text:
# An approach to exact solutions of the time-dependent supersymmetric two-level three-photon Jaynes-Cummings model

## I Introduction

The interaction between a two-level atom and a quantized single-mode electromagnetic field can be described by the Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM)  which has been applied to investigate many quantum effects such as the quantum collapses and revivals of the atomic inversion, photon antibunching, squeezing of the radiation field, inversionless light amplification, electromagnetic induced transparency, etc.. In addition to the standard JCM, there exists another type of JCM which possesses supersymmetric structure. In this generalization of the J-C model, the atomic transitions are mediated by $`k`$ photons. Singh has shown that this model can be used to study multiple atom scattering of radiation and multiphoton emission, absorption, and laser processes. Some authors introduced a supersymmetric unitary transformation to diagonalize the Hamiltonian of this supersymmetric JCM and obtain the eigenfunctions of the stationary Schrödinger equation. It is of great interest to investigate the geometric phase factor of the time-dependent JCM since the geometric phase factor appears only in systems with the time-dependent Hamiltonian. It can be verified as shown in the present paper that the exact solutions and the geometric phase factor of the two-level JCM whose Hamiltonian has time-dependent parameters can also be obtained by making use of the generalized invariant theory. For simplicity and convenience, in this paper we only investigate the time-dependent supersymmetric two-level three-photon Jaynes-Cummings model (TLTJCM). This method can also be generalized to the time-dependent JCM with more than three photons.

The invariant theory which is appropriate for treating time-dependent systems was first proposed by Lewis and Riesenfeld (L-R) in 1969. In 1991, Gao et al. generalized the L-R invariant theory and proposed the invariant-related unitary transformation formulation. In this formulation the eigenstates of the time-dependent invariants are replaced with those of the time-independent invariants through the unitary transformation and the exact solutions (which contain the dynamical and geometric phase factor) of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation are obtained. Many works have shown that the invariant-related unitary transformation approach is a powerful tool for treating time-dependent problems and geometric phase factor.

## II The exact solutions of the time-dependent TLTJCM

The Hamiltonian of the TLTJCM under the rotating wave approximation is given by

$$H(t)=\omega (t)a^{}a+\frac{\omega _0(t)}{2}\sigma _z+g(t)(a^{})^3\sigma _{}+g^{}(t)a^3\sigma _+,$$
(1)
where $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for the electromagnetic field, and obey the commutation relation $`[a,a^{}]=1`$; $`\sigma _\pm `$ and $`\sigma _z`$ denote the two-level atom operators which satisfy the commutation relation $`[\sigma _z,\sigma _\pm ]=\pm 2\sigma _\pm `$ ; $`g(t)`$ and $`g^{}(t)`$ are the coupling coefficients and $`3`$ is the photon number in each atom transition process; $`\omega _0(t)`$ and $`\omega (t)`$ are respectively the transition frequency and the mode frequency. All the parameters in Eq. (1) are time-dependent, and the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for this system is

$$i\frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s}{t}=H(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s.$$
(2)
The supersymmetric structure can be found in the TLTJCM by defining the following supersymmetric transformation generators:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}a+\sigma _z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},N^{^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^3(a^{})^3& 0\\ 0& (a^{})^3a^3\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`(a^{})^3\sigma _{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ (a^{})^3& 0\end{array}\right),Q^{}=a^3\sigma _+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& a^3\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
It is easily verified that $`(N,N^{^{}},Q,Q^{})`$ form supersymmetric generators and have supersymmetric Lie algebra properties, i.e.,

$`Q^2`$ $`=`$ $`(Q^{})^2=0,[Q^{},Q]=N^{^{}}\sigma _z,[N,N^{^{}}]=0,[N,Q]=Q,`$ (11)
$`[N,Q^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`Q^{},\{Q^{},Q\}=N^{^{}},\{Q,\sigma _z\}=\{Q^{},\sigma _z\}=0,`$ (12)
$`[Q,\sigma _z]`$ $`=`$ $`2Q,[Q^{},\sigma _z]=2Q^{},\left(Q^{}Q\right)^2=N^{^{}},`$ (13)
where $`\left\{\right\}`$ denotes the anticommuting bracket. By the aid of Eqs. (10) and (13), the Hamiltonian (1) of the TLTJCM can be rewritten as

$$H(t)=\omega (t)N+\frac{\omega _0(t)2\omega (t)}{2}\sigma _z+g(t)Q+g^{}(t)Q^{}\frac{\omega (t)}{2}.$$
(14)
According to the L-R invariant theory, one should first construct an invariant $`I(t)`$ in order to show the solvability of Eq. (2). A Hermitian operator $`I(t)`$ is called invariant if it satisfies the following invariant equation

$$\frac{I(t)}{t}+\frac{1}{i}[I(t),H(t)]=0,$$
(15)
and the eigenvalue equation of the time-dependent invariant is given by

$$I(t)|\lambda _n,t=\lambda _n|\lambda _n,t,$$
(16)
where $`\frac{\lambda _n}{t}=0.`$ It can be seen from the invariant equation (15) that $`I(t)`$ is the linear combination of $`N,\sigma _z,Q`$ and $`Q^{}.`$ However, it should be emphasized that the generalized invariant theory can only be applied to study the system with the quasialgebra defined in. Unfortunately, there is no such quasialgebra for the TLTJCM in Eq. (13). Many problems have been solved in Quantum Mechanics by working in the sub-Hilbert-space corresponding to a particular eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian . We show that in the case of the TLTJCM, a generalized quasialgebra, which enables one to obtain the complete set of the exact solutions for the TLTJCM, can also be found by working in a sub-Hilbert-space corresponding to a particular eigenvalue of the supersymmetric generator $`N^{^{}}`$.

Using $`a^3(a^{})^3|m=\frac{(m+3)!}{m!}|m`$ and $`(a^{})^3a^3|m+3=\frac{(m+3)!}{m!}|m+3,`$one can arrive at

$$N^{^{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m}{|m+3}\right)=\lambda _m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m}{|m+3}\right)$$
(17)
with $`\lambda _m=\frac{(m+3)!}{m!}.`$ One thus obtains the supersymmetric quasialgebra $`(N,Q,Q^{},\sigma _z)`$ in the sub-Hilbert-space corresponding to the particular eigenvalue $`\lambda _m`$ of $`N^{^{}},`$ by replacing the generator $`N^{^{}}`$ with $`\lambda _m`$ in the commutation relations of Eq. (13), namely,

$$[Q^{},Q]=\lambda _m\sigma _z,\{Q^{},Q\}=\lambda _m,\left(Q^{}Q\right)^2=\lambda _m.$$
(18)
In accordance with the invariant theory, we chose the invariant $`I(t)`$ to be of the form

$$I(t)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}}[\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )Q+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )Q^{}]+\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _z,$$
(19)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are time-dependent parameters. Substitution of the expressions (14) and (19) for $`I(t)`$ and $`H(t)`$ into Eq. (15) leads to the following set of auxiliary equations

$`\dot{\theta }\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )i\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )+i[(3\omega \omega _0)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )2g\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (20)
$`\dot{\theta }i\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}[g\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )g^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
where the dot denotes the time derivative. The two time-parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ in $`I(t)`$ are determined by these two auxiliary equations.

Using the invariant-related unitary transformation method, we define the unitary transformation operator as follows

$$V(t)=\mathrm{exp}[\beta (t)Q\beta ^{}(t)Q^{}]$$
(22)
with $`\beta ^{}(t)`$ being the complex conjugation of $`\beta (t).`$ With the help of the commutation relations (13) and by the complicated and lengthy computations, it can be found that if $`\beta (t)`$ and $`\beta ^{}(t)`$ satisfy the following equations

$$\beta =\frac{\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )}{\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}},\beta ^{}=\frac{\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )}{\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(23)
then the following time-independent invariant $`I_V`$ can be obtained

$$I_VV^{}(t)I(t)V(t)=\sigma _z.$$
(24)
Correspondingly, the Hamiltonian (14) can be transformed into

$`H_V(t)`$ $``$ $`V^{}(t)H(t)V(t)V^{}(t)i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}V(t)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\omega N+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}(\sigma _z1)+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}[g\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )+g^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )]\mathrm{sin}\theta +`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _03\omega }{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{.}{\varphi }}{2}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\}\sigma _z.`$
by using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula

$$V^{}(t)\frac{}{t}V(t)=\frac{}{t}L+\frac{1}{2!}[\frac{}{t}L,L]+\frac{1}{3!}[[\frac{}{t}L,L],L]+\frac{1}{4!}[[[\frac{}{t}L,L],L],L]+\mathrm{}$$
(28)
with $`V(t)=\mathrm{exp}[L(t)].`$ Under this unitary transformation22 the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (2) is then transformed into the following form

$$i\frac{|\lambda _n,t_{s0}}{t}=H_V(t)|\lambda _n,t_{s0}$$
(29)
where

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s=V(t)|\lambda _n,t_{s0}.$$
(30)
One may show that the particular solution $`|\lambda _n,t_s`$ of Eq.(2) differs from the eigenfunction $`|\lambda _n,t`$ of the invariant $`I(t)`$ only by a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _n(t)]`$. Then the general solution of the Schrödinger equation (2) can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)_s=_nC_n\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _n(t)]|\lambda _n,t,$$
(31)
where

$`\varphi _n(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}\lambda _n,t^{^{}}\left|i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{^{}}}}H(t^{^{}})\right|\lambda _n,t^{^{}}𝑑t^{^{}},`$

$$C_n=\lambda _n,t=0|\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0)_s.$$
(32)
It is easy to verify that the particular solution $`|\lambda _n,t_{s0}`$ of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (29) is different from the eigenfunction $`|\lambda _n`$ of $`I_V`$ only by the same phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _n(t)]`$ as that in Eq.(31), i.e.,

$$|\lambda _n,t_{s0}=\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _n(t)]|\lambda _n.$$
(33)
Substitution of $`|\lambda _n,t_{s0}`$ of Eq. (29) into Eq. (33) yields

$$\dot{\varphi }(t)|\lambda _n=H_V(t)|\lambda _n,$$
(34)
which means that $`H_V(t)`$ differs from $`I_V(t)`$ only by a time-dependent multiplying c-number factor. Then the particular solution of Eq. (29) can be easily obtained by calculating the phase from Eq. (34).

The eigenstates of $`\sigma _z`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\sigma =+1`$ and $`\sigma =1`$ are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$ and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right),`$ and the eigenstate of $`N^{^{}}`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m}{|m+3}\right)`$ corresponding to Eq. (17). From Eq. (32), (33), (34), we obtain two particular solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the TLTJCM which can be written in the following forms

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,\sigma =+1}(t)_s=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{i}_0^t[\underset{d,\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})+\underset{g,\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}\}V(t)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m}{0}\right)$$
(35)
where

$`\underset{d,\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`(m+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\omega (t^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}\{g(t^{^{}})\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi (t^{^{}})]+g^{}(t^{^{}})\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi (t^{^{}})]\}\mathrm{sin}\theta (t^{^{}})`$ (37)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0(t^{^{}})3\omega (t^{^{}})}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta (t^{^{}})`$
and

$$\underset{g,\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})=\frac{\stackrel{.}{\varphi }(t^{^{}})}{2}[1\mathrm{cos}\theta (t^{^{}})];$$
(38)
and

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,\sigma =1}(t)_s=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{i}_0^t[\underset{d,\sigma =1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})+\underset{g,\sigma =1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}\}V(t)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{|m+3}\right)$$
(39)
where

$`\underset{d,\sigma =1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`(m+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\omega (t^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}\{g(t^{^{}})\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi (t^{^{}})]+g^{}(t^{^{}})\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi (t^{^{}})]\}\mathrm{sin}\theta (t^{^{}})`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0(t^{^{}})3\omega (t^{^{}})}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta (t^{^{}})`$
and

$$\underset{g,\sigma =1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})=\frac{\stackrel{.}{\varphi }(t^{^{}})}{2}[1\mathrm{cos}\theta (t^{^{}})].$$
(42)
Generally speaking, in Quantum Mechanics, solution with chronological-product operator (time-order operator) $`P`$, namely, where the time-evolution operator $`U(t)=P\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{i}_0^tH(t^{^{}})𝑑t^{^{}}],`$is often called the formal solution. In the present paper, however, the solution of the Schrödinger equation governing a time-dependent system is sometimes termed the explicit solution, for reasons of the fact that it does not involve time-order operator. But, on the other hand, by using Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant theory, there always exist time-dependent parameters, for instance, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ in this paper which are determined by the auxiliary equations (21). Traditionally, when employed in experimental analysis and compared with experimental results, these nonlinear auxiliary equations should be solved often by means of numerical computation. In view of the above reasons, the concept of explicit solution is understood in a somewhat relative sense, namely, it can be considered explicit solution when compared with the time-evolution operator involving time-order operator; whereas, it cannot be considered completely explicit solution for it is expressed in terms of some time-dependent parameters which should be obtained via the auxiliary equations. Hence, conservatively speaking, we regard the solution of the time-dependent system presented in the paper as exact solution rather than explicit solution.

These above two particular solutions of the Schrödinger equation (2) contain the corresponding dynamical phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{i}_0^t\underset{d,\sigma }{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})dt^{^{}}]`$ and geometric phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{i}_0^t\underset{g,\sigma }{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}`$ with $`\sigma =\pm 1.`$ Apparently, it can be seen that the former phase factor depends on the transition frequency $`\omega _0(t)`$ and the mode frequency $`\omega (t)`$ as well as the coupling coefficients $`g(t)`$ and $`g^{}(t)`$, whereas the latter is immediately independent of these frequencies and the coupling coefficients.

One of the theoretical applications of the exact solution of time-dependent Schrödinger equation is constructing the time-dependent coherent state . For instance, one result in this paper may be given as follows

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma =+1}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^m}{\sqrt{m!}}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,\sigma =+1}(t)_s`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^m}{\sqrt{m!}}}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle _0^t}[\underset{\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}\}V(t)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m}{0}}\right)`$ (44)
with $`\xi `$ being a time-independent parameter and $`\underset{\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t)=\underset{d,\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t)+\underset{g,\sigma =+1}{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t).`$ Time-dependent coherent state is believed to be useful in investigating the classical properties of supersymmetric Jaynes-Cummings model in quantum optics.

## III Discussion under the adiabatic approximation

The geometric phase factor in the adiabatic evolution of quantum systems was first discussed by Berry. Simon then showed that this phase is in connection with a holonomy of the connection in the Hermitian line bundle over the parameter space. This adiabatic phase, referred to as the Berry phase, has attracted many attentions of the investigators in various branches of physics. Here we investigate the cases of the adiabatic limit. Under the adiabatic limit, we assume that the time derivative of $`\theta `$ vanishes, namely,

$$\dot{\theta }=0,$$
(45)
then the following equations can be derived from the auxiliary equations (21)

$$g=\left|g\right|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ),g^{}=\left|g\right|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ),(3\omega \omega _0\dot{\varphi })\mathrm{sin}\theta =2\left|g\right|\lambda _m^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(46)
Inserting Eqs. (46) into Eq. (19), we obtain

$$I(t)=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\theta }{3\omega \omega _0\dot{\varphi }}[g(t)Q+g^{}(t)Q^{}+\frac{1}{2}(3\omega \omega _0\dot{\varphi })\sigma _z].$$
(47)
In accordance with the definition of an invariant, i.e., Eq. (15), one can draw a conclusion that an invariant can be regarded as the Hamiltonian of the adiabatic-evolution system. Making a comparison between Eq. (14) and Eq. (47), one can see that if

$$\dot{\varphi }=\omega ,$$
(48)
the following relation between $`H(t)`$ and $`I(t)`$ can be obtained

$$H(t)=\omega (t)N\frac{\omega (t)}{2}\frac{2\omega \omega _0}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta }I(t).$$
(49)
Further analysis shows that for the general three-generator Lie-algebraic systems, the invariant $`I(t)`$ is just considered the Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$ which can be expressed as

$$H(t)I(t)$$
(50)
in the adiabatic-evolution process. According to Eq. (15) and Eq. (16), the generator $`N^{^{}}`$ is a time-independent invariant, while $`I(t)`$ is a time-dependent invariant. Since the eigenstate of $`N^{^{}}`$ can be rewritten as

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|m}{|m+3}\right)=|m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)+|m+3\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)$$
(51)
which is apparently not the eigenstate of $`I(t)`$, even in the adiabatic evolution, the problem of eigenvalue is not very necessary as in the stationary Schrödinger equation. An invariant which satisfies Eq. (15) is just a conserved operator. The product of two invariants, e.g., $`I(t)N^{^{}}`$ is also an invariant. More invariants can be constructed in terms of

$$O(t)=U^{}(t)OU(t)$$
(52)
where $`O`$ is an ordinary operator and $`U(t)`$ is the time-evolution operator which is given

$$U(t)=V(t)\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{i}_0^t[\underset{d,\sigma }{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})+\underset{g,\sigma }{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}\}.$$
(53)
Here the invariant-related unitary transformation formulation provides the evolution operator with an explicit expression rather than a formal solution of equation

$$i\frac{U}{t}=H(t)U.$$
(54)
It should be noted that, using Eq. (48) and (45), the geometric phases $`_0^t\underset{g,\sigma }{\overset{.}{\phi }}(t^{^{}})]dt^{^{}}`$ can be rewritten as

$$\phi _{g,\sigma }(t)=\frac{\sigma }{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )_0^t\omega 𝑑t$$
(55)
with $`\sigma =\pm 1.`$ The geometric phases (or Berry phase) in a cycle (i.e., one round trip) is

$$\phi _{g,\sigma }(T)=\frac{\sigma }{2}2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(56)
where $`2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is the solid angle over the parameter space of the invariant $`I(t),`$ which unfolds the geometric meanings of the phase factor. The right-hand side of Eq. (56) is analogous to the magnetic flux produced by a monopole of strength $`\frac{\sigma }{2}`$ existing at the origin of the parameter space. This, therefore, implies that geometric phase differs from dynamical phase and it involves the global and topological properties of the time evolution of a quantum system.

## IV Concluding remarks

In the present paper we have constructed an invariant in the sub-Hilbert-space corresponding to a particular eigenvalue of the conserved operator (time-independent invariant) $`N^{^{}}`$ and obtained the exact solutions of the time-dependent supersymmetric TLTJCM by making use of the invariant-related unitary transformation formulation. This formulation replaces eigenstates of the time-dependent invariants by those of the time-independent invariants through the unitary transformation. In view of the above calculation, we can see that this unitary transformation formulation has some useful applications.

The exact solutions as well as their geometric phase factors of the time-dependent single- and two-photon cases can be obtained by using the present method. Since the three-level two-mode Jaynes-Cummings model plays an important role in Quantum Optics, the supersymmetric structure and the exact solutions of the time-dependent three-level two-mode multiphoton JCM deserves further investigations by the formalism suggested in the present paper. It is also interesting and necessary to obtain the exact solutions of the supersymmetric TLTJCM without the rotating wave approximation, by using this invariant-related unitary transformation formulation.

Acknowledgments This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project No.$`19775040`$. The authors thank S.L He for useful discussions and X.C.Gao for helpful suggestions.


format: text

text:
# References

GEF–TH/2003–2

Field theoretical approach to the study of theta dependence

in Yang-Mills theories on the lattice

Massimo D’Elia
Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università di Genova and I.N.F.N.,

Via Dodecaneso 33, I-16146 Genova, Italy.

Abstract

We discuss the extension of the field theoretical approach, already used in the lattice determination of the topological susceptibility, to the computation of further terms in the expansion of the ground state energy $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$ in $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theories. In particular we determine the fourth order term in the expansion for $`SU(3)`$ pure gauge theory and compare our results with previous cooling determinations. In the last part of the paper we make some considerations about the nature of the ultraviolet fluctuations responsible for the renormalization of the lattice topological charge correlation functions; in particular we propose and test an ansatz which leads to improved estimates of the fourth and higher order terms in the expansion of $`F(\theta )`$.

(PACS Numbers: 11.15.Ha, 11.10.Gh, 12.38.Gc)

1. Introduction

The dependence of $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills theories on the $`\theta `$ angle is the subject of ongoing theoretical debate. The dependence can be expressed in terms of the free energy density $`F(\theta )`$ which, in the Euclidean theory, is defined as follows:

$`\mathrm{exp}[VF(\theta )]Z(\theta )={\displaystyle [dA]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x(x)}}e^{i\theta Q}},`$ (1.1)
where $`V`$ is the four dimensional volume, $`(x)=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)`$ is the usual Yang-Mills langrangian and $`Q=\text{d}^4xq(x)`$ is the topological charge, with the topological charge density $`q(x)`$ defined as

$`q(x)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{64\pi ^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)F_{\rho \sigma }^a(x)=_\mu K_\mu (x),`$ (1.2)
where $`K_\mu (x)`$ is the Chern current

$`K_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }A_\nu ^a\left(_\rho A_\sigma ^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}gf^{abc}A_\rho ^bA_\sigma ^c\right).`$ (1.3)
The coefficients of the Taylor expansion of $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$,

$`F(\theta )={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}F^{(k)}(0)\theta ^k,`$ (1.4)
are related to the connected expectation values of the topological charge distribution,

$`F^{(k)}(0){\displaystyle \frac{d^k}{d\theta ^k}}F(\theta )|_{\theta =0}=i^k{\displaystyle \frac{Q^k_c}{V}},`$ (1.5)
where $`_c`$ is a short notation meaning the connected expectation value taken at $`\theta =0`$.

$`F(\theta )`$ is a non-trivial function, indeed the topological susceptibility, $`\chi =Q^2_c/V`$, is expected to be different from zero, to the leading order in $`1/N`$, to solve the so–called $`U(1)`$ problem . In Refs.  it has been argued that, in the large $`N`$ limit, $`F(\theta )`$ is a multibranched function of $`\theta `$, and in particular

$`F(\theta )=F(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}\mathrm{min}_k(\theta +2\pi k)^2+O\left(1/N\right).`$ (1.6)
Therefore, for sufficiently small values of $`\theta `$ ($`\theta <\pi `$), $`F(\theta )`$ is expected to have an almost quadratic dependence on $`\theta `$, with $`O(\theta ^4)`$ corrections suppressed by powers of $`1/N`$.

Numerical Monte Carlo simulations on the lattice are a natural tool to obtain information from first principles about the dependence of $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$. While direct numerical simulations of the theory at $`\theta 0`$ are not feasible because of the complex nature of the action, the Taylor expansion of $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$ can be computed, in principle up to any given order, by measuring the connected expectation values of the topological charge over the ensemble of configurations at $`\theta =0`$, as explicited in Eqs. (1.4) and (1.5). The topological susceptibility has been already extensively studied on the lattice (see Refs.  for recent reviews) and further terms in the expansion have been recently measured .

The lattice study of quantities related to topology requires care. The problem is usually related to the fact that the topology of gauge configurations on a discretized space-time is, strictly speaking, always trivial, and that the usual lattice definition, given in terms of gauge fields as a naïve discretization of the continuum topological charge, does not have the continuum integer valued spectrum: as a good alternative the fermionic definition, which is directly related to the index theorem, or the definition based on the so-called cooling method, are used.

In fact, the topological charge operator and its correlation functions can be defined on the lattice with the same rigour as for any other operator of the theory: as for any other physical quantity, one has to pay attention when removing the ultraviolet (UV) regulator, i.e. when going to the continuum limit, since the appropriate renormalizations have to be performed. In the cooling method the UV lattice fluctuations, which are responsible for the renormalizations, are removed by a process of local minimization of the action. However it is also possible to compute the renormalizations and perform the appropriate subtractions. This program, usually known as the “field theoretical method”, has been already widely discussed and developed, together with a method for the numerical non-perturbative determination of the renormalization constants, usually known as the “heating method”, in the context of the lattice determination of the topological susceptibility .

The aim of the present paper is that of discussing the extension of the field theoretical method (and of the heating method used to compute the renormalizations) to the case of higher order correlation functions of the topological charge, in order to study the $`\theta `$ dependence of the theory. In Section 2, after a review of the field theoretical method, as used for the computation of the topological susceptibility, we will discuss its application to the case of higher order correlations and develop a suitable extension of the heating method. In Section 3 the case of $`SU(3)`$ pure gauge theory will be used as a testground for the method developed in Section 2, and we will determine the fourth order contribution to $`F(\theta )`$ and compare our results with those obtained by the cooling technique . In Section 4 we will state and test an ansatz about the nature of the UV lattice fluctuations responsible for the renormalizations, which will allow us to simplify the computation of the connected correlation functions and to obtain more precise determinations of the fourth order contribution to $`F(\theta )`$. Finally, in Section 5, we will give our conclusions.

2. Topological charge correlation functions on the lattice

In this Section we will discuss how the various moments of the lattice topological charge distribution renormalize with respect to the continuum ones, and how the corresponding renormalizations can be computed numerically. In order to make the discussion clearer, we will first review the case of the second moment, i.e. the topological susceptibility.

2.1. Renormalization of the topological susceptibility

On the lattice it is possible to define a discretized gauge invariant topological charge density operator $`q_L(x)`$, and a related topological charge $`Q_L=_xq_L(x)`$ (with the sum extended over all lattice points), with the only requirement that, in the formal (naïve) continuum limit,

$`q_L(x)\stackrel{a0}{}a^4q(x)+O(a^6),`$ (2.1)
where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. A possible definition is

$`q_L(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^9\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma =\pm 1}{\overset{\pm 4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }(x)\right),`$ (2.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is the usual plaquette operator in the $`\mu \nu `$ plane, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the standard Levi–Civita tensor for positive directions and is otherwise defined by the rule $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{(\mu )\nu \rho \sigma }`$.

A proper renormalization must be performed when going towards the continuum limit, like for any other regularized operator. In spite of the formal limit in Eq. (2.1), the discretized topological charge density renormalizes multiplicatively :

$`q_L(x)=Z(\beta )a^4(\beta )q(x)+O(a^6),`$ (2.3)
with a multiplicative renormalization constant $`Z(\beta )`$ which is a finite function of the bare coupling $`\beta =2N/g_0^2`$, approaching 1 as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$.

When defining the topological susceptibility, further renormalizations can appear. Indeed, already the continuum definition,

$`\chi {\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{V}}={\displaystyle \text{d}^4xq(x)q(0)},`$ (2.4)
involves the product of two operators $`q(x)`$ at the same point: this contact term is divergent and not well defined, so that an appropriate prescription must be assigned. It can be shown  that the correct prescription, corresponding to the quantity which appears in the Taylor expansion of $`F(\theta )`$, is the one in which the derivative appearing in the definition of $`q(x)`$, Eq. (1.2), is taken out of the vacuum expectation value:

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x\text{d}^4y_\mu ^x_\nu ^yK_\mu (x)K_\nu (y)}.`$ (2.5)
The lattice definition of the topological susceptibility

$`\chi _L={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}q_L(x)q_L(0)`$ (2.6)
is in general not guaranteed to meet the correct continuum prescription for the contact term, and this leads to the appearance of additive renormalizations:

$`\chi _L=Z(\beta )^2a^4(\beta )\chi +M(\beta ),`$ (2.7)
where $`M(\beta )`$ describes generically the mixing with all local scalar operators appearing in the operator product expansion (OPE) of $`q_L(x)q_L(0)`$ as $`x0`$ in Eq. (2.6), including in particular the action density and the identity operator.

