1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% L a T e X (no macros) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3:
4: \textwidth 16.25cm
5: \textheight 22.5cm
6: \hoffset -1.5cm
7: \voffset -1cm
8:
9: \setlength{\parindent}{1cm}
10: \setlength{\parskip}{5pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}
11: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.}
12:
13: \usepackage{cite}
14: \usepackage{axodraw}
15: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
16: \usepackage{epsfig}
17:
18: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
19: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
20: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
21: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
22: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
23: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
24:
25:
26: %\def\tablename{\bf Table}
27: %\def\figurename{\bf Figure}
28:
29:
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: \begin{flushright}
34: CERN-PH-TH/2006-003\\[-2pt]
35: {\tt hep-ph/0601080}\\
36: January 2006
37: \end{flushright}
38: \bigskip
39:
40: \begin{center}
41: {\LARGE {\bf {\boldmath $F_D$}-Term Hybrid Inflation with}}\\[0.3cm]
42: {\LARGE {\bf Electroweak-Scale Lepton Number Violation}}\\[1.5cm]
43: {\large Bj\"orn Garbrecht$^{\, a}$ and Apostolos Pilaftsis$^{\, a,b}$}\\[0.5cm]
44: {\em $^a$School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,}\\
45: {\em Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom}\\[0.3cm]
46: {\em $^b$CERN, Physics Department, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23,
47: Switzerland}
48: \end{center}
49:
50: \vspace{1.5cm} \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}
51:
52: \noindent
53: We study $F$-term hybrid inflation in a novel supersymmetric extension
54: of the SM with a subdominant Fayet--Iliopoulos $D$-term. We call this
55: particular form of inflation, in short, $F_D$-term hybrid inflation.
56: The proposed model ties the $\mu$-parameter of the MSSM to an
57: SO(3)-symmetric Majorana mass $m_N$, through the vacuum expectation
58: value of the inflaton field. The late decays of the ultraheavy
59: particles associated with the extra U(1) gauge group, which are
60: abundantly produced during the preheating epoch, could lower the
61: reheat temperature even up to 1~TeV, thereby avoiding the gravitino
62: overproduction problem. The baryon asymmetry in the Universe can be
63: explained by thermal electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis, in a way
64: independent of any pre-existing lepton- or baryon-number abundance.
65: Further cosmological and particle-physics implications of the
66: $F_D$-term hybrid model are briefly discussed.
67:
68:
69: \noindent
70:
71: \medskip
72: \noindent
73: {\small PACS numbers: 98.80.Cq, 12.60.Jv, 11.30Pb}
74:
75: \newpage
76:
77:
78: \setcounter{equation}{0}
79: \section{Introduction}
80:
81: The inflationary paradigm constitutes an ingenious theoretical
82: framework, in which many of the outstanding problems in standard
83: cosmology can be successfully addressed~\cite{review}. The recent
84: WMAP data~\cite{WMAP}, compiled with other astronomical
85: observations~\cite{MT,Lyman}, improved upon the precision of about a
86: dozen of cosmological parameters. These include the power spectrum
87: $P^{1/2}_{{\cal R}}$ of curvature perturbations, the spectral index
88: $n_s$, the baryon-to-photon ratio of number densities $\eta_B$ and
89: others. The values of these cosmological observables put severe
90: constraints on the model-building of successful models of inflation
91: and their theoretical parameters. For instance, one of the basic
92: requirements for slow-roll inflation is that the so-called inflaton
93: potential be flat. In this respect, supersymmetry (SUSY) emerges as a
94: compelling ingredient in model-building for protecting the flatness of
95: the inflaton potential against quantum corrections.
96:
97: In addition to the aforementioned element of naturalness, inflationary
98: models would have a greater value if they were predictive and testable
99: as well. One such predictive and perhaps most appealing scenario is
100: the well-celebrated model of hybrid inflation~\cite{Linde}. In this
101: model, the inflaton field $\phi$ can start its slow-roll from values
102: well below the Planck scale $m_{\rm Pl} = 2.4\times 10^{18}$~GeV.
103: This renders the model very predictive, in the sense that an infinite
104: set of possible higher-dimensional non-renormalizable operators, being
105: suppressed by inverse powers of $1/m_{\rm Pl}$, will not generically
106: contribute significantly to cosmological observables, such as
107: $P^{1/2}_{{\cal R}}$ and $n_s$. In the hybrid model, inflation ends
108: through the so-called waterfall mechanism, once the field $\phi$
109: passes below a critical value $\phi_c$. When this happens, another
110: field $X$ different from $\phi$, with vanishing initial value,
111: develops a tachyonic instability and rolls fast down to its true
112: vacuum expectation value~(VEV). Super-\linebreak symmetric
113: realizations of hybrid inflation from $F$-terms were first analyzed
114: in~\cite{CLLSW,DSS}, whereas hybrid inflation triggered by a dominant
115: Fayet--Iliopoulos~(FI) $D$-term~\cite{FI} was subsequently considered
116: in~\cite{Halyo}.
117:
118: In this paper we study $F$-term hybrid inflation in a novel
119: supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model~(SM) that includes a
120: subdominant FI $D$-term. We call this scenario for brevity, the
121: $F_D$-term hybrid model. To account for the low-energy neutrino data,
122: we introduce 3 singlet neutrino superfields $\widehat{N}_{1,2,3}$ that
123: contain 3 right-handed neutrinos $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$ and their
124: supersymmetric scalar counterparts $\widetilde{N}_{1,2,3}$. Most
125: importantly, the model ties the $\mu$-parameter of the Minimal
126: Supersymmetric Standard Model~(MSSM) to an SO(3) symmetric Majorana
127: mass $m_N$, through the VEV of the inflaton field
128: $\phi$~\cite{PU2,Francesca}. Hence, the $F_D$-term hybrid model
129: naturally predicts lepton-number violation at the TeV or even at the
130: electroweak scale. In this scenario, the non-zero baryon asymmetry in
131: the Universe (BAU), $\eta_B \approx 6.1 \times 10^{-10}$, can be
132: explained by leptogenesis~\cite{FY,BAUpapers} and specifically by
133: thermal electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis~\cite{APRD,PU2}.
134:
135: In this paper we also study the constraints on the parameters of the
136: $F_D$-term hybrid model that result from a reheat temperature $T_{\rm
137: reh} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV, which is necessary to avoid the
138: well-known gravitino overproduction problem. This consideration puts
139: severe limits on the size of the superpotential couplings of the
140: theory, forcing them {\em all} to acquire rather suppressed values,
141: namely to be smaller than about $10^{-5}$~\cite{SS}. To overcome this
142: problem of unnaturalness, the presence of a subdominant FI $D$-term in
143: the $F_D$-term hybrid model is very crucial and provides a new
144: mechanism of relaxing dramatically the above upper limit. More
145: explicitly, the size of the $D$-term controls the decay rates of the
146: ultraheavy fermions and bosons associated with the extra gauge group
147: U(1)$_X$. In the absence of the $D$-term and any other
148: non-renormalizable interaction, these ultraheavy gauge-sector
149: particles are absolutely stable. On the other hand, these particles
150: are abundantly produced during the preheating epoch, thus dominating
151: the energy density of the Universe shortly after the period of the
152: first reheating caused by the perturbative inflaton decays.
153: Therefore, their late decays induced by a non-vanishing $D$-term could
154: give rise to a second reheating phase in the evolution of the early
155: Universe. Depending on the actual size of the FI $D$-term, this second
156: reheat temperature may be as low as 1~TeV, giving rise to an enormous
157: entropy release that can dilute the gravitinos produced during the
158: first reheating to an unobservable level.
159:
160: The paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{FDmodel} presents the
161: model-building aspects of the $F_D$-term hybrid model with
162: electroweak-scale lepton-number violation. Technical details related
163: to the radiatively-induced FI $D$-term are relegated to Appendix~A.
164: In Section~\ref{reheat}, we estimate the reheat temperature from the
165: perturbative inflaton decays and derive the resulting gravitino
166: constraint on the theoretical parameters. We then discuss the
167: non-perturbative production of the supermassive fields associated with
168: the U(1)$_X$ gauge group during the preheating epoch and how their
169: late decays can help to lower the reheat temperature even up to~1~TeV.
170: Section~\ref{inflation} is devoted to inflation. Here we investigate
171: two regimes: (i) cold hybrid inflation, where dissipative effects can
172: be ignored, and (ii) warm hybrid inflation, where dissipative effects
173: dominate over the expansion rate of the Universe. In
174: Section~\ref{BAU} we illustrate how the $F_D$-term hybrid model can
175: realize thermal electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis. Finally,
176: Section~\ref{conclusions} summarizes our conclusions, including a
177: brief discussion of further possible implications of the $F_D$-term
178: hybrid model for particle physics and cosmology.
179:
180:
181:
182:
183: \setcounter{equation}{0}
184: \section{The {\boldmath $F_D$}--Term Hybrid Model}\label{FDmodel}
185:
186: The $F_D$-term hybrid model may be defined by the superpotential
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: \label{Wmodel}
189: W & =& \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1
190: \widehat{X}_2\: -\: M^2\Big)\ +\ \lambda\, \widehat{S} \widehat{H}_u
191: \widehat{H}_d\ +\ \frac{\rho}{2}\, \widehat{S}\, \widehat{N}_i
192: \widehat{N}_i\ +\ h^{\nu}_{ij} \widehat{L}_i \widehat{H}_u
193: \widehat{N}_j\nonumber\\ &&+\ W_{\rm MSSM}^{(\mu = 0)}\; ,
194: \end{eqnarray} where $W_{\rm MSSM}^{(\mu = 0)}$ is the MSSM superpotential
195: without the $\mu$ term:
196: \begin{equation} W_{\rm MSSM}^{(\mu = 0)}\ =\
197: h^u_{ij}\,\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{H}_u\widehat{U}_j\: +\:
198: h^d_{ij}\,\widehat{H}_d\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{D}_j\: +\:
199: h_l\, \widehat{H}_d\widehat{L}_l\widehat{E}_l \; .
200: \end{equation}
201: In~(\ref{Wmodel}), $\widehat{S}$ is the SM-singlet inflaton
202: superfield, and $\widehat{X}_1$ and $\widehat{X}_2$ is a chiral
203: multiplet pair of the so-called waterfall fields which have opposite
204: charges under the additional U(1)$_X$ gauge group. The
205: superpotential~(\ref{Wmodel}) of the model is uniquely determined by
206: the $R$ transformation: $\widehat{S} \to e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{S}$,
207: $\widehat{X}_{1,2} \to e^{\pm i\beta}\,\widehat{X}_{1,2}$,
208: $\widehat{L} \to e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{L}$, $\widehat{Q} \to
209: e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{Q}$, with $W \to e^{i\alpha} W$, whereas all
210: other fields remain invariant under an $R$ transformation. As a
211: consequence of the $R$ symmetry, higher-dimensional operators of the
212: form $\widehat{X}_1 \widehat{X}_2 \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_i/m_{\rm
213: Pl}$, for example, are not allowed.
214:
215: In addition, the model contains a subdominant FI $D$-term,
216: $-\frac{1}{2} g\, m^2_{\rm FI}\, D$, giving rise to the $D$-term
217: potential
218: \begin{equation}
219: \label{Dterm}
220: V_D\ =\ \frac{g^2}{8}\ \Big( |X_1|^2\, -\, |X_2|^2\, -\, m^2_{\rm
221: FI}\,\Big)^2\; .
222: \end{equation}
223: The FI $D$-term plays no role in the inflationary dynamics, as long as
224: $g m_{\rm FI} \ll \kappa\, M$. In Appendix~\ref{Dappendix}, we show
225: how a subdominant $D$-term can be generated radiatively after
226: Planck-scale heavy degrees of freedom have been integrated out. The
227: presence of the $D$-term is important to break an accidental discrete
228: charge symmetry that survives after the spontaneous symmetry breaking
229: (SSB) of the U(1)$_X$. Such a breaking is crucial to render all
230: U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector particles unstable. As we will see in
231: Section~\ref{reheat}, an upper limit on the size of the FI term is
232: obtained by requiring a sufficiently low reheat temperature,
233: e.g.~$T_{\rm reh} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV, in order to
234: suppress the gravitino abundance to an unobservable level.
235:
236:
237: From~(\ref{Wmodel}) it is straightforward to read the Lagrangian of
238: the inflationary soft SUSY-breaking sector,
239: \begin{equation}
240: \label{Lsoft}
241: -\, {\cal L}_{\rm soft}\ =\ M^2_S S^*S\: +\: \Big(
242: \kappa A_\kappa\, S X_1X_2\: +\: \lambda A_\lambda S H_u H_d\: \: +\:
243: \frac{\rho}{2}\, A_\rho\, S \widetilde{N}_i\widetilde{N}_i\:
244: -\: \kappa a_S M^2 S \: \ +\ {\rm H.c.}\,\Big)\,,
245: \end{equation}
246: where $M_S$, $A_{\kappa,\lambda,\rho}$ and $a_S$ are soft
247: SUSY-breaking mass parameters of order $M_{\rm SUSY} \sim 1$~TeV.
248:
249: In the regime $|S| \gg M$ relevant to inflation, the dominant
250: tree-level and one-loop contributions to the renormalized effective
251: potential may be described by
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: \label{VpotFD}
254: V_{\rm inflation} & \approx & \kappa^2 M^4\ \Bigg[\, 1\: +\:
255: \frac{1}{64\pi^2}\, \Big(\, 4\kappa^2 \: +\: 8\lambda^2\: +\:
256: 6\rho^2\,\Big)\, \ln\Bigg(\frac{|S|^2}{M^2}\Bigg)\,\Bigg]\nonumber\\
257: &&
258: -\: \Big( \kappa a_S M^2 S\: +\: {\rm H.c.}\Big)\ +\ V_{\rm SUGRA}\ ,
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: where $V_{\rm SUGRA}$ denotes the supergravity (SUGRA) correction that
261: results from the K\"ahler potential. Assuming a minimal K\"ahler
262: potential, the SUGRA correction of interest to us takes on the simple
263: form~\cite{CLLSW,CP,LR}
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{Vsugra}
266: V_{\rm SUGRA}\ =\ \kappa^2 M^4\, \frac{|S|^4}{2\,m^4_{\rm Pl}}\ ,
267: \end{equation}
268: where $m_{\rm Pl} = 2.4\times 10^{18}$~GeV is the reduced Planck mass.
269: Possible one-loop contributions to $V_{\rm inflation}$ from
270: $A_{\kappa,\lambda,\rho}$-terms become significant only for relatively
271: low values of $M$, e.g. $M\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^8$~GeV, for
272: $\kappa,\lambda,\rho \sim 1$, and may therefore be neglected. At the
273: tree level, however, only the tadpole term $\kappa a_S M^2\, S$ may
274: become relevant for values of $\kappa \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-4}$,
275: whereas the other soft SUSY-breaking terms are negligible during
276: inflation~\cite{SS}.
277:
278: We now investigate the stability of the inflationary trajectory in the
279: presence of the Higgs doublets $H_{u,d}$ and the right-handed scalar
280: neutrinos $\widetilde{N}_{1,2,3}$. Specifically, the initial
281: condition for inflation is
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{initial}
284: {\rm Re}\, S^{\rm in}\ =\ |S^{\rm in}|\ \gg\ M\,,\qquad
285: X^{\rm in}_{1,2}\ =\ 0\,,\qquad
286: H^{\rm in}_{u,d}\ =\ 0\,,\qquad
287: \widetilde{N}^{\rm in}_{1,2,3}\ =\ 0\; .
288: \end{equation}
289: At the end of inflation, one should ensure that the waterfall fields
290: acquire a high VEV, i.e. $X^{\rm end}_{1,2}\ =\ M$, while all other
291: fields have small VEVs, possibly of the electroweak order. To achieve
292: this, we have to require that the Higgs-doublet and the sneutrino mass
293: matrices stay positive definite throughout the inflationary trajectory
294: up to the critical value $|S_c| \approx M$, whereas the corresponding
295: mass matrix of $X_{1,2}$ will be the first to develop a negative
296: eigenvalue and tachyonic instability close to $|S_c|$. In this way, it
297: will be the fields $X_{1,2}$ which will first start moving away from 0
298: and set in to the `good' vacuum $X^{\rm end}_1\ =\ X^{\rm end}_2\ =\
299: M$, instead of having the other fields, e.g.~$H_{1,2}$ and
300: $\widetilde{N}^{\rm in}_{1,2,3}$, go to a `bad' vacuum where $X^{\rm
301: end}_{1,2}\ =\ 0$, $H^{\rm end}_{1,2}\ =\ \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}\, M$
302: and $\widetilde{N}^{\rm in}_{1,2,3} = \frac{\kappa}{\rho}\, M$. To
303: see this, let us write down the mass matrix in the background
304: Higgs-doublet field space $(H^\dagger_d\,,\ H_u )$ as
305: \begin{equation}
306: \label{Mdoublet}
307: M^2_{\rm Higgs}\ =\ \left(\! \begin{array}{cc}
308: |\lambda|^2 |S|^2 & -\,\kappa \lambda (M^2 - X_1 X_2 )\: +\: \lambda
309: A_\lambda S \\
310: -\,\kappa^* \lambda^* (M^2 - X^*_1 X^*_2 ) +\: \lambda^*
311: A^*_\lambda S^* & |\lambda|^2 |S|^2 \end{array}\!\right)\ .
312: \end{equation}
313: The requirement of positive definiteness may be translated into the
314: simple condition:
315: \begin{equation}
316: \label{Scondition}
317: |\lambda|\, |S|^2\ \ge\ |\kappa (M^2 - X_1 X_2 )\: -\:
318: A_\lambda S|\ .
319: \end{equation}
320: From this last inequality, we may see that the condition $\lambda
321: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} \kappa$ is sufficient for ending hybrid
322: inflation to the `good' vacuum. Likewise, one obtains a condition
323: analogous to~(\ref{Scondition}) from the sneutrino mass matrix, which
324: amounts to having $\rho \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} \kappa$. The above two
325: restrictions on the superpotential couplings $\lambda$ and $\rho$ will
326: be imposed throughout our analysis.
327:
328: As mentioned above, after the end of inflation, one has $X^{\rm
329: end}_{1,2} = M$, giving rise to a high mass for the inflaton field,
330: i.e.~$2|\kappa |^2 M^2 |S|^2$. Combining this fact with the soft
331: SUSY-breaking tadpole $-\kappa a_S M^2 S$ and the trilinear coupling
332: $\kappa A_\kappa S X^{\rm end}_1 X^{\rm end}_2$, one gets a VEV for
333: the inflaton~\cite{DLS}:
334: \begin{equation}
335: \label{Send}
336: v_S\ \equiv\ \langle S^{\rm end} \rangle\ =\ \frac{1}{2|\kappa|}\,
337: \Big|\,A_{\kappa} - a_S\,\Big|\ ,
338: \end{equation}
339: where we have neglected the VEVs of the Higgs doublets $H_{u,d}$. The
340: VEV of $S$ induces an effective $\mu$-term and an SO(3) symmetric
341: lepton-number-violating Majorana mass $m_N$ of the electroweak
342: order~\cite{PU2}:
343: \begin{equation}
344: \label{mumN}
345: \mu\ =\ \lambda\, v_S\;, \qquad m_N\ =\ \rho\, v_S\; .
346: \end{equation}
347: If $\rho$ and $\lambda$ are comparable in magnitude, then these two
348: mass parameters are tied together and can naturally be of the
349: TeV or even of the electroweak scale.
350:
351: In Sections~\ref{reheat} and~\ref{inflation}, we will derive the
352: constraints on the key theoretical parameters $\kappa$, $\lambda$,
353: $\rho$ and $M$ from the requirement of a low reheat temperature,
354: $T_{\rm reh} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV, and successful
355: inflation.
356:
357:
358:
359:
360: \setcounter{equation}{0}
361: \section{Preheating and Second Reheating}\label{reheat}
362:
363: In the SUGRA framework, the reheat temperature is constrained by the
364: fact that an overabundant amount of gravitinos may destroy, through
365: their possible late decays, the successful predictions of Big Bang
366: nucleosynthesis~\cite{Sarkar}. This possibility is avoided, if the
367: gravitino abundance $Y_{3/2}$ is small enough, i.e.~$Y_{3/2} <
368: 10^{-12}$. The latter may be translated to an upper limit on the
369: reheat temperature, i.e.~$T_{\rm reh} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV.
