This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Bayesian Analysis of a Generalized Starobinsky Model with Reheating Constraints

Francisco X. Linares Cedeño    Gabriel Germán    Juan Carlos Hidalgo
Abstract

We study a generalization of the the Starobinsky model adding a term of the form R2pR^{2p} to the Einstien-Hilbert action. We take the power pp as a parameter of the model and explore the constraints from CMB plus BAO data through a Bayesian analysis, thus exploring a range of values for the exponent parameter. We incorporate a reheating phase to the model through the background matter content (equation of state) and the duration of this period (number of ee-foldings of reheating). We find that incorporating information from reheating imposes constraints on cosmological quantities, more stringent than the case of no reheating when tested with the Planck+BAO data. The inferred value of the exponent parameter is statistically consistent with p=1p=1, favoring the original Starobinsky potential. Moreover, we report tighter constraints on pp and the number of ee-folds in comparison with previous works. The obtained values for other inflationary observational parameters, such as the scalar spectral index nsn_{s} and the scalar amplitude of perturbations AsA_{s}, are consistent with prior measurements. Finally we present the alternative use of consistency relations in order to simplify the parameter space and test the generalized Starobinsky potential even more efficiently.

1 Introduction

While the origin of the Universe is largely unknown, a lot of understanding has been gained through the hypothesis known as the "inflationary paradigm" [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. According to this hypothesis, our Universe experienced a rapid expansion at its inception, followed by a reheating period that led to the hot Big Bang (reviews on reheating are found e.g., un Refs. [6, 7, 8]). Inflation is typically described by a scalar field referred to as the "inflaton" field. After approximately 380,000 years, the early universe became transparent to photons which then produced what we observe today as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB). This probe of the early universe provides valuable information regarding the physics of the inflationary era [9]. In particular, the inflationary paradigm predicts the presence of primordial gravitational waves; tensor fluctuations in spacetime [10]. Numerous experiments have been conducted to detect such waves, and have managed to impose upper limits on their amplitude [11]. Understanding the dynamics of the inflaton field and its realizations is crucial for interpretation the observed CMB data.

Among the variety of inflationary models lies the scalar field potential belonging to the Starobinsky type. The Starobinsky model [12] emerged as one of the early proposals for inflation. It is characterized by an action that includes the Einstein-Hilbert term, together with a scalar curvature term of higher order. The action takes the form

S=MPl22d4xg(R+16M2R2),S=\frac{M_{Pl}^{2}}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left(R+\frac{1}{6M^{2}}R^{2}\right), (1.1)

In this equation, RR denotes the Ricci scalar, MPl=2.44×1018GeVM_{Pl}=2.44\times 10^{18}\,\mathrm{GeV} is the reduced Planck mass, and MM corresponds to the Starobinsky free parameter, expressed in terms of mass units. Similar to any f(R)f(R) theory, the Starobinsky action can be transformed into a form that includes the Einstein-Hilbert term and an action for a scalar field. This is achieved by considering a conformal transformation of the metric

gμνe23ϕMPlgμν.g_{\mu\nu}\rightarrow e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi}{M_{Pl}}}g_{\mu\nu}. (1.2)

Upon this transformation, we obtain the following action for the Starobinsky model:

S=d4xg(MPl22R12μϕμϕV(ϕ)),S=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{M_{Pl}^{2}}{2}R-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi-V(\phi)\right), (1.3)

where V(ϕ)V(\phi) represents the potential of the scalar field, given by

V(ϕ)=V0(1e23ϕMPl)2.V(\phi)=V_{0}\left(1-e^{-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi}{M_{Pl}}}\right)^{2}. (1.4)

Here V0V_{0} coreresponds to the product 34MPl2M2\frac{3}{4}M_{Pl}^{2}M^{2}.

In this paper we use Bayesian analysis to explore a generalization of this model. Specifically the generalized Starobinsky model which adds a term of the from R2pR^{2p} to the Einstein-Hilbert action [13]. The study includes an examination of a range of values for the exponent, as part of the parameter space. Our analysis presents a comprehensive exploration of the parameter space, with a particular emphasis on constraining the potential amplitudes and curvature through numerical evolution of the Boltzmann equation. The statistical analysis yields posterior distributions for the model parameters, together with cosmological parameters such as the number of ee–folds, spectral index, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio.

The article is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the R2pR^{2p} generalized Starobinsky model. Section 3 presents the results of the statistical analysis using Bayes’ theorem, including the posterior distributions and the Bayes’ factor for model selection. We provide a discussion with final remarks in Section 4.

2 𝑹𝟐𝒑R^{2p} Generalization of the Starobinsky model

The generalized model in question stems from a straightforward extension of the Starobinsky action

SGen=MPl22d4xg(R+(6M2)112pR2p),S_{\text{Gen}}=\frac{M_{Pl}^{2}}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left(R+\left(6M^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-2p}}R^{2p}\right), (2.1)

which recovers the original Starobinsky model when p=1p=1. In the Einstein Frame, the model gives rise to a generalised potential as follows

V=V0e223ϕMPl(e23ϕMPl1)2p2p1,V=V_{0}e^{-2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi}{M_{Pl}}}\left(e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi}{M_{Pl}}}-1\right)^{\frac{2p}{2p-1}}, (2.2)

where V0=2p12(12p)2p2p1(6M2)12p1MPl2V_{0}=\frac{2p-1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2p}\right)^{\frac{2p}{2p-1}}\left(6M^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}M_{Pl}^{2} (see Fig. 1).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The figure illustrates the graph of the generalized Starobinsky potential, scaled in units of V0V_{0}, as defined in Eq. (2.2). The plot illustrates the potential for various values of pp, namely (from top to bottom): p=0.985,0.99,0.995,1,1.005,1.01,1.015p=0.985,0.99,0.995,1,1.005,1.01,1.015.

This generalization of the Starobinsky model has been studied in various contexts. For example, Motohashi et al. [13] explored the consistency relations of the generalized model at first order, while Renzi et al. [14] investigated the stability of predictions for rr, taking into account experimental uncertainties on nsn_{s} and assuming the validity of Λ\LambdaCDM. Here we follow a similar approach to that of Ref. [15].

Cosmological observables in the context of inflationary models can be described through expressions derived from the slow-roll (SR) approximation, as demonstrated in previous studies (see, for example, [2], [16]). These are given by

nt\displaystyle n_{t} =\displaystyle= 2ϵ=r8,\displaystyle-2\epsilon=-\frac{r}{8}, (2.3)
ns\displaystyle n_{s} =\displaystyle= 1+2η6ϵ,\displaystyle 1+2\eta-6\epsilon, (2.4)
α\displaystyle\alpha =\displaystyle= 16ϵη24ϵ22ξ2,\displaystyle 16\epsilon\eta-24\epsilon^{2}-2\xi_{2}, (2.5)
As(k)\displaystyle A_{s}(k) =\displaystyle= 124π2VϵMPl4.\displaystyle\frac{1}{24\pi^{2}}\frac{V}{\epsilon\,M_{Pl}^{4}}. (2.6)

In these equations, ntn_{t} represents the tensor spectral index, rr is the tensor-to-scalar ratio, nsn_{s} corresponds to the scalar spectral index and α\alpha its running. The amplitude of density perturbations at a specific wavenumber kk is denoted by As(k)A_{s}(k). These quantities are evaluated at the time when the wavenumber kk crosses the horizon. The SR parameters introduced above are defined as

ϵMPl22(VV)2,ηMPl2V′′V,ξ2MPl4VV′′′V2.\epsilon\equiv\frac{M_{Pl}^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{V^{\prime}}{V}\right)^{2},\quad\quad\eta\equiv M_{Pl}^{2}\frac{V^{\prime\prime}}{V},\quad\quad\xi_{2}\equiv M_{Pl}^{4}\frac{V^{\prime}V^{\prime\prime\prime}}{V^{2}}. (2.7)

Of course, primes on VV indicate derivatives with respect to the inflaton field ϕ\phi.

2.1 Consistency relations

The number of ee–folds during inflation, Nkln(aeak)=1MPl2ϕkϕeVV𝑑ϕN_{k}\equiv\ln\left(\frac{a_{e}}{a_{k}}\right)=-\frac{1}{M_{Pl}^{2}}\int_{\phi_{k}}^{\phi_{e}}\frac{V}{V^{\prime}}d\phi, is explicitly

Nk=64(ϕeMPlϕkMPl)+3p4(p1)ln(2p1(p1)e23ϕeMPl2p1(p1)e23ϕkMPl),N_{k}=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{4}\left(\frac{\phi_{e}}{M_{Pl}}-\frac{\phi_{k}}{M_{Pl}}\right)+\frac{3p}{4\left(p-1\right)}\ln\left(\frac{2p-1-\left(p-1\right)e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi_{e}}{M_{Pl}}}}{2p-1-\left(p-1\right)e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi_{k}}{M_{Pl}}}}\right), (2.8)

where ϕe\phi_{e} is given by the solution of the condition ϵ=1\epsilon=1

ϕe=32MPlln[14p223p(2p1)1+4p8p2],\phi_{e}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}M_{Pl}\ln\left[\frac{1-4p^{2}-2\sqrt{3}p(2p-1)}{1+4p-8p^{2}}\right], (2.9)

and ϕk\phi_{k} is obtained by solving e.g., 16ϵ=r16\epsilon=r. This evaluation yields

ϕk=32MPlln(2p1)[643r+p(64+83r+6r)]3(2p1)2r64(p1)2.\phi_{k}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}M_{Pl}\ln\frac{\left(2p-1\right)\left[64-3r+p\left(-64+8\sqrt{3r}+6r\right)\right]}{3\left(2p-1\right)^{2}r-64\left(p-1\right)^{2}}. (2.10)

With this expression for the inflaton and, using the equation for the spectral index Eq. (2.4), we find pp in terms of rr and nsn_{s}

p=(8+3r)23(4+3r)28(13ns)).p=\frac{\left(8+\sqrt{3r}\right)^{2}}{3\left(4+\sqrt{3r}\right)^{2}-8\left(1-3n_{s})\right)}. (2.11)

In our case, it is more convenient to express this relation for rr in terms of nsn_{s} and pp as follows

r=8(8+22(23p)p(5+ns(39p)+3p)+p(19+ns(39p)+21p))3(3p1)2.r=\frac{8\left(8+2\sqrt{2}(2-3p)\sqrt{p(5+n_{s}(3-9p)+3p)}+p(-19+n_{s}(3-9p)+21p)\right)}{3\left(3p-1\right)^{2}}. (2.12)

Using the equation for α\alpha we have

α=r(r8+8ns)(146ns+33r)16(83+3r).\alpha=\frac{\sqrt{r}(r-8+8n_{s})(14-6n_{s}+3\sqrt{3r})}{16(8\sqrt{3}+3\sqrt{r})}\,. (2.13)

The overall scale of the potential, V0V_{0}, is obtained by solving the equation for the amplitude of scalar perturbations (2.6) at horizon crossing. The result is

V0=32Asπ2re223ϕkMPl(e23ϕkMPl1)2p2p1.V_{0}=\frac{3}{2}A_{s}\,\pi^{2}\,r\,e^{2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi_{k}}{M_{Pl}}}\left(e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{\phi_{k}}{M_{Pl}}}-1\right)^{-\frac{2p}{2p-1}}. (2.14)

2.2 Reheating bounds on cosmological parameters

The quantity representing the number of ee–folds during reheating, commonly referred to as NreN_{\rm re}, is typically described using the logarithm of scale factors from the end of inflation to the end of reheating. Alternatively, it can be defined in relation to the energy densities at the end of inflation and at thermalization

Nre=ln(areae)=13(1+ωre)ln(ρeρre).N_{\rm re}=\ln\left(\frac{a_{\rm re}}{a_{e}}\right)=\frac{1}{3(1+\omega_{\rm re})}\ln\left(\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{\rm re}}\right). (2.15)

The second equality can be derived from the fluid equation’s solution, ρa3(1+ωre)\rho\propto a^{-3(1+\omega_{\rm re})}, assuming a constant effective equation of state (EoS) parameter ωre\omega_{\rm re}. Using the first equation in (2.15), we find [17]

Nre=ln((4311gs,re)1/3AsrπMPlT0eNk2kpTre).N_{\rm re}=\ln\left(\frac{\left(\frac{43}{11g_{s,\rm re}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{A_{s}\,r}\,\pi M_{Pl}T_{0}\,e^{-N_{k}}}{\sqrt{2}\,k_{p}T_{\rm re}}\right). (2.16)

Furthermore, we can express the corresponding energy densities as follows

ρe=32Ve,ρre=π2gre30Tre4,\rho_{e}=\frac{3}{2}V_{e},\quad\quad\rho_{\rm re}=\frac{\pi^{2}g_{\rm re}}{30}T_{\rm re}^{4}, (2.17)

Here, VeV_{e} represents the inflationary potential at the end of inflation. Without loss of generality, we can express the potential as V(ϕ)=V0f(ϕ)V(\phi)=V_{0}f(\phi), where V0V_{0} is the overall scale and f(ϕ)f(\phi) contains the factor dependent on ϕ\phi. By writing Ve=VeVkVk=3VeVkHk2MPl2V_{e}=\frac{V_{e}}{V_{k}}V_{k}=3\frac{V_{e}}{V_{k}}H_{k}^{2}M_{Pl}^{2}, we obtain

Ve=32π2Asrf(ϕe)f(ϕk)MPl4.V_{e}=\frac{3}{2}\pi^{2}A_{s}\,r\frac{f(\phi_{e})}{f(\phi_{k})}M_{Pl}^{4}. (2.18)

In this context, ϕk\phi_{k} (and ϕe\phi_{e}) represents the value of the inflaton at horizon crossing (at the end of inflation), while AsA_{s} denotes the amplitude of scalar perturbations. By substituting equations (2.17) and (2.18) into equation (2.15), we can derive an alternative expression for NreN_{\rm re}

Nre=13(1+ωre)ln(135AsrMPl4f(ϕe)2greTre4f(ϕk)).N_{\rm re}=\frac{1}{3(1+\omega_{\rm re})}\ln\left(\frac{135A_{s}\ rM_{Pl}^{4}f(\phi_{e})}{2g_{\rm re}T_{\rm re}^{4}f(\phi_{k})}\right). (2.19)

By combining equations (2.16) and (2.19), we can derive an expression for ωre\omega_{\rm re} in terms of nsn_{s}

ωre=113ln(135AsMPl4f(ϕe)r2greTre4f(ϕk))Nkln((4311gs,re)1/3πAsMPlT0r2kpTre),\omega_{\rm re}=-1-\frac{1}{3}\frac{\ln\left(\frac{135A_{s}M_{Pl}^{4}f(\phi_{e})r}{2g_{\rm re}T_{\rm re}^{4}f(\phi_{k})}\right)}{N_{k}-\ln\left(\frac{\left(\frac{43}{11g_{s,\rm re}}\right)^{1/3}\pi\sqrt{A_{s}}M_{Pl}T_{0}\sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{2}k_{p}T_{\rm re}}\right)}, (2.20)

In this expression, the dependence on the spectral index nsn_{s} arises from the consistency relation (2.12), which relates rr to nsn_{s} and pp.

We examine the constraints provided by Table 3 of [9] for the Λ\LambdaCDM+r+(dns/dlnk)r+(dn_{s}/d\ln k) cosmological model. The constraints are derived from the Planck TT, TE, EE+lowE+lensing+BK15+BAO dataset, providing limits on the parameters and observables within this specific cosmological model and data combination. The bounds are as follows

ns=0.9658±0.0040(68%,C.L.),n_{s}=0.9658\pm 0.0040\quad(68\%,\mathrm{C.L.}), (2.21)
r<0.068(95%,C.L.).r<0.068\quad(95\%,\mathrm{C.L.}). (2.22)

At 2σ2\sigma, the bounds on pp are given by

0.990<p<1.005.0.990<p<1.005. (2.23)

The crucial parameter for imposing theoretical constraints in reheating is the equation of state parameter, ωre\omega_{\rm re}, as given by Eq.(2.20), while the remaining quantities displayed in Table 1 are derived by imposing the condition 0<w<0.250<w<0.25. We immediately note that the spectral index nsn_{s} remains unconstrained within the 2σ2\sigma range 0.9578<ns<0.97380.9578<n_{s}<0.9738, while pp or, equivalently, rr (through the consistency relation (2.11)), is restricted. From there, constraints for the running α\alpha and other quantities follow.

Let us now discuss the choice of range for ωre\omega_{\rm re}. After the inflationary phase, the equation of state parameter (EoS) averaged over the oscillations of the inflation field is approximately ωre=0\omega_{\rm re}=0. However, a significant transition occurs at the end of the preheating phase [18]. Within a brief time interval the EoS undergoes a sharp change from ωre=0\omega_{\rm re}=0 to a value approximately ranging from ωre0.20.3\omega_{\rm re}\approx 0.2-0.3 [19] (see also [20]). The equation of state (EoS) does not immediately reach the radiation-dominated value of 1/3; instead, it settles around ωre1/4\omega_{\rm re}\approx 1/4, as depicted in figure 1 of [19], and maintains that value until complete thermalization occurs.

The departure from an immediate radiation-dominated regime after preheating can be attributed to two facts. Firstly, the light field retains a considerable induced effective mass due to interactions. Secondly, there is a substantial residual contribution from the homogeneous inflaton field. These factors contribute to the deviation from an immediate transition to radiation dominance. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the range 0<ωre<0.250<\omega_{\rm re}<0.25 for the equation of state during reheating. In the original 2σ2\sigma Planck bounds for the spectral index nsn_{s} remain unaffected. However, the constraints for all other quantities become more stringent, as outlined in Table 1. In the case of the generalized Starobinsky model, there is no inherent assumption that the reheating temperature would have the same value as in the original Starobinsky model. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how this temperature varies when considering a generalized potential. This is detailed in the Appendix of [15], and reveals that within a narrow range of values around p=1p=1, it is still appropriate to use Tre=3.1×109GeVT_{\rm re}=3.1\times 10^{9}\,\mathrm{GeV} [21] when estimating the constraints provided in Table 1.

Quantity Theoretical bounds from reheating Defining equation
ωre\omega_{\rm re} 0<ωre<0.250<\omega_{\rm re}<0.25 Eq. (2.20)
pp 0.990<p<1.0050.990<p<1.005 Eq. (2.11)
V0V_{0} 3.7×1013>V0>1.3×10133.7\times 10^{-13}>V_{0}>1.3\times 10^{-13} Eq. (2.14)
nsn_{s} 0.9738>ns>0.95780.9738>n_{s}>0.9578 Eq. (2.4)
α\alpha 6.9×104>α>6.2×104-6.9\times 10^{-4}>\alpha>-6.2\times 10^{-4} Eq. (2.13)
rr 0.0080>r>0.00240.0080>r>0.0024 Eq. (2.3)
NreN_{\rm re} 18.4>Nre>14.518.4>N_{\rm re}>14.5 Eq. (2.19)
NkN_{k} 51.2<Nk<54.651.2<N_{k}<54.6 Eq. (2.8)
Table 1: Theoretical constraints on the observables, namely nsn_{s}, rr, α\alpha as well as the number of ee–folds during reheating NreN_{\rm re} and during inflation NkN_{k}, are examined for the generalized Starobinsky model. The initial bounds for nsn_{s} and rr are provided by Eqs. (2.21) and (2.22), [9]. At the 2σ2\sigma level, the range for nsn_{s} is presented in the table and is not influenced by the reheating condition. However, the additional constraints stem from enforcing the range 0<ωre<0.250<\omega_{\rm re}<0.25 on the equation of state during reheating.

3 Bayesian analysis

In this Section we perform the corresponding statistical analysis of the generalized Starobinsky potential (2.2). Whereas the main parameters to be constrained with MCMC method are logV0,p,Nk,\log V_{0}\,,p\,,N_{k}\,, and nsn_{s}, we will use the consistency relations (cr) from Eqs. (2.12) and (2.13) to obtain the posterior probability distribution for the tensor–to–scalar ratio rcrr^{cr} and the scalar running αcr\alpha^{cr}, respectively. For that matter, we have used the Boltzmann code class [22], implementing the generalized Starobinsky potential the primordial module, and the software Monte Python [23] to perform the Bayesian inference.

Particularly we will be interested in comparing the theoretical bounds from reheating with the observational constraints from the latest Planck Satellite Collaboration data [24], including the likelihoods for temperature (TTTT) power spectra, the polarisation spectra (TETE and EEEE), and CMB lensing measurements. Besides, we combine such Planck data with Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) observations111For reference, qe will refer to the combination of all these sets of experiments as Planck+BAO.: the final galaxy clustering data set of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey [25], the BAO signal from large-scale correlation function of the 6dF Galaxy Survey (6dFGS) [26], and a sample of galaxies with low redshift (z<0.2z<0.2) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 7 (DR7) [27].

Table 2 shows the priors on the parameters. The MCMC was performed for those parameters dubbed with role “Cosmological” (see last column), whereas the scalar spectral index nsn_{s} is obtained as a “Derived” parameter from the previous ones. On the other hand, the tensor–to–scalar ratio rcrr^{cr} and the scalar running αcr\alpha^{cr} are obtained from the consistency relations (2.12) and (2.13) respectively.

Param mean min max role
logV0\log V_{0} 22-22 34-34 10-10 Cosmological
pp 11 0.90.9 1.051.05 Cosmological
NkN_{k} 6060 2020 100100 Cosmological
nsn_{s} 11 None None Derived
rcrr^{cr} 0 None None Consistency relation (2.12)
αcr\alpha^{cr} 0 None None Consistency relation (2.13)
Table 2: Set of priors for the cosmological parameters. From left to right, each column indicates the parameter of interest (Param), the initial value to start the exploration of the parameter space (mean), the minimum and maximum values of the range given to the prior (min and max respectively), and the role of the parameter (role). See text for more details.

In order to compare with results from previous analysis in the literature, we use the same priors on pp and NkN_{k} as those used in [14]. For the rest of the standard cosmological parameters (Ωbh2,Ωcdmh2,100θs,τreio\Omega_{b}h^{2}\,,\Omega_{cdm}h^{2}\,,100\theta_{s}\,,\tau_{reio}) we have considered fixed values from Planck 2018222From [28] we take Ωbh2=0.0224,Ωcdmh2=0.120,100θs=1.0411,τreio=0.054.\Omega_{b}h^{2}=0.0224\,,\Omega_{cdm}h^{2}=0.120\,,100\theta_{s}=1.0411\,,\tau_{reio}=0.054\,., since such parameters do not change considerably from the observed values even when the priors are not specified. That is, the dynamics of the inflaton with the generalized Starobinsky potential does not alter the observed values for the matter content (baryonic Ωbh2\Omega_{b}h^{2} and cold dark matter Ωcdmh2\Omega_{cdm}h^{2}), angular diameter distance 100θs100\theta_{s}, or the reionization optical depth τreio\tau_{reio}.

The statistical constraints on the parameters are shown in Table 3. The only parameter with no restrictions within the broad prior we have considered is (the logarithm of) the amplitude of the inflationary potential (first row). For the rest of the parameters we found their corresponding mean values and confidence levels (CL). It is important to notice that, while the consistency relation (2.13) does not show explicit dependence on pp, by expressing rr as function of pp and nsn_{s} in equation (2.11), and substituting in equation (2.13), we obtain the function αcr=αcr(p,ns)\alpha^{cr}=\alpha^{cr}(p,n_{s}).

Param best-fit mean±σ\ \pm\ \sigma 95% lower 95% upper
logV0\log V_{0} -- -- -- --
pp 1.0021.002 1.0030.0014+0.00111.003_{-0.0014}^{+0.0011} 11 1.0051.005
NkN_{k} 60.2560.25 59.772.6+2.659.77_{-2.6}^{+2.6} 54.5354.53 64.9764.97
nsn_{s} 0.96450.9645 0.96390.0027+0.00350.9639_{-0.0027}^{+0.0035} 0.95760.9576 0.96990.9699
rcrr^{cr} 0.0024050.002405 0.0023873.7×105+4.1×1050.002387_{-3.7\times 10^{-5}}^{+4.1\times 10^{-5}} 0.0023080.002308 0.0024590.002459
αcr\alpha^{cr} 5.216×104-5.216\times 10^{-4} 5.289×1043.9×105+4.6×105{-5.289\times 10^{-4}}_{-3.9\times 10^{-5}}^{+4.6\times 10^{-5}} 6.163×104-6.163\times 10^{-4} 4.456×104-4.456\times 10^{-4}
Table 3: Values of best fit, means with standard deviation, and 95% bounds for the parameters of interest. The likelihood function \mathcal{L} was maximized to lnmax=1396.2-\ln{\cal L}_{\mathrm{max}}=1396.2, which corresponds with a minimum value for the χ2\chi^{2}–function of χmin2=2792.4.\chi^{2}_{min}=2792.4\,.

In Figure 2 the 1D and 2D posteriors are shown. Besides, the theoretical bounds from reheating presented in Table 1 are shown in red stripes for each parameter. It can be seen that observational constraints for logV0\log V_{0} are broader than those imposed by reheating. On the other hand, for the potential parameter pp, and the spectral index nsn_{s} it can be observed that the theoretical bounds from reheating are thoroughly consistent with the constraints imposed by Planck+BAO. In the case of the tensor–to–scalar ratio rcrr^{cr}, the lower theoretical bound of 0.00240.0024 is within the 1σ1\sigma region. However combined data Planck+BAO indicate that lower values than that are allowed.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: 1D and 2D posterior distribution functions for the parameters logV0,p,Nk,ns,rcr,\log V_{0}\,,p\,,N_{k}\,,n_{s}\,,r^{cr}\,, and αscr\alpha^{cr}_{s}. The red vertical bars indicate the range of the theoretical values allowed from reheating given in Table 1, and contained within the posteriors obtained from the statistical analysis using Planck+BAO data.

It can be seen that the ee-folds number NkN_{k} is constrained within a region that excludes part of the theoretical bounds from reheating for such parameter. As already seen in Ref. [29], NkN_{k} depends monotonically on ωre\omega_{\rm re} such that lower values of NkN_{k} are preferred for small ωre\omega_{\rm re}. Similarly occurs for the running of the spectral index αscr\alpha_{s}^{cr}, where the bounds from reheating are in a low probability region of the posterior.

In order to extend our analysis for the parameters obtained from the consistency relations, we have performed MCMC for rr and αs\alpha_{s}. The consistency relation (2.13) as well as the MCMC method give a negative mean value for the running. Specifically, we have obtained that the mean value for αs\alpha_{s} from the MCMC is given by αs=5.26×104.\alpha_{s}=-5.26\times 10^{-4}\,. On the other hand, the tensor–to–scalar ratio as a cosmological parameter gets constrained with the value r=2.42×103,r=2.42\times 10^{-3}\,, which is in agreement with the value obtained from the consistency relation (2.12) (see Table 3). For the sake of comparison, we show in Figure 3 the 1D posteriors for rr and αs\alpha_{s} obtained from the MCMC, as well as rcrr^{cr} and αscr\alpha_{s}^{cr} obtained from the consistency relations (2.12) and (2.13).

Refer to caption
Figure 3: 1D posterior distribution functions for the parameters r,αs,r\,,\alpha_{s}\,, obtained from MCMC (top) and rcr,αscrr^{cr}\,,\alpha^{cr}_{s} from the consistency relations (bottom). As in Figure 2, the experiments constraining rr and αs\alpha_{s} are Planck+BAO (see footnote 1), and red stripes indicate the range of the theoretical bounds from reheating given in Table 1.

In both cases we find a statistical agreement: the bounds imposed by reheating are contained within the posterior distributions obtained from any of the two methods (MCMC and consistency relations). In the case of the tensor–to–scalar ratio, the result from the MCMC rr as well as from the consistency relation (2.12) rcrr^{cr} are statistically consistent, and both of them contain at 1σ1\sigma the lower value from the theoretical bound shown in Table 1. For the running αs\alpha_{s} we can see that the bounds from reheating are contained within the posterior, although such bounds lie at lower probability of the posterior distribution for such parameter.

4 Discussion and Conclusions

The dynamics of the early universe is ruled by an inflationary era followed by a reheating process prior to the radiation domination. Whereas the physics of inflation has been constrained by observations such as CMB anisotropies, models of reheating are not always considered as the transitional phase at the end of inflation. In this work we have considered theoretical bounds imposed by the physics of reheating in order to analyze a generalized Starobinsky potential for primordial inflation.

We foud that the information inferred from reheating leads to more restrictive values of the cosmological parameters than those imposed by Planck+BAO data. It is then important to highlight that even when analytical and semi–analytical treatment of both inflation and reheating provide insights on the most likely values of the cosmological parameters, the implementation of statistical methods using up-to-date data is mandatory if one intends to address the viability of inflationary potentials including physics from reheating. Is in this way in which we were able not only to infer the most likely value of the parameter pp generalizing the Starobinsky potential, but to quantify the level of agreement of the theoretical predictions from reheating with such observational constraints as well.

Particularly, in light of data from CMB and BAO we found tighter constraints for pp and NkN_{k} than those presented in Ref. [14]333It is worth mentioning that in [14] the likelihood function for CMB data they used was Planck 2015, whereas we have used the latest data release from Planck Satellite Collaboration 2018.. The value of the parameter generalizing the standard Starobinsky potential pp is statistically consistent with p=1p=1, and then, the original form of this inflationary potential is preferred by the combination of data Planck+BAO. In fact, we do not perform any model comparison technique due to the small departure from the Starobinsky potential. In the case of the number of ee-folds during inflation NkN_{k}, the generalized Starobinsky potential is consistent with an approximate value of Nk60N_{k}\sim 60. This value lies near the maximum limit imposed by Planck observations for the standard R2R^{2} inflationary model, where the range 49<Nk<5949<N_{k}<59 at 95%95\% CL is reported [9].

Concerning inflationary observational parameters such as the scalar spectral index nsn_{s} and the scalar amplitude of perturbations AsA_{s} we obtain the following: our inferred value for nsn_{s} (its mean value and standard deviation) lies within the 1σ1\sigma CL reported by [28] (nsPlanck=0.965±0.004n_{s}^{Planck}=0.965\pm 0.004). On the other hand, since AsA_{s} is proportional to the amplitude of the inflaton potential V0V_{0} (see Eq. (2.6)), we note that the values obtained from the posterior of logV0\log V_{0} are consistent with 109As=2.10.0112+0.010710^{9}A_{s}=2.1^{+0.0107}_{-0.0112}, which is also in agreement with the value reported by Planck 2018 of AsPlanck=2.105±0.030A_{s}^{Planck}=2.105\pm 0.030 (see last column of Table 2 from [28] where the 68%68\% limits is shown considering the same Planck+BAO set of data we have used in the present work).

The use of consistency relations is useful to reduce the number of degrees of freedom in the parameter space. The model–dependent nature of these relations allows us to test the generalized Starobinsky potential in a self–contained way, and to put constraints on parameters such as rcrr^{cr} and αscr\alpha_{s}^{cr} at low computational cost. Even when the considerations from reheating have been tested indirectly via theoretical constraints from the semi–analytical approach, it was possible to quantify and compare the results coming from such epoch with CMB observations, which constitutes the most robust and precise probe of the early universe. Both inflation and reheating leave characteristic signatures in the spectrum of primordial gravitational waves that could be detected in the future [30, 31], and hence the importance in constraining theoretical scenarios in order to learn more about the physics ruling the dynamics of the earliest times of our universe.

Acknowledgments

F.X.L.C. acknowledges Beca CONACHyT. J. C. H. acknowledges support from program UNAM-PAPIIT, grant IG102123 “Laboratorio de Modelos y Datos (LAMOD) para proyectos de Investigación Científica: Censos Astrofísicos". as well as the sponsorship from CONAHCyT Network Project No. 304001 “Estudio de campos escalares con aplicaciones en cosmología y astrofísica”, and through grant CB-2016-282569.

References

  • [1] Andrei D. Linde. The Inflationary Universe. Rept. Prog. Phys., 47:925–986, 1984.
  • [2] David H. Lyth, Antonio Riotto. Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density perturbation. Phys. Rept., 314:1–146, 1999.
  • [3] Daniel Baumann. Inflation. Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, strony 523–686, 2011.
  • [4] Jerome Martin. The Theory of Inflation. Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi, 200:155–178, 2020.
  • [5] Sergei D. Odintsov, Vasilis K. Oikonomou, Ifigeneia Giannakoudi, Fotis P. Fronimos, Eirini C. Lymperiadou. Recent Advances in Inflation. Symmetry, 15(9):1701, 2023.
  • [6] Bruce A. Bassett, Shinji Tsujikawa, David Wands. Inflation dynamics and reheating. Rev. Mod. Phys., 78:537–589, 2006.
  • [7] Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Robert Brandenberger, Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, Anupam Mazumdar. Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 60:27–51, 2010.
  • [8] Mustafa A. Amin, Mark P. Hertzberg, David I. Kaiser, Johanna Karouby. Nonperturbative Dynamics Of Reheating After Inflation: A Review. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 24:1530003, 2014.
  • [9] Y. Akrami, et al. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A10, 2020.
  • [10] Eleni Bagui, et al. Primordial black holes and their gravitational-wave signatures. arXiv:2310.19857, 2023.
  • [11] Kevork Abazajian, et al. CMB-S4: Forecasting Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves. Astrophys. J., 926(1):54, 2022.
  • [12] Alexei A. Starobinsky. A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity. Phys. Lett. B, 91:99–102, 1980.
  • [13] Hayato Motohashi. Consistency relation for RpR^{p} inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 91:064016, 2015.
  • [14] Fabrizio Renzi, Mehdi Shokri, Alessandro Melchiorri. What is the amplitude of the gravitational waves background expected in the Starobinski model? Phys. Dark Univ., 27:100450, 2020.
  • [15] Marcos A. G. Garcia, Gabriel Germán, R. Gonzalez Quaglia, A. M. Moran Colorado. Reheating constraints and consistency relations of the Starobinsky model and some of its generalizations. JCAP, 12:015, 2023.
  • [16] Andrew R. Liddle, Paul Parsons, John D. Barrow. Formalizing the slow roll approximation in inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 50:7222–7232, 1994.
  • [17] Gabriel German, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Luis E. Padilla. Inflationary models constrained by reheating. arXiv:2310.05221, 2023.
  • [18] Jean Francois Dufaux, Gary N. Felder, L. Kofman, M. Peloso, D. Podolsky. Preheating with trilinear interactions: Tachyonic resonance. JCAP, 07:006, 2006.
  • [19] Dmitry I. Podolsky, Gary N. Felder, Lev Kofman, Marco Peloso. Equation of state and beginning of thermalization after preheating. Phys. Rev. D, 73:023501, 2006.
  • [20] E. Torres-Lomas, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Karim A. Malik, L. Arturo Ureña López. Formation of subhorizon black holes from preheating. Phys. Rev. D, 89(8):083008, 2014.
  • [21] D. S. Gorbunov, A. G. Panin. Scalaron the mighty: producing dark matter and baryon asymmetry at reheating. Phys. Lett. B, 700:157–162, 2011.
  • [22] Julien Lesgourgues. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview. arXiv:1104.2932, 2011.
  • [23] Benjamin Audren, Julien Lesgourgues, Karim Benabed, Simon Prunet. Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code. JCAP, 02:001, 2013.
  • [24] N. Aghanim, et al. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A5, 2020.
  • [25] Shadab Alam, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 470(3):2617–2652, 2017.
  • [26] Florian Beutler, Chris Blake, Matthew Colless, D. Heath Jones, Lister Staveley-Smith, Lachlan Campbell, Quentin Parker, Will Saunders, Fred Watson. The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 416:3017–3032, 2011.
  • [27] Ashley J. Ross, Lado Samushia, Cullan Howlett, Will J. Percival, Angela Burden, Marc Manera. The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z=0.15z=0.15. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 449(1):835–847, 2015.
  • [28] N. Aghanim, et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)].
  • [29] Gabriel Germán, R. Gonzalez Quaglia, A. M. Moran Colorado. Model independent bounds for the number of e-folds during the evolution of the universe. JCAP, 03:004, 2023.
  • [30] S. Kawamura, et al. The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO. Class. Quant. Grav., 23:S125–S132, 2006.
  • [31] E. Allys, et al. Probing Cosmic Inflation with the LiteBIRD Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Survey. PTEP, 2023(4):042F01, 2023.