format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The holographic principle realized in string theory in the form of celebrated AdS/CFT correspondence (for a general review, see ) brought to our attention not only the new concepts but also better understanding of well-known phenomena in high energy physics. In particulary, well-known RG theory has been enriched by the holographic RG (for a general introduction and list of references, see .) In frames of holographic RG it turned out to be easier to study the number of questions, like the check of so-called c-theorem conjectured in four dimensions in ref. by analogy with the two-dimensional Zamolodchikov’s c-theorem . In fact, it has been shown  (for earlier studies, see ) that four-dimensional c-theorem follows from classical supergravity side of AdS/CFT. The very important check of c-theorem in one-loop approximation (beyond classical supergravity approximation) has been recently done in ref..

The consideration of Gubser-Mitra  is very much related with Witten’s discussion of multi-trace operators  (see also ) and their dual gauge theory description in (asymptotically) AdS space. We may add a term given by the product of the two single trace operators $`𝒪`$, in the form of $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$, to the gauge theory Lagrangian. If the coefficient $`f`$ has the dimension of mass, the operator $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ is relevant and the RG flow is generated. In the RG flow, the UV fixed point corresponds to $`f=0`$ and the IR one to $`f=\mathrm{}`$. In the AdS side, the two fixed points can be specified by the boundary conditions for the massive scalar filed $`\varphi `$ corresponding to the operator $`𝒪`$. In , the one-loop vacuum energy of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ was discussed. The obtained vacuum energy itself diverges but the difference between the two vacuum energies corresponding to the different boundary conditions of $`\varphi `$ is finite. The difference between two vacuum energies corresponds to the difference of the values of c-functions in the UV and IR fixed points. Then we find the conformal invariance is broken by the one-loop effects, which lead to non-trivial RG flow. Since the one-loop effect gives the sub-leading correction in the $`1/N`$-expansion, the difference between the values of c-function in the two vacuum is the sub-leading.

The present work is motivated by the study done in ref.. Using the methods of above paper we search for the description of RG flow when double-trace operator for tachyon field is incorporated in the situation when bulk space is not pure AdS. Specifically, we start from the tachyon field living in 5d AdS black hole (BH). (It is not difficult to extend the calculation for other dimensions). It is known  that AdS/CFT correspondence is applied well to situation when bulk space is AdS BH so all discussion of ref. may be directly used. Since the black hole has a temperature, the corresponding dual CFT is thermal theory. It is known that Hawking-Page phase transitions occur between AdS BH and global AdS vacuum. These phase transitions have the AdS/CFT interpretation  as confinement-deconfinement transitions in dual gauge theory. Then, it is expected that RG flow induced by double-trace operator when bulk space is AdS BH which is dual to thermal QFT should be qualitatively more complicated. In particulary, some instability (divergence) corresponding to the description of phase transition should appear at the one-loop order. Indeed, such instability is explicitly found in our calculation of difference of vacuum energies at IR and UV.

Another interesting aspect of such RG flow investigation is related with the fact that it may be applied to another duality. To be specific, we considered also five-dimensional dS bulk space. This space is expected to be crucial in proposed dS/CFT correspondence. Despite the fact that explicit reasonable dual theory in dS5/CFT4 correspondence is not constructed yet, we found the corresponding RG flow and conjectured c-function in direct analogy with AdS/CFT. In other words, the check of four-dimensional c-theorem as it follows from dS/CFT correspondence (for a general introduction, see ) is done beyond the classical supergravity approximation.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we propose c-function from AdS black hole (no deformation case). Section three is devoted to the study of massive scalar field in five-dimensional AdS black hole bulk. Using simplified solution of Klein-Gordon equation which correctly reproduces the asymptotics of the scalar field in the bulk, the corresponding propagator is constructed. It is used in the calculation of difference of vacuum energies for boundary conditions specified by double-trace operator. The interpretation of instability in such difference as indication to Hawking-Page phase transition is given. Our investigation permits to propose c-function in AdS black hole phase using AdS/CFT, while usually it is not easy to define c-function in thermal QFT. Section four is devoted to the study of RG flow found in the similar way but for dS bulk. This discussion may be relevant for dS/CFT correspondence as it gives the information about conjectured c-function in the situation when dual CFT is not found yet. Some outlook is presented in final section.

## 2 c-function from AdS black hole: no deformation

Let us start from the discussion of c-function as it may appear from AdS BH. In , a candidate of the c-function from 5d AdS space has been proposed in terms of the metric as follows:

$$c_{\mathrm{GPPZ}}=\left(\frac{dA}{dz}\right)^3,$$
(1)
where the metric is taken in the warped form:

$$ds^2=dz^2+\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{e}^{2A}dx_\mu dx^\mu .$$
(2)
Then for the pure anti-deSitter (AdS) spacetime, where $`A=\frac{z}{l}`$, the c-function becomes a constant:

$$c_{\mathrm{GPPZ}}=l^3.$$
(3)
The c-function (1) is positive as it should be. Note that the c-function is monotonically increasing function of the energy scale $`z`$.

One may propose a similar c-function for the Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter (SAdS) space with the flat horizon:

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dr^2+r^2\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2,\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }=\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{\mu }{r^2}.$$
(4)
If we redefine the coordinates $`r`$ and $`x^i`$ by new ones $`\eta `$ and $`\widehat{x}^i`$ as

$$r^2=l\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l},x^i=l^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}\widehat{x},$$
(5)
and furthermore Wick-rotate the time coordinate $`t`$ to $`\theta `$ by

$$t=\frac{il^{\frac{3}{2}}}{2\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}\theta ,$$
(6)
the metric (4) can be rewritten as

$$ds^2=\frac{l^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}d\theta ^2+d\eta ^2+l^2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(d\widehat{x}^i\right)^2.$$
(7)
A little bit surprizingly, the obtained metric does not depend on $`\mu `$, which parametrizes the black hole (BH). As is clear from (5), the pure AdS ($`\mu 0`$) corresponds to $`\eta \mathrm{}`$ limit and the large black hole corresponds to $`\eta 0`$ limit. The horizon exists at $`\eta =0`$ or $`r^2=l\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. In order to avoid the orbifold singularity at the horizon, the Euclid time coordinate $`\theta `$ has a period of $`2\pi `$.

The obtained metric (7) does not have the warped form as in (2). Since $`\sqrt{g}=\mathrm{e}^{4A}`$ in (2), identifying $`\eta `$ with $`z`$ in (2), one may propose a c-function $`c_1`$ as

$$c_1=\left(\frac{1}{8}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}g}{d\eta }\right)^3.$$
(8)
When the metric can be written in the warped form (2), identifying $`\eta `$ with $`z`$, (8) reproduces (1). When the metric has a warped form (2), the scale transformation $`x^\mu \mathrm{e}^\lambda x^\mu `$ with a constant parameter $`\lambda `$ of the transformation can be absorbed into the shift of $`A`$ like $`AA\lambda `$. If we identify the coordinate $`z`$ as a parameter of the scale, the scale invariance requires $`\frac{d^2A}{dz^2}=0`$. Similarly for the metric (7), the scale transformation $`\theta \mathrm{e}^\lambda \theta `$ and $`x^i\mathrm{e}^\lambda x^i`$ with a constant $`\lambda `$ can be absorbed into the scale transformation of the metric $`\frac{l^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }\frac{l^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}`$ and $`l^2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda }l^2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}`$. Then if $`\eta `$ corresponds to the parameter of the scale transformation, the scale invariance requires $`\frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}\left(\frac{l^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}\right)=\frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}\left(l^2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}\right)=0`$. Then one may define two kinds of c-function corresponding to $`(\theta ,\theta )`$\- and $`(i,j)`$-components of the metric. The c-function (8) is a kind of the average of the two c-functions. At least, at the RG fixed point, if exists, where there is a scale invariant, we find $`\frac{dc_1}{d\eta }=0`$.

By using (7), one gets

$$g=\frac{l^8\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}{4}=\frac{l^8\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{4\eta }{l}}{16}.$$
(9)
Then

$$c_1=l^3\mathrm{tanh}^3\frac{4\eta }{l}$$
(10)
This expression reproduces (3) in the pure AdS limit ($`\eta \mathrm{}`$). We also note that $`c_1`$ is monotonically increasing function of $`\eta `$ and therefore the energy scale. It is interesting that c-function vanishes at the horizon $`\eta =0`$, which can be identified with the large black hole limit. The central charge, in general, measures the massless degrees of freedom. Then the vanishing central charge means that there are no massless modes. At the horizon, the time coordinate becomes degenerate (as well-known, anything near the horizon moves slowly for the observer far from the horizon). Then effectively, any mass or energy goes to infinity and only constant modes can survive there.

## 3 The scalar field in AdS black hole and one-loop vacuum energy for tachyon

In AdS/CFT correspondence, RG flow can be generated by the double trace operator. On supergravity side, the double trace operator corresponds to the scalar field with tachyonic mass. We now consider the propagation of the free scalar field $`\varphi `$ with tachyonic mass $`m`$ ($`m^2<0`$):

$$S_\varphi =d^5x\sqrt{g_{(5)}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{m^2}{2}\varphi ^2\right\}$$
(11)
in five-dimensional AdS BH. In the black hole spacetime (7), which has been Wick-rotated into the Euclidean signature, the Klein-Gordon equation has the following form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}{l^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}}_\theta ^2\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{2\eta }{l}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}}_\eta \left(\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{l}}\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{l}}_\eta \varphi \right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2,3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi }{\stackrel{~}{x^i}^2}}m^2\varphi =0.`$ (12)
Taking the plane wave, one replaces $`_\theta ^2`$ and $`\frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{x^i}^2}`$ by

$$_\theta ^2n^2,\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{x^i}^2}k^2.$$
(13)
Here $`n`$ is an integer. With redefined scalar filed $`\varphi `$

$$\varphi =\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\mathrm{sinh}^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{2\eta }{l}\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{2\eta }{l}},$$
(14)
the Schrödinger-like equation looks like:

$$_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\left\{\frac{1}{l^2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}4\right)+\frac{4n^2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l}}{l^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}+\frac{k^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{2\eta }{l}}\right\}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=m^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.$$
(15)
When $`\eta `$ is small, Eq.(15) behaves as

$$_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\frac{1}{\eta ^2}\left\{\frac{1}{4}+n^2\right\}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0.$$
(16)
Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}\pm n},$$
(17)
or by using (14), we find

$$\varphi \eta ^{\pm n}.$$
(18)
On the other hand, when $`\eta `$ is large, Eq.(15) behaves as

$$_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\frac{4}{l^2}\varphi =m^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(19)
and one gets

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{e}^{\pm \eta \sqrt{\frac{4}{l^2}+m^2}},$$
(20)
or

$$\varphi \mathrm{e}^{\eta \left(\frac{2}{l}\pm \sqrt{\frac{4}{l^2}+m^2}\right)}.$$
(21)
Using the coordinate $`r`$, we have

$$\varphi r^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm 2\pm \sqrt{4+m^2l^2},$$
(22)
which reproduces the usual AdS/CFT results, that is, the power law behaviour corresponds to the operator in CFT with conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$.

Since it is difficult to solve the Klein-Gordon equation exactly in the Schwarzschild-AdS background, we now consider a simplified model. From Eqs.(16) and (19), we can find that the $`\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$ or $`k`$-dependence is not essential for both of small $`\eta `$ and large $`\eta `$ cases. Then one may neglect the $`k`$-dependence for the qualitative argument. We now approximate the Klein-Gordon equation (15) by

$$_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\left\{\frac{4}{l^2}+\left(\frac{1}{4}n^2\right)\frac{1}{\eta ^2}\right\}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=m^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(23)
which reproduces (16) for small $`\eta `$ and (19) for large $`\eta `$. We also assume, instead of (14),

$$\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{l}{2\eta }}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\eta }{l}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(24)
which coincides with (14) in the large $`\eta `$ (except $`\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and small $`\eta `$ limits. The solution of (23) is given by the modified Bessel functions $`I_n`$ and $`K_n`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\alpha I_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)+\beta K_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)\right).$$
(25)
Here

$$\gamma \sqrt{\frac{4}{l^2}+m^2}.$$
(26)
Then one gets

$$\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{l}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\eta }{l}}\left(\alpha I_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)+\beta K_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)\right).$$
(27)
Since $`I_n(z)\frac{\mathrm{e}^z}{\sqrt{2\pi z}}`$ and $`K_n(z)\mathrm{e}^z\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2z}}`$ for large $`z`$, when $`\eta `$ is large, $`\varphi `$ given by combining (24) and (25) behaves as

$$\varphi \alpha \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\left(\frac{2}{l}+\sqrt{\frac{4}{l^2}+m^2}\right)\eta }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}+\beta \mathrm{e}^{\left(\frac{2}{l}\sqrt{\frac{4}{l^2}+m^2}\right)\eta }\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}.$$
(28)
In , the deformation of the CFT by the double trace operator

$$\frac{f}{2}d^4x𝒪^2$$
(29)
has been discussed from the AdS side. The parameter $`f`$ corresponds to the boundary condition for the bulk scalar field. In the present case, the boundary condition looks like

$$f=\frac{\alpha }{\pi \beta }.$$
(30)
With two independent solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_a=\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\alpha _aI_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)+\beta _aK_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)\right),a=1,2,$$
(31)
the propagator $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta ,\xi )`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ can be constructed as

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta ,\xi )=\frac{\varphi _1(\eta )\varphi _2(\xi )\theta (\eta \xi )+\varphi _1(\xi )\varphi _2(\eta )\theta (\xi \eta )}{\gamma \left(\alpha _1\beta _2\beta _1\alpha _2\right)}.$$
(32)
In fact $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta ,\xi )`$ satisfies the following equation, corresponding to (23):

$$_\eta ^2\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta ,\xi )+\left\{\frac{4}{l^2}m^2+\left(\frac{1}{4}n^2\right)\frac{1}{\eta ^2}\right\}\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta ,\xi )=\delta (\eta \xi ).$$
(33)
Then from (24) the propagator $`G(\eta ,\xi )`$ for $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$G(\eta ,\xi ;m^2)=\sqrt{\frac{l}{4\eta \xi }}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\left(\eta +\xi \right)}{l}}\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta ,\xi ).$$
(34)
Then the vacuum energy is expressed as

$`V(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{4}{l^2}}^{m^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2G(\eta ,\eta ;\stackrel{~}{m}^2)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\gamma ^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2G(\eta ,\eta ;\stackrel{~}{m}^2(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\gamma ^2}}d\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2{\displaystyle \frac{l\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}}{2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi _1\phi _2\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{\mathrm{cos}\phi _1\mathrm{cos}\phi _2I_n(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta )^2`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1+\phi _2)I_n(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta )K_n(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta )+\mathrm{sin}\phi _1\mathrm{sin}\phi _2K_n(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta )^2\}.`$
Here we denote

$$\alpha _a=\mathrm{cos}\phi _a,\beta _a=\mathrm{sin}\phi _a,$$
(36)
since the overall factor of $`\alpha _a`$ and $`\beta _a`$ is irrelevant for the propagator. By comparing (30), (32) and (36), we find

$$f=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{tan}\phi _1}.$$
(37)
On the other hand, the parameter $`\phi _2`$ could be determined from the boundary condition at the horizon $`\eta =0`$. It is natural that the scalar field is regular at the horizon. Then

$$\phi _2=0.$$
(38)
Since

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}I_n(z)^2=I_0(2z),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}I_n(z)K_n(z)=K_0(2z),`$ (39)
one gets

$$V(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\gamma ^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2\frac{l\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}}{2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}\phi _1}\left\{\mathrm{cos}\phi _1I_0(2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta )+\mathrm{sin}\phi _1K_0(2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta )\right\}.$$
(40)
The remark is in order. The obtained vacuum energy is generally divergent quantity. The calculation of vacuum energy as finite quantity requires the application of some regularization. Using mainly zeta-regularization, the calculation of above vacuum energy for bulk scalars and spinors on five-dimensional AdS space was performed in refs.. Instead of repeating such complicated calculations, we follow to the prescription developed in  and calculate the difference between vacuum energies corresponding to different boundary conditions specified by the double-trace operator. For pure AdS space such difference corresponds to difference between IR and UV points (end-points of RG flow) and is finite.

