1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% author.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % sample root file for your contribution to a "contributed book"

4: %

5: % "contributed book"

6: %

7: % Use this file as a template for your own input.

8: %

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer-Verlag %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: 

11: 

12: % RECOMMENDED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

13: \documentclass[vecphys]{svmult}

14: 

15: \usepackage{makeidx}         % allows index generation

16: \usepackage{graphicx}        % standard LaTeX graphics tool

17:                              % when including figure files

18: \usepackage{multicol}        % used for the two-column index

19: \usepackage[bottom]{footmisc}% places footnotes at page bottom

20: % etc.

21: % see the list of further useful packages

22: % in the Reference Guide, Sects. 2.3, 3.1-3.3

23: 

24: \makeindex             % used for the subject index

25:                        % please use the style sprmidx.sty with

26:                        % your makeindex program

27: 

28: \def\lsim{\hbox{ \raise.35ex\rlap{$<$}\lower.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}\ }}

29: \def\gsim{\hbox{ \raise.35ex\rlap{$>$}\lower.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}\ }}

30: 

31: \def\xrightarrow#1#2#3#4{\,\lower#1pt\hbox{$\stackrel{\stackrel{\displaystyle #2}%

32: {\hbox to #3cm{\rightarrowfill}}}{#4}$}\,}

33:     

34: \newcommand{\Mpl}{M_{\rm Pl}}

35: \newcommand{\mpl}{m_{\rm Pl}}

36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

37: 

38: \begin{document}

39: 

40: \title*{Production of Topological Defects at the End of Inflation}

41: \author{Mairi Sakellariadou}

42: \institute{Department of Physics, King's College, University of

43: London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.

44: \ \ \ 

45: \texttt{[email: Mairi.Sakellariadou@kcl.ac.uk\ ]}}

46: 

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: Cosmological inflation and topological defects have been considered

50: for a long time, either in disagreement or in competition.  On the one

51: hand an inflationary era is required to solve the shortcomings of the

52: hot big bang model, while on the other hand cosmic strings and

53: string-like objects are predicted to be formed in the early

54: universe. Thus, one has to find ways so that both can coexist. I

55: discuss how to reconcile cosmological inflation with cosmic strings.

56: 

57: \section{Introduction}

58: \label{sec:1}

59: For a number of years, inflation and cosmological defects have been

60: considered either as two incompatible or as two competing aspects of

61: modern cosmology. Let me explain why. Historically, one of the reasons

62: for which inflation was proposed is to rescue the standard hot big

63: bang model from the monopole problem. More precisely, setting an

64: inflationary era after the formation of monopoles, these unwanted

65: defects would have been diluted away. However, such a mechanism could

66: also dilute cosmic strings unless they were produced at the end or

67: after inflation. Later on, inflation and topological defects competed

68: as the two alternative mechanisms to provide the generation of density

69: perturbations leading to the observed large-scale structure and the

70: anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). However, the

71: inconsistency between predictions from topological defect models and

72: CMB data on the one hand, and the good agreement between adiabatic

73: fluctuations generated by the amplification of the quantum

74: fluctuations of the inflaton field on the other hand, indicated a

75: clear preference for inflation. Finally, the genericity of cosmic

76: string formation in the framework of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) and

77: the formation of defect-like objects in brane cosmologies, convinced

78: us that cosmic strings have to play a r\^ole, which may be

79: sub-dominant but it is definitely there. This conclusion led to the

80: consideration of mixed models, where inflation and cosmic strings

81: coexist. The study of such models, the comparison of their

82: predictions against current data, and the consequences for the

83: theories within which we based our study is the aim of this study.

84: 

85: In Section \ref{sec:Inf}, I briefly describe cosmological inflation,

86: its success and its open questions. I then discuss hybrid inflation in

87: general and then I focus on F-/D-term inflation in the framework of

88: supersymmetry and supergravity theories. In Section \ref{sec:TD}, I

89: discuss topological defects in general, and cosmic strings in

90: particular. I then argue the genericity of string formation in the

91: framework of GUTs. In Section \ref{sec:bc}, I briefly discuss

92: braneworld cosmology, focusing on inflation within braneworld

93: cosmologies and the generation of cosmic superstrings. In Section

94: \ref{sec:oc}, I discuss observational consequences, and in particular

95: the spectrum of CMB anisotropies and that of gravity waves. I compare

96: the predictions of the models against current data, which allow me to

97: constrain the parameters space of the models. I round up with the

98: conclusions in Section \ref{sec:concl}.

99: 

100: \section{Cosmological Inflation}

101: \label{sec:Inf}

102: Despite its success, the standard hot big bang cosmological model has

103: a fairly severe drawback, namely the requirement, up to a high degree

104: of accuracy, of an initially homogeneous and flat universe. An

105: appealing solution to this problem is to introduce, during the very

106: early stages of the evolution of the universe, a period of accelerated

107: expansion, known as cosmological inflation \cite{infl}. The

108: inflationary era took place when the universe was in an unstable

109: vacuum-like state at a high energy density, leading to a

110: quasi-exponential expansion. The combination of the

111: hot big bang model and the inflationary scenario provides at present

112: the most comprehensive picture of the universe at our

113: disposal. Inflation ends when the Hubble parameter

114: $H=\sqrt{8\pi\rho/(3 M_{\rm Pl}^2)}$ (where $\rho$ denotes the energy

115: density and $M_{\rm Pl}$ stands for the Planck mass) starts decreasing

116: rapidly. The energy stored in the vacuum-like state gets transformed

117: into thermal energy, heating up the universe and leading to the

118: beginning of the standard hot big bang radiation-dominated era.

119: 

120: Inflation is based on the basic principles of general relativity and

121: field theory, while when the principles of quantum mechanics are also

122: considered, it provides a successful explanation for the origin of the

123: large scale structure, associated with the measured temperature

124: anisotropies in the CMB spectrum. Inflation is overall a very

125: successful scenario and many different models have been proposed and

126: studied over the last 25 years.  Nevertheless, inflation

127: still remains a paradigm in search of model. In principle, one should

128: search for an inflationary model inspired from some fundamental theory

129: and subsequently test its predictions against current data.  Moreover,

130: releasing the present universe form its acute dependence on the

131: initial data, inflation is faced with the challenging task of proving

132: itself generic, in the sense that inflation would take place without

133: fine-tuning of the initial conditions.  This issue, already addressed

134: in the past \cite{gp-cs}, has been recently re-investigated

135: \cite{GT-us}.

136: 

137: 

138: \subsection{Hybrid Inflation in SUSY GUTs}

139: \label{subsec:hisg}

140: Chaotic inflation \cite{chaotic} is, to my opinion, the most elegant

141: inflationary model. Nevertheless, in order for density inhomogeneities

142: generated at the end of inflation to have the required amplitude

143: $(\delta\rho/\rho)\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-5}$, the model requires fine-tuning.

144: In the simplest theory of a single scalar field minimally coupled to

145: gravity, the coupling must be of the order of

146: $\lambda\sim10^{-13}-10^{-14}$; the same fine-tuning was required in the

147: new inflationary model. This is a reason for which hybrid inflation

148: \cite{hybrid} has been proposed.

149: 

150: Hybrid inflation is based on Einstein's gravity but is driven by false

151: vacuum. The inflaton field rolls down its potential while another

152: scalar field is trapped in an unstable false vacuum. Once the inflaton

153: field becomes much smaller than some critical value, a phase

154: transition to the true vacuum takes place and inflation ends (for an

155: illustration see Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig1})). Such a phase transition

156: may leave behind topological defects as false vacuum remnants. In

157: particular, the formation of topological defects may provide the

158: mechanism to gracefully exit the inflationary era in a number of

159: particle physics motivated inflationary models \cite{infldef}.

160: 

161: \begin{figure}

162: \centering

163: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig1.eps}

164: \caption{A simplistic drawing of hybrid inflation.}

165: \label{fig:fig1}       

166: \end{figure}

167: 

168: Theoretically motivated inflationary models can be built in the

169: context of supersymmetry or supergravity.  $N=1$ supersymmetry models

170: contain complex scalar fields which often have flat directions in

171: their potential, thus offering natural candidates for inflationary

172: models. In this framework, hybrid inflation driven by F-terms or

173: D-terms is the standard inflationary model, leading \cite{jrs}

174: generically to cosmic string formation at the end of inflation.

175: F-term inflation is potentially plagued with the $\eta$-problem, while

176: D-term inflation avoids it. Let me briefly explain what this problem

177: is. It is difficult to achieve slow-roll inflation within

178: supergravity, however inflation should last long enough to solve the

179: shortcomings of the standard big bang model. The positive false vacuum

180: of the inflaton field breaks spontaneously global supersymmetry, which

181: gets restored once inflation has been completed. However, since in

182: supergravity theories, supersymmetry breaking is transmitted by

183: gravity, all scalar fields acquire an effective mass of the order of

184: the expansion rate during inflation. Such a heavy mass for the scalar

185: field playing the r\^ole of the inflaton spoils the slow-roll

186: condition. It has been shown \cite{bd} that the {\sl Hubble-induced}

187: mass problem has its origin on the F-term interactions, while it

188: disappears if the vacuum energy is instead dominated by the D-terms of

189: the superfields.

190: 

191: \subsubsection{F-term Inflation}

192: F-term inflation can be naturally accommodated in the framework of

193: GUTs when a GUT gauge group, G$_{\rm GUT}$,

194: is broken down to the Standard Model (SM) gauge group, G$_{\rm SM}$,

195: at an energy scale $M_{\rm GUT}$ according to the scheme

196: \begin{equation}

197: \label{ssbF}

198: {\rm G}_{\rm GUT} \stackrel{M_{\rm GUT}}{\hbox to 0.8cm

199: {\rightarrowfill}} {\rm H}_1 \xrightarrow{9}{M_{\rm

200: infl}}{1}{\Phi_+\Phi_-} {\rm H}_2 {\longrightarrow} {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~;

201: \end{equation}

202: $\Phi_+, \Phi_-$ is a pair of GUT Higgs superfields in non-trivial

203: complex conjugate representations, which lower the rank of the group

204: by one unit when acquiring non-zero vacuum expectation value. The

205: inflationary phase takes place at the beginning of the symmetry

206: breaking ${\rm H}_1\stackrel{M_{\rm infl}}{\longrightarrow} {\rm

207: H}_2$.

208: The gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by adding F-terms to the

209: superpotential. The Higgs mechanism leads generically \cite{jrs} to

210: Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen strings, called F-term strings.

211: 

212: F-term inflation is based on the globally supersymmetric

213: renormalisable superpotential

214: \begin{equation}\label{superpot}

215: W_{\rm infl}^{\rm F}=\kappa  S(\Phi_+\Phi_- - M^2)~,

216: \end{equation}

217: where $S$ is a GUT gauge singlet left handed superfield and $\kappa$, $M$

218:  are two constants ($M$ has dimensions of mass) which can be taken

219:  positive with field redefinition.  The scalar potential, as a function

220:  of the scalar complex component of the respective chiral superfields

221:  $\Phi_\pm, S$, reads

222: \begin{equation}

223: \label{scalpot1}

224: V(\phi_+,\phi_-, S)= |F_{\Phi_+}|^2+|F_{\Phi_-}|^2+|F_ S|^2

225: +\frac{1}{2}\sum_a g_a^2 D_a^2~.

226: \end{equation}

227: The F-term is such that $F_{\Phi_i} \equiv |\partial W/\partial

228: \Phi_i|_{\theta=0}$, where we take the scalar component of the

229: superfields once we differentiate with respect to $\Phi_i=\Phi_\pm,

230:  S$. The D-terms are

231: $D_a=\bar{\phi}_i\,{(T_a)^i}_j\,\phi^j +\xi_a$,

232: with $a$ the label of the gauge group generators $T_a$, $g_a$ the

233: gauge coupling, and $\xi_a$ the Fayet-Iliopoulos term. By

234: definition, in the F-term inflation the real constant $\xi_a$ is zero;

235: it can only be nonzero if $T_a$ generates an extra U(1) group.  In the

236: context of F-term hybrid inflation the F-terms give rise to the

237: inflationary potential energy density while the D-terms are flat

238: along the inflationary trajectory, thus one may neglect them during

239: inflation.

240: \begin{figure}

241: \centering

242: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig2.eps}

243: \caption{A representation of the potential for F-term inflation in the

244: context of supersymmetry.}

245: \label{fig:fig2}       

246: \end{figure}

247: 

248: The potential, plotted in Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig2}), has one valley of

249: local minima, $V=\kappa^2 M^4$, for $S> M $ with $\phi_+ = \phi_-=0$,

250: and one global supersymmetric minimum, $V=0$, at $S=0$ and $\phi_+ =

251: \phi_- = M$. Imposing initially $ S \gg M$, the fields quickly settle

252: down the valley of local minima.  Since in the slow-roll inflationary

253: valley the ground state of the scalar potential is non-zero,

254: supersymmetry is broken.  In the tree level, along the inflationary

255: valley the potential is constant, therefore perfectly flat. A slope

256: along the potential can be generated by including one-loop radiative

257: corrections, which can be calculated using the Coleman-Weinberg

258: expression \cite{cw}

259: \begin{equation}\label{cw}

260: \Delta V_{1-{\rm loop}}=\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\sum_i (-1)^{F_i}

261: m_i^4\ln\frac{m_i^2}{\Lambda^2}~,

262: \end{equation}

263: where the sum extends over all helicity states i, with fermion number

264: $F_i$ and mass squared $m_i^2$; $\Lambda$ stands for a renormalisation

265: scale.  In this way, the scalar potential gets a little tilt which

266: helps the inflaton field $S$ to slowly roll down the valley of

267: minima. The one-loop radiative corrections to the scalar potential

268: along the inflationary valley lead to the effective potential

269: \cite{rs1}

270: \begin{eqnarray}

271: \label{VexactF}

272: V_{\rm eff}^{\rm F}(|S|)&=&\kappa^2M^4\biggl\{1+\frac{\kappa^2

273: \cal{N}}{32\pi^2}\biggl[2\ln\frac{|S|^2\kappa^2}{\Lambda^2}

274: +(z+1)^2

275: \ln(1+z^{-1})\nonumber\\

276: &&~~~~~~~~~+(z-1)^2\ln(1-z^{-1})

277: \biggr]\biggr\} ~~\mbox{with} ~~z=\frac{|S|^2}{M^2}~;

278: \end{eqnarray}

279: $\cal{N}$ stands for the dimensionality of the representation to which

280: the complex scalar components $\phi_+, \phi_-$ of the chiral

281: superfields $\Phi_+, \Phi_-$ belong. This implies that the effective

282: potential, Eq.~(\ref{VexactF}), depends on the particular symmetry

283: breaking scheme considered (see, Eq.~(\ref{ssbF})).

284: 

285: \subsubsection{D-term Inflation}

286: D-term inflation is one of the most interesting models of

287: inflation. It is possible to implement it naturally within high energy

288: physics, as for example Supersymmetric GUTS (SUSY GUTs), Supergravity

289: (SUGRA), or string theories. Moreover, it avoids the {\sl

290: Hubble-induced mass} problem. In D-term inflation, the gauge symmetry

291: is spontaneously broken by introducing Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI)

292: D-terms. In standard D-term inflation, the constant FI term gets

293: compensated by a single complex scalar field at the end of the

294: inflationary era, which implies that standard D-term inflation ends

295: with the formation of cosmic strings, called D-strings.  More

296: precisely, in its simplest form, the model requires a symmetry

297: breaking scheme

298: \begin{equation}

299: {\rm G}_{\rm GUT}\times {\rm U}(1) \stackrel{M_{\rm GUT}}{\hbox to

300:   0.8cm{\rightarrowfill}} {\rm H} \times {\rm U}(1)

301: \xrightarrow{9}{M_{\rm infl}}{1}{\Phi_+\Phi_-} {\rm H} \rightarrow

302: 	    {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~.

303: \end{equation}

304: 

305: A supersymmetric description of the standard D-term inflation is

306: insufficient; the inflaton field reaches values of the order of the

307: Planck mass, or above it, even if one concentrates only around the

308: last 60 e-folds of inflation; the correct analysis is therefore in the

309: context of supergravity.

310: 

311: D-term inflation is based on the superpotential

312: \begin{equation}\label{superpoteninflaD}

313: W=\lambda S\Phi_+\Phi_-~,

314: \end{equation}

315: where $S, \Phi_+, \Phi_-$ are three chiral superfields and $\lambda$

316: is the superpotential coupling. In its standard form, the model

317: assumes an invariance under an Abelian gauge group $U(1)_\xi$, under

318: which the superfields $S, \Phi_+, \Phi_-$ have charges $0$, $+1$ and

319: $-1$, respectively. It is also assumed the existence of a constant

320: Fayet-Iliopoulos term $\xi$.  

321: 

322: In the \emph{standard} supergravity formulation the Lagrangian depends

323: on the K\"ahler potential $K(\Phi_i,\bar{\Phi}_i)$ and the

324: superpotential $W(\Phi_i)$ only through the combination

325: \begin{equation}

326: \label{kwcomb}

327: G(\Phi_i,\bar{\Phi}_i)= \frac{K(\Phi_i,\bar{\Phi}_i)}{\Mpl^2} +\ln

328: \frac{|W(\Phi_i)|^2}{\Mpl^6}~.

329: \end{equation}

330: However, this \emph{standard} supergravity formulation is

331: inappropriate to describe D-term inflation \cite{toine1}. In D-term

332: inflation the superpotential vanishes at the unstable de Sitter vacuum

333: (anywhere else the superpotential is nonzero). Thus, \emph{standard}

334: supergravity is inappropriate, since it is ill-defined at $W=0$. In

335: conclusion, D-term inflation must be described with a non-singular

336: formulation of supergravity when the superpotential vanishes.

337: 

338: Various formulations of effective supergravity can be constructed from

339: the superconformal field theory. One must first build a Lagrangian

340: with full superconformal theory, and then the gauge symmetries that

341: are absent in Poincar\'e supergravity must be gauge fixed. In this

342: way, one can construct a non-singular theory at $W=0$, where the

343: action depends on all three functions: the K\"ahler potential

344: $K(\Phi_i,\bar{\Phi}_i)$, the superpotential $W(\Phi_i)$ and the

345: kinetic function $f_{ab}(\Phi_i)$ for the vector multiplets.  To

346: construct a formulation of supergravity with constant Fayet-Iliopoulos

347: terms from superconformal theory, one finds \cite{toine1} that under

348: U(1) gauge transformations in the directions in which there are

349: constant Fayet-Iliopoulos terms $\xi_\alpha$, the superpotential $W$

350: must transform as \cite{toine1}

351: \begin{equation}

352: \delta_\alpha W=\eta_{\alpha i}\partial^i W = -i

353: \frac{g\xi_\alpha}{\Mpl^2}W~;

354: \end{equation}

355: it is incorrect to keep the same charge assignments as in

356: standard supergravity.

357: 

358: D-term inflationary models can be built with different choices of

359: K\"ahler geometry.  Let us first consider D-term inflation within minimal

360: supergravity. It is based on

361: \begin{equation}\label{Kmin}

362: K_{\rm min}=\sum_i |\Phi_i|^2=|\Phi_-|^2+|\Phi_+|^2+|S|^2~,

363: \end{equation}

364: with $f_{ab}(\Phi_i)=\delta_{ab}$. 

365: The tree level scalar potential is \cite{toine1}

366: \begin{eqnarray}\label{DpotenSUGRAtotbis}

367: V_{\rm min}=&&

368: \lambda^2\exp\left({\frac{|\phi_-|^2+|\phi_+|^2+|S|^2}{M^2_{\rm

369: Pl}}}\right)\nonumber 

370: \Biggl[|\phi_+\phi_-|^2\left(1+\frac{|S|^4}{M^4_{\rm

371: Pl}}\right)\nonumber\\

372: &&~~~~~~~~~~+|\phi_+S|^2 \left(1+\frac{|\phi_-|^4}{M^4_{\rm

373: Pl}}\right)

374: +|\phi_-S|^2 \left(1+\frac{|\phi_+|^4}{M^4_{\rm

375: Pl}}\right) +3\frac{|\phi_-\phi_+S|^2}{M^2_{\rm Pl}}\Biggr]\nonumber\\

376: &&+\ \frac{g^2}{2}\left(q_+|\phi_+|^2+q_-|\phi_-|^2+\xi\right)^2~,

377: \end{eqnarray}

378: with 

379: \begin{equation}

380: q_\pm = \pm 1-\xi/(2\Mpl^2)~.  

381: \end{equation} 

382: The potential has two minima: One global minimum at zero and one local

383: minimum equal to $V_0=(g^2/2)\xi^2$.  For arbitrary large $S$ the tree

384: level value of the potential remains constant and equal to $V_0$; the

385: $S$ plays the r\^ole of the inflaton field. Assuming chaotic initial

386: conditions $|S|\gg S_{\rm s}$, inflation begins. Along the

387: inflationary trajectory the D-term, which is the dominant one, splits

388: the masses in the $\Phi_\pm$ superfields, leading to the one-loop

389: effective potential for the inflaton field.  Considering the one-loop

390: radiative corrections \cite{rs1,prl2005}

391: \begin{equation}\label{scalarpeff}

392: V^{\rm eff}_{\rm min}(|S|)=\frac{g^2\xi^2}{2}\left\{

393: 1+\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\left[2\ln\left(z\frac{g^2\xi}{\Lambda^2}\right)+f_V(z)

394: \right] \right\} ~,

395: \end{equation}

396: where

397: \begin{equation}

398: f_V(z) = (z+1)^2\ln\left( 1+\frac{1}{z}\right) + (z-1)^2\ln\left(

399: 1-\frac{1}{z}\right)~,

400: \end{equation}

401: with

402: \begin{equation}

403: z\equiv \frac{\lambda^2}{g^2\xi} |S|^2

404: \exp\left(\frac{|S|^2}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\right)~.

405: \end{equation}

406: 

407: As a second example, consider D-term inflation based on K\"ahler

408: geometry with a shift symmetry, $\phi\rightarrow\phi +c$ (where $c$ is

409: a real constant). Such models can lead \cite{shift} to flat enough

410: potentials with stabilisation of the volume of the compactified space.

411: They can therefore be used to built successful inflationary models

412: in the framework of string theories. The K\"ahler

413: potential is

414: \begin{equation}\label{K3}

415: K_{\rm shift}=\frac{1}{2} (S+\bar{S})^2+|\phi_+|^2+|\phi_-|^2~;

416: \end{equation}

417: the kinetic function has the minimal structure. The scalar

418: potential reads \cite{rs3}

419: \begin{eqnarray}

420: V_{\rm shift}&\simeq&

421: ~\frac{g^2}{2}\left(|\phi_+|^2-|\phi_-|^2+\xi\right)^2 \nonumber\\

422: &&+\lambda^2\exp\left({\frac{|\phi_-|^2+|\phi_+|^2}{M^2_{\rm

423: Pl}}}\right)\exp\left[{\frac{(S+\bar{S})^2}{2M^2_{\rm Pl}}}\right]

424: \nonumber\\ & & ~~~\times

425: \Biggl[|\phi_+\phi_-|^2\left(1+\frac{S^2+\bar{S}^2}{M^2_{\rm

426: Pl}}+\frac{|S|^2|S+\bar{S}|^2}{M^4_{\rm Pl}}\right)+|\phi_+S|^2

427: \left(1+\frac{|\phi_-|^4}{M^4_{\rm Pl}}\right) \nonumber\\ &&

428: +|\phi_-S|^2 \left(1+\frac{|\phi_+|^4}{M^4_{\rm Pl}}\right)

429: +3\frac{|\phi_-\phi_+S|^2}{M^2_{\rm Pl}}\Biggr] ~.

430: \end{eqnarray}

431: As in D-term inflation within minimal supergravity, the potential has

432: a global minimum at zero for $\langle\Phi_+\rangle=0$ and

433: $\langle\Phi_-\rangle=\sqrt{\xi}$ and a local minimum equal to

434: $V_0=(g^2/2)\xi^2$ for $\langle S\rangle\gg S_{\rm c}$ and

435: $\langle\Phi_\pm\rangle=0$.  

436: 

437: The exponential factor $e^{|S|^2}$, which we got in the case of

438: minimal supergravity, has been replaced by $e^{(S+\bar{S})^2/2}$.

439: Writing $S=\eta+i\phi_0$ one gets $e^{(S+\bar{S})^2/2}=e^{\eta^2}$.

440: If $\eta$ plays the r\^ole of the inflaton field, we obtain the same

441: potential as for minimal D-term inflation. If instead $\phi_0$ is the

442: inflaton field, the inflationary potential is identical to that of the

443: usual D-term inflation within global supersymmetry \cite{rs1}.  The

444: latter case is better adapted with the choice $K_{\rm shift}$, since

445: then the exponential term is constant during inflation and thus it

446: cannot spoil the slow-roll conditions.

447: 

448: As a last example, consider a K\"ahler potential with

449: non-renormalisable terms:

450: \begin{eqnarray}

451: K_{\rm

452: non-renorm}&=&|S|^2+|\Phi_+|^2+|\Phi_-|^2\nonumber\\

453: &&+f_+\bigg(\frac{|S|^2}{M_{\rm

454: Pl}^2}\bigg)|\Phi_+|^2+f_-\bigg(\frac{|S|^2}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\bigg)

455: |\Phi_-|^2+b\frac{|S|^4}{\Mpl^2}~,

456: \label{gen}

457: \end{eqnarray}

458: where $f_\pm$ are arbitrary functions of $(|S|^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ and

459: the superpotential is given in Eq.~(\ref{superpoteninflaD}).  The

460: effective potential reads \cite{rs3}

461: \begin{equation}

462: V^{\rm eff}_{\rm non-renorm}(|S|)=\frac{g^2\xi^2}{2}\left\{

463: 1+\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\left[ 2\ln \left(

464: z\frac{g^2\xi}{\Lambda^2}\right)+f_V(z) \right] \right\} ~,

465: \end{equation}

466: where 

467: \begin{equation}

468: \label{deffV}

469: f_V(z) = (z+1)^2\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right) + (z-1)^2\ln\left(

470: 1-\frac{1}{z}\right)~

471: \end{equation}

472: \begin{equation}

473: \mbox{with} ~~~~z\equiv

474: \frac{\lambda^2|S|^2}{g^2\xi}\exp\bigg(\frac{|S|^2}{\Mpl^2}

475: +b\frac{|S|^4}{\Mpl^4}\bigg) \frac{1}{(1+f_+)(1+f_-)}~.

476: \end{equation}

477: The cosmological consequences of these inflationary models will be

478: presented in Section \ref{sec:oc}.

479: 

480: \section{Topological Defects in GUTs}

481: \label{sec:TD}

482: Following the standard version of the hot big bang model, the universe

483: could have expanded from a very hot (with a temperature $T\gsim

484: 10^{19} {\rm GeV}$) and dense state, cooling towards its present

485: state.  As the universe expands and cools down, it undergoes a number

486: of phase transitions, breaking the symmetry between the different

487: interactions. Such phase transitions may leave behind topological

488: defects ~\cite{td} as false vacuum remnants, via the Kibble mechanism

489: \cite{kibble}.  Whether or not topological defects are formed during

490: phase transitions followed by Spontaneously Broken Symmetries (SSB)

491: depend on the topology of the vacuum manifold ${\cal M}_n$, which also

492: determines the type of the produced defects.  The properties of ${\cal

493: M}_n$ are usually described by the $k^{\rm th}$ homotopy group

494: $\pi_k({\cal M}_n)$, which classifies distinct mappings from the

495: $k$-dimensional sphere $S^k$ into the manifold ${\cal M}_n$.

496: 

497: Let me consider the symmetry breaking of a group G down to a subgroup

498: H of G . If ${\cal M}_n={\rm G}/{\rm H}$ has disconnected components,

499: or equivalently if the order $k$ of the nontrivial homotopy group is

500: $k=0$, two-dimensional defects, {\sl domain walls}, get formed.  The

501: spacetime dimension, $d$, of the defects is determined by the order of

502: the nontrivial homotopy group by $d=4-1-k$. If ${\cal M}_n$ is not

503: simply connected, meaning that ${\cal M}_n$ contains loops which

504: cannot be continuously shrunk into a point, {\sl cosmic strings} get

505: produced. A necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation

506: of stable strings is that the first (fundamental) homotopy group

507: $\pi_1({\cal M}_n)$ of ${\cal M}_n$, is nontrivial, or multiply

508: connected. Cosmic strings are line-like $(d=2)$ defects. If ${\cal

509: M}_n$ contains unshrinkable surfaces, then {\sl monopoles} $(k=1,

510: ~d=1)$ get formed.  Finally, if ${\cal M}_n$ contains non-contractible

511: three-spheres, then event-like defects, called {\sl textures}, $(k=3,

512: ~d=0)$ arise.

513: 

514: Depending on whether the original symmetry is local (gauged) or global

515: (rigid), topological defects are called local or global. The energy of

516: local defects is strongly confined, while the gradient energy of

517: global defects is spread out over the causal horizon at defect

518: formation.  Patterns of symmetry breaking which lead to the formation

519: of local monopoles or local domain walls are ruled out, since they

520: should soon dominate the energy density of the universe and close it,

521: unless an inflationary era took place after their formation.  Local

522: textures are insignificant in cosmology since their relative

523: contribution to the energy density of the universe decreases rapidly

524: with time \cite{textures}.

525: 

526: Even if the non-trivial topology required for the existence

527: of a defect is absent in a field theory, it may still be possible to have

528: defect-like solutions. Defects may be {\sl embedded}

529: in such topologically trivial field theories \cite{embedded}. While

530: stability of topological defects is guaranteed by topology, embedded

531: defects are in general unstable under small perturbations.

532: 

533: \subsection{Cosmic Strings}

534: \label{subsec:CS}

535: Cosmic strings \cite{mslnp} are analogous to flux tubes in type-II

536: superconductors, or to vortex filaments in superfluid helium.

537: Topologically stable strings do not have ends; they either form closed

538: loops or they extend to infinity. The linear mass density of strings,

539: $\mu$, which in the simplest models it also determines the string tension,

540: specifies the energy scale, $\eta$, of the symmetry breaking, $\mu\sim

541: \eta^2$. The strength of gravitational interactions of strings is

542: expressed in terms of the dimensionless parameter $G\mu\sim

543: \eta^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2$ (with $G$ the gravitational Newton's constant and

544: $M_{\rm Pl}$ the Planck mass).  For grand unification strings, the

545: energy per unit length is $\mu\sim 10^{22} {\rm kg}/{\rm m}$, or

546: equivalently, $G\mu\sim {\cal O}(10^{-6})$.

547: 

548: At formation, cosmic strings form a tangled network, made of Brownian

549: infinitely long strings and a distribution of closed loops. Curved

550: segments of strings moving under their tension reach almost

551: relativistic speeds. When two string segments intersect, they exchange

552: partners ({\sl intercommute}) with probability equal to 1.

553: String-string and self-string intersections lead to daughter

554: infinitely long strings and closed loops, as they can be seen in

555: Fig.~({\ref{fig:fig3}). 

556: \begin{figure}

557: \centering

558: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{fig3a.eps}

559: \vskip.8cm

560: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{fig3b.eps}

561: \vskip.8cm

562: \includegraphics[height=3cm]{fig3c.eps}

563: \caption{At the top, string-string interactions at one point leading

564: to the formation of two new long strings via exchange of partners. In

565: the middle, string-string interactions at two points, leading to two

566: new long strings and a loop. At the bottom, self-self interactions

567: leading to the formation of a new long string and a loop

568: \cite{mslnp}.}

569: \label{fig:fig3}       

570: \end{figure}

571: Clearly, string intercommutations produce discontinuities on the new

572: string segments at the intersection point. These discontinuities ({\sl

573: kinks}) are composed of right- and left-moving pieces travelling along

574: the string at the speed of light.

575: 

576: Early analytic work \cite{one-scale} identified the key property of

577: {\sl scaling}, where at least the basic properties of the string

578: network can be characterised by a single length scale, roughly the

579: persistence length (defined as the distance beyond which the

580: directions along the string are uncorrelated), $\xi(t)$, and the

581: typical separation between string segments, $d(t)$, both grow with the

582: cosmic horizon.  This result was supported by subsequent numerical

583: work \cite{numcs}.  However, further investigation revealed dynamical

584: processes, including loop production, at scales much smaller than

585: $\xi$ \cite{proc}.

586: 

587: Recent numerical simulations of cosmic string evolution in a expanding

588: universe found evidence \cite{cmf} of a scaling regime for the cosmic

589: string loops in the radiation and matter dominated eras down to the

590: hundredth of the horizon time. It is important to note that the

591: scaling was found without considering any gravitational back reaction

592: effect; it was just the result of string intercommuting mechanism. As

593: it was reported in Ref.~\cite{cmf}, the scaling regime of string loops

594: appears after a transient relaxation era, driven by a transient

595: overproduction of string loops with lengths close to the initial

596: correlation length of the string network. Calculating the amount of

597: energy momentum tensor lost from the string network, it was found

598: \cite{cmf} that a few percents of the total string energy density

599: disappear in the very brief process of formation of numerically

600: unresolved string loops during the very first timesteps of the string

601: evolution. Subsequently, other studies supported these findings

602: \cite{vov}.  A snapshot of the evolution of a cosmic string network

603: during the matter dominated era is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}.

604: \begin{figure}

605: \centering

606: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig4.ps}

607: \caption{Snapshot of a string network in the matter-dominated era

608: \cite{cmf}.}

609: \label{fig:fig4}       

610: \end{figure}

611: 

612: \subsection{Genericity of Cosmic String Formation within SUSY GUTs}

613: \label{subsec:gcs}

614: To investigate the cosmological consequences of cosmic strings formed

615: at the end of hybrid inflation, one should first address the question

616: of whether such objects are generically formed. I will briefly discuss

617: the genericity of cosmic string formation in the framework of SUSY

618: GUTS.

619: 

620: Even though the Standard Model has been tested to a very high

621: precision, it is incapable of explaining neutrino masses \cite{SK}.

622: An extension of the Standard Model gauge group can be realised within

623: Supersymmetry (SUSY). SUSY offers a solution to the gauge hierarchy

624: problem, while in the supersymmetric standard model the gauge coupling

625: constants of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions meet at

626: a single point $M_{\rm GUT} \simeq (2-3) \times 10^{16}$ GeV.  In

627: addition, SUSY GUTs can provide the scalar field which could drive

628: inflation, explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe,

629: and propose a candidate, the lightest superparticle, for cold dark

630: matter.

631: 

632: Within SUSY GUTs there is a large number of SSB patterns leading from

633: a large gauge group G to the SM gauge group G$_{\rm SM}\equiv$

634: SU(3)$_{\rm C}\times$ SU(2)$_{\rm L}\times$ U(1)$_{\rm Y}$. The study

635: of the homotopy group of the false vacuum for each SSB scheme will

636: determine whether there is defect formation and it will identify the

637: type of the formed defect. Clearly, if there is formation of domain

638: walls or monopoles, one will have to place an era of supersymmetric

639: hybrid inflation to dilute them. To consider a SSB scheme as a

640: successful one, it should be able to explain the matter/anti-matter

641: asymmetry of the universe and to account for the proton lifetime

642: measurements \cite{SK}.  In what follows, I consider a mechanism of

643: baryogenesis via leptogenesis, which can be thermal or non-thermal

644: one.  In the case of non-thermal leptogenesis, U(1)$_{\rm B-L}$ (B and

645: L, are the baryon and lepton numbers, respectively) is a sub-group of

646: the GUT gauge group, G$_{\rm GUT}$, and B-L is broken at the end or

647: after inflation. In the case of thermal leptogenesis, B-L is broken

648: independently of inflation. If leptogenesis is thermal and B-L is

649: broken before the inflationary era, then one should check whether the

650: temperature at which B-L is broken, which will define the mass of the

651: right-handed neutrinos, is smaller than the reheating temperature

652: which should be lower than the limit imposed by the gravitino. To

653: ensure the stability of proton, the discrete symmetry Z$_2$, which is

654: contained in U(1)$_{\rm B-L}$, must be kept unbroken down to low

655: energies. This implies that the successful SSB schemes should end at

656: G$_{\rm SM}\times$ Z$_2$.  I will then examine how often cosmic

657: strings have survived after the inflationary era, within all

658: acceptable SSB patterns.

659: 

660: To accomplish this task one has to choose the large gauge group

661: G$_{\rm GUT}$.  In Ref. \cite{jrs} this study has been done explicitly

662: for a large number of simple Lie groups. Since I consider GUTs based

663: on simple gauge groups, the type of supersymmetric hybrid inflation

664: will be of the F-type. The minimum rank of G$_{\rm GUT}$ has to be at

665: least equal to 4, to contain the G$_{\rm SM}$ as a subgroup.  Then one

666: has to study the possible embeddings of G$_{\rm SM}$ in G$_{\rm GUT}$

667: to be in agreement with the Standard Model phenomenology and

668: especially with the hypercharges of the known particles. Moreover, the

669: group must include a complex representation, needed to describe the

670: Standard Model fermions, and it must be anomaly free.  Since, in

671: principle, ${\rm SU}(n)$ may not be anomaly free, I assume that the

672: ${\rm SU}(n)$ groups which I use, they have indeed a fermionic

673: representation that certifies that the model is anomaly free. I set as

674: the upper bound on the rank $r$ of the group, $r\leq 8$. Clearly, the

675: choice of the maximum rank is in principle arbitrary.  This choice

676: could, in a sense, be motivated by the Horava-Witten \cite{hw} model,

677: based on ${\rm E}_8\times {\rm E}_8$. Thus, the large gauge group

678: G$_{\rm GUT}$ could be one of the following: SO(10), E$_6$, SO(14),

679: SU(8), SU(9); flipped SU(5) and [SU(3)]$^3$ are included within this

680: list as subgroups of SO(10) and E$_6$, respectively.

681: 

682: A detailed study of all the SSB schemes which bring us from G$_{\rm

683: GUT}$ down to the Standard Model gauge group G$_{\rm SM}$, by one or more

684: intermediate steps, shows that cosmic strings are generically formed

685: at the end of hybrid inflation.  If the large gauge group G$_{\rm

686: GUT}$ is SO(10) then cosmic strings formation is unavoidable

687: \cite{jrs, rachel}.  For ${\rm

688: E}_6$ it depends whether one considers thermal or non-thermal

689: leptogenesis. More precisely, under the assumption of non-thermal

690: leptogenesis then cosmic strings formation is unavoidable. If I

691: consider thermal leptogenesis then cosmic strings formation at the end

692: of hybrid inflation arises in $98\%$ of the acceptable SSB schemes

693: \cite{jm}.  If the requirement of having Z$_2$ unbroken down to low

694: energies is relaxed and thermal leptogenesis is considered as being

695: the mechanism for baryogenesis, then cosmic strings formation

696: accompanies hybrid inflation in $80\%$ of the SSB schemes \cite{jm}.

697: 

698: For an illustration I give below the list of the SSB

699: schemes of ${\rm E}_6$ down to the G$_{\rm SM}\times Z_2$ via ${\rm

700: SO}(10)\times{\rm U}(1)$ (the reader is referred to Ref.~\cite{jrs}

701: for a full analysis).

702: Every $\stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow}$ represent an SSB

703: during which there is formation of topological defects, whose type

704: is denoted by $n$: $1$ for monopoles, $2$ for topological cosmic

705: strings, $2'$ for embedded strings, $3$ for domain walls. Note

706: that for e.g. $3_{\rm C}~2_{\rm L}~2_{\rm R}~1_{\rm B-L}$ stands

707: for SU(3)$_{\rm C}\times$ SU(2)$_{\rm L}\times$ SU(2) $_{\rm

708: R}\times$ U(1)$_{\rm B-L}$.  

709: 

710: \begin{equation}

711:     {\begin{array}{cllllll}

712: {\rm E}_6

713: \stackrel{1}{\rightarrow} {\rm SO(10)} ~1_{\rm V'}  &

714:   \left\{

715:     \begin{array}{cllllccccc}

716:  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}  & {\rm SO(10)}  & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:51})}}\\

717:  \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow} & 5  ~1_{\rm V}   ~1_{\rm V'}  & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} ~~~ \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:5})}} \\

718:  \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &  5_{\rm F}   ~1_{\rm V}   ~1_{\rm V'}

719: & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} ~~~ \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:5F})}}

720: \\

721:  \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &  5_{\rm E}   ~1_{\rm V}   ~1_{\rm V'}  & \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}   ~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~Z_2 \\

722:  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} & 5  ~1_{\rm V'}  ~ Z_2   & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}   ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:5}a)}} \\

723:  \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow} & 5  ~1_{\rm V}  & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}  

724:  ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:51}a)}}\\

725:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &  5_{\rm F}   ~1_{\rm V} & \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}  ~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~ Z_2 \\

726: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}   ~1_{\rm V}  & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}   ~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~Z_2 \\

727:  \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}   ~1_{\rm V'}  ~Z_2  & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}   ~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}~ Z_2 \\

728: \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm V'}

729: & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} ~~~ \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6})}}

730: \\

731: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps})}}\\

732: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'} & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} 

733: ~~~ \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}c)}}

734: \\

735: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'} & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} 

736: ~~~ \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}b)}}

737: \\

738: 

739:   \end{array}

740:   \right.

741:     \end{array}  }

742: \end{equation}

743: where

744: \begin{equation}

745: \label{eq:51}

746:     {

747:   {\rm SO(10)} \left\{ \begin{array}{cccccc}

748:     \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow} & 5   ~1_{\rm V} &

749:       \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm Z} ~1_{\rm V}

750:       &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

751:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L}  ~2_{\rm R}   &

752: \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}    & \mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps})}

753: \\

754:       \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L}   ~2_{\rm R}     ~Z_2^{\rm C}   &  \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}   

755:  & \mbox{{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:psZ2})}}

756: \\

757:   \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~Z_2^{\rm C}   &  \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}  

758: & \mbox{{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:psZ2}b)}}\\

759:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}   &  \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}  &    

760: \mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps}b)}\\

761:   \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}     ~Z_2^{\rm C}   &  \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} 

762: & \mbox{{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:psZ2}a)}}\\

763:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}   

764: & \mbox{{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps}a)}}\\

765:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}   &   {\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~Z_2  \\

766:   \end{array}

767:   \right.

768:     }

769: \end{equation}

770: 

771: 

772: \begin{equation}

773: \label{eq:5}

774: \begin{array}{clllllccc}

775:  5  ~1_{\rm V}   ~1_{\rm V'}

776: & \left\{

777: \begin{array}{clllllccc}

778: \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} & 5  ~1_{\rm V'}  ~Z_2

779: & \left\{

780: \begin{array}{clllllccc}

781:  \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}   ~1_{\rm V'}  ~ Z_2  & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~Z_2 \\

782: \end{array}

783:   \right.

784: \\

785: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}   ~1_{\rm V}   ~1_{\rm V'}

786: & \left\{

787: \begin{array}{cllllllccc}

788: \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}   ~1_{\rm V}  & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~ Z_2  \\

789:  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}   ~1_{\rm V'}  ~Z_2  & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~ Z_2 \\

790: \end{array}

791:   \right.

792: \\

793:  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} & 5  ~1_{\rm V} & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}   

794:  ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:51}a)}}\\

795: \end{array}

796:   \right.\end{array}

797: \end{equation}

798: 

799: \begin{equation}

800: \label{eq:5F}

801: \begin{array}{clllllccc}

802:  5_{\rm F}   ~1_{\rm V}   ~1_{\rm V'}

803: & \left\{

804: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

805: ~\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} &  ~~5_{\rm F}   ~1_{\rm V}   & \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}   & {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2 \\

806:  ~\stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow} &  ~{\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2 \\

807: \end{array}

808:   \right.

809: \end{array}

810: \end{equation}

811: 

812: \begin{equation}

813: \label{eq:ps6}

814: \begin{array}{clllllccc}

815: 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm V'}

816: &\left\{

817: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

818: \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps})}} \\

819: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'}

820: & \left\{

821: \begin{array}{cllllllccc}

822: \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C}  ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}&  {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

823: \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} 1_{\rm V'}~Z_2 &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

824: \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

825:   \end{array}

826:   \right.

827: \\

828: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'}

829: & \left\{

830: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

831: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}

832: ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}b)}} \\

833: \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L}&\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}

834: ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps}a)}} \\

835: \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} 1_{\rm V'}~Z_2 &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} ~~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

836: \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} ~~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

837: \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

838:   \end{array}

839:   \right.

840: \\

841: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm V'}

842: & \left\{

843: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

844:  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R}  &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& 

845: ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps}b)}} \\

846: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'}  &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}

847: &~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}b)}} \\

848: \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} 1_{\rm V'}~Z_2 &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

849: \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2 \\

850: \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

851:  \end{array}

852:   \right.

853: \\

854: \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} 1_{\rm V'}~Z_2 & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} ~~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

855: \stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} 

856: ~~~\mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps}a)}} \\

857: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} & \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow} ~~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

858:   \end{array}

859:   \right.\end{array}

860: \end{equation}

861: with

862: 

863:  \begin{equation}

864: \label{eq:ps}

865: \begin{array}{clllcccc}

866:  4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}   &

867: \left\{

868: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

869: \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow} & 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm

870: B-L} & \left\{

871: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

872:  \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}  &   {\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~Z_2   \\

873:   \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}  &   {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2\\

874:  \end{array}

875: \right.

876: \\

877:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}   &

878: \left\{

879: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

880:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &   \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}  &   {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2\\

881:  \stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}  &   {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2\\

882:  \end{array}

883: \right.

884: \\

885:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  ~~~~\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}      ~~{\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2\\

886:   \end{array}

887: \right.

888: \end{array}

889: \end{equation}

890: 

891: \begin{equation}

892: \label{eq:psZ2}

893: \begin{array}{clllcccc}

894:   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}     ~Z_2^{\rm C}   &

895: \left\{

896: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

897: 

898:  \stackrel{1 }{\longrightarrow}  &    3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}     ~Z_2^{\rm C}   &

899: \left\{

900: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

901: \stackrel{3}{\longrightarrow}  &    3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &   \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}   &   

902: ~~~\mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps}a)}   \\

903:  \stackrel{1,3}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}  &   {\rm G}_{\rm SM}  ~ Z_2 \\

904:   \end{array}

905: \right.

906: \\

907:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~Z_2^{\rm C}   &

908: \left\{

909: \begin{array}{cllllccc}

910:   \stackrel{3}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}   &  {\longrightarrow}  &  

911: ~~~\mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps}b)} \\

912:   \stackrel{1,3}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}  &  {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2\\

913:   \end{array}

914: \right.\\

915: \stackrel{3}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}

916: &{\longrightarrow}   ~~~\mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps})}   \\

917:   \stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}  &   4_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}   &  {\longrightarrow}    

918: ~~~\mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps}b)} \\

919: \stackrel{1,3}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~2_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}   &  \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}     ~

920: ~~~\mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps}a)} \\

921:   \stackrel{1, 3}{\longrightarrow}  &   3_{\rm C}     ~2_{\rm L}     ~1_{\rm R}     ~1_{\rm B-L}    &  \stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}     ~~~ {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2

922:  \end{array}

923: \right.

924: \end{array}

925: \end{equation}

926: In addition, there are more direct schemes; they are listed below:

927: 

928: 

929: \begin{equation}

930:     {

931: {\rm E}_6\left\{ \begin{array}{clllllcccc}

932: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 5 ~1_{\rm V} ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& \mbox{{\rm Eq.(\ref{eq:5})}}\\

933: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 5_{\rm F} ~1_{\rm V} ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& \mbox{{\rm Eq.(\ref{eq:5F})}}\\

934: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 5_{\rm E} ~1_{\rm V} ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{2',2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

935: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 5 ~1_{\rm V}  &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& 

936: \mbox{{\rm Eq.(\ref{eq:51}a)}}\\

937: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 5 ~1_{\rm V'}  &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& 

938: \mbox{{\rm Eq.(\ref{eq:5}a)}}\\

939: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 5_{\rm F} ~1_{\rm V}  &\stackrel{2',2 }{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~Z_2\\

940: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R}

941: ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& \mbox{\rm Eq. (\ref{eq:ps6})}\\

942: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~2_{\rm R}

943: &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps})}}\\

944: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R}&\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& 

945: \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps}b)}}\\

946: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}&

947: 4_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm V'}

948: &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& 

949: \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}d)}}\\

950: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L}

951: ~2_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm B-L} ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}&

952: \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}c)}}\\

953: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm

954: B-L} ~1_{\rm V'} &\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}& 

955: \mbox{{\rm Eq.~(\ref{eq:ps6}b)}}\\

956: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& 3_{\rm C} ~2_{\rm L} ~1_{\rm R} ~1_{\rm

957: B-L} &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2\\

958: &\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~1_{\rm V}  &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2 \\

959: &\stackrel{1,2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM} ~1_{\rm V'} ~Z_2 &\stackrel{2}{\longrightarrow}& {\rm G}_{\rm SM}~Z_2 \\

960:   \end{array}

961:   \right.

962:     }

963: \end{equation}

964: 

965: The SSB schemes of SU(6) and SU(7) down to the

966: G$_{\rm SM}$ which could accommodate an inflationary era with no

967: defect (of any kind) at later times are inconsistent with proton

968: lifetime measurements and minimal SU(6) and SU(7) do not predict

969: neutrino masses \cite{jrs}, implying that these models are

970: incompatible with high energy physics phenomenology. Higher

971: rank groups, namely SO(14), SU(8) and SU(9), should in general lead to

972: cosmic string formation at the end of hybrid inflation. In all these

973: schemes, cosmic string formation is sometimes accompanied by the

974: formation of embedded strings. The strings which form at the end of

975: hybrid inflation have a mass which is proportional to the inflationary

976: scale.

977: 

978: \section{Braneworld Cosmology}

979: \label{sec:bc}

980: One of our dreams in theoretical physics is to be able to unify all

981: fundamental interactions into a unique theory. String theory

982: offers one such attempt to unify gravity with the other interactions,

983: in a self-consistent quantum theory. String theory is based on

984: the proposal that one-dimensional extended objects (strings) are the

985: fundamental constituents of matter.  In the mid 1990's it was realised

986: that higher dimensional extended membranes ($p$-{\sl branes}, with

987: $p>1$) should also play a crucial r\^ole in string theory. In

988: particular, branes offer the possibility of relating apparently

989: different string theories.  Of particular importance among $p$-branes

990: are the $Dp$-branes on which open strings can end; they can describe

991: matter fields living on the brane. Closed strings ({\sl eg.}

992: graviton) live on the higher dimensional bulk; their excitations

993: describe perturbtions on the bulk geometry. Classically, matter

994: and radiation fields are localised on the brane, with gravity

995: propagating in the bulk.

996: 

997: Some of the extra dimensions could be far larger than what had been

998: previously thought. If the extra dimensions were testable only

999: via gravity then they might be relatively large, leading to a possible

1000: explanation for the weakness of gravity as compared to the other

1001: fundamental interactions. It has been proposed that the gravitational

1002: field of an object could leak out into the large but hidden extra

1003: dimensions, leading to a weaker gravity as perceived from an observer

1004: living in a four-dimensional universe.  More precisely, the effective

1005: value of Newton's constant in a four-dimensional universe, $G_{(4)}$,

1006: can be written as $G_{(4)}\equiv G_{({\rm D})}/R^{D-4}$, where $D$

1007: denotes the total dimensionality of spacetime and $R$ stands for the

1008: radius of compactification (assumed, without loss of generality, to be

1009: the same in all extra dimensions). The absence of any observed

1010: deviation from the familiar Newton's law (in a four-dimensional

1011: spacetime) imposes an upper limit on the compactification radius. More

1012: precisely, the present experimental constraints yield $R\lsim 0.2 {\rm

1013: mm}$.

1014: 

1015: \subsection{Inflation within Braneworld Cosmologies}

1016: In the context of braneworld cosmology, brane

1017: inflation occurs in a similar way as hybrid inflation within

1018: supergravity, leading to string-like objects.  In string

1019: theories, D-brane $\bar{\rm D}$-anti-brane annihilation leads

1020: generically to the production of lower dimensional D-branes, with D3-

1021: and D1-branes (D-strings) being predominant \cite{rmm}.

1022: 

1023: To sketch brane inflation (for example see Ref.~\cite{tye}), consider a

1024: D$p$-${\bar{\rm D}}p$ system in the context of IIB string theory. Six

1025: of the spatial dimensions are compactified on a torus; all branes move

1026: relatively to each other in some directions. A simple and

1027: well-motivated inflationary model is brane inflation where the

1028: inflaton is simply the position of a D$p$-brane moving in the bulk.

1029: As two branes approach, the open string modes between the branes

1030: develop a tachyon, indicating an instability.  The relative

1031: D$p$-${\bar{\rm D}}p$-brane position is the inflaton field and the

1032: inflaton potential comes from their tensions and interactions.  Brane

1033: inflation ends by a phase transition mediated by open string

1034: tachyons. The annihilation of the branes releases the brane tension

1035: energy that heats up the universe so that the hot big ban epoch can

1036: take place. Since the tachyonic vacuum has a non-trivial $\pi_1$

1037: homotopy group, there exist stable tachyonic string solutions with

1038: $(p-2)$ co-dimensions. These daughter branes have all dimensions

1039: compact; a four-dimensional observer perceives them as

1040: one-dimensional objects, the D-strings.  Zero-dimensional defects

1041: (monopoles) and two-dimensional ones (domain walls), which are

1042: cosmologically undesirable, are not produced during brane

1043: intersections.  

1044: 

1045: \subsection{Cosmic Superstrings}

1046: The first to consider cosmic superstrings as playing the r\^ole of

1047: cosmic strings was Witten \cite{witten}. However, since for

1048: fundamental strings the linear mass density is proportional to (string

1049: energy scale)$^2$, it was realised that for a string energy scale of

1050: the order of the Planck mass, $G\mu$ becomes of the order of 1, and

1051: therefore this proposal was ruled out since observational data require

1052: $G\mu\lsim 10^{-7}$.  More recently, in the framework of braneworld

1053: scenarios the large compact dimensions and the large warp factors

1054: allow the string energy scale to be much smaller than the Planck

1055: scale. Thus, in models with large extra dimensions, cosmic superstring

1056: tensions could have values in the range between $10^{-13}< G\mu <

1057: 10^{-6}$, depending on the model. These cosmic suprestrings are

1058: stable, or at least their lifetime is comparable to the age of the

1059: universe, so they can survive to form a cosmic superstring network.

1060: 

1061: Type IIB string theory, after compactification to 3+1 dimensions, has

1062: a spectrum of one-dimensional objects, the Fundamental (F) strings,

1063: carrying charge under the Neveu Schwartz -- Neveu Schwartz two-form

1064: potential, and the Dirichlet (D) strings carrying charge under the

1065: Ramond--Ramond two-form potential.  Both these strings are

1066: individually $\frac{1}{2}$-BPS (Bogomol'nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield)

1067: objects, with however each type breaking a different half of the

1068: supersymmetry.  F- and D-strings that survive the cosmological

1069: evolution become cosmic superstrings with interesting cosmological

1070: implications \cite{polchinski}.  Thus, string theory offers two

1071: distinct candidates for playing the r\^ole of cosmic strings.

1072: 

1073: IIB string theory allows the existence of bound $(p,q)$ states of $p$

1074: F-strings and $q$ D-strings, where $p$ and $q$ are coprime.  A

1075: $(p,q)$ state is still a $\frac{1}{2}$-BPS object with tension

1076: \begin{equation}

1077: \mu_{(p,q)}=\mu_{\rm F}\sqrt{p^2+q^2/g_{\rm s}^2}~,

1078: \end{equation}

1079: where $\mu_{\rm F}$ denotes the effective F-string tension after

1080: compactification and $g_{\rm s}$ stands for the string coupling.

1081: 

1082: Cosmic superstrings share a number of properties with cosmic strings,

1083: but there are also differences which may lead to distinctive

1084: observational signatures. In general, string intersections lead to

1085: intercommutation and loop production. For cosmic strings the

1086: probability of intercommutation ${\cal P}$ is equal to 1, whereas this

1087: is not the case for F- and D-strings. Clearly, D-strings can miss each

1088: other in the compact dimension, leading to a smaller ${\cal P}$, while

1089: for F-strings the scattering has to be calculated quantum mechanically

1090: since these are quantum mechanical objects.  The collisions between

1091: all possible pairs of superstrings have been studied in string

1092: perturbation theory \cite{jjp}. For F-strings, the reconnection

1093: probability is of the order of $g_{\rm s}^2$, where $g_{\rm s}$ stands

1094: for the string coupling.  For F-F string collisions, it was found

1095: \cite{jjp} that the reconnection probability $\cal P$ is $10^{-3}\lsim

1096: {\cal P}\lsim 1$. For D-D string collisions, one has

1097: $10^{-1}\lsim{\cal P}\lsim 1$. Finally, for F-D string collisions, the

1098: reconnection probability can take any value between 0 and 1.  These

1099: results have been confirmed \cite{hh1} by a quantum calculation of the

1100: reconnection probability for colliding D-strings.  Similarly, the

1101: string self-intersection probability is reduced.

1102: 

1103: In contrast to the networks formed from Abelian strings, which consist

1104: of loops and long strings, $(p,q)$ networks can also contain links

1105: which start and end at a three-point vertex.  More precisely, when F-

1106: and D-strings meet they can form a three-string junction, with a

1107: composite FD-string.  Such links could potentially lead to a frozen

1108: network, which could dominate the matter content of the universe.

1109: 

1110: Modelling the evolution of a $(p,q)$ network is a challenging task, in

1111: particular due to the existence of the junctions. Nevertheless,

1112: various attempts have been undertaken and they all conclude

1113: \cite{ms-ep-tww} that the network will reach a {\sl scaling} regime,

1114: in which the length scales increase in proportion to time.

1115: 

1116: Cosmic superstrings interact with the standard model particles 

1117: via gravity, implying that their detection involves gravitational

1118: interactions. Since the particular brane inflationary scenario remains

1119: unknown, the tensions of superstrings are only loosely constrained.

1120: 

1121: \section{Observational Consequences}

1122: \label{sec:oc}

1123: 

1124: \subsection{CMB Temperature Anisotropies}

1125: \label{subsec:cmb}

1126: The CMB temperature anisotropies offer a powerful test for theoretical

1127: models aiming at describing the early universe.  The characteristics

1128: of the CMB multipole moments can be used to discriminate among

1129: theoretical models and to constrain the parameters space.

1130: 

1131: The spherical harmonic expansion of the CMB temperature anisotropies,

1132: as a function of angular position, is given by

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: \label{dTT}

1135: \frac{\delta T}{T}({\bf n})=\sum _{\ell m}a_{\ell m} {\cal W}_\ell

1136: Y_{\ell m}({\bf n})~\,

1137: \ \ \ \mbox {with}\ \ \ 

1138: a_{\ell m}=\int {\rm

1139: d}\Omega _{{\bf n}}\frac{\delta T}{T}({\bf n})Y_{\ell m}^*({\bf n})~;

1140: \end{equation}

1141: ${\cal W}_\ell $ stands for the $\ell$-dependent window function of

1142: the particular experiment.  The angular power spectrum of CMB

1143: temperature anisotropies is expressed in terms of the dimensionless

1144: coefficients $C_\ell$, which appear in the expansion of the angular

1145: correlation function in terms of the Legendre polynomials $P_\ell$:

1146: \begin{equation}

1147: \biggl \langle 0\biggl |\frac{\delta T}{T}({\bf n})\frac{\delta T}{

1148: T}({\bf n}') \biggr |0\biggr\rangle \left|_{{~}_{\!\!({\bf n\cdot

1149: n}'=\cos\vartheta)}}\right. = \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_\ell(2\ell+1)C_\ell

1150: P_\ell(\cos\vartheta) {\cal W}_\ell^2 ~.

1151: \label{dtovertvs}

1152: \end{equation}

1153: It compares points in the sky separated by an angle $\vartheta$.  In

1154: Eq.~(\ref{dTT}) the brackets denote spatial average, or expectation

1155: values if perturbations are quantised. Equation (\ref{dtovertvs})

1156: holds only if the initial state for cosmological perturbations of

1157: quantum-mechanical origin is the vacuum \cite{jrsgms}.  The value of

1158: $C_\ell$ is determined by fluctuations on angular scales of the order

1159: of $\pi/\ell$. The angular power spectrum of anisotropies observed

1160: today is usually given by the power per logarithmic interval in

1161: $\ell$, plotting $\ell(\ell+1)C_\ell$ versus $\ell$.

1162: 

1163: On large angular scales, the main contribution to the CMB temperature

1164: anisotropies is given by the Sachs-Wolfe effect. Thus,

1165: \begin{equation}

1166: \label{sw}

1167: \frac{\delta T}{T}({\bf n})\simeq

1168: \frac{1}{3}\Phi [\eta _{\rm lss},{\bf n}(\eta _0-\eta _{\rm lss})]~;

1169: \end{equation}

1170: $\Phi (\eta ,{\bf x})$ denotes the Bardeen potential, $\eta _0$ and

1171: $\eta _{\rm lss}$ stand for the conformal time at present and at the last

1172: scattering surface, respectively. 

1173: 

1174: Studies of the characteristics of the CMB spectrum (amplitude and

1175: position of acoustic peaks), in the framework of topological defect models,

1176: have been performed even before receiving any data. Let me discuss

1177: briefly the differences such models have, as compared to the adiabatic

1178: perturbations induced from the amplification of the quantum

1179: fluctuations of the inflaton field at the end of inflation, and the

1180: difficulties one faces to extract the predictions.

1181: 

1182: For models with topological defects, perturbations are generated by

1183: {\sl seeds} (sources), defined as any non-uniformly distributed form

1184: of energy, which contributes only a small fraction to the total energy

1185: density of the universe and which interacts with the cosmic fluid only

1186: gravitationally.  Such models lead to isocurvature density

1187: perturbations, in the sense that the total density perturbation

1188: vanishes, but those of the individual particle species do not.

1189: Moreover, in models with topological defects,

1190: fluctuations are generated continuously and evolve according to

1191: inhomogeneous linear perturbation equations.  

1192: 

1193: The energy momentum tensor of defects is determined by the their

1194: evolution which, in general, is a non-linear process. These

1195: perturbations are called {\sl active} and {\sl incoherent}. Active

1196: since new fluid perturbations are induced continuously due to the

1197: presence of the defects; incoherent since the randomness of the

1198: non-linear seed evolution which sources the perturbations can destroy

1199: the coherence of fluctuations in the cosmic fluid.  The highly

1200: non-linear structure of the topological defect dynamics makes the

1201: study of the evolution of these causal (there are no correlations on

1202: super-horizon scales) and incoherent initial perturbations much more

1203: complicated.

1204: 

1205:  Within linear cosmological perturbation theory, structure

1206: formation induced by seeds is determined by the solution of the

1207: inhomogeneous equation

1208: \begin{equation} 

1209: {\cal D} X({\bf k},t) = {\cal S}({\bf k},t)~, 

1210: \end{equation}

1211: where $X$ is a vector containing all the background perturbation

1212: variables for a given mode specified by the wave-vector ${\bf k}$,

1213: like the $a_{lm}$'s of the CMB anisotropies, the dark matter density

1214: fluctuation, the peculiar velocity potential etc., ${\cal D}$ is a linear

1215: time-dependent ordinary differential operator, and the source term 

1216: ${\cal S}$ is given by linear combinations of the energy momentum tensor of

1217: the seed (the type of topological defects we are considering).  The

1218: generic solution of this equation is given in terms of a Green's

1219: function and has the following form \cite{vest}

1220: \begin{equation}

1221: X_i({\bf k},t_0) = \int_{t_{in}}^{t_0}{\cal G}_{il}({\bf k},t_{0},t)

1222: {\cal S}_l({\bf k}, t){\rm d}t~.  

1223: \end{equation} 

1224: At the end, we need to determine expectation values, which are given

1225: by

1226: \begin{equation}  

1227: \langle X_i({\bf k} ,t_0)X_j({\bf k},t_0)^*\rangle

1228: =\int_{t_{in}}^{t_0}\int_{\eta_{in}}^{\eta_0}

1229: {\cal G}_{il}(t_{0},t){\cal G}_{jm}^*(t_{0},t') \langle

1230: {\cal S}_l(t){\cal S}_m^*(t')\rangle {\rm d}t {\rm d}t' .

1231: \label{pow}

1232: \end{equation} 

1233: Thus, the only information we need from topological defects

1234: simulations in order to determine cosmic microwave background and

1235: large-scale structure power spectra, is the {\sl unequal time

1236: two-point correlators} \cite{cor}, $\langle {\cal S}_l(t){\cal

1237: S}_m^*(t')\rangle$, of the seed energy-momentum tensor. This problem

1238: can, in general, be solved by an eigenvector expansion method

1239: \cite{pen}.

1240: 

1241: On large angular scales ($\ell \leq 50$), defect models lead to the

1242: same prediction as inflation, namely, they both predict an

1243: approximately scale-invariant (Harrison-Zel'dovich) spectrum of

1244: perturbations. Their only difference concerns the statistics of the

1245: induced fluctuations. Inflation predicts generically Gaussian

1246: fluctuations, whereas in the case of topological defect models, even

1247: if initially the defect energy-momentum tensor would be Gaussian,

1248: non-Gaussianities will be induced from the non-linear defect

1249: evolution. Thus, in defect scenarios, the induced fluctuations are

1250: non-Gaussian, at least at sufficiently high angular resolution.  This

1251: is an interesting fingerprint, even though difficult to test through

1252: the data.

1253: 

1254: On intermediate and small angular scales however, the predictions

1255: of models with seeds are quite different than those of inflation, due

1256: to the different nature of the induced perturbations.  In topological

1257: defect models, defect fluctuations are constantly generated by the seed

1258: evolution.  The non-linear defect evolution and the fact that the

1259: random initial conditions of the source term in the perturbation

1260: equations of a given scale leak into other scales, destroy perfect

1261: coherence.  The incoherent aspect of active perturbations does not

1262: influence the position of the acoustic peaks, but it does affect the

1263: structure of secondary oscillations, namely secondary oscillations may

1264: get washed out. Thus, in topological defect models, incoherent

1265: fluctuations lead to a single bump at smaller angular scales (larger

1266: $\ell$), than those predicted within any inflationary scenario.  This

1267: incoherent feature is shared in common by local and global defects.

1268: 

1269: Let me briefly summarise the results: Global ${\cal O}(4)$ textures

1270: lead to a position of the first acoustic peak at $\ell\simeq 350$ with

1271: an amplitude $\sim 1.5$ times higher than the Sachs-Wolfe plateau

1272: \cite{rm}.  Global ${\cal O}(N)$ textures in the large $N$ limit lead

1273: to a quite flat spectrum, with a slow decay after $\ell \sim 100$

1274: \cite{dkm}. Similar are the predictions of other global ${\cal O}(N)$

1275: defects \cite{num}. (For a general study of the CMB anisotropies form

1276: scaling seed perturbations the reader is referred to

1277: Ref.~\cite{ruthmairi}). Local cosmic strings lead to a a power spectrum

1278: with a roughly constant slope at low multipoles, rising up to a single

1279: peak, with subsequent decay at small scales \cite{mark}.

1280: 

1281: At this point, I would like to bring to the attention of the reader

1282: that the B-mode of the polarisation spectrum may be a smoking gun for

1283: the cosmic strings \cite{mark}, since inflation gives just a weak

1284: contribution. The reason being that scalar modes may contribute to the

1285: B-mode only through the gravitational lensing of the E-mode. Thus, the

1286: large vector contribution from cosmic strings may lead in the future

1287: to the detection of strings.

1288: 

1289: 

1290: The position and amplitude of the acoustic peaks, as found by the CMB

1291: measurements (see, e.g. Ref.~\cite{wmap3}), are clearly in

1292: disagreement with the predictions of topological defect models. Thus,

1293: CMB measurements rule out pure topological defect models as the unique

1294: origin of initial density perturbations leading to the observed

1295: structure formation. However, since strings and string-like defects

1296: are generically formed, then one should consider them as a

1297: sub-dominant partner of inflation. Thus, one should study the

1298: compatibility between {\sl mixed} perturbation models \cite{bprs} and

1299: observational data.

1300: 

1301: Consider  therefore a model in which a network of cosmic

1302: strings evolved independently of any pre-existing fluctuation

1303: background, generated by a standard cold dark matter with a non-zero

1304: cosmological constant ($\Lambda$CDM) inflationary phase. Restrict 

1305: your attention to the angular spectrum, so that you are in the

1306: linear regime.  Thus,

1307: \begin{equation}

1308: C_\ell =   \alpha     C^{\scriptscriptstyle{\rm I}}_\ell

1309:          + (1-\alpha) C^{\scriptscriptstyle{\rm S}}_\ell~,

1310: \label{cl}

1311: \end{equation}

1312: where $C^{\scriptscriptstyle{\rm I}}_\ell$ and $C^{\scriptscriptstyle

1313: {\rm S}}_\ell$ denote the (COBE normalised) Legendre coefficients due

1314: to adiabatic inflaton fluctuations and those stemming from the string

1315: network, respectively. The coefficient $\alpha$ in Eq.~(\ref{cl}) is a

1316: free parameter giving the relative amplitude for the two

1317: contributions.  Then one has to compare the $C_\ell$, given by

1318: Eq.~(\ref{cl}), with data obtained from CMB anisotropy

1319: measurements. The inflaton and string induced uncorrelated spectra as

1320: a function of $\ell$ , both normalised on the COBE data, together with

1321: the weighted sum, are shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig5}) (see,

1322: Ref.~\cite{bprs}).

1323: \vskip 0.5cm

1324: \begin{figure}

1325: \centering \includegraphics[width=2.4in,angle=270]{fig5.eps}

1326: \vskip.4cm\caption{$\ell (\ell + 1) C_\ell$ versus $\ell$ for three

1327:     different models. The upper dot-dashed line represents the

1328:     prediction of a $\Lambda$CDM model. The lower dashed line is a

1329:     typical string spectrum. Combining both curves with the

1330:     extra-parameter $\alpha$ produces the solid curve, with a $\chi^2$

1331:     per degree of freedom slightly above unity. The string

1332:     contribution turns out to be some $18\%$ of the total

1333:     \cite{bprs}.}

1334: \label{fig:fig5}

1335: \end{figure} 

1336: The quadrupole anisotropy due to {\sl freezing in} of quantum

1337: fluctuations of a scalar field during inflation reads

1338: \begin{equation}\label{contribInfl}

1339: \left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm Q-infl} =

1340: \left[\left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm Q- scal}^2 +

1341: \left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm Q- tens}^2\right]^{1/2}~,

1342: \end{equation}

1343: with the scalar and tensor contributions given by

1344: \begin{equation}\label{contribInflScal}

1345: \left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm Q- scal} =

1346: \frac{1}{4\sqrt{45}\pi}\frac{V^{3/2}(\varphi_Q)}{M_{\rm

1347: Pl}^3\,V'(\varphi_Q)}~,

1348: \end{equation}

1349: and 

1350: \begin{equation}

1351: \label{contribInflTens}

1352: \left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm Q-tens}\sim {0.77\over 8\pi}

1353: \,\frac{V^{1/2}(\varphi_Q)}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}~,

1354: \end{equation}

1355: respectively.  Here $V$ is the potential of the inflaton field

1356: $\varphi$, with $V'\equiv {\rm d}V(\varphi)/{\rm d}\varphi$, 

1357: $M_{\rm Pl}$ denotes the reduced Planck mass, $M_{\rm Pl}= {(8\pi

1358: G)^{-1/2}}\simeq 2.43\times 10^{18}$ GeV, and $\varphi_{\rm Q}$ is the

1359: value of the inflaton field when the comoving scale corresponding to

1360: the quadrupole anisotropy became bigger than the Hubble radius.

1361: 

1362: Simulations of Goto-Nambu local strings in a

1363: Friedmann--Lema\^{\i}tre--\-Ro\-berston--Walker spacetime lead to

1364: \cite{ls2003}

1365: \begin{equation}\label{contribCS}

1366: \left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm cs}\sim (9-10) G\mu \quad

1367: \mathrm{with}\quad \mu=2\pi\langle\chi \rangle^2~,

1368: \end{equation}

1369: where $\langle\chi \rangle$ is the vacuum expectation value of the

1370: Higgs field responsible for the formation of cosmic strings.

1371: 

1372: Before discussing F- and D-term inflation, I would like briefly to

1373: describe the {\sl curvaton} mechanism \cite{lw2002}, according which

1374: the primordial fluctuations could also be generated from the quantum

1375: fluctuations of a late-decaying scalar field, the {\sl curvaton} field

1376: ${\cal \psi}$, which does not play the r\^ole of the inflaton field.

1377: During inflation the curvaton potential is very flat and the curvaton

1378: acquires quantum fluctuations, which are expressed in terms of the the

1379: expansion rate during inflation, $H_{\rm infl}=\sqrt(8\pi G/ 3)

1380: V(\varphi)$, through

1381: \begin{equation}

1382: \delta{\cal \psi}_{\rm init}={H_{\rm inf}\over 2\pi}~.

1383: \label{qfc}

1384: \end{equation}

1385: They lead to entropy fluctuations at the end of inflation.

1386: 

1387: During the radiation-dominated era the curvaton decays and reheats the

1388: universe. The primordial fluctuations of the curvaton field are

1389: converted to purely adiabatic density fluctuations, thus

1390: the curvaton contribution in terms of the metric perturbation reads

1391: \begin{equation}

1392: \left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm curv}

1393: =-{4\over 27}{\delta{\cal \psi_{\rm init}}\over

1394: \psi_{\rm init}}~.

1395: \label{Psi_curv}

1396: \end{equation}

1397: If one assumes the additional contribution to the temperature

1398: anisotropies originated from the curvaton field, then

1399: \begin{equation}

1400: \label{totalcmb}

1401: \left[\left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm tot}\right]^2 =

1402: \left[\left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm infl}\right]^2 +

1403: \left[\left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm cs}\right]^2+

1404: \left[\left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)_{\rm curv}\right]^2

1405: ~.

1406: \end{equation}

1407: The total quadrupole anisotropy, the {\sl l.h.s.} of

1408: Eq.~(\ref{totalcmb}), is the one to be normalised to the Cosmic

1409: Background Explore (COBE) data \cite{cobe}, namely $\left(\delta T/

1410: T\right)_{\rm Q}^{\rm COBE} \sim 6.3\times 10^{-6}$.

1411: 

1412: \subsubsection{F-term Inflation}

1413: Considering only large angular scales one can calculate the contributions

1414: to the CMB temperature anisotropies analytically.  The quadrupole

1415: anisotropy has one contribution coming from the inflaton field,

1416: calculated using Eq.~(\ref{VexactF}), and one contribution coming from

1417: the cosmic string network.  Fixing the number of e-foldings to 60, 

1418: the inflaton and cosmic string contributions to the CMB depend on the

1419: superpotential coupling $\kappa$, or equivalently, on the symmetry

1420: breaking scale $M$ associated with the inflaton mass scale, which

1421: coincides with the string mass scale. 

1422: 

1423: The total quadrupole anisotropy, to be normalised to the COBE data, is

1424: found to be \cite{rs1}

1425: \begin{eqnarray}

1426: \label{eqnumF}

1427: \left({\delta T\over T}\right)_{\rm Q-tot} &\sim&\Big\{y_{\rm

1428: Q}^{-4}\left({\kappa^2 \mathcal{N}\, N_{\rm Q}\over 32\pi^2}\right)^2

1429: \Big[\frac{64N_{\rm Q}}{45\cal N} x_{\rm Q}^{-2}y_{\rm

1430: Q}^{-2}f^{-2}(x_Q^2)\nonumber\\

1431: &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\left(\frac{0.77 \kappa}{\pi}\right)^2 +

1432: 324\Big]\Big\}^{1/2}~.

1433: \end{eqnarray}

1434: In Eq.~(\ref{eqnumF}),

1435: \begin{equation}

1436: x_{\rm Q}={|S_{\rm Q}|\over M}~~;~~ y_{\rm

1437: Q}^2=\int_1^{x_{\rm Q}^2}\frac{{\rm d}z}{zf(z)}

1438: \end{equation}

1439: and

1440: \begin{equation}

1441:  N_{\rm Q}=\frac{4\pi^2}{\kappa^2\cal N}\frac{M^2}{M_{\rm

1442: Pl}^2}\,y_{\rm Q}^2~,

1443: \end{equation}

1444: with

1445: \begin{equation}

1446: f(z)=(z+1)\ln(1+z^{-1})+(z-1)\ln(1-z^{-1})~.

1447: \end{equation}

1448: As noted earlier, the index $_{\rm Q}$ denotes the scale responsible

1449: for the quadrupole anisotropy in the CMB.

1450: 

1451: The cosmic string contribution is consistent with the CMB measurements

1452: provided \cite{rs1}

1453: \begin{equation}

1454: \label{kappaFCMB}

1455: M\lsim 2\times 10^{15} {\rm GeV} ~~\Leftrightarrow ~~\kappa \lsim

1456: 7\times10^{-7}~.

1457: \end{equation}

1458: Strictly speaking the above condition was found in the context of

1459: SO(10) gauge group, but the conditions imposed in the case of other

1460: gauge groups are of the same order of magnitude since $M$ is a slowly

1461: varying function of the dimensionality ${\cal N}$ of the

1462: representations to which the scalar components of the chiral Higgs

1463: superfields belong \cite{rs1}.

1464: 

1465: The superpotential coupling $\kappa$ is also subject to the gravitino

1466: constraint, which imposes an upper limit to the reheating temperature

1467: to avoid gravitino overproduction. Within the framework of SUSY GUTs

1468: and assuming the see-saw mechanism to give rise to massive neutrinos,

1469: the inflaton field decays during reheating into pairs of right-handed

1470: neutrinos.  This constraint on the reheating temperature can be

1471: converted into a constraint on the superpotential coupling

1472: $\kappa$. The gravitino constraint on $\kappa$ reads \cite{rs1}

1473: $\kappa \lsim 8\times 10^{-3}$, which is a weaker constraint than the

1474: one obtained from the CMB, Eq.~(\ref{kappaFCMB}).

1475: 

1476: The tuning of the free parameter $\kappa$ can be softened if one

1477: allows for the curvaton mechanism.  Clearly, within supersymmetric

1478: theories such scalar fields are expected to exist. In addition,

1479: embedded strings, if they accompany the formation of cosmic strings,

1480: they may offer a natural curvaton candidate, provided the decay

1481: product of embedded strings gives rise to a scalar field before the

1482: onset of inflation.  Considering the curvaton scenario, the coupling

1483: $\kappa$ is only constrained by the gravitino limit. More precisely,

1484: assuming the existence of a curvaton field there is an additional

1485: contribution to the temperature anisotropies.  Calculating the

1486: curvaton contribution to the temperature anisotropies, one obtains

1487: the additional contribution \cite{rs1}

1488: \begin{equation}\label{curvterm}

1489: \left[\left({\delta T\over T}\right)_{\rm curv}\right]^2 =

1490: y_Q^{-4}\,\left({\kappa^2 \mathcal{N} N_{\rm Q}\over 32\pi^2} \right)^2\, 

1491: \left[ \left(\frac{16}{81\pi\sqrt3}\right)\,

1492: \kappa\, \left(\frac{M_{\rm Pl}}{{\cal\psi}_{\rm init}}\right)\right]^2~.

1493: \end{equation}

1494: Normalising the total $\left(\delta T/ T\right)_{\rm Q}$ ({\sl i.e.}

1495: the inflaton, cosmic string and curvaton contributions) to the data

1496: one gets \cite{rs1} the following limit on the initial value of the

1497: curvaton field

1498: \begin{equation}

1499: {\cal\psi}_{\rm init} \lsim 5\times 10^{13}\,\left( 

1500: \frac{\kappa}{10^{-2}}\right){\rm GeV}~~\mbox{for}~~

1501:  \kappa\in [10^{-6},~1].

1502: \end{equation}

1503: Finally, I would like to point out that in the case of F-term

1504: inflation\footnote {This does not hold for D-term inflation; the

1505: strings formed at the end of D-term inflation are BPS-objects.}, the

1506: linear mass density $\mu$ (see, Eq.~(\ref{contribCS})) gets a

1507: correction due to deviations from the Bogomol'nyi limit, enlarging the

1508: parameter space for F-term inflation \cite{enlarge}.  More precisely,

1509: this correction to $\mu$ turns out to be proportional to

1510: $\ln(2/\beta)^{-1}$, where $\beta$ is proportional to the square of

1511: the ratio between the superpotential and the GUT couplings. Thus,

1512: under the assumption that strings contribute less than 10$\%$ to the

1513: power spectrum at $\ell=4$, the bound on $\kappa$ reduces to the one

1514: imposed by the gravitino limit.

1515: 

1516: \subsubsection{D-term Inflation}

1517: D-term inflation leads to cosmic string formation at the end of the

1518: inflationary era.  The total quadrupole temperature anisotropy, to be

1519: normalised to the COBE data, reads \cite{rs1}

1520: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqnumDsugra}

1521: \left({\delta T\over T}\right)_{\rm Q}^{\rm tot} &\sim&

1522: \frac{\xi}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\Big\{ \frac{\pi^2}{90g^2}x^{-4}_{\rm

1523: Q}f^{-2}(x^2_{\rm Q}) \frac{{\rm W}(x^2_{\rm Q}(g^2 \xi)(\lambda^2 M_{\rm

1524: Pl}^2))} {\left[1+{\rm W}(x^2_{\rm Q}(g^2 \xi)(\lambda^2 M_{\rm

1525: Pl}^2))\right]^2}\nonumber\\

1526: &&~~~~~~~

1527:  +\left(\frac{0.77

1528: g}{8\sqrt{2}\pi}\right)^2 +

1529: \left(\frac{9}{4}\right)^2\Big\}^{1/2}~,

1530: \end{eqnarray}

1531: where the only unknown is the Fayet-Iliopoulos term $\xi$, for given

1532: values of $g$ and $\lambda$. Note that ${\rm W}(x)$ is the ``W-Lambert

1533: function'', i.e. the inverse of the function $F(x)=xe^x$. Thus, one

1534: can get $\xi$ numerically, and then obtain $x_{\rm Q}$, as well as the

1535: inflaton and cosmic string contribution, as a function of the

1536: superpotential and gauge couplings $g$ and $\lambda$.

1537: In the case of minimal SUGRA, consistency between

1538: CMB measurements and theoretical predictions impose \cite{rs1,prl2005}

1539: \begin{equation}

1540: g\lsim 2\times 10^{-2}~ ~ \mbox{and}~ ~ \lambda\lsim 3\times

1541: 10^{-5}~,

1542: \end{equation} 

1543: which can be expressed as a single constraint on the Fayet-Iliopoulos

1544: term $\xi$,

1545: \begin{equation}

1546: \sqrt\xi \lsim 2\times 10^{15}~{\rm GeV}~.

1547: \end{equation}

1548: These results are shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig6}).

1549: \begin{figure}

1550: \centering

1551: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig6a.eps}

1552: \vskip.5cm

1553: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig6b.eps}

1554: \caption{At the top, the cosmic string contribution to he CMB, as a

1555: function of the mass scale $\sqrt\xi$ in units of $10^{15} {\rm GeV}$.

1556: At the bottom, cosmic string contribution to the CMB temperature

1557: anisotropies, as a function of the superpotential coupling $\lambda$,

1558: for different values of the gauge coupling $g$. The maximal

1559: contribution allowed by WMAP is represented by a dotted line

1560: \cite{prl2005}.  }

1561: \label{fig:fig6}       

1562: \end{figure}

1563: 

1564: The fine tuning on the couplings can be softened if one invokes the

1565: curvaton mechanism.  Calculating the curvaton contribution to the

1566: temperature anisotropies, one obtains the additional contribution

1567: \cite{prl2005}

1568: \begin{equation}\label{curvtermD}

1569: \left[\left({\delta T\over T}\right)_{\rm curv}\right]^2 =

1570: \frac{1}{6}\,

1571:  \left(\frac{2}{27\pi}\right)^2\,

1572:  \left(\frac{g\xi}{M_{\rm Pl}\psi_{\rm init}}\right)^2~.

1573: \end{equation}

1574: Thus, the gauge coupling can reach the upper bound imposed from the

1575: gravitino mechanism, provided the initial value of the curvaton field

1576: is \cite{prl2005}

1577: \begin{equation}

1578: \psi_{\rm init}\lsim 3\times 10^{14}\left(\frac{g}{10^{-2}}\right){\rm

1579: GeV}~~\mbox{for}~~\lambda\in[10^{-1},10^{-4}]~;

1580: \end{equation}

1581: for smaller values of $\lambda$, the curvaton mechanism is not

1582: necessary.  This result is explicitly shown in Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig7}).

1583: \begin{figure}

1584: \centering

1585: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig7.eps}

1586: \caption{The cosmic string (dark grey), curvaton (light

1587: grey) and inflaton (grey) contributions to the CMB temperature

1588: anisotropies as a function of the the initial value of the curvaton

1589: field ${\cal\psi}_{\rm init}$, for $\lambda=10^{-1}$ and $g=10^{-1}$

1590: \cite{prl2005}.  }\label{fig:fig7}

1591: \end{figure} 

1592: 

1593: Concluding, within minimal supergravity the couplings and masses must

1594: be fine tuned to achieve compatibility between measurements on the CMB

1595: temperature anisotropies and theoretical predictions.  Note that for

1596: minimal D-term inflation, one can neglect the corrections introduced by

1597: the superconformal origin of supergravity.

1598: 

1599: The constraints on the couplings remain qualitatively valid in

1600: non-minimal supergravity theories; the superpotential $W$ given in

1601: Eq.~(\ref{superpoteninflaD}) and we consider a non-minimal K\"ahler

1602: potential.  Let us first consider D-term inflation based on K\"ahler

1603: geometry with shift symmetry.  If we identify the inflaton field with

1604: the real part of $S$ then we obtain the same constraint for the

1605: superpotential coupling as in the minimal supergravity case. However,

1606: if the inflaton field is the imaginary part of $S$, then we get that

1607: the the cosmic string contribution becomes dominant, in contradiction

1608: with the CMB measurements, unless the superpotential coupling is

1609: \cite{rs3}

1610: \begin{equation}

1611: \lambda\lsim 3\times 10^{-5}~.

1612: \end{equation}

1613: We show this constraint in Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig8}).

1614: \begin{figure}

1615: \centering

1616: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig8.eps}

1617: \caption{Cosmic string contribution to the CMB temperature

1618: anisotropies as a function of $\lambda$, in the case of D-term

1619: inflation based on a K\"ahler geometry with shift symmetry. The

1620: inflaton field is identified with the imaginary part \cite{rs3}.

1621: }\label{fig:fig8}

1622: \end{figure} 

1623: 

1624: Considering D-term inflation based on a K\"ahler potential with

1625: non-renormalisable terms, the contribution of cosmic strings dominates

1626: if the superpotential coupling $\lambda$ is close to unity. Setting

1627: $f_\pm(|S|^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2)=c_\pm(|S|^2/M_{\rm Pl}^2)$, we find that in

1628: the simplified case $b=0$ (see, Eq.~(\ref{gen})), the constraints on

1629: $\lambda$ read \cite{rs3}

1630: \begin{equation}\label{contraintelambdanonmin}

1631: (0.1-5)\times 10^{-8} 

1632:  \leq \lambda \leq

1633: (2-5)\times 10^{-5} 

1634: \end{equation}

1635: or equivalently

1636: \begin{equation}

1637: \sqrt{\xi}\leq 2\times 10^{15}

1638: \;\mathrm{GeV}~,

1639: \end{equation}

1640: implying 

1641:  \begin{equation}

1642: G\mu \leq 8.4\times 10^{-7}~.

1643: \end{equation}

1644: In the general case, where $b\neq0$, the constraints are shown in

1645: Fig.~(\ref{fig:fig9}).

1646: \begin{figure}

1647: \centering

1648: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig9a.eps}

1649: \vskip.8cm

1650: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{fig9b.eps}

1651: \caption{Cosmic string contribution to the CMB temperature

1652: anisotropies as a function of $\lambda$, in the case of D-term

1653: inflation based on a K\"ahler potential with non-renormalisable terms

1654: \cite{rs3}.  In the top panel we set $g=10^{-2}$ and $c_\pm =0$; the

1655: simple case $b=0$ is represented by the dashed line, while plain lines

1656: show the contributions for $b=0.5, 1, 2$, going from the bottom to the

1657: top \cite{rs3}. In the bottom panel we set $b=1$ and $c_\pm=1$; the

1658: plain lines show the contributions for $g=10^{-3}, 10^{-2}, 10^{-1}$,

1659: going from bottom to the top \cite{rs3}.}

1660: \label{fig:fig9}

1661: \end{figure}

1662: 

1663: In conclusion, higher order K\"ahler potentials do {\bf not} suppress

1664: cosmic string contribution, as it was incorrectly claimed in the

1665: literature.  By allowing a small, but non-negligible, contribution of

1666: strings to the angular power spectrum of CMB anisotropies, we

1667: constrain the couplings of the inflationary models, or equivalently

1668: the dimensionless string tension. These models remain compatible with

1669: the most current CMB measurements, even when one calculates \cite{ns}

1670: the spectral index. More precisely, the inclusion of a sub-dominant

1671: string contribution to the large scale power spectrum amplitude of the

1672: CMB, increases the preferred value for the spectral index \cite{ns}. 

1673: 

1674: \subsubsection{Brane Inflation}

1675: The CMB temperature anisotropies originate from the amplification of

1676: quantum fluctuations during inflation, as well as from the cosmic

1677: superstring network. If the scaling regime of the superstring

1678: network is the unique source of the density perturbations, the COBE

1679: data yield $G\mu \simeq 10^{-6}$. Using the latest WMAP data, the 

1680: contribution from strings to the  total CMB power spectrum on

1681: observed scales is at most 10$\%$, which translates in the upper limit on the

1682: dimensionless string tension $G\mu\lsim 1.8  \ (2.7)

1683: \times 10^{-7}$ at $68  \ (95)\%$ confidence \cite{pog}. Thus, the cosmic

1684: superstrings produced towards the end of inflation in the context of

1685: braneworld cosmological models is in agreement with the present CMB

1686: data.

1687: 

1688: \subsection{Gravitational Wave Background}

1689: 

1690: Oscillating cosmic string loops emit \cite{vil} Gravitational Waves

1691: (GW). Long strings are not straight but they have a superimposed wiggly

1692: small-scale structure due to string intercommutations, thus they also

1693: emit \cite{ms-gw} GW. Cosmic superstrings can also generate~\cite{dv}

1694: a stochastic GW background. Therefore, provided the emission of

1695: gravity waves is the efficient mechanism \cite{cmf,gwandstrings} for

1696: the decay of string loops, cosmic strings/superstrings could provide a

1697: source for the stochastic GW spectrum in the low-frequency band.  The

1698: stochastic GW spectrum has an almost flat region in the frequency

1699: range $10^{-8}-10^{10}$ Hz. Within this window, both ADVANCED

1700: LIGO/VIRGO (sensitive at a frequency $f\sim 10^2$ Hz) and LISA

1701: (sensitive at $f\sim 10^{-2}$ Hz) interferometers may have a chance of

1702: detectability.

1703: 

1704: Strongly focused beams of relatively high-frequency GW are emitted by

1705: cusps and kinks in oscillating strings/superstrings. The distinctive

1706: waveform of the emitted bursts of GW may be the most sensitive test of

1707: strings/superstrings. ADVANCED LIGO/VIRGO may detect bursts of GW for

1708: values of $G\mu$ as low as $10^{-13}$, and LISA for values down to

1709: $G\mu\geq 10^{-15}$. At this point, I would like to remind to the

1710: reader that there is still a number of theoretical uncertainties for

1711: the evolution of a string/superstring network \cite{gwandstrings}.

1712: 

1713: Recently, they have been imposed limits \cite{pulsar} on an isotropic

1714: gravitational wave background using pulsar timing observations, which

1715: offer a chance of studying low-frequency (in the range between

1716: $10^{-9}-10^{-7}$ Hz) gravitational waves.  The imposed limit on the

1717: energy density of the background per unit logarithmic frequency

1718: interval reads $\Omega_{\rm GW}^{\rm cs}(1/8{\rm yr})h^2\leq 1.9\times

1719: 10^{-8}$ (where $h$ stands for the dimensionless amplitude in GW

1720: bursts).  

1721: 

1722: If the source of the isotropic GW background is a cosmic

1723: string/superstring network, then it leads to an upper bound on the

1724: dimensionless tension of a cosmic string/superstring background. Under

1725: reasonable assumptions for the string network the upper bound on the

1726: string tension reads \cite{pulsar} $G\mu\leq 1.5\times 10^{-8}$. This

1727: is a strongest limit than the one imposed from the CMB temperature

1728: anisotropies. Thus, F- and D-term inflation become even more fine

1729: tuned, unless one invokes the curvaton mechanism.

1730: 

1731: This limit does not affect cosmic superstrings. However, it has been

1732: argued \cite{pulsar} that with the full Parkes Pulsar Timing Array

1733: (PPTA) project the upper bound will become $G\mu\leq 5\times

1734: 10^{-12}$, which is directly relevant for cosmic superstrings. In

1735: conclusion, the full PPTA will either detect gravity waves from

1736: strings and string-like objects, or they will rule out a number of

1737: models.

1738: 

1739: \section{Conclusions}

1740: \label{sec:concl}

1741: Cosmic strings are generically formed at the end of hybrid inflation

1742: in a large number of models within supersymmetry and supergarvity

1743: theories.  String-like objects, which could play the r\^ole of cosmic

1744: strings, are also generically produced at the end of brane inflation,

1745: in many brane inflation models in the context of theories with large

1746: extra dimensions. These one-dimensional objects would contribute in the

1747: generation of fluctuations leading to the observed structure formation

1748: and the measured CMB temperature anisotropies. They would also source

1749: a stochastic gravity wave background.

1750: 

1751: Current measurements of the CMB spectrum, as well as of the

1752: gravitational wave background, impose severe constraints on the free

1753: parameters of the models. More precisely, the dimensionless parameter

1754: $G\mu$ must be small enough to avoid contradiction with the currently

1755: available data. 

1756: 

1757: The r\^ole of strings can be suppressed by adding new terms in the

1758: superpotential \cite{mcdonald}, or by considering the curvaton

1759: mechanism \cite{prl2005,endoetal}.  One can escape the {\sl string

1760: problem} by complicating the models so that the produced strings

1761: (D-term strings formed at the end of D-term inflation, or D-strings

1762: formed at the end of brane collisions) become unstable (semilocal

1763: strings), along the lines of Refs.~\cite{toine1,semilocal}. 

1764: To be more specific, it has been proposed \cite{semilocal} that

1765: introducing additional matter multiplets one obtains a

1766: nontrivial global symmetry such as SU(2), leading to a simply

1767: connected vacuum manifold and the production of semilocal

1768: strings. Later on, it has been 

1769: suggested \cite{toine1} that

1770: if the waterfall Higgs fields are non-trivially charged under some

1771: other gauge symmetries $H$, such that the vacuum manifold,

1772: $[H\times U(1)]/ U(1)$, is simply connected, then the strings are

1773: semilocal objects.

1774: 

1775: If the daily improved data require even more severe fine tuning of the

1776: models, then I believe that one should develop and subsequently

1777: study models where the strings

1778: and string-like objects, formed at the end or after inflation,

1779: are indeed unstable.

1780: 

1781: \input{refer-ms}

1782: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  }

1783: 

1784: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1785: 

1786: %\printindex

1787: \end{document}

1788: 

1789: 

1790: