What is the amplitude of the Gravitational Waves background expected in the Starobinsky model ?
What is the amplitude of the Gravitational Waves background expected in the Starobinsky model ?
Renzi, Fabrizio;Shokri, Mehdi;Melchiorri, Alessandro
What is the amplitude of the Gravitational Waves background expected in the Starobinsky model ? 1, 1,y 1,z Fabrizio Renzi, Mehdi Shokri, and Alessandro Melchiorri Physics Department and INFN, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Ple Aldo Moro 2, 00185, Rome, Italy (Dated: September 16, 2020) The inﬂationary model proposed by Starobinsky in 1979 predicts an amplitude of the spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, parametrized by the tensor to scalar ratio, of r = 0:0037 in case of a scalar spectral index of n = 0:965. This amplitude is currently used as a target value in the design of future CMB experiments with the ultimate goal of measuring it at more than ﬁve standard deviations. Here we evaluate how stable are the predictions of the Starobinsky model on r considering the experimental uncertainties on n and the assumption of CDM. We also 2 2p consider inﬂationary models where the R term in Starobinsky action is generalized to a R term with index p close to unity. We found that current data place a lower limit of r > 0:0013 at 95% C.L. for the classic Starobinsky model, and predict also a running of the scalar index diﬀerent +0:0002 from zero at more than three standard deviation in the range dn=dlnk = 0:0006 . A level 0:0001 of gravitational waves of r 0:001 is therefore possible in the Starobinsky scenario and it will not be clearly detectable by future CMB missions as LiteBIRD and CMB-S4. When assuming a more 2p general R inﬂation we found no expected lower limit on r, and a running consistent with zero. 2p We found that current data are able to place a tight constraints on the index of R models at 95% +0:02 C.L. i.e. p = 0:99 . 0:03 PACS: 98.80.-K; 98.80.Cq. Keywords: Inﬂation, CMB I. INTRODUCTION After forty years from its ﬁrst appearance in the literature, the theory of primordial inﬂation still oﬀers the most successful solution to some of the inconsistency of the hot big bang cosmology i.e. the ﬂatness, horizon and monopole problems [1–7]. It also gives a viable mechanism to seed the primordial perturbations that are needed to form the large scale structure of the Universe we see at the present time such as galaxy clusters, ﬁlaments and the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Along with density perturbations, also tensor modes (primordial gravitational waves) are expected to be produced during inﬂation [8, 9]. The observations of such modes will not only be a smoking gun for inﬂation but will also conﬁrm the quantum nature of inﬂationary perturbations. In the last decade the experimental bounds on the amplitude of primordial gravitational waves, the so-called tensor-to-scalar ratio r, have seen a signiﬁcant improvement. An upper limit of r < 0:064 has recently been provided by the Planck 0:002 collaboration combining Planck and Bicep2/Keck Array BK14 data , an order of magnitude better than the ﬁrst constraints from the BICEP experiment of r < 0:72 at 95% C.L.  in 2010. In the coming years a new generation of CMB experiments (e.g. BICEP3 , SPT-3G , CLASS and Advanced ACTpol) is expected to bring the sensitivity on the amplitude of tensor modes in the range r 0:01 - 0:001. Traces of primordial gravity waves are also started to be sought by gravitational interferometers in search of the so-called stochastic gravitational waves background, the analogous of the CMB in terms of gravitational waves (for a recent review see e.g. ). Unfortunately a direct detection of the stochastic background is still missing, but an upper limit has been placed on its amplitude from the ﬁrst and second observing runs of the LIGO/VIRGO collaboration [17, 18]. While the search for primordial gravitational waves have lead to rule out several inﬂationary models [10, 19, 20], the signiﬁcant improvement in CMB probes expected in the next years could let us to better identify the physical nature of inﬂation. Between the inﬂationary models which have survived the most recent data, one of most successful (and also the ﬁrst to have been conceived) is the Starobinsky R inﬂation, with R being the Ricci scalar, proposed by A.A. Starobinsky . Interestingly the R has also a crucial role in solving the shortcomings of f (R) theories which have been proposed as one of the possible alternatives to the cosmological constant of the concordance CDM model [21–32]. Because of its agreement with current observations, the Starobinsky model is now considered as a "target" model for several future CMB experiments as, for example, the Simons Observatory , CMB-S4 , and the LiteBIRD satellite experiment firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org arXiv:1909.08014v3 [astro-ph.CO] 15 Sep 2020 2 . Assuming the current best-ﬁt values of the scalar spectral index n from the Planck experiment, the Starobinsky model predicts a tiny tensor amplitude namely r ' 0:003 for 60 e-folds. The goal of these future experiments is therefore to have enough experimental sensitivity to measure such signal with enough statistical signiﬁcance with r < 0:001. However the prediction of r ' 0:003 is a ﬁrst approximation that does not consider several caveats. First of all, there is an experimental uncertainty on the value of n derived under CDM and this aﬀect the predicted value for r, since, for example, for higher values of n the expected value of r is smaller. Secondly, there is a severe anomaly in the Planck data on the amount of gravitational lensing present in the CMB angular spectra. The lensing signal, parameterized by the parameter A , is indeed larger than what expected in the CDM scenario by more than two lens standard deviations. Since A correlates with n , the lensing anomaly could aﬀect the predictions on r. Finally, lens S there is clearly no fundamental reason to believe that the Starobinsky model is the correct inﬂationary scenario and, for example, several generalization could be considered. The goal of this paper is therefore to evaluate the amount of gravitational waves predicted by Starobinsky model considering the current uncertainties on n and the possibility of an extension to the CDM model parametrized by A . lens 2p Moreover, we also consider a minimal generalization of Starobinsky inﬂation, the so-called R models (with p 1). These inﬂationary models were ﬁrst proposed by [36, 37] in the context of higher derivative theories and subsequently were applied to inﬂation providing a straightforward and elegant generalization of the R inﬂation [38–42]. While the introduction of a variable index of the Ricci scalar in the inﬂationary action complicates the simplicity of R inﬂation it allows signiﬁcant deviations from the benchmark value of the tensor amplitude of the Starobinsky model and could in principle results in a better agreement with data. In this paper we provide constraints on Starobinsky inﬂation 2p and on the more general R model using CMB anisotropies data. In particular we make use of the publicly available Planck 2015 and Biceps2/Keck array data releases. The present work is structured as follows: in section I we outline the main features of the generalized Starobinsky models and we derive the expression of the scalar spectral index, n , its running, and the tensor-to-scalar ratio r as function of the number of e-foldings, N and the index p. In section II we describe the method employed for the comparison of the theoretical model with data, while results are reported in section III. Finally in section IV we draw our conclusions. II. THEORY 2p Potential for R inﬂation 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 p = 0.90 p = 0.96 p = 1.01 0.25 p = 0.92 p = 0.99 p = 1.03 p = 0.94 p = 1.00 p = 1.05 0.00 − 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 φ/M pl 2p Figure 1: The potential of R inﬂation for diﬀerent values of p. V/V 0 3 2p We start with the form of action for R inﬂation in the Einstein frame as: M p pl S = gd xf (R) (1) ( 1=2) E where M = (8G) is the reduced Planck mass. By applying a conformal transformation of the form g = pl F (R)g and deﬁning a scalaron ﬁeld as: 0 =M pl F (R) f (R) e (2) the above action can be rewritten in the following form : p 1 pl S = d x g R + g @ @ V () (3) ' E 2 2 where the potential is given by: F () f () pl V () = (4) 2 F () where = () is a solution of Eq.(2) for R = . In this paper we focus on model where the f (R) can be written in the form: 2p f (R) = R + (5) 2 2p 1 (6M ) where p is a real number close to unity and M ' 10 GeV is a normalized energy scale from the amplitude of observed power spectrum for the primordial perturbations. In such a model the potential V () assumes the form: p p 2 2 2p 3 M 3 M pl pl 2p 1 V () = V e (e 1) (6) 2p 1 2 2 1 2p 1 where V = 6( )M M ( ) . In Fig.1 we report the behaviour of the potential, V (), for diﬀerent values of 4p pl 2p 2p the index p. As shown in the ﬁgure, the behavior of the potential for the R model depends signiﬁcantly on the value of the index p. For p . 1 the inﬂationary potential has only one vacuum corresponding to the origin and there is only one regime in which inﬂation can proceed. Therefore for p . 1 we have only a small deviation from a Starobinsky- like inﬂation with the inﬂationary phase ending by violation of the slow-roll conditions. In the opposite regime, p & 1, the potential has a maximum at: 3 2p 1 = ln (7) M 2 p 1 pl and allows two diﬀerent vacua, the origin and the positive inﬁnity. However it easily shown from Eq.(2) that !1 positive inﬁnity does lead to an unphysical inﬂationary regime since R ! 1 [44, 45]. In order to avoid this regime, we should require that, . (8) i m d 1 d = = < 0 (9) dt H dN in order to neglect the behavior of the inﬂationary potential for > and discuss only the regime in which the inﬂaton evolves towards the true vacuum ( = 0) where, again, inﬂation ends by violation of the slow-roll 2p conditions and the R model leads only to small deviations from Starobinsky inﬂation (we will show in the following that these conditions are satisﬁed for all p > 1 allowing us to neglect the inﬂationary regime for > ). m 4 for p = 1 we recover the potential of Starobinsky inﬂation asymptotically approaching a constant value, V = 2 2 3=4M M , for large : pl 2 2 3 M pl V () = M M 1 e (10) pl In the Einstein frame, the slow-roll parameters can be expressed through the potential as: 2 2 0 00 0 000 V () V () V ()V () pl 2 2 4 = ; = M ; = M (11) pl pl 2 V () V () V () where prime denotes derivative w.r.t the scalar ﬁeld . One can express the number of e-folds, between an initial time t and t, as : s s Z Z i i 1 V 1 1 N d d (12) 2 2 2M V 2M pl pl where = (t ). It is possible to show that during the slow-roll regime the number of e-folds is approximately the i i same in both the Einstein and Jordan frame which allows us to drop the subscript E while we continue to follow dynamics of inﬂation in the Einstein frame . Let us start by describing ﬁrst the general case where p 6= 1. When p 6= 1, the slow-roll parameters of Eq.(11) for the potential of Eq.(6) are deﬁned as: 4 (p 1)F 2p + 1 = (13) 3(2p 1) F 1 2 2 2 2 = [(2p 4p + 2)F + ( 10p + 13p 4)F + 8p 8p + 2)] (14) 2 2 3(2p 1) (F 1) 2 3 2 4 4 3 2 3 = (p 1)(4p 12p + 12p 4) F 48p 150p + 173p 87p + 16 F 4 4 9(2p 1) (F 1) 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 + 148p 388p + 373p 156p + 24 F 168p 380p + 318p 117p + 16 F 4 3 2 + 4 16p 32p + 24p 8p + 1 (15) 3 M pl with F = e . Deﬁning the end of inﬂation by = 1, one can obtain the value of the scalaron when inﬂation end: r p 2 (1 + 3)(2p 1) = ln p (16) M 3 4p (1 + 3) pl which is a value of order unity for p ' 1. The number of e-folds between and can be instead derived from Eq.(12): 3 M pl 3p (p 1)e 2p + 1 N () = ln p (17) 4(p 1) 3 M pl (p 1)e 2p + 1 We can therefore neglect the contribution of to obtain the total number of e-folds during inﬂation: 3 M pl 3p (p 1)e N = N ( ) ' ln + 1 (18) k f 4(p 1) 1 2p which can be inverted to obtain : 2 (2p 1) ' ln 1 C (19) 3 M (p 1) pl 5 p = 0.90 p = 0.96 p = 1.01 p = 0.92 p = 0.99 p = 1.03 p = 0.94 p = 1.00 p = 1.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Figure 2: Time evolution of the scalar ﬁeld for several value of the index p 4N(p 1) 3p with C C(N; p) e and C = C(N ; p). Comparing Eq.(19) with Eq.(7) it is straightforward to see that k k . independently of the value of p. Finally, we can invert Eq.(17) to obtain : i m 2 i (N ) 3 1 2p 1 2p 4N(p 1)=3p 3 M pl = ln e + e (20) M 2 p 1 p 1 pl 2p which we plot in Fig.(2) to show that is always a decreasing function of time. Therefore R models allow only for small deviations w.r.t. Starobinsky inﬂation independently of the value assumed by the index p. Armed with these relation we can eliminate the dependency from the scalaron in Eqs.(13 – 15) to obtain the slow-roll parameters as function of p and N only: 2 2 4C (p 1) = (21) 3(C (1 2p) + p) 4(p 1) = 2C (p 1) + pC p (22) 3((1 2p)C + p) 16C (p 1) 2 2 3 2 = 4(p 1) C + p(8p 7)C p(11p 9)C + p(3p 2) (23) k k 9((1 2p)C + p) The ﬁnal step is now to relate inﬂationary observables namely the scalar spectral index n , the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and the running of the scalar index dn =dln k to the slow-roll parameters. Since the inﬂationary observables s s are invariant under conformal transformations [46, 47] we can evaluate them making use of relations we derived in the Einstein frame. Up to leading order, we can express the inﬂationary observables as: 2 2 n = 1 6 + 2; = 16 24 2 ; r = 16 (24) s s making use of Eqs.(21 - 23) we obtain: 2 2 64C (p 1) r = (25a) 3 [C (1 2p) + p] 8(p 1) C (p 1) p(C 1) n = 1 (25b) 3 [C (1 2p) + p] (N) / M pl 6 32pC (p 1) (C 1)(C 3p + 2) k k k = (25c) 9 [C (1 2p) + p] The consistency relations between above equations take the following form: (3p 2) r 8(1 p) r(3p 1) n 1 = + (26) 3p 8p 3p 2 2 4(1 p)(3p 2) r (15p 20p + 6)r (3p 2)(8p 3)r (2p 1)(3p 1)r = p p : (27) 2 2 2 2 6p 64p 3 3p 16 3p Now, let us consider the case p = 1. The slow-roll parameters Eq.(11) when p ! 1 reduce to = p (28) 3 M pl 3(e 1) 3 M pl 4(e 2) = (29) 3 M pl 3(e 1) 3 M pl 16(e 4) = p (30) 3 M pl 9(e 1) By using the Eq. (12), the total number of e-folds in this case is obtained as 2 i 3 M pl N ' e (31) Finally for the spectral index, the running spectral index and the tensor-to-scalar ratio, we have from Eqs. (24): 2 2 12 n = 1 ; = ; r = (32) S S 2 2 N N N k k We show in Fig.3 the scalar spectral index n (left panel) and its running (right panel) as function of the tensor- S S to-scalar ratio r for diﬀerent value of the index p. We superimpose on the curves drawn according to Eqs.((26) - (27)) the Planck 2015 bounds on n to show how the models considered in the present work can ﬁt with observations of CMB anisotropies. We see from the left panel of Fig.3 that for arbitrary small values of r the scalar index saturates to a maximum value which depends only on p, namely 8(1 p) n 1 = (33) 3p for 1:01 . p . 1:02, the saturation value falls well within the Planck bound on n , this model are therefore well in agreement with Planck data for a tensor-to-scalar ratio consistent with zero. For p & 1:02 the value of n is always outside the Planck bounds, thus we expect these models to be ruled out by current data. Model with p . 1:01 are within the Planck bounds only for a ﬁnite range of values of the tensor amplitude r these models are not ruled out only if their range is contained in the Planck upper limit for r < 0:1. For we see a similar behavior as r ! 0 (right panel of Fig.3), but the saturation value now is zero for every value of the index p since / r for r ! 0. Therefore we expect that Planck data will be able to give a bound on p if it is let free to vary while the bounds on r and will be consistent with zero. Conversely for the Starobinsky model we expect to have a bound on r in the 4 3 range 10 10 and thus an indication for a non zero running at more than two standard deviation. III. COMPARISON WITH RECENT EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND EXPECTED SIGNAL As stated in the previous sections the aim of this paper is to show how stable are the prediction of the Starobinsky model on inﬂationary parameters when a model-dependent approach is used to sample the cosmological parameter space. The general approach when looking at constraints from observations on inﬂationary models (see e.g. [11, 19, 20, 48]) is to let the parameters n , r and free to vary assuming them to be independent from one another and S S 7 1.050 0.010 1.05 1.025 1.04 0.005 1.000 1.03 0.000 0.975 1.02 0.950 0.005 1.01 0.925 0.010 1.00 0.900 0.015 0.99 0.875 0.850 0.020 0.98 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 r r Figure 3: The spectral index (left) and the running spectral index (right) versus tensor-to-scalar ratio with respect to the diﬀerent values of p. The dashed line on the left panel shows the case for p = 1. The gray band show the 68% and 95% C.L. constraints on the spectral index from Planck 2015. The black lines show the case p = 1 Parameter ! ! ln(10 A ) N p A b c s s lens Prior [0:005 0:1] [0:001 0:99] [0:5 10] [0:01 0:8] [2 4] [20 100] [0:9 1:05] [0 2] Table I: Range of the ﬂat prior on the parameters varied in the MCMC analysis then comparing the prediction of a speciﬁc model with the allowed parameter space. On the one hand, this allows to explore the inﬂationary sector in a model independent way but has the drawback of not allowing to sample the whole parameter space of a speciﬁc theory. Furthermore the assumption that n , r and are independent from S S one another is also in contrast with the prediction of any theory of inﬂation that assumes the validity of the slow- roll conditions (see e.g Eq.(26) and Eq.(27) and also ). In this work we choose a diﬀerent approach: we impose 2p an inﬂationary model a priori (here, R inﬂation) and we extract the posterior distribution of the parameters of that speciﬁc model. In particular, we exploit Eqs.(24) to reduce the number of inﬂationary parameters to only two: the total number of e-folds, N , and the index, p. While this approach is more model-dependant, it may results in constraints that are not achievable with the standard approach in which the inﬂationary parameter are independently sampled and any value of n , r and is permitted. The theoretical models are calculated using the latest version S S of the Boltzmann integrator CAMB , and we use publicily available version of the Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) code CosmoMC  (Nov 2016 version) to extract constraints on cosmological parameters. To compare our theoretical models with data, we use the full 2015 Planck temperature and polarization datasets which also includes multipoles ` < 30. Eventually we combine the Planck likelihood with the Biceps/Keck 2015 B-mode likelihood. We modiﬁed the code CosmoMC to include the total number of e-folds, N , and the index, p, as new independent parameters and to calculate the inﬂationary parameters n , r and throughout Eqs.(25). In what follows we will S S also refer to the total number of e-folds only as N dropping the subscript k. Along with the inﬂationary parameters, 2 2 we consider the following cosmological parameters: the baryon ! = h and the CDM density ! h , the angular b b c size of the sound horizon at decoupling , the optical depth , the amplitude of scalar perturbations A and the S S phenomenological lensing parameter A . The ﬂat prior imposed for these parameters are reported in Tab.I. lens s 8 IV. RESULTS FOR STAROBINSKY INFLATION We report the bounds on the inﬂationary parameters for the Starobinsky model obtained using the full Planck 2015 likelihood (Planck) and its combination with Bicep/Keck 2015 data (Planck+BK14) in Tab.II. The 68% and 95% C.L. contour plots are showed in Fig.4 instead. Let us start by discussing the results from the Planck datasets alone (without the inclusion of A ). As we can see from the ﬁrst column of Table II, we found evidence for a non-zero lens tensor-to-scalar ratio at the 2- level when using the full Planck 2015 data (r 0:0036). This result is not coming 0:002 from an actual presence of tensor perturbations in Planck data but rather it is arising from the correlation between r and n present in the model considered. In fact, Planck data are only able to place an upper bound on the 0:002 S value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio due to the poor polarization data at large scales (r < 0:11 in a one-parameter 0:002 extension of the CDM model) while they are able to place a strong constraint on the scalar spectral index at the accuracy of 0:6% (n = 0:968 0:006) when the standard approach is used to sample these parameters. Enforcing a dependence of n from r therefore limits the parameter space for the tensor-to-scalar ratio and force its value S 0:002 to ﬁt in the available range for n . This situation can be better understood looking at Fig.3, where we show the behavior of the scalar index as a function of tensor-to-scalar ratio. The same argument can be applied to the running of the scalar index for which we ﬁnd an evidence to be negative ( 0:0006) at the 3- level. Again, we stress S S that this is not due to an indication of a running in the data but to the speciﬁc correlation which arises in Starobinsky inﬂation between the running and the other inﬂationary parameters. However these bounds show either that future measurements of r and have the potential to rule out the Starobinsky inﬂation, either that they should be 0:002 S considered in the analysis of future data being key parameters in studying the feasibility of inﬂationary models (see also ). We can see from Fig.4 and the third column of Table II that the combination of BK14 and Planck data do not signiﬁcantly modify the bounds coming from the Planck datasets alone. The main reason for this is that the combination of Planck and Biceps2 data is compatible with every value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio satisfying r < 0:07  and therefore is not able to improve the constraints of Planck data alone since the bounds on r 0:002 0:002 now fall well within this limit. It is worth noting that, the slight decrease in the best-ﬁt value of r when including 0:002 BK14 is caused by an increase in the best-ﬁt value of the reionization optical depth that requires a smaller scalar spectral index which in turns demand a smaller tensor ratio and a more negative running. We see from Fig.4 and the second column of Table II the addition of the parameter A leads to changes in the best-ﬁt of all other parameters lens while not aﬀecting their bounds. Here, the main diﬀerence with our base model is an increasing in n of the 0:4% and a reduction of 1:8% of the scalar amplitude A . This in turn leads to a reduction of the optical depth from 0:08 to 0:06. To account for this shift, Planck data requires A > 1 to give more smoothing on the acoustic peaks of lens the scalar spectrum than in the base CDM model (see e.g. [52, 53] for a more detailed discussion). The parameters N, and r best-ﬁt values are consequently shifted due to the correlation with n introduced by Starobinsky S 0:002 S inﬂation. The combination of Planck and BK14 data do not signiﬁcantly modify the situation described here, since again the bound on r are around an order of magnitude smaller than the sensibility of the two datasets r 10 . 0:002 It is worth noting that both for Planck alone and for Planck+BK14 the inclusion of A provides a better ﬁt to the lens data with = 4 again underlying the preference for more lensing power in Planck data. Planck Planck+A Planck+BK14 Planck+BK14+A lens lens h 0:02226 0:00016 0:02241 0:00017 0:02224 0:00016 0:02242 0:00017 h 0:1196 0:0015 0:1182 0:0016 0:1198 0:0015 0:1182 0:0015 ln(10 A ) 3:096 0:033 3:045 0:041 3:104 0:032 3:045 0:040 +6 +8 +6 +8 N 59 66 59 67 10 10 10 10 +0:0053 n 0:9656 0:0048 0:9691 0:9652 0:0048 0:9692 0:0049 0:0047 +0:00019 +0:00018 +0:00019 +0:00018 0:00060 0:00049 0:00062 0:00049 0:00014 0:00012 0:00015 0:00012 +0:00085 +0:00070 +0:00089 +0:00070 r 0:00363 0:00294 0:00371 0:00292 0:002 0:0011 0:0011 0:0011 0:0011 0:081 0:017 0:057 0:020 0:084 0:017 0:057 0:020 12948 12944 13594 13590 Table II: Constraints on inﬂationary parameters for a Starobinsky inﬂation (p = 1) from the Planck and Planck+BK14 datasets with and without the inclusion of the parameter A . Constraints on parameters are at the lens 68% C.L. 9 Planck+BK14+Alens Planck+Alens Planck+BK14 Planck 0.976 0.96 0.0006 0.0012 0.006 0.002 45 60 75 90 0.960 0.976 0.0012 0.0006 0.002 0.006 N n r s s 0.002 Figure 4: Constraints at 68% and 95% C.L. for the full Planck 2015 likelihood (Planck) and its combination with the Biceps/Keck 2015 B-mode likelihood (Planck+BK14) for the inﬂationary parameters for Starobinsky inﬂation p = 1. V. RESULTS FOR NEAR-STAROBINSKY INFLATION 2p We report the constraints on the inﬂationary parameters for general R model with p ' 1 in Table III. The 68% and 95% C.L. contour plots are showed in Fig.5 instead. We start again discussing the results from the Planck datasets alone (without the inclusion of A ) reported in the ﬁrst column of Table III. As expected the inclusion of lens the index p in the analysis does not signiﬁcantly modify the bounds on the standard cosmological parameters ( h , h , A , n and ) coming from the Planck datasets alone. Conversely the constraints on inﬂationary parameters c S S are largely changed by the inclusion of the index p. When p is varied, the number of e-folds of inﬂation are basically unconstrained within the ﬂat range we imposed in our runs while the 2- bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio is relaxed to only an upper bound. We note however that the upper limit on r is halved with respect to the bound reported in the Planck 2015 release (r < 0:11), again this is due to the correlation between the inﬂationary parameters arising in 2p R inﬂationary models. The bound on is also worsen by a factor 4 leading to a running consistent with zero nearly at 2- level. Interestingly instead we are able to constraints the index p with an accuracy of the 0:2% 0:3%. In order to understand why this is happening we should look again at Fig.3. As we can see from the left panel of Fig.3, for arbitrary small value of r, the scalar index saturates to a constant value which is only a function of the index p (see also Eq.(26)). For 1:0 . p . 1:02, the saturation value of n falls well within the Planck constraints for r ! 0 therefore for these models we do not ﬁnd any lower limit on the amplitude of tensor modes. For p > 1:02 the value of n is always outside the Planck bound making these models incompatible with Planck data, instead models with 2 1 p < 1:0 are compatible with Planck data only for value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio in the range 10 < r < 10 . This behavior of the scalar index for diﬀerent value of p leads to the highly non-Gaussian posteriors for p and of Fig.5 and to the disappearance of the lower bound on r. Including A , we again see the shift in the best ﬁt values lens of A and n as for the case where p is kept ﬁxed leading to a worsening of the limit on r of the 45% and of the S S r n 0.002 s 10 constraints on p of the 20%. We see from the third column of Table III and Fig.5 that the combination of Planck and BK14 datasets improves sligtly the upper limit on tensor amplitudes while the other parameter bounds are virtually unchanged. The inclusion of A now only changes the bound on shifting the best-ﬁt toward zero by the 14% lens S and improving the 2- constraints by the same amount. Again we notice that the inclusion of A provides a better lens ﬁt to the data with ' 4 5 Planck+BK14+Alens+p Planck+Alens+p Planck+BK14+p Planck+p 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.002 0.018 0.006 40 60 80 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.002 0.000 0.006 0.018 N p n r s s 0.002 Figure 5: Constraints at 68% and 95% C.L. for the full Planck 2015 likelihood (Planck) and its combination with 2p the Biceps/Keck 2015 B-mode likelihood (Planck+BK14) for the inﬂationary parameters for R models VI. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have obtained constraints on inﬂationary parameters using a set of recent CMB data and under the assumption of the Starobinsky model. We have also considered a particular class of inﬂationary models that generalize Starobinsky inﬂation and the possibility of an extension to CDM described by the A parameter. lens We can summarize our results as follows : When conservatively considering Starobinsky inﬂation, corresponding to p = 1, and using the full Planck 2015 likelihood we obtain an upper limit on the tensor to scalar ratio r > 0:0017 at 95% C.L. and an indication for a negative running at more than two standard deviations. While smaller values for r are allowed, also values of r 0:006 are now inside the 95% C.L. Interestingly, models with a larger value of r would also predict a more negative value of the running . The maximum value of 0:001 (see Figure 4), however, is not s s within the reach of the future CMB-S4 experiment that is expected to have a sensitivity on the running of 0.002 n p s 11 Planck+p Planck+p+A Planck+BK14+p Planck+BK14+p+A lens lens h 0:02223 0:00016 0:02240 0:00018 0:02223 0:00016 0:02240 0:00018 h 0:1198 0:0015 0:1184 0:0016 0:1201 0:0015 0:1184 0:0016 ln(10 A ) 3:092 0:033 3:043 0:041 3:101 0:032 3:046 0:041 +40 +40 +40 +40 N 60 59 59 61 30 30 30 30 +0:021 +0:025 +0:021 +0:020 p 0:995 0:990 0:994 0:993 0:033 0:039 0:030 0:027 n 0:9644 0:0049 0:9683 0:0051 0:9640 0:0049 0:9683 0:0051 +0:00084 +0:00080 +0:00088 +0:00072 0:00084 0:00083 0:00090 0:00077 0:0013 0:0011 0:0013 0:0010 r < 0:0515 < 0:0750 < 0:0483 < 0:0422 0:002 0:079 0:017 0:056 0:020 0:082 0:017 0:057 0:020 12949 12945 13595 13590 Table III: Constraints on inﬂationary parameters for near-Starobinsky inﬂation (p ' 1) from the Planck and Planck+BK14 datasets with and without the inclusion of the parameter A . Constraints on parameters are at the lens 2 2 68% C.L. for h ; h and A while constraints on ; N and p are at 95% C.L. since their posteriors are highly b c S S non-Gaussian. Upper bound are also at 95% C.L. 0:0026 . The combination of the Planck and BK14 datasets leaves our results almost unchanged. As discussed above, this is related to the fact that our results are coming from the Planck bound on n and from assuming inﬂationary consistency relations between n , r and and therefore they are not signiﬁcantly S S aﬀected from the inclusion of the BICEP2 B-mode likelihood. Considering the phenomenological lensing parameter A shifts the best-ﬁt values of r and due to the lens S degeneracy between A and the scalar parameters n and A . When A is considered, the upper limit is lens S S lens now r > 0:0013 at 95% C.L., i.e., the amount of gravitational waves predicted is signiﬁcantly smaller. Future CMB experiments should, therefore, target to a r 0:0003 sensitivity if they plan to falsify the Starobinsky model at the level of ﬁve standard deviations. This sensitivity is about a factor two better than the one predicted for the CMB-S4 experiment. 2p For a more general R inﬂation and using the full Planck likelihood, we found no lower limit for the tensor mode amplitude. Conversely, we obtain a tight constraint on the index p at the 95% C.L. conﬁrming that small departures from the Starobinsky model are allowed by the Planck data with values in the range 0:962 p 1:016. The inclusion of A worsen this constraint by the 20%. When considering the combination of the full lens Planck dataset with the BK14 dataset again we do not ﬁnd any improvement w.r.t. to the Planck datasets alone. However, including A now do not worsen the constraints on p but only shift the best ﬁt of to a lens S less negative value. We, therefore, conﬁrmed that Starobinsky inﬂation provides an excellent ﬁt to the most recent data, but that uncertainties on n and on the value of A could easily bring the expected value of r in the region of r 0:001. If s lens the primordial inﬂationary background is at this level, it will not be detectable either by the Simons Observatory , that has an expected sensitivity around r 0:002, either by the LiteBIRD satellite that is planned to have a sensitivity of r 0:001. It will also be barely detectable by CMB-S4  that is expected to reach a target sensitivity of r 0:0006. Moreover, the goal of the CMB-S4 mission to "achieve a 95% conﬁdence upper limit of r < 0:001"  can be severely aﬀected if the primordial gravitational waves background is in the region of r 0:001. However, values of r could also reach the r 0:006 region, allowing, in this case, a statistically signiﬁcant detection at about three standard deviations for the Simons Observatory and at about ten standard deviations for CMB-S4. In the optimistic case of r 0:006 we also expect a running of the spectral index 0:001. Unfortunately this value can’t be detectable even by future CMB experiments as CMB-S4 (with expected sensitivity of 0:002 ), but it could be reachable when information from future lensing or galaxy clustering measurements are included. Small departures from the Starobinsky model are also possible and in agreement with observations. In this case, we found no predicted lower limit to r. We conclude noting that the inﬂationary prediction on curvature perturbation may be spoiled by a reheating phase accompanied by some parametric resonance (see e.g. [54, 55]). This process can also take place in a Starobinsky-like inﬂation as showed in . While the prediction on the inﬂationary observables coming from the post-inﬂationary evolution of the scalar ﬁeld strongly depends on the inﬂationary model under consideration and on the coupling between the inﬂaton and the entropy ﬁeld responsible for the reheating mechanism, the general outcome of such 12 a reheating phase is to suppress the value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio by enhancing the amplitude of primordial density ﬂuctuations. The reheating phase can therefore signiﬁcantly modify the prediction in the (n r) plane for a chosen inﬂationary model. However, this does not apply to the constraints drawn in this work. In the present 2p analysis, infact, the bound on r comes from the functional dependence imposed by the R models between r and n . Since the value of n is tightly constrained by the Planck data so it is the value of r provided that Eqs.(25) s s hold. A successful Starobinsky-like model including a reheating phase must be able to predict an amplitude of scalar ﬂuctuations consistent with Planck data leading to the same constraints for n and r we found in this work. Conversely the requirement that the reheating phase must give a value of A compatible with Planck data can be used to place strong constraint on the reheating mechanisms. However a detailed study of the reheating phase in Starobinsky-like inﬂationary models is out of the scope of the present paper and we left if for a future work. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Gaudalupe Cañas Herrera, Kaloian Lozanov and Fabio Moretti for useful comments and discussions. AM thanks the University of Manchester and the Jodrell Bank Center for Astrophysics for hospitality. AM and FR are supported by TASP, iniziativa speciﬁca INFN, Italy. FR also acknowledges support from the NWO and the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), and from the D-ITP consortium, a program of the NWO that is funded by the OCW.  A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).  A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980), [,771(1980)].  K. Sato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 467 (1981).  D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J. 241, L59 (1980).  R. Brout, F. Englert, and E. Gunzig, Annals Phys. 115, 78 (1978).  A. D. Linde, QUANTUM COSMOLOGY, Phys. Lett. 108B, 389 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,149(1987)].  A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3,158(1987)].  D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept. 314, 1 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807278 [hep-ph].  D. Baumann (2011) arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th].  Y. Akrami et al. (Planck Collaboration), (2018), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO].  H. C. Chiang et al., Astrophys. J. 711, 1123 (2010), arXiv:0906.1181 [astro-ph.CO].  J. A. Grayson et al. (BICEP3), Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9914, 99140S (2016), arXiv:1607.04668 [astro-ph.IM].  B. A. Benson et al. (SPT-3G), Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9153, 91531P (2014), arXiv:1407.2973 [astro-ph.IM].  T. Essinger-Hileman et al., Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9153, 91531I (2014), arXiv:1408.4788 [astro-ph.IM].  S. W. Henderson et al., J. Low. Temp. Phys. 184, 772 (2016), arXiv:1510.02809 [astro-ph.IM].  C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, CQG 35, 163001 (2018).  B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 121101 (2017).  B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), arXiv (2019), arXiv:1903.02886 [gr-qc].  Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., et al. (Planck Collaboration), A&A 571, A22 (2014).  Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., et al. (Planck Collaboration), A&A 594, A20 (2016).  H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, Prog.Theor.Phys. 123, 887 (2010), arXiv:1002.1141 [astro-ph.CO].  H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 1106, 006 (2011), arXiv:1101.0744 [astro-ph.CO].  R. Gannouji, B. Moraes, and D. Polarski, JCAP 0902, 034 (2009), arXiv:0809.3374 [astro-ph.CO].  H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D 18, 1731 (2009), arXiv:0905.0730 [astro-ph.CO].  S. Tsujikawa, R. Gannouji, B. Moraes, and D. Polarski, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084044 (2009), arXiv:0908.2669 [astro-ph.CO].  H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, Prog.Theor.Phys. 124, 541 (2010), arXiv:1005.1171 [astro-ph.CO].  H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 121302 (2013), arXiv:1203.6828 [astro-ph.CO].  S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023507 (2008), arXiv:0709.1391 [astro-ph.CO].  S. Appleby and R. Battye, JCAP 0805, 019 (2008), arXiv:0803.1081 [astro-ph.CO].  A. V. Frolov, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101, 061103 (2008), arXiv:0803.2500 [astro-ph.CO].  T. Kobayashi and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D. 78, 064019 (2008), arXiv:0807.2503 [astro-ph.CO].  S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 1006, 005 (2010), arXiv:0909.1737 [astro-ph.CO].  J. Aguirre et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 1902, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO].  K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO].  A. Suzuki et al. (LiteBIRD), Journal of Low Temperature Physics 193, 1048 (2018).  H. Schmidt, Class. Quant. Grav. 6, 557 (1989).  K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 39, 3159 (1989).  V. Muller, H. Schmidt, and A. A. Starobinsky, Class.Quant.Grav. 7, 1163 (1990). 13  S. Gottlober, V. Muller, H. Schmidt, and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 1, 257 (1992).  A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13:3 (2010), 10.12942/lrr-2010-3, arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc].  J. Martin, C. Ringeval, and V. Vennin, Phys. Dark Univ. 5-6, 75 (2014), arXiv:1303.3787 [astro-ph.CO].  J. Martin, C. Ringeval, R. Trotta, and V. Vennin, JCAP 1403, 039 (2014), arXiv:1312.3529 [astro-ph.CO].  H. Motohashi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064016 (2014), arXiv:1411.2972 [astro-ph.CO].  L.-H. Liu, (2018), 10.1007/s10773-018-3809-0, arXiv:1807.00666 [gr-qc].  T. Inagaki and H. Sakamoto, (2019), arXiv:1909.07638 [gr-qc].  T. Chiba and M. Yamaguchi, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2008, 021 (2008).  J.-O. Gong, J. chan Hwang, W. I. Park, M. Sasaki, and Y.-S. Song, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011, 023 (2011).  P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2, Keck Array), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031302 (2016), arXiv:1510.09217 [astro-ph.CO].  A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000).  A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).  M. Shokri, F. Renzi, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100297 (2019).  Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., et al., A&A 571, A16 (2014).  Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., et al. (Planck Collaboration), A&A 594, A13 (2016).  H. Bazrafshan Moghaddam, R. H. Brandenberger, Y.-F. Cai, and E. G. M. Ferreira, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1550082 (2015), arXiv:1409.1784 [astro-ph.CO].  J. Jiang, Q. Liang, Y.-F. Cai, D. A. Easson, and Y. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 876, 136 (2019), arXiv:1812.08220 [astro-ph.CO].  C. Fu, P. Wu, and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D99, 123526 (2019), arXiv:1906.00557 [astro-ph.CO].
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.pngHigh Energy Physics - PhenomenologyarXiv (Cornell University)http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/what-is-the-amplitude-of-the-gravitational-waves-background-expected-mrvMxvnJ42
What is the amplitude of the Gravitational Waves background expected in the Starobinsky model ?