Then the difference of vacuum energies specified by the two boundary conditions corresponding to $`\phi _1=\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}`$ and $`\phi _1=\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}`$ is given by

$`\delta V`$ $`=`$ $`V\left(\eta ,\phi _1=\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\right)V\left(\eta ,\phi _1=\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}\right)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\gamma }𝑑\gamma \mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}I_0(2\gamma \eta )`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}\gamma }{2}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};1,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};\gamma ^2\eta ^2).`$
Here $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(a;b,c;z)`$ is a hypergeometric function. When $`\gamma =0`$, $`\delta V=0`$. This is consistent with the corresponding CFT. Since $`\gamma =0`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=2`$, the deformation of the CFT is marginal and the central charge does not change, that is, $`\delta V=0`$. Since $`f\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`\phi 0`$ and $`f0`$ to $`\phi \frac{\pi }{2}`$ and , if we consider the difference between $`f\mathrm{}`$ and $`f0`$, that is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_2\frac{\pi }{2}`$, $`\delta V`$ diverges. This is different from the result in pure AdS case and is presumably related with phase transitions as we argue below. For the pure AdS case, one gets

$$\delta V=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2l^5}\left\{\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2\right)^3}{3}\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2\right)^5}{5}\right\}=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2l^5}\left\{\frac{\gamma ^3l^3}{3}\frac{\gamma ^5l^5}{5}\right\}.$$
(42)
When $`\eta `$ is large, since $`I_0(z)\frac{\mathrm{e}^z}{\sqrt{2\pi z}}`$, we find $`\delta V`$ (41) behaves as

$$\delta V\frac{\left(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}\right)}{4}_0^\gamma 𝑑\gamma \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\left(\frac{4}{l}2\gamma \right)\eta }}{\sqrt{\gamma \pi \eta }}.$$
(43)
Therefore if $`l\gamma <2`$ ($`l\gamma >2`$), $`\delta V`$ exponentially decreases (increases). From the viewpoint of CFT, $`l\gamma =2`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=0`$.

Let us define $`F(\gamma ;\eta )`$ by

$$F(\gamma ;\eta )\frac{1}{2}_0^\gamma 𝑑\gamma \mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}I_0(2\gamma \eta )=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}\gamma }{2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\frac{1}{2};1,\frac{3}{2};\gamma ^2\eta ^2),$$
(44)
which appears in (41). Some plots have been given in Figure 2 for $`l\gamma =1`$, Figure 3 for $`l\gamma =2`$, and Figure 4 for $`l\gamma =2.1`$ as functions of $`\frac{\eta }{l}`$, which corresponds to the horizontal axis. When $`l\gamma 2`$, $`F(\gamma ;\eta )`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`\frac{\eta }{l}`$. When $`l\gamma >2`$, $`F(\gamma ;\eta )`$ increases exponentially for large $`\frac{\eta }{l}`$ and there appears a minimum. The minimum appears at $`\frac{\eta }{l}=7.6068\mathrm{}`$ and the minimal value of $`F`$ is $`0.0108396\mathrm{}`$. When $`l\gamma =4`$, there appears a minimum at $`\frac{\eta }{l}=0.4176\mathrm{}`$ and the minimum value of $`F`$ is $`0.910144\mathrm{}`$. In the language of the holographic renormalization group, the coordinate $`\eta `$ corresponds to the parameter of the scaling. If $`\delta V`$ corresponds to the difference of the central charges, the minimum, which appears for $`l\gamma >2`$, should correspond to the renormalization fixed point. On the other hand, as explained before, large $`\eta `$ corresponds to the pure AdS and small $`\eta `$ to the large AdS black hole. Then the minimum might divide two phases corresponding to the pure AdS or small black hole phase and the large black hole phase. Since the Hawking temperature is given by $`T_H=\frac{r_H}{\pi l^2}`$, the larger black hole has the higher temperature. Here $`r_H`$ is the radius of the horizon. Then the phase transition, if exists, might correspond to the thermal transition of the CFT.

Indeed, it has been suggested by Hawking and Page , there is a phase transition between AdS BH spacetime and global AdS vacuum. BH is stable at high temperature but it becomes unstable at low temperature, which can be understood from the free energy $`F`$:

$$F=\frac{V_3}{\kappa ^2}r_H^2\left(\frac{r_H^2}{l^2}\frac{k}{2}\right)$$
(45)
Here if $`k>0`$ the boundary can be three dimensional sphere, if $`k<0`$, hyperboloid, or if $`k=0`$, flat space. Properly normalizing the coordinates, one can choose $`k=2`$, $`0`$, or $`2`$. Then if $`k=2`$, the free energy $`F`$ vanishes at $`r_H=l`$, which is the critical point of the phase transition. From the point of view of the AdS/CFT correspondence , this phase transition corresponds to the confinement-deconfinement transition in dual gauge theory . Eq.(45) seems to tell that there is no phase transition when $`k=0`$ or $`k=2`$, which is not always true. There is an argument that it is easier to subtract the action of AdS soliton  instead of the vacuum AdS . In this case, besides the temperature, the area of the horizon becomes an independent parameter on which the thermodynamical quantities depend.

When $`k=0`$, the metric of SAdS BH (4) can be written as

$`ds_{\mathrm{BH}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _{\mathrm{BH}}(r)}dt_{\mathrm{BH}}^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _{\mathrm{BH}}(r)}dr^2+r^2\left(d\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left(dx^i\right)^2\right),`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _{\mathrm{BH}}(r)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left\{\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{l^2}}\right\}.`$ (46)
In (3), we choose a torus for the $`k=0`$ Einstein manifold for simplicity. The coordinates of the torus are $`\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and $`\{x^1,x^2\}`$. One assumes $`\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ has a period of $`\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}`$: $`\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}+\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}`$. The AdS soliton solution can be obtained by exchanging the signature of $`t_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ as $`t_{\mathrm{BH}}i\varphi _s`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{BH}}it_s`$. Then the metric of the AdS soliton is given by

$`ds_s^2`$ $`=`$ $`r^2dt_s+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _s(r)}dr^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _s(r)}d\varphi _s^2+r^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left(dx^i\right)^2,`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho _s(r)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left\{\mu _s+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{l^2}}\right\}.`$ (47)
The free energy $`F`$ is obtained as follows:

$$F=\frac{\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}V_2l^6}{\kappa ^2}\left\{\left(\pi T_H\right)^4\left(\frac{\pi }{l\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}}\right)^4\right\}.$$
(48)
Eq.(48) tells that there is a phase transition at

$$T_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{l\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}}.$$
(49)
Hence, when $`T_H>\frac{1}{\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}}`$, the black hole is stable but when $`T_H<\frac{1}{\eta _{\mathrm{BH}}}`$, the black hole becomes unstable and the AdS soliton is preferred. Although the AdS soliton solution is not connected with the SAdS solution by any continious parameter, the maximum of $`\delta V`$ (41), which appears when $`l\gamma >2`$, might correspond to the above phase transition.

Note that if one defines a c-function by

$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`\delta V\delta V(\eta =0)`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}\right)\left(F(\gamma ;\eta )F(\gamma ;\eta =0)\right),`$
the c-function $`c_2`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`\eta `$ if $`0<l\gamma 2`$ and $`\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}>0`$. We also note that $`c_2`$ vanishes by construction, at $`\eta =0`$ or large black hole limit as $`c_1`$ (10).

We now consider the difference between two black hole solutions. Let a radial coordinate of one of the black hole solutions is associated with a mass parameter $`\mu _1`$ as $`\eta _1`$ and another with $`\mu _2`$ as $`\eta _2`$. Then Eq.(5) shows

$$\xi \left(\frac{\mu _1}{\mu _2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta _1}{l}}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta _2}{l}},$$
(51)
We now assume $`\mu _2>\mu _1`$ and therefore $`\eta _1>\eta _2`$ and $`\xi >1`$. In the UV region, $`\eta _{1,2}`$ becomes large

$$\xi =\left(\frac{\mu _1}{\mu _2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\left(\eta _1\eta _2\right)}{l}}.$$
(52)
As an IR region, we consider a limit $`\xi _20`$. Then in the limit

$$\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\eta _1}{l}}\xi +\sqrt{\xi ^21}.$$
(53)
Here the sign in front of $`\sqrt{\xi ^21}`$ can be fixed since $`\eta _1>\eta _2=0`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\eta _1}{l}}>1`$.

When $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ are large, using (52) one gets

$`F(\gamma ;\eta _1)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^\gamma }𝑑\stackrel{~}{\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta _1}{l}+2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta _1}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta _1}}}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _2}{\eta _1}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\left(\eta _1\eta _2\right)}{l}}{\displaystyle _0^\gamma }𝑑\stackrel{~}{\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta _2}{l}+2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta _2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{l}\mathrm{ln}\xi }}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\eta _1}}},`$
and

$$\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta _1}{l}}F(\gamma ;\eta _2)<\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta _2}{l}}F(\gamma ;\eta _1)<\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta _1}{l}}F(\gamma ;\eta _2)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\gamma }{l}\mathrm{ln}\xi },$$
(55)
since $`\frac{\eta _1}{\eta _2}1`$. Let denote $`\delta V`$ (41) or (43) corresponding to $`\eta _1`$ as $`\delta V_1`$ and that to $`\eta _2`$ as $`\delta V_2`$. Then if $`(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)})>0`$, Eq.(55) indicates that

$$\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4}{l}\mathrm{ln}\xi }\delta V_2<\delta V_1<\delta V_2\mathrm{e}^{\frac{42\gamma }{l}\mathrm{ln}\xi },$$
(56)
in the limit that $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ become large by keeping the difference finite : $`\eta _1\eta _2=\frac{l}{2}\mathrm{ln}\xi `$. On the other hand, in the limit $`\eta _20`$, one has

$$\delta V_2\delta V_1=\left(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)}\right)\left\{\frac{\gamma }{2}F(\gamma ;\eta _1)\right\}.$$
(57)
Here $`\eta _1`$ is given by (53). The right hand side of (57) vanishes when $`\eta _1=0`$. When $`\gamma 2`$, since $`F(\gamma ;\eta _1)`$ is monotonically decreasing function as in Figures 2 and 3, we have if $`(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(1)}\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_{(2)})>0`$

$$\delta V_2<\delta V_1.$$
(58)
Even if $`\gamma >2`$, $`F(\gamma ;\eta _1)`$ is monotonically decreasing function for small $`\eta _1`$ as in Figure 4 and we obtain (58) but if $`\eta _1`$ becomes larger, we have

$$\delta V_2>\delta V_1.$$
(59)
Eqs.(58) and (59) indicate that there might be a phase transition ( the Hawking-Page phase transition) if the black hole radius becomes large. The point where $`\delta V_2=\delta V_1`$, of course, depends on the value of $`\eta _{1,2}`$. The point can be read off from Figure 4 by shifting $`\eta `$. The line of the graph obtained by the shift always crosses the line of the original graph. The crossing point corresponds to $`\delta V_2=\delta V_1`$. Thus, we demonstrated that away from phase transition , in AdS BH phase the conjectured c-function333It is known that formulation of RG in thermal QFT is ambigious as not only high energy but also high temperature limit may be considered. Then, the construction of c-function in thermal QFT is not so trivial. It seems that AdS/CFT correspondence as discussed above for AdS BH may provide an idea about correct c-function in dual thermal field theory. deformed by double-trace operator shows the monotonically increasing behaviour in accord with c-theorem. Note also that above consideration may be generalized to other odd dimensions.

The confinement-deconfinement transition at finite temperature occurs even without the double trace operator. Using the propagator (34) of the tachyonic scalar filed $`\varphi `$, we may consider the correlation function of the operators $`𝒪`$ corresponding to $`\varphi `$. From the AdS/CFT correspondence, the correlation function of two $`𝒪`$ is proportional to the propagator:

$$𝒪𝒪G(\eta ,\eta ;m^2)|_{\eta \mathrm{boundary}}.$$
(60)
The connected part of the two double trace operators is

$$\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2\left(G(\eta ,\eta ;m^2)|_{\eta \mathrm{boundary}}\right)^2.$$
(61)
We now consider the correlation functions in the coordinate space and use the Euclidean time $`\tau `$, which is defined by

$$\tau =\frac{l^{\frac{3}{2}}}{2\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}\theta =\frac{\theta }{2\pi T_H},$$
(62)
as in (6). Then by summing up the Fourier expansion, we obtain

$`G_4(\eta ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}G(\eta ,\eta ;m^2)\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi nT_H\tau }`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi nT_H\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{l\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}}{2\gamma \mathrm{sin}\phi _1}}\left\{\mathrm{cos}\phi _1I_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)^2+\mathrm{sin}\phi _1I_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)K_n\left(\gamma \eta \right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}}{2\gamma \mathrm{sin}\phi _1}}\{\mathrm{cos}\phi _1I_0\left(\gamma \eta \sqrt{2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi T_H\tau \right)\right)}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\phi _1K_0\left(\gamma \eta \sqrt{2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi T_H\tau \right)\right)}\right)\}.`$
Here $`\phi _2=0`$ is assumed as in (38) and the following formulae are used:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{sin}n\theta I_n(w)I_n(z)=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{cos}n\theta I_n(w)I_n(z)=I_0\left(\sqrt{w^2+z^2+2zw\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{sin}n\theta I_n(w)K_n(z)=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{cos}n\theta I_n(w)K_n(z)=K_0\left(\sqrt{w^2+z^2+2zw\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right).`$ (64)
As

$$r^2=\pi ^2l^4T_H\mathrm{cosh}\frac{2\eta }{l},$$
(65)
from (5), at low temperature limit $`T_H0`$ keeping $`\tau `$ and $`r`$ to be finite, we find

$$G_4(\eta ,\tau )\frac{l\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\eta }{l}}}{2\gamma \mathrm{sin}\phi _1}\left\{\mathrm{cos}\phi _1\frac{2\gamma \eta }{\sqrt{4\pi \gamma \eta }}+\mathrm{sin}\phi _1\mathrm{ln}\left(2\pi \gamma \eta T_H\tau \right)\right\}.$$
(66)
The last logarithmic term depending on $`\tau `$ is similar to the Green function for the massless scalar in two dimensions, which may occur since we neglected the $`k`$-dependence and substantially reduced the spacetime dimensions. On the other hand, at high temperature limit, which could correspond to the limit of $`\eta 0`$, we find

$$G_4(\eta ,\tau )\frac{l}{2\gamma \mathrm{sin}\phi _1}\left\{\mathrm{cos}\phi _1+\mathrm{sin}ln\left(\gamma \eta \sqrt{2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi T_H\tau \right)\right)}\right)\right\}.$$
(67)
The periodicity of the Euclidean time $`\tau `$ is typical for thermal field theory. From Eq.(37), in the UV limit, where $`f=0`$, the first terms in (66) and (67) vanish. On the other hand, in the IR limit, where $`f\mathrm{}`$, the first terms become large and the second terms can be neglected. Then in the IR limit, the $`\tau `$-dependences vanish, which means that the operator $`𝒪`$ becomes non-dynamical or decouples. The decoupling of the operator $`𝒪`$ in the IR limit can be naturally expected from the RG flow.

## 4 One-loop vacuum energy for scalar field in deSitter space

In this section, we consider the renormalization group flow in the context of the dS/CFT correspondence. The $`D`$-dimensional deSitter space can be realized by embedding the dS into $`D+1`$-dimensional flat space, whose metric is given by

$$ds^2=\left(dX^1\right)^2+\left(dX^2\right)^2+\mathrm{}\left(dX^{D1}\right)^2+\left(dX^D\right)^2\left(dX^{D+1}\right)^2$$
(68)
by the constraint,

$$l^2=\left(X^1\right)^2+\left(X^2\right)^2+\mathrm{}\left(X^{D1}\right)^2+\left(X^D\right)^2\left(X^{D+1}\right)^2.$$
(69)
The metric (68) and (69) is invariant under the $`SO(D,1)`$ transformation. Then deSitter space has an isometry of $`SO(D,1)`$, which is identical with the group generated by the conformal transformation in the Euclidean $`D1`$ space. Solving the constraint (69) by choosing the independent coordinates as

$$U=X^D+X^{D+1},x^i=\frac{1}{U}X^i,\left(i=1,2,\mathrm{},D\right),$$
(70)
we obtain the following metric of the dS:

$$ds_{\mathrm{dS}}^2=\underset{\mu ,\nu =0}{\overset{D1}{}}g_{\mathrm{dS}\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\frac{l^2}{U^2}dU^2+U^2\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(71)
Here $`x^0=U`$. If we change the coordinate $`U`$ by $`U=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{t}{l}}`$, the metric in (71) can be rewritten as

$$ds_{\mathrm{dS}}^2=dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2t}{l}}\left(dx^i\right)^2,$$
(72)
which has the form very similar to the metric of AdS:

$$ds_{\mathrm{AdS}}^2=dz^2+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2z}{l}}dx^\mu ds_\mu .$$
(73)
In case of AdS, the conformal symmetry can be realized on the surface with $`z+\mathrm{}`$. Then it is very natural to expect that the (Euclidean) conformal symmetry can be realized on the spacelike suface with $`t+\mathrm{}`$. The coordinate system in (72) covers the half of the whole deSitter spacetime. Using the coordinate system which covers the whole deSitter spacetime, the metric of the deSitter spacetime can be written as

$$ds_{\mathrm{dS}}^2=d\tau ^2+l^2\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{2\tau }{l}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(4)}^2.$$
(74)
Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(4)}^2`$ is the metric of 4d sphere with unit radius. The space-like surface $`t+\mathrm{}`$ in (72) corresponds to the surface $`\tau +\mathrm{}`$ in (74). Then even in the metric (74), one may expect that the conformal symmetry is realized on the the surface $`\tau +\mathrm{}`$. In the AdS/CFT set-up, the shift of $`z`$ in (73) corresponds to the scale transformation of the CFT. Then we may assume that the shift of $`t`$ in (72) should also correspond to the scale transformation. Therefore in a way parallel to , one may consider the RG flow and c-functions in the framework of the dS/CFT correspondence.

By using the expression of the metric (71), for the two points on the dS, $`SO(D,1)`$ invariant distance can be defined by

$`L^2`$ $``$ $`X_{(1)}^1X_{(2)}^1+\mathrm{}+X_{(1)}^DX_{(2)}^DX_{(1)}^{D+1}X_{(2)}^{D+1}`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{(1)}U_{(2)}\left(x_{(1)}x_{(2)}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_{(1)}}{U_{(2)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_{(2)}}{U_{(1)}}}\right).`$
Then when two points coincide with each other, one has $`L^2=l^2`$. In the following, we concentrate on the case of $`D=5`$. The propagator $`G`$ of the real scalar field $`\varphi `$ with mass $`m`$ should only depend on $`L^2`$ : $`G=G\left(L^2\right)`$. The equation determining the propagator

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{dS}}}}_\mu \left(g^{\mathrm{dS}\mu \nu }_\nu G\right)m^2G=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{dS}}}}\delta ^D\left(x_{(1)}^\mu x_{(2)}^\mu \right)$$
(76)
can be rewritten, when $`x_{(1)}^\mu x_{(2)}^\mu 0`$, as

$$0=\left(\frac{\left(L^2\right)^2}{l^2}+l^2\right)\frac{d^2G}{d\left(L^2\right)^2}\frac{5}{l^2}\frac{dG}{d\left(L^2\right)}m^2G=0.$$
(77)
With the new coordinate $`z`$ defined by

$$z=\frac{1\frac{L^2}{l^2}}{2},$$
(78)
Eq.(77) has the following form:

$$0=z(1z)\frac{d^2F}{dz^2}+\left(\frac{5}{2}5z\right)\frac{dF}{dz}M^2.$$
(79)
Here $`M^2m^2l^2`$. The solutions of (79) are given by Gauss’ hypergeometric functions $`F(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;z)`$:

$`G(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)l^3}}F(\alpha _+,\alpha _{},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}};1z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{l^3}}F(\alpha _+,\alpha _{},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}};z),`$
$`\alpha _\pm `$ $``$ $`2\pm \sqrt{4M^2}.`$ (80)
Note the above expression (4) is well-known, for example, see . $`z0`$ corresponds to $`x_{(1)}^\mu x_{(2)}^\mu 0`$. The coefficient of the first term is fixed to reproduce the $`\delta `$-function in (76). On the other hand the coefficient $`\xi `$ of the second term should be determined by the boundary condition. When $`z`$ is large, $`G(z)`$ behaves as

$`G(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\alpha _+\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(5\alpha _+\right)l^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)l^3}}+\xi (1)^{\alpha _+}\right)z^{\alpha _+}`$ (81)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\alpha _{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(5\alpha _{}\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)}}+\xi (1)^\alpha _{}\right)z^\alpha _{},`$
which corresponds to the asymptotic behavior of the scalar field $`\varphi `$:

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\alpha z^{\alpha _+}+\beta z^\alpha _{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\alpha _+\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(5\alpha _+\right)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)}+\xi (1)^{\alpha _+}\right)}{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\alpha _{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(5\alpha _{}\right)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)}+\xi (1)^\alpha _{}\right)}}.`$ (82)
Then the conformal weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ of the corresponding CFT primary fields in dS/CFT correspondence is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =4\alpha _{}=\alpha _\pm =2\pm \sqrt{4M^2}.$$
(83)
One may compare Eq.(83) with the expression for AdS, which is given by (22). Inside the square root, the sign of $`l^2`$ is changed. For AdS, if the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound $`m^2\frac{4}{l^2}`$ is not fulfilled, the conformal weight is real but in case of dS, in order that the conformal weight is real, there is an upper bound for the mass $`m^2\frac{4}{l^2}`$.

As in Eq.(30), the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (4) could be related with the coefficient $`f`$ (29):

$$f=\frac{\alpha }{\pi \beta }.$$
(84)
Using (4), we find the values $`\xi _0`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\xi `$ corresponding to $`f0`$ and $`f\mathrm{}`$, respectively:

$`\xi _0`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\alpha _+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(3\alpha _+\right)\left(2\alpha _+\right)\left(1\alpha _+\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \alpha _+\right)2^33\pi ^2}}\mathrm{e}^{i\pi \alpha _+},`$
$`\xi _{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^\alpha _{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _+\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha _{}\right)}{\left(4\pi \right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)}}`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(3\alpha _+\right)\left(2\alpha _+\right)\left(1\alpha _+\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \alpha _+\right)2^33\pi ^2}}\mathrm{e}^{i\pi \alpha _+}.`$
Then one obtains

$$G\left(f=\mathrm{},z=0\right)G\left(f=0,z=0\right)=\frac{\left(3\alpha _+\right)\left(2\alpha _+\right)\left(1\alpha _+\right)}{2^23\pi ^2l^3}.$$
(86)
The new parameter $`\gamma `$ may be defined:

$$\gamma \sqrt{4M^2}.$$
(87)
$`M^2=4`$ ($`m^2=\frac{4}{l^2}`$) corresponds to $`\gamma ^2=0`$. Note the mass is not always tachyonic. The difference $`\delta V`$ of the vacuum energies corresponding to the two boundary conditions is given by

$`\delta V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\gamma ^2}}d\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2\{G(f=\mathrm{},M^2=4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2,z=0)`$ (88)
$`G(f=0,M^2=4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2,z=0)\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi ^2l^5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)^5}{5}}\right).`$
The expression (88) is identical with that in the AdS bulk case in . The only difference is the sign inside the square root in the expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ (83). $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ in (83) becomes complex when $`M^2>4`$ or $`m^2>\frac{4}{l^2}`$, which may be a sign that the corresponding CFT is not unitary. We should also note that $`\delta V`$ (88) becomes purely imaginary when $`M^2>4`$.

One may now conjecture a c-function as

$`c_{\mathrm{dS}}`$ $`=`$ $`l^3\left(1+\delta V\right)`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`l^3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)^5}{5}}\right)\right).`$
The c-function is, of course, less than $`l^3`$, which is the value of the c-function before the deformation. Then it is consistent with the renormalization flow or c-theorem in four dimensions is fulfilled within dS/CFT. The situation is really funny, we have no the explicit example of dual CFT but the corresponding RG flow is known (and it actually coincides with AdS flow). We have observed that there should be RG flow even for dS/CFT in the same way as for AdS/CFT case . In  from CFT side it has been explicitly verified that it is the same RG flow interpolating between UV region, where the scalar operator has a dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, and IR region, where the dimension of the scalar operator is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$. Then the same arguments could be applied for dS/CFT correspondence where consistent dual CFT is not constructed yet. The geometry of dS will be determined by the leading order of corresponding ($`1/N`$?) approximation, as in the case of AdS, and the one-loop correction due to the scalar field will give next-to-leading order correction to the geometry. Thus, even in the absence of explicit example for dual CFT in dS5/CFT4 correspondence one can see that there is indication for existance of RG flow similar to AdS case.

## 5 Discussion

In summary, we found the difference of vacuum energies for boundary conditions specified by the double-trace operator. Five-dimensional AdS black hole which is dual to thermal QFT and deSitter space are considered. Using AdS/CFT (dS/CFT) correspondence such difference may be interpreted as difference between end-points of RG flow. As a result, the holographic c-theorem is verified beyond the leading order approximation, generalizing the correspondent check done in ref. for pure AdS space. The remarkable fact is about dS/CFT where we make predictions about c-function while explicit (probably , non-unitary) dual CFT is not constructed yet.

In Eq.(4), the propagator of the scalar field in the dS5 background has been constructed. The corresponding propagator in the (Euclidean) AdS5 background can be obtained by replacing the length parameter $`l^2`$ by $`l^2l^2`$ (or $`M^2=\frac{m^2}{l^2}M^2`$). In both of the dS and (Euclidean) AdS cases, the propagator only depends on $`SO(5,1)`$ invariant distance $`L^2`$ (75) or $`z`$ (78). In case of AdS5, one can choose the boundary, where dual CFT lives, to be flat 4d surface, 4d sphere, or 4d hyperboloid. Such a choice of the boundary can be transformed to each other by the $`SO(5,1)`$ transformation. Since the scalar propagator is invariant under the transformation, the results, say for $`\delta V`$ in , do not depend on the choice of the boundary.

As a final remark let us note that it would be really interesting to extend this discussion for the situation when other bulk fields present (five-dimensional gauged supergravity).

Note that recently similar questions with account of RG flow for bulk masses were addressed in .

## Acknowledgments

The work by S.N. is supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan under the grant n. 13135208 and that by S.D. O.-by AEI, Golm. S.N. is grateful to the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University and S.D.O. is grateful to H. Nicolai and Albert-Einstein-Institut, Golm for warm hospitality. We acknoweledge helpful discussions with K. Behrndt, G. Gibbons and M. Cvetic as well as with participants of the YITP workshop YITP-W-01-15 on ”Braneworld-Dynamics of spacetime boundary”.


text:
# Reconstructing the primordial power spectrum

## 1 Introduction

Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation have taken a leap forward with the recent announcement of the findings of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). With these new data it is possible to set important constraints on the shape of the primordial power spectrum and hence to begin to differentiate between the plethora of models for the early universe. One of the most intriguing results comes from a a combined analysis of the WMAP data with the two degree field galaxy redshift survey (2dFGRS) data (Spergel et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003), which indicates that the primordial power spectrum might have curvature. The addition of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest data on smaller scales to strengthen this conclusion is however contentious (Seljak et al., 2003). The low quadrupole and octopole observed in the CMB temperature power spectrum (Spergel et al., 2003) has a low probability in standard models, and may be an indication of some feature in the initial power spectrum on very large scales.

Both inflationary Big-Bang (Guth, 1981; Linde, 1982; Albrecht and Steinhardt, 1982) and more speculative cyclic ekpyrotic (Steinhardt and Turok, 2002) models of the early universe predict very nearly Gaussian scalar perturbations in the primordial radiation dominated era. The shape of the perturbation power spectrum depends on the exact model, which typically involves various unknown parameters. The objective of this paper is to constrain the shape of the initial power spectrum directly from observational data with as few assumptions as possible.

A wealth of cosmological information can be obtained from analysing the shape of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation temperature fluctuation power spectrum. However it has been shown that the effect of changing the cosmological parameters can be exactly mimicked by changes in the shape of the primordial power spectrum (Souradeep et al., 1998; Kinney, 2001). By including measurements of the CMB polarization and the late time matter power spectrum, as measured for example by galaxy redshift surveys, the degeneracy can be broken because the cosmological parameters affect these data in different ways. In this paper we combine temperature and polarization data from the WMAP observations and other CMB observations on smaller scales with constraints on the matter power spectrum from the 2dFGRS (Percival et al., 2002).

Since the initial power spectrum is an unknown function one is forced to parameterize it. There are numerous possibilities. Wang et al. (1999), Wang and Mathews (2002) and Mukherjee and Wang (2003a) use a number of bands in wavenumber. Mukherjee and Wang (2003b, c, a) also use a model independent approach but using wavelets. Barriga et al. (2001) test a particular inflationary model, in which a phase transition briefly halts the slow roll of the inflaton.

Inflationary models generically predict a monotonically slowly varying power spectrum, determined by the shape of the inflationary potential. More complicated inflationary models can give more interesting spectra at the expense of introducing parameters that are fine tuned to give effects in the small range of observable wavenumbers. In this paper we consider various different power spectrum parameterizations, motivated by theoretical models or features of the observed data. We also adopt a model independent approach which allows general trends or unexpected features to be detected.

In Section 2 we specify the framework used in the rest of the paper. We summarize the results of the conventional power spectrum parameterization (ie. a power law slope and running spectral index) in Section 3, and discuss the possible implications of the small large scale power detected by WMAP in Section 4. Section 5 describes a reconstruction of the primordial power spectrum in wavenumber bands on sub-horizon scales. We test a double inflation model over a particular range of wavenumbers in Section 6. In each section we discuss the implications for estimates of the other cosmological parameters.

## 2 Framework

The primordial scalar power spectrum $`P_\chi `$ is defined by $`|\chi |^2=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k𝒫_\chi (k)`$, where $`\chi `$ is the super-horizon comoving curvature perturbation in the early radiation dominated era. The commonly assumed power-law power spectrum parameterization is then

$$𝒫_\chi (k)=A_s\left(\frac{k}{k_{s0}}\right)^{n_s1}.$$
(1)
Here $`n_s(k)=d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_\chi (k)/d\mathrm{ln}k+1`$ is the conventional definition of the scalar spectral index, where $`n_s=1`$ corresponds to a scale invariant power spectrum (we use $`k_{s0}=0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ throughout). The power spectrum amplitude $`A_s`$ determines the variance of the fluctuations, with $`A_s^{1/2}5\times 10^5`$ to give the observed CMB anisotropy amplitude.

In slow roll inflationary models, it is expected that the spectrum varies only very slowly and that $`|n_s1|`$ is much smaller than unity (Lyth and Riotto, 1999). In general there is a direct relation between the potential of the inflaton field and the spectral index. As the potential evolves during inflation the spectral index can vary slightly as different modes leave the horizon. This can be characterized by including a second order term in the logarithmic expansion of the power spectrum $`n_{\mathrm{run}}`$, defined by

$$\mathrm{ln}𝒫_\chi (k)=\mathrm{ln}A_s+(n_s1)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k}{k_{s0}}\right)+\frac{n_{\mathrm{run}}}{2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k}{k_{s0}}\right)\right)^2.$$
(2)
The value of $`n_s`$ therefore depends on the pivot scale used, for example to convert to a new pivot scale the relation is $`n_\mathrm{s}(k_{s0}^{})=n_\mathrm{s}(k_{s0})+n_{\mathrm{run}}\mathrm{log}(k_{s0}^{}/k_{s0})`$. More generally double inflation models or multiple field inflation can lead to breaks and spikes in the primordial power spectrum, see eg. Linde (1990). This motivates a more general parameterization of the primordial power spectrum in terms of amplitudes over discrete bands in wavenumber.

The primordial power spectrum is related to the linear CMB anisotropy power spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{XY}`$ by a transfer function $`T_{\mathrm{}}^X(k)`$ via

$$C_{\mathrm{}}^{XY}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k𝒫_\chi (k)T_{\mathrm{}}^X(k)T_{\mathrm{}}^Y(k).$$
(3)
where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ denote the various temperature and polarization power spectra. The transfer function for a mode of wavenumber $`k`$ peaks at a multipole of about $`\mathrm{}kd_\mathrm{A}`$ where $`d_\mathrm{A}`$ is the angular diameter distance. For the concordance model the relation is roughly $`\mathrm{}(1e4\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})k`$. However the detailed shape of the transfer function is complicated and a range of wavenumbers contribute to each multipole (see eg. (Tegmark and Zaldarriaga, 2002)).

In this paper we vary four cosmological parameters, using flat priors on the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$, the cold dark matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}h^2`$, the Hubble constant $`h=H_0/(100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1)`$, and the redshift of reionization $`z_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (we assume $`6<z_{\mathrm{eff}}<30`$). The true ionization history may be complicated, so we assume there exists an effective redshift $`z_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at which a single rapid reionization gives a good approximation to the true CMB anisotropy. The temperature CMB anisotropy is fairly insensitive to the details of reionization, and the effect on the polarization is only on large scales where it is largely hidden by cosmic variance and the current observational noise, so this assumption should not affect our results significantly. Throughout we assume that the universe is flat with a cosmological constant. We assume purely Gaussian adiabatic scalar perturbations and ignore tensor modes in this paper. Since tensor mode perturbations decay on sub-horizon scales they only affect the large scale CMB anisotropy. Given our assumptions, if we find excess power on large scales this could, equivalently, be due to a tensor contribution rather than the shape of the scalar initial power spectrum.

We use the latest WMAP111$`\mathrm{http}://\mathrm{lambda}.\mathrm{gsfc}.\mathrm{nasa}.\mathrm{gov}/`$  (Verde et al., 2003; Hinshaw et al., 2003; Kogut et al., 2003) temperature and temperature-polarization cross-correlation anisotropy data. We also include almost independent bandpowers on smaller linear scales ($`800<\mathrm{}<2000`$) from ACBAR222$`\mathrm{http}://\mathrm{cosmology}.\mathrm{berkeley}.\mathrm{edu}/\mathrm{group}/\mathrm{swlh}/\mathrm{acbar}/\mathrm{data}`$ (Kuo et al., 2003), CBI (Pearson et al., 2002) and the VSA (Grainge et al., 2002).

We constrain the matter power spectrum at low redshift by using the galaxy power spectrum measurements of the 2dFGRS (Percival et al., 2002) over the range $`0.02<k/(h\mathrm{Mpc}^1)<0.15`$. We assume that the galaxy power spectrum measured by the 2dFGRS is a simple unknown multiple of the underlying matter power spectrum (linear bias), so in our analysis the 2dFGRS data serves to constrain the shape but not (directly) the amplitude of the matter power spectrum. In principle the matter power spectrum is directly proportional to the primordial power spectrum however in practice, due to the finite volume observed, the data constrain a smeared version of the underlying matter power spectrum. This makes it harder to detect any sharp features in the primordial power spectrum, as investigated by Elgaroy et al. (2002).

To evaluate the posterior distributions of parameters given the data we use the Markov-Chain Monte Carlo method to generate a list of samples (coordinates in parameter space) such that the number density of samples is proportional to the probability density. We use a modified version of the CosmoMC333$`\mathrm{http}://\mathrm{cosmologist}.\mathrm{info}/\mathrm{cosmomc}/`$ code, using CAMB (Lewis et al., 2000) (based on CMBFAST (Seljak and Zaldarriaga, 1996)) to generate the CMB and matter power spectrum transfer functions. CosmoMC uses the Metropolis-Hasting algorithm to explore the posterior probability distribution in a piece-wise manner, allowing us to exploit the fact that for each transfer function computed many different values of the initial power spectra parameters can be changed at almost no additional computational cost. For further details see Lewis and Bridle (2002); Christensen et al. (2001); Verde et al. (2003) and references therein. Most of the chains for the analysis here were computed in around a day using spare nodes of the CITA beowulf cluster, with each node running one chain parallelized over the two processors. Between 4 and 20 converged chains were generated for each set of parameters, burn in samples were removed, leaving of the order of $`10^5`$$`10^6`$ accepted positions in parameter space from which the results in this paper were computed.

## 3 Power law spectra with and without a running spectral index

In most parameter studies the scalar initial power spectrum is parameterized by a constant spectral index $`n_s`$ and an amplitude. Even with only two parameters defining the primordial power spectrum there are large degeneracies between these and the other cosmological parameters. For example larger baryon densities decrease the height of the CMB second acoustic peak thereby mimicking the effect of a red spectral tilt.

Using the WMAP (Hinshaw et al., 2003; Kogut et al., 2003) power spectrum results alone we find a tight marginalized constraint $`n_s30.4(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.025)=1.04\pm 0.02`$ (68% confidence). However the orthogonal direction is very poorly constrained with444This wide spread may be partly due the to approximations used in the WMAP likelihood parameterization. $`n_s+30.4(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.025)=1\pm 0.14`$. The best fit model to the WMAP data (Spergel et al., 2003) with $`n_s=0.97`$ can be closely approximated by completely different models with $`n_s>1.1`$, higher reionization redshifts, rapid Hubble expansion and high power spectrum amplitude. On integrating out the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ the constraint on the spectral index weakens to $`n_s=1.05\pm 0.08`$. Similarly the amplitude of the primordial curvature fluctuations on $`0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ scales is constrained by WMAP to be $`A_s^{1/2}=(5.5\pm 0.8)\times 10^5`$, whereas the parameter combination $`A_s^{1/2}e^\tau =(4.3\pm 0.1)\times 10^5`$ is much more tightly constrained since it comes directly from the observed temperature anisotropy amplitude. To partially break these degeneracies the WMAP team adopt a prior on the reionization optical depth of $`\tau <0.3`$. By adding the 2dFGRS and additional CMB data at $`\mathrm{}>800`$ we find the parameter constraints which broadly agree with the analysis reported by the WMAP team (Spergel et al., 2003), see Fig. 5 below.

By adding a running spectral index we find the marginalized 1-sigma result $`n_{\mathrm{run}}=0.04\pm 0.03`$ shown by the solid line in the right hand panel of Fig. 1, in rough agreement with the WMAP team. For the pivot scale used ($`k_{s0}=0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) a red tilt is preferred (left hand panel of Fig. 1). As expected, the effect of adding $`n_{\mathrm{run}}`$ as a free parameter is to increase the uncertainties on the cosmological parameters but only within the original uncertainties.

We find that the evidence for running comes predominantly from the very largest scale multipoles. When we exclude $`\mathrm{}<5`$ multipoles from the WMAP temperature (TT) likelihood the running spectral index distribution shifts to becomes highly consistent with $`n_{\mathrm{run}}=0`$, as shown in Fig. 1 . The constraints on all cosmological parameters except for $`n_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{run}}`$ are changed very little on removing the lowest multipoles. The running parameterization is therefore not ideally suited to the data: WMAP provides some evidence for low power on the very largest scales, but this is only crudely fit by using a running spectral index. The WMAP analysis relies on Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest at wavenumbers greater than $`k0.1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ to give evidence for more red tilt on small scales consistent with a running index, but the validity of this analysis is in serious doubt Seljak et al. (2003). We conclude that the marginal preference for a running spectral index from our CMB + 2dFGRS analysis is primarily driven by the first three CMB multipoles.

## 4 Power spectrum on the largest observable scales

The quadrupole and octopole estimators observed by WMAP are low compared to the other large scale multipoles. In a given model the low multipole estimators have a wide $`\chi ^2`$-like distribution (which has the peak below the ensemble mean), so the low values could just be chance. However any model that predicts small values for the low multipoles would be favoured by the data, by a factor of up to about fourty, so this could be a hint that there is a sharp fall in power on the largest scales. Tegmark et al. (2003) find that the quadrupole and octopole appear to be aligned, perhaps indicative of some anisotropic effect on on very large spatial scales which would not be well modeled by a statistically isotropic power spectrum model. Here we assume that the alignment is a coincidence, and proceed to consider whether the shape of the initial power spectrum could help to explain the low large scale signal.

There is only a limited amount of information on the largest scales due to cosmic variance, so we cannot hope to fit many extra parameters. We choose to assume there is a sharp total cut-off in the primordial power on scales larger than $`k=k_c`$ (for a discussion of an exponential cut-off in closed models see Efstathiou (2003); see Contaldi et al. (2003) for possible motivation for a cut-off). As discussed in the previous section a constant spectral index is a good fit on smaller scales, so we parameterize the primordial spectrum as

$$𝒫_\chi (k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& k<k_c\hfill \\ A_s\left(\frac{k}{k_{s0}}\right)^{n_s1}& kk_c.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Marginalizing over the other parameters we find the constraint on $`k_c`$ shown in the upper panel of Fig. 2. We find a preference for a cut-off at $`k_c=(2.7_{1.6}^{+0.5})\times 10^4\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, a scale which can give a significantly lower quadrupole and octopole without significantly affecting the higher multipoles (lower panels of Fig. 2). However, according to this model a spectrum with no cut-off is not strongly excluded by the data. Our parameterization cannot achieve values for the quadrupole as low as observed because there is a significant Integrated-Sachs Wolfe contribution to the quadrupole from scales smaller than the cut. The best-fit cut-off model has a very similar probability to the best-fit running model, although the cut-off model is marginally preferred. The constraints on the cosmological parameters are virtually unaffected by adding this free cut-off scale.

A comparison with Spergel et al. (2003)’s assessment of the significance of the low CMB power at small multipoles is not straightforward because the statistical tests differ. A more detailed analysis of this important issue is required, but given the results of Fig. 2 it would seem premature to discard simple continuous power law models.

## 5 Power spectrum reconstruction in wavenumber bands

On smaller scales there is now a wealth of data available to constrain the primordial power spectrum in considerable generality. Here we choose to parameterize the spectrum in a number of bands, which has the advantage that it is free from any assumptions about the underlying model. This generality can in principle reveal unexpected features in the primordial power spectrum on scales comparable to (or larger than) the band width. The disadvantage is that there are a large number of free parameters so care is needed to obtain meaningful results.

The initial power spectrum is only indirectly constrained by the observational data. Since we do not model the biasing in the 2dFGRS galaxy power spectrum, the only direct constraint on the amplitude (as opposed to the shape) comes from the CMB anisotropy power spectra. On scales smaller than the horizon size at reionization ($`\mathrm{}40`$) the observed power in the CMB anisotropy scales as $`e^{2\tau }𝒫_\chi (k)`$, depending on the optical depth to reionization $`\tau `$. We therefore parameterize the shape of the initial power spectrum by the value of $`e^{2\tau }𝒫_\chi (k)`$ at a set of points, and linearly interpolate (in $`k`$) between the points. We then refer to the power at each point as the power in a ‘band’ at that wavenumber. Our parameters $`b_i`$ are defined by

$$e^{2\tau }𝒫_\chi (k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(k_{i+1}k)b_i+(kk_i)b_{i+1}}{k_{i+1}k_i}& k_i<k<k_{i+1}\hfill \\ b_n& k>k_n\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where the first line applies for $`1in1`$. We set the position of the first band to $`k_1=0`$ and that of the second band to $`k_2=0.005\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, so we only have two bands over the region where the data are effected by the modes which are super-horizon at reionization and hence do not scale simply with $`e^{2\tau }`$. Subsequent band positions on smaller scales are logarithmically spaced with $`k_{i+1}=1.275k_i`$, where the constant is chosen such that $`k_{16}=0.15\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We assume a flat prior on each of the $`b_i`$. This prior is equivalent to a flat prior on the underlying power spectrum $`e^{2\tau }b_i`$, together with a prior on the optical depth $`P(\tau )e^{2n\tau }`$. Constraints on quantities sensitive to $`\tau `$ depend strongly on the choice prior for large numbers of bands. This is one reason we reconstruct $`b_i`$, which are more directly constrained by the data and have the main dependence on $`\tau `$ taken out, rather than $`𝒫_\chi (k)`$ directly. Our choice of prior gives a posterior constraint on the optical depth similar to (but somewhat broader than) that with the simple spectral index parameterization.

Fig. 3 shows the CMB temperature power spectra for top hat primordial power spectra which are zero except for the range $`(k_{i1}+k_i)/2<k<(k_i+k_{i+1})/2`$ (except for $`i=1`$ where $`0<k<k_2/2`$) for a concordance model. All the primordial power spectrum top hats have the same absolute height. The result illustrates the rough correspondence between the position of the bands we use and the CMB power spectrum peaks, showing that there is one band covering much of the large scales, and several bands over the first acoustic peak, with only one or two bands for each of the subsequent few peaks.

Our reconstruction of the shape of the initial power spectrum is shown in Fig. 4. The crosses and error bars show the peak and 68% upper and lower limits of the marginalized distributions. The probability distribution of all but the last band is close to Gaussian, although some bands are correlated at around the fifty per cent level. The maximum correlation is 80 per cent, which is a positive correlation between bands around the first acoustic peak of the CMB. We have checked that our constraints on the sub-horizon $`b_i`$ agree well with those obtained by fixing the optical depth to $`\tau =0.17`$ rather than marginalizing over it. The overall shape is consistent with a featureless scale invariant power spectrum, though perhaps an overall red tilt is discernible, bearing in mind the large error bar on the small scale point. We do not see the feature at $`k0.015\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ suggested by Mukherjee and Wang (2003b). Our reconstruction is complementary to that in Mukherjee and Wang (2003a) since our inter-band separation is one third of theirs. Also, we use linear interpolation instead of wavelets or top-hat bins, which makes the primordial power spectrum relatively smooth.

In Fig. 5 we investigate how robust the cosmological parameter estimates are to this general primordial power spectrum. Dashed lines show the cosmological parameter constraints assuming a power law primordial power spectrum, marginalising over $`n_s`$. Overlaid, the solid lines show the result after allowing freedom in the amplitudes of the 16 bands. The error contours are broader but remarkably show that it is still possible to recover interesting constraints on the cosmological parameters even if one allows the large amount of freedom in the primordial power spectrum shape.

It is important to emphasize that this method of power spectrum differs from earlier work such as that by Gawiser and Silk (1998) because the MCMC reconstruction properly accounts for the allowed ranges of all of the parameters defining the model.

## 6 Broken power spectrum

In this section we use a parameterization motivated by double inflation, previously explored by Barriga et al. (2001). In this model

$$𝒫_\chi (k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}A& k<k_1\hfill \\ Ck^{\alpha 1}& k_1<k<k_2\hfill \\ B& k>k_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`C`$ and $`\alpha `$ are chosen such that the power spectrum is continuous. As in Barriga et al. (2001) we take flat priors on $`k_1`$, $`A/B`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(k_2/k_1)`$ and we limit the parameter space to $`0.01<k_1/\mathrm{Mpc}^1<0.1`$, $`0.3<A/B<7.2`$ and $`0.01<\mathrm{log}(k_2/k_1)<4`$. In addition we impose a prior $`k_2<0.1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ so that we explore a transition only in the region probed by the observational data.

In Fig. 6 we show the constraints on the model parameters after marginalising over four cosmological parameters. A conventional scale-invariant spectrum corresponds to $`A/B=1`$ and we can see that this possibility is very close to the 1$`\sigma `$ contours. Values of $`A/B`$ higher than unity are preferred, corresponding to a drop in the initial power spectrum on going from large to small scales. This is not surprising since the data favour red tilts, and in this parameterization a tilt is obtained by having a long transition between a higher flat spectrum on large scales and a lower flat spectrum on small scales. The distribution is slightly bimodal, with the first mode roughly corresponding to a wide transition straddling the first CMB acoustic peak and the second corresponding to a drop in power in the dip between the first and second peaks. The expected strong correlation between $`A/B`$ and the baryon density is clear. We find that removing the first three multipoles has no effect on the parameter constraints on this model.

We show in Fig. 7 the power spectra corresponding to 20 samples in the MCMC chain. There is considerable spread, but the transition, if any, occurs at around $`k0.04\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. This corresponds roughly to the scale at which the 2dFGRS data becomes statistically significant. Since the 2dFGRS data may disfavour a transition at higher wavenumber and the WMAP data would disfavour a transition at lower wavenumber then neither the amplitude or the scale of the break is likely to be of any physical significance.

The effect of adding these additional parameters on the estimates of cosmological parameters is small; the biggest effect is to widen the allowed range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ to include smaller values. This is due to the fact that a preferred position for any transition is between the first two acoustic CMB peaks, and it is also this ratio that determines the baryon density.

## 7 Conclusions

We have explored various parameterizations of the primordial power spectrum and found that in each case a simple scale invariant spectrum is an acceptable fit to the data. Some deviation towards a red tilt is preferred and there is a marginal indication of a cut-off in power on the largest observable scales. Significantly, even if the power spectrum is allowed to vary over a large number of wavenumber bands on sub-horizon scales the reconstructed spectrum is found to be featureless and close to scale invariant. In addition we have shown how the constraints on the other cosmological parameters are affected by the addition of this extra freedom in the primordial power spectrum shape: the error bars on cosmological parameters are significantly amplified but the resulting constraints are still strong and roughly similar to those before the recent WMAP results. The unexpectedly small power on superhorizon scales observed by WMAP, if real, provides marginal evidence for a drop in the primordial power spectrum on the largest observable scales.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Carlo Contaldi and the Cambridge Leverhulme Group for helpful discussions, in particular Anze Slosar, Ofer Lahav, Anthony Lasenby, Dan Mortlock, Carolina Odman and Mike Hobson. SLB acknowledges support from PPARC and a Selwyn College Trevelyan Research Fellowship. JW is supported by the Leverhulme Trust and Kings College Trapnell Fellowship. The beowulf computer used for this analysis was funded by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ontario Innovation Trust. We also used the UK National Cosmology Supercomputer Center funded by PPARC, HEFCE and Silicon Graphics / Cray Research.