text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking (GMSB) model  is one of the complete models to solve the FCNC problem in the supersymmetric (SUSY) extension of the Standard Model (SM). In a typical GMSB model , the dynamical SUSY-breaking scale is of the order of $`10^7\mathrm{GeV}`$, so that the SUSY-breaking masses of the order of the weak scale ($`m`$) are generated in the SUSY SM. This predicts a gravitino with a mass $`m_{3/2}=100\mathrm{keV}`$, which is beyond the closure limit of the Universe, $`m_{3/2}<2h^2\mathrm{keV}`$ . It is very unlikely that such a small gravitino mass can be generated in the GMSB model, while there is an exceptional extension for it . Also, the string moduli may supply another problem in cosmology, since it is expected to have a mass of the order of $`m_{3/2}`$.

This implies that there must be a substantial entropy production in such a way that they can be diluted in the thermal history of the Universe, we therefore have to consider a possible mechanism of baryogenesis at a relatively low temperature. A promising candidate for it is the Affleck and Dine (AD) mechanism . One of the important predictions of the AD baryogenesis in the GMSB model is the existence of a stable Q ball . It can be a candidate for the dark matter (DM) in the Universe.

The Q ball, a non-topological soliton, is a coherent state of a complex scalar field . The existence and the stability come from a global U(1) quantum number. In the SUSY SM the Q ball is composed of squarks and/or sleptons with baryon ($`B`$) or lepton ($`L`$) numbers . In the GMSB model, the flat directions $`\varphi `$ composed of the squarks and/or sleptons are lifted up by at most a logarithmic potential for the large field value due to the SUSY breaking . This leads to the existence of the stable Q ball. The mass of the Q ball originated from the flat direction is proportional to $`𝐦Q^{\frac{3}{4}}`$, not to $`mQ`$, because of the logarithmic potential. Here, $`𝐦`$ is the mass scale of a logarithmic potential ($`𝐦10^{35}\mathrm{GeV}`$). Therefore, the baryonic Q ball, the B ball, may be stable against the decay into nucleons if the baryon number is sufficiently large ($`Q_{}^>10^{12}`$), since the mass-to-charge ratio $`\omega _0`$ can become less than $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The AD baryogenesis, which is the natural candidate for baryogenesis in the GMSB model, as mentioned above, can generate such large B balls. In the final stage of the AD baryogenesis, the coherent state of the AD scalar field, which consists of the flat direction $`\varphi `$, becomes unstable and instabilities develop. The Q ball is formed as a result of the fluctuation glowing. This behaviour of the AD field has been justified by numerical simulations , and the largest Q ball charge is proportional to the initial field value of the AD field. Then, the B ball dark matter is an important prediction in the GMSB model, assuming the AD baryogenesis.

The B ball DM search has already given a constraint on this scenario. Since the B ball with larger baryon number becomes stabler, the B ball absorbs nucleons and emits an energy of about $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ per a nucleon when the B ball collides with nucleons. This process is known as the KKST process, and it is similar to the monopole-catalyzed proton decay . From the BAKSAN, Gyrlyanda, and Kamiokande experimental results, the constraint on the B ball charge is derived assuming that the B ball is the DM, and it should be larger than $`10^{24}`$ for $`𝐦<1\mathrm{TeV}`$ . This KKST process is suppressed by the Coulomb repulsion if the B ball has positive electric charge. The B ball has an electron cloud around it and behaves as a heavy atom. The interaction with matter is similar to the case of nuclearites and the B ball charge should be larger than $`10^{2230}`$, depending on the electric charge .

These bounds are loosened if the supergravity contribution to the flat direction potential is included . For a large B ball charge, the field value inside the B ball becomes large and the supergravity contribution to the flat direction potential is not negligible. In this case, for a larger B ball, its radius $`R_Q`$ does not increase and becomes a constant, $`10/m_{3/2}`$. The geometrical cross section $`\pi R_Q^2`$ is smaller than when the supergravity contribution is not included.

In this article we derive another constraint on the B ball DM scenario. The baryon number may not be an exact symmetry in nature, and high-energy physics may violate the baryon-number conservation, such as in the grand unified theories (GUTs). In fact, the AD baryogenesis needs the $`(BL)`$-violating operators, which kick $`\varphi `$ to start the rotation and to generate the baryon number. While the interaction with only lepton-number violation can work for the AD baryogenesis, the baryon-number-violating operators are needed to generate for the B ball to be generated in the AD mechanism. In this article, assuming the existence of the baryon-number-violating higher-dimensional operators, we evaluate the lifetime (the evaporation rate) of the B ball. The higher-dimensional operators, including $`\varphi `$, enhance the evaporation rate by the large field value inside the B ball. Especially, for a larger B ball, the field value becomes larger and the evaporation rate is significantly enhanced. As a result, the B ball does not necessarily keep the baryon number beyond the age of Universe.

The final state in the evaporation of the B ball by the baryon-number-violating operators depends on the quantum numbers of the B ball, the symmetries of the operators, and $`\omega _0`$. If the operator violates $`(B+L)`$, but not $`(BL)`$, and the $`B`$ ball does not have lepton numbers at all, the final states are ($`e^+,\pi ^{}`$), ($`\overline{\nu },\pi ^0`$), and so on for $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}100\mathrm{MeV}`$. If $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}100\mathrm{MeV}`$, the final state consists of only lepton and antileptons. Photons may be included there. Without the knowledge about the surface dynamics on the B ball, one cannot estimate the evaporation rate in the case $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}100\mathrm{MeV}`$. Since the pion emission from the B ball is not allowed kinematically, quarks emitted by the baryon-number-violating operators are bounded to the surface or inside of the B ball for a while, and they decay or annihilate to the lighter particles. In this article, we restrict ourselves to evaluating the evaporation rate in the case $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}100\mathrm{MeV}`$; we discuss what may happen for $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}100\mathrm{MeV}`$.

If $`e^+`$ is in the final state, the energy is of the order of $`\omega _0`$ and almost monochromatic. This may change the cosmic ray positron flux. The existing positron flux measurements are above about $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$, which works for our case of $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}100\mathrm{MeV}`$. Also, when $`\pi ^0`$ is in the final state, it may distort the cosmic background radiation. We find that both observations give more stringent constraints on the evaporation rate of the B ball than a comparison with the age of the Universe, assuming that the B ball is the DM.

We organize this article as follows. In the next section, we introduce the Q ball following Coleman’s argument, and review the profile and the quantum numbers of the B ball originated from the flat directions of the squarks and/or sleptons in the GMSB model. Also, we show the profile of the Q ball configuration after including the supergravity contribution to the scalar potential. In Section 3, the final state of the B ball evaporation by the baryon-number-violating operators is discussed there for both $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}100\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}100\mathrm{MeV}`$. In Section 4, the evaporation rate of the B ball is presented for $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}100\mathrm{MeV}`$ and it is compared with the age of the Universe. In Section 5, we evaluate the fluxes of the $`e^+`$ and $`\gamma `$ emitted from the evaporation of the B ball, and give constraints on the evaporation rate from the observations. Section 6 is devoted to conclusions and discussion.

## 2 Properties of the B ball in the GMSB model

In this section we review the Q ball in order to fix our convention, and summarize the properties and the profiles of the B ball in the GMSB model. As Coleman pointed out , some scalar potential with a UQ(1) symmetry predicts the Q ball to be a non-topological soliton. The Lagrangian of the scalar field with the $`U_Q(1)`$ charge $`q`$ is

$``$ $`=`$ $`|_\mu \varphi |^2V(\varphi ).`$ (1)
This system has two conserved quantities, the charge $`Q`$ and the energy $`E`$,

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^3xq\left(\varphi ^{}(_t\varphi )(_t\varphi ^{})\varphi \right)},`$ (2)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left(|_t\varphi |^2+|_i\varphi |^2+V(\varphi )\right)}.`$ (3)
In this system, the non-trivial lowest-energy state with $`Q`$ fixed, that is the Q ball, is derived by minimizing

$`E_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`E+\omega \left\{Qi{\displaystyle d^3xq\left(\varphi ^{}(_t\varphi )(_t\varphi ^{})\varphi \right)}\right\}.`$ (4)
Here, $`\omega `$ is the Lagrange multiplier. The time dependence on $`\varphi `$ of the Q ball configuration is determined as

$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝒙)\mathrm{e}^{iq\omega t},`$ (5)
and $`E_\omega `$ is reduced to be

$`E_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left((_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi })^2+V_\omega (\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\right)}+\omega Q,`$ (6)
where $`V_\omega (\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=V(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })q^2\omega ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2`$. Then, the procedure to derive the $`Q`$ ball configuration is by deriving a solution of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ for the equation of motion

$`_r^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}_r\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_\omega (\stackrel{~}{\varphi })}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
with the boundary condition $`_r\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(0)=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\mathrm{})=0`$, and minimizing $`E_\omega `$ for $`\omega `$.

We now discuss the properties and the profiles of the B ball in the GMSB model. The large B ball originates from the flat direction $`\varphi `$ consisting of squarks and/or sleptons in the GMSB model. A typical example of the renormalisable $`F`$ and $`D`$ flat directions is given as

$$\overline{u}_2^\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi \delta _1^\alpha ,\overline{d}_1^\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi \delta _2^\alpha ,\overline{d}_2^\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi \delta _3^\alpha .$$
(8)
Here, $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ are singlet quarks, the upper and lower indices for colour and generation, respectively. The coefficients in the right-hand sides of Eqs. (8), $`1/\sqrt{3}`$, is for the canonical normalization of $`\varphi `$. The renormalizable $`F`$ and $`D`$ flat directions in the SUSY SM are summarized in Ref. . Here, we present only the flat directions with the baryon numbers in Table 1.

Here, $`Q`$ and $`L`$ stand for the doublet quarks and leptons, and $`\overline{e}`$ for singlet leptons. We suppressed the gauge and generation indices. The charge for the B ball composed of the flat direction follows the charge of this direction. This is important for determining the final states in the evaporation of the B ball.

Which type of the B ball listed in Table 1 is the DM in the Universe as the result of the AD mechanism? For a fixed baryon number $`Q`$, the stable B ball should be only the lightest among those of the above flat directions. Even if the AD mechanism creates heavier B balls with the same baryon number $`Q`$ as the lightest one, they change their lepton numbers by emitting neutrinos and/or anti-neutrinos, and transit to the lightest one. However, the transition rate should be suppressed, and the transition time might be longer than the age of the Universe. This is because the potential barrier between the two states is very high due to the large field values. Therefore, we will not calculate the transition rate to the lightest state, however, discuss the evaporation of the B ball generically.

