1: 

2: \documentclass[oneside,a4paper,12pt,shownumbers,manualsort]{article}

3: \usepackage{latexsym}

4: \usepackage{euscript}

5: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,amssymb}

6: %\usepackage{showlabels}

7: %\usepackage[tt]{drftcite}

8: %\usepackage{slashed}

9:  

10: \topmargin      -1.0mm  % distance to headers

11: \headheight      5.0mm  % height of header box

12: \headsep         8.0mm  % distance to top line

13: \textheight      220mm  % height of text

14: \footskip        8.0mm  % distance from bottom line

15: \oddsidemargin   4.8mm  % Horizontal alignment

16: \evensidemargin  4.8mm  % Horizontal alignment

17: \textwidth       160mm  % Horizontal alignment

18: %\date{\today

19: \flushbottom

20: 

21: 

22: \renewcommand\({\left(}

23: \renewcommand\){\right)}

24: \renewcommand\[{\left[}

25: \renewcommand\]{\right]}

26: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial}

27: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}

28: \newcommand{\e}{{\rm e}}

29: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

30: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

31: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

32: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

33: 

34: %units

35: \newcommand{\one}{\mbox{1\hspace{-7.1pt}1}}

36: 

37: \newcommand\mm{\,\mbox{mm}}

38: \newcommand\cm{\,\mbox{cm}}

39: \newcommand\km{\,\mbox{km}}

40: \newcommand\kg{\,\mbox{kg}}

41: \newcommand\TeV{\,\mbox{TeV}}

42: \newcommand\GeV{\,\mbox{GeV}}

43: \newcommand\MeV{\,\mbox{MeV}}

44: \newcommand\keV{\,\mbox{keV}}

45: \newcommand\eV{\,\mbox{eV}}

46: \newcommand\mpl{m_{\rm p}}

47: \newcommand\mcN{\mathcal N}

48: \newcommand\mcA{\mathcal A}

49: \newcommand\mcO{\mathcal O}

50: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%

51: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnote[#1]{#2}\endgroup} 

52: 

53: 

54: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3} \large\normalsize

55: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}

56: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

57: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

58: \begin{document}

59: %\draft

60: \begin{center}

61: {\Large   \bf                                                                   Confronting hybrid inflation in supergravity with CMB data

62: }

63: 

64: 

65: 

66: \vspace*{7mm}

67: {\ Rachel Jeannerot$^{a}$\symbolfootnote[1]{{E-mail:jeannerot@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl}} and Marieke Postma$^{b}$}\symbolfootnote[2]{E-mail:mpostma@nikhef.nl}

68: \vspace*{.25cm}

69: 

70: ${}^{a)}${\it Instituut-Lorentz for Theoretical Physics,

71: Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands}\\

72: \vspace*{.1cm} 

73: ${}^{b)}${\it NIKHEF, Kruislaan 409, 1098 SJ Amsterdam,

74: The Netherlands}

75: 

76: 

77: 

78: \begin{abstract}

79:   $F$-term GUT inflation coupled to $N=1$ Supergravity is confronted

80:   with CMB data. Corrections to the string mass-per-unit-length

81:   away from the Bogomolny limit are taken into account.  We find that

82:   a superpotential coupling $10^{-7}/\mcN \lesssim \kappa \lesssim

83:   10^{-2}/\mcN$, with $\mcN$ the dimension of the

84:   Higgs-representation, is still compatible with the data.  The

85:   parameter space is enlarged in warm inflation, as well as in the

86:   curvaton and inhomogeneous reheat scenario.  $F$-strings formed at

87:   the end of $P$-term inflation are also considered.  Because these

88:   strings satisfy the Bogomolny bound the bounds are stronger: the

89:   gauge coupling is constrained to the range $10^{-7} < g <10^{-4}$.

90: \end{abstract}

91: \end{center}

92: 

93: %\newpage

94: 

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: 

98: 

99: The cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum measured by WMAP

100: points to a predominantly adiabatic perturbation spectrum, as produced

101: in standard inflation \cite{WMAPinflation}. The existence of the

102: acoustic peaks excludes cosmic strings as the main source of

103: perturbations, although a 10\% contribution is not excluded

104: ~\cite{Pogosian}. This has important implications for hybrid inflation

105: \cite{hybrid} because almost all particle physics models of hybrid

106: inflation, such as standard SUSY GUT $F$-term inflation, $D$-term

107: inflation and brane inflation, predict the formation of cosmic strings

108: at the end of inflation \cite{prd,jrs,polchinski}. The string

109: contribution to the CMB anisotropies in $D$-term models is far too

110: high \cite{prd} unless the gauge coupling constant is unnaturally

111: small \cite{Pterm}. In this paper we focus on $F$-term inflation

112: which can naturally arise from SUSY GUTs and as a low energy effective

113: description of a certain class of interacting $D$-brane models.

114: 

115: The minimal field content of $F$-term inflation is a gauge singlet

116: superfield and two Higgs superfields which transform in complex

117: conjugate representations of some gauge group $G$. Inflation takes

118: place as the singlet field slowly rolls down a valley of local minima

119: where the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the Higgs fields vanish

120: and $G$ is unbroken. When the scalar singlet falls below a certain

121: critical value, the Higgs mass becomes tachyonic and inflation ends

122: very rapidly, via a phase transition during which the Higgs fields

123: acquire a non-vanishing VEV and $G$ spontaneously breaks down to a

124: subgroup $H$.  Of all topological defects that can form during such a

125: phase transition, only cosmic strings are cosmologically viable.

126: 

127: 

128: %Neither monopoles nor domain walls should form during

129: %this phase transition. In the context of GUTs where monopoles ought to

130: %form, they must be formed during a previous phase transition. 

131: %It is therefore not

132: %the breaking the GUT gauge group $G$ which takes place at the end of

133: %inflation but the breaking of an intermediate symmetry group. 

134: 

135: In the context of GUTs, where monopoles ought to form, this implies

136: that monopoles should be formed in a phase transition prior to

137: inflation.  Hence, the group $G$ which gets broken at the end of

138: inflation is not the GUT group itself, but some intermediate symmetry

139: group. There will be more phase transitions after inflation if $H$ is

140: larger than the standard model gauge group, and these should not lead

141: to the formation of unwanted defects. These arguments together with

142: the observation that the rank of the symmetry group $G$ which is

143: broken at the end of inflation is reduced by one unit (${\rm rank }

144: (G) = {\rm rank}(H) +1$) and simple homotopy arguments, lead to the

145: conjecture that cosmic strings always form at the end of GUT hybrid

146: inflation \cite{prd}. This was proven for an SO(10) GUT \cite{prd1},

147: and recently for all GUT groups with rank less than 8 \cite{jrs}. The

148: strings which form at the end of inflation are topological and remain

149: stable down to low energies if $R$-parity remains unbroken.

150: 

151: The constraints from the CMB data can be avoided if the cosmic strings

152: are unstable, or if no strings are formed at all. We note that this

153: only happens in rather specific models. The embedded strings arising

154: in GUT models in which $R$-parity is broken can be unstable, depending

155: on the particular model.  Strings can be made semi-local, and thus

156: unstable, by adding extra charged chiral multiplets \cite{ana2}, or by

157: assuming that the Higgs fields also transform non-trivially under some

158: non-Abelian group \cite{kallosh}. If the gauge symmetry is already

159: broken during inflation, there are no strings at all. This can be done

160: by either adding a non-renormalisable term in the superpotential

161: \cite{shifted}, extra GUT Higgs superfields \cite{shifted2}, or a

162: discrete symmetry \cite{smooth}.

163: 

164: 

165: In this paper we determine the parameter range for which standard

166: $F$-term inflation is compatible with CMB data.  The strings that form

167: at the end of GUT $F$-inflation do not satisfy the Bogomolny bound.

168: Therefore the string tension is a function of the Higgs and gauge

169: field masses. This is in contrast with the $F$-term inflation models

170: that emerge as an effective description of brane inflation

171: \cite{Pterm}, as the strings formed in these models do satisfy the

172: Bogomolny bound.  Note that SUSY is broken in the core of the strings

173: and hence there are fermionic zero modes solutions bounded to the

174: strings in the global SUSY case \cite{acd}. These zero modes disappear

175: when gravity is included \cite{sugrastr}. $F$-strings do not carry any

176: current and hence the tension and energy-per-unit-length of the strings

177: are equal \cite{sugrastr,maj}. Our work improves in two ways on the

178: existing literature~\cite{covi,shafi1,Rocher,mar}.  First of all,

179: for GUT strings we take the corrections to the string tension away

180: from the Bogomolny limit into account.  This enlarges the parameter

181: space.  Secondly, we include in a consistent manner all Supergravity

182: corrections to the potential.  To do so we assume general hidden

183: sector supersymmetry breaking.  Possible dissipative corrections are

184: also discussed.

185: 

186: The layout of this paper is as follows.  In the next section we

187: introduce the potential of standard $F$-term hybrid inflation, and

188: include all SUSY breaking and SUGRA corrections.  In section

189: \ref{s:CMB} we address the bounds on the symmetry breaking scale

190: implied by the data.  Apart from the ``10\%-bound'' mentioned at the

191: very beginning of this introduction, we also give the Kaiser-Stebbins

192: bound, and the bound coming from pulsar observations. The density

193: perturbations produced by hybrid inflation are discussed in section

194: \ref{s:perturbations}.  Setting them equal to the observed spectrum

195: gives the symmetry breaking scale $M$ as function of the

196: Higgs-inflaton coupling $\kappa$.  This allows to translate the

197: various bounds on $M$ in bounds on $\kappa$.  We derive an analytic

198: expression for $M(\kappa)$ in the limit where one term dominates the

199: potential.  However, our approximation breaks down in the large

200: coupling limit and numerical calculations are needed.  Our numerical

201: results are presented in section \ref{s:numerical}.  We discuss both

202: the constraints on GUT and on brane $F$-term inflation.  Finally, in

203: section \ref{s:warm} we discuss warm inflation, occurring when the the

204: inflaton or Higgs fields can decay during inflation and the

205: corresponding dissipative terms are important.  Dissipation can

206: ameliorate the CMB bounds.

207: 

208: 

209: \section{Hybrid inflation --- The potential}

210: \label{s:potential}

211: 

212: 

213: The superpotential for standard hybrid inflation is given by

214: \cite{Cop,Dvasha}

215: %

216: \be 

217: W_{\rm inf} = \kappa S( \phi_+ \phi_{-} - M^2),

218: \label{W}

219: \ee

220: %

221: with $S$ a gauge singlet superfield, and $\phi_+$, $\phi_-$ Higgs

222: superfields in complex conjugate representations of a gauge group G.

223: In this paper, we use the same notation for the superfield and their

224: scalar components. The coupling constant $\kappa$ and the symmetry

225: breaking scale $M$ can be taken real and positive without loss of

226: generality. The supersymmetric part of the scalar potential is given

227: by

228: %

229: \bea V_{\rm SUSY} &=& \sum_b \left| \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_b}

230: \right|^2 + \frac{g^2}{2} \sum_{a} \(\sum_{b} \phi_{b,i}^\dagger

231: t^{a,i}_j \phi_b^j\)^2

232: \nonumber \\

233: &=& \kappa^2 |\phi_+ \phi_- - M^2|^2 + \kappa^2

234: |S|^2(|\phi_+|^2+|\phi_-|^2) + V_D

235: \label{Vsusy}

236: \eea

237: %

238: where the sum $b$ is over all fields. $t^a_i$ are the generators of

239: $G$, $a=1...n$ where $n$ is the dimension of $G$, and $i,j = 1...\mcN$

240: where $\mcN$ is the dimension of the representation of the field

241: $\phi_b$.  In Eq.(\ref{Vsusy}) $\phi_-$ and $\phi_+$ refer to the

242: scalar components of the corresponding superfields which acquire a

243: VEV after inflation.  Vanishing of the $D$-terms enforces $|\phi_-| =

244: |\phi_+|$.  Assuming chaotic initial conditions the fields get trapped

245: in the inflationary valley of local minima at $|S| > S_c = M$ and

246: $\phi_- = \phi_+ = 0$, where $G$ is unbroken. The potential is

247: dominated by a constant term

248: %

249: \be

250: V_0 = \kappa^2 M^4

251: \label{V_0}

252: \ee

253: %

254: which drives inflation.  Inflation ends when the inflaton drops below

255: its critical value $S_c$ (or when the second slow-roll parameter

256: $\eta$ equals unity, whatever happens first) and the fields roll

257: toward the global SUSY minima of the potential $|\phi_+| = |\phi_-| =

258: M$ and $S=0$.  During this phase transition the gauge group $G$ is

259: spontaneously broken down to a subgroup $H$.  Cosmic strings form via

260: the Kibble mechanism if the vacuum manifold $G/H$ is simply connected

261: \cite{Kibble}.  If $G$ is embedded in a GUT theory, or $G = U(1)$ as

262: is the case in effective $D$-brane models, cosmic strings

263: form~\cite{prd,jrs}.

264: 

265: In the standard scenario the flatness of the tree level potential is

266: lifted by loop corrections \cite{Dvasha}.  These do not vanish during

267: inflation because $F_S \neq 0$ and SUSY is broken. The two scalar mass

268: eigenstates $\chi_\pm = 1/\sqrt{2}(\phi_+ \pm \phi_-)$ have masses

269: $m_\pm^2=\kappa^2(S^2 \pm M^2)$, while their fermionic superpartners

270: both have mass $\tilde{m}_\pm^2 = \kappa^2 S^2$. If the Higgs

271: representation is $\mcN$-dimensional, there are $\mcN$ such

272: mass-splitted double-pairs. The one loop correction to the potential

273: can be calculated using the Coleman-Weinberg formula \cite{CW} $V_{\rm

274: loop} = \frac{1}{64 \pi^2} \sum_i(-)^{F_i}\ M_i^4 \ln

275: \frac{M_i^2}{\Lambda^2}$, which for the superpotential in

276: Eq.~(\ref{W}) gives\footnote{When $|S|$ is very close to $\mpl$ there

277: are SUGRA corrections to the masses of the scalars and fermions which

278: enter the loop correction. However, as we shall see further, the loop

279: corrections dominate when $|S|$ is very close to $S_c \ll \mpl$, and

280: these corrections do no play any r\^ole.}  \cite{Dvasha}\\

281: %

282: \be

283: V_{\rm loop} 

284: = \frac{\kappa^4 M^4 \mcN}{32 \pi^2} \[

285: 2 \ln\(\frac{M^2 \kappa^2 z }{\Lambda^2}\) + (z+1)^2 \ln(1+z^{-1}) +

286: (z-1)^2 \ln (1-z^{-1}) \]

287: \label{V_loop}

288: \ee

289: %

290: with

291: %

292: \be

293: z = x^2 = \frac{|S|^2}{M^2}.

294: \ee

295: %

296: 

297: 

298: \subsection{SUGRA corrections}

299: 

300: In addition to $V_{\rm loop}$ there are SUGRA corrections to the

301: potential, i.e., corrections that vanish in the limit that the Planck

302: mass is taken to infinity and gravity decouples.  In any model that

303: aspires to describe the real world, there are two sources of SUSY

304: breaking: SUSY breaking by the finite energy density during inflation

305: and SUSY breaking in the true vacuum; the later is responsible for the

306: soft terms today. Both sources of breaking contribute to the SUGRA

307: corrections.  These corrections therefore depend on the particular

308: scenario for SUSY breaking at low energy and in particular on the

309: form of the hidden sector superpotential.

310: 

311: 

312: The superpotential gets a contribution from both the inflaton and

313: hidden sector potential $W_{\rm tot} = W_{\rm inf}(S,\phi_+,\phi_-) +

314: W_{\rm hid}(z)$.  In gauge mediated SUSY breaking models there is also

315: a contribution from the messenger sector and in general GUT models

316: from other GUT superfields. We assume that they do not couple to the

317: inflaton sector except gravitationnaly. The hidden sector expectation

318: values at the minimum of $V$ may generically be written as

319: %

320: \be

321: \langle z \rangle = a \mpl,

322: \qquad

323: \langle W_{\rm hid} \rangle = \mu \mpl^2,

324: \qquad

325: \langle \frac{\partial W_{\rm hid}}{\partial z} \rangle = c \mu \mpl,

326: \ee

327: %

328: with $\mpl = (8\pi G)^{-1/2} = 2.4 \times 10^{18} \GeV$ the reduced

329: Planck mass, $a,c$ dimensionless numbers, and $\mu$ a mass parameter

330: characterizing the VEV of the hidden-sector superpotential.  Setting

331: the cosmological constant to zero by hand ($\langle V \rangle = 0$

332: after inflation) requires tuning

333: %

334: \be

335: |c + a^*|^2 = 3.

336: \label{ac}

337: \ee

338: %

339: The scalar potential is

340: %

341: \be

342: V = \e^{K/\mpl^2} \left[ \sum_\alpha

343: \Big| \frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi_\alpha} 

344: + \frac{\phi_\alpha^* W}{\mpl^2} \Big|^2

345: - 3 \frac{|W|^2}{\mpl^2}

346: \right]

347: \label{Vsugra}

348: \ee

349: %

350: where the sum is over all fields.  We take minimal kinetic terms,

351: corresponding to a K\"ahler potential $K = \sum_\alpha

352: |\phi_\alpha|^2$.  The true vacuum gravitino mass is then given by

353: %

354: \be

355: m_{3/2} = \e^{|a|^2/2} \mu.

356: \ee

357: %

358: In gravity mediated SUSY breaking schemes $m_{3/2} \sim \TeV$ is of

359: the order of the soft mass terms, whereas it can be smaller in

360: gauge mediated schemes. 

361: 

362: 

363: During inflation when $|S|>S_c$ and the SUGRA $F$-term $F_\alpha =

364: \partial W_{\rm tot}/\partial \phi_\alpha + \frac{\phi_\alpha^* W_{\rm

365:     tot}}{\mpl^2} \neq 0$ for $\phi_\alpha = z,S$. This is the SUGRA

366: generalization of $F$-term SUSY breaking.   Following

367: Ref.~\cite{martin}, we rescale the visible sector superpotential

368: $W_{\rm inf} \to \e^{-|a|^2/2} W_{\rm inf}$ in order to recover from

369: Eq.~({\ref{Vsugra}) the properly normalized tree level potential in

370: the global limit given by Eq.~(\ref{Vsusy}), i.e, in the limit when $\mpl \to

371:   \infty$ and gravity decouples.

372: 

373: Expanding the exponential term in Eq.~(\ref{Vsugra}) in powers of

374: $|S|/ \mpl$, we find the SUGRA corrections to $V_{\rm SUSY}$

375: \footnote{We neglect higher order corrections to the K\"ahler and

376: super potential; we expect these terms to change the coefficients in

377: front of the various terms but not their qualitative structure. They

378: could also destabilise the VEV of the Higgs fields and we assume here

379: that they do not.}

380: %

381: \begin{equation}

382: V_{\rm SUGRA} = V_{\rm A} + V_{\rm m} + V_{\rm NR}.

383: \end{equation}

384: % 

385: The A-terms are of the form

386: %

387: \be 

388: V_A = 2 \kappa M^2 m_{3/2} |S| \cos (\arg \mu - \arg S) \(2 +

389: \frac{|S|^2}{\mpl^2} + ...\) \ee

390: %

391: with the ellipsis denoting higher powers of $|S|/\mpl$.  The

392: linear term is dominant. It is proportional to both the high and low

393: energy SUSY breaking scale.  This term was discussed in \cite{covi} in

394: the context of an explicit O'Raifeartaigh model, and more recently 

395: in \cite{shafi1}.

396: 

397: The mass term is of the form

398: %

399: \be

400: V_m = \( 3 H^2 (|a|^2 + ...)  - 2 m_{3/2}^2 \)|S|^2

401: \label{Vm}

402: \ee

403: %

404: where we have expanded the $\e^{|a|^2}$ in powers of $|a|$, which is

405: only valid for $|a| \ll 1$; the ellipsis denote higher order terms in

406: $|a|$. We will refer to the first term as the Hubble induced mass. The

407: second term, the vacuum soft mass term, is negligible small compared to

408: the other SUGRA contributions.  The Hubble parameter during inflation

409: is given by the Friedman equation: $H^2 =V/(3\mpl^2) \approx V_0

410: /(3\mpl^2)$.  There is no soft mass in the absence of low energy SUSY

411: breaking ($a \to 0, m_{3/2} \to 0$).  This is a consequence of taking

412: minimal K\"ahler, the zeroth order term $V_{m} \sim H^2 |S|^2$

413: cancels; this can be considered as fine tuning.

414: 

415: A scale invariant perturbation spectrum in agreement with observations

416: is obtained for sufficiently small slow roll parameter $|\eta| \sim

417: |m_S^2|/H^2 \lesssim 10^{-2}$ \cite{WMAP}, see Eq.~({\ref{slow_roll})

418: below.  For generic K\"ahler potential $\eta \sim 1$, which is the

419: infamous $\eta$-problem.  Scale invariance thus requires minimal K\"ahler

420: potential (or close to it) to cancel to the zeroth order Hubble

421: induced mass term proportional to $|a|^0$, and $|a| \lesssim 0.1$ to

422: cancel the higher order terms proportional to $|a|^{2n}$ as given in

423: Eq.~(\ref{Vm}). This last requirement excludes the simplest Polonyi

424: model $W_{\rm hid} = M_s^2(\beta +z)$ with $z = \mcO

425: (1)\mpl$.~\footnote{The Hubble induced mass term in Eq.~(\ref{Vm})

426: comes from an expansion of $\e^{K/\mpl^2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Vsugra}) to

427: second order in the fields; this term is missed in \cite{covi}.}

428: 

429: 

430: 

431: The non-renormalisable SUGRA terms are of the form

432: %

433: \be V_{NR} = {1\over 2} ({3}H^2 - m_{3/2}^2) |S|^2 \(

434: \frac{|S|^2}{\mpl^2} + ...\) \ee

435: %

436: with the ellipsis denoting higher order terms in $|S|^2/\mpl^2$.  The

437: Hubble induced term dominates. They have been discussed before

438: \cite{sugra}.

439: 

440: How generic are the above SUGRA corrections?  We assume minimal

441: K\"ahler potential and general hidden sector SUSY breaking.  A

442: non-minimal K\"ahler potential would generically be catastrophic, as

443: it means a large Hubble induced mass impeding slow roll inflation.

444: The hidden sector is characterized by the scale $m_{3/2}$ and the

445: dimensionless constant $|a|$. The A-terms are small for a small

446: gravitino mass, as can occur in gauge mediated SUSY breaking where

447: $m_{3/2} \ll \TeV$ is possible.  The Hubble induced mass term does not

448: depend on the gravitino mass; its effect can only be decreased by

449: taking $a \ll 1$.  Note that this entails a large hierarchy between

450: the dimensionless hidden sector parameters $a$ and $c$, see

451: Eq.~(\ref{ac}), implying some sort of fine tuning.  The

452: non-renormalisable term is independent of the SUSY breaking sector,

453: and is generic. If SUSY breaking in the true vacuum occurs after

454: inflation, i.e., $z$ only acquires its VEV after inflation, then

455: $\mu,\;a \to 0$: the mass and $A$-terms are absent, but the NR terms

456: are still there.\\

457: 

458: 

459: 

460: 

461: \noindent

462: The scalar potential including all corrections then is 

463: %

464: \be

465: V = V_{\rm SUSY} + V_{\rm loop} + V_{\rm SUGRA}.

466: \ee

467: %

468: During inflation $V_{\rm SUSY} \approx V_0 =\kappa^2 M^4$, and the

469: potential reads

470: %

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: V &=& 

473: \kappa^2 M^4 \bigg[ 1 + \frac{\kappa^2  \mcN}{32 \pi^2} \Big[

474: 2 \ln\(\frac{\kappa^2 |S^2| }{\Lambda^2}\) + (z+1)^2 \ln(1+z^{-1}) 

475: \nonumber\\ 

476: &+&

477: (z-1)^2 \ln (1-z^{-1}) \Big] +  {1\over 2}  {|S|^2\over m_p^2} \Big(

478: \frac{|S|^2}{\mpl^2} + ...\Big) 

479: +  \Big(|a|^2 + ...\Big) {|S|^2\over m_p^2} \bigg] 

480: \nonumber \\

481: &+& 2 

482: \kappa M^2 m_{3/2} |S| \cos (\arg \mu - \arg S) \Big(2 +

483: \frac{|S|^2}{\mpl^2} + ...\Big),

484: \end{eqnarray}

485: %

486: where we have omitted in $V_{\rm NR}$ and $V_{\rm m}$ the gravitino

487: mass dependent terms which are negligible during inflation in the

488: parameter range of interest.  Keeping only the dominant terms and

489: expressing everything in terms of the real inflaton field $\sigma =

490: \sqrt{2}|S|$ gives

491: %

492: \begin{eqnarray}

493: V 

494: &=& 

495: \kappa^2 M^4 \bigg[ 1 + \frac{\kappa^2  \mcN}{32 \pi^2} \Big[

496: 2 \ln\(\frac{2 \kappa^2 \sigma^2}{\Lambda^2}\) + (z+1)^2 \ln(1+z^{-1}) 

497: \nonumber \\ 

498: &+&

499: (z-1)^2 \ln (1-z^{-1}) \Big] + {\sigma^4\over 8 m_p^4}  

500: +  {|a|^2 \sigma^2\over 2 m_p^2} \bigg] 

501: \nonumber\\

502: &+& 

503: \kappa  A m_{3/2} M^2  \sigma 

504: \end{eqnarray}

505: %

506: where $A= 2 \sqrt{2} \cos(\arg \mu - \arg S)$. Here we have assumed

507: that $\arg S$ is constant during inflation. Further, $z= x^2 =

508: {|S|^2}/M^2 = \sigma^2 /(2M^2)$ so that $z=x=1$ when $\sigma =

509: \sigma_c$.

510: 

511: %$V \approx V_0 = \kappa^2 M^4$

512: 

513: %$V_{\rm loop} = \frac{\kappa^4 M^4 \mcN}{32 \pi^2} \[

514: %2 \ln\(\frac{M^2 \kappa^2 z }{\Lambda^2}\) + (z+1)^2 \ln(1+z^{-1}) +

515: %(z-1)^2 \ln (1-z^{-1}) \]$

516: 

517: %$V_A = 2 \kappa M^2 m_{3/2} |S| \cos (\arg \mu - \arg S) \(2 +

518: %\frac{|S|^2}{\mpl^2} + ...\)$

519: 

520: %$V_m = \( 3 H^2 (|a|^2 + ...)  - 2 m_{3/2}^2 \)|S|^2$

521: 

522: %$ V_{NR} = {1\over 2} ({3}H^2 - m_{3/2}^2) |S|^2 \(

523: %\frac{|S|^2}{\mpl^2} + ...\)$

524: 

525: 

526: 

527: 

528: \section{CMB constraints}

529: \label{s:CMB}

530: 

531: \subsection{String tension}

532: 

533: SUSY is broken in the core of the strings which form at the end of

534: SUSY inflation and hence there are fermionic zero modes solutions

535: bounded to the strings in the global SUSY case \cite{acd}.  These zero

536: modes disappear when gravity is included \cite{sugrastr}.  $F$-strings

537: do not carry any current and hence the tension and energy-per-unit

538: length of the strings are equal \cite{sugrastr,maj}.  

539: 

540: Cosmic strings satisfying the Bogomolny bound have a tension $\mu = 2

541: \pi M^2$, with $M$ the VEV of the string Higgs fields far away from

542: the string.  The strings forming at the end of $F$-term inflation do

543: not satisfy this bound, and there are corrections to the simple

544: formula above, which depend on the ratio of the common Higgs mass

545: $m_\phi$ to the string's gauge boson mass $m_A$ \cite{Hill,ShelVil}

546: %

547: \be 

548: \mu = 2 \pi M^2 \epsilon(\beta) 

549: \label{mu}

550: \ee

551: %

552: where $\beta = (m_\phi / m_A)^2$. $m_\phi = \kappa M$ with $\kappa$

553: the superpotential coupling constant and $m_A$ is given in terms of

554: gauge coupling constant $g$; the exact relation depends on the

555: dimension and on the transformation properties of the representations

556: of the Higgs fields $\phi_+$ and $\phi_-$. $m_A = \sqrt{2} g M$ for

557: $\mcN =1$. In GUT models $g^2  \simeq 4\pi/25$ and $m_A \simeq

558: M$. In this paper we shall use $m_A \simeq 1$ unless stated otherwise.

559: In the Bogomolny limit $\epsilon(1) = 1$.  From Ref.~\cite{Hill}

560: %

561: \be

562: \epsilon(\beta) \approx \left \{

563: \begin{array}{lll}

564: 1.04  \beta^{0.195}, & \qquad \beta > 10^{-2}, \\

565: {\displaystyle \frac{2.4}{ \log(2/\beta)}}, & \qquad \beta < 10^{-2}.

566: \end{array}

567: \right.

568: \label{epsilon}

569: \ee

570: %

571: For $m_A \simeq M$,  $\beta$ varies from $1$ to $10^{-12}$ as

572: $\kappa$ goes from $1$ to $10^{-6}$, and thus $\mu$ changes by a

573: factor $\sim 20$.  In Fig.~\ref{F:eps} we plotted $\epsilon(\beta)$ as

574: function of $\kappa$ for $m_A = M$.  For $\kappa \sim 10^{-2}$ the

575: bound on $\mu$, discussed below, is weaker by a factor $4$ if

576: $\epsilon(\beta)$ is taken into account.

577: 

578: 

579: \begin{figure}

580: \begin{center}

581: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{eps.eps}

582: \caption{ $\epsilon(\beta)$ vs. $\kappa$ for $m_A \simeq M$.}

583: \label{F:eps}

584: \end{center}

585: \end{figure}

586: 

587: 

588: 

589: \subsection{Bounds from CMB}

590: 

591: Cosmological perturbations from inflation and strings in hybrid models

592: are proportional to the same scale $M$. They are uncorrelated and thus

593: the multipole moments of the CMB power spectrum just add up

594: \cite{prd}. The proportionality coefficients depend on the GUT

595: parameters and on the normalised contribution of each component

596: \cite{prd}. Cosmic strings do not predict the acoustic peaks which

597: have been measured in CMB experiments and hence their contribution

598: should be rather small, less than 10\% at the $3\sigma$ level

599: \cite{Pogosian}. The contribution from cosmic strings depends on the

600: mass-per-unit-length $\mu$ and on the density properties of the string

601: network at last scattering. No full field theoretic simulations exist

602: and hence no robust prediction of the full power spectrum can be made

603: right now.  The model parameters can be constrained, but only up to

604: the uncertainties of the simulations.

605: 

606: 

607: 

608: The cosmic string contribution to the quadrupole is given by

609: %

610: \be

611: \( \frac{\delta T}{T} \)_{\rm cs} = y G \mu;

612: \label{y}

613: \ee

614: %

615: the parameter $y$ depends on the simulation. Recent work predicts

616: $y=8.9$ \cite{Landriau}.  The error margin they quote gives a range $y

617: = 6.7 - 11.6$.  Older simulations give $y = 6$~\cite{Allen}, and

618: semi-analytic approximations give $y = 3 -6$~\cite{approx}.

619: 

620: 

621: %Normalising the string contribution to CMB data gives an upper bound

622: %on $G\mu$. 

623: 

624: The quadrupole measured by COBE (which coincides with WMAP

625: data) is \cite{WMAP,COBE}

626: %

627: \be \(\frac{\delta T}{T}\)_{\rm COBE} = 6.6 \times 10^{-6}.

628: \label{cobe}

629: \ee

630: %h

631: The cosmic string contribution to the quadrupole is

632: given by

633: %

634: \be 

635: B = \Big| \frac{(\delta T/T)_{\rm cs}} 

636: {({\delta T}/{T})_{\rm COBE}} \Big|^2.  

637: \label{B}

638: \ee

639: %

640: The analysis of Ref.~\cite{Pogosian} gives the bound $B < 0.1$, i.e.,

641: a string contribution less than 10\%.  Using Eqs.({\ref{y}) and

642: (\ref{mu}) this implies 

643: %

644: \be

645: G \mu < 6.9 \times 10^{-7} \( \frac{3}{y} \) 

646: \quad \Rightarrow \quad

647: M_{str} < 4.1 \times 10^{15} 

648: \sqrt{\frac{(3/y)}{\epsilon(\beta)}}.

649: \label{Pogosian}

650: \ee

651: %

652: In our numerical simulations we will use the conservative value $y=3$.

653: The bound on $M$ is a factor $\sqrt{3}$ stronger for $y =9$, the value

654: suggested by the most recent simulations.

655: 

656: If there are extra dimensions the string reconnection probability $p$

657: (the probability that two strings reconnect when they pass through

658: each other), which is one for four dimensional gauge theory solitons,

659: can be less than unity~\cite{polchinski,dvali}. The result is that more

660: energy is stored in the string network at a given time, and thus the

661: constraint on the string scale in Eq.~(\ref{Pogosian}) becomes tighter

662: by a factor $\sqrt{p}$ \cite{Pogosian}.

663: 

664: 

665: Strings can also influence the CMB pattern after the time of last

666: scattering, through the Kaiser-Stebbins effect~\cite{stebbins}.  If a

667: moving string is traversing the photons coming towards us this will

668: give rise to a step-like discontinuity on small angular scales, the

669: step size being proportional to the mass-per-unit-length of the

670: string. The absence of such a discontinuity gives the bound \cite{Smoot} 

671: %

672: \be G \mu < 3.3 \times 10^{-7} \quad \Rightarrow \quad M < \frac{2.8

673:   \times 10^{15}}{ \sqrt{\epsilon(\beta)}}

674: \label{smoot}

675: \ee

676: %

677: The Kaiser-Stebbins(KS)-bound is stronger than the 10\%-bound for $y <

678: 6.3$.  The KS-bound depends less on the evolution of the

679: string network, i.e., on the results of numerical simulations; in this

680: sense it is a much stronger bound.

681: 

682: Finally, the string scale can be bounded by constraining the

683: stochastic gravitational wave background produced by the string

684: network~\cite{ShelVil}.  Such a background would distort the regularity

685: of pulsar timing. No such distortion has been observed~\cite{Lommen},

686: which translates to

687: %

688: \be

689: G \mu < 1 \times10^{-7}

690: \quad \Rightarrow \quad

691: M <  \frac{1.5 \times 10^{15}}{\sqrt{\epsilon(\beta)}}. \label{pulsar}

692: \ee

693: %

694: Although the pulsar-bound is the most stringent of the three, it is

695: also the one with the largest uncertainties.  Due to the huge range of

696: scales involved, one of the least certain aspects of cosmic string

697: dynamics is the long term evolution of small scale structure.  And it

698: is this small scale structure that governs the gravitational

699: radiation.  

700: 

701: In our simulations, we shall use the three different bounds given in

702: Eqs.({\ref{Pogosian}), (\ref{smoot}) and (\ref{pulsar}).  In our

703: analytic formulas we will use $M < M_{\rm CMB} \approx 3 \times

704: 10^{15} \GeV$, which corresponds to the KS-bound.

705: 

706: 

707: 

708: Before closing this section, we would like to mention that a lensing

709: event consistent with a cosmic string has been reported recently

710: \cite{sazhin}.  Further observation is needed to determine whether the

711: lensing is indeed string induced. Such a string would have

712: %

713: \be

714: G \mu \simeq 4 \times10^{-7}

715: \quad \Rightarrow \quad

716: M \simeq  \frac{3 \times 10^{15}}{\sqrt{\epsilon(\beta)}}.

717: \ee

718: %

719: to produce the observed image separation. If it is indeed a cosmic

720: string, we are on the verge of seeing it in the CMB data.

721: 

722: 

723: \section{Density perturbations}

724: \label{s:perturbations}

725: 

726: We recall here the important formulae for the density perturbations

727: \cite{LythLid}. The number of e-foldings before the end of inflation

728: is

729: %

730: \be N_Q = \int_{\sigma_{\rm end}}^{\sigma_Q} \frac{1}{\mpl^2}

731: \frac{V}{V'} \dd \sigma

732: \label{N_Q}

733: \ee

734: %

735: where the prime denotes derivative with respect to the normalised real

736: scalar field $\sigma \equiv \sqrt{2}|S|$, and the subscript $Q$

737: denotes the time observable scales leave the horizon, which happens

738: $N_Q \approx 60$ $e$-folds before the end of inflation.  $\sigma_{\rm

739: end}$ is the inflaton VEV when inflation ends, which is either the

740: critical point where the Higgs mass becomes tachyonic $\sigma_{\rm

741: end} = \sigma_c = \sqrt{2}M$, or the value for which one of the slow

742: roll parameters

743: %

744: \be

745: \epsilon = \frac 12 \mpl^2 \(\frac{V'}{V}\)^2,

746: \qquad \qquad

747: \eta = \mpl^2 \(\frac{V''}{V}\),

748: \label{slow_roll}

749: \ee

750: %

751: exceeds unity.  For hybrid inflation $\epsilon \ll \eta$ and can be

752: neglected.  The second slow roll parameter $\eta$ blows up in the

753: limit $x \to 1$ (as a consequence of the field $\chi_- = (\phi_+ -

754: \phi_-)/\sqrt{2}$ becoming massless), and thus determines the end of

755: inflation.  As we will see, for small enough coupling $\sigma_{\rm

756: end} \approx \sigma_c$. The inflaton contribution to the CMB

757: quadrupole anisotropy is

758: %

759: \be

760: \( \frac{\delta T }{T} \)_{\rm inf}

761: %= \frac{1}{12 \sqrt{10} \pi \mpl^2} \sqrt{\frac{V}{\epsilon}}

762: = \frac{1}{12\sqrt{5} \pi \mpl^3} \frac{V^{3/2}}{V'},

763: \label{dTphi}

764: \ee

765: %

766: evaluated at $\sigma = \sigma_Q$.  The tensor contribution $( {\delta

767: T}/{T} )_{\rm tens} \approx 0.03 H_*/\mpl $ is small, and can be

768: neglected.  The total anisotropy is

769: %

770: \be

771: \( \frac{\delta T }{T} \) =

772: \sqrt{

773: \( \frac{\delta T }{T} \)_{\rm inf}^2

774: + \( \frac{\delta T }{T} \)_{\rm cs}^2+ 

775:  \( \frac{\delta T }{T} \)_{\rm s}

776: } 

777: \label{dTtot}

778: \ee

779: %

780: Here we have included a possible contribution from a scalar field

781: different from the inflaton, denoted by $(\delta T/T)_{\rm s}$.  This

782: term can be important if alternative mechanisms for density

783: perturbation are at work, as is the case in the

784: curvaton~\cite{curvaton} and inhomogeneous reheat scenario~\cite{irs}.

785: In these scenarios the fluctuations of the curvaton field respectively

786: the field modulating the inflaton decay rate gives the dominant

787: contribution to the density perturbations.  We define

788: %

789: \be

790: \delta_C = 

791: \frac{ (\delta T /T)_{\rm inf} + (\delta T /T)_{\rm cs}}

792: {(\delta T /T)_{\rm COBE}}.

793: \label{deltaC}

794: \ee

795: %

796: If the inflaton sector including cosmic strings is the only source of

797: perturbations $\delta_C =1$, whereas $\delta_C \ll 1$ in the curvaton

798: and inhomogeneous reheat scenario.  Note that the curvaton scenario in

799: its simplest form can only work for $H \sim \sqrt{V_0 / \mpl^2}

800: \gtrsim 10^7 \GeV$~\cite{lyth,postma}.

801: 

802: Finally, the spectral index is given by

803: %

804: \be

805: n_s - 1 = - 6 \epsilon + 2 \eta

806: \label{spectral}

807: \ee

808: %

809: WMAP bounds $n_s = 0.99 \pm 0.04$~\cite{WMAP}.

810: 

811: The potential energy $V_0$ dominates and drives inflation.  The

812: amplitude of the density perturbations is set by $V'$.  The spectral

813: index is determined by the second derivative $V''$.  The strategy to

814: compute the perturbation spectrum is the following. First determine

815: the inflaton VEV when inflation ends from the condition

816: $|\eta(\sigma_{\rm end})| =1$.  Then use Eq.~(\ref{N_Q}) to find the

817: inflaton VEV when observable scales leave the horizon $\sigma_Q$.

818: Finally, compute the quadrupole using Eqs.~(\ref{dTphi},\ref{dTtot})

819: evaluated at $\sigma = \sigma_Q$.  Setting the quadrupole equal to the

820: observed COBE value gives the symmetry breaking scale $M$ as a

821: function of the superpotential coupling $\kappa$.

822: 

823: In various regions of the parameter space, various corrections

824: dominate.  An analytic approximation to the perturbation spectrum is

825: then possible in the small coupling limit (where $x_{end} \approx x_Q

826: \approx 1$), as we will discuss now.

827: 

828: 

829: \subsection{The loop regime}

830: 

831: Assume first that the loop potential $V_{\rm loop}$ dominates.  The

832: derivative of the potential, which is needed for both the

833: determination of $N_Q$ and $\delta T/T$, is \cite{Dvasha}

834: %

835: \be

836: V'_{\rm loop} = \frac{\kappa^4 M^3 \mcN}{8 \sqrt{2} \pi^2} x f(x^2),

837: \ee

838: with

839: \be

840: f(z) = (z+1) \ln (1+z^{-1}) + (z-1) \ln (1-z^{-1}).

841: \ee

842: %

843: Recall that in hybrid inflation the first slow roll parameter is

844: negligible with respect to the second $\epsilon \ll \eta$. To

845: determine the end of inflation we calculate the $x$-value for which

846: $|\eta|$ becomes unity. The loop contribution to $\eta$ is

847: %

848: \be

849: \eta_{\rm loop} = \frac{\kappa^2 \mcN}{16\pi^2} 

850: \( \frac{\mpl}{M}\)^2 g(x^2)

851: \label{eta_l}

852: \ee

853: %

854: with  

855: %

856: \be

857: g(z) =(3z+1) \ln(1+z^{-1}) +  (3z-1) \ln(1-z^{-1}). 

858: \ee

859: %

860: 

861: If $x \gg 1$, $g(x^2) \simeq -3 x^{-2} + \mcO(x^{-4})$ which implies

862: that $x_{\rm end} = \sqrt{3\mcN/(16\pi^2)} \kappa (\mpl/M)$.  This is

863: the regime where the inflaton VEV during inflation is large, and

864: consequently the non-renormalisable potential $V_{\rm NR}$ becomes

865: important.  For this reason, we will not discuss it any further.

866: 

867: The above expression breaks down for small enough coupling $\kappa

868: \lesssim 7/\sqrt{\mcN} (M/\mpl) \lesssim 10^{-2}/\sqrt{\mcN}$, (in the

869: last step we used $M \sim 10^{16} \GeV$, from Eq.~(\ref{M_l}) below)

870: and $x_{\rm end}$ approaches unity. Using $x_{\rm end} = 1$ in

871: Eq.~(\ref{N_Q}) we find

872: %

873: \be

874: N_Q = \frac{16 \pi^2}{k^2 \mcN} \( \frac{M}{\mpl}\)^2 

875: \int_1^{x_Q} \frac{1}{xf(x)} \dd x

876: \ee

877: %

878: In the limit where the factor in front of the integral ${16

879: \pi^2}/(k^2 \mcN) ({M}/{\mpl})^2 \gg N_Q$, the integral has to be much

880: less than unity which requires $x_Q \to x_{\rm end} \approx 1$.  We

881: conclude that we can approximate

882: %

883: \be

884: x_Q \approx x_{\rm end} \approx 1, 

885: \qquad 

886: {\rm for} \;\;\kappa \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{16 \pi^2}{N_Q \mcN}} 

887: \( \frac{M}{\mpl} \) = \frac{10^{-2}-10^{-3}}{\sqrt{\mcN}}.

888: \label{approx_x}

889: \ee

890: %

891: The inflaton VEV during inflation is always small, and NR terms can be

892: negligible.  Using $x_Q \approx 1$ in the expression for the

893: fluctuations Eq.~(\ref{dTphi}), and setting it equal to the observed

894: value, allows to extract $M$

895: %

896: \be

897: M_{\rm loop} 

898: = 2 \times 10^{-2} (\delta_C \mcN \kappa)^{1/3} \mpl,

899: \label{M_l}

900: \ee

901: %

902: where the subscript $loop$ is a reminder that this formula is valid in

903: the domain where the loop potential is the dominant term in $V'$.  The

904: parameter $\delta_C$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{deltaC}) gives the

905: normalised contribution of the inflaton sector including cosmic

906: strings to the CMB. If the inflaton sector including cosmic strings is

907: the only source of perturbations $\delta_C =1$, whereas $\delta_C \ll

908: 1$ in the curvaton and inhomogeneous reheat scenario.  The tensor

909: perturbations are negligible, and in the parameter space of interest,

910: also the string contribution is small, $B< 10\%$.

911: 

912: In the loop dominated regime $M$ is a single valued function of

913: $\kappa$, given by Eq.~(\ref{M_l}).  This expression is valid in the

914: small coupling regime $\kappa < 10^{-2} - 10^{-3}/\sqrt{N}$, where it

915: is a good approximation to ignore the string contribution to the CMB,

916: and where $x_Q \approx 1$ is valid.  

917: 

918: 

919: The CMB constraint $M_{\rm loop} < M_{\rm CMB} \approx 3\times

920: 10^{15}/\sqrt{\epsilon(\beta)}$ discussed in section~\ref{s:CMB}

921: implies

922: %

923: \be

924: \kappa <

925: 2 \times 10^{-4} \frac{1}{\delta_C \mcN \epsilon(\beta)^{3/2}}.

926: \label{range}

927: \ee

928: %

929: Taking into account $\epsilon(\beta)$ --- the correction to the

930: mass-per-unit-length away from the Bogomolny bound --- weakens the

931: bounds on the coupling compared to an analysis in which this

932: correction is ignored, as was done in Ref.~\cite{Rocher}.  This

933: correction changes the bound by a factor $\epsilon(\beta)^{-3/2} \sim

934: 10$ to $\kappa \lesssim 10^{-3}$, where we have used that $\epsilon

935: \sim 1/5$ for $\kappa \sim 10^{-3}$.  Note, however, that the analytic

936: approximation breaks down in this limit, and one has to go to

937: numerical calculations for a more precise bound.

938: 

939: 

940: $V_{\rm loop}$ is always present. At small coupling it decreases

941: rapidly ($\propto \kappa^4$) and $V_A,V_m,V_{\rm NR}$ can become

942: dominant.  In the large coupling regime $S \to \mpl$ and $V_{\rm NR}$

943: dominates.  Note that in the regimes where other contributions

944: dominate, the mass scale $M$ is higher than it would be in the

945: presence of just the loop potential, and the CMB constraints are

946: stronger.  The reason is that $(\delta T/T) \propto M^6/V'$, and thus

947: the larger $V'$ the larger $M$ is needed to obtain the observed

948: temperature anisotropy.

949: 

950: 

951: \subsection{The non-renormalisable SUGRA regime}

952: \label{s:VNR}

953: 

954: The non-renormalisable corrections dominate over the loop corrections

955: for density perturbations if $V'_{\rm NR} > V'_{\rm loop}$, when

956: %

957: \be

958: \frac{x^2}{f(x^2)} > \frac{\kappa^2 \mcN}{16\pi^2} 

959: \(\frac{\mpl}{M}\)^4.

960: \ee

961: %

962: There are two regimes where this inequality is satisfied.  The first

963: is when the inflaton VEV, and thus $x$, is large during inflation.

964: For $x\gg1$ the term $x^2/f(x^2) \to x^4$ and the l.h.s. of the above

965: equation is large. For very small $\kappa$ the r.h.s. becomes small,

966: and this is the other regime where the NR potential can become

967: important.

968: 

969: First consider the large coupling regime where $x\gg 1$. The

970: contribution of $V_{NR}$ to $\eta$ is $\eta_{NR}= 3 (M/\mpl)^2 x^2$.

971: The slow roll parameter exceeds unity for large $x$ and drops below

972: one when $x = 1/\sqrt{3} (\mpl/M)$. Thus inflation can only happen for

973: $\sigma = \sqrt{2} M x < (2/3)^{1/2} m_p$.  At still lower $x$, the

974: loop potential starts dominating $\eta$; inflation ends when

975: $\eta_{\rm loop}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eta_l}) becomes unity.  Hence

976: %

977: \be

978: 0.2 \mpl \sqrt{\mcN} \kappa = \sigma_{\rm end} < \sigma_Q 

979: < 8 \times 10^{-2}  \mpl

980: \label{bound_xq}

981: \ee 

982: %

983: where for the upper bound we used that $|\eta| < 10^{-2}$ when

984: observable scales leave the horizon, to assure scale invariance, as

985: given by WMAP data \cite{WMAP}. Both inequalities together give the

986: upper upper bound $\kappa < {0.5}/{\mcN}$ obtained in the limit

987: $x_Q\to x_{\rm end}$.  One should realize however, that 60 e-folds

988: should pass when the inflaton rolls from $x_Q$ to $x_{\rm end}$, and

989: they cannot be taken arbitrarily close together.

990: 

991: An analytical approximation in the large coupling regime is hard

992: because of a non-trivial expression for $\sigma_Q$, and because the

993: string contribution to the CMB becomes important.  However, in the

994: range where non-renormalisable corrections dominate, the scale $M$ is

995: higher than $M_{\rm loop}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{M_l}), which is excluded

996: by CMB measurements, i.e., by the requirement $M < M_{\rm CMB}$. The

997: spectral index is

998: %

999: \be 

1000: n - 1 \simeq  2 \eta 

1001: = - {3 \sigma_Q^2\over \mpl^2} 

1002: +  {3\kappa^2 \mcN \mpl^2 \over 4 \pi^2 \sigma_Q^2}; 

1003: \label{nNR}

1004: \ee

1005: %

1006: it goes from negative to positive as the non-renormalisable

1007: contribution comes to dominate. The running of the spectral index is

1008: small \cite{run} : $\dd n/\dd\ln \kappa \sim -10^{-3}$.

1009: 

1010: 

1011: In the small coupling regime where $\kappa < 3 /\sqrt{\mcN}

1012: (M/\mpl)^2$ the NR potential dominates over the loop potential.  As

1013: before, for small $\kappa$ it is a good approximation to take $x_Q

1014: \approx x_{\rm end} \approx 1$ (see Eq.~(\ref{approx_x})).  Then

1015: Eq.~(\ref{dTphi}) gives

1016: %

1017: \be

1018: M_{\rm NR} = 

1019: 3 \times 10^{14} \GeV \( \frac{\kappa}{10^{-7}} \) W^{-1/2}

1020: \label{M_NR}

1021: \ee

1022: %

1023: 

1024: 

1025: 

1026: \begin{figure}

1027: \begin{center}

1028: \leavevmode\epsfysize=7cm \epsfbox{dT.eps}

1029: \caption{$\delta_C$ vs. $M$ for $\kappa =10^{-6}$ and $\mcN =1$.}

1030: \label{F:dT}

1031: \end{center}

1032: \end{figure}

1033: 

1034: It is possible to have for one value of $\kappa$ several solutions for

1035: $M$, which all produce the correct density perturbations.  The reason

1036: is that for fixed $\kappa$, by varying $M$, different contributions

1037: dominate the density perturbations.  At small $M$ the loop potential

1038: dominates and $(\delta T/T) \propto M^3$, at larger $M$ the NR

1039: contribution becomes important and $(\delta T/T) \propto M^{-1}$, and

1040: at still larger $M$ the main contribution comes from cosmic strings

1041: and $(\delta T/T) \propto M^2$.  An example is given in

1042: Fig.~\ref{F:dT}, where we have plotted the $\delta_C$ --- the

1043: temperature fluctuation normalized by the COBE value as defined in

1044: Eq.~(\ref{deltaC}) --- as a function of $M$ for $\kappa = 10^{-6}$.

1045: The maximum $M_1$ corresponds to the mass scale where $V'_{\rm loop} =

1046: V'_{\rm NR}$, whereas the minimum $M_2$ corresponds to the scale where

1047: $(\delta T/T)_{\rm inf} = (\delta T/T)_{\rm cs}$.  Now

1048: %

1049: \bea

1050: M_1 &=& 0.3 \kappa^{1/2} \mcN^{1/4} \mpl \nonumber \\

1051: M_2 &=& 0.3 \( \frac{0.9}{y \epsilon} \)^{1/3} \kappa^{1/3} \mpl

1052: \eea

1053: %

1054: where in the second line we have used that $\epsilon \sim 10^{-1}$ for

1055: small $\kappa$. For simplicity we have set $\delta_C=1$, and assume

1056: that no alternative mechanism for density perturbations such as the

1057: curvaton scenario is at work. We will return to this point at the end

1058: of the subsection. We define $\kappa_1$ the coupling for which

1059: $\delta_C(M_1) =1$, $\kappa_2$ the coupling for which $\delta_C ( M_2)

1060: =1$.

1061: %

1062: \bea 

1063: \kappa_1 &=& 6\times 10^{-8} \mcN^{1/2}

1064: \nonumber \\ 

1065: \kappa_2 &=& 4\times 10^{-6} \( \frac{0.9}{y \epsilon}\)^{1/2} 

1066: \eea

1067: %

1068: There are then 3 possibilities.

1069: \begin{enumerate}

1070: \item {$\delta_C(M_1)>1$ and $\delta_C(M_2)>1 \quad

1071: \Longleftrightarrow \quad \kappa > \kappa_1,\;\kappa_2$}\\ There is

1072: only one solution $M(\kappa)$ for which the loop potential

1073: dominates. It is given by $M_{\rm loop}$ in Eq.~(\ref{M_l}). Note that

1074: at still larger coupling the contribution from NR terms and strings

1075: kick in again.

1076: %

1077: \item {$\delta_C(M_1)>1$ and $\delta_C(M_2)<1 \quad

1078: \Longleftrightarrow \quad \kappa_2> \kappa > \kappa_1$}\\ There are

1079: three solutions.  One at low scale where the loop potential dominates

1080: and $M$ is given by $M_{\rm loop}$ of Eq.~(\ref{M_l}), a middle one

1081: where NR terms dominate and $M$ is given by $M_{\rm NR}$ of

1082: Eq.~(\ref{M_NR}), and one at high scale which is dominated by string

1083: contributions.  The latter solution is excluded by CMB data.

1084: %

1085: \item {$\delta_C(M_1)<1$ and $\delta_C(M_2)<1\quad \Longleftrightarrow

1086: \quad \kappa < \kappa_1,\;\kappa_2$}\\ There is one solution,

1087: dominated by the string contribution. This solution is excluded by CMB

1088: data.

1089: \end{enumerate}

1090: 

1091: 

1092: Note that $\kappa > \kappa_1,\kappa_2$ is a lower bound on the

1093: coupling to be consistent with CMB data.  Thus in the presence of NR

1094: terms, the coupling cannot be arbitrarily small.  The minimum mass

1095: scale is $M_{\rm min} = M_{\rm loop}(\kappa_1) =2 \times 10^{14}

1096: \sqrt{\mcN} $.

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \begin{figure}

1100: \begin{center}

1101: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{ns.eps}

1102: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1$.}

1103: \label{F:ns}

1104: \end{center}

1105: \end{figure}

1106: 

1107: 

1108: The above discussion is illustrated by the numerical results shown in

1109: Fig.~\ref{F:ns}.  Matching the quadrupole to the observed value gives

1110: $M$ as a function of $\kappa$. The result with $V_{\rm loop}$, $V_{\rm

1111: NR}$ and the string contribution all turned on is given by the solid

1112: line.  Also plotted are the result with $V_{\rm NR}$ turned off

1113: (dashed line) and with the string contribution turned off (dotted

1114: line).  Consider the full solution, the solid line.  At large coupling

1115: both the NR and string contribution are important.  There is no

1116: solution for arbitrarily large $\kappa$, in agreement with the

1117: discussion below Eq.~(\ref{bound_xq}). Going to smaller coupling, the

1118: loop potential starts to dominate and $x_Q \to 1$: the solution is a

1119: straight line as given by $M_{\rm loop}$ in Eq.~(\ref{M_l}).  The

1120: solution $M_{\rm loop}$ extends at low coupling until $\kappa =

1121: \kappa_1 \sim 5 \times 10^{-7}$.  The second branch, where NR terms

1122: dominate, is between $5 \times 10^{-7} \sim \kappa_1 < \kappa

1123: <\kappa_2 \sim 5 \times 10^{-6}$.  The upper branch is string

1124: dominated and excluded by CMB data.  In the presence of NR terms

1125: agreement with the CMB requires $\kappa > \kappa_1$ and $M_{\rm min}

1126: \sim 4 \times 10^{14}< M_{CMB}$.

1127: 

1128: 

1129: Let us now briefly return to the possibility that alternative

1130: mechanisms for density perturbations are at work and $\delta_C \ll

1131: 1$. As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{F:dT}, for small $\delta_C$ there is

1132: only one solution which is dominated by the loop contribution, and

1133: thus given by $M_{\rm loop}$ in Eq.~(\ref{M_l}).

1134: 

1135: 

1136: 

1137: \subsection{The Hubble regime}

1138: 

1139: Consider the Hubble induced mass term in $V_{\rm m}$. This term

1140: dominates the density perturbations for $V'_{\rm m} > V'_{\rm loop}$,

1141: or

1142: %

1143: \be

1144: \kappa < \frac{4 \pi |a|}{\sqrt{\mcN f(x^2)}} \( \frac{M}{\mpl} \) 

1145: \approx

1146: 10^{-1} \frac{|a|^{3/2} \delta_C^{1/2}}{\mcN^{1/4}}

1147: \ee

1148: %

1149: In the second equality we took $M=M_{\rm loop}$ and $f(x^2) \sim 1.4$,

1150: which is valid for $\kappa < 10^{-2}-10^{-3}/\sqrt{N}$.  The Hubble

1151: induced term dominates for small enough $\kappa$.  If domination

1152: happens for $\kappa < \kappa_1 \sim 5 \times 10^{-6}$, the region

1153: already excluded by CMB date due to NR terms, the Hubble induced mass

1154: plays no r\^ole.  This is for $|a| < a_0 \sim 10^{-3}

1155: (\mcN/\delta_C^2)^{1/6}$.

1156: 

1157: Consider then $|a| > a_0$; the Hubble induced mass becomes important

1158: before NR terms kick in.  The contribution of the Hubble induced mass

1159: to $\eta$ is constant $\eta_m = |a|^2$; scale invariance requires $|a|

1160: < 0.1$.  The end of inflation is determined by the loop contribution,

1161: and $x_{\rm end} \approx 1$. Further $x_Q \approx 1$ for small

1162: coupling.  Plugging this into Eq.~(\ref{dTphi}) gives

1163: %

1164: \be

1165: M_{\rm m} = 8 \times 10^{-4} \mpl \frac{|a|^2 \delta_C}{\kappa} .

1166: \label{M_m}

1167: \ee

1168: %

1169: In the $\kappa$-region where $V'_{\rm m}$ dominates $M$ is a single

1170: valued function of $\kappa$.  Since $M_{\rm m}$ grows with decreasing

1171: coupling, whereas $M_{\rm loop}$ decreases with decreasing coupling,

1172: there is a minimum scale $M$, obtained for $V'_{\rm loop} = V'_{\rm

1173: m}$, or equivalently, for $M_{\rm loop} = M_{\rm m}$:

1174: %

1175: \be

1176: M_{\rm min} = 2 \times 10^{16} \sqrt{|a|\delta_C}\mcN^{1/4}.

1177: \ee

1178: %

1179: Agreement with CMB data requires $M_{\rm min} > M_{\rm CMB}\sim

1180: 3\times 10^{15}\GeV/\sqrt{\epsilon(\beta)}$, or

1181: %

1182: \be

1183: |a| < \frac{2 \times 10^{-2}}{\sqrt{\mcN} \delta_C} 

1184: \frac{1}{\epsilon(\beta)}.

1185: \ee

1186: %

1187: This gives a stronger bound on $|a|$ than the requirement of scale

1188: invariance.

1189: 

1190: 

1191: 

1192: \subsection{The $A$-regime}

1193: 

1194: The $A$-term breaks the discrete symmetry $S \leftrightarrow -S$.  For

1195: $A <0$ there is a minimum for the potential at $S_0 \neq 0$.  If $S_0

1196: > S_c$ the inflaton gets trapped in the false vacuum leading to

1197: eternal inflation. Assume $V = V_0 + V_{\rm loop} + V_{\rm A}$, and

1198: all other terms negligible small. Then this happens for $x_0 > x_c$

1199: with $x_0 \sim (\mcN \kappa^3 M)/(8\pi^2 A m_{3/2})$ and $x_c =1$,

1200: which gives

1201: %

1202: \be

1203: M \gtrsim \frac {8\pi^2 A}{\mcN} \frac{m_{3/2}}{\kappa^3}

1204: \sim \frac{10^{16} \GeV}{\mcN}  \(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10^2 \GeV} \)

1205: \( \frac{10^{-4}}{\kappa} \)^3

1206: \ee

1207: %

1208: Hence for a negative $A$-term, this is a problem for large

1209: $\kappa$/small gravitino mass.  

1210: 

1211: No new minimum arises for positive $A$-term, which is the case we

1212: discuss now.  These results equally apply to a negative $A$-term

1213: provided $x_0 \ll 1$.  The $A$-term dominates the density

1214: perturbations if $V'_A>V'_l$, or

1215: %

1216: \be

1217: \kappa < 4 \( \frac{ m_{3/2} A}{ \mcN M} \)^{1/3} \sim 

1218: \frac{4 \times 10^{-5} }{\mcN^{2/5} \delta_C^{1/10}}

1219: \( \frac{m_{3/2} A}{\GeV} \)^{3/10}

1220: \ee

1221: %

1222: where in the second step we used $M \sim M_{\rm loop}$.  A-term

1223: domination at small coupling happens before NR terms become important,

1224: unless the gravitino mass is small $m_{3/2} < 5\times 10^{-4} \GeV

1225: (\mcN/A)$. Consider then $m_{3/2}$ large enough for the linear term to

1226: play a r\^ole. The A-term does not contribute to $\eta$, and $x_{\rm

1227: end} \approx 1$ determined by the loop contribution.  In addition $x_Q

1228: \approx 1$ for small coupling.  Using Eq.~(\ref{dTphi}), the observed

1229: perturbations are obtained for

1230: %

1231: \be

1232: M_A = \frac{4 \times 10^{13} \delta_C^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k}} 

1233: \( \frac{m_{3/2} A}{10^3 \GeV}\)^{1/4} 

1234: \label{M_A}

1235: \ee

1236: %

1237: When the linear term dominates, $M$ increases as a function of

1238: decreasing coupling.  This gives a lower bound on the mass scale $M$,

1239: obtained for $V'_A = V'_l$, which is

1240: %

1241: \be

1242: M_{\rm min} = 2 \times 10^{15} \GeV \mcN^{1/5} \delta_C^{1/20} 

1243: \(\frac{m_{3/2} A}{10^3\GeV} \)^{1/10}

1244: \ee

1245: %

1246: This is only consistent with the CMB bound, i.e., with the requirement

1247: $M_{\rm min} > M_{\rm CMB}$, for $\mcN =1$ and $m_{3/2} \lesssim 10^3

1248: \GeV$.  Note that the dependence on the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ is

1249: weak, and very small $m_{3/2}$ is needed to lower this minimum scale

1250: considerably.  This favors gauge mediated SUSY breaking, or a scenario

1251: in which hidden sector SUSY breaking happens after inflation.

1252: 

1253: 

1254: 

1255: 

1256: 

1257: \section{Numerical results}

1258: \label{s:numerical}

1259: 

1260: We have also solved the equations pertaining the density perturbations

1261: Eqs.~(\ref{y},\ref{N_Q},\ref{slow_roll},\ref{dTphi},\ref{dTtot}).

1262: For $\epsilon(\beta)$ we use the second expression in

1263: Eq.~(\ref{epsilon}).  This introduces a factor 4 error in the limit

1264: $\beta = (\kappa/g)^2 \to 1$, where the BPS limit $\epsilon(1) =1$

1265: should be approached.  Further we take $y=3$, where $y$ is the

1266: parameter which parameterises the string contribution as given in

1267: Eq.~(\ref{y}), and reconnection probability $p=1$.  Setting the

1268: quadrupole Eq.~(\ref{dTtot}) equal to the observed value given in

1269: Eq~(\ref{cobe}) gives the symmetry breaking scale $M$ as a function of

1270: $\kappa$.  All other quantities such as the spectral index and the

1271: inflaton VEV when observable scales leave the horizon can also be

1272: computed. In this section we discuss the results.

1273: 

1274: Fig.~\ref{F:dim} shows $M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1,16,126$. The

1275: potential includes the loop potential and the NR terms; all other

1276: terms are turned off.  Also shown are the bounds on the scale $M$;

1277: from top to bottom these are the 10\%-bound, the

1278: Kaiser-Stebbins-bound, and the pulsar bound. The 10\% bound and

1279: especially the pulsar bound has the large theoretical uncertainties.

1280: At large and small coupling cosmic strings dominate the density

1281: perturbations, or equivalently $M(\kappa)$ exceeds the various bounds.

1282: This is the region excluded by experiments. At intermediate coupling,

1283: and for small enough $\mcN$, there are then two branches compatible

1284: with CMB data, the branch where the loop potential dominates, and a

1285: second branch at small coupling where the NR terms dominate.  This in

1286: good agreement with the discussion in section~\ref{s:VNR}.

1287: 

1288: The $\kappa$ range compatible with all bounds is $10^{-6}\lesssim

1289: \kappa \lesssim 10^{-3}/\mcN$.  The upper bound lies in the

1290: $\kappa$-range where $V'_{\rm loop}$ dominates, which is why it is

1291: $\mcN$ dependent.  On the other hand, the lower bound is determined by

1292: $V'_{\rm NR}$ which is independent of $\mcN$.  If we drop the pulsar

1293: bound, the parameter range is extended at large coupling to

1294: $10^{-7}/\mcN \kappa \lesssim 10^{-2}/\mcN$. Only a small window

1295: remains for $\mcN = 126$, which is clearly disfavored.

1296: 

1297: In Fig.~\ref{F:index} we show the spectral index for the parameters of

1298: Fig.~\ref{F:dim}. The spectral index is less than one, except at large

1299: coupling when NR terms start to dominate the second derivative, see

1300: Eq.~(\ref{nNR}).  The coupling for which the spectral index starts to

1301: diverge corresponds to the upper bound on $\kappa$ for which a

1302: solution exists (compare Figs.~\ref{F:dim},~\ref{F:index}).  This is

1303: in agreement with the discussion below Eq.~(\ref{bound_xq}), where it

1304: should be noted that the potential is steep for large $\eta$ and thus

1305: $x_{\rm end}$ and $x_Q$ are well separated.  The spectrum is

1306: indistinguishable from scale invariance and gives no new constraints

1307: on the available parameter space.

1308: 

1309: \begin{figure}

1310: \begin{center}

1311: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{dim.eps}

1312: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1,16,126$. Further shown are,

1313: from top to bottom, the 10\%-bound, the KS-bound and the pulsar

1314: bound.}

1315: \label{F:dim}

1316: \end{center}

1317: \end{figure}

1318: 

1319: 

1320: \begin{figure}

1321: \begin{center}

1322: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{index.eps}

1323: \caption{Spectral index $n$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1,16,126$}

1324: \label{F:index}

1325: \end{center}

1326: \end{figure}

1327: 

1328: 

1329: The string contribution to the quadrupole is parametrized by the

1330: parameter $y$.  The value for $y$ found in the literature ranges from

1331: $y=3-12$.  Fig~\ref{F:B} shows how this affects the 10\%-bound.

1332: Plotted is the string contribution to the quadrupole $B$ defined in

1333: Eq.~(\ref{B}) as a function of $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1$ and different

1334: values of $y$.  The 10\% bound corresponds to $B = 0.1$.  For $y=3$

1335: the bound on $\kappa$ corresponds to that found from the $M(\kappa)$

1336: plot in Fig.~\ref{F:dim}, as it should. For $y=9,12$ the 10\%-bound is

1337: stronger, and the upper bound on $\kappa$ is decreased by about a

1338: factor 10.  We want to stress that in contrast to the 10\% bound,

1339: the KS and pulsar bound are rather insensitive to $y$.  And thus the

1340: $\kappa$-range compatible with the KS and pulsar bound is practically

1341: the same for the different $y$-values.

1342: 

1343: \begin{figure}

1344: \begin{center}

1345: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{B.eps}

1346: \caption{$B$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN=1$ and $y =3,9,12$. $B=0.1$

1347: corresponds to the 10\%-bound.}

1348: \label{F:B}

1349: \end{center}

1350: \end{figure}

1351: 

1352: 

1353: Fig~\ref{F:m} shows the results when the Hubble induced mass term is

1354: included, the different lines corresponds to different values of $|a|

1355: =10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}$; in all cases $\mcN =1$. $M(k)$ increases

1356: with increasing $|a|$. Indeed too large $|a| = 10^{-1}$ is excluded by

1357: the data, whereas $|a|\sim 10^{-2}$ decreases the upper bound

1358: considerably, to $\kappa \lesssim 10^{-5}$.  For $|a| \lesssim

1359: 10^{-3}$, the available parameter space is unaltered.  $V'_m$ is

1360: independent of $\mcN$, and we can get a good handle on how it affects

1361: parameter space for different $\mcN$ by comparing Figs.~\ref{F:dim}

1362: and \ref{F:m}. For $\mcN =16,126$ it follows that $|a| \gtrsim

1363: 10^{-2}$ is excluded, whereas for example $|a| \sim 10^{-3}$ reduces

1364: the upper bound to $\kappa \lesssim 10^{-5}, 10^{-6}$.

1365: 

1366: 

1367: \begin{figure}

1368: \begin{center}

1369: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{m.eps}

1370: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ with Hubble mass term included. The plots

1371: are for $a =10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}$. Also shown are, from top to

1372: bottom, the 10\% bound, the KS-bound and the pulsar bound.}

1373: \label{F:m}

1374: \end{center}

1375: \end{figure}

1376: 

1377: Fig.~\ref{F:ms} shows the effect of including the linear A-term for

1378: gravitino masses $m_{3/2} = 10^3,10^2,10^0,10^{-2}\GeV$ and $\mcN

1379: =1$. A gravitino mass $m_{3/2} \gtrsim 10^2 \GeV$ as obtained in

1380: gravity mediated SUSY breaking shrinks parameter space considerably:

1381: for $\mcN = 1$ the allowed range of $\kappa$ is $10^{-5}-10^{-4}

1382: \lesssim \kappa \lesssim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$, whereas no parameter space

1383: is left for $\mcN = 16,126$.

1384: 

1385: 

1386: \begin{figure}

1387: \begin{center}

1388: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{ms.eps}

1389: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ with A term included. The plots are $m_s

1390: =10^{3},10^{2},10^{0},10^{-1}$. Also shown are, from top to bottom,

1391: the 10\% bound, the KS-bound and the pulsar bound.}

1392: \label{F:ms}

1393: \end{center}

1394: \end{figure}

1395: 

1396: \begin{figure}

1397: \begin{center}

1398: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{curv.eps}

1399: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\delta_C =

1400: 10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}$. Also shown are, from top to bottom, the

1401: 10\% bound, the KS-bound and the pulsar bound.}

1402: \label{F:curv}

1403: \end{center}

1404: \end{figure}

1405: 

1406: 

1407: 

1408: \begin{figure}

1409: \begin{center}

1410: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{H.eps}

1411: \caption{$H$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\delta_C = 10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}$.}

1412: \label{F:H}

1413: \end{center}

1414: \end{figure}

1415: 

1416: Finally we consider the possibility that an other scalar field than

1417: the inflaton gives the main contribution to the density perturbations,

1418: as occurs in the curvaton or inhomogeneous reheat scenario.  If

1419: Fig.~\ref{F:curv} we plot $\kappa$ vs. $M$ for $\delta_C=

1420: 10^{-1},10^{-2},10^{-3}$.  Already when the combined contribution of

1421: the inflaton and cosmic strings to the quadrupole is reduced to 10\%

1422: of the COBE value (and thus the other 90\% are provided by some other

1423: scalar field), are all constraints avoided.  Invoking an alternative

1424: scalar field to explain the density perturbations is thus a good way

1425: to avoid all constraints on the string scale. Note however, that the

1426: curvaton scenario in its simplest form can only work for Hubble

1427: constants $H > 10^{7}\GeV$.  As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{F:H}, where

1428: we plotted $H$ vs. $\kappa$ for the same parameters as in

1429: Fig.~\ref{F:curv}, this implies $\kappa > 10^{-3}-10^{-4}$.  No such

1430: constraint exists for the inhomogeneous reheat scenario.

1431: 

1432: 

1433: 

1434: \subsection{Brane $F$-inflation}

1435: 

1436: In the plots discussed above we have used the GUT value for the gauge

1437: coupling $g$ and varied the trilinear coupling $\kappa$. In brane

1438: models the gauge coupling may differ by few orders of magnitude from

1439: the GUT value and the coupling constant is given in terms of $g$.

1440: This does not change anything for the inflation contribution (which is

1441: now given as function of $g$ instead of $\kappa$) but only for the

1442: strings.

1443: 

1444: 

1445: Here we discuss as an example $F$-term inflation that arises as a

1446: certain limit of $P$-term brane inflation models \cite{Pterm}.

1447: $P$-term inflationary models in $N=1$ supergravity interpolate between

1448: $F$- and $D$-term models.  The choice of a particular model is

1449: determined by the VEV of the auxiliary triplet field of P-inflation,

1450: which depends on the fluxes on the branes \cite{Pterm}.

1451: 

1452: The matter content of $P$-inflation is an $N=2$ charged hypermutiplet

1453: and a $U(1)$ gauge multiplet. These contain in addition to the gauge

1454: bosons a pair of complex conjugate fields which can be identified with

1455: our $\phi_+$ and $\phi_-$ fields and a neutral singlet which we denote

1456: by $S$. The $N=1$ superpotential is given by

1457: %

1458: \be

1459: W = \sqrt{2} g S (\phi_+ \phi_- - M^2).

1460: \ee

1461: %

1462: Hence, we recover the superpotential given in Eq.~(\ref{W}) with

1463: $\kappa = \sqrt{2} g$. The strings that form at the end of $F$-term

1464: $P$-inflation have $m_A = m_\phi$, and satisfy the Bogomolny bound.

1465: Their tension is $\mu = 2 \pi M^2$, i.e., $\epsilon(\beta)$ in

1466: Eq.~({\ref{mu}) equals unity. This in turn modifies the parameter

1467: range allowed by the data. In Fig.~\ref{F:Pterm} we plot $M$ versus

1468: $\kappa$ for $\epsilon(\beta)=1$. The 10\%-bound, the KS-bound, and

1469: the pulsar bound on $M$ are proportional to $\epsilon(\beta)^{-1/2}$

1470: (see Eqs.~(\ref{Pogosian},~\ref{smoot},~\ref{pulsar}), and are more

1471: stringent than for GUT F-term inflation.  The KS-bound gives $10^{-6}

1472: \lesssim g \lesssim 10^{-4}$ which is much below the expected range

1473: for $g$.  \footnote{The 10\% bounds implies $g < 10^{-3}$ which

1474: differs from result $g <10^{-4}$ quoted in \cite{Rocher}.  This

1475: difference can be traced back to the different $y$ values used: $y=3$

1476: in our case and $y=9$ in \cite{Rocher}}

1477: 

1478: 

1479: \begin{figure}

1480: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{P.eps}

1481: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\mcN =1$ and $\epsilon(\beta)=1$

1482: corresponding to $F$-term $P$-inflation. Also shown are, from top to

1483: bottom, the 10\% bound, the KS-bound and the pulsar bound.}

1484: \label{F:Pterm}

1485: \end{figure}

1486: 

1487: 

1488: 

1489: 

1490: 

1491: 

1492: 

1493: \section{Warm inflation}

1494: \label{s:warm}

1495: 

1496: If the inflaton, or a field coupling to the inflaton, can decay during

1497: inflation, it has a propagator of the Breit-Wigner form with an

1498: imaginary part related to the decay rate $\Gamma$.  Upon calculating

1499: the one-loop correction to the inflaton potential, these contributions

1500: related to the decay rate lead to dissipative effects.  In the

1501: adiabatic-Markovian limit, satisfied for $\dot{\phi}/\phi < H <

1502: \Gamma$, this can be described by an effective friction term

1503: $\Upsilon$ in the inflaton equation of motion~\cite{berera}

1504: %

1505: \be \ddot{S} + (3H + \Upsilon)\dot{S} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial S}

1506: = 0.  \ee

1507: %

1508: In hybrid inflation inflaton decay is kinematically forbidden.

1509: However, the heaviest Higgs field $\chi_+ = (\phi_+ +

1510: \phi_-)/\sqrt{2}$ can decay into its fermionic superpartner

1511: $\tilde{\chi}_+$ and an inflatino.  Since the masses of $\chi_+$ and

1512: $\tilde{\chi}_+$ are close together, this decay is phase space

1513: suppressed. As shown in Ref.~\cite{mar} its effects can be neglected

1514: during inflation.  Dissipation can only be important if the inflaton

1515: sector couples to light particles.  We consider the coupling

1516: %

1517: \be

1518: W = \lambda \phi_+ NN.

1519: \label{RHN}

1520: \ee

1521: %

1522: If hybrid inflation is embedded in a grand unified theory, and the

1523: $U(1)$ broken at the end of inflation corresponds to baryon$-$lepton

1524: number, the above term naturally arises as a mass term for the right

1525: handed neutrino $\tilde{N}$.

1526: 

1527: Physically, what happens is that during inflation the slowly changing

1528: inflaton field can excite the Higgs field $\phi_+$, which can decay

1529: into massless $N$ fields.  Through this channel, the inflaton sector

1530: dissipates radiation: $ \dot{\rho}_\gamma + 4 H \rho_\gamma = \Upsilon

1531: \dot{S}^2 $.

1532: 

1533: 

1534: One can distinguish three regimes, depending on the strength of the

1535: effective damping term $\Upsilon$ and on the temperature $T \sim

1536: \rho_\gamma^{1/4}$ of the radiation bath.

1537: \begin{enumerate}

1538: \item{$\Upsilon,\,T < H$.}  This is the regime of cold inflation where

1539: dissipation is negligible small.  The Hubble parameter sets the

1540: friction term in the inflaton equation of motion, as well as the

1541: scale of inflaton perturbations $\delta S^2 \propto H^2$.  

1542: \item{$H <T<\Upsilon$.} Warm inflation in the weak dissipative

1543: regime.  The friction term is dominated by the Hubble constant, i.e.,

1544: by the expansion of the universe, but the perturbations are dominated

1545: by thermal effects and $\delta S^2 \propto {HT}$.

1546: \item{$H<\Upsilon$.} Warm inflation in the strong dissipative regime.

1547: The damping of the inflaton field is dominated by $\Upsilon$, i.e.,

1548: by dissipative effects. Moreover, fluctuations are thermal with $\delta

1549: S^2 \propto \sqrt{H\Upsilon}T$.

1550: \end{enumerate}

1551: 

1552: Warm inflation, which occurs for sufficiently large couplings

1553: $\kappa,\lambda$, lowers the scale $M$ for a given $\kappa$ compared

1554: to cold inflation.  The reason is that the fluctuations $\delta S$ are

1555: larger by a factor $\sqrt{T/H} (1+ (\Upsilon/H)^{1/4})$, so that a

1556: smaller $M$ is required to obtain the right temperature anisotropy.

1557: In the strong dissipative regime there is the additional effect that

1558: the inflaton is stronger damped as compared to cold inflation, and the

1559: inflaton value when observable scales leave the horizon, $S_Q$, is

1560: lowered.

1561: 

1562: We will list here the important formulas governing the density

1563: perturbations; more details can be found in \cite{mar,berera}.  The

1564: decay rate for the process $\phi_+ \to NN$ is $\Gamma = \lambda^2

1565: m_+/(16\pi) $, with $m_+^2 = \kappa^2(|S|^2 + M^2)$ and $\lambda$ the

1566: coupling in Eq.~(\ref{RHN}). We can define the ratio $r \equiv

1567: \Upsilon/(3H)$ which is given by

1568: %

1569: \be

1570: r(x) = \frac{\kappa^2}{128\sqrt{3}\pi} \(\frac{\lambda^2}{16\pi}\) 

1571: \frac{x^2}{\sqrt{1+x^2}} \frac{\mpl}{M}

1572: \ee

1573: %

1574: The dissipative effects parametrized by $r(x_Q)$ are maximized in the

1575: limit $\kappa,\lambda \to 1$ large, as this maximizes the decay rate.

1576: The formulas for the density parameters then generalize as follows.

1577: The number of e-folds is

1578: %

1579: \be 

1580: N_Q = \int_{\sigma_{\rm end}}^{\sigma_Q} 

1581: \frac{1}{\mpl^2} \frac{V}{V'}(1+r) \dd \sigma.

1582: \label{w:N_Q}

1583: \ee

1584: %

1585: The slow roll parameters change to $ \epsilon_\Upsilon =

1586: \epsilon/(1+r)^2$ , $ \eta_\Upsilon = \eta/(1+r)^2 $, with

1587: $\epsilon,\eta$ given in Eq.~(\ref{slow_roll}).  In addition a third

1588: slow roll parameter can be defined $ \bar{\epsilon}_\Upsilon =

1589: \beta_\Upsilon r /(1+r)^3$ with

1590: %

1591: \be

1592: \beta_\Upsilon = \mpl^2 \frac{V'}{V} \frac{\Upsilon'}{\Upsilon}.

1593: \ee

1594: %

1595: Inflation ends when one of the slow roll parameters exceeds unity, or

1596: when the energy inflaton decay products $\rho_\gamma$ becomes larger

1597: than $V_0$, with

1598: %

1599: \be

1600: \frac{\rho_\gamma}{H^4} = \frac{9}{2} 

1601: \frac{r \epsilon}{(1+r)^2\kappa^2} 

1602: \(\frac{\mpl}{ M}\)^4

1603: \ee

1604: %

1605: One can define a corresponding temperature $T \approx

1606: \rho_\gamma^{1/4}$.  The density perturbations generalize to

1607: %

1608: \be

1609: \( \frac{\delta T }{T} \)_\phi = 

1610: \frac{1}{12\sqrt{5}\pi \mpl^3}\frac{V^{3/2}}{V'} 

1611: \(1 + \sqrt{\frac{T}{H}}\) \(1+ \(\frac{\pi \Upsilon}{4H} \)^{1/4} \)

1612: \label{w:dTphi}

1613: \ee

1614: %

1615: In the limit $r \to 0$ (and thus also $\Upsilon \to 0$, $T \to 0$) all

1616: above formulas reduce to those of standard cold inflation, where

1617: dissipative effects are negligible small.  Finally, we give the

1618: spectral index in the various regimes

1619: %

1620: \be

1621: n_s - 1 =

1622: \left\{

1623: \begin{array}{lll}

1624: & -6 \epsilon + 2 \eta,  

1625: &\qquad {\rm for} \; \Upsilon,T < H \\

1626: & -\frac{17}{4} \epsilon + \frac32 \eta - \frac14 \beta_\Upsilon,  

1627: &\qquad  {\rm for} \; \Upsilon < H < T \\

1628: & (-\frac{9}{4} \epsilon + \frac32 \eta - \frac94 \beta_\Upsilon) 

1629: (1+r)^{-1},  

1630: &\qquad  {\rm for} \; H < \Upsilon,T 

1631: \end{array}

1632: \right.

1633: \label{n_warm}

1634: \ee

1635: 

1636: In Fig.~\ref{F:warm} we show the effects of dissipation for different

1637: values of $\lambda =1,0.1,0.01,0$ and $\mcN =1$. As expected

1638: dissipation is only important for large $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, and

1639: the scale of inflation is lowered.  For $\lambda \gtrsim 0.1$ all

1640: bounds are evaded. For smaller coupling the importance of the

1641: dissipative effects diminishes, e.g. for $\lambda \gtrsim 0.01$ the

1642: bound is only slightly improved.  The spectral index for the same

1643: parameters is shown in Fig.~\ref{F:warmn}. The spectrum is scale

1644: invariant over the whole $\kappa$ range consistent with CMB data. For

1645: $\lambda \sim 1$ there is a discontinuity in the spectral index, which

1646: corresponds to the transition from the weak to the strong dissipative

1647: regime; it is merely an artifact of the approximation used in

1648: Eq.~(\ref{n_warm}).

1649: 

1650: 

1651: Fig.~\ref{F:warm16} shows the mass scale $M$ as a function of

1652: $\kappa$, now for $\lambda = 1,0.5,0.1,0$ and $\mcN=16$.  The effect

1653: of dissipation is smaller than for $\mcN =1$.  Only for larger, order

1654: one, couplings are all bounds evaded. Already for $\lambda =0.1$ there

1655: is no enlargement of parameter space.

1656: 

1657: Lastly, we show in Fig.~\ref{F:warmp} the effects of dissipation for

1658: the Bogomolny strings arising in $F$-term $P$-inflation, for which

1659: $\epsilon(\beta) =1$.  Plotted is $M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\lambda =

1660: 1,0.1,0.01,0$.  Just as for GUT strings with $\mcN=1$ are the bounds 

1661: considerably improved for $\lambda < 0.1$.

1662: 

1663: \begin{figure}

1664: \begin{center}

1665: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{warm.eps}

1666: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\lambda =1,0.1,0.01,0$ and $\mcN

1667: =1$. Also shown are, from top to bottom, the non-Gaussianity bound,

1668: the 10\% bound, and the pulsar bound.}

1669: \label{F:warm}

1670: \end{center}

1671: \end{figure}

1672: 

1673: \begin{figure}

1674: \begin{center}

1675: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{warmn.eps}

1676: \caption{$n$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\lambda =1,0.1,0.01,0$and $\mcN =1$ .}

1677: \label{F:warmn}

1678: \end{center}

1679: \end{figure}

1680: 

1681: \begin{figure}

1682: \begin{center}

1683: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{warm16.eps}

1684: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\lambda =1,0.5,0.1,0$ and $\mcN

1685: =16$. Also shown are, from top to bottom, the non-Gaussianity bound,

1686: the 10\% bound, and the pulsar bound.}

1687: \label{F:warm16}

1688: \end{center}

1689: \end{figure}

1690: 

1691: 

1692: \begin{figure}

1693: \begin{center}

1694: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{warmp.eps}

1695: \caption{$M$ vs. $\kappa$ for $\lambda =1,0.1,0.01,0$ and $\mcN

1696: =1$. Also shown are, from top to bottom, the non-Gaussianity bound,

1697: the 10\% bound, and the pulsar bound.}

1698: \label{F:warmp}

1699: \end{center}

1700: \end{figure}

1701: 

1702: 

1703: \section{Conclusions}

1704: 

1705: Cosmic strings form at the end of standard hybrid inflation. Both the

1706: string and inflaton contribution to the CMB are proportional to the

1707: same symmetry treaking scale $M$. This makes hybrid inflation testable via

1708: CMB experiments. In this paper we have determined the parameter space

1709: for which standard $F$-term hybrid inflation is compatible with the

1710: CMB data. We considered both GUT $F$-term inflation and $P$-term

1711: $F$-inflation.

1712: 

1713: We pointed out that cosmic strings forming at the end of GUT

1714: $F$-inflation are not in the Bogomolny limit. The string tension

1715: depends on the ratio of the masses of the Higgs and gauge fields, and

1716: decreases in the limit of small quartic coupling constant.  This is why the

1717: bounds on $M$ are relaxed compared to $P$-term models where the

1718: strings do satisfy the Bogomolny bound.

1719: 

1720: We studied the inflationary scalar potential including all possible

1721: soft and dissipative terms.  Supergravity corrections are calculated

1722: assuming general expectation values in the hidden sector.  The

1723: one-loop potential and the non-renormalisable terms are general, and

1724: independent of the SUSY breaking mechanism in the true vacuum.  The

1725: inflaton mass and linear $A$-term, on the other hand, depend

1726: sensitively on the SUSY breaking mechanism.  These terms are large in

1727: a canonical gravity mediated SUSY breaking scheme, in conflict with

1728: the CMB data.  In order to evade the bounds, either these terms must

1729: be tuned, or low energy SUSY breaking should take place after

1730: inflation, or gauge mediation should be assumed.

1731: 

1732: Knowledge of the scalar potential of $F$-inflation allows for a

1733: calculation of the perturbation spectrum.  We have derived analytical

1734: formulas for the symmetry breaking scale $M$ as a function of the

1735: superpotential coupling $\kappa$ in the limit that one term dominates

1736: the potential.  These results agree well with our numerical

1737: calculations.  The string tension, and thus the SSB scale $M$, is

1738: bounded by the data. We used three different bounds, the 10\%

1739: bound, the Kaiser-Stebbins bound and the pulsar bound (we believe the

1740: Kaiser-Stebbins bound should be taken most seriously as the

1741: theoretical uncertainties are smallest). For GUT strings, we find that

1742: the relevant coupling $10^{-7}/\mcN \lesssim \kappa \lesssim

1743: 10^{-2}/\mcN$, with $\mcN$ the dimension of the Higgs-representation,

1744: is still compatible with the data.\footnote{We note that although

1745: Ref.~\cite{Rocher} considers GUT inflation, they do not take the

1746: corrections away from the Bogomolny limit into account, and

1747: consequently they find a much stronger bound}.  The bounds are stronger for the

1748: strings formed in $P$-inflation: $10^{-7} < \kappa <10^{-4}$.

1749: 

1750: Finally we considered ways to ameliorate the CMB bounds.  In the

1751: curvaton or inhomogeneous reheat scenario not the inflaton but some

1752: other scalar field is responsible to the density perturbations.

1753: Lowering the contribution of the inflaton to the CMB, even by only

1754: 10\%, immediately evades all bounds.  Warm inflation can occur if the

1755: Higgs field is coupled to light fields with a large, order one,

1756: coupling.  This opens up parameter space for large superpotential

1757: couplings.

1758: 

1759: %The upcoming Planck satelite probes the level of non-Gaussianity to a

1760: %much greater accuracy.  And either cosmic strings will be ruled out in

1761: %standard $F$-term inflation, or their precense is detected via the KS

1762: %effect.  A better resolution of the spectral index allows to

1763: %discriminate between models of hybrid inflation with moderately large

1764: %coupling.

1765: 

1766: 

1767: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1768:                                                                                

1769: RJ would like to thank The Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research

1770: [NWO] for financial support. 

1771: 

1772: 

1773: 

1774: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1775: \bibitem{WMAPinflation}

1776:   H.~V.~Peiris {\it et al.},

1777:   %``First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:

1778:   %Implications for inflation,''

1779:   Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 213 (2003)

1780:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0302225].

1781:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302225;%%

1782: 

1783: \bibitem{Pogosian}

1784: L.~Pogosian, M.~C.~Wyman and I.~Wasserman,

1785: %``Observational constraints on cosmic strings: Bayesian analysis in a three

1786: %dimensional parameter space,''

1787: arXiv:astro-ph/0403268.

1788: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403268;%%

1789: L.~Pogosian, S.~H.~H.~Tye, I.~Wasserman and M.~Wyman,

1790: %``Observational constraints on cosmic string production during brane

1791: %inflation,''

1792: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 023506 (2003)

1793: [arXiv:hep-th/0304188].

1794: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304188;%%

1795: 

1796: \bibitem{hybrid}

1797: A.~Linde, %\emph{Hybrid inflation}, 

1798: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 748 (1994)

1799: [arXiv:astro-ph/9307002].

1800: 

1801: \bibitem{prd}R.~Jeannerot,

1802: %``Inflation in supersymmetric unified theories,''

1803: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 6205

1804: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706391].

1805: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706391;%%  

1806: 

1807: 

1808: \bibitem{jrs}

1809:  R.~Jeannerot, J.~Rocher and M.~Sakellariadou,

1810:   %``How generic is cosmic string formation in SUSY GUTs,''

1811:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 103514 (2003)

1812:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0308134].

1813:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308134;%%

1814: 

1815: 

1816: \bibitem{polchinski}

1817:   M.~G.~Jackson, N.~T.~Jones and J.~Polchinski,

1818:   %``Collisions of cosmic F- and D-strings,''

1819:   arXiv:hep-th/0405229.

1820:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405229;%%

1821: 

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{Pterm}

1824:   R.~Kallosh,

1825:   %``N = 2 supersymmetry and de Sitter space,''

1826:   arXiv:hep-th/0109168.

1827:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109168;%%

1828:   C.~Herdeiro, S.~Hirano and R.~Kallosh,

1829:   %``String theory and hybrid inflation / acceleration,''

1830:   JHEP {\bf 0112}, 027 (2001)

1831:   [arXiv:hep-th/0110271].

1832:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110271;%%

1833:  K.~Dasgupta, C.~Herdeiro, S.~Hirano and R.~Kallosh,

1834:   %``D3/D7 inflationary model and M-theory,''

1835:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 126002 (2002)

1836:   [arXiv:hep-th/0203019].

1837:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203019;%%

1838:  R.~Kallosh and A.~Linde,

1839:   %``P-term, D-term and F-term inflation,''

1840:   JCAP {\bf 0310}, 008 (2003)

1841:   [arXiv:hep-th/0306058].

1842:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306058;%%

1843:  E.~Halyo,

1844:   %``P-term inflation on D-branes,''

1845:   arXiv:hep-th/0405269.

1846:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405269;%%

1847: 

1848: \bibitem{prd1}

1849: A.~C.~Davis and R.~Jeannerot,

1850:   %``Constraining supersymmetric SO(10) models,''

1851:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 7220 (1995)

1852:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9501275].

1853:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501275;%%

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{ana2}

1856:  J.~Urrestilla, A.~Achucarro and A.~C.~Davis,

1857:   %``D-term inflation without cosmic strings,''

1858:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92}, 251302 (2004)

1859:   [arXiv:hep-th/0402032].

1860:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0402032;%%

1861: 

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{kallosh}

1864: K.~Dasgupta, J.~P.~Hsu, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and M.~Zagermann,

1865:   %``D3/D7 brane inflation and semilocal strings,''

1866:   JHEP {\bf 0408}, 030 (2004)

1867:   [arXiv:hep-th/0405247].

1868:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405247;%%

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{shifted}

1871: R.~Jeannerot, S.~Khalil, G.~Lazarides and Q.~Shafi,

1872:   %``Inflation and monopoles in supersymmetric SU(4)c x SU(2)L x SU(2)R,''

1873:   JHEP {\bf 0010}, 012 (2000)

1874:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0002151].

1875:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002151;%%

1876: 

1877: 

1878: \bibitem{shifted2}

1879: %\JeannerotWT

1880:   R.~Jeannerot, S.~Khalil and G.~Lazarides,

1881:   %``New shifted hybrid inflation,''

1882:   JHEP {\bf 0207}, 069 (2002)

1883:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0207244].

1884:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207244;%%

1885: 

1886: \bibitem{smooth}

1887:  G.~Lazarides and C.~Panagiotakopoulos,

1888:   %``Smooth hybrid inflation,''

1889:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 559 (1995)

1890:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9506325].

1891:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506325;%%

1892: 

1893: 

1894: \bibitem{acd}

1895:  S.~C.~Davis, A.~C.~Davis and M.~Trodden,

1896:   %``N = 1 supersymmetric cosmic strings,''

1897:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 405}, 257 (1997)

1898:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9702360].

1899:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702360;%%

1900: 

1901: \bibitem{sugrastr}

1902:   R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,

1903:   %``Chiral cosmic strings in supergravity,''

1904:   JHEP {\bf 0412}, 043 (2004)

1905:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411260].

1906:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411260;%%

1907: 

1908: \bibitem{maj}

1909:  R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,

1910:   %``Majorana zero modes,''

1911:   JHEP {\bf 0412}, 032 (2004)

1912:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411259].

1913:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411259;%%

1914: 

1915: 

1916: 

1917: \bibitem{covi}

1918:  W.~Buchmuller, L.~Covi and D.~Delepine,

1919:   %``Inflation and supersymmetry breaking,''

1920:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 491}, 183 (2000)

1921:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0006168].

1922:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006168;%%

1923: 

1924: \bibitem{shafi1}

1925: %\SenoguzVU

1926: V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,

1927: %``Reheat temperature in supersymmetric hybrid inflation models,''

1928: arXiv:hep-ph/0412102.

1929: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412102;%%

1930: 

1931: 

1932: \bibitem{Rocher}

1933: J.~Rocher and M.~Sakellariadou,

1934: %``Supersymmetric grand unified theories and cosmology,''

1935: arXiv:hep-ph/0406120.

1936: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406120;%%

1937: %\cite{Hill:1987ye}

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{mar}

1940:   M.~Bastero-Gil and A.~Berera,

1941:   %``Determining the regimes of cold and warm inflation in the SUSY hybrid

1942:   %model,''

1943:   arXiv:hep-ph/0411144.

1944:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411144;%%

1945: 

1946: \bibitem{Cop}

1947: %\CopelandVG

1948: E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth, E.~D.~Stewart and D.~Wands,

1949: %``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''

1950: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6410 (1994)

1951: [arXiv:astro-ph/9401011].

1952: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401011;%%

1953: 

1954: \bibitem{Dvasha}

1955: G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~K.~Schaefer,

1956: %``Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,''

1957: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 73}, 1886 (1994)

1958: [arXiv:hep-ph/9406319].

1959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406319;%%

1960: 

1961: 

1962: \bibitem{Kibble}

1963: T.~W.~B.~Kibble,

1964: %``Topology Of Cosmic Domains And Strings,''

1965: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 9} (1976) 1387.

1966: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A9,1387;%%

1967: 

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{CW}

1970: S.~Coleman and E.~Weinberg, \emph{Radiative corrections as the origin

1971:   of spontaneous symmetry breaking}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 7}, 1888 (1973).

1972: 

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{martin}

1975: %\MartinNS

1976: S.~P.~Martin,

1977: %``A supersymmetry primer,''

1978: arXiv:hep-ph/9709356.

1979: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709356;%%

1980: 

1981: \bibitem{WMAP}

1982:  C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

1983:   %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1984:   %Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

1985:   Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 1 (2003)

1986:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207].

1987:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

1988:  D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.}  [WMAP Collaboration],

1989:   %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1990:   %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1991:   Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)

1992:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

1993:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

1994: 

1995: \bibitem{sugra}

1996: %\PanagiotakopoulosQD

1997: C.~Panagiotakopoulos,

1998: %``Blue perturbation spectra from hybrid inflation with canonical

1999: %supergravity,''

2000: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 7335 (1997)

2001: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702433].

2002: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702433;%%

2003: %\KawasakiZV

2004: M.~Kawasaki, M.~Yamaguchi and J.~Yokoyama,

2005: %``Inflation with a running spectral index in supergravity,''

2006: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 023508 (2003)

2007: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304161].

2008: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304161;%%

2009: %\LindeSJ

2010: A.~D.~Linde and A.~Riotto,

2011: %``Hybrid inflation in supergravity,''

2012: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 1841 (1997)

2013: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703209].

2014: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703209;%%

2015: V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,

2016: %``Testing supersymmetric grand unified models of inflation,''

2017: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 567}, 79 (2003)

2018: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305089].

2019: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305089;%%

2020: 

2021: \bibitem{Hill}

2022: C.~T.~Hill, H.~M.~Hodges and M.~S.~Turner,

2023: %``Variational Study Of Ordinary And Superconducting Cosmic Strings,''

2024: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 59} (1987) 2493.

2025: %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,2493;%%

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{ShelVil} 

2028: A.~Vilenkin and E.~P.~S.~Shellard, 

2029: {\em ``Cosmic strings and other topological defects''}, 

2030: Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994;

2031: M.~B.~Hindmarsh and T.~W.~B.~Kibble,

2032: %``Cosmic strings,''

2033: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 58} (1995) 477

2034: [arXiv:hep-ph/9411342].

2035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411342;%%

2036: 

2037: \bibitem{Landriau}

2038: M.~Landriau and E.~P.~S.~Shellard,

2039: %``Large angle CMB fluctuations from cosmic strings with a comological

2040: %constant,''

2041: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 023003

2042: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302166].

2043: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302166;%%

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{Allen}

2046: B.~Allen, R.~R.~Caldwell, E.~P.~S.~Shellard, A.~Stebbins and S.~Veeraraghavan,

2047: %``Large angular scale CMB anisotropy induced by cosmic strings,''

2048: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77} (1996) 3061

2049: [arXiv:astro-ph/9609038].

2050: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9609038;%%

2051: 

2052: \bibitem{approx}

2053: L.~Perivolaropoulos,

2054: %``COBE versus cosmic strings: An Analytical model,''

2055: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 298} (1993) 305

2056: [arXiv:hep-ph/9208247].

2057: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9208247;%%

2058: D.~P.~Bennett, A.~Stebbins and F.~R.~Bouchet,

2059: %``The Implications of the COBE DMR results for cosmic strings,''

2060: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 399} (1992) L5

2061: [arXiv:hep-ph/9206233].

2062: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9206233;%%

2063: D.~Coulson, P.~Ferreira, P.~Graham and N.~Turok,

2064: %``Pi in the sky? Microwave anisotropies from cosmic defects,''

2065: arXiv:hep-ph/9310322.

2066: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310322;%%

2067: 

2068: \bibitem{COBE}

2069: %\BennettCE

2070: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

2071: %``4-Year COBE DMR Cosmic Microwave Background Observations: Maps and Basic

2072: %Results,''

2073: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 464}, L1 (1996)

2074: [arXiv:astro-ph/9601067].

2075: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9601067;%%

2076: 

2077: 

2078: 

2079: \bibitem{dvali}

2080:   G.~Dvali and A.~Vilenkin,

2081:   %``Formation and evolution of cosmic D-strings,''

2082:   JCAP {\bf 0403} (2004) 010

2083:   [arXiv:hep-th/0312007].

2084:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312007;%%

2085: 

2086: \bibitem{stebbins}

2087:   N.~Kaiser and A.~Stebbins,

2088:   %``Microwave Anisotropy Due To Cosmic Strings,''

2089:   Nature {\bf 310} (1984) 391.

2090:   %%CITATION = NATUA,310,391;%%

2091: 

2092: \bibitem{Smoot}

2093: E.~Jeong and G.~F.~Smoot,

2094: %``Search for cosmic strings in CMB anisotropies,''

2095: arXiv:astro-ph/0406432.

2096: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406432;%%

2097: 

2098: \bibitem{Lommen}

2099: A.~N.~Lommen,

2100: %``New limits on gravitational radiation using pulsars,''

2101: arXiv:astro-ph/0208572.

2102: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208572;%%

2103: 

2104: \bibitem{sazhin}

2105:   M.~Sazhin {\it et al.},

2106:   %``CSL-1: a chance projection effect or serendipitous discovery of a

2107:   %gravitational lens induced by a cosmic string?,''

2108:   Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\  {\bf 343} (2003) 353

2109:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0302547];

2110:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH M.~V.~Sazhin, O.~S.~Khovanskaya, M.~Capaccioli, G.~Longo, J.~M.~Alcala, R.~Silvotti and M.~V.~Pavlov,

2111:   %``Lens candidates in the Capodimonte Deep Field in the vicinity of the CSL1

2112:   %object,''

2113:   arXiv:astro-ph/0406516.

2114:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406516;%%

2115: 

2116: 

2117: \bibitem{LythLid}

2118: A.R. Liddle and D.H. Lyth, \emph{The cold dark matter density

2119:   perturbation}, Phys. Rept. {\bf 231}, 1 (1993) [arXiv:astro-ph/9303019].

2120: 

2121: \bibitem{curvaton}

2122: K.~Enqvist and M.~S.~Sloth,

2123: %``Adiabatic CMB perturbations in pre big bang string cosmology,''

2124: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 626}, 395 (2002)

2125: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109214];

2126: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109214;%%

2127: D.~H.~Lyth and D.~Wands,

2128: %``Generating the curvature perturbation without an inflaton,''

2129: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524}, 5 (2002),

2130: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110002];

2131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110002;%%

2132: T.~Moroi and T.~Takahashi,

2133: %``Effects of cosmological moduli fields on cosmic microwave background,''

2134: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 522}, 215 (2001)

2135: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 539}, 303 (2002)]

2136: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110096].

2137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110096;%%

2138: 

2139: \bibitem{irs}

2140:   G.~Dvali, A.~Gruzinov and M.~Zaldarriaga,

2141:   %``A new mechanism for generating density perturbations from inflation,''

2142:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 023505

2143:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0303591].

2144:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303591;%%;

2145:   L.~Kofman,

2146:   %``Probing string theory with modulated cosmological fluctuations,''

2147:   arXiv:astro-ph/0303614.

2148:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303614;%%

2149: 

2150: \bibitem{lyth} D.~H.~Lyth,

2151: %``Can the curvaton paradigm accommodate a low inflation scale,''

2152: arXiv:hep-th/0308110.

2153: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0308110;%%

2154: 

2155: \bibitem{postma}

2156:   M.~Postma,

2157:   %``Curvaton scenario with low scale inflation revisited,''

2158:   JCAP {\bf 0405}, 002 (2004)

2159:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0403213].

2160:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403213;%%

2161: 

2162: \bibitem{run}

2163:  M.~Kawasaki, M.~Yamaguchi and J.~Yokoyama,

2164:   %``Inflation with a running spectral index in supergravity,''

2165:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 023508 (2003)

2166:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0304161].

2167:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304161;%%

2168: 

2169: 

2170:  \bibitem{berera}

2171:   A.~Berera,

2172:   %``Warm Inflation,''

2173:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 75} (1995) 3218

2174:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9509049];

2175:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9509049;%%

2176:    L.~M.~H.~Hall, I.~G.~Moss and A.~Berera,

2177:   %``Scalar perturbation spectra from warm inflation,''

2178:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 083525

2179:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0305015].

2180:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0305015;%%

2181: 

2182: 

2183: 

2184: \end{thebibliography}

2185: 

2186: \end{document}

2187: 

2188: 

2189: 

2190: 

2191: 

2192: 

2193: