text:
# Ferromagnetism in the Periodic Anderson Model

## 1 Introduction

The periodic Anderson model (PAM) provides probably the simplest starting point to investigate the interplay between the hybridization of a periodic array of localized ($`f`$-) electron levels and a band of itinerant electrons, the strong correlation of the localized electrons and quantum mechanics (Pauli principle)hewson .

Within this model, we will investigate the many-body problem of ferromagnetic ordering. Ferromagnetism in the PAM has previously been examined, but most efforts were aimed solely at the so-called Kondo regime of the model. This is defined by an integer number of $`f`$-electrons per lattice site. These localized electrons can form an array of well-defined local moments. Via an RKKY interaction, these can order ferro- or antiferromagneticallyJar95 ; TJF97 ; MW93 ; DS98 .

In previous papers, we have shown that in the intermediate-valence regime of the PAM, defined by a non-integer filling of the localized levels accompanied by a larger effective hybridization, ferromagnetic order is also possibleMNRR98 ; MN99a ; RMSRN00pre ; mn00c . This, however, raises some questions concerning the driving mechanism for the ferromagnetic ordering. First of all, in the intermediate-valence regime, quantum fluctuations effectively delocalize the $`f`$-electrons, thus the formation of stable moments needs further explanation. A second question is due to the fact, that some of the methods used in the above-mentioned papers, exclude by construction such effects as RKKY as we will discuss below. So why can these methods give meaningful results when neglecting something considered as essential as RKKY exchange? What should be the driving force towards ferromagnetic ordering in the intermediate valence regime? In this paper, we try to clarify the apparent incoherence of the investigations of ferromagnetism in the PAM in the Kondo and the intermediate-valence regime.

After introducing the model in section 2.1, we will discuss several well-known properties of the system in section 2.2 and finally, in section 2.3, introduce a number of approximation schemes. By comparing to the known properties discussed before, the advantages and disadvantages of these methods will become clear. In section 3, we present and compare results obtained with the different methods. Knowing the strengths and shortcomings of them will help us to understand the origin of ferromagnetic order. Altogether, this will lead us to the conclusion that there are indeed two distinct mechanisms at work: in the Kondo regime, an RKKY exchange has to be seen as the cause of the ferromagnetic order. In the intermediate-valence regime, however, the situation resembles more that of a band-ferromagnet as described by the single-band Hubbard model. In section 4, we will conclude with a summary of our findings.

## 2 Theory

### 2.1 The Periodic Anderson Model

We investigate the standard form of the periodic Anderson model (PAM) where a non-degenerate localized $`f`$-level hybridizes with a non-degenerate conduction band (“$`s`$-band”) via an on-site hybridization:

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\sigma }{}}(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{}s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }+`$ (1)
$`V{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(f_{i\sigma }^{}s_{i\sigma }+s_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}n_{i\sigma }^{(f)}n_{i\sigma }^{(f)}`$
Here, $`s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }`$ ($`f_{i\sigma }`$) and $`s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{}`$ ($`f_{i\sigma }^{}`$) are the creation and annihilation operators for a conduction electron with Bloch vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and spin $`\sigma `$ (a localized electron on site $`i`$ and spin $`\sigma `$) and $`n_{i\sigma }^{(f)}=f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }`$. $`s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }=\frac{1}{N}_\stackrel{}{k}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}_i}s_{i\sigma }`$ and $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is the dispersion of the conduction band and $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ is the position of the localized level. The hybridization strength $`V`$ is taken to be $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-independent, and finally, $`U`$ is the on-site Coulomb interaction strength between two $`f`$-electrons. Throughout this paper, the conduction band will be described by a Bloch (free) density of states, $`\rho _0(E)=\frac{1}{N}_\stackrel{}{k}\delta (Eϵ(\stackrel{}{k}))`$, of semi-elliptic shape. Its width $`W=1`$ sets the energy scale, and its center of gravity the energy-zero: $`T_{ii}=\frac{1}{N}_\stackrel{}{k}ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\stackrel{!}{=}0`$.

The problem of determining the relevant (Zubarev) Green functionsZub60 ; NolBd7 ,

$`G_{ij\sigma }^{(f)}(E)=f_{i\sigma };f_{j\sigma }^{};G_{ij\sigma }^{(s)}(E)=s_{i\sigma };s_{j\sigma }^{}`$ (2)
$`G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f,s)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{R}_i\stackrel{}{R}_j)}G_{ij\sigma }^{(f,s)}(E)`$ (3)
can be reduced to the a priori unknown self-energy via the formal solultion of the respective equations of motion:

$`G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(s)}(E)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E)}{(E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E))(E(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu ))V^2}}`$ (4a)
$`G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f)}(E)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )\frac{V^2}{E(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E)}}`$ (4b)
Here, the self-energy is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E)G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f)}(E)=U\frac{1}{N}\underset{\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}}{}f_{\stackrel{}{p}\sigma }^{}f_{\stackrel{}{q}\sigma }f_{\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}\sigma };f_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{}$$
(5)
Throughout this paper, we will apply the local approximation, i. e. assume a $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-independent self-energy. Although becoming exact only in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions, it was shown that this approximation gives satisfactory results already for three dimensionsSC89b ; SC90a .

From the Green functions (4a) and (4b), the $`f`$\- and $`s`$-quasiparticle densities of states ($`f`$\- and $`s`$-DOS) can be calculated:

$`\rho _\sigma ^{(s)}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\mathrm{}G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(s)}(E\mu +\mathrm{i0}^+)`$ (6a)
$`\rho _\sigma ^{(f)}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\mathrm{}G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f)}(E\mu +\mathrm{i0}^+)`$ (6b)
The spin-dependent average occupation number $`n_\sigma ^{(s,f)}`$ can now easily be determined:

$`n_\sigma ^{(s)}=s_{i\sigma }^{}s_{i\sigma }={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Ef_{}(E)\rho _\sigma ^{(s)}(E)`$ (7a)
$`n_\sigma ^{(f)}=f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Ef_{}(E)\rho _\sigma ^{(f)}(E)`$ (7b)
Here, $`f_{}(E)`$ denotes the Fermi function and $`\mathrm{}x`$ the imaginary part of $`x`$.

Before introducing our approximative methods, let us discuss some general properties of the PAM.

### 2.2 General Properties

#### 2.2.1 The Hybridization-Free Case

For vanishing hybridization strength $`V`$ (“atomic limit”), the problem reduces to that of the zero-bandwidth Hubbard modelHub63 ; NolBd7 . One obtains for the $`f`$-Greenfunction:

$$G_\sigma ^{(f,\text{at.})}=\frac{E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )U(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})}{(E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu ))(E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )U)}$$
(8)
with the respective self-energy:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{\text{(at.)}}(E)=\frac{Un_\sigma ^{(f)}(E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu ))}{E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )U(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})}$$
(9)
The excitation spectrum consists of two peaks located at $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ and $`e_\mathrm{f}+U`$, which are called charge excitations. The conduction band DOS remains unchanged.

#### 2.2.2 The Non-Interacting Limit

The second trivial limit, the interaction-free limit ($`U=0`$), yields the following $`f`$-Green function:

$$G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f,\text{U=0})}(E)=\frac{1}{E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )\frac{V^2}{E(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )}}$$
(10)
The DOS now consists of two features, one corresponding to the $`f`$-level, which becomes broadened due to the hybridization. The other feature is the renormalized conduction band. Due to the hybridization there is also an admixture of $`f`$-spectral weight into the conduction band region and vice versa. The amount of this admixture of $`f`$\- and $`s`$-states can be understood as a rough estimate of the effective hybridization. It is generally stronger for $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ close to, or inside the conduction band as for $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ well below the band. A further effect is clearly visible when $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ lies within the conduction band. Level-repulsion between $`f`$-level and the conduction band induces a gap located approximately at $`e_\mathrm{f}`$. For $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ below the conduction band, the level repulsion appears only in form of a small shift of the lower edge of the conduction band and the center of the $`f`$-level is situated slightly below $`e_\mathrm{f}`$.

These two situations are clearly distinct, one expects different findings in each. The situation of $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ well below the conduction band leads for finite (large) $`U`$ to the Kondo regime of the PAM. Here the $`f`$-level is almost integer-filled. The opposite case, with $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ located within the band and a hybridization strong enough to lead to non-integer $`n^{(f)}`$, is called intermediate-valence regime. Both situations are plotted in figure 1.

#### 2.2.3 High-Energy Expansion

Next, we introduce a useful high-energy expansion for the $`f`$-electron Green function and the self-energy:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f)}(E)& =𝑑E^{}\frac{S_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E^{})}{EE^{}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{M_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(n)}}{E^{n+1}}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E)& =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(n)}}{E^n}\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
$`S_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f)}(E)`$ is the spectral density. Its moments, which are the coefficients of the high-energy expansion of $`G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f)}(E)`$, are defined by

$$M_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(n)}=𝑑EE^nS_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }(E);n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(12)
and can be calculated independently via

$$M_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(n)}=[\underset{n\text{-fold commutator}}{\underset{}{[\mathrm{}[f_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma },H]_{},\mathrm{},H]_{}}},f_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{}]_+$$
(13)
where $`[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]_{}`$ denotes the commutator and $`[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]_+`$ the anti-commutator. By inserting (11) into (4b), one can determine the coefficients of the self-energy expansion.

For the approximative approaches presented below, we only need the local moments $`M_\sigma ^{(n)}=\frac{1}{N}_\stackrel{}{k}M_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(n)}`$ and coefficients $`C_\sigma ^{(n)}=\frac{1}{N}_\stackrel{}{k}C_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(n)}`$:

$`M_\sigma ^{(0)}=`$ $`1`$ (14a)
$`M_\sigma ^{(1)}=`$ $`e_\mathrm{f}+Un_\sigma ^{(f)}`$ (14b)
$`M_\sigma ^{(2)}=`$ $`e_\mathrm{f}^2+2e_\mathrm{f}Un_\sigma ^{(f)}+U^2n_\sigma ^{(f)}+V^2`$ (14c)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_\sigma ^{(3)}=& e_\mathrm{f}^3+3e_\mathrm{f}^2Un_\sigma ^{(f)}+U^2e_\mathrm{f}(2n_\sigma ^{(f)}+n_\sigma ^{(f)^2})+U^3n_\sigma ^{(f)}+\hfill \\ & +V^2(2e_\mathrm{f}+2Un_\sigma ^{(f)}+T_{ii})+U^2n_\sigma ^{(f)}(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})B_\sigma \hfill \end{array}`$ (14d)
and

$`C_\sigma ^{(0)}`$ $`=Un_\sigma ^{(f)}`$ (15a)
$`C_\sigma ^{(1)}`$ $`=U^2n_\sigma ^{(f)}(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})`$ (15b)
$`C_\sigma ^{(2)}`$ $`=U^2n_\sigma ^{(f)}(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})(B_\sigma +U(1n_\sigma ^{(f)}))`$ (15c)
The abbreviation $`B_\sigma `$ in (14) and (15) stands for a higher correlation function called bandshift:

$$n_\sigma ^{(f)}(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})(B_\sigma e_\mathrm{f})=Vf_{i\sigma }^{}s_{i\sigma }(2n_{i\sigma }^{(f)}1)$$
(16)
In spite of the fact that it is a ”higher” correlation function it can rigorously be expressed by the Green function (4b) and the self-energy (5)GN88 :

$$n_\sigma ^{(f)}(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})(B_\sigma e_\mathrm{f})=$$

$$\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑Ef_{}(E)\left(\frac{2}{U}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)1\right)$$
(17)
$$\times \left(\left(E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)\right)G_{ii\sigma }^{(f)}(E)1\right)$$

Surprisingly the hybridization $`V`$ does not explicitely appear in the $`C_\sigma ^{(n)}`$. The contributions via the moments (14) are exactly cancelled by those from the term $`\frac{V^2}{E(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )}`$ in (4b). From this, one conclusion can already be drawn: The hybridization $`V`$ enters the calculation only via equation (4b) in combination with the free conduction band dispersion $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})`$. Although there are clearly correlation-induced effects in the conduction band (cf. equation (4a)), these do not feed back into the determination of the high-energy features of the self-energy. Any RKKY-like indirect exchange between $`f`$-sites driven by correlations (cf. reference TJF97 ), leaves no footprints in the high-energy behaviour of the self-energy. Although this reasoning works only in the local approximation, it does not imply that the local approximation itself suppresses any RKKY exchange (cf. discussion and references in section 2.3.4).

The prominent high-energy features of the PAM are the charge excitations known from the zero-hybridization limit. One can easily check that in this limit the moments (14) and self-energy coefficients (15) are fulfilled since $`B_\sigma e_\mathrm{f}`$. So obviously, the bandshift, and therefore the $`n=3`$-moment take care of a correction of the positions and weights of the charge excitations in the case of finite interaction and hybridization. We will show below that this correction can be decisive for a proper description of ferromagnetism in the PAM.

#### 2.2.4 Low-Energy Properties

The PAM is the lattice-periodic extension of the single-impurity Anderson model (SIAM). Since the latter is famous for its special low-energy features (“Kondo-physics”)hewson , one expects similar findings also for the PAM. The most prominent finding for the SIAM is the Kondo-screening: At low temperatures, the magnetic moment of the impurity-site is screened by conduction electrons. The remaining conduction electrons form a Fermi liquid. All physical quantities can be scaled by a single energy: the Kondo temperature $`T_\mathrm{K}`$. In the excitation spectra, the most significant signature of the screening is the occurence of a sharp resonance at the chemical potential, the Kondo Resonance.

The low-energy properties of the PAM have been the subject of intense researchhewson ; Fye90 ; GS91 ; Jar95 ; PBJ00b ; MN00b . For the symmetric PAM, defined by $`n^{(f)}=n^{(s)}=1.0`$ and $`e_\mathrm{f}=\frac{U}{2}`$, a Kondo resonance appears centered at $`\mu `$. But contrary to the SIAM, it is split by a gap, the coherence gap and the system is insulating. Picturing the Kondo resonance as virtual $`f`$-levelAnd61 , the gap is simply due to level-repulsion between the “flat band” of the virtual $`f`$-levels at every lattice-site and the conduction band. Although it originates from the same mechanism as the gap discussed in section 2.2.2, it is clearly distinguishable: The coherence gap is, together with the Kondo resonance, pinned at $`\mu `$ whereas the hybridization gap discussed in the interaction-free limit would show up at $`e_\mathrm{f}`$. In figure 2, we present the densities of states as obtained with the below-discussed modified perturbation theory (MPT). Although these DOS are calculated within an approximative method, the qualitatively same picture emerges from the numerically exact Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC)Jar95 ; TJF98  and numerical renormalization group calculations (NRG)PBJ00b  and can thus be believed to be qualitatively correct.

The situation of the symmetric PAM is plotted at the bottom of figure 2. Moving away from the symmetric PAM, e.g. by reducing the number of conduction electrons, the system becomes metallic again. The Kondo resonance gets asymmetric relative to $`\mu `$, the coherence gap is shifted away from the chemical potential. Further away from the symmetric parameters, the coherence gap closes, which is probably due to quasiparticle damping, since $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)E^2`$.

A still open question is that of a unique energy scale similar to $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ for the SIAM. The main problem under discussion is the exhaustion problem introduced by NozièresNoz98 . For the case of a periodic array of localized $`f`$-levels, the system cannot make available enough conduction electrons to screen all $`f`$-moments. This situation is still subject to many investigationsTJF97 ; TJF98 ; PBJ00b ; MN00b ; BGG00pre .

### 2.3 Approximative Solution of the PAM

In the following sections, we will introduce a series of approximation methods to determine the self-energy (5) of the periodic Anderson model. This series represents a subsequent improvement of the theory along the lines discussed in the last section: The Hubbard-I approximation recovers the non-interacting and the hybridization-free limit but fails to reproduce the high-energy behaviour of the self-energy. This is corrected by the spectral density approximation. This method, however, still suffers from the complete neglection of quasiparticle damping. A straightforward method to incorporate this is the modified alloy analogy. Finally, the low-energy behaviour can be qualitatively reproduced by the modified perturbation theory.

#### 2.3.1 The Hubbard-I Approximation

The first approach presented here is a crude interpolation between the two exactly solvable limiting cases $`V=0`$ (cf. section 2.2.1) and $`U=0`$ (cf. section 2.2.2). The result equals that of Hubbard’s first work on the Hubbard-modelHub63 , the Hubbard-I approximation.

In the interaction-free limit, one can express the $`f`$-Green function (10) in terms of the corresponding $`U=0`$-$`V=0`$ (“atomic”) solution:

$$G_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{(f,\text{U=0})}(E)=\frac{1}{\left(G_\sigma ^{(f,\text{U=0,at.})}(E)\right)^1\frac{V^2}{E(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )}}$$
(18)
The Hubbard-I approximation is now obtained by assuming the functional dependence of (18) also for the finite-$`U`$ case. With the atomic-limit Green function for the full PAM (8), this essentially corresponds to inserting the self-energy (9) into equation (4b), therefore

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{\text{(H-I)}}(E)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{\text{(at.)}}(E)=\frac{Un_\sigma ^{(f)}(E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu ))}{E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )U(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})}$$
(19)
Although this method is by construction exact in two limiting cases, namely the interaction-free ($`U=0`$) and the hybridization-free ($`V=0`$) case, a number of shortcomings follows directly from inspecting equation (19) and its derivation. First of all, the self-energy (19) fulfills the high-energy expansion only up to the $`n=1`$ self-energy coefficient. The bandshift correction $`B_\sigma `$ is neglected. This yields a weak spin-dependence through the expectation values $`n_\sigma ^{(f)}=n_{i\sigma }^{(f)}`$ only. Second, the self-energy (19) is real, any quasiparticle damping effects as indicated by a finite imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)`$ are ignored. The third drawback is the suppression of any feedback mechanism from the conduction band: The latter enters the calculation only via equation (18). This implies that although there are correlation-induced changes in the conduction band (cf. equation (4a)), these do not feedback into the $`f`$-self-energy (19). An indirect magnetic exchange between the $`f`$-electrons via polarization of the conduction band (“RKKY”) cannot appear in this approximation method. Finally, none of the expected low-energy features of the PAM, as discussed in section 2.2.4 can be found using this method.

#### 2.3.2 The Spectral Density Approximation

The spectral density approximation (SDA)Nol72 ; NolBd7 ; HN97a  is the result of a direct improvement of the above-discussed Hubbard-I approximation with respect to the high-energy expansion (11).

Starting with an ansatz for the self-energy using the same functional structure as (19),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)=\alpha _{1\sigma }\frac{E\alpha _{2\sigma }}{E\alpha _{3\sigma }}$$
(20)
one can fit the coefficients $`\alpha _{p\sigma }`$ in such a way that the high energy expansion of the self-energy (11) with the coefficients (15) is fulfilled. One readily arrives at

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{SDA})}(E)=\frac{Un_\sigma ^{(f)}(EB_\sigma (e_\mathrm{f}\mu ))}{EB_\sigma (e_\mathrm{f}\mu )U(1n_\sigma ^{(f)})}$$
(21)
The SDA self-energy differs from the Hubbard-I solution by the bandshift $`B_\sigma `$ (16). It is introduced by the $`n=3`$-moment (14d) and responsible to reproduce the correct high-energy behaviour of the $`f`$-Green function. It leads to a (possibly spin-dependent) shift of the positions of the $`f`$-peaks in the density of states. So without loosing any of the advantages of the Hubbard-I approximation, as the correct reproduction of the $`U=0`$ and the $`V=0`$ limits and its numerical simplicity, one major drawback of this method can be removed. However, the other points of criticism, as the missing quasiparticle damping and the incorrect low-energy properties remain.

The name “spectral density approximation” stems from its application to the Hubbard model, where this approach is derived by a physically motivated two-pole ansatz for the spectral densityNol72 ; HN97a . Results for the SDA in the context of the PAM were previously publishedMNRR98 ; MN99a . In these papers, the SDA was applied to a set of effective Hubbard models, onto which the PAM could be mapped. However, the above-described procedure leads to exactly the same results as those published in references MNRR98 ; MN99a

#### 2.3.3 The Modified Alloy Analogy

Now we want to present a method that resolves one major drawback of the already introduced methods: Both the Hubbard-I and the SDA self-energies are real. Quasiparticle damping as represented by a finite imaginary part of the self-energy is therefore completely neglected. A well-known method to incorporate damping effects is the alloy-analogy approach. By using physical intuition or by other justified means, the original problem is mapped onto an fictitious alloy, which subsequently can be solved using standard methods as e. g. the coherent potential approximation (CPA)VKE68 .

The CPA represents the best “single-site” method for solving an alloy-problemNolBd7 . Single-site approximation in this context is equivalent to the already introduced local approximation or $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-independence of the self-energy. The alloy is defined by the energy levels of its components, $`E_{p\sigma }`$ and their respective concentrations $`x_{p\sigma }`$, where the index $`p`$ numbers the components. The corresponding self-energy can be determined by solving the CPA-equation:

$$0=\underset{p=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_{p\sigma }\frac{E_{p\sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)e_\mathrm{f}}{1G_{ii\sigma }^{(f)}(E)(E_{p\sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)e_\mathrm{f})}$$
(22)
In the conventional alloy analogy for the PAMLC79b ; MA79 ; Czy86 , the artificial alloy is determined by the poles of the atomic limit $`f`$-Green function (8) and their respective weights:

$`E_{1\sigma }^{(AA)}`$ $`=e_\mathrm{f};`$ $`x_{1\sigma }^{(AA)}`$ $`=1n_\sigma ^{(f)}`$ (23)
$`E_{2\sigma }^{(AA)}`$ $`=e_\mathrm{f}+U;`$ $`x_{2\sigma }^{(AA)}`$ $`=n_\sigma ^{(f)}`$
This choice, however, is in no way predetermined. In reference RMSRN00pre , another alloy analogy, the modified alloy analogy (MAA) was proposed for the PAM in analogy to the MAA for the Hubbard modelHN96 : By inserting equation (11) into (22) and comparing the coefficients in $`\frac{1}{E}`$, an optimum two-component alloy analogy with respect to the high-energy behaviour can be found:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E_{1,2\sigma }=& {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[B_\sigma +U+e_\mathrm{f}\pm \hfill \\ & \sqrt{(B_\sigma +Ue_\mathrm{f})^2+4Un_\sigma ^{(f)}(e_\mathrm{f}B_\sigma )}]\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
$`x_{1\sigma }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{2\sigma }e_\mathrm{f}Un_\sigma ^{(f)}}{E_{2\sigma }E_{1\sigma }}}=1x_{2\sigma }`$
It should be noted that $`E_{1,2\sigma }`$ coincide with the poles of the SDA Green function (cf. equations (21) and (4b)) when the term $`\frac{V^2}{E(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )}`$ in the denominator of the Green function is neglected.

By construction, the MAA fulfills the high-energy expansion (11) up to the $`n=3`$ moment or equivalently the $`n=2`$ self-energy coefficient (15c). Also, damping effects are considered. However, the MAA still suffers from the complete neglection of the low-energy properties (cf. section 2.2.4) and the self-energy is determined in such a way that correlation effects within the conduction band do have no influence (“feedback”) onto $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)`$. A more detailed discussion of the MAA applied to the PAM can be found in reference RMSRN00pre .

#### 2.3.4 The Modified Perturbation Theory

Let us finally introduce the modified perturbation theory. This approach is based on the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT)PJF95 ; GKKR96 . In the case of a local self-energy, which becomes exact in the limit of infinite spatial dimensionsMV89 ; Mue89 , the PAM can be mapped onto a single-impurity Anderson model (SIAM) with the Hamiltonian,

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},\sigma }{}}(ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})\mu )s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{}s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(e_\mathrm{d}\mu )d_\sigma ^{}d_\sigma +`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}V_{\stackrel{}{k}d}(d_\sigma ^{}s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }+s_{\stackrel{}{k}\sigma }^{}d_\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_\sigma ^{(d)}n_\sigma ^{(d)}`$
The notation is as for the PAM (cf. equation (1)). $`d_\sigma ^{()}`$ are the annihilation (creation) operators for electrons at the impurity, its energy level is $`e_\mathrm{d}`$. In the case of the DMFT, the bath of conduction electrons, usually defined by $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}d}`$ need not be specified in detail. For all practical calculations, it is sufficient to know the hybridization function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$, in the pure SIAM defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)=_\stackrel{}{k}\frac{V_{\stackrel{}{k}d}^2}{Eϵ(\stackrel{}{k})}`$. However, for the mapping of the DMFT to be successfull, the hybridization function has to be determined according to the self-consistency conditionGKKR96

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (E)=E(e_\mathrm{f}\mu )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)\left(G_{ii\sigma }^{(f)}(E)\right)^1$$
(26)
This implies that in case of symmetry breaking, the hybridization function becomes spin-dependent. Now one can make use of the fact that the impurity self-energy of the SIAM defined by equation (26) is equivalent to the self-energy of the PAM. The advantage of the mapping is that the SIAM is one of the simplest know many-body models, several exact statements as well as well-tested approximative solutions are known. In the following, we apply the modified perturbation theory, which was explained and discussed in detail elsewherePWN97 ; MWPN99 ; MN00b ; mn00c . So we will restrict ourselves to a short summary of this approach.

Starting point is the following ansatz for the self-energyMR82 ; MR86 ; KK96 :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma (E)=Un_\sigma ^{(f)}+\frac{\alpha _\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{SOC})}(E)}{1\beta _\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{SOC})}(E)}$$
(27)
$`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\beta _\sigma `$ are introduced as parameters to be determined later. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{SOC})}(E)`$ is the second-order contribution to perturbation theory around the Hartree-Fock solutionYam75 ; ZH83 ; SC90a . Equation (27) can be understood as the simplest possible ansatz which can, on the one hand, reproduce the perturbational result in the limit $`U0`$, and, on the other hand, recovers the atomic limit for appropriately chosen $`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\beta _\sigma `$LMF99pre .

Using the perturbation theory around the Hartree-Fock solution introduces an ambiguity into the calculation. Within the self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculation, one can either choose the chemical potential to be equivalent to the chemical potential of the full MPT calculation, or take it as parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ to be fitted to another physically motivated constraint. In reference KK96  and other papers TS99b ; VTJK00 , the Luttinger theoremLW60  or equivalently the Friedel sum ruleFri56 ; Lan66  was used to determine $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$. Since these theorems are applicable only for $`T=0`$, this limits the calculations to zero temperature. In order to access finite temperatures, we used the condition of identical electron densities for the Hartree-Fock and the full calculation ($`n_\sigma ^{(f,\mathrm{HF})}=n_\sigma ^{(f)}`$). In our view, it is more reasonable to perform the Hartree-Fock calculation for the same electron density rather than identical chemical potential of the full MPT calculation since the electron density is a critical parameter concering correlation effects. A more detailed analysis of the different possibilities to determine $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is found in reference PWN97 . Finally, the parameters $`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\beta _\sigma `$ have to be determined. Instead of using the “atomic” limit of $`V=0`$ as was done e. g. in references KK96 ; VTJK00 ; Sas00 , we make use of the moments of the spectral density. Analogously to equations (11), (13) and (14), these can be evaluated for the SIAM. To fit the two parameters of ansatz (27), the first three self-energy coefficients are needed, since $`C_\sigma ^{(0)}`$ is reproduced for any choice of $`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\beta _\sigma `$.

As for the PAM, a bandshift correlation function similar to (16) is introduced via $`C_\sigma ^{(2)}`$ and the procedure leads to the correct high-energy behaviour of the Green function for the SIAM and via the DMFT-mapping also for the PAM. So while recovering the main advantage of the SDA and MAA, namely the correct reproduction of the high-energy expansion (11) up the $`n=3`$-moment, the MPT yields a major improvement concerning the low-energy properties of the PAM. Although already for the SIAM the low-energy scale (“Kondo temperature” $`T_\mathrm{K}`$) connected with these properties, cannot be quantitatively reproduced, other quantities can, at least in a qualitatively satisfactory way, be recoveredMWPN99 ; MN00b . In particular, the densities of states both above and below the Kondo temperature, but also the general features of the susceptibility $`\chi (T)`$ seem to be trustworthy. Another test of the low-energy properties is given by the Friedel sum rule, which links the self-energy at the Fermi energy with the electron density. Within the MPT, it is fulfilled in a large parameter spaceMWPN99 . It is also worth mentioning that via the DMFT self-consistency (26), a feedback from correlation-induced features in the conduction band onto the $`f`$-self-energy is possible. In the limit of infinite spatial dimension ($`d\mathrm{}`$), where the DMFT becomes exact, the RKKY exchange between any two lattice sites will vanish. However, as discussed in reference Jar95 , the net exchange of one lattice site with a shell of neighburs remains finite since the number of sites in the respective shell diverges as $`d\mathrm{}`$. This exchange is incorporated in the (spin-dependent) hybridization function (26).

## 3 Results and Discussion

In the following we will present the results obtained with the different approximation schemes of section 2.3 and hope to shed some light on the mechanism that leads to ferromagnetism in the PAM in the Kondo- and intermediate-valence regime. First however, we will look at the paramagnetic quasiparticle densities of states (DOS) as defined by equations (6a) and (6b).

In figure 3, both the $`f`$\- and $`s`$-DOS are plotted for a relatively small interaction strength $`U=1.0`$ and $`V=0.2`$, $`n^{\text{(tot)}}=2.0`$ at zero temperature and for various $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ as indicated. The second picture from the bottom represents the above-introduced symmetric case with $`e_\mathrm{f}=0.5=\frac{U}{2}`$. The position of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is indicated by the arrows. The left column was obtained using the SDA, the middle MAA and the right column by using the MPT.

The SDA DOS differs from the interaction-free case (cf. section 2.2.2) plotted in figure 1 by the appearance of a second charge excitation approximatly at $`e_f+U`$. If either $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ or $`e_\mathrm{f}+U`$ falls within the band region, a hybridization gap as discussed in section 2.2.2 is clearly visible. The Hubbard-I results are not shown in figure 3. These look very similar to the SDA DOS, only a small shift of the charge excitations can be noticed. In the symmetic case they are identical, the bandshift vanishes.

The MAA DOS shows some modifications when compared to the SDA: The quasiparticle damping softens the charge excitations and the hybridization gap is for $`e_\mathrm{f}0`$ almost closed. For $`e_\mathrm{f}0.25`$ the DOS strongly resembles the SDA results. This can be understood since the number of $`f`$-electrons, $`n^{(f)}`$ is very small. Scattering processes become rare and the quasiparticle damping, which differentiates between SDA and MAA, negligible. As in the case of the SDA and Hubbard-I approximation, the simpler theory disrespecting the high-energy expansion and neglecting the bandshift correction, in this case the conventional alloy analogy (23), yields very similar and in the symmetric case identical results. We will see below that the bandshift correction becomes much more important in the ferromagnetic phase.

Finally, the DOS obtained by MPT shows remarkable differences, especially close to the chemical potential. These represent the “Kondo physics” discussed in section 2.2.4. Again, we note that for $`e_\mathrm{f}0.25`$ the DOS resemble the SDA and MAA results. This is obviously for the same reasons as discussed above, namely the small number of $`f`$-electrons.

In figure 4, the $`f`$\- and $`s`$-magnetization is plotted as function of the total electron density $`n^{\text{(tot)}}`$ for $`U=4`$, $`e_\mathrm{f}=0.35`$, $`V=0.1`$ and $`T=0`$. Within the Hubbard-I approximation, a small region of ferromagnetism is found around $`n^{\text{(tot)}}1`$. The conduction band magnetization $`m^{(s)}`$ (thin lines in figure 4) is always positive. We call this situation parallel $`s`$-$`f`$ coupling.

In the SDA the region of ferromagnetism is strongly enlarged. This is a clear indication of the importance of the bandshift correction with respect to ferromagnetism. Since the bandshift (16) can be spin-dependent, it enhances the possibility of ferromagnetic ordering. We also note an interesting behaviour of the conduction band magnetization: as function of electron density, it changes sign. For low $`n^{\text{(tot)}}`$, the $`s`$-$`f`$ coupling is parallel, for higher values antiparallel. This behaviour,which is also found within the MAA and MPT, can be traced back to the appearance of the hybridization gap discussed in section 2.2.2. A more detailed investigation of this can be found in references mn00c ; RMSRN00pre .

The MAA result can be used to estimate the influence of quasiparticle damping. One observes a reduction of the ferromagnetic region compared to the SDA result. So, similar to the Hubbard modelHN96 ; PHWN98 , quasiparticle damping is unfavourable for ferromagnetism. However, apart from the lower critical $`n^{\text{(tot)}}`$, the MAA and SDA curves are very similar. It should be noted that with the conventional alloy analogy (23), no ferromagnetic solution can be foundLC79b . This confirms again the importance of the bandshift correction (16) with respect to ferromagnetism.

The same holds true for the MPT result. Again, the region of ferromagnetism is reduced as compared to the MAA, but the change is rather small. Qualitative features as the change of sign of the conduction band magnetization, and the generally larger conduction band polarization in case of parallel coupling remain the same for SDA, MAA and MPT. It should further be pointed out that the lower critical $`n^{\text{(tot)}}`$ is, when varying $`e_\mathrm{f}`$, in fact determined by $`n^{(f)}`$. The number of conduction band electrons, $`n^{(s)}`$ plays no significant rolemn00c .

From all these observations we conclude that the bandshift correction has a strong influence on ferromagnetism. So does the inclusion of quasiparticle damping. However, at least in the examined situation of the PAM in the intermediate-valence regime, there seems to be no major difference between the MAA without, and the MPT including the special low-energy properties of the PAM. These have apparently less influence on ferromagnetism in the intermediate-valence regime of the PAM.

A quite similar picture emerges from an inspection of the phase diagram in figure 5. A comparison of SDA and MAA results shows the negative influence of quasiparticle damping on ferromagnetism. Furthermore, another important point should be noticed here: in the MAA calculation, a hybridization strength of $`V=0.2`$ already strongly reduces the magnetic region compared to the $`V=0.1`$ case. It is apparent that only the region with antiparallel $`s`$-$`f`$ coupling is affected by this. The region with parallel $`s`$-$`f`$ coupling remains almost unchanged. It was shown in reference RMSRN00pre  that the MAA shows an anomalous hybridization dependence in this region. Whereas for other electron densities, an increasing hybridization strength $`V`$ quickly suppresses ferromagnetismRMSRN00pre , here the Curie temperature increases with increasing $`V`$ after going through a minimum. The same behaviour is found within the SDA. However, the MPT does not show this behaviour at all. As discussed in reference MN00b , the local moments get quenched by formation of local Kondo singlets with increasing $`V`$. Being of low-energy nature, this effect is not covered by the other approximation schemes. The apparent stability of ferromagnetism around $`n^{(tot)}1`$ in these methods for large hybridization strengths seems therefore to be rather meaningless.

A further difference between MAA and MPT is the upper critical $`f`$-level position $`e_\mathrm{f}`$. The modifications in the MPT are due to the fact that the lower charge excitation joins with the Kondo resonance. The existence of the latter is neglected in the MAA. The MPT seems to be more reliable for determining this phase boundary.

In figure 6, the Curie temperatures as function of the total electron density are plotted for the same model parameters as used in figure 4. Again the conclusions are consistent: The quasiparticle damping which basically discriminates SDA and MAA, leads to a huge reduction of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The inclusion of the low-energy physics, as done by the MPT, does not change $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ much, only above $`n^{\text{(tot)}}1.5`$, a suppression of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is observed. It is further noteworthy that the change of sign of the conduction band magnetization as seen in figure 4 does not lead to any particularity in the $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ curves.

Up to now we have focused on the PAM in the intermediate-valence regime. What happens to the ferromagnetic solution upon entering the Kondo regime? The situation is plotted in figure 7. The inset shows the $`f`$-magnetization. All three methods (SDA, MAA and MPT) do have a self-consistent ferromagnetic solution for $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ well below the conduction band. An inspection of the internal energies $`H`$, which can be calculated analogously to (7) and (17), of the ferromagnetic and the paramagnetic solution reveals, however, that for the SDA and MAA the ferromagnetic solutions are not the stable ones, the system is in fact paramagnetic. This is not the case for the MPT. Here the ferromagnetic solution remains stable. This indicates that in the Kondo regime, the low-energy properties become much more important concering ferromagnetic ordering. This was first proposed in reference TJF97 , where the origin of ferromagnetic order in the Kondo regime was identified as RKKY-like. The polarization of the conduction band is due to the formation of Kondo screening cloudsTJF97 . As was already argued in section 2.3, the MAA and the SDA are not able to reproduce such a mechanism whereas the MPT should contain this at least qualitatively.

So whereas in the intermediate-valence regime, the SDA, the MAA and the MPT show similar results, they give completely different pictures in the Kondo regime. This leads us to the conclusion that there have to be two distinct mechanisms driving the ferromagnetic ordering in these two different areas in parameter space. Whereas in the Kondo regime, a RRKY mechanism is doubtless the key factor, as discussed above and in reference TJF97 , the situation is clearly different in the intermediate-valence regime. Here, the correct reproduction of high-energy features, the charge excitation as ensured by the bandshift correction (16) seems crucial. The inclusion of the particular low-energy properties of the PAM does not significantly change the behaviour. From our observations, we are led to propose a single-band mechanism similar to the one leading to ferromagnetism in the single-band Hubbard model to be responsible for the ferromagnetic ordering in the intermediate-valence regime.

This proposal is further supported by the following observations:
I) The critical interaction strength $`U_\mathrm{c}`$ is much larger in the intermediate-valence regime than in the Kondo regime thus pointing to a genuine strong-coupling effect (cf. reference mn00c ).
II) The lower critical $`n^{\text{(tot)}}`$ marking the breakdown of ferromagnetism is in fact determined by a critical $`n^{(f)}`$mn00c . The conduction electron density has no influence on the magnetic phase boundaries. This is a clear reference to a single-band mechanism.
III) The polarization of the conduction band shows a remarkable behaviour as e.g. its change of sign. This, however, does not affect important magnetic quantities as the Curie temperature. The polarization of the conduction electrons seems to be a consequence and not the cause of the ferromagnetic ordering of the $`f`$ electrons.

From these points, we arrive at the proposition that the ferromagnetic order in the intermediate-valence regime is due to some intra-band mechanism. For the Hubbard modelHub63 ; Gut63 ; Kan63 , the existence of a ferromagnetic phase in the strong-coupling regime was confirmed in the limit of infinite dimensionsUlm98 ; OPK97 . The mechanism driving this transition is simply based on a gain of kinetic energyVea97 ; PHWN98 . This is supported by the strong dependency on the shape of the free ($`U=0`$) density of statesHN97b ; Wea98 . It was confirmed that ferromagnetism is most favored in case of a non-symmetric DOS which has a divergence at or close to one of its edges. Going back to the PAM, we note that the hybridization leads in the intermediate-valence regime to an effective $`f`$-$`f`$-hopping. The $`f`$-electrons form a strongly correlated band. This band fits well into the prerequisits of a single-band ferromagnet as lined out above: The band is narrow, strongly asymetric and most of its spectral weight is, for appropriate values of $`e_f`$, located near its edge (cf. figure 1, thick lines). The proposed similarity between ferromagnetism in the intermediate-valence regime of the PAM and the Hubbard model manifests itself also in the fact that in both cases, the fulfillment of the high-energy expansion (11) (as done by SDA, MAA and MPT) seems crucial for a proper description of the phenomenonPHWN98 .

## 4 Summary

In this paper, we have discussed ferromagnetism in the periodic Anderson model (PAM), and possible mechanisms driving the magnetic ordering.

We have reviewed a series of approximation schemes, from the Hubbard-I, via the spectral-density approximation (SDA) and the modified alloy analogy (MAA) to the modified perturbation theory (MPT). This series represents a subsequent improvement according to several exactly known properties of the model. The Hubbard-I approximation is exact in the two limiting cases of vanishing hybridization ($`V=0`$) and interaction ($`U=0`$). Its systematic improvement with respect to the correct reproduction of the high-energy expansion of the self-energy leads directly to the spectral density approximation. The inclusion of quasiparticle damping effects without loosing the correct high-energy behaviour is possible via the modfied alloy analogy procedure. Finally, the modified perturbation theory still recovers the correct high-energy expansion, includes quasiparticle damping effects, and additionally incorporates, at least qualitatively correct, the special low-energy properties of the PAM.

The results of the SDA, MAA and MPT compare well in the intermediate-valence regime. By comparing with the Hubbard-I approximation, it becomes clear that the correct reproduction of the high-energy behaviour is crucial for a correct description of ferromagnetism in this parameter regime. The influence of quasiparticle damping is, as expected, a reduction of the magnetic stability as indicated by a strongly reduced Curie temperature and smaller ferromagnetic area in the $`T=0`$ phase diagram. The low-energy physics seem to have only minor effects on the ferromagnetic properties.

In the Kondo regime, the picture is completely different. Only the MPT yields a stable ferromagnetic phase. This, however, is in agreement with QMC calculationsTJF97 . The SDA and MAA fail to recover these results. The origin of the ferromagnetic ordering in the Kondo regime is an RKKY exchange as discussed in reference TJF97 . We showed in this paper why the SDA and MAA cannot reproduce such a mechanism.

However, the good qualitative agreement between the SDA, MAA and MPT results in the intermediate-valence regime let us believe that here the driving mechanism towards the ferromagnetic transition must be of different nature. Our results gave some hints that this mechanism is similar to that driving the ferromagnetic ordering in the single-band Hubbard model with a band formed by the effectively delocalized $`f`$ electrons.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with our collegues A. Ramakanth and G. G. Reddy from Kakatiya University, Warangal (India), in the process of adapting the MAA to the periodic Anderson model. This collaboration was financially supported by the Volkswagen foundation. One of the authors (D. M. ) further acknowledges support from the Friedrich-Naumann foundation.


format: text

text:
# Global fits for the spectral index of the cosmological curvature perturbation

## 1 Introduction

The spectral index $`n`$, giving the scale dependence of the spectrum $`𝒫_{}`$ of the primordial curvature perturbation, will be a powerful discriminator between models of inflation when it is accurately determined. Just before the release of the latest Boomerang \[de Bernardis et al. 2000\] and Maxima data \[Hanany et al. 2000\] on the cosmic microwave background (cmb) anisotropy, we reported \[Lyth & Covi 2000\] a global fit to the key pieces of available data. We considered the case of a practically scale-independent spectral index, comparing the best-fit value with some models of inflation based on effective field theory. We went on to consider the running mass models, corresponding to a spectral index with strong scale dependence, and demonstrated that such scale dependence was allowed by the data.

In the present paper, we update the fit by including the Boomerang and Maxima results for the height of the second peak of the cmb anisotropy, for consistency taking the height of the first peak from the same source. The best-fit values of the spectral index and other parameters are different from the previous case, but not dramatically so, while the value of $`\chi ^2`$, though higher, is still acceptable. We consider in some detail the implication of our results for some models of inflation based on effective field theory, drawing a distinction between such models and ad hoc parameterizations of the potential. In the running mass model, strong scale dependence of the spectral index is still permitted by the data.

As with our previous fit, we assume the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, in which the Universe is flat and the dark matter is cold. Flatness is the naive prediction of inflation, and there is at present no firm motivation for considering modifications of the simplest dark matter hypothesis. The model, then, consists of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, the assumption that a gaussian primordial curvature perturbation is the only one, and the assumption about reionization that we shall discuss shortly.

## 2 The fit

The fit minimizes $`\chi ^2`$ with the assigned error bars. The data set is the one given in the first two rows of Table 1, plus the accurate value provided by COBE at the relevant scale $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$,111This value has a slight $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ dependence which we include. The small uncertainty is ignored, because including the COBE normalization in the fit returns values practically indistinguishable from the central one.

$$\frac{2}{5}𝒫_{}^{\frac{1}{2}}(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})=1.94\times 10^5.$$
(1)
This data set is the same as for the earlier fit, except that the height of the first peak is now taken from the Boomerang/Maxima data, and the ratio of second to first peak height from the same source is now included. For both peaks, we used the pair of data points nearest to the expected peak position, one point from each of the two data sets. The random and systematic errors for each point were added in quadrature, and then the weighted average was taken. The theoretical peak heights were in both cases taken from the output of the CMBfast package \[CMBfast 2000\], linearly interpolated as described earlier \[Lyth & Covi 2000\] for the first peak.

Ours is the first fit which takes account of both Boomerang and Maxima data, and which at the same time is global in that there is an attempt to include in some form all data which is likely to significantly constrain the model.222After the original version of this paper appeared on the archive, a more-or-less global fit did appear \[Tegmark, Zaldarriaga & Hamilton 2000\], which will be discussed later. Apart from cmb data, we include the summaries of data on the galaxy correlation function and the cluster abundance provided by the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$, admittedly subjective estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`h`$ (based on observations \[Turner 1999, Freedman 2000, Bahcall et al. 1999\] that have nothing to do with the large-scale structure), and the ‘low-deuterium’ nucleosynthesis estimate of the baryon density \[Olive, Steigman & Walker 2000, Sarkar 1999\].333The alternative ‘high deuterium’ estimate corresponds to a much lower baryon density, which is disfavoured by the Boomerang/Maxima data. Of course, we recognize that our choice of data points and error bars is subjective. For one thing, much of the uncertainty is systematic making the minimization of $`\chi ^2`$ not strictly justified. For another, the device of representing many different measurements by a single error bar loses information. In particular, we have dropped measurements of the cmb anisotropy away from the first and second peaks, which are included for instance by \[Tegmark, Zaldarriaga & Hamilton 2000\]. Nevertheless, it seems to us reasonable to prefer some kind of global fit over fits that arbitrarily keeps only selected pieces of information such as, for instance, the cmb anisotropy. Moreover, as can be seen from Fig. 2, we can to some extent justify our procedure a posteriori observing that our best fit results are giving a good interpolation also of the cmb data we are neglecting (in the second peak region our fit is out by two standard deviations, but the situation does not become worse as one moves away from the peak): this is surely not a chance, but due to the fact that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model gives a good account of the shape of the peaks, so that the most important constraint comes indeed from the peak heights.

Before describing our results, we want to describe our treatment of the reionization redshift $`z_\mathrm{R}`$. Previously reported fits regard $`z_\mathrm{R}`$ as a parameter, to be either fixed at some reasonable value, or else to be included in the fit. We prefer an estimate of $`z_\mathrm{R}`$ provided by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model itself. Apart from having the virtue of keeping information which otherwise is lost, the use of this estimate will lead to a more realistic lower bound on $`n`$. The estimate is obtained by assuming that reionization occurs when some fraction $`f1`$ of the matter has collapsed into gravitationally bound structures, that epoch being estimated from the Press-Schechter approximation. We have considered values of $`f`$ in the reasonable range \[Liddle & Lyth 1995\] $`4.4<\mathrm{log}_{10}f<0`$, with the result shown in the right hand panel of Figure 1.444The result for $`10^1<f<1`$ is not shown, because in the approximation that we are using \[Lyth & Covi 2000\] it is the same as for the case $`f=10^1`$. When $`f`$ decreases over this range, the value of $`z_\mathrm{R}`$ corresponding to the best fit increases from $`10`$ to $`26`$. For comparison, we show in the left-hand panel of Figure 1 the result with $`z_\mathrm{R}`$ fixed at various values. Over the range $`10<z_\mathrm{R}<26`$, the upper bound on $`n`$ is similar to the one which fixes $`f`$ (at the value reproducing $`z_\mathrm{R}`$ at best fit). In contrast, the lower bound on $`n`$ depends strongly on $`z_\mathrm{R}`$, but relatively weakly on $`f`$. The reason is that with fixed $`f`$ in our adopted range, low values of $`n`$ give low values of $`z_\mathrm{R}`$. At the same time, the dependence of our result on the assumption concerning reionization is not entirely insignificant. Representative cases are given in the panels of Figure 3, along with some theoretical predictions that we shall discuss later.

Taking the central value $`f=10^{2.2}`$, the best-fit parameters are shown in Table 1. The calculated data points are all within one standard deviation or so of their observed values, except for the height of the second peak relative to that of the first which is high by almost two standard deviations, and the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is still perfectly reasonable. The calculated cmb anisotropy is compared with the full Boomerang/Maxima data set in Figure 2, where the spectrum of the primordial curvature perturbation is also shown.

We have also investigated the effect of omitting part of our data set. First, we omitted the data point for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$ (coming from nucleosynthesis), and found a best fit value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^20.29`$ in qualitative agreement with other analyses \[Jaffe et al. 2000, Tegmark, Zaldarriaga & Hamilton 2000\]. This is five standard deviations higher than our the data point, which in our view means that the fit is of little interest. Second, we omitted $`h`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Omitting just one of them makes little difference, because their best-fit values are strongly correlated, but omitting both of them again leads to values far away from the expectation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_00.7`$ and $`h0.45`$) so that this fit too is of little interest.

Finally, we investigated the effective of omitting one or both of the large-scale structure data points $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$. Eliminating both leads to best-fit values for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$ which are respectively three and four standard deviations below the data. Here again, we take the view that such a fit is of little interest. (For the record, the fit gives $`n=0.89\pm 0.07`$, in qualitative agreement with another analysis \[Kinney, Melchiorri & Riotto 2000\].) Omitting just one of them makes little difference to the fit, because they are again strongly correlated. In particular, lowering $`n`$ lowers both the magnitude of the spectrum on the relevant scales (measured by $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$) and its slope (measured by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$).

Our fit is similar to another one \[Tegmark, Zaldarriaga & Hamilton 2000\] (to be referred to as TZH), with two important differences. First, the TZH data set did not include $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$ (nor any other constraint on the normalization of the spectrum in the regime of large scale structure), while it replaced our $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ by a fit to the shape of the galaxy correlation function from a recent infrared survey \[Saunders et al. 2000\].555 As mentioned earlier, TZH also use a large data set of cmb anisotropy measurements, but this difference from our treatment seems to be less crucial.  The other difference is that the reionization redshift was left as a free parameter, which in accordance with our finding makes the best fit value practically zero. With this data set, the best fit of TZH gives parameters similar to ours, with spectral index $`n=0.91\pm 0.05`$ (1-$`\sigma `$) to be compared with our $`z_\mathrm{R}=0`$ result $`n=0.95\pm 0.03`$. Using the best-fit parameters of TZH, we find $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=0.17`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8=0.48`$, both significantly lower than the data points we assigned to these quantities. We believe that this is the main reason for the lower value of $`n`$ found by TZH.666Ignoring the differences in the other parameters, changing $`n`$ from the TZH value to our value would raise the spectrum at $`k^1=8h^1\text{Mpc}`$ by $`9\%`$. Roughly speaking, this raises $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$ by the same amount, taking us from the TZH value $`0.48`$ to a value $`0.53`$ which is in reasonable agreement with the result of our fit. It is interesting that the PSCz survey used by TZH is well-fitted by a relatively low value of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, which corresponds more or less to the one produced by our global fit. This may indicate that the slope of the galaxy correlation function used by TZH is more accurate than the older estimate that we (and many other authors) used. Still, had TZH used $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$ as a data point, their best fit to the slope of the galaxy correlation function would have been somewhat higher, because of the correlation between the fitted value of that slope with the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_8`$. As a result their best-fit value of $`n`$ would have been higher. Probably more significantly, it would also have been higher had they used our procedure of making a realistic estimate of the reionization redshift, instead of allowing it to float. We shall see that our higher value of $`n`$ becomes interesting, in the context of certain models of inflation suggested by effective field theory.

## 3 Models of inflation

### 3.1 The general framework

Our next objective is to compare the observational constraint on $`n`$ with some models of inflation. Before getting to the details, it will be as well to describe the general framework within which we operate, since it radically differs both from the ‘reconstruction’ program \[Lidsey et al. 1997\] and from a proposed ‘small/large/hybrid’ classification of potentials \[Dodelson, Kinney & Kolb 1997, Kinney, Melchiorri & Riotto 2000\].

Inflation is supposed to do two separate jobs. One is to evolve the Universe from a generic initial condition at, presumably, the Planck scale, without either collapsing or becoming empty. The other is to set, after inflation is over, the initial conditions that describe the observable Universe, in particular the primordial curvature perturbation. The second job is done during the last fifty or so $`e`$-folds of inflation, while observable scales are leaving the horizon. To produce the nearly scale-invariant perturbation that we see, inflation during this era presumably has to be of the slow-roll variety, which implies that $`\rho ^{1/4}`$ is at least a couple of orders of magnitude below the Planck scale (Eq. (4) below). For our purpose, a ‘model of inflation’ is a model of this era, which alone is accessable to observation.

At the most primitive level, a model of inflation is a form for the potential during inflation, and a specification of the field value at the end of slow-roll inflation. (In hybrid models, the field value at the end of slow-roll inflation is not determined by the form of the potential during inflation, because the end corresponds to the de-stablisation of some non-inflaton field.) At this primitive level, though, one has complete freedom in choosing the form of the potential during inflation, and consequently very little predictive power.777Even the relatively restrictive slow-roll paradigm presented below leads only to the gravitational wave constraint $`r=6.2n_\mathrm{T}`$ and the flatness conditions $`|n1|8`$, $`|n_\mathrm{T}|2`$. In order to reduce the freedom, one therefore looks for guidance to effective field theory.

Effective field theory provides the framework for the Standard Model of particle physics and for its phenomenological extensions. It is supposed to be valid on energy scales far below the ultra-violet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, which is at most of order the Planck scale. In this regime, the unknown physics beyond the cutoff is ignored (in a renormalizable theory) or else encoded by the inclusion of the leading non-renormalizable term(s). In contrast, an attempt to use the effective theory on scales approaching the cutoff would require an infinite number of non-renormalizable terms, leading to a complete loss of predictive power. In the present context, the relevant non-renormalizable terms are contributions to $`V`$ of the form $`\lambda _n\varphi ^{4+n}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^n`$, with expected coefficients $`\lambda _n1`$. In models based on effective field theory the non-renormalizable terms are essentially ignored, and taking optimistically $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}M_\mathrm{P}`$ this neglect requires $`|\varphi |M_\mathrm{P}`$.888In the usual case, that the real inflaton field $`\varphi `$ is the radial part of some complex field, the origin $`\varphi =0`$ can be taken as the fixed point of the symmetries of the renormalizable field theory. If the inflaton field is the angular part (a pseudo-Goldstone boson) it runs over only a finite range, and its origin within this range is arbitrary. Irrespective of the definition of the origin, the neglect of non-renormalizable terms requires the range of $`\varphi `$ spanned by relevant field values to be much less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, and most of the following discussion goes through if this requirement replaces the assumption the $`\varphi `$ itself is small. Note that the assumption of small $`\varphi `$ is a minimal one, necessary to justify the neglect of non-renormalizable terms but by no means always sufficient \[Lyth & Riotto 1999\]. (Sometimes one forbids non-renormalizable terms in $`V(\varphi )`$ by invoking a suitable symmetry, but according to current ideas this is likely to work only for a limited number of terms \[Lyth & Riotto 1999, Stewart & Cohn 2000\].)

Instead of effective field theory, one may hope to use a deeper theory like string theory, which would determine the coefficients of all of the non-renormalizable terms. Such a theory might predict that the coefficients of these terms are very small (in Planck units), making it easy to have inflation with very large field values. This approach does yield some proposals for the potential of moduli \[Lyth & Riotto 1999, Banks, Dine & Motl 2000\], perhaps leading to inflation with a potential of the form $`VV_0\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}`$ (last row of Table 2) which would require a field variation of order $`M_\mathrm{P}`$. (A different stringy proposal \[Dvali & Tye 1999\] does not lead to a viable model.) This exception apart, it seems that at the present time predictive models have to be based on effective field theory, in which the relevant values of the inflaton field are small on the Planck scale. We do not know whether Nature has chosen this option, or has instead chosen inflation with large field values, but we take the view that in the latter case there is at present no theoretical guidance as to the form of the potential. Hence we focus on the effective field theory models.

### 3.2 Slow-roll inflation

Slow-roll inflation, with a single-component inflaton field, is described by the following basic set of formulas \[Lyth & Riotto 1999, Liddle & Lyth 2000\].999Multi-component models require a different treatment, as do models in which slow-roll is briefly interrupted, and models with a quartic kinetic term \[Armendariz-Picon, Damour & Mukhanov 1999\]. The inflaton field is supposed to be canonically normalized, which can always be achieved if the kinetic term has the usual quadratic form. Einstein gravity during inflation is assumed, which can usually be achieved by a conformal transformation even if the underlying theory is non-Einstein. In these formulas, $`\varphi `$ is the inflaton field, and $`V`$ is its potential during inflation. The other quantities are the Planck masss $`M_\mathrm{P}=2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$, the scale factor of the Universe $`a`$, the Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, and the wavenumber $`k/a`$ of the cosmological perturbations. We assume the usual flatness conditions

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`1,|\eta |1`$ (2)
$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\mathrm{P}^2(V^{}/V)^2`$
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`M_\mathrm{P}^2V^{\prime \prime }/V,`$
leading to the slow-roll expression $`3H\dot{\varphi }V^{}`$.

The fundamental formula giving the spectrum of the curvature perturbation is

$$\frac{4}{25}𝒫_{}(k)=\frac{1}{75\pi ^2M_\mathrm{P}^6}\frac{V^3}{V^2},$$
(3)
where the potential and its derivatives are evaluated at the epoch of horizon exit $`k=aH`$. On the scale $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$, the COBE normalization Eq. (1) requires

$$V^{1/4}=.027ϵ^{1/4}M_\mathrm{P}.$$
(4)
To work out the value of $`\varphi `$ at the epoch of horizon exit, one uses the relation

$$\mathrm{ln}(k_{\mathrm{end}}/k)N(k)=M_\mathrm{P}^2_{\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}}^\varphi (V/V^{})\text{d}\varphi ,$$
(5)
where $`N(k)`$ is actually the number of $`e`$-folds from horizon exit to the end of slow-roll inflation. The biggest scale of interest may be taken as $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}^1`$, which using the definition in our earlier work \[Lyth & Covi 2000\] corresponds to $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}^1730h^1\text{Mpc}`$. Observations of the smaller scale cmb anisotropy and galaxy surveys take us down to say $`k^110h^1\text{Mpc}`$, corresponding to a change $`\mathrm{\Delta }N4`$ to $`5`$. At a given scale, $`N`$ depends on the post-inflationary evolution of the scale factor, and using for definiteness the COBE scale it is usefully written as

$$N_{\mathrm{COBE}}60\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{10^{16}\text{GeV}}{V^{1/4}}\right)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{V^{1/4}}{T_{\mathrm{reh}}}\right)N_0.$$
(6)
In this expression, $`T_{\mathrm{reh}}`$ is the reheat temperature after inflation, and $`V`$ is the potential at the end of inflation. The final contribution $`N_0`$ (negative in all reasonable cosmologies) encodes our ignorance about what happens between this reheat and nucleosynthesis. In the conventional cosmology, with the relatively high inflation scale occurring in most of our models, one expects $`N_{\mathrm{COBE}}50`$ to $`60`$, but late entropy release from thermal inflation \[Lyth & Stewart 1996\] (or a low value of $`V`$) can make $`N_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ much lower. In some of the inflation models that we shall consider, our bound on $`n`$ will lead to a useful lower bound on $`N_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$.

The spectral index $`n`$ is defined by

$$n(k)1\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{}}{\text{d}\mathrm{ln}k},$$
(7)
and is given by Eqs. (3) and (5) as \[Liddle & Lyth 1992\]

$`n1`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta 6ϵ.`$ (8)
It defines the scale-dependence of the $`𝒫_{}(k)`$ leaving its value at (say) the COBE scale as the only other quantity required to completely specify it.

Finally, the spectrum of the primordial gravitational waves is characterized by its contribution $`r`$ to the spectrum of the cmb anisotropy on the COBE scale (defined in a certain approximation and measured in units of the contribution of the curvature perturbation) and its spectral index $`n_\mathrm{T}`$, which are given by \[Liddle & Lyth 1992\]

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`12.4ϵ`$ (9)
$`n_\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ.`$ (10)
We are going to apply these slow-roll equations to models of inflation in which the relevant values of the inflaton field are small. Quite generally, such models predict that $`r`$ is too small to observe in the foreseeable future, in accordance with the assumption of our fit \[Lyth 1997\]. Indeed, applying Eq. (5) to the range of scales $`\mathrm{\Delta }N4`$ over which gravitational waves affect the cmb anisotropy, one finds

$$\frac{r}{0.1}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi }{0.5M_\mathrm{P}}\right)^2,$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is the corresponding change in $`\varphi `$, and $`r0.1`$ is about the smallest signal that can be detected by the PLANCK satellite. A detectable signal therefore requires that the change in $`\varphi `$ over relevant field values be large, and therefore that the value of $`\varphi `$ itself be large for at least some relevant field values. We emphasize again that we have no idea whether Nature has chosen small or large field values, and that we focus on the small-field case because in our view only that case is at present understandable from the point of view of effective field theory.

For future reference, we note that the converse of the above result does not apply. The total change in $`\varphi `$ after the COBE scale leaves the horizon can be large, in a model where the change over the relevant four $`e`$-folds is small. As a result, large-field models do not necessarily lead to significant gravitational waves. For instance, if $`V`$ depends linearly on $`\varphi `$, then $`N(\varphi )\varphi `$, and the change in $`\varphi `$ after the COBE scale leaves the horizon is related to the change $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ during four $`e`$-folds by $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}/\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi N_{\mathrm{COBE}}/41`$.

### 3.3 Some simple models

Effective field theory, with non-renormalizable terms essentially ignored, allows only a few different types of term for the variation of $`V`$. With the reasonable assumption that one such term dominates over the relevant range of $`\varphi `$, we arrive at essentially the models displayed in Table 2. Details of these models, with extensive references and possible complications, are given in \[Lyth & Riotto 1999\]. One of these complications is the possibility, considered by several authors, that two terms need to be kept over the relevant range of $`\varphi `$. While this can happen, the dominance of one term is the generic situation in the sense that it holds over most of the potential’s parameter space.101010 Consider, for instance, the case that there are just two parameters, corresponding to the overall normalization of the two terms. At a given field value, parameter space then consists of a region where one term dominates and a region where the other term dominates, these regions being divided by a line corresponding to $`50\%`$ of each term. If we consider the cosmological range of field values, and interpret the ‘dominance’ of one term as say a factor of ten between them, the line becomes a band, but still a set of measure zero compared with all of parameter space. Finally, the cobe normalization corresponds to a line in parameter space, which will generically cross the band; only very exceptionally will the line lie within the band. See for an example Fig. 1 of \[Buchmüller, Covi & Delépine 2000\], which shows for a specific model that the full potential is well approximated by a single term in the region of dominance.

When the COBE normalization is imposed on the prediction, the requirement that the relevant values of the inflaton field be small can generally be satisfied with physically reasonable values of the parameters. An exception is the potential $`V=V_0\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}`$, which requires $`\varphi M_\mathrm{P}`$ at the end of inflation (see below). The only other significant exception is the logarithmic potential, which requires $`\varphi M_\mathrm{P}`$ when cosmological scales leave the horizon, if the coupling is unsuppressed as in the case of $`D`$-term inflation.

Given the restriction on $`\varphi `$, the flatness conditions (2) require that $`V_0`$ dominates the potential in all of the models, leading to simple expressions for $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$. The contribution of gravitational waves is negligibly small in all of them, and the formula for $`n`$ is well approximated by

$$n1=2\eta .$$
(12)
The resulting prediction for $`n`$ is shown in Table 2. Except in the first and last rows, the prediction depends on $`N`$ and is therefore scale-dependent. However, since $`n`$ is constrained to be close to 1, the scale-dependence is negligible over the cosmological range $`\mathrm{\Delta }N4`$ \[Lyth & Covi 2000\], and accordingly one may set $`N=N_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$. The bottom two rows correspond to single-field inflation with a mass term or a self-interaction dominating, and an unspecified term stabilizing the potential after inflation. The other rows correspond to hybrid inflation, where a non-inflaton field is responsible for most of the potential during inflation. The loop correction is the one which arises with spontaneously broken global supersymmetry, as for example in ‘$`D`$-term inflation’. The ranges of $`p`$ are the ones in which the prediction for the spectral index holds, and they can be achieved in effective field theory with at most a single non-renormalizable term.

The strongest prediction comes from the models giving $`n11/N`$. It is shown in Figure 3 for the three most popular versions of these models, along with the observational bounds on $`n`$. In the ‘new’ inflation models there is a non-trivial lower bound on $`N`$, which would almost exclude the $`p=3`$ model if the 1-$`\sigma `$ bound were taken seriously.

Another case of interest is the potential $`V=V_0\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}`$. More or less independently of the additional terms which stabilize the potential, the vev of $`\varphi `$ is $`\varphi \sqrt{(}2V_0/m^2)=[2/(1n)]^{1/2}M_\mathrm{P}`$. Depending on the nature of $`\varphi `$, this kind of inflation has been termed ‘natural’, ‘topological’ and ‘modular’ (see for instance \[Banks, Dine & Motl 2000\] for a recent espousal of modular inflation). In all cases the model is regarded as implausible if $`\varphi `$ is much bigger than $`M_\mathrm{P}`$, which means that it is viable only if $`n`$ is not too close to 1. Our 2-$`\sigma `$ bound $`n\text{ }>0.9`$ implies $`\varphi \text{ }>4.5M_\mathrm{P}`$, which may perhaps be regarded as already disfavouring these models.

### 3.4 Alternative views

The view we have taken is different from the one espoused in \[Dodelson, Kinney & Kolb 1997, Kinney, Melchiorri & Riotto 2000\]. These authors consider the potentials in first, second, third and last rows of Table 2 (and a linear potential) but unlike us they take such field-theoretic forms of the potential seriously even at $`\varphi \text{ }>M_\mathrm{P}`$. In particular, they consider the limit where the constant term is negligible, corresponding to monomial potentials like $`V\varphi ^2`$ \[Linde1983\].111111With these particular examples in mind, they divide the $`n`$-$`r`$ plane into regimes corresponding to $`\eta <0`$, $`0<\eta <2ϵ`$ and $`2ϵ<\eta `$, labeling them respectively the (non-hybrid) small-field, (non-hybrid) large-field and hybrid regimes. These designations do not have general validity, and seem indeed to be confined to the particular examples already mentioned. This procedure allows a significant gravitational wave contribution $`r`$, and a wide range of $`n`$ for each $`r`$. Therefore, to delineate the allowed region of parameter space, the authors of \[Kinney, Melchiorri & Riotto 2000\] allow both $`n`$ and $`r`$ to vary. We, in contrast, consider only small field values, leading to negligible $`r`$ which we set equal to zero. We take the view that in the regime $`\varphi \text{ }>M_\mathrm{P}`$, a single-power form for the variation of $`\varphi `$ is no more likely than any other, and therefore that the potentials in Table 2 have no special status in this regime.

While the assumption of a single power seems too restrictive, it might reasonably be argued that a combination of two or three powers (say positive integral powers) will be sufficiently flexible to cover a useful range of potentials. Why, then, in the large-field regime, do we not wish to focus in particular on the case that one power dominates, as we did for the small-field regime? Our answer illustrates beautifully the difference of view that we take in these two regimes. In the small-field regime, each power listed in Table 2 has a more or less definite physical origin; for instance, positive powers correspond to different self-coupling terms for the inflaton. In that situation, it seems reasonable to regard the coefficients of these powers as parameters which, in the present state of theory, have more or less equal prior probability. Then, over most of parameter space (and even over most of the restricted region allowed by the COBE normalization) just one power dominates, making this the most likely situation. In the large-field case, on the other hand, we argue that a single power has no special significance, and neither do the parameters of an expansion consisting of several powers. Instead of single powers, one could choose a new basis consisting of linear combination of powers (say, Legendre polynomials instead of monomials) leading to new ‘parameters’ which would have to be chosen specially to reproduce a single power. This leads us back to the position stated earlier, that in our view there is no theoretical guidance as to the form of the potential in the large-field regime.

Precisely this view provided the starting point of the ‘reconstruction’ program reviewed in \[Lidsey et al. 1997\]. The idea here is that, if significant gravitational waves are observed, then Eqs. (3), (8), (9) and (10), and more accurate versions \[Stewart & Lyth 1993\] involving one higher derivative of $`V`$, may allow $`V`$ to be reconstructed over the very limited range of $`\varphi `$ corresponding to horizon exit for cosmological scales. We have no comment on this purely phenomenological approach, except to emphasize that it works only if $`r`$ is big enough to measure.

## 4 Running mass models

We also considered the case of running mass inflation models, which give a spectral index with potentially strong scale dependence. The potential in this case is corresponds to a loop correction in the context of softly broken global supersymmetry, and is of the form

$$V=V_0\left(1+\frac{1}{p}c\varphi ^p\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /Q)\right).$$
(13)
The case $`p=2`$ corresponds to the a renormalizable interaction, which alone has been studied so far \[Stewart 1997a, Stewart 1997b, Covi, Lyth & Roszkowski 1999, Covi & Lyth 1999, Covi 1999, German, Ross & Sarkar 2000, Lyth & Covi 2000\]. It gives a spectral index of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(k)1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`s\mathrm{exp}(c\mathrm{\Delta }N(k))c`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }N(k)`$ $``$ $`N(k_{\mathrm{COBE}})N(k)`$ (15)
These models invoke the loop correction coming from softly, as opposed to spontaneously, broken renormalizable global supersymmetry. In the simplest scenario, $`c`$ is essentially the coupling strength of the field in the loop, which is expected to be of order $`0.1`$ to (say) $`0.01`$ in the case of a gauge coupling.

Because of the possibly strong scale-dependence of the curvature perturbation, our procedure of calculating the reionization redshift in terms of the fraction $`f`$ of matter collapsed becomes crucial. The results are insensitive to $`f`$ in the reasonable range $`f\text{ }>10^4`$, which would not at all be the case if we fixed instead the reionization redshift.

In Figure 4 we show the allowed region of parameter space, with $`f=1`$. We see that $`c0.1`$ is indeed allowed, and Table 4 we show the result of a fit with $`c`$ fixed at this value, with a central value $`f=10^{2.2}`$. The corresponding cmb anisotropy and curvature spectrum are shown in Figure 2. Comparing with the corresponding figures for the case of a scale-independent spectral index, the scale-dependence generated by the coupling $`c=0.1`$ is clearly visible. Although observation cannot yet distinguish clearly between the two cases, it is likely to do so in the future, deciding whether the inflaton has an unsuppressed coupling in this type of model. Note that, in contrast with the earlier fit \[Lyth & Covi 2000\], the maximum allowed value of $`n_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ is now too small for over-production of primordial black holes at the end of inflation \[Leach, Grivell & Liddle 2000\] to be a problem.

## 5 Conclusion

Continuing earlier work \[Lyth & Covi 2000\], we have fitted the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model to a global data set, assuming that a gaussian primordial curvature perturbation is the only one. The data set now includes heights of the first two peaks in the cmb anisotropy, derived from the Boomerang and Maxima data. We focus on the spectral index $`n`$, specifying the shape of the curvature perturbation, considering separately the case of a practically scale-independent spectral index, and the scale-dependent spectral index predicted by running mass inflation models. In contrast with other groups, we calculate the reionization epoch within the model on the assumption that it corresponds to the epoch when some fraction $`f`$ of the matter collapses, the results being only mildly dependent on $`f`$ in the reasonable range $`f\text{ }>10^4`$.

For the scale-independent case, the bounds on $`n`$ are given in Figure 3 for some typical values of $`f`$, and for the case of no reionization. In the same Figure, the bounds are compared with the prediction of some forms of the inflationary potential which are suggested by effective field theory. The prediction depends on the number of $`e`$-folds $`N`$ of inflation after cosmological scales leave the horizon, where $`N\text{ }<60`$ depends on the post-inflationary cosmology. For two of the models, the constraint on $`n`$ rules out a significant portion of the $`n`$-$`N`$ plane.

In the case of running mass models, the scale-dependent spectral index depends on parameters $`s`$ and $`c`$, the latter being related to the inflaton coupling which produces the running. We have delineated the allowed region in the $`s`$-$`c`$ plane. An unsuppressed coupling $`c0.1`$ is allowed by the data, leading to a noticeable scale-dependence of the spectral index. The fit with $`c=0.1`$ is less good than with a scale-independent spectral index, but still acceptable.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. D. Linde for useful comments on the first version of this paper.