The idea behind the numerical technique, known as the heating method, used to compute the two renormalizations $`Z(\beta )`$ and $`M(\beta )`$, is that the UV fluctuations in $`q_L(x)`$, which are responsible for renormalizations, are decoupled from the background topological signal so that, starting from a semiclassical configuration of fixed and well known topological content, it is possible, by applying a few thermalization steps (i.e. Monte Carlo updating steps at the corresponding value of $`\beta `$), to thermalize the UV fluctuations without altering the background topological content. This is certainly true for high enough $`\beta `$, i.e. approaching the continuum limit, and in practice it turns out to be true in a range of the $`\beta `$ values usually chosen in Monte Carlo simulations of Yang-Mills theory, being also favoured by the fact that topological modes have very large autocorrelation times, as compared to any other non-topological mode.

It is thus possible to create samples of configurations which have a fixed topological content, $`Q`$, and the UV fluctuations thermalized: various measurements of topological quantities on these samples can give information about the renormalizations. For example the expectation value of $`Q_L`$ gives

$`Q_L=Z(\beta )Q`$ (2.8)
from which the value of $`Z(\beta )`$ can be inferred, while the expectation value of $`Q_L^2`$ gives

$`Q_L^2=Z(\beta )Q^2+VM(\beta ),`$ (2.9)
where by $`V`$ we intend, from now on, the four dimensional volume measured in adimensional lattice units.

To check that UV fluctuations have been thermalized, one looks for plateaux in quantities like $`Q_L`$ or $`Q_L^2`$ as a function of the heating steps performed: only configurations obtained after the plateau has been reached are included in the sample. Special care has to be paid to verify that during the heating procedure the background topological charge is left unchanged: this is usually done by performing a few cooling steps on a copy of the heated configuration and configurations where the background topological content has changed are discarded from the sample . Further details about the procedure and about the estimate of the systematic errors involved can be found in Ref. .

A sample with $`Q1`$ can be used to measure $`Z`$ and a sample with $`Q=0`$ (usually thermalized around the zero field configuration) can be used to determine $`M`$. Cross-checks can then be performed, using samples obtained starting from various semiclassical configurations with the same or different values of $`Q`$, to test the validity of the method.

Once the renormalizations have been computed and the expectation value $`\chi _L`$ over the equilibrium ensemble has been measured, the physical topological susceptibility $`\chi `$ can be extracted, using Eq. (2.7), as

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _LM(\beta )}{a^4(\beta )Z(\beta )^2}}`$ (2.10)
If large renormalization effects are present, i.e. if $`Z1`$ and if $`M`$ brings a good fraction of the whole signal in $`\chi _L`$, the final determination of $`\chi `$, obtained via Eq. (2.10), can be affected by large error bars. However one can exploit the fact that $`Z`$ and $`M`$ both depend on the lattice discretization $`q_L(x)`$ and that infinitely many operators $`q_L(x)`$ can be defined all having the same naïve continuum limit, to choose improved operators for which the renormalization effects are reduced, thus leading to improved estimates of $`\chi `$. This is the idea behind the definition of smeared operators

$`q_L^{(i)}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^9\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu \rho \sigma =\pm 1}{\overset{\pm 4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}(x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \sigma }^{(i)}(x)\right),`$ (2.11)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}(x)`$ is the plaquette operator constructed with $`i`$–times smeared links $`U_\mu ^{(i)}(x)`$, which are defined as

$`U_\mu ^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu (x),`$
$`\overline{U}_\mu ^{(i)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(1c)U_\mu ^{(i1)}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha =\pm 1}{\left|\alpha \right|\mu }}{\overset{\pm 4}{}}}U_\alpha ^{(i1)}(x)U_\mu ^{(i1)}(x+\widehat{\alpha })U_\alpha ^{(i1)}(x+\widehat{\mu })^{},`$
$`U_\mu ^{(i)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{U}_\mu ^{(i)}(x)}{\left(\frac{1}{3}\text{Tr}\overline{U}_\mu ^{(i)}(x)^{}\overline{U}_\mu ^{(i)}(x)\right)^{1/2}}},`$ (2.12)
where $`c`$ is a free parameter which can be tuned to optimize the improvement. These operators have been successfully used, up to the second smearing level, to determine $`\chi `$ at zero and finite temperature both in $`SU(2)`$  (with $`c=0.85`$) and $`SU(3)`$  (with $`c=0.9`$) pure gauge theory. We will make reference to them later in this paper, when computing the higher order correlation functions of the topological charge.

2.2. Renormalization of higher order correlation functions

In order to compute the higher order connected moments of the topological charge distribution, $`Q^n_c`$, needed for the Taylor expansion of $`F(\theta )`$, it is necessary to first compute the disconnected correlation functions $`Q^n`$. We will consider in particular the case $`n=4`$, for which $`Q^4_c=Q^43Q^2^2`$.

Like in the case of the topological susceptibility, also the definition of $`Q^4`$ needs a special prescription for the contact terms, in order to correspond to the quantity which enters the Taylor expansion of $`F(\theta )`$. Starting from the lattice definition, $`Q_L`$, one can define the expectation value

$`Q_L^4={\displaystyle \text{d}^4x_1\mathrm{}\text{d}^4x_4q_L(x_1)q_L(x_2)q_L(x_3)q_L(x_4)}`$ (2.13)
and it is clear that, apart from an obvious multiplicative renormalization constant $`Z^4(\beta )`$, $`Q_L^4`$ will be linked to $`Q^4`$ by additive renormalizations related to the contact terms arising when two or more charge densities in the expectation value integrated in Eq. (2.13) come to the same point. Our aim is to eventually compute the renormalization constants numerically, and in this sense we are not interested in the exact form of the mixing terms, but just in understanding if they can be related in a simple way to the correlation functions of different order, $`Q^m`$, so that they can be computed using the heating method, as it will be clarified below.

We will assume a simple and quite natural form for the renormalization rule:

$`Q_L^4`$ $`=`$ $`Z(\beta )^4Q^4+M_{4,2}(\beta )Q^2+M_{4,0}(\beta ),`$ (2.14)
where $`M_{4,2}(\beta )`$ and $`M_{4,0}(\beta )`$ are two constants which are independent of the topological sector. We will discuss in the following whether Eq. (2.14) makes sense from a theoretical point of view, while its validity will be fully checked numerically in Section 3.

The presence of the term $`Z(\beta )^4Q^4`$ in Eq. (2.14) comes from the multiplicative renormalization of the topological charge density. The question is then whether the additive renormalizations coming from contact terms can be put in the form $`M_{4,2}(\beta )Q^2+M_{4,0}(\beta )`$. Contact terms arise when two or more charge densities in the expectation value in Eq. (2.13) come to the same point, but the discussion of the two charge case will suffice: the instance with three (or more) charge densities coming to the same point can be considered as a special case of the two charge case, so that the related mixing terms are already considered when discussing the two charge contact term.

Let us consider for instance $`x_3x_4`$ in Eq. (2.13). The operators of lower dimension appearing in the OPE of $`q_L(x_3)q_L(x_4)`$ are the identity operator and the action density $`s(x)F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)F_{\mu \nu }^a(x)`$. The insertion of the identity operator in the expectation value in Eq. (2.13) leads to a contribution proportional to

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x_1\text{d}^4x_2q_L(x_1)q_L(x_2)\mathrm{Id}}=Q_L^2=Z^2(\beta )Q^2+VM(\beta ),`$ (2.15)
which is consistent with the assumption in Eq. (2.14). The insertion of the action density operator leads to a contribution proportional to

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x_1\text{d}^4x_2\text{d}^4xq_L(x_1)q_L(x_2)s(x)}=Q_L^2S=SQ_L^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}Q_L^2,`$ (2.16)
where $`S`$ is the total action of the theory and we have used the relation, which is valid for any operator $`O`$, $`(d/d\beta )O=SOSO`$, where the derivative is taken as the four dimensional volume in lattice units, $`V`$, is kept fixed. The first term on the right hand side of Eq. (2.16), $`SQ_L^2`$, is proportional to $`Z^2(\beta )Q^2+VM(\beta )`$ and therefore consistent with Eq. (2.14). Using the fact that the topological susceptibility $`\chi `$ is a renormalization group invariant quantity, i.e. independent of $`\beta `$, and that $`\chi =Q^2/(Va^4)`$, the second term can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}Q_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}\left(Z^2(\beta )\chi a^4(\beta )V+M(\beta )V\right)=\chi V{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}(Z^2(\beta )a^4(\beta ))+V{\displaystyle \frac{dM(\beta )}{d\beta }}=`$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`Q^2a^4(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}(Z^2(\beta )a^4(\beta ))+V{\displaystyle \frac{dM(\beta )}{d\beta }},`$
which is again consistent with Eq. (2.14).

This does not complete the discussion, as operators of higher dimension in the OPE of $`q_L(x_3)q_L(x_4)`$ could bring corrections in which cannot be expressed in the same simple form as in Eq. (2.14). However we will assume those corrections to be negligible, and this assumption will be well supported by the numerical data shown in Section 3.

In order to extract the value of $`Q^4`$ from Eq. (2.14), we need to measure the lattice expectation value $`Q_L^4`$, to already know $`Q^2`$, and to determine the new renormalization constants $`M_{4,2}(\beta )`$ and $`M_{4,0}(\beta )`$. The computation of the renormalization constants can be performed using a simple extension of the heating method. Indeed, measuring the expectation value $`Q_L^4`$ on the ensemble thermalized around a semi-classical configuration of charge $`Q`$, one obtains

$`Q_L^4=Z^4(\beta )Q^4+M_{4,2}(\beta )Q^2+M_{4,0}(\beta ).`$ (2.18)
It is clear that if we repeat the measurement in 2 sectors with different values of $`Q`$ (for instance $`Q=0,1`$), we obtain 2 different constraints involving the renormalization constants which, assuming that $`Z(\beta )`$ is already known, allow the determination of $`M_{4,2}(\beta )`$ and $`M_{4,0}(\beta )`$. If we perform the measurement in more than 2 sectors we have more constraints than constants to be determined, and this offers the possibility to perform a non-trivial test of Eq. (2.14) and of the heating method.

We close this Section by considering the general case of the $`n`$-th order correlation function. A natural extension of Eq. (2.14) is the following:

$`Q_L^n=Z(\beta )^nQ^n+{\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}}M_{n,n2h}(\beta )Q^{n2h},`$ (2.19)
and its validity can be discussed along the same lines as for $`n=4`$. In this case, the measurement of $`Q_L^n`$ on the ensemble thermalized around a semi-classical configuration of charge $`Q`$ gives

$`Q_L^n=Z^nQ^n+M_{n,n2}Q^{n2}+\mathrm{}+M_{n,0},`$ (2.20)
so that it is necessary to measure $`Q_L^n`$ in at least $`n/2`$ different topological sectors to determine the $`n/2`$ renormalization constants $`M_{n,n2}(\beta ),M_{n,n4}(\beta ),\mathrm{},M_{n,0}(\beta )`$.

3. Determination of $`Q^4_c`$ in $`SU(3)`$ pure gauge theory

In this Section we present numerical results obtained for $`SU(3)`$ pure gauge theory. We will illustrate a detailed study of the renormalization constants involved in the determination of $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^4`$, using the heating method: we will employ samples of configurations thermalized in three different topological sectors, $`Q=0,1,2`$, and this will enable us to perform a non-trivial consistency test of Eq. (2.14) and of the heating method itself. We will then combine the values of the renormalization constants with the results obtained at equilibrium to compute $`Q^4_c`$ and thus obtain information about the quartic term in the expansion of $`F(\theta )`$. In particular we will compute the quantity $`b_2=\frac{Q^4_c}{12Q^2}`$, which measures the relative weight of quartic to quadratic terms and has been determined in Ref.  via the cooling method<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>* We use the same notation used in Ref. , in order to make the comparison easier. .

All the results reported in this Section refer to simulations performed on a lattice of size $`16^4`$, with $`\beta =6.1`$ and the standard Wilson action. Two different discretized topological charge density operators have been used, corresponding to the 1-smeared and 2-smeared operators defined in Section 2.

3.1. Determination of the renormalization constants

We will make use of the method described in Section 2 to determine the renormalization constants which enters the computation of $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^4`$.

We have collected five different samples of configurations, one thermalized in the $`Q=0`$ sector (around the zero field configuration), two in the $`Q=1`$ sector (thermalized around two different semiclassical configurations of topological charge one) and two in the $`Q=2`$ sector (thermalized around two different semiclassical configurations of topological charge two). The semiclassical configurations have been obtained by extracting thermalized configurations with non-trivial topology from the equilibrium ensemble at $`\beta =6.1`$ and then minimizing their action by a usual cooling technique. All the five samples have been obtained by performing about 3000 heating trajectories around the semiclassical configurations, each trajectory consisting of 90 heating steps; 6 straight cooling steps have been applied on heated configurations to check that their background topological content did not change.

We have then measured the expectation values $`Q_L^2`$, $`Q_L^4`$, and also $`Q_L/Q`$ where $`Q0`$, over the five samples, with the aim of applying Eqs. (2.8), (2.9), (2.18) and determine the renormalization constants The initial charge of the semiclassical configuration used in the heating procedure, $`Q`$, is never strictly an integer (apart from the case $`Q=0`$). The deviation from the corresponding integer value is always around 3% in our case (e.g., when $`Q1`$, we actually have $`Q0.97`$). When applying Eqs. (2.8), (2.9) and (2.18), one has to be careful and make use of the real value of $`Q`$ instead of the closest integer. For a more accurate discussion on this point see for instance Ref. . . We have reported the results in Table I for the 1-smeared operator and in Table II for the 2-smeared operator: expectation values obtained on samples with the same $`Q`$ turned out to be equal within errors, as they should, and we have reported in the tables only their weighted averages. It is still possible to appreciate in Table I and II the agreement for the values of $`Z`$ determined in the $`Q=1`$ and $`Q=2`$ sectors. We have also reported results for $`Q_L^6`$, which will be used in Section 4.

Let us rewrite Eq. (2.7) in the form $`Q_L^2=Z(\beta )^2Q^2+M_{2,0}(\beta )`$, with $`M_{2,0}(\beta )=VM(\beta )`$. The information contained in $`Q_L^2`$ for each different topological sector $`Q`$ can be used to determine $`M_{2,0}`$, using Eq. (2.9). We have 2 constants to be determined, $`Z`$ and $`M_{2,0}`$, and 3 equations ($`Q=0,1,2`$), plus two direct determinations of $`Z`$ from $`Q_L/Q`$, so that there are 5 constraints to be satisfied and only 2 variables to be determined. The fact that this can be done consistently is a non-trivial test of the method, and more precisely of the fact that the UV fluctuations which are responsible for the renormalization constants are decoupled from the background topological content, an assumption that is at the very basis of the heating method, as it has been explained in Section 2. In practice we have used the 5 values measured for $`Q_L^2`$ and $`Q_L/Q`$ to perform a best fit to Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9), obtaining best fit values which are reported in Table III and good $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.`$ values ($`0.1`$ for the 1-smeared operator and $`0.2`$ for the 2-smeared operator The low values obtained for $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.`$ can be related to the fact that the measurements of $`Q_L^2`$ and $`Q_L/Q`$ at corresponding values of $`Q`$ are partially correlated, since they are measured on the same sample of configurations. ). The values obtained for $`Z`$ and $`M_{2,0}`$ are compatible with those reported in Ref. .

The same procedure has been repeated, using the $`Q_L^4`$ measurements and Eq. (2.18), to obtain the best fit values for $`M_{4,2}`$ and $`M_{4,0}`$ reported in Table III. Also in this case we have obtained good values for $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.`$ ($`0.1`$ for both the 1-smeared and the 2-smeared operator). This represents a strong numerical support to the validity of Eq. (2.14).

3.2. Determination of $`Q^2`$, $`Q^4`$, and $`Q^4_c`$

Now that we have determined the renormalization constants we can proceed to determine $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^4`$. The equilibrium values for $`Q_L^2`$ and $`Q_L^4`$, which are reported in Table IV, have been measured on a sample of 300K configurations separated by five updating cycles, each composed of a mixture of 4 over-relaxation + 1 heat-bath updating sweeps; the reported errors have been estimated by a standard blocking technique.

The value of $`Q^2`$ can be computed as

$`Q^2={\displaystyle \frac{Q_L^2M_{2,0}}{Z^2}}.`$ (3.1)
The expression for $`Q^4`$ follows from Eq. (2.14):

$`Q^4={\displaystyle \frac{Q_L^4M_{4,2}Q^2M_{4,0}}{Z^4}}.`$ (3.2)
The results for $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^4`$ are reported in Table IV, the errors have been computed by standard error propagation. It is interesting to notice that the values obtained for the 1-smeared operator and for the 2-smeared operator are in good agreement, as they should, again confirming the robustness of the method. We can finally determine $`Q^4_c=Q^43Q^2^2`$, obtaining $`Q^4_c=0.32\pm 1.80`$ for the 1-smeared and $`Q^4_c=0.66\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.90}`$ for the 2-smeared operator, leading to $`b_2=0.012(62)`$ and $`b_2=0.024(32)`$ for the 1-smeared and 2-smeared operator respectively, in agreement with the determination reported in Ref. .

4. A closer look into the renormalization effects

The renormalization constants $`Z`$, $`M_{n,m}`$ ($`m<n`$) which, for a given lattice discretization $`Q_L`$, appear in Eq. (2.19), are in principle independent of each other, or at least no simple relation exists among them, unless some further hypothesis can be done about the nature of the UV fluctuations which are responsible for the renormalizations. In this Section we will propose and test an ansatz which will greatly simplify the structure of the renormalization constants and will lead to a renormalization formula which directly involves the connected correlation functions, thus allowing a more precise determination of $`b_2`$.

An hypothesis about the nature of the UV fluctuations has been done in Refs. , where it was assumed that the discretized topological charge density can be expressed as

$`q_L(x)[Z+\zeta (x)]q(x)+\eta (x),`$ (4.1)
where $`q(x)`$ is a background topological charge density which is determined by physical fluctuations on the scale of the correlation length $`\xi `$, whereas $`\zeta (x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ are random variables with zero averages which are determined by the short range UV fluctuations and, at least in the continuum limit, are expected to be decoupled from $`q(x)`$, i.e. $`\zeta (x)q(x)=\eta (x)q(x)=0`$. Summing Eq. (4.1) over all lattice points, the following relation follows for the lattice topological charge $`Q_L`$:

$`Q_L=ZQ+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\zeta (x)q(x)+\eta ,`$ (4.2)
where $`\eta =_x\eta (x)`$. We now make the further assumption that the term $`_x\zeta (x)q(x)`$ in Eq. (4.2) can be neglected, configuration by configuration. This is not unreasonable, in view of the fact that $`q(x)`$ and $`\zeta (x)`$ are decoupled from each other. We will thus assume that

$`Q_L=ZQ+\eta ,`$ (4.3)
where $`\eta `$ is a random noise with zero average which is stochastically independent of $`Q`$.

This assumption has relevant consequences for the structure of the renormalization constants. Indeed, using the hypothesis that $`Q`$ and $`\eta `$ are stochastically independent variables and that they are both evenly distributed around zero, it is easy to verify that the general renormalization formula in Eq. (2.19) becomes

$`Q_L^n={\displaystyle \underset{h=0}{\overset{n/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2h}}\right)Z^{n2h}Q^{n2h}\eta ^{2h},`$ (4.4)
so that the renormalization relation for $`Q_L^n`$ is described only in terms of $`Z`$ and of the correlation functions of the noise $`\eta `$. In particular we have $`M_{n,m}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)Z^m\eta ^{nm}`$, a relation that should be verified on numerical data if our ansatz in Eq. (4.3) is correct. From the data in Table III it can be checked that indeed $`M_{4,2}=6Z^2\eta ^2=6Z^2M_{2,0}`$, but we will now proceed further and check the validity of Eq. (4.4) up to $`n=6`$. The correlation functions of $`\eta `$ can be determined by the heating method using the analogous of Eq. (2.20), which up to $`n=6`$ reads:

$`Q_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`Z^2Q^2+\eta ^2`$
$`Q_L^4`$ $`=`$ $`Z^4Q^4+6Z^2Q^2\eta ^2+\eta ^4`$
$`Q_L^6`$ $`=`$ $`Z^6Q^6+15Z^4Q^4\eta ^2+15Z^2Q^2\eta ^4+\eta ^6.`$ (4.5)
Using the values for $`Q_L^2`$, $`Q_L^4`$ and $`Q_L^6`$ obtained in the sectors with $`Q=0,1,2`$ and reported in Tables I and II, we have performed a best fit to Eqs. (4.5), obtaining the best fit values reported in Table V with $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.0.34`$ for the 1-smeared operator and $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.0.23`$ for 2-smeared operator. The fact that the values for $`Q_L^2`$, $`Q_L^4`$ and $`Q_L^6`$ obtained in the various sectors can be fitted by the simple relations in Eq. (4.5) is a confirmation of the validity of the ansatz in Eq. (4.3).

Assuming that Eq. (4.3) is valid, it is possible to write a renormalization relation which involves directly the connected correlation functions. Indeed, it is a general rule that the connected correlation functions of a stochastic variable ($`Q_L`$ in our case), which is the sum of two variables which are stochastically independent of each other ($`ZQ`$ and $`\eta `$ in our case), are the sum of the corresponding connected correlation functions, i.e.

$`Q_L^n_c=Z^nQ^n_c+\eta ^n_c.`$ (4.6)
Therefore in order to compute $`Q^n_c`$ we need to know, apart from $`Z`$, only one renormalization constant, $`\eta ^n_c`$, which can be easily measured by computing $`Q_L^n_c`$ on the sample of configurations in the $`Q=0`$ sector. $`Q^n_c`$ is then given by

$`Q^n_c={\displaystyle \frac{Q_L^n_c\eta ^n_c}{Z^n}},`$ (4.7)
where $`Q_L^n_c`$ is measured on the ensemble of configurations at equilibrium.

We have computed $`Q_L^4_c=Q_L^43Q_L^2^2`$ on our equilibrium configurations at $`\beta =6.1`$, obtaining $`Q_L^4_c=0.026(7)`$ for the 1-smeared operator and $`Q_L^4_c=0.057(13)`$ for the 2-smeared operator. We have then computed $`Q_L^4_c`$ on our sample of configurations thermalized in the $`Q=0`$ sector at $`\beta =6.1`$ , obtaining $`\eta ^4_c=\eta ^43\eta ^2^2=0.006(4)`$ for the 1-smeared operator and $`\eta ^4_c=0.001(2)`$ for the 2-smeared operator. In both cases (equilibrium and $`Q=0`$) errors have been estimated by standard jackknife techniques.

By using Eq. (4.7) and the values for $`Z`$ and $`Q^2`$ previously obtained, we have obtained $`Q^4_c=0.68(24)`$, $`b_2=0.024(9)`$ for the 1-smeared operator and $`Q^4_c=0.66(15)`$, $`b_2=0.024(6)`$ for the 2-smeared operator.

By making use of the ansatz in Eq. (4.3) we have thus made determinations which are much more precise than those obtained in Section 3. The reason is that Eq. (4.6) allows to relate $`Q^n_c`$ directly to the connected correlation functions of the discretized lattice topological charge, with only two renormalization constants involved: this greatly simplifies computations and error propagation, thus leading to improved estimates. We notice that most of the error in the final determination of $`Q^4_c`$ and $`b_2`$ comes from the determination of $`Q_L^4_c`$ at equilibrium, which is also the most expensive part of the computation in terms of CPU time. The renormalization procedure is thus completely under control and numerically non expensive.

We have also made a determination of $`b_2`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$, again on a $`16^4`$ lattice. On a sample of about 300K configurations obtained at equilibrium and using the same algorithm as for $`\beta =6.1`$ we have obtained, for the 2-smeared operator, $`Q_L^2=1.377(7)`$, $`Q_L^4_c=0.052(23)`$. On a sample of configurations thermalized in the $`Q=0`$ topological sector by performing about 3000 heating trajectories, each composed of 90 heating steps, we have obtained, for the 2-smeared operator, $`\eta ^2=0.308(10)`$ and $`\eta ^4_c=0.002(3)`$. From these data, using the value $`Z(\beta =6.0)=0.51(2)`$ reported for the 2-smeared operator in Ref. , we obtain $`b_2=0.015(8)`$, which is consistent with the value obtained at $`\beta =6.1`$.

Let us close this Section with some further speculations about the nature of the UV fluctuations. The value obtained for $`\eta ^4_c`$ is very small and compatible with zero for both the 1-smeared and the 2-smeared operator. We have also measured $`\eta ^6_c`$ on the sample of configurations at $`Q=0`$ obtaining $`\eta ^6_c=0.001(8)`$ for the 1-smeared and $`\eta ^6_c=0.0005(14)`$ for 2-smeared operator ($`\beta =6.1`$). This seems to indicate that $`\eta `$ behaves as a Gaussian noise: it can also be verified on the values reported in Table V that $`\eta ^4`$ is always compatible with $`3\eta ^2^2`$ and that $`\eta ^6`$ is always compatible with $`15\eta ^2^3`$, as it should be for a Gaussian variable. We have also directly verified on the histograms of the distribution of $`\eta `$ in the $`Q=0`$ sector that it does not present any significant deviation from a Gaussian distribution. If the hypothesis of Gaussian distribution for $`\eta `$ were true, the renormalization relation in Eq. (4.6) would become, for $`n>2`$, $`Q_L^n_c=Z^nQ^n_c`$, i.e. the connected correlation functions of $`Q_L`$ would renormalize only multiplicatively for $`n>2`$. However we will not consider further analysis of this hypothesis in the present paper.

5. Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed how to extend the field theoretical method, already used for the lattice determination of the topological susceptibility, in order to compute further terms in the expansion of the ground state energy $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$.

After a review of the method as used for the determination of the topological susceptibility, we have discussed the structure of the renormalizations involved in the general case and how they can be computed using the heating method. We have presented numerical results regarding $`SU(3)`$ pure gauge theory, providing both support to the correctness of the method and a determination of the fourth order term in the expansion of $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$.

In the last part of the paper we have made some speculations about the nature of the lattice UV fluctuations which are responsible for the renormalizations and proposed an ansatz, which we have verified against the numerical data, that leads to a simpler structure for the renormalizations and to an improved estimate of the fourth order term.

The determinations obtained are in agreement with those obtained in Ref.  via the cooling method, and confirm that fourth order corrections to the simple $`\theta ^2`$ behaviour of $`F(\theta )`$ around $`\theta =0`$ are small already for $`N=3`$.

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Allés, L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo and E. Vicari for useful comments and discussions. This work has been partially supported by MIUR. We thank the computer center of ENEA for providing us with time on their QUADRICS machines.

TABLE CAPTIONS

* Expectation values measured in different topological sectors for the 1-smeared operator.
* Expectation values measured in different topological sectors for the 2-smeared operator.
* Values of the renormalization constants obtained by using the results reported in Tables I and II and performing a best fit to Eqs. (2.8), (2.9) and (2.18).
* Expectation values measured at eequilibrium and results obtained for the renormalized quantities.
* Values of the renormalization constants obtained by using the results reported in Tables I and II and performing a best fit to Eqs. (2.8) and (4.5).

Table I

$`Q`$ $`Z=Q_L/Q`$ $`Q_L^2`$ $`Q_L^4`$ $`Q_L^6`$        $`0`$ $``$ $`0.311(12)`$ $`0.290(20)`$ $`0.48(5)`$  $`1`$ $`0.416(6)`$ $`0.4785(60)`$ $`0.630(15)`$ $`1.295(45)`$  $`2`$ $`0.413(5)`$ $`0.9626(80)`$ $`1.973(50)`$ $`5.82(18)`$

Table II

$`Q`$ $`Z=Q_L/Q`$ $`Q_L^2`$ $`Q_L^4`$ $`Q_L^6`$        $`0`$ $``$ $`0.208(10)`$ $`0.124(10)`$ $`0.131(18)`$  $`1`$ $`0.544(5)`$ $`0.489(5)`$ $`0.556(12)`$ $`0.93(3)`$  $`2`$ $`0.542(4)`$ $`1.314(8)`$ $`2.77(6)`$ $`7.65(17)`$

Table III

$`\mathrm{operator}`$ $`Z`$ $`M_{2,0}`$ $`M_{4,2}`$ $`M_{4,0}`$        $`1\mathrm{smeared}`$ $`0.414(4)`$ $`0.315(6)`$ $`0.336(16)`$ $`0.289(16)`$  $`2\mathrm{smeared}`$ $`0.543(5)`$ $`0.211(5)`$ $`0.377(15)`$ $`0.124(9)`$

Table IV

$`\mathrm{operator}`$ $`Q_L^2`$ $`Q_L^4`$ $`Q^2`$ $`Q^4`$        $`1\mathrm{smeared}`$ $`0.7121(38)`$ $`1.548(18)`$ $`2.312(72)`$ $`16.4\pm 1.8`$  $`2\mathrm{smeared}`$ $`0.8776(60)`$ $`2.368(36)`$ $`2.262(41)`$ $`16.02(72)`$

Table V

$`\mathrm{operator}`$ $`Z`$ $`\eta ^2`$ $`\eta ^4`$ $`\eta ^6`$        $`1\mathrm{smeared}`$ $`0.415(4)`$ $`0.315(6)`$ $`0.298(11)`$ $`0.462(37)`$  $`2\mathrm{smeared}`$ $`0.542(4)`$ $`0.211(5)`$ $`0.129(6)`$ $`0.131(17)`$


text:
# An inflation model with large variations in spectral index

## Abstract

Recent fits of cosmological parameters by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurement favor a primordial scalar spectrum with varying index. This result, if stands, could severely constrain inflation model buildings. Most extant slow-roll inflation models allow for only a tiny amount of scale variations in the spectrum. We propose in this paper an extra-dimensional inflation model which is natural theoretically and can generate the required variations of the spectral index as implied by the WMAP for suitable choices of parameters.
PACS number(s): 98.80.Cq, 11.10.Kk

The recently released Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data WMAP  have been used to fit the cosmological parameters and confront the predictions of inflationary scenarios respectively in Refs. WMAP1,  and WMAP2, . It is found that the data (with no other significant priors) can be best fitted by a standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model seeded by an almost scale-invariant, adiabatic, Gaussian primordial fluctuation; predictions inferred from the model also agree with other cosmological measurements with high accuraciesmelchiorri . It is noted that there might be possible discrepancies between predictions and observations on the largest and smallest scales. The problem at the smallest scales is improved when combined with data from finer scale CMB experiments (ACBAR and CBI) and structure formation measurements (2dFGRS and Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest), for which a varying scalar primordial spectrum is favored by the best fit. At the pivot scale $`k_0=0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, the best-fit values for the scalar power spectrum are $`n_s=0.93\pm 0.03`$ and $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k=0.031_{0.018}^{+0.016}`$ WMAP1 ; this means at a $`2\sigma `$ level the spectrum runs from blue to red as the co-moving wave number $`k`$ increases. As noted, the suppression of the power at the smallest scale might offer an interesting solution to the problem of the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model at small scales SS .

The intriguing result of a varying spectral index needs to be closely evaluated with improved statistics and with future data. If stands, it could severely constrain inflation model buildings. Most extant inflationary models allow for only a tiny amount of scale variations. In this paper we propose a single-field inflation model which is natural theoretically and can generate the required variations of the spectral index as implied by the WMAP.

For the single-field slow-roll inflationary models, one usually defines the following slow-roll parameters Liddle2 ,

$$ϵ\frac{M_P^2}{2}\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\right)^2,\eta M_P^2\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V},\xi M_P^4\frac{V^{}V^{\prime \prime \prime }}{V^2},$$
(1)
where primes represent derivatives with respect to the inflaton field, $`\varphi `$, and $`M_P=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass. Slow-roll approximation requires $`ϵ,|\eta |,|\xi |1`$ in the inflationary epoch.

The primordial curvature (scalar) and tensor perturbation power spectra are given by Liddle2

$$𝒫_{}\frac{V}{24\pi ^2M_P^4ϵ}|_{k=aH},𝒫_h\frac{2V}{3\pi ^2M_P^4}|_{k=aH},$$
(2)
evaluated when a particular mode crosses out the horizon. The tensor to scalar ratio $`r𝒫_h/𝒫_{}16ϵ`$ is generally small in the slow-roll inflation. The spectral indices and their running are the slopes and curvatures of the power spectra. In terms of the slow-roll parameters, for scalar perturbations, they are

$$n_s16ϵ+2\eta ,\frac{dn_s}{d\mathrm{ln}k}16ϵ\eta 24ϵ^22\xi .$$
(3)
In most inflationary models, $`ϵ,|\eta |M_P^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2`$, $`|\xi |M_P^4/(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^4`$, and the number of $`e`$-folding $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2/M_P^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is the displacement of the homogeneous field $`\varphi `$, so there is a hierarchy in the slow-roll parameters, $`ϵ,|\eta |𝒩^1`$, $`|\xi |𝒩^2`$, and the variations of the spectral indices, $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k`$, are negligible.

To achieve a running spectrum in the order favored by the WMAP, one has to consider inflation models with more exotic potentials dodelson , such as the running mass model stewart  and models with oscillating primordial spectrum wang . These models can generate significant spectral runnings, which could be as large as $`n_s1`$.

The Achilles heel of these inflationary models (and of the inflation paradigm in general) lies, arguably, in the difficulty of obtaining a sufficiently flat and stable (against radiative corrections) inflaton potential from the perspectives of particle physics. Symmetry principles must be invoked. There are only two known symmetries which can protect the flatness of a scalar potential: supersymmetry and the shift symmetry for a Pseudo Nambu-Goldstone Boson (PNGB). However, as shown in Ref. copeland,  and recently re-emphasized in Refs. ACCR,  and KW, , supersymmetry alone cannot protect the flatness of the inflaton potential, since it is explicitly broken during inflation, and the gravitational effects generically give a Hubble-scale mass correction to the inflaton.

The shift symmetry was first realized in the natural inflation model Freese . Still there are some difficulties in this model. The flatness condition, in the simplest scenario with a single PNGB, requires the scale of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the values of the inflaton during the slow roll above the Planck scale, taking the model outside the regime of validity of an effective field theory description. Moreover, it is expected that the gravity-induced higher-dimensional operators are not suppressed.

These issues have been recently re-examined in the context of extra dimensions (called extra-natural inflation in Ref. ACCR, ). Consider a five-dimensional Abelian gauge field model with the fifth dimension compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$, we identify the inflaton field $`\theta `$ with the gauge-invariant Wilson loop of the extra component $`A_5`$ propagating in the bulk,

$$\theta =g_5𝑑x^5A_5,$$
(4)
where $`g_5`$ is the five-dimensional gauge coupling constant. At energies below $`1/R`$, $`\theta `$ is a four-dimensional field with an effective Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2g_4^2(2\pi R)^2}(\theta )^2V(\theta ),$$
(5)
with $`g_4^2=g_5^2/2\pi R`$ the four-dimensional effective gauge coupling constant. The non-local potential $`V(\theta )`$ is generated in the presence of particles charged under the Abelian symmetry hosotani .

For bulk fields with bare masses $`M_a`$ and charges $`q_a`$ the potential takes the form Delgado

$$V(\theta )=\frac{1}{128\pi ^6R^4}\mathrm{Tr}\left[V(r_a^F,\theta )V(r_a^B,\theta )\right],$$
(6)
where the trace is over the number of degrees of freedom, and the superscripts $`F`$ and $`B`$ stand for fermions and bosons respectively. Here

$`V(r_a,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`x_a^2\mathrm{Li}_3(r_ae^{x_a})+3x_a\mathrm{Li}_4(r_ae^{x_a})`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`3\mathrm{Li}_5(r_ae^{x_a})+h.c.,`$
with

$$r_a=e^{iq_a\theta },x_a=2\pi RM_a,$$
(8)
and the poly-logarithm function $`\mathrm{Li}_k(z)`$ are

$$\mathrm{Li}_k(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^n}{n^k}.$$
(9)
For massless particles ($`x_a=0`$) considered in Ref. ACCR,  the potential is

$$V(\theta )=\frac{3}{64\pi ^6R^4}\underset{I}{}()^{F_I}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(nq\theta )}{n^5},$$
(10)
where $`F_I=0`$ and $`1`$ stand for massless bosonic and fermionic fields, respectively.

Neglecting the higher power terms in Eq. (10), one obtains the same form of the potential as that of the natural inflation model. The effective decay constant of the spontaneously broken Abelian symmetry is

$$f_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2\pi g_4R},$$
(11)
which can be naturally greater than $`M_P`$ for a sufficiently small coupling constant $`g_4`$ ACCR . Moreover, due to the extra dimension nature, gravity-induced higher-dimensional operators are generally exponentially suppressed. This solves the forementioned problems of the four-dimensional natural inflation model111If natural inflation model includes a large Z in the kinetic termlargez , redefining the field gives rise to an effective decay constant $`f_{eff}=\sqrt{Z}f`$, which ( as well as the inflaton field itself ) can also be larger than $`M_p`$, however a question remained is how to get a large Z naturallyprepare .. The extra-natural model predicts a red-tilted scalar spectrum with negligible spectral runnings, same as that of the natural inflation.

The model we propose in this paper includes one massless and one massive fields222Massive particles have also been considered in Ref. riotto, , in the context of extra-dimensional quintessence models. coupled to $`A_5`$, i.e., $`M_1=0,M_21/R`$, the corresponding potential for $`\theta `$ is

$`V(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{64\pi ^6R^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^3}}[()^{F_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(nq_1\theta )}{n^2}}`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`()^{F_2}e^{nx_2}({\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}})\mathrm{cos}(nq_2\theta )].`$
Neglecting the higher power terms in the sum, and defining a canonical field $`\varphi =f_{\mathrm{eff}}\theta `$, the effective Lagrangian of our model becomes333For a specific presentation, we set $`F_1=1`$. The $`F_1=0`$ case is equivalent since it only corresponds to a co-ordinate shift in the potential.

$$=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2V_0\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{q_1\varphi }{f_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)\sigma \mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{q_2\varphi }{f_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)\right],$$
(13)
where

$$\sigma =()^{F_2+1}e^{x_2}\left(\frac{x_2^2}{3}+x_2+1\right),V_0=\frac{3}{64\pi ^6R^4}.$$
(14)
Note that in our calculations we have added a $`\sigma `$-dependent term to the potential, Eq. (13), to make it vanish at the minimum. For $`\sigma =0`$, this potential coincides with that of the natural inflation model.

The slow-roll parameters of Eq. (1) are

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\sigma \kappa \mathrm{sin}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta })^2}{[1\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\sigma \mathrm{cos}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta }]^2}},`$ (15)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\sigma \kappa ^2\mathrm{cos}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta })}{1\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\sigma \mathrm{cos}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta }}},`$ (16)
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^4(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\sigma \kappa \mathrm{sin}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta })(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\sigma \kappa ^3\mathrm{sin}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta })}{[1\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\sigma \mathrm{cos}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta }]^2}},`$ (17)
where we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }q_1\theta `$ and

$$\mu q_1M_P/f_{\mathrm{eff}},\kappa q_2/q_1.$$
(18)
To see analytically the effects of $`\sigma `$ term, we consider the following choice of parameters: $`\kappa 1`$, $`\sigma 1`$, $`|\sigma |\kappa 1`$ and $`|\sigma |\kappa ^2𝒪(1)`$. When cosmological scales begin to cross out the horizon in the inflationary epoch, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }\pi `$, the slow-roll parameters are approximately

$`ϵ\mu ^2(\pi \stackrel{~}{\theta })^2,`$ (19)
$`\eta \mu ^2(1+\sigma \kappa ^2\mathrm{cos}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta }),`$ (20)
$`\xi \mu ^4\sigma \kappa ^3(\pi \stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{sin}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\theta }.`$ (21)
Hence $`ϵ|\eta |`$. The spectral index is determined by the $`\eta `$ parameter, $`n_s12\eta `$, and the tensor fluctuation is negligible.

From the above equations, one generically would have $`|\xi |\eta ^210^4`$, corresponding to a negligible spectral variation. However, the large $`\sigma \kappa ^3`$ term in Eq. (21) can enhance $`\xi `$ substantially (to the size as large as $`\eta `$), and lead to a scale varying spectrum. Furthermore, for appropriate choices of $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$, the scalar power spectrum can run from blue to red as the co-moving scale $`k`$ increases. Such a tilted spectrum is favored by the current data of WMAP WMAP1 .

We show this behavior of power spectrum running in Fig. 1, for the following choices of parameters: (a) $`\sigma =3.8\times 10^4`$, $`\mu =1/2`$ and $`\kappa =100`$ (solid lines), and (b) $`\sigma =0.012`$, $`\mu =1/3`$, $`\kappa =15`$ (dashed lines). To ensure the accuracy of our results, we have retained the higher power terms (up to $`n=6`$ for the massless particle) in the numerical calculations. We have also set the number of $`e`$-folding $`𝒩(k_{})=50`$ at a reference co-moving scale $`k_{}`$; the WMAP analyses used pivot scales $`k_0=0.002`$ and $`0.05`$ $`\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ WMAP1 ; WMAP2 . (This scale arbitrariness is the inherent theoretical uncertainty in our analysis; it can be resolved if the detail reheating history is known feng .) Normalizing the spectral index to the WMAP central value $`n_s=1.1`$ at $`k_0=0.002\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ WMAP2 , we find $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k0.041`$ and $`0.021`$ for case (a) and (b) respectively; they are in good agreements with the current WMAP fits WMAP1 ; WMAP2 . Such a running feature of the spectral index does not exist in the usual natural or extra-natural inflation models.

In Fig. 2 we delineate the parameter space that gives the required amount of spectral runnings ($`0.084<dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k<0.027`$)WMAP2  in our model. We have normalized the spectral index $`n_s=1.13`$ at the same pivot scale $`k_0`$. We show allowed regions in the $`\kappa `$-$`\sigma `$ plane, for $`\mu =1/3`$. The correlation between $`\kappa `$ and $`\sigma `$ can be understood because one needs a certain amount of cancellations between the two terms in Eq. (20) (to achieve a spectral running from blue to red).

In our models the size of the fifth dimension is determined to be of the order $`R10/M_P`$ from the COBE normalization, $`𝒫_{}^{1/2}10^5`$. For our choices of parameters, $`\mu 0.1`$, this implies the four- and five-dimensional gauge coupling constants $`g_410^3/q_1`$, $`g_5^210^4/q_1^2M_P`$.

These parameter choices could be accommodated in models of fundamental theories. For example, string theory predicts a host of exotic particles with fractional charges; one can obtain large charge ratios of the massive to massless particles ($`\kappa 10`$-$`100`$) as required in our models. The massive particle has a mass of the order $`M_2𝒪(1)R^1`$, falls in the range of massive string states. It remains to be seen whether this kind of model can arise naturally from specific string models.

The small gauge coupling constant ($`g_410^3`$ when $`q_1𝒪(1)`$) might seem worrisome, since string theory compactification generally requires $`g_4M_PR1`$ ACCR . This problem can be improved by introducing many Abelian gauge fields in higher dimensions as in the assisted inflation model liddle . For a system with $`N`$ Wilson loops $`\theta _i`$, the Lagrangian is given by

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2g_4^2(2\pi R)^2}(\theta _i)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}V(\theta _i).$$
(22)
This system has a solution where all the $`\theta _i`$ fields are equal, consequently it can be described by a single-field model through the redefinitions, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{N}/2\pi g_4R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}=NV_i`$. The COBE normalization gives $`RN^{1/4}10M_P^1`$, which implies $`g_410^3N^{1/4}`$. The above requirement can be naturally satisfied if $`N100`$.

Before concluding, we comment on the possible discrepancy between predictions and COBEcobe , WMAP observations on the largest scalesWMAP1 ; otzh . As argued in Ref. Bridle, , the need of large running is due to the suppressed multipoles at $`l=2,3,4`$. However as shown in Ref. WMAP1,  the possibility of finding a lower value of quadrupole in the presence of a constant running of the spectral index is no more than 0.9 percent for a spacial flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology. In our model, the running index $`dn_s/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ is not a constant, but we have checked that it does not improve the fit significantly. With many Abelian gauge fields in the higher dimensions, we will show now this discrepancy can be alleviated. For simplicity of our discussion, consider two Wilson lines $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$, the Lagrangian for such a system is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _2)^2V_0\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_1\varphi _1}{f_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\right)\right]`$ (23)
$``$ $`V_0\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_2\varphi _2}{f_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\right)\right].`$
Assuming adiabatic process with certain choice of parameters, e.g., $`q_1=5q_2`$, inflation will be firstly driven by the heavy field $`\varphi _1`$ and then by $`\varphi _2`$, with no interruption in between. The ”double natural inflation” can generate a primordial spectrum with a feature at the largest scales favored by current data. In Fig. 3 we give an example with $`q_1=5`$ and $`q_2=1`$. The details of our calculations is similar to Ref. smallL, : we numerically calculate the primordial scalar and tensor spectra and fit the resulting CMB TT and TE spectra using WMAP likelihood codeVerde  with CMBfast program cmbfast . We compare our result with WMAP team’s best fit power law $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (P$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) and running spectral index $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (R$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) model. The CMB quadrupole as shown in Fig. 3 is better suppressed in this model.

In summary, the WMAP result of a varying spectral index, if stands, could be used as a discriminator for inflationary models; most extant models allow for only a tiny amount of scale variations in the spectral index and could face a severe challenge. We have studied in this paper the possibility of building inflation models with large running spectral indices, and specifically proposed a higher-dimensional model which can generate $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k𝒪(10^2)`$, favored by the WMAP analyses.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China and by Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No. NKBRSF G19990754, and in part by an NSF grant NSF-0070928.