text:
# Inflationary Dynamics with Runaway Potentials

## I Introduction

Since their advent just over twenty years ago, cosmological inflationary models have been developed to try to deal with several problems arising in the standard cosmology. The most important consequence of an inflationary stage in the very early universe is the development of perturbations in space–time and matter, which eventually evolve into the structures we observe in the universe today. The simplest model with an inflationary stage is where inflation is driven by a single scalar field, called the inflaton, with some potential $`V(\varphi )`$. If the potential is flat enough, theory predicts that adiabatic perturbations are generated which obey the Gaussian statistics and have an almost scale-free spectrum (for recent reviews see e.g. liddlelyth  and Riotto ).

However, the most important drawback for inflationary cosmology is that there is no unique candidate for the inflaton field and its potential. Furthermore, according to our theories of particle physics, there are a large number of scalar fields which, potentially, could be important in the early universe. For example, hybrid inflation is a model, in which two scalar fields are important: whereas one field drives an inflationary epoch, the dynamics of the second field will end this period of inflation hybrid . If inflation itself is driven by two or more scalar fields, the perturbations are no longer purely adiabatic or Gaussian Kofman -bartolo . Moreover, the transition to the normal radiation–dominated epoch depends on the decay of the scalar fields into radiation and matter, which could influence the evolution of perturbations as well. Cosmological observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the Planck Surveyor, 2dF and SLOAN Digital Sky Survey will put strong constraints on the nature of the primordial perturbations and therefore put constraints on more complicated models of inflation and the process of reheating.

Although formalisms have been presented in order to study two–field inflation (see e.g. gordon , bartolo  and wands ), no explicit model has been used in order to examine the background evolution of both fields and the consequences for the perturbations. In this paper, we investigate the evolution of two scalar fields, each with a potential of the form $`V(\varphi )=V_0\varphi ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}[\beta \varphi ^m]`$, and examine the effect of the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,m`$ on the evolution of the universe. This potential includes pure exponentials ($`\alpha =0`$), pure power law ($`\beta =0`$) and combinations of the two. For a single scalar field, this potential was investigated in detail in barrow  and parsons . Exponential potentials appear in Kaluza–Klein theories as well as in supergravity and superstring models (for a review, see e.g. Pedro ). Models based on dynamical supersymmetry breaking involving fermion condensates motivate inverse power potentials binetruy ; supergravity corrections to these models in turn predict potentials of the form above brax . Furthermore, models motivated by higher–dimensional theories and/or scalar–tensor theories easily incorporate these potentials. For example, the form of the potential was used in damour  to examine inflation with a background dilaton field.

The potentials just described were used both in inflationary cosmology as well as in models for dark energy, driving the observed acceleration of the universe at the present epoch (for a review, see ratra ). Indeed, the potential above has interesting properties, allowing for scaling behavior and other attractor–like solutions (see e.g. brax2  and ng ). However, our goal in this paper is to obtain an understanding of the dynamics of two scalar fields with this potential which drive an inflationary epoch in the early universe. This, in turn, allows us to study further the consequences for the perturbations, in the two scalar fields and the space–time metric, during the inflationary epoch. This can be seen as a first step to understanding the initial perturbations in the radiation dominated era, which eventually evolve into the structures we observe today. We would like to emphasize, however, that in order to calculate the perturbations in the radiation dominated epoch, an understanding of the decay of both scalar fields is needed. There are some possibilities we would like to mention:

* Both scalar fields decay, one into radiation and baryonic matter, the other field only into dark matter. The second field could, in principle, also decay only partly into dark matter, whereas the “rest” provides an explanation for dark energy.
* Only one scalar field decays completely into matter and radiation, the other decays partly into some form of matter; the remains of the field play the role of dark energy.
* One of the fields plays the role of the curvaton field curvaton , i.e. it decays well after the inflationary epoch and is responsible for the curvature perturbation.

There are more possibilities, of course, but it is clear that the subsequent evolution of perturbations in the metric and matter fields strongly depends on which of these possibilities is realized. The situation is now far more complicated when compared to inflationary models based on one scalar field alone.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we present the equations of motion; section 3 discusses the case of two independent potentials for both fields, i.e. the total potential is given by $`V=V_{0_\varphi }\varphi ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}[\beta \varphi ^m]+V_{0_\chi }\chi ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}[\beta \chi ^m]`$; in Section 4 we investigate a mixed potential of the form $`V=V_0\chi ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}[\beta \varphi ^m]`$. In sections 3 and 4 we discuss all of the possible cases in detail. These two sections are necessarily technical. However, we have included a summary of our results at the end of each section. Readers who are not interested in the technical aspects may wish to refer to these summaries. The perturbations are discussed in Section 5; we present our conclusions in Section 6.

## II The Field Dynamics

Our starting point shall be that of Einstein gravity with two scalar fields and a general potential $`V(\varphi ,\chi )`$. The action for this (in Planck units) is described by

$`𝒮={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4\mathrm{x}\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}R\frac{1}{2}(_a\varphi ^a\varphi +_a\chi ^a\chi )V(\varphi ,\chi )\right]}.`$ (1)
This action leads to the usual Friedmann equation and two Klein–Gordon equations for both scalar fields:

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{\chi }^2\right)+V(\varphi ,\chi )\right],`$
$`\ddot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`3H\dot{\varphi }V_\varphi ,`$ (2)
$`\ddot{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`3H\dot{\chi }V_\chi ,`$
where we use the notation $`V_\varphi =V/\varphi `$ with its obvious extensions.

We shall find it convenient to make the slow–roll approximation which is appropriate when the slow–roll parameters

$`ϵ_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\varphi }{V}}\right)^2,ϵ_\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\chi }{V}}\right)^2,`$
$`\eta _{\varphi \varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{V_{\varphi \varphi }}{V}},\eta _{\varphi \chi }={\displaystyle \frac{V_{\varphi \chi }}{V}},\eta _{\chi \chi }={\displaystyle \frac{V_{\chi \chi }}{V}}.`$ (3)
satisfy $`|ϵ_i,\eta _{ij}|1,i,j=\varphi ,\chi `$. These five conditions are sufficient for us to generate an inflationary epoch where $`\ddot{a}(t)>0`$. With this approximation the equations of motions (2) reduce to

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V(\varphi ,\chi ),`$ (4)
$`3H\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`V_\varphi ,`$ (5)
$`3H\dot{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`V_\chi .`$ (6)
For the most part, we shall see that slow–roll is an attractor in our model and that we shall be justified in making this approximation.

## III Uncoupled Potentials

In this section we begin our investigation by considering two uncoupled potentials of the form

$`V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_{0_\varphi }\varphi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}\right]+V_{0_\chi }\chi ^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _2\chi ^{m_2}\right].`$ (7)
In this case the slow–roll parameters read

$`ϵ_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\varphi }}+\beta _1m_1\varphi ^{m_11}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }^2\varphi ^{2\alpha _1}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}\right]}{(V(\varphi ,\chi ))^2}},`$
$`\eta _{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\varphi }}+\beta _1m_1\varphi ^{m_11}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\varphi ^2}}+\beta _1^2m_1(m_11)\varphi ^{m_12}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }\varphi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}\right]}{V(\varphi ,\chi )}},`$ (8)
and similarly for $`\chi `$, with $`\eta _{\varphi \chi }=0`$. It is clear that, with a judicious choice of initial conditions, these can always be made small. It is also clear that $`m_i=1`$ will be a transitional value because, for $`m_i>1`$, the slow–roll parameters will grow. We now begin to examine the evolution of the fields in this regime. We shall assume that $`\beta _1>0`$ but make no further assumptions about the other parameters in the potential terms.

Large Field Values

### III.1  $`m_1,m_2>0`$

With $`m_1,m_2>0`$, the exponential part of the potential, for large enough $`\varphi ,\chi `$ at least, will always dominate over the power law. Dividing equations (5-6) we generate the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{V_\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\chi }}{V_\chi }}`$ (9)
We are unable to integrate this directly but are able to do so to leading order in the fields by means of integration by parts. This then generates for large $`\varphi ,\chi `$

$`\beta _1^2m_1^2\varphi ^{2m_12}V_{0_\varphi }\varphi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}\right]=\beta _2^2m_2^2\chi ^{2m_22}V_{0_\chi }\chi ^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _2\chi ^{m_2}\right].`$ (10)
One then takes natural logarithms to find a simple expression between the fields. Since $`m_i>0`$ the terms proportional to the powers of the fields will eventually dominate. This gives us

$`\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}=\beta _2\chi ^{m_2},`$ (11)
to leading order. Then using (4) and (11) we are able to show

$`H(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{m_2}}\varphi ^{\frac{2m_1}{m_2}2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (12)
Substituting back into (5) we must solve the differential equation for $`\varphi `$

$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\alpha _1}{\varphi }+\beta _1m_1\varphi ^{m_11}}{\left(1+\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}\right)^{\frac{2}{m_2}}\varphi ^{\frac{2m_1}{m_2}2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right],`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1m_1\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}+m_11}}{\left(1+\frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2}\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}\right)^{\frac{2}{m_2}}\varphi ^{\frac{2m_1}{m_2}2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right],`$ (14)
to leading order in $`\varphi `$. For large $`\varphi `$, we are able to integrate this expression under two different regimes, depending on whether $`m_1<m_2`$ or $`m_1=m_2`$. This corresponds to one field giving the dominant contribution to the Hubble parameter and both giving equal contributions. This is clear from the denominator in (14). We shall take both of these cases in turn.

