[\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(\alpha ^{})^2+\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}]+(n1)\beta ^{}/r,`$
$`R_{22}=e^{2\beta }[\beta ^{}r\alpha ^{}r(n2)]+(n2),`$
$`R_{33}=R_{22}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1,\mathrm{}R_{nn}=R_{22}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{n2}.`$
into the system (2), it reduces to the following four nontrivial equations

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }+\alpha ^2\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+(n1)\alpha ^{}/r=2\alpha ^{}\varphi ^{},\\ \alpha ^{\prime \prime }+\alpha ^2\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}(n1)\beta ^{}/r=2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }2\beta ^{}\varphi ^{},\\ \beta ^{}\alpha ^{}+(n2)(e^{2\beta }1)/r+2\varphi ^{}=0,\\ \alpha ^{\prime \prime }+\alpha ^2\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+(n1)[(\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})r+\frac{1}{2}(n2)(1e^{2\beta })]/r^2=2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\beta }.\end{array}$$
(4)
Excluding $`\beta ^{}`$ from these equations we obtain in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ the following two relations:

$`1+(n2)e^{2\beta }=r\alpha ^{\prime \prime }/\alpha ^{},`$ (5)
$`1+(n2)e^{2\beta }=r\varphi ^{\prime \prime }/\varphi ^{}.`$ (6)
Here $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and $`\varphi ^{}0`$ are supposed.

Comparing expressions (5) with (6) we see, that

$$\varphi ^{}=Q\alpha ^{},$$
(7)
here $`Q`$ is the arbitrary constant.

In the case $`n=2`$ Eqs. (5) and (6) can be easily solved. This solution has the form

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r}{r_1}\right)^adt^2\left(\frac{r}{r_2}\right)^bdr^2r^2d\theta ^2,\varphi =\frac{ab}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{r_3}.$$
(8)
Here $`a`$, $`b`$, $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$ there are constants, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are connected in the following way:

$$a^2=b^2+4b.$$

For arbitrary values of these parameters in the case $`n=2`$ we have no singularities of the black hole (BH) type. The case $`b=0`$ corresponds to the known conic solution

$$ds^2=dt^2\text{const}dr^2r^2d\theta ^2,\varphi =\varphi _0.$$
(9)
in the standard gravitational model without dilaton ($`\varphi =`$const).

For $`n3`$ the solution of system (4) is found in parametrical form with using the parameter $`\gamma =r\alpha ^{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}e^{2(\alpha \alpha _0)}=\left|(\gamma \gamma _+)/(\gamma \gamma _{})\right|^{1/K},e^{2\beta }=\left|\frac{4Q(Q1)}{n1}(\gamma \gamma _+)(\gamma \gamma _{})\right|,\\ \varphi =Q\alpha (r)+\varphi _0,r=r_0|\gamma \gamma _+|^{A_+}|\gamma \gamma _{}|^A_{}|\gamma |^{1/(n2)}.\end{array}$$
(10)
Here $`K=\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=4Q(Q1)/(n1)`$,

$$\gamma _\pm =\frac{2Q1K}{\stackrel{~}{Q}},A_\pm =\frac{1}{2(n2)}\left(1\pm \frac{2Q1}{K}\right).$$
(11)
2. Investigation of solutions

The geometrical and physical sense of obtained solutions (10) was studied, in particular, with the help of test particles in this gravitational field. If these particles do not interact directly with the dilaton field $`\varphi `$, their trajectories are time-like geodesic lines. For example, the equation of radial ($`d\theta _1=\mathrm{}=d\theta _{n1}=0`$) geodesic lines for this metric are

$$\frac{d^2t}{ds^2}+2\alpha ^{}\frac{dt}{ds}\frac{dr}{ds}=0,\frac{d^2r}{ds^2}+\alpha ^{}e^{2\alpha 2\beta }\left(\frac{dt}{ds}\right)^2+\beta ^{}\left(\frac{dr}{ds}\right)^2=0,$$

and the corresponding physical velocity of a radially moving test particle is

$$v=\sqrt{\left|\frac{g_{11}}{g_{00}}\right|}\frac{dr}{dt}=\pm \sqrt{1e^{2\alpha 2C_0}}.$$
(12)
Here $`C_0=`$const.

Eq. (12) demonstrates that solutions (10) with $`\alpha ^{}>0`$ or $`\gamma >0`$ (remind that $`\gamma =r\alpha ^{}`$) describe gravitational attraction while negative $`\gamma `$ results in repulsing. Taking this consideration into account we can extract the “physical domain” in the $`Q\gamma `$ plane (Fig. 1). This domain is bounded by the lines $`\gamma =0`$ (the condition $`\gamma >0`$) and $`\gamma =\gamma _+(Q)`$. The latter line is the $`\gamma >0`$ branch of the curve (11). The solutions (10) corresponding to this domain describe gravitational attraction and they are asymptotically flat at $`r\mathrm{}`$.

In the limit $`Q0`$ the solution (10) tends to the expression

$$ds^2=\left[1(r_0/r)^{n2}\right]dt^2(n2)\left[1(r_0/r)^{n2}\right]^1dr^2r^2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{}).$$
(13)
and $`\varphi =`$const, that is the well-known Schwarzschild solution (for $`n=3`$). The same formula (13) may be obtained if we directly substitute $`\varphi =Q=0`$ into Eqs. (4). In this case the dilaton vanishes ($`\varphi =`$const).

So we may conclude that the solution (10) is the generalization of the Schwarzschild solution for $`D`$-dimensional dilaton gravity. The Schwarzschild solution (13) is one-parameter family with the parameter $`r_g=r_0`$ (gravitational radius proportional to the central mass). But in the case of the expression (10) we have the two-parameter family of solutions: the parameter $`r_0`$ is the analog of $`r_g`$ and the additional parameter $`Q`$ demonstrates involving the dilaton field in accordance with the expression (7).

And the most interesting fact is that in this family of solutions only dilaton-free solutions (13) describe black holes (BH). That is only in the case $`Q=0`$, $`\varphi =`$const we have the BH horizon. When $`Q0`$ and dilaton is non-trivial this horizon disappears.

This result may be explained by analyzing the expressions (10). We are to investigate the limit of small $`r`$. It corresponds in the the “physical domain” of the $`Q\gamma `$ plane (Fig. 1) to the limit $`\gamma \gamma _+`$ if $`Q>0`$ or $`\gamma +\mathrm{}`$ if $`Q0`$. In the first case in this limit we have $`r0`$ and $`g_{00}=e^{2\alpha }0`$ (point of singularity), and in the second case $`Q<0`$ the component $`g_{00}=e^{2\alpha }`$ tends to non-zero constant when $`r0`$. The expression $`|g_{11}|=e^{2\alpha }`$ behaves correspondingly in these cases.

3. $`2+1`$ \- dimensional solutions

For $`n=2`$ or $`D=3`$ the solutions of the system (4) for an arbitrary value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (including $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$) were obtained. In this case we may express $`\varphi ^{}=(\alpha ^{}\beta ^{})/2`$ from the 3-rd equaton (4), substitute it into the first equaton and find

$$e^{2\alpha (r)}=(r/r_1)^a,$$
(14)
where $`a`$ and $`r_1`$ are arbitrary constants. The expression for $`\alpha `$ let us reduce the remaining equatons (4) to the system

$$\beta ^{\prime \prime }\frac{\beta ^{}}{r}(\beta ^{})^2+\frac{a^2}{4r^2}=0,\beta ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\beta ^{}}{r}=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\beta (r)}$$

with the following solution:

$$e^{2\beta (r)}=\frac{(a^2+4)Cr^{B_\pm 2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(r^{B_\pm }C)^2},\varphi (r)=\varphi _0\frac{a}{2r^2}\frac{\beta (r)}{2}.$$
(15)
Here $`B_\pm =\pm \sqrt{a^2+4}`$, $`Cr_0^{2B_\pm }`$ is the constant of integration. This expression $`e^{2\beta (r)}`$ is positive (physical) of $`C>0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ or $`C<0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. The first case is equivalent to the $`2+1`$ \- dimensional solutions obtained in Ref. , but in the latter case the solutions (14), (15) differ from ones in Ref.  because they are defined in $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$. Unlike the expressions  the solutions (14), (15) with $`C<0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ have no singularities and cylindrical asymptotic behavior at large $`r`$.

Naturally, the expressions (14), (15) transform into solutions (8) in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/C`$const).

Conclusion

In this work the stationary centrally symmetrical solutions in vacuum (Schwarzschild type solutions) are obtained in the dilaton gravitational model (1) for different dimensionalities $`D=n+1`$. They generalize the Schwarzschild solution (13) and the conic $`2+1`$ \- dimensional solution (9). These generalizations contain expressions (13), (9) because the Einstein gravity is the particular case of the dilaton model (1) when the dilaton field $`\varphi =`$const. But it is non-trivial fact that any presence of the dilaton field (that is $`\varphi ^{}0`$, $`Q0`$) radically changes the geometry. In particular, the BH horizon vanishes in any stationary centrally symmetrical solution (10) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\varphi ^{}0`$.

Acknowledgements. The work is supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research (grant 00-02-17359).