Next, we show the profiles of the B ball in the GMSB model. In that model the flat direction has a logarithmic potential due to the radiative correction from the messenger sector . This implies that a larger B ball with a larger field value is energetically favoured for the unit charge, which leads to a stable B ball. In this article the scalar potential of the flat direction $`\varphi `$ in the GMSB model is simplified as

$`V_{\mathrm{GMSB}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(mM)^2}{2}}\left(\mathrm{log}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi |^2}{M^2}}\right)\right)^2.`$ (9)
Here, $`m`$ is the SUSY breaking scale in the SUSY SM ($`m`$ $`O(10^{23})\mathrm{GeV}`$), and $`M`$ is for the messenger quark mass in the GMSB model. In a typical model, the messenger quark mass is of the order of $`10^5`$GeV. While this double-log potential realizes the behaviour of the exact potential for $`\varphi M`$, derived in Ref. , it has a wrong behaviour for $`\varphi M`$. However, the Q ball properties are determined by the behaviour of the potential for $`\varphi M`$, and this potential thus works for our purposes.111 In Ref.  they adopt a single-log potential and take $`M=m`$ in the potential so that the behaviour of the potential for $`\varphi M`$ is realized. We find that the field value inside the Q ball in our potential with $`M=m`$ is a few time larger than that in the single-log potential for a fixed $`Q`$.  The profile of the large B ball derived by this potential is well approximated to be

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(q\omega r)}{q\omega r}},`$ (10)
for $`r<R_Q(\pi /q\omega )`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$, for $`rR_Q`$. The parameters in Eq. (10) and the B ball mass determined from this profile are given by the B ball charge $`Q`$ as

$`q\omega `$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi \eta _0)^{\frac{1}{2}}(mM)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Q/q)^{\frac{1}{4}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0}{2\pi }})^{\frac{1}{2}}(mM)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Q/q)^{\frac{1}{4}},`$
$`R_Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\eta _0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(mM)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Q/q)^{\frac{1}{4}},`$
$`m_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(2\pi \eta _0)^{\frac{1}{2}}(mM)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Q/q)^{\frac{3}{4}}.`$ (11)
In the following the flat directions are defined so that $`q`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\omega _0`$ are positive. The parameter $`\eta _0`$ is fitted as

$`\eta _04.8\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{q\omega }}+7.4.`$ (12)
from the numerical calculation. For $`r_{}^>R_Q`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^<mM/q\omega `$, the above approximated solution is not valid. However, such a region does not contribute dominantly to the properties of the B ball. In the following we call the B ball given by Eqs. (10) and (11) as the GMSB B ball.

From Eqs. (11), the energy per unit charge $`\omega _0(m_Q/Q)`$ is

$`\omega _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\omega .`$ (13)
The physical meaning of $`\omega `$ is the energy for increasing or decreasing the B ball charge by the unit charge, since $`(m_Qm_{Q1})=\omega `$.

The field value $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$ is proportional to $`Q^{\frac{1}{4}}`$, as in Eq. (11), and for larger $`Q`$ the supergravity contribution to the scalar potential may be important . The scalar potential from the supergravity contribution is

$`V_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2|\varphi |^2\left(1+K\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_G^2}}\right),`$ (14)
where $`m_{3/2}`$ is the gravitino mass and $`M_G`$ is the reduced Planck mass. Here we assume the minimal supergravity for simplicity, and this potential becomes dominant when $`\varphi `$ is larger than $`mM/m_{3/2}`$. The second term in the bracket of the right-hand side comes from one-loop correction. If it comes from the gauge interaction, $`K`$ is negative and $`O(10^2)`$. The existence of the Q ball solution requires negative $`K`$ . In a limit where $`V_{\mathrm{GMSB}}`$ is negligible, the Q ball configuration is exactly given by a Gaussian form:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0\mathrm{e}^{\frac{r^2}{2R_Q^2}}.`$ (15)
This solution leads to

$`q\omega `$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi ^{\frac{3}{2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}|K|^{\frac{3}{4}}m_{3/2}(Q/q)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`R_Q`$ $`=`$ $`|K|^{\frac{1}{2}}m_{3/2}^1,`$
$`m_Q`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}(Q/q),`$ (16)
up to $`O(K)`$ , and then

$`\omega _0`$ $`=`$ $`\omega .`$ (17)
We refer to the B ball given by Eqs. (15) and (16) as the supergravity B ball.

In Fig. 1 we show the mass-to-charge ratio of the B ball, $`\omega _0`$, as a function of $`Q`$. The solid line is for the B ball that comes from the flat-direction potential of the GMSB model (the GMSB B ball). The dashed lines are for those from the supergravity potential (the supergravity B ball). Here, we take $`m=1\mathrm{TeV}`$, $`M=10^2\mathrm{TeV}`$, and $`q=1/3`$, assuming that the B ball comes from $`\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{d}`$. If taking larger $`m`$ or $`M`$, the solid line is shifted to the upper side. For smaller $`q`$, both the solid and dashed lines go up. In the region $`\omega _0>1\mathrm{GeV}`$, the B ball is unstable and decays into nucleons. While the result of the direct search for the B ball DM depends on the electric charge, the region for $`Q_{}^<10^{22}`$ is excluded for any electric charge .

Before finishing this section, we comment on the electric charge of the B ball. This should be below the maximal electric charge  and negligible with respect to the baryon number. However, there is no symmetry to forbid the B ball to have an electric charge. For example, in a flat direction of Eq. (8), zero electric charge means that the field values of $`\overline{u}_1`$, $`\overline{d}_1`$, and $`\overline{d}_2`$ are equal to each other. However, this equality might be violated by SUSY breaking and the B ball may have a non-zero electric charge. In order to determine it, we also need to know the details of the scalar potential.

## 3 Evaporation of the B ball by the baryon-number-violating operators

In next section we will evaluate the evaporation rate of the B ball by the baryon-number-violating operators, using a technique described by Cohen et al. . However, this technique is not applicable to cases including scattering, annihilation, or decays of the fermions bounded inside the Q ball. The energy release in the evaporation per unit charge is $`\omega `$. This means that we cannot evaluate the evaporation rate for $`\omega _{}^<100\mathrm{MeV}`$, where no mesons can be emitted from the B ball. Here, we discuss what may happen for both cases, $`\omega _{}^>100\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`\omega _{}^<100\mathrm{MeV}`$, while we will evaluate the evaporation rate only for $`\omega _{}^>100\mathrm{MeV}`$ in the next section.

We assume the SUSY SM with the R parity conservation. Then the baryon-number-violating operators are given by $`F`$ terms of the effective operator with dimension larger than 5 or $`D`$ terms with dimension larger than 6. The lowest baryon-number-violating operators in the $`F`$ terms are given as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5}}Q_iQ_jQ_kL_l|_{\theta ^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^{}}}\overline{u}_i\overline{e}_j\overline{u}_k\overline{d}_l|_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (18)
where $`i,j,k,l`$ are for the generations ($`ik)`$. These interactions change the charges of the B ball by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)=2`$.

Let us discuss typical examples. First, we assume that the B ball is composed of the flat direction in Eq. (8), $`\overline{u}_2\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2`$. Inserting Eq. (8) in the above operators, we get the interaction222 Notice that we define that the charge of $`\varphi `$ is positive.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M_5^{}}}\varphi ^2\overline{u}_1\overline{e}_1.`$ (19)
Then, the final state is $`(\pi ^{}e^+)`$ for one baryon number. Here, $`d_1`$ in the pion is supplied by the surface of the B ball. The production $`(\pi ^{}e^+)`$ is allowed from the kinematics if $`\omega _{}^>210\mathrm{MeV}`$, since the typical momentum for each parton is $`\frac{1}{3}\omega `$. (This will be shown in the next section.)

Here, notice there are other interactions, such as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M_5^{}}}\varphi ^2\overline{u}_3\overline{e}_3.`$ (20)
Because of kinematics, the primary fermions in this interaction, $`\overline{u}_3`$ and $`e_3^+`$, cannot be emitted from the B ball. The primary fermions may be bounded on the surface or inside of the B ball for a while, and decay or annihilate into the lighter states. In fact, $`u_3`$ and $`e_3`$ behave as a massless particle inside the Q ball if the above operator (20) is negligible. In the conventional SUSY-GUT, the baryon-number-violating dimension-5 operators are proportional to the fermion masses ; this process may then be enhanced and dominate over the others. If this process dominates, the final state and the spectrum may be different from the one mentioned above. We need a technique to calculate the transition rate of the primary quark, bounded in the B ball, to lighter states in order to derive the evaporation rate of the B ball. Keeping this possibility in mind, we will continue our discussion.

If $`\omega _{}^<210\mathrm{MeV}`$, all quarks are bounded inside or on the surface of the B ball. This situation is also similar to the case mentioned above, and we cannot evaluate the evaporation rate. The final states are expected to be ($`e^+`$, $`e^{}`$, $`\nu `$, $`\overline{\nu }`$, $`\overline{\nu }`$) or ($`\gamma `$’s, $`\nu `$, $`\overline{\nu }`$, $`\overline{\nu }`$).

Next, if the B ball is composed of the flat direction $`\overline{u}_1\overline{e}_1\overline{u}_2\overline{d}_1`$, the final states are ($`\pi ^0`$, $`e^+`$, $`e^{}`$) or (2 $`\pi ^0`$) for $`\omega _{}^>280\mathrm{MeV}`$. On the other hand, ($`\pi ^0`$, $`\overline{\nu }`$, $`\nu `$) is also included in the final states for the B ball composed of $`Q_1Q_1Q_2L_1`$. The typical momentum of each fermion is $`\omega /4`$ (the momentum of the pion is double of this). These arguments are applicable to the other B balls. The exceptions are cases where the B ball consists of

$`\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{e},`$ $`\overline{u}\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{d}\overline{d}.`$ (21)
In these cases, the dimension-5 operators are not effective, since the interaction with $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=\pm 2`$ is needed, and the dimension-7 operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ may work well,

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_7^3}}\overline{u}_i\overline{u}_j\overline{d}_k\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2\overline{d}_3,`$ (22)
where $`ij`$. The final states are ($`2\pi ^0`$, $`e^{}`$), ($`\pi ^+`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, $`e^{}`$) for the former in Eq. (21), and ($`2\pi ^0`$), ($`\pi ^+`$, $`\pi ^{}`$) for the latter if the kinematics allows the processes.

Finally, we comment on the baryon-number-violating operators in the $`D`$ terms. The lowest ones are

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_6^2}}\overline{d}^{}\overline{u}^{}QL|_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_6^2}}\overline{u}^{}\overline{e}^{}QQ|_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}.`$ (23)
Since the relevant terms in the $`D`$-term operators have a derivative of the scalar, the evaporation rate is suppressed by $`\omega /M_6`$, with respect to the $`F`$-term operators.

## 4 Evaporation rate of the B ball

In this section we present the evaporation rate of the B ball obtained by the baryon-number-violating operators. The technique to calculate it was developed by Cohen et al. . They evaluate the evaporation rate of the L ball to neutrinos by the lepton-number-conserving interaction. The evaporation process to neutrinos is equivalent to the neutrino pair production on the L ball background. They construct a quantum field theory preserving a symmetry on the L ball background, a simultaneous time translation and $`L`$ phase rotation, and derive the evaporation rate through the Bogoliubov transformation between the creation and annihilation operators in the asymptotic fields of neutrino at $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. The result is given by the transition amplitude to the outgoing anti-neutrino from the incoming neutrino.

We generalize their result and apply it to the B ball evaporation. In our case the interactions to create the fermion pairs are baryon-number-violating. However, we may use the formula as the zeroth order of the Yukawa coupling constants. Also, if the interactions are the dimension-5 operators, they preserve $`(BL)`$. Then, when the B ball is composed of $`\overline{u}\overline{d}\overline{d}`$, we can use their result by regarding the B ball as the (B$``$L) ball. In this section, we first show the properties of the Q ball evaporation process. After that, we present the evaporation rate of the B ball and compare it with the age of the Universe.