370: If the gravitinos are stable, the above limit may be relaxed by one
371: order of magnitude to $\sim 10^{10}$~GeV. This depends on whether the
372: so-called next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) has a small
373: branching fraction to hadronic decay modes~\cite{FIY}. In addition to
374: the above upper limit, the reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ is also
375: constrained from below, depending on the mechanism of baryogenesis.
376: Thus, for successful electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis, a lower
377: bound of order TeV on $T_{\rm reh}$ should be considered.
378:
379: In the following we will study the post-inflationary dynamics. To this
380: end, let us define the fields:
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: \label{Xpm}
383: X_\pm \!&=&\! \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, (X_1\: \pm\: X_2)\ =\
384: \langle X_\pm \rangle\: +\: \delta X_\pm\; ,\nonumber\\
385: \delta X_\pm \!&=&\! \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
386: (R_\pm\, +\, {\rm i}I_\pm)\; .
387: \end{eqnarray}
388: As mentioned in the introduction, inflation ends, once the inflaton
389: field, $\phi = \sqrt{2}\, {\rm Re}\, S$, rolls below a critical value
390: $\phi_c \approx \sqrt{2}\, M$. Then, the waterfall regime begins,
391: where the waterfall fields $S$ and $R_+$ evolve rapidly (we use the
392: gauge freedom to ensure that all VEVs point to real directions).
393: Ignoring small corrections due to a non-vanishing FI $D$-term, $m_{\rm
394: FI}$, the VEVs of $S$ and $R_+$ oscillate around \emph{zero}, whereas
395: $X_+$ attains its U(1)$_X$-breaking VEV, $\langle X_+ \rangle =
396: \sqrt{2} M$.
397:
398: The masses of the waterfall- or $\kappa$-sector fields $\phi$ and
399: $R_+$ are equal to $m_\kappa = \sqrt 2 \kappa M$. The inflaton $\phi$
400: decays predominantly into pairs of charged and neutral higgsinos,
401: $\tilde{h}^\pm_{u,d}$, $\tilde{h}^0_{u,d}$, $\tilde{\bar{h}}^0_{u,d}$,
402: and into pairs of right-handed Majorana neutrinos
403: $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$. The decay width of the inflaton is given by
404: \begin{equation}
405: \label{infldecay}
406: \Gamma_\phi\ =\ \frac{1}{32\pi}\: \Big(\, 4\lambda^2\: +\: 3 \rho^2\,
407: \Big)\: m_\kappa\; .
408: \end{equation}
409: It turns out that the field $R_+$ decays into the scalar SUSY partners
410: of the aforementioned fields at the same rate. Hence, we find
411: \begin{equation}
412: \Gamma_\phi\ =\ \Gamma_{R_+}\ \equiv\ \Gamma_\kappa\; .
413: \end{equation}
414: The reheat temperature resulting from the perturbative decays of the
415: $\kappa$-sector fields may usually be estimated by
416: \begin{equation}
417: \label{Treh}
418: T^\kappa_{\rm reh}\ =\ \left( \frac{90}{\pi^2\, g_*}\right)^{1/4}\,
419: \sqrt{\Gamma_\kappa\: m_{\rm Pl} }\ ,
420: \end{equation}
421: where $g_* = 228.75$ is the number of the relativistic degrees of
422: freedom in the supersymmetric model under consideration. The gravitino
423: bound then implies that
424: \begin{equation}
425: \label{Tkappa}
426: \kappa\, \left(\, \lambda^2\: +\: \frac{3}{4}\, \rho^2\, \right)\
427: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ 3 \cdot 10^{-15}\,\times\,
428: \left(\frac{T^\kappa_{\rm reh}}{10^9~{\rm GeV}}\right)^2\,
429: \left( \frac{10^{16}~{\rm GeV}}{M}\right)\; .
430: \end{equation}
431: If $\kappa \approx \lambda \approx \rho$, this amounts to being each
432: individual coupling smaller than about $10^{-5}$, for $M =10^{16}$~GeV
433: and $T^\kappa_{\rm reh} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV.
434:
435: So far, we have only considered the post-inflationary dynamics of the
436: $\kappa$-sector fields, $S$, $R_+$ and $I_+$, to which all the energy
437: of the inflationary potential is stored at the onset of the waterfall
438: regime. We now turn our attention to the $g$-sector, namely to the
439: particles associated with the extra U(1)$_X$ gauge group. This
440: distinction of the different fields involved after inflation is made
441: clear in Table~\ref{spectrum}. Thus, the $g$- or U(1)$_X$ gauge-
442: sector contains the U(1)$_X$ gauge boson $V_\mu$, the Dirac fermion
443: $\psi_g$, which consists of the gaugino $\lambda$ and the fermionic
444: superpartner of $X_-$, and the scalars $R_-$ and $I_-$; the field
445: $I_-$ is a massless would-be Goldstone boson which becomes the
446: longitudinal component of $V_\mu$. Each of the $g$-sector particles
447: has a mass $m_g=2^{-1/2} g \langle X_+ \rangle$. In fact, during the
448: waterfall transition, their masses evolve rapidly from 0 to $g M$. As
449: we will see below, this rapid non-adiabatic mass variation triggers
450: the so-called preheating mechanism, through which the $g$-sector
451: particles can be produced in sizeable amounts. Their decays can only
452: be induced by the presence of a non-vanishing $D$-term, which breaks
453: explicitly a discrete charge symmetry in the $F$- and the $D$-term
454: sectors which would remain otherwise intact even after the SSB of the
455: U(1)$_X$.
456:
457: \begin{table}
458: \begin{center}
459: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
460: \hline
461: & & & \\
462: Sector & Boson & Fermion & Mass\\
463: & & & \\
464: \hline\hline
465: & & & \\
466: Waterfall &
467: $S$, $R_+$, $I_+$ &
468: $\psi_\kappa=
469: \left(
470: \begin{array}{c}
471: \frac{1}{\sqrt2}
472: \left[
473: \left(1-\frac{v}{2M}\right)\psi_{X_1}
474: +\left(1+\frac{v}{2M}\right)\psi_{X_2}
475: \right]
476: \\
477: \psi_S^\dagger
478: \end{array}
479: \right)
480: $
481: &
482: $\sqrt 2 \kappa M$
483: \\
484: ($\kappa$-sector) & & & \\
485: & & & \\
486: \hline
487: & & & \\
488: U(1)$_X$ Gauge &
489: $V_\mu$, $R_-$ &
490: $\psi_g=
491: \left(
492: \begin{array}{c}
493: \frac{1}{\sqrt2}
494: \left[
495: \left(1+\frac{v}{2M}\right)\psi_{X_1}
496: -\left(1-\frac{v}{2M}\right)\psi_{X_2}
497: \right]
498: \\
499: -{\rm i}\lambda^\dagger
500: \end{array}
501: \right)
502: $
503: &
504: $g M$
505: \\
506: ($g$-sector) & & & \\
507: & & & \\
508: \hline
509: \end{tabular}
510: \end{center}
511: \caption{\em Particle spectrum of the waterfall and U(1)$_X$ gauge
512: sectors after inflation, where $V_\mu$ denotes the U(1)$_X$ gauge
513: boson and $\lambda$~its associate gaugino.}\label{spectrum}
514: \end{table}
515:
516: To make this last point explicit, let us express the relevant $F$- and
517: $D$-term potential in terms of the fields $X_\pm$ defined
518: in~(\ref{Xpm}):
519: \begin{equation}
520: \label{VFD}
521: V_{FD}\ =\ \frac{\kappa^2}{4}\, \Big|\,X^2_+\: -\: X^2_-\:
522: -\: 2\,M^2\,\Big|^2\ +\ \frac{g^2}{8}\, \Big(\,
523: X^*_+ X_-\: +\: X^*_- X_+\: -\: m^2_{\rm FI}\, \Big)^2\; .
524: \end{equation}
525: It is obvious that the potential $V_{FD}$ possesses an additional
526: discrete charge symmetry under the transformation, $X_\pm \to \pm
527: X_\pm$, if the FI mass term vanishes, $m^2_{\rm FI} = 0$. In the
528: absence of a FI term, this symmetry will still survive even after the
529: SSB of the U(1)$_X$ along the flat direction $\langle X_1\rangle =
530: \langle X_2 \rangle = M$,\footnote{Observe that an analogous discrete
531: charge symmetry also survives after SSB in the so-called $D$-term
532: inflationary model~\cite{Halyo}, where $M = 0$ and $m_{\rm FI} \neq
533: 0$. In this case, the waterfall fields $X_{1,2}$ transform as
534: $X_{1,2} \to \pm X_{1,2}$, while their VEVs after inflation are
535: $\langle X_1 \rangle = m_{\rm FI}$ and $\langle X_2 \rangle = 0$.} or
536: equivalently when $\langle X_+ \rangle = \sqrt{2} M$ and $\langle
537: X_-\rangle = 0$. As a consequence, the U(1)$_X$ gauge boson $V_\mu$,
538: the scalar field $R_- = \sqrt{2}\,{\rm Re} (X_-)$ and their fermionic
539: superpartner $\psi_g$ are all stable with a mass $g M$. This feature
540: is highly unsatisfactory for the hybrid model without a FI term, since
541: these particles can be produced in large numbers during the preheating
542: process, and since they are very massive, they could dominate and so
543: overclose the Universe at later times.
544:
545: The presence of the FI term $m_{\rm FI}$ breaks explicitly the above
546: discrete charge symmetry and so provides a new decay mechanism for
547: making these particles unstable. To leading order in the expansion
548: parameter $m_{\rm FI}/M$, the potential $V_{FD}$ given in~(\ref{VFD})
549: can be minimized using the linear field decompositions
550: \begin{equation}
551: \label{Xdec}
552: X_+\ =\ \sqrt{2}\,M\: +\: \delta X_+\,,\qquad
553: X_-\ =\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\: +\: \delta X_-\ ,
554: \end{equation}
555: where $v = m^2_{\rm FI}/(2M)$. Table~\ref{spectrum} exhibits the
556: particle spectrum of the waterfall and U(1)$_X$ gauge sectors to
557: leading order in $m_{\rm FI}/M$. Unlike the case of a vanishing FI
558: $D$-term, the scalar field $R_-$ of mass $gM$ will now decay into
559: pairs of two lighter scalars, $R_+$ and $I_+$, of mass
560: $\sqrt{2}\,\kappa M$, assuming that $g \gg \kappa$. The strength of
561: this coupling is given by the Lagrangian
562: \begin{equation}
563: \label{Lint}
564: {\cal L}_{\rm int}\ =\ \frac{g^2 m^2_{\rm FI}}{8 M}\; R_-\, (R_+^2 +
565: I_+^2)\; .
