1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% APR 20; D in charge; reference added
3: %% JUL 06; D improved caption of figure 1, added new chapter and figure
4: %% on r/n-1 classification;
5: %% JUL 19; resubmitted
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: \newcommand \1{$\clubsuit$} % Cesar
12: \newcommand \2{$\spadesuit$} % Dominik
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14:
15: % CERN-PH-TH/2004-045
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title[]{Primordial fluctuations and cosmological inflation
20: after WMAP 1.0}
21: \author{Dominik J.~Schwarz\dag\ and
22: C\'{e}sar A.~Terrero-Escalante\dag\ddag}
23: \address{\dag\ Department of Physics, CERN, Theory Division, 1211 Geneva 23,
24: Switzerland}
25: \address{\ddag\ Departamento de F\i\'sica, Centro de Investigaci\'{o}n y
26: Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Apdo.~Postal 14-740, 07000 M\'{e}xico D.F.,
27: M\'{e}xico}
28: \eads{\mailto{Dominik.Schwarz@cern.ch},\ \mailto{Cesar.Terrero@cern.ch}}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: The observational constraints on the primordial power spectrum have tightened
32: considerably with the release of the first year analysis of the WMAP
33: observations, especially when combined with the results from other CMB
34: experiments and galaxy redshift surveys. These observations allow us
35: to constrain the physics of cosmological inflation:
36: \begin{enumerate}
37: \item The data show that the Hubble distance is almost constant during
38: inflation. While observable modes cross the Hubble scale, it changes by less
39: than $3\%$ during one e-folding: $\dot{d}_{\rm H} < 0.032$ at $2\sigma$.
40: The distance scale of inflation itself remains poorly constrained:
41: $1.2 \times 10^{-28} \mbox{\ cm} < d_{\rm H} < 1 \mbox{\ cm}$.
42: \item We present a new classification of single-field inflationary scenarios
43: (including scenarios beyond slow-roll inflation), based on physical criteria,
44: namely the behaviour of the kinetic and total energy densities of the inflaton
45: field. The current data show no preference for any of the scenarios.
46: \item For the first time the slow-roll assumption could be dropped from the
47: data analysis and replaced by the more general assumption that the Hubble scale
48: is (almost) constant during the observable part of inflation.
49: We present simple analytic expressions for the scalar and tensor power spectra
50: for this very general class of inflation models and test their accuracy.
51: \end{enumerate}
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \begin{flushleft}
55: {\bf Keywords}: inflation, CMBR theory
56: \end{flushleft}
57:
58: \maketitle
59:
60: \section{Introduction and results}
61:
62: With the release of the analysis of the first year WMAP data
63: \cite{Bennett:2003bz,Spergel:2003cb} and the first 3d SDSS power
64: spectrum \cite{Tegmark:2003uf}, we got splendid confirmation of the
65: long-standing expectation that the primordial power spectrum of
66: density fluctuations is almost scale-invariant, as anticipated
67: already by Harrison and Zel'dovich in the 1970s. The simplest and
68: most elegant mechanism known to produce primordial spectra with
69: that property is cosmological inflation. Its beauty lies in the fact that
70: we do not need to invent untested physical principles: quantum
71: mechanics and general relativity in four space-time dimensions are
72: good enough. What is needed is a cosmic substratum that gives rise to an
73: epoch of accelerated expansion of the very early Universe. A
74: positive energy density of the vacuum is the simplest example. Trying to figure
75: out the underlying mechanism leads to the pressing question: {\it What is the
76: scale of cosmological inflation?} It is probably the most poorly constrained
77: energy scale in cosmology; we could argue that cosmological inflation
78: happens somewhere between the electroweak scale (requiring a mechanism to
79: create baryons after the end of inflation) and the highest possible energy
80: scale, which might be the scale of quantum gravity. This implies an
81: uncertainty of some $16$ orders of magnitude.
82:
83: Although we have no clue on how the world looks like at scales beyond
84: the standard model of particle physics, we can make some generic
85: predictions about the fluctuations in the energy density and
86: space-time structure that are seeded by quantum fluctuations
87: during cosmological inflation \cite{Mukhanov:xt,Starobinsky:ty}.
88:
89: We assume that the first prediction of cosmological inflation, spatial
90: flatness of the Universe, is well established and take $\Omega = 1$ (see
91: \cite{Benoit:2002mm,Spergel:2003cb} for a detailed discussion). Further, we
92: assume that the observed perturbations are of isentropic nature, which is
93: another prediction of cosmological inflation, unless there is some matter
94: component in the Universe that never ever coupled to the radiation fluid.
95: The most convincing evidence for the dominance of isentropic fluctuations
96: comes from the recent detection of polarization in the cosmic microwave
97: background (CMB) \cite{Kovac:2002fg,Kogut:2003et}, which requires the presence
98: of a quadrupole anisotropy at the moment of photon decoupling and therefore
99: shows that large-scale fluctuations existed back then. In the following we
100: focus on the power spectra of scalar and tensor fluctuations, which contain all
101: the information if, again as predicted by inflation, the fluctuations are
102: Gaussian (which is consistent with the data \cite{Komatsu:2003fd}).
103:
104: Two important inputs are required to predict the inflationary
105: power spectra: the Hubble rate $H$ during cosmological inflation
106: as a function of the scale factor $a$ (or, for later convenience, as
107: a function of the logarithm of the scale factor, denoted by $N$) and
108: the number of dynamical degrees of freedom that drive inflation.
109: In the case of de Sitter space-time this number is zero, but in
110: such a model inflation does not end; the vacuum energy thus must
111: be dynamical. In the simplest scenarios with an exit from
112: inflation a single scalar field $\varphi$, usually called {\it
113: inflaton}, is responsible for the acceleration of the Universe. We
114: will restrict the following considerations to that case, with
115: equations of motion,
116: \begin{eqnarray}
117: \label{eq:KGphi}
118: \ddot{\varphi} + 3H\dot{\varphi} + V'(\varphi) = 0 \, ,\\
119: \label{eq:Feq}
120: H^2 = \frac{1}{3}\left[\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2}+V(\varphi)\right]\, .
121: \end{eqnarray}
122: Here, $V(\varphi)$ is the potential energy density of the inflaton field,
123: the dot stands for a derivative with respect to cosmic time $t$,
124: and the prime denotes a derivative with respect to the inflaton field.
125: We use Planck units, $8\pi G = c = \hbar = 1$.
126:
127: In principle, observations should allow the reconstruction of $H(N)$, but
128: since only a finite interval of wave numbers $k$ is accessible to
129: observations, we can only probe a finite and rather short interval
130: $\Delta N$. An efficient encoding of $H(N)$ is by the so-called
131: horizon-flow functions, evaluated at a pivot point $N_*$ adapted
132: to the experimental set-up. The horizon-flow functions are a
133: generalization of the slow-roll parameters \cite{Liddle:1994dx}
134: and are defined recursively
135: as the logarithmic derivatives of the Hubble scale with respect to
136: the number of e-foldings $N$ \cite{Schwarz:2001vv}:
137: \begin{equation}
138: \label{eq:hff}
139: \epsilon_{m+1} \equiv {{\rm d} \ln |\epsilon_m|\over {\rm d} N}
140: \quad \forall m \geq 0, \quad
141: \epsilon_0 = {H(N_{\rm i})\over H(N)}\, ,
142: \end{equation}
143: where $N_{\rm i}$ denotes an arbitrary `initial' moment. The necessary
144: condition for inflation to take place ($\ddot{a} > 0$) becomes
145: $\epsilon_1<1$, and we assume here that the weak energy condition and null
146: energy condition hold true, i.e.~$\epsilon_1 \geq 0$.
147: We define the {\it graceful exit} from inflation as the moment when
148: $\epsilon_1$ crosses unity. Specifying the set
149: $\{\epsilon_m(N_*)\}$ is equivalent to specifying $H(N)$. A truncation of
150: the set $\{\epsilon_m(N_*)\}$ corresponds to an incomplete knowledge of
151: the evolution of the Hubble rate.
152:
153: In single field slow-roll models of inflation, all the horizon-flow
154: functions are typically small and, hence, equivalent to the
155: slow-roll parameters. In terms of the inflaton potential
156: $V(\varphi)$ and its derivatives with respect to the inflaton
157: field, the first two flow functions are given by
158: \cite{Leach:2002ar}:
159: \begin{equation}
160: \epsilon_1 \approx
161: \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{V^\prime}{V}\right)^2\, , \qquad
162: \epsilon_2 \approx 2
163: \left[\left(\frac{V^\prime}{V}\right)^2-\frac{V^{\prime\prime}}{V}\right]\, .
164: \end{equation}
165:
166: CMB experiments (the most recent
167: results come from CBI \cite{Pearson:2002tr,Readhead:2004gy}, Archeops
168: \cite{Benoit:2002mk}, ACBAR \cite{Kuo:2002ua}, VSA
169: \cite{Grainge:2002da,Dickinson:2004yr} and WMAP \cite{Bennett:2003bz}) and
170: galaxy redshift surveys (especially 2dF \cite{Percival:2001hw,Tegmark:2001jh}
171: and SDSS \cite{Tegmark:2003uf}) have measured the amplitude $A$ and the
172: spectral index $n$ of density fluctuations and constrained the
173: running\footnote{Two recent works on new data from CBI
174: \cite{Readhead:2004gy} and VSA \cite{Rebolo:2004vp} claim to see evidence for
175: a large (compared to expectations from cosmological inflation) running of the
176: spectral index with negative sign, but point out a calibration issue that
177: weakens the evidence.}
178: of the spectral index ${\rm d}n/{\rm d}\ln k$, as well as
179: the amount of gravitational waves, typically expressed as the
180: tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, that can contribute to the CMB signal.
181: This set of observables $\{A,n,{\rm d}n/{\rm d}\ln k,r\}$ could,
182: in principle, provide a measurement of the inflationary parameters
183: $\{H,\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2,\epsilon_3\}$.
184:
185: In a number of works, various combinations of experiments and
186: methods have been used to determine a subset of these parameters,
187: see especially
188: Refs.~\cite{Peiris:2003ff,Barger:2003ym,Kinney:2003uw,Leach:2003us,
189: Tegmark:2003ud,Rebolo:2004vp}.
190: Most interesting are the constraints in the
191: $\epsilon_1$--$\epsilon_2$ plane; see Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}. The
192: common finding is that models with almost scale-invariant spectra
193: provide acceptable fits and $\epsilon_1 < 0.032$ (at $2 \sigma$)
194: \cite{Leach:2003us}. The
195: corresponding likelihood contours from that work are shown in
196: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} where the dashed line denotes
197: scale-invariance, up to third order corrections in the horizon-flow
198: functions. Thus, observations show for the first time that
199: $\epsilon_1 \ll 1$. The limits on $\epsilon_2$ are much less
200: restrictive; the situation $|\epsilon_2| > \epsilon_1$ covers a
201: large part of the allowed parameter space. This is due to the
202: so-called tensor degeneracy \cite{Efstathiou:2001cv}, i.e. one can
203: compensate an increase of the tensor contribution by making the
204: scalar spectral index bluer. Since there exist only upper limits
205: on the contribution from gravitational waves, the scale of
206: inflation cannot be fixed by present observations. However, the
207: combination of the upper limit on $\epsilon_1$ and the measurement
208: of the amplitude of scalar fluctuations also allows an
209: upper limit on the energy scale of inflation $V^{1/4} < 0.01
210: (\equiv 2.7 \times 10^{16} \mbox{\ GeV})$ \cite{Leach:2003us} or a
211: lower limit on the distance scale during inflation $d_{\rm H} >
212: 1.2 \times 10^{-28} \mbox{\ cm}$. A lower (upper) limit on the
213: energy (distance) scale can be obtained from the facts that the
214: Universe contains baryons and that there is no known mechanism to
215: produce baryons below the electroweak scale ($100$ GeV,
216: respectively $1$ cm) \cite{Schwarz:2003du}. Thus observations put
217: the scale of inflation at least two orders of magnitude below the
218: Planck scale [this limit will improve proportionally to the limits on
219: $\sqrt{\epsilon_1}$ and will be tightened as the value of the optical
220: depth $\tau$ is pinned down more precisely, since
221: $A \exp(-2\tau)$ is the observed quantity].
222:
223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%figure 1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
224: \begin{figure}
225: \label{fig:fig1}
226: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.95\linewidth]{fig1.eps}}
227: \caption{Observational constraints, interpretation, and accuracy of
228: various approximations in the $\epsilon_1$--$\epsilon_2$ plane: the
229: likelihood curves have been provided by S.~M.~Leach
230: \cite{Leach:2003us} and enclose the $1\sigma$-, $2\sigma$- and
231: $3\sigma$-allowed regions. Models with a scale-invariant spectrum
232: fall on the dashed line (HZ). An observation of $\epsilon_2 > 0$
233: would favour simple models of inflation, in which the evolution
234: toward a graceful exit is seen (toward-exit inflation). If
235: $\epsilon_2 \leq 0$, a more contrived scenario must be realized,
236: since in that case the mechanism of exit is hidden from observation
237: (hidden-exit inflation). The region with $\epsilon_2 > 0$ is further
238: split up by the (full straight) line $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2/2$,
239: which distinguishes models in which the kinetic energy density
240: decreases (above the line) or increases with time. The latter
241: requires a mechanism to ensure that the kinetic energy density is
242: very small initially. The solid arc centered at the origin encloses
243: the region in which the slow-roll approximation at second order
244: (sra2) provides a prediction of the amplitude at the pivot scale
245: better than $0.3\%$. Below the hyperbolic lines the same accuracy is
246: achieved for the constant-horizon approximation (cha2 at second
247: order, cha3 at third order) and the growing horizon approximation
248: (gha). The dotted lines represent the boundaries between cha3 and
249: cha2, as well as between cha2 and gha.}
250: \end{figure}
251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
252:
253: Based on the observational constraints on the first two horizon-flow functions,
254: we do not restrict our considerations to slow-roll models in this paper.
255: We relax the slow-roll conditions ($\epsilon_m \ll 1$ for all $m$) to
256: $\epsilon_m \leq 1$ for some $m$. In Section~\ref{sec:hubble} we demonstrate
257: that the condition $\epsilon_1 \ll 1$ is sufficient to guarantee that the
258: Hubble scale is almost constant during the inflationary epoch of interest.
259:
260: The physical meaning of the first and second horizon-flow functions is
261: discussed in Section~\ref{sec:classification} in the framework of single-field
262: models, and a new physical classification of inflationary scenarios is
263: introduced, based on the behaviour of the kinetic and total energy densities
264: of the inflaton. To our surprise this approach closely resembles the small
265: field/large field/hybrid classification of Dodelson et
266: al.~\cite{Dodelson:1997hr}, but is not restricted to slow-roll models.
267:
268: In Section~4 we derive a procedure to self-consistently calculate
269: higher-order corrections at any scale $k$, given an analytic
270: expression of the power at the pivot scale $k_*$ as a function of
271: the horizon-flow functions. A similar relation has been used in
272: the literature to calculate the spectral index and its running so
273: far, but, to our knowledge, it has never been justified rigorously.
274:
275: Starting from the observation that $\epsilon_1 \ll 1$,
276: we show that the slow-roll approximation is no longer needed in
277: the analysis of the data and that it could be replaced by a more
278: efficient approximation (constant-horizon approximation
279: \cite{Schwarz:2001vv}). The latter is more efficient in the sense
280: that we need to know less horizon-flow functions in order to
281: predict the power spectra to a given accuracy, as compared with
282: the slow-roll approximation.
283:
284: We map the classification of models from the $\epsilon_1$--$\epsilon_2$
285: plane to the space spanned by the tilt of the
286: spectrum,
287: %al index,
288: $n-1$, and the ratio of tensor and scalar amplitudes $r$ in
289: Section~5. At leading order in the horizon-flow functions this is a
290: one-to-one mapping; including higher orders introduces an ambiguity,
291: due to the running of the spectral index. We thus argue that the
292: $\epsilon_1$--$\epsilon_2$ plane is more fundamental. For practical
293: purposes, the $r$--tilt plane is nevertheless a useful tool.
294:
295: In Section~6 we give examples to demonstrate the accuracy
296: of the new method and discuss the applicability of the new
297: method in the light of the recent data.
298:
299: Our main results are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}. We overlay
300: our new classification of models on the likelihood contours as
301: obtained by Leach and Liddle \cite{Leach:2003us}. We also indicate
302: which approximation to the power spectrum at the pivot scale is
303: best suited for which region of parameter space. We assume an
304: accuracy goal of $0.3\%$ at the pivot, which puts the theoretical
305: errors safely away from the systematic and statistical errors of WMAP
306: and Planck.
307:
308: \section{Hubble horizon flow during inflation}
309: \label{sec:hubble}
310:
311: The Hubble horizon, $d_{\rm H} \equiv c/H$ (recall that $c=1$),
312: is roughly the size of the region where causal processes can
313: take place during one Hubble time $1/H$. An inflationary epoch is
314: characterized by a decreasing comoving Hubble horizon, $d_{\rm
315: H}/a$. Constant vacuum energy is the simplest (but unphysical, since
316: inflation would continue forever) kind of matter leading to an
317: inflationary universe. In this scenario, the Hubble scale is
318: constant. More generally, during inflation, $d_H$ is expected to
319: vary slowly during a given number of e-foldings $N$: ${\rm
320: d}N/{\rm d}t=H$. The behaviour of the Hubble horizon can be
321: parameterized as
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: d_{\rm H}(N)&=& d_{\rm H}(N_*)\left[1+\epsilon_1(N-N_*)+ \frac 1
324: 2(\epsilon_1^2+\epsilon_1\epsilon_2)(N-N_*)^2
325: + \cdots \right]\, ,
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: where the coefficients in this expansion are expressed in terms of
328: the horizon-flow functions $\epsilon_m$ at the pivot point. One
329: can see that, if $\epsilon_1 \ll 1$ and $\epsilon_m<1$
330: for any $m>1$, then $d_{\rm H} \approx$ constant. For such cases,
331: the smaller $\epsilon_1$ is, the larger the other horizon-flow
332: functions can be, since $\epsilon_1$ is the leading factor of all
333: coefficients of the higher-order terms in the series. We can use
334: this observation as the starting point for what we call the
335: constant-horizon approximation ($\epsilon_1 \ll 1$ and $\epsilon_m
336: <1$ for all $m>1$). As is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} and
337: discussed in the introduction, the data show that $\dot{d}_{\rm H}
338: \equiv \epsilon_1 \ll 1$.
339:
340: \section{Classification of single scalar field inflationary models}
341: \label{sec:classification}
342:
343: The number of proposed models of cosmological inflation is very large and
344: keeps growing. Current observations allow us to constrain the number of
345: successful models, and future observations are expected to play a stronger
346: role in that direction. For a more effective use of the data analysis, it is
347: useful to group the inflationary scenarios according to some commonly
348: applicable criteria, i.e.~independent of parameters such as masses or coupling
349: constants, which are strongly model-dependent. For slow-roll inflation, such
350: a classification was suggested by Dodelson, Kinney and Kolb
351: \cite{Dodelson:1997hr}, based on the shape of the inflaton potential
352: (and expressed as conditions on the slow-roll parameters).
353:
354: Here we present a new scheme in terms of the horizon-flow functions, which
355: closely resembles the Dodelson et al.\ classification, but avoids misleading
356: terminology, allows the inclusion of models beyond the slow-roll class,
357: and is based on physical criteria on the kinetic and total energy densities.
358:
359: The idea is to investigate how the kinetic and potential energy of the
360: inflaton field change with time, both absolute and relative to each other.
361: It is thus useful to rewrite the first two horizon-flow functions as
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: \label{eq:e1energy}
364: \epsilon_1 = 3{\dot{\varphi}^2/2\over \dot{\varphi}^2/2 + V}\, ,\\
365: \label{eq:e2energy}
366: \epsilon_2 = 2\left({\ddot{\varphi}\over H\dot{\varphi}} +
367: \epsilon_1\right)\, ,
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: where we used Eqs.~(\ref{eq:KGphi}) and (\ref{eq:Feq}).
370: Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:KGphi}) and (\ref{eq:e2energy}),
371: the time variation of the potential energy is found to be
372: \begin{equation}
373: \label{eq:Vdot}
374: \dot{V} = - H \dot{\varphi}^2 \left(3 - \epsilon_1 +
375: \frac{\epsilon_2}{2}\right).
376: \end{equation}
377: Since $H \dot{\varphi}^2 > 0$, the potential energy density can never increase
378: for physically meaningful values of $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$. Thus, we
379: focus on the behaviour of the kinetic energy density.
380:
381: According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:e1energy}),
382: $\epsilon_1/3 \geq 0$ measures the ratio of kinetic energy density to total
383: energy density. Using definition (\ref{eq:hff}),
384: we can ask how this ratio changes with time during inflation:
385: \begin{equation}
386: \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d} t}\frac{\epsilon_1}{3} = H \frac{\epsilon_1}{3}\epsilon_2.
387: \end{equation}
388: Since $H$ and $\epsilon_1$ are positive, $\epsilon_2 = 0$ marks a
389: borderline between two physically different cases:
390: increasing ($\epsilon_2 > 0$)
391: and decreasing ($\epsilon_2 < 0$) kinetic energy density
392: with respect to the total energy density of the inflaton.
393:
394: For a more complete understanding of the inflationary dynamics, we
395: must also look at the absolute time variation of the kinetic
396: energy density ${\rm d}{(\dot{\varphi}^2/2)}/{\rm d}t$, which,
397: using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:KGphi}) and (\ref{eq:Vdot}), can be written as
398: \begin{equation}
399: \dot{\varphi}\ddot{\varphi} = H \dot{\varphi}^2
400: \left(\frac{\epsilon_2}{2} - \epsilon_1\right).
401: \end{equation}
402: For $\epsilon_1 > 0$ we have $\dot{\varphi}\neq 0$ and thus
403: $\epsilon_2 = 2 \epsilon_1$ is another borderline between
404: two different physical scenarios in which kinetic energy density grows
405: ($\epsilon_2 > 2 \epsilon_1$) or falls ($\epsilon_2 < 2 \epsilon_1$) with time.
406: We thus arrive at the following classification:
407: \begin{itemize}
408: \item $\epsilon_2 > 0$: the kinetic energy density is increasing with respect
409: to the total energy density. This is a necessary condition for evolving
410: toward a graceful exit of inflation. Thus, such models could be called
411: {\it toward-exit} models, since it can be argued that the approach to a
412: graceful exit of inflation is observed in that case (although a more
413: complicated interpretation remains possible).
414:
415: There are two subcases, corresponding to whether or not the kinetic
416: energy density grows with time. It would be expected that this provides a
417: criterion to discriminate between the false vacuum models and chaotic models
418: in the slow-roll phase, since false vacuum models start out with vanishing
419: kinetic energy density, whereas chaotic models always have a non-vanishing
420: kinetic energy density.
421: \begin{itemize}
422: \item $\epsilon_2 > 2 \epsilon_1$: kinetic energy density grows with time.
423: An example of this are false vacuum models arising, e.g.~in superstrings models,
424: with potential $V = V_0 - m^2 \varphi^2/2$ \cite{Binetruy:ss}. Here, in
425: the slow-roll phase, $\epsilon_2 \approx 4 (V_0/m^2 \varphi^2) \epsilon_1$,
426: and the condition is met as long as $V_0 > m^2\varphi^2/2$. False vacuum
427: models need to provide a mechanism that gives rise to {\it small kinetic
428: energy} density of the inflaton before observable modes cross the Hubble
429: scale during inflation.
430:
431: \item $\epsilon_2 < 2 \epsilon_1$: kinetic energy density is decreasing
432: with time. Monomial potentials $V = \lambda \varphi^n/n$ with chaotic initial
433: conditions give rise to models of that kind. During their slow-roll
434: phase $\epsilon_2 \approx (4/n) \epsilon_1$, and the criterion is met
435: for $n > 2$. Here no extra mechanism is needed to tune the kinetic energy
436: density initially, and one could argue that these are the {\it simplest}
437: models.
438:
439: \item $\epsilon_2 = 2 \epsilon_1$: kinetic energy density is constant.
440: For slow-roll models, this is realised for chaotic inflation with a
441: quadratic potential ($n=2$) \cite{Linde:fd}.
442:
443: Note that this criterion is different from the one given by Dodelson et al.\
444: \cite{Dodelson:1997hr} to distinguish between small- and large-field models.
445: In our notation and in the slow-roll approximation their borderline is
446: $\epsilon_2 \simeq 4 \epsilon_1$. This is the case of a linear potential
447: ($n=1$). Naively one would think that these models should fall into the
448: same class as chaotic inflationary models, but actually they do not give rise
449: to a successful scenario, since for the linear potential
450: $V=V_0(1+\varphi/\varphi_0)$ we find during slow-roll $\epsilon_1 \approx
451: \epsilon_2/4 \approx 1/(2\varphi_0^2)$, which is constant and thus inflation
452: never ends.