Since the generalization of the technique developed by Cohen is straight-forward, we summarize the result without repeating their calculation here.333 Eq. (3.4) in Ref.  has a typo. The second term in the bracket has wrong signs.  The Yukawa interaction contributing to the evaporation is

$``$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \psi _1\psi _2`$ (24)
where $`\varphi `$ is replaced by the Q ball background. The global UQ(1) charge for the scalar $`\varphi `$ is 1, while those for fermions, $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$, are $`p`$ and $`(p1)`$, respectively. This UQ(1) symmetry stabilizes of the Q ball. When adopting the thin-wall approximation for the Q ball background, $`\varphi `$ is taken as

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}v\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}& (rR_Q),\\ 0& (r>R_Q).\end{array}`$ (27)
In this set-up, the evaporation rate of the Q ball is given to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\omega }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{4\pi }}(2j+1)|T(k,j)|^2,`$ (28)
where $`k`$ and $`j`$ are the energy and the total orbit momentum for the fermion. The explicit form of the transition amplitude $`T(k,j)`$ is given to be

$`T(k,j)^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_0k}{vk}}{\displaystyle \frac{(h_{++}^{(1)}j_{}h_+^{(1)}j_+)(h_+^{(2)}j_+h_{}^{(2)}j_{++})w_{}^{}}{(h_{++}^{(1)}h_+^{(2)}h_+^{(1)}h_{++}^{(2)})(j_+j_+j_{}j_{++})}}`$ (29)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_0k}{vk}}{\displaystyle \frac{(h_{++}^{(1)}j_+h_+^{(1)}j_{++})(h_+^{(2)}j_{}h_{}^{(2)}j_+)w_+^{}}{(h_{++}^{(1)}h_+^{(2)}h_+^{(1)}h_{++}^{(2)})(j_+j_+j_{}j_{++})}}.`$
The transition amplitude is calculated assuming that $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are massless. Here,

$`h_{\pm +}^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{j\pm \frac{1}{2}}^{(i)}(kR_Q)(i=1,2),`$
$`h_\pm ^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{j\pm \frac{1}{2}}^{(i)}((\omega k)R_Q)(i=1,2),`$
$`j_{\pm +}`$ $`=`$ $`j_{j\pm \frac{1}{2}}(k_+R_Q),`$
$`j_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`j_{j\pm \frac{1}{2}}(k_{}R_Q),`$
$`w_\pm ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`k+k_\pm \omega ,`$ (30)
with $`k_\pm =\omega /2\pm \sqrt{(k\omega /2)^2v^2}`$. The functions, $`h_j^{(i)}(x)`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ and $`j_j(x)`$, are the Hankel and Bessel functions. The amplitude $`T(k,j)`$ has following properties:

$`\mathrm{i})`$ $`T(0,j)=T(\omega ,j)=0,`$
$`\mathrm{ii})`$ $`T(k,j)=T(\omega k,j),`$
$`\mathrm{iii})`$ $`T(k,j)`$ is independent of the fermion charge $`p`$.
Also, if $`R_Q`$ is not so large with respect to $`\omega ^1`$, the contributions from the higher $`j`$ modes dump quickly, and the numerical calculation is not so difficult.444 In Ref.  the evaporation rate of the Q ball with finite $`R_Q`$ is calculated.

In Fig. 2 we show the evaporation rate of the Q ball, $`dQ/dt`$, for $`R_Q\omega =1`$ and 10 as a function of $`v/\omega `$. Here, the evaporation rate is normalized by the maximum value,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}\right)_{\mathrm{Max}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^3R_Q^2}{48\pi }}.`$ (31)
The qualitative behaviour of the evaporation rate is easy to understand. When $`v/\omega >1`$, the fermion pairs are produced only on the surface of the Q ball, since the production inside the Q ball is suppressed by the Pauli blocking. Then, the evaporation rate is bounded by the maximum outgoing flux of the fermion pair with the total energy $`\omega `$, and the maximum evaporation rate is derived as in Eq. (31) .

On the other hand, if $`v/\omega <1`$, the fermion pair production from the outer shell of the Q ball, whose width is $`1/v`$, contributes to the evaporation. This is because the penetration length of the fermion inside the Q ball, $`1/v`$, is larger than $`1/\omega `$. Roughly speaking, regarding the decay rate of a quantum with unit charge $`\omega `$, the evaporation rate is $`\omega \times (\omega v^2)\times (R_Q^2/v)=v\omega ^2R_Q^2`$, and it is suppressed by $`v/\omega `$ compared with $`(dQ/dt)_{\mathrm{Max}}`$. Here, $`\omega v^2`$ is the charge density inside the Q ball. This can be proved explicitly in the limit of a large $`R_Q`$ . In this limit, the evaporation rate becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2vR_Q^2}{16}}.`$ (32)
This behaviour is not valid for $`1/v_{}^>R_Q`$. In this case, the whole region inside the Q ball contributes to the evaporation, and then the evaporation rate behaves, as $`v^2\omega ^2R_Q^3`$ as in Fig. 2.

The above qualitative behaviour can be seen in the energy spectrum of the fermion in the evaporation. In Fig. 3 we show the fermion energy spectrum for $`v/\omega =10`$, $`10^1`$, $`10^3`$, $`10^5`$, the in cases $`R_Q\omega =1`$ and 10. The spectra for $`v/\omega =10`$ are almost independent of $`R_Q\omega `$. On the other hand, the spectrum has a peak around $`\omega /2`$, and it becomes steeper for smaller $`v`$ and larger $`R_Q`$.

Now we have prepared for calculating the evaporation rate of the B ball. Here, we use the parametrizations given in Eqs. (11) and (16) for the thin-wall approximation. This approximation may make an $`O(1)`$ error for the evaluation of the evaporation rate.

In order to make our discussion clear, we assume that the B ball is composed of the flat direction $`\overline{u}_2\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2`$ (Eq. (8)), and that evaporates into $`(\pi ^{}e^+)`$ by the interaction in Eq. (19). In this case, the $`\varphi `$, which is canonically normalized, has the baryon number $`q=1/3`$, and Eq. (19) becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{3M_5^{}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{2}{3}\omega t}\overline{u}_1\overline{e}_1`$ (33)
inside the B ball. We can apply the above formula by inserting

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{3M_5^{}}}`$ (34)
and rescaling $`\omega `$ due to the charge definition. As mentioned in the last section, $`e_1^+`$ and $`\overline{u}_1`$ in the final state share $`2\omega /3`$ from this interaction. The $`d_1`$ in $`\pi ^{}`$ is supplied from the surface, since $`d_1`$ is heavy with the gaugino inside the B ball. The $`d_1`$ shares $`2\omega /3`$ with the other $`d_1`$ in the final state. The time scale of the $`d_1`$ emission is of the order of $`3\omega ^1/2`$, and the effect on the evaporation rate is negligible.555 The emission of $`d_1`$ is similar to the case of $`v/\omega >1`$ in Fig. 2; the emission rate is understood from the analogy.  Here we have to note that $`\pi ^{}`$ is a pseudoscalar, and a chirality flip is required to create a $`\pi ^{}`$ from $`d_1`$ and $`\overline{u}_1`$. The associated suppression $`F`$ may be of the order of $`(m_q/f_\pi )^210^3`$, where $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant, because it comes from the pion current interaction $`J^\mu _\mu \pi /f_\pi `$. In this article we do not attempt to estimate this suppression factor precisely. We take $`F=1`$ when we present our numerical result.

In Fig. 4 we show the evaporation time $`(dQ/Qdt)^1`$ of the B ball composed of $`\overline{u}_2\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2`$. The two solid lines are for the cases the B ball originates from the GMSB or supergravity scalar potentials. Here, for the supergravity B ball, we fix $`m_{3/2}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`|K|^{\frac{1}{2}}=10`$ and use Eq. (16) for $`\varphi `$, $`R_Q`$, and $`\omega `$. Also, for the GMSB B ball, we use Eq. (11) with $`m=1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`M=10^2\mathrm{TeV}`$. We plot the line of the GMSB B ball for $`\omega >210\mathrm{MeV}`$. The suppression factor of the dimension-5 operator $`M_5^{}`$ is taken to be $`10^{30}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is completely beyond the constraint from the negative search in proton decay .

In this figure, the evaporation time of the supergravity B ball decreases as $`Q`$ increases for $`Q_{}^<10^{34}`$. This is because $`v`$ is much smaller than $`\omega `$ and $`R_Q^1`$, and $`v`$ is proportional to $`Q`$. On the other hand, when $`Q_{}^>10^{34}`$, the evaporation time increases since $`(dQ/dt)`$ is independent of $`v`$ for $`v/\omega >1`$. If the evaporation time is less than the age of the Universe ($`t_010^{10}`$years), the B ball cannot survive to this day. In this figure we take $`m_{3/2}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$. For smaller $`m_{3/2}`$, beyond the validity of our calculation, if the qualitative nature does not change drastically, $`(dQ/Qdt)^1`$ may become larger by $`1/m_{3/2}^3`$ when $`Q_{}^<10^{33}(m_{3/2}/1\mathrm{GeV})^1`$ and $`1/m_{3/2}`$ when $`Q_{}^>10^{33}(m_{3/2}/1\mathrm{GeV})^1`$. The evaporation time of the GMSB B ball in this figure is proportional to $`Q^{\frac{1}{4}}`$. This is because $`v\omega `$ and $`v`$ is proportional to $`Q^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, not $`Q`$ as the supergravity B ball.

In Fig. 5 we show the evaporation time of the B ball composed of $`\overline{u}_2\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2`$ as a function of $`Q`$ and $`M_5^{}`$, in a case where the B ball originates from the supergravity scalar potential, with $`m_{3/2}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`|K|^{\frac{1}{2}}=10`$. The thin lines are for $`(dQ/Qdt)^1=10^0`$, $`10^{20}`$, $`10^{40}`$ years. The bold lines are for the age of the Universe ($`10^{10}`$ years) and the big-bang nucleosynthesis time (1 second). For $`Q_{}^>10^{3840}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$ is larger than the Planck mass, and the region may be disfavoured from the theoretical point of view. The region for $`Q_{}^<10^{23}`$ is an unphysical region, since the B ball should be an unstable GMSB B ball from Fig. 1. This means that $`M_5^{}`$ should be larger than $`10^{28}\mathrm{GeV}`$ at least so that the B ball behaves as the DM of the Universe when $`m_{3/2}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$.

If the B ball evaporates before the time of the big-bang nucleosynthesis, it has no effect on the cosmology, except for the dilution of the baryon number of the Universe. On the other hand, if the B ball evaporation occurs after the nucleosynthesis and the abundance is not negligible, the energetic particles in the final state may destroy the success of the big-bang nucleosynthesis. Also, the entropy production may change the expansion rate of the Universe. In this article, we do not discuss the AD baryogenesis in detail; however, the evaporation of the B ball by the baryon-number-violating operators may give a constraint in the AD baryogenesis on the GMSB model, which predicts a B ball with large $`Q`$.

Finally, we comment on the other B balls. If the B ball is composed of $`\overline{u}_1\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2`$, the fermions $`\overline{u}_1`$, $`\overline{d}_1`$, and $`\overline{d}_2`$ are massive inside the B ball, and this might be in conflict with the assumption in the above formula, Eq. (29). However, the fermion associated with the flat direction, which is a linear combination of $`\overline{u}_1`$, $`\overline{d}_1`$ and $`\overline{d}_2`$, is still massless on the flat direction condensation, and the above formula is thus still applicable.

## 5 Constraint from observation of the cosmic rays

Even if some relic particle has a lifetime longer than the age of the Universe, the decay products may distort the cosmic-ray background. This leads to a constraint on the decaying DM. In fact, the relic axion  and the relic Kaluza-Klein graviton  are constrained from the the cosmic diffused gamma ray. In this section we derive constraints on the B ball evaporation rate from the cosmic diffused gamma background and the cosmic ray position flux.

First, we start from the position flux induced by the B ball evaporation. The positrons in the evaporation of the B ball have an almost monochromatic energy spectrum if the positron is the primary fermion in the evaporation process and if $`R_Q\omega _{}^>1`$ and $`v/\omega 1`$, as discussed in the previous section. However, the positrons are diffused by the galactic magnetic field and lose their energy through the inverse Compton and the synchrotron processes, by the starlight and the cosmic microwave background. In this article, we consider the standard diffusion model for the propagation of positrons in the galaxy, which was summarized in Ref. . In that article, the positron flux from the neutralino annihilation in the Halo was calculated, assuming that the neutralino is the DM in the Universe.

In their formulae, the diffusion zone of the positron in our galaxy is a slab of the thickness $`2L6`$kpc, and the positron density becomes zero outside that region, since the positrons escape freely there. The standard diffusion-loss equation for the positron density spectrum $`(dn_{e^+}/dE)`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}}{dϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\left[K(ϵ,𝐱)\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}}{dϵ}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ}}\left[b(ϵ,𝐱){\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}}{dϵ}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}^{(0)}}{dtdϵ}},`$ (35)
where $`ϵ=E/(1\mathrm{GeV})`$. Here, $`K(ϵ,𝐱)`$ is the diffusion constant, $`b(ϵ,𝐱)`$ the positron energy loss rate, and $`(dn_{e^+}^{(0)}/dtdϵ)`$ the source term.

In the diffusion zone the diffusion constant $`K(ϵ)`$ is

$`K(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`K_0(C+ϵ^\alpha )`$ (36)
$``$ $`3\times 10^{27}\left(3^{0.6}+ϵ^{0.6}\right)\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$
for $`E_{}^<3\mathrm{GeV}`$, and the positron energy loss rate $`b(ϵ)`$ is

$`b(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _E}}ϵ^2`$ (37)
$``$ $`10^{16}ϵ^2\mathrm{s}^1.`$
By deriving the stable solution for the diffusion-loss equation in the above environment, the positron spectrum originated from the DM is given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}}{dϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^2{\displaystyle _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}^{(0)}(ϵ^{})}{dtdϵ^{}}}\tau _D(ϵ,ϵ^{}).`$ (38)
Here, the energy-dependent diffusion time $`\tau _D(ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ is

$`\tau _D(ϵ,ϵ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4K_0\mathrm{\Delta }v}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\mathrm{Erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{()^nL\pm 2nLz}{\sqrt{4K_0\tau _E\mathrm{\Delta }v}}}\right)`$ (39)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dr^{}r^{}f(r^{})\stackrel{~}{I}_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{2rr^{}}{4K_0\tau _E\mathrm{\Delta }v}}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{(rr^{})^2}{4K_0\tau _E\mathrm{\Delta }v}}`$
where $`r`$ and $`z`$ are cylindric coordinates for the position of the solar system in our galaxy ($`r=8.5\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`z=0`$). The function $`\stackrel{~}{I}_0(x)`$ is $`I_0(x)\mathrm{e}^x`$ with $`I_0(x)`$ the modified Bessel function, and $`\mathrm{Erf}(x)`$ is the error function. We neglect the energy-dependent part of the diffusion constant, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }vC\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^{}}}\right).`$ (40)
The function $`f(r)`$ is

$`f(r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _L^L}𝑑z=g_{\mathrm{DM}}^m(\sqrt{r^2+z^2}),`$ (41)
with $`g_{\mathrm{DM}}(r_{sph})`$ $`(r_{sph}^2=r^2+z^2)`$ the DM density profile. The exponent $`m`$ is 1 for the decay process of the DM, and 2 for the annihilation process. In this article, we use the isothermal distribution for the DM density profiles,

$`g_{\mathrm{DM}}(r_{sph})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r_{sph}^2+a^2}},`$ (42)
with $`a=5`$ kpc. The $`N`$-body simulation suggests the cuspy density profile at the centre of the galaxy , and it may not be consistent with the isothermal distribution. However, the decay process is not sensitive to the density profile, and we thus use the isothermal distribution for the DM here.

If the positron flux comes from the evaporation of the B ball by the baryon-number-violating dimension-5 operators, the source term $`(dn_{e^+}^{(0)}/dtdE)`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{e^+}^{(0)}}{dtdE}}`$ $`=`$ $`n_0{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}\delta (Eq\omega ).`$ (43)
Here, we simplify the spectrum of the positron as a monochromatic one. This is justified for $`R_Q\omega >1`$ and $`v\omega `$ giving a long evaporation time, as shown in Fig. 3. We take the number density of the B ball $`n_0`$ as $`Q\omega _0n_0=0.3\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The diffusion and the energy reduction in the propagation makes a tail below $`q\omega `$ in the positron spectrum. In Fig. 6 we show the primary positron flux spectrum $`(d\mathrm{\Phi }_{e^+}^{(p)}/dE)`$, which is given as $`(d\mathrm{\Phi }_{e^+}^{(p)}/dE)(c/4\pi )(dn_{e^+}/dE)`$, assuming $`q\omega =300\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`q=1/3`$, and $`(dQ/Qdt)^1=10^{18}\mathrm{years}`$. Also, we take $`\omega _0=\omega `$ as for the supergravity B ball. If $`\omega _0=4\omega /3`$ as for the GMSB B ball, the primary flux is reduced by $`3/4`$.

While the cosmic ray positron flux is measured for an energy larger than about $`70\mathrm{MeV}`$ , the theoretical estimate of the background has uncertainties. The secondary positron flux, which comes from the nuclear interaction of the primary cosmic rays in the interstellar space, is estimated in Ref. . The result is fitted in Ref.  as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{e^+}^{(s)}}{dE}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4.5ϵ^{0.7}}{1+650ϵ^{2.3}+1500ϵ^{4.2}}}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1\mathrm{GeV}^1.`$ (44)
The qualitative behaviour of the positron fraction $`(e^+/(e^++e^{}))`$ in the cosmic ray, increasing of the positron flux at lower energy, is realized by assuming that the positron is of a secondary origin. However, the effect of the solar modulation from the solar wind and the magnetosphere to both the positron and electron fluxes is larger at lower energy. Especially, the introduction of the charge-dependent solar modulation makes the fit to the observation worse . Therefore, we derive a conservative constraint on the evaporation time of the B ball by imposing a condition that the peak of the primary flux from the B ball be smaller than ten times of the secondary flux, Eq. (44), and we obtain

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{Qdt}}\right)_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{>}2q\times 10^{19}\mathrm{years}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega _0n_0}{0.3\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\omega }{100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)^1,`$ (45)
for $`q\omega 100\mathrm{MeV}`$. From Fig. 5, this constraint means that $`M_5^{}`$ should be larger than $`10^{32}\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`Q_{}^>10^{22}`$, assuming the B ball is the DM of the Universe and $`m_{3/2}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Next, let us consider the distortion of the cosmic background radiation by $`\pi ^0`$ from the B ball evaporation. Although the gamma, which comes from $`\pi ^02\gamma `$, is almost monotonic at production time, the energy is reduced by the red-shift. As a result, the energy spectrum of the gamma from the B ball evaporation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_\gamma }{dE}}`$ $`=`$ $`3n_0{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}t_0E^{\frac{1}{2}}(q\omega )^{\frac{3}{2}},`$ (46)
for $`E<q\omega `$, assuming $`(dQ/Qdt)^1t_0`$. Here, we assume that the B ball evaporates through the baryon-number-violating dimension-5 operators and that the $`\pi ^0`$ has an energy $`2q\omega `$. From this equation (46), the flux of gamma rays for $`E<q\omega `$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma }{dE}}`$ $`=`$ $`7.9h^2\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ (47)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{(dQ/Qdt)^1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega _0n_0}{\rho _C}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{0.1\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\omega }{0.1\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{0.1\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Here, $`\rho _C`$ is the critical density of the Universe ($`\rho _C=1.1h^2\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$). In Fig. 7 we show the spectrum of the gamma rays flux from the B ball evaporation $`(d\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma /dE)`$, assuming $`q\omega =250\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`q=1/4`$, and $`10^{19}\mathrm{years}`$ for the evaporation time $`(dQ/Qdt)^1`$. Here we fix $`h=0.7`$ and $`t_0=10^{10}\mathrm{years}`$. Also, we take $`\omega _0=\omega `$ as for the supergravity B ball.

EGRET determines the extragalactic gamma ray background spectrum between 0.1 and $`50\mathrm{GeV}`$  as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma }{dE}}`$ $`=`$ $`(7.32\pm 0.34)\times 10^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{0.451\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{2.10\pm 0.03}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1\mathrm{GeV}^1.`$ (48)
Here, imposing the condition that the peak of the gamma spectrum from the B ball be smaller than Eq. (48) leads us to a constraint on the evaporation time of the B ball:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{Qdt}}\right)_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{>}5qh^2\times 10^{20}\mathrm{years}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{10^{10}\mathrm{years}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega _0n_0}{\rho _C}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\omega }{100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)^{0.1},`$ (49)
for $`q\omega 100\mathrm{MeV}`$. This is one order of magnitude stronger than the constraint from the positron flux.

## 6 Conclusions and discussion

In this article we discuss the stability of the B ball in the GMSB model. The B ball is predicted to exist in the GMSB model, assuming AD baryogenesis. While the stability of the B ball comes from the baryon-number conservation, the baryon-number-violating interaction is required to make the baryonic AD condensation, which is a seed for the B ball. The B ball could therefore be unstable. We find that a larger B ball evaporates faster, since the field value inside the B ball enhances the evaporation rate.

The evaluation of the evaporation rate of the B ball suffers from various difficulties, and we therefore restrict our calculation to a B ball of the mass-to-charge ratio $`\omega _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}100\mathrm{MeV}`$. We derive the constraints on the B ball charge and the interactions, when the B ball is composed of $`\overline{u}_2\overline{d}_1\overline{d}_2`$, as an example. Neglecting the chiral suppression from the final state, the suppression factor of the baryon-number-violating dimension-5 operator $`M_5^{}`$ should be larger than $`10^{27}(Q/10^{20})^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`m_{3/2}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$, so that the evaporation time $`(dQ/Qdt)^1`$ is longer than the age of the Universe ($`t_010^{10}\mathrm{years}`$). The final states of the evaporation may include the almost monochromatic positron or $`\pi ^0`$. If the B ball is the DM of the Universe, the evaporation may give a contribution to the extragalactic gamma ray background spectrum and to the cosmic ray positron flux. From the current data, we give constraints on the evaporation time from the primary positron flux and the gamma ray background, for $`\omega _0100\mathrm{MeV}`$, of $`(dQ/Qdt)_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{>}10^{18}`$ or $`10^{19}`$ years, which are stronger than the constraint from the age of the Universe.

The instability of the B ball will have some impact on the cosmology of the GMSB model. In this article, we do not discuss detail of the AD baryogenesis. The existence of the B ball may be preferred, as far as the AD field with the baryon numbers condensates in the GMSB model. If the B ball has an evaporation time shorter than the age of the Universe, the evaporation may supply the entropy production and the injection of a high-energy positron after the big-bang nucleosynthesis. Note that the B ball may explain the reionization of the Universe, indicated by the Gunn-Peterson test . It is well-known that the Universe is ionized at $`z3`$, from the absence of the strong Layman-alpha scattering light. While this may be explained by the huge star formation at the time, it may come from the late-time decay of an exotic relic particle, and the B ball may work for it.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank S. Asai, G. Giudice, S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki, L. Roszkowski, and N. Sugiyama for useful discussions. This work was started at the visiting program at the YITP of the Kyoto University. This was also supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, on Priority Area 707 “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles” (J.H.) and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education (12047217, M.M.N).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

###

## 1 Introduction

Recently Pereira et al  built a Kerr black hole  in Einstein’s teleparallel gravity  and computed the Lense-Thirring effect in this case.It is also interesting to notice that the effects of tensorial and axial parts of torsion cancel in the equation of motion and there is no effect of torsion outside the static Schwarzschild black hole.In this letter we also consider teleparallel Schwarzschild solution but on a complete different context.First we use the method of Cartan’s calculus of differential forms instead of the tetrad method used by Pereira et al. .In the second place we use a system of a cosmic torsion string ,not a spinning string  passing through the center of a static black hole as given in Vilenkin and Shellard .The use of differential forms and the computation of torsion 2-forms allows us to compute the torsion flux integrals in the teleparallel case.Since it is possible to compute the relation between the torsion forms and the spin 3-forms is possible to show that the torsion string inside the black hole are polarized along the the cosmic string itself.A similar result has been obtained just for the system of cosmic strings and spin polarised matter around it by Garcia de Andrade .It is also interesting to point out that the problem of torsion singularities inside the black hole is also computed and we found that some of the components of torsion are singular on the Schwarzschild radius $`r=2Gm`$ while others components of torsion form are finite.Therefore to decide whether the singularity is on the Schwarzschild radius or at the center of the black hole like happens in the curvature case in Einstein’s general relativity, one has to compute a torsion invariant analogous to the case of Kretschmann curvature scalar $`R^{ijkl}R_{ijkl}=\frac{2m}{r^3}`$ where $`R_{ijkl}`$ is the Riemann curvature tensor and $`i,j=0,1,2,3`$.It is shown from this computation that the true torsion singularity is at the center of blach hole which is also the locus of the torsion cosmic strings.In section $`2`$ we discuss the torsion singularities inside the Black Hole and compute the torsion components by using the teleparallel condition.In section $`3`$ the torsion flux is computed along with the spin polarisation direction of the spins inside the black hole.It is also interesting to note that this system maybe used in the case for example of neutrons stars with torsion strings inside to detect torsion since as it is well known this system possess about $`10^{40}`$ polarized spins .Just to give an idea of how big this figure is the ferromagnetic material which possess the highest spin density on Earth  is above $`10^{23}`$ polarised spins!

## 2 Torsion singularities inside Blach Holes

Let us consider the spacetime metric describing the black hole with a cosmic string torsion inside

$$ds^2=(1\frac{2m}{r})dt^2(1\frac{2m}{r})^1dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(1)
where now the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+(18G\mu )sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$ where $`\mu `$ is the string mass and m is the Black hole mass.In terms of Cartan exterior differential forms the metric (1) can be expressed as

$$ds^2=(\omega ^0)^2(\omega ^1)^2(\omega ^2)^2(\omega ^3)^2$$
(2)
where the basis 1-forms $`\omega ^i`$ are given by

$$\omega ^0=(1\frac{2m}{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}dt$$
(3)
$$\omega ^1=(1\frac{2m}{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}dr$$
(4)
$$\omega ^2=rd\theta $$
(5)
$$\omega ^0=(18G\mu )^{\frac{1}{2}}sin\theta d\varphi $$
(6)
From the Cartan structure equations

$$Q^i=d\omega ^i+\omega _j^i\omega ^j$$
(7)
where $`\omega _j^i`$ is the connection one-form and

$$R_j^i=R_{jkm}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma })\omega ^k\omega ^m=d\omega _j^i+\omega _k^i\omega _j^k$$
(8)
Here $``$ is the exterior product of forms symbol and $`R_{jkl}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are the components of the Riemann-Cartan geometry curvature tensor and $`R_j^i`$ is the curvature $`2form`$.Rewriting the metric (1) in the differential forms language one obtains

$$ds^2=\eta _{ij}\omega ^i\omega ^j$$
(9)
where $`\eta _{ij}=diag(+1,1,1,1)`$ is the tetrad Minkowski metric.By making use of the teleparallel condition $`R_{jkl}^i(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$ into the equation (8) we notice that the constraint

$$\omega _j^i=0$$
(10)
fulfills the teleparallel condition.Here we addopt this stronger teleparallel condition which also has been addopted by Letelier  in the construction of torsion loops in teleparallel spacetimes.By using the condition (10) into equation (7) one obtains the torsion 2-form in the form

$$Q^i=d\omega ^i=T_{jk}^i\omega ^j\omega ^k$$
(11)
where $`T_{jk}^i`$ are the components of the Cartan’s torsion tensor.Applying this simple expression to the expressions for the basis one-forms of the black hole torsion string system above one obtains after a quick computation one obtains the components of the torsion tensor as

$$T_{10}^0=\frac{\frac{Gm}{r^2}}{(1\frac{2Gm}{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$
(12)
$$T_{12}^2=\frac{1}{r}(1\frac{2Gm}{r})$$
(13)
$$T_{23}^3=\frac{cot\theta }{r}$$
(14)
From these last expressions one notes that some components of torsion are singular at the Schwarzschild radius and others are singular at the center of the Black Hole.To decide which locus of singularity represents the true singular behaviour and which represents simply a coordinate singularity, we compute the torsion quadratic invariant $`T_{ijk}T^{ijk}`$ which is the analogous to the curvature scalar invariant in Riemannian geometry.In teleparallel gravity this is the most fundamental tensor invariant since there is no way to build the Riemann-Cartan curvature invariant since this vanishes by the definition of teleparallelism.Therefore the scalar torsion invariant is

$$T^{ijk}T_{ijk}=2[\frac{(\frac{Gm}{r^2})^2}{(1\frac{2Gm}{r})}+\frac{(1\frac{2Gm}{r})}{r^2}+(18G\mu )\frac{ctg^2\theta }{r^2}]$$
(15)
From this expression shows clearly that at the Schwarzschild radius the torsion invariant  is $`T^{ijk}T_{ijk}`$ also vanishes as well as at the center of the black hole.Therefore there is no simple way to detect torsion singularities.The only thing we can say so far is that torsion is confined inside the Black Hole.Or Black Hole using Wheeler’s therminology would have no torsion hair!On the next section we compute the torsion flux to have a better idea of the behaviour of torsion inside the Black Hole.

## 3 Spin Polarised particles inside Black Holes from Torsion Strings

By making use of the mathematical apparatus of the previous section we shall compute in this section the torsion flux according to Anandan  as

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^i=\omega ^i$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the surface across which the torsion flux is computed and the second integral is the line integral due to the Stokes theorem.It is easy to note from the expressions for the torsion forms $`Q^i`$ that the only nonvanishing torsion flux is given by the integral

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^i=\omega ^3=(18G\mu )^{\frac{1}{2}}sin\theta 𝑑\varphi =2\pi (18G\mu )^{\frac{1}{2}}sin\theta $$
(17)
Note that from this formula there is no torsion flux along the cosmic string ,where $`\theta `$ takes the value $`0`$ or $`2\pi `$.Therefore there is torsion flux along the direction around the cosmic torsion string as a torsion vortex in the case of superfluids.Note also that for a torsion string of mass $`\mu =\frac{1}{8G}`$ there is no torsion flux around this direction and no torsion flux at all!We could imagine this case as the system of black hole and torsion strings would shield totally the effects of torsion!Let us now make use of Cartan’s equation relating the spin 3-form to the torsion 2-form to investigate the polarisation effect of the cosmic torsion string on the spinning particles of the spinning fluids of black holes.There is a small controversy if the teleparallel theories should possess spin density but here we addopt the point of view that the spin density is allowed in teleparallel gravity .From Cartan’s equation

$$s_{ij}=\frac{1}{8\pi G}[Q^k\omega ^lϵ_{ijkl}]$$
(18)
since the the only nonvanishing component of the torsion form is

$$Q^3=\frac{cot\theta }{r}\omega ^2\omega ^3$$
(19)
we can easily obtained the component of spin we wish by simply substituting formula (19) into expression (18) to yield

$$s_{12}=\frac{1}{8\pi G}[\frac{cot\theta }{r}\omega ^2\omega ^3\omega ^0ϵ_{1230}]$$
(20)
which shows that the polarisation of the spinning particles around the torsion string inside the black holes occur along the torsion string direction in analogy with the magnetic field which orients the magnetized particles along the magnetic field direction.Note that from expression (20) the spin density seems to be singular at $`r=0`$.This nevertheless does not imply a Dirac delta distribution since off the torsion string there is matter inside the black hole in the form of spinning fluid in teleparallel gravity.

## 4 Conclusions

Torsion strings immersed on static black holes are shown to induce spin polarization of black hole spinning fluid along the torsion string direction itself.This is analogous to the polarisation of magnetic moment polarisation in magnetic materials in condensed matter physics.It is possible that in near future other types of torsion defects  other than the torsion strings may be constructed inside teleparallel black holes.

## Acknowledgments

I am very much indebt to P.S.Letelier and J.G.Pereira for helpful discussions on the subject of this paper.Financial support from Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) and CNPq. is grateful acknowledged.


text:
# 1 The neutron-to-proton ratio N/Z and relative yield of hot primary fragments produced after break-up of Au nuclei at different excitation energies: 3 (solid lines), 4 (dashed lines), 5 (dotted lines) and 8 (dot-dashed lines) MeV per nucleon.

Statistical evolution of fragment isospin in nuclear multifragmentation.

A.S. Botvina

Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany

and Institute for Nuclear Research, 117312 Moscow, Russia

## Abstract

Two instructive effects concerning fragment production at disintegration of finite nuclei are predicted with the statistical multifragmentation model: (1) a concentration of neutrons in intermediate mass fragments during the phase transition, (2) the break of the spatial symmetry of the fragment’s isospin distribution, as well as of the symmetry of the fragment’s emission from a statistical source, induced by the external Coulomb field.

The knowledge of the isotope composition of fragments produced in nuclear multifragmentation can help in resolving the important problems: Do the fragments keep the memory of the initial dynamical stage or are they produced statistically? How does the isospin influence disintegration of finite nuclei and what is the difference to the case of nuclear matter? What is the isospin dependence of the nuclear equation of state? Generally, this study addresses an intriguing interdisciplinary problem of the phase transition in a finite-size two-component system (i.e. in a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons), that is instructive for all fields dealing with finite systems. The problem was investigated within the statistical multifragmentation model (SMM) , which is successfully used for explanation of experimental data. A new Markov chain method of partition generation was incorporated in the model , that allows for considering the multifragmentation process on a solid microcanonical basis. The presented results reflect statistical properties of the fragment production and can be used for identification of the phenomenon.

Presently, one of the extensively discussed topics is the isospin fractionation at disintegration of excited nuclei . Fig. 1 shows mass distributions and neutron-to-proton ratios (N/Z) of the fragments produced after multifragmentation of a Au source (mass number $`A_s`$=197, charge $`Z_s`$=79), the calculations were performed at the standard SMM parameters . One can see a general statistical trend: the N/Z ratio of hot primary fragments increases with their mass numbers. This is a consequence of the interplay between the Coulomb and symmetry energy contributions to the binding energy of fragments . This trend persists up to $`AA_s/2`$, while at larger $`A`$ the finite-size effects due to the mass and charge conservation prevail. In Fig. 1 one can also see the evolution of the N/Z ratio and mass distribution of fragments in the excitation energy range $`E_s^{}`$=3–8 MeV/nucleon. This energy range is usually associated with a liquid-gas type phase transition in finite nuclei, where the fragment mass distribution evolves from the U–shape, at the multifragmentation threshold $`E_s^{}3`$ MeV/nucleon, to an exponential fall at high energies. During this evolution the temperature reaches a ”plateau” and is nearly constant . As the energy increases the N/Z ratio of primary intermediate mass fragments (IMF, charges Z=3–20) increases, too. The reason is that the heaviest neutron-rich fragments are destroyed at increasing excitation energy, and some of their neutrons are bound in the IMFs, since the number of free neutrons is still small at this stage. Simultaneously, the N/Z ratio of the heaviest fragments decreases slightly. At very high excitation energy ($`E_s^{}>8`$ MeV/nucleon) the N/Z ratio of IMFs does not rise anymore but drops because no heavier fragments are left and the number of free neutrons increases rapidly, together with the temperature. This isospin evolution shows how the isospin fractionation phenomenon predicted for nuclear matter  actually shows up in finite nuclear systems. In the region associated with the phase transition in neutron-rich nuclear systems we expect rather increasing neutron content of IMFs than increasing the number of free neutrons. Such a mechanism is consistent with recent experimental data .

In peripheral nucleus–nucleus collisions at projectile energies of 10–100 MeV/nucleon the break-up of highly excited projectile-like nuclei is fast (the characteristic time is around 100 fm/c) and happens in the vicinity of a target-like residue. In this case the Coulomb field of the target residue can influence the fragmentation of the projectile source and break the symmetry of the phase space population which exists for an isolated statistical source. This leads to spatial asymmetry of the fragment emission: small fragments are preferably emitted to the side of the target . SMM calculations were performed for the Au projectile source which was placed at a fixed distance (20 fm) from another Au source simulating the target residue. This distance was obtained under the assumption that the break-up happens at $``$100 fm/c after a peripheral collision of a 35 $`A`$MeV Au projectile with a Au target.

Fig. 2 shows the spatial distributions of yields and N/Z ratios of hot primary IMFs with $`Z`$=8 and the biggest fragments in the freeze-out volume along the axis connecting the projectile and target sources. It is seen that in the case of a single isolated source all distributions are symmetric with respect to the center of mass of the source. In the case of an external Coulomb field induced by the target source, the IMFs are mainly located at the target side while the biggest fragments are shifted to the opposite direction. Such positioning of fragments minimizes the Coulomb energy of the target-projectile system. If we take into account an angular momentum possibly transfered to the projectile source during the collision the N/Z ratio of the IMFs increases considerably and becomes larger for the IMFs which are closer to the target. The reason is an interplay between the Coulomb and rotational energy. An angular momentum favors the emission of IMFs with larger mass numbers, providing a larger moment of inertia, in oder to minimize the rotational energy and maximize the entropy. On the other side the Coulomb interaction, depending also on the fragment distance to the target, prevents the emission of IMFs with large charges. As a result of the interplay of these two factors we obtain neutron-rich fragments. The subsequent Coulomb propagation pushes the IMFs in the direction of the target providing predominant population of the midrapidity kinematic region by neutron-rich IMFs. This mechanism should be considered as a purely statistical alternative to a dynamical explanation of the neutron-rich IMF emission at midrapidity referring to the ”neck fragmentation” phenomenon . Theoretically such a process is an example of a new kind of statistical emission induced by an inhomogeneous external long–range field .


text:
# 1 Proton Structure Function 𝐹₂ at Small-𝑥

## 1 Proton Structure Function $`F_2`$ at Small-$`x`$

### 1.1 Deep Inelastic Scattering and $`F_2`$

Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS) of electrons (or positrons) with a proton is shown in Figure 1. The reaction proceeds through the exchange of a virtual boson; in the kinematic range covered in this talk, only photon exchange is important. The reaction can be described completely by two kinematic variables chosen to be the four-momentum transfer squared, $`Q^2=q^2`$ (see Figure 1), and the Bjorken variable, $`x`$. In the Quark Parton Model, $`x`$ is the fraction of the initial proton momentum carried by the struck parton.

The DIS cross-section factorizes into a short-distance part which is the partonic cross-section, $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, which can be calculated perturbatively in QCD, and a long-distance non-perturbative part, the parton densities, $`f`$.

At sufficiently high $`Q^2`$, the parton densities, $`f`$, obey the DGLAP equation , which is written schematically as,

$$\frac{f}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}fP,$$
(1)
where $`P`$ are the splitting functions that describe the branching of quarks and gluons, and $``$ symbolizes a convolution.

The DIS differential cross-section can be written in terms of the proton structure function $`F_2`$ as

$$\frac{d\sigma ^2}{dxdQ^2}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{xQ^4}(1+(1y)^2)F_2(x,Q^2),$$
(2)
where $`y=Q^2/xs`$ is the inelasticity parameter, and $`s`$ is the CMS energy squared of the $`ep`$ collision. The longitudinal structure function $`F_L`$ and the effects of $`Z^0`$ exchange have been neglected in Equation (2).

At leading order,

$$F_2(x,Q^2)=x\underset{q}{}e_q^2(q(x,Q^2)+\overline{q}(x,Q^2)),$$
(3)
where $`q`$, $`\overline{q}`$ are the quark and antiquark distributions, respectively.

Figure 2 shows the $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ range of the currently available measurements of $`F_2`$. At the HERA $`ep`$ collider, with $`\sqrt{s}`$ of about 300 GeV, $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ can be varied over six orders of magnitude. Of particular relevance to this talk is the region of smallest $`x`$, which is probed only at HERA.

The measurements of $`F_2`$ at HERA show that the structure function rises steeply at small $`x`$ (see Figure 3) .

If $`F_2`$ at $`x<`$ 0.1 is parameterized as $`x^\lambda `$, then $`\lambda `$ falls as a function of $`Q^2`$ from about 0.4 to 0.1 as $`Q^2`$ falls from 200 GeV2 to 1 GeV2. At $`Q^2`$ of 10 GeV2, $`\lambda `$ is about 0.2 (Figure 4) .

The naive physical interpretation of the small-$`x`$ rise of $`F_2`$ is that it is caused by more and more gluons (and thus sea-quarks) being present at smaller and smaller fractional momenta values, i.e. $`x`$.

The scaling violations of $`F_2`$ (i.e. the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_2`$ at fixed $`x`$, as seen in Figure 5) at low $`x`$ are related, in Leading Order (LO) DGLAP, simply to the gluon density of the proton ,

$$\frac{F_2(x/2,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\alpha _sxg(x,Q^2).$$
(4)
In Next-to-LO (NLO) DGLAP, the simple relationship of Equation (4) no longer holds. However, the gluon density may be extracted from the NLO DGLAP fits to $`F_2`$.

As an example of such fits, the one made by the H1 collaboration is briefly described .

The fit is made to the H1 data and the BCDMS $`\mu p`$ data at $`Q^2>3.5`$ GeV2. The flavor decomposition of $`F_2`$ into the gluon $`xg`$, the valence component $`V`$, and the sea component $`A`$ is done in such a way as to allow the use of proton data only and avoid the deuteron data which introduces nuclear-correction uncertainties.

The $`xg`$, $`V`$, and $`A`$ distributions are parameterized in the form $`ax^b(1x)^c\times `$ $`(1+d\sqrt{x}+ex)`$. The momentum sum rule is imposed leading to 16 parameters to be fitted including $`\alpha _s`$. The fits are made by employing Equations (1) and (3) (in their NLO versions).

Figure 6 shows the gluon density extracted from the fit. In keeping with the naive expectation of a gluon-driven $`F_2`$, the gluons also rise steeply at low $`x`$. As $`Q^2`$ falls, the steepness of the gluon also becomes less, as in the case of $`F_2`$ itself.

### 1.2 DIS and $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$

Figure 2 shows that due to the kinematic limit at HERA, the measurements of $`F_2`$ at the smallest $`x`$ values of $`10^6`$$`10^5`$ correspond to rather small values of $`Q^2`$, well below 1 GeV2. In this kinematic range, it is appropriate to describe DIS in the hadronic language of a collision between a virtual photon and a proton. The appropriate variable, in this case, becomes the virtual-photon proton CMS energy, $`W\sqrt{Q^2/x}`$.

The total virtual-photon proton cross-section, at small-$`x`$, can be written in terms of $`F_2`$ as

$$\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}(W^2,Q^2)=\frac{4\pi ^2\alpha }{Q^2}F_2(x,Q^2).$$
(5)
For fixed $`Q^2`$, $`F_2x^\lambda `$ implies $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}W^{2\lambda }`$. The structure function $`F_2`$ must vanish as $`Q^2`$, for fixed $`W`$, as $`Q^2`$ approaches 0, by conservation of EM current. At $`Q^2=0`$ (photoproduction), the cross-section, $`\sigma _{tot}(W)`$, is described by Regge phenomenology, and is known to agree with the universal hadron-hadron cross-section behavior at high energies, $`\sigma _{tot}(W)W^{2(\alpha _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}1)}`$ . The Pomeron intercept $`\alpha _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ has the value 1.08 . Thus at $`Q^2=0`$, $`\sigma _{tot}(W)W^{0.16}`$, in contrast to $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}(W^2,Q^2)W^{0.4}`$ at $`Q^2`$ 10 GeV2.

Figure 7 shows the measured $`F_2`$ at fixed $`y=W^2/s`$ down to the $`Q^2`$ value of 0.04 GeV2. $`F_2`$ begins to fall as $`Q^2`$ below $`Q^2<`$ 1 GeV2. The dashed line is a Regge inspired fit in the form $`F_2(x,Q^2)=(\frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha })(\frac{M_0^2}{M_0^2+Q^2})(A_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}}(W^2)^{\alpha _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}}1}+A_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}(W^2)^{\alpha _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}1})`$. The $`\alpha _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ value of 1.1 gives a good fit. This is consistent with the value of Pomeron intercept discussed above .

Also shown in Figure 7 is a NLO DGLAP fit which gives a good description of the data from high $`Q^2`$ down to about 1 GeV2.

### 1.3 Beyond DGLAP?

The interest in small-$`x`$ physics is that the partons under study are the result of a large number of QCD branching processes. The evolution of the number of partons over a wide kinematic range in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ should be sensitive to the applicability of different perturbative approximations of QCD.

Figure 8 shows the qualitative expectation of applicability of various pQCD approaches. DGLAP is a resummation of terms proportional to ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) and is expected to hold in the region of large $`Q^2`$. BFKL  is a resummation of terms proportional to ($`\mathrm{ln}1/x`$) and, while the stability of the perturbative expansion still under study , it is expected to hold in the region of small $`x`$. The CCFM  equation incorporates both ($`\mathrm{ln}1/x`$) and ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) terms.

At small enough $`x`$, the density of partons should become sufficiently large so that the interactions between them become important. This boundary is marked in Figure 8 by the line labeled “critical line”. The GLR equations  attempt to take these saturation, or shadowing, effects into account.

It has been shown above that the DGLAP formalism is able to describe the currently available $`F_2`$ data down to 1 GeV2 and $`x`$ of $`10^5`$ in apparent contradiction to Figure 8, at least with the $`1/x`$ scale numbers as drawn.

On the other hand, there have also been successful fits to a wide range of $`F_2`$ data using formalisms that incorporate the ($`\mathrm{ln}1/x`$) terms as well as the ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) terms .

In search of clarification, we turn next to the phenomenon of DIS diffraction, and vector meson production, before returning to consider if there are any indications in the $`F_2`$ data for dynamics beyond DGLAP.

## 2 Diffraction in DIS

One of the striking results from HERA is the presence of diffractive events in DIS . About 10% of all DIS events have a gap in particle emission between the final-state proton, or a low mass state, which travels down the beampipe, and the system $`X`$, which is measured in the detector (Figure 9). Such a reaction is usually described as an exchange of a colorless object, generically called the Pomeron ($`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}`$).

In order to describe diffractive DIS, two kinematic variables in addition to $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ are needed. These are $`t`$, which is the momentum transfer at the proton vertex and $`x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$, which is the fractional momentum of the proton carried by the Pomeron. Another useful variable is $`\beta =x/x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$, which has an interpretation as the fractional momentum of the Pomeron carried by the struck parton (i.e. the Pomeron analogue of $`x`$ for the proton).

Any perturbative description of diffractive DIS must go beyond the simplest DGLAP picture; the lack of color connections between the system $`X`$ and the proton must mean that at least two gluons are exchanged. It is then interesting to investigate the connection between the high gluon densities implied by the $`F_2`$ measurements and the phenomenon of DIS diffraction.

### 2.1 Diffractive Factorization and Pomeron Structure

The diffractive cross-section, in analogy with the total cross-section, is written in terms of the diffractive structure function $`F_2^D`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^D}{d\beta dQ^2dx_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{\beta Q^4}}(1+(1y)^2)`$
$`\times F_2^{D(3)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}).`$ (6)
The cross-section has been integrated over $`t`$. It has been proven that $`F_2^D`$ factorizes into a long and a short distance contributions, as does the inclusive $`F_2`$, i.e. $`F_2^Df^D\widehat{\sigma }`$ where $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ are the usual pQCD hard cross-sections and $`f^D`$ are the diffractive parton densities, which obey the usual DGLAP equations, and are universal . By knowing $`f^D`$, we can calculate any diffractive DIS final state such as charm or jet production.

The diffractive parton densities are functions of four variables: $`x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$, $`t`$, $`\beta `$ and $`Q^2`$. However, the DGLAP evolution only concerns the variables $`x`$ (or $`\beta `$) and $`Q^2`$. If, for all relevant $`f^D`$’s, the $`x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ and $`t`$ dependences decouple from the $`\beta `$ and $`Q^2`$ dependence, and if the $`x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ and $`t`$ dependences are the same for all relevant partons, then we arrive at what is known as Regge factorization ,

$$F_2^D(x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}},t,Q^2,\beta )=f(x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}},t)F_2^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}(\beta ,Q^2).$$
(7)
In this case $`f(x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}},t)`$ can be interpreted as the flux factor of the Pomeron, and $`F_2^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ as the structure function of the Pomeron. In this case DGLAP analysis of $`F_2^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ becomes meaningful. It is a remarkable experimental fact that Regge factorization, which is not required by the diffractive factorization theorem, apparently holds over a large part of the measured phase-space, and that the flux factor, $`f(x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}},t)`$, has approximately the form expected by Regge theory of $`1/x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}^{2\overline{\alpha }_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}1}`$  (see also Figure 17a).

Figure 10 shows the measurements of $`F_2^{D(3)}`$ by the H1 collaboration for $`x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ of 0.005 . The lines are the results of the DGLAP analysis. The resulting parton distributions in the Pomeron is shown in Figure 11.

The analysis finds two stable solutions, one of which (dotted line) favors a rather large amount of gluons at $`z_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}=1`$, and the second which does not (solid line). The fractional momentum carried by the parton in the Pomeron is denoted by $`z_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$, and the renormalization and factorization scale by $`\mu `$.

The recent measurement by H1 of dijet production in diffraction  shows that the Pomeron parton distributions extracted from the DGLAP analysis can indeed be used to describe the dijet cross-section in diffractive events (Figure 12). The jet measurement favors the parton distributions labelled “fit 2” in Figure 11.

### 2.2 Diffraction and $`F_2`$ at Small-$`x`$

While the analyses based on diffractive factorization have been very successful and powerful, the question of the origin of the phenomenon of DIS diffraction remains unanswered. Furthermore, the relationship between the Pomeron structure and the proton structure is not clear.

Figure 13 shows the ratio, for fixed $`Q^2`$, of the DIS diffractive cross section to the total DIS cross-section as measured by the ZEUS collaboration. Although a cut has been made in the mass of the diffractive system, $`M_X`$, the conclusion is independent of $`M_X`$: the ratio is flat as a function of $`W`$ or, equivalently for fixed $`Q^2`$, of $`x`$ . The flatness of the ratio implies that the energy dependence of DIS diffraction is the same as that of inclusive DIS, i.e. $`W^{0.4}`$ at $`Q^210`$ GeV2.

This result is surprising from several points of view. A naive expectation from the optical theorem would lead to diffractive cross sections that rise twice as fast as the inclusive one. In other words, if the rise of the inclusive cross-section is driven by a gluon density that rises as $`x^\lambda `$ (or $`W^{2\lambda }`$), then for diffractive process that needs to couple to at least two gluons, the cross-section should rise as $`x^{2\lambda }`$. At the same time, the energy dependence of the diffractive cross-section also contradicts Regge phenomenology, which expects an energy dependence of $`W^{0.250.3}`$.

The lines in Figure 13 that describe the data qualitatively are from the dipole model of Golec-Biernat and Wüsthoff , briefly described below.

### 2.3 Impact Parameter Space (or Dipole) Models

The infinite momentum frame of DIS, which is appropriate for the DGLAP formalism, is obviously not the only possible frame of reference. In the impact parameter, or dipole, formalism, the appropriate frame of reference is that in which the virtual photon dissociates into a quark-anti quark pair (or a more complicated state), which forms a color dipole which collides with the proton (Figure 14).

The description of the interaction of this color dipole with the proton distinguishes the various models of this type that have been proposed . In this presentation, a particularly simple model due to Golec-Biernat and Wüsthoff (GB&W) will be described.

In the GB&W model, the cross-section of the dipole, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$, with the proton is modeled simply as a function that smoothly interpolates between two limits (Figure 15); at small dipole radius, $`r`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$ increases as $`r^2`$ in keeping with the behavior of perturbative QCD. At large $`r`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$ becomes constant to preserve unitarity. The saturation of the dipole cross-section can be qualitatively shown to correspond to the saturation of partons in the proton .

In the model, the point at which the $`r^2`$ dependence of the cross-section changes to the constant behavior depends on the density of the partons in the proton. Specifically, a parameter, $`R_01/xg(x)x^\lambda `$, which can be interpreted as the separation of partons in the proton, is introduced. When $`rR_0`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$ is in the “pQCD” region, while when $`rR_0`$, it is in the saturation region (Figure 16a and 16b, respectively).

The dipole radius, $`r`$, enters through the wave function of the virtual photon, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma `$, and the diffractive cross-section is written, up to a $`t`$ dependence, as,

$`\sigma ^D{\displaystyle d^2r𝑑z}`$
$`\times |\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (z,r)|^2\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}^2(x,r),`$
$`(8)`$
where $`z`$ is the fractional momentum of one of the quarks in the dipole.

The diffractive cross-section is explicitly related to the total cross-section, which is,

$$\sigma _{tot}d^2r𝑑z|\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (z,r)|^2\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}(x,r).$$
(9)
The fact that $`\sigma ^D/\sigma _{tot}`$ is constant as a function of $`W`$ (or $`x`$), as shown in Figure 13, can be shown to occur only if the dipole cross-section is being probed in these processes beyond the small $`r`$ region into the saturation region. The implication of this for the total cross-section will be discussed below.

In Figure 17a, the measurements of $`F_2^D`$, this time from the ZEUS collaboration, are shown along with the prediction of the GB&W model. There is qualitative agreement. Figure 17b shows the recent measurement of $`F_2^D`$ at very low $`Q^2`$ . The GB&W model again describes the data qualitatively.

## 3 Diffractive Vector Meson Production

The exclusive production of vector mesons (VM) in DIS is a process which is closely related to DIS inclusive diffraction. As seen in Figure 18, the final state X in Figure 9 is replaced by a vector meson. Let us review the energy dependences of the processes we have discussed so far:

* The total real photoproduction cross-section, $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma p}`$, increases in accordance with the Regge expectation, i.e. $`W^{2(\alpha _{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}1)}W^{0.16}`$.
* The total virtual-photon proton cross-section, $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$, at $`Q^210`$ GeV2 increases approximately as $`W^{0.4}`$, corresponding to $`F_2`$ rising as $`x^{0.2}`$.
* The diffractive DIS cross-section, $`\sigma ^D`$, has approximately the same energy dependence as $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$, i.e. increases as $`W^{0.4}`$ at $`Q^210`$ GeV2.

The energy dependence of exclusive vector meson production at $`Q^2=0`$ (photoproduction) is summarized in Figure 19. While the production of light vector mesons, $`\rho `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$, have a weak energy dependence consistent with Regge expectations, the $`J/\psi `$ production cross-section rises rapidly with energy, as $`W^{0.8}`$, i.e. twice as fast as $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}`$, at $`Q^210`$ GeV2. It is the fastest energy dependence of the processes discussed so far .

The $`Q^2`$ dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ production cross-section has been studied, but is still statistics limited. There is no evidence for a change of the energy dependence up to $`Q^2`$ of 15 GeV2 .

The $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`\rho `$ production cross-section is shown in Figure 20 , which shows $`\delta `$, as obtained from a fit to the form $`W^\delta `$, as a function of $`Q^2`$. The energy dependence clearly rises as a function of $`Q^2`$, although the precise form is not yet clear from the limited statistics.

In Figure 21, $`\delta `$ for various species of vector mesons has been plotted as a function of $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$, where $`M_{VM}`$ is the mass of the vector meson. While the statistics are still limited, the data are consistent with a scaling of $`\delta `$ with $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$. If we recall that $`\delta =2\lambda `$ (see Section 1.2), we can compare the energy dependence of vector meson production with that of inclusive DIS.

Comparing Figure 21 with Figure 4 which shows $`\lambda `$ extracted from fits to $`F_2`$ to the form $`x^\lambda `$ for $`x<0.1`$, it can be seen that $`\lambda _{(VM)}(Q^2+M_{VM}^2)2\lambda _{(F_2)}(Q^2)`$. This means that the vector meson production has an energy dependence at $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$ which is twice as fast as that of the inclusive DIS cross-section at $`Q^2`$.

The ratio of cross-sections of different species of vector mesons to the $`\rho `$ meson is shown in Figure 22 as a function of $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$. The ratio is flat as a function of $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$ and is consistent with the ratios $`\rho :\omega :\varphi :J/\psi `$ being 9:1:2:8. Such ratios are expected from the coupling of a photon to a vector meson, $`f_{VM}^2`$, from simple charge counting of the quark content of the vector mesons.

In the Vector Meson Dominance Model (VDM) of the production of vector mesons in photon (or virtual photon) proton collisions, the cross-section is given as $`\sigma _{VM}=f_{VM}^2\sigma _{VMp}`$, where $`\sigma _{VMp}`$ is the vector-meson proton cross-section. The fact that the ratio of the cross-sections is given by $`f_{VM}^2`$ implies that $`\sigma _{VMp}`$ for different species of vector mesons scales as $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$. In the context of color dipole models, the implication is that $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$ gives a measure of the radius, $`r`$, of the color dipole, which is the primary variable on which the cross-section depends.

Figure 23 shows the values of the $`t`$ slope, $`b`$, where the vector meson cross-sections are parameterized as $`d\sigma _{VM}/d|t|e^{b|t|}`$. The parameter $`b`$ is plotted as a function of $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$. Within the statistical accuracy of the measurements, $`b`$ scales with $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$ and decreases with increasing $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$. This is an indication that $`Q^2+M_{VM}^2`$ is indeed giving the effective radius of the interaction, and thus the radius of the vector meson, or the color dipole.

The cross-section for diffractive vector meson production can be written in the color dipole model as,

$`\sigma _{VM}|{\displaystyle }dz{\displaystyle }d^2r\mathrm{\Psi }_{VM}`$
$`\times \widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma |^2,`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{VM}`$ is the wave function of the vector meson, which, in contrast to the virtual photon wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma `$, is not a well known quantity. Recently, evaluation of vector meson production in the context of Equation (10) and the dipole cross-section, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$, from the GB&W model has been made . Simple wave-functions for the vector mesons were chosen. The results reproduce the elastic $`J/\psi `$ cross-section and their energy dependence very well. For the lighter mesons, $`\varphi `$ and $`\rho `$, the calculations fail to give a good description of the magnitude of the cross-sections. However, the steepening of the energy dependence with increasing $`Q^2`$ (Figure 20) is well reproduced.

## 4 $`F_2`$ at Small-$`x`$ Revisited

In the first part of this presentation, it was stated that the proton $`F_2`$ measured so far at HERA and elsewhere is well described by fits using DGLAP equations above $`Q^2`$ of 1 GeV2, and a model combining Regge theory and Vector Meson Dominance has been shown to work well below 1 GeV2.

The dipole model description of the total DIS cross-section (or $`F_2`$) is given in Equation (9). Currently the formal connection between the DGLAP interpretation and the dipole models is far from clear . However many dipole models, in particular the GB&W model, describe the dynamics of cross-section saturation which goes beyond the physics of the DGLAP picture. Thus, it is appropriate to revisit the inclusive DIS data and ask if there are any indications of behavior beyond DGLAP, even though the DGLAP fits are successful.

The DGLAP evolution equations, at low $`x`$ and at LO, imply that the partial derivative of $`F_2`$ with respect to ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) is proportional to $`xg(x,Q^2)`$, the gluon momentum density of the proton (Equation (4)). On the other hand, at sufficiently low $`Q^2`$, $`F_2`$ must vanish as $`Q^2`$ from current conservation, a behavior built into the GB&W model but not in the DGLAP formulation of DIS:

$$\frac{F_2}{\mathrm{log}Q^2}Q^2\sigma _0.$$
(11)
Since $`W`$ at low $`x`$ is related to $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ by $`W^2Q^2/x`$, the plot of $`F_2/\mathrm{log}Q^2`$ at a constant $`W`$, over the $`Q^2`$ range covered by the data, should show a transition from the behavior according to Equation (4) to that of Equation (11), provided $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ has a weak $`Q^2`$ dependence and $`\sigma _0`$, which corresponds to the photoproduction cross-section, has a weak $`x`$ (or equivalently energy) dependence. Since there is no quantitative prediction for the kinematic region in which the DGLAP formalism is applicable, the determination of the $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ at which this transition occurs is of great interest and may help in clarifying the nature of the transition .

Figure 24 shows recent measurements of $`F_2`$ from the ZEUS collaboration along with the fixed target measurements  from the NMC and the E665 collaborations. $`F_2`$ is shown as a function of $`Q^2`$ for bins of fixed $`x`$. Where necessary, the measurements have been interpolated to the appropriate values of $`x`$ using the ALLM parameterization . The $`F_2`$ in each bin of fixed $`x`$ is offset by an additive factor of $`(\mathrm{log}_{10}x)`$ to ensure that the vertical separation between the bins is monotonic in $`x`$. Therefore, at low $`x`$, the line connecting $`F_2\mathrm{log}_{10}x`$ at constant $`W`$ would be a straight line, as a function of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}Q^2`$, if $`F_2`$ were a constant and contained no dynamics.

The parameterization $`A(x)+B(x)\mathrm{log}_{10}Q^2+C(x)(\mathrm{log}_{10}Q^2)^2`$ has been used to fit the $`F_2`$ measurements at each value of $`x`$. The quality of the fit is good, and the result is shown in Figure 24 as solid lines. The constant $`W`$ points on the parameterizations have been found according to the formula $`W^2=Q^2(1/x1)`$, and are indicated on the plot with dashed lines. It is interesting to note the distortion in the fixed-$`W`$ lines that occurs at $`x`$10-4 at relatively high $`Q^2`$ 5 GeV2 and at $`W`$ above 85 GeV.

In Figure 25, the derivatives of $`F_2`$, evaluated from the fit $`B+2C\mathrm{log}_{10}Q^2`$, are shown. The errors of the derivatives are evaluated using the errors on, and correlations between, the parameters $`B`$ and $`C`$ obtained from the polynomial fits. Figure 25a shows the derivatives at constant $`W`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$, whereas Figure 25b shows the same as a function of $`x`$.

Figure 25a shows that at lower $`Q^2`$, corresponding to lower $`x`$ in Figure 25b, the derivatives fall as $`Q^2`$ decreases and tend to become independent of $`W`$ at $`Q^2`$ of about 0.4 GeV2. This is in line with the expectation of Equation (11).

Figure 25b shows that at higher $`x`$, corresponding to higher $`Q^2`$ in Figure 25a, the derivatives fall with increasing $`x`$ and tend to become independent of $`W`$ at $`x>`$ 0.003, in line with the expectation of Equation (4), if $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ has the form $`x^\lambda `$ and only a slow dependence on $`Q^2`$.

The value of $`Q^2`$, or $`x`$, where the slope of the derivatives changes sign can be read off from Figures 25a and 25b.

This transition, for values of $`W`$ above 85 GeV, happens at a relatively high $`Q^2`$ of 2-6 GeV2 at the corresponding $`x`$ of 5$``$10-4 to 3$``$10-3.

The dashed lines in Figure 25 are the prediction of the GB&W model, which explicitly incorporates the transition between the behaviors described in Equations (11) and (4) as a transition between the pQCD region and the saturation region of the dipole cross-section. The lines are drawn only at $`x`$ $`<`$ 0.01 where the model is applicable. The solid line is the result of a DGLAP fit by the ZEUS collaboration. The line is drawn only above $`Q^2>2.7`$ GeV2, where data have been fit. In case of the DGLAP fit, the peaking behavior of Figure 25 is related to the rapid decrease of the gluon density at low $`x`$ between Q2 of 10 GeV2 and 1 GeV2 .

Figure 26 is a 2-dimensional visualization of the qualitative features of Figure 25. The lines of constant $`W`$ (“trajectories”), plotted as thick solid lines, when projected to the $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ axes, approximately give Figures 22a and 22b, respectively. The peak structure of the constant $`W`$ lines represents the transition from the region where $`F_2/log_{10}x`$ is steeply rising with $`log_{10}x`$ to the region where it is steeply rising with $`log_{10}Q^2`$, behaviors corresponding to Equations (4) and (11), respectively. The position of the peak structure does not depend strongly on the “trajectory”, $`f(x,Q^2)`$, at which the derivatives are plotted, chosen to be $`W^2Q^2/x`$ in Figure 25. Inspection of Figure 26 shows that almost any choice of a function $`f(x,Q^2)`$, which rises monotonically with decreasing $`x`$ for a fixed $`Q^2`$ will have a peak at the same $`(x,Q^2)`$ position which correctly indicates the transition. In particular, an early ZEUS analysis, made with a more limited data set available at the time, shows (Figure 27) the same transitional behavior at the same $`(x,Q^2)`$ position.

Figure 28 shows the derivatives plotted for constant $`Q^2`$, as a function of $`x`$. At $`Q^2`$ above 1.9 GeV2, the derivatives rise rapidly as $`x`$ decreases in line with the expectations of Equation (4) assuming $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ has the form $`x^\lambda `$. As $`Q^2`$ falls, the rise of the derivative becomes less steep, as would be expected from Equation (11), if a mild energy dependence, of the Regge type, is assumed for $`\sigma _0`$; thus a turn-over in Figure 28 is not expected from the GB&W model, while naively one might expect it from Equation (4) with saturating gluons, $`xg`$. The statements sometimes found in the literature that the turn-over found in Figure 27 is “accidental” or “only kinematic in origin”  arises from the combination of the expectation of a turn-over in Figure 28 as a manifestation of gluon saturation and the misunderstanding that Figure 27 is in some way an approximation of Figure 28; rather, it is an approximation of Figure 25.

## 5 Discussion and Outlook

The measurements of the proton structure at small $`x`$ at HERA are now very precise. However, in spite of the expectation that these measurements should show some manifestation of dynamics beyond that incorporated in the ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) expansion of the DGLAP formalism, the DGLAP fits to the data give a good description above $`Q^2`$ of about 1 GeV2.

The question of whether the success of DGLAP fits merely indicates the flexibility of the parton parameterizations and the still-limited ($`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) range of the measurement at small-$`x`$ is not likely to be answered by looking at $`F_2`$ alone, at least in the currently available kinematic range. As discussed in Section 4, while the qualitative features of $`F_2`$ at small-$`x`$ (and necessarily small $`Q^2`$), show some characteristics expected by a saturation model, the DGLAP fits can reproduce those same features without any parton saturation, as a result of a rapidly evolving gluon density at low $`Q^2`$.

One of the most promising ways of investigating the small-$`x`$ proton structure is to look at the inclusive DIS measurements together (“and” rather than “or” of the title) with the diffractive DIS reactions. While the theoretical understanding of the relation of small-$`x`$ and diffraction is not yet very rigorous, the data sets from HERA provide many interesting indications of the underlying dynamics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for a most enjoyable Symposium. The experimental results presented here are due to a huge collaborative effort, over many years, of the large number of people in the H1 and ZEUS experiments. I had many interesting discussions on the subject matter of this talk with many of my colleagues in H1 and ZEUS; I would particularly like to thank Brian Foster . I would also like to thank John Collins, Krzysztof Golec-Biernat, Al Mueller and Mara Soares for illuminating discussions. Finally, Jim Whitmore, Peter Schleper and Brian Foster were kind enough to carefully check the manuscript.