#### III.1.1  $`m_1<m_2`$

In this case it is easy to see that the $`\varphi `$ field is the dominant contributor. Solving for $`\varphi `$ we integrate (14) by parts to show

$`t(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1^2m_1^2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}2m_1+2}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi _1^m}{2}}\right].`$ (15)
Immediately we are able to see that large $`\varphi `$ implies large $`t`$ and so inflation will occur at late times with this set up. We are unable to invert this directly. However by taking $`\mathrm{ln}`$, we see that the exponential quickly dominates, and so to leading order

$`\varphi (t)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2m_1^2}{2}}t\right]\right]^{\frac{1}{m_1}}.`$ (16)
Writing (15) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}=\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2m_1^2}{2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}+2m_12}t\right],`$ (17)
we are able to substitute back into (16) to obtain a solution for $`\varphi (t)`$ to next order in $`t`$. A little thought reveals why we want and need to do this. When we come to evaluate the Hubble parameter as a function of time we need to take the exponent of $`\varphi `$. Every time we do this we must take the next to leading order expression. This is given by

$`\varphi (t)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\beta _1^2m_1^2}{2}t}{\left[\frac{2}{\beta _1}\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\beta _1^2m_1^2}{2}t\right]\right]^{\frac{4+\alpha _1}{2m_1}2}}}\right]\right]^{\frac{1}{m_1}}.`$ (18)
Then we plug this into (12) to solve for $`H(t)`$ and then integrate to get the scalefactor which gives us,

$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _1m_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\right)^{\frac{2m_1}{m_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left[\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{2m_1}{m_1}},`$ (19)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _1m_1(2m_1)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{2m_1}{m_1}}\right].`$ (20)
In the evolution of the fields we may drop most of the coefficients as they simply result in constant terms in the solution. This gives the final solution

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\mathrm{ln}t\right)^{\frac{1}{m_1}},`$ (21)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _2}}\mathrm{ln}t\right)^{\frac{1}{m_2}}.`$ (22)
Now because $`m_i<1`$, we see that the scale factor grows faster than power law. This regime is effectively equivalent to a single scalar field driving the dynamics of the universe as the second scalar $`\chi `$ sits in the background. Unsurprisingly, the solutions are in direct agreement with section III.A of parsons .

#### III.1.2  $`m_1>m_2`$

This is equivalent to the previous section by symmetry.

#### III.1.3  $`m_1=m_2=m`$

We now consider the case where both the fields give equal contributions to the evolution of our universe. Since, the second field is now significant, we expect to see something new. This case includes that of two straight exponential potentials which has already been studied in coley . We are able to integrate (14) to leading order to show that

$`t(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(1+\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}\right)^{\frac{2}{m}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\beta _1^2m^2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}2m+2}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^m}{2}}\right].`$ (23)
Once more the evolution of $`t(\varphi )`$ demonstrates that inflation occurs at late times for large $`\varphi ,\chi `$. We then proceed in the same way and the solutions we get are as follows:

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\mathrm{ln}t\right)^{\frac{1}{m}},`$ (24)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _2}}\mathrm{ln}t\right)^{\frac{1}{m}},`$ (25)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _1m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\right)^{\frac{2m}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left[\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{22m}{m}},`$ (26)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _1m(2m)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _1}}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{2m}{m}}\right].`$ (27)
It should be noted that in the two exponential potential case this reduces to power law inflation

$`a(t)t^{\frac{2(\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2)}{\beta _1^2\beta _2^2}},`$ (28)
which is agreement with the dynamical system analysis of coley . The “new” feature is that we generate more inflation than we would get with one scalar because of the extra factor, $`\mathrm{exp}\left[1+\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}\right)^{\frac{2}{m}}\right]`$, in the solution for the scale factor. This concludes the analysis for the cases $`m_1,m_2>0`$.

### III.2 $`m_10,m_2>0`$

It is possible when $`m_i<0`$ and is also an even number, to generate a minimum of the potential at the origin. The nature of the slow-roll parameters dictates that this will certainly give a finite amount of inflation and that we may not get slow-roll here. We shall assume, initially at least, that the field begins in the part dominated by the power law part of the potential.

#### III.2.1 $`\alpha _10,4`$

Following the same procedure as the previous section we are able to deduce that

$`\dot{\varphi }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1+2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (29)
Taking the $`\varphi `$ exponential as approximately constant, we are able to solve this to give,

$`t(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1(\alpha _1+4)}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1+4}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (30)
Solving for the remaining fields and parameters we deduce

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _1+4)t\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha _1+4}},`$ (31)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+2}{\alpha _1+4}}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{1}{m_2}},`$ (32)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _1+4)t\right)^{\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _1+4}}`$ (33)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _1+4)t\right)^{\frac{2m_1}{\alpha _1+4}}\right],`$
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4+\alpha _1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _1+4)\right)^{\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _1+4}}t^{\frac{4}{\alpha _1+4}}f_1(t)\right].`$ (34)
In this instance

$`f_1(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _1+4)t\right)^{\frac{2m_1}{\alpha _1+4}}\right],`$ (35)
and rapidly tends to unity as time increases. With this set of parameters, studying (30) one realizes that it is possible for inflation to occur in a different manner. It is helpful to write the scalefactor in the form

$`a(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[ct^kf_1(t)\right]`$ (36)
$`\alpha _1>0`$: In this case, $`\alpha _1(\alpha _1+4)>0`$ and so it follows, from equation 30, that $`t(\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ as $`\varphi `$ increases. Therefore, we must generate inflation at late times.In addition, $`c>0,0<k<1`$ giving us a relatively slow expansion rate.
$`4<\alpha _1<0`$: In this case $`\alpha _1(\alpha _1+4)<0`$ and we get $`c>0`$, $`1<k<\mathrm{}`$. As $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$, $`t(\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ and so inflation now occurs at early times. Potentially this can also give us a lot of inflation as the scale factor grows faster than $`e^t`$.
$`\alpha _1<0`$: Once more we get $`\alpha _1(\alpha _1+4)>0`$, however we now have a negative power of $`\varphi `$ in (30) and so $`t(\varphi )0`$ as $`\varphi `$ increases. This generates inflation at early times once more. In addition we have the constraints $`c,k>0`$.

Once more the setup is equivalent to that of a single scalar as the second scalar makes minimal contribution to the universal dynamics. We generate identical results to section III.B of parsons .

Let us now return to the case where $`\chi `$ dominates. This gives a Hubble parameter of

$`H(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }\alpha _1(\alpha _1+2)}{3\beta _2^2m_2^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+2}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{1m_2}{m_2}}\varphi ^{\frac{(\alpha _1+2)}{2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\varphi \right]^{\frac{1}{m_2}1}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right],`$ (37)
$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }\alpha _1\beta _2^2m_2^2}{3(\alpha _1+2)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+2}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{1m_2}{m_2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\varphi \right]^{1\frac{1}{m_2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (38)
Integrating up, again regarding the exponential as almost constant we get

$`t(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3(\alpha _1+2)}{V_{0_\varphi }\alpha _1\beta _2^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+2}{\beta _2}}\right)^{\frac{m_21}{m_2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _12}{2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\varphi \right]^{\frac{1}{m_2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (39)
We are not able to invert this equation in order to obtain a meaningful description of $`\varphi (t)`$.

#### III.2.2 $`\alpha _1=4`$

The evolution equation for $`\varphi `$ (29) still holds – provided, of course, that we are still in a $`\varphi `$ dominated regime.

$`\dot{\varphi }=4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (40)
Then integrating we retrieve

$`t(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (41)
Notice that we generate a $`\mathrm{ln}`$ rather than a power of $`\varphi `$ in the solution. This propagates through the calculation and will generate qualitatively different behavior in the Hubble parameter and scalefactor. However, we still see that $`t(\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ for increasing $`\varphi `$ and so it is an early effect.

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right],`$ (42)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\beta _2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]^{\frac{1}{m_2}},`$ (43)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[8\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[4m_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]\right],`$ (44)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{exp}\left[8\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]f_3(t)\right],`$ (45)
where

$`f_3(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[4m_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]\right].`$ (46)
It is clear that $`f_3(t)1`$ rapidly as $`t`$ increases. Looking at equation (41), it is clear that $`t`$ decreases for increasing $`\varphi `$ so the inflation we generate is an early time phenomenon.

#### III.2.3  $`\alpha _1=0`$

In this special case the $`\varphi `$ field will quickly dominate once more, as the potential for $`\chi `$ decays quickly. Thus we get behavior very similar to that for one field, with $`\chi `$ just in the background as in parsons . Solving in the usual manner gives us

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\beta _1m_1(2m_1)\right]^{\frac{1}{2m_1}}t^{\frac{1}{2m_1}},`$ (47)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _2}}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{1}{m_2}},`$ (48)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\left(\beta _1m_1(2m_1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{\frac{m_1}{2m_1}}t^{\frac{m_1}{2m_1}}\right],`$ (49)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}tf_2(t)\right],`$ (50)
where

$`f_2(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\left(\beta _1m_1(2m_1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{\frac{m_1}{2m_1}}t^{\frac{m_1}{2m_1}}\right].`$ (51)
Inflation here occurs at early times.

### III.3 $`m_1,m_2<0`$

Proceeding in the usual manner we are able to show that

$`H(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1(\alpha _1+2)}{\alpha _2(\alpha _2+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2}{\varphi ^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right]`$
$`\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1(\alpha _1+2)}{\alpha _2(\alpha _2+2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }\alpha _2(\alpha _2+2)}{V_{0_\varphi }\alpha _1(\alpha _1+2)}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha _2+2}}\varphi ^{\frac{2(\alpha _1\alpha _2)}{\alpha _2+2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
It is then clear, for example, that $`2<\alpha _1<\alpha _2`$ corresponds to $`\varphi `$ domination. We shall consider this case and that of equal contribution since $`\chi `$ domination is identical in behavior to the former.

#### III.3.1 $`\alpha _2>\alpha _1>2;\alpha _2<2,\alpha _1>\alpha _2`$

If is clear that the $`\varphi `$ field is dominant here and so the results from section (III.2.1) hold for $`\varphi (t),H(t)`$ and $`a(t)`$. In this case we do get different evolution for $`\chi (t)`$ though, given by

$`\chi (t)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }\alpha _2(\alpha _2+2)}{V_{0_\varphi }\alpha _1(\alpha _1+2)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha _2+2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _1+4)t\right]^{\frac{2(\alpha _1+2)}{(\alpha _1+4)(\alpha _2+2)}}.`$ (54)
#### III.3.2 $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\alpha `$

This is the only case where we do not get domination by one field over the other. Again the results will be very similar to that of section (III.2.1) except that we will generate more inflation because the Hubble parameter will be larger than before. Then we find that:

$`t(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(1+\left(\frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\alpha (\alpha +4)}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha +4}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right],`$ (55)
$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}},`$ (56)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha +2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}},`$ (57)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha +2}{\alpha +4}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}}`$ (58)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right)^{\frac{2m_1}{\alpha +4}}\right],`$
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4+\alpha }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha +2}{\alpha +4}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}}t^{\frac{4}{\alpha +4}}f_4(t)\right].`$ (59)
where

$`f_4(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\alpha +2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right)^{\frac{2m_1}{\alpha +4}}\right].`$ (60)
$`f_4(t)1`$ rapidly as $`t`$ increases. This gives us inflation at late times once more.

Small Field Values

A moments thought reveals that in order to generate slow–roll at small values of either $`\chi `$ or $`\varphi `$ we must have $`\alpha _i=0,m1`$. This can be seen easily by examining the slow–roll parameters (3). Our analysis will then follow a similar pattern to before. Again, we shall see that one field will become dominant if $`m_1m_2`$ and we proceed as before.

### III.4 $`m_1<m_2,m_12`$

Once more the $`\varphi `$ will provide the dominant contribution and so

$`H(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (61)
Then we find that

$`\dot{\varphi }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\beta m_1\varphi ^{m_11}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}}{2}}\right].`$ (62)
This is identical to the case we considered previously in section (III.2.3) and so all the results there still hold. The one difference is that the evolution of $`\chi `$ changes slightly.

$`\chi (t)=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0\varphi }}{V_{0\chi }}}\beta _2m_2(2m_2)t\right]^{\frac{1}{m_22}}.`$ (63)
One should note that as $`\varphi 0`$, $`t`$ decreases and so we are looking at an early time effect. This is equivalent to section IV.A of parsons . The cases where either one or both of $`m_i=2`$ are easily covered and does not result in any analytical difficulties. The behavior is not markedly different from the above.

### III.5 $`2=m_1<m_2`$

The $`\varphi `$ is still dominant and so we can integrate (62) to achieve

$`t(\varphi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta _1}}(\mathrm{ln}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^2}{2}}\right].`$ (64)
Solving the equation for small $`\varphi `$ we find that

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\beta t\right],`$ (65)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{V_{0_\chi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _2m_2(2m_2)}}t\right]^{\frac{1}{m_22}}.`$ (66)
Note that although the behavior $`\chi (t)(\kappa _1t)^{\kappa _2},\kappa _1>0`$ appears problematic, this would be resolved by including the integration constants. This would then give us

$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[K4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{V_{0_\chi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _2m_2(2m_2)}}t\right]^{\frac{1}{m_22}},K>0.`$ (67)
Now since $`\varphi (t)`$ in a monotonic increasing function, the slow–roll conditions will be violated within finite time and so our solution will no longer be valid. This should occur before $`t=\frac{K}{4}\left(\frac{3}{V_{0\varphi }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{V_{0_\chi }}{V_{0_\varphi }}\frac{\beta _2m_2(2m_2)}{\beta _1^2}`$ since there are no physical grounds upon which to rule out this solution.

### III.6 $`m_1=m_2=2`$

In this instance we find that

$`H(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(V_{0_\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^2}{2}}\right].`$ (68)
It is not too difficult to show that

$`t(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\beta _1V_{0_\varphi }}}\left(V_{0_\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\varphi ^2}{2}}\right].`$ (69)
It is clear that as $`\varphi 0`$ we have $`t\mathrm{}`$ and so inflation will occur at early times. Then, proceeding in the familiar manner, we can show

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _1}{\left(V_{0_\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}t\right],`$ (70)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\chi }}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _2}{\left(V_{0_\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}t\right],`$ (71)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(V_{0_\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _1}{\left(V_{0_\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}t\right]\right],`$ (72)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[H(t)t\right].`$ (73)
where we have treated all the exponentials as being approximately equal to unity.

Large and small field values

If we take one of the fields large and one small we will always have the large field dominant and so this relates to the cases considered already. For example, small $`\chi `$ means that $`m_21`$ and so $`m_1<m_2`$. Therefore the $`\varphi `$ field will be dominant. This applies to all possible cases.

### III.7 Summary for Uncoupled Potential

We have seen that for two fields with uncoupled potentials often one field will be dominant, and we return to an effective single field theory – for the background at least– as studied in parsons . There are, however, several cases where the second field is important and we have demonstrated them. We have seen that it is possible to generate inflation at both late and early times and for large and small values of both of the fields. As a result, these background solutions do not differ qualitatively from the single field set-up parsons . The results are summarized in the table below. If $`m_1<m_2`$ then the $`\varphi `$ field is dominant so we only outline the results for $`m_1`$. If $`m_1=m_2=m`$ the same qualitative behavior exists except that we generate more inflation than we would normally with one field.

## IV A coupled potential

We now turn our attention to a potential of the form

$`V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_0\varphi ^\alpha e^{\beta \chi ^m}`$ (74)
and repeat the processes of the previous section. The motivation for such a potential arises, for example, in higher–dimensional theories of the form

$$S=d^Nx\sqrt{g_N}\left[\frac{1}{2\kappa _N}R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\right].$$
(75)
Writing the $`N`$–dimensional metric in the form

$$ds_N^2=g_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}dx^\mu dx^\nu +b^2ds_D^2,$$
(76)
and compactifying the theory on a torus which has zero curvature, one ends up with a potential of the form (74), where $`\chi \mathrm{ln}b`$ describing the size of the extra dimensions (see e.g. starobinsky ).

We still have the three coupled equations (4-6) to solve which are equivalent to

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \chi ^m}{2}}\right],`$ (77)
$`3H\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha V_0\varphi ^{(\alpha +1)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \chi ^m\right],`$ (78)
$`3H\dot{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`\beta m\chi ^{m1}V_0\varphi ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \chi ^m\right],`$ (79)
with solution

$`\varphi ^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2\alpha }{\beta m(2m)}\chi ^{2m},& m2,\\ \frac{\alpha }{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\chi ,& m=2.\end{array}`$ (82)
There are certain cases where it is not clear that equation (82) means anything– for example $`m>2,\alpha >0`$– since this would generate an imaginary value for at least one of the fields. At this stage one should remember that we have omitted all integration constants up to this point. As there are no physical grounds on which to rule out such cases, when one puts back these constants (dependent on the initial conditions), any such problems may be overcome.

Before we begin, we shall find it instructive to examine some plots of the potential in question. These are shown in figure 1 where we have plotted $`V(\varphi ,\chi )=\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\chi ^{\pm 0.2}\right]`$ respectively.

Large field Values

### IV.1 $`1m>0`$

This guarantees us slow–roll for large values of the fields. We generate the following equation for $`\chi `$

$`\dot{\chi }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\beta m\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta m(2m)}{2\alpha }}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{4}}\chi ^{\frac{\alpha (m2)}{4}}\chi ^{m1}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \chi ^m}{2}}\right].`$ (83)
We are then able to solve this to produce the following expression,

$`t(\chi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta m(2m)}{2\alpha }}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{4}}\chi ^{\frac{\alpha (2m)}{4}}\chi ^{22m}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \chi ^m}{2}}\right].`$ (84)
Proceeding in a similar, way we are able to solve the system producing, to leading order in $`t`$, the results below.

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\beta m(2m)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{2m}{2m}},`$ (85)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{1}{m}},`$ (86)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{22m}{m}},`$ (87)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta m(2m)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{2m}{m}}\right].`$ (88)
One should note that this gives very similar behavior to section (III.1.1). This should not be entirely unexpected because the exponential part of the potential will always dominate for $`m>0`$.

### IV.2 $`m<0`$

Due to the nature of the slow–roll parameters, we must once more consider large values for both of the fields. Now solving for $`\varphi `$, treating the exponential approximately constant, we find

$`t(\varphi ,\chi )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha (\alpha +4)}}\varphi ^{\frac{\alpha +4}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \chi ^m}{2}}\right].`$ (89)
Substituting for either field using (82) we able to invert this finding

$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta m(2m)}{2\alpha }}\right)^{\frac{2}{2m}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{4}{(2m)(\alpha +4)}},`$ (90)
$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}}.`$ (91)
One should also note that the onset of inflation occurs in analogy with section (III.2.1). It is also worth pointing out that this gives the solution one would expect when $`m0`$. That is, we generate the same results as (III.2.1) except that the $`\chi `$ field freezes out. This should not surprise us since the potential becomes equivalent to that of an inverse power. We then find the form for the Hubble parameter

$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}}`$ (92)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta m(2m)}{2\alpha }}\right)^{\frac{2m}{2m}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{4m}{(2m)(\alpha +4)}}\right],`$
where, of course, the exponential part tends rapidly to 1. Solving for the scale factor we deduce to leading order

$`a(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4+\alpha }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}}t^{\frac{4}{\alpha +4}}g_1(t)\right],`$ (93)
where

$`g_1(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta m(2m)}{2\alpha }}\right)^{\frac{2m}{2m}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{4m}{(2m)(\alpha +4)}}\right].`$ (94)
It is obvious that the special case of $`\alpha =0`$ gives us just a single scalar field that evolves. This has already been studied. We must however consider what happens when $`\alpha =4`$. We generate the following equation

$`t(\varphi ,\chi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{V_0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{ln}\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \chi ^m}{2}}\right].`$ (95)
Then solving for the fields we find

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right],`$ (96)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{2m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right],`$ (97)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[8\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8m}{2m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]\right],`$ (98)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{exp}\left[8\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]g_2(t)\right]`$ (99)
where

$`g_2(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8m}{2m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t\right]\right],`$ (100)
which rapidly tends to unity.

### IV.3 $`1<m<2`$

If one considers the slow–roll parameters we may expect only to generate inflation for small values of $`\chi `$. However, we must still take large $`\varphi `$ for slow–roll to be a valid approximation. In this instance, we are able to approximate the exponential by unity. Provided $`m2`$, we generate the same set of results as for $`m<0`$ with large $`\chi `$, as in section IV.2.

In the special case where $`m=2`$, we get slightly different behavior. We summarize the results below:

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}},`$ (101)
$`\chi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}}\right],`$ (102)
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m\beta }{\alpha }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}}\right]\right],`$ (103)
$`a(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4+\alpha }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{0_\varphi }}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}}t^{\frac{4}{\alpha +4}}g_3(t)\right],`$ (104)
where

$`g_3(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m\beta }{\alpha }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(\alpha +4)t\right]^{\frac{2}{\alpha +4}}\right]\right].`$ (105)
### IV.4 Summary for the Coupled Potential

The summary of the inflationary behavior is effectively equivalent to Table 1 with the obvious changes to the parameters. We are able to generate inflation at late, early or all times by tuning the parameters in the potential. If $`m>0`$, the exponential part is dominant and the solutions produced are similar to that of a single scalar, $`\chi `$ with the second field, $`\varphi `$, in the background. When $`m0`$, the exponential part is subdominant and the results resemble those for a single scalar, $`\varphi `$, with a $`\varphi ^\alpha `$ potential. The quantitative modifications are small and quickly decrease with time.

In all cases one of the fields provides the dominant contribution to $`H(t)`$ and $`a(t)`$. The effects of the second field are present but decay quickly so that the field is only in the background.

## V Cosmological Perturbations

We now turn our attention to the evolution for cosmological perturbations in both of the scalar fields and the spacetime metric during a period of inflation. Again, we assume that the fields are slow–rolling, implying that the parameters (3) are small. Furthermore, we shall assume that both fields contribute approximately equally to the expansion rate. Only then can we expect new features in the perturbation spectra resulting from the second field.

A convenient formalism to study both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations in inflation was presented in gordon , which we will use here. Instead of working with the fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ it is useful to perform a rotation as follows:

$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\delta \varphi +(\mathrm{sin}\theta )\delta \chi `$ (106)
$`\delta s`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta )\delta \varphi +(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\delta \chi ,`$ (107)
with

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\sqrt{\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{\chi }^2}},\mathrm{sin}\theta =\frac{\dot{\chi }}{\sqrt{\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{\chi }^2}}.$$
(108)
$`\sigma `$ is called the adiabatic field and $`s`$ is called the entropy field. The motivation for their names becomes clear when one considers fluctuations of them.

The line–element for arbitrary scalar perturbations of the Robertson–Walker metric for a spatially flat universe reads, (using the notation of gordon )

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2A)dt^2+2a^2B_{,i}dx^idt`$ (109)
$`+`$ $`a^2\left[(12\psi )\delta _{ij}+2E_{,ij}\right]dx^idx^j.`$
The gauge–invariant curvature perturbation, defined as

$$=\psi +\frac{H\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }},$$
(110)
is, on very large scales, constant for purely adiabatic perturbations (see e.g. Malik  and references therein). However, entropy perturbations are a source for the curvature perturbation (110). The entropy perturbation between two species $`A`$ and $`B`$, defined as

$$𝒮=\frac{\delta n_A}{n_A}\frac{\delta n_B}{n_B},$$
(111)
where $`n_i`$ are the number densities of the particle species $`i`$ can evolve in time, even on superhorizon scales. Therefore, it was argued wands  that on very large scales in general we have the following equations describing the evolution of $``$ and $`𝒮`$:

$`\dot{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma H𝒮,`$ (112)
$`\dot{𝒮}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta H𝒮.`$ (113)
For the case of the two slow–rolling scalar fields and in the spatial flat gauge ($`\psi =0`$), $``$ and $`𝒮`$ are given by

$$\frac{H\left(\dot{\varphi }\delta \varphi +\dot{\chi }\delta \chi \right)}{\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{\chi }^2}=\frac{H\delta \sigma }{\dot{\sigma }}$$
(114)
and

$$𝒮=\frac{H\left(\dot{\varphi }\delta \chi \dot{\chi }\delta \varphi \right)}{\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{\chi }^2}=\frac{H\delta s}{\dot{\sigma }}.$$
(115)
For $`𝒮`$ we use the same normalization as in wands . Fluctuations in the field $`\sigma `$ are adiabatic perturbations, whereas fluctuations in $`s`$ are entropic perturbations. On very large scales ($`kaH`$) and in flat gauge, the evolution of fluctuations are described as gordon

$`(\delta \sigma )^{..}+3H(\delta \sigma )^.+\left(V_{\sigma \sigma }\dot{\theta }^2\right)\delta \sigma =2V_\sigma A+\dot{\sigma }\dot{A}+2(\dot{\theta }\delta s)^.2{\displaystyle \frac{V_\sigma }{\dot{\sigma }}}\dot{\theta }\delta s`$ (116)
and

$`(\delta s)^{..}+3H(\delta s)^.+\left(V_{ss}\dot{\theta }^2\right)\delta s=2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\theta }}{\dot{\sigma }}}\left[\dot{\sigma }((\delta \sigma )^.\dot{\sigma }A)\ddot{\sigma }\delta \sigma \right].`$ (117)
The metric perturbation $`A`$ can be obtained from Einstein’s equation and is given, in the flat gauge, by

$$HA=4\pi G\left(\dot{\varphi }\delta \varphi +\dot{\chi }\delta \chi \right).$$
(118)
An important point is that $`\dot{\theta }`$ must be non–vanishing in order for the adiabatic field to be sourced by the entropy field. If $`\theta `$ is constant, the entropy field does not contribute to perturbations in the gravitational potential.

In wands  the formalism presented was applied to slow–roll inflation with two scalar fields and it was shown that $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ in (112) and (113) are given in terms of the slow–roll parameters

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _{\sigma s},`$ (119)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ+\eta _{\sigma \sigma }\eta _{ss},`$ (120)
and are, therefore, specified by the potential $`V(\varphi ,\chi )`$. In the last two equations, the slow–roll parameters are constructed from the usual slow–roll parameters for $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ (3) and are given by

$$ϵ=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{V_\sigma }{V}\right)^2ϵ_\varphi +ϵ_\chi .$$
(121)
and

$`\eta _{\sigma \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +2\eta _{\varphi \chi }\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\eta _{\chi \chi }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$
$`\eta _{ss}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2\eta _{\varphi \chi }\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\eta _{\chi \chi }\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (122)
$`\eta _{\sigma s}`$ $`=`$ $`(\eta _{\chi \chi }\eta _{\varphi \varphi })\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta +\eta _{\varphi \chi }(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).`$
The time evolution of $``$ and $`𝒮`$ between horizon crossing and some later time is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝒮\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& T_𝒮\\ 0& T_{𝒮𝒮}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝒮\end{array}\right)_{},`$ (129)
where the asterisk marks the time of horizon crossing. The transfer functions $`T_𝒮`$ and $`T_{𝒮𝒮}`$ are given by

$`T_{𝒮𝒮}(t,t_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _t_{}^t}\delta (t^{})H(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)`$
$`T_𝒮(t,t_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t_{}^t}\gamma (t^{})T_{𝒮𝒮}(t_{},t^{})H(t^{})𝑑t^{}.`$ (130)
Thus, in the case of two slow–rolling scalar fields, the transfer functions are completely specified by the potential through the slow–roll parameters.

We are now in a position to calculate some of these transfer functions for our general potentials. We shall consider the most simple cases only in order to show how the background solutions derived in Section 3 and Section 4 can be used in order to study perturbations.

### V.1 Analytic Calculations

We begin with analytic calculations for two simple cases. The first case considers two exponential potentials (a special case of assisted inflation). The second case is a simple model of a coupled potential.

#### V.1.1 Two Exponentials

Let us now take

$`V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_{0_\varphi }e^{\beta _1\varphi }+V_{0_\chi }e^{\beta _2\chi }.`$ (131)
Although this setup was studied earlier assisted , we would like to check the formalism for the perturbations. We return to the first approximation (10) to make the calculation. Then in this instance we find

$`V_{0_\varphi }e^{\beta _1\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^2}{\beta _1^2}}V_{0_\chi }e^{\beta _2\chi },`$ (132)
$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\beta _1}}\dot{\chi }.`$ (133)
These two equations enable us to calculate all the parameters. We find that

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2}}},\mathrm{sin}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2}}}.`$ (134)
This shows that we get a constant angle in the phase plane. A quick glance at equations (116-117) reveals that the adiabatic and entropy perturbations decouple in this case. We should expect our analysis to reflect this. It is also straightforward to show that

$`2ϵ=\eta _{\sigma \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{ss}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2\beta _2^2}{\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2}},`$ (135)
$`\eta _{\sigma s}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (136)
The functions $`\gamma (t),\delta (t)`$ then turn out to be constant given by

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (137)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2\beta _2^2}{\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2}}<0.`$ (138)
Then we simply compute the transfer functions using (130) to see that

$`T_{𝒮𝒮}(t,t_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(t)}{a(t_{})}}\right)^\delta ,`$ (139)
$`T_𝒮(t,t_{})`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (140)
Now since $`\delta <0`$, it is immediately obvious that $`T_{𝒮𝒮}(t,t_{})0`$ as time passes, provided $`t>t_{}`$. Secondly, $`T_𝒮(t,t_{})=0`$. This means that $``$ remains constant and $`𝒮`$ $`0`$ from (129). Therefore, in this case we only expect adiabatic perturbations and no entropy perturbations if inflation lasts long enough. This is in agreement with the results in assisted . One should add that the transfer functions are calculated from the time of horizon crossing. However, when we calculate the transfer parameters, $`\gamma (t),\delta (t)`$, we assume that $`k/aH1`$. This is only true a few e–folds after horizon crossing. This means that our calculated transfer functions will be accurate a few e–folds after horizon crossing and so, in effect, they have the wrong initial conditions. Whilst this does not affect their predictions, this means they differ from what we observe numerically. In this instance there is some evolution of $``$ before it freezes in and some evolution of $`𝒮`$ before if follows the decay predicted. This can be seen in Figure 2 in the first few e–folds after horizon exit.

#### V.1.2  A coupled example

The next simplest case will prove to be that with a coupled potential with a straight exponential. That is

$`V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_0\varphi ^\alpha e^{\beta \chi }.`$ (141)
We shall find it most convenient to work in terms of the field $`\varphi `$ before substituting in its solution (85) to compute our integrals. We find that our $`\theta `$ now evolves according to

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2}}},\mathrm{sin}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \varphi }{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2}}}.`$ (142)
We also have the slow–roll parameters

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\varphi ^2}}+\beta ^2\right],`$ (143)
$`\eta _{\varphi \varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\alpha +1)}{\varphi ^2}},`$ $`\eta _{\varphi \chi }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{\varphi }},\eta _{\chi \chi }=\beta ^2.`$ (144)
It is then straightforward to show that

$`\eta _{\sigma \sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\alpha +1)}{\varphi ^2}}+2\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{\alpha ^2}}\varphi ^2\right],`$ (145)
$`\eta _{ss}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\alpha }},\eta _{\sigma s}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\varphi }}.`$ (146)
We then find that the transfer parameters are given as

$`\gamma (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta \alpha ^2}{\varphi (\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2)}}=\beta ^2\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{ln}t)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t)}},`$ (147)
$`\delta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\varphi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\alpha }}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2(\alpha 4\mathrm{ln}t)}{4(\mathrm{ln}t)(\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t)}}.`$ (148)
We have also verified these relations numerically. Now it remains to compute the transfer functions which we are able to do exactly. From (87) we see that

$`H(t)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2t}}.`$ (149)
This then gives

$`T_{𝒮𝒮}(t,t_{})=\mathrm{exp}\left(I(t,t_{})\right),`$ (150)
where

$`I(t,t_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t_{}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha 4\mathrm{ln}t^{})}{2(\mathrm{ln}t^{})(\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{}}}𝑑t^{}`$ (151)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\mathrm{ln}t_{}}}\right]\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t}{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t_{}}}\right].`$ (152)
Plugging this back in we find that

$`T_{𝒮𝒮}(t,t_{})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\mathrm{ln}t_{}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t_{}}{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t}}\right].`$ (153)
Then using this result

$`T_𝒮(t,t_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^2\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t_{}}{\left(\mathrm{ln}t_{}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _t_{}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta ^2t^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t^{}\right)^2}}𝑑t^{}`$ (154)
$`=`$ $`2\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t_{}}{\left(\mathrm{ln}t_{}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t^{}}}\right]_t_{}^t,`$ (155)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{ln}t_{}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t_{}}{(\mathrm{ln}t_{})^{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha +4\mathrm{ln}t}}\right).`$ (156)
Thus at late times we see

$`T_{𝒮𝒮}0,T_𝒮{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{ln}t_{}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}.`$ (157)
Again, this implies that at late times $``$ remains constant, although its value on a certain length scale depends on the time of horizon crossing $`t_{}`$.

### V.2 Numerical Calculations

In principle, with the background solutions given in Sections 3 and 4, it is possible to calculate any transfer function that we wish to consider. However, in practice, this requires making a large number of assumptions in order to do the integrals analytically. Therefore, to get precise answers, we will now resort to a numerical investigation of the perturbations. We begin with the case of two exponential potentials, where we can check our numerical results with analytical solutions. Then we study two inverse power potentials, then the case of a mixed potential and finally the coupled potential. The initial conditions for background are chosen such that both fields contribute approximately equally to the expansion rate. With this prescription a change in the initial field values is equivalent to changing the amount of inflation with the same parameters.

We choose to run our simulations in terms of the variables $`\delta \sigma `$ and $`\delta s`$ – this gives a more accurate solution. The equations for their evolution in the spatially flat gauge are given by

$`\delta \ddot{\sigma }+3H\delta \dot{\sigma }`$ $`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}+V_{\sigma \sigma }\dot{\theta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^3\dot{\sigma }^2}{H}}\right)\right]\delta \sigma `$
$`=`$ $`2(\dot{\theta }\delta s)^.2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\sigma }{\dot{\sigma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H}}\right)\dot{\theta }\delta s`$
$`\delta \ddot{s}+3H\delta \dot{s}`$ $`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}+V_{ss}+3\dot{\theta }^2\right]\delta s=2{\displaystyle \frac{V_s}{H}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H\delta \sigma }{\dot{\sigma }}}\right).`$ (159)
The general recipe is as follows: we evolve the background through $`100`$ e–folds of inflation to make sure that the fields are in the slow–roll regime. We then switch on the perturbations so that each mode starts inside the horizon with $`k=1000aH`$ at different times. We then follow the perturbations for another 60 e–folds after horizon exit, where inflation is assumed to end.

To set the initial conditions one treats the modes, $`\delta \varphi `$ and $`\delta \chi `$, as independent stochastic variables deep inside the horizon. With this prescription, it can be shown that liddlelyth ,Riotto

$`a\delta \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}}e^{ık\tau },`$ (160)
deep inside the horizon, and similarly for $`\delta \chi `$. In the last expression, $`d\tau =dt/a`$ is the conformal time. To calculate the spectra numerically, we use the method described in basset . One makes two runs: the first run begins in the Bunch–Davis vacuum for $`\delta \varphi `$, $`\delta \chi =\delta \dot{\chi }=0`$, and the second in the Bunch–Davis vacuum for $`\delta \chi `$, $`\delta \varphi =\delta \dot{\varphi }=0`$. The power spectra are then given by

$`𝒫_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}}\left(|_1|^2+|_2|^2\right),`$ (161)
$`𝒫_𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}}\left(|𝒮_1|^2+|𝒮_2|^2\right),`$ (162)
$`𝒫_𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}}|_1𝒮_1+_2𝒮_2|,`$ (163)
where the subscripts $`1,2`$ are the results for the two different runs. Furthermore, for the tensor modes one finds

$`P_𝒯=8\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_{}}{2\pi }}\right)^2,n_𝒯=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\sigma }}{H}}\right)_{}^2.`$ (164)
We also define

$`r_𝒞={\displaystyle \frac{P_𝒞}{\sqrt{P_{}P_𝒮}}},r_𝒯={\displaystyle \frac{P_T}{16P_{}}}.`$ (165)
Note that our normalization of $`r_𝒯`$ is 16 times smaller than that used in wmap . As a test for our code, we are able to check it against the results for assisted inflation with two exponential potentials assisted . The analytic results give assisted

$`n_{}1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _1^2\beta _2^2}{2(\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2)\beta _1^2\beta _2^2}},`$ (166)
$`n_𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left(\beta _1^2+\beta _2^23\beta _1^2\beta _2^2\right)\left(\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2\frac{1}{3}\beta _1^2\beta _2^2\right)}}{\beta _1+\beta _2^2}}\right).`$ (167)
Finally, in the case of two–field slow–roll inflation there are two consistency relations:

$`r_𝒯`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_𝒯}{2}}(1r_𝒞^2),`$ (168)
$`(n_𝒞n_𝒮)r_𝒯`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_𝒯}{4}}(2n_𝒞n_{}n_𝒮).`$ (169)
In the models with runaway potentials considered here we generally find that the spectral index of the correlation spectrum is much larger than the indices for the adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations. Furthermore, the perturbations are essentially uncorrelated so that the two consistency relations are effectively equivalent. We find that they are both satisfied to within a few percent either side.

#### V.2.1 Two Exponential Potentials

Let us discuss first the case of two exponential potentials. We have seen from the analytical treatment that in this case the entropic perturbations decay. We now give the fields a power in the exponent, $`V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_{0_\varphi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _1\varphi ^{m_1}\right]+V_{0_\chi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _2\chi ^{m_2}\right]`$. Using equation (10), one can show that

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\chi }}{\dot{\varphi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2m_2\chi ^{m_21}}{\beta _1m_1\varphi ^{m_11}}}.`$ (170)
Then, provided the two fields have different potentials and initial conditions, one would expect the entropy perturbations to be sourced because $`\dot{\theta }0`$. To gain further understanding, if one makes the field redefinition, $`\psi =\chi ^{m_2}`$ we may write the Lagrangian as

$`_\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_2^2}}\psi ^{\frac{22m_2}{m_2}}(\psi )^2+V_{0_\chi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _2\psi \right].`$ (171)
We see that we generate a non–canonical kinetic term. It has been shown, brandfin , that such a term sources perturbations in $`\delta s`$ and hence in entropy. Because these source terms are proportional to derivatives of this non–canonical factor, these decay for $`m_i1`$. Furthermore, since the potential is then reduced to that of straight exponential, we would still expect the entropy perturbations to decay, the difference being its duration.

Let us now consider some examples and begin with two exponentials. We set the normalization such that $`10^5`$ at the end of inflation.

In our first example, we set $`\beta _1=0.05,\beta _2=0.10,m_1=m_2=1,V_0=10^{10}`$. Figure 2 shows the evolution of $``$ and $`𝒮`$ for a given mode from the time of horizon crossing. We can see that the entropy perturbation begins to decay almost immediately as one would expect from our previous calculation of the transfer functions. Further, one can see that there is significant evolution in the first few e–folds after horizon crossing, $`N_{}8`$. Following this $``$ remains constant as expected. As a second example we consider a case with a power in one of the exponentials. The parameters are as before setting $`m_1=0.3`$. Above we have shown that this should source the entropy perturbation which is realized in Figure 2.

Let us now observe how the spectral indices behave for all of parameter space. We set $`\beta _1=0.05,\beta _2=0.10`$ and vary the powers $`m_1,m_2`$. We maintain the initial conditions $`\varphi _0=1,\chi _0=1`$. The results are summarized in Figure 3. We find that $`n_𝒞`$ always runs significantly so we do not include it here.

We observe in Figure 3 that the spectrum for the tensor modes is flat– to the extent that is indistinguishable from a flat spectrum with present observations– and the amount of tensor production is very small. Again this is below the level of current experiments. In general, the spectral indices are functions of the slow–roll parameters which decrease in time with run–away potentials. Thus the more inflation we allow the smaller the indices will be and the closer to scale invariance we will be. In fact, in all cases we can get arbitrarily close to a Harrison–Zel’dovich spectrum by allowing an arbitrarily large amount of inflation. Furthermore, one may expect the plots to be symmetric but we remind the reader that $`\beta _1\beta _2`$ so the two fields always have different potentials. Our results do not completely agree with the analytic results given above. The reason is that we have not yet reached the attractor solution for two exponential potentials. However, we have verified that once we are on the attractor, the analytic and numerical results agree sufficiently.

#### V.2.2 Two Inverse Power Potentials

To gain further insight here, it is helpful to use the field re–definition, $`e^\psi =\chi ^\alpha `$. Then,

$`_\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}}e^{\frac{2}{\alpha }\psi }(\psi )^2+V_{0_\chi }e^\psi .`$ (172)
Therefore, this case corresponds to two scalar fields with non–canonical kinetic term and exponential potential. Because the non–canonical kinetic terms are a source of entropy perturbations, we expect that the entropy perturbations to be more strongly sourced when compared with the previous example of two straight exponentials. The data are shown in Figure 4.

Compared with the case of two exponential potentials, the contribution of the entropy to the total perturbation is larger, but we see that the entropy modes are always smaller in magnitude than the curvature perturbation. Furthermore, adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations are effectively uncorrelated. The cleft in the plot arises from the background fields having the same evolution as they each have the same $`\alpha `$. It is the clear that from our definition of $`P_𝒞`$ that this quantity should be almost zero in this cleft. Once more the spectral index of the tenors is very small.

#### V.2.3 Mixed Case

We now consider the case of one field having an inverse power potential and the other an exponential potential. Again, we can transform the inverse power law potential into a exponential potential. It is then clear from the discussion of the last two subsections that the results for the spectra must be similar, as one can observe in Figure 5.

#### V.2.4 Coupled Potential

Once more the features observed here are very similar to the cases studied so far. We set $`\beta =0.05`$ and vary the other parameters. The data are shown in Figures 6.

#### V.2.5 Compatibility with WMAP

In general, all our models generate almost scale–invariant spectra with minimal tensor production. This also allows both red and blue spectra as seen in Figure 7. Furthermore, we are able to get arbitrarily close to scale–invariance by allowing more inflation. In addition, we find that the perturbations produced are essentially uncorrelated.

Let us comment on the compatibility with current experiments. The WMAP results have provided strong constraints on the initial power spectrum and hence on inflationary models wmap . If one examines Figure 7 one sees that it possible to have

$`0.9n_{}1.3\mathrm{at}2\sigma .`$ (173)
We include the equivalent plot for our models.

One open issue we have not discussed is the end inflation. This may be caused by another scalar field. This process is, in general, non–adiabatic and would generate further entropy production which would add to that from the two fields. Hence, the spectra deep in the radiation dominated epoch depend on the details of reheating. Without a detailed study of this mechanism it is impossible to draw firm conclusions from the entropic values in all cases.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have studied in considerable depth inflationary solutions generated by two scalar fields and potentials of the form $`V=V_0\varphi ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\beta \varphi ^m)`$. This potential is very general and encompasses potentials motivated by supergravity and string theory and more general theories motivated by higher–dimensional gravity.

We have seen that it is possible to generate a large range of different inflating universes by varying the parameters in the theory. We find that slow–roll is a valid approximation by means of numerical calculations and we are able to verify that the analytic solutions presented in this paper hold. For two uncoupled fields (Section 3), we found that, often, only one of the fields is dominant. However, we also found solutions where both fields are important for the inflationary dynamics. For two coupled fields with the above potential (Section 4), we have found that only one of the fields dominates inflation, whereas the other field is only a background field. This case might be interesting if the background field acted as a curvaton field, for example.

We have used some of the background solutions we found to describe the evolution of the perturbations in two specific cases and, potentially, one would be able to find the transfer functions for all the solutions discussed here. We have demonstrated this with two examples. In general, however, one has to resort to numerical methods in order to evaluate the transfer functions. The solutions presented here thus allow one to make predictions about the relative size of $``$ and $`𝒮`$ for a large class of inflationary scenarios.

We made use of numerical calculations to investigate consequences for cosmological perturbations. We discussed the case where both fields contribute approximately equally to the expansion rate during a period of slow–roll inflation. We found that our models produce scale–invariant spectra with a small scalar–tensor ratio. By varying the parameters of the potential, it is possible to produce both red and blue spectra for the curvature perturbation. This is still consistent with observational constraints. Although the exact details depend on the initial condition of the fields, we don not expect our conclusions will be changed qualitatively. In the case of double inflation, one can generate uncorrelated polarski ,polarski2  as well as correlated perturbations, langlois . In contrast, in multi–field inflationary models with run–away potentials, the perturbations are always uncorrelated.

In order to make predictions for the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation, one has to follow the perturbations into the radiation dominated era, which involves a detailed calculation of the decay of both fields. Ending inflation in the class of models discussed here will involve presumably a third field, which becomes important just at the end of the inflationary stage.

In future work we will use some of these insights gained in this work in order study inflationary models in models with extra dimensions ashcroft .

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to H. Peiris and the other members of the WMAP team for Figure 7. The authors are supported in part by PPARC.


format: text

text:
# A parameter-free optical potential for the heavy-ion elastic scattering process

## Abstract

Thirty elastic scattering angular distributions for seven heavy-ion systems, in wide energy ranges, have been studied with the aim of systematizing the optical potential, real and imaginary parts, in a global way. The framework is: i) an extensive systematization of nuclear densities, ii) the energy dependence of the bare potential accounted by a model based on the nonlocal nature of the interaction, and iii) the real and imaginary parts of the optical potential assumed to have the same radial shape.

PACS: 24.10.Ht, 25.70.-z, 25.70.Bc
Keywords: Heavy-ion optical potential. Heavy-ion elastic scattering.

Elastic scattering is the simplest and most direct process involved in a nuclear reaction, and it can be used as the starting point to understand more complicated reaction channels. Over the last decades, different models were used for the real and imaginary parts of the optical potential to reproduce a large number of elastic scattering data involving heavy-ion systems. The optical model analysis using the conventional Woods-Saxon (WS) shape for the real and imaginary parts of the potential, although far from being fundamental, has presented the best means for the reproduction of the elastic scattering angular distributions, with six free parameters used in the data fits. However, there are problems in terms of obtaining a simple model for systematizing the WS optical potential parameters, in order to take into account the energy dependence, refractive effects in light heavy-ion systems, exotic nuclei systems etc. Particularly, for some systems the variation with the bombarding energy requires arbitrarily different sets of parameters, with different shapes and strengths for the potential. This arbitrariness calls for a more realistic model for the optical potential, which has been accomplished to a large extent by our work  on the nonlocal model for the real part of the nucleus-nucleus interaction. The central idea of the present work is to perform a further test of consistency of this model for the real part of the interaction, by using a very simple form to describe the imaginary part of the optical potential, and avoiding as much as possible the use of free parameters in accounting to the data.

A previous investigation  to identify similarities between the real and imaginary parts of the potential has been performed by considering the realistic Lax-type interaction, which has provided satisfactory fits of elastic scattering data at intermediate energies . The Lax interaction  (Eq. 1) is the optical limit of the Glauber high-energy-approximation , and it is essentially the zero-range double-folding potential used for both the real and imaginary parts:

$$U(R)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}v(\alpha +i)\sigma _T^{NN}\rho _T(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\rho _P(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r^{}})𝑑\stackrel{}{r^{}}$$
(1)
where $`v`$ is the relative velocity between the nuclei, $`\sigma _T^{NN}`$ is a spin-isospin-averaged total nucleon-nucleon cross section, $`\rho _P`$ and $`\rho _T`$ are the projectile and target nuclear densities, and $`\alpha `$ is a known energy-dependent quantity that determines the real part of the nucleon-nucleon forward elastic amplitude $`f_{NN}(E,0)`$. Eq. (1) is obtained from the optical theorem applied to $`f_{NN}(E,0)`$. The Lax-type interaction is not valid for low energies where collective reaction processes are important. Thus, the parameter-free description of low energy data is an open question in the determination of a fundamental potential. However, the procedure of using the same radial shape for the real and the imaginary parts of the potential has successfully been used in the present work.

In , we have developed another realistic model for the heavy-ion bare interaction, which takes into account the Pauli nonlocality involving the exchange of nucleons between the target and projectile. This model has presented the same validity at low and high energies, and has already been tested for a large number of systems . Within the nonlocal model, the bare interaction $`V_N`$ is connected with the folding potential $`V_F`$ through

$$V_N(R,E)V_F(R)e^{4v^2/c^2}$$
(2)
where c is the speed of light and $`v`$ is the local relative velocity between the two nuclei,

$$v^2(R,E)=\frac{2}{\mu }[EV_C(R)V_N(R;E)]$$
(3)
The folding potential (Eq. 4) can be obtained in two different ways : i) using the nucleon distributions of the nuclei and an appropriate form for the nucleon-nucleon interaction, and ii) using the matter distributions of the nuclei with a zero-range approach for $`v(\stackrel{}{r})`$. By matter distribution we mean taking into account the finite size of the nucleon. Both alternatives are equivalent in describing the heavy-ion nuclear potential , and in the present work we have adopted the zero-range approach.

$$V_F(R)=\rho _1(r_1)\rho _2(r_2)v(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r_1}+\stackrel{}{r_2})𝑑\stackrel{}{r_1}𝑑\stackrel{}{r_2}$$
(4)
For the Coulomb interaction, $`V_C`$, we have used the expression for the double-sharp cutoff Coulomb potential . This procedure is important in calculating cross sections at intermediate energies, where the internal region of the interaction is probed.

With the aim of providing a global description of the nuclear interaction, a systematization of nuclear densities has been proposed in Ref. , based on an extensive study involving charge distributions extracted from electron scattering experiments and theoretical densities calculated through the Dirac-Hartree-Bogoliubov model. In that study, we have adopted the two-parameter Fermi (2pF) distribution to describe the nuclear densities. The radii of the 2pF distributions are well described by

$$R_0=1.31A^{1/3}0.84fm,$$
(5)
where $`A`$ is the number of nucleons of the nucleus. The matter densities present an average diffuseness value $`a=0.56fm`$. Owing to specific nuclear structure effects (single particle and/or collective), the parameters $`R_0`$ and $`a`$ show small variations around the corresponding average values throughout the periodic table. However, as far as the nuclear potential is concerned, the effects of the structure of the nuclei are mostly present at the surface and mainly related only to the diffuseness parameter . This systematization of the nuclear distributions is essential to obtain a parameter-free interaction, since the folding potential depends on the densities of the partners in the collision. Within this context, an extensive systematization of optical potential strengths extracted from heavy-ion elastic scattering data analyses at low and intermediate energies was performed , and the experimental potential strengths have been described within $`25\%`$ precision.

As mentioned above, an important point that stands out in obtaining a description of the optical potential in a global way is the difficulty encountered in describing the imaginary part of the interaction within a simple model. A fully microscopic description based on the Feshbach theory is very difficult, and basically out of reach at low energies where collective as well as single particle excitations are involved in the scattering process. In previous works involving elastic scattering data fits , we have already used the nonlocal model for the real part of the interaction, and adopted a more modest procedure for the imaginary part by assuming two different models: WS with three free parameters, which has presented an excellent description of the data; and the parameter-free Lax-type approximation, which is based on a more fundamental theory but has not been used to describe low energy data. Motivated by the concept from the Lax approximation of using similar shapes for the real and imaginary parts of the potential, in this work we have extended Eq. (2), developed for the real part of the interaction, to the imaginary part of the potential, by simply multiplying it by $`N_i`$, where $`N_i`$ is a number to be fixed by adjusting the data.

$$W(R,E)=N_iV_N(R,E)$$
(6)
.

We have chosen the 12C + 12C, 16O, 40Ca, 90Zr, 208Pb; 16O + 208Pb and 40Ar + 208Pb systems as test cases due to the extensive experimental data available  over wide energy ranges, and principally because the special refractive characteristics involving some of these systems which makes them more sensitive to the real part of the interaction. In Figures (1) to (7) the solid lines correspond to the best data fits obtained by searching the $`N_i`$ parameter. We have opted for keeping the average density diffuseness value $`a=0.56fm`$ in the calculations, even though we could improve the quality of the data fits by allowing the diffuseness to be a free parameter. As one can observe (see Fig. 8), the $`N_i`$ parameter is approximately system-independent, with an average value $`N_i=0.78`$. Good elastic scattering cross section predictions are obtained using this average value for the whole data set (see the dotted lines in Figs. 1 to 7).

In summary, using the procedure described above we have obtained a good description of the whole data set, which has further validated our assumption for the real part of the interaction: the nonlocal model. We have also assumed a very simple model for the imaginary part of the potential, with only one, system- and energy-independent, free parameter: the average value for $`N_i0.8`$. In fact, the details of the imaginary part of the interaction seems not to be of much importance to the data fit. For example, in Fig. 7 (bottom) quite different values for $`N_i`$ $`(N_i=0.44`$ and $`N_i=0.78)`$ provide very similar predictions for the elastic scattering cross sections. The same behavior can be observed for the other systems (see Figs. 1 to 7). At a first glance this result seems to be surprising, but upon a second thought one does expect that the data are more sensitive to the real part of the potential, which determines the quantal transmission through the $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent barriers. In order to confirm this point, we have compared (see table 1) the reaction cross sections resulting from our optical model (OM) calculations (using the average value for $`N_i`$) with those from the geometrical limit of the barrier penetration model (Eq. 7)

$$\sigma _{BP}=\pi R_B^2(1V_B/E)$$
(7)
In most cases both forms of calculating the reaction cross section agree within about 20% precision. However, the values obtained from the OM calculations are more realistic. Indeed the reaction cross section values obtained with our OM calculations are very similar (see table 1) to those obtained through different methods in earlier works . Our results suggest using the present parameter-free model to get reliable estimates for heavy-ion elastic scattering and reaction cross sections. Extension of our findings to halo-nuclei is being pursued and will be presented elsewhere.

This work was partially supported by Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), under contract number 1998/11401-4.

Table 1: The optical model ($`\sigma _{OM}`$) and geometrical ($`\sigma _{BP}`$) reaction cross sections obtained in this work for several systems and bombarding energies. The table also presents the values (and corresponding references) for the reaction cross sections ($`\sigma _R`$) obtained through different methods in earlier works.

| System | $`E_{Lab}`$ (MeV) | $`\sigma _{OM}`$ (mb) | $`\sigma _{BP}`$ (mb) | $`\sigma _R`$ (mb) | Ref. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 16 | 542 | 508 | 600 | 30 |
|  | 112 | 1477 | 1759 | 1444 | 32 |
| 12C + 12C | 300 | 1374 | 1834 | 1296 | 31 |
|  | 1016 | 1055 | 1680 | 1000 | 24 |
|  | 1449 | 910 | 1560 | 907 | 24 |
|  | 21 | 209 | 167 | - | - |
| 16O + 12C | 260 | 1560 | 1877 | 1481 | 18 |
|  | 608 | 1420 | 1881 | 1374 | 18 |
|  | 1503 | 1143 | 1716 | 1136 | 23 |
|  | 180 | 2022 | 2083 | 2165 | 22 |
| 12C + 40Ca | 300 | 2015 | 2168 | 2030 | 22 |
|  | 420 | 1969 | 2180 | 2000 | 22 |
|  | 120 | 2310 | 2113 | 2219 | 22 |
| 12C + 90Zr | 180 | 2540 | 2406 | 2297 | 22 |
|  | 300 | 2652 | 2610 | 2415 | 22 |
|  | 420 | 2650 | 2670 | 2840 | 22 |
|  | 96 | 1854 | 1498 | 1791 | 28 |
|  | 116 | 2323 | 1944 | 2235 | 28 |
|  | 300 | 3205 | 3013 | 3300 | 22 |
| 12C + 208Pb | 420 | 3611 | 3393 | 3561 | 22 |
|  | 480 | 3634 | 3441 | - | - |
|  | 1030 | 3560 | 3501 | - | - |
|  | 1449 | 3344 | 3331 | 3136 | 6 |
|  | 2400 | 2905 | 2882 | 2960 | 27 |
|  | 129.5 | 1993 | 1553 | 2023 | 28 |
| 16O + 208Pb | 192 | 2878 | 2408 | 2847 | 28 |
|  | 312.6 | 3504 | 3067 | 3432 | 29 |
|  | 1500 | 3708 | 3530 | 3485 | 23 |
| 40Ar + 208Pb | 302 | 2476 | 1740 | - | - |
|  | 1760 | 4783 | 4059 | - | - |


text:
# 1 Bootstrap percolation 𝑚=5, 𝑝_𝑐 versus 1/ln(ln𝐿)

Threshold value of three dimensional
bootstrap percolation
Dirk Kurtsiefer

Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University, 50937 Köln, Germany
E-Mail: dk@thp.uni-koeln.de

The following article deals with the critical value $`p_c`$ of the three-dimensional bootstrap percolation. We will check the behavior of $`p_c`$ for different lengths of the lattice and additionally we will scale $`p_c`$ in the limit of an infinite lattice.

Introduction

Bootstrap percolation has been motivated to describe dilute magnetic systems in which strong competition exists between magnetic and non-magnetic spins. Kirkpatrick uses bootstrap percolation to discuss 3D arrays of storage servers and shows that bandwidth is the critical factor affected by the ”fail in place” disorder.
Let each site of a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice be occupied with probability $`p`$. Then we go through each lattice site and look at all $`2d`$ neighboring places. A lattice site stays occupied if at least $`m`$ of the $`2d`$ adjacent sites are occupied otherwise it becomes vacant all the time. We use a 0 for vacant and a 1 for occupied site (see  for a detailed description).
Let us look at the three-dimensional simple cubic lattice. We define the threshold as the value $`p`$ when an infinite cluster is created. An infinite cluster is here defined as a connected set of lattice points extending from top to bottom . We get $`p_c`$ as function of $`L`$.
We calculate the threshold for $`m=1,..,5.`$ In the case of $`m=0`$ we have usual percolation. In the case of $`m=6`$ lattice sites turn 0 if at least one lattice point is 0. When we turn down all lattice points at one go we have parallel updating. When we turn one after another in succession it’s sequential updating. Sequential and parallel updating lead to the same results, therefore we use the sequential updating to save computing time. We have used one bit per spin and tested the results in smaller lattices at one word per spin and odd lattice size. The results were tested with different random number generators. Up to 10000 samples were made.
Results

In the case of $`m=5`$ and $`m=4`$ all the lattice sites become to 0 if there is no infinite cluster. Schonmann shows rigorously that for all $`m>d`$ the threshold for $`L\mathrm{}`$ is 1. Besides it was proven that for $`m=4`$, $`1p_c`$ scales as $`1/\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}L)`$. In agreement with earlier results we obtained fig.1 to 4. In the case of $`m=5`$ we have a straight line leading to 1 if we plot $`p_c`$ versus $`1/(\mathrm{ln}L)^2`$ (fig.2). The theoretical prediction for $`m=4`$ could not be confirmed by simulations (fig.3). The best straight line $`L\mathrm{}`$ is found for $`p_c`$ versus $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}L)}`$ (fig.4). We have simulated lattices from $`L=4`$ up to $`L=4544`$. The biggest lattice sizes were simulated on the Cray T3E parallel computer in HLRZ Jülich on up to 128 processors.
The case $`m=3`$ is the only one that has a threshold for $`L\mathrm{}`$ between 1 and the normal threshold 0.3116. When we count the occupied sites we can observe a inflection point for the fraction $`\pi `$ of finally occupied sites as a function of the initial concentration $`p`$. But the maximal value of $`d\pi /dp`$ is reached at about $`p=0.62`$ for all sizes of $`L`$. Therefore the method doesn’t lead to a peak at the transition point or doesn’t have a sufficiently sharp peak to useful. We must use instead the Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm for cluster-analysis to find $`p_c`$. Hoshen-Kopelman have made a procedure that counts all cluster sizes. When $`k_i`$ is the number of clusters with $`i`$ sites we get $`\chi `$ as $`_i^{}i^2k_i`$. We get $`p_{av}`$ from the maximum of $`\chi `$, and average over many samples. We know that $`p_{av}p_c\sigma `$ and $`\sigma L^\nu `$ with $`\sigma `$ the width $`\sigma =\sqrt{(<p_{av}^2><p_{av}>^2)}`$. $`p_{av}`$ is the threshold for any $`L<\mathrm{}`$ and $`p_c`$ is the threshold for infinite $`L`$. We plot $`p_{av}`$ versus $`\sigma `$ and in agreement with  we get a threshold of 0.5726 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 (fig.5). We have a slight difference between even and uneven $`L`$. The Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm prolongs computation time to about 2.2 times it’s value without Hoshen-Kopelman. But computer memory limited our simulations because the larger lattice sizes need up to 1 GByte storage. The largest lattice size we have simulated is $`L=1696`$, the smallest one was $`L=31`$.
The cases $`m=2`$ and $`m=1`$ results in a value for the threshold similarly to the one expected, i.e. 0.3116 (fig. 6,7). Here the biggest lattice size is $`L=1504`$ at $`m=2`$ and $`L=1120`$ at $`m=1`$.
We have plotted only the even lattice sizes because when the lattice size is odd the width gets larger. The reason for getting to larger $`L`$ at $`m=3`$ is, we can save memory by Hoshen-Kopelman because the cluster becomes rectangular.
Finally, let us have a view at the two-dimension reversible bootstrap. It also called biased majority rule model, because the state $`x`$ at time $`t+1`$ is a majority function of the four neighbours at time $`t`$ with a bias toward occupation in case of a tie. Schonmann shows mathematically that for $`m=3`$ is $`C_1/\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}L}1p(L,\alpha )C_2/\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}L}`$. When we have parallel updating this may be correct but the differences between even and odd lattice size $`L`$ are significant (fig.8). When we apply sequential updating that doesn’t make any difference, but the critical point is lower. Sequential updating gets more empty sites by the same $`p`$ so we obtained a lower threshold. When we plot $`p_c`$ versus $`(\mathrm{ln}L)^{1/4}+8/L`$ (fig.9) we get a line extrapolated to 1.
Summary

We have independently confirmed older results even when they disagreed somewhat with theory for $`m=4`$ in three dimensions, and $`m=3`$ in two. Of course, the theories are valid only for $`L\mathrm{}`$ and perhaps not for our data. Our results are more accurate because we simulate bigger lattices and more lattice sizes. We get the following empirical finite-size corrections:

| critical behavior $`p_c`$ of the | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| three-dimensional bootstrap percolation | | | |
| $`m`$ | $`p_c`$ for $`L\mathrm{}`$ | versus | rigorously |
| 5 | 1 | $`1/(\mathrm{ln}L)^2`$ |  |
| 4 | 1 | $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}L)}`$ | $`1/\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}L)`$ |
| 3 | 0.5726 $`\pm `$ 0.0001 | $`\sigma `$ |  |
| 2 | 0.3116 | $`\sigma `$ | 0.3116 |
| 1 | 0.3116 | $`\sigma `$ | 0.3116 |
| 0 | 0.3116 | $`\sigma `$ | 0.3116 |
| two-dimensional bootstrap percolation | | | |
| 3 | 1 | $`(\mathrm{ln}L)^{1/4}`$ | $`(\mathrm{ln}L)^{1/2}`$ |

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Scott Kirkpatrick for inspiration to this article, Dietrich Stauffer for suggestions, Joan Adler and Nilton Branco for improving the text and GIF for indirect support.
References

1. J.Chalupa, P.L.Leath and G.R.Reich, J.Phys.C 12 (1979) L31
2. S.Kirkpatrick, appear in Physica A,2002
3. J.Adler, Physica A 171 (1991) 453
4. D.Stauffer and A.Aharony, Introduction to Percolation Theory, (Taylor and Francis, London,1992)
5. R.H.Schonmann, Ann Probab 20 (1992) 174
6. R.Cerf and E.Cirildo, Ann Probab 27 (1999) 1837
7. S.S.Manna and D.Stauffer, Physica A 162 (1989) 20
8. J.Hoshen R.Kopelman, Physical Review B 14 (1976) 3438
9. N.S.Branco and C.J.Silva, Int J Mod Phys C 10 (1999) 921
10. R.H.Schonmann, Journal of Statistical Physics 58 (1990) 1239
11. R.H.Schonmann, Physica A 167 (1990) 619
12. D.Stauffer, Physica Scripta T35 (1991) 66