566: \end{equation}
567: The $D$-term induced decay width of the $R_-$ particle can readily
568: be found to be
569: \begin{equation}
570: \label{GammaR}
571: \Gamma_{R_-}\ =\ \frac{g^3}{128 \pi}\, \frac{m^4_{\rm FI}}{M^3}\ ,
572: \end{equation}
573: and the same rate also holds true for the decay of $I_-$, or
574: equivalently for the longitudinal polarization of $V_\mu$.
575: Correspondingly, the decays of the $g$-sector fermions $\psi_g$ are
576: induced by the Lagrangian
577: \begin{equation}
578: {\cal L}_{\rm int}\ =\ -\, \frac{g}{8}\ \left(\frac{m_{\rm FI}}{M}\right)^2\,
579: \left(R_+ -{\rm i}I_+\right)\,
580: \bar\psi_g\, \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\, \psi_\kappa\ +\ {\rm H.c.}
581: \end{equation}
582: Neglecting soft SUSY-breaking, we find that $\Gamma_{\psi_g} =
583: \Gamma_{R_-} \equiv \Gamma_g$.
584:
585: If the decay rate $\Gamma_g$ of the $g$-sector particles is
586: sufficiently low, they may dominate the energy density of the Universe
587: at later times, eventually leading to a second reheating phase due to
588: their out of equilibrium decays. To offer an initial estimate,
589: consider that, after the first reheating, the energy density
590: $\varrho_\kappa$ of the waterfall-sector fields gets distributed among
591: their decay products and so diluted as relativistic radiation $\propto
592: a^{-4}$, where $a$ is the usual cosmological scale factor describing
593: the expansion of the Universe. Meanwhile, the energy density
594: $\varrho_g$ of the ultraheavy $g$-sector particles produced via
595: preheating scales as $\propto a^{-3}$, such that
596: $\varrho_g/\varrho_\kappa\propto a$. Moreover, during a
597: radiation-dominated epoch, the dependence of the Hubble expansion rate
598: $H$ on $a$ is $H\propto a^{-2}$. Let us therefore denote with $H_{\rm
599: reh}$ the Hubble rate at the first reheating of the Universe and
600: $H_{\rm eq}$ the Hubble rate at the time, when
601: $\varrho_g=\varrho_\kappa$. Then, the U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector particles
602: will dominate the energy density of the Universe, when
603: \begin{equation}
604: \label{condition:domination}
605: H_{\rm eq}\ =\ H_{\rm reh}\,
606: \left(\frac{\varrho^0_g}{\varrho^0_\kappa}\right)^2\ \gg\ \Gamma_g\;,
607: \end{equation}
608: where the superscript $0$ stands for the energy density right after
609: preheating. Note that $\varrho_g/\varrho_\kappa$ is conserved until
610: the time of the first reheating, since both $\varrho_g$ and
611: $\varrho_\kappa$ scale as $a^{-3}$ during this period.
612:
613: \begin{figure}[t]
614: \begin{center}
615: \epsfig{file=gpreh.eps, height=3.in,width=5in}
616: \end{center}
617: \caption{\em The ratio of the energy density $\varrho_F~(\varrho_B)$
618: of the gauge-sector fermions~(bosons) produced via preheating to the
619: energy density $\varrho_{\rm WF} \equiv \varrho_\kappa$ carried by the
620: waterfall-sector particles as a function of $g$, for $\kappa =
621: 10^{-3}$.}\label{figure:preheating}
622: \end{figure}
623:
624:
625: The $g$-sector particle production via preheating can be computed
626: numerically~\cite{PREHEATING}, by first solving for the mode functions
627: and then using these to calculate the Hamiltonian energy density. For
628: the evolution of the VEVs $\langle X_1 \rangle \approx \langle X_2
629: \rangle$, we assume that they initially undergo strong damping due to
630: tachyonic preheating~\cite{TACHYPREH}. This phenomenon can be
631: mimicked by setting
632: \begin{equation}
633: \label{profile}
634: \langle X_1 \rangle\ =\ \langle X_2 \rangle\
635: =\ \left\{
636: \begin{array}{lr}
637: 0\,, & \textnormal{for}\quad t\leq -\pi/(4 \sqrt 2 \kappa M)\,,\\
638: \frac{1}2\,M\, [1+\sin(\sqrt 2\kappa M t)]\,, & \textnormal{for}\quad
639: -\pi/(4 \sqrt 2 \kappa M)< t < \pi/(4 \sqrt2 \kappa M)\,,\\
640: M\, & \textnormal{for}\quad t\geq \pi/(4 \sqrt2 \kappa M)\,,
641: \end{array}
642: \right.
643: \end{equation}
644: More precise forms of field evolutions may be obtained using numerical
645: simulations~\cite{TACHYPREH}. For an initial estimate, however, only
646: the velocity of the transition is important. In
647: Fig.~\ref{figure:preheating} we display the energy densities
648: $\varrho_F$ and $\varrho_B$ of the $g$-sector fermions $\psi_g$ and
649: bosons $R_-$ and $V_\mu$ (produced via preheating), normalized to the
650: energy density $\varrho_{\rm WF} \equiv \varrho_\kappa$ carried by the
651: waterfall-sector particles, as functions of the U(1)$_X$ gauge
652: coupling $g$, for $\kappa = 10^{-3}$. For the given
653: profile~(\ref{profile}) of field evolutions, these normalized energy
654: densities depend only very weakly on $\kappa$.
655:
656: The above results strongly suggest that the U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector
657: particles, $\psi_g$, $R_-$ and $V_\mu$, if sufficiently long-lived,
658: will dominate the energy density of the early Universe. We may
659: estimate the second reheat temperature $T^g_{\rm reh}$ caused by their
660: late decays, by employing a formula very analogous to (\ref{Treh}).
661: Solving this last relation for the ratio $m_{\rm FI}/M$ yields
662: \begin{equation}
663: \label{ratio:mFI:M}
664: \frac{m_{\rm FI}}{M} \approx \ 8.4 \cdot 10^{-4}\times
665: \left( \frac{0.5}{g}\right)^{3/4}
666: \left(\frac{T^g_{\rm reh}}{10^9~{\rm GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\,
667: \left( \frac{10^{16}~{\rm GeV}}{M}\right)^{1/4}\; .
668: \end{equation}
669: For second reheat temperatures of cosmological interest, i.e.~$1~{\rm
670: TeV}\leq T^g_{\rm reh}\leq 10^9~{\rm GeV}$, we obtain the combined
671: constraint for $M = 10^{16}$~GeV:
672: \begin{equation}
673: \label{FIcombined}
674: 10^{-6}\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ \frac{m_{\rm FI}}{M}\
675: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ 10^{-3}\; .
676: \end{equation}
677: From our discussion in this section, it is evident that the late
678: decays of the ultraheavy U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector fields, which are
679: copiously produced during the preheating epoch, will give rise to a
680: second reheating phase in the evolution of the early Universe at a
681: temperature $T^g_{\rm reh} \ll T^\kappa_{\rm reh}$. This makes the
682: $F_D$-term hybrid model an interesting cosmological scenario that
683: could even lead to a complete relaxation of the strict
684: bound~(\ref{Tkappa}) on the couplings $\kappa,\ \lambda,\ \rho$. The
685: reason is that gravitinos, which are produced very efficiently at high
686: reheat temperatures $T^\kappa_{\rm reh}>10^9 {\rm GeV}$, will now be
687: diluted by the large entropy release from the late decays of the
688: $g$-sector particles. In this way, the so-called gravitino
689: overproduction problem can be completely avoided. A~detailed study of
690: this topic will be given elsewhere~\cite{GPP}.
691:
692:
693:
694: \setcounter{equation}{0}
695: \section{Inflation}\label{inflation}
696:
697: In this section we will discuss the additional constraints on the
698: theoretical parameters of the $F_D$-term hybrid model from the power
699: spectrum $P_{\cal R}^{1/2}$ and the spectral index $n_s$. We
700: distinguish two possible regimes of inflation: (i) the cold hybrid
701: inflation (CHI), where dissipative effects on inflation are
702: negligible, e.g.~for $\kappa ,\ \lambda ,\ \rho\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
703: 10^{-2}$ and (ii) the warm hybrid inflation (WHI), where dissipation
704: might dominate over the expansion rate of the Universe~\cite{AB}.
705:
706:
707: \subsection{Cold Hybrid Inflation}
708:
709: In models of hybrid inflation, the spectral index $n_s$ may well be
710: approximated as follows~\cite{review}:
711: \begin{equation}
712: \label{nS}
713: n_s\: -\: 1\ =\ \frac{d\ln P^{1/2}_{\cal R}}{d\ln k}\ \approx\ 2\eta\; ,
714: \end{equation}
715: where $k$ is the comoving wavenumber at the horizon exit and
716: \begin{equation}
717: \label{eta}
718: \eta\ =\ m^2_{\rm Pl}\ \frac{V_{\phi\phi}}{V}\
719: \end{equation}
720: is the so-called $\eta$-parameter. In~(\ref{eta}), $V$ denotes the
721: inflationary potential, and $V_\phi = dV/d\phi$, $V_{\phi\phi} =
722: d^2V/d\phi^2$ etc. The current WMAP data~\cite{WMAP} show a strong
723: preference for a red-tilted spectrum, with $n_s - 1 \le 0$, implying
724: that $V_{\phi\phi} \le 0$. The actual value is $n_s = 0.98 \pm
725: 0.02$~\cite{Lyman}.
726:
727: The $T_{\rm reh}$ constraint~(\ref{Tkappa}) on the theoretical
728: parameters imply that $\kappa,\ \lambda,\ \rho \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
729: 10^{-5}$. In this case, the radiative correction to the potential
730: becomes subdominant and may be ignored to a good approximation. The
731: potential driving inflation simplifies considerably to
732: \begin{equation}
733: \label{VCHI}
734: V_{\rm inflation}\ =\ \kappa^2 M^4\: -\: \sqrt{2}\,\kappa\,a_S M^2 \phi\:
735: +\: \frac{1}{2}\, M^2_S\, \phi^2\: +\: \frac{\kappa^2\,M^4}{8\,m^4_{\rm
736: Pl}}\, \phi^4\ ,
737: \end{equation}
738: where $\phi = \sqrt{2}\, {\rm Re}\, S$ is the inflaton field
739: canonically normalized. For $M_S < 1$~TeV, $\kappa \ge 10^{-6}$ and $M
740: \ge 10^{15}$~GeV, the soft SUSY-breaking term $M_S$ can be omitted.
741: The inflationary potential $V_{\rm inflation}$ of (\ref{VCHI})
742: generically leads to a blue-tilted spectrum, i.e.~$n_s - 1 = 2 \eta >
743: 0$, which is slightly disfavoured by the recent WMAP data.
744:
745: In the following, we will concentrate on the regime where the loop
746: correction dominates the slope of the potential, such that a negative
747: value for $n_s - 1$ becomes possible. This possibility arises for
748: $10^{-4} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ \kappa ,\ \lambda ,\ \rho\
749: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$. Naively, such large values of the
750: parameters lead to a too high reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$,
751: i.e.~$T_{\rm reh} \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{10}$~GeV. However, as we
752: have discussed in Section~\ref{reheat}, the presence of a subdominant
753: $D$-term renders the stable U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector fields unstable, and
754: so a large amount of entropy can be released from their late decays,
755: leading to a $T_{\rm reh}$ which may even be as low as 1~TeV.
756:
757: Our results simplify considerably if one assumes that the slope of the
758: inflationary potential given in~(\ref{VpotFD}) is dominated by the
759: $\lambda$-dependent term. To be specific, the number of $e$-folds
760: ${\cal N}_e$ is given by
761: \begin{equation}
762: \label{Nefold}
763: {\cal N}_e\ =\ \frac{1}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\; \int_{\phi_{\rm
764: end}}^{\phi_{\cal N}}\, d\phi\: \frac{V}{V_\phi}\ \approx\
765: \frac{2\pi^2}{\lambda^2}\; \frac{\phi^2_{\cal N}}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\ .
766: \end{equation}
767: Notice that at the horizon exit, it is $\phi_{\cal N} = \sqrt{{\cal
768: N}_e/2}\, (\lambda/\pi)\, m_{\rm Pl}$ and $\phi_{\cal N}
769: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-1}\, m_{\rm Pl}$, for $\lambda
770: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.1$ and ${\cal N}_e = 60$. Hence inflation
771: starts at values of $\phi_{\cal N}$ well below $m_{\rm Pl}$. In terms
772: of the number of $e$-folds ${\cal N}_e$, the power spectrum
773: $P^{1/2}_{\cal R}$ of the curvature perturbations may now be given by
774: \begin{equation}
775: \label{PRCHI}
776: P^{1/2}_{\cal R}\ =\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}\, \pi m^3_{\rm Pl}}\;
777: \frac{V^{3/2}}{|V_\phi|}
778: \ \approx\ \sqrt{\frac{2{\cal N}_e}{3}}\
779: \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}\ \Bigg( \frac{M}{m_{\rm Pl}}\Bigg)^2\ =\
780: 5\times 10^{-5}\ .
781: \end{equation}
782: Evidently, for ${\cal N}_e = 60$ and $M=10^{16}$~GeV, the parameter
783: $\lambda$ cannot be by more than one order of magnitude larger than
784: $\kappa$, i.e.~$\lambda \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10\, \kappa$. Finally,
785: the spectral index $n_s$ in terms of ${\cal N}_e$ may be expressed as
786: follows:
787: \begin{equation}
788: \label{etaCHI}
789: n_s\, -\, 1\ =\ -\ \frac{1}{{\cal N}_e}\ \approx\ -\,0.02\ ,
790: \end{equation}
791: for ${\cal N}_e = 50$--60. In this CHI regime, the model predicts a
792: red-tilted spectrum, as currently favoured by the WMAP data.
793:
794:
795:
796: \subsection{Warm Hybrid Inflation}
797:
798: It has been extensively argued~\cite{AB} that dissipative effects due
799: to radiation production of massless particles during inflation may
800: dominate over the expansion rate $H$ of the Universe. This form of
801: inflation is known as warm inflation. Although a firm first principles
802: derivation for the existence of a strong dissipative regime of
803: inflation is still missing,\footnote{A detailed calculation based on a
804: two-particle irreducible effective action in an expanding deSitter
805: background metric would be highly preferable.} it might be worth
806: presenting tentative results for such a possible situation, using the
807: semi-empiric formalism on warm inflation developed in~\cite{AB}.
808:
809:
810: In the framework of WHI, dissipation occurs from the radiation
811: produced by the decays of the excited $H_u$ doublet of mass $\lambda
812: S$. Specifically, the interactions relevant to WHI are
813: \begin{equation}
814: \label{Lwarm}
815: -\, {\cal L}_{\rm int}^{\rm WHI}\ =\ |S|^2\, \bigg[\, |\lambda |^2\,
816: |H_u|^2\: +\: |\rho |^2\, \bigg(\,\sum_{i=1}^3\,
817: |\widetilde{N}_i|^2\bigg)\,\bigg]\ +\ \Big( h_t\, H_u\, \bar{Q}_t\,
818: t_R\: +\: h^{\nu}_{ij}\, \bar{L}_i \tilde{h}_u
819: \widetilde{N}_j\: +\: {\rm H.c.}\Big)\; .
820: \end{equation}
821: The dominant decay mode will be $H_u \to Q_t t_R$~\cite{BB}; the other
822: possible decay channel $\widetilde{N}_j \to L_i \tilde{h}_u$ is
823: Yukawa-coupling suppressed and kinematically allowed only when $\rho >
824: \lambda$. Adapting the results of~\cite{AB,BB} to our model, the
825: dominant friction term for $|S| \gg M$ is given by
826: \begin{equation}
827: \label{Ys}
828: Y_S\ \approx\ \frac{\sqrt{\pi}\, \alpha_\lambda^{3/2}\,
829: \alpha_t}{20\,\sqrt{2}}\ \phi\; ,
830: \end{equation}
831: where $\alpha_\lambda = \lambda^2/(4\pi)$ and $\alpha_t =
832: h^2_t/(4\pi)$. The dynamics of warm inflation is governed by the
833: following two equations:
834: \begin{eqnarray}
835: \label{phiS}
836: \ddot{\phi}\ +\ 3H\, ( 1 + r )\,
837: \dot{\phi}\ +\ V_\phi & = & 0\; ,\\
838: \label{rhorad}
839: \dot{\rho}_{\rm rad}\ +\ 4\, H\rho_{\rm rad} & = & Y_S\, \dot{\phi}^2\ ,
840: \end{eqnarray}
841: where $r = Y_S/(3H)$, with $H^2 \approx \kappa^2 M^4/(3 m^2_{\rm
842: Pl})$. In the strong dissipative regime where $r \gg 1$, inflation
843: usually ends when $\rho_{\rm rad} > \rho_{\rm vac} \approx \kappa^2
844: M^4$.
845:
846: Assuming conditions of slow roll during WHI, i.e.~$\eta /r^2 \ll 1$,
847: we may determine the number of $e$-folds by
848: \begin{equation}
849: \label{NeWHI}
850: {\cal N}_e \ =\ \frac{1}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\; \int^{\phi_{\cal
851: N}}_{\phi_{\rm end}}\, d\phi\ \frac{(1+r)\,V }{V_\phi}\ =\
852: \frac{\pi \alpha_\lambda^{1/2}\, \alpha_t}{60\, \kappa}\ \frac{
853: \phi^3_{\cal N}}{ m_{\rm Pl}\, M^2}\ .
854: \end{equation}
855: In the limit $r\gg 1$, the power spectrum $P_{\cal R}^{1/2}$ due to
856: WHI is approximately given by
857: \begin{equation}
858: \label{PRWHI}
859: (P_{\cal R}^{1/2})_{\rm WHI}\ \approx\ \left( \frac{3\pi}{4} \right)^{1/4}\,
860: \sqrt{\frac{T_{\rm rad}}{H}}\;
861: r^{5/4}\, (P_{\cal R}^{1/2})_{\rm CHI}\ .
862: \end{equation}
863: The temperature $T_{\rm rad}$ associated with radiation production can be
864: calculated from (\ref{rhorad}), by solving the approximate equation
865: \begin{equation}
866: \label{Trad}
867: \rho_{\rm rad}\ =\ \frac{\pi^2}{30}\ g_*\ T^4_{\rm rad}\ \approx\
868: \frac{3r}{4}\ \dot{\phi}^2\; ,
869: \end{equation}
870: where $\dot{\phi} \approx - V_\phi/(3r H)$ is evaluated at the horizon
871: exit. Putting everything together, we find
872: \begin{equation}
873: \label{PRWHI2}
874: (P_{\cal R}^{1/2})_{\rm WHI}\ \approx\ g_*^{-1/8}\, {\cal N}_e^{5/8}\,
875: (2\kappa)^{1/4}\, \alpha_\lambda^{5/8}\, \alpha_t^{1/2}\,
876: \left(\frac{M}{m_{\rm Pl}}\right)^{1/2}\ =\ 5 \times 10^{-5}\ .
877: \end{equation}
878: It is interesting to observe that WHI leads to a viable inflationary
879: scenario even for strong couplings, e.g.~for $\kappa ,\
880: \alpha_\lambda,\ \alpha_t\ \sim~1$. In this case, the
881: U(1)$_X$-breaking scale $M$ will be as low as $10^{10}$~GeV, in
882: agreement with the earlier discussion in \cite{BB}. Obviously, it
883: would be difficult to associate such a low scale for $M$ with gauge
884: coupling unification. Finally, the spectral index $n_s$ in WHI is
885: calculated in terms of ${\cal N}_e$ to be: $n_s - 1 \approx - 5/(4
886: {\cal N}_e) \approx -0.025$.
887:
888:
889:
890: \setcounter{equation}{0}
891: \section{Baryon Asymmetry in the Universe}\label{BAU}
892:
893: As discussed in Section~\ref{reheat}, the late decays of the U(1)$_X$
894: gauge-sector particles may lead to a second reheating phase in the
895: evolution of the early Universe, giving rise to a very low final
896: reheat temperature~$T_{\rm reh}$. Depending on the size of the
897: $D$-term, $T_{\rm reh}$ may even be as low as 1~TeV. In such a case,
898: the BAU may be explained by thermal electroweak-scale resonant
899: leptogenesis~\cite{APRD,PU2}. The $F_D$-term hybrid model under study
900: can realize such a scenario even within a minimal SUGRA framework,
901: where all soft SUSY-breaking parameters are constrained at the
902: gauge-coupling unification point $M_X$, which can be chosen to be $M =
903: M_X \approx 10^{16}$~GeV. Instead, electroweak baryogenesis is no
904: longer viable in minimal SUGRA, since it requires an unconventionally
905: large hierarchy between the left-handed and right-handed top
906: squarks~\cite{EWBAU}.
907:
908: An advantageous feature of resonant leptogenesis is that the
909: predictions for the BAU are almost independent of any pre-existing
910: lepton- or baryon-number abundance. This kind of fixed-line attractor
911: behaviour is a consequence of the quasi-in-thermal equilibrium
912: dynamics governing the heavy Majorana neutrino sector. It results from
913: the fact that the heavy neutrino decay widths can be several orders of
914: magnitude larger than the expansion rate $H$ of the Universe. A
915: detailed analysis of this dynamics was presented in \cite{PU2}, where
916: single lepton-flavour and freeze-out sphaleron effects were
917: systematically considered for the {\em first time}. In particular, it
918: was shown that single lepton-flavour effects resulting from the
919: Yukawa-neutrino couplings $h^{\nu}_{ij}$ can have a dramatic impact on
920: the predictions for the BAU, enhancing its value by many orders of
921: magnitude. From the model-building point of view, phenomenologically
922: rich scenarios are now possible with testable implications for
923: high-energy colliders~\cite{prodN} and low-energy observables, such as
924: $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\mu \to eee$ and $\mu \to e$ conversion in
925: nuclei~\cite{LFVN}.
926:
927: We will not reiterate all these results here, but only underline some
928: of the key model-building aspects related to the neutrino sector of
929: the $F_D$-term hybrid model. The $F_D$-term hybrid model contains a
930: $3\times 3$ Majorana mass matrix $M_S$, which is SO(3) symmetric at
931: the gauge-coupling unification point $M_X = M \approx 10^{16}$~GeV,
932: i.e.\ $M_S = m_N {\bf 1}_3$. The parameter $m_N = \rho v_S$ is a
933: universal Majorana mass whose natural value is of the order of the
934: soft SUSY-breaking or the electroweak scale, i.e.~$m_N \sim M_{\rm
935: SUSY}$ or $m_t$. The SO(3) symmetry of the heavy neutrino sector is
936: broken explicitly by the Yukawa neutrino couplings $h^{\nu}_{ij}$. In
937: order to explain the low-energy light neutrino data, the breaking of
938: the SO(3) symmetry should proceed via an intermediate step, namely
939: SO(3) should first break into its subgroup SO(2) $\simeq$ U(1)$_l$.
940: This can be achieved by coupling all lepton doublets $L_{e,\mu,\tau}$
941: to the linear combination: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, (\nu_{2R} + i
942: \nu_{3R})$. These Yukawa couplings could be as large as the
943: $\tau$-Yukawa coupling $h_\tau$, i.e.~$h^{\nu}_{i2} = i h^{\nu}_{i3}
944: \sim 10^{-2}$. As a consequence of the U(1)$_l$ symmetry, the
945: resulting light neutrino mass matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$ vanishes
946: identically to all orders in perturbation theory. The remaining
947: U(1)$_l$ symmetry can be broken by smaller Yukawa couplings of the
948: order of the electron Yukawa coupling $h_e$, i.e.~$h^{\nu}_{i1} =
949: \varepsilon_i \sim 10^{-6}$--$10^{-7}$, which arise when one couples
950: $L_{e,\mu ,\tau}$ to $\nu_{1R}$~\cite{PUcomment}.
951:
952: Further breaking of the U(1)$_l$ symmetry is induced in the
953: heavy-neutrino sector by renormalization-group and threshold effects
954: while running $M_S$ from $M$ to $m_t$~\cite{Branco}. Thus, $M_S$ will
955: generically modify to: $M_S = m_N {\bf 1}_3 + \Delta M_S$, where one
956: typically has $(\Delta M_S)_{ij}/m_N \sim 10^{-5}$--$10^{-7}$. Taking
957: the effect of U(1)$_l$-breaking parameters $(\Delta M_S)_{ij}$ and
958: $\varepsilon_i$ into account, one obtains a light neutrino mass matrix
959: which can comfortably accommodate the low-energy light neutrino data,
960: e.g.~with an inverted hierarchical light neutrino spectrum~\cite{PU2}.
961: On the other hand, the heavy neutrino sector of the $F_D$-term hybrid
962: model consists of 3 nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos
963: $N_{1,2,3}$ of mass $m_{N_{1,2,3}} \approx m_N$, which can give rise
964: to successful baryogenesis through thermal electroweak-scale resonant
965: leptogenesis~\cite{PUcomment}.
966:
967:
968:
969: \setcounter{equation}{0}
970: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
971:
972:
973: We have studied $F$-term hybrid inflation in a novel supersymmetric
974: extension of the SM, to which a subdominant FI $D$-term was added. We
975: called this particular form of inflation $F_D$-term hybrid inflation.
976: The $F_D$-term hybrid model we have been analyzing in this paper ties
977: the $\mu$-parameter of the MSSM to an SO(3) symmetric Majorana mass
978: $m_N$, through the VEV of the inflaton field. As a consequence, the
979: model predicts {\em naturally} lepton-number violation at the
980: electroweak scale.
981:
982: In order to obtain predictions for the observables $P_{\cal R}^{1/2}$,
983: $n_s$ and $\eta_B$ compatible with global cosmological
984: analyses~\cite{Lyman}, as well as interesting particle-physics
985: phenomenology that could be tested in laboratory experiments, one
986: needs to make certain assumptions for the model of $F_D$-term hybrid
987: inflation:
988: \begin{itemize}
989:
990: \item[ (i)] Successful hybrid inflation relies on the assumption that
991: the inflaton field is displaced from its minimum in the beginning of
992: inflation, whereas all other non-inflaton fields have zero VEVs,
993: according to (\ref{initial}).
994:
995: \item[ (ii)] The present $F_D$-term hybrid scenario utilizes a minimal
996: K\"ahler potential, where terms of order $H^2 |S|^2$ in the
997: potential are set to zero or assumed to be negligible. This
998: consideration introduces some tuning in general SUGRA models with
999: non-minimal K\"ahler potentials.
1000:
1001: \item[(iii)] In order to get a red-tilted spectrum with negative $n_s
1002: - 1$, one has to assume that the radiative corrections dominate the
1003: slope of the inflationary potential. This possibility arises for
1004: superpotential couplings: $10^{-4} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} \kappa,\
1005: \lambda,\ \rho \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$.
1006:
1007: \item[ (iv)] Even though a bare $D$-tadpole may be present as a bare
1008: parameter in the tree-level Lagrangian, we have considered here,
1009: however, the possibility that such a term is generated radiatively
1010: after heavy degrees of freedom have been integrated out. These
1011: heavy degrees of freedom are assumed to be Planck-mass chiral
1012: superfields which are oppositely charged under the U(1)$_X$ and
1013: which break explicitly the discrete charge symmetry discussed after
1014: (\ref{VFD}) and in Appendix~A.
1015:
1016: \item[ (v)] We have assumed that the coupling $\rho$ of the inflaton
1017: to neutrino superfields is SO(3) symmetric or very close to it.
1018: After the inflaton receives a VEV, one ends up with 3 nearly
1019: degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos with masses at the electroweak
1020: scale. This enables one to successfully address the BAU within the
1021: thermal electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis framework (see our
1022: discussion in Section~\ref{BAU}). As has also been discussed in
1023: Section~\ref{BAU}, if one assumes that the neutrino-Yukawa couplings
1024: $h^\nu_{ij}$ have a certain hierarchical structure controlled by the
1025: approximate breaking of global flavour symmetries, the model can
1026: have further testable implications for $e^+e^-$ colliders and
1027: low-energy experiments of lepton flavour and/or number violation.
1028:
1029:
1030: \end{itemize}
1031:
1032: The requirement for a sufficiently low reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}
1033: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV, which does not lead to overproduction
1034: of gravitinos, provides an important constraint on the basic
1035: theoretical parameters $\kappa$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$. The naive
1036: limits on these couplings derived from reheating due to perturbative
1037: inflaton decay are very strict, i.e.~$\kappa,\ \lambda,\ \rho
1038: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-5}$. These limits may be completely avoided
1039: by considering the late decays of the U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector particles
1040: which are induced by a non-vanishing FI $D$-term $m^2_{\rm FI}$.
1041: Their decay rates depend crucially on~$m^2_{\rm FI}$. As menioned
1042: above in point~(iv) and in Appendix~A, the generation of a FI
1043: $D$-tadpole and its size may be engineered by adding Planck-scale
1044: heavy degrees of freedom to the theory and by subjecting these into
1045: extended $R$ symmetries. In this way, a phase of second reheating
1046: takes place in the evolution of the early Universe, which can lead to
1047: a significant lowering of the reheat temperature even up to 1~TeV.
1048:
1049: The $F_D$-term hybrid model with electroweak-scale lepton number
1050: violation can easily be embedded within a minimal SUGRA theory, where
1051: all soft SUSY-breaking parameters are constrained at the gauge
1052: coupling unification point $M_X$ which can be chosen to be $M \approx
1053: 10^{16}$~GeV. Instead, electroweak baryogenesis is not viable in a
1054: minimal SUGRA scenario of the MSSM. Moreover, the CP-odd soft
1055: SUSY-breaking phases required for successful electroweak baryogenesis
1056: face severe constraints from the non-observation of the electron and
1057: neutron electric dipole moments, even though the latter arise
1058: diagrammatically at the 2-loop level~\cite{CKP}.
1059:
1060: The $F_D$-term hybrid model under discussion conserves $R$-parity. The
1061: reason is that all superpotential couplings either conserve the $B-L$
1062: number or break it by even number of units. Specifically, the
1063: operator $\widehat{S}\widehat{N}_i\widehat{N}_i$ breaks explicitly
1064: $L$, as well as $B-L$, by 2~units. Consequently, the lightest
1065: supersymmetric particle (LSP) of the spectrum is expected to be
1066: stable, thus providing a viable candidate to address the so-called
1067: Cold Dark Matter (CDM) problem. The new aspect of our model is that
1068: right-handed sneutrinos could be the LSPs, opening up new
1069: possibilities in the phenomenology of CDM and its detection.
1070:
1071: From the particle-physics point of view and in the low-energy limit
1072: where the waterfall sector has decoupled and the $\rho$-coupling
1073: neglected for simplicity, the $F_D$-term hybrid model becomes
1074: identical to the so-called Minimal Nonminimal Supersymmetric Standard
1075: Model (MNSSM) in the decoupling limit of a large tadpole~\cite{PP}.
1076: In particular, in the framework of WHI discussed in
1077: Section~\ref{inflation}, the coupling $\lambda$ can be sizeable,
1078: i.e.~$\lambda \sim 0.6$. In this case, the Higgs phenomenology of the
1079: MSSM will modify drastically, despite the decoupling of the singlet
1080: Higgs states. One striking possibility in the MNSSM is that the
1081: charged Higgs boson $H^+$ could be lighter than the SM-like Higgs
1082: boson~\cite{PP2}, thus pointing to particular collider
1083: phenomenologies~\cite{DP}. However, even within the traditional
1084: scenario of CHI, where $\kappa, \lambda \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
1085: 10^{-2}$, the $F_D$-term hybrid model will favour particular benchmark
1086: scenarios of the MSSM. For example, if $\lambda \gg \kappa$, the
1087: $F_D$-term hybrid model may account for a possible large value of the
1088: $\mu$-parameter. Specifically, if $\lambda = 4 \kappa$, one gets
1089: from~(\ref{Send}) the hierarchy $\mu \approx 4 M_{\rm SUSY}$, which is
1090: the so-called CPX benchmark scenario~\cite{CPX} describing maximal CP
1091: violation in the MSSM Higgs sector at low and moderate values of $\tan
1092: \beta$.
1093:
1094:
1095: A possible natural solution to the famous cosmological constant
1096: problem is expected to provide further constraints on the model
1097: building of cosmologically viable models in future. Nevertheless, the
1098: $F_D$-term hybrid model presented in this paper constitutes a first
1099: attempt towards the formulation of a minimal Particle-Physics and
1100: Cosmology Standard Model, whose validity could, in principle, be
1101: tested in laboratory experiments and further vindicated by
1102: astronomical observations.
1103:
1104:
1105: \bigskip\bigskip
1106:
1107: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
1108:
1109: We thank Arjun Berera, Rudnei Ramos and Antonio Riotto for useful
1110: discussions. We also thank Constantine Pallis for collaboration in the
1111: early stages of this project. AP~dedicates this work to the memory of
1112: Darwin Chang, an invaluable friend and collaborator. This work is
1113: supported in part by the PPARC research grants: PPA/G/O/2002/00471 and
1114: PP/C504286/1.
1115:
1116:
1117:
1118: \newpage
1119:
1120: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
1121: \begin{appendix}
1122:
1123: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1124: \section{{\boldmath $D$}--Term Engineering}\label{Dappendix}
1125:
1126:
1127: The generation and the size of a $D$-term may be engineered by adding
1128: Planck-scale heavy degrees of freedom to the theory and by subjecting
1129: these into extended $R$ symmetries.
1130:
1131: To elucidate our point, let us first consider a model augmented by a
1132: pair of oppositely charged superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$,
1133: with U(1)$_X$ charges: $Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_2) = -
1134: Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_1 ) = Q(\widehat{X}_1) = - Q(\widehat{X}_2 )
1135: = 1$. The extended superpotential $W$ of our interest is
1136: \begin{equation}
1137: \label{Wdterm}
1138: W \ =\ \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1
1139: \widehat{X}_2\: -\: M^2\Big)\ +\ \xi\, m_{\rm Pl}\,
1140: \widehat{\overline{X}}_1\,\widehat{\overline{X}}_2\ +\
1141: \xi_1\, \frac{ ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_1\widehat{X}_1 )^2}{2\, m_{\rm
1142: Pl}}\ +\ \xi'_1\,
1143: \frac{ ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_2\widehat{X}_2 )^2}{2\, m_{\rm Pl}}\ .
1144: \end{equation}
1145: This form of the superpotential may be enforced by the $R$ symmetry:
1146: $\widehat{S} \to e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{S}$, $\widehat{X}_{1,2} \to
1147: e^{\pm i\beta}\,\widehat{X}_{1,2}$, $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2} \to
1148: e^{i(\frac{a}{2} \mp \beta)}\, \widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$,
1149: $\widehat{L} \to e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{L}$, $\widehat{Q} \to
1150: e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{Q}$, with $W \to e^{i\alpha} W$. As before,
1151: all remaining fields are considered to be neutral under the $R$
1152: symmetry. Notice that the same $R$-symmetry allows for the operator
1153: $\kappa' S (\widehat{X}_1 \widehat{X}_2 )^2/m^2_{\rm Pl}$. The
1154: presence of this superpotential term can trigger shifted hybrid
1155: inflation, where the gauge symmetry U(1)$_X$ is broken along the
1156: inflationary trajectory, thereby inflating away unwanted topological
1157: defects~\cite{JKLS}.
1158:
1159: A $D$-term will now be generated after integrating out the
1160: Planck-scale superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$. The
1161: loop-induced $D$-tadpole $m^2_{\rm FI}$ is found to be
1162: \begin{equation}
1163: \label{FIdterm}
1164: m^2_{\rm FI}\ \approx\ \frac{\xi^2_1 - \xi'^2_1}{8\pi^2}\
1165: \frac{M^4}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\ \ln\left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\ .
1166: \end{equation}
1167: For $M = 10^{16}$~GeV, we find that $m_{\rm FI}/M
1168: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-3}$, for $\xi_1,\ \xi'_1
1169: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.3$. Observe that if $\xi_1 = \xi'_1$, the
1170: discrete charge symmetry discussed after (\ref{VFD}) gets restored
1171: again and $m_{\rm FI}$ vanishes identically.
1172:
1173: The size of the $D$-term may be suppressed further, if the Planck-mass
1174: chiral superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ possess higher
1175: U(1)$_X$ charges. In general, one may assume that the U(1)$_X$
1176: charges of $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ are:
1177: $Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_2) = - Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_1 ) = n$,
1178: where $n\ge 1$. In addition, we require for
1179: $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ to transform under U(1)$_R$ as follows:
1180: \begin{equation}
1181: \label{Rsymn}
1182: \widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}\ \to\ e^{\frac{i}2\, [a \, \mp\, (n+1)
1183: \beta ]}\; \widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}\; ,
1184: \end{equation}
1185: while $\widehat{S}$, $\widehat{X}_{1,2}$ and all other fields
1186: transform as before. With this symmetry restriction, the
1187: superpotential reads:
1188: \begin{equation}
1189: \label{Wdtermn}
1190: W \ =\ \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1 \widehat{X}_2\: -\:
1191: M^2\Big)\ +\ \xi\, m_{\rm Pl}\,
1192: \widehat{\overline{X}}_1\,\widehat{\overline{X}}_2\ +\ \xi_n\, \frac{
1193: (\widehat{\overline{X}}_1)^2\, (\widehat{X}_1)^{n+1}}{2\,m^n_{\rm Pl}}\ +\
1194: \xi'_n\, \frac{ (
1195: \widehat{\overline{X}}_2)^2\,(\widehat{X}_2)^{n+1}}{2\,m^n_{\rm Pl}}\ .
1196: \end{equation}
1197: In this case, the loop-induced $D$-term is given by
1198: \begin{equation}
1199: \label{FIdtermn}
1200: m^2_{\rm FI}\ \approx\ \frac{\xi^2_n - \xi'^2_n }{8\pi^2}\
1201: \frac{M^{2(n+1)}}{m^{2n}_{\rm Pl}}\ \ln\left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\ .
1202: \end{equation}
1203: To obtain a small ratio $m_{\rm FI}/M \sim 10^{-6}$, with $\xi_n,\
1204: \xi'_n \sim 1$, one would need $n = 5,\ 6$. Finally, it is important
1205: to remark that the loop-induced $D$-term does not lead to spontaneous
1206: breakdown of global supersymmetry.
1207:
1208:
1209:
1210: \end{appendix}
1211:
1212:
1213: \newpage
1214: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1215:
1216:
1217: \bibitem{review} For reviews, see,\\
1218: D.~H.~Lyth and A.~Riotto,
1219: %``Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density
1220: %perturbation,''
1221: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 314} (1999) 1;\\
1222: K.~Enqvist and A.~Mazumdar, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 380} (2003) 99;\\
1223: B.A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa and D. Wands, hep-ph/0507632.
1224:
1225:
1226: \bibitem{WMAP} D.N. Spergel {\em et al.}, Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf
1227: 148} (2003) 175.
1228:
1229: \bibitem{MT} M. Tegmark et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 69} (2004) 103501.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{Lyman} U.~Seljak {\it et al.},
1232: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 71} (2005) 103515.
1233:
1234: \bibitem{Linde} A.~D.~Linde,
1235: %``Axions in inflationary cosmology,''
1236: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259} (1991) 38.
1237:
1238: \bibitem{CLLSW} E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth,
1239: E.~D.~Stewart and D.~Wands,
1240: %``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''
1241: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6410.
1242:
1243: \bibitem{DSS} G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~K.~Schaefer,
1244: %``Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,''
1245: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73} (1994) 1886.
1246:
1247: \bibitem{FI} P.~Fayet and J.~Iliopoulos,
1248: %``Spontaneously Broken Supergauge Symmetries And Goldstone Spinors,''
1249: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 51} (1974) 461.
1250:
1251: \bibitem{Halyo} E. Halyo, Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 387} (1996) 43;
1252: Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 454} (1999) 223;\\
1253: P. Bin\'etruy and G. Dvali, Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 388} (1996) 241.
1254:
1255: \bibitem{PU2} A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J.~Underwood, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf
1256: 72} (2005) 113001.
1257:
1258: \bibitem{Francesca} For alternative suggestions based on
1259: non-renormalizable operators that involve higher powers of $\phi$,
1260: see,\\
1261: F.~Borzumati and Y.~Nomura,
1262: %``Low-scale see-saw mechanisms for light neutrinos,''
1263: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 053005;\\
1264: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~J.~Hall, H.~Murayama, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner,
1265: %``Small neutrino masses from supersymmetry breaking,''
1266: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 115011;\\
1267: S. Dar, S. Huber, V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 69}
1268: (2004) 077701.
1269:
1270: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}
1271: (1986) 45.
1272:
1273: \bibitem{BAUpapers} S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
1274: %``A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,''
1275: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535} (2002) 25;\\
1276: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,
1277: % ``Cosmic microwave background, matter-antimatter asymmetry and neutrino
1278: % masses,''
1279: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 367;\\
1280: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim, I.~Masina,
1281: M.~N.~Rebelo and C.~A.~Savoy,
1282: %``Minimal scenarios for leptogenesis and CP violation,''
1283: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073035;\\
1284: G.~F.~Giudice, A.~Notari, M.~Raidal, A.~Riotto and A.~Strumia,
1285: %``Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,''
1286: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf 685} (2004) 89.
1287:
1288:
1289: \bibitem{APRD} A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 56} (1997) 5431;\\
1290: A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J.~Underwood, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf 692} (2004) 303;\\
1291: T.~Hambye, J.~March-Russell and S.~M.~West,
1292: %``TeV scale resonant leptogenesis from supersymmetry breaking,''
1293: JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004) 070;\\
1294: A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 081602;\\
1295: E.~J.~Chun,
1296: %``TeV leptogenesis in Z-prime models and its collider probe,''
1297: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 095010.
1298:
1299: \bibitem{SS} V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 71} (2005) 043514.
1300:
1301: \bibitem{CP} C. Panagiotakopoulos, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 55} (1997)
1302: 7335; Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 71} (2005) 063516.
1303:
1304: \bibitem{LR} A.~D. Linde and A. Riotto, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 56} (1997)
1305: 1841.
1306:
1307: \bibitem{DLS} For a related observation in other variants of hybrid
1308: inflation, see,\\
1309: G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Lazarides and Q.~Shafi,
1310: %``mu problem and hybrid inflation in supersymmetric SU(2)L x SU(2)R x
1311: %U(1)B-L,''
1312: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 424} (1998) 259;\\
1313: S.~F.~King and Q.~Shafi,
1314: %``Minimal supersymmetric SU(4) x SU(2)L x SU(2)R,''
1315: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 422} (1998) 135.
1316:
1317:
1318: \bibitem{Sarkar} J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,
1319: %``The Cosmology Of Decaying Gravitinos,''
1320: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 259} (1985) 175;\\
1321: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~B.~Gelmini, J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,
1322: %``Astrophysical Constraints On Massive Unstable Neutral Relic Particles,''
1323: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373} (1992) 399.
1324:
1325: \bibitem{FIY} For a recent analysis, see,\\
1326: M. Fujii, M. Ibe and T. Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 579} (2004) 4.
1327:
1328:
1329: \bibitem{PREHEATING}
1330: J.~H.~Traschen and R.~H.~Brandenberger,
1331: %``Particle Production During Out-Of-Equilibrium Phase Transitions,''
1332: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 2491;
1333: \\
1334: L.~Kofman, A.~D.~Linde and A.~A.~Starobinsky,
1335: %``Towards the theory of reheating after inflation,''
1336: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 3258;
1337: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9704452];
1338: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704452;%%
1339: \\
1340: D.~J.~H.~Chung, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto and I.~I.~Tkachev,
1341: %``Probing Planckian physics: Resonant production of particles during
1342: %inflation and features in the primordial power spectrum,''
1343: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 043508;
1344: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9910437];
1345: \\
1346: M.~Peloso and L.~Sorbo,
1347: %``Preheating of massive fermions after inflation: Analytical results,''
1348: JHEP {\bf 0005} (2000) 016;
1349: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0003045];
1350: \\
1351: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
1352: %``Particle number in kinetic theory,''
1353: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 38} (2004) 135;
1354: % [arXiv:hep-th/0211219];
1355: \\
1356: J.~Berges and J.~Serreau,
1357: %``Parametric resonance in quantum field theory,''
1358: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 111601.
1359: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0208070].
1360:
1361:
1362: \bibitem{TACHYPREH}
1363: T.~Prokopec and T.~G.~Roos,
1364: %``Lattice study of classical inflaton decay,''
1365: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 3768;
1366: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9610400];
1367: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610400;%%
1368: \\
1369: T.~Prokopec,
1370: %``Negative coupling instability and grand unified baryogenesis,''
1371: arXiv:hep-ph/9708428;
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708428;%%
1373: \\
1374: G.~N.~Felder, J.~Garcia-Bellido, P.~B.~Greene, L.~Kofman,
1375: A.~D.~Linde and I.~Tkachev,
1376: %``Dynamics of symmetry breaking and tachyonic preheating,''
1377: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 011601;
1378: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012142];
1379: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012142;%%
1380: \\
1381: J.~Garcia-Bellido and E.~Ruiz Morales,
1382: %``Particle production from symmetry breaking after inflation,''
1383: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536} (2002) 193.
1384: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109230].
1385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109230;%%
1386:
1387:
1388: \bibitem{GPP} B. Garbrecht, C. Pallis and A. Pilaftsis, work in progress.
1389:
1390:
1391: \bibitem{AB} A.~Berera,
1392: %``Warm Inflation,''
1393: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 75} (1995) 3218;\\
1394: A.~Berera and R.~O.~Ramos,
1395: %``The affinity for scalar fields to dissipate,''
1396: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 103509;\\
1397: L.~M.~H.~Hall, I.~G.~Moss and A.~Berera,
1398: %``Scalar perturbation spectra from warm inflation,''
1399: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 083525;\\
1400: A.~Berera and R.~O.~Ramos,
1401: %``Dynamics of interacting scalar fields in expanding space-time,''
1402: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 023513.
1403:
1404:
1405: \bibitem{BB} M.~Bastero-Gil and A.~Berera,
1406: %``Determining the regimes of cold and warm inflation in the SUSY hybrid
1407: %model,''
1408: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 063515;\\
1409: R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,
1410: %``Confronting hybrid inflation in supergravity with CMB data,''
1411: JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 071.
1412:
1413: \bibitem{EWBAU} For recent analyses, see,\\
1414: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1415: %``Improved results in supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
1416: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650} (2003) 24;\\
1417: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
1418: %``Kinetic description of fermion flavor mixing and CP-violating sources for
1419: %baryogenesis,''
1420: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716} (2005) 373;\\
1421: M.~Carena, A.~Megevand, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1422: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716} (2005)~319;\\
1423: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and M.~Seco,
1424: hep-ph/0505103.
1425:
1426: \bibitem{prodN} W.~Buchmuller and C.~Greub,
1427: %``Heavy Majorana neutrinos in electron - positron and electron - proton
1428: % collisions,''
1429: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 363} (1991) 345;\\
1430: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B363,345;%%
1431: G.~Cvetic, C.~S.~Kim and C.~W.~Kim,
1432: % ``Heavy Majorana neutrinos at e+ e- colliders,''
1433: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 4761;\\
1434: F.~del Aguila, J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra, A.~Martinez de la Ossa and D.~Meloni,
1435: %``Flavour and polarisation in heavy neutrino production at e+ e- colliders,''
1436: Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 613} (2005) 170;\\
1437: F.~del Aguila and J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra,
1438: JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 026;\\
1439: S.~Bray, J.~S.~Lee and A.~Pilaftsis,
1440: %``Heavy Majorana neutrino production at e- gamma colliders,''
1441: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 628} (2005) 250.
1442:
1443: \bibitem{LFVN} For most recent studies, see,\\
1444: T.~Fujihara, S.~K.~Kang, C.~S.~Kim, D.~Kimura and T.~Morozumi,
1445: %``Low-scale seesaw model and lepton flavor violating rare B decays,''
1446: hep-ph/0512010;\\
1447: F.~Deppisch, T.~S.~Kosmas and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
1448: %``Enhanced mu- e- conversion in nuclei in the inverse seesaw model,''
1449: arXiv:hep-ph/0512360.
1450:
1451: \bibitem{PUcomment} For more details, see~\cite{PU2}
1452:
1453: \bibitem{Branco} R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
1454: %``Radiatively induced leptogenesis in a minimal seesaw model,''
1455: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 085009;\\
1456: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
1457: %``Enlarging the window for radiative leptogenesis,''
1458: hep-ph/0507092.
1459:
1460: \bibitem{CKP}
1461: D.~Chang, W.~Y.~Keung and A.~Pilaftsis,
1462: %``New two-loop contribution to electric dipole moment in supersymmetric
1463: %theories,''
1464: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 900;\\
1465: A.~Pilaftsis,
1466: %``Higgs-mediated electric dipole moments in the MSSM: An application to
1467: %baryogenesis and Higgs searches,''
1468: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 644} (2002) 263;\\
1469: D.~Chang, W.~F.~Chang and W.~Y.~Keung,
1470: %``New constraint from electric dipole moments on chargino baryogenesis in
1471: %MSSM,''
1472: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 116008.
1473:
1474:
1475: \bibitem{PP} C.~Panagiotakopoulos and A.~Pilaftsis,
1476: %``Higgs scalars in the minimal non-minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
1477: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 055003.
1478:
1479: \bibitem{PP2} C.~Panagiotakopoulos and A.~Pilaftsis,
1480: %``Light charged Higgs boson and supersymmetry,''
1481: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 505} (2001) 184.
1482:
1483: \bibitem{DP} D.~K.~Ghosh, R.~M.~Godbole and D.~P.~Roy,
1484: %``Probing the CP-violating light neutral Higgs in the charged Higgs decay at
1485: %the LHC,''
1486: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 628} (2005) 131.
1487:
1488: \bibitem{CPX} M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1489: %``CP-violating MSSM Higgs bosons in the light of LEP 2,''
1490: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495} (2000) 155.
1491:
1492: \bibitem{JKLS} R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,
1493: JHEP {\bf 10} (2000) 012.
1494:
1495:
1496: \end{thebibliography}
1497:
1498: \end{document}
1499:
1500:
1501: