1: \global\def\draftcontrol{0}

2: 

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4:    \def\versionno{ inflation   -- draft   }

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: 

7: \catcode`\@=11

8: 

9: %%%

10: %%%%%% draftcontrol

11: %%%%%%%%%

12: \expandafter\ifx\csname draftcontrol\endcsname\relax\global\def\draftcontrol{0}

13: \fi

14: 

15: %%%

16: %%%%%% draftdate

17: %%%%%%%%%

18: {\count255=\time\divide\count255 by 60

19: \xdef\hourmin{\number\count255}

20: \multiply\count255 by-60\advance\count255 by\time

21: \xdef\hourmin{\hourmin:\ifnum\count255<10 0\fi\the\count255}}

22: \def\draftdate{\number\month/\number\day/\number\year\ \ \ \hourmin }

23: 

24: %%%

25: %%%%%% titlepage (adapted from article.cls)

26: %%%%%%%%%

27: \newcommand\makepapertitle{\par

28:   \begingroup

29:     \renewcommand\thefootnote{\@fnsymbol\c@footnote}%

30:     \def\@makefnmark{\rlap{\@textsuperscript{\normalfont\@thefnmark}}}%

31:     \long\def\@makefntext##1{\parindent 1em\noindent

32:             \hb@xt@1.8em{%

33:                 \hss\@textsuperscript{\normalfont\@thefnmark}}##1}%

34:      \newpage

35:      \global\@topnum\z@   % Prevents figures from going at top of page.

36:      \@makepapertitle

37:      \thispagestyle{empty}\@thanks

38:   \endgroup

39:   \setcounter{footnote}{0}%

40:   \global\let\thanks\relax

41:   \global\let\makepapertitle\relax

42:   \global\let\@makepapertitle\relax

43:   \global\let\@thanks\@empty

44:   \global\let\@author\@empty

45:   \global\let\@date\@empty

46:   \global\let\@title\@empty

47:   \global\let\title\relax

48:   \global\let\author\relax

49:   \global\let\date\relax

50:   \global\let\and\relax

51:   \def\version{\let\version\@version\@gobble}

52: }

53: \def\@makepapertitle{%

54:   \newpage

55:    \ifnum\draftcontrol=1 {}

56:    \version\versionno

57:    \vskip 3em%

58:    \else

59:    \hfill\hbox to 3cm {\parbox{4cm}{\@pubnum}\hss}%

60:    \vskip 3em%

61:    \fi

62:    \begin{center}%

63:    \let \footnote \thanks

64:      {\LARGE {\@title}}%

65:      \vskip 1.5em%

66:      {\normalsize%\large

67:        \lineskip .5em%

68:        \begin{tabular}[t]{c}%

69:          \@author

70:        \end{tabular}\par}%

71:      \vskip 1.5em%

72:      {\@bstract}%

73:      \end{center}%

74:      \vskip 1.5em

75:      \@date%

76:    \par

77: }

78: 

79: \gdef\@pubnum{}

80: %\@latex@error{No \noexpand \pubnum given}\@ehc}

81: \def\pubnum#1{%

82:   \gdef\@pubnum{#1}}

83: 

84: \gdef\@bstract{}

85: \def\Abstract#1{%

86:   \gdef\@bstract{%

87:    \parbox{\textwidth-0pc}{%

88:    \centerline{\bf Abstract}\penalty1000%

89: \kern.2cm%

90: \noindent%\abstractfont \baselineskip=12pt

91: \renewcommand\baselinestretch{1.0}%

92: {#1}}}

93: }

94: 

95: 

96: %%%

97: %%%%%% pagestyle

98: %%%%%%%%% for body of text

99: %%%%%%%%%%%%

100: \def\ps@paper{\let\@mkboth\@gobbletwo%

101:      \ifnum\draftcontrol=1

102: 	\def\@oddfoot{\hbox to \textwidth{\tiny \versionno \hfil\tiny\draftdate}%

103: 	\hskip -\textwidth \hbox to \textwidth{\hfil\rm\thepage\hfil}}%

104:      \else\def\@oddfoot{\hbox to \textwidth{\hfil\rm\thepage\hfil}}

105:      \fi

106:      \let\@evenfoot\@oddfoot

107: }

108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

109: 

110: %%%

111: %%%%%% front vs body vs coda

112: %%%%%%%%%

113: \def\body{\clearpage

114: %         \pagenumbering{arabic}

115:           \pagestyle{paper}

116: 	}

117: \newenvironment{acknowledgments}{%

118: \vskip 3.25ex

119: %\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%

120: %                                   {-3.25ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

121: %                                   {1.5ex \@plus.2ex}%

122: %                                   {\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}

123: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}

124: %\vskip 0in

125: %\noindent

126: }

127: 

128: %%%%%%%%%%%%

129: 

130: %%%

131: %%%%%% definitions for draftmode

132: %%%%%%%%%

133: %%%%%%%%%%%% versioncontrol

134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

135: \def\@version#1{\ifnum\draftcontrol=1

136: \typeout{}\typeout{#1}\typeout{}

137: \vskip3mm\centerline{\hbox{\fbox{\normalsize{\tt DRAFT -- #1 -- }

138:                    {\draftdate}}}}\vskip3mm

139: \fi}

140: \let\version\@version

141: %%%%%%%%%%%% labels in math mode

142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

143: \long\def\eqlabel#1{\ifnum\draftcontrol=1

144:                     \tag@false  % there are some problems with multline without this

145:                     \tag*{(\theequation) \hbox to -0.2cm{\hspace{0cm}\small{#1}\hss}}

146:                     \refstepcounter{equation}

147:                     \edef\@currentlabel{\theequation}

148:                     \ltx@label{#1}          % use old LaTeX \label instead of new definition

149:                                             % of \label in AMSLaTeX.

150:                     \else

151:                     \label{#1}

152:                     \fi

153:                     }

154: %%%%%%%%%%%% citations keys in bibliography (very short version of showkeys.sty)

155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

156: \let\st@bibitem\@bibitem

157: \let\st@lbibitem\@lbibitem

158: \ifnum\draftcontrol=1

159:   \def\@bibitem#1{%

160:     \st@bibitem{#1}\a@@label{#1}\ignorespaces}

161:   \def\@lbibitem[#1]#2{%

162:     \st@lbibitem[#1]{#2}\a@@label{#2}\ignorespaces}

163:   \def\a@@label#1{%

164:     \gdef\a@lab{\smash{\normalfont\small#1}}

165:     \ifvmode

166:       \if@inlabel

167:         \global\setbox\@labels\hbox{%

168:           \llap{\a@lab\let\a@lab\relax

169:                 \kern\@totalleftmargin\kern\marginparsep}%

170:           \box\@labels}%

171:       \fi

172:     \fi}

173: \fi

174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

175: 

176: 

177: %%%

178: %%%%%% start

179: %%%%%%%%%

180: \documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}

181: %%%%%%%%%%%%

182: 

183: %%%

184: %%%%%% load packages

185: %%%%%%%%%

186: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,array,calc,rotating,epsfig,psfrag}

187: \usepackage[nosort]{cite}

188: %%%%%%%%%%%%

189: 

190: %%%

191: %%%%%% relax

192: %%%%%%%%%

193: \ifnum\draftcontrol=1

194: \tolerance=1000

195: \fi

196: %%%%%%%%%%%%

197: 

198: %%%

199: %%%%%% layout

200: %%%%%%%%%

201: \renewcommand\baselinestretch{1.25}

202: \setlength{\paperheight}{11in}

203: \setlength{\paperwidth}{8.5in}

204: \setlength{\textwidth}{\paperwidth-2.4in}     \hoffset= -.3in   % +1in from printer

205: \setlength{\textheight}{\paperheight-2.4in}   \topmargin= -.6in % +1in from printer

206: 

207: %%%%%%%%% section titles

208: \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%

209:                                    {-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

210:                                    {2.3ex \@plus.2ex}%

211:                                    {\normalfont\large\bfseries}}

212: \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%

213:                                    {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

214:                                    {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%

215:                                    {\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}

216: \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%

217:                                    {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

218:                                    {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%

219:                                    {\normalfont\normalsize\it}}

220: \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%

221:                                    {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

222:                                    {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%

223:                                    {\normalfont\normalsize\bf}}

224: 

225: %%%

226: %%%%%% number equations within sections

227: %%%%%%%%%

228: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

229: 

230: %%%

231: %%%%%% macros

232: %%%%%%%%%

233: 

234: %%%%%%%%% standard

235: %%%%%%%%%%%%

236: 

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

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

239: 

240: \def\revise#1       {\raisebox{-0em}{\rule{3pt}{1em}}%

241:                      \marginpar{\raisebox{.5em}{\vrule width3pt\

242:                      \vrule width0pt height 0pt depth0.5em

243:                      \hbox to 0cm{\hspace{0cm}{%

244:                      \parbox[t]{4em}{\raggedright\footnotesize{#1}}}\hss}}}}

245: 

246: \newcommand\fnxt[1] {\raisebox{.12em}{\rule{.35em}{.35em}}\mbox{\hspace{0.6em}}#1}

247: \newcommand\nxt[1]  {\\\fnxt#1}

248: 

249: \def\cala         {{\cal A}}

250: \def\calA         {{\mathfrak A}}

251: \def\calAbar      {{\underline \calA}}

252: \def\calb         {{\cal B}}

253: \def\calc         {{\cal C}}

254: \def\cald         {{\cal D}}

255: \def\cale         {{\cal E}}

256: \def\calf         {{\cal F}}

257: \def\calg         {{\cal G}}

258: \def\calG         {{\mathfrak G}}

259: \def\calh         {{\cal H}}

260: \def\cali         {{\cal I}}

261: \def\calj         {{\cal J}}

262: \def\calk         {{\cal K}}

263: \def\call         {{\cal L}}

264: \def\calm         {{\cal M}}

265: \def\caln         {{\cal N}}

266: \def\calo         {{\cal O}}

267: \def\calp         {{\cal P}}

268: \def\calq         {{\cal Q}}

269: \def\calr         {{\cal R}}

270: \def\cals         {{\cal S}}

271: \def\calt         {{\cal T}}

272: \def\calu         {{\cal U}}

273: \def\calv         {{\cal V}}

274: \def\calw         {{\cal W}}

275: 

276: \def\complex      {{\mathbb C}}

277: \def\naturals     {{\mathbb N}}

278: \def\projective   {{\mathbb P}}

279: \def\rationals    {{\mathbb Q}}

280: \def\reals        {{\mathbb R}}

281: \def\zet          {{\mathbb Z}}

282: 

283: \def\del          {\partial}

284: \def\delbar       {\bar\partial}

285: \def\ee           {{\rm e}}

286: \def\ii           {{\rm i}}

287: \def\chain        {{\circ}}

288: \def\tr           {\mathop{\rm Tr}}

289: \def\Re           {{\rm Re\hskip0.1em}}

290: \def\Im           {{\rm Im\hskip0.1em}}

291: \def\id           {{\it id}}

292: 

293: \def\de#1#2{{\rm d}^{#1}\!#2\,}

294: \def\De#1{{\cald}#1\,}

295: 

296: \def\half{{\frac12}}

297: \newcommand\topa[2]{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{\scriptstyle #1}{\scriptstyle #2}}

298: \def\undertilde#1{{\vphantom#1\smash{\underset{\widetilde{\hphantom{\displaystyle#1}}}{#1}}}}

299: \def\prodprime{\mathop{{\prod}'}}

300: \def\gsq#1#2{%

301:     {\scriptstyle #1}\square\limits_{\scriptstyle #2}{\,}} % Ginsparg square

302: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\vbox{\hrule height.#2pt

303:  \hbox{\vrule width.#2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt

304:  \vrule width.#2pt}\hrule height.#2pt}}}}

305: \def\square{%

306:   \mathop{\mathchoice{\sqr{12}{15}}{\sqr{9}{12}}{\sqr{6.3}{9}}{\sqr{4.5}{9}}}}

307: 

308: %%%%%%%%% jtl macros

309: %%%%%%%%%%%%

310: \newcommand{\fft}[2]{{\frac{#1}{#2}}}

311: \newcommand{\ft}[2]{{\textstyle{\frac{#1}{#2}}}}

312: \def\jsquare{\mathop{\mathchoice{\sqr{8}{32}}{\sqr{8}{32}}

313: {\sqr{6.3}{9}}{\sqr{4.5}{9}}}}

314: 

315: %%%%%%%%% paper specific macros

316: %%%%%%%%%%%%

317: 

318: \def\O{\Omega}

319: \def\w{\omega}

320: \def\ttheta{\tilde{\theta}}

321: \def\tphi{\tilde{\phi}}

322: \def\SU {{\it SU}}

323: \def\r{\rho}

324: \def\a{\alpha}

325: \def\LL{\Lambda}

326: \def\ww{\omega}

327: \def\om{\Omega}

328: \def\bD3{\overline{D3}}

329: 

330: %%%%%%%%%%%%

331: 

332: \catcode`\@=12

333: 

334: \begin{document}

335: 

336: %%%

337: %%%%%% text starts here

338: %%%%%%%%%

339: 

340: \title{Braneworld inflation}

341: 

342: \pubnum{%

343: hep-th/0404151 \\

344: IPM/P-2004/017

345: }

346: \date{April 2004}

347: 

348: \author{

349: Alex Buchel$^{a,b}$ and  Ahmad Ghodsi$^c$\\[0.4cm]

350: \it $ ^{a}$Department of Applied Mathematics\\

351: \it University of Western Ontario\\

352: \it London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada\\

353: \it  $ ^b$ Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics\\

354: \it Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada\\

355: \it $^c$ Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics

356: and Mathematics (IPM)\\

357: \it P.O. Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran\\[0.2cm]

358: }

359: 

360: \Abstract{

361: We discuss various realizations of the four dimensional braneworld inflation in warped 

362: geometries of string theory. In all models the inflaton field is represented by a 

363: $Dp$ probe brane scalar specifying its position in the warped throat of the compactification 

364: manifold. We study  existing inflationary throat 

365: local geometries, and construct a new example. 

366: The inflationary brane is either a $D3$- or a $D5$-brane of type IIB string 

367: theory. In the latter case the inflationary brane is wrapping a two-cycle of the 

368: compactification manifold. We discuss some phenomenological aspects of the 

369: model where slow-roll conditions are under computational control. 

370: }

371: 

372: 

373: 

374: 

375: 

376: %\enlargethispage{1.5cm}

377: 

378: \makepapertitle

379: 

380: \body

381: 

382: \version\versionno

383: 

384: 

385: \section{Introduction}

386: Inflation \cite{in1,in2,in3} is an  attractive scenario which solves many important problems in cosmology. 

387: The basic idea of its simplest realization is that our Universe went through the stage of the

388: accelerated expansion driven by the potential energy of the slowly rolling inflaton field. 

389: In agreement with current observational data such a model naturally predicts a flat Universe 

390: and a scale invariant spectrum of density perturbations, provided the inflaton potential is sufficiently flat. 

391: It is thus important to find an embedding of inflation 

392: in the fundamental theory of quantum  gravity, such as a string theory. 

393: 

394: Recently there has been considerable progress in implementing this program. 

395: Based of the developments of the moduli stabilization problem in string compactifications 

396: \cite{gvw,gkp}, a framework of constructing de-Sitter vacua in string theory 

397: (with all moduli stabilized) was proposed in \cite{kklt} (KKLT). It was further pointed out 

398: in \cite{k2} (K$ ^2$LM$ ^2$T) 

399: that warped de-Sitter vacua of KKLT is a natural set-up to embed 

400: $D3\bD3$ inflation \cite{ddb1,ddb2,ddb3,ddb4} into string theory.

401: In the original brane-world model scenarios

402: \cite{ddb1,ddb2,ddb3,ddb4} the inflaton field 

403: is identified with the separation between four-dimensional domain

404: walls (3-branes) moving in a {\it flat} transverse six-dimensional

405: space. The main result of \cite{gkp} is that in realistic 

406: string theory compactifications with stabilized moduli, the 

407: six-dimensional compactification manifold is not flat --- rather,

408: it must contains one (or more) 'throat' regions with  large 

409: warp-factors. These warped throat geometries provide 

410: string theory realization of the Randall-Sundrum 

411: 'compactification' scenario \cite{rs}. 

412: The authors of \cite{k2} studied brane-anti-brane inflation in 

413: warped throat geometries. As the $\bD3$ brane is stabilized 

414: at the end of the throat \cite{k2}, the four-dimensional inflaton 

415: field (the $D3-\bD3$ brane  separation in \cite{ddb1,ddb2,ddb3,ddb4} )

416: can be identified with the position of the $D3$ in the 

417: throat geometry.  

418: Unfortunately,  the slow roll parameter 

419: associated with the $\phi$-field inflation is too large

420: for this model to be realistic

421: \begin{equation}

422: \eta\equiv \frac 13 \frac{V_{\it inf}(\phi)''}{H^2}=\frac{m_{\phi}^2}{3H^2}=\frac 23\,,

423: \eqlabel{eta}

424: \end{equation}

425: where $V_{\it inf}(\phi)$ is the inflaton potential, $m_\phi^2$ is an

426: inflaton mass, and $H$ is the Hubble scale of the de-Sitter vacua.

427: Above conclusion can be best understood by noting that the inflaton of

428: \cite{k2} has an effective four dimensional description in terms of a

429: conformally coupled scalar in the de-Sitter background with a Hubble

430: scale $H$.  It was suggested \cite{k2} that the $\eta$-problem might

431: be alleviated once the $\phi$-dependence of the overall K\"ahler

432: modulus of the compactification manifold in the superpotential is

433: taken into account, or if a K\"ahler stabilization mechanism (as

434: opposite to the superpotential stabilization) is used to fix the size

435: of the compactification manifold.  Each of these proposed mechanisms

436: is fairly difficult to implement/verify in the context of the

437: low-energy effective description used to construct de-Sitter vacua of

438: \cite{kklt}.

439:   

440: A complementary approach for analyzing inflation in warped de-Sitter

441: string theory geometries which, in particular, bypasses the

442: difficulties of computing corrections to $\eta$ from the effective

443: four dimensional perspective mentioned above was proposed in

444: \cite{br}. It was pointed out that the brane inflation in the scenario

445: of \cite{k2} occurs deep inside the warped throat geometries, where

446: the details of the compactification manifold are not important. All

447: that matters from the compactification manifold is that it, providing

448: a UV completion of the otherwise infinite throat, supplies a four

449: dimensional Hubble parameter $H$. Also, in this setup it is assumed

450: that all moduli of the compactification manifold are fixed, and the

451: scale of moduli stabilization $E_s$ is much higher than the relevant

452: scales of inflation $E_s\gg H$, $E_s\gg |\phi|$. It is clear that $D3$

453: brane inflation in this class of models is equivalent to the probe

454: brane dynamics in the local geometry where the throat, rather then

455: terminating on some complicated (compact) Calabi-Yau manifold, extends

456: to infinity. The advantage of this viewpoint is that, unlike compact

457: KKLT backgrounds, the corresponding local models can be rather easily

458: and explicitly constructed. For example, much like KS model \cite{ks}

459: is a local description of the throat geometry of the GKP

460: compactification \cite{gkp}, the de-Sitter deformed KT model \cite{kt}

461: described in \cite{bt,ba} is a local realization of the throat

462: geometry of the KKLT model\footnote{ Strictly speaking, the correct

463: local model would be de-Sitter deformation of the Klebanov-Strassler

464: solution \cite{ks}.  For the inflation occurring far from the end of

465: the KS throat the difference between KT and KS models is subdominant,

466: as it will be for their corresponding de-Sitter deformations. KS

467: de-Sitter deformation as proposed in \cite{ba} can be explicitly

468: constructed.  }. The inflation, or equivalently the brane probe

469: dynamics, can now be studied very explicitly and analytically. Thus,

470: studying inflation as a probe dynamics in de-Sitter deformed KT

471: backgrounds \cite{bt,ba} it was shown that the $\eta$-problem

472: persists\footnote{The computations of \cite{k2} leading to \eqref{eta}

473: where done in approximation where the 3-form fluxes of the background

474: geometry are neglected.}. It was further shown in \cite{bn2} that

475: \eqref{eta} is a direct consequence of imaginary-self-dual (ISD)

476: condition\footnote{The ISD condition is modified in the presence of

477: the supersymmetry breaking effects \cite{b1}.} on the 3-form fluxes,

478: used in \cite{gkp,kklt} to stabilize the complex structure moduli of

479: the compactification manifold.

480: 

481: As emphasized in \cite{br}, using a probe brane dynamics as a tool for

482: a quantitative analysis of the braneworld inflation\footnote{Related

483: ideas were discussed previously in \cite{kk}.}  in the warped

484: de-Sitter geometries is quite general, and can be applied outside the

485: inflationary scenario of \cite{k2}. 

486: Specifically, the  warped throat geometry of the inflationary scenario 

487: of \cite{k2} is locally $AdS_5$. The latter is just a reflection 

488: of a  particular set of fluxes that are turned on. Turning on more generic 

489: fluxes would lead to the {\it deformation} of the inflationary throat geometry 

490: away from being locally $AdS_5$. One can imagine that the 

491: $\eta$-problem \eqref{eta} in K$ ^2$LM$ ^2$T inflation  is a

492: consequence of a quite restrictive set of fluxes used there, and can be alleviated 

493: for a judicious choice of fluxes.  

494: In fact, it was argued in

495: \cite{bn2} that a $D3$ brane inflation in appropriately

496: deformed $AdS_5$ local throat geometries can lead to a slow roll inflation. 

497: In this paper we confirm that expectation. Additionally, we study

498: 'wrapped-brane' inflationary models.  Thus, in section 3 we

499: discuss inflation modeled by a $D5$ brane wrapped on a two cycle of

500: the de-Sitter deformed Maldacena-Nunez (MN) geometry

501: \cite{mn0008}. The supersymmetric background geometry of MN realizes

502: the backreaction of a large number of $D5$-branes wrapping a two-cycle

503: of the resolved conifold, with a ``twist'' preserving four

504: supercharges. The corresponding de-Sitter deformed geometry was

505: explained in details in \cite{blw}. Unfortunately we find that from

506: the phenomenological perspective this inflationary model is not

507: viable, as it leads to the slow roll parameter $\eta=\ft 32$. Next, we

508: study $D5$ brane inflation in a closely related model,\ie, de-Sitter

509: deformed background of \cite{n25} (GKMW).  Supersymmetric GKMW

510: solution represents a supergravity description of $D5$ branes wrapping

511: an $S^2$, with the twist preserving eight supercharges. In section 4

512: we first construct de-Sitter deformation of the GKMW background, and

513: then proceed to the probe brane analysis.  As in the case of inflation

514: in the de-Sitter deformed MN throat we find that slow roll inflation

515: in not possible: $\eta\ge 1$.  Some phenomenological constraints for

516: the inflationary models are discussed in section 5.  The common

517: feature of all discussed local de-Sitter deformed geometries is the

518: presence of an energy scale $\mu$ that breaks conformal invariance

519: characteristic to $AdS_5$ throat geometries. Interestingly, depending

520: on the ratio $\mu/H$ certain local geometries undergo 'cosmological

521: phase transitions'. For a local model both $\mu$ and $H$ are

522: nondynamical (parameters).  This is not so once local throat

523: geometries are embedded into a global geometry (a

524: compactification). It is possible that these phase transitions might

525: have observable effect on the realistic four dimensional inflation.

526: 

527: 

528: Before we move to a somewhat technical discussion of brane probes in

529: de-Sitter deformed local geometries, we would like to mention a

530: phenomenological motivation underling this study.  Consider a string

531: theory compactified on a smooth six-dimensional manifold. The presence

532: of $D$-branes will deform a locally flat geometry of a

533: compactification manifold to a warped throat geometry

534: \cite{v1,v2}. Generically, we expect multiple throats produced 

535: from multiple stacks of branes on a 

536: compactification manifold. We can imagine a scenario, where one of the

537: throats is of the KKLT type, with a $\bD3$ brane at the bottom,

538: generating the four dimensional Hubble constant $H$. Though slow roll

539: inflation in that throat is not possible, it might still be realized

540: by a mobile brane in a {\it different} throat, which local geometry

541: permits sufficiently flat probe brane potentials\footnote{We will

542: discuss this in some details in the phenomenology section.}.  Finally,

543: our proposal is just one way to alleviate the

544: $\eta$-problem. Interesting alternative ideas for overcoming the

545: difficulties described in \cite{k2} for string theory inflationary

546: models were presented in \cite{i1,i1p,i2,i3,i4,i5,i6,i7,i8}.

547: 

548: 

549:  

550: 

551: 

552: \section{Inflation in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throats}

553: In \cite{bn2} it was argued that brane inflation in de-Sitter deformed

554: $\caln=2^*$ throats might lead to slow roll inflation with arbitrarily

555: small $\eta$ parameter.  In this section we provide numerical analysis

556: supporting that claim.  The relevant throat geometry is that of the

557: supergravity dual to $\caln=2^*$ supersymmetric gauge theory

558: constructed in \cite{pw} (PW). The probe dynamics in PW background was

559: discussed in details in \cite{bpp,cjv}. The de-Sitter deformation of

560: the PW geometry was constructed in

561: \cite{b2}, and the $D3$ brane probe dynamics was analyzed in \cite{bn2}. 

562: We first review the necessary data for the background geometry and the

563: $D3$ probe brane effective action.  Then we identify singularity-free

564: de-Sitter deformed flows in which the $D3$ braneworld inflation is

565: slow roll. Phenomenological aspects of the inflation in 

566: $\caln=2^*$ throats are further discussed in section 5.2.    

567: 

568: \subsection{The background and the probe brane dynamics}  

569: It is convenient to construct first the background geometry in five-dimensional gauged supergravity, 

570: and then further uplift the solution to ten dimensions \cite{b2}. 

571: The effective five-dimensional  action is 

572: \begin{equation}

573: S=\int d\xi^5 \sqrt{-g}\left(\frac 14  R-3(\del\a)^2-(\del\chi)^2-

574: \calp\right)\,,

575: \eqlabel{action5}

576: \end{equation} 

577: where the potential $\calp$ is\footnote{We set the 5d gauged SUGRA coupling 

578: to one. This corresponds to setting $S^5$ radius $L=2$.} 

579: \begin{equation}

580: \calp=\frac{1}{48} \left(\frac{\del W}{\del \a}\right)^2+

581: \frac{1}{16} \left(\frac{\del W}{\del \chi}\right)^2-\frac 13 W^2\,,

582: \eqlabel{pp}

583: \end{equation}

584: with the superpotential

585: \begin{equation}

586: W=-e^{-2\a}-\frac 12 e^{4\a} \cosh(2\chi)\,.

587: \eqlabel{supp}

588: \end{equation}

589: The supergravity scalars $\a$ and $\chi$ encode the renormalization group 

590: flow of the $\caln=4$ Yang-Mills deformation  

591: induced  by  generically different masses to the bosonic and fermionic 

592: components of the $\caln=2$ hypermultiplet. 

593: To be more specific, we choose the 5d RG flow metric as 

594: \begin{equation}

595: \begin{split}

596: \qquad ds_5^2&=e^{2 A} \left(dS_4\right)^2+d\r^2\,,\\

597: \end{split}

598: \eqlabel{ab}

599: \end{equation}

600: where $\left(dS_4\right)^2$ is a metric of the four-dimensional de-Sitter space-time 

601: with Hubble scale $H=1$. Assuming  $A\equiv A(\r)$

602: and $\a\equiv \a(\r),\ \chi\equiv \chi(\r)$, 

603: equations of motion (derived from \eqref{action5}) become

604: \begin{equation}

605: \begin{split}

606: 0&=\a''+4 A'\a' -\frac 16 \frac{\del\calp}{\del\a}\,,\\

607: 0&=\chi''+4 A'\chi' -\frac 12 \frac{\del\calp}{\del\chi}\,,\\

608: &\frac 14 A''+\left(A'\right)^2-\frac 34 e^{-2 A}=-\frac 13 \calp\,,\\

609: &- A''-\left(A'\right)^2

610: =3\left(\a'\right)^2+\left(\chi'\right)^2 +\frac 13 \calp\,.

611: \end{split}

612: \eqlabel{beq}

613: \end{equation}

614: Lacking exact analytical solution of \eqref{beq}, in the next section we turn to 

615: its numerical analysis. The most general singularity-free solution in the IR ($\r\to 0$) 

616: is specified  by two parameters $\r_0,\ \chi_0$

617: \begin{equation}

618: \begin{split}

619: e^A&=\r\left(1+\r^2\left(\frac{1}{72}\ \r_0^{-4}+\frac{1}{36}\ \r_0^2\ \cosh(2\chi_0)-

620: \frac{1}{288}\ \r_0^8\ \sinh^2(2\chi_0)\right)+\calo(\r^4)\right)\,,\\

621: e^{\a}&=\r_0+\r^2\left(\frac{1}{60}\ \r_0^{-3}-\frac{1}{60}\ \r_0^3\ \cosh(2\chi_0)+

622: \frac{1}{120}\ \r_0^9\ \sinh^2(2\chi_0)\right)+\calo(\r^4)\,,\\

623: \chi&=\chi_0+\r^2\left(-\frac{1}{20}\ \r_0^{2} \sinh(2\chi_0)

624:     +\frac{1}{160}\ \r_0^8\ \sinh(4\chi_0)\right)+\calo(\r^4)\,.

625: \end{split}

626: \eqlabel{n2ir}

627: \end{equation}     

628: The  ultraviolet ($\r\to\infty$) asymptotics  are conveniently written in terms of  a new radial coordinate 

629: \begin{equation}

630: x\equiv e^{-\r/2}\,.

631: \end{equation}

632: We find 

633: \begin{equation}

634: \begin{split}

635: A=&\xi-\ln x-x^2\biggl(e^{-2\xi}+\ft 13 \chi_{00}^2\biggr)+x^4\biggl(\ft 19\chi_{00}^4

636: -\ft 12 e^{-4\xi}+\ft 16 \chi_{00}^2 e^{-2\xi}-\ft 12 \chi_{00}^2\chi_{10}-\r_{10}^2-\ft 18\r_{11}^2

637: \\ &-\left(2\chi_{00}^2e^{-2\xi}+\ft 23 \chi_{00}^4+2\r_{10}\r_{11}

638: \right)\ \ln x-\r_{11}\ \ln^2 x\biggr)+\calo(x^6\ \ln^3 x)\,,

639: \end{split}

640: \eqlabel{uvseries1}

641: \end{equation}

642: \begin{equation}

643: \begin{split}

644: e^{\a}=&1+x^2\biggl(\r_{10}+\r_{11}\ \ln x\biggr)+x^4\biggl(

645: \ft 13 \chi_{00}^4+\ft 32 \r_{10}^2-2\r_{10}\r_{11}+\ft 32 \r_{11}^2+\ft 23 \chi_{00}^2(5\r_{10}-4\r_{11})\\&+2e^{-2\xi}(2\r_{10}-\r_{11})

646: +\left(\ft{10}{3}\chi_{00}^2\r_{11}+3\r_{10}\r_{11}-2\r_{11}^2+4\r_{11} e^{-2\xi}\right)\ \ln x\\

647: &+\ft 32 \r_{11}^2\ \ln^2 x\biggr)+\calo(x^6\ \ln^3 x)\,, 

648: \end{split}

649: \eqlabel{uvseries2}

650: \end{equation}

651: \begin{equation}

652: \begin{split}

653: \chi=&\chi_{00} x \biggl(

654: 1+x^2\biggl(\chi_{10}+\left(\ft 43 \chi_{00}^2+4e^{-2\xi}\right)\ \ln x\biggr)

655: \biggr)+\calo(x^5\ \ln^2 x)\,,

656: \end{split}

657: \eqlabel{uvseries3}

658: \end{equation}

659: where $\{\xi,\chi_{00},\chi_{10},\r_{10},\r_{11}\}$ are parameters

660: characterizing the ultraviolet asymptotics, and are functions of the

661: infrared data $\{\r_0,\ \chi_0\}$.  As explained in \cite{bl},

662: $\r_{11}$ ($\chi_{00}$) should be identified with the mass $m^2_{b}$

663: ($m_{f}$) of the bosonic (fermionic) components of the $\caln=2$

664: hypermultiplet.  Two more parameters $\r_{10},\ \chi_{10}$ are related

665: to the bosonic and fermionic bilinear condensates

666: correspondingly. Finally, $\xi$ is a residual integration constant

667: associated with fixing the radial coordinate --- it can be removed at

668: the expense of shifting the origin of the radial coordinate $\r$, or

669: rescaling $x$. As the origin of the radial coordinate is 'fixed' in

670: specifying the infrared boundary conditions

671: \eqref{n2ir}, $\xi\equiv \xi(\r_0,\chi_0)$.

672: 

673: 

674: The complete ten-dimensional lift of the RG flow \eqref{beq} was presented in \cite{b2}, and the 

675: $D3$ brane probe dynamics in the resulting 10d geometry was studied in \cite{bn2}.

676: Identifying the inflaton with the radial motion of the probe brane in this background geometry, 

677: the inflaton mass  $m_{\phi}^2$ was found  to be 

678: \begin{equation}

679: m_{\phi}^2= 2\ +\biggl[\ft 23 e^{2\xi} \chi_{00}^2\biggr]

680: +\biggl[e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\left(\ft 32 \cos^2\theta-1\right)\biggr]\,,

681: \eqlabel{m2resp}

682: \end{equation}

683: thus leading to inflationary slow roll parameter

684: \begin{equation}

685: \eta=\frac 23 +\biggl[\ft 29\ e^{2\xi} \chi_{00}^2\biggr]

686: +\biggl[\ft 13 e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\left(\ft 32 \cos^2\theta-1\right)\biggr]\,.

687: \eqlabel{ef}

688: \end{equation}

689: Few comments about \eqref{m2resp}, \eqref{ef} are in order.

690: \nxt

691: Inflaton mass depends on one of the angles ($\theta$) of the squashed $S^5$ in the 

692: ten-dimensional background \cite{bn2};  

693: \nxt

694: Turning off the mass deformation (setting $\r_0=\chi_0=0$) gives rise to 

695: $m_\phi^2=2$, which is the effective mass of the conformally coupled scalar

696: of the $\caln=4$ vector multiplet;

697: \nxt  

698: Turning on mass to the fermionic components of the $\caln=2$ hypermultiplet 

699: always raises the inflaton mass. Thus the slow-roll inflation is most effectively 

700: generated with $\chi_{00}=0$. Actually, $\chi(\r)\equiv 0$ is an exact solution of  

701: \eqref{beq}, which we restrict to from now on. 

702: \nxt 

703: Recall that bosonic mass deformation parameter $\r_{11}\propto m_{b}^2$. 

704: In principle, in the supergravity solution $\r_{11}$ can be either positive or negative. 

705: However, without a stabilizing effect of the gauge theory background curvature 

706: (setting $H\to 0$ or removing '2' in \eqref{m2resp}), $\r_{11}<0$ would lead to the 

707: supergravity background instabilities associated with unboundedness of the 

708: probe brane potential close to the boundary. This is a reflection of the 

709: dual gauge theory instabilities corresponding to $m_b^2<0$. Once $H\ne 0$,

710: sufficiently small negative $m_b^2$ will not destabilize the background:

711: \begin{equation}

712: 0\ge e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\ge -4\,. 

713: \eqlabel{stabilityn2}

714: \end{equation} 

715: In the regime \eqref{stabilityn2}, a $D3$ probe would tend to move in the $\cos^2\theta=1$

716: 'valley', where its potential energy is locally minimized, leading to a slow-roll parameter $\eta\equiv \eta_-$ \eqref{ef} 

717: \begin{equation}

718: \eta_-=\frac 23 +\frac 16 e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\,,\qquad \eta_-\in [0,\ft 23]\,.

719: \eqlabel{em}

720: \end{equation}  

721: In the case of $\r_{11}>0$ (a positive $m_b^2$), the $D3$ probe brane potential energy is minimum 

722: in the $\cos\theta=0$ valley\footnote{For $H=0$ this submanifold is a 

723: moduli space of a $D3$ probe in the PW background \cite{bpp,cjv}.}. Here background stability 

724: against spontaneous $D3\overline{D3}$-pair production  constrains

725: \begin{equation}

726: 2\ge e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\ge 0\,, 

727: \eqlabel{stabilityn2p}

728: \end{equation} 

729:  leading to a slow-roll parameter $\eta\equiv \eta_+$

730:  \begin{equation}

731: \eta_+=\frac 23 -\frac 13 e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\,,\qquad \eta_+\in [0,\ft 23]\,.

732: \eqlabel{epl}

733: \end{equation}  

734: 

735: 

736: \subsection{Slow roll inflation}

737: 

738: 

739: 

740:  We now map numerically the phase space of the $D3$ inflation in de-Sitter deformed 

741: $\caln=2^*$ throat reviewed in the previous section. The procedure is to numerically integrate 

742: \eqref{beq} from the infrared ($\r=0$) \eqref{n2ir} to the ultraviolet \eqref{uvseries1},\eqref{uvseries2} 

743: ($\r\to \infty$), and, given\footnote{We explained in the previous section that the 

744: most efficient inflation occurs for $\chi_0=0$.} $\{\r_0\}$ in the IR extract $\{\xi,\rho_{11}\}$ 

745: in the UV. Depending on the sign of $\r_{11}$, we can use  \eqref{em},\eqref{epl} 

746: to determine $\eta_{\pm}$. Though simple to state, the problem is rather challenging to implement. 

747: The reason is  the huge exponential asymptotic suppression of the coefficient $\r_{11}$, \eqref{uvseries2}.

748: Ultimately, we resolved this technical difficulty by re-parameterizing

749: ${\a}(\r)$ 

750: as follows

751: \begin{equation}

752: e^{\a}\equiv 1+\frac{B(\r)}{1+e^{2A(\r)}}\,,

753: \eqlabel{newrho}

754: \end{equation}

755: and rewriting \eqref{beq} in terms of $A(\r)$ and $B(\r)$ with $\chi(\r)\equiv 0$.

756: Notice that such a redefinition implies identification 

757: \begin{equation}

758: \begin{split}

759: \r_0\equiv &\lim_{\r\to 0} (1+B(\r))\,,\\

760: e^{2\xi}\r_{11}\equiv &-2\lim_{\r\to\infty}\ \frac{dB(\r)}{d\r}\,.

761: \end{split}

762: \eqlabel{mapin}

763: \end{equation}

764: Obviously, since $e^{\a}\ge 0$, $\r_0\ge 0$, and thus $B(\r=0)\ge -1$. 

765: 

766: 

767: Results of numerical integration are presented in Fig.~1-Fig.~3. For

768: $\r_0=1$ we have undeformed $AdS_5$ throat, leading to a familiar

769: result for the slow roll parameter $\eta=\ft 23$.  We find that for

770: $0\le \r_0\le 1$, $\r_{11}(\r_0)\ge 0$, thus the corresponding slow

771: roll parameter is $\eta\equiv \eta_+$, defined by \eqref{epl},

772: Fig.~2. For $1< \r_0\le \r_{critical}\approx 1.2$, we find

773: $\r_{11}(\r_0)\le 0$, thus the corresponding slow roll parameter is

774: $\eta\equiv \eta_-$, defined by \eqref{em}, Fig.~1. As $\r_0>

775: \r_{critical}$, the inflaton mass $m_\phi^2<0$. In this case rather

776: that moving inside the warped throat (toward the infrared end), the

777: probe brane will move to the boundary, with its potential energy being

778: unbounded from below.  If the spatial directions of the probe brane

779: are compactified, then the background will have non-perturbative

780: instability with respect to the spontaneous brane-anti-brane creation

781: \cite{sw}.

782: 

783: 

784: 

785: 

786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

787: \begin{figure}[f1]

788: \begin{center}

789: \epsfig{file=etaminus.ps,width=0.7\textwidth}

790: \caption{

791: Numerical analysis of the slow-roll condition in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ local warped geometries.

792: The $\eta(\r_0)$ parameter is the large-$r$ asymptotic of the corresponding plot $\eta(r,\r_0)$.

793: In the regime $\r_0>1$, $\r_{11}(\r_0)<0$. Thus corresponding slow roll parameter is 

794: $\eta\equiv \eta_-$, defined by \eqref{em}. Notice that with $\r_0=1.3$, $\eta_-<0$, and thus from \eqref{stabilityn2}, the background 

795: is unstable.  

796: }

797: \label{fig1}

798: \end{center}

799: \end{figure}

800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

802: \begin{figure}[f2]

803: \begin{center}

804: \epsfig{file=etaplus.ps,width=0.7\textwidth}

805: \caption{

806: Numerical analysis of the slow-roll condition in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ local warped geometries.

807: The $\eta(\r_0)$ parameter is the large-$r$ asymptotic of the corresponding plot $\eta(r,\r_0)$.

808: In the regime  $0\le \r_0\le 1$, $\r_{11}(\r_0)\ge 0$. Thus the corresponding slow roll parameter is 

809: $\eta\equiv \eta_+$, defined by \eqref{epl}.  

810: }

811: \label{fig2}

812: \end{center}

813: \end{figure}

814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

816: \begin{figure}[f3]

817: \begin{center}

818: \epsfig{file=phases.ps,width=0.7\textwidth}

819: \caption{

820: The slow roll parameter $\eta$ as a function of $\r_0$ for $D3$ brane inflation in 

821: de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throats. For $\r_0>1$, $\eta\equiv \eta_-$, and 

822: $0\le \r_0\le 1$, $\eta\equiv \eta_+$. For $\r_0\ge \r_{critical}\approx 1.2$, we have $\eta_-<0$, which 

823: according to \eqref{stabilityn2} implies the instability associated with the presence of a tachyonic mode 

824: in the spectrum of the holographically dual gauge theory. 

825: }

826: \label{fig3}

827: \end{center}

828: \end{figure}

829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

830: 

831: 

832: 

833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

834: \section{Inflation in de-Sitter deformed MN background}

835: Typically an inflaton of a brane inflationary scenario  in string theory is identified 

836: with a scalar coordinate of a 3-brane. This is the case, in particular, for the inflationary model of \cite{k2},

837: and the model discussed in the previous section. Since string theory compactification manifold might contain 

838: topologically non-trivial cycles, one might wonder whether a more exotic inflationary scenario  might be slow

839: roll. Specifically \cite{br}, one can imagine inflation realized by a probe $Dp$-brane, for $p>3$, wrapping a 

840: $(p-3)$ cycle of the compactification manifold. In the following two sections we study inflation from 

841: $D5$-branes wrapping a two-cycle of a local de-Sitter deformed geometry. We begin with inflation 

842: modeled by a $D5$ brane wrapped on a two cycle of de-Sitter deformed MN geometry \cite{mn0008}.

843: 

844: After reviewing the construction of the background \cite{blw}, we study $D5$-probe dynamics. 

845: Unfortunately, the slow-roll inflation is not possible in this model. For a canonically 

846: normalized inflaton we find 

847: \begin{equation}

848: \eta_{MN}=\frac 32\,.

849: \eqlabel{etamn}

850: \end{equation}

851:      

852: 

853: 

854: \subsection{The background}

855: 

856: The de-Sitter deformation of the MN supergravity background was constructed and studied in 

857: details in \cite{blw}. Here, the string frame

858: metric is 

859: \begin{equation}

860: ds_{st}^2=F^2 (ds_{\calm_4})^2+n \left(d\rho^2+G^2 d\O^2_2+\frac{1}{ 4}\sum_a(\w_a-A_a)^2\right)\,,

861: \eqlabel{mn}

862: \end{equation}

863: where $\O^2_2$ is a round $S^2$ (parameterized by $(\ttheta,\tphi)$)

864: which the branes wrap,

865: \begin{equation}

866: (ds_{\calm_4})^2(x)\equiv 

867: -dt^2 +\frac{1}{H^2} \cosh^2 Ht\ d\O_3^2\,.

868: \eqlabel{desd}

869: \end{equation}

870: and $\w_a$ are the $\SU(2)$ left-invariant one 

871: forms on the $S^3$ (parametrized by $(\theta,\phi,\psi)$) transverse to 

872: the NS5-branes,

873: \begin{equation}

874: \begin{split}

875: \w_1&=\cos\phi\ d\theta+\sin\phi\sin\theta d\psi\,,\cr

876: \w_2&=-\sin\phi\ d\theta+\cos\phi\sin\theta d\psi\,,\cr

877: \w_3&=d\phi\ +\cos\theta d\psi \,.

878: \end{split}

879: \eqlabel{1forms}

880: \end{equation}  

881: Also in \eqref{mn}, $A_a$ are the $\SU(2)_R$ gauge fields on the $S^2$ 

882: realizing the twist,

883: \begin{equation}

884: \begin{split}

885: A_1&=a\ d\ttheta\,,\cr

886: A_2&=a \sin\ttheta\ d\tphi\,,\cr

887: A_3&=\cos\ttheta\ d\tphi \,.

888: \end{split}

889: \eqlabel{gaugemn}

890: \end{equation}  

891: Finally, there is a dilaton $\Phi=\ln g_s$, and an NS-NS 3-form flux

892: \begin{equation}

893: H_3=n\left[-\frac{1}{ 4}(\w_1-A_1)\wedge(\w_2-A_2)\wedge(\w_3-A_3)

894: +\frac{1}{ 4} \sum_a F_a\wedge(\w_a-A_a)\right] \,,

895: \eqlabel{Hmn}

896: \end{equation}

897: where $F_a=dA_a+\ft 12\epsilon_{abc} A_b\wedge A_c$. Altogether, the background 

898: is parameterized by four functions $F,G,a,g_s$ of the radial coordinate 

899: $\rho \in [0,+\infty)$. 

900: 

901: With this ansatz, the type IIB supergravity equations 

902: of motion for the deformed MN model are reduced to\footnote{The prime 

903: denotes derivative with respect to $\r$.} 

904: \begin{equation}

905: \begin{split}

906: 0&=\left[\frac{a' F^4}{ g_s^2}\right]'-\frac{a F^4 (a^2-1)}{ g_s^2 G^2}\,, \cr

907: 0&=\left[\frac{(G^2)' F^4}{ g_s^2}\right]'+\frac{F^4}{ 2 g_s^2 G^2}

908: \left\{ (a^2-1)^2+G^2[(a')^2-4]\right\}\,, \cr

909: 0&=\left[G^2 F^4\left(\frac{1}{ g_s^2}\right)'\right]'

910: -\frac{F^4}{ 4 g_s^2 G^2}\left\{ (a^2-1)^2+2 G^2[8 G^2+(a')^2]\right\}\,,\cr

911: 0&=\left[\frac{(F^4)' G^2}{g_s^2}\right]'-\frac{12 n H^2 F^2 G^2}

912: {g_s^2} \,.

913: \end{split}

914: \eqlabel{mngs}

915: \end{equation} 

916: There is also a first order constraint coming from fixing the 

917: re-parametrization invariance (the choice of $\r$),

918: \begin{equation}

919: \begin{split}

920: 0=&F^2 \bigg\{2 G^2\left[8 G^2 \left(g_s'\right)^2+4 g_s^2 \left(G'\right)^2-

921: 4\left(G^2\right)'\left(g_s^2\right)'-g_s^2 \left(a'\right)^2\right]\cr

922: &+g_s^2\left[\left(a^2-1\right)^2-8 G^2\left(1+2 G^2\right)\right]\bigg\}

923: +16 g_s G^3 \bigg\{3 g_s G\left(\left(F'\right)^2-n H^2\right)\cr

924: &+2 (F')^2 g_s^2 \left(\frac{G}{g_s}\right)'  

925: \bigg\} \,.

926: \end{split}

927: \eqlabel{mncons2}

928: \end{equation}

929: 

930: \subsection{Probe dynamics}

931: We will study $D5$ probe dynamics, where the probe brane extends in four de-Sitter 

932: directions, and wraps the $\O_2$ directions.  For this we would need to go to 

933: S-dual geometry, and compute the pullback of the RR $C_{(6)}$ to the brane 

934: worldvolume. Note that, performing S-duality we find

935: \begin{equation}

936: \begin{split}

937: g_{st}^{D5}=&\frac{1}{g_s}\,,\\

938: ds_{st}^2(D5)=&g_s^{-1}\ ds_{st}^2(NS5)\,,\\

939: C_{(2)}=&-B,\quad C_{(6)}=-\tilde{B}\,, 

940: \end{split}

941: \eqlabel{sduals}

942: \end{equation}

943: where $ds_{st}^2(NS5)$ is the string frame metric \eqref{mn}, and 

944: \begin{equation}

945: d\tilde{B}=g_s^{-2}\ \star H_3\,,

946: \eqlabel{bt}

947: \end{equation}

948: where the Hodge dual is taken in $NS5$ metric \eqref{mn}.

949: Explicitly, we find

950: \begin{equation}

951: \begin{split}

952: \tilde{B}=vol_{\calm_4}\wedge &\biggl[\ \calv_1(\r)\ \sin\ttheta\ d(\ttheta)\wedge d(\tphi)

953: \ +\ \calv_2(\r)\ \sin\theta\ d(\psi)\wedge d(\theta)\\

954: &+\ \frac{nF^4a'}{8g_s^2}\ \calo_2

955: \ \biggr]\,,

956: \end{split}

957: \eqlabel{b6}

958: \end{equation}

959: where $vol_{\calm_4}$ is the volume form on $\calm_4$ \eqref{desd}, 

960: and 

961: \begin{equation}

962: \begin{split}

963: \calv_1'=&\frac{nF^4(a^4-a^2-16G^4)}{8g_s^2G^2}\,,\\

964: \calv_2'=&\frac{nF^4(1-a^2)}{8g_s^2G^2}\,,\\

965: \calo_2=&\sin\ttheta\sin\theta\sin\phi\ d(\tphi)\wedge d(\psi)+\sin\theta\cos\phi\ d(\psi)\wedge d(\ttheta)

966: \\

967: &+\sin\ttheta\cos\phi\ d(\tphi)\wedge d(\theta)+\sin\phi\ d(\ttheta)\wedge d(\theta)\,,

968: \end{split}

969: \eqlabel{defb6}

970: \end{equation}

971: where again, primes denote derivatives with respect to $\r$. Notice that only the 

972: first term in \eqref{b6} survives the pullback to the worldvolume of the $D5$ probe. 

973: 

974: 

975: Consider a $D5$ probe with the worldvolume $\calm_4\times S^2$, where $S^2$ 

976: is parameterized by $(\ttheta,\tphi)$ in \eqref{mn}.

977: The probe brane action reads \cite{pol2}

978: \begin{equation}

979: S_{D5}=-\mu_5\int_{\calm_4\times S^2}d^6\xi\ \frac{1}{g_s^{D5}} \sqrt{-g_{D5}}+\mu_5\int_{\calm_4\times S^2}

980: C_{(6)}\,,

981: \eqlabel{sd5}

982: \end{equation}

983: where $g_{D5}$ is the pullback of the  $ds_{st}(D5)$ \eqref{sduals} to the probe 

984: brane worldvolume, and $C_{(6)}$ is given by \eqref{sduals}-\eqref{defb6}. For a slowly 

985: moving probe in $\r\equiv\r(\calm_4)$ direction, localized at a point in $S^3$, we 

986: find the effective action $S_\r$

987: \begin{equation}

988: \begin{split}

989: S_\r=&\int_{\calm_4}d^4x\sqrt{-g_{\calm_4}}\biggl(-\frac{n^2 (4 G^2+a^2)

990: F^2}{8 g_s^2}4\pi\mu_5\ E

991: \left(\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{4G^2+a^2}}\right)\ \del_\mu\r\del^\mu\r\\

992: &-\calv(\r)\biggr)\,,

993: \end{split}

994: \eqlabel{srho}

995: \end{equation}

996: where 

997: \begin{equation}

998: \calv(\r)=4\pi\mu_5\biggl(\frac{n(4G^2+a^2) F^4}{4g_s^2}E

999: \left(\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{4G^2+a^2}}\right)+\calv_1\biggr)\,,

1000: \eqlabel{vdef}

1001: \end{equation}

1002: and the complete elliptic integral is defined as follows

1003: \begin{equation}

1004: \begin{split}

1005: E(x)\equiv&\int_0^1\ \sqrt{\frac{1-x^2 t^2}{1-t^2}}\ dt\,.

1006: \end{split}

1007: \eqlabel{elldef}

1008: \end{equation}

1009: 

1010: In what follows we use canonically normalized inflaton $\r\to \Phi$

1011: \begin{equation}

1012: 4\pi\mu_5\ \frac{n^2 (4G^2+a^2)F^2}{ 4g_s^2}E

1013: \left(\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{4G^2+a^2}}\right)\ \del_\mu\r\del^\mu\r\equiv \del_\mu\Phi\del^\mu\Phi\,,

1014: \eqlabel{Phi5}

1015: \end{equation}

1016: leading to 

1017: \begin{equation}

1018: S_\Phi=\int_{\calm_4}d^4x\sqrt{-g_{\calm_4}}\left(-\frac 12 \del_\mu\Phi\del^\mu\Phi-\calv(\Phi)\right)\,.

1019: \eqlabel{sPhi}

1020: \end{equation}

1021: Asymptotic $\r\to\infty$ solution of \eqref{mngs} was given in \cite{blw}

1022: \begin{equation}

1023: \begin{split}

1024: F&=(3 n H^2 \r)^{1/2}+\cdots\,,\cr

1025: G^2&=\r+\cdots\,,\cr

1026: g_s&=g_0\left(\r^{3/4} e^{-\r}+\cdots\right)\,,\cr

1027: a&=\Upsilon \r^{-1/2}\left(1+\cdots\right)

1028: +\calc \r^{1/2} e^{-2\r} \left(1+\cdots\right) \,,

1029: \end{split}

1030: \eqlabel{MNI}

1031: \end{equation}

1032: where $\cdots$ denote corrections which are subdominant as $\r\to \infty$.

1033: Given \eqref{MNI}, and the normalization  \eqref{Phi5}, we find 

1034: \begin{equation}

1035: \calv(\Phi)=\frac 94 H^2 \Phi^2\biggl(1+\calo(\ln^{-1}\Phi)\biggr)\,,

1036: \eqlabel{vinfty}

1037: \end{equation}

1038: which leads to a slow-roll parameter reported in \eqref{etamn}.

1039: We conclude that the  slow roll inflation is not possible in this model. 

1040: 

1041: 

1042: \section{de-Sitter deformed GKMW background} 

1043: Our next example of a wrapped braneworld inflationary model is represented by a $D5$-probe brane

1044: moving in a de-Sitter deformed local warped throat geometry of GKMW \cite{n25}.    

1045: In the absence of the deformation, $H=0$, GKMW and MN \cite{mn0008} models differ by the supersymmetry 

1046: preserving twist for a five-brane wrapping a two-cycle of the resolved conifold. 

1047: Apparently, this difference is not enough to overcome the large-$\eta$ problem. 

1048: Here we find 

1049: \begin{equation}

1050: \eta_{GKMW}\ge 1\,.

1051: \eqlabel{etagkmw1}

1052: \end{equation} 

1053:  

1054: We begin with constructing de-Sitter deformation of the background \cite{n25}. 

1055:  We then study the $D5$ probe brane dynamics, phases of the background geometry, 

1056: and the slow roll condition.   

1057:  

1058: 

1059: 

1060: \subsection{The background}

1061: 

1062: The supergravity background corresponding to $NS5$ branes wrapped on $S^2$ with $\caln=2$ supersymmetry in 

1063: four dimensions has been constructed in \cite{n25}. In this section we study de-Sitter deformations

1064: of this geometry. Following \cite{n25} we construct deformed  solution in $D=7$ $SO(4)$ gauged supergravity, and then further 

1065: uplift it to ten dimensions using \cite{clp}.

1066: 

1067: The effective lagrangian of the relevant $D=7$ gauged supergravity reads \cite{n25}

1068: \begin{equation}

1069: \call=\sqrt{-g}\left(R-\frac {5}{16}\del_\mu y\del^\mu y-\del_\mu x\del^\mu x-

1070: \frac 14 e^{-2 x -y/2}F_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}F^{(2)\mu\nu}+4 g^2 e^{y/2}\right)\,,

1071: \eqlabel{d7l}

1072: \end{equation}

1073: where $x,y$ are scalar fields, and $F_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}$ is a field strength of the $U(1)\subset SO(4)$ 

1074: gauge fields.

1075: For the metric and the gauge field  we choose

1076: \begin{equation}

1077: \begin{split}

1078: ds_7^2=&e^{2f}\biggl(F^2\left(ds_{\calm_4}\right)^2+d\r^2\biggr)+a^2d\O_2^2\,,\\

1079: F^{(2)}=&\frac 1g\ vol_{\O_2}\,,

1080: \end{split}

1081: \eqlabel{mga}

1082: \end{equation}

1083: where $\left(ds_{\calm_4}\right)^2$ is given by \eqref{desd}, and 

1084: $a,\ f,\ F,\ x,\ y$ are functions of 

1085: a radial coordinate $\r$ only.  

1086: 

1087: We obtain the following equations of motion

1088: \begin{equation}

1089: \begin{split}

1090: x''+\left(3f'+2 \frac{a'}{a}+4\frac{F'}{F}\right) x'=-\frac{1}{2g^2a^4}e^{2f-2x-y/2}\,,

1091: \end{split}

1092: \eqlabel{eq12}

1093: \end{equation}

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: \begin{split}

1096: y''+\left(3f'+2 \frac{a'}{a}+4\frac{F'}{F}\right) y'=-\frac{1}{5}e^{2f}

1097: \left(\frac{2}{g^2 a^4}e^{-2x-y/2}+16g^2e^{y/2}\right)\,,

1098: \end{split}

1099: \eqlabel{eq22}

1100: \end{equation}

1101: \begin{equation}

1102: \begin{split}

1103: &\left(f+\ln F\right)''+\left(3f'+4(\ln F)'+ 2 \frac{a'}{a}\right) \left(f+\ln F\right)'-\frac{3H^2}{F^2}\\

1104: &=\frac{1}{10}e^{2f}

1105: \biggl(\frac{1}{g^2 a^4}e^{-2x-y/2}

1106: +8g^2e^{y/2}\biggr)\,,

1107: \end{split}

1108: \eqlabel{eq32}

1109: \end{equation}

1110: \begin{equation}

1111: \begin{split}

1112: &4\left(f+\ln F\right)''+2\frac{a''}{a}-2\frac{a'}{a} \left(f+\ln F\right)'+2(\ln F)'

1113: \left(\frac{a'}{a}+2(f+\ln F)'\right)\\

1114: &=\frac{1}{10}e^{2f}

1115: \biggl(\frac{1}{g^2 a^4}e^{-2x-y/2}

1116: +8g^2e^{y/2}\biggr)-\frac{5}{16}(y')^2-(x')^2\,,

1117: \end{split}

1118: \eqlabel{eq42}

1119: \end{equation}

1120: \begin{equation}

1121: \begin{split}

1122: &\frac{a''}{a}+3\frac{a'}{a}f'+\frac{(a')^2}{a^2}+4\frac{a'}{a}(\ln F)' \\

1123: &=e^{2f}

1124: \biggl(\frac{1}{a^2}-\frac{2}{5g^2 a^4}e^{-2x-y/2}

1125: +\frac{4}{5}g^2e^{y/2}\biggr)\,,

1126: \end{split}

1127: \eqlabel{eq52}

1128: \end{equation}

1129: \begin{equation}

1130: \begin{split}

1131: 0=&6 a^2 f'(F^2)'+6a^2 (F')^2+6a^2 (f')^2F^2+4(a^2)'F^2f'+2(a^2)'(F^2)'+(a')^2F^2-6H^2 a^2\\

1132: &-\frac{F^2}{32g^2a^2}\biggl(32a^2g^2e^{2f}+5g^2a^4(y')^2+16g^2a^4(x')^2+64a^4g^4e^{2f+y/2}-8e^{2f-2x-y/2}

1133: \biggr)\,.

1134: \end{split}

1135: \eqlabel{eq62}

1136: \end{equation}

1137: In \eqref{eq12}-\eqref{eq62} primes denote derivatives with respect to $\r$.  

1138: With $H=0,\ F\equiv 1$ above equations are the same as in \cite{n25}. We explicitly verified that though overdetermined, 

1139:  \eqref{eq12}-\eqref{eq52} are self-consistent even with $H\ne 0$.  As in \cite{n25} we can solve for $y$ with 

1140: \begin{equation}

1141: y=-4f\,.

1142: \eqlabel{ysol}

1143: \end{equation}

1144: 

1145: Consistent Kaluza-Klein reductions on spheres developed in \cite{clp} 

1146: does not rely on supersymmetry. Thus using formula  of \cite{clp}, we can uplift the $D=7$ solution 

1147: constructed above to a full ten-dimensional solution. We find

1148: \begin{equation}

1149: \begin{split}

1150: ds_{st}^2=&F^2\left(ds_{\calm_4}\right)^2+d\r^2+a^2e^{-2f}d\O_2^2+\frac{1}{g^2}d\theta^2\\

1151: &+\frac{e^{-x}\cos^2\theta}{g^2\O}\left(d\phi_1+\cos\ttheta d\tphi\right)^2

1152: +\frac{e^{x}\sin^2\theta}{g^2\O}\ d\phi_2^2\,,

1153: \end{split}

1154: \eqlabel{m10n2}

1155: \end{equation}  

1156: \begin{equation}

1157: \begin{split}

1158: g_s^{-2}=e^{5f}\ \O\,,

1159: \end{split}

1160: \eqlabel{diln2}

1161: \end{equation}  

1162: \begin{equation}

1163: \begin{split}

1164: H_3=&\frac{2\sin\theta\cos\theta}{g^2\O^2}\biggl(\sin\theta\cos\theta\ dx-d\theta

1165: \biggr)\wedge(d\phi_1+\cos\ttheta d\tphi)\wedge d\phi_2\\

1166: &+\frac{e^{-x}\sin^2\theta}{g^2\O}\ \sin\ttheta\ d\ttheta\wedge d\tphi\wedge d\phi_2\,,

1167: \end{split}

1168: \eqlabel{Hn2}

1169: \end{equation}  

1170: where the metric is given in the string frame, $\{\theta,\phi_1,\phi_2\}$ are coordinates 

1171: parameterizing squashed and twisted $S^3$ transverse to  wrapped $NS5$ branes, and 

1172: \begin{equation}

1173: \O\equiv e^x\cos^2\theta+e^{-x}\sin^2\theta\,.

1174: \eqlabel{omdef}

1175: \end{equation}

1176: We explicitly verified that for the background \eqref{m10n2}-\eqref{Hn2} ten dimensional 

1177: type IIB supergravity equations of motion reduce to \eqref{eq12}-\eqref{eq52}.

1178: 

1179: \subsection{Probe dynamics}

1180: The computations here parallel those of section 3.2. For the six-form potential 

1181: Hodge dual to the NSNS 3-form flux \eqref{Hn2} we find

1182: \begin{equation}

1183: \begin{split}

1184: \tilde{B}=vol_{\calm_4}\wedge &\biggl[\ \biggl(\calv_1(\r)+\calv_2(\r)\cos^2\theta

1185: \biggr)\ \sin\ttheta\ d(\ttheta)\wedge d(\tphi)

1186: \\

1187: &+\ \calv_3(\r)\ \cos^2\theta\cos\ttheta\ d(\r)\wedge d(\tphi)

1188: +\ \calv_4(\r)\ \sin^2\theta\ d(\r)\wedge d(\phi_1)

1189: \ \biggr]\\

1190: =vol_{\calm_4}\wedge &\biggl[\ \biggl(\calv_1(\r)+\calv_2(\r)\cos^2\theta

1191: \biggr)\ \sin\ttheta\ d(\ttheta)\wedge d(\tphi)

1192: \\

1193: &+\ \calv_3(\r)\ \cos^2\theta\  d(\r)\wedge (\cos\ttheta\ d(\tphi)+d(\phi_1))

1194: \ \biggr]\,,

1195: \end{split}

1196: \eqlabel{b6n2}

1197: \end{equation}

1198: where $vol_{\calm_4}$ is the volume form on $\calm_4$ \eqref{desd}, 

1199: and 

1200: \begin{equation}

1201: \begin{split}

1202: \calv_1'=&-2a^2 g F^4e^{3f}\,,\\

1203: \calv_2=&\frac{F^4e^{3f}a^2x'}{g}\,,\\

1204: \calv_3=&\frac{F^4e^{7f-2x}}{2g^3a^2}\,,\\

1205: \calv_4=&-\frac{F^4e^{7f-2x}}{2g^3a^2}\,.

1206: \end{split}

1207: \eqlabel{defb6n2}

1208: \end{equation}

1209: The second equality in \eqref{b6n2} is valid up to  gauge transformations $\tilde{B}\sim \tilde{B}

1210: +d\cala$.

1211: 

1212: As before, we consider a $D5$ probe brane   with the worldvolume $\calm_4\times S^2$.

1213: For a slowly 

1214: moving probe in $\r\equiv\r(\calm_4)$ direction, localized at a point in $S^3$, we 

1215: find the effective action

1216: \begin{equation}

1217: \begin{split}

1218: S_\r=&\mu_5\int_{\calm_4\times{S^2}}d^4x\ \sin\ttheta d\ttheta d\tphi

1219: \sqrt{-g_{\calm_4}}\biggl(-\frac 12 \calk_\r(\r)\ \del_\mu\r\del^\mu\r-\calv(\r)\biggr)\,,

1220: \end{split}

1221: \eqlabel{srhon2}

1222: \end{equation}

1223: where 

1224: \begin{equation}

1225: \begin{split}

1226: \calk_\r=& 

1227: F^2a^2e^{3f}\O \left(1+\frac{e^{2f}\cos^2\theta}{g^2e^x\Omega a^2\ \tan^2\ttheta}\right)^{1/2}\,,

1228: \\

1229: \calv=&F^4a^2e^{3f}\O \left(1+\frac{e^{2f}\cos^2\theta}{g^2e^x\Omega a^2\ \tan^2\ttheta}\right)^{1/2}

1230: +\calv_1(\r)+\calv_2(\r)\ \cos^2\theta\,.

1231: \end{split}

1232: \eqlabel{vdefn2}

1233: \end{equation}

1234: 

1235: As a check, we compare with the $\caln=2$ supersymmetric flow \cite{n25}.

1236: Here we have 

1237: \begin{equation}

1238: \begin{split}

1239: F=&1\,,\qquad H=0\,,\\

1240: \frac{d\calv_1}{dz}=&-2 g^2 z e^{2g^2z}\,,\qquad \frac{dz}{d\r}=\frac{1}{ge^x}\,,\\

1241: \calv_2=&-\frac{z e^{2g^2z}}{2g^2}\ \frac{d}{dz}\biggl[e^{-2x}\biggr]\,,\\

1242: a^2e^{3f+x}=&z e^{2g^2z}\,,\qquad a^2e^{-2f}=z\,,\qquad e^{-2x}=1-\frac{1+ke^{-2g^2z}}{2g^2 z}\,,

1243: \end{split}

1244: \eqlabel{n25}

1245: \end{equation} 

1246: leading to a moduli space $\cos\theta=0$ (for all values of the parameter $k$), and the 

1247: kinetic term  for $\r$ on the moduli space 

1248: \begin{equation}

1249: -\frac 12\ a^2 e^{3f-x}\ \del_\mu\r\del^\mu\rho=-\frac 12\ g^2 z e^{2g^2 z}\ \del_\mu z\del^\mu z\,,

1250: \eqlabel{kin25}

1251: \end{equation}

1252: in agreement with \cite{n25}.

1253: Four dimensional effective action from $S_\r$ \eqref{srhon2} reads

1254: \begin{equation}

1255: \begin{split}

1256: S_\r=&\int_{\calm_4}d^4x\sqrt{-g_{\calm_4}}\biggl(-\frac{a^2 F^2 e^{3f} \O}{2}4\pi\mu_5\ E

1257: \left(\sqrt{1-\frac{e^{2f}\cos^2\theta}{g^2a^2e^x\O}}\right)\ \del_\mu\r\del^\mu\r\\

1258: &-\calv(\r)\biggr)\,,

1259: \end{split}

1260: \eqlabel{srho4d}

1261: \end{equation}

1262: where 

1263: \begin{equation}

1264: \calv(\r)=4\pi\mu_5\biggl(F^4a^2e^{3f}\O \ E\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{e^{2f}\cos^2\theta}{g^2a^2e^x\O}}\right)\

1265: +\calv_1(\r)+\calv_2(\r)\ \cos^2\theta\biggr)\,.

1266: \eqlabel{vdef2}

1267: \end{equation}

1268: Canonical normalization of the inflaton field is achieved with  $\r\rightarrow\Phi$

1269: \begin{equation}

1270: 4\pi\mu_5\ a^2F^2e^{3f}\Omega\ E\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{e^{2f}\cos^2\theta}{g^2a^2e^x\Omega}}\right)

1271: \ \del_\mu\r\del^\mu\r\equiv \del_\mu\Phi\del^\mu\Phi\,.

1272: \eqlabel{cann2}

1273: \end{equation}

1274: 

1275: In the following section we study asymptotics of the \eqref{eq12}-\eqref{eq62} that would allow 

1276: the computation of the slow roll parameter $\eta$ for the model \eqref{vdef2}, \eqref{cann2}.

1277: 

1278: \subsection{Asymptotics and  a phase transition}

1279: In this section we discuss different classes of solutions of \eqref{eq12}-\eqref{eq62}. 

1280: There are  two topologically distinct classes of solutions of above equations:

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: \begin{split}

1283: &(a):\qquad F\to\ F_0\,,\qquad  a^2e^{-2f}\to z_0\,,\qquad  e^{-2x}\to 0\,,\qquad {\rm as}\qquad  \r\to 0\,, \\

1284: &(b):\qquad F\to\ 0\,,\qquad  a^2e^{-2f}\to z_0\,,\qquad  e^{-2x}\to k_0\,,\qquad {\rm as}\qquad  \r\to 0\,,

1285: \end{split}

1286: \eqlabel{cases}

1287: \end{equation}

1288: where all constants $\{F_0,z_0,k_0\}$ are positive. 

1289: What is the physical meaning of different infrared  boundary conditions? The GKMW model represents a 

1290: supergravity dual to $d=6$ $SU(N)$ $\caln=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory compactified (with an appropriate 

1291: twist) on $S^2$. The 'twist'  preserves half of the original supersymmetries, so that  in  the infrared 

1292: we have $\caln=2$ $SU(N)$ SYM in four dimensions.  

1293: The scale of the compactification  (up to a numerical factor) coincides with the strong coupling scale $\Lambda$ of the 

1294: four dimensional gauge theory. As common in gauge/string duality constructions with reduced supersymmetry, 

1295: decoupling the compactification scale and the 

1296: scale of the strong coupling dynamics requires to go beyond the regime of validity of the supergravity approximation. 

1297: Once we formulate such a  gauge theory on $dS_4$ (or Euclidean $S^4$), the background space-time curvature  

1298: (the Hubble parameter $H$) introduces a new infrared cutoff. One would expect now two different dynamical 

1299: regimes in the gauge theory 

1300: \begin{equation}

1301: \begin{split}

1302: &(a):\qquad \LL\gg H\,,\\

1303: &(b):\qquad \LL\ll H\,.

1304: \end{split}

1305: \eqlabel{gaugecases}

1306: \end{equation}      

1307: The gauge theory regimes in \eqref{gaugecases} are in direct correspondence with the supergravity 

1308: IR boundary conditions\footnote{This correspondence is established by noticing 

1309: that  in case $(a)$ of \eqref{gaugecases}, the limit $H\to 0$ must be smooth. The same phenomena

1310: occurs in the related model, de-Sitter deformation of the MN background \cite{blw}.

1311: } \eqref{cases}. From \eqref{m10n2}, notice that on the supergravity side in the case $(a)$ 

1312: the Euclidean gauge theory $S^4$ is non-contractible, while an $S^1\subset S^3$ parameterized by $\phi_1$ 

1313: shrinks to zero size. In the case $(b)$,  the (Euclidean) gauge theory $S^4$ shrinks to zero size, 

1314: while the squashed and twisted $S^3$ transverse to the five-branes remains non-contractible. 

1315: On the supergravity side we explicitly demonstrate that as the compactification scale decreases with 

1316: $H$ kept constant, the system undergoes a phase transitions. 

1317: The physics of this transition is not clear to 

1318: us. We hope to return to this problem in the future. 

1319: 

1320: Let's introduce a new radial coordinate as 

1321: \begin{equation}

1322: r\equiv g\ \rho\,, 

1323: \eqlabel{nr}

1324: \end{equation}

1325: and 

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \begin{split}

1328: &z(r)\equiv g\ a(r) e^{-f(r)}\,,\\

1329: &f_1(r)\equiv e^{-2x(r)}\,,\\

1330: &F(r)\equiv \frac{H}{g}\ G(r)\,,

1331: \end{split}

1332: \eqlabel{newpar}

1333: \end{equation}

1334: then  \eqref{eq12}-\eqref{eq62} are equivalent to 

1335: \begin{equation}

1336: 0=\biggl[{\left(G^4\right)'e^{5f}z^2}\biggr]'-12 G^2 e^{5f}z^2\,,

1337: \eqlabel{nn21}

1338: \end{equation}  

1339: \begin{equation}

1340: 0=\biggl[\left(e^{5f}\right)'z^2 G^4\biggr]'-\frac{G^4e^{5f}(f_1+8z^4)}{2 z^2}\,,

1341: \eqlabel{nn22}

1342: \end{equation}  

1343: \begin{equation}

1344: 0=\biggl[\left(\ln f_1\right)'e^{5f}z^2 G^4\biggr]'-\frac{f_1G^4e^{5f}}{z^2}\,,

1345: \eqlabel{nn23}

1346: \end{equation}  

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: 0=\biggl[\left(z^2\right)'e^{5f}G^4\biggr]'+\frac{G^4e^{5f}(f_1-2 z^2)}{z^2}\,,

1349: \eqlabel{nn24}

1350: \end{equation}

1351: \begin{equation}

1352: \begin{split}

1353: 0=&100z^2G^2f_1^2 (f')^2-z^2 G^2 (f_1')^2+8G^2f_1^2(z')^2+48z^2f_1^2(G')^2\\

1354: &+16zGf_1^2\biggl(10z f'G'+5Gf'z'+4z'G'\biggr)\\

1355: &+2\frac{f_1^2(f_1G^2-4z^2G^2-8G^2z^4-24z^4)}{z^2}\,,

1356: \end{split}

1357: \eqlabel{nn25}

1358: \end{equation}  

1359: where prime denote derivative with respect to $r$ as defined by \eqref{nr}. 

1360: 

1361: 

1362: 

1363: \subsubsection{Case (a)}

1364: Corresponding to case $(a)$ in \eqref{cases}, the power series solution in the infrared

1365: is 

1366: \begin{equation}

1367: \begin{split}

1368: z&=z_0+\frac{1}{4z_0}\ r^2+\calo(r^4)\,,\\

1369: f_1&=k_0\ r^2\biggl(1-\frac{(2z_0^2g_0^2+6z_0^2+g_0^2)\ r^2}{3z_0^2g_0^2}+\calo(r^4)\biggr)\,,\\

1370: f&=\frac 15\ \ln(h_0)+ \frac 15\ \ln(r)+\frac{(4z_0^2g_0^2-6z_0^2-g_0^2)\ r^2}{30z_0^2g_0^2}+\calo(r^4)\,,\\

1371: G&=g_0+\frac{3}{4g_0}\ r^2+\calo(r^4)\,,

1372: \end{split}

1373: \eqlabel{infrn2a}

1374: \end{equation}

1375: where $\{z_0,k_0,g_0\}$ are positive integration constants

1376: characterizing the 'size' of the wrapped $S^2$ in the infrared, the

1377: 'size' of the $S^1\subset S^3$ parameterized by $\phi_1$, in addition

1378: $g_0$ characterizes the 'size' of de Sitter space; $h_0$ is a trivial

1379: modulus corresponding to the value of the dilaton \eqref{diln2} in the

1380: infrared. Without loss of generality we will set $h_0=1$,

1381: which leaves us with the 3-dimensional parameter space of 

1382: initial conditions: $\{z_0,k_0,g_0\}$. 

1383: 

1384: Numerically we observe that given $\{z_0,g_0\}$ there is a critical value   

1385: $k_{critical}=k_{critical}(z_0,g_0)$,

1386: such that for $0<k_0<k_{critical}$ the supergravity solution \eqref{m10n2} is singularity-free,

1387: while for $k_0>k_{critical}$ the background geometry  has a naked time-like 

1388: singularity. This singularity is  associated with collapsing of the $S^2$ wrapped by the five-branes

1389: at finite value of the radial coordinate $r$. A typical evolution of $z(r)^2$ for 

1390: a given set of initial parameters $\{z_0,k_0,g_0\}$ in \eqref{infrn2a} is shown in Fig.~4.

1391: 

1392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1393: \begin{figure}[f4]

1394: \begin{center}

1395: \epsfig{file=casea.ps,width=0.7\textwidth}

1396: \caption{

1397: De-Sitter deformed GKMW solution exhibits an interesting phase transition, 

1398: as one varies scales of the geometry relative to the four-dimensional Hubble 

1399: parameter $H$.   A typical evolution of the $S^2$ size, $z(r)^2$, wrapped  

1400: by the five-branes. Here we choose infrared boundary conditions \eqref{infrn2a},

1401: with $g_0=1$, and $z(r=0)\equiv z_0=.5$. Notice that for $k_0\ge 3$ the $S^2$ collapses 

1402: at finite $r$. One can verify that this results in a naked time-like singularity of the 

1403: background geometry. For $k_0\le 2$, background geometry is smooth, and the asymptotics 

1404: are determined by \eqref{rinftyn2a}. 

1405: }

1406: \label{fig4}

1407: \end{center}

1408: \end{figure}

1409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1410: 

1411: 

1412:  

1413: Nonsingular solutions behave asymptotically, $r\gg 1$, as 

1414: \begin{equation}

1415: \begin{split}

1416: G^2&\to 3 r-\frac 34 \ \ln r\,,\\

1417: z^2&\to r+\left(-\frac 14 -\frac{k_{\infty}}{2}\right)\ \ln r\,,\\

1418: f&\to \frac 25\ r-\frac {3}{10}\ \ln r\,, \\

1419: f_1&\to k_{\infty}-\frac{k_{\infty}^2}{2}\ \frac 1r\,,

1420: \end{split}

1421: \eqlabel{rinftyn2a}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: where $k_{\infty}\equiv k_{\infty}(k_0,z_0)$ depends on the infrared

1424: data.  We verified \eqref{rinftyn2a} both analytically and, by

1425: extracting relevant asymptotics, numerically.  Generically

1426: $k_{\infty}\ne 1$, which implies that asymptotically the $S^3$

1427: transverse to $NS5$ branes remains squashed.  It is somewhat surprising

1428: that the infrared deformation of the theory has such a profound effect

1429: on its ultraviolet properties.  On the other hand, we have to remember

1430: that in the ultraviolet we are dealing with Little String Theory

1431: \cite{lst1,lst2}.  Thus it is conceivable that the observable phenomena is a

1432: reflection of the UV/IR mixing in this non-local model.  This 'mixing'

1433: clearly deserves further study.

1434: 

1435: \subsubsection{Case (b)}

1436: 

1437: Corresponding to case $(b)$ in \eqref{cases}, the power series solution in the infrared

1438: is 

1439: \begin{equation}

1440: \begin{split}

1441: z&=z_0+\frac{2z_0^2-k_0}{20z_0^3}\ r^2+\calo(r^4)\,,\\

1442: f_1&=k_0+\frac{k_0^2}{10z_0^4}\ r^2+\calo(r^4)\,,\\

1443: f&=h_0+\frac{8z_0^4+k_0}{100z_0^4}\ r^2+\calo(r^4)\,,\\

1444: G&=r\biggl(1-\frac{4z_0^2-k_0+8z_0^4}{240z_0^4}\ r^2+\calo(r^4)\biggr)\,,

1445: \end{split}

1446: \eqlabel{infrn2}

1447: \end{equation}  

1448: where $\{z_0,k_0\}$ are positive integration constants characterizing the 'size' of the wrapped $S^2$ 

1449: in the infrared, the 'size' of the $S^1\subset S^3$ parameterized by $\phi_1$; $h_0$ is a trivial modulus 

1450: corresponding to the value of the dilaton \eqref{diln2} in the infrared. Without loss of generality 

1451: we will set $h_0=0$.  

1452: 

1453: Given \eqref{infrn2}, the two classes of solutions of

1454: \eqref{nn21}---\eqref{nn25} differ depending whether

1455: $k_0>k_{critical}$ or $k_0< k_{critical}$, for a certain\footnote{From

1456: \eqref{infrn2} it is tempting to speculate that $k_{critical}(z_0)=2z_0^2$. Explicit numerical 

1457: integration shows that $k_{critical}(z_0)<2z_0^2$.}

1458: $k_{critical}=k_{critical}(z_0)$. In the former case the $S^2$ which

1459: $NS5$ branes wrap starts in the infrared $r=0$ at a finite radius $z_0$,

1460: and ultimately collapses  to zero size at finite $r=r_{singular}$,

1461: where the background has a naked time-like singularity. For $k_0<

1462: k_{critical}$ the supergravity flow is nonsingular, moreover as

1463: $r\to\infty$ we find the same asymptotics as in

1464: \eqref{rinftyn2a}. Again, generically $k_{\infty}\ne 1$.

1465: 

1466: 

1467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1468: \begin{figure}[f5]

1469: \begin{center}

1470: \epsfig{file=kinfty.ps,width=0.7\textwidth}

1471: \caption{

1472: Large $r$ (ultraviolet) asymptotics of nonsingular solutions of both phases

1473: in the de-Sitter deformed GKMW background \eqref{rinftyn2a} are characterized by 

1474: $k_\infty\equiv \lim_{r\to\infty} f_1(r)$, where $f_1(r)$ determines the 'squashing' 

1475: of the $S^3$ transverse to the $NS5$ branes. The phase (b), \eqref{cases},

1476: asymptotic behavior of nonsingular solutions, depending on the infrared data $\{k_0,z_0=1\}$. 

1477: Notice that $k_\infty$ can be both  larger or less than one, which leads to 

1478: a vastly different dynamics of the probe branes \eqref{vdef3}.     

1479: }

1480: \label{fig5}

1481: \end{center}

1482: \end{figure}

1483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1484: 

1485: \subsection{Slow roll}

1486: Given asymptotics of the nonsingular solution \eqref{rinftyn2a} (recall that 

1487: the dimensionless radial coordinate $r$ is given by \eqref{nr}), 

1488: the probe brane potential \eqref{vdef2} in terms of a canonically normalized inflaton 

1489: field $\Phi$ \eqref{cann2} becomes

1490: \begin{equation}

1491: \calv(\Phi)=\frac 32 H^2\left(1-\frac{\sqrt{k_\infty}}{\cos^2\theta+ k_\infty \sin^2\theta}\right)\ 

1492: \Phi^2\ \biggl[ \ln\left(\frac{\Phi^2 g^6}{\mu_5 H^2}\right)+\calo(1)\biggr]\,,\ \frac{\Phi^2 g^6}{\mu_5 H^2}\gg 1\,,

1493: \eqlabel{vdef3}

1494: \end{equation} 

1495: leading to generically large slow-roll parameter 

1496: \begin{equation}

1497: \eta_{GKMW}=\left(1-\frac{\sqrt{k_\infty}}{\cos^2\theta+ k_\infty \sin^2\theta}\right)\ 

1498:  \biggl[ \ln\left(\frac{\Phi^2 g^6}{\mu_5 H^2}\right)+\calo(1)\biggr]\,.

1499: \eqlabel{etagkmw}

1500: \end{equation}

1501: Depending on the infrared data  of supergravity phases in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, 

1502: nonsingular solutions can have asymptotically $k_\infty$ either greater of less than one,

1503: see Fig.~5. From \eqref{vdef3}, for $k_\infty>1$  the probe brane potential is locally minimized for 

1504: $\sin\theta=0$, which leads to a potential unbounded from below for large values 

1505: of $\Phi$. Here, the probe 

1506: brane would move toward the boundary, signaling the instability encountered previously in 

1507: de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ warped throat geometries. For $k_\infty<1$ the probe brane potential 

1508: is locally minimized for $\cos\theta=0$.  

1509: From \eqref{etagkmw} it appears that fine-tuning  $k_\infty\to 1_-$ would lead to  a slow roll 

1510: inflation. This is not so,  in fact for $k_\infty=1$  (including the subleading terms in \eqref{rinftyn2a}) 

1511: we find 

1512: \begin{equation}

1513: \eta_{GKMW}\bigg|_{k_{\infty}\to 1_-}=1+

1514: \frac 12 \cos^2\theta\ \ln\biggl[\frac{8 e}{\cos^2\theta} \ln\left(\frac{\Phi^2 g^6}{\mu_5 H^2}\right) +

1515: \calo(1)\biggr]\,,

1516: \eqlabel{etagkmw2}

1517: \end{equation}

1518: resulting in \eqref{etagkmw1}. 

1519: 

1520: 

1521: \section{Phenomenology}

1522: In this section we discuss phenomenological implications of the mobile brane inflation in 

1523: de-Sitter deformed warped throats of the compactification manifold. Specifically we comment on 

1524: inflation in KS throat \cite{kklt}, and de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ \cite{pw}, MN \cite{mn0008},

1525: GKMW \cite{n25}  throats of the compactification manifold.

1526: 

1527: 

1528: \subsection{Inflation in KS throat}

1529: The effective  four dimensional low energy  description \cite{k2} 

1530: and the detailed probe brane computation of \cite{br} show that the slow-roll inflation is not 

1531: possible in this simplest setup. Here, the slow role parameter is  $\eta=\ft 23$.

1532: An interesting  proposal to circumvent this obstacle was presented in  \cite{i8}, where inflation is 

1533: realized by a mobile $D3$ brane near the enhanced symmetry point of a compactification manifold 

1534: with several identical KS throats. One noticeable signature of the model \cite{i8} is the generic 

1535: prediction for the tilt parameter $n<1$ in the spectrum of density perturbations. Current observational 

1536: data indicate that for a class of models with $n<1$ \cite{d1,d2} 

1537: \begin{equation}

1538: n\simeq 0.97\,.

1539: \eqlabel{ndata}

1540: \end{equation}

1541: We emphasize the constraint \eqref{ndata} because in the inflationary models discussed below, thought we 

1542: also would have to resort to a multiple throat geometry, we find $n>1$. Thus the tilt in the spectrum 

1543: is a characteristic feature distinguishing our models from the one in \cite{i8}.    

1544: 

1545: \subsection{Inflation in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throat}

1546: Slow roll inflation in the de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throats was proposed in \cite{bn2} 

1547: and studied in details in section 2 of this paper. One noticeable difference of this setup

1548: compare to inflation in KS throat \cite{k2} is the fact that the inflationary throat does not 

1549: end in the IR: the redshift factor $Z$ at the 'bottom' of the inflationary throat is exactly zero. 

1550: This means that we can not generate a nonzero four dimensional Hubble parameter by placing a $\bD3$

1551: at the bottom of the inflationary throat. Indeed, recall that in the de-Sitter vacua construction  

1552: of KKLT \cite{kklt} $H^2\sim Z^4$.

1553: A simplest resolution is to assume that compactification manifold has (as least) two warped throat 

1554: geometries: one being an original KKLT throat, while inflationary one is de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$.   

1555: A cartoon picture of this inflationary scenario is shown in Fig.~6. One might worry whether an 'infinite'

1556: in the IR $\caln=2^*$  throat can be consistently 'glued' into a compactification manifold along with

1557: stabilizing the parameters that fixes $\eta$ (see Fig.~3) of the local model.

1558:  We do not have a definitive answer to this question. What is clear is that the 'infinite volume' of the local 

1559: de-Sitter $\caln=2^*$ throat comes from its UV end (as the radial coordinate in \eqref{ab} goes to infinity), 

1560: which is expected to be cutoff very much like a volume of local KS geometry \cite{ks} is 

1561: cutoff in the GKP compactification \cite{gkp}. Thus, having a zero redshift at the bottom 

1562: of the inflationary throat of this type does not pose  an immediate obstacle for the 

1563: compactification\footnote{It is extremely interesting to rigorously establish whether such throats 

1564: can be compactified.}. Also, though $\bD3$ brane at the end of the inflationary throat 

1565: does not affect $H$ (which is determined by KS throat of the compactification manifold), the exit from  inflation might 

1566: require putting a $\bD3$ brane there anyway. In what follows we assume that a cartoon of Fig.~6 can be realized 

1567: and study phenomenological implications of inflation in this model.

1568: 

1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1570: \begin{figure}[f6]

1571: \begin{center}

1572: \epsfig{file=comp.ps,width=0.7\textwidth}

1573: \caption{

1574: Inflationary scenario with a mobile $D3$  brane in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throat.

1575: In addition to $\caln=2^*$ throat, compactification manifold is required to have 

1576: a KS-throat with a $\bD3$ brane at the bottom. The Hubble scale of the four dimensional 

1577: de-Sitter vacuum is set by the fluxes and the $\bD3$ in the Klebanov-Strassler throat. 

1578: The slow roll inflation is realized by a mobile $D3$ brane in $\caln=2^*$ throat.   

1579: }

1580: \label{fig6}

1581: \end{center}

1582: \end{figure}

1583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1584: 

1585: 

1586: We assume that compactification manifold size $L$ is large in string units 

1587: \begin{equation}

1588: L^6\gg (\a')^3\,,

1589: \eqlabel{sizec}

1590: \end{equation}

1591: and 

1592:  \begin{equation}

1593: g_s\ll 1\,.

1594: \eqlabel{gsc}

1595: \end{equation}

1596: Above conditions validate the use of the supergravity approximation.  From the 

1597: low energy effective four dimensional perspective the potential energy driving acceleration is 

1598: \begin{equation}

1599: \calv_{eff}(\Phi)=3 m_{pl}^2 H^2+\frac 32\ \eta(\r_0)\ H^2 \Phi^2\ \biggl[1+

1600: \calo\left(\frac{L^4H^2 T_3}{\Phi^2}\right)\biggr]\,,

1601: \eqlabel{pottot}

1602: \end{equation}

1603: where the $\Phi$ independent term is a cosmological constant of the KS throat, and  $\eta(\r_0)$  

1604: is the slow roll parameter of mobile $D3$ brane in the inflationary throat summarized in 

1605: Fig.~3. Effective potential $\calv_{eff}$ is computed in the approximation for a mobile brane 

1606: to be far from the IR end of the inflationary throat. The latter approximation is reflected in the 

1607: condition \cite{br}

1608: \begin{equation}

1609: \frac{L^4H^2 T_3}{\Phi^2}\ll 1\,.

1610: \eqlabel{far}

1611: \end{equation}  

1612: In \eqref{pottot} $m_{pl}$ is the four dimensional Planck constant 

1613: \begin{equation}

1614: m_{pl}^2=m_{10}^8 L^6\sim (\a')^{-4} g_s^{-2} L^6\,,

1615: \eqlabel{mpldef}

1616: \end{equation} 

1617: and $T_3$ is Einstein frame 3-brane tension

1618: \begin{equation}

1619: T_3\sim (\a')^{-2}\,.

1620: \eqlabel{tend3}

1621: \end{equation}

1622: Finally, the computations for $\eta(\r_0)$ where done in the local geometry, \ie, the mobile 

1623: brane should be far from the UV end of the inflationary throat. Relating the brane position inside the throat 

1624: and inflaton field $\Phi$ as in \cite{br,bn2} this translates into 

1625: \begin{equation}

1626: L T_3^{1/2}\gg \Phi\,.

1627: \eqlabel{near}

1628: \end{equation}

1629: Both  conditions \eqref{far} and \eqref{near} imply 

1630: \begin{equation}

1631: H L\ll 1\,.

1632: \eqlabel{both}

1633: \end{equation}

1634: Notice that $H L$ is a characteristic of the KS throat of the compactification manifold. 

1635: 

1636: The  inflationary parameters corresponding to $\calv_{eff}$ are \cite{ll}: 

1637: slow roll parameters  $\{\eta,\epsilon\}$, 

1638: the tilt in the spectrum of the density perturbations $n$, the scale of the adiabatic density 

1639: perturbations  $\delta_H$, the power in the gravity wave perturbations $\calp_{grav}$ 

1640: \begin{equation}

1641: \eta=m_{pl}^2\ \frac{\calv_{eff}''}{\calv_{eff}}=\eta(\r_0)\,,

1642: \eqlabel{idata1}

1643: \end{equation}

1644: \begin{equation}

1645: \epsilon=\frac 12\ m_{pl}^2\ \left(\frac{\calv_{eff}'}{\calv_{eff}}\right)^2=

1646: \frac 12 \eta(\r_0)^2\ \left(\frac{\Phi}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\,,

1647: \eqlabel{idata2}

1648: \end{equation}

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: n=1-6\epsilon+2\eta=1-3\eta(\r_0)^2\ \left(\frac{\Phi_i}{m_{pl}}\right)^2+2\eta(\r_0)\,,

1651: \eqlabel{idata3}

1652: \end{equation}

1653: \begin{equation}

1654: \delta_H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{75}\pi}\ \frac{1}{m_{pl}^3}\ \frac{\calv_{eff}^{3/2}}{\calv_{eff}'}=\frac{1}{5\pi\eta(\r_0)}\ 

1655: \frac{H}{\Phi_i}\,,

1656: \eqlabel{idata4}

1657: \end{equation}

1658: \begin{equation}

1659: \calp_{grav}=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\ \frac{H^2}{m_{pl}^2}\,,

1660: \eqlabel{idata5}

1661: \end{equation}

1662: where $\Phi_i$ is the value of the inflaton field $N_e\approx 60$ e-foldings before the end of inflation.

1663: \nxt

1664: The first observation is that $\Phi_i$ must satisfy \eqref{near}. Thus, given \eqref{mpldef}, \eqref{tend3} 

1665: and $\eta(\r_0)<1$, 

1666: we have an upper bound on the slow-roll 

1667: parameter $\epsilon$

1668: \begin{equation}

1669: \epsilon\ll \eta(\r_0)^2\ \left(\frac{L T_3^{1/2}}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\sim \left(\frac{\a' g_s}{L^2}\right)^2\ll 1\,,

1670: \eqlabel{epmax}

1671: \end{equation} 

1672: where we used the validity of the supergravity approximation \eqref{sizec}, \eqref{gsc}.

1673: This immediately implies that in our model the tilt in the spectrum of perturbations is

1674: \begin{equation}

1675: n\approx 1+2\eta(\r_0)>1\,.

1676: \eqlabel{tour}

1677: \end{equation} 

1678: Current observational  data for models with $n>1$ constrain (in a 95$\%$ confindence region) \cite{d1,d2}

1679: \begin{equation}

1680: 1<n< 1.28\,,

1681: \eqlabel{etal}

1682: \end{equation}

1683: leading to $0<\eta<0.14$. From Fig.~3 there is a large region of the allowed\footnote{By the construction of the 

1684: model.} $\r_0$-parameter space (more than $60\%$) 

1685: consistent with this constraint.

1686: \nxt

1687: The slow-roll condition (assuming we adjust $\eta<0.14$) is valid as long as $\calv_{eff}$ \eqref{pottot} 

1688: is justified. With potential \eqref{pottot}, inflation starting at $\Phi_{start}$ and ending at $\Phi_{end}$  

1689: will produce $N_e$ e-foldings

1690: \begin{equation}

1691: N_e=\frac{1}{\eta(\r_0)} \ln \left(\frac {\Phi_{start}} {\Phi_{end}} \right)\,.  

1692: \eqlabel{nmax}

1693: \end{equation}

1694: Taken for $\Phi_{start}$ and $\Phi_{end}$ the UV \eqref{near} and IR  \eqref{far} cutoffs  of the local inflationary

1695: throat respectively, we find that the maximal number of e-folding in this model is 

1696: \begin{equation}

1697: N_e^{max}\sim -\frac{1}{\eta(\r_0)}\ \ln \left(H L\right)\,.

1698: \eqlabel{nmax1}

1699: \end{equation} 

1700: \nxt

1701: To illustrate that phenomenologically viable scenarios are possible let's 

1702: assume that $\eta=0.02$ (which is clearly possible from Fig.~3). 

1703: We take 

1704: \begin{equation}

1705: \begin{split}

1706: m_{pl}=&2.4\times 10^{18}\ GeV\,,\\

1707: \a'^{-1/2}\equiv 1/l_s=&3.5\times 10^{15}\ GeV\,.

1708: \end{split}

1709: \eqlabel{i8data}

1710: \end{equation} 

1711: We further  assume $L\sim 5 l_s$. Given \cite{d1}

1712: \begin{equation}

1713: \delta_H=1.9\times 10^{-5}\,,

1714: \eqlabel{deltad}

1715: \end{equation}

1716: we find 

1717: \begin{equation}

1718: \begin{split}

1719: \frac{H}{\Phi_i}&\approx 6.0\times 10^{-6}\,.

1720: \end{split}

1721: \eqlabel{ratio}

1722: \end{equation}  

1723: Let's assume that inflation starts $\frac {1}{10}$ from the  UV cutoff of the throat, $\Phi_i=\ft {1}{10} L T_3^{1/2}$. 

1724: Then \eqref{ratio} leads to a low scale of inflation 

1725: \begin{equation}

1726: H\approx 6.7\times 10^{8}\ GeV\,.

1727: \eqlabel{infscale}

1728: \end{equation}

1729: From \eqref{nmax1} the maximum number of e-foldings in this model 

1730: \begin{equation}

1731: N_e^{max}\sim 693\,.

1732: \eqlabel{tmax}

1733: \end{equation}

1734: The power in gravity wave perturbations in this model is 

1735: \begin{equation}

1736: \calp_{grav}\approx 4.0\times 10^{-21}\,.

1737: \eqlabel{pres}

1738: \end{equation}

1739: which is much below the level of detection in future experiments.

1740: 

1741: 

1742: \subsection{Inflation from wrapped braneworlds}

1743: In sections 3 and 4 of this paper we considered exotic inflationary models, where a 

1744: mobile $D5$ brane was wrapping a two-cycle in the inflationary throat. 

1745: These  local inflationary throats are de-Sitter deformed MN geometry \cite{blw}, 

1746: and the newly constructed de-Sitter deformation of the GKMW background \cite{n25},

1747: respectively. In the former case we found 

1748: $\eta_{MN}=\ft 32$, while in the latter $\eta_{GKMW}\ge 1$ (generically $\eta_{GKMW}\gg 1$).

1749: Thus in the simplest inflationary scenario advocated here, these models are excluded.

1750:  

1751: 

1752: 

1753: \section{Conclusion}

1754: In this paper we discussed probe brane  dynamics as a tool to study inflation in four dimensional de-Sitter vacua 

1755: of  string theory warped flux compactifications.  This is a fruitful approach to study 

1756: brane inflation in the framework proposed in \cite{k2}, where the inflaton field is identified with the 

1757: mobile brane position deep inside the inflationary throat. In an attempt to find slow roll single field inflationary 

1758: models we investigated probe brane dynamics in various local de-Sitter deformed warped throat geometries. 

1759: Specifically, we studied $D3$ probe dynamics in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throat \cite{b2,bn2},

1760: as well as exotic inflationary models with a  $D5$ inflationary brane wrapping a two-cycle 

1761: of the de-Sitter deformed MN geometry \cite{blw}, or de-Sitter deformed GKMW geometry constructed in this paper. 

1762: While the probe brane dynamics in local geometries can not address the question of the physics 

1763: responsible for the generation of the four-dimensional Hubble scale, it has an advantage of being a 

1764: rigorous analytical tool to probe the dynamics of the effective four-dimensional  inflation. 

1765: We found that ``wrapped  braneworld inflationary'' models based on $D5$ branes wrapping a 

1766: two-cycle of the resolved conifold can not lead to slow roll inflation. On the other hand, 

1767: inflation from mobile $D3$ branes in de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throats can be slow roll. 

1768: Thus, it is interesting to further study the latter scenario. 

1769: 

1770: In view if this, the most outstanding question 

1771: is understanding  the compactification of the de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throats. 

1772: A possible phenomenological set-up is proposed in Fig.~6. To recapitulate, 

1773: consider a Calabi-Yau threefold with  fluxes generating  a KS throat. These fluxes, and the compactification 

1774: manifold  can be chosen in such a way \cite{gvw,gkp} that the only remaining modulus would be the 

1775: overall K\"ahler modulus of the compactification manifold. The latter can be further fixed by non-perturbative 

1776: string instanton effects \cite{kklt}. Further introducing a de-Sitter brane at the end 

1777: of the KS throat can lead to a four-dimensional de-Sitter vacuum \cite{kklt}.  

1778: A stack of a large number of $D3$ branes away from the KS throat of the compactification manifold

1779: would produce additional throat with zero redshift factor at the bottom\footnote{We are assuming that 

1780: sufficient number of the orientifold planes and/or 3-form fluxes is introduced 

1781: to satisfy RR 5-form Bianchi identity.}. At this stage this will 

1782: be a standard  $AdS_5$ throat with four-dimensional de-Sitter slicing and the Hubble scale 

1783: as produced by the $\bD3$ brane in the KS throat. As such, slow roll inflation in this ``de-Sitter deformed\footnote{

1784: ``Deformation'' 

1785: here is a misnomer, as all what is required is a difference slicing of the same manifold.}''

1786:  $\caln=4$ throat is yet impossible. 

1787: Local $\caln=4$ throat 

1788: ($AdS_5\times S^5$ background) can be deformed into $\caln=2^*$ throat (supergravity flow of Pilch and Warner \cite{pw})

1789: by turning on 3-form fluxes and  appropriately deforming the original background geometry.

1790: Likewise,  local $\caln=4$ throat with four-dimensional  de-Sitter slicing can be deformed into de-Sitter 

1791: $\caln=2^*$ throat \cite{b2}. It is natural to  expect that one can turn on an analogous deformation parameter 

1792: (denoted $\r_0$ in Fig.~3) for the stack of $D3$  branes located on a compact manifold  away from the KS throat

1793: with a $\bD3$ brane sitting at its bottom. This procedure would 'compactify' the local de-Sitter 

1794: $\caln=2^*$ throat, inside which we argued slow roll inflation is possible. In a sense, 

1795: this is parallel to the construction of GKP \cite{gkp} where a local (non-compact) KS-throat 

1796: was embedded inside a Calabi-Yau manifold. As a result of compactification, $\r_0$, which 

1797: was a parameter of the local geometry will be promoted to a dynamical field. An important question  is 

1798: whether  dynamics is such that $\r_0$ can be stabilized in the region where the slow roll is allowed,

1799: see Fig.~3. 

1800: 

1801: Phenomenologically,  inflation in the de-Sitter deformed $\caln=2^*$ throat will be characterized 

1802: by having a relatively low Hubble scale ($H\sim 10^8-10^{10}\ GeV$), negligible (unobservable) power in 

1803: the gravity wave perturbations, and larger than one tilt in the spectrum of density perturbations. 

1804: It will be interesting to explore models for the exit from inflation in this scenario (we mentioned 

1805: that this might require placing $\bD3$ brane in the inflationary throat as well). Also, assuming that 

1806: the Standard Model fields live in the KS-throat, they will not couple directly to the inflaton. 

1807: Thus finding efficient mechanisms for reheating might be challenging as well.

1808:         

1809:   

1810:  

1811:    

1812:        

1813:         

1814: 

1815: 

1816: 

1817: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1818: We would like  to thank   Rob Myers and Mohsen Alishahiha

1819: for valuable discussions. 

1820: Research at the University of Western Ontario and the Perimeter Institute is supported in part by funds from NSERC of 

1821: Canada.

1822: Research at IPM is supported in part by Iranian TWAS chapter based at ISMO. 

1823: 

1824: 

1825: 

1826: 

1827: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{in1} A.~Guth, ``The inflationary universe: a possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,''

1830: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 347 (1981) 

1831: 

1832: \bibitem{in2} A.~Linde, ``A new inflationary universe scenario: a possible solutions of the 

1833: horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primodial monopole problems,'' 

1834: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 108}, 389 (1982); 

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{in3} A.~Albrecht and P.~Steinhard, ``Cosmology fro grand unified theories with radiatively induced symmetry 

1837: breaking,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 48}, 1220 (1982).

1838: 

1839: \bibitem{gvw}

1840: S.~Gukov, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten,

1841: ``CFT's from Calabi-Yau four-folds,''

1842: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 69 (2000)

1843: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 608}, 477 (2001)]

1844: [arXiv:hep-th/9906070].

1845: 

1846: \bibitem{gkp}

1847: S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,

1848: ``Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,''

1849: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 106006 (2002)

1850: [arXiv:hep-th/0105097].

1851: 

1852: 

1853: \bibitem{kklt}

1854: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi,

1855: ``De Sitter vacua in string theory,''

1856: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 046005 (2003)

1857: [arXiv:hep-th/0301240].

1858: 

1859: \bibitem{k2} 

1860: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde, J.~Maldacena, L.~McAllister and

1861: S.~P.~Trivedi, ``Towards inflation in string theory,''

1862: JCAP {\bf 0310}, 013 (2003)

1863: [arXiv:hep-th/0308055].

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{ddb1} G.~R.~Dvali and S.~H.~H.~Tye,

1866: ``Brane inflation,''

1867: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 450}, 72 (1999)

1868: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812483].

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{ddb2} S.~H.~S.~Alexander,

1871: ``Inflation from D - anti-D brane annihilation,''

1872: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 023507 (2002)

1873: [arXiv:hep-th/0105032].

1874: 

1875: \bibitem{ddb3} 

1876: G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and S.~Solganik,

1877: ``D-brane inflation,''

1878: arXiv:hep-th/0105203.

1879: 

1880: \bibitem{ddb4} C.~P.~Burgess, M.~Majumdar, D.~Nolte, F.~Quevedo, G.~Rajesh and R.~J.~Zhang,

1881: ``The inflationary brane-antibrane universe,''

1882: JHEP {\bf 0107}, 047 (2001)

1883: [arXiv:hep-th/0105204].

1884: 

1885: \bibitem{rs}

1886: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1887: ``An alternative to compactification,''

1888: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999)

1889: [arXiv:hep-th/9906064].

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{br}

1892: A.~Buchel and R.~Roiban,

1893: ``Inflation in warped geometries,'' 

1894: arXiv:hep-th/0311154.

1895: 

1896: 

1897: \bibitem{ks}

1898: I.~R.~Klebanov and M.~J.~Strassler,

1899: ``Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and  chiSB-resolution of naked singularities,''

1900: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 052 (2000)

1901: [arXiv:hep-th/0007191].

1902: 

1903: \bibitem{kt}

1904: I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~A.~Tseytlin,

1905: ``Gravity duals of supersymmetric SU(N) x SU(N+M) gauge theories,''

1906: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 578}, 123 (2000)

1907: [arXiv:hep-th/0002159].

1908: 

1909: \bibitem{bt}

1910: A.~Buchel and A.~A.~Tseytlin,

1911: ``Curved space resolution of singularity of fractional D3-branes on  conifold,''

1912: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 085019 (2002)

1913: [arXiv:hep-th/0111017].

1914: 

1915: \bibitem{ba}

1916: A.~Buchel,

1917: ``Gauge / gravity correspondence in accelerating universe,''

1918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 125015 (2002)

1919: [arXiv:hep-th/0203041].

1920: 

1921: 

1922: \bibitem{bn2}

1923: A.~Buchel,

1924: ``Gauge theories on hyperbolic spaces and dual wormhole instabilities,''

1925: arXiv:hep-th/0402174.

1926: 

1927: 

1928: \bibitem{b1}

1929: A.~Buchel,

1930: ``On effective action of string theory flux compactifications,''

1931: arXiv:hep-th/0312076.

1932: 

1933: \bibitem{kk}

1934: A.~Kehagias and E.~Kiritsis,

1935: ``Mirage cosmology,''

1936: JHEP {\bf 9911}, 022 (1999)

1937: [arXiv:hep-th/9910174].

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{mn0008}

1940: J.~M.~Maldacena and C.~Nunez,

1941: ``Towards the large N limit of pure N = 1 super Yang Mills,''

1942: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 588 (2001)

1943: [arXiv:hep-th/0008001].

1944: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008001;%%

1945: 

1946: 

1947: \bibitem{n25}

1948: J.~P.~Gauntlett, N.~Kim, D.~Martelli and D.~Waldram,

1949: ``Wrapped fivebranes and N = 2 super Yang-Mills theory,''

1950: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 106008 (2001)

1951: [arXiv:hep-th/0106117]; 

1952: F.~Bigazzi, A.~L.~Cotrone and A.~Zaffaroni,

1953: ``N = 2 gauge theories from wrapped five-branes,''

1954: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519}, 269 (2001)

1955: [arXiv:hep-th/0106160].

1956: 

1957: 

1958: \bibitem{blw}

1959: A.~Buchel, P.~Langfelder and J.~Walcher,

1960: ``On time-dependent backgrounds in supergravity and string theory,''

1961: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 024011 (2003)

1962: [arXiv:hep-th/0207214].

1963: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207214;%%

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{v1}

1966: H.~Verlinde,

1967: ``Holography and compactification,''

1968: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 580}, 264 (2000)

1969: [arXiv:hep-th/9906182].

1970: 

1971: 

1972: \bibitem{v2}

1973: C.~S.~Chan, P.~L.~Paul and H.~Verlinde,

1974: ``A note on warped string compactification,''

1975: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 581}, 156 (2000)

1976: [arXiv:hep-th/0003236].

1977: 

1978: 

1979: 

1980: 

1981: \bibitem{i1}

1982: E.~Silverstein and D.~Tong,

1983: ``Scalar speed limits and cosmology: Acceleration from D-cceleration,''

1984: arXiv:hep-th/0310221.

1985: 

1986: \bibitem{i1p}

1987: M.~Alishahiha, E.~Silverstein and D.~Tong,

1988: ``DBI in the sky,''

1989: arXiv:hep-th/0404084.

1990: 

1991: 

1992: \bibitem{i2}

1993: J.~P.~Hsu, R.~Kallosh and S.~Prokushkin,

1994: ``On brane inflation with volume stabilization,''

1995: JCAP {\bf 0312}, 009 (2003)

1996: [arXiv:hep-th/0311077].

1997: 

1998: 

1999: \bibitem{i3}

2000: H.~Firouzjahi and S.~H.~H.~Tye,

2001: ``Closer towards inflation in string theory,''

2002: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 584}, 147 (2004)

2003: [arXiv:hep-th/0312020].

2004: 

2005: 

2006: \bibitem{i4}

2007: L.~Pilo, A.~Riotto and A.~Zaffaroni,

2008: ``Old inflation in string theory,''

2009: arXiv:hep-th/0401004.

2010: 

2011: \bibitem{i5}

2012: M.~R.~Garousi, M.~Sami and S.~Tsujikawa,

2013: ``Cosmology from rolling massive scalar field on the anti-D3 Brane of de Sitter vacua,''

2014: arXiv:hep-th/0402075.

2015: 

2016: 

2017: \bibitem{i6}

2018: C.~P.~Burgess, J.~M.~Cline, H.~Stoica and F.~Quevedo,

2019: ``Inflation in realistic D-brane models,''

2020: arXiv:hep-th/0403119. 

2021: 

2022: \bibitem{i7}

2023: O.~DeWolfe, S.~Kachru and H.~Verlinde,

2024: ``The giant inflaton,''

2025: arXiv:hep-th/0403123.

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{i8}

2028: N.~Iizuka and S.~P.~Trivedi,

2029: ``An inflationary model in string theory,''

2030: arXiv:hep-th/0403203.

2031: 

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{berg} 

2034: M.~Berg, M.~Haack and B.~Kors,

2035: ``Loop corrections to volume moduli and inflation in string theory,''

2036: arXiv:hep-th/0404087.

2037: 

2038: 

2039: \bibitem{pw}

2040: K.~Pilch and N.~P.~Warner,

2041: ``N = 2 supersymmetric RG flows and the IIB dilaton,''

2042: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 594}, 209 (2001)

2043: [arXiv:hep-th/0004063].

2044: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004063;%%

2045: 

2046: 

2047: 

2048: \bibitem{bpp}

2049: A.~Buchel, A.~W.~Peet and J.~Polchinski,

2050: ``Gauge dual and noncommutative extension of an N = 2 supergravity  solution,''

2051: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 044009 (2001)

2052: [arXiv:hep-th/0008076].

2053: 

2054: 

2055: 

2056: \bibitem{cjv}

2057: N.~Evans, C.~V.~Johnson and M.~Petrini,

2058: ``The enhancon and N = 2 gauge theory/gravity RG flows,''

2059: JHEP {\bf 0010}, 022 (2000)

2060: [arXiv:hep-th/0008081].

2061: 

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{b2}

2064: A.~Buchel,

2065: ``Compactifications of the N = 2* flow,''

2066: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 570}, 89 (2003)

2067: [arXiv:hep-th/0302107].

2068: 

2069: 

2070: \bibitem{bl}

2071: A.~Buchel and J.~T.~Liu,

2072: ``Thermodynamics of the N = 2* flow,''

2073: JHEP {\bf 0311}, 031 (2003)

2074: [arXiv:hep-th/0305064].

2075: 

2076: \bibitem{sw}

2077: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,

2078: ``The D1/D5 system and singular CFT,''

2079: JHEP {\bf 9904}, 017 (1999)

2080: [arXiv:hep-th/9903224].

2081: 

2082: 

2083: \bibitem{pol2}

2084: J.~Polchinski,

2085: ``String Theory. Vol. 2: Superstring Theory And Beyond,''

2086: 

2087: 

2088: 

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{clp}

2091: M.~Cvetic, H.~Lu and C.~N.~Pope,

2092: ``Consistent Kaluza-Klein sphere reductions,''

2093: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 064028 (2000)

2094: [arXiv:hep-th/0003286].

2095: 

2096: 

2097: \bibitem{lst1}

2098: N.~Seiberg,

2099:  ``New theories in six dimensions and matrix description of M-theory on  T**5

2100: and T**5/Z(2),'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 408}, 98 (1997)

2101: [arXiv:hep-th/9705221].

2102: 

2103: \bibitem{lst2}

2104: O.~Aharony,

2105: ``A brief review of 'little string theories',''

2106: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 17}, 929 (2000)

2107: [arXiv:hep-th/9911147].

2108: 

2109: \bibitem{d1}

2110: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

2111: ``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

2112: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

2113: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 1 (2003)

2114: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207].

2115: 

2116: \bibitem{d2}

2117: H.~V.~Peiris {\it et al.},

2118: ``First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations:

2119: Implications for inflation,''

2120: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 213 (2003)

2121: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302225].

2122: 

2123: 

2124: \bibitem{ll}

2125: A.~R.~Liddle and D.~H.~Lyth,

2126: ``Cosmological Inflation And Large-Scale Structure,''

2127:  Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2000) 400 p.

2128: 

2129: \end{thebibliography}

2130: 

2131: \end{document}

2132: 

2133: 

2134: