format: text

text:
# Preheating in Quintessential Inflation

## I Introduction

Inflationary models of the early universe have become a paradigm that can explain the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background, the origin of the small adiabatic perturbations that seed galaxy formation and the flatness of space-time. There is also evidence that the universe has recently entered another stage of mild inflation, responsible for its accelerated expansion. It would be natural to investigate models where the two periods of inflation are related. In particular, models of quintessential inflation explore the possibility that the same scalar field is responsible for both periods of inflation .

In quintessential inflation models, the inflaton potential has no minimum in which the field could oscillate to produce the matter that would reheat the universe, as in usual chaotic inflation models. Therefore, it is assumed that all matter and energy in the universe will be created by gravitational production associated to changes in the geometry of the universe. However, it is known that this process is not very efficient . In this letter we assess the importance of another mechanism of particle production in the early universe, namely preheating , in which particles are produced due to the variation of the classical inflaton field. We find that the introduction of a non-zero coupling between the inflaton and matter fields leads to particle production that can easily overcome the gravitational one.

## II The model

For definiteness, we study the Peebles and Vilenkin model , with a potential for the inflaton field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the form

$`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^4+M^4)\text{for}\mathrm{\Phi }<0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda M^8}{\mathrm{\Phi }^4+M^4}}\text{for}\mathrm{\Phi }0,`$
where $`\lambda =1\times 10^{14}`$ is required from structure formation  and $`M=5\times 10^8`$ GeV in order to produce the present quintessential energy density .

Defining adimensional parameters $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }/M_{Pl}`$, $`q=M/M_{Pl}`$ and $`\tau =\sqrt{\lambda }M_{Pl}t`$, the classical equation of motion for the inflaton field becomes independent of the $`\lambda `$ parameter:

$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`+`$ $`\sqrt{24\pi }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2}}+(\varphi ^4+q^4)}\varphi ^{}+`$ (2)
$`4\varphi ^3=0\text{if}\varphi <0,`$
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`+`$ $`\sqrt{24\pi }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^8}{(\varphi ^4+q^4)}}}\varphi ^{}`$ (4)
$`4{\displaystyle \frac{q^8}{(\varphi ^4+q^4)^2}}\varphi ^3=0\text{if}\varphi 0,`$
where the primes are the derivatives with respect to $`\tau `$ and we have used the Hubble parameter,

$$H^2(\tau )=\left(\frac{a^{}(\tau )}{a(\tau )}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}\left(\frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2}+V(\varphi )\right).$$
(5)
In order to study preheating, we couple the classical inflaton field to a massless quantum scalar field $`\chi `$ through the lagrangian:

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi ^\mu \chi \frac{1}{2}\xi R\chi ^2\frac{1}{2}g^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\chi ^2,$$
(6)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`\xi `$ is the gravitational coupling and $`g`$ is a quartic coupling constant between $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$. Ford  calculated the energy density of $`\chi `$ particles produced gravitationally in the limit $`|\xi 1/6|1`$ due to the transition of the universe from the de Sitter space-time at the end of inflation. However, this production is not efficient since the ratio of matter and inflaton field energy densities is typically $`\rho _m/\rho _\varphi 10^{18}`$ . After thermalization of the products it is possible to define a reheating temperature when radiation starts to dominate and in that case it is of the order of $`T_{rh}10^4`$ GeV.

When preheating is operative, the picture changes drastically. Taking into account the dilution of gravitational particle production, at the end of inflation, until the beginning of the particle production by the preheating mechanism, the universe is still dominated by the inflaton density energy and this is our starting point.

The equation of motion for each comoving $`k`$ mode of the $`\chi `$ field can be written in terms of a new convenient variable $`X_k=a^{3/2}\chi _k`$ as:

$$X_k^{\prime \prime }+\left\{\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(\frac{k^2}{M_{Pl}^2a^2(\tau )}+g^2\varphi ^2(\tau )\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\right\}X_k=0.$$
(7)
The physical momentum is given by $`k/a`$ and we have verified that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{a^{}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}\right)`$ is neglegible during the production of $`\chi `$ particles.

This is an equation of motion for an harmonic oscillator with variable frequency, $`\omega _k^2=(k^2/(M_{Pl}^2a^2(\tau ))+g^2\varphi ^2(\tau ))/\lambda `$. When the adiabaticity condition is broken, that is, $`\omega _k^{}\omega _k^2`$, particles in the $`k`$ mode are produced. Figure 1 illustrates the time interval where adiabaticity is violated, leading to particle creation. This time interval corresponds to the passage of the inflaton field through its origin.

## III Particle production

In order to compute the total amount of particles produced during preheating, we have to solve equation (7). To obtain $`\varphi (\tau )`$ we choose the initial conditions as being $`\varphi (\tau =0)=1`$ and $`\varphi ^{}(\tau =0)=0`$, since in $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ model inflation ends when $`\mathrm{\Phi }M_{Pl}`$. Then we can evaluate the evolution of the scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ given by:

$$a(\tau )=a_0\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}H(\tau ^{})\right],$$
(8)
where $`H(\tau )`$ is given in equation (5) and $`a_0=1`$. We show in figure 2 the evolution of the scale factor during the period relevant for particle production.

Finally, substituting (8) and the solution of equations ($`12`$) into (7) we obtain $`X_k(\tau )`$.

We define an adiabatic invariant $`n_k`$ that can be interpreted as the comoving number density of particles produced with momentum $`k`$:

$$n_k=\frac{\omega _k}{2}\left(\frac{|X_k^{}|^2}{\omega _k^2}+|X_k|^2\right)\frac{1}{2}.$$
(9)
In figure 3 we show the comoving number density of particles created during preheating obtained from the solution of equation (7) with vacuum initial conditions for different values of comoving momentum $`k`$, for $`g=5\times 10^5`$. One can see that particle production occurs at $`\tau 7`$, and quickly stabilizes.

In order to illustrate the $`k`$ dependence of the density of particles, we plot in figure 4 the density spectrum produced during preheating for different values of $`\lambda `$ and $`g`$.

The spectrum is well described by the expression:

$$n_k=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{52}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{g}\frac{k^2}{\lambda M_{Pl}^2}\right].$$
(10)
This result is to be compared to the approximation for particle production in the first oscillation of a pure $`\varphi ^4`$ potential :

$$n_k^{appr.}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi \frac{\lambda M_{Pl}^2}{g|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_p|}\frac{k^2/a^2(\tau _p)}{\lambda M_{Pl}^2}\right],$$
(11)
where $`\tau _p`$ is the time of particle production and $`|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_p|`$ is the velocity of the inflaton field at the bottom of the potential. In our case we have $`|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_p|=3.6\times 10^2\sqrt{\lambda }M_{Pl}^2`$ and $`a(\tau _p)=68`$, which results in:

$$n_k^{appr.}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{53}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{g}\frac{k^2}{\lambda M_{Pl}^2}\right],$$
(12)
an excellent approximation indeed.

The total energy density produced at $`\tau _p`$ is given by:

$$\rho _\chi =\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3a^3(\tau _p)}\frac{k}{a(\tau _p)}n_k3\times 10^6\lambda g^2M_{Pl}^4$$
(13)
Since the energy density in the inflaton field around the time of particle production is

$$\rho _\varphi \frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_p^2}{2}6\times 10^4\lambda M_{Pl}^4,$$
(14)
the energy density that is transferred from the inflaton field to the $`\chi `$ field at the moment of production is given by:

$$\frac{\rho _\chi }{\rho _\varphi }5\times 10^3g^2$$
(15)
This means that there is an upper limit in energy that can be extracted from $`\varphi `$ field, at the moment of production, $`\frac{\rho _\chi }{\rho _\varphi }5\times 10^3`$. However, once the $`\chi `$-particles are produced they rapidly become non-relativistic, since their effective masses are given by $`m_\chi =g\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (see equation(7)). In such a case, the above comparison becomes

$$\frac{\rho _\chi }{\rho _\varphi }14g^{5/2},$$
(16)
for $`\mathrm{\Phi }10^1M_{Pl}`$ which is a good approximation for early times as shown in figure 1.

In order to prove the initial statement that the diluted energy density of particles produced gravitationally, $`\rho _m`$  is in fact much smaller than the inflaton energy density, $`\rho _\varphi `$ at $`\varphi 0`$, when the preheating starts, we take the ratio between them §§§Although $`\rho _\varphi `$ is not proportional to $`a^6`$ through all the interval, it corresponds to a maximum dilution.:

$$\frac{\rho _m(\varphi =0)}{\rho _\varphi (\varphi =0)}\frac{\rho _m(\varphi =1)/a^4}{\rho _\varphi (\varphi =1)/a^6}10^{22}$$
(17)
On the other hand, we can compare $`\rho _m`$ with our $`\chi `$ production (equation (13)):

$$\frac{\rho _\chi (\varphi =0)}{\rho _m(\varphi =0)}10^{23}g^{5/2}$$
(18)
and conclude that the latter dominates over the former for $`g6\times 10^{10}`$.

Finally, let us estimate the reheating temperature. We will make the assumption that the $`\chi `$ particles decay fast enough to avoid the effects of backreaction over the $`\varphi `$ field. In reference  it is shown that backreaction is important only for large times. So, without loss of generality, we will consider the transference of $`\chi `$ energy to relativistic particles just after the $`\chi `$ production.

As the inflaton field energy density scales as $`a^6`$ since it is dominated by kinetic energy whereas the relativistic particles energy density, $`\rho _R`$, scales as $`a^4`$, the latter will start to dominate the universe at a time $`t_d`$ given by:

$$\frac{a^2(\tau _p)}{a^2(\tau _d)}14g^{5/2}$$
(19)
At this time, the $`\rho _R`$ will be diluted to the value:

$`\rho _R`$ $`=`$ $`3\times 10^5\lambda ^{3/4}g^{5/2}M_{Pl}^3\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{a^4(\tau _p)}{a^4(\tau _d)}}`$
$``$ $`6\times 10^4\lambda ^{3/4}g^{15/2}M_{Pl}^4,`$
and the reheating temperature will be:

$$T_{rh}(\rho _R)^{1/4}T_{rh}10^1(\lambda ^{3/4}g^{15/2})^{1/4}M_{Pl}.$$
(20)
For our limits on $`g`$, $`6\times 10^{10}g1`$, the reheating temperature corresponds respectively to:

$$10^2\text{GeV}T_{rh}10^{15}\text{GeV},$$
(21)
which is a confortable range. Further constraints in $`T_{rh}`$ imply in new bounds on the coupling constant between the inflaton and the $`\chi `$ fields.

## IV Conclusions

Quintessential inflation models postulate that the same field is responsible for inflation in the early universe and the accelerated expansion of the universe today. In this type of models, the potential has no minimum and the traditional reheating mechanism of the universe can not be operative. Gravitational production of particles is usually adopted to reheat the universe.

We have demonstrated in this letter that introducing a small coupling $`g10^9`$ between the inflaton field and a massless scalar particle $`\chi `$ leads to particle creation in the preheating mechanism that dominates over the usual gravitational production in quintessential inflation models.

Reheating temperatures in the range $`10^2\text{GeV}T_{rh}10^{15}\text{GeV}`$ can be easily obtained for $`6\times 10^{10}g1`$.

Our result is stronger than the one obtained in the approximation used in  because we took into account the dilution of the produced particles between the epochs of gravitational creation and preheating. It is also not fully complete since the gravitational production mechanism could be affected when the $`\chi \varphi `$ coupling is introduced in the lagrangian. However, the effect would be to inhibit the gravitational production, making our results even stronger.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Fapesp and CNPq for partial financial support.


text:
# On the Uniqueness of the ADS Spacetime

(September 5, 2002)

## Abstract

The uniqueness of the ADS spacetime among all stactic vacuum spacetimes with the same conformal infinity is proved in all dimensions under the spin assumption.

Keywords: Static vacuum, ADS spacetime, Asymptotically hyperbolic manifold, Positive mass theorem

MR(2000) Subject Classification 53, 58

In Einstein’s theory of general relativity with a negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, a vacuum spacetime is a solution to the equation $`R_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}`$ and the lowest-energy solution is the anti-de Sitter spacetime. Moreover it was proved by Bocher-Gibbons-Horowitz  in $`3+1`$ dimensions that the anti-de Sitter spacetime is the unique static, asymptotically anti-de Sitter vacuum.

To give the precise statement of their theorem, let us first recall that an $`(n+1)`$ dimensional static spacetime $`(N,\overline{g})`$ has the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N& =\times M,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{g}& =V^2dt^2+g,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`(M,g)`$ is a Riemannian manifold and $`V`$ is a positive function on $`M`$. The vacuum Einstein equation (without loss of generality we always take the negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be $`n`$)

$$\mathrm{Ric}(\overline{g})=n\overline{g}$$
(2)
can be written in terms of $`g`$ and $`V`$ as

$`\mathrm{Ric}(g)+ng`$ $`=V^1D^2V,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{}V`$ $`=nV,`$ (4)
where $`D^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are the Hessian and Laplacian on $`(M,g)`$. From these two equations it is easy to see that $`g`$ has scalar curvature $`S=n(n1)`$. We will often just call the triple $`(M,g,V)`$ a static vacuum.

The anti-de Sitter spacetime, in $`(n+1)`$ dimensions, can be written as

$$ds^2=(1+r^2)dt^2+(1+r^2)^1dr^2+r^2d\omega ^2,$$

which is manifestly static. It is simply $`\times ^n`$ with the metric $`\mathrm{cosh}^2rdt^2+h`$, where $`h=dr^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2rd\omega ^2`$ is the hyperbolic metric in polar coordinates. Another interesting example is the so called AdS soliton, which is $`\times B^2\times T^{n2}`$ with the metric

$$ds^2=r^2dt^2+V(r)^1dr^2+V(r)d\varphi ^2+r^2h,$$

where, $`h`$ is a flat metric on $`T^{n2}`$, $`V(r)=r^2\left(1\frac{r_0^n}{r^n}\right)`$, with $`r_0>0`$ a constant and $`\varphi `$ is periodic with period $`4\pi /nr_0`$ to resolve the singularity at $`r=r_0`$. A uniqueness theorem has recently been established by Galloway-Surya-Woolgar . In both examples $`(M,g)`$ is conformally compact. The conformal infinity is the standard sphere $`S^{n1}`$ in the anti-de Sitter case and a flat torus $`T^n`$ in the AdS soliton case.

The simplest example of a spacetime which is asymptotic to the anti-de Sitter spacetime is the Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter metric:

$$ds_0^2=f(r)dt^2+f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\omega ^2,$$
(5)
where $`f(r)=1+r^2M/r^{n2}`$. In dimension $`n=3`$ Boucher-Gibbons-Horowitz  defines a spacetime to be asymptotically anti-de Sitter if outside of a spatially compact world tube the metric has the following asymptotic behavior:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =ds_0^2+O(r^2)dt^2+O(r^6)dr^2+O(r)(\text{ remaining differentials not involving }dr)\hfill \\ & +O(r^1)(\text{ remaining differentials involving }dr),\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`ds_0^2`$ is metric in (5). With this definition they proved that the only static asymptotically anti-de Sitter solution to $`R_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}`$ is the anti-de Sitter spacetime.

There are two important ingredients in the proof. The first one is the positive mass theorem for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. The second ingredient is the following remarkable identity attributed to Lindblom

$$\mathrm{div}\left(V^1(WW_0)\right)=\frac{1}{4}V^3W^1|B|^2+\frac{3}{4}V^1W^1|(WW_0)|^2,$$
(7)
where $`W=|V|^2`$, $`W_0=V^21`$ and $`B`$ is the Bach tensor. In a local frame the Bach tensor $`B_{ijk}=R_{ij,k}R_{ik,j}+\frac{1}{4}S_jh_{ik}\frac{1}{4}S_kh_{ij}`$ and its importance lies in the fact that a Riemannian $`3`$manifold is locally conformally flat iff its Bach tensor $`B=0`$. To verify the identity (7), the key point is to express $`B`$ in terms of $`V`$ and $`h`$ and this is possible because the curvature tensor is determined by the Ricci tensor in dimension three. To see this choose a local orthonormal frame and compute, using (3) and $`S=6`$

$`B_{ijk}`$ $`=R_{ij,k}R_{ik,j}`$
$`=V^1(V_{ij,k}V_{ik,j}+V^2(V_jV_{ik}V_kV_{ij})`$
$`=V^1R_{jkli}V_l+V^2\left(V_jV_{ik}V_kV_{ij}\right).`$
In dimension three, the curvature tensor $`R_{jkli}=3(\delta _{ji}\delta _{kl}\delta _{jl}\delta _{ki})+R_{jl}\delta _{ki}+\delta _{kl}R_{ki}R_{ji}\delta _{kl}\delta _{ji}R_{kl}`$. By using (3) again we end up with

$$B_{ijk}=V^2\left[(V_jlV_l3VV_j)\delta _{ik}(V_klV_l3VV_k)\delta _{ij}+2(V_{ik}V_jV_{ij}V_k)\right].$$

In higher dimensions the curvature tensor is considerably more complicated with an extra piece, the Weyl tensor which is out of the reach of the field equations (3)(4), therefore it is not clear at all how to generalize (7).

The main purpose of this paper is to give a different approach which is very elementary and works in any dimensions. We also use the positive mass theorem, but in place of the Lindblom identity (7) we use an elementary identity in Riemannian geometry which holds in all dimensions. Let $`f`$ be a function and $`T`$ a symmetric $`2`$tensor on a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$, then we have

$$T,D^2f_g=\mathrm{div}(i_fT)df,\delta T_g.$$
(8)
In a local orthonormal frame this can be written as

$$T_{ij}f_{ij}=\left(T_{ij}f_i\right)_jf_iT_{ij,j}$$
(9)
If $`\mathrm{\Omega }M`$ is a compact and smooth domain, the by Stokes theorem we obtain

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }T,D^2f_g𝑑\mu =_\mathrm{\Omega }T(f,\nu )𝑑A_\mathrm{\Omega }df,\delta T_g𝑑\mu $$
(10)
where $`\nu `$ is the outer unit normal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

An advantage of our approach is that we use conformal compactification to formulate the asymptotics (see Wang  and Chrusiel-Herzlich ), which allows more general asymptotics. Instead of having mass $`M`$ as just a number, there is a mass aspect $`\tau `$ which is a $`2`$-tensor. Moreover the asymptotics required for the application of the positive mass theorem follow naturally from the field equations (3) (4). With Fefferman and Graham’s result on conformally compact Einstein metrics the analysis is also made clean and transparent. We state our main result as

###### Theorem 1

Let $`(M,g,V)`$ be a static solution to the vacuum Einstein equation with negative cosmological constant (2). If

1. $`(M,g)`$ is conformally compact and the conformal boundary is $`S^{n1}`$,
2. $`V^1`$ is a defining function and $`V^2g|_{S^{n1}}`$ is the standard metric on $`S^{n1}`$
3. $`M`$ is spin,

then $`(M,g,V)`$ is the anti-de Sitter spacetime.

Remark. The last assumption that $`M`$ is spin, which is superfluous in dimension $`n=3`$, is needed because that is the only case the positive mass theorem for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds is known.

Since $`(M,g)`$ is conformally compact with scalar curvature $`S=n(n1)`$ we can choose a defining function $`r`$ such that near infinity

$$g=r^2(dr^2+h_r),$$
(11)
where $`h_r`$ is an $`r`$dependent family of metrics on the conformal boundary $`S^{n1}`$ with $`h_0`$ being the unit round metric (see e. g. Lemma 2.1 in Graham ). We choose local coordinates $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^{n1}`$ on the boundary and write $`h_r=h_{ij}(r,x)dx^idx^j`$. Moreover in view of the assumption (ii) we can assume $`Vr|_{S^{n1}}1`$.

For example it is easy to see that the anti-de Sitter spacetime can be written in this form as

$`g_0`$ $`=r^2\left(dr^2+(1r^2/4)^2h_0\right)`$ (12)
$`V`$ $`=1/r+r/4.`$ (13)
We need to study the asymptotic expansion of $`h_r`$ and $`V`$ in detail. To do this one could study directly the equations (3) and (4). Instead we take advantage of the various results available for conformally compact Einstein manifolds. We recommend Graham  for a clear and succinct introduction.

Consider the manifold $`N=S^1\times M`$ with the metric

$$\stackrel{~}{g}=V^2d\theta ^2+g=r^2\left(dr^2+(Vr)^2d\theta ^2+h_r\right),$$

where $`\theta `$ is periodic with period $`2\pi `$. By the equations (3) (4) $`(N,\stackrel{~}{g})`$ is conformally compact Einstein (i. e. $`\mathrm{Ric}(\stackrel{~}{g})=n\stackrel{~}{g}`$) with conformal infinity $`(S^1\times S^{n1},d\theta ^2+h_0)`$. If $`(M,g,V)`$ is the anti-de Sitter spacetime, we have by (12) (13)

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_0=r^2\left(dr^2+(1+r^2/4)^2d\theta ^2+(1r^2/4)^2h_0\right).$$

Both $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0`$ are conformally compact Einstein with the same conformal infinity $`(S^1\times S^{n1},d\theta ^2+h_0)`$. By the work of Fefferman and Graham as presented in  (roughly speaking, in the Taylor expansion in $`r`$ the first $`n`$ terms are locally determined by the metric $`h_0`$ on the conformal boundary), we have

$$(Vr)^2d\theta ^2+h_r=(1+r^2/4)^2d\theta ^2+(1r^2/4)^2h_0+r^n(\alpha d\theta ^2+\tau )+o(r^n),$$
(14)
where $`\tau `$ is a symmetric 2-tensor on $`S^{n1}`$ and

$$\alpha =\mathrm{tr}_{h_0}\tau .$$
(15)
The equation (14) can be separated as two equations

$`V`$ $`=1/r+r/4+\alpha r^{n1}/2+o(r^{n1})`$ (16)
$`h_r`$ $`=(1r^2/4)^2h_0+\tau r^n+o(r^n).`$ (17)
These asymptotic expansions can be differentiated. For example by differentiating (16) in $`r`$ we obtain

$$\frac{V}{r}=1/r^2+1/4+(n1)\alpha r^{n2}/2+o(r^{n2}).$$
(18)
The equation (17) shows that $`(M,g)`$ is asymptotically hyperbolic in the sense of .

###### Definition 1

 A conformally compact manifold $`(X,g)`$ is called asymptotically hyperbolic if it satisfies:

1. the conformal infinity is the standard sphere $`(S^{n1},h_0)`$,
2. there exists a good defining function $`r`$ such that

$$g=r^2(dr^2+h_r)$$
(19)
in a collar neighborhood of the conformal infinity and

$$h_r=(1r^2/4)^2h_0+\tau r^n+o(r^n),$$
(20)
where $`\tau `$ is a symmetric 2-tenor on $`S^{n1}`$. Moreover the asymptotic expansion can be differentiated twice.

For asymptotically hyperbolic spin manifolds, the following positive mass theorem was proved in Wang  (see also Chrusciel-Herzlich ).

###### Theorem 2

 Let $`(X,g)`$ be an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold. If $`X`$ is spin and has scalar curvature $`Rn(n1)`$ then we have

$$_{S^{n1}}\mathrm{tr}_{h_0}(\tau )𝑑\mu _{h_0}\left|_{S^{n1}}\mathrm{tr}_{h_0}(\tau )x𝑑\mu _{h_0}\right|.$$

Moreover equality holds iff $`(X,g)`$ is isometric to the hyperbolic space $`^n`$.

We use (16)(17) and (11) to compute

$`|V|^2V^2+1`$ $`=r^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)^2+h^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{x^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{x^j}}\right]V^2+1`$
$`=r^2\left[\left(1/r^2+1/4+(n1)\alpha r^{n2}/2+o(r^{n2})\right)^2+O(r^{2(n1)})\right]`$
$`\left(1/r+r/4+\alpha r^{n1}/2+o(r^{n1})\right)^2+1`$
$`=n\alpha r^{n2}+o(r^{n2}).`$
To summarize we have shown

$$|V|^2V^2=1n\alpha r^{n2}+o(r^{n2})$$
(21)
Differentiating in $`r`$ gives

$$\frac{}{r}\left(|V|^2V^2\right)=n(n2)\alpha r^{n3}+o(r^{n3})$$
(22)
Proof of the Theorem: Define $`M^ϵ=\{pM|r(p)ϵ\}`$. For $`ϵ`$ small, this is a compact and smooth domain in $`M`$. Let $`T=\mathrm{Ric}(g)+(n1)g`$ which is actually the Einstein tensor of $`g`$. By (4) we have

$$T=V^1D^2Vg.$$
(23)
Hence $`V|T|^2=D^2VVg,T_g=D^2V,T_g`$. By the second Bianchi identity $`\delta T=(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n})dS=0`$ for $`S=n(n1)`$. Therefore by the formula (10)

$$_{M^ϵ}V|T|_g^2𝑑\mu _g=_{M^ϵ}T(V,\nu )𝑑\sigma .$$
(24)
The outer unit normal $`\nu =r\frac{}{r}`$ and the induced area form $`d\sigma =r^{(n1)}\sqrt{H(r,x)}dx`$ with $`H(r,x)=\mathrm{det}(h_{ij}(r,x))`$. Therefore, using (23) again, we can rewrite the above equation as

$`{\displaystyle _{M^ϵ}}V|T|_g^2𝑑\mu _g`$ $`=ϵ^{(n2)}{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}\left(V^1D^2V(V,{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}})V,{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right)\sqrt{H(ϵ,x)}𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{(n2)}{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}V^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(|V|^2V^2\right)\sqrt{H(ϵ,x)}𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n(n2)}{2}}{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}\alpha 𝑑\sigma _{h_0}+o(1),`$
where in the last step we use the asymptotic expansions (16) and (22). Taking $`ϵ0`$, in view of (15), we obtain

$$_MV|T|_g^2𝑑\mu _g=\frac{n(n2)}{2}_{S^{n1}}\mathrm{tr}_{h_0}(\tau )𝑑A_{h_0}.$$

But by Theorem 2, the right hand side is non-positive. Therefore both sides must be zero. By the characterization of zero mass case in Theorem 2, $`(M,g)`$ is the hyperbolic space $`^n`$. Then it is an easy matter to show that the triple $`(M,g,V)`$ is the anti-de Sitter spacetime. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the last step we only need the positive mass theorem to the extent that the mass is nonnegative and the characterization of zero mass case can be replaced by an elementary argument. In fact we have $`T=0`$, i. e. $`\mathrm{Ric}(g)+(n1)g=V^1(D^2VVg)=0`$. This implies that $`\overline{g}=V^2g`$ is Einstein. Therefore $`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ is a compact Einstein manifold with a totally geodesic boundary which is the standard sphere $`S^{n1}`$. Moreover $`\overline{}V`$ is a conformal vector field. It is then elementary to show that $`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ is the standard hemisphere $`S_+^nR^{n+1}`$ and $`V(x)=1/x_{n+1}`$. This easily implies that $`(M,g,V)`$ is the anti-de Sitter spacetime.

Acknowledgment:  I am indebted to Professor Galloway for stimulating conversations, from whom I learned this problem during the AIM-Stanford workshop on general relativity in May, 2002. I thank the workshop organizers, especially Professor Rick Schoen, for inviting me and for providing an excellent environment. I also wish to thank Professor Tian for constant encouragement.

————————————————————

After the paper was submitted, the paper Qing  appeared. Inspired by his idea, I give an alternative approach which does not require the spin assumption in dimension $`n7`$. It is interesting to note that this new approach uses the positive mass theorem for asymptotically flat manifolds while the previous approach uses the positive mass theorem for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds.

Let $`(M,g,V)`$ be a static AdS vacuum spacetime. By the equations (3) (4) and the Bochner formula we compute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\left(|V|^2V^2\right)`$ $`=|D^2V|^2+V\mathrm{}V+\mathrm{Ric}(V,V)V\mathrm{}V|V|^2`$
$`=|D^2V|^2+V^1D^2V(V,V)nV^2|V|^2`$
$`=|D^2VVg|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^1V\left(|V|^2V^2\right).`$
This can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{}\left(|V|^2V^2+1\right)V^1V\left(|V|^2V^2+1\right)=2|D^2V+Vg|^20.$$
(25)
Suppose $`(M,g,V)`$ further satisfies conditions 1 and 2 in Theorem 1. We consider the compact manifold with boundary $`\overline{M}`$ with the Fermat metric $`\overline{g}=(V+1)^2g`$ with.

###### Lemma 1

$`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ has scalar curvature $`\overline{R}0`$. Moreover the boundary is isometric to the standard sphere $`S^{n1}`$ and has mean curvature $`n1`$.

Proof. By (21) we have

$$|V|^2V^2+10,\text{ as}x\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

By the maximum principle for the equation (25)

$$|V|^2V^2+10.$$
(26)
The scalar curvature of $`\overline{R}`$ of $`\overline{g}`$ is given by

$$(V+1)^2\overline{R}=R+2(n1)\frac{\mathrm{}V}{V+1}n(n1)\frac{|V|^2}{(V+1)^2}$$
(27)
By (26) and the fact $`R=n(n1)`$

$$(V+1)^2\overline{R}n(n1)+2n(n1)\frac{V}{V+1}n(n1)\frac{V^21}{(V+1)^2}=0$$

By the asymptotic expansions (17)(16) for $`g`$ and $`V`$, we can write $`\overline{g}=\varphi ^2(dr^2+h_r)`$ near the boundary with $`\varphi =r(V+1)=1+r+r^2/4+\mathrm{}`$. Then it’s obvious that $`\overline{g}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=h_0`$ is the round metric on $`S^{n1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has mean curvature $`\overline{H}=n1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now gives another proof of Theorem 1 which does not require the spin assumption for $`n7`$, i. e. we have

###### Theorem 3

Let $`(M,g,V)`$ be a static solution to the vacuum Einstein equation with negative cosmological constant (2). If

1. $`(M,g)`$ is conformally compact and the conformal boundary is $`S^{n1}`$,
2. $`V^1`$ is a defining function and $`V^2g|_{S^{n1}}`$ is the standard metric on $`S^{n1}`$
3. either $`n7`$ or $`M`$ is spin,

then $`(M,g,V)`$ is the anti-de Sitter spacetime.

Proof. By Lemma 1, $`(\overline{M},\overline{g}=(1+V)^2g)`$ is a compact manifold with boundary and the boundary is the standard sphere $`S^{n1}`$ with mean curvature $`n1`$. Then $`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ is isometric to the unit ball $`\overline{B}^n`$. To see this, we attach $`^n\overline{B}`$ to $`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ along the boundary and get a complete manifold with a flat end. Positive mass theorem for asymptotically manifolds would imply that it is isometric to $`^n`$ if either $`n7`$ or $`M`$ is spin except the metric is merely $`C^1`$ along the common boundary hypersurface. It was known to many experts that the positive mass theorem holds in this general setting and in fact this fact was used by Bunting and Masood-ul-alam  to prove uniqueness for various blackhole solutions. But there had been no detailed proofs in the literature until two recent papers by Miao  who uses a mollification argument to reduce it to the regular case and by Shi-Tam  generalizing Witten’s spinor argument.

Therefore $`(\overline{M},\overline{g})`$ is isometric to $`\overline{B}`$ and in particular $`\overline{R}=0`$. By the proof of Lemma 1, we have $`D^2V=Vg`$ and $`|V|^2V^2+1=0`$. Then by (3) we have $`\mathrm{Ric}(g)=(n1)g`$. As $`g`$ is also conformally flat, it follows that $`(M,g)`$ is the hyperbolic space. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent developments in understanding the duality between gravity and gauge interactions points to a new synthesis of ideas about the role of string theory for the infrared behavior of both supesymmetric and non-supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories. These developments came from three different directions.

Firstly the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence was extended to new exact string backgrounds, the so called pp-waves, which are unique and universal limits (Penrose limit) of every space-time which admits null geodesics . In these backgrounds it is frequently possible to solve exactly the quantum spectrum of strings while the correspondence with the conformal field theories on the boundary remains intact. One hopes to get nontrivial information about interesting boundary theories by using more detailed information from the string side-. Penrose limits of backgrounds with various number of supersymmetries constructed as orbifolds and orientifolds have been discussed in .

A second development came from the realization that the free string Hamiltonian in $`AdS_5`$ background describes a string with spacetime dependent tension, whereby it develops hard components with field theory point-like behavior. The hard component of the $`AdS_5`$ strings appears in the energy scaling behavior of the production cross-sections of the process $`2n`$ strings. This process has been calculated in  and found to be similar to the hard scattering processes of QCD. In the language of the old parton model the string in flat space-time is very soft. If viewed as a hadron its average radius diverges logarithmically with the number of partons(wea partons). Interestingly in a $`AdS_5`$ background its average radius is finite and calculable around a fixed distance from the boundary of $`AdS_5`$. More recently the dual picture for deep inelastic processes has also been studied.

The third development concerns the duality between space-time geometry and gauge interactions. In , an explicit classical string soliton solution has been found in $`AdS_5`$ which represents a collapsed closed string in the form of a rod rotating with constant angular velocity in the equator of $`S^3`$ of $`AdS_5`$. By considering the deviations from flat space-time for the energy-angular momentum relations for large spin, logarithmic corrections were found similar to the large spin behavior of the anomalous dimensions of Wilson operators for the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories on the boundary. It is interesting to note that similar behavior was found for rotating long strings in the $`AdS_5`$ black hole background while rotating strings exhibiting confinement as well as finite-size effects have been studied in . It should be stressed here that for the GKP solution which describes the rotating string in $`AdS_5`$, the internal space does not enter anywhere. Thus, the superstring background can be the standard maximally supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, as well as any of the available $`N=2`$ supergravity backgrounds of the form $`AdS_5\times X^5`$ described in . It can even be a non-supersymmetric background with an $`AdS_5`$ factor. This seems to indicate that the the large spin behavior of the anomalous dimensions of Wilson operators in Yang-Mills theories is the same (up to possible coefficient differences) for both supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric theories.

In this work we confirm that both $`𝒩=0`$ and $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories exhibit identical large spin behavior. In particular, we reconsider in detail the existing calculations for anomalous dimensions of Wilson operators in $`𝒩=0`$ Yang-Mills theories up to two loops. Moreover for the case of $`𝒩=1`$ we calculate explicitly the two loop anomalous dimensions from the known results of the non-supersymmetric case. We identify the numerical coefficients in front of the confirmed logarithmic behaviour for large spin. In sect.$`2`$ we recall the GKP rotating strings  in $`AdS_5`$ in the limit of large spin (long strings). In sect. $`3`$ we review the formalism of operator product expansion for deep inelastic scattering and we set up our notation. In sect. $`4`$ we exhibit the known analytic results of the two loop anomalous dimensions for the $`𝒩=0`$ pure Yang-Mills theories. In sect. $`5`$ we present the analytic results $`𝒩=1`$ results and we give the asymptotic behavior of both supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric cases in the limit of large spin.

## 2 $`AdS_5`$ Rotating Strings in the Large Spin Limit

One of the emerging scenarios, due to Polyakov, provides a further extension to the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence between the $`AdS_5`$ supergravity and the boundary theory of $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills which possibly may reach out all the way to the non-supersymmetric regime. According to it the $`AdS_5`$ space-time which appears as a solution of the quantum non-critical string theory in four dimensions provides a dual description of pointlike field theories. In such a description the fifth dimension plays the role of a non-critical Liouville field. The non-critical string represents the dynamics of gauge field strength lines and it has to live in $`AdS_5`$. The $`AdS_5`$ radius $`R`$ satisfies the relation $`R^4=\lambda \alpha ^2`$ where $`\lambda =(g_{YM}^2N)/4\pi `$ is the ’t Hooft coupling. Weak coupling string interactions correspond to strong gauge interactions on the boundary. As a result, in order to explore the weak gauge coupling regime or equivalently the high energy behavior of the boundary gauge theory, one has to study nonperturbative classical string theory ( large N behavior) along with its quantum corrections. The GKP rotating string soliton in $`AdS_5`$ offers an intriguing playground for developing and understanding these ideas. In particular, it may provide a useful tool in exploring the transition region between weak and strong gauge couplings or small and big space-time curvatures.

In our present paper we make explicit quantitative comparison between string soliton behavior for large ’t Hooft coupling and the analytic results for two loop anomalous dimensions of $`𝒩=0,1`$ Yang-Mills theories in the same limit. We begin with the description of the Polyakov string soliton. We follow the parametrization of the global $`AdS_5`$ metric

$`ds^2=R^2(dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)`$ (2.1)
The string soliton rotates at the equator of $`S^3`$ and the azimuthal angle depends linearly on time

$`\varphi =\omega t`$ (2.2)
By choosing the timelike gauge $`t=\tau `$ and by assuming that the radial coordinate $`\rho `$ is only a function of $`\sigma `$ we obtain the Nambu-Gotto Lagrangian

$`L=4{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\rho _0}}𝑑\rho \sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho \dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho }`$ (2.3)
The maximun radial distance is $`\rho _0`$ which is determined by the speed of light

$`\mathrm{coth}^2\rho _0=\omega ^2`$ (2.4)
The reparametrization constraints give the equation

$`\rho ^2=e^2(\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho \omega ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho )`$ (2.5)
where $`\rho ^{}=\frac{d\rho }{d\sigma }`$ and $`e`$ is adjusted so that $`\sigma `$ has a period $`2\pi `$. The space-time energy E and spin J of the rotating string are then given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}e{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{cosh}^2\rho `$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}e\omega {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{sinh}^2\rho `$ (2.6)
These expressions determine $`E/\sqrt{\lambda }`$ and $`J/\sqrt{\lambda }`$ as functions of $`\omega `$.

We are interested here in the classical limit $`J\sqrt{\lambda }`$ which corresponds to $`\omega `$ approaching one from above $`\omega =1+\eta `$ with $`0<\eta 1`$. In this limit the end of the string approaches the boundary of the $`AdS_5`$ $`\rho _0\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(1/\eta )`$. By expanding the energy and spin in terms of $`\eta `$ we obtain

$`EJ\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{\sqrt{\lambda }}}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.7)
On the gauge theory side, $`EJ`$, i.e, the dimension minus the spin of some composite operator is the twist of the operator. In the case of the leading trajectory (solid rotating string), the leading contributions come from twist-two operators. The deviation from the flat space-time is reminiscent of the behavior of the anomalous dimensions of the twist-two Wilson operators of deep inelastic scattering for large spin. In a sense, the anti-deSitter backround forces the string to develop hard partonic component reminiscent of QCD . In  a concrete conjecture about the large J behavior of $`EJ`$ is made to the effect that the leading term for arbitrary $`\lambda `$ will be

$`EJ=f(\lambda )\mathrm{log}J`$ (2.8)
In , the $`1`$loop corrections were computed

$`f(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}\mathrm{log}2`$ (2.9)
and no higher powers of $`\mathrm{log}J`$ corrections were found. These calculations hold for large $`\lambda `$ but with $`J\lambda `$. One hopes that it will be possible to analytically continue these results for small values of $`\lambda `$ in order to make contact with the perturbative results for the Yang-Mills theories on the boundary. This is the subject of the recent work by Tseytlin et.al in .

## 3 Operator Product Expansion in Deep-Inelastic Scatering

In the experiments of deep-inelastic scattering of leptons on nucleons and in the one electroweak gaugeboson exchange approximation, one measures the differential cross sections of the emerging lepton with specific final four-momentum for unpolarized scattering

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d^4p_l}}=l^{\mu \nu }W_{\mu \nu }`$ (3.1)
with

$`l^{\mu \nu }=4(p_i^\mu p_f^\nu +p_i^\nu p_f^\mu g_{\mu \nu }p_ip_f)`$ (3.2)
and

$`W_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{spins}}{}}{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}<p,s|[J^\mu (x),J^\nu (0)]|p,s>}`$ (3.3)
In the Bjorken limit $`Q^2=q^2\mathrm{}`$ and $`x_B=\frac{Q^2}{2pq}`$ fixed where $`q=(p_fp_i)`$ is the momentum transfer and $`p`$ is the nucleus momentum the Fourier transform above is dominated by light-cone distances. The commutator can be calculated as the imaginary part of the time-ordered product of the electroweak currents $`J^\mu `$

$`W_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{Im}T_{\mu \nu }(p,q)`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`e_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x_B}}F_L(x_B,Q^2)+d_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x_B}}F_2(x_B,Q^2)+iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha q^\beta }{pq}}F_3(x_B,q^2)`$
where

$`T_{\mu \nu }=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}<p|T(J^\mu (x)J^\nu (0))|p>}`$ (3.5)
and $`F_L,F_2,F_3`$ are the structure functions which are measured by the experiments ($`F_3`$ is relevant for neutrinos). The right-hand side is dominated by the light-cone $`x^20`$ and can be expanded in terms of composite operators multiplied by coefficient functions

$`T_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \underset{N,i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x_B}}\right)^N\left[e_{\mu \nu }C_{L,i}^N({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s)+d_{\mu \nu }C_{2,i}^N({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s)+iϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\alpha q^\beta }{pq}}C_{3,i}^N({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s)\right]A_i^N({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}})`$ (3.6)
where

$`e_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}`$
$`d_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{4x_B^2}{q^2}}(p_\mu q_\nu +p_\nu q_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{2x_B}{q^2}}`$ (3.7)
$`\alpha _s=\frac{g_{YM}^2}{16\pi ^2}`$ and $`A_i^N`$ are the matrix elements of the dominant operators $`O_i^N`$ ($`i=\mathrm{NS},\mathrm{quark},\mathrm{gluons})`$ beteween the nucleon state. The dominant terms in the light-cone expansion come from lowest twist (dimension minus spin) operators which can be constructed from the Yang Mills theory with fermions. They are the flavour non-singlet (valence quarks) and the singlet ones (sea-quarks and gluons)

$`O_{NS,\alpha }^n={\displaystyle \frac{i^{n1}}{2n!}}\left(\overline{q}\lambda ^\alpha \gamma ^{\mu _1}D^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}D^{\mu _n}(1\pm \gamma ^5)q+\text{permutations-traces}\right)`$ (3.8)
where $`\alpha `$ is a flavour index and the chiral projector appears in the scattering of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos while in the scattering of electrons or positrons is missing. The singlet operators are

$`O_q^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i^{n1}}{n!}}\left(\overline{q}\gamma ^{\mu _1}D^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}D^{\mu _n}q+\text{permutations-traces}\right)`$
$`O_g^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i^{n2}}{2n!}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F^{\lambda \mu _1}D^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}D^{\mu _{n1}}F_{\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu _n}+\text{permutations-traces}\right)`$ (3.9)
These operators are the twist $`2=(n+2)n`$ ones which are dominating in the light-cone expansion. From eq.(3.6) taking moments over the Bjorken variable $`x_B`$ we project out the spin $`N`$ term

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{Nk}F_i(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \underset{i=NS,q,g}{}}C_{i,j}^N({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s)A_j^N({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}})`$ (3.10)
where $`k=2`$ for $`F_2,F_L`$ and $`k=1`$ for $`F_3`$. The importance of the moment equations (3.10) comes from the renormalization properties of the Wilson operators

$`<p|O_i^N|p>=\left(p^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}p^{\mu _N}\mathrm{traces}\right)A_i^N({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}})`$ (3.11)
The non-singlet one is multiplicative renormalized

$`O_{NS,\mathrm{bare}}^N=Z_{NS}^NO_{NS,\mathrm{ren}.}^N`$ (3.12)
while the singlet ones between physical states mix through a two-by-two matrix renormalization constant

$`O_{i,\mathrm{bare}}^N=Z_{ij}^NO_{j,\mathrm{ren}.}^N,i,j=q,g`$ (3.13)
Because of these properties, the moment equations give information about the $`Q^2`$ evolution of structure functions. Indeed, since the left-hand side is renormalization group invariant, the dependance on the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ of the right-hand side should cancel between the coefficient functions and the operator matrix elements. This gives the renormalization group equations for the coefficient functions

$`\left(\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu ^2}}+\beta (\alpha _s){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}\gamma _{NS}^N(\alpha _s)\right)C_{NS,i}^N({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left[\left(\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu ^2}}+\beta (\alpha _s){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}\right)\delta _{jk}\gamma _{jk}^N(\alpha _s)\right]C_{i,k}^N({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}},\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`0,j,k=q,g`$ (3.14)
The expansion of the $`\beta `$\- and $`\gamma `$-function in $`\alpha _s`$ can be calculated from the renormalization constants by looking at the coefficient of the simple poles in the dimensional regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, $`d=4ϵ`$

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}Z_{\alpha _s}^{(1)},\gamma _{NS}^N=\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}Z_{NS}^{(1),N}(\alpha _s),\gamma _{ij}^N=\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha _s}}Z_{ij}^{(1),N}(\alpha _s)`$ (3.15)
where typicaly

$`Z(\alpha _s)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{(1)}(\alpha _s)}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{(2)}(\alpha _s)}{ϵ^2}}+\mathrm{}`$ (3.16)
## 4 The Two Loop Anomalous Dimensions of Wilson Operators: Generalities and Old Results

The anomalous dimensions of Wilson operators $`O_i^N`$ at one and two loop level for any representation of fermions are known for the following cases. For $`𝒩=0`$ the anomalous dimension for QCD were calculated firstly at one loop in  and at two loop levels in . It has been recalculated in  and a discrepancy was found for the two loop $`\gamma _{gg}`$ in the coefficient of the Casimir $`C_A^2`$. In  through the supersymmetric identities that will be discussed below the discrepancy was resolved in favor of . This coefficient has been recalculated in  and the result was found to be in agreement with that of . The complete two loop QCD results were recalculated in . In , the two-loop anomalous dimensions were written in a very compact form and for phenomenological reasons the large spin behavior was studied and the asymptotic $`(logJ)`$ behavior was singled out.

The $`𝒩=1`$ case was studied in one-loop by  where the supersymmetric identity for the singlet anomalous dimensions was found

$`\gamma _{qq}^{(0)}(J)+\gamma _{gq}^{(0)}(J)=\gamma _{qg}^{(0)}(J)+\gamma _{gg}^{(0)}(J)`$ (4.1)
for every $`J`$. This infinite number of relations, is due to the fact that the combination of the Wilson operators $`O_q^J+O_g^J`$ is multiplicatively renormalized . For higher supersymmetries $`𝒩=2,𝒩=4`$ there are similar relations involving the scalar operator anomalous dimensions . At the two-loop order one can check that the anomalous dimension singlet matrix elements obtained above satisfy the same relations. These infinite number of relations provide an important check of the calculation and at the same time they confirm that the dimensional reduction scheme(DR) is the appropriate one for supersymmetric gauge theories.

The $`𝒩=1`$ case with quark multiplets (SUSY-QCD) was studied for phenomenological reasons at the two-loop level in the approximation of light gluinos and heavy squarks . The contribution of heavy squarks was omitted from the two loop anomalous dimensions and the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the structure functions. As a result the $`𝒩=2`$ (quark hypermultiplet in the adjoint) two-loop anomalous dimensions could not be obtained, as the $`𝒩=1`$ is incomplete. On the other hand the complete $`𝒩=2`$ anomalous dimensions were obtained at one-loop level and additional supersymmetric relations for the singlet case were found in .

The $`𝒩=4`$ anomalous dimensions at one loop are also known and it is claimed that the two loop result can be obtained from the analytic properties of the DGLAP and BFKL evolution kernel .

For completeness of the presentation and in order to prepare the ground for the $`𝒩=1`$ case we present below the old known two loop $`𝒩=0`$ results in the compact form following . We expand the anomalous dimensions typically as :

$`\gamma (J)=\gamma ^{(0)}(J){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}+\gamma ^{(1)}(J)({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }})^2+\mathrm{}`$ (4.2)
$`\gamma _{NS}^{(1)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`C_F^2({\displaystyle \frac{16S_1(J)(2J+1)}{J^2(J+1)^2}}+16(2S_1(J){\displaystyle \frac{1}{J(J+1)}})(S_2(J)S_2^{}(J))+`$
$`24S_2(J)+64\stackrel{~}{S}(J)8S_3^{}(J)3{\displaystyle \frac{8(1+4J+5J^2+3J^3)}{J^3(J+1)^3}})`$
$`+C_AC_F({\displaystyle \frac{536}{9}}S_1(J)8(2S_1(J){\displaystyle \frac{1}{J(J+1)}})(2S_2(J)S_2^{}(J)){\displaystyle \frac{88}{3}}S_2(J)28\stackrel{~}{S}(J)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{(33+52J+236J^2+151J^3)}{J^2(J+1)^3}})`$
$`+C_FT_R\left[{\displaystyle \frac{160}{9}}S_1(J)+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}S_2(J)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{(11J^2+5J3)}{J^2(J+1)^2}}\right]`$
$`\gamma _{qq}^{(1)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^(1)_{NS}(J)16C_FT_R[{\displaystyle \frac{(5J^5+32J^4+49J^3+38J^2+28J+8)}{(J1)J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)^2}}]`$ (4.4)
$`\gamma _{qg}^{(1)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`8C_FT_R[{\displaystyle \frac{(4+8J+15J^2+26J^3+11J^4)}{J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4S_1(J)}{J^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2+J+J^2)(5+2S_1^2(J)2S_2(J))}{J(J+1)(J+2)}}]`$
$`8C_AT_R[{\displaystyle \frac{2(16+64J+104J^2+128J^3+85J^4+36J^5+25J^6+15J^7+6J^8+J^9)}{(J1)J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8(3+2J)S_1(J)}{(J+1)^2(J+2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2+J+J^2)(2S_1^2(J)+2S_2(J)2S_2^{}(J))}{J(J+1)(J+2)}}]`$
$`\gamma _{gq}^{(1)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}C_FT_R\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(J+1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2+J+J^2)(8/3+S_1(J)}{(J1)J(J+1)}}\right]`$
$`4C_F^2[{\displaystyle \frac{(412JJ^2+28J^3+43J^4+30J^5+12J^6)}{(J1)J^3(J+1)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4S_1(J)}{(J+1)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2+J+J^2)(10S_1(J)2S_1^2(J)2S_2(J))}{(J1)J(J+1)}}]`$
$`8C_AC_F[{\displaystyle \frac{(144+432J152J^21304J^31031J^4+695J^5)}{9(J1)^2J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(+1678J^6+1400J^7+621J^8+109J^9)}{9(J1)^2J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1222J+41J^2+17J^4)S_1(J)}{3(J1)^2J^2(J+1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2+J+J^2)(S_1^2(J)+S_2(J)S_2^{}(J)}{(J1)J(J+1)}}]`$
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(1)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`C_FT_R\left[8+{\displaystyle \frac{16(44J5J^210J^3+J^4+4J^5+2J^6)}{(J1)J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)}}\right]`$
$`+C_AT_R\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16(12+56J+94J^2+76J^3+38J^4)}{9(J1)J^2(J+1)^2(J+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{160S_1(J)}{9}}\right]`$
$`+C_A^2[{\displaystyle \frac{4(576+1488J+560J^21632J^32344J^4+1567J^5)}{9(J1)^2J^3(J+1)^3(J+2)^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(6098J^3+6040J^4+2742J^5+457J^6)}{9(J1)^2(J+1)^3(J+2)^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{536}{9}}S_1(J)+{\displaystyle \frac{64(22J+7J^2+8J^3+5J^4+2J^5)S_1(J)}{(J1)^2J^2(J+1)^2(J+2)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{32(1+J+J^2)S_2^{}(J)}{(J1)J(J+1)J+2)}}16S_1(J)S_2^{}(J)+32\stackrel{~}{S}(J)4S_3^{}(J)]`$
$$\gamma _{qq}^{(0)}(J)=2C_F\left[4S_1(J)3\frac{2}{J(J+1)}\right]$$
(4.8)
$$\gamma _{qg}^{(0)}(J)=\frac{8T_R(J^2+J+1)}{J(J+1)(J+2)}$$
(4.9)
$$\gamma _{gq}^{(0)}(J)=\frac{4C_F(2+J+J^2)}{(J1)J(J+1)}$$
(4.10)
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(0)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}T_R+2C_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{J(J1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(J+1)(J+2)}}+4S_1(J)\right]`$ (4.11)
$`S_n(J)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^n}},S_n^{}(J)=2^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^k}{k^n}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{S}(J)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^kS_1(k)}{k^2}}`$ (4.12)
Here $`C_F`$,$`C_A`$ are the Casimirs for the fermions and gauge bosons whereas $`T_R`$ is one half the number of fermions. To facilitate the reader, we present the large $`J`$ behaviour of some harmonic functions. In particular, from the above definitions it follows that

$`S_n(J)S_n^{}(J)0\text{for}J\mathrm{}`$ (4.13)
Moreover, we have

$`S_1(J)\mathrm{log}(J)+C+𝒪(J^1),`$ $`S_2(J){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}+𝒪(J^1)`$ (4.14)
$`S_3(J)=\zeta (3)+𝒪(J^2),`$ $`\stackrel{~}{S}(J){\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^J}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}J}{J^2}}+𝒪(J^2).`$ (4.15)
## 5 N=1 SUSY Yang-Mills Anomalous Dimensions of Wilson Operators

In the following we review the results of  and proceed to obtain the explicit form of the anomalous dimensions for the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric case at the two loop level from the already known results in QCD. To this end we put the fermions in the adjoint representation and consider only the ones of the Majorana type. This can be obtained directly from the non-susy results for the special case of $`C_F=C_A=2T_R=N`$. However, beyond one-loop, the dimensional renormalization scheme $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, in which the QCD results mentioned above are obtained, breaks supersymmetry as well as does the covariant gauge fixing. The latter is solved by calculating anomalous dimensions of gauge invariant observables like the Wilson operators. In order to preserve supersymmetry, we have to use the dimensional reduction scheme (DR) in which the momentum integrations are done in $`4ϵ`$ dimensions and the spin-index algebra is performed in $`4`$ dimensions. Instead of repeating the long two-loop calculations, there is a way to pass from $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ to DR if we calculate the one-loop finite part of Wilson operators in both schemes and the relation between the $`𝒩=1`$ YM gauge couplings between the two schemes at two loops

$`\alpha _{s}^{}{}_{DR}{}^{}=\alpha _{s}^{}{}_{\overline{MS}}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _{s}^{}{}_{\overline{MS}}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}`$ (5.1)
For the singlet anomalous dimensions, the relevant transformation rule between the two schemes at two-loops is

$`\gamma _{DR}^{(1)}+b_0O_{DR}^{(0)}+[\gamma _{DR}^{(0)},O_{DR}^{(0)}]=\gamma _{\overline{MS}}^{(1)}+b_0O_{\overline{MS}}^{(0)}+[\gamma _{\overline{MS}}^{(0)},O_{\overline{MS}}^{(0)}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma _{\overline{MS}}^{(0)}`$ (5.2)
where the two-by-two matrix of the finite parts of Wilson operators is defined as

$`O=\left(\begin{array}{cc}O_{qq}& O_{qg}\\ O_{gq}& O_{gg}\end{array}\right)`$ (5.5)
$`O=\alpha _sO^{(0)}+\alpha _s^2O^{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$ (5.6)
By employing eq.$`(5.2)`$ and the two loop results from the Appendix we find the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric singlet anomalous dimensions. In the following we will omit the overall factor $`C_A^2`$ as well as the $`\frac{1}{3}\gamma _{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(0)}`$ contribution. The $`\gamma ^{(1)}`$’s which are portrayed below are calculated in the DR scheme

$`\gamma _{qq}^{(1s)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`14+{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(2+J+J^2\right)}{J\left(1+J\right)^2\left(2+J\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(18+39J+142J^2+290J^3+151J^4\right)}{9J^3\left(1+J\right)^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(8+28J+38J^2+49J^3+32J^4+5J^5\right)}{\left(1+J\right)J^3\left(1+J\right)^3\left(2+J\right)^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{J\left(1+J\right)}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8(3+11J^2+18S_1(J)+J(5+36S_1(J))}{9J^2\left(1+J\right)^2}}+8\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{J\left(1+J\right)}}2S_1(N)\right)S_2^{}(J)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{152S_1(J)}{3}}+32\stackrel{~}{S}(J)4S_3^{}(J)`$
$`\gamma _{qg}^{(1s)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(2+J+J^2\right)}{J\left(1+J\right)\left(2+J\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{J}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{1+J}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{2+J}}+2S_2^{}(J)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(4+8J+15J^2+26J^3+11J^4\right)}{J^3\left(1+J\right)^3\left(2+J\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16S_1(J)}{J^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{32\left(3+2J\right)S_1(J)}{\left(1+J\right)^2\left(2+J\right)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(16+64J+104J^2+128J^3+85J^4+36J^5+25J^6+15J^7+6J^8+J^9\right)}{\left(1+J\right)J^3\left(1+J\right)^3\left(2+J\right)^3}}`$
$`\gamma _{gq}^{(1s)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(2+J+J^2\right)\left(16+51S_1(J)9S_2^{}(J)\right)}{9J\left(1+J^2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\left(1+3S_1(J)\right)}{3\left(1+J\right)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(412JJ^2+28J^3+43J^4+30J^5+12J^6\right)}{\left(1+J\right)J^3\left(1+J\right)^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(144+432J152J^21304J^31031J^4+695J^5+1678J^6+1400J^7+621J^8+109J^9\right)}{9J^3\left(1+J\right)^3\left(2+J+J^2\right)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(1222J+41J^2+17J^4\right)S_1(J)}{3\left(1+J\right)^2J^2\left(1+J\right)}}`$
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(1s)}(J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\left(5761488J560J^2+1632J^3+2344J^41567J^56098J^66040J^72742J^8457J^9\right)}{9\left(1+J\right)^2J^3\left(1+J\right)^3\left(2+J\right)^3}}`$ (5.7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\left(1+J+J^2\right)}{J\left(1+J\right)^2\left(2+J\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(44J5J^210J^3+J^4+4J^5+2J^6\right)}{\left(1+J\right)J^3\left(1+J\right)^3\left(2+J\right)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(12+56J+94J^2+76J^3+38J^4\right)}{9\left(1+J\right)J^2\left(1+J\right)^2\left(2+J\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{32\left(1+J+J^2\right)S_2^{}(J)}{\left(1+J\right)J\left(1+J\right)\left(2+J\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{64\left(22J+7J^2+8J^3+5J^4+2J^5\right)S_1(J)}{\left(1+J\right)^2J^2\left(1+J\right)^2\left(2+J\right)^2}}`$
$`14+{\displaystyle \frac{456S_1(J)}{9}}16S_1(J)S_2^{}(J)+32\stackrel{~}{S}(J)4S_3^{}(J))`$
It is easy to check that the $`\gamma ^{(1)}(J)`$’s satisfy as well the Dokshitzer relation of eq.($`4.1`$).

In this section we discuss the large spin behavior of the anomalous dimensions of Wilson operators for supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories. This question is relevant for the gauge theory-string duality as we have discussed above. It is also of phenomenological interest as the scaling violations become more prominent in the kinematic regime of $`x_B1`$ . The Feynman rules for the Wilson operators dictate that the diagrams with gluon lines coming out from the operator vertex will contribute terms which behave like $`\lambda ^k(\mathrm{log}J)^{2k1}`$  and sub-dominant terms at k-loop order.

In the nonsupersymmetric case the asymptotic over all $`logJ`$ behavior comes about after successive miraculous cancellations of all the $`(logJ)^2`$ and $`(logJ)^3`$ terms at two loops inside the gauge invariant classes of diagrams.

This cancelation is a consequence of Ward indentities for the gluon-quark-quark vertex with an insertion of the quark operator $`O_q^N`$. As an illustration the leading behaviour of the quark-quark diagramms of Fig.1 is (we do not include explicitly the $`\mathrm{log}J`$ terms of these diagrams)

$`\mathrm{diag}.\mathrm{A}:4(\mathrm{log}J)^2C_F^2`$
$`\mathrm{diag}.\mathrm{B}:{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\mathrm{log}J)^3C_FC_A`$
$`\mathrm{diag}.\mathrm{C}:4(\mathrm{log}J)^2(C_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_FC_A)`$
$`\mathrm{diag}.\mathrm{D}:({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\mathrm{log}J)^3+2(\mathrm{log}J)^2)C_FC_A`$
$`\mathrm{diag}.\mathrm{E}:({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(\mathrm{log}J)^34(\mathrm{log}J)^2)C_FC_A`$ (5.8)
At this point it is important to observe that supersymmetry ($`C_F=C_A`$) does not improve the $`\mathrm{log}J`$ behavior of the above diagrams. From the previous section on the other hand there appears some cancellations in the subleading terms of $`\gamma _{qg}^{1s}`$(especially those which behave like $`(\mathrm{log}J)^2/J`$ for large $`J`$).

We exhibit below the large $`J`$ behaviour and large $`N`$ of both the nonsupersymmetric and suppersymmetric anomalous dimensions at one and two loops. We absorb the $`N`$ factors of the Casimirs in the ’t Hooft coupling. In this limit we typically expand the anomalous dimensions as follows:

$`\gamma ^J(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4\pi }}\gamma ^{(0)}(J)+({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4\pi }})^2\gamma ^{(1)}(J)+\mathrm{}`$ (5.9)
In particular the non-supersymmetric asymptotic behaviour ($`C_A=N`$, $`C_F=\frac{N^21}{2N}`$ and $`T_R=\frac{n_F}{2}`$ for large $`N`$ gives ($`C_A=2C_F=N,T_R=0`$), is for one and two loops, respectively:

$`\gamma _{qq}^{(0)}(J)`$ $``$ $`4\mathrm{log}J+4\gamma 3`$
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(0)}(J)`$ $``$ $`2\gamma _{qq}^{(0)}(J)`$
$`\gamma _{qq}^{(1)}(J)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}(673\pi ^2)\mathrm{log}J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}(129+52\pi ^2+16\gamma (3\pi ^267))`$
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(1)}(J)`$ $``$ $`2\gamma _{qq}(J)`$ (5.10)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler-Masceroni constant.

In the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric case ($`C_A=C_F=2T_R=N`$) the asymptotic behaviour in the $`DR`$ scheme is given by:

$`\gamma _{qq}^{(0)}(J)`$ $``$ $`8\mathrm{log}J+8\gamma 6`$
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(0)}(J)`$ $``$ $`\gamma _{qq}^{(0)}(J)`$
$`\gamma _{qq}^{(1)}(J)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(19\pi ^2)\mathrm{log}J{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(21+36\zeta (3)+4\gamma (\pi ^219))`$
$`\gamma _{gg}^{(1)}(J)`$ $``$ $`\gamma _{qq}^{(1)}(J)`$ (5.11)
As far as the off-diagonal elements is concerned the one- and two-loop singlet anomalous dimensions tend to zero in both the supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric case. At this point we remark that there is important piece of literature for the resummation methods of the leading behaviour at one and two loops of the structure functions near $`x_B1`$ . We would like to draw attention to the study of this limit through the cusp singularities of the Wilson loop

## Conclusions

We would like to summarize our work by the following observations. The $`(\mathrm{log}J)`$ behaviour of both the singlet and non-singlet anomalous dimensions for QCD was known for a long time. It constitutes a widespread belief that it also holds true to all orders in perturbation theory. This amounts to a $`(1x)^1`$ behaviour of the GLAP splitting function as $`x1`$. In the present work we proved that this holds true as well for the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. This is not obvious because by passing in the supersymmetric case from the $`\overline{MS}`$ to the $`DR`$ scheme one must include the one-loop finite part of the Wilson operators. These matrix elements contain $`(\mathrm{log}J)^2`$ terms for large $`J`$ but their coefficients are the same in the two-schemes. From relation eq.(5.2) it follows that it is only the difference between the matrix elements for the two schemes participates and so $`(\mathrm{log}J)^2`$ terms cancel. On the string theory side in $`AdS_5`$ an identical claim holds but for the strong coupling t’Hooft limit $`\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }N\mathrm{}`$. We suspect the presence of a geometrical reason as a consequence of which long strings which touch the horizon violate by simple logarithmic power the Energy-Spin relation.

We hope that soon three loop results will become available for QCD and the transition from the $`𝒩=0`$ to $`𝒩=1,2,4`$ cases will be possible. The expected existence of dualities for the $`𝒩=4`$ case between the strong and weak t’Hooft coupling will hopefully as well become available for anomalous dimensions . Thus the explicit demonstration, to all orders, of the validity of the GKP conjecture on both sides of the geometric duality appears to be both interesting and challenging a problem.

### Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank I. Antoniadis and C. Kounnas for discussions. This work is partially supported by European RTN networks HPRN-CT-2000-00122 and HPRN-CT-2000-00131.