453: \end{itemize}
454:
455: \item $\epsilon_2 < 0$: kinetic energy density is decreasing absolutely and
456: relatively. Here, in order to reach a graceful exit, $\epsilon_2$ has
457: to change sign at some point. Thus, negative values of $\epsilon_2$ must
458: correspond to models in which inflation still has to go through a transition
459: to either another stage of inflation or to directly to stop it by
460: some unknown mechanism. The actual mechanism of exit is out of sight of
461: observations, so we could call these models {\it hidden-exit} models.
462:
463: An example is the hybrid model, with an effective potential $V =
464: V_0 + m^2 \varphi^2/2$ in the slow-roll phase \cite{Linde:1991km}.
465: In that case $\epsilon_2 \approx - 4 (V_0/m^2\varphi^2) \epsilon_1$. In
466: order to end inflation $V_0$ must depend on yet another field which
467: finally drives $V_0$ to zero.
468:
469: \item $\epsilon_2 = 0$: the ratio of kinetic to total energy density
470: is constant. If additionally all $\epsilon_m = 0$, then this is de
471: Sitter space-time. If only $\epsilon_1 \neq 0$, then this is
472: power-law inflation \cite{Lucchin:1984yf}. There also exists a number of
473: models where $\epsilon_2$ asymptotically converges to zero during
474: inflation, so that they are observationally indistinguishable from
475: power-law inflation (see \cite{Terrero-Escalante:2002sd} for a discussion
476: and further references). In all these cases there is {\it no exit} from
477: inflation but the models are not ruled out by current cosmological data.
478:
479: Provided the slow-roll approximation holds, $\epsilon_2 = 0$ coincides with
480: the limit between hybrid models and large-field models in the Dodelson et al.\
481: classification.
482: \end{itemize}
483:
484: Summarizing, our three classes are
485: i) hidden-exit inflation ($\epsilon_2 \leq 0$),
486: ii) toward-exit inflation with general (``chaotic'') initial conditions
487: ($0 < \epsilon_2 \leq 2 \epsilon_1$), and
488: iii) toward-exit inflation with special (e.g.~false vacuum) initial
489: conditions ($0 < 2\epsilon_1 < \epsilon_2$).
490:
491: At this point it is convenient to note that the here introduced by
492: us classification involves only exact expressions. We confront this
493: new classification with the observational constraints in
494: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}. Although the biggest piece of allowed parameter
495: space falls into the hidden-exit inflation class, this cannot be
496: seen as a preference of the data for this scenario, since the shape
497: of the likelihood curves is due to the tensor degeneracy. At present
498: all scenarios are consistent with the data. A better determination
499: of the spectral index (lines parallel to the dashed line correspond
500: roughly to fixed values of the spectral index) could in principle
501: rule out some of the possibilities; there is thus hope to learn more
502: about inflation, well before we can expect to get a hand on the
503: tensor contribution via observations of the B-polarization pattern
504: of the CMB.
505:
506: \section{Power spectra}
507:
508: The accurate prediction of inflationary perturbations have been of
509: concern since Mukhanov and Chibisov \cite{Mukhanov:xt} realized that
510: density and space-time perturbations during inflation could be the seeds
511: for large-scale structure formation. The calculation of inflationary
512: power spectra requires the solution of the mode equations for scalar and
513: tensor fluctuations. The assumption that scalar and tensor perturbations are
514: quantum fluctuations of the vacuum originally fixes the power spectra uniquely.
515: The mode equations are of the same type as the Schroedinger equation, which
516: happens to be difficult to solve, even for the simple models (see
517: \cite{Stewart:1993bc,Wang:1997cw,Martin:1999wa,Gong:2001he,Schwarz:2001vv,
518: Leach:2002ar,Tsamis:2003px} for details and references).
519:
520: It proved useful to expand the primordial power spectrum in a
521: Taylor series around a pivot scale $k_* = (aH)(N_*)$.
522: Within a time interval $\Delta t \sim 1/H$, the modes in the
523: logarithmic frequency interval $\Delta \ln k = \ln(e aH) - \ln(aH)
524: = 1$ cross the Hubble scale\footnote{The `crossing' of the Hubble
525: horizon is defined here to take place when $k = aH$.}. It is thus
526: natural to expand in terms of $\ln (k/k_*)$:
527: \begin{equation}
528: \label{eq:power}
529: {\cal P}(k) = \tilde{\cal P}(k_*) \sum_{n\geq 0} {a_n\over n!}
530: \ln^n\left(\textstyle{k\over k_*}\right),
531: \end{equation}
532: where the coefficients are defined by
533: \begin{equation}
534: a_n(k_*) = {{\rm d}^n \over {\rm d} \ln^n k}
535: \left. {{\cal P}(k)\over \tilde{\cal P}(k_*)}\right|_{k = k_*}.
536: \end{equation}
537: These coefficients depend on the horizon-flow parameters in such a
538: way that they are regular in the limit $\epsilon_m \to 0$; in fact
539: $a_0 \to 1$ and $a_n \to 0$ for all $n > 0$. Now it becomes
540: obvious why we have separated a factor that represents the leading-order
541: prediction for the amplitude at the pivot scale
542: \begin{equation}
543: \tilde{\cal P}_{\rm S}(k_*) \equiv {H_*^2 \over 8 \pi^2
544: \epsilon_1}
545: \end{equation}
546: for scalar perturbations, and
547: \begin{equation}
548: \tilde{\cal P}_{\rm T}(k_*) \equiv {2 H_*^2 \over \pi^2}
549: \end{equation}
550: for tensor perturbations. In the notation of the WMAP team,
551: ${\cal P}_{\rm S}(k_*) \equiv 10^{-9} A$ and
552: ${\cal P}_{\rm T}(k_*)/{\cal P}_{\rm S}(k_*) \equiv r$.
553:
554: \subsection{Independence from the pivot point}
555:
556: The physical power spectrum must not depend on the arbitrary choice of a
557: pivot scale $k_*$ in the above expansion:
558: \begin{equation}
559: {{\rm d} {\cal P}(k)\over {\rm d} \ln k_*} \equiv 0 \, .
560: \end{equation}
561: Evaluation of this expression provides us with the non-trivial relation
562: \begin{equation}
563: \sum_{n \geq 0}{1\over n!}\ln^n \left({k\over k_*}\right)
564: \left[{{\rm d} \ln \tilde{\cal P}\over {\rm d} \ln k_*} a_n
565: + {{\rm d}a_n\over {\rm d} \ln k_*}\right]
566: - \sum_{n\geq 1} {a_n \over (n-1)!}\ln^{n-1}\left({k\over k_*}\right) = 0
567: \, .
568: \end{equation}
569: A comparison of the coefficients of $\ln^n (k/k_*)$ finally leads to
570: a recursion relation for the higher coefficients of the Taylor series:
571: \begin{equation}
572: \label{eq:an}
573: a_{n+1} = {1\over 1 - \epsilon_1} \left[{{\rm d}a_n\over {\rm d} N_*}
574: + {{\rm d} \ln \tilde{\cal P}\over {\rm d} \ln N_*} a_n \right] \quad
575: \forall n \geq 0\, ,
576: \end{equation}
577: where in the last step we used the identity
578: \begin{equation}
579: {\rm d}\ln k_* = (1 - \epsilon_1) {\rm d}N_* \, .
580: \end{equation}
581: For scalars ${\rm d}\ln\tilde{\cal P}_{\rm S}/{\rm d}\ln N_* =
582: - 2\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2$, whereas for tensors
583: ${\rm d}\ln\tilde{\cal P}_{\rm T}/{\rm d}\ln N_* = - 2\epsilon_1$.
584: Let us note that the recursion relation (\ref{eq:an}) is an exact result:
585: no approximation has been made, apart from the assumption that the linear
586: perturbation analysis is justified.
587:
588: \subsection{Approximation schemes}
589:
590: Up to date, three approximation schemes have been proposed to
591: allow for a high-precision calculation of the spectra amplitudes.
592: Using recursion (\ref{eq:an}), all of these approximations yield
593: expressions for the coefficients $a_n$ as expansions in terms of
594: the horizon-flow functions. Keeping terms up to order $\epsilon^q$ (which
595: stands here for any monomial of $\epsilon_m$'s at order $q$) in $a_0$
596: allows us to calculate all terms up to order $\epsilon^{q+n}$ in $a_n$.
597: We will denote the order of a given approximation by the highest order
598: in the seed $a_0$. Besides the order $q$, a second choice that must be
599: made prior to data analysis is how many coefficients $a_n$ should
600: be included in the analysis. The common practice is that only the terms
601: $a_0$ and $a_1$ are taken into account, $a_2$ being included when the running
602: of the spectral index is included.
603:
604: \subsubsection{Slow-roll approximation.}
605:
606: Assuming all horizon-flow functions to be small (without assuming any hierarchy
607: among them), the equation of modes can be solved by an iterative method using
608: Green's functions \cite{Gong:2001he}. To second order in the slow-roll
609: parameters, here expressed as horizon-flow parameters, the seed for recursion
610: (\ref{eq:an}) for the scalar spectrum reads
611: \begin{eqnarray}
612: \label{eq:scalarSG}
613: a_{{\rm S}0} &=& 1 - 2(C+1) \epsilon_1 - C \epsilon_2 \nonumber \\
614: & & + \left(2C^2 + 2C + \frac{\pi^2}2 - 5\right) \epsilon_1^2
615: + \left(\frac{C^2}2 + \frac{\pi^2}8 - 1\right) \epsilon_2^2 \nonumber \\
616: & & + \left(C^2 - C + \frac{7 \pi^2}{12} - 7\right)
617: \epsilon_1\epsilon_2 + \left(- \frac{C^2}2 +
618: \frac{\pi^2}{24}\right) \epsilon_2\epsilon_3\, ,
619: \end{eqnarray}
620: where $C \equiv \gamma_{\rm E} + \ln 2 - 2\approx -0.7296$,
621: while for the tensor spectrum we have \cite{Leach:2002ar},
622: \begin{eqnarray}
623: a_{{\rm T}0} &=& 1 - 2(C+1) \epsilon_1 \nonumber \\
624: & & + \left(2C^2 + 2C + \frac{\pi^2}2 - 5\right) \epsilon_1^2 +
625: \left(-C^2 - 2C + \frac{\pi^2}{12} - 2\right) \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\, .
626: \end{eqnarray}
627: In Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} we estimated the region of parameter space in which
628: the prediction of the pivot amplitude $A(k_*)$ is better than $0.3\%$ for
629: the slow-roll approximation at second order. Such a high precision is actually
630: needed to ensure that the power spectrum can be predicted with an accuracy
631: better than a few per cent over at least three or four decades in wave number.
632:
633: \subsubsection{Constant-horizon assumption.}
634: \label{sssec:cha}
635:
636: In a number of inflationary models the time derivative of the Hubble
637: distance is tiny (see Section \ref{sec:test} for examples). For this
638: kind of models, during a certain number of e-foldings, $\epsilon_1
639: \ll 1$. However, as we have seen in Section~\ref{sec:hubble}, this
640: does not necessarily mean that all other $\epsilon_m$ have to be
641: small as well. We thus worked out the constant-horizon approximation
642: \cite{Schwarz:2001vv} at order $q$ for the situation $|\epsilon_2^q|
643: > \max(|\epsilon_1\epsilon_2|, |\epsilon_2\epsilon_3|)$, which means
644: that, for $a_0$ we are allowed to include the following monomials in
645: the primordial spectra: $1, \epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \dots,
646: \epsilon_2^q$. With this approximation, the $q=3$ expression for the
647: seed of the scalar spectrum is
648: \begin{eqnarray}
649: \label{eq:scalarCHA}
650: a_{{\rm S}0} &=& 1 - 2(C+1) \epsilon_1 - C \epsilon_2
651: + \left(\frac{C^2}2 + \frac{\pi^2}8 - 1\right)\epsilon_2^2 \nonumber \\
652: & & - \left(\frac{C^3}6 - C + C\frac{\pi^2}8 + \frac 78 \zeta(3)
653: - \frac 23 \right)\epsilon_2^3 \, ,
654: \end{eqnarray}
655: where $\zeta(3) \approx 1.2021$, and to any order for the tensor
656: spectrum,
657: \begin{eqnarray}
658: a_{{\rm T}0} &=& 1 - 2(C+1) \epsilon_1 \, .
659: \end{eqnarray}
660: Also here we estimate the region of $0.3\%$ accuracy of $A(k_*)$ and indicate
661: it in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}. For more details on how to do this we refer
662: the reader to the work of \cite{Schwarz:2001vv}.
663:
664: \subsubsection{Growing-horizon assumption.}
665:
666: This approximation is valid for cases with $|\epsilon_m| <
667: \epsilon_1$ for $m > 1$. The trivial example here is power-law
668: inflation \cite{Lucchin:1984yf}, where only $\epsilon_1 \neq 0$.
669: This approximation is also valid in inflationary scenarios, where
670: power-law inflation dynamics is a past or future attractor, and
671: $\epsilon_1$ is sufficiently large for higher-order corrections to
672: make sense. An expression for $a_0$ can be obtained by keeping all
673: terms in $\epsilon_1$ up to order $q$, where $q$ is the maximal
674: integer for which $\epsilon_1^q > \max(|\epsilon_1
675: \epsilon_2|,|\epsilon_2 \epsilon_3|)$ holds true. We defined the
676: (linearly) growing-horizon approximation to order $q$
677: \cite{Schwarz:2001vv} to include the following terms:
678: $1,\epsilon_1, \dots, \epsilon_1^q, \epsilon_2$. To third order
679: the corresponding expression for the scalar spectrum is
680: \begin{eqnarray}
681: a_{{\rm S}0} &=& 1 - 2(C+1) \epsilon_1
682: + \left(2C^2 + 2C + \frac{\pi^2}{2} - 5\right)\epsilon_1^2 \nonumber \\
683: & & -\ \left(\frac{4C^3}3 + C\pi^2 - 12C + \frac{14}3 \zeta(3)
684: - \frac{19}3\right)
685: \epsilon_1^3 - C \epsilon_2 \, ,
686: \end{eqnarray}
687: and for the tensor spectrum,
688: \begin{eqnarray}
689: a_{{\rm T}0} &=& 1 - 2(C+1) \epsilon_1 \nonumber \\
690: & & + \left(2C^2 + 2C + \frac{\pi^2}2 - 5\right) \epsilon_1^2 \nonumber \\
691: & & -\ \left( \frac{4C^3}3 + C\pi^2 - 12C + \frac{14}3 \zeta(3)
692: - \frac{19}3\right) \epsilon_1^3\, .
693: \end{eqnarray}
694:
695: \section{Classification of inflation models in the $r$--tilt plane}
696:
697: In this section we indicate how to make contact with the variables that are frequently used
698: in cosmological parameter estimation.
699: However useful these variables have been assumed to be so far, as we shall see here,
700: the analysis using them
701: becomes much more involved that while using the horizon-flow functions.
702: Complications arise because there are not exact model independent expressions for
703: $(n-1)$ and $r$; they are given as expansions in terms of the horizon-flow functions.
704:
705: Using one or the other set of variables is just a matter of choosing
706: the working parametrization for the primordial spectra. Very often a
707: power-law shape is assumed for the scalar power spectrum;
708: \begin{equation}
709: {\cal P}_{\rm S}(k) = A(k_*) \left(k\over k_*\right)^{n-1},
710: \end{equation}
711: where $n$ is called the spectral index and $n-1$ the tilt of the
712: spectrum. A comparison with expression (\ref{eq:power}) reveals that
713: \begin{eqnarray}
714: A(k_*) &=& \tilde{{\cal P}}(k_*) a_{{\rm S}0}, \\
715: (n-1)(k_*) &=& {a_{{\rm S}1} \over a_{{\rm S}0}}.
716: \end{eqnarray}
717: For the slow-roll and the constant-horizon approximation we find
718: at second order in the horizon-flow functions
719: \begin{equation}
720: (n-1)(k_*) = -2 \epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2
721: - 2 \epsilon_1^2 - (2C+3)\epsilon_1\epsilon_2 - C \epsilon_2\epsilon_3.
722: \end{equation}
723: A difference between the two approximations shows up at the third order. Here
724: we restrict the discussion to the second order expressions.
725:
726: Tensor contributions are typically introduced via the tensor to scalar ratio
727: \begin{equation}
728: r = {{\cal P}_{\rm T}(k_*)\over {\cal P}_{\rm S}(k_*)}
729: = 16 \epsilon_1 (1 + C \epsilon_2)
730: \end{equation}
731: at second order in the slow-roll and the constant-horizon approximation.
732:
733: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figure 2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
734: \begin{figure}
735: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{nr.eps}}
736: \caption{Classification of models in the $r$--tilt plane. The vertical long
737: dashed line denotes the scale-invariant HZ spectrum. Toward-exit models
738: of inflation have a negative tilt (red spectrum) and are found
739: to the l.h.s. of the upper full line.
740: %between the two thick full lines.
741: To the r.h.s. of the upper full
742: line we find the hidden-exit models. The (upper) short dashed line
743: shows the approximate borderline derived from the leading order expression
744: given in the text. The toward-exit models
745: are divided by another thick line which assumes vanishing running of
746: the spectral index. Models with decreasing kinetic energy
747: are confined between both thick lines.
748: The (lower) short dashed line is the approximate
749: leading order result. The tilted long dashed lines show two cases of
750: non-vanishing running of the spectral index, namely ${\rm d}n/{\rm
751: d}\ln k = -12 \epsilon_1^2 (+4 \epsilon_1^2)$, corresponding to
752: $\epsilon_3 = + 2 \epsilon_2 (- 2 \epsilon_2)$. The upper curve
753: corresponds to the negative sign of the running. We also indicate
754: the accuracy of the considered approximations. } \label{fig:nr}
755: \end{figure}
756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
757:
758: A closer inspection of the above expressions shows that there is a simple
759: one-to-one map $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) \leftrightarrow (r,n-1)$ at the
760: leading order, namely $\epsilon_1 = r/16$ and $\epsilon_2 = -r/8 - (n-1)$.
761: Thus the physical classification of single scalar field models is characterized
762: by the borderlines $\epsilon_2 = 0 \Leftrightarrow r = - 8 (n-1)$ and
763: $\epsilon_2 = \epsilon_1/2 \Leftrightarrow r = - 4 (n-1)$ (short dashed lines
764: in Fig.~\ref{fig:nr}).
765:
766: This one-to-one correspondence is spoiled by the $\epsilon_3$-dependence
767: of $n-1$ at the second order. Nevertheless, the borderline $\epsilon_2 = 0$
768: (upper full line in Fig.~\ref{fig:nr}) is well defined, since higher horizon-flow
769: parameters enter only together with $\epsilon_2$ and thus it is in principle
770: possible to distinguish toward-exit inflation from hidden-exit inflation
771: in the $r$-tilt plane.
772:
773: However, the borderline ($\epsilon_2 = \epsilon_1/2$) between the two subclasses of
774: toward-exit models, i.e., models with general
775: initial conditions and models with special initial conditions,
776: %The borderline between models with general or and the small kinetic energy models
777: gives rise to a family of lines that
778: depends on the observed running of the spectral index,
779: ${\rm d}n/{\rm d}\ln k = - 2\epsilon_1\epsilon_2 - \epsilon_2\epsilon_3$
780: (leading order). One possibility is to fix $\epsilon_3$ by assuming that
781: the leading contribution to the running vanishes (lower full line in
782: Fig.~\ref{fig:nr}). Thus it is impossible to distinguish between models with
783: decreasing (``chaotic'') and increasing (``false vacuum'') kinetic energy
784: density on the basis of a $r$--tilt plot, unless the running of the spectral
785: index is known or constrained to be small.
786:
787: The above discussion confirms that the horizon-flow functions are more
788: fundamental than other quantities that have been used to classify inflation
789: models. However, the upper solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:nr} is robust in the
790: sense that it holds true for the slow-roll approximation and the
791: constant-horizon approximation at any order (as terms $\epsilon_n$ with $n >2$
792: enter in combination with $\epsilon_2$ and are thus zero for $\epsilon_2 = 0$).
793:
794: Figure \ref{fig:nr} shows another remarkable feature of the constant and
795: growing horizon approximations: for the shown region in $r$ and $n-1$ the
796: amplitudes are accurate to $0.3\%$, except for the tiny region enclosed by
797: the arc on the l.h.s. of the figure. This is in contrast to the slow-roll
798: approximation at second order, which is less accurate in the upper right
799: and lower left corner of the figure.
800:
801: \section{Testing the higher-order constant-horizon approximation}
802: \label{sec:test}
803:
804: As we already noted, observations show that $\epsilon_1 \ll
805: 1$. If $\epsilon_2$ is of the order of $\epsilon_1$ or smaller,
806: higher-order corrections (terms that are at least quadratic in the
807: horizon-flow functions) to the primordial spectra are irrelevant
808: and the first-order expression for $a_0$, the seed of the
809: recursion (\ref{eq:an}), is good enough to calculate the
810: coefficients $a_n$ in the power spectrum (\ref{eq:power}).
811: Nevertheless, if $\epsilon_2$ is actually much larger than
812: $\epsilon_1$, then higher-order corrections in $\epsilon_2$ could be
813: necessary to match the observational accuracy. In such a case the
814: constant-horizon approximation (see Section \ref{sssec:cha}) is the
815: simplest and most economic way of obtaining high-precision predictions. To see
816: if this is true, let us start by comparing Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalarSG}) and
817: (\ref{eq:scalarCHA}). One sees that the third-order expression for the
818: constant-horizon approximation is simpler and requires knowledge of
819: less horizon-flow functions than the corresponding lower-order slow-roll
820: approximation. Next, we must test how good the constant-horizon
821: approximation is.
822:
823: To measure the error of the approximations, we define
824: \begin{equation}
825: \label{eq:error} \Delta A(\log \tilde k)= \frac{A_{\rm num}(\log
826: \tilde k) - A_{\rm appr}(\log \tilde k)} {A_{\rm num}(\log\tilde
827: k)}\, 100\% \, ,
828: \end{equation}
829: where $A_{\rm num}(\log \tilde k)$ and $A_{\rm appr}(\log \tilde
830: k)$ stand for the numerical and analytically approximated values
831: of the amplitudes at the normalized scale $\tilde k\equiv k/k_*$.
832:
833: The constant-horizon approximation applies for many single-field
834: models based on phenomenological particle physics: the inverted quadratic
835: model $V = V_0 - m^2 \varphi^2/2$ \cite{Binetruy:ss}, or more generally
836: models with $V = V_0[1 - (\varphi/\mu)^p]$ and $p\geq 2$, and also for
837: those with $V = V_0(1 - \exp(-\varphi/\mu))$ \cite{Stewart:1994ts}. For
838: positive $\mu$, all these models belong to the class of toward-exit inflation
839: with special initial conditions. There are also examples of hybrid
840: inflation models, e.g.\ those arising from dynamical supersymmetry
841: breaking with $V = V_0[1 \pm (\mu/\varphi)^p]$, where $p$ is a
842: positive integer \cite{Kinney:1998dv}. For the positive sign, the model
843: belongs to the hidden-exit inflation class, while for the negative sign, the
844: models belong to the class of toward-exit inflation with special initial
845: conditions. Yet another model belonging to that class is hybrid inflation
846: with a running mass that arises from one-loop corrections in
847: supersymmetry-inspired models
848: (see Refs.~\cite{Stewart:1996ey,Stewart:1997wg,Covi:1998yr}
849: for concrete realizations):
850: \begin{equation}
851: \label{eq:rmhiV2} V = V_0\left[1 - \frac12 m^2(\varphi)\varphi^2\right] \, .
852: \end{equation}
853: Further examples where the constant-horizon approximation applies
854: are the so-called natural inflation model \cite{Freese:1990rb}:
855: \begin{equation}
856: \label{eq:ni} V = \Lambda^4\left[1+\cos\left(N\frac{\varphi}{f}\right)\right]
857: \, ,
858: \end{equation}
859: and the model proposed by Wang et al. \cite{Wang:1997cw},
860: \begin{equation}
861: \label{eq:WangV} V =
862: \Lambda^4\left[1-\frac2\pi\arctan\left(5\varphi\right)\right]
863: \, ,
864: \end{equation}
865: which is a designer model that has been used to demonstrate the limitations
866: of the slow-roll approximation.
867:
868: We started by testing the natural inflation model given by
869: potential (\ref{eq:ni}). For this model with $\Lambda=f=1$ and
870: $N=1$ at the pivot value $\varphi_*=0.01$, we obtained
871: $H_*=0.81648$, $\epsilon_1 \approx \epsilon_3 \approx 10^{-7}$,
872: $\epsilon_2 \approx 0.039529$ and $\epsilon_4 \approx 0.02008$.
873: With these values, we find that the third-order constant-horizon
874: approximation performs slightly better than the second-order slow-roll
875: approximation, and that both of them provide a significant improvement with
876: respect to the first order slow-roll approximation. The errors are confined
877: within the $15\%$ interval in a range exceeding $\Delta \log \tilde k =6$.
878:
879: More interesting is a test for a model where some of the higher horizon-flow
880: functions are ``large''. We start from Eq.~(\ref{eq:rmhiV2}) and use the
881: ad hoc choice $m^2(\varphi)=M^2 \exp\left(-\varphi/\mu\right)$, with $M$ and
882: $\mu$ positive. The resulting potential has a maximum at $\varphi=0$ and a
883: minimum at $\varphi=2 \mu$. Starting near the false vacuum, enough inflation
884: can be produced before the minimum is reached. For $V_0=1$,
885: $\mu=1$ and $M=2$ at the pivot value $\varphi_*=0.01$, we find
886: $H_*=0.57729$, $\epsilon_1=0.00003$, $\epsilon_2=0.29494$,
887: $\epsilon_3=-0.00381$, $\epsilon_4=0.14344$ and
888: $\epsilon_5=-0.0082$, with the results presented in
889: Figs.~\ref{fig:hrm1}, \ref{fig:hrm2} and \ref{fig:hrm3}.
890:
891: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figure 3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
892: \begin{figure}
893: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{cha2.eps}}
894: \caption{Test of approximated solutions to the equation of the
895: scalar modes for a hybrid model with running mass. Third-order
896: constant-horizon approximation (cha3), and first (sra1) and second
897: (sra2) order slow-roll approximations are compared. The errors shown
898: are those obtained including terms up to $a_3$ in parametrization
899: (\ref{eq:power}) and keeping the highest possible order for the
900: horizon-flow functions in all coefficients.} \label{fig:hrm1}
901: \end{figure}
902: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
903:
904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figure 4%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
905: \begin{figure}
906: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{cha3.eps}}
907: \caption{Test of the constant-horizon approximation for a hybrid
908: model with running mass. The errors shown are those obtained
909: including terms up to $a_3$ in parametrization (\ref{eq:power}), and
910: varying the order of the highest included horizon-flow function.}
911: \label{fig:hrm2}
912: \end{figure}
913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
914:
915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figure 5%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
916: \begin{figure}
917: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{cha4.eps}}
918: \caption{Test of the constant-horizon approximation for a hybrid
919: model with running mass. Here we investigate the convergence of the
920: Taylor expansion (\ref{eq:power}) as more and more coefficients
921: $a_n$ are added. We keep the highest possible order of the
922: horizon-flow functions.} \label{fig:hrm3}
923: \end{figure}
924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
925:
926: As can be observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrm1}, the conclusions drawn
927: for the simple inflation near a maximum model are still valid for
928: models where the conditions for constant-horizon approximation to
929: apply are met in a weaker fashion than in the case of natural
930: inflation, although the range where the errors are confined in the $15\%$
931: error band is smaller. According with the results in
932: Fig.~\ref{fig:hrm2}, increasing the order of the horizon-flow
933: functions beyond the quadratic in every included term of parametrization
934: (\ref{eq:power}) does not significantly improve the accuracy of
935: the approximation.
936:
937: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrm3}, adding terms in parametrization
938: (\ref{eq:power}) actually seems to be most important for increasing the
939: precision of the prediction, but this conclusion might not hold true for
940: other models. Even in the best case, it seems difficult to keep the
941: error below the $15\%$ mark for a range broader that $\Delta \log \tilde k
942: = 5$.
943:
944: We tried to push our approximation to the limits by testing it on the model
945: given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:WangV}). For $\Lambda=1$ and $\varphi_*= - 0.25$,
946: we find $H_*=0.72476$, $\epsilon_1=0.01122$,
947: $\epsilon_2=0.31874$, $\epsilon_3=0.19659$, $\epsilon_4=0.079$ and
948: $\epsilon_5=0.129$. The test confirms the previous
949: results, although the range where the error is
950: under $15\%$ is significantly shorter, $\Delta \log \tilde k
951: \approx 3.5$.
952:
953: For completeness we note here that similar results were obtained for the
954: tensor modes.
955:
956: For all tested cases, the constant-horizon approximation at third order
957: performed as good or slightly better than the slow-roll approximation
958: at second order, but it has the advantage that one needs to make less
959: restrictive assumptions on higher horizon-flow functions and the approximation
960: is more efficient in the sense that the recursion seed $a_0$ only needs
961: $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ as an input, whereas the slow-roll approximation
962: at second order needs additionally $\epsilon_3$.
963:
964: \section*{Acknowledgements}
965:
966: We thank Samuel Leach, Andrew Liddle, J\'{e}r\^{o}me Martin and
967: Slava Mukhanov for discussions and Laura Covi for
968: references. We are particularly grateful to
969: Samuel Leach for providing the data for the
970: $\epsilon_1$--$\epsilon_2$ plane contours and the algorithm for the
971: numerical solution of the equation of perturbations. CTE
972: acknowledges the hospitality of CERN TH and the partial
973: support by CONACyT (38495--E) and SNI from Mexico.
974:
975: \section*{References}
976: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
977:
978: \bibitem{Bennett:2003bz}
979: Bennett C L {\it et al.},
980: {\it First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:
981: preliminary maps and basic results}, 2003
982: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} 1
983: [astro-ph/0302207]
984: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%
985:
986: \bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}
987: Spergel D N {\it et al.},
988: {\it First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:
989: determination of cosmological parameters}, 2003
990: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} 175
991: [astro-ph/0302209]
992: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%
993:
994: \bibitem{Tegmark:2003uf}
995: Tegmark M {\it et al.} [SDSS Collaboration],
996: {\it The 3D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS}, 2003
997: [astro-ph/0310725]
998: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310725;%%
999:
1000: \bibitem{Mukhanov:xt}
1001: Mukhanov V F and Chibisov G V,
1002: {\it Quantum fluctuation and `nonsingular' universe}, 1981
1003: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 33} 532
1004: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 33} 549]
1005: %%CITATION = JTPLA,33,532;%%
1006:
1007: \bibitem{Starobinsky:ty}
1008: Starobinsky A A,
1009: {\it Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the
1010: universe}, 1979 JETP Lett.\ {\bf 30} 682
1011: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 30} 719]
1012: %%CITATION = JTPLA,30,682;%%
1013:
1014: \bibitem{Benoit:2002mm}
1015: Benoit A {\it et al.} [Archeops Collaboration],
1016: {\it Cosmological constraints from Archeops}, 2003
1017: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 399} L25
1018: [arXiv:astro-ph/0210306]
1019: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0210306;%%
1020:
1021: \bibitem{Kovac:2002fg}
1022: Kovac J {\it et al.},
1023: {\it Detection of polarization in the cosmic microwave background using DASI},
1024: 2002
1025: Nature {\bf 420} 772
1026: [arXiv:astro-ph/0209478]
1027: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0209478;%%
1028:
1029: \bibitem{Kogut:2003et}
1030: Kogut A {\it et al.},
1031: {\it Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) First Year Observations: TE
1032: polarization}, 2003
1033: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} 161
1034: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302213]
1035: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302213;%%
1036:
1037: \bibitem{Komatsu:2003fd}
1038: Komatsu E {\it et al.},
1039: {\it First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Tests
1040: of Gaussianity}, 2003
1041: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} 119
1042: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302223]
1043: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302223;%%
1044:
1045: \bibitem{Liddle:1994dx}
1046: Liddle A R, Parsons P and Barrow J D,
1047: {\it Formalizing the slow-roll approximation in inflation}, 1994
1048: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} 7222
1049: [astro-ph/9408015].
1050: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9408015;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{Schwarz:2001vv}
1053: Schwarz D J, Terrero-Escalante C A and Garcia A A,
1054: {\it Higher order corrections to primordial spectra from cosmological
1055: inflation}, 2001
1056: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 517} 243
1057: [astro-ph/0106020]
1058: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0106020;%%
1059:
1060: \bibitem{Leach:2002ar}
1061: Leach S M, Liddle A R, Martin J and Schwarz D J,
1062: {\it Cosmological parameter estimation and the inflationary cosmology}, 2002
1063: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} 023515
1064: [astro-ph/0202094]
1065: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0202094;%%
1066:
1067: \bibitem{Pearson:2002tr}
1068: Pearson T J {\it et al.},
1069: {\it The Anisotropy of the Microwave Background to l = 3500: Mosaic
1070: Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager}, 2003
1071: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 591} 556
1072: [astro-ph/0205388]
1073: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0205388;%%
1074:
1075: \bibitem{Benoit:2002mk}
1076: Benoit A {\it et al.} [Archeops Collaboration],
1077: {\it The Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Power Spectrum measured by
1078: Archeops}, 2003
1079: Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 399} L19
1080: [astro-ph/0210305]
1081: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0210305;%%
1082:
1083: \bibitem{Kuo:2002ua}
1084: Kuo C L {\it et al.} [ACBAR collaboration],
1085: {\it High Resolution Observations of the CMB Power Spectrum with ACBAR},
1086: 2002 [astro-ph/0212289]
1087: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0212289;%%
1088:
1089: \bibitem{Readhead:2004gy}
1090: Readhead A C S {\it et al.},
1091: {\it Extended Mosaic Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager},
1092: 2004 [astro-ph/0402359]
1093: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402359;%%
1094:
1095: \bibitem{Grainge:2002da}
1096: Grainge K {\it et al.},
1097: {\it The CMB power spectrum out to $l=1400$ measured by the VSA}, 2003
1098: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 341} L23
1099: [astro-ph/0212495]
1100: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0212495;%%
1101:
1102: \bibitem{Dickinson:2004yr}
1103: Dickinson C {\it et al.},
1104: {\it High sensitivity measurements of the CMB power spectrum with the extended
1105: Very Small Array}, 2004 [arXiv:astro-ph/0402498]
1106: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402498;%%
1107:
1108: \bibitem{Percival:2001hw}
1109: Percival W J {\it et al.},
1110: {\it The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: the power spectrum and the matter
1111: content of the universe}, 2001
1112: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 327} 1297
1113: [astro-ph/0105252]
1114: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0105252;%%
1115:
1116: \bibitem{Tegmark:2001jh}
1117: Tegmark M, Hamilton A J S and Xu Y,
1118: {\it The power spectrum of galaxies in the 2dF 100k redshift survey}, 2002
1119: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 335} 887
1120: [astro-ph/0111575].
1121: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0111575;%%
1122:
1123: \bibitem{Peiris:2003ff}
1124: Peiris H V {\it et al.},
1125: {\it First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:
1126: Implications for inflation}, 2003
1127: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148} 213
1128: [astro-ph/0302225]
1129: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302225;%%
1130:
1131: \bibitem{Barger:2003ym}
1132: Barger V, Lee H S and Marfatia D,
1133: {\it WMAP and inflation}, 2003
1134: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} 33
1135: [hep-ph/0302150]
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302150;%%
1137:
1138: \bibitem{Kinney:2003uw}
1139: Kinney W H, Kolb E W, Melchiorri A and Riotto A,
1140: {\it WMAPping inflationary physics}, 2003
1141: [hep-ph/0305130]
1142: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305130;%%
1143:
1144: \bibitem{Leach:2003us}
1145: Leach S M and Liddle A R,
1146: {\it Constraining slow-roll inflation with WMAP and 2dF}, 2003
1147: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} 123508
1148: [astro-ph/0306305]
1149: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306305;%%
1150:
1151: \bibitem{Tegmark:2003ud}
1152: Tegmark M {\it et al.} [SDSS Collaboration],
1153: {\it Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP}, 2003
1154: [astro-ph/0310723]
1155: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310723;%%
1156:
1157: \bibitem{Rebolo:2004vp}
1158: Rebolo R {\it et al.},
1159: {\it Cosmological parameter estimation using Very Small Array data out to
1160: $l=1500$}, 2004 [arXiv:astro-ph/0402466]
1161: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402466;%%
1162:
1163: \bibitem{Efstathiou:2001cv}
1164: Efstathiou G, {\it Principal Component Analysis of the Cosmic Microwave
1165: Background Anisotropies: Revealing The Tensor Degeneracy}, 2001
1166: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 332} 193
1167: [arXiv:astro-ph/0109151]
1168: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0109151;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{Schwarz:2003du}
1171: Schwarz D J, {\it The first second of the universe}, 2003
1172: Annalen Phys.\ {\bf 12} 220
1173: [arXiv:astro-ph/0303574]
1174: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303574;%%
1175:
1176: \bibitem{Dodelson:1997hr}
1177: Dodelson S, Kinney W H and Kolb E W,
1178: {\it Cosmic microwave background measurements can discriminate among inflation
1179: models}, 1997
1180: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} 3207
1181: [astro-ph/9702166]
1182: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9702166;%%
1183:
1184: \bibitem{Binetruy:ss}
1185: Bin\'etruy P and Gaillard M K, 1986
1186: {\it Candidates for the Inflaton Field in Superstring Models},
1187: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 34} 3069
1188: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D34,3069;%%
1189:
1190: \bibitem{Linde:fd}
1191: Linde A D, 1986
1192: {\it Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe},
1193: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 175} 395
1194: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B175,395;%%
1195:
1196: \bibitem{Linde:1991km}
1197: Linde A D, 1991
1198: {\it Axions in inflationary cosmology},
1199: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259} 38
1200: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B259,38;%%
1201:
1202: \bibitem{Lucchin:1984yf}
1203: Lucchin F and Matarrese S, {\it Power Law Inflation}, 1985
1204: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32} 1316
1205: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D32,1316;%%
1206:
1207: \bibitem{Terrero-Escalante:2002sd}
1208: Terrero-Escalante C A, 2003
1209: {\it Is power law inflation really attractive?},
1210: Rev.\ Mex.\ Fis.\ {\bf 49S2} 118
1211: [arXiv:astro-ph/0204066]
1212: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204066;%%
1213:
1214: \bibitem{Stewart:1993bc}
1215: Stewart E D and Lyth D H,
1216: {\it A more accurate analytic calculation of the spectrum of cosmological
1217: perturbations produced during inflation}, 1993
1218: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 302} 171
1219: [gr-qc/9302019]
1220: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9302019;%%
1221:
1222: \bibitem{Wang:1997cw}
1223: Wang L M, Mukhanov V F and Steinhardt P J,
1224: {\it On the problem of predicting inflationary perturbations}, 1997
1225: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 414} 18
1226: [astro-ph/9709032]
1227: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9709032;%%
1228:
1229: \bibitem{Martin:1999wa}
1230: Martin J and Schwarz D J,
1231: {\it The precision of slow-roll predictions for the CMBR anisotropies}, 2000
1232: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} 103520
1233: [arXiv:astro-ph/9911225]
1234: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9911225;%%
1235:
1236: \bibitem{Gong:2001he}
1237: Stewart E D and Gong J O,
1238: {\it The density perturbation power spectrum to second-order corrections
1239: in the slow-roll expansion}, 2001
1240: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} 1
1241: [astro-ph/0101225]
1242: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0101225;%%
1243:
1244: \bibitem{Tsamis:2003px}
1245: Tsamis N C and Woodard R P,
1246: {\it Improved estimates of cosmological perturbations}, 2003
1247: [arXiv:astro-ph/0307463]
1248: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0307463;%%
1249:
1250: \bibitem{Freese:1990rb}
1251: Freese K, Frieman J A and Olinto A V,
1252: {\it Natural Inflation With Pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone Bosons}, 1990
1253: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65} 3233
1254: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,3233;%%
1255:
1256: \bibitem{Stewart:1994ts}
1257: Stewart E D,
1258: {\it Inflation, supergravity and superstrings},
1259: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 6847
1260: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405389].
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405389;%%
1262:
1263: \bibitem{Kinney:1998dv}
1264: Kinney W H and Riotto A,
1265: {\it A signature of inflation from dynamical supersymmetry breaking},
1266: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 435} (1998) 272
1267: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802443].
1268: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802443;%%
1269:
1270: \bibitem{Stewart:1996ey}
1271: Stewart E D,
1272: {\it Flattening the inflaton's potential with quantum corrections}, 1997
1273: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391} 34
1274: [hep-ph/9606241].
1275: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606241;%%
1276:
1277: \bibitem{Stewart:1997wg}
1278: Stewart E D,
1279: {\it Flattening the inflaton's potential with quantum corrections. 2}, 1997
1280: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} 2019
1281: [hep-ph/9703232].
1282: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703232;%%
1283:
1284: \bibitem{Covi:1998yr}
1285: Covi L, {\it Hybrid inflation with running inflaton mass}, 1999
1286: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} 023513
1287: [hep-ph/9812232].
1288: %CITATION = HEP-PH 9812232;%%
1289:
1290: \end{thebibliography}
1291:
1292: \end{document}
1293: