1: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,preprintnumbers,

2: superscriptaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \usepackage{bm}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \usepackage{graphics}

7: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

8: \usepackage{array}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\pdf}{\mathcal{P}}

11: \newcommand{\data}{{\bf D}}

12: \newcommand{\mdl}{\mathcal{M}}

13: \newcommand{\lsim}{\,\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}

14: \kern -0.8em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}\,}

15: \newcommand{\params}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}

16: \newcommand{\mean}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}

17: \newcommand{\like}{L}

18: \newcommand{\lnlike}{\mathcal{L}}

19: \newcommand{\ML}{^*}

20: \newcommand{\dr}{\textrm{d}}

21: \newcommand{\LSP}{\text{LSP}}

22: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

23: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}

25: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

26: \newcommand{\Cl}{C_\ell}

27: \newcommand{\ad}{\text{ad}}

28: \newcommand{\is}{\text{is}}

29: \newcommand{\cc}{\text{cc}}

30: \newcommand{\Gev}{\text{GeV}}

31: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\text{Mpc}}

32: \newcommand{\Hbl}{\mathcal{H}}

33: \newcommand{\uf}{\;[10^{-5}]}

34: \newcommand{\ut}{\;[10^{-10}]}

35: \newcommand{\mc}[1]{\mathcal{#1}}

36: \newcommand{\Rrad}{\mc{R}_\text{rad}}

37: \newcommand{\Srad}{\mc{S}_\text{rad}}

38: \newcommand{\EX}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

39: \newcommand{\kp}{\sharp}

40: 

41: \begin{document}

42: 

43: \preprint{UT-STPD-3/04}

44: 

45: \title{

46: Constraints on a mixed inflaton and curvaton

47: scenario \\ for the generation of the

48: curvature perturbation}

49: 

50: \author{George Lazarides}

51: \email{lazaride@eng.auth.gr}

52: \affiliation{Physics Division, School of

53: Technology, Aristotle University of

54: Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece}

55: \author{Roberto Ruiz de Austri}

56: \email{r.ruizdeaustri@sheffield.ac.uk}

57: \affiliation{University of Sheffield, Department

58: of Physics and Astronomy, Hicks Building,

59: Hounsfield Road, Sheffield S3 7RH, England}

60: \author{Roberto Trotta}

61: \email{roberto.trotta@physics.unige.ch}

62: \affiliation{D\'epartement de Physique

63: Th\'eorique, Universit\'e de Gen\`eve, 24

64: quai Ernest Ansermet, 1211 Gen\`eve 4,

65: Switzerland}

66: 

67: \date{\today}

68: 

69: \begin{abstract}

70: We consider a simple supersymmetric grand

71: unified model which naturally solves the

72: strong CP and $\mu$ problems via a Peccei-Quinn

73: symmetry and leads to the standard realization

74: of hybrid inflation. We show that the

75: Peccei-Quinn field of this model can act as a

76: curvaton. In contrast to the standard curvaton

77: hypothesis, both the inflaton and the curvaton

78: contribute to the total curvature perturbation.

79: The model predicts the existence of an

80: isocurvature perturbation too which has mixed

81: correlation with the adiabatic one. The cold

82: dark matter of the universe is mostly

83: constituted by axions, which are produced at

84: the QCD phase transition, plus a small amount

85: of lightest sparticles. The predictions of the

86: model are confronted with the first-year

87: Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe and other

88: cosmic microwave background radiation data. We

89: analyze in detail two representative choices of

90: parameters for our model and derive bounds on

91: the curvaton contribution to the adiabatic

92: perturbation. We find that, for the choice

93: which provides the best fitting of the data,

94: the curvaton contribution to the amplitude of

95: the adiabatic perturbation must be smaller than

96: about $67\%$ and the amplitude of the partial

97: curvature perturbation from the curvaton

98: smaller than $43.2\times 10^{-5}$ (both at

99: $95\%$ confidence level). The best-fit power

100: spectra are dominated by the adiabatic part of

101: the inflaton contribution. We use Bayesian

102: model comparison to show that this choice of

103: parameters is disfavored with respect to the

104: pure inflaton scale-invariant case with odds of

105: about 50 to 1. For the second choice of

106: parameters examined, the adiabatic mode is

107: dominated by the curvaton, but this choice is

108: strongly disfavored relative to the pure

109: inflaton scale-invariant case (with odds

110: of about $10^7$ to 1). We conclude that in the

111: present framework the perturbations must be

112: dominated by the adiabatic component from the

113: inflaton.

114: 

115: \end{abstract}

116: 

117: \pacs{12.10.-g,12.60.Jv,98.80.Cq}

118: 

119: \maketitle

120: 

121: \section{Introduction}

122: \label{intro}

123: 

124: \par

125: Inflation, which was originally proposed

126: \cite{guth} as a solution to the outstanding

127: problems of standard big bang cosmology and the

128: problem of unwanted relics, is in good agreement

129: with the recent measurements \cite{wmap1,wmap2}

130: on the angular power spectrum of the cosmic

131: microwave background radiation (CMBR). Moreover,

132: inflation is now established as the most likely

133: origin of the primordial density perturbation

134: from which structure formation in the universe

135: proceeded \cite{llbook}. According to the

136: usual assumption \cite{llbook,lectures}, this

137: perturbation is generated solely by the slowly

138: rolling inflaton field of the usual one-field

139: inflationary models and, thus, is expected to

140: be purely adiabatic. However, although adiabatic

141: perturbations are perfectly consistent with the

142: present data, the presence of a significant

143: isocurvature density perturbation cannot be

144: excluded \cite{wmap2,iso1}. In one-field

145: inflation, the perturbations are almost

146: Gaussian, in agreement with the current upper

147: bounds on non-Gaussianity from the CMBR data,

148: which though cannot exclude the presence of

149: appreciable non-Gaussianity (for a review, see

150: e.g. Ref.~\cite{nongauss}).

151: 

152: \par

153: Lately, the alternative possibility

154: \cite{curv1,curv2} that the adiabatic density

155: perturbations originate from the inflationary

156: perturbations of some light ``curvaton'' field

157: different from the inflaton has attracted much

158: attention. The curvaton density perturbations

159: can lead \cite{curv2,curv3}, after curvaton

160: decay, to isocurvature perturbations in the

161: densities of the various components of the

162: cosmic fluid. In the simplest case, the

163: residual isocurvature perturbations are either

164: fully correlated or fully anti-correlated with

165: the adiabatic density perturbation. In general

166: models, however, the correlation can be mixed

167: (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{dllr1}). In the curvaton

168: scenario, significant non-Gaussianity may also

169: appear. The main reason for advocating the

170: curvaton hypothesis is that it makes

171: \cite{dimo} the task of constructing viable

172: models of inflation much easier, since it

173: liberates us from the very restrictive

174: requirement that the inflaton is responsible

175: for the curvature perturbations.

176: 

177: \par

178: In a recent paper \cite{dllr1}, a simple

179: extension \cite{rsym} of the minimal

180: supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) which

181: naturally and simultaneously solves the strong

182: CP and $\mu$ problems via a Peccei-Quinn (PQ)

183: \cite{pq} and a continuous R symmetry was

184: considered within the general framework of the

185: standard supersymmetric (SUSY) version

186: \cite{lyth,dss} of hybrid inflation

187: \cite{hybrid}. It was shown that, in this model,

188: the PQ field, which breaks spontaneously the

189: PQ symmetry, can successfully act as a curvaton

190: generating the total curvature perturbation

191: in the universe in accordance with the cosmic

192: background explorer (COBE) measurements

193: \cite{cobe}. The (intermediate) PQ scale

194: is generated by invoking supergravity (SUGRA)

195: and the PQ field corresponds to a flat

196: direction in field space lifted by

197: non-renormalizable interactions. Moreover,

198: the $\mu$ parameter of MSSM is generated

199: \cite{kn} from the PQ scale.

200: 

201: \par

202: We feel that the standard curvaton hypothesis

203: \cite{curv1,curv2}, which insists that the

204: total curvature perturbation originates

205: solely from the curvaton, can also be quite

206: restrictive and not so natural. Indeed, in

207: accordance to this hypothesis, one needs to

208: impose \cite{dimo} an upper bound on the

209: inflationary scale in order to ensure that the

210: perturbation from the inflaton is negligible.

211: This bound can be quite strong especially if

212: the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon$ (see e.g.

213: Ref.~\cite{lectures}) happens to be very small,

214: which holds in many cases. In generic models,

215: one would expect that all the scalar fields

216: which are essentially massless during inflation

217: contribute to the total curvature perturbation.

218: So, in the presence a PQ field, which can be

219: kept \cite{dllr1} light during the relevant

220: part of inflation, it is natural to assume that

221: the adiabatic density perturbation is partly

222: due to this field and partly to the inflaton.

223: 

224: \par

225: There is yet another reason for abandoning the

226: strict curvaton hypothesis. The recent

227: measurements on the CMBR by the Wilkinson

228: microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) satellite

229: \cite{wmap1} have considerably strengthened

230: \cite{wmap2,iso1,gm} the bound on the

231: isocurvature perturbation which was obtained

232: \cite{iso2,iso3} by using the pre-WMAP CMBR

233: data. As a consequence, the viability

234: of many curvaton models is in doubt. However,

235: allowing a significant part of the total

236: curvature perturbation in the universe to

237: originate from the inflaton, we can hopefully

238: relax the tension between these models and

239: the present WMAP data without losing the main

240: advantage of the curvaton hypothesis, which

241: is that it facilitate the construction of

242: viable inflationary models (see

243: Ref.~\cite{mixed} for recent investigations of

244: this possibility).

245: 

246: \par

247: The PQ curvaton model of Ref.~\cite{dllr1}

248: predicts an isocurvature perturbation of

249: mixed correlation with the curvature

250: perturbation. The extended set of

251: pre-WMAP CMBR and other data which was used

252: \cite{dllr1} to restrict the isocurvature

253: perturbation in the model of

254: Ref.~\cite{dllr1} led to the exclusion of a

255: major part of the available parameter space.

256: Including the more restrictive recent WMAP

257: measurements, the allowed parameter space

258: will certainly be further reduced. It is,

259: moreover, quite possible that the model is

260: even totally excluded by these new data. So,

261: the departure from the strict curvaton

262: hypothesis may prove to be vital for this

263: particular curvaton scheme.

264: 

265: \par

266: In this paper, we will extend the PQ curvaton

267: model of Ref.~\cite{dllr1} by embedding it

268: into the concrete SUSY grand unified theory

269: (GUT) model studied in Ref.~\cite{hier}, which

270: is based on the left-right (LR) symmetric gauge

271: group $G_{LR}={\rm SU}(3)_c\times {\rm SU}(2)_L

272: \times{\rm SU}(2)_R\times {\rm U}(1)_{B-L}$.

273: This model leads \cite{hier} naturally to

274: standard SUSY hybrid inflation \cite{lyth,dss}.

275: After the end of inflation, the inflaton

276: performs damped oscillations about the SUSY

277: vacuum and eventually decays into right handed

278: neutrino superfields reheating the universe.

279: The subsequent decay of these superfields to

280: a lepton and an electroweak Higgs superfield

281: generates \cite{leptoinf} a primordial lepton

282: asymmetry \cite{lepto} which is then partly

283: converted into baryon asymmetry by

284: non-perturbative electroweak sphaleron effects.

285: The observed baryon asymmetry of the universe

286: (BAU) can then be easily reproduced \cite{hier}

287: in accord with the data on neutrino masses and

288: mixing. At reheating, gravitinos are also

289: produced thermally. They decay in the late

290: universe leading to lightest sparticles (LSPs),

291: which contribute to the cold dark matter (CDM)

292: in the universe. For simplicity, we assume

293: that this is the only source of relic LSPs

294: neglecting their direct thermal production.

295: Due to the presence of the PQ symmetry, our

296: model contains axions which come into play at

297: the QCD phase transition and can also

298: contribute to CDM.

299: 

300: \par

301: The PQ field of our model can acquire a

302: super-horizon spectrum of perturbations from

303: inflation provided that it is effectively

304: massless during the relevant part of inflation.

305: It can thus act as curvaton contributing to

306: the total curvature perturbation together with

307: the inflaton. We study the evolution of the PQ

308: field during and after inflation by including

309: corrections \cite{lyth,crisis,drt95} to the PQ

310: potential which originate from the SUSY

311: breaking in the early universe caused by the

312: presence of a finite energy density. We assume

313: that these corrections are (somewhat)

314: suppressed, which is \cite{noscale} indeed the

315: case if specific K\"{a}hler potentials are

316: used.

317: 

318: \par

319: The requirement that the PQ field is

320: essentially massless during inflation yields

321: \cite{dllr1}, for given values of the other

322: parameters, an upper bound on the possible

323: values of this field at the end of inflation.

324: Moreover, it implies that, as inflation

325: terminates, the PQ field emerges \cite{dllr1}

326: with negligible velocity. There is also a

327: lower bound on the value of the PQ field at

328: the end of inflation below which the classical

329: equation of motion during inflation for the

330: mean value of this field in a region of fixed

331: size somewhat bigger than the size of the de

332: Sitter horizon ceases \cite{dllr1} to be valid.

333: This is due to the fact that the quantum

334: perturbations of the PQ field from inflation

335: overshadow its classical kinetic energy

336: density. We will exclude this quantum regime

337: since the calculation of the spectral index of

338: the partial curvature perturbation from the

339: curvaton field in this regime is not so clear.

340: 

341: \par

342: The values of the PQ field at the end of

343: inflation which are not excluded by the above

344: considerations can be classified according

345: to whether they lead to the PQ vacua or the

346: trivial (false) vacuum. We find that,

347: generically, there exist two separate bands

348: of such values leading to the correct (PQ)

349: vacua. One of them lies at relatively low

350: values of the curvaton field at the end of

351: inflation, while the other lies at values

352: which are considerably higher. In all other

353: cases, the system ends up in the wrong

354: (trivial) vacuum and thus the corresponding

355: values of the PQ field at the end of

356: inflation must be excluded. Our numerical

357: findings show that the (approximate) COBE

358: constraint on the CMBR can be satisfied

359: only within the upper allowed band. This

360: constraint receives contributions not only

361: from the curvature perturbation but also

362: from the isocurvature one and the cross

363: correlation of the two. Note, however, that

364: this constraint is quite approximate and

365: can be considered only as an indicative

366: criterion.

367: 

368: \par

369: The amplitude and spectral index of the

370: partial curvature perturbation from the

371: inflaton are calculated by employing the

372: analysis of Ref.~\cite{lectures} slightly

373: modified to allow for the possibility that

374: the slow-roll conditions are violated and,

375: thus, hybrid inflation ends before

376: reaching the instability point on the

377: inflationary trajectory. The partial

378: curvature perturbation from the curvaton

379: is treated in a more accurate way than in

380: Ref.~\cite{dllr1}. In particular, the

381: evolution during inflation of the

382: perturbation acquired by the PQ field from

383: inflation when our present horizon scale

384: crossed outside the inflationary horizon

385: is considered. It is described by the

386: classical equation of motion for this field

387: in the slow-roll approximation. Solving

388: this equation, we can find the perturbation

389: in the value of the curvaton field at the

390: end of inflation. This same calculation

391: yields the spectral index for the curvaton

392: too. For any given value of the

393: PQ field at the termination of inflation, we

394: take the perturbed value too and follow the

395: subsequent evolution of both these fields

396: until the time of the curvaton decay. This

397: yields the amplitude of the partial curvature

398: perturbation from the curvaton. The total

399: curvature perturbation is then given by the

400: appropriate weighted sum of these two

401: uncorrelated perturbations.

402: 

403: \par

404: As mentioned already, the baryons and the

405: LSPs in our model originate from reheating.

406: They thus inherit the partial curvature

407: perturbation of the oscillating and decaying

408: inflaton, which is different from the total

409: curvature perturbation due to the presence of

410: the curvaton. As a consequence, the baryons

411: and LSPs acquire an isocurvature perturbation

412: of mixed correlation with the total curvature

413: perturbation. The CDM in our model contains

414: also axions carrying an isocurvature

415: perturbation which is uncorrelated with the

416: perturbations from the inflaton and the

417: curvaton. The amplitude and spectral index of

418: this isocurvature perturbation is evaluated by

419: following the analysis of Ref.~\cite{dllr1}.

420: We see that, in our model, the correlation of

421: the total adiabatic and isocurvature

422: perturbations is mixed.

423: 

424: \par

425: For given values of all the other independent

426: parameters, we take a grid of values of

427: the curvaton field at the end of inflation and

428: the amplitude of partial curvature perturbation

429: from the inflaton which cover the upper or the

430: lower allowed band. We calculate the total CMBR

431: angular power spectrum for each point in this

432: grid. The predictions from each band are

433: confronted with the CMBR temperature (TT) and

434: temperature-polarization (TE) cross correlation

435: angular power spectra from the first-year WMAP

436: observations \cite{wmap1} as well as the CMBR

437: data on smaller scales from the arcminute

438: cosmology bolometer array receiver (ACBAR)

439: \cite{acbar1,acbar2} and the cosmic background

440: imager (CBI) \cite{cbi} experiments. We then

441: study the implications of the resulting

442: restrictions on the various parameters of the

443: model. We also employ Bayesian model testing to

444: compare our model with the standard pure

445: inflaton single-field inflationary model with

446: scale-invariant perturbations. We are

447: particularly interested to see whether the

448: data favor the presence of a non-vanishing

449: curvaton contribution to the adiabatic

450: perturbation.

451: 

452: \par

453: The paper is organized as follows. In

454: Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we outline the salient

455: features of our LR SUSY GUT model which solves

456: the strong CP and $\mu$ problems via a PQ

457: symmetry and leads to the standard version of

458: SUSY hybrid inflation. The evolution of the PQ

459: field during and after inflation as well as its

460: final decay into light particles are sketched

461: in Sec.~\ref{sec:early}.

462: Section~\ref{sec:curvature} is devoted to the

463: evaluation of the total curvature perturbation

464: which, in our case, is partly due to the

465: inflaton and partly to the curvaton. In

466: Sec.~\ref{sec:isocurvature}, we estimate the

467: isocurvature perturbations in the relic

468: density of the baryons, the LSPs and the

469: axions. The total CMBR angular power spectrum

470: predicted by our model is discussed in

471: Sec.~\ref{sec:spectrum}. Our numerical

472: calculation and results are presented and

473: discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics}, and our

474: conclusions are summarized in

475: Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}. Finally, in the

476: Appendix, we review some useful concepts and

477: results from Bayesian statistics.

478: 

479: 

480: \section{The left-right SUSY GUT model}

481: \label{sec:model}

482: 

483: \par

484: We will adopt here the SUSY GUT model of

485: Ref.~\cite{hier} (see also Ref.~\cite{trieste})

486: which is based on the LR symmetric gauge group

487: $G_{LR}$. The ${\rm SU}(2)_{L}$ doublet left

488: handed quark and lepton superfields are denoted

489: by $q_i$ and $l_i$ respectively, whereas the

490: ${\rm SU}(2)_{R}$ doublet antiquark and

491: antilepton superfields by $q_i^c$ and $l^c_i$

492: respectively ($i$=1,2,3 is the family index).

493: The electroweak Higgs superfield $h$ belongs to

494: a bidoublet $(2,2)_0$ representation of

495: ${\rm SU}(2)_L\times {\rm SU}(2)_R\times

496: {\rm U}(1)_{B-L}$.

497: 

498: \par

499: The breaking of $G_{LR}$ to the standard model

500: (SM) gauge group $G_{\rm SM}$, at a superheavy

501: scale $M\sim 10^{16}~{\rm{GeV}}$, is achieved

502: through the superpotential

503: \begin{equation}

504: \delta W_1=\kappa S(l_H^c\bar l_H^{c}-M^2),

505: \label{W1}

506: \end{equation}

507: where $l_H^c$, $\bar l_H^{c}$ is a conjugate pair of

508: ${\rm SU}(2)_R$ doublet left handed Higgs superfields

509: with $B-L$ charges equal to $1,-1$ respectively, and

510: $S$ is a gauge singlet left handed superfield. The

511: dimensionless coupling constant $\kappa$ and the

512: mass parameter $M$ can be made real and positive by

513: suitable rephasing of the fields. The SUSY minima of

514: the scalar potential lie on the D-flat direction

515: $l_H^c=\bar l_H^{c*}$ at $\langle S\rangle=0$,

516: $|\langle l_H^c\rangle|=|\langle\bar l_H^{c}\rangle|

517: =M$.

518: 

519: \par

520: The model also contains two extra gauge singlet left

521: handed superfields $N$ and $\bar{N}$ for solving

522: \cite{rsym} the $\mu$ problem of MSSM via a

523: PQ symmetry \cite{pq}, which also solves the strong

524: CP problem. They have the following superpotential

525: couplings:

526: \begin{equation}

527: \delta W_2=\frac{\lambda N^2\bar{N}^2}{2m_P}+

528: \frac{\beta N^2h^2}{2m_P},

529: \label{W2}

530: \end{equation}

531: where $\lambda$ and $\beta$ are dimensionless

532: parameters, which can be made real and positive

533: by an appropriate redefinition of the phases of

534: the superfields and $m_{\rm P}\simeq 2.44\times

535: 10^{18}~{\rm GeV}$ is the reduced Planck mass.

536: 

537: \par

538: In addition to $G_{LR}$, the model possesses three

539: global ${\rm U}(1)$ symmetries, namely an anomalous

540: PQ symmetry ${\rm U}(1)_{\rm PQ}$, a non-anomalous

541: R symmetry ${\rm U}(1)_R$, and the baryon number

542: symmetry ${\rm U}(1)_B$. The PQ and R charges

543: of the various superfields are

544: \begin{eqnarray}

545: PQ:~q^c,l^c,S,l_H^c,\bar l_H^c(0),~h,\bar N(1),~q,l,

546: N(-1); \nonumber \\

547: R:~h,l_H^c,\bar l_H^c,\bar{N}(0),~q,q^c,l,l^c,N(1/2),

548: ~S(1).

549: \label{charges}

550: \end{eqnarray}

551: Note that global continuous symmetries such as our

552: PQ and R symmetry can effectively arise

553: \cite{continuous} from the rich

554: discrete symmetry groups encountered in many

555: compactified string theories (see e.g.

556: Ref.~\cite{discrete}).

557: 

558: \par

559: It is well known that the superpotential in

560: Eq.~(\ref{W1}) leads \cite{lyth,dss} naturally

561: to the standard SUSY realization of hybrid

562: inflation \cite{hybrid}. In particular, the

563: scalar potential which is derived from it

564: possesses a built-in classically flat valley of

565: minima at $l_H^c=\bar l_H^c=0$ and for $|S|$

566: greater than a critical (instability) value

567: $S_c=M$. This valley can serve as inflationary

568: path. Indeed, the constant tree-level potential

569: energy density $\kappa^{2}M^{4}$ on this path

570: can cause exponential expansion of the

571: universe. Moreover, since this constant energy

572: density breaks SUSY, there are important

573: radiative corrections \cite{dss} which provide

574: a logarithmic slope along the inflationary

575: trajectory necessary for driving the system

576: towards the vacua.

577: 

578: \par

579: It should be noted that the SUSY GUT model

580: considered here does not predict the existence

581: of topological defects such as magnetic

582: monopoles or cosmic strings. In the opposite

583: case, these defects would have been copiously

584: produced \cite{smooth} at the end of hybrid

585: inflation. The overproduction of magnetic

586: monopoles, in particular, would have led to a

587: cosmological catastrophe and a modification

588: \cite{jean,smooth} of the standard realization

589: of SUSY hybrid inflation would be needed to

590: avoid this problem. This happens in higher

591: gauge groups such as the Pati-Salam group,

592: which predicts the existence of monopoles

593: carrying two units of Dirac magnetic charge

594: \cite{magg}. Cosmic strings, on the other hand,

595: which are generically present in many GUT

596: models \cite{kibble,generic}, would contribute

597: to the cosmological perturbations leading

598: \cite{mairi} to extra restrictions on the

599: parameters of the model. The reason that our

600: model does not predict cosmic strings is that

601: the $G_{LR}$ breaking is achieved by a

602: conjugate pair of ${\rm SU}(2)_R$ doublets

603: with $B-L=1,-1$ which also break the $Z_2$

604: subgroup of ${\rm U}(1)_{B-L}$. This $Z_2$,

605: which does not belong to $G_{\rm SM}$, would

606: have been left unbroken if, alternatively, we

607: had used a pair of ${\rm SU}(2)_R$ triplets

608: with $B-L=2,-2$ for this breaking. This would

609: have led to the presence of $Z_2$ cosmic

610: strings (compare with the $Z_2$ cosmic strings

611: encountered in the ${\rm SO}(10)$ GUT model of

612: Ref.~\cite{kibble}).

613: 

614: \par

615: The part of the tree-level scalar potential which

616: is relevant for the PQ symmetry breaking is derived

617: from the superpotential coupling

618: $\lambda N^2\bar{N}^2/2m_{\rm P}$ in Eq.~(\ref{W2})

619: and, after soft SUSY breaking mediated by minimal

620: supergravity (SUGRA), is given by \cite{rsym}

621: \begin{equation}

622: V_{\rm PQ}=\frac{1}{2}m_{3/2}^2\phi^2\left(

623: 1-\frac{|A|\lambda\phi^2}{8m_{3/2}m_P}+

624: \frac{\lambda^2\phi^4}{16m_{3/2}^2m_P^2}\right),

625: \label{PQ-pot}

626: \end{equation}

627: where $m_{3/2}\sim 1~{\rm TeV}$ is the gravitino

628: mass and $A$ is the dimensionless coefficient of

629: the soft SUSY breaking term corresponding to the

630: superpotential term $\lambda N^2\bar{N}^2/

631: 2m_{\rm P}$. Here, the phases $\alpha$,

632: $\varphi$ and $\bar{\varphi}$ of $A$, $N$ and

633: $\bar{N}$ are taken to satisfy the relation

634: $\alpha+2\varphi+2\bar{\varphi}=\pi$ and $\vert

635: N\vert$, $\vert\bar{N}\vert$ are assumed equal,

636: which minimizes the potential. Moreover,

637: rotating $N$ on the real axis by an appropriate

638: R transformation, we defined the canonically

639: normalized real scalar PQ field $\phi=2N$. For

640: $|A|>4$, this potential has a local minimum at

641: $\phi=0$ and absolute minima at

642: \begin{equation}

643: \langle\phi\rangle^2\equiv f_a^2=\frac{2}{3\lambda}

644: \left(|A|+\sqrt{|A|^2-12}\right)m_{3/2}m_{\rm P}

645: \label{eq:fa}

646: \end{equation}

647: with $f_a~(>0)$ being the axion decay constant, i.e.

648: the symmetry breaking scale of ${\rm U}(1)_{\rm PQ}$.

649: Substituting this vacuum expectation value (VEV)

650: into the superpotential coupling $\beta N^2h^2/

651: 2m_{\rm P}$ in Eq.~(\ref{W2}), we obtain a $\mu$

652: term with

653: \begin{equation}

654: \mu=\frac{\beta f_a^2}{4m_{\rm P}}\sim m_{3/2},

655: \label{mu}

656: \end{equation}

657: as desired \cite{kn}. Note that the potential

658: $V_{\rm PQ}$ in Eq.~(\ref{PQ-pot}) should be shifted

659: \cite{dllr1} by adding to it the constant

660: \begin{eqnarray}

661: V_0&=&\frac{1}{108\lambda}\left(|A|+\sqrt{|A|^2-12}

662: \right)\nonumber \\

663: & &\times\left[|A|\left(|A|+

664: \sqrt{|A|^2-12}\right)-24\right]m_{3/2}^3 m_{\rm P},

665: \label{eq:v0}

666: \end{eqnarray}

667: so that it vanishes at its absolute minima.

668: 

669: \section{The PQ field in the early universe}

670: \label{sec:early}

671: 

672: \par

673: In the early universe, the PQ potential can acquire

674: sizable corrections from the SUSY breaking caused

675: by the presence of a finite energy density

676: \cite{lyth,crisis,drt95}. In particular, during

677: inflation and the subsequent inflaton oscillations,

678: SUSY breaking is transmitted to the PQ system via

679: its coupling to the inflaton given by the SUGRA

680: scalar potential. The resulting corrections, whose

681: scale is set by the Hubble parameter $H$, dominate

682: over the contributions from hidden sector SUSY

683: breaking as long as $H\gg m_{3/2}$. For simplicity,

684: we will ignore the $A$ term type corrections

685: \cite{drt95}. To leading order, we then just obtain

686: a correction $\delta m_{\phi}^2$ to the

687: ${\rm mass}^2$ of the curvaton. For a general

688: K\"{a}hler potential, $\delta m_{\phi}^2\sim H^2$

689: with either sign possible. However, for specific

690: (no-scale like) K\"{a}hler potentials, it might be

691: (partially) cancelled \cite{noscale}. Assuming that

692: $\delta m_{\phi}^2>0$, we write

693: \begin{equation}

694: \delta m_{\phi}^2=\gamma^2 H^2,

695: \label{eq:effec-mass}

696: \end{equation}

697: where $\gamma$ can have different values during

698: inflation and inflaton oscillations. Actually,

699: we must assume that, during inflation, $\gamma

700: \ll 1$ so that the PQ field qualifies as an

701: effectively massless field which acquires

702: perturbations from inflation and thus can act

703: as curvaton. Fortunately, the cancellation of

704: $\delta m_{\phi}^2$ during inflation can, in

705: principle, be ``naturally'' arranged to be

706: exact (see fourth paper in

707: Ref.~\cite{noscale}). So, for simplicity, we

708: could take $\gamma=0$ during inflation. On the

709: other hand, large values of $\gamma$ after the

710: end of inflation would generically lead

711: \cite{dllr2} to a drastic reduction of the

712: density fraction of the PQ field, which thus

713: again would become unable to play the role of

714: curvaton. In view of the fact that, in contrast

715: to the case of inflation, it is not so easy to

716: achieve exact cancellation of

717: $\delta m_{\phi}^2$ during inflaton

718: oscillations, we will only assume that, after

719: the termination of inflation, $\gamma$ is

720: somewhat suppressed, say $\sim 0.1$ (or

721: smaller).

722: 

723: \par

724: After reheating, the universe is radiation

725: dominated and, thus, $H\simeq 1/2t\leq 1/

726: 2t_{\rm reh}=\Gamma_{\rm infl}/2$, where $t$ is

727: the cosmic time and

728: $t_{\rm reh}=\Gamma_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ the time at

729: reheating with $\Gamma_{\rm infl}$ being the

730: inflaton decay width. It is easily seen that, in

731: this case, $H\ll m_{3/2}$ as a consequence of the

732: gravitino constraint ($T_{\rm reh}\lesssim 10^9~

733: {\rm GeV}$) \cite{ekn} on the reheat temperature

734: $T_{\rm reh}$, which is given by \cite{lectures}

735: \begin{equation}

736: T_{\rm reh}=\left(\frac{45}{2\pi^2 g_*}

737: \right)^{\frac{1}{4}}

738: (\Gamma_{\rm infl}m_{\rm P})^{\frac{1}{2}},

739: \label{eq:reheat}

740: \end{equation}

741: where $g_*$ is the effective number of degrees

742: of freedom ($g_*=228.75$ for the MSSM spectrum).

743: Thus, the SUSY breaking effects from the finite

744: energy density in the universe are subdominant

745: compared to the hidden sector SUSY breaking

746: effects, whose scale is set by $m_{3/2}$.

747: 

748: \par

749: The PQ potential can acquire temperature

750: corrections too. During the era of inflaton

751: oscillations, they originate from the new

752: radiation \cite{reheat} which emerges from the

753: decaying inflaton. It has been shown \cite{dllr1},

754: however, that these corrections are overshadowed

755: by the SUGRA ones which, in the latest stages of

756: this era, are, in turn, overshadowed by the terms

757: from hidden sector SUSY breaking. After reheating,

758: the temperature corrections are less important

759: than the ones from the hidden sector as argued in

760: Refs.~\cite{jean} and \cite{talks}. So, the

761: temperature corrections to the PQ potential can

762: be ignored throughout.

763: 

764: \par

765: We see that, in the early universe, the effective

766: scalar potential for the PQ field can be taken

767: to be

768: \begin{equation}

769: V_{\rm PQ}^{\rm eff}=V_{\rm PQ}+\frac{1}{2}

770: \gamma^2 H^2\phi^2+V_0.

771: \label{full-pot}

772: \end{equation}

773: The full effective scalar potential $V$ which is

774: relevant for our analysis here is obtained by

775: adding to $V_{\rm PQ}^{\rm eff}$ the potential

776: for standard SUSY hybrid inflation (see e.g.

777: Ref.~\cite{lectures}).

778: 

779: \par

780: The evolution of the field $\phi$ is generally

781: governed by the classical equation of motion

782: \begin{equation}

783: \ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+V^{\prime}=0,

784: \label{field-eqn}

785: \end{equation}

786: where overdots and primes denote derivation

787: with respect to the cosmic time $t$ and the

788: PQ field $\phi$ respectively. In particular,

789: Eq.~(\ref{field-eqn}) describes

790: \cite{communication} the evolution during

791: inflation of the mean value of $\phi$ in a

792: comoving region larger than the inflationary

793: horizon. Actually, this equation starts to be

794: valid a short time after this region crosses

795: outside the de Sitter horizon. The mean value

796: of $\phi$, however, in a region of fixed size

797: somewhat bigger than the (almost) constant

798: size of the de Sitter horizon satisfies

799: \cite{notari} this equation during inflation

800: provided that it exceeds a certain value

801: $\phi_Q$ given by

802: \begin{equation}

803: V^{\prime}\sim\frac{3H_{\rm infl}^3}{2\pi},

804: \label{phiQ}

805: \end{equation}

806: where $H_{\rm infl}$ is the almost constant

807: Hubble parameter during inflation.

808: Therefore, if we require that the value

809: $\phi_f$ (considered positive without loss of

810: generality) which is taken at the end of

811: inflation by the mean $\phi$ in a region of

812: fixed size somewhat bigger than

813: $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ exceeds $\phi_Q$, we can be

814: sure \cite{dllr1} that the classical evolution

815: equation holds for this mean field until the

816: end of inflation. For values of the mean $\phi$

817: in a region of fixed size somewhat bigger than

818: $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ which are smaller than

819: about $\phi_Q$, the random walk executed

820: \cite{rwalk} by this mean field due to the

821: quantum perturbations from inflation cannot be

822: neglected and may overshadow \cite{notari} its

823: classical motion. Thus, in this case, the

824: classical equation of motion during inflation

825: for this mean $\phi$ ceases to be valid. For

826: reasons to be discussed later, we will not

827: consider in our analysis values of $\phi_f$

828: which lie in the quantum regime, i.e. which

829: are smaller than $\phi_Q$ (see

830: Secs.~\ref{sec:curvature} and

831: \ref{sec:evolution}). It should be pointed

832: out in passing that the requirement of

833: complete randomization of the mean $\phi$ in

834: a region of fixed size somewhat bigger than

835: $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ as a consequence of its

836: quantum perturbations from inflation implies

837: \cite{prep} an even more stringent bound on

838: this mean $\phi$ given by

839: $V\lesssim H^4_{\rm infl}$.

840: 

841: \par

842: Moreover, as explained in the next section, we

843: will have to study only values of $\phi_f$ for

844: which $\phi$ is a slowly rolling field

845: during the relevant part of inflation (i.e.

846: during at least the last $50-60$ e-foldings).

847: It has been shown \cite {dllr1} that, in this

848: case, the PQ field $\phi$ emerges at the end of

849: inflation with negligible velocity (i.e.

850: derivative with respect to cosmic time). Its

851: subsequent evolution during the matter

852: dominated era of damped inflaton oscillations

853: is given by Eqs.~(\ref{full-pot}) and

854: (\ref{field-eqn}) with $H=2/3t$. One finds

855: \cite{dllr1} that, depending on the value of

856: $\phi_f$, the PQ system eventually enters into

857: a phase of damped oscillations about either the

858: trivial (local) minimum of $V_{\rm PQ}$ at

859: $\phi=0$ or one of its PQ (absolute) minima at

860: $\phi=\pm f_a$. Of course, values of $\phi_f$

861: leading to the trivial minimum must be excluded.

862: 

863: \par

864: The damped oscillations of the PQ field continue

865: even after reheating, where $H$ becomes equal to

866: $1/2t$. Finally, this field decays via the second

867: coupling in the superpotential of Eq.~(\ref{W2})

868: into a pair of Higgsinos provided that their mass

869: $\mu$ does not exceed half of the mass of the PQ

870: field (see Ref.~\cite{dllr1})

871: \begin{equation}

872: m_{\phi}=\frac{m_{3/2}}{\sqrt{3}}\left(|A|^2-

873: 12\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(|A|+\left(|A|^2-12

874: \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},

875: \label{mphi}

876: \end{equation}

877: which is independent of the parameter $\lambda$.

878: The decay time of the PQ field is

879: $t_{\phi}=\Gamma_{\phi}^{-1}$, where

880: $\Gamma_{\phi}$ is its decay width, which has

881: been found \cite{dllr1} to be given by

882: \begin{equation}

883: \Gamma_{\phi}=\frac{\beta^2f_a^2}

884: {8\pi m_{\rm P}^2}m_{\phi}.

885: \label{Gphi}

886: \end{equation}

887: Note that the coherently oscillating PQ field

888: could evaporate \cite{evap} as a result of

889: scattering with particles in the thermal bath

890: before it decays into Higgsinos. However, one

891: can show \cite{dllr1} that, in the model under

892: discussion here, this does not happen.

893: 

894: 

895: \section{The curvature perturbation}

896: \label{sec:curvature}

897: 

898: \par

899: We will consider here only values of $\phi_f$ for

900: which the PQ field $\phi$ is effectively massless,

901: i.e. $V^{\prime\prime}\leq H^2$, during (at

902: least) the last $50-60$ inflationary e-foldings

903: so that it receives a super-horizon spectrum of

904: perturbations from inflation

905: and can act as curvaton. This requirement also

906: guarantees that $\phi$ is slowly rolling during

907: the relevant part of inflation. The perturbation

908: $\delta\phi$ then evolves at subsequent times and,

909: when $\phi$ settles into damped quadratic

910: oscillations about the PQ vacua, yields a stable

911: perturbation in the energy density of this field.

912: After the PQ field decays, this perturbation is

913: transferred to radiation, thereby contributing to

914: the total curvature perturbation. On the other

915: hand, the radiation, which originates from the

916: inflaton decay, could carry a curvature

917: perturbation prior to the curvaton decay too. It

918: actually inherits the curvature perturbation of

919: the inflaton. Contrary to the standard curvaton

920: hypothesis \cite{curv1}, we make here the more

921: natural assumption that this perturbation is

922: non-zero and, thus, also contributes to the total

923: curvature perturbation.

924: 

925: \par

926: The scalar part of the metric perturbation for

927: a flat universe can be written (using the

928: notation of Ref.~\cite{thesis}), in all

929: generality, as follows (for reviews of the

930: gauge invariant theory of cosmological

931: perturbations, see e.g. Ref.~\cite{gipt}):

932: \begin{eqnarray}

933: \delta g_{\mu \nu}d x^\mu d x^\nu &=&

934: -2Adt^2+2aB_{,i}dtdx^i\nonumber \\

935: & &+a^2\left(2C\delta_{ij}

936: +E_{,ij}\right)dx^idx^j,

937: \label{metric}

938: \end{eqnarray}

939: where $\mu,\nu=0,1,2,3$ and $i,j=1,2,3$. Here,

940: $x^0=t$ is the physical time, $x^i$ ($i=1,2,3$)

941: are the comoving spatial coordinates,

942: $Y_{,i}\equiv\partial Y/\partial x^i$

943: ($i=1,2,3$) and $\delta_{ij}$ denotes the

944: Kronecker delta. The dimensionless parameter

945: $a$ is the scale factor of the universe, which

946: is normalized to unity at the present cosmic

947: time. We define the following gauge invariant

948: quantities:

949: \begin{eqnarray}

950: \zeta&\equiv &C-H\frac{\delta\rho}{\dot{\rho}},

951: \label{zetagen}

952: \\

953: \mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}&\equiv &-C-H(B-a^2v),

954: \\

955: \Phi &\equiv &-C-H\left(B-a^2\dot{E}\right).

956: \end{eqnarray}

957: Here, $\rho=-T_0^{~0}$ is the total energy

958: density in the universe with $T_\mu^{~\nu}$

959: being the energy momentum tensor, $\delta\rho

960: =-\delta T_0^{~0}$ is the total density

961: perturbation, and $v$ describes the spatial

962: perturbation in the 4-velocity $u^\mu$ of an

963: observer comoving with the total fluid, i.e.

964: $v^{,i}\equiv -\delta u^i/u^0$. The variable

965: $\zeta$ represents the curvature perturbation

966: on hypersurfaces of uniform density,

967: $\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}$ is the curvature

968: perturbation in the (total matter) comoving

969: gauge (up to the sign), while $\Phi$ is the

970: Bardeen potential, which is the curvature

971: perturbation (up to the sign) in the

972: longitudinal gauge. These three quantities are

973: related by

974: \begin{equation}

975: \zeta=-\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}-\frac{2\rho}

976: {9(\rho+p)}\left(\frac{k}{Ha}\right)^2\Phi,

977: \end{equation}

978: where we have used the time-time component of

979: the Einstein equation and $p$ is the total

980: pressure of the universe (i.e. $T_{ij}= p

981: \delta_{ij}$). On super-horizon scales, $k\ll

982: Ha$, the second term on the right hand side of

983: this equation is negligible, and we thus have

984: $\zeta=-\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}$.

985: 

986: \par

987: Using Eq.~(\ref{zetagen}), the total curvature

988: perturbation \cite{bst} in the flat slicing

989: gauge (defined by setting $C=E=0$ in

990: Eq.~(\ref{metric})) is given by

991: \begin{equation}

992: \zeta=\frac{\delta\rho}{3(\rho+p)}.

993: \end{equation}

994: After the curvaton decay, it becomes

995: \cite{curv3}

996: \begin{equation}

997: \zeta=(1-f)\zeta_i+f\zeta_c,

998: \label{zeta}

999: \end{equation}

1000: where $\zeta_i=\delta\rho_r/4\rho_r$ and

1001: $\zeta_c=\delta\rho_\phi/3\rho_\phi$ are the

1002: partial curvature perturbations on spatial

1003: hypersurfaces of constant curvature from the

1004: inflaton and the curvaton respectively at the

1005: curvaton decay with $\rho_r$ and $\rho_\phi$

1006: being the radiation and $\phi$ energy densities

1007: respectively, and $\delta\rho_r$ and $\delta

1008: \rho_\phi$ the corresponding perturbations.

1009: Also,

1010: \begin{equation}

1011: f=\frac{3\rho_{\phi}}{3\rho_{\phi}+4\rho_r}

1012: \label{eq:f}

1013: \end{equation}

1014: evaluated at the time of the curvaton decay. Here,

1015: we assume that

1016: the amplitude of the oscillating $\phi$ has been

1017: sufficiently reduced so that the potential can be

1018: approximately considered as quadratic. Actually,

1019: as shown in Ref.~\cite{dllr2}, this must

1020: necessarily happen before the curvaton decays.

1021: The oscillating curvaton field then behaves like

1022: pressureless matter and $\zeta_c=2\delta\phi_0/

1023: 3\phi_0$, where $\phi_0$ is the amplitude of the

1024: oscillations and $\delta\phi_0$ the perturbation

1025: in this amplitude originating from the

1026: perturbation $\delta\phi_f$ in the value $\phi_f$

1027: of $\phi$ at the end of inflation.

1028: 

1029: \par

1030: The comoving curvature perturbation

1031: $\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}$, for super-horizon

1032: scales, is given by

1033: \begin{equation}

1034: \mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}=(1-f)A_i\left(\frac{k}{H_0}

1035: \right)^{\nu_i}\hat{a}_i+

1036: fA_c\left(\frac{k}{H_0}\right)^{\nu_c}\hat{a}_c,

1037: \label{R}

1038: \end{equation}

1039: where $k$ is the comoving (present physical)

1040: wave number, $H_0$

1041: is the present value of the Hubble parameter

1042: and $\hat{a}_i$, $\hat{a}_c$ are independent

1043: normalized Gaussian random variables. Also,

1044: $A_i$ and $A_c$ are, respectively, the

1045: amplitudes of $-\zeta_i$ and $-\zeta_c$ at the

1046: present horizon scale (i.e. at $k=H_0$), and

1047: $\nu_i$ and $\nu_c$ are the spectral tilts of

1048: the inflaton and curvaton respectively, which

1049: are related to the corresponding spectral

1050: indices $n_i$ and $n_c$ by $n_i=1+2\nu_i$ and

1051: $n_c=1+2\nu_c$. We do not consider running of

1052: the spectral indices, since this is negligible

1053: in our model.

1054: 

1055: \par

1056: The amplitude $A_i$ of the partial curvature

1057: perturbation from the inflaton is found \cite{hier}

1058: to be

1059: \begin{equation}

1060: A_i=\left(\frac{2N_{Q}}{3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}

1061: \left(\frac{M}{m_{\rm P}}\right)^2x_Q^{-1}y_Q^{-1}

1062: \Lambda(x_Q^2)^{-1}

1063: \label{ai}

1064: \end{equation}

1065: with

1066: \begin{equation}

1067: \Lambda(z)=(z+1)\ln(1+z^{-1})+(z-1)\ln(1-z^{-1})~,

1068: \label{lambda}

1069: \end{equation}

1070: \begin{equation}

1071: y_Q^2=\int_{x_f^2}^{x_Q^2}\frac{dz}{z}

1072: \Lambda(z)^{-1},~y_Q\geq 0~.

1073: \label{yq}

1074: \end{equation}

1075: Here, $N_{Q}$ is the number of e-foldings suffered

1076: by our present horizon scale during inflation,

1077: $x_Q=S_Q/M$ with $S_Q$ being the value

1078: of $\vert S\vert$ when our present horizon scale

1079: crosses outside the inflationary horizon, and

1080: $x_f=S_f/M$ with $S_f$ being the value

1081: of $\vert S\vert$ at the end of inflation.

1082: 

1083: \par

1084: In our model, the slow-roll parameters for the

1085: inflaton as functions of $\vert S\vert$ are given

1086: by \cite{lectures}

1087: \begin{equation}

1088: \epsilon_i=\left(\frac{\kappa^2m_{\rm P}}{8\pi^2M}

1089: \right)^2z\Lambda(z)^2,

1090: \label{epsiloni}

1091: \end{equation}

1092: \begin{eqnarray}

1093: \eta_i&=&2\left(\frac{\kappa m_{\rm P}}{4\pi M}

1094: \right)^2\Big[(3z+1)\ln(1+z^{-1})

1095: \nonumber\\

1096: & &+(3z-1)\ln(1-z^{-1})\Big],

1097: \label{etai}

1098: \end{eqnarray}

1099: where $z=x^2$ with $x=\vert S\vert/M$. In the

1100: presence of the curvaton, however, one can show

1101: that the slow-roll conditions (for $\gamma

1102: \rightarrow 0$) take the form $\epsilon,

1103: \vert\eta_i\vert\leq 1$, where

1104: \begin{equation}

1105: \epsilon\equiv -\frac{\dot H}{H^2}=\epsilon_i+

1106: \epsilon_c

1107: \label{epsilon}

1108: \end{equation}

1109: with

1110: \begin{equation}

1111: \epsilon_c=\frac{1}{2}

1112: m_{\rm P}^2\left(\frac{V^{\prime}}{V}\right)^2,

1113: \label{epsilonc}

1114: \end{equation}

1115: and $x_f$ is given by the value of $x$ for

1116: which these conditions are saturated. Actually,

1117: as it turns out, $x_f$ corresponds to

1118: $\eta_i=-1$. For $\kappa\ll 1$, the slow-roll

1119: conditions are violated only extremely close to

1120: the critical point at $x=1$

1121: ($\vert S\vert=S_c$). So, inflation continues

1122: practically until this point is reaches and,

1123: following Ref.~\cite{hier}, we can put $x_f=1$

1124: in Eq.~(\ref{yq}). However, for larger values

1125: of the parameter $\kappa$, inflation can

1126: terminate well before reaching the instability

1127: point.

1128: 

1129: \par

1130: Finally, $\kappa$, $N_Q$ are given by

1131: \cite{lectures}

1132: \begin{equation}

1133: \kappa=\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{N_Q}}

1134: ~y_Q~\frac{M}{m_{\rm P}},

1135: \label{kappa}

1136: \end{equation}

1137: \begin{equation}

1138: N_Q\simeq 55.9+\frac{2}{3}\ln\frac{

1139: \kappa^{\frac{1}{2}}M}{10^{15}~{\rm GeV}}

1140: +\frac{1}{3}\ln\frac{T_{\rm reh}}

1141: {10^9~{\rm GeV}}

1142: \label{NQ}

1143: \end{equation}

1144: (for $H_0\simeq 72~\rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~

1145: \rm{Mpc}^{-1}$). The spectral index for the

1146: inflaton is $n_i=1-6\epsilon+2\eta_i$ (for

1147: $\gamma\rightarrow 0$), where $\epsilon$ and

1148: $\eta_i$ are evaluated at the time when

1149: our present horizon scale crosses outside

1150: the inflationary horizon. Note that $\epsilon$

1151: enters in this formula, not $\epsilon_i$ as in

1152: the case of pure inflaton. However,

1153: $\epsilon_c$ is normally much smaller than

1154: $\epsilon_i$ which, in turn, is negligible

1155: compared to $\vert\eta_i\vert$. As a

1156: consequence, $n_i\simeq 1+2\eta_i$.

1157: 

1158: \par

1159: We now calculate the amplitude $A_c$ of the

1160: partial curvature perturbation from the

1161: curvaton $\phi$. This originates from the

1162: perturbation $\delta\phi_*=(H_*/2\pi)\hat{a}_c$

1163: acquired by $\phi$ from inflation when our

1164: present horizon scale crosses outside the de

1165: Sitter horizon

1166: ($H_*$ is the inflationary Hubble parameter at

1167: that moment). In order to find the evolution of

1168: this perturbation during the subsequent part of

1169: inflation and estimate its value $\delta\phi_f$

1170: at the end of inflation, we must consider the

1171: equation of motion for $\phi$ during inflation

1172: (see Eq.~(\ref{field-eqn})). In the slow-roll

1173: approximation, which is assumed to hold for the

1174: curvaton too, this equation reads

1175: \begin{equation}

1176: 3H\dot\phi+V^{\prime}=0.

1177: \label{slow}

1178: \end{equation}

1179: Taking a small perturbation

1180: $\delta\phi$ of $\phi$, Eq.~(\ref{slow}) gives

1181: \begin{equation}

1182: 3H\delta\dot\phi+3H^{\prime}\delta\phi\dot\phi+

1183: V^{\prime\prime}\delta\phi=0.

1184: \label{dphi1}

1185: \end{equation}

1186: Substituting $\dot\phi$ from Eq.~(\ref{slow}) and

1187: using the Friedmann equation $3H^2m_{\rm P}^2=V$,

1188: Eq.~(\ref{dphi1}) becomes

1189: \begin{equation}

1190: \delta\dot\phi+H(-\epsilon_c+\eta_c)\delta\phi=0,

1191: \label{dphi2}

1192: \end{equation}

1193: where

1194: \begin{equation}

1195: \eta_c=m_{\rm P}^2\frac{V^{\prime\prime}}{V}.

1196: \label{etac}

1197: \end{equation}

1198: Integration of Eq.~(\ref{dphi2}) from the cosmic

1199: time $t_*$ when our present horizon scale crossed

1200: outside the inflationary horizon until the end of

1201: inflation (at time $t_f$) yields

1202: \begin{equation}

1203: \delta\phi_f=\frac{H_*}{2\pi}\,\hat{a}_c

1204: \exp{\int_0^{N_Q}(\epsilon_c-\eta_c)dN},

1205: \label{dphif}

1206: \end{equation}

1207: where we used the relation $dN=-Hdt$ for the

1208: number of e-foldings $N(k)=N_Q+\ln(H_0/k)$

1209: suffered by the scale which corresponds to the

1210: comoving wave number $k$ during hybrid inflation.

1211: 

1212: \par

1213: For each value $\phi_f~(>0)$ of the curvaton

1214: field at the end of inflation, we construct the

1215: perturbed field $\phi_f+\delta\phi_f$. We then

1216: follow the evolution of $\phi_f$ and $\phi_f+

1217: \delta\phi_f$ until the time $t_\phi$ of the

1218: curvaton decay and evaluate the value of

1219: $\delta\rho_\phi/\rho_\phi$ at this time. The

1220: amplitude $A_c$ of the partial curvature

1221: perturbation from the curvaton is given by

1222: \begin{equation}

1223: A_c\,\hat{a}_c=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta\rho_\phi}

1224: {\rho_\phi}.

1225: \label{Ac}

1226: \end{equation}

1227: We have found numerically that the perturbation

1228: $\delta\phi_0$ in the amplitude of the oscillating

1229: curvaton at $t_\phi$ is proportional to

1230: $\delta\phi_f$. So $\zeta_c$ has the same spectral

1231: tilt as $\delta\phi_f$, which can be found from

1232: Eq.~(\ref{dphif}):

1233: \begin{equation}

1234: \nu_c\equiv\frac{d\ln A_c}{d\ln k}=-\epsilon-

1235: \epsilon_c+\eta_c,

1236: \label{nuc}

1237: \end{equation}

1238: where we used the relation $d\ln k=Hdt$, and

1239: $\epsilon$, $\epsilon_c$ and $\eta_c$ are

1240: evaluated at $t_*$. (Note that a similar

1241: formula has been derived in the first paper

1242: in Ref.~\cite{curv2}, but without the

1243: $-\epsilon_c$ term in the right hand side.)

1244: The spectral index for the

1245: curvaton is then $n_c=1-2\epsilon-2\epsilon_c+

1246: 2\eta_c$ which, in most cases, reduces to $n_c

1247: \simeq 1+2\eta_c$ since we typically have

1248: $\epsilon_i,\epsilon_c\ll\vert\eta_c\vert$.

1249: 

1250: \par

1251: It should be pointed out that, in deriving

1252: Eq.~(\ref{nuc}), we assume that, during

1253: inflation, the mean value of $\phi$ in any

1254: region of fixed size (somewhat bigger than)

1255: $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ is initially the same and

1256: follows the classical equation of motion

1257: (Eq.~(\ref{field-eqn})). This mean field sets

1258: the (initial) value of the mean $\phi$ in any

1259: comoving region at the time this region exits

1260: the de Sitter horizon. Thus, if it satisfies

1261: the above requirements, we can be sure that,

1262: at any given time during inflation, the

1263: resulting mean $\phi$ in each comoving region

1264: that already exited the horizon is practically

1265: independent from the size of this region. So

1266: the mean $\phi$ in a fixed region of size

1267: $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ or in any comoving volume

1268: (after horizon exit) is described by the same

1269: (single-valued) function of the cosmic time

1270: and evolves classically (in fact, it rolls

1271: down slowly in our case). The derivation with

1272: respect to time of the logarithm of the

1273: amplitude of $\delta\phi_f$, which is given by

1274: Eq.~(\ref{dphif}), is then straightforward

1275: leading to Eq.~(\ref{nuc}). On the contrary,

1276: if the mean field in a fixed region of size

1277: somewhat bigger than $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$

1278: executes a random walk with step of amplitude

1279: $H_{\rm infl}/2\pi$ per Hubble time, the

1280: calculation of the spectral tilt becomes less

1281: clear. So, we decided to exclude the quantum

1282: regime (i.e. the region $\phi_f<\phi_Q$) from

1283: our analysis (see Sec.~\ref{sec:evolution}). It

1284: is true, however, that it is by no means

1285: necessary to avoid the random walk behavior at

1286: all times during inflation. Indeed, only

1287: cosmological scales corresponding to a few

1288: e-foldings after the exit of our present

1289: horizon scale from the de Sitter horizon are

1290: relevant. For simplicity though, we exclude all

1291: the quantum regime so that no random motion of

1292: the mean $\phi$ in a region of size

1293: $H_{\rm infl}^{-1}$ is encountered during

1294: inflation. This, as we will see, has no

1295: influence on our results.

1296: 

1297: \section{The isocurvature perturbation}

1298: \label{sec:isocurvature}

1299: 

1300: \par

1301: After the termination of inflation, the

1302: inflaton performs damped oscillations about

1303: the SUSY vacuum and eventually decays into

1304: light particles reheating the universe. At

1305: reheating, gravitinos are

1306: thermally produced besides other particles.

1307: They only decay, though, well after the big

1308: bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) since they have

1309: very weak couplings. Each decaying gravitino

1310: yields one sparticle subsequently turning

1311: into the LSP, which is stable. These LSPs

1312: survive until the present time contributing

1313: to the relic abundance of CDM in the universe.

1314: For simplicity, we assume that the thermally

1315: produced LSPs can be neglected, which holds

1316: in many cases. So, all the relic LSPs come

1317: solely from the decaying gravitinos. Baryons

1318: can be produced via a primordial leptogenesis

1319: \cite{lepto} which can occur \cite{leptoinf}

1320: at reheating.

1321: 

1322: \par

1323: We see that both the LSPs and the baryons

1324: originate from reheating. Their partial

1325: curvature perturbations, $\zeta_{\rm LSP}$

1326: and $\zeta_B$ respectively, should thus

1327: coincide with the partial curvature

1328: perturbation of the radiation which emerges

1329: from the inflaton decay, i.e.

1330: \begin{equation}

1331: \zeta_{\rm LSP}=\zeta_B=\zeta_i.

1332: \label{zetaLSP}

1333: \end{equation}

1334: The isocurvature perturbation of the LSPs and

1335: the baryons is then given by

1336: \begin{equation}

1337: \mathcal{S}_{{\rm LSP}+B}\equiv 3(

1338: \zeta_{{\rm LSP}+B}-\zeta)=3f(\zeta_i-\zeta_c),

1339: \label{SLSP1}

1340: \end{equation}

1341: where $\zeta_{{\rm LSP}+B}=\zeta_{\rm LSP}=

1342: \zeta_B$ is the partial curvature perturbation

1343: of the LSPs and the baryons and we used

1344: Eq.~(\ref{zeta}). Here, we assume

1345: that the curvature perturbation in radiation

1346: ($\zeta_\gamma$) practically coincides with the

1347: total curvature perturbation. This corresponds to

1348: a negligible neutrino isocurvature perturbation,

1349: which is \cite{curv3} the case provided that, as

1350: in our model, leptogenesis takes place well

1351: before the curvaton decays or dominates the

1352: energy density. Applying the definitions which

1353: follow Eq.~(\ref{R}), Eq.~(\ref{SLSP1}) takes the

1354: form

1355: \begin{equation}

1356: \mathcal{S}_{{\rm LSP}+B}=-3fA_i\left(

1357: \frac{k}{H_0}\right)^{\nu_i}\hat{a}_i+3fA_c\left(

1358: \frac{k}{H_0}\right)^{\nu_c}\hat{a}_c.

1359: \label{SLSP2}

1360: \end{equation}

1361: 

1362: \par

1363: Our model contains axions which can also

1364: contribute to the CDM of the universe. They are

1365: produced at the QCD phase transition, which

1366: occurs well after the curvaton decay. They carry

1367: an isocurvature perturbation, which is completely

1368: uncorrelated with the curvature perturbation and

1369: can be written as

1370: \begin{equation}

1371: \mathcal{S}_a=A_a\left(\frac{k}{H_0}

1372: \right)^{\nu_a}\hat{a}_a,

1373: \label{Sa}

1374: \end{equation}

1375: where $A_a$ is its amplitude at the present

1376: horizon scale, $\nu_a$ is the corresponding

1377: spectral tilt (yielding the spectral index

1378: $n_a=1+2\nu_a$) and $\hat{a}_a$ is a normalized

1379: Gaussian random variable which is independent

1380: from $\hat{a}_i$ and $\hat{a}_c$.

1381: 

1382: \par

1383: The amplitude $A_a$ is given by \cite{dllr1}

1384: \begin{equation}

1385: A_a=\frac{H_*}{\pi\vert\theta\vert\phi_*},

1386: \label{Aa}

1387: \end{equation}

1388: where $\theta$ is the so-called initial

1389: misalignment angle, i.e. the phase of the complex

1390: PQ field during (and at the end of) inflation and

1391: $\phi_*$ is the value of $\phi$ at $t_*$. In our

1392: case, the angle $\theta$ lies \cite{dllr1} in the

1393: interval $[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$ with all values in it

1394: being equally probable. It is determined by

1395: considering the total CDM abundance

1396: $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2$ which, in our model, is

1397: the sum of the relic abundance \cite{km}

1398: \begin{equation}

1399: \Omega_{\rm LSP}h^2\simeq 0.0074\left(\frac

1400: {m_{\rm LSP}}{200~{\rm GeV}}\right)\left(

1401: \frac{T_{\rm reh}}{10^{9}~{\rm GeV}}\right)

1402: \label{OmegaLSP}

1403: \end{equation}

1404: of the LSPs coming from the gravitino decays

1405: and the relic axion abundance \cite{axion}

1406: \begin{equation}

1407: \Omega_ah^2\simeq\theta^2\left(\frac{f_a}

1408: {10^{12}~{\rm GeV}}\right)^{1.175}.

1409: \label{Omegaa}

1410: \end{equation}

1411: Here $\Omega_j=\rho_j/\rho_c$ with $\rho_j$

1412: being the present energy density of the $j$th

1413: species and $\rho_c$ the present critical

1414: energy density of the universe. Furthermore,

1415: $m_{\rm LSP}$ is the LSP mass and

1416: $H_0=100h~\rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$

1417: the present Hubble parameter. In the numerical

1418: calculation of $M$ and the amplitudes $A_c$

1419: and $A_a$ for given $A_i$ and $\phi_f$ (see

1420: Secs.~\ref{sec:evolution} and \ref{sec:Cell}),

1421: we will fix $h\simeq 0.72$, which is its

1422: best-fit value from the Hubble space telescope

1423: (HST) \cite{hst}. (In the full Monte Carlo (MC)

1424: CMBR analysis, however, we do allow $h$ to vary

1425: as detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:setup}.) This

1426: approximation has very little influence on the

1427: accuracy of the results (see the remarks at the

1428: end of Sec.~\ref{sec:Cell}). Note that, in

1429: deriving the estimate for $\Omega_a h^2$ in

1430: Eq.~(\ref{Omegaa}), we applied the simplifying

1431: assumptions of Ref.~\cite{dllr1}.

1432: 

1433: \par

1434: The spectral tilt $\nu_a$ is evaluated by

1435: observing that the potential of the axion field

1436: remains flat until the QCD transition is reached.

1437: So, there is no evolution of $\theta$ and its

1438: perturbation $\delta\theta=(H_*/2\pi\phi_*)

1439: \hat{a}_a$ after crossing outside the

1440: inflationary horizon and

1441: until the onset of axion oscillations. The

1442: axion isocurvature perturbation, which is

1443: \cite{dllr1} equal to $2\delta\theta/\theta$,

1444: depends on the scale only through $H_*/\phi_*$.

1445: We find

1446: \begin{equation}

1447: \nu_a=-\epsilon+\frac{m_{\rm P}}{\phi_*}

1448: \frac{V^\prime}{V}m_{\rm P}=

1449: -\epsilon+\frac{m_{\rm P}}{\phi_*}

1450: \sqrt{2\epsilon_c},

1451: \label{nua}

1452: \end{equation}

1453: where Eqs.~(\ref{epsilonc}) and (\ref{slow})

1454: were used, and the slow-roll parameters

1455: $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_c$ are evaluated at

1456: $t_*$. In view of the fact that $\epsilon$ is

1457: normally negligible, Eq.~(\ref{nua}) reduces

1458: to $\nu_a\simeq m_{\rm P}\sqrt{2\epsilon_c}/

1459: \phi_*$ and $n_a\simeq 1+2m_{\rm P}

1460: \sqrt{2\epsilon_c}/\phi_*$.

1461: 

1462: \par

1463: Combining Eqs.~(\ref{SLSP2}) and (\ref{Sa}), we

1464: find that the total isocurvature perturbation is

1465: \cite{dllr1}

1466: \begin{equation}

1467: \mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}=\frac{\Omega_{{\rm LSP}+B}}

1468: {\Omega_m}\mathcal{S}_{{\rm LSP}+B}+\frac{\Omega_a}

1469: {\Omega_m}\mathcal{S}_a,

1470: \label{total}

1471: \end{equation}

1472: where we used the definitions $\Omega_{{\rm LSP}

1473: +B}\equiv\Omega_{\rm LSP}+\Omega_B$ and $\Omega_m

1474: \equiv\rho_m/\rho_c=\Omega_{{\rm LSP}+B}+\Omega_a$

1475: with $\rho_m$ being the total matter density at

1476: present.

1477: 

1478: \section{The CMBR power spectrum}

1479: \label{sec:spectrum}

1480: 

1481: \par

1482: In order to calculate the expected total CMBR

1483: angular power spectrum $C_\ell$ in our model, we

1484: must first specify the various contributions to

1485: the amplitude of the total adiabatic and

1486: isocurvature perturbation as well as the

1487: cross correlation between these two perturbations.

1488: In the following, all the amplitudes are referred

1489: to the pivot scale $k_{\rm P}$, for which we use

1490: the customary value $k_{\rm P}=0.05~{\rm Mpc^{-1}}$

1491: \cite{pivot}. We thus define the amplitudes

1492: of the partial curvature perturbations from the

1493: inflaton ($A_{{\rm P},i}$) and the curvaton

1494: ($A_{{\rm P},c}$), and the amplitude of the

1495: isocurvature perturbation in the axions

1496: ($A_{{\rm P},a}$) at $k=k_{\rm P}$:

1497: \begin{eqnarray*}

1498: A_{{\rm P},i}=A_i\left(\frac{k_{\rm P}}{H_0}

1499: \right)^{\nu_i},~

1500: A_{{\rm P},c}=A_c\left(\frac{k_{\rm P}}{H_0}

1501: \right)^{\nu_c},

1502: \end{eqnarray*}

1503: \begin{equation}

1504: A_{{\rm P},a}=A_a\left(\frac{k_{\rm P}}{H_0}

1505: \right)^{\nu_a},

1506: \label{AP}

1507: \end{equation}

1508: where the amplitudes $A_i$, $A_c$ and $A_a$ at

1509: $k=H_0$ are given in Eqs.~(\ref{ai}),  (\ref{Ac})

1510: and (\ref{Aa}) respectively.

1511: 

1512: \par

1513: From Eq.~(\ref{R}), we find that the amplitude

1514: squared of the adiabatic perturbation at the

1515: pivot scale is given by

1516: \begin{equation}

1517: R^2=\langle\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}

1518: \mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}\rangle=R_i^2+R_c^2,

1519: \label{R2}

1520: \end{equation}

1521: where $\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}$ is evaluated at

1522: $k=k_{\rm P}$, and the inflaton ($R_i^2$) and

1523: curvaton ($R_c^2$) contributions to this amplitude

1524: squared are

1525: \begin{equation}

1526: R_i^2=(1-f)^2A_{{\rm P},i}^2~~{\rm and}~~R_c^2=

1527: f^2A_{{\rm P},c}^2.

1528: \label{Ric}

1529: \end{equation}

1530: The curvaton fractional contribution

1531: to the amplitude of the adiabatic perturbation is

1532: defined as follows:

1533: \begin{equation}

1534: F^{\rm ad}_c=\frac{R_c}{R}.

1535: \label{Fc}

1536: \end{equation}

1537: 

1538: \par

1539: The amplitude squared of the isocurvature

1540: perturbation at $k_{\rm P}$ is found from

1541: Eq.~(\ref{total}) to be

1542: \begin{equation}

1543: S^2=\langle\mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}

1544: \mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}\rangle=S_i^2+S_c^2+S_a^2,

1545: \label{S2}

1546: \end{equation}

1547: where

1548: \begin{eqnarray*}

1549: S_i^2=9f^2\left(\frac{\Omega_{{\rm LSP}+B}}

1550: {\Omega_m}\right)^2A_{{\rm P},i}^2,

1551: \end{eqnarray*}

1552: \begin{equation}

1553: S_c^2=9f^2\left(\frac{\Omega_{{\rm LSP}+B}}

1554: {\Omega_m}\right)^2A_{{\rm P},c}^2~~{\rm and}~~

1555: S_a^2=\left(\frac{\Omega_a}{\Omega_m}\right)^2

1556: A_{{\rm P},a}^2

1557: \label{Sica}

1558: \end{equation}

1559: are, respectively, the inflaton, curvaton and

1560: axion contributions to this amplitude squared.

1561: 

1562: \par

1563: The cross correlation between the adiabatic and

1564: isocurvature perturbation at the pivot scale

1565: $k_{\rm P}$ is

1566: \begin{equation}

1567: C=\langle\mathcal{R}_{\rm rad}

1568: \mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}\rangle=C_i+C_c,

1569: \label{C}

1570: \end{equation}

1571: where

1572: \begin{equation}

1573: C_i=-R_iS_i~~{\rm and}~~C_c=R_cS_c

1574: \label{Cic}

1575: \end{equation}

1576: are the contributions from the inflaton and the

1577: curvaton respectively. Observe that the axions

1578: do not contribute to the cross correlation (and

1579: the amplitude of the adiabatic perturbation).

1580: Also, note that the isocurvature perturbation

1581: from the inflaton is fully anti-correlated with

1582: the corresponding adiabatic perturbation,

1583: whereas the isocurvature perturbation from the

1584: curvaton is fully correlated with the adiabatic

1585: perturbation from it. So the overall correlation

1586: is mixed. It is thus useful to define \cite{iso3}

1587: the dimensionless cross correlation $\cos\Delta$

1588: as a measure of the correlation between adiabatic

1589: and isocurvature perturbations and the

1590: entropy-to-adiabatic ratio $B$ at $k_{\rm P}$:

1591: \begin{equation}

1592: \cos\Delta=\frac{C}{RS}~~{\rm and}~~B=\frac{S}{R}.

1593: \label{cosDB}

1594: \end{equation}

1595: 

1596: \par

1597: The total CMBR angular power spectrum is given,

1598: in the notation of Ref.~\cite{thesis}, by the

1599: superposition

1600: \begin{equation}

1601: C_\ell=C_\ell^{\rm ad}+C_\ell^{\rm is}+

1602: C_\ell^{\rm cc},

1603: \label{Cell}

1604: \end{equation}

1605: where

1606: \begin{equation}

1607: C_\ell^{\rm ad}=R_i^2C_\ell^{{\rm ad},n_i}+

1608: R_c^2C_\ell^{{\rm ad},n_c},

1609: \label{Cellad}

1610: \end{equation}

1611: \begin{equation}

1612: C_\ell^{\rm is}=S_i^2C_\ell^{{\rm is},n_i}+

1613: S_c^2C_\ell^{{\rm is},n_c}+

1614: S_a^2C_\ell^{{\rm is},n_a},

1615: \label{Cellis}

1616: \end{equation}

1617: \begin{equation}

1618: C_\ell^{\rm cc}=C_iC_\ell^{{\rm cc},n_i}+

1619: C_cC_\ell^{{\rm cc},n_c}.

1620: \label{Cellcc}

1621: \end{equation}

1622: The above relations hold for the TT,

1623: E-polarization (EE) and TE cross correlation

1624: angular power spectra.

1625: 

1626: \par

1627: The TT power spectrum on large angular scales

1628: (i.e. for $\ell\lesssim 20$), can be approximated

1629: by (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{thesis})

1630: \begin{eqnarray}

1631: C^{\rm TT}_\ell&=&\frac{2\pi^2}{25}

1632: \big[(R_i^2+4S_i^2-4C_i)f(n_i,\ell)

1633: \nonumber\\

1634: & &+(R_c^2+4S_c^2-4C_c)f(n_c,\ell)

1635: \nonumber\\

1636: & &+4S_a^2f(n_a,\ell)\big],

1637: \label{Cobe}

1638: \end{eqnarray}

1639: where

1640: \begin{equation}

1641: f(n,\ell)=(\eta_0k_{\rm P})^{1-n}

1642: \frac{\Gamma(3-n)

1643: \Gamma(\ell-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{n}{2})}{2^{3-n}

1644: \Gamma^2(2-\frac{n}{2})\Gamma(\ell+\frac{5}{2}

1645: -\frac{n}{2})}

1646: \label{fnell}

1647: \end{equation}

1648: with $\eta_0=2H_0^{-1}\simeq 8.33\times 10^3~

1649: {\rm Mpc}$ being the value of conformal time in

1650: the present (matter dominated) universe. The

1651: derivation of Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}) assumes that the

1652: universe is completely matter dominated at the

1653: moment of recombination, and further neglects

1654: the late integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect

1655: from the cosmological constant. Therefore this

1656: expression is accurate to about $10-20\%$ and

1657: gives an order of magnitude estimate only.

1658: For scale-invariant spectra, $f(n=1,\ell)=1/

1659: \pi\ell(\ell+1)$ and the Sachs-Wolfe (SW)

1660: plateau is flat. Notice from Eq.~(\ref{Cobe})

1661: that a positively correlated perturbation (as

1662: the perturbation from the curvaton) displays

1663: less power on large angular scales, because

1664: the cross correlation term subtracts power and

1665: can partially cancel the isocurvature

1666: contribution. On the contrary, a negatively

1667: correlated perturbation (such as the one from

1668: the inflaton) presents larger power on the

1669: COBE scales and, therefore, can be more easily

1670: constrained. The COBE measurements give

1671: \cite{cobe10} the following central value

1672: for $\ell=10$:

1673: \begin{equation}

1674: \ell(\ell+1)C^{\rm TT}_\ell/2\pi\big

1675: \vert_{\ell=10}\approx 1.05\times 10^{-10}.

1676: \label{ell10}

1677: \end{equation}

1678: We will apply this COBE constraint with

1679: $C^{\rm TT}_\ell$ evaluated from

1680: Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}) only as an indicative

1681: (approximate) criterion to get a first rough

1682: feeling on the possible compatibility of our

1683: model with the data.

1684: 

1685: \section{Numerical calculations and results}

1686: \label{sec:numerics}

1687: 

1688: \subsection{The cosmological evolution of

1689: $\phi$}

1690: \label{sec:evolution}

1691: 

1692: \par

1693: We are now ready to proceed to the numerical

1694: study of the evolution of the PQ field during

1695: and after inflation. To this end, we fix the

1696: parameter $\kappa$ in the superpotential

1697: $\delta W_1$ in Eq.~(\ref{W1}) for standard

1698: hybrid inflation. Then, for any given value of

1699: the amplitude $A_i$ of the partial curvature

1700: perturbation from the inflaton, we solve

1701: Eqs.~(\ref{ai}), (\ref{kappa}) and (\ref{NQ}),

1702: where $x_f$ is the solution of $\eta_i=-1$

1703: with $\eta_i$ given by Eq.~(\ref{etai}) and

1704: $T_{\rm reh}$, which enters Eq.~(\ref{NQ}), is

1705: taken equal to $10^9~{\rm GeV}$ by saturating

1706: the gravitino bound \cite{ekn}. We thus

1707: determine the mass parameter $M$, which is the

1708: magnitude of the VEV breaking the $G_{LR}$

1709: symmetry. Subsequently, we find the (almost

1710: constant) inflationary Hubble parameter

1711: $H_{\rm infl}=\kappa M^2/\sqrt{3}m_{\rm P}$.

1712: The parameters $M$ and $H_{\rm infl}$ as

1713: functions of the amplitude $A_i$ are shown in

1714: Figs.~\ref{fig:M} and \ref{fig:Hinf}

1715: respectively for $\kappa=3\times 10^{-3}$

1716: (solid line) or $3\times 10^{-2}$ (dashed

1717: line). Note that much smaller values of

1718: $\kappa$ would be considered unnatural. On the

1719: other hand, much bigger $\kappa$'s would push

1720: inflation to higher values of the inflaton

1721: field, where SUGRA corrections become important

1722: and may ruin \cite{lyth} inflation.

1723: 

1724: \begin{figure}[tb]

1725: \centering

1726: \includegraphics[width=0.83\linewidth]{M.eps}

1727: \caption{The mass parameter $M$ versus $A_i$

1728: for $\kappa=3\times 10^{-3}$ (solid line) or

1729: $3\times 10^{-2}$ (dashed line).}

1730: \label{fig:M}

1731: \end{figure}

1732: 

1733: \par

1734: For any given $A_i$, we chose a value $\phi_f$

1735: of $\phi$ at the end of inflation, which takes

1736: place at cosmic time $t_f=2/3H_{\rm infl}$. We

1737: then solve the classical equation of motion

1738: for $\phi$ during inflation in the slow-roll

1739: approximation going backwards in time

1740: ($t\leq t_f$) by taking $m_{3/2}=300~

1741: {\rm GeV}$ (which is \cite{wang} approximately

1742: its minimal value in the

1743: constrained MSSM with Yukawa unification

1744: \cite{ananth}), $\vert A\vert=5$ and a fixed

1745: value for $\lambda$ ($\sim 10^{-4}$) in the PQ

1746: potential. Note that much bigger values of

1747: $\vert A\vert$ (recall that $\vert A\vert>4)$

1748: or much smaller values of $\lambda$ would not

1749: only be unnatural, but also would lead to an

1750: enhancement of the axion decay constant $f_a$

1751: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:fa})) and thus require

1752: unnaturally small misalignment angles $\theta$

1753: to achieve the observed total CDM abundance

1754: (see Eq.~(\ref{Omegaa})). On the other hand,

1755: much bigger values of $\lambda$ would reduce

1756: $f_a$ leading to an unacceptably small CDM

1757: abundance. Finally, the parameter $\gamma$

1758: during inflation is put equal to zero for

1759: simplicity (see Sec.~\ref{sec:early}). We find

1760: that, as we move backwards in time, the value

1761: of $\phi$ increases and becomes infinite at a

1762: certain moment. Also, the number of e-foldings

1763: elapsed from this moment of time until the end

1764: of inflation is finite providing an upper bound

1765: $N_{\rm max}$ on the number of e-foldings which

1766: is compatible with our boundary condition

1767: $\phi=\phi_f$ at $t_f$.

1768: 

1769: \par

1770: In order to get a (rough) understanding of this

1771: behavior, we approximate the derivative of the

1772: potential $V$ with respect to $\phi$ by

1773: $V^{\prime}\simeq 3\lambda^2\phi^5/16

1774: m_{\rm P}^2$, which holds for $\phi\rightarrow

1775: \infty$. The slow-roll equation for $\phi$

1776: during inflation can then be solved analytically

1777: and yields

1778: \begin{equation}

1779: \phi\simeq\frac{\phi_f}

1780: {\left(1+\frac{\lambda^2\phi_f^4}

1781: {4m_{\rm P}^2H_{\rm infl}}\Delta t

1782: \right)^{\frac{1}{4}}},

1783: \label{analytic}

1784: \end{equation}

1785: where $\Delta t=t-t_f\leq 0$. It is obvious

1786: from this equation that, as $\Delta t

1787: \rightarrow\Delta t_{\rm min}\equiv

1788: -4m_{\rm P}^2H_{\rm infl}/\lambda^2\phi_f^4$,

1789: $\phi\rightarrow\infty$. This implies that

1790: the maximal number of e-foldings which is

1791: allowed for a given value of $\phi_f$ is

1792: $N_{\rm max}\simeq -H_{\rm infl}\Delta

1793: t_{\rm min}=4m_{\rm P}^2H_{\rm infl}^2/

1794: \lambda^2\phi_f^4$. Needless to say that no

1795: approximation for $V^{\prime}$ is used when

1796: we actually calculate $N_{\rm max}$.

1797: 

1798: \begin{figure}[tb]

1799: \centering

1800: \includegraphics[width=0.83\linewidth]

1801: {Hinf.eps}

1802: \caption{The inflationary Hubble parameter

1803: $H_{\rm infl}$ versus $A_i$ for

1804: $\kappa=3\times 10^{-3}$ (solid line) or

1805: $3\times 10^{-2}$ (dashed line).}

1806: \label{fig:Hinf}

1807: \end{figure}

1808: 

1809: \par

1810: It is clear that we must first impose the

1811: requirement that $N_{\rm max}\geq N_Q$. The

1812: time $t_*$ at which our present horizon scale

1813: crosses outside the inflationary horizon can

1814: then be determined from $N_Q=H_{\rm infl}

1815: (t_f-t_*)$. Furthermore, we demand that, at

1816: $t_*$, $V^{\prime\prime}\leq H_{\rm infl}^2$,

1817: which ensures that this inequality holds for

1818: all times between $t_*$ and $t_f$. This

1819: condition, thus, guarantees that the PQ field

1820: is effectively massless during the relevant

1821: part of inflation and can act as curvaton. It

1822: also provides us with an {\it a posteriori}

1823: justification of the validity of the slow-roll

1824: approximation used and ensures that the

1825: velocity of $\phi$ at the end of inflation is

1826: negligible. This masslessness requirement

1827: yields an upper bound on $\phi_f$ for every

1828: given $A_i$ and fixed values of $\kappa$ and

1829: $\lambda$. The excluded region in the

1830: $A_i-\phi_f$ plane for fixed $\kappa$ and

1831: $\lambda$ is represented as a red/dark shaded

1832: area in the upper part of this plane. In

1833: Figs.~\ref{fig:model-4} and \ref{fig:model-5},

1834: we show this upper red/dark shaded area for

1835: $\kappa=3\times 10^{-3}$, $\lambda=10^{-4}$

1836: (model A) and $\kappa=3\times 10^{-2}$,

1837: $\lambda=10^{-4}$ (model B) respectively. The

1838: lower red/dark shaded area in the $A_i-\phi_f$

1839: plane corresponds to the quantum regime and is

1840: also excluded for the reasons explained at the

1841: end of Sec.~\ref{sec:curvature} (see

1842: Figs.~\ref{fig:model-4} and \ref{fig:model-5}).

1843: This also ensures that, at any given

1844: instant of time during inflation, $\phi$ has

1845: practically the same mean value in all comoving

1846: volumes (which crossed outside the horizon).

1847: So, during inflation, $\phi$ can be simply

1848: considered as a function of time only.

1849: 

1850: \par

1851: We start from any given value of $\phi_f$ at

1852: $t_f$ which is not excluded by the above

1853: considerations and assume vanishing time

1854: derivative of $\phi$ at $t_f$. As explained

1855: above, this is a good approximation provided

1856: that $\phi_f$ does not belong to the upper

1857: red/dark shaded area in the $A_i-\phi_f$

1858: plane (see Figs.~\ref{fig:model-4} and

1859: \ref{fig:model-5}). Moreover, we find

1860: numerically that the subsequent evolution of

1861: $\phi$ remains practically unchanged if we

1862: take a small non-vanishing value of $\dot\phi$

1863: at $t_f$. Under these initial conditions at

1864: $t_f$, we follow the evolution of the field at

1865: subsequent times ($t\geq t_f$) by solving the

1866: classical equation of motion in

1867: Eq.~(\ref{field-eqn}) with $H=2/(3t)$ for

1868: $t_f\leq t\leq t_{\rm reh}$ and

1869: $H=1/(2(t-t_{\rm reh}/4))$ for $t_{\rm reh}

1870: \leq t\leq t_\phi$. In the latter expression

1871: for $H$, we subtracted $t_{\rm reh}/4$ from

1872: $t$ in order to achieve continuity of $H$ at

1873: $t=t_{\rm reh}$. The time of reheating

1874: $t_{\rm reh}$ is calculated by using

1875: Eq.~(\ref{eq:reheat}) with $g_*=228.75$ and

1876: the curvaton decay time $t_\phi$ is found by

1877: employing Eq.~(\ref{Gphi}) with $\beta$ from

1878: Eq.~(\ref{mu}), where $\mu$ is taken equal to

1879: $300~{\rm GeV}$, which is smaller than half

1880: the curvaton mass (see Eq.~(\ref{mphi})) so

1881: that the decay of $\phi$ to Higgsinos is not

1882: blocked kinematically. The parameter $\gamma$

1883: in the effective PQ potential of

1884: Eq.~(\ref{full-pot}) is taken equal to $0.1$

1885: after the end of inflation (see

1886: Sec.~\ref{sec:early}). We find that, for fixed

1887: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, there exist two bands

1888: in the $A_i-\phi_f$ plane which lead to the

1889: desired PQ vacua at $t_\phi$. They are

1890: depicted as an upper and a lower green/lightly

1891: shaded band (see Figs.~\ref{fig:model-4} and

1892: \ref{fig:model-5}). The white (not shaded)

1893: areas in the $A_i-\phi_f$ plane lead to the

1894: false (trivial) minimum at $\phi=0$ and thus

1895: must be excluded. Note that, for all relevant

1896: $\kappa$'s and $\lambda$'s, the quantum

1897: regime overlaps (at most) with the lower

1898: green/lightly shaded band only. However, as

1899: we will see later, this band is anyway

1900: excluded by the data in all cases, the reason

1901: being that it predicts an unacceptably large

1902: isocurvature perturbation. So, the {\it a

1903: priori} exclusion of the quantum regime does

1904: not affect our results in any essential way.

1905: 

1906: \begin{figure}[tb]

1907: \centering

1908: \includegraphics[width=0.83\linewidth]

1909: {model-4.eps}

1910: \caption{The two green/lightly shaded bands

1911: in the $A_i-\phi_f$ plane which lead to the

1912: PQ vacua at $t_{\phi}$ for $\kappa=3\times

1913: 10^{-3}$, $\lambda=10^{-4}$ (model A). The

1914: white (not shaded) areas lead to the trivial

1915: vacuum and are thus excluded. The upper

1916: red/dark shaded area is excluded by the

1917: requirement that, at $t_*$,

1918: $V^{\prime\prime}\leq H_{\rm infl}^2$, while

1919: the lower one corresponds to the quantum

1920: regime. The blue/solid line shows the values

1921: of $A_i$, $\phi_f$ which approximately

1922: reproduce the correct value of the CMBR large

1923: scale temperature anisotropy, as measured by

1924: COBE (see Sec.~\ref{sec:toy} for details).}

1925: \label{fig:model-4}

1926: \end{figure}

1927: 

1928: \par

1929: Besides models A and B (we summarize the

1930: corresponding parameter values in

1931: Table~\ref{tab:models}), which will be used as

1932: our main examples in this presentation, we have

1933: also studied three extra pairs of values of

1934: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, namely $\kappa=10^{-3}$

1935: and $\lambda=10^{-4}$, $\kappa=10^{-2}$ and

1936: $\lambda=10^{-4}$, and $\kappa=3\times 10^{-2}$

1937: and $\lambda=3\times 10^{-4}$ (see below). In

1938: the first two cases, the behavior was found to

1939: be quite close to the behavior of model A as

1940: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:model-4}, while the

1941: latter case behaves similarly to the model B

1942: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:model-5}).

1943: 

1944: \begin{figure}[tb]

1945: \centering

1946: \includegraphics[width=0.83\linewidth]

1947: {model-5.eps}

1948: \caption{The two green/lightly shaded bands

1949: in the $A_i-\phi_f$ plane which lead to the

1950: PQ vacua at $t_{\phi}$ for $\kappa=3\times

1951: 10^{-2}$, $\lambda=10^{-4}$ (model B). The

1952: notation is the same as in

1953: Fig.~\ref{fig:model-4}.}

1954: \label{fig:model-5}

1955: \end{figure}

1956: 

1957: \begin{table}

1958: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{5pt} \centering

1959: \begin{tabular}{|>{$}l<{$}c|c c|}

1960: \hline

1961: & Eq. & Model A & ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Model B \\

1962: \hline \hline

1963: \kappa  & (\ref{W1}) & $3\times10^{-3}$ &

1964: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$3\times10^{-2}$ \\

1965: \lambda & (\ref{W2}) &

1966: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$10^{-4}$}\\

1967: m_{3/2}  & (\ref{PQ-pot}) &

1968: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$300$ GeV}\\

1969: \vert A \vert & (\ref{PQ-pot}) &

1970: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{5}\\

1971: \mu  & (\ref{mu}) &

1972: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$300$ GeV}\\

1973: \gamma & (\ref{eq:effec-mass}) &

1974: \multicolumn{2}{c|}

1975: {0 (0.l) during (after) inflation}\\

1976: T_{\text{reh}} & (\ref{eq:reheat}) &

1977: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$10^9$ GeV}\\

1978: m_{\text{LSP}} & (\ref{OmegaLSP}) &

1979: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$200$ GeV}\\

1980: \hline

1981: \end{tabular}

1982: \caption{Summary of the fixed model parameters

1983: for the two representative cases presented in

1984: the text, called model A and B. The equation

1985: where each parameter first appears is also

1986: indicated.

1987: \label{tab:models}}

1988: \end{table}

1989: 

1990: \subsection{The calculation of $C_\ell$}

1991: \label{sec:Cell}

1992: 

1993: \par

1994: For any fixed pair of values for $\kappa$ and

1995: $\lambda$, we take a grid of values of $A_i$

1996: and $\phi_f$ which span the corresponding upper

1997: or lower green/lightly shaded band. For each

1998: point on this grid, we consider $\phi_f$ and

1999: its perturbed value, which is found by adding

2000: to $\phi_f$ the amplitude of $\delta\phi_f$

2001: from Eq.~(\ref{dphif}). We then follow the

2002: subsequent evolution of both these fields until

2003: the time $t_\phi$ of the curvaton decay, where

2004: we evaluate the amplitude of $\delta\rho_\phi/

2005: \rho_\phi$. The amplitude $A_c$ of the partial

2006: curvature perturbation from the curvaton is

2007: then given by Eq.~(\ref{Ac}).

2008: 

2009: \par

2010: We thus obtain a mapping of the values of

2011: $\phi_f$ which are allowed for any given value

2012: of $A_i$ onto the corresponding values of the

2013: amplitude $A_c$ of the partial curvature

2014: perturbation from the curvaton, which is the

2015: relevant variable for the calculation of the

2016: CMBR power spectrum. For the MC

2017: analysis (see Sec.~\ref{sec:MC}), we

2018: therefore use $A_i$ and $A_c$ as base

2019: parameters describing the initial conditions

2020: and limit our grid to values of $A_i$ smaller

2021: than $6\times 10^{-5}$ (since larger values

2022: would overpredict the temperature power of the

2023: SW plateau). The spectral indices $n_i$ and

2024: $n_c$ for each point of this grid are found by

2025: using Eqs.~(\ref{epsiloni}) and (\ref{etai})

2026: applied at $x=x_Q$, and Eqs.~(\ref{epsilonc}),

2027: (\ref{etac}) and (\ref{nuc}) applied at $t_*$.

2028: The fraction $f$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:f}) is also

2029: evaluated at $t_\phi$.

2030: 

2031: \par

2032: The amplitude $A_a$ of the isocurvature

2033: perturbation in the axions is calculated from

2034: Eq.~(\ref{Aa}) with the initial misalignment

2035: angle $\theta$ evaluated, for any given value

2036: of the total CDM abundance $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2

2037: =\Omega_{\rm LSP}h^2+\Omega_ah^2$, by using

2038: Eqs.~(\ref{OmegaLSP}) and (\ref{Omegaa}) with

2039: $m_{\rm LSP}=200~{\rm GeV}$. This value of

2040: $m_{\rm LSP}$ corresponds \cite{wang}, in the

2041: constrained MSSM with Yukawa unification

2042: \cite{ananth}, roughly to the value of

2043: $m_{3/2}$ ($=300~{\rm GeV}$) chosen here. Note

2044: that, for our choice of parameters, the LSP

2045: relic abundance is fixed ($\simeq 0.0074$). The

2046: spectral index for axions in each point of the

2047: grid is found by using Eq.~(\ref{nua}).

2048: 

2049: \par

2050: In summary, for any fixed pair of values for

2051: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, we take a grid in the

2052: variables $A_i$ and $\phi_f$ covering the

2053: upper or lower green/lightly shaded band and

2054: numerically map $\phi_f$ into the corresponding

2055: value of the amplitude $A_c$ (which, of course,

2056: depends on $A_i$ too). For any value of

2057: $\Omega_Bh^2$ and $\Omega_ah^2$, we then

2058: calculate the amplitudes squared of the

2059: adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations using

2060: Eqs.~(\ref{R2}), (\ref{Ric}) and

2061: Eqs.~(\ref{S2}), (\ref{Sica}) respectively,

2062: the cross correlation amplitude from

2063: Eqs.~(\ref{C}), (\ref{Cic}) and the total CMBR

2064: temperature and polarization power spectra via

2065: Eqs.~(\ref{Cell})$-$(\ref{Cellcc}). The

2066: curvaton fractional contribution to the

2067: adiabatic amplitude $F^{\rm ad}_c$, the

2068: dimensionless cross correlation $\cos\Delta$

2069: and the entropy-to-adiabatic ratio $B$

2070: are found from Eqs.~(\ref{Fc}) and

2071: (\ref{cosDB}). For the MC analysis (see

2072: Sec.~\ref{sec:MC}), we need to be able to

2073: sample the $A_i-A_c$ space in any point as the

2074: chains evolve. Therefore, we perform a

2075: 2-dimensional (2D) interpolation between the

2076: points on the grid using a bicubic spline. A

2077: little care is needed regarding the present

2078: value of the Hubble parameter, which enters the

2079: computation of the mass scale $M$ and thus

2080: $H_{\rm infl}$ for given amplitude $A_i$ via

2081: its impact on $N_Q$ (note that the first term

2082: in the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{NQ})

2083: depends on $H_0$). As a consequence, the values

2084: of the amplitudes $A_c$ and $A_a$ will also

2085: depend on the value of $H_0$. However, we have

2086: found numerically that changing the value of

2087: $H_0$ around $H_0=72~\rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~

2088: \rm{Mpc}^{-1}$ within the HST $1\sigma$ margin

2089: (i.e. by $\pm 8~\rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~

2090: \rm{Mpc}^{-1}$) has an impact less than about

2091: $3\%$ on the computed quantities. Therefore, in

2092: the computation of $M$ and of the amplitudes

2093: $A_c$ and $A_a$, we fix the present Hubble

2094: parameter to the HST central value $H_0=72~

2095: \rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$

2096: \cite{hst}. Clearly, we do allow $H_0$ to vary

2097: in the MC analysis (see below). In particular,

2098: the dependence on $H_0$ of the amplitudes

2099: $A_{{\rm P},i}$, $A_{{\rm P},c}$ and

2100: $A_{{\rm P},a}$ at the pivot scale $k_{\rm P}$

2101: (see Eq.~(\ref{AP})) is taken into account.

2102: 

2103: \subsection{A toy model for the CMBR}

2104: \label{sec:toy}

2105: 

2106: \par

2107: Before deploying the full MC machinery to

2108: derive quantitative constraints on the

2109: various parameters of our model, it is

2110: instructive to consider a toy model for the

2111: pre-WMAP CMBR data which allows us to

2112: understand the salient qualitative features

2113: of the parameter space of our initial

2114: conditions. This approach has the great

2115: advantage of offering a much more transparent

2116: understanding of the parameter constraints

2117: beyond the black box of the numerical MC study.

2118: 

2119: \par

2120: A first rough idea about the viability of our

2121: model can be obtained by using the approximate

2122: expressions in Eqs.~(\ref{Cobe}) and

2123: (\ref{fnell}) for the temperature SW plateau

2124: and requiring that the COBE constraint in

2125: Eq.~(\ref{ell10}) is fulfilled. To this end,

2126: we take $\Omega_Bh^2=0.0224$ and

2127: $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.1126$, which are the

2128: best-fit values from the WMAP measurements

2129: \cite{wmap1}. (Note that, for this choice of

2130: parameters, the axions constitute about $93\%$

2131: of the CDM in the universe.) We find that the

2132: COBE constraint cannot be satisfied in the

2133: lower green/lightly shaded band in the

2134: $A_i-\phi_f$ plane for any pair of values for

2135: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$. The reason is

2136: that the relatively low values of $\phi_f$ in

2137: this band imply small values for $\phi_*$ too.

2138: The amplitude $A_a$ then turns out to be quite

2139: large as can easily be seen from

2140: Eq.~(\ref{Aa}). This fact combined with the

2141: sizable relic abundance of the axions leads to

2142: large values of $S_a$ (see Eq.~(\ref{Sica})),

2143: which yield an unacceptably large contribution

2144: to the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}). In

2145: the upper green/lightly shaded band in the

2146: $A_i-\phi_f$ plane, on the contrary, the COBE

2147: constraint is generally easily satisfied. The

2148: resulting solution is depicted by a

2149: blue/solid line (see Figs.~\ref{fig:model-4}

2150: and \ref{fig:model-5}).

2151: 

2152: \par

2153: We are further interested in deriving ball-park

2154: estimates for the values of $A_i$, $A_c$. To

2155: this goal, we again approximate the SW

2156: temperature plateau by the expression in

2157: Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}). As mentioned, this formula

2158: neglects the effect of the cosmological

2159: constant $\Lambda$ (late ISW term), but our

2160: present purpose is to build an extremely

2161: simplified toy model, not to include all

2162: contributions which are fully taken into

2163: account in the MC analysis below.

2164: Therefore, we take one single datum, namely the

2165: COBE constraint in Eq.~(\ref{ell10}), which

2166: describes the height of the SW plateau, along

2167: with its variance $\ell(\ell+1)\Delta

2168: C^{\rm TT}_{\ell}/2\pi\big\vert_{\ell=10}

2169: \approx 0.2\times 10^{-10}$ \cite{cobe10}.

2170: Furthermore, we drop altogether the dependence

2171: of Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}) on the spectral indices by

2172: taking all perturbations to be scale invariant,

2173: since the value of the indices predicted by our

2174: model is anyway very close to unity (see

2175: Sec.~\ref{sec:parcos}). We need a second datum

2176: to be able to constrain two free parameters

2177: ($A_i$ and $A_c$) and this is given by the

2178: height of the first adiabatic peak as measured

2179: by BOOMERANG \cite{deBernardis}. In the

2180: analysis of Ref.~\cite{Durrer}, this yields

2181: $\ell(\ell+1)C^{\rm TT}_{\ell}/2\pi\big

2182: \vert_{\ell= 212}\approx5.4\times 10^{-10}$

2183: with error $\ell(\ell+1)\Delta

2184: C^{\rm TT}_{\ell}/2\pi\big\vert_{\ell=212}

2185: \approx 0.54\times 10^{-10}$. We model the

2186: theoretical CMBR spectrum at the level of the

2187: first adiabatic peak by retaining the adiabatic

2188: contribution only, since the isocurvature

2189: temperature spectrum drops very fast beyond the

2190: SW plateau. Thus the prediction of our toy PQ

2191: model for the height of the first peak is given

2192: by

2193: \begin{equation}

2194: C_{212}^{\rm{TT,PQ}}\approx\frac{\Delta H}{25}

2195: \left(R_i^2+R_c^2\right),

2196: \end{equation}

2197: where the constant factor $\Delta H\approx 6.5$

2198: approximates the ratio of the first peak height

2199: to the SW plateau for the adiabatic temperature

2200: spectrum of the standard $\Lambda$CDM model.

2201: Once again, this expression is very crude and

2202: does not account for changes in $h$,

2203: $\Omega_\Lambda$ ($\equiv\rho_\Lambda/\rho_c$

2204: with $\rho_\Lambda$ being the dark energy

2205: density), $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_B$ or $\tau_r$

2206: (optical depth to the reionization epoch), all

2207: of which affect the relative height of the peak

2208: to the plateau, but it is sufficient for our

2209: present goal. In summary, the likelihood

2210: function $\like (A_i,A_c)$ of our toy model is

2211: given by

2212: \begin{eqnarray}

2213: -2\ln\like (A_i,A_c)&\approx&\left(

2214: \frac{C_{10}^{\rm{TT,PQ}}

2215: (A_i,A_c)-C^{\rm{TT}}_{10}}

2216: {\Delta C^{\rm{TT}}_{10}}\right)^2

2217: \\

2218: & &+\left(\frac{C_{212}^{\rm{TT,PQ}}(A_i,A_c)-

2219: C^{\rm{TT}}_{212}}{\Delta C^{\rm{TT}}_{212}}

2220: \right)^2,

2221: \nonumber

2222: \end{eqnarray}

2223: where $C_{10}^{\rm{TT,PQ}}$ can be found from

2224: Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}). The posterior (see

2225: Appendix for definitions) is then

2226: \begin{equation}

2227: \pdf(A_i, A_c)\propto\like(A_i, A_c)\pi(A_i)

2228: \pi(A_c).

2229: \end{equation}

2230: We adopt non-informative flat priors on the

2231: amplitudes $A_i, A_c$, so that $\pi(A_i)=

2232: \pi(A_c)=\text{constant}$. An alternative

2233: choice is Jeffreys' prior, which is of the

2234: form $\pi(A_i)=1/A_i$, $\pi(A_c)=1/A_c$

2235: corresponding to a flat prior on $\log A_i$,

2236: $\log A_c$. This prior implies that we do not

2237: have any idea on the scale of $A_i$, $A_c$

2238: before seeing the data and thus represents a

2239: quite extreme choice of prior.

2240: 

2241: \begin{figure}[tb]

2242: \centering

2243: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{PQToy.ps}

2244: \caption{Posterior marginalized pdf (normalized

2245: at peak value) for the amplitudes $A_i$, $A_c$

2246: from our toy model for two choices of priors:

2247: flat priors (top panels), and Jeffreys' priors

2248: (bottom panels). The black line is for model A

2249: (upper green/lightly shaded band in

2250: Fig.~\ref{fig:model-4}) and the cyan/light gray

2251: line for model B (upper green/lightly shaded

2252: band in Fig.~\ref{fig:model-5}). The

2253: constraints on $A_i$, $A_c$ in model B and on

2254: $A_i$ in model A as well as the upper limit on

2255: $A_c$ in model A are robust with respect to the

2256: choice of priors. Compare the top panels with

2257: Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}, which shows the results

2258: of the full MC analysis (with flat

2259: non-informative priors).}

2260: \label{fig:pqtoy}

2261: \end{figure}

2262: 

2263: \begin{figure}[tb]

2264: \centering

2265: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2266: {PQCompareBase.ps}

2267: \caption{1-dimensional (1D) marginalized

2268: posterior distribution for the two cases

2269: considered here: model A (black solid line) and

2270: model B (cyan/light gray solid line) with only

2271: the upper green/lightly shaded bands of

2272: Figs.~\ref{fig:model-4} and \ref{fig:model-5}

2273: included. The red/medium gray line is for the

2274: standard pure inflaton single-field

2275: inflationary case with Harrison-Zel'dovich (HZ)

2276: spectrum ($n_i=1.00$ fixed), plotted here for

2277: comparison. We plot non-smoothed histograms

2278: corresponding to top-hat binnings to show the

2279: resolution of our curves. Model A is quite

2280: close to the pure inflaton case, except that the

2281: curvaton contribution helps in reducing the

2282: reionization redshift $z_r$. Model B displays a

2283: preference for non-zero curvaton contribution,

2284: a still lower $z_r$ and larger relic abundance

2285: of baryons ($\omega_B=\Omega_Bh^2$) and CDM

2286: ($\omega_{\rm CDM}=\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2$). Its

2287: quality of fit is however poorer (see

2288: Sec.~\ref{sec:modelcomp} for details). We also

2289: display as dotted smoothed curves the values of

2290: the mean posterior. All the curves are

2291: normalized at their peak value.}

2292: \label{fig:1dbase}

2293: \end{figure}

2294: 

2295: \par

2296: In Fig.~\ref{fig:pqtoy}, we present the

2297: posterior marginalized probability distribution

2298: functions (pdf's) for $A_i$, $A_c$ from our toy

2299: model for the two choices of priors above. We

2300: observe that there is a qualitative difference

2301: between the results for the upper green/lightly

2302: shaded band in Fig.~\ref{fig:model-4} and

2303: \ref{fig:model-5} of model A and B. For model

2304: B, both the inflaton and the curvaton amplitude

2305: are well determined even in our over-simplified

2306: toy model. From the plot, we read off that $A_i

2307: \approx 2.3\times 10^{-5}$, $A_c\approx 70

2308: \times 10^{-5}$. As a consequence, the choice

2309: of prior hardly matters, as we would expect in

2310: a situation where the posterior is dominated by

2311: the likelihood. As for model A, we obtain that

2312: $A_i\approx 4.9\times 10^{-5}$, but we can only

2313: place upper limits on the value of $A_c$.

2314: Since, in this case, $A_c$ is not a

2315: well-determined parameter, the details of its

2316: posterior pdf do depend on the prior.

2317: Nevertheless, it is apparent that the upper

2318: limit is robust, and we can deduce that $A_i

2319: \lsim 50\times 10^{-5}$. These numbers have to

2320: be taken only as ball-park estimates, and this

2321: is why we do not bother to attach errors to

2322: them. However, the comparison of

2323: Fig.~\ref{fig:pqtoy} with

2324: Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}, which shows the results

2325: of the quantitative MC analysis including WMAP

2326: and other recent CMBR data and all the other

2327: cosmological parameters, displays an

2328: astonishing agreement between the results of

2329: the above toy model and of the full MC

2330: analysis. The rather precise match of the two

2331: results is actually the fortuitous outcome of

2332: the cancellation between two opposite effects.

2333: On the one hand, the MC analysis compared to

2334: the toy model employs much more precise data,

2335: which reduce the error on the constraints, but,

2336: on the other hand, it also integrates over the

2337: cosmological parameter space (totally ignored

2338: in the toy model), which enlarges the error on

2339: the marginalized quantities.

2340: 

2341: \par

2342: From the study of the above toy model, we can

2343: thus draw two conclusions. First, the height of

2344: the first adiabatic peak to the large scale SW

2345: plateau is the key quantity to constraining --

2346: with at least order of magnitude accuracy --

2347: the curvaton to inflaton contribution in the PQ

2348: model. Clearly, quantitatively reliable bounds

2349: need the inclusion of the detailed effect of

2350: the cosmological parameters on the shape of the

2351: power spectra (see next section). Second, we

2352: have seen that the constraints on the inflaton

2353: and curvaton amplitudes are robust with respect

2354: to two different choices of (non-informative)

2355: priors. For this reason, we will, from now on,

2356: adopt a flat prior on $A_i$, $A_c$, which will

2357: be used both for the extraction of the

2358: constraints on the parameters (see

2359: Sec.~\ref{sec:parcos}) and for the purpose of

2360: Bayesian model comparison (see

2361: Sec.~\ref{sec:modelcomp}).

2362: 

2363: \subsection{The Monte Carlo CMBR analysis}

2364: \label{sec:MC}

2365: 

2366: \subsubsection{The setup}

2367: \label{sec:setup}

2368: 

2369: \par

2370: We now proceed to describe the setup of the

2371: full numerical analysis confronting the

2372: predictions of our PQ model with the CMBR

2373: data. We constrain the relevant parameters of

2374: our model by constructing Markov chains using

2375: a modified version of the publicly available

2376: Markov chain MC package \textsc{cosmomc}

2377: \cite{cosmomc} as described in

2378: Ref.~\cite{lewis}. As discussed in

2379: Sec.~\ref{sec:spectrum}, the total CMBR angular

2380: power spectrum is given by a (anti-)correlated

2381: superposition of adiabatic and isocurvature

2382: CMBR modes (see Eq.~(\ref{Cell})). The

2383: adiabatic and isocurvature CMBR transfer

2384: functions are computed in two successive calls

2385: similarly to the technique employed in

2386: Ref.~\cite{Valiviita}. For fixed values of

2387: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, the initial conditions

2388: are completely specified by $A_i$ and $\phi_f$,

2389: or equivalently by the values of $A_i$ and

2390: $A_c$ as explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:Cell}. The

2391: MC sampling takes as free parameters the

2392: amplitudes $A_i$ and $A_c$, the physical baryon

2393: and axion densities in the present universe

2394: $\omega_B\equiv\Omega_Bh^2$ and

2395: $\omega_a\equiv\Omega_ah^2$ in units of

2396: $1.88\times 10^{-29}~{\rm g/cm}^3$, the

2397: present value of the dimensionless Hubble

2398: parameter $h=H_0/100\text{ km}\text{ sec}^{-1}

2399: \text{ Mpc}^{-1}$, and the redshift $z_r$ at

2400: which the reionization fraction is a half

2401: (assuming sudden reionization). All other

2402: derived quantities are computed from the above

2403: parameter set, as detailed in

2404: Sec.~\ref{sec:Cell}. In particular, the derived

2405: parameters $R_i^2$, $R_c^2$, $F^{\rm ad}_c$,

2406: $S_i^2$, $S_c^2$, $S_a^2$, $C_i$, $C_c$ are

2407: obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{Ric}), (\ref{Fc}),

2408: (\ref{Sica}) and (\ref{Cic}).

2409: 

2410: \par

2411: For our choice of $m_{\text{LSP}}$ and

2412: $T_{\rm reh}$, we have $\Omega_{\text{LSP}}h^2

2413: \approx 0.0074=\text{constant}$, and the total

2414: CDM abundance is $\omega_{\rm CDM}\equiv

2415: \Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=\Omega_{\text{LSP}}h^2+

2416: \Omega_a h^2$. Our analysis considers flat

2417: cosmologies only, thus the cosmological

2418: constant energy density $\Omega_\Lambda$ (in

2419: units of the critical energy density) is a

2420: derived parameter, i.e. $\Omega_\Lambda=1-

2421: (\omega_{\rm CDM}+\omega_B)/h^2$. We assume

2422: three massless neutrino families and no

2423: massive neutrinos (for constraints on these

2424: quantities, see e.g. Ref.~\cite{constraints}).

2425: We neglect the contribution of gravitational

2426: waves to the spectrum, since the tensor to

2427: scalar amplitude ratio at the SW

2428: plateau is proportional to $\epsilon_i$,

2429: which is completely negligible in our case.

2430: In summary, for a fixed choice of $\kappa$

2431: and $\lambda$, our parameter space is six

2432: dimensional:

2433: \begin{equation}

2434: \params=\{\omega_B,\omega_a,h,z_r,A_i,A_c\}\;.

2435: \end{equation}

2436: 

2437: \par

2438: We compare the predicted CMBR temperature and

2439: polarization power spectra to the WMAP

2440: first-year data \cite{wmap1} (temperature and

2441: polarization) with the routine for computing

2442: the likelihood supplied by the WMAP team

2443: \cite{Verde}. At a smaller angular scale, we

2444: add the CBI \cite{cbi} and the decorrelated

2445: ACBAR \cite{acbar1,acbar2} band powers as well.

2446: We then run $N=20$ Markov chains starting from

2447: randomly chosen points in the parameter space.

2448: We take particular care in ensuring that the

2449: starting points are spread over a wide range in

2450: the $A_i-A_c$ plane. We then check that all

2451: chains have converged to the same region of

2452: parameter space. This indicates that this

2453: region is indeed a global minimum (at least for

2454: the range explored by the chains). This is the

2455: main reason for using a relatively large number

2456: of chains, since the danger that the chains are

2457: stuck in a local minimum is great when

2458: exploring mixed isocurvature initial conditions

2459: (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{iso2}). A preliminary run

2460: is needed to estimate the covariance matrix,

2461: which is then diagonalized and used to perform

2462: a final run until each chain contains

2463: $M=30,000$ samples. The mixing of the chains is

2464: checked using the Gelman and Rubin criterion

2465: \cite{gelman}, for which we require that the

2466: ratio of the variance of the mean to the mean

2467: of the variance among the chains is $R<0.1$ for

2468: all parameters. The parameter inference is

2469: performed on the merged chains, which contain

2470: around $5\times 10^5$ samples after the burn-in

2471: has been discarded.

2472: 

2473: \par

2474: As motivated above, we use flat top-hat priors

2475: on the base parameters

2476: \begin{equation}

2477: \omega_B, \omega_a, z_r, A_i, A_c .

2478: \end{equation}

2479: The limits of the top-hat prior do not matter

2480: for parameter estimation purposes, as long as

2481: we check that the posterior density is

2482: negligible near these limits. However, the

2483: prior range of the accessible parameter space

2484: plays an important role in computing the

2485: Bayes factor for model testing (see

2486: Sec.~\ref{sec:modelcomp}). We limit the maximum

2487: range of the present dimensionless Hubble

2488: parameter $h$ by imposing a top-hat prior $0.40

2489: <h<1.00$ and we use the result of the HST

2490: measurement \cite{hst}

2491: \begin{equation}

2492: \like^{\text{HST}}\propto\exp\left(\frac{h-h_0}

2493: {2\sigma}\right)^2,

2494: \end{equation}

2495: where $h_0=0.72$ and $\sigma=0.08$, by

2496: multiplying the likelihood function for the

2497: CMBR data by the above Gaussian likelihood.

2498: 

2499: \par

2500: Parameter constraints will be rather

2501: insensitive to the details of the prior

2502: distribution whenever the posterior is

2503: dominated by the likelihood. As we have seen

2504: from our toy model, the broad lines of the

2505: constraints for the PQ model are indeed

2506: robust with respect to the choice of

2507: non-informative priors. We will see below that

2508: the priors do play an important role in

2509: Bayesian model comparison.

2510: 

2511: \begin{table}

2512: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{5pt} \centering

2513: \begin{tabular}{|>{$}l<{$}|>{$}c<{$}>{$}c<{$}|>

2514: {$}c<{$}>{$}c<{$}|}

2515: \hline

2516: \text{param} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}

2517: {\text{model A (upper band)}} &

2518: \multicolumn{2}{c|}

2519: {\text{model B (upper band)}}

2520: \\

2521: \hline

2522:  & \text{best fit} & \text{1D }$68\%$

2523: \text{ c.i.} & \text{best fit} &

2524: \text{1D }$68\%$ \text{ c.i.}

2525: \\

2526: \hline\hline

2527: \om_B & 0.024 & 0.024 \pm 0.002 & 0.026 & 0.026

2528: \pm 0.002

2529: \\

2530: \om_a & 0.109 & 0.110 \pm 0.034 & 0.117 & 0.121

2531: \pm 0.040

2532: \\

2533: H_0 & 72.4 & 72.2^{+11.5}_{-9.8} & 64.2 &

2534: 63.4^{+11.0}_{-9.2}

2535: \\

2536: z_r & 13.3 & 13.3^{+8.1}_{-9.3} & 10.4 &

2537: 10.5^{+7.7}_{-6.5}

2538: \\

2539: A_i\uf & 5.1 & 5.1 \pm 0.5 & 3.1 & 3.1\pm 0.4

2540: \\

2541: A_c\uf & 20.3 & <37.9\;(43.2) & 62.0 & 62.8\pm

2542: 10.4

2543: \\

2544: \hline

2545: -\ln L_* & 721.2 & & 732.6 &

2546: \\

2547: \hline

2548: \end{tabular}

2549: \caption{Best-fit parameter values and sample

2550: means with $1\sigma$ confidence intervals

2551: (c.i.) for the 1D marginalized distribution

2552: for the upper band of models A and B. We

2553: indicate upper limits only when the parameter

2554: is not constrained from below, in which case

2555: the first number corresponds to the $68\%$ c.i.

2556: (1 tail) and the number in parenthesis to the

2557: $95\%$ c.i. of the parameter. The present

2558: Hubble parameter $H_0$ is given in $\rm{km}~

2559: \rm{sec}^{-1}~\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$. Finally, $L_*$

2560: is the best-fit likelihood (see Appendix). For

2561: comparison, the Harrison-Zel'dovich (HZ) pure

2562: inflaton model has $-\ln L_*=721.7$.

2563: \label{tab:bestfitbase}}

2564: \end{table}

2565: 

2566: \subsubsection{Parameter constraints}

2567: \label{sec:parcos}

2568: 

2569: In the Appendix, we summarize

2570: some concepts and results from Bayesian

2571: statistics which will be useful in the

2572: following analysis (see e.g.

2573: Refs.~\cite{MKbook} and \cite{bbook} for reviews

2574: and details). We first consider the

2575: upper green/lightly shaded band of models A and

2576: B. In Tables~\ref{tab:bestfitbase} and

2577: \ref{tab:bestfitderiv}, we present the best-fit

2578: values and parameter constraints obtained from

2579: the MC chains for our base and derived

2580: parameters respectively. The 1-dimensional (1D)

2581: marginalized posterior distributions for the

2582: base and most of the derived parameters are

2583: plotted, respectively, in

2584: Figs.~\ref{fig:1dbase} and \ref{fig:1dderiv},

2585: while the 2D contours of the posterior for

2586: $A_i$, $A_c$ and the adiabatic amplitudes

2587: squared $R_i^2$, $R_c^2$ are displayed in

2588: Fig.~\ref{fig:2dbase}.

2589: 

2590: \begin{table}

2591: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{5pt} \centering

2592: \begin{tabular}{|>{$}l<{$}|>{$}c<{$}>{$}c<{$}|>

2593: {$}c<{$}>{$}c<{$}|}

2594: \hline

2595: \text{param} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}

2596: {\text{model A (upper band)}} &

2597: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\text{model B (upper band)}}

2598: \\

2599: \hline

2600:  & \text{best fit} & \text{1D }$68\%$

2601: \text{ c.i.} & \text{best fit} & \text{1D }

2602: $68\%$\text{ c.i.}

2603: \\

2604: \hline \hline

2605: R_i^2\ut & 20.4 & 21.0^{+6.2}_{-4.2} & 7.8 &

2606: 7.7 \pm 2.2

2607: \\

2608: R_c^2\ut & 2.5 & < 10.9\;(14.0)& 14.8 &

2609: 15.3^{+6.3}_{-4.9}

2610: \\

2611: S_i^2\ut & 0.06 & 0.05\pm0.04 & 0.015 &

2612: 0.015 \pm 0.006

2613: \\

2614: S_c^2\ut & 1.2 & < 5.0\;(7.1) & 6.6 &

2615: 6.6^{+3.2}_{-2.1}

2616: \\

2617: S_a^2\ut & 0.4 & 0.4 \pm 0.1 & 6.4 & 6.3

2618: \pm 1.6

2619: \\

2620: C_i\ut & -1.1 & -1.0^{+0.6}_{-0.5}& -0.3

2621: & -0.3 \pm 0.1

2622: \\

2623: C_c\ut & 1.8  & < 6.9\;(9.5) & 9.9 &

2624: 10.0^{+3.6}_{-2.3}

2625: \\

2626: \cos\Delta &0.08 & 0.0^{+0.5}_{-0.2} & 0.55 &

2627: 0.56 \pm 0.10

2628: \\

2629: B & 0.08 & <0.45\;(0.52) & 0.76 & 0.75 \pm 14

2630: \\

2631: \hline

2632: F^{\ad}_c & 0.34 & < 0.60\;(0.67) & 0.81 & 0.81

2633: \pm 0.07

2634: \\

2635: f  & 0.08 & 0.07^{+0.02}_{-0.05} & 0.06 & 0.062

2636: \pm 0.004

2637: \\

2638: n_i & 0.988 &- & 0.982 & -

2639: \\

2640: n_c  & 1.011 & - & 1.003 & -

2641: \\

2642: n_a & 1.002 & - & 1.000 & -

2643: \\

2644: \hline

2645: \end{tabular}

2646: \caption{As in Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbase}, but

2647: for the derived parameters. We do not give c.i.

2648: for the spectral indices since the variation

2649: in their value is less than $10^{-3}$.

2650: \label{tab:bestfitderiv}}

2651: \end{table}

2652: 

2653: \begin{figure}[tb]

2654: \centering

2655: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2656: {PQCompareDeriv.ps}

2657: \caption{As in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}, but for

2658: (most of) the derived parameters (the HZ pure

2659: inflaton model is not included here). The

2660: adiabatic amplitude in model B is dominated by

2661: the curvaton ($F_c^{\rm ad}\approx 0.8$).}

2662: \label{fig:1dderiv}

2663: \end{figure}

2664: 

2665: \par

2666: In the upper (green/lightly shaded) band of

2667: model A, the adiabatic amplitude from the

2668: inflaton dominates with only a modest

2669: contribution ($\sim 10\%$ in amplitude squared)

2670: to the adiabatic amplitude from the curvaton

2671: and an even smaller curvaton isocurvature

2672: amplitude and cross correlator. Note that the

2673: axion isocurvature amplitude is negligible in

2674: this case. Due to the small value of the

2675: parameter $f$, the inflaton part of the

2676: isocurvature amplitude squared (correlator) is

2677: suppressed relative to the corresponding part

2678: of the adiabatic amplitude squared by more than

2679: two orders (one order) of magnitude. As a

2680: consequence, the power

2681: spectra are dominated by the adiabatic part of

2682: the inflaton contribution. Moreover, on large

2683: scales, we find that the sum of the adiabatic,

2684: isocurvature and correlation parts of the total

2685: power spectrum coming from the curvaton almost

2686: cancels out, since the contribution from the

2687: curvaton correlator is negative. We can easily

2688: verify the behavior just described with the

2689: help of Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD4}, where we plot

2690: the best-fit power spectra for model A (upper

2691: band) divided into the inflaton, curvaton and

2692: axion contributions to their adiabatic,

2693: isocurvature and correlator parts. The quality

2694: of the fit, as expressed by the maximum

2695: likelihood value $-\ln L_*=721.2$, is slightly

2696: better than for

2697: the pure inflaton Harrison-Zel'dovich (HZ)

2698: case, which has $-\ln L_*=721.7$ (see, however,

2699: our remarks below regarding model comparison).

2700: This is not surprising since the curvaton

2701: contribution turns out to play a modest role in

2702: this model. In particular, the CMBR data put an

2703: upper bound on the allowed value of the

2704: curvaton amplitude, which is $A_c< 43.2\times

2705: 10^{-5}$ at $95\%$ confidence level (c.l.). The

2706: total temperature power on large scales is

2707: slightly larger than the pure adiabatic part --

2708: the net effect is to increase the height of the

2709: SW plateau compared to the height of the first

2710: adiabatic peak. This mimics the impact of a

2711: larger optical depth (and thus of a larger

2712: $z_r$), and explains why model A shows a

2713: preference for a later reionization than in the

2714: pure inflaton case. The TE spectrum is

2715: dominated by the inflaton adiabatic part, but

2716: on large scales the curvaton and axion

2717: contributions give a net power increase. This

2718: effect helps in better fitting the

2719: ``reionization bump'' (i.e. the power increase

2720: for $\ell\lsim 10$ due to reionization) at low

2721: multipoles reducing the need for a rather

2722: early reionization.

2723: 

2724: \begin{figure}[tb]

2725: \centering

2726: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2727: {CompareBase_2D.ps}

2728: \caption{Contours containing 68\% and 95\% of

2729: the probability for the joint posterior pdf for

2730: the upper band of models A and B (same

2731: notation as in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}). The

2732: base primordial parameters $A_i$, $A_c$ are

2733: displayed in the

2734: left panel, while the right panel shows the

2735: derived adiabatic amplitudes squared from the

2736: inflaton ($R_i^2$) and the curvaton ($R_c^2$).

2737: Model B prefers a non-vanishing curvaton

2738: contribution to the adiabatic amplitude, but

2739: its quality of fit is poorer (see text for

2740: details).}

2741: \label{fig:2dbase}

2742: \end{figure}

2743: 

2744: \begin{figure}[tb]

2745: \centering

2746: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2747: {BFpqMOD4.peccei.ps}

2748: \caption{Best-fit TT (upper panel) and TE

2749: (lower panel) power spectra for the upper band

2750: of model A (parameters as in

2751: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbase}). The line codes

2752: are: red/dark gray for the inflaton,

2753: green/medium gray for the curvaton, and

2754: yellow/light gray for the axion contributions;

2755: dotted for the adiabatic, long--dashed for the

2756: isocurvature, and short--dashed for the

2757: correlator parts. The total power corresponds

2758: to the blue/solid line. In the upper panel, the

2759: correlator parts are given in absolute value.

2760: Note though that the inflaton correlator

2761: contribution has to be added (negative

2762: correlation), while the curvaton one has to be

2763: subtracted (positive correlation) to obtain the

2764: total power.}

2765: \label{fig:BFpqMOD4}

2766: \end{figure}

2767: 

2768: \begin{figure}[tb]

2769: \centering

2770: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2771: {BFpqMOD5.peccei.ps}

2772: \caption{Best-fit power spectra for the upper

2773: band of model B. The base parameters are

2774: according to Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbase}, and

2775: the notation is as in Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD4}.}

2776: \label{fig:BFpqMOD5}

2777: \end{figure}

2778: 

2779: \begin{figure}[tb]

2780: \centering

2781: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{chi_TTEE.ps}

2782: \caption{Cumulative difference between model B

2783: and model A (upper bands) of the quantity

2784: $\chi^2/2\equiv -\ln L_*$ for the WMAP TT

2785: (green/dotted line in the top panel) and TE

2786: data (blue/dashed line in the bottom panel) in

2787: units given on the left vertical axes. Their

2788: sum is given in the top panel by the thick

2789: black solid line. In the top panel, we

2790: superimpose the two

2791: corresponding best-fit TT spectra for model A

2792: (thin black line) and model B (thin cyan/light

2793: gray line) with units on the right vertical

2794: axis. In the bottom panel, we superimpose the

2795: two TE spectra (same notation). To compute the

2796: $\chi^2$ difference as a function of the

2797: multipole $\ell$, we use only the diagonal

2798: elements of the data covariance matrix (for the

2799: MC analysis, we, of course, included also the

2800: off-diagonal elements, which however contribute

2801: only a few percent). We also plot the binned

2802: WMAP TT (top panel) and TE (bottom panel)

2803: errorbars, as a guide to the eye to appreciate

2804: the discriminative power of the WMAP data,

2805: especially around the first acoustic peak in

2806: the temperature spectrum. Model B is a better

2807: fit to the TT SW plateau, since its power

2808: there is smaller, but its TE spectrum in this

2809: region fits the WMAP data worse. Model B cannot

2810: reproduce the overall shape of the first

2811: acoustic peak in temperature with enough accuracy,

2812: and its goodness-of-fit is correspondingly

2813: worse.}

2814: \label{fig:chidiff}

2815: \end{figure}

2816: 

2817: \begin{figure}[tb]

2818: \centering

2819: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2820: {PQCompareCorr.ps}

2821: \caption{As in Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}, but for

2822: the dimensionless correlator $\cos\Delta$ and

2823: the entropy-to-adiabatic ratio $B$ evaluated

2824: at the pivot scale $k_P$ (see

2825: Eq.~(\ref{cosDB})). (The HZ pure inflaton model

2826: is not included.) The sharp drop for

2827: $B\lsim 0.11$ encountered in model A is a

2828: numerical feature due to the lower boundaries

2829: of our MC run. The curve must accordingly be

2830: interpreted as indicating an upper limit only,

2831: which is given in

2832: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitderiv}.}

2833: \label{fig:1dcorr}

2834: \end{figure}

2835: 

2836: \begin{figure}[tb]

2837: \centering

2838: \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]

2839: {CompareCorr_2D.ps}

2840: \caption{Contours containing 68\% and 95\% of

2841: the probability for the joint posterior pdf

2842: for the upper band of models A and B for the

2843: entropy-to-adiabatic ratio $B$ and

2844: the dimensionless correlator $\cos\Delta$ (same

2845: notation as in Fig.~\ref{fig:2dbase}).}

2846: \label{fig:2dcomparecorr}

2847: \end{figure}

2848: 

2849: \par

2850: The upper (green/lightly shaded) band of model

2851: B exhibits a preference for a non-vanishing

2852: curvaton amplitude with very high significance

2853: ($A_c=62.8\pm 10.4$) as one can also see from

2854: Fig.~\ref{fig:2dbase}. In this case, the

2855: best-fit spectrum is a superposition of a

2856: dominant curvaton adiabatic part and an

2857: inflaton adiabatic contribution which is around

2858: $50\%$ of the former in amplitude squared (see

2859: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitderiv} and

2860: Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD5}). This time, the

2861: isocurvature curvaton part is sizable on large

2862: scales, where however it is again cancelled by

2863: the correlator. The large value of $\kappa$

2864: yields a larger $H_*$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Hinf})

2865: and thus pushes up the axion isocurvature

2866: contribution (see Eq.~(\ref{Aa})),

2867: which again adds power to the SW plateau. As in

2868: model A (upper band), the isocurvature and

2869: correlator inflaton parts are negligibly small.

2870: For the best-fit parameters, the total power in

2871: temperature in the COBE region is in better

2872: agreement with the data, being slightly smaller

2873: than for model A (upper band), thereby fitting

2874: better the low-multipole region of the

2875: spectrum. However, the overall quality of the

2876: fit is worse ($-\ln L_*=732.6$) because the

2877: model does not reproduce with enough precision

2878: the shape of the first acoustic peak. We

2879: illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{fig:chidiff},

2880: where we compare the two best-fit spectra for

2881: models A and B (upper bands). The WMAP data

2882: around the first temperature peak are of such a

2883: good quality that they can discriminate between

2884: the two models thanks to the slightly different

2885: shape of the peak. The reason why the

2886: curvaton/inflaton mixture does not fit

2887: accurately enough the first temperature peak in

2888: model B is twofold. First, the isocurvature and

2889: correlator contributions are still sizable in

2890: the region of the first peak rise ($\ell\sim

2891: 100$), and this increases slightly the total

2892: power in this part of the spectrum. Second, the

2893: curvaton and inflaton have two slightly

2894: different spectral indices (see

2895: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitderiv}), and the resulting

2896: tilts of the spectra are therefore mismatched.

2897: As for the TE spectrum, the isocurvature axion

2898: part plays an important role in reproducing

2899: the reionization bump. Furthermore, model B

2900: (upper band) shows a preference for a rather

2901: high baryon abundance ($\omega_B\approx

2902: 0.026$), which is in strong tension with the

2903: value indicated by BBN together with

2904: observations of the light elements abundance,

2905: which typically yields $\omega_B\approx 0.020

2906: \pm 0.002$ \cite{Burles}.

2907: 

2908: \begin{table}

2909: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{5pt} \centering

2910: \begin{tabular}{|>{$}l<{$}|>{$}c<{$}|>{$}c

2911: <{$}|}

2912: \hline

2913: \text{param} & {\text{model A (lower band)}} &

2914: {\text{model B (lower band)}}

2915: \\

2916: \hline\hline

2917: \om_B  & 0.029 & 0.080 \\

2918: \om_a  & 0.171 & 0.010\star \\

2919: H_0    & 50.1  & 100.0\star \\

2920: z_r    & 19.4  & 30.0\star \\

2921: A_i\uf & 0.10\star & 0.41 \\

2922: A_c\uf & 75.0  & 300.0\star \\

2923: \hline\hline

2924: R_i^2\ut & 0.001 & 0.14\\

2925: R_c^2\ut & 33.25 & 134.1\\

2926: S_i^2\ut & \sim 10^{-4} & 0.002\\

2927: S_c^2\ut & 9.05 & 971.4\\

2928: S_a^2\ut & 14.37& 5512.1\\

2929: C_i\ut & 0.003& 0.02\\

2930: C_c\ut & 17.35& 360.9\\

2931: \cos\Delta & 0.62 & 0.39\\

2932: B &  0.84 & 6.95\\

2933: \hline

2934: %

2935: F^{\ad}_c & 1.00 & 1.00\\

2936: f         & 0.077& 0.39\\

2937: n_i       & 0.986& 0.982\\

2938: n_c       & 1.000&1.000\\

2939: n_a       & 1.000 & 1.000\\

2940: \hline

2941: -\ln L_*  & 793.4 & 3014.6\\

2942: \hline

2943: \end{tabular}

2944: \caption{Best-fit parameter values for the

2945: lower band of models A and B. An asterisk

2946: indicates that the corresponding parameter has

2947: reached the limit of our top-hat prior in the

2948: MC run, $H_0$ is again in

2949: $\rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$ and $L_*$

2950: is the best-fit likelihood. Note that, due to

2951: the large value of $\Omega_\Lambda

2952: =0.91$ and the small value of $\Omega_m$ in the

2953: best fit of model B (lower band),

2954: the approximation used in deriving

2955: Eq.~(\ref{Cobe}) is no longer valid.

2956: \label{tab:bestfitbasefirstband}}

2957: \end{table}

2958: 

2959: \begin{figure}[tb]

2960: \centering

2961: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2962: {BFpqMOD4FST.peccei.ps}

2963: \caption{Best-fit power spectra for the lower

2964: band of model A. The base parameters are

2965: according to

2966: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbasefirstband}, and

2967: the notation is as in Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD4}.}

2968: \label{fig:BFpqMOD4FST}

2969: \end{figure}

2970: 

2971: \begin{figure}[tb]

2972: \centering

2973: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

2974: {BFpqMOD5FST.peccei.ps}

2975: \caption{Best-fit power spectra for the lower

2976: band of model B. The base parameters are

2977: according to

2978: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbasefirstband}, and

2979: the notation is as in Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD4}.}

2980: \label{fig:BFpqMOD5FST}

2981: \end{figure}

2982: 

2983: \par

2984: Fig.~\ref{fig:1dcorr} shows the 1D marginalized

2985: constraints on the dimensionless correlator

2986: $\cos\Delta$ and the entropy-to-adiabatic ratio

2987: $B$, while Fig.~\ref{fig:2dcomparecorr} gives

2988: the 2D joint constraints for these two

2989: parameters. In model A (upper band), the

2990: dominance of the inflaton and the low

2991: amplitudes of the correlator modes result in a

2992: value of the effective correlation $\cos\Delta$

2993: roughly centered around zero. As discussed

2994: above, the entropy contributions play a modest

2995: role in model A (upper band), and

2996: correspondingly we obtain the upper limit

2997: $B\lsim 0.5$ (at $95\%$ c.l., 1 tail).

2998: In model B (upper band), the large amplitude of

2999: the curvaton correlator determines a positive

3000: total correlation $\cos\Delta\approx 0.5$.

3001: Together, the curvaton and axion isocurvature

3002: amplitudes constitute a significant fraction of

3003: the total amplitude, so that the

3004: entropy-to-adiabatic ratio is much larger than

3005: zero ($B\approx 0.75$). In summary, model B

3006: (upper band) shows a complex superposition of

3007: modes with a subtly balanced contribution of

3008: adiabatic and isocurvature components.

3009: 

3010: \par

3011: We have also performed a MC analysis for the

3012: lower green/lightly shaded band in

3013: Fig.~\ref{fig:model-4} of model A. As expected

3014: from the arguments given above, the quality of

3015: the best fit is poor ($-\ln L_*=793.4$) as one

3016: can see from

3017: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbasefirstband} and

3018: Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD4FST}, because

3019: the small value of $\phi_*$ for this band gives

3020: rise to a large axion contribution according

3021: to Eqs.~(\ref{Aa}), (\ref{AP}) and

3022: (\ref{Sica}). Furthermore, the curvaton

3023: amplitude $A_c$ turns out to be much larger

3024: than the amplitude $A_i$ from the inflaton.

3025: This can be understood by observing that, in

3026: contrast to $A_i$, the amplitude $A_c$ from the

3027: curvaton can be large and still give a small

3028: positive or even a negative contribution to the

3029: total power in the SW plateau because the

3030: curvaton correlation is positive and thus

3031: subtracts power from large scales. This is

3032: important since, in this case, the axion

3033: contribution to the plateau is very large

3034: leaving little room for other contributions,

3035: while, at smaller scales, the axion

3036: isocurvature spectrum becomes negligible and

3037: the total temperature spectrum must necessarily

3038: be dominated by either the curvaton or the

3039: inflaton adiabatic contribution. So one of the

3040: two amplitudes $A_i$ or $A_c$ has to be large

3041: enough and, as we saw, this can happen only for

3042: $A_c$. Therefore, at smaller scales, the

3043: spectrum is dominated by the curvaton adiabatic

3044: part. The best-fit inflaton amplitude $A_i$, on

3045: the other hand, corresponds to the lower limit

3046: of our parameter space as one can see from

3047: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbasefirstband}. The

3048: reason is that the inflaton contribution to the

3049: power spectra is always positive with an

3050: unsuppressed (by factors of $f$ or

3051: $(\Omega_{\rm LSP}+\Omega_B)/\Omega_m$)

3052: adiabatic part. Thus the inflaton amplitude

3053: $A_i$ must be very small in order not to

3054: overpredict the large-scale power. Furthermore,

3055: the TE spectrum has a very pronounced

3056: reionization bump, which results from a rather

3057: early reionization epoch and the large axion

3058: isocurvature contribution.

3059: 

3060: \par

3061: The lower band of model B is totally incapable

3062: of producing a spectrum in reasonable agreement

3063: with the data (see

3064: Table~\ref{tab:bestfitbasefirstband}). For

3065: values of $A_i$, $A_c$ corresponding to this

3066: band, the axion contribution is huge and gives

3067: temperature fluctuations at large angular

3068: scales which are a few orders of magnitude

3069: larger than what is observed (see

3070: Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD5FST}).

3071: 

3072: \par

3073: Regarding the issue of non-Gaussianity, we note

3074: that our parameter $f$, defined in

3075: Eq.~(\ref{eq:f}), is $\gg 10^{-2}$. Therefore,

3076: non-Gaussianity from the curvaton partial

3077: curvature perturbation is well within the

3078: current bounds from WMAP \cite{wmapgauss} (see

3079: Ref.~\cite{curv3}). Actually, the values of $f$

3080: in our model are high enough to ensure that

3081: this statement remains true even in the limit

3082: of pure curvaton. Moreover, the

3083: non-Gaussianity of the isocurvature

3084: perturbation in the axions is also negligible.

3085: This is because the perturbation

3086: $\delta\theta=H_*/2\pi\phi_*$ acquired during

3087: inflation by the initial misalignment angle

3088: $\theta$ (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{dllr1}) is always

3089: much smaller than $\theta$. As a consequence,

3090: terms which are second order in this

3091: perturbation can be safely neglected (see

3092: Ref.~\cite{axionnongauss}). Finally, the

3093: non-Gaussian component from the inflaton is

3094: also negligibly small.

3095: 

3096: \par

3097: We have performed two other MC runs with the

3098: same value for $\lambda=10^{-4}$ as in model A

3099: and $\kappa$ slightly larger or smaller, i.e.

3100: $\kappa=10^{-2}$ or $\kappa=10^{-3}$,

3101: recovering a behavior which is qualitatively

3102: similar to the behavior of model A. We have

3103: thus chosen to present our results for this

3104: particular value of $\kappa$ ($=3\times

3105: 10^{-3}$) as representative of the behavior of

3106: this class of models. We have also tried a

3107: slightly larger value of $\lambda$

3108: ($=3\times 10^{-4}$) for the same value of

3109: $\kappa=3\times 10^{-2}$ as in model B, and

3110: found a behavior qualitatively similar to

3111: model B.

3112: 

3113: \subsubsection{Bayesian model comparison}

3114: \label{sec:modelcomp}

3115: 

3116: \par

3117: So far we have been concerned with the

3118: problem of deriving parameter constraints from

3119: the data, given an underlying model for the

3120: generation of the primordial fluctuations.

3121: Models A and B (upper bands) actually both

3122: belong to a continuous class of models

3123: (belonging to our PQ model) which is

3124: parameterized by $\kappa$ and $\lambda$.

3125: However, since in this work we have chosen to

3126: fix the values of $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, we

3127: may as well consider models A and B (upper

3128: bands) as two discrete disconnected models.

3129: The question is then to compare these two

3130: models with the standard pure inflaton HZ model

3131: and decide which of these three models is most

3132: favored by data. It should be stressed that

3133: model comparison (or model testing) is a

3134: different issue than parameter extraction, and

3135: indeed it represents a further step in Bayesian

3136: inference. In fact, it can very well be that

3137: model testing arrives at a different conclusion

3138: than parameter estimation. Indeed, it can be

3139: that the estimated value of a parameter under

3140: a model $\mdl_1$ is far from the null value

3141: predicted by model $\mdl_2$, but $\mdl_1$ is

3142: disfavored against $\mdl_2$ by Bayesian model

3143: testing, a fact sometimes called ``Bartlett's

3144: paradox'' \cite{Lindley}. This is exactly the

3145: case for $A_c$ in model B (upper band) compared

3146: to the pure inflaton model with flat spectrum

3147: of perturbations, as we will show below.

3148: 

3149: \par

3150: Sampling statistics (i.e. the frequentist

3151: approach to parameter estimation) uses the

3152: notion of the goodness-of-fit test to

3153: assess the viability of a model without the

3154: need of specifying an alternative hypothesis.

3155: This usually reduces to the $\chi^2$ statistics

3156: for the observed data, presuming the model

3157: under consideration, $\mdl$, is true.

3158: $\mdl$ is then rejected if the value of the

3159: goodness-of-fit falls above a certain

3160: threshold in the tail of the distribution. If

3161: we take this criterion at face value and use

3162: the $\chi^2$ statistics for the WMAP data, the

3163: best-fit pure inflaton $\Lambda$CDM model with

3164: $n_i\neq 1$ having $\chi^2=1431$ for $\nu=1342$

3165: degrees of freedom (see last paper in

3166: Ref.~\cite{wmap1}) would be rejected with a

3167: type I error (i.e. probability of falsely

3168: rejecting a true model) of about $5\%$. Notice

3169: that this does not mean, as sometimes stated,

3170: that ``the probability of the model is $5\%$''.

3171: We will see below that Bayesian model

3172: comparison is more informative and can give

3173: useful guidance for model building.

3174: 

3175: \par

3176: It is clear that models with a very poor best

3177: fit can be discarded simply by inspection. An

3178: extreme example is certainly the lower band of

3179: model B presented above. The goodness-of-fit

3180: for the lower band of model A is also

3181: very poor, even though this is not readily

3182: distinguishable from Fig.~\ref{fig:BFpqMOD4FST}

3183: due to the logarithmic scale. In fact, the

3184: best-fit point has $-\ln L_*=793.4$, compared

3185: to $-\ln L_*=721.2$ for the upper band of this

3186: model. Again, we can dismiss the lower band

3187: without further analysis. However, we need a

3188: more powerful tool if we are to decide, on the

3189: basis of the available data, between the

3190: viability of our PQ model as opposed to the

3191: pure inflaton HZ model. Bayesian inference

3192: offers a natural tool for model comparison in

3193: the form of the evidence in favor of the model

3194: (see Appendix for details and precise

3195: definitions).

3196: 

3197: \begin{figure}[tb]

3198: \centering

3199: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]

3200: {LaplaceApprox.ps}

3201: \caption{Illustration of the Laplace

3202: approximation to the (non-normalized) posterior

3203: used to compute the model evidence. For our

3204: base parameters, we plot the logarithm of the

3205: 1D marginalized posterior from the MC samples

3206: (crosses corresponding to the histograms in

3207: Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}) along with the

3208: corresponding Laplace approximation (solid

3209: smooth lines) of Eq.~(\ref{eq:laplace}) for the

3210: upper bands of model A (black) and model B

3211: (cyan/light gray). Clearly, the Laplace

3212: approximation is very good for model B, and of

3213: acceptable quality for model A. All the curves

3214: are normalized to zero at their peak value.

3215: In particular, $A_c$ is a rather non-Gaussian

3216: direction for model A (upper band), since the

3217: posterior from the MC samples only gives an

3218: upper limit on this parameter.}

3219: \label{fig:laplace}

3220: \end{figure}

3221: 

3222: \par

3223: We thus compute the Bayes factor for models A

3224: and B (upper bands), comparing each of them to

3225: the scale-invariant (i.e. $n_i = 1.00$) pure

3226: inflaton model, which we call in the following

3227: the HZ inflation model. We approximate the

3228: integrals involved in the evaluation of the

3229: Bayes factor by using the Laplace approximation

3230: (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:laplace})). We must first

3231: check that a multi-dimensional Gaussian is a

3232: reasonable approximation to the actual shape of

3233: our (non-normalized) posterior pdf. This is

3234: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace}, where we plot

3235: the logarithm of the 1D marginalized

3236: non-normalized posterior from the MC samples

3237: along with the corresponding

3238: Laplace approximation. For model B (upper band),

3239: the Gaussian approximation is quite accurate

3240: along all directions, while for model

3241: A (upper band) we notice that $A_c$ is a rather

3242: non-Gaussian direction, which is not surprising

3243: since this model only gives upper bounds on

3244: the amplitude $A_c$. However, inspection of the

3245: figure does seem to support the view that it is

3246: reasonably accurate to use the Laplace

3247: approximation to compute the model evidence.

3248: Another qualitative criterion is the similarity

3249: of the marginalized 1D posterior and the mean

3250: posterior. If the posterior is a

3251: multi-dimensional Gaussian, then the two curves

3252: coincide (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{lewis}).

3253: From Fig.~\ref{fig:1dbase}, we can indeed

3254: confirm that the two curves are very similar,

3255: again strengthening the conclusion that the

3256: Laplace approximation is legitimate in our

3257: case, more so for model B.

3258: 

3259: \par

3260: We first compare the upper band of model B

3261: ($\mdl_1$ in the notation used in the

3262: Appendix) against the HZ inflationary case

3263: ($\mdl_2$), and compute the

3264: Bayes factor $B_{12}$ in favor of model B

3265: (upper band). The term $\mathcal{L}_{12}$ (see

3266: Eq.~(\ref{eq:L12})) is just the difference of

3267: the best-fit log-likelihoods yielding

3268: $\mathcal{L}_{12}=-10.9$, and clearly disfavors

3269: model B (upper band), whose fit is worse. The

3270: term $\mathcal{C}_{12}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:C12}))

3271: describes the ratio of the occupied volumes in

3272: parameter space by the posterior pdf's of the

3273: two models times a factor taking into account

3274: the different dimensionality of the two

3275: parameter spaces and is found to be

3276: $\mathcal{C}_{12}=3.0$. Further considerations

3277: are needed to evaluate $\mathcal{F}_{12}$ (see

3278: Eq.~(\ref{eq:F12})), the term which reflects

3279: the prior available volume of parameter space

3280: under each model. In the present case, we do

3281: not need to specify the top-hat range of the

3282: priors on the parameters which are common to

3283: both model B (upper band) and the HZ inflation

3284: model. This is because, whatever prior belief

3285: we hold about the possible range for these

3286: parameters, it will be the same for both

3287: models. The parameters common to both models

3288: are $\omega_B$, $\omega_{\rm CDM}$, $h$, $z_r$

3289: and $A_i$. In the PQ model, the prior range for

3290: the CDM abundance actually applies to the axion

3291: component of CDM only, but the difference,

3292: which is caused by the presence in the universe

3293: of the LSPs, is very small and insignificant

3294: for our considerations here. Also, we could

3295: actually assign to the inflaton amplitude $A_i$

3296: two different prior ranges for the PQ and the

3297: HZ inflation models if we had any reason to

3298: believe that the ranges can be significantly

3299: different in the two cases. Here we take the

3300: view that $A_i$ is essentially a free parameter

3301: in both models, and thus whatever prior range

3302: we assign to it will cancel out from

3303: $\mathcal{F}_{12}$. As a consequence, the only

3304: prior range which does not cancel out from

3305: $\mathcal{F}_{12}$ is the one for the extra

3306: parameter of our PQ model, i.e. $A_c$. So we

3307: have

3308: \begin{equation}

3309: \mathcal{F}_{12}=\ln\frac{1}{\Delta A_c},

3310: \end{equation}

3311: where $\Delta A_c$ is the top-hat prior range

3312: of $A_c$ for the PQ model which is allowed in

3313: model B (upper band). The bounds of the prior

3314: on $A_c$ correspond to the limits on $A_c$ in

3315: the upper band of model B. The lower limit is

3316: of no importance, since we can simply set it

3317: equal to zero. The upper limit is achieved on

3318: the boundary of the upper band, which gives

3319: $A_c^{\rm{max}}\approx 0.1$. From these

3320: considerations and writing $A_c$ in units of

3321: $10^{-5}$ (which are the same units used in

3322: the covariance matrix), we have $\Delta A_c

3323: \approx 10^4$, and thus $\mathcal{F}_{12}=

3324: -9.2$. Putting everything together, we find

3325: $\ln B_{12}=-17.1$ and thus the Bayes factor

3326: disfavors model B (upper band) against the HZ

3327: inflation model with odds of about $10^7$

3328: against $1$. Notice that the

3329: reason for such high odds comes partly from the

3330: worse quality of fit of model B (upper band),

3331: and partly from an ``Occam's razor'' penalty of

3332: the PQ model, because it introduces a new scale

3333: in the problem (the curvaton amplitude $A_c$)

3334: which has a very wide prior range. We comment

3335: further on this aspect below.

3336: 

3337: \begin{table}

3338: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{5pt}\centering

3339: \begin{tabular}{|>{$}l<{$}|>{$}c<{$}|>{$}c<{$}|

3340: }

3341: \hline

3342:  & {\text{model A}} &

3343: {\text{model B}}

3344: \\

3345: & {\text{(upper band)}} &

3346: {\text{(upper band)}}

3347: \\

3348:  & {\text{versus HZ}} & {\text{versus HZ}}

3349: \\

3350: \hline \hline

3351: \mathcal{L}_{12}

3352: & 0.5 & -10.9

3353: \\

3354: \mathcal{C}_{12}

3355: & 4.8 & 3.0

3356: \\

3357: \mathcal{F}_{12}

3358: & -9.2& -9.2

3359: \\

3360: \hline

3361: \ln B_{12}

3362: & -3.9& -17.1

3363: \\

3364: \text{posterior odds}

3365: & 1:50& 1:10^7

3366: \\

3367: \hline

3368: \end{tabular}

3369: \caption{Results of the Bayes factors analysis

3370: for comparing the PQ models A and B (upper

3371: bands) to the HZ inflation model. When

3372: considering CMBR data only, the odds are

3373: in favor of the HZ model against the PQ models.

3374: In particular, model B (upper band) is very

3375: strongly disfavored.

3376: \label{tab:evidence}}

3377: \end{table}

3378: 

3379: \par

3380: We now compute the Bayes factor for the upper

3381: band of model A ($\mdl_1$) against the HZ

3382: inflation model ($\mdl_2$). As mentioned above,

3383: in this case we expect the Laplace

3384: approximation to be less accurate, because

3385: $A_c$ is now a non-Gaussian direction. The term

3386: $\mathcal{L}_{12}$ is now slightly in favor of

3387: model A (upper band), since its fit is

3388: marginally better than the one of the HZ

3389: inflation model, giving $\mathcal{L}_{12}=0.5$.

3390: From the covariance matrices of the two models,

3391: we obtain $\mathcal{C}_{12}=4.8$, while the

3392: same reasoning as above gives again a very

3393: small value for $\mathcal{F}_{12}$ as a

3394: consequence of the large allowed prior range of

3395: $A_c$, i.e. $\mathcal{F}_{12}=-9.2$. This last

3396: term again heavily penalizes the PQ model,

3397: resulting in $\ln B_{12}=-3.9$, or odds of

3398: $50:1$ against the PQ model A (upper band). The

3399: Laplace approximation is however likely to

3400: underestimate the actual volume occupied by the

3401: likelihood function in parameter space, due to

3402: the fact that $A_c$ is a rather non-Gaussian

3403: direction for model A. As a consequence,

3404: the above odds can be interpreted as an upper

3405: limit for the evidence against model A. We

3406: summarize these results on the PQ models A and

3407: B (upper bands) in Table~\ref{tab:evidence}.

3408: 

3409: \par

3410: One must be very careful when interpreting the

3411: above results for the evidence. In fact, the HZ

3412: inflationary model, which we used for the

3413: comparison, is a natural benchmark model as far

3414: as the CMBR data are concerned. However, one

3415: must keep in mind that the PQ model which we

3416: describe in this work addresses many

3417: fundamental issues which lie outside the scope

3418: of the phenomenological HZ inflation model,

3419: such as the strong CP and $\mu$ problems of

3420: MSSM, the generation of the observed BAU and

3421: the nature of the CDM in the universe. Our

3422: approach was to consider fundamental (SUSY GUT)

3423: models of particle physics within the

3424: cosmological framework by merging together

3425: requirements and constraints both from the

3426: particle physics and the cosmology side. In

3427: general, it is clear that any viable particle

3428: physics model has many free parameters about

3429: which little or no experimental information is

3430: available at the moment, such as the parameters

3431: of the electroweak Higgs sector, the sparticle

3432: mass spectrum or the boundary conditions from

3433: supergravity which also determine the radiative

3434: electroweak symmetry breaking. Nevertheless, we

3435: do have some indication about their order of

3436: magnitude by applying criteria of simplicity,

3437: naturalness and elegance to our fundamental

3438: theories. At this stage, the exquisite

3439: cosmological data nowadays at our disposal can

3440: provide significant constraints on the

3441: parameter space of the model. Our evidence

3442: calculation, in fact, takes into account only a

3443: part of our knowledge (i.e. the CMBR data)

3444: neglecting all the other issues which are

3445: addressed at a fundamental level by our model.

3446: It seems fair to say that, on the whole (i.e.

3447: considering both cosmology and particle

3448: physics), the PQ model presented in this work

3449: aims at a broader explanatory power than a

3450: phenomenological inflation model. We thus

3451: conclude from our analysis that the present

3452: CMBR data can strongly disfavor certain regions

3453: of parameter space, as it is the case for model

3454: B. In this case, we found robust evidence that

3455: a mixture of curvaton and inflaton

3456: contributions to the cosmological perturbations

3457: is in disagreement with the present CMBR data.

3458: On the other hand, the odds against model A

3459: should be regarded while keeping in mind the

3460: above considerations. In conclusion, it seems

3461: to us that, at the present stage, we cannot

3462: reject the possibility of a subdominant curvaton

3463: contribution to predominantly inflaton-dominated

3464: adiabatic perturbations.

3465: 

3466: \par

3467: On a more phenomenological level, our treatment

3468: of the evidence highlights a generic feature of

3469: any model which introduces a second (or

3470: several) scale-free parameter(s) to describe an

3471: extra non-adiabatic component, namely that

3472: Occam's razor of Bayesian model comparison will

3473: always penalize such a model with respect to

3474: the pure inflaton single-field HZ inflationary

3475: model by assigning to it a very small

3476: $\mathcal{F}_{12}$ term. This reflects the fact

3477: that the extra amplitude parameter

3478: (describing an isocurvature contribution) can

3479: {\it a priori} assume any value at all, and

3480: therefore there is no hard-wired justification

3481: why its value should be smaller than $10^{-5}$,

3482: or indeed close to but different from zero. So,

3483: from a Bayesian point of view, it is certainly

3484: unjustified to increase the model's complexity

3485: to achieve only a minuscule gain (if any at

3486: all) on the quality of fit. Traditionally, most

3487: attention has been devoted to the maximum

3488: likelihood value as the criterion to judge

3489: whether a certain new parameter is useful or

3490: not. But, from the point of view of model

3491: building and Bayesian model testing,

3492: restricting the prior volume of parameter space

3493: could end up to be as useful, for an

3494: inflationary model which would predict the

3495: value of $A_i$ to be in the ball-park of

3496: $10^{-5}$ would have very favorable posterior

3497: odds against a model in which $A_i$ is

3498: essentially a free parameter.

3499: 

3500: \par

3501: Finally, the example of model B (upper band)

3502: above strikingly illustrates that Bayesian

3503: ``credible intervals'' cannot be interpreted as

3504: ``significance levels'', for, just by looking

3505: at the constraints on the amplitude $A_c$ for

3506: the upper band of model B, one could have

3507: (erroneously) deduced a $6\sigma$ detection of

3508: a non-zero curvaton amplitude. Clearly, from

3509: the poor quality of the best fit

3510: ($-\ln L_*=732.6$), it would have been

3511: immediately obvious, without the need of

3512: computing the Bayes factor, that this

3513: particular model could not be favored by data.

3514: However, the conceptual point remains: the

3515: question whether a certain parameter value

3516: differs from the null reference value cannot be

3517: answered by looking at the confidence intervals

3518: (c.i.), but must be tackled by proper model

3519: comparison procedures. While this point is

3520: certainly clear to data analysts working in the

3521: field, it seems appropriate to stress it once

3522: more in view of a widespread misinterpretation

3523: of this concept.

3524: 

3525: \section{Conclusions}

3526: \label{sec:conclusion}

3527: 

3528: \par

3529: We considered a simple and concrete SUSY GUT

3530: model which automatically and naturally solves

3531: the strong CP and $\mu$ problems of MSSM via a

3532: PQ and a continuous R symmetry. This model

3533: also leads to the standard SUSY realization of

3534: hybrid inflation. The PQ field of this model,

3535: which corresponds to a flat direction in field

3536: space lifted by non-renormalizable interactions,

3537: can act as curvaton contributing together with

3538: the inflaton to the total curvature

3539: perturbation in the universe. In contrast to

3540: the standard curvaton hypothesis, we did not

3541: suppress the contribution from the inflaton.

3542: 

3543: \par

3544: The CDM in the universe predicted by this model

3545: consists predominantly of axions which are

3546: produced at the QCD phase transition. It also

3547: contains LSPs originating from the gravitinos

3548: which were thermally produced at reheating and

3549: decayed well after BBN. For simplicity, we

3550: assumed that

3551: there are no thermally produced LSPs in the

3552: model. The baryons, which are generated via a

3553: primordial leptogenesis occurring at reheating,

3554: as well as the LSPs inherit the partial

3555: curvature perturbation of the inflaton. This is

3556: different from the total curvature perturbation,

3557: which receives a contribution from the curvaton

3558: too. Therefore, the baryons and LSPs carry also

3559: an isocurvature perturbation, whose correlation

3560: with the total curvature perturbation is mixed.

3561: The axions, as usual, contribute only to the

3562: isocurvature perturbation. The resulting total

3563: isocurvature perturbation has mixed

3564: correlation with the adiabatic one.

3565: 

3566: \par

3567: Most of the parameters of the model but two

3568: were chosen by using criteria of

3569: naturalness and simplicity. We considered two

3570: representative cases for the two remaining

3571: parameters, $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, and

3572: compared the predictions with the first-year

3573: WMAP observations and other CMBR measurements.

3574: We found that, in one of the two cases (model

3575: B), the curvaton and axions contributions to

3576: the CMBR power spectra are important, and that

3577: this leads to a significant disagreement with

3578: the data. In fact, Bayesian model comparison

3579: disfavors this case as compared to the

3580: scale-invariant pure inflaton model with odds

3581: of $10^7$ against 1. The other possibility

3582: which we studied (model A) predicts a

3583: predominantly adiabatic power spectrum from the

3584: inflaton, where the curvaton and axions

3585: contributions are subdominant. We derived upper

3586: bounds for the amplitude of the partial

3587: curvature perturbation from the curvaton in

3588: this case ($A_c\lsim 43.2\times 10^{-5}$ at

3589: 95\% c.l.), and noticed that the interplay of

3590: the non-inflaton contributions results in a

3591: later reionization redshift

3592: ($z_r=13.3^{+8.1}_{-9.3}$ at 68\% c.l.). Even

3593: though the best-fit likelihood for this case

3594: ($-\ln L_* = 721.2$) is better than in the pure

3595: inflaton HZ case, evaluation of the evidence

3596: under the Laplace approximation gives odds of

3597: about 50 to 1 against model A compared to the

3598: pure inflaton HZ case. These odds must be

3599: interpreted with caution, since they do not

3600: take into account the fact that the PQ model

3601: aims at a more fundamental explanatory power

3602: and that it addresses many particle physics

3603: issues which are outside the scope of

3604: inflationary models.

3605: 

3606: \par

3607: In summary, we have shown that certain regions

3608: of the parameter space ($\kappa\approx 3\times

3609: 10^{-2}$ and $10^{-4}\lsim\lambda\lsim 3\times

3610: 10^{-4}$) can be excluded on the grounds of

3611: present-day CMBR observations. Quantitative

3612: bounds on the allowed values of $\kappa$ and

3613: $\lambda$ could be derived by treating them as

3614: free parameters in the MC analysis, an

3615: exploration left for future work. Our approach

3616: -- embedding particle physics model building in

3617: the cosmological framework -- pursued the issue

3618: of merging together fundamental theories and

3619: cosmological constraints in a realistic and

3620: viable model for the generation of the

3621: cosmological perturbations. It is encouraging

3622: that modern cosmological observations are now

3623: informative enough as to give useful and robust

3624: guidance along this path.

3625: 

3626: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}

3627: We thank K. Dimopoulos, R. Durrer, S. Leach, D.

3628: Lyth, Ch. Ringeval, M. Sakellariadou and D.

3629: Wands for useful discussions. We are

3630: particularly grateful to K. Dimopoulos and D.

3631: Lyth for communicating to us their results on

3632: the randomization regime for the curvaton field

3633: prior to publication. This work was supported

3634: by the European Union under RTN contracts

3635: HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and HPRN-CT-2000-00152 and

3636: was performed on the Myri cluster owned and

3637: operated by the University of Geneva. R.T. was

3638: partially supported by the European Network

3639: CMBNet and the Swiss National Science

3640: Foundation.

3641: 

3642: \appendix

3643: 

3644: \renewcommand{\theequation}

3645: {\thesection\arabic{equation}}

3646: \setcounter{equation}{0}

3647: \renewcommand{\thefigure}

3648: {\thesection\arabic{figure}}

3649: \setcounter{figure}{0}

3650: 

3651: \newcommand{\gsim}{\,\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}

3652: \kern -0.7em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}\,}

3653: 

3654: \section{Bayesian inference: a primer}

3655: 

3656: \subsection{Bayesian parameter estimation}

3657: \label{appendix:params}

3658: 

3659: \par

3660: Bayesian inference is based on Bayes' theorem,

3661: which is nothing more than rewriting the

3662: definition of conditional probability:

3663: \begin{equation}

3664: \pdf(A\vert B)=\frac{\pdf(B\vert A)\pdf(A)}

3665: {\pdf(B)}

3666: \quad

3667: \text{(Bayes' theorem).}

3668: \end{equation}

3669: In order to clarify the meaning of this

3670: relation, let us write $\params$ (a vector of

3671: $d$ parameters under a model $\mdl$) for

3672: $A$ and $\data$ (the data at hand) for $B$,

3673: obtaining

3674: \begin{eqnarray}

3675: \pdf(\params\vert\data,\mdl)&=&

3676: \frac{\like(\data\vert\params,\mdl)

3677: \pi(\params,\mdl)}{\int_{\Omega}

3678: \like(\data\vert\params,\mdl)

3679: \pi(\params,\mdl)\dr\params}

3680: \nonumber\\

3681: &=&\frac{\like(\data\vert\params,\mdl)

3682: \pi(\params,\mdl)}{\pdf(\data\vert\mdl)},

3683: \label{eq:Bayes_Theorem}

3684: \end{eqnarray}

3685: where $\Omega$ designates the parameter space

3686: (of dimensionality $d$) under model $\mdl$.

3687: This equation relates the {\it posterior

3688: probability} $\pdf(\params\vert\data,\mdl)$ for

3689: the parameters $\params$ of the model $\mdl$

3690: given the data $\data$ to the {\it likelihood

3691: function} $\like(\data\vert\params,\mdl)$ if

3692: the {\it prior probability distribution

3693: function} $\pi(\params,\mdl)$ for the

3694: parameters under the model is known. The latter

3695: is called ``prior'' for short. The quantity in

3696: the denominator is independent of $\params$ and

3697: is called the {\it evidence} of the data for

3698: the model $\mdl$ \cite{MKbook}. The evidence

3699: is the central quantity for model comparison,

3700: as we explain below, but, in the context of

3701: parameter estimation within a model, it is just

3702: an overall multiplicative constant which does

3703: not matter. In short,

3704: \begin{equation}

3705: \text{posterior}=

3706: \frac{\text{likelihood}\times\text{prior}}

3707: {\text{evidence}} .

3708: \end{equation}

3709: 

3710: \par

3711: The prior distribution contains all the

3712: knowledge about the parameters

3713: before observing the data, i.e. our physical

3714: understanding of the model, our insight into

3715: the experimental setup and its performance,

3716: and in short all our prior scientific

3717: experience. This information is then updated

3718: via Bayes' theorem to the posterior

3719: distribution by multiplying the prior with the

3720: likelihood function which contains the

3721: information coming from the data. The posterior

3722: probability is the base for inference about

3723: $\params$. The most probable value for the

3724: parameters is the one for which the posterior

3725: probability is largest.

3726: 

3727: \par

3728: Bayes' postulate states that, in the absence of

3729: other arguments, the prior probability should

3730: be assumed to be equal for all values of the

3731: parameters over a certain range

3732: ($\params_{\text{min}}\leq\params\leq

3733: \params_{\text{max}}$). This is called a ``flat

3734: prior'', i.e.

3735: \begin{equation}

3736: \pi(\params,\mdl)=\left[ H(\params-

3737: \params_{\text{min}})H(\params_{\text{max}}-

3738: \params)\right]\prod_{j=1}^{d}\frac{1}

3739: {\Delta\theta_j},

3740: \label{eq:flat_prior}

3741: \end{equation}

3742: where $H$ is the Heaviside step function and

3743: $\Delta\theta_j\equiv\theta_{\text{max},j}-

3744: \theta_{\text{min},j}>0$, $\forall \;j$.

3745: Clearly, a flat prior on $\params$ does not

3746: correspond to a flat prior on some other set

3747: $\boldsymbol{\alpha}(\params)$ obtained via a

3748: non-linear transformation, since the two prior

3749: distributions are related via

3750: \begin{equation}

3751: \pi(\params,\mdl)=

3752: \pi(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\mdl)

3753: \frac{\dr\boldsymbol{\alpha}(\params)}

3754: {\dr\params}.

3755: \label{eq:prior}

3756: \end{equation}

3757: A recurrent criticism is that the final

3758: inference depends on the prior which one

3759: chooses to use. However, in a situation in

3760: which the data exhibit a clear preference for a

3761: certain value for a parameter, the posterior is

3762: effectively dominated by the likelihood, and

3763: the choice of prior will not matter much. This

3764: is currently the case, as far as the CMBR is

3765: concerned, for high ``signal to noise''

3766: parameters such as the baryon density.

3767: Constraints on other parameters such as the

3768: curvaton amplitude $A_c$ in model A (upper

3769: band) of our PQ scenario are likely to

3770: depend slightly on the details of the chosen

3771: prior distribution. In other words, constraints

3772: on parameters which are not clearly determined

3773: will suffer from a certain degree of

3774: subjectivity, depending on what prior

3775: $\pi(\params,\mdl)$ we choose on the right

3776: hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Bayes_Theorem}). This

3777: fact should be interpreted as a warning,

3778: telling us that the data are not powerful

3779: enough to clearly single out the parameter

3780: under consideration.

3781: 

3782: \subsection{Bayes factors}

3783: \label{appendix:factors}

3784: 

3785: \par

3786: Let us consider two competing models $\mdl_1$

3787: and $\mdl_2$ and ask what is the posterior

3788: probability of each model given the data

3789: $\data$. By Bayes' theorem we have

3790: \begin{equation}

3791: \pdf(\mdl_i\vert\data)\propto

3792: \pdf(\data\vert\mdl_i)\pi(\mdl_i)~~(i=1,2),

3793: \end{equation}

3794: where $\pdf(\data\vert\mdl_i)$ is the

3795: evidence of the data under model $\mdl_i$ and

3796: $\pi(\mdl_i)$ is the prior probability of the

3797: $i$th model before we see the data. The ratio

3798: of the posterior odds for the two competing

3799: models is called {\it Bayes factor}

3800: \cite{Kass}:

3801: \begin{equation}

3802: B_{12}\equiv\frac{\pdf(\mdl_1\vert\data)}

3803: {\pdf(\mdl_2\vert\data)}.

3804: \label{eq:b12}

3805: \end{equation}

3806: Usually, we do not hold any prior beliefs about

3807: the two models and therefore

3808: $\pi(\mdl_1)=\pi(\mdl_2)=1/2$, so that the

3809: Bayes factor reduces to the ratio of the

3810: evidences. The Bayes factor can be interpreted

3811: as an automatic Occam's razor, which disfavors

3812: complex models involving many parameters (see

3813: Ref.~\cite{MKbook} for details) as we discuss

3814: below and demonstrate in the text.

3815: 

3816: \par

3817: The evidence in favor of $\mdl$ can be

3818: evaluated by performing the integral

3819: \begin{eqnarray}

3820: \pdf(\data\vert\mdl)&=&\int_{\Omega}

3821: \like(\data\vert\params,\mdl)

3822: \pi(\params,\mdl)\dr\params

3823: \nonumber \\

3824: &=&\int_{\Omega}

3825: \bar{\pdf}(\params\vert\data,\mdl)\dr\params,

3826: \end{eqnarray}

3827: where $\bar{\pdf}(\params\vert\data,\mdl)$

3828: designates the non-normalized posterior

3829: probability (i.e. the numerator in the right

3830: hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Bayes_Theorem})).

3831: Computing the above integral from

3832: the MC samples is difficult, since there will

3833: be very few or no samples in the tails of the

3834: likelihood. There are however a number of

3835: approximate methods which can be applied

3836: \cite{DiCiccio}. Most of them rely on the fact

3837: that, for a large number of data points, the

3838: likelihood function will tend to be a

3839: multi-dimensional Gaussian distribution. One

3840: simple approximation is then to expand the

3841: logarithm of the non-normalized posterior to

3842: second order around its peak, which (for flat

3843: prior) occurs at the best-fit parameter choice

3844: $\params_*$, where the likelihood is maximized.

3845: We obtain

3846: \begin{equation}

3847: \ln\frac{\bar{\pdf}(\params\vert\data,\mdl)}

3848: {\bar{\pdf}(\params_*\vert\data,\mdl)}\approx

3849: -\frac{1}{2}(\params-\params_*)^T

3850: {\bf C}^{-1}(\params-\params_*),

3851: \label{eq:laplace}

3852: \end{equation}

3853: where ${\bf C}$ is the covariance matrix

3854: of the model $\mdl$ evaluated at the best-fit

3855: point, which can be estimated from the MC

3856: samples. This is called Laplace approximation

3857: and can be expected to give sensible results if

3858: the non-normalized posterior is reasonably well

3859: described by the multi-dimensional Gaussian

3860: Eq.~(\ref{eq:laplace}). It is then

3861: straightforward to evaluate the evidence by

3862: using the approximate form in

3863: Eq.~(\ref{eq:laplace}) for the non-normalized

3864: posterior, obtaining

3865: \begin{eqnarray}

3866: \pdf(\data\vert\mdl)&=&\int_{\Omega}

3867: \bar{\pdf}(\params\vert\data,\mdl)

3868: \dr\params

3869: \nonumber\\

3870: &\approx&(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}

3871: \bar{\pdf}(\params_*\vert\data,\mdl)

3872: \sqrt{\det{\bf C}}.

3873: \end{eqnarray}

3874: For flat separable priors of the

3875: form in Eq.~(\ref{eq:flat_prior}) we can simply

3876: write, abbreviating ${\bf \Delta}\params

3877: \equiv\prod_{j=1}^{d}\Delta\theta_j$,

3878: \begin{equation}

3879: \bar{\pdf}(\params_*\vert\data,\mdl)=

3880: \like(\data\vert\params_*,\mdl)\frac{1}

3881: {{\bf \Delta}\params},

3882: \label{eq:laplace_2}

3883: \end{equation}

3884: an expression which is still approximately

3885: correct even if we used non-flat priors, and

3886: interpret $\Delta\theta_j$ as the

3887: typical width of the prior pdf (say the

3888: standard deviation along the direction of the

3889: $j$th parameter for a Gaussian distributed

3890: prior). For a Gaussian prior, it is easy to

3891: derive an exact expression analogous to

3892: Eq.~(\ref{eq:laplace_2}), but for simplicity

3893: we will stick to the above form.

3894: 

3895: \par

3896: For the logarithm of the Bayes factor in the

3897: Laplace approximation, we finally obtain the

3898: following handy expression:

3899: \begin{equation}

3900: \ln B_{12}\approx

3901: \mathcal{L}_{12}+\mathcal{C}_{12}+

3902: \mathcal{F}_{12},

3903: \label{eq:B12}

3904: \end{equation}

3905: where we have defined

3906: \begin{eqnarray}

3907: \mathcal{L}_{12}&\equiv&\ln

3908: \frac{\like(\data\vert\params^{(1)}_*,\mdl_1)}

3909: {\like(\data\vert\params^{(2)}_*,\mdl_2)},

3910: \label{eq:L12}

3911: \\

3912: \mathcal{C}_{12}&\equiv&

3913: \frac{1}{2}\left(\ln \left[(2\pi)^{d^{(1)}-

3914: d^{(2)}}\right]+\ln\frac{\det{\bf C}^{(1)}}

3915: {\det{\bf C}^{(2)}}\right),

3916: \label{eq:C12}

3917: \\

3918: \mathcal{F}_{12}&\equiv&

3919: \ln\frac{{\bf \Delta}\params^{(2)}}

3920: {{\bf \Delta}\params^{(1)}}

3921: \label{eq:F12},

3922: \end{eqnarray}

3923: where quantities referring to the model

3924: $\mdl_i$ ($i=1,2$) are indicated by a

3925: superscript $(i)$. The term

3926: $\mathcal{L}_{12}$ is the logarithm of the

3927: ratio of the best-fit likelihoods. From a

3928: frequentist point of view, this quantity is

3929: approximately $\chi^2$ distributed, and thus

3930: it is common practice to apply to it a

3931: goodness-of-fit test to assess whether the

3932: extra parameters have produced a

3933: ``significant'' increase of the quality of

3934: fit. If the model $\mdl_1$ contains more

3935: parameters than the model $\mdl_2$, then

3936: $\mdl_1$ should show an improved fit to the

3937: data, i.e. we should have $\mathcal{L}_{12}>0$,

3938: unless the extra parameters are useless, in

3939: which case $\mathcal{L}_{12}=0$. In any case,

3940: a goodness-of-fit test alone does not say

3941: anything about the structure of the parameter

3942: space for the model under consideration, since

3943: it is limited to the maximum likelihood point.

3944: But Bayesian evidence does contain two further

3945: pieces of information, $\mathcal{C}_{12}$ and

3946: $\mathcal{F}_{12}$, which taken together are

3947: sometimes referred to as ``Occam's factor''.

3948: Here we prefer to consider these terms

3949: separately to help distinguishing their

3950: different origin. The term $\mathcal{C}_{12}$

3951: describes the structure of the posterior shape

3952: in the Gaussian approximation. Since the

3953: determinant is the product of the eigenvalues

3954: of the covariance matrix, which represent the

3955: standard deviations squared along the

3956: corresponding eigenvectors in the parameter

3957: space of the model, it follows that if $\mdl_1$

3958: has a narrower posterior than $\mdl_2$, then

3959: $\mathcal{C}_{12}<0$, thereby disfavoring

3960: $\mdl_1$. This apparent contradiction (how can

3961: a model with smaller errors display a smaller

3962: evidence?) is resolved when we take into

3963: account the term $\mathcal{F}_{12}$, which

3964: describes the prior available parameter space

3965: under each model. The sum of the terms

3966: $\mathcal{C}_{12}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{12}$ thus

3967: disfavors the model with the largest volume of

3968: ``wasted'' parameter space when the data

3969: arrive. A more complex model $\mdl_1$ -- having

3970: a large number of parameters and thus a large

3971: volume of prior accessible parameter space --

3972: will naturally fit the data better due to its

3973: flexibility, i.e. we will have

3974: $\mathcal{L}_{12}>0$, but it will be penalized

3975: for introducing extra dimensions in parameter

3976: space, i.e. the sum $\mathcal{C}_{12}+

3977: \mathcal{F}_{12}$ will be negative. In summary,

3978: the Bayes factor tends to select the model

3979: which exhibits an optimal trade-off between

3980: simplicity and quality of fit.

3981: 

3982: \par

3983: It should be clear that the choice of priors

3984: plays an important role in Bayesian model

3985: comparison (testing) via its impact on the term

3986: $\mathcal{F}_{12}$. In particular, prior pdf's

3987: used in evaluating the Bayes factor must be

3988: proper, i.e. normalizable, so that we can

3989: impose the normalization condition

3990: \begin{equation}

3991: \int_{\Omega}\pi(\params,\mdl)\dr\params=1.

3992: \end{equation}

3993: Although generally a strong dependence on the

3994: choice of priors is regarded as suspicious, in

3995: this case, we should consider the role of

3996: $\mathcal{F}_{12}$ as a way to implement

3997: {\it a priori} model features into the Bayes

3998: factor, as we show in the text of the paper.

3999: 

4000: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.}

4001: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4002: \def\plb#1#2#3{{Phys. Lett. B }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4003: \def\zpc#1#2#3{{Z. Phys. C }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4004: \def\prl#1#2#3{{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

4005: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4006: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

4007: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4008: \def\prep#1#2#3{{Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4009: \def\prd#1#2#3{{Phys. Rev. D }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4010: \def\npb#1#2#3{{Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1},~#3~(#2)}

4011: \def\npps#1#2#3{{Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Sup.)}

4012: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4013: \def\mpl#1#2#3{{Mod. Phys. Lett.}

4014: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4015: \def\arnps#1#2#3{{Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}

4016: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4017: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{{Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.}

4018: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4019: \def\jetp#1#2#3{{JETP Lett. }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4020: \def\app#1#2#3{{Acta Phys. Polon.}

4021: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4022: \def\rnc#1#2#3{{Riv. Nuovo Cim.}

4023: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4024: \def\ap#1#2#3{{Ann. Phys. }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4025: \def\ptp#1#2#3{{Prog. Theor. Phys.}

4026: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4027: \def\apjl#1#2#3{{Astrophys. J. Lett.}

4028: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4029: \def\n#1#2#3{{Nature }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4030: \def\apj#1#2#3{{Astrophys. J.}

4031: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4032: \def\anj#1#2#3{{Astron. J. }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4033: \def\apjs#1#2#3{{Astrophys. J. Suppl.}

4034: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4035: \def\mnras#1#2#3{{Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}

4036: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4037: \def\grg#1#2#3{{Gen. Rel. Grav.}

4038: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4039: \def\s#1#2#3{{Science }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4040: \def\baas#1#2#3{{Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.}

4041: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4042: \def\ibid#1#2#3{{\it ibid. }{\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4043: \def\cpc#1#2#3{{Comput. Phys. Commun.}

4044: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4045: \def\astp#1#2#3{{Astropart. Phys.}

4046: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4047: \def\epjc#1#2#3{{Eur. Phys. J. C}

4048: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4049: \def\nima#1#2#3{{Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A}

4050: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4051: \def\jhep#1#2#3{{J. High Energy Phys.}

4052: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4053: \def\lnp#1#2#3{{Lect. Notes Phys.}

4054: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4055: \def\appb#1#2#3{{Acta Phys. Polon. B}

4056: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4057: \def\fcp#1#2#3{{Fund. Cos. Phys.}

4058: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4059: \def\ptps#1#2#3{{Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.}

4060: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4061: \def\ss#1#2#3{{Statist. Sci.}

4062: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4063: \def\jasa#1#2#3{{J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.}

4064: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4065: \def\jcap#1#2#3{{J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.}

4066: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4067: \def\bm#1#2#3{{Biometrika}

4068: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4069: \def\ams#1#2#3{{Ann. Math. Stat.}

4070: {\bf #1},~#3~(#2)}

4071: 

4072: 

4073: \begin{thebibliography}{}

4074: 

4075: \bibitem{guth} A. Guth, \prd{23}{1981}{347}.

4076: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,347;%%

4077: 

4078: \bibitem{wmap1}

4079: C.L. Bennett {\it et al.}, \apjs{148}{2003}{1};

4080: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

4081: G. Hinshaw {\it et al.}, \ibid{148}{2003}{135};

4082: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302217;%%

4083: A. Kogut {\it et al.}, \ibid{148}{2003}{161};

4084: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302213;%%

4085: D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, \ibid{148}{2003}{175}.

4086: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

4087: 

4088: \bibitem{wmap2}

4089: H.V. Peiris {\it et al.}, \apjs{148}{2003}{213}.

4090: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302225;%%

4091: 

4092: \bibitem{llbook}

4093: A.R. Liddle and D.H. Lyth, {\it Cosmological

4094: inflation and large-scale structure}

4095: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.,

4096: 2000).

4097: 

4098: \bibitem{lectures} G. Lazarides,

4099: \lnp{592}{2002}{351} [hep- ph/0111328];

4100: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111328;%%

4101: hep-ph/0204294.

4102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204294;%%

4103: 

4104: \bibitem{iso1}

4105: C. Gordon and A. Lewis, \prd{67}{2003}{123513};

4106: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0212248;%%

4107: P. Crotty, J. Garc{\'\i}a-Bellido, J. Lesgourgues

4108: and A. Riazuelo, \prl{91}{2003}{171301};

4109: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306286;%%

4110: M. Bucher, J. Dunkley, P.G. Ferreira, K. Moodley

4111: and C. Skordis, \ibid{93}{2004}{081301};

4112: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0401417;%%

4113: K. Moodley, M. Bucher, J. Dunkley, P.G. Ferreira

4114: and C. Skordis, astro-ph/0407304.

4115: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407304;%%

4116: 

4117: \bibitem{nongauss}

4118: N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese and

4119: A. Riotto, astro-ph/0406398.

4120: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406398;%%

4121: 

4122: \bibitem{curv1}

4123: S. Mollerach, \prd{42}{1990}{313};

4124: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,313;%%

4125: A.D. Linde and V. Mukhanov,

4126: \ibid{56}{1997}{535}.

4127: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9610219;%%

4128: 

4129: \bibitem{curv2}

4130: D.H. Lyth and D. Wands, \plb{524}{2002}{5};

4131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110002;%%

4132: T. Moroi and T. Takahashi, \ibid{522}{2001}{215};

4133: {\bf 539}, 303(E) (2002).

4134: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110096;%%

4135: 

4136: \bibitem{curv3}

4137: D.H. Lyth, C. Ungarelli and D. Wands,

4138: \prd{67}{2003}{023503}.

4139: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208055;%%

4140: 

4141: \bibitem{dllr1}

4142: K. Dimopoulos, G. Lazarides, D. Lyth and R.

4143: Ruiz de Austri, \jhep{05}{2003}{057}.

4144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303154;%%

4145: 

4146: \bibitem{dimo}

4147: K. Dimopoulos and D.H. Lyth, Phys. Rev. D

4148: {\bf 69}, 123509 (2004).

4149: %\prd{69}{2004}{123509}.

4150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209180;%%

4151: 

4152: \bibitem{rsym} G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

4153: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 071702 (1998).

4154: %\prd{58}{1998}{071702}.

4155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803397;%%

4156: 

4157: \bibitem{pq} R. Peccei and H. Quinn,

4158: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 38}, 1440 (1977);

4159: %\prl{38}{1977}{1440};

4160: %%CITATION = PRLTA,38,1440;%%

4161: S. Weinberg, \ibid{40}{1978}{223};

4162: %%CITATION = PRLTA,40,223;%%

4163: F. Wilczek, \ibid{40}{1978}{279}.

4164: %%CITATION = PRLTA,40,279;%%

4165: 

4166: \bibitem{lyth} E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle,

4167: D.H. Lyth, E.D. Stewart and D. Wands,

4168: \prd{49}{1994}{6410}.

4169: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401011;%%

4170: 

4171: \bibitem{dss} G. Dvali, Q. Shafi and

4172: R. Schaefer, \prl{73}{1994}{1886}.

4173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406319;%%

4174: 

4175: \bibitem{hybrid} A.D. Linde, \plb{259}{1991}{38};

4176: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B259,38;%%

4177: \prd{49}{1994}{748}.

4178: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9307002;%%

4179: 

4180: \bibitem{cobe}

4181: C.L. Bennett {\it et al.}, \apj{464}{1996}{L1}.

4182: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9601067;%%

4183: 

4184: \bibitem{kn} J.E. Kim and H.P. Nilles,

4185: \plb{138}{1984}{150}.

4186: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B138,150;%%

4187: 

4188: \bibitem{gm}

4189: C. Gordon and K.A. Malik, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69},

4190: 063508 (2004);

4191: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0311102;%%

4192: M. Beltr\'{a}n, J. Garc{\'\i}a-Bellido, J.

4193: Lesgourgues and A. Riazuelo, astro-ph/0409326.

4194: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0409326;%%

4195: 

4196: \bibitem{iso2}

4197: E. Pierpaoli, J. Garc{\'\i}a-Bellido and

4198: S. Borgani, \jhep{10}{1999}{015};

4199: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909420;%%

4200: R. Trotta, A. Riazuelo and R. Durrer,

4201: \prl{87}{2001}{231301}; \prd{67}{2003}{063520}.

4202: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0104017;%%

4203: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0211600;%%

4204: 

4205: \bibitem{iso3}

4206: L. Amendola, C. Gordon, D. Wands and M. Sasaki,

4207: \prl{88}{2002}{211302}.

4208: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0107089;%%

4209: 

4210: \bibitem{mixed}

4211: D. Langlois and F. Vernizzi, astro-ph/0403258;

4212: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403258;%%

4213: F. Ferrer, S. R\"{a}s\"{a}nen and J.

4214: V\"{a}liviita, astro-ph/0407300.

4215: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407300;%%

4216: 

4217: \bibitem{hier}

4218: G. Lazarides and N.D. Vlachos,

4219: %\plb{459}{1999}{482}.

4220: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 459}, 482 (1999).

4221: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903511;%%

4222: 

4223: \bibitem{leptoinf}

4224: G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, \plb{258}{1991}{305};

4225: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B258,305;%%

4226: G. Lazarides, R.K. Schaefer and Q. Shafi,

4227: \prd{56}{1997}{1324}.

4228: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608256;%%

4229: 

4230: \bibitem{lepto}

4231: M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B

4232: {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).

4233: %\plb{174}{1986}{45}.

4234: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%

4235: 

4236: \bibitem{crisis}

4237: M. Dine, W. Fischler and D. Nemeschansky,

4238: \plb{136}{1984}{169};

4239: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B136,169;%%

4240: G.D. Coughlan, R. Holman, P. Ramond and

4241: G.G. Ross, \ibid{140}{1984}{44}.

4242: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B140,44;%%

4243: 

4244: \bibitem{drt95}

4245: M. Dine, L. Randall and S. Thomas,

4246: \prl{75}{1995}{398};

4247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503303;%%

4248: \npb{458}{1996}{291}.

4249: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507453;%%

4250: 

4251: \bibitem{noscale}

4252: E.D. Stewart, \prd{51}{1995}{6847};

4253: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405389;%%

4254: M.K. Gaillard, H. Murayama and K.A. Olive,

4255: \plb{355}{1995}{71};

4256: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504307;%%

4257: M.K. Gaillard, D.H. Lyth and H. Murayama,

4258: \prd{58}{1998}{123505};

4259: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806157;%%

4260: C. Panagiotakopoulos, \plb{459}{1999}{473};

4261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904284;%%

4262: R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil and G. Lazarides,

4263: \jhep{07}{2002}{069}.

4264: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207244;%%

4265: 

4266: \bibitem{acbar1}

4267: J.H. Goldstein {\it et al.},

4268: \apj{599}{2003}{773};

4269: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0212517;%%

4270: C.-l. Kuo {\it et al.}, \ibid{600}{2004}{32}.

4271: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0212289;%%

4272: 

4273: \bibitem{acbar2}

4274: \textsf{http://cosmologist.info/ACBAR}.

4275: 

4276: \bibitem{cbi}

4277: T.J. Pearson {\it et al.}, \apj{591}{2003}{556}.

4278: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0205388;%%

4279: 

4280: \bibitem{trieste}

4281: G. Lazarides, PRHEP-trieste99/008

4282: [hep-ph/9905450].

4283: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905450;%%

4284: 

4285: \bibitem{continuous}

4286: G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos and

4287: Q. Shafi, \prl{56}{1986}{432}.

4288: %%CITATION = PRLTA,56,432;%%

4289: 

4290: \bibitem{discrete}

4291: N. Ganoulis, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

4292: \npb{323}{1989}{374};

4293: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B323,374;%%

4294: G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

4295: \ibid{B329}{1990}{182}.

4296: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B329,182;%%

4297: 

4298: \bibitem{smooth}

4299: G. Lazarides and C. Panagiotakopoulos,

4300: \prd{52}{1995}{559}.

4301: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506325;%%

4302: 

4303: \bibitem{jean}

4304: R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

4305: \jhep{10}{2000}{012}.

4306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002151;%%

4307: 

4308: \bibitem{magg}

4309: G. Lazarides, M. Magg and Q. Shafi,

4310: \plb{97}{1980}{87}.

4311: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B97,87;%%

4312: 

4313: \bibitem{kibble}

4314: T.W.B. Kibble, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

4315: \plb{113}{1982}{237}.

4316: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B113,237;%%

4317: 

4318: \bibitem{generic}

4319: R. Jeannerot, J. Rocher and M. Sakellariadou,

4320: \prd{68}{2003}{103514}.

4321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308134;%%

4322: 

4323: \bibitem{mairi}

4324: J. Rocher and M. Sakellariadou, hep-ph/0405133.

4325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405133;%%

4326: 

4327: \bibitem{dllr2}

4328: K. Dimopoulos, G. Lazarides, D. Lyth and R.

4329: Ruiz de Austri, \prd{68}{2003}{123515}.

4330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308015;%%

4331: 

4332: \bibitem{ekn}

4333: J.R. Ellis, J.E. Kim and D.V. Nanopoulos,

4334: \plb{145}{1984}{181};

4335: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B145,181;%%

4336: J.R. Ellis, D.V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar,

4337: \npb{259}{1985}{175};

4338: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B259,175;%%

4339: J.R. Ellis, G.B. Gelmini, J.L. Lopez,

4340: D.V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar,

4341: \ibid{B373}{1992}{399}.

4342: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B373,399;%%

4343: 

4344: \bibitem{reheat}

4345: R.J. Scherrer and M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D

4346: {\bf 31}, 681 (1985).

4347: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,681;%%

4348: 

4349: \bibitem{talks}

4350: G. Lazarides, in {\it Recent developments

4351: in particle physics and cosmology}, edited by

4352: G.C. Branco, Q. Shafi and J.I. Silva-Marcos

4353: (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001),

4354: p. 399 [hep-ph/0011130];

4355: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011130;%%

4356: R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil and G. Lazarides, in

4357: {\it The proceedings of Cairo international

4358: conference on high energy physics}, edited by

4359: S. Khalil, Q. Shafi and H. Tallat (Rinton

4360: Press Inc., Princeton, 2001), p. 254

4361: [hep-ph/0106035].

4362: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106035;%%

4363: 

4364: \bibitem{communication}

4365: K. Dimopoulos and D.H. Lyth, private

4366: communication.

4367: 

4368: \bibitem{notari}

4369: K. Dimopoulos, D.H. Lyth, A. Notari and A. Riotto,

4370: \jhep{07}{2003}{053}.

4371: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304050;%%

4372: 

4373: \bibitem{rwalk}

4374: D.H. Lyth and E.D. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D

4375: {\bf 46}, 532 (1992).

4376: %\prd{46}{1992}{532}.

4377: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,532;%%

4378: 

4379: \bibitem{prep}

4380: K. Dimopoulos and D.H. Lyth, in preparation.

4381: 

4382: \bibitem{evap}

4383: R. Allahverdi, B.A. Campbell and J.R. Ellis,

4384: \npb{579}{2000}{355};

4385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001122;%%

4386: A. Anisimov and M. Dine,

4387: {\it ibid. }{\bf B619}, 729 (2001).

4388: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008058;%%

4389: 

4390: \bibitem{thesis}

4391: R. Trotta, {\it Cosmic microwave anisotropies:

4392: beyond standard parameters} (Ph.D. dissertation

4393: at the University of Geneva, 2004), in

4394: \textsf{http://theory.physics.unige.ch/$\tilde{\phantom{a}}$trotta}.

4395: 

4396: \bibitem{gipt}

4397: J.M. Bardeen, \prd{22}{1980}{1882};

4398: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,1882;%%

4399: H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, \ptps{78}{1984}{1};

4400: %%CITATION = PTPSA,78,1;%%

4401: V.F. Mukhanov, H.A. Feldman and R.H. Brandenberger,

4402: \prep{215}{1992}{203};

4403: %%CITATION = PRPLC,215,203;%%

4404: R. Durrer, \fcp{15}{1994}{209} [astro-ph/9311041].

4405: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9311041;%%

4406: 

4407: \bibitem{bst}

4408: J.M. Bardeen, P.J. Steinhardt and M.S. Turner,

4409: \prd{28}{1983}{679};

4410: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,679;%%

4411: J. Martin and D.J. Schwarz, \ibid{57}{1998}{3302};

4412: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9704049;%%

4413: D. Wands, K.A. Malik, D.H. Lyth and A.R. Liddle,

4414: \ibid{62}{2000}{043527}.

4415: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0003278;%%

4416: 

4417: \bibitem{km}

4418: M. Kawasaki and T. Moroi, Prog. Theor. Phys.

4419: {\bf 93}, 879 (1995).

4420: %\ptp{93}{1995}{879}.

4421: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403364;%%

4422: 

4423: \bibitem{axion}

4424: M.S. Turner, \prd{33}{1986}{889}.

4425: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,889;%%

4426: 

4427: \bibitem{hst}

4428: W.L. Freedman {\it et al.}, \apj{553}{2001}{47}.

4429: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0012376;%%

4430: 

4431: \bibitem{pivot}

4432: E.J. Copeland, I.J. Grivell and A.R. Liddle,

4433: astro-ph/ 9712028.

4434: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9712028;%%

4435: 

4436: \bibitem{cobe10}

4437: M. Tegmark and A.J.S. Hamilton, astro-ph/9702019.

4438: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9702019;%%

4439: 

4440: \bibitem{wang}

4441: B. Ananthanarayan, Q. Shafi and X.M. Wang,

4442: \prd{50}{1994}{5980};

4443: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311225;%%

4444: M.E. Gomez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,

4445: \ibid{61}{2000}{123512}.

4446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907261;%%

4447: 

4448: \bibitem{ananth}

4449: B. Ananthanarayan, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,

4450: \prd{44}{1991}{1613};

4451: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1613;%%

4452: \plb{300}{1993}{245}.

4453: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B300,245;%%

4454: 

4455: \bibitem{deBernardis}

4456: P. de Bernardis {\it et al.},

4457: \apj{564}{2002}{559}.

4458: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0105296;%%

4459: 

4460: \bibitem{Durrer}

4461: R. Durrer, B. Novosyadlyj and S. Apunevych,

4462: \apj{583}{2003}{33}.

4463: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0111594;%%

4464: 

4465: \bibitem{cosmomc}

4466: \textsf{http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc/}.

4467: 

4468: \bibitem{lewis}

4469: A. Lewis and S. Bridle, \prd{66}{2002}{103511}.

4470: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0205436;%%

4471: 

4472: \bibitem{Valiviita}

4473: J. V\"{a}liviita and V. Muhonen,

4474: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 131302 (2003).

4475: %\prl{91}{2003}{131302}.

4476: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0304175;%%

4477: 

4478: \bibitem{constraints}

4479: R. Bowen, S.H. Hansen, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk

4480: and R. Trotta, \mnras{334}{2002}{760};

4481: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0110636;%%

4482: P. Crotty, J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor,

4483: \prd{67}{2003}{123005};

4484: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302337;%%

4485: E. Pierpaoli, \mnras{342}{2003}{L63};

4486: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302465;%%

4487: S. Hannestad, \jcap{05}{2003}{004}.

4488: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303076;%%

4489: 

4490: \bibitem{Verde}

4491: L. Verde {\it et al.}, \apjs{148}{2003}{195}.

4492: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302218;%%

4493: 

4494: \bibitem{gelman}

4495: A. Gelman and D. Rubin, \ss{7}{1992}{457}.

4496: %Statist. Sci.{\bf 7}, 457 (1992).

4497: 

4498: \bibitem{MKbook}

4499: D.J. MacKay, {\it Information theory,

4500: inference, and learning algorithms}

4501: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.,

4502: 2003).

4503: 

4504: \bibitem{bbook}

4505: G.E. Box and G.C. Tiao, {\it Bayesian inference

4506: in statistical analysis}, Addison-Wesley series

4507: in behavioral science: quantitative methods

4508: (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts,

4509: U.S.A., 1973).

4510: 

4511: \bibitem{Burles}

4512: S. Burles, K.M. Nollett and M.S. Turner,

4513: \prd{63}{2001}{063512}.

4514: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008495;%%

4515: 

4516: \bibitem{wmapgauss}

4517: E. Komatsu {\it et al.},

4518: \apjs{148}{2003}{119}.

4519: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302223;%%

4520: 

4521: \bibitem{axionnongauss}

4522: D.H. Lyth, \prd{45}{1992}{3394}.

4523: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,3394;%%

4524: 

4525: \bibitem{Lindley}

4526: D.V. Lindley, \bm{44}{1957}{187};

4527: M.S. Bartlett, \ibid{44}{1957}{533}.

4528: 

4529: \bibitem{Kass}

4530: R.E. Kass and A.E. Raftery,

4531: \jasa{90}{1995}{773}.

4532: 

4533: \bibitem{DiCiccio}

4534: T.J. DiCiccio, R.E. Kass, A.E. Raftery and

4535: L. Wasserman, \jasa{92}{1997}{903}.

4536: 

4537: \end{thebibliography}

4538: 

4539: \end{document}

4540: