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}{1.2}
12:
13: \usepackage{cite}
14: \usepackage{axodraw}
15: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
16: \usepackage{epsfig}
17: \usepackage{amssymb}
18: \usepackage{rotating}
19:
20: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
21: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
22: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
23: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
24: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
25: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
26: \renewcommand\figurename{\sc\small Figure}
27: \renewcommand\tablename{\sc\small Table}
28:
29:
30: %\def\tablename{\bf Table}
31: %\def\figurename{\bf Figure}
32:
33:
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: \begin{document}
36: \begin{flushright}
37: {\tt CERN-PH-TH/2006-100}\\[-2pt]
38: {\tt MAN/HEP/2006/17}\\[-2pt]
39: {\tt hep-ph/0605264}
40: \end{flushright}
41: \bigskip
42:
43: \begin{center}
44: {\LARGE {\bf Anatomy of {\boldmath $F_D$}-Term Hybrid Inflation}}\\[1.5cm]
45: {\sc Bj\"orn Garbrecht$^{\, a}$, Constantinos Pallis$^{\, a}$ and
46: Apostolos Pilaftsis$^{\, a,b}$}\\[0.5cm]
47: {\em $^a$School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,}\\
48: {\em Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom}\\[0.3cm]
49: {\em $^b$CERN, Physics Department, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23,
50: Switzerland}
51: %{\em Email}: {\tt bjorn@hep.man.ac.uk, pallis@hep.man.ac.uk,
52: %pilaftsi@hep.man.ac.uk}
53: \end{center}
54:
55: \vspace{1.cm} \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}
56:
57: \noindent
58: {\small
59: We analyze the cosmological implications of $F$-term hybrid inflation
60: with a subdominant Fayet--Iliopoulos $D$-term whose presence
61: explicitly breaks a $D$-parity in the inflaton-waterfall sector. This
62: scenario of inflation, which is called $F_D$-term hybrid model for
63: brevity, can naturally predict lepton number violation at the
64: electroweak scale, by tying the $\mu$-parameter of the MSSM to an
65: SO(3)-symmetric Majorana mass $m_N$, via the vacuum expectation value
66: of the inflaton field. We show how a negative Hubble-induced mass term
67: in a next-to-minimal extension of supergravity helps to accommodate
68: the present CMB data and considerably weaken the strict constraints on
69: the theoretical parameters, resulting from cosmic string effects on
70: the power spectrum $P_{\cal R}$. The usual gravitino overabundance
71: constraint may be significantly relaxed in this model, once the
72: enormous entropy release from the late decays of the ultraheavy
73: waterfall gauge particles is properly considered. As the Universe
74: enters a second thermalization phase involving a very low reheat
75: temperature, which might be as low as about 0.3~TeV, thermal
76: electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis provides a viable mechanism
77: for successful baryogenesis, while thermal right-handed sneutrinos
78: emerge as new possible candidates for solving the cold dark matter
79: problem. In~addition, we discuss grand unified theory realizations of
80: $F_D$-term hybrid inflation devoid of cosmic strings and monopoles,
81: based on the complete breaking of an SU(2)$_X$ subgroup. The
82: $F_D$-term hybrid model offers rich particle-physics phenomenology,
83: which could be probed at high-energy colliders, as well as in
84: low-energy experiments of lepton flavour or number violation. }
85:
86:
87:
88: \thispagestyle{empty}
89:
90:
91: \noindent
92:
93: \medskip
94: \noindent
95: {\small PACS numbers: 98.80.Cq, 12.60.Jv, 11.30Pb}
96:
97: \tableofcontents
98: \thispagestyle{empty}
99:
100: \newpage
101: \pagestyle{plain}
102: \setcounter{page}{1}
103:
104:
105: \setcounter{equation}{0}
106: \section{Introduction}
107:
108:
109: Standard big-bang cosmology faces severe difficulties in accounting
110: for the observed flatness and enormity of the causal horizon of
111: today's Universe. It also leaves unexplained the origin of the nearly
112: scale-invariant cosmic microwave background (CMB), as was found by a
113: number of observations over the last
114: decade~\cite{COBE,WMAP,MT,WMAP3,Lyman}. All these pressing problems
115: can be successfully addressed within the field-theoretic framework of
116: inflation~\cite{review}. As a source of inflation, it is usually
117: considered to be a scalar field, the inflaton, which is displaced from
118: its minimum and whose slow-roll dynamics leads to an accelerated
119: expansion of the early Universe. In this phase of accelerated
120: expansion or inflation, the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field
121: are stretched on large scales and eventually get frozen when they
122: become much bigger than the Hubble radius. These quantum fluctuations
123: get imprinted in the form of density perturbations, when the former
124: are crossing back inside the Hubble radius long after inflation has
125: ended. In this way, inflation provides a causal mechanism to explain
126: the observed nearly-scale invariant CMB spectrum.
127:
128: A complete description of the CMB spectrum involves about a dozen of
129: cosmological parameters, such as the power spectrum $P_{{\cal R}}$ of
130: curvature perturbations, the spectral index $n_{\rm s}$, the running
131: spectral index $dn_{\rm s}/d\ln k$, the ratio $r$ of tensor-to-scalar
132: perturbations, the baryon-to-photon ratio of number densities
133: $\eta_B$, the fractions of relic abundance $\Omega_{\rm DM}$ and dark
134: energy $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}$ and a few others. Recent WMAP
135: data~\cite{WMAP,WMAP3}, along with other astronomical
136: observations~\cite{MT}, have improved upon the precision of almost all
137: of the above cosmological observables. In particular, the precise
138: values of these cosmological observables set stringent constraints on
139: the model-building of successful models of inflation. To ensure the
140: slow-roll dynamics of the inflaton, for example, one would need a
141: scalar potential, which is almost flat. Moreover, one has to assure
142: that the flatness of the inflaton potential does not get spoiled by
143: large quantum corrections that depend quadratically on the cut-off of
144: the theory. In this context, supersymmetry (SUSY), softly broken at
145: the TeV scale, emerges almost as a compelling ingredient not only in
146: the model-building of inflationary scenarios, but also for addressing
147: technically the so-called gauge-hierarchy problem.
148:
149: One of the most predictive and potentially testable scenarios of
150: inflation is the model of hybrid inflation~\cite{Linde}. An
151: advantageous feature of this model is that the inflaton $\phi$ may
152: start its slow-roll from field values well below the reduced Planck
153: mass $m_{\rm Pl} = 2.4\times 10^{18}$~GeV. As a consequence,
154: cosmological observables, such as $P_{{\cal R}}$ and $n_{\rm s}$, do
155: not generically receive significant contributions from possible
156: higher-dimensional non-renormalizable operators, as these are
157: suppressed by inverse powers of $1/m_{\rm Pl}$. Thus, the hybrid
158: model becomes very predictive and possibly testable, in the sense that
159: the inflaton dynamics is mainly governed by a few renormalizable
160: operators which might have observable implications for laboratory
161: experiments. In the hybrid model, inflation terminates through the
162: so-called waterfall mechanism. This mechanism is triggered, when the
163: inflaton field $\phi$ passes below some critical value $\phi_c$. In
164: this case, another field $X$ different from $\phi$, which is called
165: the waterfall field and is held fixed at origin initially, develops a
166: tachyonic instability and rolls rapidly down to its true vacuum
167: expectation value~(VEV).
168:
169: Hybrid inflation can be realized in supersymmetric theories in two
170: forms. In the first form, the hybrid potential results from the
171: $F$-terms of a superpotential, where the slope of the potential may
172: come either from supergravity (SUGRA) corrections~\cite{CLLSW} and/or
173: from radiative effects~\cite{DSS}. The second supersymmetric
174: realization~\cite{Halyo} of hybrid inflation uses a dominant
175: Fayet--Iliopoulos~(FI) $D$-term~\cite{FI}, which may originate from an
176: anomalous local U(1)$_Q$ symmetry within the context of string
177: theories.
178:
179: All models of inflation embedded in SUGRA have to address a serious
180: problem. This is the so-called gravitino overabundance problem. If
181: abundantly produced in the early Universe, gravitinos may disrupt, via
182: their late gravitationally-mediated decays, the nucleosynthesis of the
183: light elements. In order to prevent this from happening, gravitinos
184: $\widetilde{G}$ must have a rather low abundance today,
185: i.e.~$Y_{\widetilde{G}} = n_{\widetilde{G}}/s\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\
186: 10^{-12}$--$10^{-15}$, where $n_{\widetilde{G}}$ is the number density
187: of gravitinos and $s$ is the entropy density. The upper bound on
188: $Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ depends on the properties of the gravitino and
189: becomes tighter, if gravitinos decay appreciably to hadronic modes.
190: These considerations set a strict upper bound on Universe's reheat
191: temperature $T_{\rm reh}$, generically implying that $T_{\rm reh}
192: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{10}$--$10^7$~GeV~\cite{kohri,oliveg}. This
193: upper limit on $T_{\rm reh}$ severely restricts the size of any
194: renormalizable superpotential coupling of the inflaton to particles of
195: the Standard Model~(SM). All these couplings must be rather
196: suppressed. Typically, they have to be smaller than about
197: $10^{-5}$~\cite{SS}.
198:
199: The aforementioned gravitino constraint may be considerably relaxed,
200: if there is a mechanism that could cause late entropy release in the
201: evolution of the early Universe. Such a mechanism could then dilute
202: the gravitinos to a level that would not upset the limits derived from
203: Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). This possibility might arise even
204: within the context of $F$-term hybrid inflation, if a subdominant FI
205: $D$-tadpole associated with the gauge group U(1)$_X$ of the waterfall
206: sector were added to the model. Such a scenario was recently
207: discussed in~\cite{GP}. It has been observed that the presence of a
208: FI $D$-term breaks explicitly an exact discrete symmetry acting on the
209: gauged waterfall sector, i.e.~a kind of $D$-parity, which would have
210: remained otherwise unbroken even after the spontaneous symmetry
211: breaking (SSB) of U(1)$_X$. As a consequence, the ultraheavy
212: U(1)$_X$-gauge-sector bosons and fermions, which would have been
213: otherwise stable, can now decay with rates controlled by the size of
214: the FI $D$-term. Since these particles could be abundantly produced
215: during the preheating epoch, their late decays could give rise to a
216: second reheat phase in the evolution of the early Universe. Depending
217: on the actual size of the FI $D$-term, this second reheat temperature
218: may be as low as 0.5--1~TeV, resulting in an enormous entropy release.
219: This could be sufficient to render the gravitinos underabundant, which
220: might be copiously produced during the first reheating from the
221: perturbative inflaton decays.
222:
223: In this paper we present a detailed analysis of $F$-term hybrid
224: inflation with a subdominant FI $D$-tadpole. As mentioned above, the
225: presence of the FI $D$-tadpole is essential for explicitly breaking an
226: exact discrete symmetry, a $D$-parity, which was acting on the gauged
227: waterfall sector. In~\cite{GP}, we termed this inflationary scenario,
228: in short, $F_D$-term hybrid inflation. As the inflaton chiral
229: superfield $\widehat{S}$ couples to the Higgs-doublet chiral
230: superfields $\widehat{H}_{u,d}$, through $\lambda\,
231: \widehat{S}\widehat{H}_u \widehat{H}_d$, the model generates an
232: effective $\mu$-parameter for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
233: Model~(MSSM), through the VEV $\langle S \rangle$~\cite{DLS}. The same
234: mechanism may also generate an effective Majorana mass matrix for the
235: singlet neutrino superfields $\widehat{N}_{1,2,3}$~\cite{Francesca},
236: through the operator $\frac{1}{2}\, \rho_{ij}\, \widehat{S}
237: \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_j$~\cite{PU2,GP}. Assuming that this last
238: operator is SO(3)-symmetric or very close to it, i.e.~$\rho_{ij}
239: \approx \rho\, {\bf 1}_3$, the resulting lepton-number-violating
240: Majorana mass, $m_N = \rho\, \langle S \rangle$, will be closely tied
241: to the $\mu$-parameter of the MSSM. If $\lambda \sim \rho$, the
242: $F_D$-term hybrid model will then give rise to 3 nearly degenerate
243: heavy Majorana neutrinos $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$, as well as to 3 complex
244: right-handed sneutrinos $\widetilde{N}_{1,2,3}$, with
245: electroweak-scale masses. Such a mass spectrum opens up the
246: possibility to explain the baryon asymmetry in the Universe (BAU)
247: $\eta_B$~\cite{FY,BAUpapers} by thermal electroweak-scale resonant
248: leptogenesis~\cite{APRD,APRL,PU2}, almost independently of the initial
249: baryon-number composition of the primordial plasma. Moreover, since
250: the $F_D$-term hybrid model conserves $R$-parity~\cite{GP}, the
251: lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable. Here, we examine
252: the possibility that {\em thermal} right-handed sneutrinos are
253: responsible for solving the cold dark matter (CDM) problem of the
254: Universe.
255:
256: In this paper we also improve an earlier approach~\cite{GP},
257: concerning the production of the quasi-stable U(1)$_X$ gauge-sector
258: particles during the preheating epoch. In addition, we present a
259: numerical analysis that properly takes into account the combined
260: effect on the reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ from the inflaton and
261: gauge-sector particle decays and their annihilations. We call this
262: two-states' mechanism of reheating the Universe, {\em coupled
263: reheating}. After solving numerically a network of Boltzmann
264: equations~(BEs) that appropriately treat coupled reheating, we obtain
265: estimates for the present abundance of gravitinos in the Universe. We
266: show explicitly, how a small breaking of $D$-parity sourced by a
267: subdominant FI $D$-tadpole helps to relax the strict gravitino
268: overproduction constraint.
269:
270: In addition to gravitinos, one might have to worry that topologically
271: stable cosmic strings do not contribute significantly to the CMB power
272: spectrum~$P_{\cal R}$. Cosmic strings, global or local, are
273: topological defects and usually form after the SSB of some global or
274: local U(1) symmetry~\cite{NielsenOlesen,Vilenkin,HK}. According to
275: recent analyses~\cite{strings}, cosmic strings, if any, should make up
276: no more than about 10\% of the power spectrum $P_{\cal R}$. This last
277: requirement puts severe limits on the allowed parameter space of
278: models of inflation. There have already been some
279: suggestions~\cite{JKLS} on how to get rid of cosmic strings, based on
280: modified versions of hybrid inflation. Here, we follow a different
281: approach to solving this problem. We consider models, for which the
282: waterfall sector possesses an SU(2)$_X$ gauge symmetry which breaks
283: completely, i.e.~SU(2)$_X \to {\bf I}$, such that neither cosmic
284: strings nor monopoles are produced at the end of inflation. In this
285: case, gauge invariance forbids the existence of an SU(2)$_X$
286: $D$-tadpole $D^a$. However, Planck-mass suppressed non-renormalizable
287: operators that originate from the superpotential or the K\"ahler
288: potential can give rise to explicit breaking of $D$-parity. The
289: latter may manifest itself by the generation of effective
290: $D^a$-tadpole terms that arise after the SSB of~SU(2)$_X$. In this
291: way, all the SU(2)$_X$ gauge-sector particles can be made unstable.
292:
293: The organization of the paper is as follows: in Section~\ref{FDmodel},
294: we describe the $F_D$-term hybrid model and calculate the 1-loop
295: effective potential relevant to inflation. In addition, we discuss
296: the possible cosmological consequences of radiative effects on the
297: flat directions in the MSSM. We conclude this section by outlining
298: how the $F_D$-term hybrid model could generally be embedded into a
299: grand unified theory~(GUT), including possible realizations of a GUT
300: without cosmic strings and monopoles. Technical details concerning
301: mechanisms of explicit $D$-parity breaking in SUGRA, e.g.~via an
302: effective subdominant $D$-tadpole or non-renormalizable operators in
303: K\"ahler potential, are given in Appendix~\ref{Dappendix}.
304: Section~\ref{inflation} analyzes the constraints on the theoretical
305: parameters, which are mainly derived from considerations of the power
306: spectrum $P_{\cal R}$ and a strongly red-tilted spectral index $n_{\rm
307: s}$, with $n_{\rm s} \approx 0.95$, as observed most recently by
308: WMAP~\cite{WMAP3,Lyman}. We show how a negative Hubble-induced mass
309: term in a next-to-minimal extension of supergravity helps to account
310: for the present CMB data, as well as to substantially weaken the
311: strict constraints on the model parameters, originating from cosmic
312: string effects on $P_{\cal R}$, within a U(1)$_X$ realization of the
313: $F_D$-term hybrid model.
314:
315: In Section~\ref{Preheat}, we analyze the mass spectrum of the
316: inflaton-waterfall sector in the post-inflationary era and present
317: naive estimates of the reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ as obtained
318: from perturbative inflaton decays. We then make use of an improved
319: approach to preheating and compute the energy density of the
320: quasi-stable waterfall gauge particles. In Section~\ref{reheat}, we
321: solve numerically the BEs relevant to coupled reheating and present
322: estimates for the gravitino abundance in the present Universe. In
323: Section~\ref{BAU}, we demonstrate, how thermal electroweak-scale
324: resonant leptogenesis can be realized within the $F_D$-term hybrid
325: model and discuss the possibility of solving the CDM problem, if
326: thermal right-handed sneutrinos are considered to be the LSPs in the
327: spectrum. In Section~\ref{conclusions}, we present our conclusions,
328: including a summary of possible particle-physics implications of the
329: $F_D$-term hybrid model for high-energy colliders and for low-energy
330: experiments of lepton flavour and/or number violation.
331:
332:
333: \setcounter{equation}{0}
334: \section{General Setup}\label{FDmodel}
335:
336: In this section we first present the general setup of the $F_D$-term
337: hybrid model within the minimal SUGRA framework and compute the
338: renormalized 1-loop effective potential relevant to inflation. We
339: then discuss the cosmological implications of radiative effects on the
340: MSSM flat directions for $F_D$-term hybrid inflation and for SUSY
341: inflationary models in general. Finally, we analyze the prospects of
342: embedding the $F_D$-term hybrid model into a GUT.
343:
344:
345:
346: \subsection{The Model}\label{FD}
347:
348:
349: The renormalizable superpotential of the $F_D$-term hybrid model is
350: given by
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: \label{Wmodel}
353: W & =& \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1
354: \widehat{X}_2\: -\: M^2\Big)\ +\ \lambda\, \widehat{S} \widehat{H}_u
355: \widehat{H}_d\ +\ \frac{\rho_{ij}}{2}\, \widehat{S}\, \widehat{N}_i
356: \widehat{N}_j\ +\ h^{\nu}_{ij} \widehat{L}_i \widehat{H}_u
357: \widehat{N}_j\nonumber\\ &&+\ W_{\rm MSSM}^{(\mu = 0)}\; ,
358: \end{eqnarray}
359: where $W_{\rm MSSM}^{(\mu = 0)}$ denotes the MSSM superpotential
360: without the $\mu$-term:
361: \begin{equation} W_{\rm MSSM}^{(\mu = 0)}\ =\
362: h^u_{ij}\,\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{H}_u\widehat{U}_j\: +\:
363: h^d_{ij}\,\widehat{H}_d\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{D}_j\: +\:
364: h_l\, \widehat{H}_d\widehat{L}_l\widehat{E}_l \; .
365: \end{equation}
366: The first term in~(\ref{Wmodel}) describes the inflaton-waterfall (IW)
367: sector. Specifically, $\widehat{S}$ is the SM-singlet inflaton
368: superfield, and $\widehat{X}_{1,2}$ is a chiral multiplet pair of the
369: waterfall fields with opposite charges under the U(1)$_X$ gauge group,
370: i.e.~$Q (\widehat{X}_1) = - Q (\widehat{X}_2) = 1$. In addition, the
371: corresponding inflationary soft SUSY-breaking sector obtained
372: from~(\ref{Wmodel}) reads:
373: \begin{equation}
374: \label{Lsoft}
375: -\, {\cal L}_{\rm soft}\ =\ M^2_S S^*S\: +\: \Big(
376: \kappa A_\kappa\, S X_1X_2\: +\: \lambda A_\lambda S H_u H_d\: \: +\:
377: \frac{\rho}{2}\, A_\rho\, S \widetilde{N}_i\widetilde{N}_i\:
378: -\: \kappa a_S M^2 S \: \ +\ {\rm H.c.}\,\Big)\,,
379: \end{equation}
380: where $M_S$, $A_{\kappa,\lambda,\rho}$ and $a_S$ are soft
381: SUSY-breaking mass parameters of order $M_{\rm SUSY} \sim 1$~TeV.
382:
383: The second term in~(\ref{Wmodel}), $\lambda\, \widehat{S}
384: \widehat{H}_u \widehat{H}_d$, induces an effective $\mu$-parameter,
385: when the scalar component of $\widehat{S}$, $S$, acquires a VEV, i.e.
386: \begin{equation}
387: \label{mu}
388: \mu\ =\ \lambda\, \langle S \rangle\ \approx\ \frac{\lambda}{2\kappa}\,
389: |A_\kappa - a_S|\ .
390: \end{equation}
391: In obtaining the last approximate equality in~(\ref{mu}), we neglected
392: the VEVs of $H_{u,d}$ and considered the fact that the VEVs of the
393: waterfall fields $X_{1,2}$ after inflation are: $\langle X_{1,2}\rangle
394: = M$~\cite{DLS}. For $\lambda \sim \kappa$, the size of
395: $\mu$-parameter turns out to be of the order of the soft-SUSY breaking
396: scale $M_{\rm SUSY}$, as required for a successful electroweak Higgs
397: mechanism. By analogy, the third term in~(\ref{Wmodel}),
398: $\frac{1}{2}\,\rho_{ij}\, \widehat{S}\, \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_j$,
399: gives rise to an effective lepton-number-violating Majorana mass
400: matrix, i.e.~$M_S = \rho_{ij}\, v_S$. Assuming that $\rho_{ij}$ is
401: approximately SO(3) symmetric, viz.~$\rho_{ij} \approx \rho\; {\bf
402: 1}_3$, one obtains 3 nearly degenerate right-handed neutrinos
403: $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$, with mass
404: \begin{equation}
405: \label{mN}
406: m_N\ =\ \rho\, v_S\ .
407: \end{equation}
408: If $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are comparable in magnitude, then the
409: $\mu$-parameter and the SO(3)-symmetric Majorana mass $m_N$ are tied
410: together, i.e.~$m_N \sim \mu$, thus leading to a scenario where the
411: singlet neutrinos $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$ can naturally have TeV or
412: electroweak-scale masses~\cite{PU2,GP}.
413:
414: The renormalizable superpotential~(\ref{Wmodel}) of the model may be
415: uniquely determined by imposing the continuous $R$ symmetry:
416: \begin{equation}
417: \label{RFD}
418: \widehat{S}\ \to\ e^{i\alpha}\,\widehat{S}\, ,\qquad
419: \widehat{L}\ \to\ e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{L}\,, \qquad
420: \widehat{Q}\ \to\ e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{Q}\; ,
421: \end{equation}
422: with $W \to e^{i\alpha} W$, whereas all other fields remain invariant
423: under an $R$ transformation. Notice that the $R$ symmetry~(\ref{RFD})
424: forbids the presence of higher-dimensional operators of the form
425: $\widehat{X}_1 \widehat{X}_2 \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_j/m_{\rm Pl}$.
426: This fact ensures that the electroweak-scale Majorana mass $m_N$ does
427: not get destabilized by Planck-scale SUGRA effects.
428:
429: One may now observe that the superpotential (\ref{Wmodel}) is
430: symmetric under the permutation of the waterfall fields,
431: i.e.~$\widehat{X}_1 \leftrightarrow \widehat{X}_2$. This permutation
432: symmetry persists, even after the SSB of U(1)$_X$, since the ground
433: state, $\langle X_1 \rangle = \langle X_2 \rangle = M$, is invariant
434: under the same symmetry as well. Hence, there is an exact discrete
435: symmetry acting on the gauged waterfall sector, a kind of $D$-parity.
436: As a consequence of $D$-parity conservation, the ultraheavy particles
437: of mass $g M$, which are related to the U(1)$_X$ gauge sector, are
438: stable. Such a possibility is not very desirable, as these particles,
439: if abundantly produced, may overclose the Universe at late times. In
440: order to break this unwanted $D$-parity, a subdominant FI $D$-term,
441: $-\frac{1}{2} g\, m^2_{\rm FI}\, D$, is added to the model~\cite{GP},
442: giving rise to the $D$-term potential~\footnote{The $D$-parity is an
443: accidental discrete symmetry and it should not be confused with the
444: ${\rm U(1)}_X$ charge conjugation symmetry realized by the
445: transformations: $X_1 \leftrightarrow X_1^*$ and $X_2 \leftrightarrow
446: X_2^*$. Although both discrete symmetries have the same effect when
447: acting on the ${\rm U(1)}_X$ scalar current $j_X^\mu={\rm i} ( X_1^*
448: \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^\mu} X_1 - X^*_2
449: \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^\mu} X_2)$, i.e.~$j_X^\mu
450: \leftrightarrow - j_X^\mu$, they crucially differ when they are
451: applied on the FI $D$-term: $-\,\frac{g}{2} m^2_{\rm FI} (|X_1|^2 -
452: |X_2|^2)$. This term is even under charge conjugation, but odd under
453: a $D$-parity conjugation.}
454: \begin{equation}
455: \label{Dterm}
456: V_D\ =\ \frac{g^2}{8}\ \Big( |X_1|^2\, -\, |X_2|^2\, -\, m^2_{\rm
457: FI}\,\Big)^2\; .
458: \end{equation}
459: The FI $D$-term will not affect the inflationary dynamics, as long as
460: $g m_{\rm FI} \ll \kappa M$. Technically, a subdominant $D$-term can
461: be generated radiatively after integrating out Planck-scale heavy
462: degrees of freedom. Further discussion is given in
463: Section~\ref{postinfl} and in Appendix~\ref{Dappendix}, where we also
464: discuss the possibility of breaking explicitly $D$-parity by
465: non-renormalizable K\"ahler potential terms. The post-inflationary
466: implications of the FI $D$-term, $m_{\rm FI}$, for the reheat
467: temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ and the gravitino abundance
468: $Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ will be analyzed in Section~\ref{reheat}.
469:
470: The inflationary potential $V_{\rm inf}$ may be represented by the sum
471: \begin{equation}
472: \label{Vinf}
473: V_{\rm inf}\ =\ V^{(0)}_{\inf}\: +\: V^{(1)}_{\inf}\: +\: V_{\rm SUGRA}\ ,
474: \end{equation}
475: where $V^{(0)}_{\inf}$ and $V^{(1)}_{\inf}$ are the tree-level
476: potential and the 1-loop effective potential, respectively and $V_{\rm
477: SUGRA}$ contains the SUGRA contribution. Including soft-SUSY breaking
478: terms related to $S$, the tree-level contribution to the inflationary
479: potential is
480: \begin{equation}
481: \label{V0inf}
482: V^{(0)}_{\inf}\ =\ {\cal Z}_S\, \kappa^2 M^4\: +\:
483: M^2_S\, S^* S\: -\: \Big( \kappa a_S M^2 S\: +\: {\rm H.c.}\Big)\ ,
484: \end{equation}
485: where ${\cal Z}^{1/2}_S$ is the wave-function renormalization of the
486: inflaton field which is needed to renormalize the 1-loop effective
487: potential given below in the SUSY limit of the theory. The
488: counter-term, $\delta {\cal Z}_S = {\cal Z}_S - 1$, due to $S$
489: wave-function renormalization may be obtained from the inflaton
490: self-energy $\Pi_{SS}(p^2)$, through the relation
491: \begin{equation}
492: \delta {\cal Z}_S\ =\ -\, \frac{d\,{\rm Re}\,
493: \Pi_{SS}(p^2)}{dp^2}\Bigg|_{p^2 = 0}\ .
494: \end{equation}
495: Calculating the UV part of $\delta {\cal Z}_S$ from this very last
496: relation, we find
497: \begin{equation}
498: \label{dZs}
499: \delta {\cal Z}_S\ =\ -\, \frac{1}{32 \pi^2}\,
500: \Bigg[\, 2{\cal N}\kappa^2\, \ln\Bigg(\frac{\kappa^2 M^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\: +\:
501: 4\lambda^2\, \ln\Bigg(\frac{\lambda^2 M^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\: +\:
502: 3\rho^2\,\ln\Bigg(\frac{\rho^2 M^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\,\Bigg]\; ,
503: \end{equation}
504: where $Q^2$ is the renormalization scale and the inflaton field value
505: $|S_R| = M$ is taken as a common mass renormalization point. In
506: addition, the parameter ${\cal N}$ in~(\ref{dZs}) represents the
507: dimensionality of the waterfall sector. For example, it is ${\cal N}
508: = 1$ for an U(1)$_X$ waterfall sector, whilst it is ${\cal N} = N$, if
509: $\widehat{X}_1$ ($\widehat{X}_2$) belongs to the fundamental
510: (anti-fundamental) representation of an SU($N$) theory. Observe,
511: finally, that only the fermionic components of the superfields,
512: $\widehat{X}_{1,2}$, $\widehat{H}_{u,d}$, $\widehat{N}_{1,2,3}$,
513: contribute to $\delta {\cal Z}_S$.
514:
515: Ignoring soft SUSY-breaking terms, the 1-loop effective potential
516: relevant to inflation is calculated to be
517: \begin{eqnarray}
518: \label{V1loop}
519: V^{(1)}_{\rm inf} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\, \Bigg\{
520: {\cal N}\kappa^4\, \Bigg[ |S^2 + M^2|^2\,
521: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\kappa^2 (|S|^2 +M^2)}{Q^2}\Bigg) +\,
522: |S^2 - M^2|^2\,
523: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\kappa^2 (|S|^2 - M^2)}{Q^2}\Bigg)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
524: &&\hspace{-0.17cm} +\, 2\lambda^4\, \Bigg[
525: |S^2 + {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}}\, M^2|^2\,
526: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\lambda^2 (|S|^2 + {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}}
527: M^2)}{Q^2}\Bigg)\, +\,
528: |S^2 - {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}} M^2|^2\,
529: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\lambda^2 (|S|^2 - {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}}
530: M^2)}{Q^2}\Bigg)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
531: &&\hspace{-0.17cm} +\, \frac{3\rho^4}{2}\, \Bigg[
532: |S^2 + {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\rho}}\, M^2|^2\,
533: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\rho^2 (|S|^2 + {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\rho}}
534: M^2)}{Q^2}\Bigg)\, +\,
535: |S^2 - {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\rho}} M^2|^2\,
536: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\rho^2 (|S|^2 - {\textstyle \frac{\kappa}{\rho}}
537: M^2)}{Q^2}\Bigg)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
538: &&\hspace{-0.17cm} -\, |S|^4\, \Bigg[\, 2{\cal N}\kappa^4\,
539: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\kappa^2\,|S|^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\: +\: 4\lambda^4\,
540: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\lambda^2\,|S|^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)
541: \: +\:
542: 3\rho^4\,\ln\Bigg(\frac{\rho^2\, |S|^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\,\Bigg]\,\Bigg\}\; .
543: \end{eqnarray}
544: Given~(\ref{dZs}) and~(\ref{V1loop}), it can be checked that the
545: expression $V^{(0)}_{\rm inf} + V^{(1)}_{\rm inf}$ is independent of
546: $\ln Q^2$, as it should be.
547:
548: Finally, the SUGRA contribution $V_{\rm SUGRA}$ to $V_{\rm inf}$
549: in~(\ref{Vinf}) is highly model-dependent. In general, one expects an
550: infinite series of non-renormalizable operators to occur in $V_{\rm
551: SUGRA}$, i.e.~\cite{CLLSW,CP,LR}
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \label{VSUGRA}
554: V_{\rm SUGRA}\ =\ -\, c^2_H\, H^2\, |S|^2\: +\:
555: \kappa^2 M^4\, \frac{|S|^4}{2\,m^4_{\rm Pl}}\: +\: {\cal O}(|S|^6)\ .
556: \end{eqnarray}
557: where $H^2 = \kappa^2 M^4/(3 m^2_{\rm Pl})$ is the squared Hubble rate
558: during inflation. The first term in~(\ref{VSUGRA}) represents a
559: Hubble-induced mass term, which is preferably defined to be negative
560: for observational reasons to be discussed in Section~\ref{inflation}.
561: In a model with a minimal K\"ahler potential, the parameter $c_H$
562: vanishes identically.\footnote{Strictly speaking, curvature effects
563: related to an expanding de Sitter background will contribute to the
564: potential a term given by $-\frac{3}{16\pi^2}\, (2{\cal N} \kappa^2 + 4
565: \lambda^2 + 3 \rho^2)\, H^2 |S|^2 \ln(|S|^2/Q^2)$, even in the minimal
566: K\"ahler potential case~\cite{BG}. Such a term, however, turns out to
567: be negligible to affect the inflation dynamics in the $F_D$-term
568: hybrid model. Finally, this term may be partially absorbed into the
569: RG running of $c_H^2 (Q^2)$.} In fact, if $|c_H| \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
570: 10^{-2}$, its influence on the CMB data~\cite{JP} gets marginalized.
571: In our analysis in Section~\ref{inflation}, we present results for two
572: representative models: (i) the scenario with a minimal K\"ahler
573: potential ($c_H = 0$); (ii) a next-to-minimal K\"ahler potential
574: scenario with $c_H \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.2$, where only the effect
575: of the term $(\widehat{S}^\dagger \widehat{S})^2/m^2_{\rm Pl}$ is
576: considered and all higher order non-renormalizable operators are
577: ignored in the K\"ahler manifold. Moreover, we neglect possible
578: 1-loop contributions to $V_{\rm inf}$ from
579: $A_{\kappa,\lambda,\rho}$-terms, which are insignificant for values $M
580: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{15}$~GeV. We only include the tadpole term
581: $\kappa a_S M^2\, S$, which may become relevant for values of $\kappa
582: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-4}$, but ignore all other soft
583: SUSY-breaking terms, since they are negligible during
584: inflation~\cite{SS}.
585:
586: The stability of the inflationary trajectory in the presence of the
587: Higgs doublets $H_{u,d}$ and the right-handed scalar neutrinos
588: $\widetilde{N}_{1,2,3}$ provides further restrictions on the couplings
589: $\lambda$ and $\rho$. In order to successfully trigger hybrid
590: inflation, the fields at the start of inflation should obey the
591: following conditions:
592: \begin{equation}
593: \label{initial}
594: {\rm Re}\, S^{\rm in}\ =\ |S^{\rm in}|\ \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}\ M\,,\qquad
595: X^{\rm in}_{1,2}\ =\ 0\,,\qquad
596: H^{\rm in}_{u,d}\ =\ 0\,,\qquad
597: \widetilde{N}^{\rm in}_{1,2,3}\ =\ 0\; .
598: \end{equation}
599: The precise start values of the inflaton ${\rm Re}\, S^{\rm in}$ are
600: determined by the number of $e$-folds ${\cal N}_e$, which is a measure
601: of Universe's expansion during inflation (see also our discussion in
602: Section~\ref{inflation}). After inflation and the waterfall
603: transition mechanism have been completed, it is important to ensure
604: that the waterfall fields acquire a high VEV, i.e. $X^{\rm
605: end}_{1,2}\ =\ M$, while all other fields have small electroweak-scale
606: VEVs. This can be achieved by requiring that the Higgs-doublet and
607: the sneutrino mass matrices stay positive definite throughout the
608: inflationary trajectory up to a critical value $|S_c| \approx M$.
609: Instead, the corresponding mass matrix of $X_{1,2}$ will be the first
610: to develop a negative eigenvalue and tachyonic instability close to
611: $|S_c|$. As a consequence, the fields $X_{1,2}$ will be the first to
612: start moving away from 0 and set in to the `good' vacuum $X^{\rm
613: end}_1\ =\ X^{\rm end}_2\ =\ M$, well before the other fields,
614: e.g.~$H^{\rm in}_{1,2}$ and $\widetilde{N}^{\rm in}_{1,2,3}$, go to a
615: `bad' vacuum where $X^{\rm end}_{1,2}\ =\ 0$, $H^{\rm end}_{1,2}\ =\
616: \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}\, M$ and $\widetilde{N}^{\rm in}_{1,2,3} =
617: \frac{\kappa}{\rho}\, M$. To better understand this point, let us
618: write down the mass matrix in the weak field basis $(H_d\,,\ H_u^* )$:
619: \begin{equation}
620: \label{Mdoublet}
621: M^2_{\rm Higgs}\ =\ \left(\! \begin{array}{cc}
622: \lambda^2 |S|^2 & -\,\kappa \lambda (M^2 - X_1 X_2 ) \\
623: -\,\kappa\lambda (M^2- X^*_1 X^*_2) & \lambda^2 |S|^2 \end{array}\!\right)\ .
624: \end{equation}
625: Then, positive definiteness of $M^2_{\rm Higgs}$ implies that
626: \begin{equation}
627: \label{Scondition}
628: \lambda\, |S|^2\ \ge\ \kappa \, |M^2 - X_1 X_2 |\ .
629: \end{equation}
630: From~(\ref{Scondition}), it is evident that the condition $\lambda
631: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} \kappa$ is sufficient for ending hybrid
632: inflation to the `good' vacuum. Finally, one obtains a condition
633: analogous to~(\ref{Scondition}) from the sneutrino mass matrix, which
634: is equivalent to having $\rho \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} \kappa$. The
635: above two constraints on $\lambda$ and $\rho$, i.e.~$\lambda,\ \rho\ >
636: \kappa$, will be imposed in the analysis presented in
637: Section~\ref{inflation}.
638:
639:
640:
641: \subsection{Radiative Lifting of MSSM Flat Directions}\label{RadLift}
642:
643: Flat directions in supersymmetric theories, e.g.~in the
644: MSSM~\cite{GKM}, play an important role in cosmology~\cite{AD,DK}. As
645: we will demonstrate in this section, however, their influence on
646: $F_D$-term hybrid inflation is minimal under rather realistic
647: assumptions.
648:
649: One possible consequence of flat directions could be the generation of
650: a primordial baryon asymmetry $\eta_B^{\rm in}$ through the
651: Affleck--Dine mechanism~\cite{AD}. However, if this initial baryon
652: asymmetry $\eta_B^{\rm in}$ is generated at temperatures $T > m_N$, it
653: will rapidly be erased by the strong $(B-L)$-violating interactions
654: mediated by electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos at $T \sim
655: m_N$. The BAU will then reach the present observed value by means of
656: the thermal resonant leptogenesis mechanism and will only depend on
657: the basic theoretical parameters of the $F_D$-term hybrid
658: model~\cite{APRL,PU2}. More details are given in Section~\ref{BAU}.
659:
660: In addition, one might argue that large VEVs associated with
661: quasi-flat directions in the MSSM would make all MSSM particles so
662: heavy after inflation, such that all perturbative decays of the
663: inflaton would be kinematically blocked and hence the Universe would
664: never thermalize~\cite{AM}. The system may fall into a false
665: vacuum with a large VEV at the start of inflation, which could, for
666: example, be triggered by a negative Hubble-induced squared mass term
667: of order $H^2$~\cite{DRT}, along the flat direction. In the $F_D$-term
668: hybrid model, however, spontaneous SUSY breaking due to a non-zero
669: $\langle S \rangle$ is communicated radiatively to the MSSM sector,
670: via the renormalizable operators $\lambda \widehat{S} \widehat{H}_u
671: \widehat{H}_d$ and $\rho \widehat{S} \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_i$.
672: Consequently, their effects on the MSSM flat directions can be large
673: and so affect the inflaton decays which proceed via the same
674: renormalizable operators. In the following, we will present a careful
675: treatment of this radiative lifting of MSSM flat directions, and
676: examine the conditions, under which the directions would remain
677: sufficiently flat so as to prohibit the Universe from thermal
678: equilibration, shortly after inflation.
679:
680: To obtain a flat direction in supersymmetric theories, one has to
681: impose the conditions of $D$- and $F$-flatness on the scalar potential
682: $V$, namely the vanishing of all $F$- and $D$-terms for a specific
683: field configuration $\sigma$. $D$-flatness is automatic for any flat
684: direction associated with a gauge-invariant operator, which is absent
685: in the MSSM, e.g.~$\widehat{D}_i \widehat{D}_j \widehat{U}_k$. Based
686: on this observation, let us therefore consider here the
687: gauge-covariant field configuration
688: \begin{equation}
689: \sigma\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,
690: \left(\,\
691: \frac{\tilde{u}^*_{R\,k}}{|\tilde{u}_{R\,k}|}\;\tilde{d}^*_{R\,i}
692: \: +\:
693: \frac{\tilde{u}^*_{R\,k}}{|\tilde{u}_{R\,k}|}\;\tilde{d}^*_{R\,j}
694: \: +\:
695: \tilde{u}_{R\,k}\, \right)\; ,
696: \end{equation}
697: where $i\not=j$. It can be straightforwardly checked that the field
698: configuration $\sigma$, with the constraint
699: \begin{equation}
700: \frac{\tilde{u}^*_{R\,k}}{|\tilde{u}_{R\,k}|}\;\tilde{d}^*_{R\,i} \ =
701: \ \frac{\tilde{u}^*_{R\,k}}{|\tilde{u}_{R\,k}|}\;\tilde{d}^*_{R\,j} \
702: = \ \tilde{u}_{R\,k}\ \neq \ 0
703: \end{equation}
704: and all remaining fields being set to zero, is a flat direction, with
705: vanishing $F$- and $D$-terms. It is then easy to verify that the
706: scalar potential $V (\sigma )$ is truly flat, i.e.~$d V/d\sigma = 0$.
707: Although we will consider here the case of $\sigma = \tilde u_{R\,
708: k}$, the discussion of other squark and slepton flat directions is
709: completely analogous. For notational convenience, we drop all
710: generation indices from the fields, and denote the flat direction
711: simply by $\tilde u_R$.
712:
713:
714: Because of the spontaneous SUSY breaking induced by the non-zero VEV
715: of $S$, the flatness of the potential along the $\tilde u_R$-direction
716: gets lifted, once radiative corrections are taken into account. The
717: non-renormalization theorem related to theories of SUSY is still
718: applicable and entails that this radiative lifting should be UV finite
719: and therefore calculable. We start our calculation by considering the
720: pertinent mass spectrum in the background of a non-zero $S$ and
721: $\tilde{u}_R$. The fermionic sector consists of 2 Dirac higgsino
722: doublets, with squared masses $m^2_{\tilde h}= \lambda^2 |S|^2 + h^2
723: |\tilde{u}_R|^2$, while the mass spectrum of the bosonic sector may be
724: deduced by the mass matrix
725: \begin{equation}
726: \label{Mbosonic}
727: {\cal M}^2_H\ =\ \left(
728: \begin{array}{ccc}
729: \lambda^2 |S|^2 & - \kappa\lambda M^2 & h \lambda S \tilde u_R^* \\
730: - \kappa \lambda M^2 & \lambda^2 |S|^2 + h^2 |\tilde u_R|^2 & 0\\
731: h\lambda S \tilde u_R & 0 & h^2 |\tilde u_R|^2
732: \end{array} \right)\; ,
733: \end{equation}
734: which is defined in the weak basis $(H_d\,,\ H_u^*\,,\
735: \widetilde{Q})$. The coupling $h$ in~(\ref{Mbosonic}) represents a
736: generic up-type quark Yukawa coupling.
737:
738: In the renormalization scheme of dimensional reduction with minimal
739: subtraction~$\overline{\rm DR}$~\cite{Jones}, the 1-loop effective
740: potential $V^{(1)}$ related to $\tilde{u}_R$ is given by
741: \begin{equation}
742: \label{VuR}
743: V^{(1)} (\tilde{u}_R)\ =\ \frac{2\,Q^2}{16\pi^2}\; {\rm STr}\,{\cal M}^2\
744: +\ \frac{2}{32\pi^2}\; {\rm STr}\, \Bigg\{ {\cal M}^4\, \Bigg[\,\ln\Bigg(
745: \frac{ {\cal M}^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\ -\ \frac{3}{2}\, \Bigg]\,\Bigg\}\ ,
746: \end{equation}
747: where ${\rm STr}$ denotes the usual supertrace, e.g.~${\rm STr} {\cal
748: M}^2 = {\rm Tr}\, {\cal M}^2_H - 2 m^2_{\tilde h}$, ${\rm STr} {\cal
749: M}^4 = {\rm Tr}\, {\cal M}^4_H - 2 m^4_{\tilde h}$ etc. In the
750: absence of soft SUSY-breaking terms, one finds that ${\rm STr} {\cal
751: M}^2 = 0$ and ${\rm STr} {\cal M}^4 = 2\kappa^2\lambda^2 M^4$. The
752: first condition implies the absence of quadratic UV divergences in
753: SUSY theories, whereas the first together with the second one ensure
754: the UV finiteness along the $\tilde{u}_R$ direction, namely the fact
755: that $d V^{(1)} (\tilde{u}_R)/d\tilde{u}_R$ is $Q^2$ independent.
756:
757: It would be more illuminating to compute the 1-loop effective
758: potential in~(\ref{VuR}) in a Taylor series expansion with respect to
759: $h^2|\tilde{u}_R|^2$. To order $h^4 |\tilde{u}_R|^4$, the 3 mass
760: eigenvalues of ${\cal M}^2_H$ are approximately given by
761: \begin{eqnarray}
762: M^2_\pm & = & \lambda^2 |S|^2\: \pm\: \kappa\lambda M^2\: +\:
763: \frac{\kappa M^2 \pm 2 \lambda |S|^2}{2(\kappa M^2 \pm
764: \lambda |S|^2)}\; h^2|\tilde{u}_R|^2\: \pm\:
765: \frac{\kappa M^2(\kappa M^2 \pm 3 \lambda |S|^2)}{8\lambda(\kappa
766: M^2 \pm \lambda |S|^2)^3}\;
767: h^4 |\tilde{u}_R|^4\; ,\nonumber\\
768: M_0^2 &=&
769: \frac{\kappa^2 M^4}{\kappa^2M^4 -\lambda^2 |S|^4}\; h^2 |\tilde{u}_R|^2\:
770: -\:
771: \frac{2\kappa^2\lambda^2 M^4 |S|^6}{(\kappa^2 M^4-\lambda^2 |S|^4)^3}\;
772: h^4 |\tilde{u}_R|^4\; .
773: \end{eqnarray}
774: Notice that in the limit $\tilde{u}_R \to 0$, one obtains:
775: $m^2_{\tilde{h}} = \lambda^2 |S|^2$, $M^2_\pm = \lambda |S|^2 \pm
776: \kappa\lambda M^2$ and $M^2_0 = 0$, as expected. Moreover, it is not
777: difficult to check that ${\rm STr} {\cal M}^2 = {\cal O} (h^6
778: |\tilde{u}_R|^6)$ and ${\rm STr} {\cal M}^4 = 2\kappa^2\lambda^2 M^4 +
779: {\cal O} (h^6 |\tilde{u}_R|^6)$, in accordance with our discussion
780: given above.
781:
782: Employing the fact that $|S|^2\gg \frac{\kappa}{\lambda}\, M^2$ at the
783: start of inflation, the 1-loop effective potential $V^{(1)}
784: (\tilde{u}_R)$ may further be approximated as follows:
785: \begin{eqnarray}
786: \label{VuRappr}
787: V^{(1)} (\tilde{u}_R) \!&=&\!
788: \frac{\kappa^2\lambda^2 M^4}{8\pi^2}\, \Bigg[
789: \ln\Bigg(\frac{\lambda^2 |S|^2}{Q^2}\Bigg)\: -\: \frac{3}{2}\, \Bigg]\
790: -\ \frac{1}{48\pi^2}\frac{h^2 \kappa^4 M^8}{\lambda^2 |S|^6}\;
791: |\tilde{u}_R|^2\
792: +\
793: \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\frac{h^4\kappa^2 M^4}{\lambda^2 |S|^4}\; |\tilde{u}_R|^4
794: \nonumber\\
795: &&+\; \frac{1}{16\pi^2}
796: \left(\frac{h^2\kappa^2 M^4}{\lambda^2 |S|^4}\; |\tilde{u}_R|^2\, \right)^2
797: \ln\left(\frac{h^2\kappa^2 M^4}{\lambda^4 |S|^6}\; |\tilde{u}_R|^2
798: \right)\quad
799: +\quad {\cal O}(h^6 |\tilde{u}_R|^6)\,.
800: \end{eqnarray}
801: The first term in~(\ref{VuRappr}) contributes to the 1-loop
802: inflationary potential~(\ref{V1loop}), while the remaining
803: $Q^2$-independent terms lift the flatness of the
804: $\tilde{u}_R$-direction. Assuming that $\kappa^2 \ll \lambda^2$ and
805: $M\simeq |S|$ towards the end of inflation, we find the well-defined
806: minimum
807: \begin{equation}
808: \label{VEVuR}
809: \langle\, \tilde{u}_R\, \rangle\ =\ \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{6}\,h}\ M\; .
810: \end{equation}
811: We should remark here that the above minimum would remain unaltered,
812: even if the flat direction were a squark or slepton doublet. In this
813: case, only the overall normalization of the $Q^2$-independent part of
814: $V^{(1)} (\tilde{u}_R)$ would have changed by a factor 1/2. The
815: loop-induced VEV of $\tilde{u}_R$ generates a squared mass
816: $M^2_{\tilde{u}_R}$ via the Higgs mechanism, which is given by
817: \begin{equation}
818: \label{MuR}
819: M^2_{\tilde{u}_R}\ =\ \frac{1}{24\pi^2}\,
820: \frac{h^2\,\kappa^4}{\lambda^2}\; M^2\ .
821: \end{equation}
822: This squared mass $M^2_{\tilde{u}_R}$ should be compared with the size
823: of possible negative Hubble-induced squared mass terms of order $H^2 =
824: \kappa^2 M^4/ (3m_{\rm Pl}^2)$, e.g.~terms of the form
825: $-c^2_{\tilde{u}}\, H^2 |\tilde{u}_R|^2$ that may occur in $V^{(1)}
826: (\tilde{u}_R)$ and originate from SUGRA effects. These terms may play
827: some role in our model, unless $c^2_{\tilde{u}}\, H^2 <
828: M^2_{\tilde{u}_R}$. The latter condition may be translated into the
829: inequality
830: \begin{equation}
831: \label{cuR}
832: c_{\tilde{u}}\ <\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\pi}\, \frac{h\,\kappa}{\lambda}\;
833: \frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\ .
834: \end{equation}
835: As a typical example, let us consider an inflationary scenario, with
836: $\lambda = 2\kappa$, $\kappa = 10^{-3}$ and $M = 10^{16}$~GeV. In this
837: case, (\ref{cuR}) implies that $c_{\tilde{u}} < 0.87\, h$. Hence,
838: although the required tuning of the coefficient $c_{\tilde{u}}$ to
839: fulfill this last inequality may not be significant for the third
840: generation squarks and sleptons, it becomes excessive for the first
841: generation, unless a minimal K\"ahler potential is assumed. It should
842: be stressed here, however, that the deepest and hence most
843: energetically favoured minimum for all squark and slepton directions
844: is the one related to $\tilde{t}_R$. In other words, given chaotic
845: initial conditions, the fields are most likely to settle to minima of
846: quasi-flat directions involving large Yukawa couplings. In this case,
847: radiative effects play an important role in the dynamics of flat
848: directions\footnote{We should note that the evolution of flat
849: directions during the waterfall and coherent oscillation periods is a
850: non-equilibrium dynamics problem. Moreover, no theoretical methods
851: yet exist that would lead to a practical solution to this problem,
852: even though effective potential corrections to the flat directions as
853: the ones considered here are expected to be relevant during the above
854: cosmological periods.}.
855:
856:
857: Let us finally assume that we are in a situation where the
858: Hubble-induced mass terms can be neglected, i.e.~$c_{\tilde{u}} = 0$
859: as is the case for a minimal K\"ahler potential, for example. Suppose
860: that the loop-induced VEV of the quasi-flat direction persists
861: throughout the coherent oscillatory regime. In this case, the
862: VEV~(\ref{VEVuR}) gives rise to masses $h\langle \tilde{u}_R \rangle =
863: \kappa M/\sqrt{6}$ in the $\widehat{Q} \widehat{H}_u$-sector, which do
864: not depend on the Yukawa coupling $h$. Consequently, the
865: inflaton-related fields of mass $\sqrt{2} \kappa\, M$ (see
866: Table~\ref{spectrum}) will have a large decay rate to those massive
867: particles, thus creating a non-thermal distribution. This non-thermal
868: distribution will in turn induce $T$-dependent mass terms which can be
869: larger than the expansion rate $H(T)$ at some temperature $T$ soon
870: after inflation, such that $\langle \tilde{u}_R \rangle$ will rapidly
871: relax to zero. Of course, one might think of contemplating
872: configurations where multiple flat directions have VEVs which
873: contribute constructively to the masses of both $H_u$ and $H_d$, such
874: that all inflaton and waterfall particle decays would be kinematically
875: forbidden. However, we consider such a possibility as a bit
876: contrived. It is therefore reasonable to assume that,
877: provided~(\ref{cuR}) is fulfilled, reheating and equilibration of all
878: MSSM degrees of freedom will take place in the $F_D$-term hybrid model
879: and in all supersymmetric models of inflation that include an
880: unsuppressed renormalizable operator of the form $\widehat{S}
881: \widehat{H}_u \widehat{H}_d$.
882:
883:
884: \subsection{Topological Defects and GUT Embeddings}\label{TDGUT}
885:
886: As we mentioned in the Introduction, topological defects, such as
887: domain walls, cosmic strings or monopoles, may be created at the end
888: of inflation, when a symmetry group $G$, local, global or discrete,
889: breaks down into a subgroup $H$, in a way such that the vacuum
890: manifold $M = G/H$ is not trivial. Specifically, the topological
891: properties of the vacuum manifold $M$ under its homotopy groups,
892: $\pi_n (M)$, determine the nature of the topological
893: defects~\cite{Vilenkin,HK}. Thus, one generally has the formation of
894: domain walls for $\pi_0 (M) \neq {\bf I}$, cosmic strings for $\pi_1
895: (M) \neq {\bf I}$, monopoles if $\pi_2 (M) \neq {\bf I}$, or textures
896: if $\pi_{n > 2} (M) \neq {\bf I}$~\cite{Vilenkin}. For example, for
897: the SSB breaking pattern U(1)$_X \to {\bf I}$ in the waterfall sector,
898: the first homotopy group of the vacuum manifold is not trivial,
899: i.e.~$\pi_1({\rm U}(1)/{\bf I}) = {\bf Z}$. In this case, cosmic
900: strings will be produced at the end of inflation. In general, the
901: non-observation of any cosmic string contribution to the power
902: spectrum $P_{\cal R}$ at the 10\% level introduces serious constraints
903: on the theoretical parameters of hybrid inflation models.
904:
905: A potentially interesting inflationary scenario arises if the
906: waterfall sector possesses an SU(2)$_X$ gauge symmetry. In this case,
907: the SSB breaking pattern is: SU(2)$_X \to {\bf I}$, i.e.~the group
908: SU(2)$_X$ breaks completely. It is worth stressing here that this is a
909: unique property of the SU(2) group, since the breaking of higher
910: SU($N$) groups, with $N > 2$, into the identity~{\bf I} is not
911: possible. Moreover, an homotopy group analysis gives that
912: $\pi_{0,1,2} ({\rm SU}(2)_X/{\bf I}) = {\bf I}$, implying the complete
913: absence of domain walls, cosmic strings and monopoles. The only
914: non-trivial homotopy group is $\pi_3 ({\rm SU}(2)_X/{\bf I}) = {\bf
915: Z}$, thus signifying the formation of textures, in case the SU$(2)_X$
916: group is global. If the SU(2)$_X$ group is local, however, observable
917: textures do not occur. Since their corresponding field configurations
918: never leave the vacuum manifold, the would-be textures can always be
919: compensated by local SU(2)$_X$ gauge transformations~\cite{Vilenkin}.
920: It is therefore essential that the $X$-symmetry of the waterfall
921: sector is local in the $F_D$-term hybrid model.
922:
923: It is now interesting to explore whether generic scenarios exist, for
924: which the waterfall gauge groups ${\rm U}(1)_X$ or ${\rm SU}(2)_X$ of
925: the $F_D$-term hybrid model may, partially or completely, be embedded
926: into a GUT. As a key element for such a model-building, we identify
927: the maintenance of $D$-parity conservation in the $X$-gauged waterfall
928: sector, which is discussed in detail in Section~\ref{postinfl}. In
929: order to preserve $D$-parity, the waterfall sector should be somehow
930: `hidden' from the perspective of the SM gauge group $G_{\rm SM}$.
931: This means that the SM fields must be neutral under $X$ and vice
932: versa, the $X$-gauge and waterfall sector fields should not be charged
933: under $G_{\rm SM}$. Consequently, we have to require, as a GUT
934: breaking route, that the waterfall $X$-gauge group and the
935: GUT-subgroup that contains $G_{\rm SM}$ factor out into a product of
936: two independent groups without overlapping charges.
937:
938: It is reasonable to assume that the GUT-subgroup is broken to $G_{\rm
939: SM}$ before or while inflation takes place. Then, possible unwanted
940: topological defects due to the various stages of symmetry breaking
941: from the GUT-subgroup down to the SM will be inflated away. Notice
942: that we do not have to require that the GUT-subgroup breaking scale is
943: higher than the respective $X$-symmetry breaking scale, but only that
944: the reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ is low enough such that no
945: symmetries of the GUT-subgroup are restored during reheating. A
946: related discussion within the context of SO(10) may be found
947: in~\cite{SO10inflation}.
948:
949:
950: Let us first investigate whether a `hidden' gauge group ${\rm U}(1)_X$
951: related to the waterfall sector can be embedded into a GUT. Although
952: `hidden' ${\rm U}(1)$'s naturally arise in models of string
953: compactification~\cite{ExtraU1fromStrings}, our interest here is to
954: identify possible ${\rm U}(1)_X$ factors that can be embedded into a
955: simple GUT. Given the above criterion, the frequently discussed GUT
956: based on ${\rm SO}(10)$ should be excluded, since it does not contain
957: `hidden' U(1)$_X$ groups~\cite{Slansky:1981}. As a next candidate
958: theory, we may consider the exceptional group E(6), with the SSB
959: breaking path ${\rm E}(6)\to {\rm U}(1) \times {\rm SO}(10)$. The
960: fundamental representation of ${\rm E}(6)$ is the chiral ${\bf 27}_F$
961: representation, which branches under ${\rm U}(1) \times {\rm SO}(10)$
962: as follows:
963: \begin{equation}
964: {\bf 27}_F\ =\ (4,{\bf 1})\: +\: (-2, {\bf 10})\: +\: (1,{\bf 16})\; .
965: \end{equation}
966: Although the SM particles may fit into ${\bf 16}$, they are not
967: neutral under the extra U(1). Higher representations, such as $(0,
968: {\bf 45})$ stemming from ${\bf 78}$ of ${\rm E}(6)$, are neutral under
969: the ${\rm U}(1)$ factor, but they are not suitable to properly
970: accommodate all the SM particles.
971:
972: We therefore turn our attention to possible breaking patterns of
973: maximal groups that contain a `hidden' ${\rm SU}(2)_X$ factor. A
974: promising example is ${\rm E}(6)\supset {\rm SU}(2)_X \times {\rm
975: SU}(6)$, where the fundamental representation ${\bf 27}_F$ follows the
976: branching:
977: \begin{equation}
978: \label{27F}
979: {\bf 27}_F\ =\ ({\bf 2} ,{\bf \overline 6})\: +\: ({\bf 1},{\bf 15})\; .
980: \end{equation}
981: Under ${\rm SU}(6) \supset {\rm SU}(5) \times {\rm U}(1)$, ${\bf 15}$
982: is an antisymmetric representation of SU(6) and one of its branching
983: rules is
984: \begin{equation}
985: \label{15SM}
986: {\bf 15}\ =\ ({\bf 5},-4)\: +\: ({\bf 10},2)\; .
987: \end{equation}
988: However, we need a ${\bf \overline 5}$ of ${\rm SU}(5)$, together with
989: ${\bf 10}$ in~(\ref{15SM}), in order to appropriately describe all SM
990: fermions. This shortcoming may be circumvented by adding an extra
991: ${\bf \overline{27}}_F$ of ${\rm E}(6)$ to the spectrum, where the
992: missing ${\bf \overline 5}$ may be obtained from the complex conjugate
993: branching of~(\ref{15SM}). Such an extension of the particle spectrum
994: may even be welcome to resolve the proton stability problem, through a
995: kind of split multiplet mechanism~\cite{proton}. Within the framework
996: of SUSY, the quark and lepton Yukawa interactions may be generated via
997: the introduction of a pair of the multiplets ${\bf 27}_H$, ${\bf
998: \overline{27}}_H$. Finally, in such an E(6) unified scenario, the 3
999: right-handed neutrinos can only appear as singlets.
1000:
1001: Another possible GUT scenario that complies with our criterion of a
1002: hidden SU(2)$_X$ is ${\rm E}(7)\supset {\rm SU}(2)_X \times {\rm
1003: SO}(12)$. The fundamental representation is ${\bf 56}_F$ and branches
1004: under ${\rm SU}(2)_X \times {\rm SO}(12)$ as follows:
1005: \begin{equation}
1006: \label{56E7}
1007: {\bf 56}_F\ =\ ({\bf 2} , {\bf \overline{12}})\: +\:
1008: ({\bf 1},{\bf 32})\; .
1009: \end{equation}
1010: Subsequently, SO(12) breaks spontaneously into ${\rm SO}(10)\times
1011: {\rm U}(1)$, where ${\bf 32} = ({\bf 16},1) + ({\bf \overline
1012: {16}},-1)$ is a vector-like representation. However, one may well
1013: envisage a string-theoretic framework, in which orbifold
1014: compactification projects out the undesirable anti-chiral states.
1015: Then, all SM particles, including right-handed neutrinos, will be
1016: contained in one of the ${\bf 16}$'s of ${\bf 32}$. Related discussion
1017: of missing or incomplete multiplets due to orbifold compactification
1018: may be found in~\cite{orbifold}.
1019:
1020: Building a realistic GUT model from the blocks stated above lies
1021: beyond the scope of this paper. We have demonstrated here, however,
1022: that the embedding of an SU(2)$_X$ gauge group into a GUT, which is
1023: hidden but nevertheless takes part in the gauge coupling unification,
1024: appears feasible within E(6) and E(7) unified theories.
1025:
1026: We conclude this section by observing that the presence of the singlet
1027: inflaton field~$S$ offers alternative options, for suppressing the
1028: heavy Majorana neutrino masses within SUSY GUTs. As an example, we
1029: mention the breaking scenario, where ${\rm SO}(10) \to {\rm SU}(5)$
1030: via the VEV of a ${\bf 126}_H$ Higgs representation and the usual
1031: superpotential term ${\bf 16}_F \langle {\bf 126}_H\rangle\,{\bf
1032: 16}_F$ induces heavy Majorana masses of the GUT scale $M_{\rm GUT}$.
1033: Given that the above renormalizable operator is forbidden by some
1034: $R$-symmetry, the presence of an $R$-charged inflaton $S$ may give
1035: rise to a drastic suppression of the GUT-scale Majorana mass, through
1036: a superpotential term of the form $\widehat{S}\, {\bf 16}_F \langle
1037: {\bf 126}_H\rangle\,{\bf 16}_F/m_{\rm Pl}$. Since $S$ receives a VEV
1038: of order $M_{\rm SUSY}/\kappa$ in general $F$-term hybrid models
1039: [cf.~(\ref{mu})], one naturally obtains heavy Majorana neutrino masses
1040: of order $M_{\rm SUSY}$, if $\kappa \sim \langle {\bf 126}_H\rangle\,
1041: /m_{\rm Pl} \sim 10^{-3}$. Such values of $\kappa$ do satisfy the
1042: current inflationary constraints which we discuss in the next section.
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047:
1048: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1049: \section{Inflation}\label{inflation}
1050:
1051:
1052: Here, we first briefly review in Section~\ref{intro} the basic
1053: formalism of inflation, including the constraints from the
1054: non-observation of cosmic strings in the power spectrum $P_{\cal R}$
1055: of the CMB data. Then, in Section~\ref{numinf}, we present our
1056: numerical results for two scenarios: (i) the minimal SUGRA (mSUGRA)
1057: scenario and (ii) the next-to-minimal SUGRA (nmSUGRA) scenario. In
1058: particular, we exhibit numerical predictions for the spectral index
1059: $n_{\rm s}$ and discuss its possible reduction in the nmSUGRA
1060: scenario. Finally, we analyze the combined constraints on the
1061: fundamental theoretical parameters $\kappa$, $\lambda$, $\rho$, and
1062: $M$, which result from the recent CMB observations and inflation.
1063:
1064: \subsection{Basic Formalism}\label{intro}
1065:
1066: According to the inflationary paradigm~\cite{review}, the horizon and
1067: flatness problems of the standard Big-Bang Cosmology can be
1068: technically addressed, if our observable Universe has undergone an
1069: accelerated expansion of a number 50--60 of $e$-folds during
1070: inflation. In the slow-roll approximation, the number of $e$-folds,
1071: ${\cal N}_e$, is related to the inflationary potential through:
1072: \begin{equation}
1073: \label{Nefold}
1074: {\cal N}_e\ =\ \frac{1}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\; \int_{\phi_{\rm
1075: end}}^{\phi_{\rm exit}}\, d\phi\: \frac{V_{\rm inf}}{V'_{\rm inf}}\
1076: \simeq\ 55\; .
1077: \end{equation}
1078: Hereafter, a prime on $V_{\rm inf}$ will denote differentiation with
1079: respect to the inflaton field $\phi=\sqrt{2}\, {\rm Re}\,S$. In
1080: addition, $\phi_{\rm exit}$ is the value of $\phi$, when our present
1081: horizon scale crossed outside inflation's horizon and $\phi_{\rm end}$
1082: is the value of $\phi$ at the end of inflation. In the slow-roll
1083: approximation, the field value $\phi_{\rm end}$ is determined from the
1084: condition:
1085: \begin{equation}
1086: \label{slow}
1087: {\sf max}\{\epsilon(\phi_{\rm end}),|\eta(\phi_{\rm
1088: end})|\}\ =\ 1\, ,
1089: \end{equation}
1090: where
1091: \begin{equation}
1092: \label{epseta}
1093: \epsilon\ =\ \frac{m_{\rm Pl}^2}{2}\ \left(
1094: \frac{V'_{\rm inf}}{V_{\rm inf}}\right)^2\,,\qquad
1095: \eta\ =\ m_{\rm Pl}^2\ \frac{V''_{\rm inf}}{V_{\rm inf}}\ .
1096: \end{equation}
1097: We have checked that the slow-roll condition~(\ref{slow}) is well
1098: satisfied up to the critical point $\phi_{\rm end}=\sqrt{2} M$, beyond
1099: which the waterfall mechanism takes place. We also find that the
1100: slow-roll condition remains valid, even within the nmSUGRA scenario
1101: with $c_H\neq0$ and with appreciable non-renormalizable SUGRA effects.
1102: Finally, we note that the assumed value of ${\cal N}_e \simeq 55$
1103: in~(\ref{Nefold}) is slightly higher than the one computed
1104: consistently from~(\ref{Ng}), which is about 50 for our low-reheat
1105: cosmological scenario. However, our numerical results concerning
1106: $P_{\cal R}$ and $n_{\rm s}$ do not depend on such a 10\% variation of
1107: ${\cal N}_e$ in any essential way.
1108:
1109: The power spectrum $P_{\cal R}$ is a cosmological observable of the
1110: curvature perturbations, which sensitively depends on the theoretical
1111: parameters of the inflationary potential. The square root of the power
1112: spectrum, $P^{1/2}_{\cal R}$, may be conveniently written down as
1113: \begin{equation}
1114: \label{PR}
1115: P^{1/2}_{\cal R}\ =\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}\, \pi m^3_{\rm Pl}}\;
1116: \frac{V_{\rm inf}^{3/2}(\phi_{\rm exit})}{|V'_{\rm inf}(\phi_{\rm
1117: exit})|}\ .
1118: \end{equation}
1119: The recent WMAP~\cite{WMAP,WMAP3} results, which are compatible with
1120: the ones suggested for the COBE normalization~\cite{COBE}, require
1121: that
1122: \begin{equation}
1123: \label{Pr}
1124: P^{1/2}_{\cal R}\ \simeq\ 4.86\times 10^{-5}\, .
1125: \end{equation}
1126:
1127: In addition to scalar curvature perturbations, tensor gravity waves
1128: and cosmic string effects may also contribute to $P_{\cal R}$. In the
1129: $F_D$-term hybrid model with an Abelian $U(1)_X$ waterfall sector,
1130: cosmic strings arise after the SSB of the gauge symmetry (see also our
1131: discussion in Section~\ref{TDGUT}). In this case, additional
1132: constraints are obtained from the non-observation of cosmic string
1133: effects on~$P_{\cal R}$~\cite{cstrings1,cstrings}. The evaluation of
1134: such effects involves a certain degree of uncertainty in the numerical
1135: simulations of string networks \cite{cstrings2}. Nevertheless, the
1136: common approach taken to cosmic string effects~\cite{mairi,JP} is to
1137: require that their contribution $(P_{\cal R})_{\rm cs}$ to the power
1138: spectrum $P_{\cal R}$ does not exceed the 10\% level, i.e.~$(P_{\cal
1139: R})_{\rm cs}/P_{\cal R} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.1$. In~detail, we
1140: require that
1141: \begin{equation}
1142: \label{Prcs}
1143: (P^{1/2}_{\cal R})_{\rm cs}\ \leq\ 1.54 \times 10^{-5}\; .
1144: \end{equation}
1145: The cosmic string contribution $(P_{\cal R})_{\rm cs}$ to the power
1146: spectrum may be computed by
1147: \begin{equation}
1148: (P^{1/2}_{\cal R})_{\rm cs}\ = \
1149: {\sqrt{15}\over 4\pi}\: {\mu_{\rm cs}\over m^2_{\rm Pl}}\ y_{\rm cs}\; ,
1150: \end{equation}
1151: where the tension of the cosmic strings, $\mu_{\rm cs}$, is calculated
1152: using the formulae:
1153: \begin{equation}
1154: \label{mucs}
1155: \mu_{\rm cs}\ =\ 2\pi M^2\epsilon_{\rm cs}(\beta)\,,\qquad
1156: \epsilon_{\rm cs}(\beta)\ \simeq\ \left\{\matrix{
1157: %\begin{array}{rl}
1158: 1.04\ \beta^{0.195}\hfill , & \mbox{for}~~\beta>10^{-2},
1159: \hfill \cr
1160: %
1161: 2.4\,/ \ln(2/\beta) \hfill , &\mbox{for}~~\beta\leq10^{-2}\; .
1162: \hfill \cr}
1163: %\end{array}
1164: \right.
1165: \end{equation}
1166: In~(\ref{mucs}) the argument $\beta$ is given by $\beta =
1167: \kappa^2/(2g^2)$, while the U(1)$_X$ gauge coupling constant $g$ is
1168: considered to assume the value $g \simeq 0.7$ as is the case in GUT
1169: models. The central value of the parameter $y_{\rm cs}$ is 8.9 and
1170: its error margin lies in the interval [6.7,11.6], according to the
1171: analysis in~\cite{cstrings}.
1172:
1173:
1174: The recently announced three-years results of WMAP~\cite{WMAP3}
1175: improved upon the precision of a number of other cosmological
1176: observables. The merits of an inflationary model can be judged by
1177: comparing its predictions for the scalar spectral index, $n_{\rm s}$,
1178: the tensor to scalar ratio, $r$, and the running of $n_{\rm s}$,
1179: $dn_{\rm s}/d\ln\kappa$, with the CMB data. In the $F_D$-term hybrid
1180: model, $r=16\epsilon(\phi_{\rm exit})$ is much lower than the WMAP
1181: bound, i.e.~well below~$10^{-2}$, and $dn_{\rm s}/d\ln\kappa$ is
1182: always smaller than $10^{-3}$ and so unobservable. In addition, the
1183: spectral index $n_{\rm s}$ in our model may well be approximated as
1184: follows:~\cite{review}
1185: \begin{equation}
1186: \label{nS}
1187: n_{\rm s}\ =\ 1-6\epsilon(\phi_{\rm exit})\ +\ 2\eta(\phi_{\rm exit})\
1188: \simeq\ 1\ +\ 2\eta(\phi_{\rm exit}),
1189: \end{equation}
1190: since $\epsilon$ is negligible. The predicted value needs to be
1191: compared with the recent WMAP results~\cite{WMAP3}:
1192: \begin{equation}
1193: \label{nswmap}
1194: n_{\rm s}\ =\ 0.951_{-0.019}^{+0.015}\ .
1195: \end{equation}
1196: The latter is translated into the double inequality,
1197: \begin{equation}
1198: \label{ns95}
1199: 0.913\ \lesssim\ n_{\rm s}\ \lesssim\ 0.981\; ,
1200: \end{equation}
1201: at the 95\% confidence level (CL).
1202:
1203:
1204: The result~(\ref{ns95}) brings under considerable stress minimal
1205: $F$-term hybrid inflation models~\cite{DSS}. This is due to the fact
1206: that these models predict $n_{\rm s}$ extremely close to unity without
1207: much running. To be precise, when the radiative corrections dominate
1208: the slope of the potential, we obtain
1209: \begin{equation}
1210: \label{nSrc}
1211: n_{\rm s}\ \simeq\ 1\ -\ {1/{\cal N}_e}\ \simeq\ 0.98\; ,
1212: \end{equation}
1213: for ${\cal N}_e = 55$. On the other hand, if the non-renormalizable
1214: operator $|S|^4$ in $V_{\rm SUGRA}$ of~(\ref{VSUGRA}) dominates the
1215: slope of the potential of a mSUGRA model with $c_H=0$~\cite{SS}, we
1216: obtain a blue-tilted spectrum, with
1217: \begin{equation}
1218: \label{nSrc2}
1219: n_{\rm s}\ \simeq\ 1\ +\ {6M^2\over m_{\rm Pl}^2-2M^2{\cal N}_e}\
1220: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}\ 1\; .
1221: \end{equation}
1222: A possible Hubble-induced positive term $+c_H^2 H^2 |S|^2$ in $V_{\rm
1223: SUGRA}$~\cite{CP, JP} implies an even more pronounced blue spectrum
1224: and is therefore excluded by the current WMAP data.
1225:
1226: As noticed earlier in~\cite{hilltop} and elaborated further in
1227: Ref.~\cite{king}, agreement of theory's prediction for~$n_{\rm s}$
1228: with observation strongly suggests the presence of a negative
1229: Hubble-induced mass term $-c^2_H H^2 |S|^2$ in $V_{\rm SUGRA}$,
1230: thereby clearly disfavouring the minimal K\"ahler potential. In~our
1231: analysis, we therefore consider the following next-to-minimal form for
1232: the K\"{a}hler manifold~\cite{CP}:
1233: \begin{equation}
1234: \label{qK}
1235: K_S\ =\ |S|^2\ +\ k_S\;{|S|^4\over 4\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\ ,
1236: \end{equation}
1237: where the constant $k_S$ can be either positive or negative.
1238: Substituting (\ref{qK}) into the general formula for the $F$-term type
1239: contributions to the SUGRA potential~(see, e.g.~\cite{CLLSW}),
1240: \begin{equation}
1241: \label{VF}
1242: V_F\ =\ e^{K_S/m^2_{\rm Pl}}\, \Bigg[\, F^i (K^{-1}_S)_i^j F_j\ -\ 3\,
1243: \frac{|W|^2}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\,\Bigg]\ ,
1244: \end{equation}
1245: we arrive at the result~(\ref{VSUGRA}) with $c^2_H = 3k_S$, after
1246: neglecting higher-order terms that are small for $|c_H|
1247: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.2$. In (\ref{VF}), $F^i$ are the
1248: SUGRA-generalized $F$-terms and $(K^{-1}_S)_i^j$ is the so-called
1249: inverse metric of the K\"ahler manifold, where a superscript
1250: (subscript) index $i$ or $j$ on $K_S$ denotes differentiation with
1251: respect to $S$ ($S^*$).
1252:
1253: The aforementioned nmSUGRA inflationary potential, with a negative
1254: Hubble-induced mass term, reaches a local minimum and maximum at the
1255: points $\phi_{\rm min}$ and $\phi_{\rm max}$, respectively. These
1256: points can be estimated by
1257: \begin{equation}
1258: \label{phimax}
1259: \phi_{\rm max}\ \simeq\ {m_{\rm Pl}\over 4\pi c_H}\
1260: \Big(\, 6\kappa^2{\cal N}\: +\: 12\lambda^2\: +\:
1261: 9\rho^2\,\Big)^{1/2}\,, \qquad
1262: \phi_{\rm min}\ \simeq\ \sqrt{2\over3}\; c_H m_{\rm Pl}\ .
1263: \end{equation}
1264: For relevant parameter values, for which $\phi_{\rm max} <\phi_{\rm
1265: min}$, and under convenient initial conditions, the so-called hilltop
1266: inflation~\cite{hilltop} can take place, where $\phi$ rolls from
1267: $\phi_{\rm max}$ down to smaller values, such that $\phi_{\rm exit} <
1268: \phi_{\rm max}$. In this nmSUGRA scenario, the value of $n_{\rm s}$
1269: can be significantly lowered and can be approximately given by
1270: \begin{equation}
1271: \label{nShilltop}
1272: n_{\rm s}\ \simeq\ 1\: -\ \frac{1}{{\cal N}_e}\ -\ c_H^2\; .
1273: \end{equation}
1274: As we will show more explicitly in the next section, the spectral
1275: index $n_{\rm s}$ can be easily driven into the range of~(\ref{ns95}),
1276: for values of $c_H \sim 0.1$. The presence of the second
1277: next-to-minimal term proportional to $k_S$ in~(\ref{qK}) modifies the
1278: analytic expressions of~(\ref{Nefold}), (\ref{epseta}) and
1279: (\ref{Pr})~\cite{king}. However, these modifications turn out to be
1280: numerically insignificant for the predicted values of ${\cal N}_e$ and
1281: $P_{\cal R}$, if $c_H$ is not very large, e.g.~$c_H
1282: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.2$.
1283:
1284:
1285:
1286: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1287: \begin{figure}[t]
1288: \centerline{\epsfig{file=mSUGRAPR.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}} \hfill
1289: \vspace*{-.15in} \hfill
1290: \centerline{\epsfig{file=mSUGRAns.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}}\hfill
1291: \caption{\sl\small The values of the inflationary scale $M$ allowed
1292: by~(\ref{Nefold}) and (\ref{Pr}) {\sf (a)} and the predicted values of
1293: the spectral index $n_{\rm s}$ {\sf (b)} as a function of $\kappa$ for
1294: ${\cal N}=1$ and $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ (light grey lines) or
1295: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$ (grey lines), including the one-loop radiative
1296: corrections (dashed lines) or the mSUGRA ($c_H=0$) contributions with
1297: a$_S=1~{\rm TeV}$ (solid lines). The upper bound of~(\ref{Prcs}) for
1298: $y_{\rm cs} =6.7,~8.9,~11.6$ (from top to bottom) [cf.~(\ref{nswmap})]
1299: is also shown by thin lines {\sf (a)} [{\sf (b)}].}
1300: \label{fig:mSUGRAPR}
1301: \end{figure}
1302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1303:
1304:
1305: \subsection{Numerical results}\label{numinf}
1306:
1307: In our numerical estimates, we use the full expression for the
1308: inflationary potential $V_{\rm inf}$ given in~(\ref{Vinf}), which
1309: consists of the tree-level, 1-loop and SUGRA contributions, given
1310: in~(\ref{V0inf}), (\ref{V1loop}) and (\ref{VSUGRA}), respectively. We
1311: will ignore all soft SUSY-breaking terms, but the tadpole term $a_S$.
1312: To facilitate our numerical analysis, we introduce the real tadpole
1313: parameter $\mbox{a}_S$, which is defined, in terms of the Lagrangian
1314: parameter $a_S$, by the relation:
1315: \begin{equation}
1316: \label{aS}
1317: \mbox{a}_S\ =\ -\, 2 |a_S|\, \cos{(\arg{a_S} + \arg{S})}\; .
1318: \end{equation}
1319: For any given value of $\kappa,~\lambda,~\rho$, a$_S$ and $c_H$, we
1320: determine $\phi_{\rm exit}$ and $M$, by imposing the
1321: conditions~(\ref{Nefold}) and (\ref{Pr}) for the number ${\cal N}_e$
1322: of $e$-folds and the power spectrum $P^{1/2}_{\cal R}$, respectively.
1323: In addition, we compute $n_{\rm s}$ by means of~(\ref{nS}). Our
1324: results are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR} for the mSUGRA
1325: scenario and in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR} for the nmSUGRA scenario.
1326: They will be analyzed in more detail in the following two subsections.
1327:
1328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1329: \begin{figure}[!th]
1330: \centerline{\epsfig{file=mSUGRAlr.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}} \hfill
1331: \caption{\sl\small The allowed values of $\lambda/\kappa$ versus
1332: $\rho/\kappa$ for the mSUGRA scenario with $M=2\times10^{16}~{\rm
1333: GeV}$ and $\kappa=0.05$ (dark grey line), $\kappa=0.01$ (grey line) or
1334: $\kappa=0.005$ (light grey line).}\label{fig:mSUGRAlr}
1335: \end{figure}
1336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1337:
1338:
1339:
1340:
1341:
1342:
1343: \subsubsection{The minimal SUGRA scenario}\label{msugra}
1344:
1345: Here, we present numerical results for the mSUGRA scenario. The
1346: values of the inflationary scale $M$ allowed by~(\ref{Nefold}) and
1347: (\ref{Pr}) and the predicted values of $n_{\rm s}$, as functions of
1348: $\kappa$, for $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ (light grey lines) and
1349: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$ (grey lines), are displayed in
1350: Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(a) and~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(b), respectively.
1351: Dashed lines indicate results obtained, when only the 1-loop
1352: contribution to $V_{\rm inf}$ is considered and $\mbox{a}_S$ is set to
1353: zero, whilst solid lines represent numerical values obtained, if the
1354: remaining contributions are included, namely those coming
1355: from~(\ref{V0inf}) with a$_S=1~{\rm TeV}$ and~(\ref{VSUGRA}) with
1356: $c_H=0$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}, we observe that as the common
1357: value for $\rho$, $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ increases, $M$ and $n_{\rm
1358: s}$ increase as well. In particular, $M$ gets closer to the GUT-scale
1359: value $2 \times 10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$ for $\kappa \sim 10^{-3}$, unlike
1360: the case $\lambda=\rho=0$, where $M$ takes on much smaller values at
1361: this point~\cite{DSS,SS,JP}.
1362:
1363: It is now not difficult to identify in~Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR} the
1364: regimes, in which the different contributions to $V_{\rm inf}$
1365: dominate. More explicitly, for $\kappa \gtrsim 4\times10^{-3}$ and
1366: $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ or $\kappa \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ and
1367: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$, the non-renormalizable SUGRA term
1368: of~(\ref{VSUGRA}) dominates and drives $n_{\rm s}$ to values close to
1369: or larger than~1 [cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(b)]. On the other hand,
1370: for $4\times10^{-4} \lesssim \kappa \lesssim 4\times 10^{-3}$ and
1371: $\rho = \lambda = \kappa$ or $4\times10^{-4} \lesssim \kappa \lesssim
1372: 10^{-3}$ and $\rho = \lambda = 4\kappa$, the 1-loop
1373: corrections~(\ref{V1loop}) dominate, in which case the spectral index
1374: $n_{\rm s}$ takes on the predicted value $\sim 0.98$ given
1375: in~(\ref{nSrc}). Finally, for $\kappa \lesssim 4\times 10^{-3}$ and
1376: $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ or $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$, the tadpole term
1377: in~(\ref{V0inf}) starts playing an important role. As $M$ increases,
1378: the non-renormalizable SUGRA term of~(\ref{VSUGRA}) becomes again
1379: important~\cite{SS,JP}. In this case, the prediction for
1380: $P^{1/2}_{\cal R}$ and $n_{\rm s}$ is almost independent of $\rho$ and
1381: $\lambda$, as expected. For lower values of a$_S$, the solid lines in
1382: the latter regime would eventually approach the dashed
1383: lines~\cite{JP}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(b), we also indicate with
1384: a thin line the $95\%$ CL upper limit on $n_{\rm s}$ stated
1385: in~(\ref{ns95}). Clearly, a mSUGRA version of the $F_D$-term hybrid
1386: model appears to be disfavoured by the most recent WMAP results.
1387:
1388:
1389: In addition, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(a) upper limits due to
1390: cosmic string effects based on~(\ref{Prcs}), for $y_{\rm cs}
1391: =6.7,~8.9,~11.6$ (from top to bottom). Such constraints are only
1392: relevant for an Abelian realization of the waterfall-gauge sector. We
1393: observe that the presence of cosmic strings severely restrict the
1394: available parameter space of the U(1)$_X$ $F_D$-term hybrid model. As
1395: we discussed in Section~\ref{TDGUT}, however, these constraints do no
1396: longer apply, if the waterfall-gauge sector realizes an SU(2)$_X$
1397: gauge symmetry. Since the dimensionality of the representation is
1398: ${\cal N}=2$ in this case, the allowed range of $M$ as a function of
1399: $\kappa$ slightly changes. In fact, the allowed values of $M$ become
1400: marginally larger than the ones already shown
1401: in~Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(a) by up to 12\%, for
1402: $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$, while they stay at the 1\% level, for
1403: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$. Likewise, the predicted values of $n_{\rm s}$
1404: remain almost unaffected at the 2\% level, from those presented
1405: in~Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAPR}(b). Obviously, as $\rho$ and $\lambda$ gets
1406: larger than $\kappa$, the difference between the ${\cal N}=1$ and
1407: ${\cal N}=2$ cases becomes practically unobservable.
1408:
1409: Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAlr} we plot the allowed values of
1410: $\lambda/\kappa$ versus $\rho/\kappa$, subject to the
1411: constraints~(\ref{Nefold}) and (\ref{Pr}), for $M = 2 \times
1412: 10^{16}$~GeV (close to the GUT scale) and for different values of
1413: $\kappa$: $\kappa=0.005$ (dark grey line), $\kappa=0.001$ (grey line)
1414: or $\kappa=0.0005$ (light grey line). Along these contour lines,
1415: $\phi_{\rm exit}$ and $n_{\rm s}$ remain constant and equal to the
1416: values presented in Table~\ref{tab1}. We observe that as $\kappa$
1417: increases, $\phi_{\rm exit}$ and $n_{\rm s}$ increase as well.
1418:
1419:
1420:
1421:
1422: \begin{table}[!t]
1423: \begin{center}
1424: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1425: %
1426: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAlr}}&\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAlr}}\\\hline
1427: %
1428: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$M=2\times10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$}&\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{
1429: $\kappa=0.005,~M=10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$}\\\hline
1430: %
1431: {$~~~\kappa$}&{$\phi_{\rm
1432: exit}$}&{$n_{\rm s}$}&{$c_H$}
1433: &{$\phi_{\rm min}$}&{$\phi_{\rm max}$}&{$\phi_{\rm exit}$}&{$n_{\rm s}$}\\
1434: \hline\hline
1435: %
1436: $0.005$&{$6.28$}&{$1.017$}&{$0.07$}&{$8.4$}&{$-$}&{$5.1$}&{$0.978$}\\
1437: %
1438: $0.001$&{$2.14$}&{$0.99$}&{$0.14$}&{$16.5$}&{$10.5$}&{$8.1$}&{$0.955$}\\
1439: %
1440: $0.0005$&{$1.51$}&{$0.99$}&{$0.18$}&{$21.7$}&{$12.8$}&{$11.2$}&{$0.941$}\\ \hline
1441: %
1442: \end{tabular}
1443: \end{center}
1444: \caption{\sl\small The values of $\phi_{\rm exit}$ (in units
1445: $\sqrt{2}M$) and $n_{\rm s}$ for several $\kappa$'s along the curves
1446: in Fig.~\ref{fig:mSUGRAlr} and the values of $\phi_{\rm min}$, $\phi_{\rm
1447: max}$, $\phi_{\rm exit}$ (in units $\sqrt{2}M$) and $n_{\rm s}$ for
1448: several $c_H$'s along the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAlr}.} \label{tab1}
1449: \end{table}
1450:
1451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1452: \begin{figure}[t]
1453: \centerline{\epsfig{file=nmSUGRAPR.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}} \hfill
1454: \vspace*{-.15in} \hfill
1455: \centerline{\epsfig{file=nmSUGRAns.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}}\hfill
1456: \caption{\sl\small The values of the inflationary scale $M$ allowed
1457: by~(\ref{Nefold}) and (\ref{Pr}) {\sf (a)} and the predicted values of
1458: the spectral index $n_{\rm s}$ {\sf (b)} as a function of $\kappa$ for
1459: ${\cal N}=1$ and $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ (light grey lines) or
1460: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$ (grey lines), for the nmSUGRA scenario with
1461: $c_H=0.07$ (dashed lines) or $c_H=0.14$ (solid lines). In both cases
1462: we take a$_S=1~{\rm TeV}$. The upper bound given in~(\ref{Prcs}) (for
1463: $y_{\rm cs}=6.7,~8.9,~11.6$ from top to bottom) [cf.~(\ref{nswmap})]
1464: is also depicted by thin lines {\sf (a)} [{\sf (b)}].}
1465: \label{fig:nmSUGRAPR}
1466: \end{figure}
1467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1468:
1469:
1470: \subsubsection{The next-to-minimal SUGRA scenario}\label{qsugra}
1471:
1472: We now turn our attention to the nmSUGRA scenario. Although we
1473: take the tadpole term to be a$_S=1~{\rm TeV}$, its impact on
1474: our results turns out to be insignificant for the whole range
1475: of parameters we have scanned. The values of the
1476: inflationary scale $M$ allowed by~(\ref{Nefold}) and (\ref{Pr})
1477: and the predicted $n_{\rm s}$ as a function of $\kappa$ are
1478: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR}(a)
1479: and~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR}(b), respectively, for
1480: $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ (light grey lines) and
1481: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$ (grey lines). We consider the two
1482: cases: $c_H=0.07$ (dashed lines) and $c_H=0.14$ (solid lines).
1483: As in the case of mSUGRA, $M$ and $n_{\rm s}$ increase, with
1484: increasing $\rho, \lambda$ and $\kappa$. Moreover, as $\kappa$
1485: decreases, the non-renormalizable SUGRA contribution in
1486: (\ref{VSUGRA}) becomes subdominant and $n_{\rm s}$ decreases.
1487: Such a reduction becomes even more drastic with increasing
1488: $c_H$, as can be easily inferred from
1489: Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR}(a), where the 95\%~CL upper bound on
1490: $n_{\rm s}$ [cf.~(\ref{ns95})] is indicated with a thin
1491: horizontal line on the same plot. In stark contrast to the
1492: mSUGRA scenario, we observe that our model can become perfectly
1493: consistent with the recent WMAP result for $0.04 \lesssim c_H
1494: \lesssim 0.22$. Note that the various lines terminate at large
1495: values of $\kappa$, for which the two restrictions~(\ref{Nefold})
1496: and~(\ref{Pr}) cannot be simultaneously met.
1497:
1498:
1499:
1500: \begin{sidewaystable}
1501: \begin{center}
1502: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1503: %
1504: {$~~\kappa$}&{$c_H$}&{$M$}&{$\phi_{\rm min}$}&{$\phi_{\rm max}$}&{$\phi_{\rm
1505: exit}$}&{$\Delta_{\rm exit}$}
1506: &{$c_H$}&{$M$}&{$\phi_{\rm min}$}&{$\phi_{\rm max}$}&{$\phi_{\rm
1507: exit}$}&{$\Delta_{\rm exit}$}&{$c_H$}&
1508: {$M$}&{$\phi_{\rm min}$}&{$\phi_{\rm max}$}&{$\phi_{\rm exit}$}&{$\Delta_{\rm
1509: exit}$}\\
1510: \cline{2-19}
1511: %
1512: &\multicolumn{6}{|c||}{$n_{\rm s}=0.913$}&\multicolumn{6}{|c||}{$n_{\rm
1513: s}=0.951$}
1514: &\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{$n_{\rm s}=0.981$}\\ \hline\hline
1515: %
1516: \multicolumn{19}{|c|}{$\lambda=\rho=\kappa$}\\ \hline
1517: %
1518: $0.01$&{$0.179$}&{$0.34$}&{$73.6$}&{$11.9$}&{$11.3$}&{$0.050$}
1519: &{$0.130$}&{$0.53$}&{$32.0$}&{$10.8$}&{$8.75$}&{$0.19$}&
1520: {$0.065$}&{$0.78$}&{$16.7$}&{$-$}&{$7.50$}&{$-$}\\
1521: %
1522: $0.005$&{$0.176$}&{$0.34$}&{$73.1$}&{$6.0$}&{$5.7$}&{$0.053$}
1523: &{$0.120$}&{$0.53$}&{$32.2$}&{$6.2$}&{$4.48$}&{$0.18$}
1524: &{$0.040$}&{$0.78$}&{$8.20$}&{$-$}&{$3.90$}&{$-$}\\
1525: %
1526: $0.001$&{$0.173$}&{$0.25$}&{$95.6$}&{$1.64$}&{$1.6$}&{$0.028$}
1527: &{$0.120$}&{$0.38$}&{$45.0$}&{$1.55$}&{$1.42$}&{$0.09$}
1528: &{$0.060$}&{$0.58$}&{$19.0$}&{$2.10$}&{$1.36$}&{$0.34$}\\
1529: %
1530: $0.0005$&{$0.165$}&{$0.19$}&{$121$}&{$1.23$}&{$1.21$}&{$0.014$}
1531: &{$0.116$}&{$0.28$}&{$58.8$}&{$1.19$}&{$1.15$}&{$0.04$}
1532: &{$0.060$}&{$0.43$}&{$20.0$}&{$1.37$}&{$1.13$}&{$0.17$}\\\hline
1533: %
1534: \multicolumn{19}{|c|}{$\lambda=\rho=4\kappa$}\\ \hline
1535: %
1536: $0.01$&{$0.216$}&{$0.56$}&{$49$}&{$23.0$}&{$22.0$}&{$0.046$}
1537: &{$0.190$}&{$0.83$}&{$23.0$}&{$21.9$}&{$17.0$}&{$0.22$}
1538: &{$0.169$}&{$1.12$}&{$26.0$}&{$-$}&{$14.3$}&{$-$}\\
1539: %
1540: $0.005$&{$0.188$}&{$0.61$}&{$41$}&{$11.4$}&{$10.8$}&{$0.050$}
1541: &{$0.146$}&{$0.96$}&{$26.0$}&{$9.1$}&{$8.30$}&{$0.19$}
1542: &{$0.103$}&{$1.36$}&{$8.6$}&{$-$}&{$7.05$}&{$-$}\\
1543: %
1544: $0.001$&{$0.177$}&{$0.57$}&{$43$}&{$2.48$}&{$2.38$}&{$0.043$}
1545: &{$0.125$}&{$0.89$}&{$24.6$}&{$2.28$}&{$1.96$}&{$0.14$}
1546: &{$0.058$}&{$1.30$}&{$4.7$}&{$-$}&{$1.82$}&{$-$}\\
1547: %
1548: $0.0005$&{$0.178$}&{$0.46$}&{$54$}&{$1.53$}&{$1.49$}&{$0.028$}
1549: &{$0.129$}&{$0.68$}&{$26$}&{$1.45$}&{$1.33$}&{$0.08$}
1550: &{$0.070$}&{$1.00$}&{$9.6$}&{$1.83$}&{$1.30$}&{$0.29$}\\ \hline
1551: \end{tabular}
1552: \end{center}
1553: \caption{\sl\small The values of $c_H$, $M$ (in units $10^{16}~{\rm
1554: GeV}$) $\phi_{\rm min}$, $\phi_{\rm max}$, $\phi_{\rm exit}$ (in units
1555: $\sqrt{2}M$) and $\Delta_{\rm exit} = (\phi_{\rm max} - \phi_{\rm
1556: exit})/\phi_{\rm max}$, for selected values of $\kappa$, $\lambda$ and
1557: $\rho$, and for fixed values of the spectral index $n_{\rm s}$.}\label{tab2}
1558: \end{sidewaystable}
1559:
1560:
1561: It is interesting to further investigate the inflationary dynamics
1562: described by $V_{\rm inf}$ in the presence of a negative
1563: Hubble-induced mass term. To this end, we exhibit in Table~\ref{tab2}
1564: the values of $c_{H}$, $\phi_{\rm min}$, $\phi_{\rm max}$, $\phi_{\rm
1565: exit}$ (in units $\sqrt{2}M$) and the inflationary scale $M$ (in units
1566: of $10^{16}$~GeV) which are obtained for different values of $\kappa$,
1567: assuming that $\lambda = \rho = \kappa$ or $\lambda = \rho = 4\kappa$,
1568: and for fixed values of $n_{\rm s}$, i.e.~$n_{\rm s} = 0.913,\ 0.951,\
1569: 0.981$, compatible with the 95\% CL limits given in~(\ref{ns95}). In
1570: addition, we present values for the parameter $\Delta_{\rm exit} =
1571: (\phi_{\max} - \phi_{\rm exit})/\phi_{\rm exit}$, which somehow
1572: quantifies the degree of tuning required in the initial conditions of
1573: inflation. The entries without a value assigned (in Tables~\ref{tab1}
1574: and~\ref{tab2}) mean that the respective inflationary potential
1575: $V_{\rm inf}$ has no distinguishable nearby local maximum $\phi_{\rm
1576: max}$. We notice from Table~\ref{tab2}, that as $n_{\rm s}$ decreases
1577: with fixed values of $\kappa$, $c_{H}$ increases while $M$ and
1578: $\Delta_{\rm exit}$ decrease. Moreover, for fixed values of $n_{\rm
1579: s}$ and decreasing $\kappa$, $c_H$ and $M$ decrease and $\phi_{\rm
1580: exit}$ approaches $\phi_{\max}$. On the contrary, with increasing
1581: $\kappa$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$, the inflationary scale $M$ increases
1582: and the parameter $\Delta_{\rm exit}$ becomes larger. We have checked
1583: that the inequality $\phi_{\max}>\phi_{\rm exit}$ is fulfilled along
1584: the lines presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR}. In this respect, we
1585: also note that $\phi_{\rm min}$ is in general much larger than
1586: $\phi_{\max}$ especially for low values of $n_{\rm s}$.
1587:
1588:
1589: It is important to observe from Table~\ref{tab2} that there is a
1590: degree of tuning required for the values $\phi_{\rm exit}$ with
1591: respect to $\phi_{\max}$. For values of $\kappa \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}
1592: 10^{-3}$, we find that the degree of tuning required is not very
1593: serious, i.e.~$\Delta_{\rm exit} \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10\%$.
1594: However, the situation becomes rather delicate as $\kappa$ gets
1595: smaller than $10^{-3}$, for $n_{\rm s} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.97$.
1596: In this case, we find that $\phi_{\max} \approx \phi_{\rm exit}$,
1597: leading to a substantial tuning at the few per cent level in the
1598: initial conditions of inflation.
1599:
1600:
1601: As in the mSUGRA case, we also show in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR}(a) the
1602: upper bounds resulting from cosmic-string effects [cf.~(\ref{Prcs})],
1603: for $y_{\rm cs} = 6.7,~8.9,~11.6$ (from top to bottom). As mentioned
1604: above, these constraints are only relevant for an Abelian
1605: waterfall-gauge sector with dimensionality ${\cal N} = 1$. However,
1606: unlike in the mSUGRA case, these restrictions appear less harmful,
1607: since the inflationary scale $M$ assumes smaller values
1608: (see also Table~\ref{tab2}) and the tadpole term becomes
1609: unimportant. Thus, larger values of $\kappa$ up to order $10^{-2}$ can be
1610: tolerated in this case. For the non-Abelian SU(2)$_X$ $F_D$-term hybrid
1611: model, the restrictions from considerations of cosmic-string
1612: effects are totally lifted and the
1613: lines depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAPR} only vary within the few
1614: per cent level. Such a variation becomes even smaller if $\rho >
1615: \kappa$ and/or $\lambda > \kappa$.
1616:
1617:
1618: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1619: \begin{figure}[!t]
1620: \centerline{\epsfig{file=cHk.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}} \hfill
1621: \caption{\sl\small The parameter values $(\kappa,c_H)$ allowed by
1622: (\ref{Nefold}), (\ref{Pr}) and (\ref{nswmap}) in the nmSUGRA scenario,
1623: for $\rho=\lambda=\kappa$ (light grey hatched area) and
1624: $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$ (grey hatched area). The grey (light grey) line
1625: has been obtained by fixing $n_{\rm s}$ to its central value given in
1626: (\ref{nswmap}), for $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$
1627: ($\rho=\lambda=\kappa$).}\label{fig:cHk}
1628: \end{figure}
1629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1630:
1631: In Fig.~\ref{fig:cHk}, we present the parameter space
1632: $(\kappa,c_H)$ which is allowed by the
1633: conditions~(\ref{Nefold}), (\ref{Pr}) and (\ref{nswmap}) in the
1634: nmSUGRA scenario. The light grey (grey) hatched area indicates
1635: the allowed region for $\rho=\lambda=4\kappa$
1636: ($\rho=\lambda=\kappa$). The lower (upper) boundaries of the
1637: allowed regions correspond to the upper (lower) bound on $n_{\rm
1638: s}$, cf.~(\ref{ns95}), while the solid lines correspond to the
1639: central value of $n_{\rm s}$, cf.~(\ref{nswmap}). We find that
1640: values of $c_H \sim 0.2$ and $\kappa \sim 0.05$ are still
1641: possible in a nmSUGRA extension of the $F_D$-term hybrid model.
1642:
1643:
1644:
1645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1646: \begin{figure}[!t]
1647: \centerline{\epsfig{file=nmSUGRAlr.eps,angle=-90,width=13.cm}} \hfill
1648: \caption{\sl\small The allowed values of $\rho/\kappa$ versus $\lambda/\kappa$
1649: for the nmSUGRA scenario with $\kappa=0.005,~M=10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$ and
1650: $c_H=0.18$ (dark grey line), $c_H=0.14$ (grey line) or
1651: $c_H=0.07$ (light grey line).}\label{fig:nmSUGRAlr}
1652: \end{figure}
1653: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1654:
1655:
1656: Finally, we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAlr} the allowed values of
1657: $\lambda/\kappa$ versus $\rho/\kappa$, on account of the inflationary
1658: constraints~(\ref{Nefold}) and (\ref{Pr}), for $\kappa=0.005$, $M =
1659: 10^{16}$~GeV, and for $c_H=0.18$ (dark grey line), $c_H=0.14$ (grey
1660: line) and $c_H=0.07$ (light grey line). We have selected a slightly
1661: lower value for $M$, because no viable nmSUGRA scenarios seem to exist
1662: with acceptable values for $n_{\rm s}$, if $M = 2\times 10^{16}$~GeV
1663: and $c_H \ge 0.07$. Along the contour lines in
1664: Fig.~\ref{fig:nmSUGRAlr}, $\phi_{\rm min}$, $\phi_{\rm max}$,
1665: $\phi_{\rm exit}$ and $n_{\rm s}$ remain constant and equal to the
1666: values presented in Table~\ref{tab1}. We observe that as $c_H$
1667: increases, $\phi_{\rm exit}$ approaches $\phi_{\rm max}$, $\phi_{\rm
1668: min}$ increases, while $n_{\rm s}$ decreases. This kinematic
1669: behaviour is in agreement with our discussion related
1670: to~(\ref{phimax}) and~(\ref{nShilltop}).
1671:
1672:
1673:
1674: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1675: \section{Preheating}\label{Preheat}
1676:
1677: As stated in the Introduction, gravitinos, if thermally produced
1678: during the early stages of the evolution of the Universe, will spoil
1679: the successful predictions of BBN~\cite{Sarkar}. Their disastrous
1680: consequences may be avoided, if the reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$
1681: of the Universe is not very high. In fact, depending on the decay
1682: properties of the gravitino, it should be $T_{\rm reh}
1683: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^7$--$10^{10}$~GeV~\cite{kohri,oliveg}. This
1684: fact leads to a tension between the allowed range of $T_{\rm reh}$ and
1685: the natural scale of hybrid inflation $M$, which is of order $\sim
1686: 10^{16}$~GeV. The traditional way taken to get around this problem is
1687: to consider scenarios where the decay rate of the inflaton to SM
1688: particles is extremely suppressed, e.g.~by suppressing all possible
1689: couplings of the inflaton to the SM fields.
1690:
1691:
1692: In this and next sections, we present in detail an alternative
1693: solution to the above gravitino overabundance problem~\cite{GP}. Our
1694: solution relies on the huge entropy release caused from the late
1695: out-of-equilibrium decays of the supermassive waterfall particles. The
1696: entropy produced through this mechanism is sufficient to reduce the
1697: gravitino abundance $Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ to levels compatible with BBN
1698: limits discussed in detail in Section~\ref{reheat}.
1699: Figure~\ref{figure:cartoon} gives a schematic representation of the
1700: post-inflationary dynamics of the early Universe, as is predicted by
1701: the $F_D$-term hybrid model. Shortly after inflation ends, the energy
1702: density $\rho_\kappa$ of the Universe is predominantly stored to
1703: coherently oscillating inflaton condensates which scale as $a^{-3}$,
1704: where $a$ is the usual cosmological scale factor describing the
1705: expansion of the Universe. The coherent oscillations of the
1706: inflaton-related condensates also give rise to another
1707: non-perturbative mechanism called preheating. During preheating,
1708: waterfall gauge particles of energy density $\rho_g$ are produced
1709: almost instantaneously, which are absolutely stable if a $D$-parity,
1710: an analogue of the usual $R$-parity in the MSSM, is conserved. Then,
1711: the following scenario visualized in Fig.~\ref{figure:cartoon}
1712: emerges. First, $\rho_g/\rho_\kappa$ remains constant during the
1713: epoch of coherent oscillations, since both $\rho_g$ and $\rho_\kappa$
1714: behave as matter energy densities and scale as $a^{-3}$ during this
1715: period. The constancy of $\rho_g/\rho_\kappa$ ceases to hold, when the
1716: coherently oscillating inflaton condensates decay and their energy
1717: density $\rho_\kappa$ gets distributed among light relativistic
1718: degrees of freedom. As a consequence of the latter, $\rho_\kappa$
1719: will be $\propto a^{-4}$, whilst $\rho_g$ will still be $\propto
1720: a^{-3}$. If the initial value of $\rho_g/\rho_\kappa$ is not very
1721: suppressed, e.g.~it is of order $10^{-4}$--$10^{-5}$, the waterfall
1722: gauge particles will eventually dominate the energy density of the
1723: Universe, leading to a second matter dominated epoch which will last
1724: until these particles decay via $D$-parity violating couplings. This
1725: is expected to produce an enormous entropy release and so reduce the
1726: gravitino-to-entropy ratio $Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ to values compatible
1727: with BBN constraints.
1728:
1729:
1730: \begin{figure}[t]
1731: \begin{center}
1732: \epsfig{file=cartoon.eps, height=3.5in,width=4in}
1733: \end{center}
1734: \caption{\sl\small Schematic representation of the thermal history of
1735: the Universe in the $F_D$-term hybrid model.}\label{figure:cartoon}
1736: \end{figure}
1737:
1738: The discussion in this section is organized as follows: in
1739: Section~\ref{postinfl}, we pay special attention to $D$-parity and
1740: derive the particle spectrum of the combined inflaton-waterfall sector
1741: in the supersymmetric limit of the theory. In addition, we compute
1742: the decay rates of all inflaton-related and waterfall gauge particles.
1743: Finally, in Section~\ref{preheat}, we discuss how the waterfall gauge
1744: particles are instantaneously produced through preheating and
1745: calculate the resulting energy density $\rho_g$ carried by these
1746: particles.
1747:
1748:
1749:
1750: \subsection{{\boldmath $D$}-Parities and the
1751: Inflaton-Waterfall Sector}\label{postinfl}
1752:
1753: Let us first consider a model with a U(1)$_X$ gauge-symmetric
1754: waterfall sector. The case of a waterfall sector realizing a
1755: non-Abelian SU(2)$_X$ gauge symmetry is analogous and will be
1756: discussed later. In terms of superfields, the minimal gauge-kinetic
1757: Lagrangian of the U(1)$_X$ model reads:
1758: \begin{equation}
1759: \label{U1kin}
1760: {\cal L}_{\rm kin}\ =\
1761: \int d^4 \theta\, \left(
1762: \frac{1}{2}\, W^\alpha W_\alpha\,\delta^{(2)}(\bar{\theta} )\ +\
1763: \frac{1}{2}\, \overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}}
1764: \overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha}}\, \delta^{(2)}(\theta )\ +\
1765: \widehat X_1^\dagger {\rm e}^{2 g \widehat V _X} \widehat X_1\
1766: +\ \widehat X_2^\dagger
1767: {\rm e}^{-2 g \widehat{V}_X} \widehat X_2 \right)\; ,
1768: \end{equation}
1769: where $\widehat{V}_X$ is the U(1)$_X$ vector superfield and $W_\alpha$
1770: ($\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}}$) are their respective chiral
1771: (anti-chiral) field strengths. The latter are given by
1772: \begin{equation}
1773: W_\alpha\ =\ -\, \frac{1}{8g}\, \bar{D}^2\, ( e^{-2g\widehat{V}_X} D_\alpha\,
1774: e^{2g\widehat{V}_X} )\,,\qquad
1775: \overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}}\ =\
1776: \frac{1}{8g}\, D^2\, ( e^{2g\widehat{V}_X}
1777: \bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}}\, e^{-2g\widehat{V}_X} )\,,
1778: \end{equation}
1779: where $D_\alpha$ and $\bar{D}_{\dot{\alpha}}$ are the usual
1780: SUSY-covariant derivatives which are irrelevant for our discussion
1781: here. The minimal gauge-kinetic Lagrangian~(\ref{U1kin}) possesses
1782: the discrete symmetry
1783: \begin{equation}
1784: \label{DsuperU1}
1785: D:\qquad \widehat{X}_1\ \leftrightarrow\ \widehat{X}_2\,,\qquad
1786: \widehat{V}_X\ \to\ -\,\widehat{V}_X\; ,
1787: \end{equation}
1788: whereas all other superfields do not transform. It is not difficult to
1789: verify that the complete $F_D$-term hybrid model, including the
1790: superpotential~(\ref{Wmodel}) and its associated soft SUSY-breaking
1791: sector, is invariant under the discrete symmetry~(\ref{DsuperU1}) in
1792: the unbroken phase of the theory. After the SSB of U(1)$_X$, the
1793: waterfall fields receive the VEVs: $\langle X_1 \rangle = \langle X_2
1794: \rangle = M$. Thus, the above discrete symmetry survives even in the
1795: spontaneously broken phase of the theory. Since the discrete symmetry
1796: acts on a gauged waterfall sector, it manifests itself as a kind of
1797: parity, which we call $D$-parity.
1798:
1799: It therefore proves convenient to choose a weak basis where the fields
1800: are eigenstates of $D$-parity. To this end, we define the linear
1801: combinations in terms of the waterfall superfields
1802: \begin{equation}
1803: \label{Xparity}
1804: \widehat{X}_\pm \ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, \bigg(\, \widehat{X}_1\
1805: \pm\ \widehat{X}_2\,\bigg)\; .
1806: \end{equation}
1807: Evidently, the superfield $\widehat{X}_+$ ($\widehat{X}_-$) has even
1808: (odd) $D$-parity; its $D$-parity quantum number is $+1$ ($-1$). The
1809: vector superfield $\widehat{V}_X$, which is already a $D$-parity
1810: eigenstate, has odd $D$-parity. All remaining fields, including the
1811: inflaton superfield $\widehat{S}$ and the other MSSM superfields, have
1812: positive $D$-parity.
1813:
1814: As a consequence of $D$-parity conservation, all $D$-odd particles
1815: will be stable, in as much the same way as the usual $R$-parity
1816: guarantees that the LSP of the MSSM is stable. As we explicitly
1817: mentioned in Section~\ref{FD}, the simplest way to break $D$-parity is
1818: to add a FI $D$-term to the model, e.g.
1819: \begin{equation}
1820: \label{LFI}
1821: {\cal L}_{\rm FI}\ =\ -\, \frac{g}{2}\, m^2_{\rm FI}\,
1822: \int d^4 \theta\; \widehat{V}_X\ =\ -\,
1823: \frac{g}{2}\, m^2_{\rm FI}\, D\; ,
1824: \end{equation}
1825: where $D$ is the auxiliary component of the vector superfield
1826: $\widehat{V}_X$. It is obvious that ${\cal L}_{\rm FI}$ flips sign
1827: under the discrete symmetry~(\ref{DsuperU1}). Other mechanisms of
1828: explicitly breaking $D$-parity are discussed in
1829: Appendix~\ref{Dappendix}.
1830:
1831: We now calculate the particle spectrum of the inflaton-waterfall sector
1832: in the presence of a subdominant FI $D$-term $m_{\rm FI}$ and in the
1833: supersymmetric limit of the theory. With this aim, we expand the
1834: scalar $D$-parity eigenstates $X_\pm$ about their VEVs:
1835: \begin{equation}
1836: \label{Xpm}
1837: X_\pm \ =\ \langle X_\pm \rangle\: +\: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
1838: \Big(\, R_\pm\: +\: {\rm i}I_\pm\,\Big)\; .
1839: \end{equation}
1840: The VEVs $\langle X_\pm \rangle$ are determined from the minimization
1841: conditions of the combined $F$- and $D$-term scalar potential
1842: \begin{eqnarray}
1843: \label{VFD}
1844: V_{FD}\ =\ F_S^* F_S\: +\: \frac 12\, D^2\,,
1845: \end{eqnarray}
1846: where
1847: \begin{equation}
1848: F_S \ =\ \frac{\kappa}{2}\, \Big(\, X^2_+\: -\: X^2_-\:
1849: -\: 2\,M^2\,\Big)\,,\qquad
1850: D \ =\ \frac{g}{2}\, \Big(\,
1851: X^*_+ X_-\: +\: X^*_- X_+\: -\: m^2_{\rm FI}\, \Big)\; .
1852: \end{equation}
1853: Since SUSY is preserved after the SSB of U(1)$_X$, the scalar
1854: potential $V_{FD}$ will vanish at its ground state, i.e.~$\langle
1855: V_{\rm FD} \rangle = 0$. Consequently, to leading order in $m_{\rm
1856: FI}/M$, the VEVs of the scalar inflaton-waterfall fields are
1857: \begin{equation}
1858: \label{Xdec}
1859: \langle S\rangle\ =\ 0\,,\qquad \langle X_+\rangle\ =\ \sqrt{2}\,M \,,\qquad
1860: \langle X_-\rangle \ =\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}} \ ,
1861: \end{equation}
1862: where $v = m^2_{\rm FI}/(2M)$. Notice that the VEVs of the $F$- and
1863: $D$-terms vanish through order $m_{\rm FI}/M$ considered,
1864: i.e.~$\langle D \rangle = 0$ and $\langle F_S \rangle = {\cal O}
1865: (m^4_{\rm FI}/M^2)$.
1866:
1867: To derive the mass spectrum, we expand the potential about its ground
1868: state up to terms quadratic in all the fields involved. We first
1869: consider the $F$-terms. To order $v/M\ (= m^2_{\rm FI}/M^2)$, we find
1870: the approximate mass eigenstates:
1871: \begin{equation}
1872: S\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\; \Big(\, \phi\: +\: {\rm i} a\, \Big)\,,\qquad
1873: R_+\: -\: \frac{v}{2M}\,R_-\,,\qquad I_+\: -\: \frac{v}{2M}\, I_-\ .
1874: \end{equation}
1875: All the above fields, consisting of 4 bosonic degrees of freedom in
1876: total, share the common mass
1877: \begin{equation}
1878: \label{Mkappa}
1879: m_\kappa\ =\ \sqrt 2\, \kappa M\; .
1880: \end{equation}
1881: As a consequence of SUSY, the corresponding 4 fermionic degrees of
1882: freedom form a Dirac spinor $\psi_\kappa$, which also has the same
1883: mass~(\ref{Mkappa}). We refer to these particles as inflaton-related
1884: or $\kappa$-sector particles.
1885:
1886:
1887: \begin{table}[t]
1888: \begin{center}
1889: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1890: \hline
1891: % & & & \\
1892: Sector & Boson & Fermion & Mass\\
1893: % & & & \\
1894: \hline\hline
1895: % & & & \\
1896: \begin{tabular}{l}
1897: Inflaton\\
1898: ($\kappa$-sector)\\
1899: $D$-parity: $+1$
1900: \end{tabular}
1901: &
1902: \begin{tabular}{l}
1903: $S\,$,\\
1904: $R_+-\frac{v}{2M}R_-\,$,\\
1905: $I_+-\frac{v}{2M}I_-$
1906: \end{tabular}
1907: &
1908: $\psi_\kappa=
1909: \left(
1910: \begin{array}{c}
1911: \psi_{X_+} - \frac{v}{2M}\,\psi_{X_-}\\
1912: \psi_S^\dagger
1913: \end{array}
1914: \right)^{\phantom{X}}
1915: $
1916: &
1917: $\sqrt 2 \kappa M$
1918: \\
1919: \hline
1920: \begin{tabular}{l}
1921: U(1)$_X$\\ Waterfall Gauge\\
1922: ($g$-sector)\\
1923: $D$-parity: $-1$
1924: \end{tabular}
1925: &
1926: \begin{tabular}{l}
1927: $V_\mu\, [I_-+\frac v{2M}I_+]\,$,\\
1928: $R_-+\frac v{2M}R_+$
1929: \end{tabular}
1930: &
1931: $\psi_g=
1932: \left(
1933: \begin{array}{c}
1934: \psi_{X_-} + \frac{v}{2M}\,\psi_{X_+}\\
1935: -{\rm i}\lambda^\dagger
1936: \end{array}
1937: \right)^{\phantom{X}}
1938: $
1939: &
1940: $g M$
1941: \\
1942: \hline
1943: \end{tabular}
1944: \end{center}
1945: \caption{\sl\small Particle spectrum of the inflaton and the ${\rm
1946: U(1)}_X$ waterfall-gauge sectors after inflation, where the
1947: approximate $D$-parity for each sector is displayed. The field
1948: $V_\mu$ denotes the ${\rm U(1)}_X$ gauge boson and $\lambda$~its
1949: associate gaugino. The would-be Goldstone boson related to the
1950: longitudinal degree of $V_\mu$ appears in the square
1951: brackets.}\label{spectrum}
1952: \end{table}
1953:
1954:
1955: The remaining scalar fields receive their masses from the $D$-term of
1956: the scalar potential $V_{FD}$ in~(\ref{VFD}). Performing an analogous
1957: calculation as outlined above, we obtain to order $v/M$ the scalar
1958: mass eigenstates:
1959: \begin{equation}
1960: I_-\: +\: \frac{v}{2M}\, I_+\,,\qquad R_-\: +\: \frac{v}{2M}\, R_+\ .
1961: \end{equation}
1962: The first field is absorbed by the longitudinal component of the
1963: U(1)$_X$ gauge field $V_\mu$, via the Higgs mechanism. In the
1964: supersymmetric limit, all these fields, which mediate 4 bosonic
1965: degrees of freedom, are degenerate and characterized by the common
1966: mass
1967: \begin{equation}
1968: \label{Mg}
1969: m_g\ =\ g\, M\ .
1970: \end{equation}
1971: Like in the $\kappa$-sector case, the respective 4 fermionic degrees
1972: of freedom will make up a 4-component Dirac spinor of mass $m_g$. We
1973: refer to this group of particles as waterfall gauge or $g$-sector
1974: particles. In Table~\ref{spectrum}, we present a summary of all the
1975: inflaton-related ($\kappa$-sector) and waterfall-gauge ($g$-sector)
1976: particles. As can also been seen from the same Table~\ref{spectrum},
1977: $\kappa$-sector particles are predominantly $D$-even, whereas the
1978: $g$-sector ones have approximately $D$-odd parity.
1979:
1980:
1981: It is now interesting to calculate the decay rates of the $\kappa$-
1982: and $g$-sector particles and analyze their implications for the reheat
1983: temperature of the Universe. Starting with the singlet field $S$, it
1984: decays predominantly into pairs of charged and neutral higgsinos,
1985: $\tilde{h}^\pm_{u,d}$, $\tilde{h}^0_{u,d}$, $\tilde{\bar{h}}^0_{u,d}$,
1986: and into pairs of right-handed Majorana neutrinos $\nu_{1,2,3\,R}$.
1987: On the other hand, the scalars $R_+$ and $I_+$ decay into the
1988: SUSY-conjugate partners of the aforementioned fields at the same rate.
1989: In fact, we find a common decay rate for each of the $\kappa$-sector
1990: particles:
1991: \begin{equation}
1992: \label{infldecay}
1993: \Gamma_\kappa\ =\ \frac{1}{32\pi}\: \Big(\, 4\lambda^2\: +\: 3 \rho^2\,
1994: \Big)\: m_\kappa\; .
1995: \end{equation}
1996: The reheat temperature $T_\kappa$ resulting from these perturbative
1997: decays of the $\kappa$-sector particles may be estimated using the
1998: relation $\Gamma_\kappa = H (T_\kappa )$, where the Hubble parameter
1999: $H(T)$ is given in the radiation dominated era of the Universe. In
2000: this way, we obtain
2001: \begin{equation}
2002: \label{Tkappa}
2003: T_\kappa\ =\ \left( \frac{90}{\pi^2\, g_*}\right)^{1/4}\,
2004: \sqrt{\Gamma_\kappa\: m_{\rm Pl} }\ ,
2005: \end{equation}
2006: where $g_* = 240$ is the number of the relativistic degrees of freedom
2007: in the $F_D$-term hybrid model. Substituting~(\ref{infldecay})
2008: and~(\ref{Mkappa}) into~(\ref{Tkappa}), we arrive at the expression:
2009: \begin{equation}
2010: T_\kappa\ =\ 8.1 \cdot
2011: 10^{15}~{\rm GeV} \times
2012: \Big[\kappa (4\lambda^2+3 \rho^2)\Big]^{1/2}
2013: \left(\frac M{10^{16}{\rm GeV}}\right)^{1/2} \,.
2014: \end{equation}
2015: Assuming that no relevant amount of entropy is released during the
2016: subsequent thermal history of the Universe, the gravitino constraint
2017: on the reheat temperature $T_\kappa \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9$~GeV
2018: requires that each individual coupling $\kappa$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$
2019: must be smaller than about $10^{-5}$, if $M \sim 10^{16}$~GeV. Further
2020: details are given in Section~\ref{reheat}.
2021:
2022: The above unnatural tuning of all inflaton couplings to SM fields may
2023: be avoided, if the large entropy release from the late decays of the
2024: $g$-sector particles is properly considered. An extensive discussion
2025: of this issue is given in Section~\ref{reheat}. Here, we simply
2026: compute the decay rates of the $g$-sector particles which are induced
2027: by a non-vanishing FI term $m_{\rm FI}$. In~fact, the relevant
2028: interaction Lagrangian is given by
2029: \begin{equation}
2030: \label{Lint}
2031: {\cal L}_{\rm int}\ =\ \frac{g^2 m^2_{\rm FI}}{8 M}\; R_-\, (R_+^2 +
2032: I_+^2)\; .
2033: \end{equation}
2034: As mentioned above, this induces a decay width for the $D$-odd
2035: particle $R_-$, which is easily calculated to be
2036: \begin{equation}
2037: \label{GammaR}
2038: \Gamma_g\ =\ \frac{g^3}{128 \pi}\, \frac{m^4_{\rm FI}}{M^3}\,.
2039: \end{equation}
2040: In close analogy with the $\kappa$-sector, each $g$-sector particle
2041: decay rate is equal to $\Gamma_g$.
2042:
2043:
2044: Let us now consider a model with a waterfall sector based on the
2045: SU(2)$_X$ gauge group. As was mentioned in Section~\ref{FD}, the
2046: waterfall superfields $\widehat{X}_1$ and $\widehat{X}_2$ are chosen
2047: to belong in this case to the 2-component fundamental and
2048: anti-fundamental representations of SU(2)$_X$, respectively. Although
2049: the two representations are equivalent for the SU(2) case, we
2050: nevertheless use this convention, such that its generalization to
2051: ${\rm SU}(N)$ theories, with $N>2$, is straightforward. The
2052: superpotential is almost identical to the one given in~(\ref{Wmodel}),
2053: with the obvious substitution: $\widehat{X}_{1} \widehat{X}_{2} \to
2054: \widehat{X}_{1}^T \widehat{X}_{2}$. Extending~(\ref{U1kin}) to the
2055: SU(2)$_X$ case, the minimal gauge-kinetic Lagrangian is written down
2056: \begin{eqnarray}
2057: \label{SU2kin}
2058: {\cal L}_{\rm kin} &=&
2059: \int d^4 \theta\ \Bigg[\,
2060: \frac{1}{2}\, {\rm Tr}\,(W^\alpha W_\alpha)\,\delta^{(2)}(\bar{\theta} )\ +\
2061: \frac{1}{2}\, {\rm Tr}\,(\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}}
2062: \overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha}})\, \delta^{(2)}(\theta )\nonumber\\
2063: && +\
2064: \widehat X_1^\dagger {\rm e}^{2 g \widehat V _X} \widehat X_1\
2065: +\ \widehat X_2^\dagger
2066: {\rm e}^{-2 g \widehat{V}^T_X} \widehat X_2\, \Bigg]\; .
2067: \end{eqnarray}
2068: In the above, $\widehat{V}_X = \widehat{V}^a_X\, T^a$ is the SU(2)$_X$
2069: vector superfield and $W_\alpha = W^a_\alpha\, T^a$
2070: ($\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}} = \overline{W}^a_{\dot{\alpha}}\, T^a$)
2071: are the corresponding non-Abelian chiral (anti-chiral) field strengths
2072: in the so-called Wess--Zumino~(WZ) gauge. The superscript `$T$' on
2073: $\widehat{V}_X$, i.e.~$\widehat{V}^T_X$, indicates transposition that
2074: acts on the generators $T^a = \frac 12 \tau^a$ of the SU(2) group,
2075: where $\tau^{1,2,3}$ are the usual Pauli matrices. Finally, the trace
2076: in~(\ref{SU2kin}) is understood to be taken over the group space.
2077:
2078:
2079: The minimal SU(2)$_X$ gauge-kinetic Lagrangian is invariant under the
2080: discrete transformations
2081: \begin{equation}
2082: \label{D1}
2083: D_1:\qquad \widehat{X}_1\ \leftrightarrow\ \widehat{X}_2\,,\qquad
2084: \widehat{V}_X\ \to\ -\widehat{V}^T_X\; .
2085: \end{equation}
2086: Notice that under the action of $D_1$ in~(\ref{D1}), the field
2087: strengths transform as: $W_\alpha \to - (W_\alpha)^T$ and
2088: $\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}} \to - (\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}})^T$ in
2089: {\em any} SUSY gauge, including the WZ gauge. If all other
2090: superfields do not transform, the complete Lagrangian of the
2091: non-Abelian $F_D$-term hybrid model will be invariant under the
2092: discrete transformation~(\ref{D1}) in the unbroken phase of the
2093: theory.
2094:
2095: Our discussion so far has made no reference to the specific properties
2096: of SU(2)$_X$ and so applies equally well to any SU($N>2$) theory.
2097: However, in the SU(2)$_X$ case, the $F_D$-term hybrid model exhibits
2098: an additional Abelian or diagonal discrete symmetry. This may be
2099: defined by
2100: \begin{equation}
2101: \label{D2}
2102: D_2:\qquad \widehat{X}_1\ \to\ \tau^3 \widehat{X}_1\,,\qquad
2103: \widehat{X}_2\ \to\ \tau^3 \widehat{X}_2\,,\qquad
2104: \widehat{V}_X\ \to\ \tau^3\,\widehat{V}_X\,\tau^3\; ,
2105: \end{equation}
2106: whereas all other superfields do not transform. It is then easy to see
2107: that (\ref{D2}) implies: $W_\alpha \to \tau^3\,W_\alpha\,\tau^3$ in
2108: any SUSY gauge and likewise for $\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha}}$. Since
2109: $\tau^3 = (\tau^3)^T$ and $(\tau^3)^2 = {\bf 1}_2$, the invariance of
2110: the Lagrangian~(\ref{SU2kin}) and of the whole model under the action
2111: of~$D_2$ is evident.\footnote{In general, for a waterfall-gauge sector
2112: based on an SU($N>2$) group, there are $N$ distinct discrete
2113: symmetries. The first is given by~(\ref{D1}), while the remaining
2114: $N-1$ symmetries result from replacing $\tau^3$ with $D_n = {\rm
2115: diag}\, (1,1,\dots,1, -1,1,\dots, 1)$. The entry $-1$ occurs at the
2116: $n$ position of the $N$-dimensional diagonal matrix $D_n$, with the
2117: restriction $1< n \leq N$. Obviously, it is $D_n = D^T_n$ and $D^2_n
2118: = {\bf 1}_N$. These discrete symmetries are non-Abelian in the
2119: adjoint group space, in the sense that the eigenvalue matrix~$c^{ab}$,
2120: determined by means of the relation $D_n T^a D_n = c^{ab} T^b$, is not
2121: diagonal.}
2122:
2123: We now proceed to compute the particle spectrum of the non-Abelian
2124: $F_D$-term hybrid model after the SSB of SU(2)$_X$. For this purpose,
2125: it is useful to introduce the notation
2126: \begin{equation}
2127: Z\ =\
2128: \left(\begin{array}{c}
2129: ^+\!Z\\
2130: ^-\!Z
2131: \end{array}\right)
2132: \,,
2133: \end{equation}
2134: where $Z$ is a generic ${\rm SU}(2)_X$-doublet or anti-doublet
2135: (conjugate) field. The left superscripts~$\pm$ on $Z$ denote the
2136: eigenvalues of the discrete symmetry transformation operator $D_2 =
2137: \tau^3$ defined in~(\ref{D2}), and they should not be confused with
2138: the corresponding eigenvalues of the isospin operator $T^3$ of the
2139: SU(2)$_X$ group. In the unitary gauge, the minimum of the scalar
2140: potential occurs for the field values
2141: \begin{equation}
2142: \label{SU2:VEV}
2143: ^+\!X_1\ =\ ^+\!X_2\ =\ M\,,\qquad ^-\!X_1\ =\ ^-\!X_2\ =\ 0\;.
2144: \end{equation}
2145: Consequently, the discrete symmetries $D_1$ and $D_2$ given
2146: in~(\ref{D1}) and~(\ref{D2}) remain intact after the SSB of the
2147: SU(2)$_X$ gauge group. Since they act on a gauged waterfall sector,
2148: they are actually parities. We refer to them as $D_1$- and
2149: $D_2$-parities, or collectively as $D$-parities.
2150:
2151: Analogously to the U(1)$_X$ case, we express the SU(2)$_X$ doublets
2152: $X_{1,2}$ in terms of eigenstates of the $D_{1,2}$-parities
2153: [cf.~(\ref{Xparity})]. In terms of their components, these fields may
2154: be conveniently expressed as follows:
2155: \begin{equation}
2156: ^\pm\!X_\pm \ =\
2157: \langle X_\pm \rangle\: +\: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
2158: \Big(\, ^\pm\!R_\pm\ +\ {\rm i}\,^\pm\!I_\pm\, \Big)\; ,
2159: \end{equation}
2160: with $\langle X_+ \rangle = \sqrt{2}\, M$ and $\langle X_- \rangle =
2161: 0$ in the absence of any $D$-parity violating coupling in the theory.
2162: Moreover, the SU(2)$_X$ $D$-terms are given by
2163: \begin{equation}
2164: D^a\ =\ \frac g2 \left(
2165: X_1^\dagger \tau^a X_1\: -\: X_2^T \tau^a X_2^* \right)\,.
2166: \end{equation}
2167: In the $D$-parity eigenbasis~(\ref{Xparity}), they take on the form
2168: \begin{equation}
2169: D^a\ =\ \frac g2 \times
2170: \left\{
2171: \begin{array}{l}
2172: X_+^\dagger \tau^a X_- + X_-^\dagger \tau^a X_+\,, \quad
2173: \textnormal{for }\tau^a \textnormal{ symmetric } (a=1,3)\\
2174: X_+^\dagger \tau^a X_+ + X_-^\dagger \tau^a X_-\,, \quad
2175: \textnormal{for }\tau^a \textnormal{ antisymmetric } (a=2)
2176: \end{array}
2177: \right.
2178: \;.
2179: \end{equation}
2180: Exactly as in the U(1)$_X$ case, we find that there are two groups of
2181: mass-degenerate fields, $\kappa$- and $g$-sector, with masses
2182: $m_\kappa$ and $m_g$ given in (\ref{Mkappa}) and (\ref{Mg}),
2183: respectively. The complete inflaton-waterfall spectrum, along with
2184: their $D_1$ and $D_2$ parities, is exhibited in
2185: Table~\ref{spectrum:SU2}.
2186:
2187:
2188: \begin{table}
2189: \begin{center}
2190: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
2191: \hline
2192: % & & & \\
2193: Sector & Boson & Fermion & Mass & $\,D_1\mbox{-parity}\!\!$
2194: & $\,D_2 \textnormal{-parity}\!\!$
2195: \\
2196: % & & & \\
2197: \hline\hline
2198: % & & & \\
2199: \begin{tabular}{l}
2200: Inflaton\\
2201: ($\kappa$-sector)
2202: \end{tabular}
2203: &
2204: $S\,$,
2205: $\!^+\!R_+$,
2206: $\!^+I_+$
2207: &
2208: $\psi_\kappa=
2209: \left(
2210: \begin{array}{c}
2211: \psi_{^+\!X_+}
2212: \\
2213: \psi_S^\dagger
2214: \end{array}
2215: \!\!\!\right)^{\phantom{X}}_{\phantom{X}}
2216: $
2217: &
2218: $\,\sqrt 2 \kappa M$
2219: &
2220: $+$
2221: &
2222: $+$
2223: \\
2224: %& & & \\
2225: % & & & \\
2226: \hline
2227: % & & & \\
2228:
2229: &
2230: \begin{tabular}{l}
2231: $V_\mu^1 [^-\!I_-]\,,$\\
2232: ${^-\!R_-}\,$;
2233: \end{tabular}
2234: &
2235: $\psi_g^1=
2236: \left(
2237: \begin{array}{c}
2238: \psi_{^-\!X_-}
2239: \\
2240: -{\rm i} {\lambda^1}^\dagger
2241: \end{array}
2242: \!\!\!\right)_{\phantom{X}}^{\phantom{X}}
2243: $
2244: &
2245: $g M$
2246: &
2247: $-$
2248: &
2249: $-$
2250: \\
2251: \begin{tabular}{c}
2252: SU(2)$_X$\\ Waterfall Gauge\\
2253: ($g$-sector)
2254: \end{tabular}
2255: &
2256: \begin{tabular}{l}
2257: $V_\mu^2 [^-\!R_+]\,,$\\
2258: ${^-\!I_+}\,$;
2259: \end{tabular}
2260: &
2261: $\psi_g^2=
2262: \left(
2263: \begin{array}{c}
2264: {\rm i}\,\psi_{^-\!X_+}
2265: \\
2266: -{\rm i} {\lambda^2}^\dagger
2267: \end{array}
2268: \!\!\!\right)_{\phantom{X}}^{\phantom{X}}
2269: $
2270: &
2271: $g M$
2272: &
2273: $+$
2274: &
2275: $-$
2276: \\
2277: &
2278: \begin{tabular}{l}
2279: $V_\mu^3 [^+\!I_-]\,,$\\
2280: ${^+\!R_-}$
2281: \end{tabular}
2282: &
2283: $\psi_g^3=
2284: \left(
2285: \begin{array}{c}
2286: \psi_{^+\!X_-}
2287: \\
2288: -{\rm i} {\lambda^3}^\dagger
2289: \end{array}
2290: \!\!\!\right)^{\phantom{X}}
2291: $
2292: &
2293: $g M$
2294: &
2295: $-$
2296: &
2297: $+$
2298: \\
2299: %& & & \\
2300: % & & & \\
2301: \hline
2302: \end{tabular}
2303: \end{center}
2304: \caption{\sl\small Particle spectrum of the inflaton
2305: and an SU(2)$_X$-gauged waterfall sectors after inflation. The
2306: would-be Goldstone bosons of the respective SU(2)$_X$ gauge fields are
2307: given in the square brackets \label{spectrum:SU2}}
2308: \end{table}
2309:
2310: The conservation of both $D_{1,2}$-parities enforces the stability of
2311: all $g$-sector particles. Instead, if only the $D_1$-parity, but not
2312: $D_2$, is conserved, then only the $D_1$-odd particles from
2313: Table~\ref{spectrum:SU2} will be stable, and {\it vice versa}.
2314: Obviously, both $D_1$- and $D_2$-parities need be broken to make all
2315: $g$-sector particles unstable. In Appendix~\ref{Dappendix}, we
2316: discuss possible mechanisms of explicit $D$-parity breaking for an
2317: SU(2)$_X$ waterfall-gauge sector. In general, there are two
2318: mechanisms for breaking $D$-parity. The first one consists of
2319: including higher-order non-renormalizable operators in the K\"ahler
2320: potential whose presence explicitly breaks $D$-parity, whilst the
2321: second one is very analogous to the ${\rm U}(1)_X$ case. Although a
2322: bare FI $D$-term is not possible in non-Abelian theories, effective
2323: $D^a$-tadpole terms may appear after the SSB of SU(2)$_X$. The
2324: effective $D^a$-tadpole terms do not break SUSY. They get generated
2325: either from a non-renormalizable K\"ahler potential or are induced
2326: radiatively, after integrating out Planck-scale degrees of freedom.
2327: Thus, without excessive tuning, the effective $D^a$-tadpole terms can
2328: in general be small of the size required to obtain a second reheat
2329: phase in the evolution of the Universe.
2330:
2331: Independently of the mechanism which is invoked to break $D$-parity,
2332: we may in general parameterize the $g$-sector particle decay rates
2333: through the $D$-parity-violating mass $m_{\rm FI}$, which enters the
2334: relation~(\ref{GammaR}). In the next section, we will discuss how
2335: these relatively long-lived $g$-sector particles are produced via
2336: preheating.
2337:
2338:
2339:
2340:
2341: \subsection{Preheating and Thermalization}\label{preheat}
2342:
2343:
2344: After the inflaton field $\phi$ passes below a certain critical value
2345: $\phi_c \approx M$, the so-called waterfall mechanism gets triggered.
2346: In this case, the inflaton $\phi$ and all other $\kappa$-sector fields
2347: (see Tables~\ref{spectrum} and~\ref{spectrum:SU2}) oscillate about
2348: their true supersymmetric minima: $\langle S\rangle = 0$ and $\langle
2349: X_+ \rangle = \sqrt{2}\, M$. In this waterfall epoch, most of the
2350: energy density of the Universe is stored to these coherently
2351: oscillating $\kappa$-sector field condensates and is given initially
2352: by $\rho_\kappa = \kappa^2 M^4$. During the waterfall regime,
2353: however, there is an additional mechanism for particle production
2354: called {\em preheating}.
2355:
2356: In general, there are two phenomena associated with the notion of
2357: preheating:
2358: \begin{itemize}
2359:
2360: \item The first effect of preheating arises from the negative
2361: curvature of the potential with respect to the $\kappa$-sector
2362: fields. Such a negative curvature corresponds to a negative
2363: tachyonic mass term in the potential. As a consequence, the
2364: particle number within infrared modes of momentum less than this
2365: tachyonic mass grows exponentially. This phenomenon is known as the
2366: {\em negative coupling instability} or \emph{tachyonic
2367: preheating}~\cite{TACHYPREH}. Numerical simulations have shown that
2368: the field amplitudes suffer strong damping during the first
2369: oscillation, due to the energy transfer to the infrared modes. In
2370: the $F_D$-term hybrid model, only $\kappa$-sector particles are
2371: produced by tachyonic preheating. A full study of this process,
2372: including thermal equilibration of the $\kappa$-sector particles, is
2373: a highly nontrivial matter and has so far only been achieved for
2374: very particular models of preheating. Since the fraction of the
2375: energy density transferred instantaneously to $\kappa$-sector
2376: particles through tachyonic preheating is rather small, compared to
2377: their initial energy density $\rho_\kappa$, these model-dependent
2378: details fortunately have no dramatic impact on the expansion and the
2379: thermal history of the Universe. Therefore, we do not consider the
2380: phenomenon of tachyonic preheating in the $F_D$-term hybrid model.
2381:
2382: \item Particle production may also occur during the coherent
2383: oscillation regime, because both the $\kappa$- and $g$-sector
2384: particles have masses that can vary very strongly with time. This
2385: effect is called {\em preheating via a time-varying mass} or simply
2386: {\em preheating}~\cite{PREHEATING,GBRM}. As we will show below, a
2387: small but significant fraction of the total energy density of the
2388: Universe $\rho_\kappa$ can be transferred, almost instantaneously,
2389: to the $g$-sector particles, e.g.~$\rho_g \sim 10^{-4} \rho_\kappa$,
2390: for $\kappa \sim 10^{-2}$. As we illustrated in the beginning of
2391: this section and will show more explicitly in Section~\ref{reheat},
2392: this small fraction of the $g$-sector energy density is sufficient
2393: to alter dramatically the thermal history of the Universe.
2394:
2395:
2396: \end{itemize}
2397:
2398:
2399: Our interest lies therefore in computing the production energy density
2400: $\rho_g$ of the $g$-sector particles via preheating. A key element in
2401: such a computation is the profile of the time-varying mass of the
2402: $g$-sector particles, $m_g (t) = g\, X_+ (t)/\sqrt{2}$. The exact
2403: time dependence of $m_g (t)$ depends crucially on the dynamics of
2404: tachyonic preheating. Comparative numerical studies strongly suggest
2405: that a sufficiently accurate description of the time evolution of the
2406: $g$-sector mass is obtained by~\cite{GBRM}\footnote{To be specific,
2407: the mass-term time-variation studied in~\cite{GBRM} was for a model
2408: with a single field rolling from the top of a local maximum of a
2409: quartic potential. It was found that a $\tanh$-functional dependence
2410: accurately captures the evolution of the time-varying mass. Even
2411: though the model considered~\cite{GBRM} is still different from our
2412: hybrid inflationary potential, the derived $\tanh$-functional profile
2413: for the time-varying mass should be regarded as a substantial
2414: improvement over the one assumed in~\cite{GP}.}
2415: \begin{equation}
2416: \label{tanhmass}
2417: m_g(t)\ =\ \frac{g M}{2}\; \Big[\, \tanh ( \kappa M t)\: +\: 1\,
2418: \Big]\; .
2419: \end{equation}
2420: Notice that the time-dependent function $m_g(t)$ properly interpolates
2421: between the values $m_g (t \to -\infty) = 0$ and $m_g (t \to \infty) =
2422: g M$ that occur in the beginning and the end of the waterfall epoch,
2423: respectively.
2424:
2425:
2426: Given the time-dependent mass~(\ref{tanhmass}), we may compute the
2427: occupation number of the fermionic $g$-sector modes by solving the
2428: Dirac equation
2429: \begin{equation}
2430: \label{uheq}
2431: \Big[\, {\rm i}\, \gamma^0\, \partial_t\: -\:
2432: \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}\cdot\mathbf{k}\: -\: m_g(t)\,\Big]\; u_h(t)\ =\ 0\, .
2433: \end{equation}
2434: The solution to the above equation may be expressed by the
2435: time-dependent Dirac spinor $u_h (t)$ in the chiral representation:
2436: \begin{equation}
2437: u_h (t)\ =\ \left( \begin{array}{c} L_h (t) \\ R_h (t) \end{array} \right)\,
2438: \otimes\, \xi_h\; ,
2439: \end{equation}
2440: where $\xi_h$ is the helicity two-component eigenspinor for helicity
2441: $h=\pm$. The occupation number of Dirac fermions produced via
2442: preheating in the true supersymmetric vacuum at $t\to \infty$ is given
2443: by
2444: \begin{equation}
2445: \label{nFh}
2446: n^{\rm F}_h(k)\ =\ \frac 1{2\omega(k)}\, \Big[\,
2447: hk (|R_h|^2\, -\, |L_h|^2)\: -\: m_g (L_hR_h^*\, +\, L_h^*R_h)\,\Big]
2448: \ +\ \frac 12\ ,
2449: \end{equation}
2450: where $k = |\mathbf{k}|$ is the modulus of the 3-momentum. With the
2451: help of~(\ref{nFh}), the $k$-mode energy density is calculated by
2452: $\rho(k) = \sum_h \omega(k)\, n^{\rm F}_h(k)$, where
2453: $\omega(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m_g^2(t\to \infty)}$. To obtain a unique
2454: solution to the linear differential equation~(\ref{uheq}), we impose
2455: initial conditions that correspond to a zero occupation number,
2456: i.e.~$n^{\rm F}_h(k)=0$. These are given at $t\to -\infty$ by
2457: \begin{equation}
2458: \label{initF}
2459: L_h\ =\ \sqrt\frac{\omega(k) + hk}{2\omega}\ ,\qquad
2460: R_h\ =\ \sqrt\frac{\omega(k) - hk}{2\omega}\ .
2461: \end{equation}
2462:
2463: By analogy, the occupation number of the bosonic $g$-sector modes are
2464: determined by solving the Klein--Gordon equation of motion
2465: \begin{equation}
2466: \label{phieq}
2467: \Big[\, \partial_t^2\: +\: \mathbf{k}^2\: +\: m_g^2(t)\,\Big]\,
2468: \varphi(t) \ =\ 0\; ,
2469: \end{equation}
2470: and imposing the initial conditions at $t\to -\infty$,
2471: \begin{equation}
2472: \varphi\ =\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega(k)}}\ ,\qquad
2473: \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t}\ =\ -\,{\rm i}\,\sqrt{\frac\omega{2}}\ .
2474: \end{equation}
2475: As in the Dirac case, these initial conditions correspond to vanishing
2476: occupation numbers. The occupation number of the bosonic modes at
2477: $t\to \infty$ is given by
2478: \begin{equation}
2479: \label{initB}
2480: n^{\rm B}(k)\ =\ \frac 12\; \omega(k)\, |\varphi|^2\ +\
2481: \frac 1{2\omega(k)}\; \left|\frac{d \varphi}{dt}\right|^2\ -\ \frac 12\ .
2482: \end{equation}
2483:
2484:
2485: Using the time-dependent mass-term~(\ref{tanhmass}), along with the
2486: initial conditions~(\ref{initF}) and (\ref{initB}), one may obtain
2487: analytical expressions in terms of hypergeometric
2488: functions~\cite{GBRM}, for the particle production between $t\to
2489: -\infty$ and $t\to \infty$. For $\kappa\ll g$ and $k \ll g M$, these
2490: analytical expressions reduce to
2491: \begin{equation}
2492: n(k)\ =\ \frac{2}{\exp{\left(\frac{\displaystyle \pi k}
2493: {\displaystyle \kappa M}\right)}\: \pm\: 1}\ \ ,
2494: \end{equation}
2495: where the sign $+$ applies for $n(k)=n^{\rm F}_h(k)$ and the sign $-$
2496: for $n(k)=n^{\rm B}(k)$. Recalling that there are 2 helicity states
2497: for a $g$-sector fermion and 4 real degrees of freedom for a
2498: $g$-sector boson, we may calculate the occupation number of all
2499: $g$-sector modes as follows:
2500: \begin{equation}
2501: n_g(k)\ =\ N_{\rm b}\, \left(\, \sum\limits_{h=\pm}\, n_h^{\rm F}(k)\: +\:
2502: 4 n^{\rm B}(k)\,\right)\,,
2503: \end{equation}
2504: where $N_{\rm b}$ is the number of broken generators of the waterfall
2505: gauge symmetry. In particular, it is $N_{\rm b}=1$ for ${\rm U}(1)_X$
2506: and $N_{\rm b}=3$ for ${\rm SU}(2)_X$ [cf.~Tables~\ref{spectrum}
2507: and~\ref{spectrum:SU2}]. Since the produced particles are
2508: non-relativistic, i.e.~$k \ll gM$, their occupation number
2509: distribution $n_g (k)$ can easily be integrated to give the total
2510: energy density carried by the $g$-sector fields, i.e.
2511: \begin{equation}
2512: \label{rhog}
2513: \frac{\rho_g}{\rho_\kappa}\ \approx\
2514: \frac{gM}{\rho_\kappa\,2\pi^2}\, \int\limits_0^\infty k^2 dk\, n_g(k)\
2515: \approx\ 2.1 \times 10^{-2}\, N_{\rm b}\; \kappa g\; .
2516: \end{equation}
2517: Here $\rho_{\kappa}=\kappa^2 M^4$ is the energy density of the
2518: $\kappa$-sector particles shortly before the waterfall transition.
2519: Equation~(\ref{rhog}) will be a valuable input for the next section to
2520: compute the true reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ of the Universe,
2521: which arises from the combined effect of the $\kappa$- and $g$-sector
2522: particle decays.
2523:
2524:
2525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2526: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2527: \section{Coupled Reheating and Gravitino Abundance}\label{reheat}
2528:
2529: In the previous section, we have seen that the $g$-sector particles,
2530: e.g.~$\psi_g$, $R_-$ and $V_\mu$, can be abundantly produced during
2531: the preheating epoch. Assuming that they dominate the Universe at
2532: some later time, their decays induced by the small $D$-parity
2533: violating couplings will give rise to a second reheat temperature,
2534: which we denote here by $T_g$. As we will show in this section, the
2535: large entropy, which is released by the late decays of the $g$-sector
2536: particles, will be sufficient to dilute the gravitinos to levels
2537: compatible with BBN limits.
2538:
2539: More explicitly, we present a detailed numerical analysis of the
2540: gravitino abundance~$Y_{\widetilde{G}}$, where the combined effect of
2541: the $\kappa$- and $g$-sector particle decays is carefully taken into
2542: account. As we mentioned in the Introduction, we call such a
2543: two-states' mechanism of reheating the Universe {\em coupled
2544: reheating}. In Section~\ref{Beqs}, we set the BEs relevant to coupled
2545: reheating and give numerical estimates of the gravitino abundance
2546: $Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ and the energy densities $\rho_\kappa$, $\rho_g$
2547: and $\rho_{\rm rad}$ related to the $\kappa$- and $g$-sector particles
2548: and their radiation, respectively. In Section~\ref{Seqs}, we present
2549: a semi-analytic approach to BEs, where useful approximate expressions
2550: for~$Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ are obtained. Finally, in Section~\ref{para}
2551: we derive gravitino abundance constraints on the theoretical
2552: parameters.
2553:
2554:
2555:
2556: \subsection{Boltzmann Equations}\label{Beqs}
2557:
2558: The number density $n_{{\tilde G}}$ of gravitinos, the energy density
2559: $\rho_\kappa$ ($\rho_g$) of the $\kappa$~($g$)-sector particles and
2560: the energy density $\rho_{\rm rad}$ of the radiation produced by their
2561: decays satisfy the following system of BEs~\cite{kolb}:
2562: \begin{eqnarray}
2563: \label{ng}
2564: \dot n_{{\widetilde G}}\: +\: 3Hn_{{\widetilde G}} &=&
2565: C_{\widetilde G}\, T^6\,,\nonumber\\
2566: \label{nf}
2567: \dot \rho_\kappa\: +\: 3H\rho_\kappa &=& -\,\Gamma_\kappa\,
2568: \rho_\kappa\,,\nonumber\\
2569: \label{nfb}
2570: \dot\rho_g\: +\: 3H\rho_g &=& -\,\Gamma_g\,\rho_g\,,\nonumber\\
2571: \label{rR}
2572: \dot\rho_{\rm rad}\: +\: 4H\rho_{\rm rad} &=&
2573: \Gamma_\kappa\,\rho_\kappa\: +\: \Gamma_g\,\rho_g\; ,
2574: \end{eqnarray}
2575: where a dot on $n_{\widetilde{G}}$, $\rho_{\kappa, g}$ and $\rho_{\rm
2576: rad}$ indicates differentiation with respect to the cosmic time
2577: $t$. The quantity $C_{{\widetilde G}}(T)$ is a collision term for
2578: gravitino production calculated in~\cite{brand,kohri} and the Hubble
2579: parameter $H$ is given by
2580: \begin{equation}
2581: \label{Hini}
2582: H\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\,m_{\rm Pl}}\;
2583: \bigg(\, m_{{\widetilde G}}\,n_{{\widetilde G}}\:
2584: +\: \rho_\kappa\: +\: \rho_g\: +\: \rho_{\rm rad}\, \bigg)^{1/2}\; ,
2585: \end{equation}
2586: where $m_{{\widetilde G}}$ is the mass of the gravitino $\widetilde
2587: G$. In addition, the temperature $T$ and the entropy density $s$ may
2588: be determined through the relations:
2589: \begin{equation}
2590: \label{rs}
2591: \rho_{\rm rad}\ =\ \frac{\pi^2}{30}\; g_*\, T^4\,,\qquad
2592: s\ =\ \frac{2\pi^2}{45}\; g_*\ T^3,
2593: \end{equation}
2594: where $g_* (T)$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom at
2595: temperature $T$. Since the initial temperature is $T_{\rm in} \ll
2596: \kappa M$, it is $g_* = 240$ for all $T > M_{\rm SUSY}$.
2597:
2598: Here we should note that in BEs~(\ref{rR}) we have neglected the
2599: collision terms related to the self-annihilation of $g$-sector
2600: particles. Their thermally averaged cross section times velocity,
2601: $\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} v \rangle$, is estimated to be
2602: \begin{equation}
2603: \langle \sigma_{\rm ann}\, v \rangle\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\
2604: 10^{-35}~{\rm GeV}^{-2}\; ,
2605: \end{equation}
2606: which is numerically negligible.
2607:
2608: The numerical analysis of the BEs (\ref{rR}) gets simplified by
2609: absorbing the Hubble expansion terms into new variables. To this end,
2610: we define the following dimensionless quantities \cite{riotto}:
2611: \begin{equation}
2612: \label{fdef}
2613: f_{{\widetilde G}}\ =\ n_{{\widetilde G}} a^3\,,\quad f_\kappa\ =\ \rho_\kappa
2614: a^3\,,\quad f_g\ =\ \rho_g a^3\,, \quad f_{\rm rad}\ =\ \rho_{\rm rad} a^4.
2615: \end{equation}
2616: where $a$ is the usual expansion scale factor of the Universe. We
2617: also convert the time derivatives to derivatives with respect to the
2618: logarithmic time $\ln\left(a/a_{\rm I}\right)$~\cite{qui}, where
2619: $a_{\rm I}$ is some initial or reference value for the scale factor
2620: $a$. With the above substitutions, the BEs~(\ref{rR}) may be
2621: re-written as
2622: \begin{eqnarray}
2623: \label{fg}
2624: H f^\prime_{\widetilde G} &=& C_{{\widetilde G}}\, T^6 a^3\,,\nonumber\\
2625: \label{ff}
2626: H f^\prime_\kappa &=& -\,\Gamma_\kappa f_\kappa\,,\nonumber\\
2627: \label{ffb}
2628: H f^\prime_g &=& -\,\Gamma_g\, f_g\,,\nonumber\\
2629: \label{fR}
2630: H f^\prime_{\rm rad} &=& \Gamma_\phi f_\phi a\: +\: \Gamma_g f_g a\,,
2631: \end{eqnarray}
2632: where the prime now denotes differentiation with respect
2633: to~$\ln\left(a/a_{\rm I}\right)$. Correspondingly, the Hubble parameter
2634: $H$ and temperature $T$ may now be expressed in terms of the newly
2635: introduced variables~(\ref{fdef}) as follows:
2636: \begin{equation}
2637: \label{H2exp}
2638: H\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}\, a^{3/2}\, m_{\rm Pl}}\;
2639: \bigg(\, m_{\widetilde{G}} f_{\widetilde{G}}\: +\:
2640: f_\kappa\: +\: f_g\: +\: a^{-1} f_{\rm rad}\,\bigg)^{1/2}\,,\quad
2641: T\ =\ \left(\frac{30\, f_{\rm rad}}{\pi^2 g_{\ast} a^4}\right)^{1/4}\; .
2642: \end{equation}
2643: The transformed system of BEs~(\ref{fR}) can be numerically solved by
2644: imposing the following initial conditions:
2645: \begin{equation}
2646: \label{init}
2647: f_{\kappa,{\rm I}}\, a_{\rm I}^3\ =\ \kappa^2 M^4\,,\quad
2648: f_{g,{\rm I}}\, a_{\rm I}^3\ =\ 2.1\times 10^{-2} g \kappa^3\, M^4\,,
2649: \quad f_{{\rm rad},{\rm I}}\ =\ 0\; ,
2650: \end{equation}
2651: where the subscript~I refers to quantities defined at
2652: $\ln\left(a/a_{\rm I}\right)=0$. Notice that the initial value
2653: $f_{g,{\rm I}}\, a_{\rm I}^3$ is equal to the energy density
2654: $\rho_{g,{\rm I}}$ of the $g$-sector particles produced during
2655: preheating and is given in~(\ref{rhog}) .
2656:
2657:
2658: In Fig.~\ref{fig:rY}(a), we present numerical estimates of the
2659: cosmological evolution of energy densities $\rho_{\kappa,g,{\rm rad}}$
2660: as functions of the temperature $T$ in a double $x$-$y$ logarithmic
2661: plot, where $\rho_\kappa$ is represented by a dark grey line, $\rho_g$
2662: by a grey line and $\rho_{\rm rad}$ by a light grey line. As an
2663: example, we use $M = 0.7 \times 10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$,
2664: $\rho=\lambda=\kappa=10^{-3}$ and $m_{\rm FI}/M = 4.3\times 10^{-7}$
2665: (bold lines) and $m_{\rm FI}/M = 10^{-3}$ (thin lines). Since
2666: $\rho_{\rm rad}$ is affected very little for the larger value of
2667: $m_{\rm FI}/M$, it has not been added to the plot. The intersection
2668: point of the $T$-dependent functions $\rho_\kappa$ and $\rho_{\rm
2669: rad}$ signals the completion of the $\kappa$-sector particle decays.
2670: For the specific example, this point occurs at $T_\kappa =
2671: 3.2\times10^{11}~{\rm GeV}$. For $m_{\rm FI}/M = 4.3 \times
2672: 10^{-7}~{\rm GeV}$, we obtain two more intersections: one for
2673: $T=T_{\rm eq} \simeq 3.9 \times 10^6~{\rm GeV}$ where $\rho_g (T_{\rm
2674: eq}) = \rho_{\rm rad} (T_{\rm eq})$ and another one for $T=T_g \simeq
2675: 200~{\rm GeV}$, where the $g$-sector particles have practically
2676: decayed away and $\rho_g (T_g) = \rho_{\rm rad} (T_g)$. Thanks to the
2677: huge entropy release in this case, the gravitino abundance
2678: $Y_{\widetilde G}\ =\ n_{{\widetilde G}}/s$ gets sharply decreased
2679: from about $2.2 \times 10^{-11}$ to $2.4 \times 10^{-15}$. This
2680: dramatic reduction of $Y_{\widetilde G}$ is shown in
2681: Fig.~\ref{fig:rY}(b). On the contrary, if $m_{\rm FI}/M = 10^{-3}$,
2682: no intersection of $\rho_g$ with $\rho_{\rm rad}$ takes place and, in
2683: consequence, no phase of second reheating occurs. This is also
2684: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:rY}(a), where the dependence of $\rho_g$
2685: is displayed by a thin line. As can be seen from
2686: Fig.~\ref{fig:rY}(b), the gravitino abundance $Y_{\widetilde G}$
2687: remains unsuppressed in this case, i.e.~$Y_{\widetilde G} \sim
2688: 10^{-10}$. As we will see below in Section~\ref{para}, such large
2689: values of $Y_{\widetilde G}$ are in gross conflict with BBN
2690: constraints.
2691:
2692:
2693:
2694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2695: \begin{figure}[t]
2696: \begin{center}
2697: \epsfig{file=rT.eps,height=5.2in,angle=-90} \\[3mm]
2698: \epsfig{file=YgT.eps,height=5.2in,angle=-90}
2699: \end{center}
2700: \caption{\sl\small The evolution as a function of $\log
2701: T$ of the quantities: {\sf (a)} $\log\rho_i$ with $i=\kappa$ (dark
2702: grey line), $i=g$ (grey line), $i={\rm rad}$ (light grey line)
2703: {\sf (b)} $\widetilde G$ yield, $Y_{\widetilde G}$. In both cases, we take
2704: $M=0.7\times10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$, $\rho=\lambda=\kappa=0.001$ and
2705: $m_{\rm FI}/M=4.3\times10^{-7}~{\rm GeV}$ (bold lines) and $m_{\rm
2706: FI}/M=1\times10^{-3}$ (thin lines).} \label{fig:rY}
2707: \end{figure}
2708: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2709:
2710:
2711:
2712: \subsection{Semi-analytic Approach} \label{Seqs}
2713:
2714: We now present a more intuitive and rather accurate approach to the
2715: dynamics of coupled reheating, and find approximate analytical
2716: expressions that describe the evolution of the energy
2717: densities~$\rho_{\kappa,g,{\rm rad}}$. In addition, we derive the
2718: conditions that ensure the existence of a second reheat phase in the
2719: evolution of the Universe. Finally, we estimate the gravitino
2720: abundance $Y_{\widetilde G}$ due to coupled reheating.
2721:
2722: Shortly after inflation ends, the energy of our observable Universe is
2723: dominated by the inflaton $S$ and the other $\kappa$-sector particles,
2724: with an initial energy density $\rho_{\kappa, \rm I} = \kappa^2 M^4$.
2725: As we schematically illustrated in Section~\ref{preheat}, the
2726: $\kappa$-sector particles decay into relativistic degrees of freedom,
2727: producing an energy density $\rho_{\rm rad}$. The energy density
2728: $\rho_g$ of the $g$-sector particles is subdominant at these early
2729: stages after the first reheating due to the $\kappa$-sector particle
2730: decays. In fact, for temperatures $T > T_{\rm eq}$, where $T_{\rm
2731: eq}$ is the first intersection point of the $T$-dependent functions
2732: $\rho_{\rm rad}$ and $\rho_g$ [see~(\ref{trg})], the evolution of all
2733: relevant energy densities may be approximately described as follows:
2734: \begin{equation}
2735: \label{rRfq}
2736: \rho_\kappa\ =\ \rho_{\kappa,{\rm I}}\, \left(a/a_{\rm I}\right)^{-3}\,,\quad
2737: \rho_g\ =\ \rho_{g,{\rm I}}\, \left(a/a_{\rm I}\right)^{-3}\,,\quad
2738: \rho_{\rm rad}\ =\ \rho_{\rm rad}(T_\kappa)\,
2739: \left(T/T_\kappa \right)^4\; .
2740: \end{equation}
2741: As mentioned above, the $T$-dependent function $\rho_{\rm rad}$ may
2742: first cross the corresponding $\rho_g$ at $T=T_{\rm eq}$, where
2743: \begin{equation}
2744: \label{trg}
2745: \rho_{\rm rad} (T_{\rm eq })\ =\ \rho_g (T_{\rm eq })\; .
2746: \end{equation}
2747: Using the fact that $\rho_{\rm rad} (T_\kappa) = \rho_\kappa
2748: (T_\kappa)$ and assuming that the Universe expands isentropically with
2749: $a \propto T^{-1}$ when $T_{\rm eq}\leq T\leq T_\kappa$, we obtain
2750: from~(\ref{trg}) the approximate relation
2751: \begin{equation}
2752: \label{Teq}
2753: T_{\rm eq}\ \simeq\ T_\kappa\
2754: \frac{\rho_{g, {\rm I}}}{\rho_{\kappa,{\rm I }}}\ .
2755: \end{equation}
2756: In deriving~(\ref{Teq}), we have also made use of~(\ref{rRfq}).
2757:
2758: A second reheat phase in the evolution of the Universe takes place,
2759: only if $T_g < T_{\rm eq}$, where $T_g$ is the naive reheat
2760: temperature due to the $g$-sector particles decays [see~(\ref{Tg})
2761: below]. To better explore the consequences of this last condition, we
2762: use the abbreviation $g$-DAD ($g$-DBD) to indicate whether the
2763: $g$-sector particles Decay After (Before) the Domination of their
2764: energy density. With the aid of~(\ref{Teq}), the following two
2765: conditions for $g$-DAD and $g$-DBD may be deduced:
2766: \begin{equation}
2767: \label{cond}
2768: \frac{T_g}{T_\kappa}\ <\
2769: \frac{\rho_{g,\rm I}}{\rho_{\kappa, \rm I}}\quad (g\mbox{-DAD}),\qquad
2770: \frac{T_g}{T_\kappa}\ \geq\ \frac{\rho_{g,\rm I}}{\rho_{\kappa,\rm
2771: I}}\quad (g\mbox{-DBD})\; .
2772: \end{equation}
2773: These two possible scenarios are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:rY} for
2774: $m_{\rm FI}/M = 4.3\times 10^{-7}$ ($m_{\rm FI}/M = 10^{-3}$), where
2775: the bold (thin) lines correspond to $g$-DAD ($g$-DBD).
2776:
2777: The gravitino abundance $Y_{\widetilde G}$ can be calculated by simply
2778: integrating $f^\prime_{\widetilde G}$ that occurs in the first BE
2779: of~(\ref{fg}) and using the fact that $Y_{\widetilde G} =
2780: f_{\widetilde G}/sa^3$. It turns out that the main contribution to
2781: $Y_{\widetilde G}$ comes from the integration after the commencement
2782: of the radiation dominated era, i.e.~for $T\leq T_\kappa$. The
2783: so-derived formula reproduces rather accurately the one presented
2784: in~\cite{kohri} in the massless gluino limit, where
2785: \begin{equation}
2786: \label{Yk}
2787: Y^\kappa_{\widetilde G}\ =\ 1.6 \times 10^{-12}
2788: \left(\frac{T_\kappa}{10^{10}~{\rm GeV}}\right)\ .
2789: \end{equation}
2790: Note that (\ref{Yk}) is only valid for the $g$-DBD case.
2791:
2792: The situation is different for the $g$-DAD case, where a drastic
2793: reduction of the gravitino abundance, caused by the huge entropy
2794: release from the $g$-sector particle decays, takes place. In this
2795: case, the gravitino abundance $Y^g_{\widetilde G}$ may be estimated in
2796: the following way. We first notice that
2797: \begin{equation}
2798: \label{Yg1}
2799: Y^g_{\widetilde G}\ =\ Y^\kappa_{\widetilde G}\
2800: \frac{s(T_{\rm eq})\, a^3 (T_{\rm eq})}{s(T_g)\, a^3(T_g)}\ .
2801: \end{equation}
2802: Then, with the help of (\ref{rs}) and (\ref{rRfq}), we may obtain the
2803: relation
2804: \begin{equation}
2805: \label{dilution}
2806: \frac{s(T_{\rm eq})\, a^3 (T_{\rm eq})}{s(T_g)\, a^3(T_g)}\ =\
2807: \left(\frac{T_{\rm eq}}{T_g}\right)^3\;
2808: \left(\frac{\rho_g(T_{\rm eq})}{\rho_g(T_g)}\right)^{-1}\
2809: =\ \frac{T_g}{T_{\rm eq}}\ .
2810: \end{equation}
2811: Substituting the respective expressions of~(\ref{dilution}),
2812: (\ref{Yk}) and~(\ref{Teq}) into~(\ref{Yg1}) yields
2813: \begin{equation}
2814: \label{Yg}
2815: Y^g_{\widetilde G}\ =\ 1.6\times10^{-12}\, \left(
2816: \frac{T_g}{10^{10}~{\rm GeV}}\right)\; \frac{\rho_{\kappa , \rm
2817: I}}{\rho_{g, \rm I}}\ \simeq\ \frac{7.6\times 10^{-11}}{\kappa
2818: g}\; \left(\frac{T_g}{10^{10}~{\rm GeV}}\right)\ ,
2819: \end{equation}
2820: where we have used (\ref{rhog}) to derive the last approximate
2821: equality. We have checked that the semi-analytic formula (\ref{Yg}) is
2822: in remarkable agreement with numerical estimates in the $g$-DAD
2823: regime.
2824:
2825: Finally, we should comment on the fact that the number of $e$-folds,
2826: ${\cal N}_e$ gets modified in the $g$-DAD case, because of the
2827: occurrence of a $g$-sector-matter dominated era. Making use of
2828: standard methods~\cite{CLLSW,review}, we are able to determine ${\cal
2829: N}_e$ at the WMAP pivotal point $k_0=0.002~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ by the
2830: following relation:
2831: \begin{equation}
2832: \label{Ng}
2833: {\cal N}_e\ =\ 22.6\ +\ {1\over 6}\ln (\kappa^2M^4)\
2834: +\ {1\over3}\ln T_g\ +\ {1\over3}\ln{
2835: \rho_{\kappa,\rm I}\over\rho_{g,\rm I}}\ .
2836: \end{equation}
2837: This result, however, does not crucially alter the value of ${\cal
2838: N}_e$, which remains close to $55-60$ in the $g$-DAD case as
2839: well. Interestingly enough, $Y^g_{\widetilde G}$ and ${\cal N}_e$ do
2840: not directly depend on $T_\kappa$ given in~(\ref{Tkappa}). In fact,
2841: in the $g$-DAD case, $Y^g_{\widetilde G}$ and ${\cal N}_e$ are fully
2842: independent of the superpotential couplings $\lambda$ and $\rho$, and
2843: only have a mild linear and logarithmic dependence on $\kappa$,
2844: respectively. As we will discuss below, it is this last property that
2845: leads to a significant relaxation of the strict gravitino constraints
2846: on these couplings, when compared to the $g$-DBD case.
2847:
2848:
2849:
2850: \subsection{Gravitino Abundance Constraints}\label{para}
2851:
2852: In order to avoid destroying the apparent success between the standard
2853: theory for BBN and observation, gravitinos must have an abundance
2854: $Y_{\widetilde G}$ below certain upper limits, which crucially depend
2855: on their decay properties~\cite{oliveg,kohri}. Some representative
2856: upper bounds on~$Y_{\widetilde G}$, obtained in a very recent
2857: analysis~\cite{kohri}, are
2858: \begin{equation}
2859: \label{bYg}
2860: Y_{\widetilde G}\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ \left\{\matrix{
2861: %\begin{array}{rl}
2862: 10^{-15}\hfill , & \mbox{for}~~m_{\widetilde G}\simeq360~{\rm GeV},
2863: \hfill \cr
2864: %
2865: 10^{-14}\hfill , &\mbox{for}~~ m_{\widetilde G}\simeq600~{\rm GeV},
2866: \hfill \cr
2867: %
2868: 10^{-13}\hfill , &\mbox{for}~~ m_{\widetilde G}\simeq7.5~{\rm TeV},
2869: \hfill \cr
2870: %
2871: 10^{-12}\hfill , &\mbox{for}~~m_{\widetilde G}\simeq9.3~{\rm TeV}\; .
2872: \hfill \cr}
2873: %\end{array}
2874: \right.
2875: \end{equation}
2876: The above bounds pertain to the less restrictive case of a gravitino
2877: that decays with a small branching ratio $B_h=0.001$ into hadronic
2878: modes. For the $g$-DBD case discussed above, the upper
2879: limits~(\ref{bYg}) imply the corresponding stringent bounds on $T_{\rm
2880: reh}$:
2881: \begin{equation}
2882: \label{bTr}
2883: T_{\rm reh}\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ \left\{\matrix{
2884: %\begin{array}{rl}
2885: 9\times10^{6}~{\rm GeV}\hfill , & \mbox{for}~~m_{\widetilde
2886: G}\simeq360~{\rm GeV}\,, \hfill \cr
2887: %
2888: 7\times10^{7}~{\rm GeV}\hfill , &\mbox{for}~~ m_{\widetilde
2889: G}\simeq600~{\rm GeV}\,, \hfill \cr
2890: %
2891: 7\times10^{8}~{\rm GeV}\hfill , &\mbox{for}~~ m_{\widetilde
2892: G}\simeq7.5~{\rm TeV}\,, \hfill \cr
2893: %
2894: 7\times10^{9}~{\rm GeV}\hfill , &\mbox{for}~~m_{\widetilde
2895: G}\simeq9.3~{\rm TeV}\; . \hfill \cr}
2896: %\end{array}
2897: \right.
2898: \end{equation}
2899:
2900:
2901: The aforementioned upper limits lead to serious constraints on the
2902: basic couplings $\kappa$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$, usually forcing them
2903: to acquire very small values, i.e.~$\kappa.\, \lambda, \, \rho
2904: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-5}$. For the standard $F$-term hybrid
2905: model within mSUGRA and with a soft SUSY-breaking tadpole parameter
2906: $\mbox{a}_S = 1$~TeV, the requirement of accounting for the observed
2907: power spectrum $P_{\cal R}$, with a number of $e$-folds ${\cal N}_e
2908: =50$--60, implies that $\kappa> 10^{-4}$ and $T_\kappa = T_{\rm reh}
2909: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 9 \times 10^{9}$~GeV. Such a high lower bound
2910: on $T_{\rm reh}$ invalidates all the limits presented in~(\ref{bTr}),
2911: thereby ruling out the above $F$-term hybrid model.
2912:
2913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2914: \begin{figure}[t]
2915: \begin{center}
2916: \epsfig{file=Ygm.eps,height=6.4in,angle=-90} \\[3mm]
2917: \end{center}
2918: \caption{\sl\small The dependence of $\log Y_{\widetilde G}$ on
2919: $m_{\rm FI}/M$, for $\kappa=10^{-2}$ (dark grey line),
2920: $\kappa=10^{-3}$ (grey line) and $\kappa=10^{-4}$ (light grey
2921: line). }\label{fig:Ygm}
2922: \end{figure}
2923: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2924:
2925:
2926: The above situation, however, changes drastically in the $F_D$-term
2927: hybrid model with small $D$-parity violation, e.g.~due to the presence
2928: of a subdominant FI $D$-term. This corresponds to the $g$-DAD case
2929: described in the previous subsection, where the upper
2930: bounds~(\ref{bYg}) translate, by means of~(\ref{Yg}), into upper
2931: bounds on $m_{\rm FI}/M$ for $\kappa > 8\times 10^{-5}$. The required
2932: size of the $D$-parity violating parameter $m_{\rm FI}$ may naively be
2933: estimated using a relation very analogous to (\ref{Tkappa}), viz.\
2934: \begin{equation}
2935: \label{Tg}
2936: T_g\ =\ \left( \frac{90}{\pi^2\, g_*}\right)^{1/4}\,
2937: \sqrt{\Gamma_g\: m_{\rm Pl} }\ ,
2938: \end{equation}
2939: where $\Gamma_g$ is the decay width of a $g$-sector particle and is
2940: given in~(\ref{GammaR}). If we solve~(\ref{Tg}) for the ratio $m_{\rm
2941: FI}/M$, we obtain
2942: \begin{equation}
2943: \label{ratio:mFI:M}
2944: \frac{m_{\rm FI}}{M} \approx \ 8.4 \cdot 10^{-4}\times \left(
2945: \frac{0.5}{g}\right)^{3/4} \left(\frac{T_g}{10^9~{\rm
2946: GeV}}\right)^{1/2}\, \left( \frac{10^{16}~{\rm
2947: GeV}}{M}\right)^{1/4}\; .
2948: \end{equation}
2949: For second reheat temperatures $T_g$ of cosmological interest,
2950: i.e.~$0.2~{\rm TeV} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} T_g \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
2951: 10^9~{\rm GeV}$, the following double inequality for $M = 10^{16}$~GeV
2952: may be derived:
2953: \begin{equation}
2954: \label{FIcombined}
2955: 4\times 10^{-7}\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ \frac{m_{\rm FI}}{M}\
2956: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ 10^{-3}\; .
2957: \end{equation}
2958: The lower bounds on $T_g$ and $m_{\rm FI}/M$ result from the
2959: requirement that thermal electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis be
2960: successfully realized. More details are given in Section~\ref{BAU}.
2961:
2962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2963: \begin{figure}[t]
2964: \begin{center}
2965: \epsfig{file=km.eps,height=6.4in,angle=-90}
2966: \end{center}
2967: \caption{\sl\small The allowed region on the $(m_{\rm FI}/M,\kappa)$
2968: plane for $Y_{\widetilde G} < 10^{-15}$ (black area), $Y_{\widetilde
2969: G}<10^{-14}$ (light grey area), $Y_{\widetilde G}<10^{-13}$ (grey
2970: area) and $Y_{\widetilde G} < 10^{-12}$ (dark grey area).}\label{fig:mFI}
2971: \end{figure}
2972: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2973:
2974:
2975: A numerical analysis of the gravitino abundance predictions and
2976: constraints related to the $g$-DAD scenario has been performed in
2977: Figs.~\ref{fig:Ygm} and \ref{fig:mFI}, respectively. Our numerical
2978: results apply equally well to both mSUGRA and nmSUGRA scenarios. In
2979: detail, Fig.~\ref{fig:Ygm} shows $\log Y_{\widetilde G}$ as a function
2980: of $m_{\rm FI}/M$ and $T_g$, for the different values of $\kappa =
2981: 10^{-4},\, 10^{-3}\,, 10^{-2}$, while $M$ is fixed by the usual
2982: inflationary constraints on ${\cal N}_e$ and $P_{\cal R}$, for $\kappa
2983: = \lambda = \rho$ and $c_H = 0$. The different lines in
2984: Fig.~\ref{fig:Ygm} terminate at high values of $m_{\rm FI}/M$, since
2985: the inequality $T_g < T_\kappa$ does no longer hold. The lowest value
2986: of $m_{\rm FI}/M$ is determined by the condition $T_g > 200$~GeV,
2987: which results from the aforementioned requirement that thermal
2988: electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis is successfully
2989: realized~\cite{APRD,APRL,PU2}.
2990:
2991:
2992: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Ygm}, we also observe the two regimes: $g$-DBD and
2993: $g$-DAD. In the $g$-DBD regime, $\log Y_{\widetilde G}$ remains
2994: constant for given $\kappa$ up to some value $m_{\rm FI}/M$. For
2995: example, for $\kappa = 10^{-3}$, $\log Y_{\widetilde G}$ is constant
2996: for $m_{\rm FI}/M \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{-4}$. This result is
2997: consistent with~(\ref{Yk}). For smaller values of $m_{\rm FI}/M$, one
2998: enters the $g$-DAD regime. In this case, $\log Y_{\widetilde G}$
2999: decreases rapidly, as $m_{\rm FI}/M$, or equivalently $T_g$,
3000: decreases. This behaviour of $Y_{\widetilde G}$ is expected on
3001: account of~(\ref{Yg}). Also, in agreement with~(\ref{Yg}), the
3002: reduction of~$Y_{\widetilde G}$ becomes more drastic for larger values
3003: of $\kappa$.
3004:
3005: In Fig.~\ref{fig:mFI} we delineate the allowed regions on the
3006: $(\kappa, m_{\rm FI}/M)$ plane for the discrete values of
3007: $Y_{\widetilde G} = 10^{-15}, 10^{-14}, 10^{-13}, 10^{-12}$, for
3008: $\kappa \geq 8 \times10^{-5}$. The upper boundaries of the various
3009: areas are obtained using (\ref{Yg}). For $\kappa < 8 \times 10^{-5}$,
3010: we are in the $g$-DBD region, where we obtain $10^{-13} <
3011: Y_{\widetilde G} < 10^{-12}$, almost independently of $m_{\rm
3012: FI}/M$~[cf.~(\ref{Yk})]. Therefore, we only display values for $m_{\rm
3013: FI}/M$, for which $g$-DAD becomes relevant. We observe that the most
3014: stringent limit on $Y_{\widetilde G}$ can still be fulfilled for
3015: $\kappa \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$ and $m_{\rm FI}/M
3016: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-6}$. Such large values of $\kappa$ would
3017: have been excluded from naive estimates of the $\kappa$-sector reheat
3018: temperature $T_\kappa$ due to the $\kappa$-sector particle decays.
3019: According to our analysis in this section, however, these large values
3020: of $\kappa$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$ of order $10^{-2}$--$10^{-1}$ are
3021: allowed within the $F_D$-term hybrid inflationary model. As we will
3022: see in the next section, this is a distinctive feature of the
3023: $F_D$-term hybrid model that opens up novel possibilities in solving
3024: the CDM problem.
3025:
3026: At the end of this section, we wish to comment on a possible
3027: $F_D$-term hybrid scenario, where the $\kappa$-sector particles can
3028: decay directly into the $g$-sector ones. This can happen, for
3029: example, if $m_\kappa > 2 m_g$ or equivalently when $\kappa > \sqrt{2}
3030: g$. Since the gauge coupling $g$ of the waterfall sector must be
3031: smaller than 0.1 in this case, it would be difficult to embed such a
3032: $F_D$-term hybrid scenario into a GUT. The energy density transferred
3033: from the $\kappa$-sector particles into the $g$-sector ones may be
3034: calculated by
3035: \begin{equation}
3036: \frac{\rho_g}{\rho_\kappa}\ =\ \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}\, \kappa}\ B_{\kappa
3037: \to g}\ .
3038: \end{equation}
3039: Here $B_{\kappa \to g}$ denotes the branching ratio of the decays of
3040: the $\kappa$- to $g$-sector particles. Assuming conservatively that
3041: $B_{\kappa \to g} \sim 10^{-2}$ and $\kappa = 2 g$, we obtain an
3042: estimate for the gravitino abundance $Y_{\widetilde{G}} \sim 10^{-18}$
3043: for $m_{\rm FI}/M \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-6}$, thereby rendering
3044: gravitinos quite harmless.
3045:
3046:
3047:
3048: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3049: \section{Baryon Asymmetry and Cold Dark Matter}\label{BAU}
3050:
3051: In this section we briefly discuss further cosmological implications
3052: of the $F_D$-term hybrid model for the BAU and the CDM.
3053:
3054:
3055: \subsection{Resonant Flavour-Leptogenesis at the Electroweak Scale}
3056:
3057: Earlier studies of the BAU in supersymmetric models of hybrid
3058: inflation have mainly been focused on scenarios of non-thermal
3059: leptogenesis~\cite{LS}, with an hierarchical heavy Majorana neutrino
3060: spectrum, e.g.~$m_{N_1} < m_{N_2} \ll m_{N_3}$. The simplest model of
3061: this type is obtained by identifying the waterfall gauge group with
3062: U(1)$_{B-L}$, which allows the presence of the operator $\gamma_{ij}\,
3063: \widehat{X}_2 \widehat{X}_2 \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N_j}/m_{\rm Pl}$ in
3064: the superpotential. Notice that such a term is forbidden in the
3065: $F_D$-term hybrid model by virtue of the $R$ symmetry~(\ref{RFD}). In
3066: the non-thermal leptogenesis model, the reheat temperature consistent
3067: with the observed BAU $\eta_B = 6.1\times 10^{-10}$ and low-energy
3068: neutrino data is estimated to be~\cite{SS}
3069: \begin{equation}
3070: \label{Tnonth}
3071: T_{\rm reh}\ \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}\ 2.5\cdot 10^7~{\rm GeV} \times
3072: \Bigg( \frac{10^{16}~{\rm GeV}}{M}\Bigg)^{1/2}\,
3073: \Bigg(\frac{\kappa}{10^{-5}}\Bigg)^{3/4}\ ,
3074: \end{equation}
3075: where the superpotential couplings $\lambda,\, \rho$ are set to zero.
3076: If $\lambda = \kappa$, the lower bound~(\ref{Tnonth}) gets larger
3077: roughly by a factor 20. It is obvious that in this generic
3078: non-thermal leptogenesis scenario, the gravitino constraint on $T_{\rm
3079: reh}$ favours rather small values of $\kappa$ and $\lambda$,
3080: e.g.~$\kappa,\, \lambda \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-5}$ for $T_{\rm
3081: reh} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^8$~GeV. As was discussed in
3082: Section~\ref{inflation}.2, however, such small values of $\kappa$
3083: introduce strong tuning at a less than 1\% level to the horizon exit
3084: values of the inflaton field $\phi_{\rm exit}$ in a nmSUGRA scenario
3085: that accounts for the recently observed value of the spectral index
3086: $n_{\rm s}$ given by~(\ref{nswmap}). Moreover, the success of this
3087: scenario relies heavily on the assumption that there is no other
3088: source of baryogenesis, e.g.~through the Affleck--Dine mechanism, nor
3089: of entropy release, e.g.~from possible late decays of moduli or flaton
3090: fields~\cite{DLES}, between the energy scales $m_{N_1}\ (\gg T_{\rm
3091: reh})$ and the electroweak phase transition.
3092:
3093: In the $F_D$-term hybrid model, non-thermal leptogenesis is not
3094: possible for one of the reasons mentioned above. The late decays of
3095: the $g$-sector ($D$-odd) particles generally lead to an enormous
3096: entropy release, so that not only gravitinos, but also any initial
3097: lepton-number excess will be diluted to unobservable values. However,
3098: as has already been discussed in~\cite{GP}, the $F_D$-term model can
3099: realize electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis~\cite{PU2}, if the
3100: coupling of the inflaton superfield $\widehat{S}$ to the respective
3101: right-handed neutrinos $\widehat{N}_i$ is very close to an
3102: SO(3)-symmetric form, i.e.~$\rho_{ij} \approx \rho\, {\bf 1}_3$. This
3103: will give rise to 3 nearly heavy Majorana neutrinos of mass $m_N$ and
3104: so would enable a successful realization of the resonant leptogenesis
3105: mechanism at the electroweak scale. The required SO(3)-breaking may,
3106: for example, originate from renormalization-group (RG)~\cite{Branco}
3107: or possible GUT threshold effects~\cite{PU2,Lindner}.
3108:
3109:
3110:
3111: \begin{figure}[t]
3112: \begin{center}
3113: \begin{picture}(600,320)
3114: \put(50,0){\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{initialconds-250.eps}}
3115: \end{picture}
3116: \end{center}
3117: \caption{\sl\small Numerical estimates of the BAU for a scenario with
3118: $m_N = 250$~GeV and for different initial lepton- and baryon-number
3119: abundances, $\eta^{\rm in}_{L_l}$ and $\eta^{\rm in}_B$, assuming an
3120: initial thermal distribution for the heavy Majorana neutrinos,
3121: i.e.~$\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2,3}} = 1$. The horizontal grey line
3122: shows the BAU needed to agree with today's observed
3123: value.}\label{mN250GeV}
3124: \end{figure}
3125:
3126:
3127: An order of magnitude estimate of the final BAU $\eta_B$, including
3128: single lepton flavour effects, may be obtained as~\cite{APRL,PU2}
3129: \begin{equation}
3130: \label{Bestimate}
3131: \eta_B\ \sim\ -\, 10^{-2}\,\times\, r(T_g/m_N)\
3132: \sum_{l=1}^3\, \sum_{N_i}\:
3133: \delta^l_{N_i}\: \frac{K^l_{N_i}}{K_l\,K_{N_i}}\ ,
3134: \end{equation}
3135: where
3136: \begin{equation}
3137: \label{KlN}
3138: K^l_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{\Gamma (N_i \to L_l \Phi)\: +\:
3139: \Gamma(N_i \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger)}{H (T=m_N)}
3140: \end{equation}
3141: is a lepton-flavour dependent wash-out factor, which quantifies in a
3142: way the degree of in- or out-of-equilibrium of the decay rates of the
3143: heavy Majorana neutrino mass eigenstates $N_i$ ($i = 1,2,3$) into the
3144: SM-like Higgs doublet $\Phi$ and the lepton doublet $L_l$ ($l=e,\mu
3145: ,\tau$). The remaining $K$-factors in~(\ref{Bestimate}) are defined
3146: with the help of $K^{l}_{N_i}$ as follows:
3147: \begin{eqnarray}
3148: \label{Kfactors}
3149: K_{N_i} \!&=&\! \sum_{l = 1}^3\ K^{l}_{N_i}\;,\qquad
3150: K_l \ =\ \sum_{N_i}\, K^{l}_{N_i}\; .
3151: \end{eqnarray}
3152: The parameters $\delta^l_{N_i}$ denote the different lepton-flavour
3153: asymmetries related to the decays $N_i \to L_l \Phi$ and are defined
3154: by
3155: \begin{equation}
3156: \delta^l_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{\Gamma (N_i \to L_l \Phi)\: -\:
3157: \Gamma(N_i \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger)}{\Gamma (N_i \to L_l \Phi)\: +\:
3158: \Gamma(N_i \to L^C_l \Phi^\dagger)} \ .
3159: \end{equation}
3160: Finally, the prefactor $r(T_g/m_N)$ in~(\ref{Bestimate}) takes care of
3161: a possible dilution effect on the BAU that might be caused by the
3162: entropy release of late $g$-sector particle decays. This dilution
3163: effect is only relevant, if the second reheat temperature $T_g$ is
3164: smaller than the leptogenesis scale $m_N$. Employing standard
3165: arguments of thermodynamics, one may estimate that
3166: \begin{equation}
3167: r (T_g / m_N)\ \sim \ \Bigg(\frac{T_g}{m_N}\Bigg)^5\; .
3168: \end{equation}
3169: Instead, if $T_g \gg m_N$, the dilution factor $r(T_g/m_N)$
3170: approaches~1 and can therefore be omitted.
3171:
3172: In Fig.~\ref{mN250GeV}, we display numerical estimates of the BAU for
3173: a resonant leptogenesis scenario with $m_N = 250$~GeV and an inverted
3174: hierarchical light-neutrino spectrum. For a detailed discussion of
3175: the heavy and light neutrino spectra of this model, the reader is
3176: referred to~\cite{PU2}. As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{mN250GeV}, one
3177: advantageous feature of resonant leptogenesis is that the final baryon
3178: asymmetry~$\eta_B$ does not sensitively depend on any pre-existing
3179: lepton- or baryon-number abundance, $\eta^{\rm in}_{L_l}$ or
3180: $\eta^{\rm in}_B$. For instance, assuming an initial thermal
3181: distribution for the heavy Majorana neutrinos, i.e.~$\eta^{\rm
3182: in}_{N_{1,2,3}} = 1$, and primordial baryon asymmetries $\eta^{\rm
3183: in}_B \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$, we observe that the final
3184: $\eta_B$ is practically independent of the initial conditions, once
3185: the relevant particle-physics model parameters, such as the heavy
3186: Majorana masses and their respective Yukawa couplings, are fixed.
3187:
3188: It is important to comment here on the fact that the above property of
3189: the independence of the BAU on the initial conditions does not
3190: necessarily get spoiled, if the second reheat temperature $T_g$
3191: happens to be smaller than the resonant leptogenesis scale $m_N$. In
3192: this case, one only needs to make sure that the entropy dilution
3193: suppression factor $\sim (T_g/m_N)^5$ does not lead to a significant
3194: reduction of the BAU. Therefore, we have rather conservatively
3195: assumed throughout our numerical analysis in Section~\ref{reheat} that
3196: $T_g \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} m_N \sim 250$~GeV, even though $T_g$ could
3197: still be somewhat smaller than the resonant leptogenesis scale $m_N$.
3198:
3199: Another point that deserves to be clarified here is the physical
3200: significance of lepton-flavour effects on the BAU. In general, there
3201: are two sources of lepton flavour: (i) the charged lepton Yukawa
3202: couplings $h_l$ and (ii) the neutrino Yukawa couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$.
3203: The former has been extensively discussed in the
3204: literature~\cite{BAULFV} and may affect the predictions for the BAU by
3205: up to one order of magnitude, depending on the scale of leptogenesis.
3206: For our electroweak-scale leptogenesis scenario, these effects are not
3207: significant, since all charged lepton Yukawa couplings mediate
3208: interactions that are in thermal equilibrium. The second source of
3209: flavour effects is due to neutrino-Yukawa couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$ and
3210: has been studied only very recently in~\cite{APRL,PU2,Bari}. The
3211: effect on the BAU is most relevant when the heavy Majorana neutrinos
3212: get closer in mass. In models of resonant leptogenesis,
3213: neutrino-Yukawa coupling effects can have a dramatic impact on the
3214: predictions for the BAU, enhancing its value by many orders of
3215: magnitude~\cite{APRL,PU2}.
3216:
3217: This last fact opens up new vistas in the model-building of scenarios
3218: that can be phenomenologically more accessible to laboratory
3219: experiments. For instance, if a certain hierarchy among the
3220: Yukawa-neutrino couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$ is assumed, e.g.~$h^{\nu}_{i2}
3221: = i h^{\nu}_{i3} \sim 10^{-2} \sim h_\tau$ and~$h^{\nu}_{i1} =
3222: 10^{-6}$--$10^{-7} \sim h_e$, resulting from the approximate breaking
3223: of some global U(1)$_l$ symmetry, the required BAU can still be
3224: generated successfully from an individual lepton number asymmetry,
3225: namely $L_\tau$ in this case. For this particular model of resonant
3226: $\tau$-leptogenesis, the values of the $K$-factors defined in
3227: (\ref{KlN}) are:
3228: \begin{equation}
3229: K^\tau_{N_{1,2,3}}\ \sim\ 10\,,\
3230: \qquad K^{e,\mu}_{N_3}\ \sim\ 30\,,
3231: \qquad K^{e,\mu}_{N_{1,2}}\ \sim\ 10^{10}\; .
3232: \end{equation}
3233: Given that the leptonic asymmetry is $\delta^\tau_{N_3} \sim 10^{-6}$,
3234: one can estimate from~(\ref{Bestimate}) that the right amount of
3235: baryon asymmetry is produced, with~$\eta_B \sim 10^{-9}$. This is also
3236: shown in Fig.~\ref{mN250GeV}. Instead, older approaches to BEs that
3237: do not appropriately treat lepton flavour effects via the neutrino
3238: Yukawa couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$ would have predicted a value that would
3239: have been short of a huge factor $\sim 10^{-6}$~\cite{APRL,PU2}.
3240:
3241: As can be seen from the above example, the lepton-flavour directions
3242: $L_{e,\mu}$ orthogonal to $L_\tau$ can involve large neutrino Yukawa
3243: couplings of order $10^{-2}$. Such couplings can give rise to
3244: distinctive signatures in the production and decay of
3245: electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos at high-energy colliders,
3246: such as the LHC~\cite{NprodLHC}, the International Linear $e^+e^-$
3247: Collider~(ILC)~\cite{NprodILC} and other future
3248: colliders~\cite{NprodEG}. Moreover, electroweak-scale heavy Majorana
3249: neutrinos can give rise to phenomena of lepton flavour and/or number
3250: violation, such as the neutrinoless double-beta decay
3251: ($0\nu\beta\beta$), the decays $\mu \to e\gamma$~\cite{CL}, $\mu \to
3252: eee$, $\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei
3253: etc~\cite{IP,LFVN,LFVrev,LLfit}. A detailed discussion of the
3254: low-energy phenomenology of resonant leptogenesis models may be found
3255: in~\cite{PU2}.
3256:
3257:
3258: \subsection{Thermal Right-Handed Sneutrinos as CDM}
3259:
3260:
3261: An interesting feature of the $F_D$-term hybrid model is that
3262: $R$-parity is conserved, even though the lepton number $L$, as well as
3263: $B-L$, are explicitly broken by the Majorana operator
3264: $\frac{1}{2}\,\rho\, \widehat{S} \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_i$. In
3265: fact, in our model, all superpotential couplings either conserve the
3266: $B-L$ number or break it by even number of units. For example, the
3267: coupling $\rho$ breaks explicitly $L$, along with $B-L$, by 2~units.
3268: Since the $R$-parity of each superpotential operator is determined to
3269: be $R = (-1)^{3(B-L)} = +1$, the $F_D$-term hybrid model conserves
3270: $R$-parity. As a consequence, the LSP of the spectrum is stable and
3271: so becomes a viable candidate to address the CDM problem of the
3272: Universe.
3273:
3274:
3275: In addition to the standard CDM candidates of the MSSM, e.g.~a stable
3276: neutralino, it would be interesting to explore whether thermal
3277: right-handed sneutrinos as LSPs could solve the CDM problem. Before we
3278: estimate their relic abundance, we first observe that light
3279: right-handed sneutrinos may easily appear in the spectrum. Ignoring
3280: the small neutrino-Yukawa coupling terms, the right-handed sneutrino
3281: mass matrix ${\cal M}^2_{\widetilde N}$ is written down in the weak
3282: basis $(\widetilde{N}_{1,2,3}, \widetilde{N}^*_{1,2,3})$:
3283: \begin{equation}
3284: {\cal M}^2_{\widetilde N}\ =\ \frac{1}{2}\, \left(\! \begin{array}{cc}
3285: \rho^2 v^2_S\: +\: M^2_{\widetilde N} & \rho A_\rho
3286: v_S\: +\: \rho\lambda v_u v_d\\
3287: \rho A^*_\rho v_S\: +\: \rho\lambda v_u v_d &
3288: \rho^2 v^2_S\: +\: M^2_{\widetilde N}
3289: \end{array} \!\right)\; ,
3290: \end{equation}
3291: where $v_S = \langle S \rangle$, $v_{u,d} = \langle H_{u,d} \rangle$
3292: and $M^2_{\widetilde N}$ is the soft SUSY-breaking mass parameters
3293: associated with the sneutrino fields. The sneutrino spectrum will then
3294: consist of 3 heavy (light) right-handed sneutrinos of mass
3295: $$\rho^2 v^2_S\: +\: M^2_{\widetilde N}\ +\, (-)\ \Big( \rho A_\rho
3296: v_S\: +\: \rho\lambda v_u v_d\Big)\, .$$ Hence, the 3 light sneutrinos
3297: can act as LSPs, which we collectively denote them by
3298: $\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}$.
3299:
3300: Recently, the possibility that right-handed sneutrinos are the CDM was
3301: considered in~\cite{GGP}. This recent analysis showed that thermal
3302: right-handed sneutrinos have rather high relic abundances and will
3303: generally overclose the Universe in a supersymmetric extension of the
3304: MSSM with right-handed neutrino superfields $\widehat{N}_i$ and bare
3305: Majorana masses $(m_M)_{ij} \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_j$. The
3306: underlying reason is that because of the small Yukawa-neutrino
3307: couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$, the self- and co-annihilation interactions of
3308: the sneutrino LSP with itself and other MSSM particles are rather
3309: weak. These weak processes do not allow the sneutrino LSP to stay
3310: long enough in thermal equilibrium before its freeze-out temperature,
3311: such that its number density gets reduced to a level compatible with
3312: the CMB data, i.e.~$\Omega_{\rm DM} h^2 \approx 0.15$. Instead, the
3313: predicted values turn out to be many orders of magnitude larger than
3314: 1.
3315:
3316: In the $F_D$-term hybrid model, however, there is a new interaction
3317: that can make the right-handed sneutrinos annihilate more efficiently.
3318: This is the quartic coupling~\footnote{The implications of a generic
3319: quartic coupling of the same form for the CDM abundance and detection
3320: was studied earlier in~\cite{mcdonald,pospelov} within the context of
3321: a simple non-SUSY model. These studies will not be directly applicable
3322: to our more elaborate case of a supersymmetric scenario with
3323: right-handed sneutrinos. However, we have used their results to check
3324: our qualitative estimates for the CDM abundance.}
3325: \begin{equation}
3326: \label{Llsp}
3327: {\cal L}^{\rm LSP}_{\rm int}\ =\
3328: \frac{1}{2}\,\lambda \rho\, \widetilde{N}^*_i \widetilde{N}^*_i H_u
3329: H_d\quad +\quad {\rm H.c.}
3330: \end{equation}
3331: It results from the $F$-term of the inflaton field: $F_S \sim
3332: \frac{1}{2}\,\rho \widehat{N}_i \widehat{N}_i\: +\: \lambda
3333: \widehat{H}_u \widehat{H}_d$. To assess the significance of the
3334: interaction~(\ref{Llsp}), we estimate the relic density of
3335: $\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}$ in different kinematic regions.
3336:
3337: We first consider the self-annihilation off-resonant process
3338: $\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP} \widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP} \to \langle
3339: H_u\rangle\, H_d\to W^+W^-$, which occurs when $m_{\widetilde{N}_{\rm
3340: LSP}} > M_W$. A simple estimate yields
3341: \begin{equation}
3342: \Omega_{\rm DM}\, h^2\ \sim\
3343: \Bigg(\frac{10^{-4}}{\rho^2\lambda^2}\Bigg)\;
3344: \Bigg(\frac{\tan\beta\, M_H}{g_w\, M_W}\Bigg)^2\, .
3345: \end{equation}
3346: To obtain an acceptable relic density, we need relatively large $\rho$
3347: and $\lambda$ couplings, i.e.~$\rho,\, \lambda \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}
3348: 0.1$\footnote{An upper bound on the product $\rho\lambda$, although
3349: somewhat model-dependent, can be derived from experimental limits on
3350: the flux of energetic upward muons that occur in the possible
3351: detection of CDM using neutrino telescopes \cite{pospelov}. Our
3352: initial estimates indicate that it should be $\rho\lambda\lesssim0.03$
3353: for $m_{\widetilde N_{\rm LSP}}\sim 50~{\rm GeV}$, which is not a very
3354: rectrictive bound.}. Such values go in opposite direction with those
3355: obtained by requiring successful inflation with a red-tilted
3356: spectrum. Therefore, as far as inflation is concerned, they signify
3357: the necessity of going well beyond the minimal K\"ahler potential.
3358:
3359: The above situation may slightly improve for $m_{\widetilde{N}_{\rm
3360: LSP}} < M_W$, in large $\tan\beta$ scenarios with light Higgs bosons
3361: that couple appreciably to $b$-quarks~\cite{Sabine}. In particular, in
3362: the kinematic region $M_{H_d} \approx 2 m_{\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}}$,
3363: the self-annihilation process $\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}
3364: \widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP} \to \langle H_u\rangle\, H_d\to b\bar{b}$
3365: becomes resonant, and the above estimate modifies to
3366: \begin{equation}
3367: \Omega_{\rm DM}\, h^2\ \sim\
3368: 10^{-4}\times B^{-1}(H_d \to \widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}
3369: \widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP})\, \times\,
3370: \Bigg(\frac{M_H}{100~{\rm GeV}}\Bigg)^2\, .
3371: \end{equation}
3372: Consequently, if the couplings $\lambda ,\, \rho$ are not too small,
3373: e.g.~$\lambda,\, \rho \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$, the LSP
3374: right-handed sneutrinos $\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}$ can efficiently
3375: annihilate via a Higgs resonance $H_d$ into pairs of $b$-quarks in
3376: this kinematic region, thus obtaining a relic density compatible with
3377: the CMB data. A~detailed study of the thermal right-handed sneutrino
3378: as CDM could be given elsewhere.
3379:
3380:
3381:
3382: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3383: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
3384:
3385: We have analyzed the cosmological implications of a novel $F$-term
3386: hybrid inflationary model, in which the inflaton and the gauged
3387: waterfall sectors respect an approximate discrete symmetry which we
3388: called here $D$-parity. The approximate breaking of $D$-parity occurs
3389: explicitly either through the presence of a subdominant FI $D$-term or
3390: through non-renormalizable operators in the K\"ahler potential. For
3391: brevity, this scenario of inflation was termed $F_D$-term hybrid
3392: inflation. One of the most interesting features of the model is that
3393: the VEV of the inflaton field closely relates the $\mu$-parameter of
3394: the MSSM to an SO(3) symmetric Majorana mass $m_N$. If $\lambda \sim
3395: \rho$, this implies that $\mu \sim m_N$, so the $F_D$-term hybrid
3396: model may naturally predict lepton-number violation at the electroweak
3397: scale.
3398:
3399: Before summarizing the cosmological and particle-physics implications
3400: of the $F_D$-term hybrid model, it might be interesting to list our
3401: basic assumptions pertinent to inflation and to the model itself:
3402:
3403: \begin{itemize}
3404:
3405: \item[ (i)] The standard assumption for successful hybrid inflation is
3406: that the inflaton field $\phi$ should be displaced from its true
3407: minimum at the start of inflation, whereas all other scalar fields
3408: in the spectrum must have zero VEVs [c.f.~(\ref{initial})]. In a
3409: nmSUGRA scenario of hybrid inflation, however, additional tuning is
3410: required beyond the above standard assumption. The horizon exit
3411: values of the inflaton field $\phi_{\rm exit}$ have to be close to
3412: the value $\phi_{\rm max}$, at which the inflationary potential has
3413: a maximum. Nevertheless, such a tuning is not so strong,
3414: i.e.~$(\phi_{\max} - \phi_{\rm exit})/\phi_{\rm exit}
3415: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10\%$, as long as $\kappa
3416: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{-3}$.
3417:
3418: \item[(ii)] Although there may exist several ways of breaking
3419: $D$-parity explicitly, we have considered here two possibilities to
3420: motivate the required small amount of $D$-parity violation. As
3421: discussed in Appendix A, we first considered the case where
3422: $D$-parity is broken by a subdominant FI $D$-term, which is induced
3423: radiatively after heavy degrees of freedom have been integrated out.
3424: Another minimal way would be to introduce non-renormalizable
3425: operators in the K\"ahler potential that break $D$-parity
3426: explicitly.
3427:
3428: \item[ (iii)] In order to be able to realize thermal resonant
3429: leptogenesis at a low scale, the coupling matrix $\rho_{ij}$ is
3430: assumed to be close to SO(3) symmetric, i.e.~$\rho_{ij} \approx
3431: \rho\, {\bf 1}_3$.
3432:
3433: \end{itemize}
3434:
3435:
3436: The $F_D$-term hybrid model has several cosmological implications that
3437: may be summarized as follows:
3438:
3439: \begin{itemize}
3440:
3441: \item The model can accommodate the currently favoured strong
3442: red-tilted spectrum with $n_{\rm s} - 1 \approx
3443: -0.05$~\cite{WMAP3,Lyman}, if the radiative corrections dominate the
3444: slope of the inflationary potential and a next-to-minimal K\"ahler
3445: potential is assumed, where the parameter $c_H$ is in the range
3446: 0.05--0.2. The radiative corrections dominate the slope of the
3447: potential, if the superpotential couplings, $\kappa,\ \lambda,\
3448: \rho$, lie in a certain interval: $10^{-4} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
3449: \kappa,\ \lambda,\ \rho \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$. In
3450: addition, the actual value of the power spectrum $P_{\cal R}$ and
3451: the required number of $e$-folds, ${\cal N}_e \approx 55$, provide
3452: further constraints on these couplings and the SSB scale $M$ of the
3453: waterfall gauge symmetry. For example, for $M\approx 10^{16}$~GeV,
3454: one finds the allowed parameter space: $\kappa \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
3455: \lambda,\ \rho \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 4\kappa$, for $\kappa \sim
3456: 10^{-3}$--$10^{-2}$ and $0.05 \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} c_H
3457: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.1$.
3458:
3459: \item For $F_D$-term hybrid models with spontaneously broken U(1)$_X$
3460: gauge symmetry, the non-observation of a cosmic string contribution
3461: to the power spectrum at the 10\% level implies an upper bound on
3462: the superpotential coupling $\kappa$, i.e.~$\kappa
3463: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-3}$. This strict upper bound on $\kappa$
3464: can be weakened by one order of magnitude in a nmSUGRA model of
3465: $F_D$-term hybrid inflation, with $\kappa = \lambda = \rho$ and $c_H
3466: = 0.14$. On the other hand, this upper limit can be completely
3467: evaded, if the watefall sector of the $F_D$-term hybrid model
3468: realizes an SU(2)$_X$ local symmetry that breaks completely to the
3469: identity ${\bf I}$, i.e.~SU(2)$_X \to {\bf I}$. In this case, not
3470: only cosmic strings but any other topological defects can be
3471: avoided, such as monopoles and textures. As we outlined in
3472: Section~\ref{FDmodel}, GUTs, such as those based on the exceptional
3473: groups E(6) and E(7), have breaking patterns that contain SU(2)$_X$
3474: subgroups uncharged under the SM gauge group and so are able to
3475: realize $F_D$-term hybrid inflation devoid of monopoles and cosmic
3476: strings.
3477:
3478:
3479: \item To avoid overproduction of gravitinos, one needs to impose a
3480: strict upper limit on the reheat temperature $T_{\rm reh}$ obtained
3481: from the perturbative inflaton decays, i.e.~$T_{\rm reh}
3482: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{10}$--$10^7$~GeV. This upper bound depends
3483: on the decay properties of the gravitino and gives rise to tight
3484: constraints on the basic theoretical parameters $\kappa$, $\lambda$
3485: and $\rho$, i.e.~$\kappa,\, \lambda,\, \rho\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\
3486: 10^{-5}$. However, these tight limits may be significantly relaxed
3487: by considering the late decays of the so-called $g$-sector particles
3488: which are induced by small $D$-parity violating couplings that may
3489: result from either a subdominant FI $D$-term or non-renormalizable
3490: K\"ahler potential terms. These $g$-sector particles are produced
3491: during the preheating epoch, and if they are abundant, they will
3492: lead to a second reheating phase in the evolution of the early
3493: Universe, giving rise to a rather low reheat temperature, even as
3494: low as $0.3$~TeV. In this case, the enormous entropy release from
3495: the $g$-sector particles may reduce the gravitino abundance
3496: $Y_{\widetilde{G}}$ below the BBN limits discussed in
3497: Section~\ref{reheat}.
3498:
3499:
3500: \item After the inflaton $S$ receives a VEV, one ends up with 3 nearly
3501: degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos with masses at the electroweak
3502: scale. As we discussed in Section~\ref{BAU}, this opens up the
3503: possibility to successfully address the BAU within the thermal
3504: electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis framework, in a way
3505: independent of any pre-existing lepton- or baryon-number abundance.
3506:
3507:
3508: \item The $F_D$-term hybrid model conserves $R$-parity, in spite of
3509: the fact that the lepton number is explicitly broken by the Majorana
3510: operator $\frac{1}{2}\, \rho\, \widehat{S} \widehat{N}_i
3511: \widehat{N}_i$. This is so, because all superpotential couplings
3512: either conserve the $B-L$ number or break it by even number of
3513: units. The aforementioned Majorana operator breaks explicitly $L$,
3514: as well as $B-L$, by 2~units. Consequently, the LSP of the spectrum
3515: is stable and so qualifies as candidate to address the CDM problem.
3516: The new aspect of the $F_D$-term hybrid model is that thermal
3517: right-handed sneutrinos emerge as new candidates to solve this
3518: problem, by virtue of the quartic coupling: $\frac{1}{2}\,\lambda
3519: \rho\, \widetilde{N}^*_i \widetilde{N}^*_i H_u H_d\ +\ {\rm H.c.}$.
3520: This new quartic coupling results in the Higgs potential from the
3521: $F$-terms of the inflaton field, and it is not present in the more
3522: often-discussed extension of the MSSM, where right-handed neutrino
3523: superfields have bare Majorana masses. Provided that the couplings
3524: $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are not too small, e.g.~$\lambda,\, \rho
3525: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 10^{-2}$, the LSP right-handed sneutrinos
3526: $\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}$ can efficiently annihilate via a Higgs
3527: resonance $H_d$ into pairs of $b$-quarks, in the kinematic region
3528: $M_{H_d} \approx 2 m_{\widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}}$, and so drastically
3529: reduce its relic density to values compatible with the CMB data.
3530:
3531:
3532: \end{itemize}
3533:
3534:
3535: In addition to the above cosmological implications, the $F_D$-term
3536: hybrid model has a rich particle-physics phenomenology. The main
3537: phenomenological characteristics of the model are:
3538:
3539:
3540: \begin{itemize}
3541:
3542: \item[(a)] It is straightforward to embed the $F_D$-term hybrid model
3543: into minimal or next-to-minimal SUGRA, where the soft SUSY-breaking
3544: parameters are constrained at the gauge coupling unification point
3545: $M_X$. Instead, electroweak baryogenesis is not viable in a minimal
3546: SUGRA scenario of the MSSM. It requires an unconventionally large
3547: hierarchy between the left-handed and right-handed top
3548: squarks~\cite{EWBAU}, which is difficult to obtain within the
3549: framework of minimal SUGRA. In addition, the CP-odd soft phases
3550: required for successful electroweak baryogenesis face severe
3551: constraints from the absence of observable 2-loop contributions to
3552: the electron and neutron electric dipole moments~\cite{CKP}.
3553:
3554: \item[(b)] As has been discussed in Section~\ref{BAU}, if one assumes
3555: that the neutrino-Yukawa couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$ have a certain
3556: hierarchical structure controlled by the approximate breaking of
3557: global flavour symmetries, the model can have further testable
3558: implications for low-energy observables of lepton flavour and/or
3559: number violation, e.g.~$0\nu\beta\beta$ decay, $\mu \to e\gamma$,
3560: $\mu \to eee$, $\mu \to e$ conversion in nuclei etc. In addition,
3561: electroweak-scale heavy Majorana neutrinos may be copiously produced
3562: at high-energy colliders, such as the LHC, the ILC and $e^-\gamma$
3563: colliders, whose decays give rise to distinctive signatures of
3564: lepton-number violation which are usually manifested by like-sign
3565: dileptons accompanied by hadron jets.
3566:
3567:
3568: \item[(c)] Since successful inflation requires small couplings,
3569: i.e.~$\kappa,\, \lambda,\, \rho\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ 10^{-2}$,
3570: the inflaton field decouples effectively from the low-energy
3571: spectrum and the Higgs-sector of the model becomes identical to the
3572: one of the MSSM. In spite of the aforementioned decoupling of the
3573: inflaton, however, the $F_D$-term hybrid model could still point
3574: towards particular benchmark scenarios of the MSSM. For example, if
3575: $\lambda \gg \kappa$, the $F_D$-term hybrid model may explain the
3576: origin of a possible large value of the $\mu$-parameter.
3577: Specifically, if $\lambda = 2\kappa$, $A_\kappa = -a_S = 2
3578: M_{\rm SUSY}$, one gets from~(\ref{mu}) the hierarchy $\mu \approx 4
3579: M_{\rm SUSY}$, where $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is a common soft SUSY-breaking
3580: scale of all scalar fermion fields in the model. If one
3581: additionally requires $A_t = A_b = 2 M_{\rm SUSY}$, the low-energy
3582: limit of the $F_D$-term hybrid model becomes identical to the
3583: so-called CPX benchmark scenario~\cite{CPX} describing maximal CP
3584: violation in the MSSM Higgs sector at low and moderate values of
3585: $\tan \beta$. In the CPX scenario, the lightest neutral Higgs boson
3586: weighing less than 60~GeV might have escaped detection at LEP. There
3587: have been several strategies to unravel the existence of such a
3588: light CP-violating Higgs boson~\cite{DP}.
3589:
3590: \item[(d)] The possible CDM scenario with the right-handed sneutrinos
3591: as LSPs requires large $\lambda$ and $\rho$ couplings that could
3592: make Higgs bosons decay invisibly, e.g.~$H \to \widetilde{N}_{\rm
3593: LSP}\, \widetilde{N}_{\rm LSP}$. Also, right-handed sneutrinos could
3594: be present in the cascade decays of the heavier supersymmetric
3595: particles. The collider phenomenology of such a CDM scenario lies
3596: beyond the scope of the present article.
3597:
3598:
3599:
3600: \end{itemize}
3601:
3602:
3603: The $F_D$-term hybrid model studied in this paper should be regarded
3604: as a first attempt towards the formulation of a minimal
3605: Particle-Physics and Cosmology Standard Model, which does not involve
3606: excessive fine-tuning in the fundamental parameters of the theory. As
3607: we outlined above, it might be possible to test the validity of our
3608: model by a number of laboratory experiments and further substantiate
3609: it by future astronomical observations. The $F_D$-term hybrid model
3610: is not plagued with the usual gauge-hierarchy problem of
3611: non-supersymmetric theories and can, in principle, be embedded within
3612: an E(6) or E(7) GUT, within the framework of SUGRA where SUSY is
3613: softly broken at the TeV scale. In~the same vein, we note that a
3614: possible natural solution to the famous cosmological constant problem
3615: will shed valuable light on the model-building aspects of
3616: cosmologically viable models. It will also open up new avenues in
3617: quantitatively addressing the major energy-density component of
3618: today's Universe, the so-called Dark Energy. We hope that all these
3619: insights, along with new observational and experimental data, will
3620: help us to improve further our present bottom-up approach to
3621: formulating a more complete minimal model of particle physics and
3622: cosmology.
3623:
3624:
3625:
3626:
3627: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
3628:
3629: We thank Richard Battye, Zurab Tavartkiladze and Thomas Underwood for
3630: illuminating discussions. This work is supported in part by the PPARC
3631: research grants: PP/D000157/1 and PP/C504286/1.
3632:
3633:
3634:
3635: \newpage
3636:
3637: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
3638: \begin{appendix}
3639:
3640: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3641: \section{Mechanisms of Explicit {\boldmath $D$}-Parity
3642: Breaking}\label{Dappendix}
3643:
3644: Here we will present mechanisms for explicitly breaking $D$-parity
3645: within the SUGRA framework, pointing out their possible implications
3646: for the decay rates of the $g$-sector particles. We separately
3647: discuss the breaking of $D$-parity for an Abelian U(1)$_X$ and an
3648: non-Abelian SU(2)$_X$ waterfall-gauge sector.
3649:
3650:
3651: \subsection{{\boldmath $D$}-Parity
3652: Breaking in the U(1)$_X$ Waterfall-Gauge Sector}
3653:
3654:
3655: As already discussed in Section~\ref{postinfl}, the simplest way of
3656: breaking $D$-parity is to add a subdominant bare FI $D$-term ${\cal
3657: L}_{\rm FI}$ to the Lagrangian~[cf.~(\ref{LFI})]. As was shown
3658: in~\cite{GP}, however, even if such a term were absent from the
3659: tree-level Lagrangian, it could still be generated by
3660: quantum-mechanical effects in an effective manner, after integrating
3661: out Planck-scale degrees of freedom. It should be stressed here that
3662: the radiative generation of an {\em effective} FI $D$-term occurs only
3663: {\em after} the SSB of the U(1)$_X$ gauge symmetry.
3664:
3665: To elucidate this point, let us consider a simple extension of the
3666: $F_D$-term hybrid model, which includes a pair of superfields
3667: $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ of opposite U(1)$_X$ charge,
3668: i.e.~$Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_2) = - Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_1 ) =
3669: Q(\widehat{X}_1 ) = - Q(\widehat{X}_2 ) = 1$. In this case, the
3670: superpotential $W_{\rm IW}$ pertinent to the inflaton-waterfall sector
3671: may be extended as follows:
3672: \begin{equation}
3673: \label{Wdterm}
3674: W_{\rm IW} \ =\ \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1
3675: \widehat{X}_2\: -\: M^2\Big)\ +\ \xi\, m_{\rm Pl}\,
3676: \widehat{\overline{X}}_1\,\widehat{\overline{X}}_2\ +\
3677: \xi_1\, \frac{ ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_1\widehat{X}_1 )^2}{2\,m_{\rm
3678: Pl}}\ +\ \xi'_1\,
3679: \frac{ ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_2\widehat{X}_2 )^2}{2\,m_{\rm Pl}}\ \dots
3680: \end{equation}
3681: where the dots stand for subleading terms that multiply the leading
3682: operators by extra powers of $(\widehat{X}_1
3683: \widehat{X}_2)^n/m^{2n}_{\rm Pl}$, with $n \ge 1$. These subleading
3684: operators are irrelevant for our discussion here and can be ignored,
3685: within a perturbative framework of SUGRA. The leading operator form
3686: of the superpotential~(\ref{Wdterm}) may be reinforced by the $R$
3687: symmetry:
3688: \begin{equation}
3689: \label{Rsym}
3690: \widehat{S}\ \to\ e^{i\alpha}\, \widehat{S}\,,\quad
3691: \widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}\ \to\ e^{i\alpha/2}\,
3692: \widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}\,,\quad
3693: (\widehat{L},\ \widehat{Q})\ \to\ e^{i\alpha}\, (\widehat{L},\
3694: \widehat{Q})\,,
3695: \end{equation}
3696: with $W \to e^{i\alpha} W$. As before, all remaining fields do not
3697: transform under the $R$ symmetry.\footnote{Observe that the
3698: $R$-symmetry~(\ref{Rsym}) allows for the subleading operator $\kappa'
3699: S (\widehat{X}_1 \widehat{X}_2 )^2/m^2_{\rm Pl}$. This superpotential
3700: term can break the U(1)$_X$ gauge symmetry along the inflationary
3701: trajectory, thereby inflating away unwanted topological
3702: defects~\cite{JKLS}. This scenario is known as shifted hybrid
3703: inflation.}
3704:
3705: We will now show that a FI $D$-term, $-\frac{1}{2} g m^2_{\rm FI} D$,
3706: will be generated if the ultraheavy Planck-scale superfields
3707: $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ are integrated out. As a starting
3708: point, we consider the U(1)$_X$ $D$-term Lagrangian
3709: \begin{equation}
3710: \label{LDX}
3711: {\cal L}_{D}\ =\ \frac{1}{2}\, D^2\: +\:
3712: \frac{g}{2}\, D\, \Big(\, X^*_1 X_1\: -\: X^*_2 X_2\: -\:
3713: \overline{X}^*_1 \overline{X}_1\: +\:
3714: \overline{X}^*_2\overline{X}_2\,\Big)\; .
3715: \end{equation}
3716: In order to integrate out the fields $\overline{X}_{1,2}$, we need
3717: their mass spectrum in the post-inflationary era, where $\langle
3718: X_{1,2}\rangle = M$ and $\langle \overline{X}_{1,2} \rangle = \langle
3719: S \rangle = 0$. In the weak basis $\overline{X}_\pm =
3720: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, ( \overline{X}_1 \pm \overline{X}_2 )$, this is
3721: approximately given by the Lagrangian
3722: \begin{equation}
3723: \label{LXmass}
3724: -\, {\cal L}^{\overline{X}_\pm}_{\rm mass}\ \approx\
3725: ( \overline{X}^*_+,\ \overline{X}^*_- )\,
3726: \left(\! \begin{array}{cc}
3727: \xi^2 m^2_{\rm Pl} + \xi\, (\xi_1 + \xi'_1 )\, M^2 & (\xi^2_1 -
3728: \xi'^2_1 )\, \frac{\displaystyle M^4}{\displaystyle 2\, m^2_{\rm Pl}}
3729: \\ (\xi^2_1 - \xi'^2_1 )\,
3730: \frac{\displaystyle M^4}{\displaystyle 2\, m^2_{\rm Pl}} &
3731: \xi^2 m^2_{\rm Pl} - \xi\, (\xi_1 + \xi'_1 )\, M^2
3732: \end{array}\!\right)\,
3733: \left(\! \begin{array}{c} \overline{X}_+ \\
3734: \overline{X}_- \end{array} \!\right)\, .
3735: \end{equation}
3736: The approximate mass eigenstates derived from~(\ref{LXmass}) are
3737: \begin{equation}
3738: \widetilde{\overline{X}}_+\ =\ \overline{X}_+\ +\ s_\theta\,
3739: \overline{X}_-\,,\qquad
3740: \widetilde{\overline{X}}_-\ =\ \overline{X}_-\ -\ s_\theta\,
3741: \overline{X}_+\,,
3742: \end{equation}
3743: where $s_\theta \approx (\xi_1 - \xi'_1 ) M^2/ (4\xi m^2_{\rm Pl})$ is
3744: a mixing angle which is typically much smaller than~1. In terms of
3745: the mass-eigenstates $\widetilde{\overline{X}}_{\pm}$, the part of the
3746: Lagrangian~(\ref{LDX}) linear in the $D$-terms associated with the
3747: Planck-scale degrees of freedom reads:
3748: \begin{eqnarray}
3749: \label{LoXD}
3750: {\cal L}^{\overline{X}_\pm}_{D} & = &
3751: -\, \frac{g}{2}\, D\, \Big(\,
3752: \overline{X}^*_+ \overline{X}_-\: +\:
3753: \overline{X}^*_- \overline{X}_+\,\Big)\nonumber\\
3754: & = &
3755: -\, \frac{g}{2}\, D\, \Big[\,
3756: \widetilde{\overline{X}}^*_+\, \widetilde{\overline{X}}_-\: +\:
3757: \widetilde{\overline{X}}^*_-\, \widetilde{\overline{X}}_+\ +\
3758: 2s_\theta\,
3759: \Big( \widetilde{\overline{X}}_+^*\, \widetilde{\overline{X}}_+\: -\:
3760: \widetilde{\overline{X}}^*_-\, \widetilde{\overline{X}}_- \Big)\: +\:
3761: {\cal O}(s^2_\theta)\, \Big]\; .
3762: \end{eqnarray}
3763:
3764: %******************************************************************
3765: %%% Figure 1
3766: %******************************************************************
3767: \begin{figure}[t]
3768: \begin{center}
3769: \begin{picture}(200,100)(0,0)
3770: \SetWidth{0.8}
3771:
3772:
3773: \Line(100,20)(100,50)\DashArrowArc(100,75)(25,-90,270){3}
3774: \Text(100,10)[]{$D$}\Text(130,75)[l]{$\widetilde{\overline{X}}_{+},\
3775: \widetilde{\overline{X}}_{-}$}
3776:
3777: \end{picture}
3778: \end{center}
3779: \caption{\sl\small Radiative generation of an effective FI $D$-term,
3780: $-\frac{g}{2}\,m^2_{\rm FI}\, D$.}\label{DXtad}
3781: \end{figure}
3782:
3783:
3784: A FI $D$-tadpole can only be generated from terms linear in $s_\theta$
3785: in the Lagrangian~(\ref{LoXD}). This result should be expected on
3786: symmetry grounds, since terms linear in $s_\theta$ explicitly break
3787: the $D$-symmetry. The
3788: $D$-tadpole $m^2_{\rm FI}$, calculated from the one-loop graph of
3789: Fig,~\ref{DXtad}, is found to be
3790: \begin{equation}
3791: \label{FIdterm}
3792: m^2_{\rm FI}\ \approx\ \frac{ \xi^2_1 - \xi'^2_1 }{8\pi^2}\
3793: \frac{M^4}{m^2_{\rm Pl}}\ \ln\left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\ .
3794: \end{equation}
3795: Typically, one gets $m_{\rm FI}/M \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-6}$, for
3796: $M = 10^{16}$~GeV and $\xi_1,\ \xi'_1 \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-3}$.
3797:
3798: For later use, it is interesting to outline a short-cut derivation of
3799: the result~(\ref{FIdterm}), using the original weak basis of the
3800: fields, i.e.~$X_{1,2}$ and $\overline{X}_{1,2}$. We notice that,
3801: after the SSB of U(1)$_X$, the $F$-terms of $\overline{X}_{1,2}$ give
3802: rise to the $D$-odd operator,
3803: \begin{equation}
3804: \label{FU1}
3805: {\cal F}\ =\ (\xi_1^2-\xi'^2_1)\ \frac{M^4}{2\, m_{\rm Pl}^2}\
3806: \Big(\,\overline X_1^* \overline X_1\: -\:
3807: \overline X_2^* \overline X_2\, \Big)\; ,
3808: \end{equation}
3809: in the scalar potential of the extended $F_D$-term hybrid model. This
3810: operator induces, via the diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{DXtad:alt}, an
3811: effective FI $D$-tadpole. Since the scalar fields $\overline{X}_{1,2}$
3812: are degenerate in mass to leading order, i.e.~$M_{\overline{X}_{1,2}}
3813: \approx \xi m_{\rm Pl}$, the graph in~Fig.~\ref{DXtad:alt} is easily
3814: calculated using standard field-theoretic methods. It is
3815: logarithmically divergent, and in an effective cut-off theory it is
3816: given by~(\ref{FIdterm}). We will use this short-cut approach below
3817: to calculate effective $D$-tadpoles in more elaborate extensions of
3818: the inflation-waterfall sector.
3819:
3820: \begin{figure}[t]
3821: \begin{center}
3822: \begin{picture}(200,100)(0,0)
3823: \SetWidth{0.8}
3824:
3825:
3826: \Line(100,20)(100,50)
3827: \DashArrowArc(100,75)(25,-90,90){3}
3828: \DashArrowArc(100,75)(25,90,270){3}
3829: \SetWidth{1}
3830: \Line(96,104)(104,96)
3831: \Line(104,104)(96,96)
3832: \SetWidth{0.5}
3833: \Text(100,10)[]{$D$}
3834: \Text(130,75)[l]{$\overline{X}_{1}$ ($\overline{X}_{2}$)}
3835: \Text(70,75)[r]{$\overline{X}_{1}$ ($\overline{X}_{2}$)}
3836:
3837: \Text(100,113)[]{$\cal F$}
3838:
3839: \end{picture}
3840: \end{center}
3841: \caption{\sl\small Diagram pertinent to a short-cut derivation of
3842: the effective FI $D$-term.}\label{DXtad:alt}
3843: \end{figure}
3844:
3845: The size of the FI $D$-term may be further suppressed, if the
3846: Planck-mass chiral superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ possess
3847: higher U(1)$_X$ charges. In general, one may assume that the U(1)$_X$
3848: charges of $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ are:
3849: $Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_2) = - Q(\widehat{\overline{X}}_1 ) = n$,
3850: where $n\ge 1$. In this case, the leading operator form of the
3851: inflaton-waterfall superpotential reads:
3852: \begin{equation}
3853: \label{Wdtermn}
3854: W_{\rm IW} \ =\ \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1
3855: \widehat{X}_2\: -\: M^2\Big)\ +\ \xi\, m_{\rm Pl}\,
3856: \widehat{\overline{X}}_1\,\widehat{\overline{X}}_2\ +\ \xi_n\, \frac{
3857: (\widehat{\overline{X}}_1)^2\, (\widehat{X}_1)^{n+1}}{2\,m^n_{\rm
3858: Pl}}\ +\ \xi'_n\, \frac{ (
3859: \widehat{\overline{X}}_2)^2\,(\widehat{X}_2)^{n+1}}{2\,m^n_{\rm Pl}}\ .
3860: \end{equation}
3861: Employing the short-cut method outlined above, it is straightforward
3862: to compute the loop-induced $D$-term, which is given by
3863: \begin{equation}
3864: \label{FIdtermn}
3865: m^2_{\rm FI}\ \approx\ \frac{\xi^2_n - \xi'^2_n}{8\pi^2}\
3866: \frac{M^{2(n+1)}}{m^{2n}_{\rm Pl}}\ \ln\left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\ .
3867: \end{equation}
3868: To obtain a small ratio $m_{\rm FI}/M \sim 10^{-6}$ with $\xi_n,\
3869: \xi'_n \sim 1$, one would simply need $n = 5,\ 6$. Finally, we should
3870: remark that the loop-induced $D$-term does not lead to spontaneous
3871: breakdown of global supersymmetry.
3872:
3873:
3874: \subsection{{\boldmath $D$}-Parity Breaking in the SU(2)$_X$
3875: Waterfall-Gauge Sector}
3876:
3877: Here we outline two possible mechanisms for explicitly breaking the
3878: $D$-parities, $D_1$ and $D_2$ defined in~(\ref{D1}) and (\ref{D2}),
3879: which govern the minimal inflaton-waterfall sector based on an
3880: SU(2)$_X$ gauge group.
3881:
3882: The first mechanism utilizes a non-minimal K\"ahler waterfall-gauge
3883: sector, where the two $D$-parities are broken by non-renormalizable
3884: operators. To be specific, a minimal $D_{1,2}$-parity violating
3885: K\"ahler potential of the waterfall-gauge sector may be cast into the
3886: form:
3887: \begin{eqnarray}
3888: \label{Kwf}
3889: K_{\rm WF} &=& \int d^4\theta\ \Bigg(\,
3890: \widehat{X}^\dagger_1\, {\rm e}^{2g\widehat{V}_X} \widehat{X}_1\
3891: +\ \widehat{X}^T_2\, {\rm e}^{-2g\widehat{V}_X} \widehat{X}_2^*\
3892: +\ \kappa_1\, \frac{(\widehat{X}^\dagger_1 \, {\rm e}^{2g\widehat{V}_X}
3893: \widehat{X}_1)^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}} \nonumber\\
3894: &&+\ \kappa_2\, \frac{(\widehat{X}^T_2 \, {\rm e}^{-2g\widehat{V}_X}
3895: \widehat{X}_2^*)^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\
3896: +\ \frac{
3897: \kappa_1^\prime
3898: (\widehat X_1 ^\dagger {\rm e}^{2 g \widehat V_X} {\rm i} \tau^2 \widehat X_2 )
3899: (\widehat X_1 ^\dagger {\rm e}^{2 g \widehat V_X} \widehat X_1)
3900: +{\rm H.c.}
3901: }{2\,m_{\rm Pl}^2}\nonumber\\
3902: &&
3903: +\ \frac{
3904: \kappa_2^\prime
3905: (\widehat X_1 ^\dagger {\rm e}^{2 g \widehat V_X} {\rm i} \tau^2 \widehat X_2 )
3906: (\widehat X_2 ^T {\rm e}^{-2 g \widehat V_X} \widehat X_2^*)
3907: +{\rm H.c.}
3908: }{2\,m_{\rm Pl}^2}\ +\ \dots\Bigg)\, ,
3909: \end{eqnarray}
3910: where the ellipses denote possible higher-order non-renormalizable
3911: operators. The couplings $\kappa_{1,2}$ are real, whereas
3912: $\kappa^\prime_{1,2}$ can in general be complex. Moreover, the
3913: difference $\kappa_- = \kappa_1 - \kappa_2$ signifies $D_1$-parity
3914: violation, whilst $\kappa_-^\prime=\kappa_1^\prime-\kappa_2^\prime$ is
3915: a parameter of $D_2$-parity violation. Hence, non-zero values of the
3916: parameters $\kappa_-$ and $\kappa^\prime_-$ will give rise to $D_1$-
3917: and $D_2$-parity violation in the waterfall-gauge K\"ahler potential
3918: $K_{\rm WF}$. Notice that, as far as $D_1$-parity violation is
3919: concerned, the present mechanism applies to the Abelian case as well.
3920:
3921: There are several sources of $D$-parity violation contained in $K_{\rm
3922: WF}$. More explicitly, $D$-parity violation will first originate from
3923: the terms linear in $D^a$, where $D^a$ are the auxiliary SU(2)$_X$
3924: components of the gauge-vector superfield $\widehat V_X$. In fact,
3925: these are the lowest dimensional $D_{1,2}$-odd operators that emerge
3926: after the SSB of the SU(2)$_X$ and are given by the effective
3927: Lagrangian
3928: \begin{equation}
3929: {\cal L}^{D^a-{\rm tad}}_{\rm eff} \ =\
3930: \frac{g}{2}\ \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\
3931: \Big(\, {\rm Re}\kappa^\prime_-\, D^1\: -\:
3932: {\rm Im}\kappa^\prime_-\, D^2\: +\: \kappa_-\, D^3 \Big)\; .
3933: \end{equation}
3934: These effective FI $D$-terms can be included in the Lagrangian by
3935: adding the constants $\frac{g}{2}\, (m^a_{\rm FI})^2$ to the on-shell
3936: constrained $D^a$ terms, according to the scheme: $D^a \to D^a + \frac
3937: g2 ({m_{\rm FI}^a})^2$, where
3938: \begin{equation}
3939: \label{mFI123}
3940: (m^1_{\rm FI})^2\ =\ \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\
3941: {\rm Re}\kappa^\prime_-\,,\qquad
3942: (m^2_{\rm FI})^2\ =\ -\ \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\
3943: {\rm Im}\kappa^\prime_-\,,\qquad
3944: (m^3_{\rm FI})^2\ =\ \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\ \kappa_-\; .
3945: \end{equation}
3946: One may obtain a fair estimate of the $g$-sector particle decay rates,
3947: using the formula~(\ref{GammaR}) and identifying $m_{\rm FI}$ with
3948: $m^a_{\rm FI}$. In this way, we obtain
3949: \begin{equation}
3950: \label{GgD}
3951: \Gamma [^-\!R_-\,,\ ^-\!I_+\,,\ ^+\!R_- ] \ \sim\
3952: [\,\kappa_-^2\,,\ {\rm Re}^2(\kappa_-^\prime)\,,\ {\rm Im}^2
3953: (\kappa_-^\prime )\,]\
3954: \frac {g^3}{128 \pi}\; \frac{M^5}{m_{\rm Pl}^4}\ .
3955: \end{equation}
3956: In addition to the effective $D$-tadpoles, higher-dimensional
3957: operators will also break the $D$-parities and so render the
3958: $g$-sector particles unstable. For example, after expanding the
3959: superfields $\widehat{X}_{1,2}$ about their VEVs in the K\"ahler
3960: potential~(\ref{Kwf}), we find the non-renormalizable $D$-parity
3961: violating interactions described by the Lagrangian
3962: \begin{equation}
3963: \label{Lnonren}
3964: {\cal L}_{\rm non-ren} \ =\
3965: -\; \frac{M}{2 m_{\rm Pl}^2} \kappa_-\, ^+\!R_-\,
3966: |\partial_\mu {}^+\!X_+|^2\ +\ \frac{M}{4 \sqrt{2} m_{\rm Pl}^2}\;
3967: \Big(\, \kappa^\prime_-\, ^-\!X_-\ +\ {\rm H.c.}\,\Big)\,
3968: |\partial_\mu {}^+\!X_+|^2\; .
3969: \end{equation}
3970: With the aid of~(\ref{Lnonren}), an order of magnitude estimate of the
3971: $g$-sector particle decay rates gives: $\Gamma_g \sim (\kappa_-^2,
3972: |\kappa_-^\prime|^2)\, g^3 M^5/m_{Pl}^4$. These are of comparable
3973: order to the ones obtained earlier in~(\ref{GgD}). For a typical
3974: inflationary scale, $M = 10^{16}$~GeV (with $g \sim 1$), we find the
3975: decay width $\Gamma_g \sim (\kappa_-^2, |\kappa_-^\prime|^2)\,
3976: 10^7$~GeV. The latter should be compared with the bounds: $3.8 \times
3977: 10^{-13}~{\rm GeV} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} \Gamma_g
3978: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 4.3~{\rm GeV}$, corresponding to an upper and
3979: lower limit on the second reheat temperature $T_g$ of cosmological
3980: interest: $0.3~{\rm TeV} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} T_g\
3981: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^9~{\rm GeV}$. Consequently, values ranging
3982: from $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-2}$ for the couplings $\kappa_-$ and/or
3983: $\kappa^\prime_-$ are required for successful coupled reheating. The
3984: lower end values of order $10^{-9}$ may possibly be seen as a strong
3985: tuning of the parameters. One way to explain the smallness of these
3986: parameters is to contemplate K\"ahler manifolds that break the
3987: $D$-parities by even higher-order non-renormalizable operators,
3988: e.g.~of order $\sim 1/m^4_{\rm Pl}$. In this case, the couplings
3989: $\kappa_-$ and $\kappa'_-$ will be multiplied by extra factors of
3990: $M^2/m^2_{\rm Pl} \sim 10^{-4}$, so these couplings can have values of
3991: order~1 and still predict a second reheat temperature $T_g \sim
3992: 0.3$~TeV.
3993:
3994: We now describe a second mechanism of $D$-parity violation which might
3995: be useful to obtain small $D$-parity violating interactions. Let us
3996: therefore assume that the K\"ahler potential respects the
3997: $D$-parities. In this case, we may invoke a mechanism very analogous
3998: to the Abelian case. We extend the field content of the
3999: inflaton-waterfall sector by adding a pair of Planck-mass chiral
4000: superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_1$ and $\widehat{\overline{X}}_2$,
4001: which belong to the anti-fundamental and fundamental representations
4002: of SU(2)$_X$, respectively. As in the U(1)$_X$ case, the superheavy
4003: superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ are charged under the
4004: continuous $R$-symmetry given in~(\ref{Rsym}). With this restriction,
4005: the leading operator form of the inflaton-waterfall superpotential is
4006: given by
4007: \begin{eqnarray}
4008: \label{WIFSU2}
4009: W_{\rm IW} &=& \kappa\, \widehat{S}\, \Big( \widehat{X}_1{}\!^T
4010: \widehat{X}_2\: -\: M^2\Big)\ +\
4011: \xi\, m_{\rm Pl}\,
4012: \widehat{\overline{X}}_1{}\!^T \,\widehat{\overline{X}}_2\ +\
4013: \theta_1\; \frac{ ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_1{}\!^T
4014: \widehat{X}_1 )\, ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_2{}\!^T \widehat{X}_2)}
4015: {m_{\rm Pl}}\nonumber\\
4016: &&+\; \theta_2\; \frac{ ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_1{}\!^T {\rm i}\tau^2
4017: \widehat{X}_2)\, ( \widehat{\overline{X}}_2{}\!^T {\rm i} \tau^2
4018: \widehat{X}_1)}{m_{\rm Pl}}\ +\ \zeta_1\;
4019: \frac{(\widehat{\overline{X}}_1{}\!^T {\rm i} \tau^2 \widehat{X}_2)\,
4020: (\widehat{\overline{X}}_2{}\!^T \widehat{X}_2)}{m_{\rm Pl}}\nonumber\\
4021: &&+\ \zeta_2\;
4022: \frac{(\widehat{\overline{X}}_1{}\!^T \widehat{X}_1)\,
4023: (\widehat{\overline{X}}_2{}\!^T {\rm i} \tau^2 \widehat{X}_1)}
4024: {m_{\rm Pl}}\quad + \quad \dots\; ,
4025: \end{eqnarray}
4026: where the dots stand for additional operators that turn out to be
4027: irrelevant for the generation of effective $D^a$-tadpoles, and
4028: especially for those related to the $D^1$- and $D^2$-terms. The
4029: presence of these operators is only important to lift an accidental
4030: global U(1)$_{\overline{X}}$ symmetry that governs this restricted
4031: part of the superpotential $W_{\rm IW}$ under consideration. Here,
4032: all non-renormalizable couplings $\theta_{1,2}$ and $\zeta_{1,2}$ can
4033: in general be complex. Extending the notion of $D_{1,2}$ parities to
4034: the Planck-mass superfields $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$, we observe
4035: that the operators related to the couplings $\kappa$, $\xi$ and
4036: $\theta_{1,2}$ are even under $D_1$ and $D_2$, whereas those related
4037: to the couplings $\zeta_{1,2}$ are $D_2$-odd. Moreover, the
4038: superpotential operators proportional to the couplings $\zeta_{+(-)} =
4039: \zeta_1 +(-)\ \zeta_2$ are $D_1$-even ($D_1$-odd).
4040:
4041:
4042: %******************************************************************
4043: %%% Effective D-term for SU(2)_X
4044: %******************************************************************
4045: \begin{figure}[t]
4046: \begin{center}
4047: \begin{picture}(600,100)(0,0)
4048: \SetWidth{0.8}
4049:
4050:
4051: \Line(100,20)(100,50)
4052: \DashArrowArc(100,75)(25,-90,90){3}
4053: \DashArrowArc(100,75)(25,90,270){3}
4054: \SetWidth{1}
4055: \Line(96,104)(104,96)
4056: \Line(104,104)(96,96)
4057: \SetWidth{0.5}
4058: \Text(100,10)[]{$D^1_{(-,-)}$}
4059: \Text(130,75)[l]{$\overline{X}_{1\, (2)}$}
4060: \Text(70,75)[r]{$\overline{X}_{1\, (2)}$}
4061: \Text(100,113)[]{${\cal F}^1_{(-,-)}$}
4062:
4063: \Line(230,20)(230,50)
4064: \DashArrowArc(230,75)(25,-90,90){3}
4065: \DashArrowArc(230,75)(25,90,270){3}
4066: \SetWidth{1}
4067: \Line(226,104)(234,96)
4068: \Line(234,104)(226,96)
4069: \SetWidth{0.5}
4070: \Text(230,10)[]{$D^2_{(+,-)}$}
4071: \Text(260,75)[l]{$\overline{X}_{1\, (2)}$}
4072: \Text(200,75)[r]{$\overline{X}_{1\, (2)}$}
4073: \Text(230,113)[]{${\cal F}^2_{(+,-)}$}
4074:
4075: \Line(360,20)(360,50)
4076: \DashArrowArc(360,75)(25,-90,90){3}
4077: \DashArrowArc(360,75)(25,90,270){3}
4078: \SetWidth{1}
4079: \Line(356,104)(364,96)
4080: \Line(364,104)(356,96)
4081: \SetWidth{0.5}
4082: \Text(360,10)[]{$D^3_{(-,+)}$}
4083: \Text(390,75)[l]{$\overline{X}_{1\, (2)}$}
4084: \Text(330,75)[r]{$\overline{X}_{1\, (2)}$}
4085: \Text(360,113)[]{${\cal F}^3_{(-,+)}$}
4086:
4087: \end{picture}
4088: \end{center}
4089: \caption{\sl\small Diagrams responsible for the generation of effective
4090: $D^{1,2,3}$-tadpoles for the ${\rm SU}(2)_X$ case, in the single
4091: insertion approximation of the $D$-odd operators ${\cal F}^{1,2,3}$.
4092: The subscripts in parentheses label the $(D_1,D_2)$ parities of the
4093: respective operator.}\label{DXtad:SU2}
4094: \end{figure}
4095:
4096: To calculate the effective $D^{1,2,3}$-tadpoles after the SSB of the
4097: SU(2)$_X$ gauge group, we use the short-cut approach described above
4098: in Section~\ref{Dappendix}.1. Thus, the $F$-terms of
4099: $\widehat{\overline{X}}_{1,2}$ give rise to the following $D$-odd
4100: contributions to the scalar potential:
4101: \begin{eqnarray}
4102: \label{F1}
4103: {\cal F}^1_{(-,-)} &=& \theta^*_1\, \zeta_-\
4104: \frac{M^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\
4105: \bigg[\,
4106: \Big( \overline{X}^\dagger_1 \langle X_1^*\rangle \Big)\,
4107: \Big( \overline{X}^T_1\, {\rm i}\tau^2 \langle X_2\rangle \Big)\
4108: -\ (1\leftrightarrow 2)\, \bigg]\nonumber\\
4109: && -\, \theta^*_2\, \zeta_-\
4110: \frac{M^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\
4111: \bigg[\,
4112: \Big( \overline{X}^\dagger_1\, {\rm i}\tau^2 \langle X^*_2\rangle \Big)\,
4113: \Big( \overline{X}^T_1 \langle X_1 \rangle \Big)\
4114: -\ (1\leftrightarrow 2)\, \bigg]\quad +\quad {\rm H.c.}\; ,\\[4mm]
4115: \label{F2}
4116: {\cal F}^2_{(+,-)} &=& \theta^*_1\, \zeta_+\
4117: \frac{M^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\
4118: \bigg[\,
4119: \Big( \overline{X}^\dagger_1 \langle X_1^*\rangle \Big)\,
4120: \Big( \overline{X}^T_1\, {\rm i}\tau^2 \langle X_2\rangle \Big)\
4121: +\ (1\leftrightarrow 2)\, \bigg]\nonumber\\
4122: && +\, \theta^*_2\, \zeta_+\
4123: \frac{M^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\
4124: \bigg[\,
4125: \Big( \overline{X}^\dagger_1\, {\rm i}\tau^2 \langle X^*_2\rangle \Big)\,
4126: \Big( \overline{X}^T_1 \langle X_1 \rangle \Big)\
4127: +\ (1\leftrightarrow 2)\, \bigg]\quad +\quad {\rm H.c.}\; ,\\[4mm]
4128: \label{F3}
4129: {\cal F}^3_{(-,+)} & =&
4130: -\,{\rm Re}\,(\zeta_+\zeta^*_-)\ \frac{M^2}{2\,m^2_{\rm Pl}}\
4131: \bigg[\, \Big( \overline{X}^\dagger_1\, i\tau^2 \langle X_2^*\rangle \Big)\,
4132: \Big( \langle X^T_2 \rangle\, i\tau^2 \overline{X}_1 \Big)\ +\
4133: \Big( \overline{X}^\dagger_1 \langle X^*_1 \rangle \Big)\,
4134: \Big( \langle X^T_1 \rangle \overline{X}_1 \Big)\nonumber\\
4135: &&-\quad (1 \leftrightarrow 2)\, \bigg]\; ,
4136: \end{eqnarray}
4137: where the subscripts in parentheses indicate the $(D_1,D_2)$ parities
4138: of the above operators. Note that possible $D$-odd operators
4139: proportional to $\xi \theta_{1,2}$ and $\xi\zeta_\pm$ have not been
4140: displayed, since they do not contribute to the generation of effective
4141: $D^a$-tadpoles. To be specific, the effective $D$-tadpoles are
4142: induced radiatively via the graphs shown in~Fig.~\ref{DXtad:SU2}, once
4143: the operators ${\cal F}^{1,2,3}$ are individually contracted with the
4144: $D$-term operator ${\cal D}^{1,2,3}_{\overline{X}}$ related to the
4145: $\overline{X}_{1,2}$ fields:
4146: \begin{equation}
4147: {\cal D}^a_{\overline{X}}\ =\ -\; \frac{g}{2}\ \Big(\,
4148: \overline{X}^T_1\, \tau^a\, \overline{X}^*_1\: -\:
4149: \overline{X}^\dagger_2\, \tau^a\, \overline{X}_2\, \Big)\; .
4150: \end{equation}
4151: These loop-induced effective FI $D$-terms can be included in the
4152: effective Lagrangian by shifting the on-shell constrained $D^a$ terms
4153: by constants, according to the above described scheme: $D^a \to D^a +
4154: \frac g2 ({m_{\rm FI}^a})^2$. In this scheme, the mass parameters
4155: $(m^a_{\rm FI})^2$ are found to be
4156: \begin{eqnarray}
4157: \label{mFISU2}
4158: \big(m_{\rm FI}^1\big)^2 & = & -\,
4159: \frac{{\rm Re}\,(\theta^*_- \zeta_-)}{4\pi^2}\
4160: \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\ \ln \left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\; ,\nonumber\\
4161: \big(m_{\rm FI}^2\big)^2 & = &
4162: \frac{{\rm Im}\,(\theta^*_-\zeta_+)}{4\pi^2}\
4163: \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\ \ln \left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\; ,\\
4164: \big( m_{\rm FI}^3 \big)^2 & = & -\,
4165: \frac{{\rm Re}\,(\zeta_+\zeta^*_-)}{4\pi^2}\
4166: \frac{M^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\ \ln \left(\frac{m_{\rm Pl}}{M}\right)\; ,\nonumber
4167: \end{eqnarray}
4168: where $\theta_\pm = \theta_1 \pm \theta_2$. It can be estimated
4169: from~(\ref{mFISU2}) that for values $\theta_\pm\,, \zeta_\pm \sim
4170: 10^{-4}$, one gets $m^{1,2,3}_{\rm FI}/M \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}
4171: 10^{-6}$, leading to a low second reheat temperature $T_g$, below
4172: 1~TeV. In this context, one should notice that the size of the
4173: effective $D$-tadpoles is very sensitive to the cut-off scale, which
4174: we have chosen here to be the reduced Planck mass $m_{\rm Pl}$. For
4175: instance, if a cut-off larger by one order of magnitude were adopted,
4176: then values of order $10^{-2}$ for the non-renormalizable
4177: superpotential couplings would be sufficient to generate the effective
4178: $D^a$-tadpoles at the required size.
4179:
4180:
4181: The violation of $D$-parities will also affect the particle spectrum
4182: of the SU(2)$_X$ inflaton-waterfall sector. This will depend on the
4183: particular choice of the non-renormalizable part of the superpotential
4184: and K\"ahler potential. Our intention is not to pursue this issue any
4185: further here, by putting forward a specific non-minimal SUGRA
4186: scenario. Instead, our goal has been to explicitly demonstrate the
4187: existence of at least two mechanisms, which utilize the
4188: non-renormalizable part of the K\"ahler potential or superpotential to
4189: break the $D$-parities at the required order of magnitude.
4190:
4191:
4192: \end{appendix}
4193:
4194:
4195:
4196:
4197: \newpage
4198: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
4199:
4200:
4201: \bibitem{COBE} G.F. Smoot {\it et al.}, Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 396}
4202: (1992) L1.
4203:
4204: \bibitem{WMAP} D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf
4205: 148} (2003) 175.
4206:
4207: \bibitem{MT} M. Tegmark {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 69} (2004) 103501.
4208:
4209: \bibitem{WMAP3} D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0603449.
4210:
4211: \bibitem{Lyman} For a recent global analysis that includes the Ly-$a$
4212: forest power spectrum, see,\\ U. Seljak, A. Slosar and
4213: P. McDonald, astro-ph/0604335.
4214:
4215: \bibitem{review} For reviews, see,\\
4216: D.~H.~Lyth and A.~Riotto,
4217: %``Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density
4218: %perturbation,''
4219: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 314} (1999) 1;\\
4220: B.A. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa and D. Wands, astro-ph/0507632.
4221:
4222: \bibitem{Linde} A.~D.~Linde,
4223: %``Axions in inflationary cosmology,''
4224: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259} (1991) 38.
4225:
4226: \bibitem{CLLSW} E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth,
4227: E.~D.~Stewart and D.~Wands,
4228: %``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''
4229: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6410.
4230:
4231: \bibitem{DSS} G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~K.~Schaefer,
4232: %``Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,''
4233: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73} (1994) 1886.
4234:
4235: \bibitem{Halyo} E. Halyo, Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 387} (1996) 43;
4236: Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 454} (1999) 223;\\
4237: P. Bin\'etruy and G. Dvali, Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 388} (1996) 241.
4238:
4239: \bibitem{FI} P.~Fayet and J.~Iliopoulos,
4240: %``Spontaneously Broken Supergauge Symmetries And Goldstone Spinors,''
4241: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 51} (1974) 461.
4242:
4243: \bibitem{SS} V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 71} (2005) 043514.
4244:
4245: \bibitem{GP}
4246: B.~Garbrecht and A.~Pilaftsis,
4247: %``F(D)-term hybrid inflation with electroweak-scale lepton number
4248: %violation,''
4249: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 636} (2006) 154 [hep-ph/0601080].
4250: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601080;%%
4251:
4252: \bibitem{DLS} For a related observation in other variants of hybrid
4253: inflation, see,\\
4254: G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Lazarides and Q.~Shafi,
4255: %``mu problem and hybrid inflation in supersymmetric SU(2)L x SU(2)R x
4256: %U(1)B-L,''
4257: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 424} (1998) 259;\\
4258: S.~F.~King and Q.~Shafi,
4259: %``Minimal supersymmetric SU(4) x SU(2)L x SU(2)R,''
4260: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 422} (1998) 135.
4261:
4262:
4263: \bibitem{Francesca} For alternative suggestions based on
4264: non-renormalizable operators that involve higher powers of $\phi$,
4265: see,\\
4266: F.~Borzumati and Y.~Nomura,
4267: %``Low-scale see-saw mechanisms for light neutrinos,''
4268: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 053005;\\
4269: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~J.~Hall, H.~Murayama, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner,
4270: %``Small neutrino masses from supersymmetry breaking,''
4271: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 115011;\\
4272: S. Dar, S. Huber, V.N. Senoguz and Q. Shafi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 69}
4273: (2004) 077701.
4274:
4275: \bibitem{PU2} A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J.~Underwood, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf
4276: 72} (2005) 113001.
4277:
4278: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}
4279: (1986) 45.
4280:
4281: \bibitem{BAUpapers} S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,
4282: %``A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,''
4283: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 535} (2002) 25;\\
4284: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,
4285: % ``Cosmic microwave background, matter-antimatter asymmetry and neutrino
4286: % masses,''
4287: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 367;\\
4288: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim, I.~Masina,
4289: M.~N.~Rebelo and C.~A.~Savoy,
4290: %``Minimal scenarios for leptogenesis and CP violation,''
4291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073035;\\
4292: G.~F.~Giudice, A.~Notari, M.~Raidal, A.~Riotto and A.~Strumia,
4293: %``Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,''
4294: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf 685} (2004) 89.
4295:
4296:
4297: \bibitem{APRD} A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 56} (1997) 5431;\\
4298: A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J.~Underwood, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf 692} (2004) 303;\\
4299: T.~Hambye, J.~March-Russell and S.~M.~West,
4300: %``TeV scale resonant leptogenesis from supersymmetry breaking,''
4301: JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004) 070;\\
4302: E.~J.~Chun,
4303: %``TeV leptogenesis in Z-prime models and its collider probe,''
4304: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 095010.
4305:
4306: \bibitem{APRL} A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 081602.
4307:
4308: \bibitem{NielsenOlesen}
4309: H.~B.~Nielsen and P.~Olesen,
4310: %``Vortex-Line Models For Dual Strings,''
4311: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 61} (1973) 45.
4312: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B61,45;%%
4313:
4314: \bibitem{Vilenkin}
4315: A~Vilenkin and E.~P.~S.~Shellard, "Cosmological Strings and Other
4316: Defects," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (1994).
4317:
4318: \bibitem{HK} For a pedagogical review, see,\\
4319: M.B. Hindmarsh and T.W.B. Kibble, Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 58} (1995) 477.
4320:
4321:
4322: \bibitem{strings}
4323: L.~Pogosian and T.~Vachaspati,
4324: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 083504;\\
4325: L.~Pogosian, I.~Wasserman and M.~Wyman,
4326: arXiv:astro-ph/0604141.
4327:
4328:
4329: \bibitem{JKLS} R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,
4330: JHEP {\bf 10} (2000) 012.
4331:
4332:
4333:
4334: \bibitem{LR} A.~D. Linde and A. Riotto, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 56} (1997)
4335: 1841.
4336:
4337: \bibitem{CP} C. Panagiotakopoulos, Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 55} (1997)
4338: 7335; Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 71} (2005) 063516.
4339:
4340: \bibitem{BG} B. Garbrecht, hep-th/0604166.
4341:
4342: \bibitem{JP} R.~Jeannerot and M.~Postma,
4343: %``Confronting hybrid inflation in supergravity with CMB data,''
4344: JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 071.
4345:
4346: \bibitem{GKM}
4347: T.~Gherghetta, C.~F.~Kolda and S.~P.~Martin,
4348: %``Flat directions in the scalar potential of the supersymmetric standard
4349: %model,''
4350: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 468} (1996) 37
4351:
4352: \bibitem{AD}
4353: I.~Affleck and M.~Dine,
4354: %``A New Mechanism For Baryogenesis,''
4355: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 249} (1985) 361.
4356:
4357: \bibitem{DK}
4358: M.~Dine and A.~Kusenko,
4359: %``The origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry,''
4360: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 76} (2004) 1.
4361: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303065;%%
4362: %%Cited 56 times in SPIRES-HEP
4363:
4364: %\cite{Allahverdi:2005fq}
4365: \bibitem{AM}
4366: R.~Allahverdi and A.~Mazumdar,
4367: %``Quasi-thermal universe: From cosmology to colliders,''
4368: hep-ph/0505050;
4369: %\cite{Allahverdi:2006wh}
4370: %\bibitem{AM2}
4371: % R.~Allahverdi and A.~Mazumdar,
4372: %``Towards a successful reheating within supersymmetry,''
4373: hep-ph/0603244.
4374: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603244;%%
4375:
4376: %\cite{Dine:1995kz}
4377: \bibitem{DRT}
4378: M.~Dine, L.~Randall and S.~D.~Thomas,
4379: %``Baryogenesis from flat directions of the supersymmetric standard model,''
4380: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 458} (1996) 291.
4381: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507453;%%
4382:
4383: \bibitem{Jones} D.~M.~Capper, D.~R.~T.~Jones and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen,
4384: %``Regularization By Dimensional Reduction Of Supersymmetric And
4385: %Nonsupersymmetric Gauge Theories,''
4386: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 167} (1980) 479.
4387:
4388: \bibitem{SO10inflation}
4389: B.~Kyae and Q.~Shafi,
4390: %``Inflation with realistic supersymmetric SO(10),''
4391: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 063515;\\
4392: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504044;%%
4393: %\bibitem{Garbrecht:2005rr}
4394: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
4395: %``SO(10) - GUT coherent baryogenesis,''
4396: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 736} (2006) 133.
4397: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509190;%%
4398:
4399:
4400: \bibitem{ExtraU1fromStrings}
4401: %\bibitem{Cvetic:1995rj}
4402: M.~Cvetic and P.~Langacker,
4403: %``Implications of Abelian Extended Gauge Structures From String Models,''
4404: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 3570.
4405: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511378;%%
4406:
4407: \bibitem{Slansky:1981}
4408: R.~Slansky,
4409: %``Group Theory For Unified Model Building,''
4410: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 79} (1981) 1.
4411: %%CITATION = PRPLC,79,1;%%
4412:
4413: \bibitem{proton} For related suggestions in 4- and 5-dimensional
4414: theories, see,\\
4415: Q.~Shafi and Z.~Tavartkiladze,
4416: %``Bi-maximal neutrino mixings and proton decay in SO(10) with anomalous
4417: %flavor U(1),''
4418: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 563;
4419: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487} (2000) 145;\\
4420: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,
4421: %``SU(5) grand unification in extra dimensions and proton decay,''
4422: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 257;\\
4423: A.~B.~Kobakhidze,
4424: %``Proton stability in TeV-scale GUTs,''
4425: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 131.
4426:
4427: \bibitem{orbifold} S.~Forste, H.~P.~Nilles, P.~K.~S.~Vaudrevange and
4428: A.~Wingerter,
4429: %``Heterotic brane world,''
4430: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 106008.
4431:
4432: \bibitem{cstrings1}
4433: B.~Allen, R.R.~Caldwell, E.P.S.~Shellard, A.~Stebbins and S.~Veeraraghavan,
4434: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77} (1996) 3061.
4435:
4436: \bibitem{cstrings} M.~Landriau and E.P.~S.~Shellard,
4437: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 023003.
4438: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302166;%%
4439:
4440: \bibitem{cstrings2} D. Austin, E.J. Copeland and T.W.B Kibble,
4441: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 5594.
4442:
4443: \bibitem{mairi} J.~Rocher and M.~Sakellariadou,
4444: %``Supersymmetric grand unified theories and cosmology,''
4445: JCAP {\bf 0503} (2005) 004.
4446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406120;%%
4447:
4448: \bibitem{hilltop} L.~Boubekeur and D.H.~Lyth, JCAP {\bf 0507} (2005) 010.
4449:
4450: \bibitem{king} M. Bastero-Gil, S.F. King and Q. Shafi, hep-ph/0604198.
4451:
4452: \bibitem{Sarkar} J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,
4453: %``The Cosmology Of Decaying Gravitinos,''
4454: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 259} (1985) 175;\\
4455: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~B.~Gelmini, J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,
4456: %``Astrophysical Constraints On Massive Unstable Neutral Relic Particles,''
4457: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373} (1992) 399.
4458:
4459: \bibitem{TACHYPREH}
4460: T.~Prokopec and T.~G.~Roos,
4461: %``Lattice study of classical inflaton decay,''
4462: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 3768;
4463: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9610400];
4464: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610400;%%
4465: \\
4466: T.~Prokopec,
4467: %``Negative coupling instability and grand unified baryogenesis,''
4468: arXiv:hep-ph/9708428;
4469: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708428;%%
4470: \\
4471: G.~N.~Felder, J.~Garcia-Bellido, P.~B.~Greene, L.~Kofman,
4472: A.~D.~Linde and I.~Tkachev,
4473: %``Dynamics of symmetry breaking and tachyonic preheating,''
4474: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 011601.
4475: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012142];
4476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012142;%%
4477:
4478: \bibitem{PREHEATING}
4479: J.~H.~Traschen and R.~H.~Brandenberger,
4480: %``Particle Production During Out-Of-Equilibrium Phase Transitions,''
4481: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 2491;
4482: \\
4483: L.~Kofman, A.~D.~Linde and A.~A.~Starobinsky,
4484: %``Towards the theory of reheating after inflation,''
4485: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 3258;
4486: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9704452];
4487: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704452;%%
4488: \\
4489: D.~J.~H.~Chung, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto and I.~I.~Tkachev,
4490: %``Probing Planckian physics: Resonant production of particles during
4491: %inflation and features in the primordial power spectrum,''
4492: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 043508;
4493: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9910437];
4494: \\
4495: M.~Peloso and L.~Sorbo,
4496: %``Preheating of massive fermions after inflation: Analytical results,''
4497: JHEP {\bf 0005} (2000) 016;
4498: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0003045];
4499: \\
4500: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
4501: %``Particle number in kinetic theory,''
4502: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 38} (2004) 135;
4503: % [arXiv:hep-th/0211219];
4504: \\
4505: J.~Berges and J.~Serreau,
4506: %``Parametric resonance in quantum field theory,''
4507: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 111601.
4508: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0208070].
4509:
4510: \bibitem{GBRM}
4511: J.~Garcia-Bellido and E.~Ruiz Morales,
4512: %``Particle production from symmetry breaking after inflation,''
4513: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536} (2002) 193.
4514: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109230].
4515: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109230;%%
4516:
4517: \bibitem{kohri} M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
4518: 625} (2005) 7;\\
4519: M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and T. Moroi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}
4520: (2005) 083502.
4521:
4522: \bibitem{brand} M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg and W. Buchmuller,
4523: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 518.
4524:
4525: \bibitem{kolb} E.W.~Kolb and M.S.~Turner,
4526: %``The Early Universe,''
4527: {\it Redwood City, USA: Addison-Wesley (1990)}.
4528:
4529: \bibitem{riotto} G.F. Giudice, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
4530: 64} (2001) 023508.
4531:
4532: \bibitem{qui} C. Pallis, Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 21} (2004) 689;
4533: hep-ph/0510234.
4534:
4535: \bibitem{oliveg} R.H.~Cyburt, J.R.~Ellis, B.D.~Fields and K.A.~Olive,
4536: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 103521;\\
4537: J.R.~Ellis, K.A.~Olive and E.~Vangioni, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 619} (2005) 30.
4538:
4539: \bibitem{LS} G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B258}
4540: (1991) 305;\\
4541: H. Murayama, H. Suzuki, T. Yanagida and J. Yokoyama,
4542: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70} (1993) 1912; Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D50}
4543: (1994) 2356;\\
4544: T. Asaka, K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida,
4545: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B464} (1999) 12.
4546:
4547: \bibitem{DLES} D.H. Lyth and E.D. Stewart, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D53}
4548: (1996) 1784.
4549:
4550: \bibitem{Branco} R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
4551: %``Radiatively induced leptogenesis in a minimal seesaw model,''
4552: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 085009;\\
4553: G.~C.~Branco, R.~Gonzalez Felipe, F.~R.~Joaquim and B.~M.~Nobre,
4554: %``Enlarging the window for radiative leptogenesis,''
4555: hep-ph/0507092.
4556:
4557: \bibitem{Lindner} For recent works on GUT flavour symmetries, see,\\
4558: C.~Hagedorn, M.~Lindner and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
4559: %``S(4) flavor symmetry and fermion masses: Towards a grand unified theory of
4560: %flavor,''
4561: hep-ph/0602244;\\
4562: C.~Hagedorn, M.~Lindner and F.~Plentinger,
4563: %``The discrete flavor symmetry D(5),''
4564: hep-ph/0604265.
4565:
4566: \bibitem{BAULFV} R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli, A.~Strumia and N.~Tetradis,
4567: %``Baryogenesis through leptogenesis,''
4568: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 575} (2000) 61;\\
4569: E.~Nardi, Y.~Nir, J.~Racker and E.~Roulet,
4570: %``On Higgs and sphaleron effects during the leptogenesis era,''
4571: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 068;\\
4572: A.~Abada, S.~Davidson, F.~X.~Josse-Michaux, M.~Losada and A.~Riotto,
4573: %``Flavour issues in leptogenesis,''
4574: JCAP {\bf 0604} (2006) 004;\\
4575: E.~Nardi, Y.~Nir, E.~Roulet and J.~Racker,
4576: %``The importance of flavor in leptogenesis,''
4577: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 164.
4578:
4579: \bibitem{Bari} P.~Di Bari,
4580: %``Seesaw geometry and leptogenesis,''
4581: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 727} (2005) 318;\\
4582: O.~Vives,
4583: %``Flavoured leptogenesis: A successful thermal leptogenesis with N(1) mass
4584: %below 10**8-GeV,''
4585: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 073006.
4586:
4587: \bibitem{NprodLHC} A.~Pilaftsis,
4588: %``Radiatively induced neutrino masses and large Higgs neutrino couplings in
4589: %the standard model with Majorana fields,''
4590: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 55} (1992) 275;\\
4591: A.~Datta, M.~Guchait and A.~Pilaftsis,
4592: %``Probing lepton number violation via majorana neutrinos at hadron
4593: %supercolliders,''
4594: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 3195;\\
4595: F.~M.~L.~Almeida, Y.~A.~Coutinho, J.~A.~Martins Simoes and M.~A.~B.~do Vale,
4596: %``On a signature for heavy Majorana neutrinos in hadronic collisions,''
4597: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 075004;\\
4598: T.~Han and B.~Zhang,
4599: %``Signatures for Majorana neutrinos at hadron colliders,''
4600: hep-ph/0604064.
4601:
4602:
4603: \bibitem{NprodILC} W.~Buchmuller and C.~Greub,
4604: %``Heavy Majorana neutrinos in electron - positron and electron - proton
4605: % collisions,''
4606: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 363} (1991) 345;\\
4607: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B363,345;%%
4608: G.~Cvetic, C.~S.~Kim and C.~W.~Kim,
4609: % ``Heavy Majorana neutrinos at e+ e- colliders,''
4610: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 4761;\\
4611: F.~del Aguila, J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra, A.~Martinez de la Ossa and D.~Meloni,
4612: %``Flavour and polarisation in heavy neutrino production at e+ e- colliders,''
4613: Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 613} (2005) 170;\\
4614: F.~del Aguila and J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra,
4615: JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 026.
4616:
4617: \bibitem{NprodEG}
4618: S.~Bray, J.~S.~Lee and A.~Pilaftsis,
4619: %``Heavy Majorana neutrino production at e- gamma colliders,''
4620: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 628} (2005) 250.
4621:
4622: \bibitem{CL} T.P.~Cheng and L.F.~Li, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 45}
4623: (1980) 1908.
4624:
4625: \bibitem{IP} A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 437}
4626: (1995) 491.
4627:
4628: \bibitem{LFVrev}
4629: G. Bhattacharya, P. Kalyniak and I. Mello, Phys.\
4630: Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 3569;\\
4631: A. Ilakovac, B.A. Kniehl, and A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\
4632: D {\bf 52} (1995) 3993;\\
4633: A. Ilakovac, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 5653;\\
4634: M. Frank and H. Hamidian, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 6790;\\
4635: P. Kalyniak and I. Mello, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 1453;\\
4636: Z. Gagyi-Palffy, A. Pilaftsis and K. Schilcher, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf
4637: 513} (1998) 517;\\
4638: S. Fajfer and A. Ilakovac, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 4219;\\
4639: M. Raidal and A. Santamaria, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 421} (1998) 250;\\
4640: M.~Czakon, M.~Zralek and J.~Gluza, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573} (2000) 57;\\
4641: A. Ioannisian and A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}
4642: (2000) 066001;\\
4643: J.~I.~Illana and T.~Riemann, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 053004;\\
4644: G.~Cvetic, C.~Dib, C.~S.~Kim and J.~D.~Kim, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002)
4645: 034008; hep-ph/0504126;\\
4646: A.~Masiero, S.~K.~Vempati and O.~Vives, New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6}
4647: (2004) 202.
4648:
4649: \bibitem{LFVN} For recent studies, see,\\
4650: T.~Fujihara, S.~K.~Kang, C.~S.~Kim, D.~Kimura and T.~Morozumi,
4651: %``Low-scale seesaw model and lepton flavor violating rare B decays,''
4652: hep-ph/0512010;\\
4653: F.~Deppisch, T.~S.~Kosmas and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
4654: %``Enhanced mu- e- conversion in nuclei in the inverse seesaw model,''
4655: arXiv:hep-ph/0512360.
4656:
4657: \bibitem{LLfit} C.~P.~Burgess, S.~Godfrey, H.~Konig, D.~London and
4658: I.~Maksymyk, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6115;\\
4659: E.~Nardi, E.~Roulet and D.~Tommasini, Phys.\ Lett.\ B~{\bf 327} (1994) 319;\\
4660: D.~Tommasini, G.~Barenboim, J.~Bernabeu and C.~Jarlskog, Nucl.\ Phys.\
4661: B {\bf 444} (1995) 451;\\
4662: S.~Bergmann and A.~Kagan, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf 538} (1999) 368.
4663:
4664: \bibitem{GGP} S.~Gopalakrishna, A.~de Gouvea and W.~Porod,
4665: %``Right-handed sneutrinos as nonthermal dark matter,''
4666: hep-ph/0602027.
4667:
4668: \bibitem{mcdonald} J.~McDonald, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 3637.
4669:
4670: \bibitem{pospelov} C.P.~Burgess, M.~Pospelov and T.~ter Veldhuis,
4671: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619} (2001) 709.
4672:
4673: \bibitem{Sabine} For recent studies within the context of the
4674: CP-violating MSSM, see,\\
4675: M.~E.~Gomez, T.~Ibrahim, P.~Nath and S.~Skadhauge,
4676: %``WMAP dark matter constraints and Yukawa unification in SUGRA models with
4677: %CP phases,''
4678: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 095008;\\
4679: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, S.~Kraml, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
4680: %``Relic density of neutralino dark matter in the MSSM with CP violation,''
4681: arXiv:hep-ph/0604150.
4682:
4683: \bibitem{EWBAU} For recent analyses, see,\\
4684: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
4685: %``Improved results in supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
4686: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650} (2003) 24;\\
4687: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
4688: %``Kinetic description of fermion flavor mixing and CP-violating sources for
4689: %baryogenesis,''
4690: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716} (2005) 373;\\ M.~Carena, A.~Megevand,
4691: M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716} (2005)~319;\\
4692: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and M.~Seco,
4693: %``MSSM electroweak baryogenesis and flavour mixing in transport equations,''
4694: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 738} (2006)~1.
4695:
4696:
4697: \bibitem{CKP}
4698: D.~Chang, W.~Y.~Keung and A.~Pilaftsis,
4699: %``New two-loop contribution to electric dipole moment in supersymmetric
4700: %theories,''
4701: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 900;\\
4702: A.~Pilaftsis,
4703: %``Higgs-mediated electric dipole moments in the MSSM: An application to
4704: %baryogenesis and Higgs searches,''
4705: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 644} (2002) 263;\\
4706: D.~Chang, W.~F.~Chang and W.~Y.~Keung,
4707: %``New constraint from electric dipole moments on chargino baryogenesis in
4708: %MSSM,''
4709: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 116008.
4710:
4711: \bibitem{CPX} M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
4712: %``CP-violating MSSM Higgs bosons in the light of LEP 2,''
4713: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495} (2000) 155.
4714:
4715: \bibitem{DP} D.~K.~Ghosh, R.~M.~Godbole and D.~P.~Roy,
4716: %``Probing the CP-violating light neutral Higgs in the charged Higgs decay at
4717: %the LHC,''
4718: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 628} (2005) 131;\\
4719: D.~K.~Ghosh and S.~Moretti,
4720: %``Probing the light neutral Higgs boson scenario of the CP-violating MSSM
4721: %Higgs sector at the LHC,''
4722: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 42} (2005) 341.
4723:
4724:
4725: \end{thebibliography}
4726:
4727: \end{document}
4728: