text:
# Massive scalar states localized on a de Sitter brane

## I Introduction

A lot of attention has been recently devoted to the braneworld scenario, which provides an alternative to the standard Kaluza-Klein compactification. In fact, this idea was initiated a long time ago by the suggestion defect  that particles could be localized on a defect embedded in a higher-dimensional space, the simplest example being the case of a domain wall, or three-brane, in a five-dimensional bulk spacetime. It was then shown, ignoring gravity, that one could localize scalars and fermions on the domain wall.

Recent progress was achieved on the gravitational aspect of the problem, by showing that it was possible to localize massless gravitons rs99b , and thus to recover standard four-dimensional gravity, on a brane with tension embedded in an AdS bulk, with the appropriate (negative) cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6/\mathrm{}^2`$, so that the brane is effectively Minkowski. In addition to the massless gravitons, one finds a continuous spectrum of massive gravitons, starting from zero mass but with a weak coupling to the brane so that their contribution becomes important only on scales of the order of $`\mathrm{}`$ or below.

The analysis of the graviton modes has also been extended to the case of a brane whose effective geometry is de Sitter gs99 ; lmw00 , which is the case when the brane tension more than compensates the cosmological constant. The mode analysis on this background yields a massless graviton, analogous to the four-dimensional graviton, plus a continuum of massive modes, which starts at $`(3/2)H`$. There is thus a gap between the zero mode and the massive modes. A recent work fk02  has generalized this treatment to the case of conformally flat cosmological geometries and shown that the minimum gap is $`\sqrt{3/2}H`$.

Not surprisingly, massless bulk scalar fields have properties very similar to the gravitons. In the Randall-Sundrum (RS) background, it is easy to show that, as for gravitons, there exist a localized zero mode and a continuum of arbitrary light states. When one allows for a small but non-vanishing mass, it turns out that the massless bound state disappears and turns into a quasi-localized state with finite mass and finite width, the latter quantifying the probability for the state to decay into the bulk drt00 .

The purpose of the present work is to study how these properties of massive bulk scalar fields are modified when the brane geometry is de Sitter instead of Minkowski. Massive scalar fields are of special interest for a bulk inflaton model of braneworld inflation hs00 ; shs01 ; hts01 , where inflation in the brane is driven by a bulk scalar field, in contrast with a brane inflaton model, where inflation is driven by a four-dimensional field confined to the brane mwbh .

In the present work, we study in detail the bound states of a massive bulk scalar field, localized on a de Sitter brane, taking also into account the possibility of a coupling between the scalar field and the tension of the brane. We show that, depending on the range of values for the scalar field mass $`M`$ and the coupling, one can find bound states, which can be massless or massive.

We then consider and extend another approach, which consists in determining an effective four-dimensional potential for the projection of the bulk scalar field in the brane, taking into account the five dimensional effects, via the effective four-dimensional Einstein equations. We are thus able to deduce an effective four-dimensional potential that combines the five-dimensional potential and the coupling to the brane. We then compare this approach with the mode approach and find surprisingly good agreement. Namely, given the five-dimensional mass, both the critical coupling allowing for a zero mode and that at which the bound-state ceases to exist agree well with those obtained from the mode analysis.

Finally, we also explore some aspects of the quasi-bound states (or quasi-normal modes) in the range of parameters where the bound states no longer exist.

The plan of the paper is the following. In the next section, we present the model and give the equation of motion for the bulk scalar field. In section 3, we discuss the existence of bound states. Section 4 is devoted to an alternative approach based on an effective four-dimensional potential. Finally, we explore, analytically and numerically, the quasi-localized scalar modes, which correspond to modes escaping from the brane into the bulk.

## II Description of the model

We consider a five-dimensional bulk scalar field $`\varphi `$ and a brane with a tension $`\sigma `$ coupled to this bulk scalar field. The corresponding action is given by

$`S={\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{g^{(5)}}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }_5)\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\right)}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}\sigma (\varphi )},`$ (1)
where we have introduced a five-dimensional (negative) cosmological constant

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5={\displaystyle \frac{6}{\mathrm{}^2}}.`$ (2)
In this work, we will concentrate, for simplicity, on the case of a quadratic bulk potential,

$`V(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2\varphi ^2,`$ (3)
and of a quadratic coupling, i.e. of the form

$`\sigma (\varphi )=\sigma _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}}\varphi ^2,`$ (4)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless parameter characterizing the ‘strength’ of the coupling to the brane.

We will take as our background configuration, the solution of the above setup, with the usual cosmological symmetries (homogeneity and isotropy along the three ordinary spatial dimensions), when the scalar field vanishes everywhere. In this case, the bulk is effectively empty of matter and, owing to the cosmological symmetries we impose, its geometry corresponds to AdS5. The metric can be written in the form

$`ds^2=dr^2+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(r/\mathrm{})\left[d\tau ^2+e^{2\tau }d𝐱_{(3)}^2\right],`$ (5)
where we have chosen, for simplicity, a flat slicing for the three-dimensional surfaces.

It is possible to insert a brane in such a geometry. Assuming as usual that the bulk is $`Z_2`$ symmetric, i.e. mirror symmetric, about the brane, the junction conditions for the metric at the brane location yield the familiar brane Friedmann equation bdel99

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}{6}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}\right)^2\sigma _0^2.`$ (6)
In the present case, the Hubble parameter is constant, so that the brane geometry is de Sitter. The Hubble parameter is related to the brane position $`r_0`$, which is fixed in the above coordinate system (5), according to the expression

$$H^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(r_0/\mathrm{})}.$$
(7)
It is then convenient to rescale the time coordinate so that it corresponds to the cosmic time in the brane. The metric now reads

$$ds^2=dr^2+H^2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(r/\mathrm{})[dt^2+H^2e^{2Ht}d𝐱_{(3)}^2].$$
(8)
It is also convenient to introduce, in addition to the AdS lengthscale $`\mathrm{}`$, another lengthscale, defined from the brane tension $`\sigma _0`$,

$`\mathrm{}_0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}\sigma _0\right)^1.`$ (9)
In the RS case, $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_0`$, whereas, for a de Sitter brane, $`\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{}`$. The brane Hubble parameter is thus given by

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}.`$ (10)
Introducing the variable

$`z=\mathrm{cosh}(r/\mathrm{}),`$ (11)
the Hubble parameter given in (7) can be reexpressed as

$`H(z_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}\sqrt{z_0^21}}}`$ (12)
and the expression of $`\mathrm{}_0`$ in terms of $`z_0`$ is therefore

$`\mathrm{}_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{z_0}}\sqrt{z_0^21}.`$ (13)
Let us now turn to the scalar field, which will be considered as a test field on the background configuration previously defined. In other words, we will ignore its backreaction on the geometry. In the bulk, the scalar field must satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation, which is given, for the metric (8) by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(r/\mathrm{})}}e^{3Ht}_t\left(e^{3Ht}_t\varphi \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^4(r/\mathrm{})}}_r\left(\mathrm{sinh}^4(r/\mathrm{})_r\varphi \right)+M^2\varphi =0.`$ (14)
In addition to this bulk equation, the scalar field must also satisfy the appropriate boundary condition due to the presence of the brane. It can be shown that, for $`Z_2`$ symmetry, this boundary condition is given by

$`_r\varphi |_{r=r_0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}}\varphi .`$ (15)
It is clear from the two above equations (14) and (15) that we chose to work with quadratic expressions both for the bulk potential and the brane coupling in order to get linear equations for the scalar field, which greatly simplifies the analysis.

## III Existence of bound states

The purpose of this section is to solve explicitly the system of equations (1415). Since the bulk equation is separable, it is natural to look for solutions of the form

$`\varphi =u(r)\psi (t),`$ (16)
which leads to a separation of the bulk differential equation (14) into a radial equation and a time-dependent equation,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^4(r/\mathrm{})}}_r\left(\mathrm{sinh}^4(r/\mathrm{})_r\right)M^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(r/\mathrm{})}}\right]u(r)=0,`$ (17)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}}+3H{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}+H^2\lambda ^2\right]\psi (t)=0,`$ (18)
where $`\lambda ^2`$ is a separation constant. And the boundary condition (15) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}u(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}}u(r)\text{at}r=r_0.`$ (19)
The solution of the radial equation (17) can be expressed in terms of associated Legendre functions. Using the variable $`z`$ defined in (11), one finds

$`u_\mu (z)={\displaystyle \frac{P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu (z)}{(z^21)^{3/4}}}`$ (20)
with

$`\mu ^2={\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\lambda ^2,\nu =\sqrt{M^2\mathrm{}^2+4}.`$ (21)
The effective four-dimensional mass of the mode, which appears clearly in the time-dependent equation (18), is thus given by

$`m_{(4)}^2=\lambda ^2H^2=(9/4\mu ^2)H^2.`$ (22)
In the rest of this section, we wish to investigate whether there exist bound state solutions. Bound states modes are defined as solutions which are normalizable, i.e., such that

$`2{\displaystyle _0^{r_0}}𝑑r\mathrm{sinh}^2ru_\mu (r)u_\mu ^{}(r)=2{\displaystyle _1^{z_0}}𝑑z\sqrt{z^21}u_\mu (z)u_\mu ^{}(z)<\mathrm{}.`$ (23)
Since the behaviour of the Legendre functions when $`z`$ approaches $`1`$ is given by

$`P_\nu ^\mu (z){\displaystyle \frac{2^{\mu /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}}(z1)^{\mu /2},z1,`$ (24)
the integral in (23) converges if $`\mu `$ is real and negative. Therefore, a bound state exists if one can find a solution (20) with $`\mu <0`$ that also satisfies the boundary condition (19), which can be reexpressed in terms of the variable $`z`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}u+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(z^21)^{1/2}}}u=0\text{at}z=z_0.`$ (25)
Substituting the solution (20), this gives the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^21}}P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(z^21)^{1/2}}}P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu `$ $`=`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^21}}\left[\left((\nu 2)z+\alpha (z^21)^{1/2}\right)P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu (\mu +\nu 1/2)P_{\nu 3/2}^\mu \right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
where the second expression is obtained by using the recurrence relations satisfied by the associated Legendre functions.

The bound states are delimited by two extreme cases: the massless mode (zero mode), characterized by the value $`\mu =3/2`$, and the mode at the top of the gap, characterized by the mass-squared $`m_{(4)}^2=(3/2)H^2`$, i.e., $`\mu =0`$, above which bound states cannot exist. For each set of values for $`H`$ (or $`z`$) and $`M`$, one can thus define two critical values for the coupling, the lower one, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}`$, corresponding to a bound state that is also a zero mode and the upper one, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}`$ giving the threshold above which bound states disappear.

Using the boundary condition (27), one immediately finds that the zero mode coupling, corresponding to $`\mu =3/2`$, is given by

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}(z,M)=M^2\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\nu 1/2}^{5/2}}{P_{\nu 1/2}^{3/2}}}.`$ (28)
where we have used one of the recurrence relations for the Legendre functions and the definition of $`\nu `$ in terms of $`M`$. Note that, for $`M=0`$, one gets $`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}=0`$: one recovers the usual zero mode of a massless bulk scalar field with no coupling to the brane. As soon as the bulk mass $`M`$ is nonzero, with $`M^2>0`$, the zero mode coupling becomes negative, which means that one can find a zero mode localized on the brane only with a negative coupling. The case opposite to this occurs for an unstable potential, i.e., $`M^2<0`$ (for $`M^2\mathrm{}^2>4`$, which we assume in the present paper).

It is interesting to consider two limits concerning the Hubble parameter of the dS brane: the limit where the Hubble parameter is very small, $`H\mathrm{}1`$, corresponding to large values of $`z`$; and, conversely, the limit where $`H\mathrm{}1`$, corresponding to values of $`z`$ very close to $`1`$. For the first limit, one can use the asymptotic behaviour

$`P_\nu ^\mu (z)2^\nu \pi ^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\nu \mu \right)}}z^\nu ,z1,`$ (29)
which leads to the result

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}2\nu =2\sqrt{M^2\mathrm{}^2+4},H\mathrm{}1.`$ (30)
For the second limit, the expression (24) shows that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}`$ behaves like the inverse of the Hubble parameter, more specifically

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2\mathrm{}}{5H}},H\mathrm{}1.`$ (31)
Similarly, one can define the largest coupling, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}`$, that allows for the existence of a bound state. Using the boundary condition (27) with $`\mu =0`$, it is given by the expression

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}(z,M)={\displaystyle \frac{(\nu 1/2)P_{\nu 3/2}(\nu 2)zP_{\nu 1/2}}{(z^21)^{1/2}P_{\nu 1/2}}}.`$ (32)
When the mass of the bulk scalar field vanishes, $`M=0`$, then $`\nu =2`$ and the above expression for the critical coupling simplifies and reads

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}(z,0)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{1/2}}{(z^21)^{1/2}P_{3/2}}}.`$ (33)
As before, it is interesting to consider the behaviour of the maximal coupling in the two limits $`z\mathrm{}`$ and $`z1`$. In the first limit, one finds the same result as for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}`$, namely

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}2\nu =2\sqrt{M^2\mathrm{}^2+4},H\mathrm{}1,`$ (34)
which means that a bound state exists only for a value of the coupling very close to $`2\nu `$, i.e., negative for $`M^2>0`$ (and positive otherwise). In the second limit, one finds that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}`$ is proportional to $`H`$,

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H\mathrm{},H\mathrm{}1.`$ (35)
In Fig. 1, we have plotted the critical couplings $`\alpha _{\mathrm{zm}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}`$ as a function of $`z`$ for three bulk masses ($`M^2\mathrm{}^2=1`$, $`M^2\mathrm{}^2=0`$, $`M^2\mathrm{}^2=1`$). This defines, for the three cases, the regions in the coupling parameter space that allow for a bound state. Outside these regions, there is no bound state and the four-dimensional mass of the modes has an imaginary part, as will be discussed later. For large $`z`$, i.e. for small $`H`$, the bound state regions become thinner and thinner bands around the line $`\alpha =2\nu `$.

Note that, for a positive mass $`M`$, the critical coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{bs}}`$ is not always positive, but becomes negative for $`z>z_c(M)`$. This means that whereas for $`z<z_c(M)`$, i.e., for a Hubble parameter sufficiently high, one can always find a bound state with a vanishing coupling, it is no longer the case for $`z>z_c(M)`$ where a bound state can be found only with a negative coupling.

Finally, a more general quantitative analysis is possible in the cases where $`M^2\mathrm{}^21`$ and $`\alpha 1`$. Indeed, by linearizing the boundary condition (27) about the zero mode solution characterized by $`\mu =3/2`$, $`M=0`$ and $`\alpha =0`$, one can find the linear deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mu +3/2`$ as a function of the small parameters $`M^2\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\alpha `$. Expressing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ in terms of the effective four-dimensional mass of the bound state, one gets

$`m_{(4)}^2f_1(H\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}+f_2(H\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2}},`$ (36)
with

$`f_1(H\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+H^2\mathrm{}^2}}{(H\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H^2\mathrm{}^2,f_2(H\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(H\mathrm{})}},`$ (37)
and

$`(H\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{z^21}P_{1/2}^{3/2}(z)}{3P_{3/2}^{3/2}(z)}}=\sqrt{1+H^2\mathrm{}^2}H^2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1+H^2\mathrm{}^2}}{H\mathrm{}}}\right).`$ (38)
The expression (36) shows that, in the linearized limit, the (small) bulk mass-squared and brane coupling contribute additively to the effective four-dimensional mass-squared of the bound state. The coefficients in the linear combination depend on $`z`$, i.e. on the value of the Hubble parameter. In the limit $`H\mathrm{}0`$, i.e., $`z+\mathrm{}`$, one finds

$`m_{(4)}^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2}},H\mathrm{}1,`$ (39)
whereas in the opposite limit one gets

$`m_{(4)}^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}M^2+3{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\alpha ,H\mathrm{}1.`$ (40)
The contribution from the coupling is thus proportional to the coupling parameter $`m`$ times the largest of the two mass scales $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{}^1`$. The contribution from the bulk scalar field mass is essentially the same with a very small variation of the coefficient. Note also that the result (31) follows immediately from (40) with $`m_{(4)}^2=0`$.

In the case of $`H\mathrm{}1`$, it may be worth mentioning that the coupling $`(\alpha /\mathrm{})\varphi ^2`$ on the brane contributes to the effective mass term as it is, if we rescale $`\varphi `$ as $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\mathrm{}}\varphi `$ by introducing an effective four-dimensional scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of correct dimensions, whereas the bulk mass-squared $`M^2`$ contributes with a factor of $`1/2`$.

## IV Effective potential approach

In this section, we will use the four-dimensional projection of the five-dimensional Einstein equations onto the brane in order to establish an effective potential for the four-dimensional projection of the scalar field on the brane. Such a procedure was successfully applied in the case of a bulk scalar field with quadratic potential but without coupling to the brane shs01 ; hts01  and it was shown that the effective potential is simply half the bulk potential when $`H\mathrm{}1`$. The purpose of this section is to generalize this result to include the coupling of the scalar field to the brane.

### IV.1 General derivation

We will start by recalling some results derived in mw00  following the procedure of sms99 . It was shown there in particular that the effective four-dimensional Einstein equations for dilaton-vacuum configurations are given by

$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{\mu \nu }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _5^2}{3}}\widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }(\varphi ){}_{}{}^{(4)}\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }E_{\mu \nu },`$ (41)
with

$`\widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu \varphi D_\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}g_{\mu \nu }(D\varphi )^2,`$ (42)
$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{(5)}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _5^2\left[V(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\kappa _5^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\varphi }}\right)^2\right],`$ (43)
where $`D_\mu `$ denotes the covariant differentiation with respect to the metric on the brane. Using the four-dimensional Bianchi identities, the covariant differentiation of Einstein’s equations (41) implies

$`D^\mu E_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\kappa _5^2D^\mu \widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }D_\nu {}_{}{}^{(4)}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (44)
Specializing to a FLRW (Friedmann-Lemaıtre-Robertson-Walker) geometry, one finds that the Friedmann equation on the brane, corresponding to the component (0-0) of (41) is given by

$`3H^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mathrm{}^2}}+\kappa _5^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\dot{\varphi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+E,`$ (45)
where $`E=E_0^0=E_{00}`$. Equation (44) yields

$`\dot{E}+4HE`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _5^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\ddot{\varphi }2H\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}(\sigma ^2)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{}]\dot{\varphi }`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`\kappa _5^2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\ddot{\varphi }+2H\dot{\varphi })(\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}(\sigma ^2)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{}]\dot{\varphi },`$
where we have rewritten the terms in the brackets involving the first and second derivatives of $`\varphi `$, as two linear combinations, one which will be easily integrated and the other one corresponding to the familiar four-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation.

We are now going to assume that the brane value of the scalar field satisfies a Klein-Gordon equation that can be written in the form

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=J,`$ (47)
where $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is an effective potential which we wish to determine and where $`J`$ stands for a possible energy leak out of the brane into the bulk. Substituting this Klein-Gordon equation in Eq. (46) above, one finds

$`\dot{E}+4HE={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{2}}(\ddot{\varphi }+2H\dot{\varphi })\dot{\varphi }+\kappa _5^2[V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}(\sigma ^2)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{}+J]\dot{\varphi }.`$ (48)
This strongly suggests that the effective potential, if it makes sense, is of the form

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa _5^2\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\sigma ^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (49)
where the choice of the constant is for convenience as will be seen very soon. Remarkably, this is the same combination which appears in the Friedmann equation (45). That is, if we adopt this definition for the effective potential, and introduce the quantity $`X`$ defined by

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{4}}\dot{\varphi }^2+\kappa _5^2X,`$ (50)
the Friedmann equation (45) and the equation (48) for $`E`$ reduce to the very simple system

$`3H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V_{\mathrm{eff}}+X\right],`$ (51)
$`\dot{X}+4HX`$ $`=`$ $`J\dot{\varphi },`$ (52)
where one recognizes the standard four-dimensional Friedmann equation with a scalar field and some extra component $`X`$. The second equation is a (non)-conservation equation for the extra-component $`X`$. Note that $`X`$ plays the role of the Weyl, or dark radiation, which was identified in the simplest model of brane cosmology bdel99 . When the energy outflow is zero, i.e. $`J=0`$, one recovers the result

$`X={\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{a^4}}.`$ (53)
A non zero $`J`$ means that there is an energy outflow from the brane into the bulk, which is going to feed the Weyl energy density. This is similar somehow to the growth of $`𝒞`$ induced by the gravitational wave emission from brane cosmological perturbations, which was recently analysed in lsr02 . It should also be mentioned that we have not really proved the form (49) for the effective potential. We have simply shown that this form is consistent with the system of effective equations in the brane.

### IV.2 Exact solutions

It is instructive at this stage to check the above approach for known exact solutions. One of the simplest examples is the case of a bulk scalar field with the exponential potential static ; cr99 ; LanRod01 ; Langlois02 ; KoyTak03

$`V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\lambda \kappa \varphi \right).`$ (54)
One can find for the bulk with vanishing cosmological constant explicit static solutions, which read

$`ds^2=h(R)dT^2+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{2\lambda ^2}}{h(R)}}dR^2+R^2d\stackrel{}{x}^2,`$ (55)
for the metric, with

$`h(R)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2V_0/6}{1(\lambda ^2/4)}}R^2𝒞R^{\lambda ^22},`$ (56)
$`𝒞`$ being an arbitrary constant, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{3}}}\varphi =\lambda \mathrm{ln}(R).`$ (57)
for the scalar field.

A brane with a tension

$`\sigma (\varphi )=\sigma _0\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{3}}}\kappa \varphi \right).`$ (58)
will undergo a cosmological evolution governed by the generalized Friedmann equation

$`H^2=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{36}}\sigma _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2V_0/6}{1(\lambda ^2/4)}}\right]R^{2\lambda ^2}+𝒞R^{4\lambda ^2}.`$ (59)
Since the bulk cosmological constant is zero, the effective potential is here

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\sigma ^{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{12}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4}}\right)\sigma _0^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\lambda \kappa \varphi \right)`$ (60)
$``$ $`V_{\mathrm{eff},0}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\lambda \kappa \varphi \right).`$
It is not difficult to check that $`\varphi `$ satisfies the effective Klein-Gordon equation (47) with

$`J=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\right)H\dot{\varphi }.`$ (61)
The Friedmann equation (59) can also be written in the effective form (51) with the energy density $`X`$ given by

$`\kappa ^2X`$ $`=`$ $`3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4}}\right)𝒞R^{4\lambda ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{4}}\dot{\varphi }^2`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\right)𝒞R^{4\lambda ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2/4}{1\lambda ^2/4}}V_{\mathrm{eff},0}R^{2\lambda ^2}.`$
Thus, if we apply our interpretation of $`J`$ that it describes energy flow from the brane into the bulk, the above analysis implies that the energy is actually flowing onto the brane for $`\lambda ^2<2`$ rather than flowing out of the brane. It is also worth noting that, whereas the present exemple is an instructive check, it is however not very useful in practice because the energy exchange between the brane and the bulk is important so that the choice between the variables $`X`$ and $`E`$ is somewhat arbitrary (in fact, the expression for $`E`$ in terms of the scale factor is simpler). It is really for the cases where the energy leak $`J`$ is small that the effective potential approach makes really sense physically.

### IV.3 Quadratic case

In the case of the quadratic bulk potential and brane coupling, (3-4), the effective potential suggested by the above analysis reads (with Eq. (9) in mind),

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa _5^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}\right)\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\varphi ^4.`$ (63)
At the extremum $`\varphi =0`$, the effective mass-squared is thus given by

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2}}\sqrt{1+H^2\mathrm{}^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}},`$ (64)
where we have replaced $`\mathrm{}_0`$ by its expression in terms of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`H`$. It is interesting to note that this potential, which is quartic in $`\varphi `$, takes a double-well form for $`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2<0`$. If the present approach is valid, this implies that we may describe a situation of spontaneous symmetry breaking with $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

We now wish to compare the results of the mode analysis with the effective potential approach, and in order to so, to compare the effective mass predicted by the two analyses. In the previous section, we have identified two critical cases: the case when the bound state is a zero mode, i.e., $`m_{(4)}^2=0`$, and the case when the bound state reaches the top of the gap, i.e., $`m_{(4)}^2=(9/4)H^2`$. In the effective potential approach, the equation

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}=0,`$ (65)
is easily solve to yield

$`\widehat{\alpha }_{\mathrm{zm}}(z,M)={\displaystyle \frac{2z}{\sqrt{z^21}}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4z^2}{z^21}}+M^2\mathrm{}^2}.`$ (66)
Similarly, the bound state threshold is determined by solving the equation

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{9/4}{\mathrm{}^2(z^21)}},`$ (67)
which gives

$`\widehat{\alpha }_{\mathrm{bs}}(z,M)={\displaystyle \frac{2z}{\sqrt{z^21}}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4z^2}{z^21}}+M^2\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{9/2}{(z^21)}}}.`$ (68)
In both cases, we will keep only the root with the minus sign since it matches with the small coupling limit. In the small Hubble parameter limit, i.e., in the large $`z`$ limit, the two expressions converge towards the same value $`2\nu `$ as found previously.

For small bulk mass and coupling, the effective potential approach can provide a reasonable approximation, even in the case $`H\mathrm{}1`$. Indeed, neglecting the $`\alpha ^2`$ term in (64), one gets

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2}}\sqrt{1+H^2\mathrm{}^2},(\alpha M\mathrm{}).`$ (69)
Therefore, in the limit $`H\mathrm{}1`$, one finds

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2}},H\mathrm{}1,`$ (70)
which is exactly the same result as in (39). This strongly indicates the validity of the effective potential approach for $`H\mathrm{}1`$, at least in the case of quadratic potential and brane-coupling. It is then tempting to conjecture that this approach is valid for more general cases, including the case when the backreaction of the scalar field dynamics to the geometry is non-negligible.

Even in the opposite limit $`H\mathrm{}1`$, one finds

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\alpha ,H\mathrm{}1,`$ (71)
which is qualitatively similar to (40) although the numerical coefficients in the linear combination are now slightly different.

## V Quasi-normal modes

We have so far concentrated our attention on stable, bound-state modes. It is however instructive to study as well the decaying, quasi-normal modes in the case where there exists no bound-state mode, although this is a more complicated problem. In particular, if the effective potential we derived in the previous section is valid, the term $`J`$ which describes the possible energy leak to the bulk may be determined by studying the decay width of quasi-normal modes.

Mathematically, quasi-normal modes are defined as those that satisfy the purely outgoing-wave boundary condition at future Cauchy horizon of AdS5. A quasi-normal mode can be found by solving Eq. (27) for complex $`\mu `$ with $`\mathrm{Re}[\mu ]>0`$, with $`\mathrm{Im}[\mu ^2]`$ being related to the decay width of the effective four-dimensional mass $`m_{(4)}`$. Note that, if $`\mu `$ is a solution to Eq. (27), so is its complex conjugate $`\mu ^{}`$. For definiteness, let us reserve the terminology ‘quasi-bound-state modes’ for those modes with non-zero imaginary part, and call the modes with positive real $`\mu `$ the ‘purely decaying modes’.

### V.1 Analytical approach

In the limit $`H^2\mathrm{}^21`$, one can obtain an analytic expression for the quasi-bound-state modes with least real part, i.e., the effective mass with smallest decay width. In this case, it is convenient to use one of the decompositions of the associated Legendre function into hypergeometric functions Bateman :

$`P_\nu ^\mu (z)=A_1F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}};\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z^2}})+A_2F({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}};\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z^2}}),`$ (72)
with

$`A_1={\displaystyle \frac{2^{\nu 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu \right)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu \mu \right)}}(z^21)^{(\nu +1)/2},A_2={\displaystyle \frac{2^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\nu \right)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\nu \mu \right)}}(z^21)^{\nu /2}.`$ (73)
Substituting this expression into the junction condition (27), and using $`z^21=(H\mathrm{})^2`$, one finds, by expanding in terms of $`H^2\mathrm{}^2`$,

$`(\nu 2+\alpha )(\nu 1)`$ $`+`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\nu 2)(\nu 1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)^2\mu ^2\right](\nu 4+\alpha )\right\}H^2\mathrm{}^2+𝒪(H^4\mathrm{}^4)`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`2^{2\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\nu \mu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu \mu \right)}}(1\nu )(\nu +2\alpha )(H^2\mathrm{}^2)^\nu +𝒪\left((H^2\mathrm{}^2)^{\nu +2}\right)=0.`$ (75)
We stress that this expansion makes sense only for $`\mu ^2H^2\mathrm{}^21`$. The dominant terms are the first two terms which give

$`\mu ^2H^2\mathrm{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)^2H^2\mathrm{}^2+4{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu 2+\alpha )(\nu 1)}{\nu 4+\alpha }}.`$ (76)
For this equation to be consistent with the condition $`\mu ^2H^2\mathrm{}^21`$, one must assume $`\nu 2+\alpha 1`$, which means that one must be very close to the bound state region defined before. In this case, the solutions are

$`\mu \pm \sqrt{\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)^22{\displaystyle \frac{(1\alpha )(\nu 2+\alpha )}{H^2\mathrm{}^2}}}.`$ (77)
In the more particular case where both $`M^2\mathrm{}^21`$ and $`\alpha 1`$, one finds

$`\mu \pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2\mathrm{}^2+4\alpha }{2H^2\mathrm{}^2}}}.`$ (78)
It may be worth mentioning that this result is valid irrespective of the relative magnitudes of $`H\mathrm{}`$, $`M\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha `$, as long as they are all small compared to unity. In particular, if the quantity inside the square root is positive, the solution with the minus sign (i.e., $`\mu <0`$) is just a bound-state solution in the limit $`H\mathrm{}1`$, given by Eq. (39). On the other hand, if the quantity inside the square root is negative, the dominant term of $`\mu `$ will become purely imaginary and a small real part will develop in $`\mu `$, as a result of the appearance of an imaginary part in $`\mu ^2`$. The imaginary part of $`\mu ^2`$, however, cannot be determined from the first line of (75) which contains only polynomial functions of $`\mu ^2`$. One must resort to the second line to compute its imaginary part, which will be given by

$`H^2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{Im}\left[\mu ^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2^{22\nu }(1\nu )(\nu +2\alpha )\left(H\mathrm{}\right)^{2\nu }}{(\nu 4+\alpha )}}\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\nu \mu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu \mu \right)}}\right],`$ (79)
where one can substitute the solution (77) in the right hand side. This expression agrees with hts01  for $`\alpha =0`$.

In the limit $`H^2\mathrm{}^2M^2\mathrm{}^21`$ and $`H^2\mathrm{}^2\alpha 1`$, one finds

$`H^2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{Im}\left[\mu ^2\right]\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{16}}\left(M^2\mathrm{}^2+4\alpha \right)^2,`$ (80)
which agrees with the Minkowski limit of drt00  in the case $`\alpha =0`$.

Another case which may be studied analytically, though only qualitatively, is when $`\alpha 1`$. In this case Eq. (27) implies that the terms proportional to $`\alpha `$ should become $`O(1/\alpha )`$. Hence, in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu `$ is given by a zero of $`P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu (z)`$ on the complex $`\mu `$-plane (with $`\mathrm{Re}[\mu ]>0`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}[\mu ]0`$), which is independent of $`\alpha `$. Thus $`\mu `$ converges to a finite value in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$.

Let us next discuss the purely decaying modes for which $`\mu `$ lies on the (positive) real axis, i.e., with no real part in the effective mass. They are usually subdominant in the sense that their decay widths are larger than the decay width of the complex quasi-bound-state modes discussed above. For $`H\mathrm{}1`$, the asymptotic behaviour of Legendre functions is given in (29) and one thus finds the zeros of the boundary condition (27) when the common dominator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )`$ for all terms goes to infinity, i.e. for

$`\mu _n=1+n,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ (81)
The other limit is $`H\mathrm{}1`$ and the Legendre functions behave according to (24). In the boundary condition (27), the dominant terms, when $`z1`$ are the terms proportional to $`P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu `$ and therefore the zeros of (27) are given by

$`\mu _n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{4+M^2}+n,n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ (82)
where $`n`$ is a positive integer, corresponding to cases where the Gamma function in the denominator of $`P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu `$ blows up. These zeros thus now depend on $`M`$ but not on the coupling $`\alpha `$ or on $`z`$ (provided however $`z1`$).

### V.2 Numerical approach

In order to study the quasi-normal modes in more details, we have solved numerically the following equation for the complex number $`\mu `$,

$`F(\mu ;M,\alpha ,z)(\mu +\nu 1/2){\displaystyle \frac{P_{\nu 3/2}^\mu }{P_{\nu 1/2}^\mu }}+(\nu 2)z+\alpha (z^21)^{1/2}=0,`$ (83)
for various values of the parameters $`M`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`z`$. As mentioned earlier, if $`\mu `$ is a solution, so is $`\mu ^{}`$. Hence, without loss of generality, we may confine our search for $`\mu `$ on the first quadrant (i.e., $`\mathrm{Re}[\mu ]>0`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}[\mu ]>0`$) on the complex $`\mu `$-plane.

Let us start our numerical exploration with the case of a vanishing coupling $`\alpha =0`$.

In Fig. 2, we have plotted the numerical solutions for $`\mu `$ in the complex plane for various values of the bulk mass $`M`$. As can be seen in the figure, we have obtained several branches of solutions which evolve continously as $`M\mathrm{}`$ varies. As $`M\mathrm{}`$ increases, the modes on these branches migrate away from the real axis. The branch closest to the vertical axis is the most important dynamically because its imaginary part is small.

This branch is connected to the origin of the complex plane in the limit $`M\mathrm{}0`$ and the corresponding quasi-normal modes have been computed analytically just above for $`H\mathrm{}1`$ and $`M^2\mathrm{}^21`$.

As a check, we can compare the analytical results given above with our numerical solutions. As noted before, we perform our search in the first quadrant of the complex $`\mu `$-plane, which means $`\mathrm{Im}[m_{(4)}^2]<0`$. First, we have checked that the real part of $`m_{(4)}^2`$ is indeed very close to the analytical value $`M^2/2`$. For the imaginary part, we have plotted in Fig. 3 $`\mathrm{Im}[m_{(4)}^2]/(M^4\mathrm{}^2)`$ as a function of $`M\mathrm{}`$ in two cases, $`z=50`$ and $`z=1000`$. In both cases, starting from high values of $`M\mathrm{}`$, one approaches the analytical value of $`\pi /16`$ as $`M\mathrm{}`$ decreases, as suggested by (80). But, whereas in the case $`z=1000`$, the dots continue to approach $`\pi /16`$, there is a sudden change in the evolution for $`z=50`$. This is simply due to the fact that, even if $`H\mathrm{}1`$, the small values of $`M\mathrm{}`$ become of the same order of magnitude as $`H\mathrm{}`$ and (80) is no longer a good approximation: one needs the more general expression (79). The two curves in the figure correspond to the analytical estimate given by (79) and one sees that the numerical values converge towards these curves for low masses.

Our numerical treatment allows us to continue this quasi-normal branch beyond the regime of validity of the analytical calculations, and in particular for very high masses. Moreover, as mentioned before and as illustrated in Fig. 2, we have found other solutions for $`\mu `$, away from the real axis, which correspond to additional branches. Each of this branch starts from the real axis after a critical mass threshold has been reached and then evolves away from the real axis as $`M\mathrm{}`$ increases.

Let us now consider the situation when the coupling is allowed to vary. We have plotted in Fig. 4 the evolution of the quasi-normal mode with the increasing (positive) coupling in the case $`M\mathrm{}=0`$. What can be observed is that the mode, after going away from the real axis, tends to come back towards it.

In Fig. 5, we have also plotted the same evolution, i.e. with increasing coupling, in the case $`M\mathrm{}=5`$ where several quasi-normal modes are already known to exist in the complex $`\mu `$-plane for vanishing coupling. We have no analytic expression for this case, but one can observe each of the modes follows a curve analogous to the $`M\mathrm{}=0`$ case. We have also added the evolution corresponding to increasing negative coupling. For the first branch, one finds that the mode converges towards the origin of the complex plane, which could be expected since at some critical value of the coupling one will enter into the localized mode region. For the second branch, one observes that the modes at large negative couplings converge towards the modes of the previous branch at large positive couplings. The same behaviour occurs for the third branch.

## VI Conclusions

In the present work, we have studied the modes of a massive bulk scalar field that are localized or (quasi-localized) on a brane with a de Sitter geometry, characterized by a Hubble parameter $`H`$. We have allowed for a coupling between the brane tension and the bulk scalar field, quantified by a dimensionless parameter $`\alpha `$.

Although the bound state of a massless bulk scalar field without coupling to the de Sitter brane is a zero mode, i.e. its four-dimensional effective mass $`m_{(4)}`$ vanishes, this is no longer the case for a non-zero bulk mass $`M`$ or a non zero coupling. One thus finds in general a massive bound state, whose four-dimensional mass depends on $`M`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`H`$. We have computed explicitly this dependence in limit of a small bulk mass and small coupling.

The mass-squared $`m_{(4)}^2`$ of the bound state is always comprised between zero and $`(3/2)H^2`$, value above which one finds a continuum of modes. We have obtained explicitly, for any value of $`M`$ and $`H`$, the lower and upper critical values for the coupling corresponding to this range of possible zero modes.

Another approach consists in trying to find a purely four-dimensional description of the scalar field including the effect of the bulk. We have generalized previous such procedures to take into account the coupling, and defined an effective potential for the value on the brane of the scalar field. For small $`M`$ and $`\alpha `$, the second derivative of the effective potential yields an effective mass-squared which is in excellent agreement with the rigorous mode approach for small $`H`$ and in qualitative agreement for large $`H`$. We have also demonstrated that a class of known exact solutions with a bulk scalar field indeed conforms to the effective potential approach.

Finally, when the three parameters $`M`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`H`$ are not in the region allowing for bound states, one finds modes whose effective mass has an imaginary part. This means that the corresponding states cannot stay localized on the brane but will escape into the bulk. We have explored numerically the dependence of the real and imaginary part of the four-dimensional mass on the values of the bulk mass and of the coupling and we have given an analytical estimate of the quasi-localized modes for small values of the Hubble parameter, i.e. $`H\mathrm{}1`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank K. Koyama for useful communications, in particular, for bringing our attention to exact solutions that conform to the effective potential approach. This work is supported in part by Monbukagaku-sho Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S), No. 14102004. This work was initiated when MS was visiting the gravitation and cosmology group (GReCO) at IAP, Paris. MS is grateful to the Université Paris 7-APC for financial support and to the GReCO members for warm hospitality.


format: text

text:
# First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Beam Profiles and Window Functions

## 1 Introduction

The primary goal of the WMAP satellite (Bennett et al., 2003c), now in orbit, is to make high-fidelity polarization-sensitive maps of the full sky in five frequency bands between 20 and 100 GHz. With these maps we characterize the properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy and Galactic and extragalactic emission on angular scales ranging from the effective beam size, $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}21`$, to the full sky (Bennett et al., 2003b). WMAP comprises ten dual-polarization differential microwave radiometers (Jarosik et al., 2003a) fed by two back-to-back shaped offset Gregorian telescopes (Page et al., 2003).

Knowledge of the beam profiles is of critical importance for interpreting data from CMB experiments. In algorithms for recovering the CMB angular power spectrum from a map, the output angular power spectrum is divided by the window function to reveal the intrinsic angular power spectrum of the sky. Thus, the main beam and its transform (or transfer function) directly affect cosmological analyses. Typically, the beam must be mapped to less than $`30`$ dB of the peak to achieve 1% accuracy on the angular power spectrum.

The WMAP calibration is done entirely with the CMB dipole, which fills the main lobes and sidelobes. Consequently, the angular spectrum is referenced to a multipole moment of $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The beam profile, discussed here, and electronic transfer function (Jarosik et al., 2003b) determine the ratio of the window function at high $`\mathrm{}`$ to that at $`\mathrm{}=1`$. For most other CMB experiments, insufficient knowledge of the beams affects both the calibration and window function as discussed, for example, in Miller et al. (2002).

Although it is traditional, and often acceptable, to parametrize beams with a single one or two-dimensional Gaussian form, such an approximation is not useful for WMAP. This is because at the level to which the beams must be characterized, they are intrinsically non-Gaussian. The WMAP beams can, however, be treated as azimuthally symmetric because each pixel is observed with multiple orientations of the spacecraft. The symmetric beam approximation is made for the first data release, avoiding many of the complications associated with asymmetric beams (Cheng et al., 1994; Netterfield et al., 1997; Wu et al., 2001; Souradeep & Ratra, 2001).

In the following we discuss how the beams are parametrized, how the window functions are computed, and how the uncertainties in the window functions are propagated through to the CMB angular power spectrum. The notation is summarized in Table 1. The sidelobe response is discussed in a companion paper (Barnes et al., 2003).

## 2 Determination of the Beam Profiles.

The beam profiles are determined from observations of Jupiter while the observatory is in its nominal CMB observation mode. Jupiter is observed during two approximately 45 day intervals each year. The first period111We use the JPL planetary ephemerides available from http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/eph\_info.html occurred from 2001 October 2 until 2001 November 24 when Jupiter was at $`l=193\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$, $`b=12\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, and a second period from 2002 February 8 to 2002 April 2 with Jupiter at $`l=189\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6`$, $`b=5\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}9`$, close to the Galactic plane and SNR IC443. The data are analyzed in the same manner as the CMB data in terms of pre-whitening, offset subtraction, and calibration (Hinshaw et al., 2003). The Jupiter observations are excluded from the CMB sky maps. In turn, the CMB sky maps are used to remove the background sky signal underlying the Jupiter maps.

Because the distance to Jupiter changes substantially over the observing period, all beam maps are referenced to a distance of $`d_J=5.2`$AU and a solid angle of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{ref}=2.481\times 10^8`$sr (Griffin et al., 1986). Jupiter is effectively a point source with temperature $`T_J=_\mathrm{\Omega }T_J^m𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{ref}=T_J^m\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{ref}`$, where $`T_J^m`$ is the amplitude observed by WMAP and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is the measured main beam solid angle. A map of Jupiter is expressed as

$$T(𝐧)=T_J\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{ref}B(𝐧)$$
(1)
where n is a unit direction vector and $`B`$ is the main beam pattern described below. The maximum of $`T(𝐧)`$ corresponds to $`T_J^m`$. The intrinsic short term variability in Jupiter’s flux is expected to be less than $`0.02`$Jy at 20 GHz assuming that the fluctuations scale with the nonthermal radio emission (Bolton et al., 2002). The measured flux is $`60`$Jy in K band (23 GHz) leading to an expected variation of $`<0.1`$%. Our measurements limit any variability to less than 2%.

Figure 1 shows the “raw” beams from both telescopes. A number of features are immediately evident. As expected, all beams are asymmetric and the V and W band beams have significant substructure at the $`10`$ to $`20`$ dB level. The asymmetry results because the feeds (Barnes et al., 2002) are far from the primary focus. The substructure arises because the primary mirror distorts upon cooling with an rms deviation of $`\sigma _z=0.024`$cm and correlation length of $`l_c10`$cm (Page et al., 2003).

The Jupiter data are analyzed both as maps binned with $`2.4^{}\times 2.4^{}`$ pixels and as time ordered data (TOD). These data products are analyzed separately. In addition, full flight simulations are used to test the software.

Figure 2 shows the beams in profile after symmetrization. In the Jupiter map analysis, the symmetrization procedure consists of smoothly interpolating the beam to $`0.015^{}\times 0.015^{}`$ pixels with a 2-D spline and then azimuthally averaging in rings of width $`1.2^{}`$. Due to noise, the maximum value in a map is often not on the best symmetry axis, though it is generally within one pixel of it. The symmetrized beam has the same solid angle as the raw beam to within $`0.3`$%. The normalized symmetrized beam is called $`b^S`$. In the TOD analysis, the data are fit to a series of Hermite functions (§3) according to their angular separation from a predetermined centroid. The best centroid is determined iteratively. The analysis includes the effects of the sampling integration and pre-whitening procedure (Hinshaw et al., 2003) but does not have the intermediate step of mapmaking and thus is independent of the $`2.4^{}`$ pixelization. There are low signal to noise modes in the Jupiter maps that do not affect the window functions and to which the Hermite method is insensitive. Generally, the Hermite beams are used for $`\mathrm{}`$-space quantities, such as the window function, and the Jupiter maps are used for real space calculations.

### 2.1 Beam solid angles and uncertainties

Linking the calibration of observations of the CMB at $`\mathrm{}=1`$ to compact sources at $`\mathrm{}1000`$ requires knowledge of the beam profile over a large range of angular scales. The width in $`\mathrm{}`$-space can be characterized by the total beam solid angle, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=b_T𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`b_T`$ is the full sky beam profile normalized to unity on the boresight. In our analysis, the beam is divided into two parts: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=\mathrm{\Omega }_B+\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is the main beam solid angle and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ is the portion associated with the sidelobes. Ideally $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S=0`$ but this is not an appropriate approximation for WMAP, especially in K band. Generally, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is found by normalizing a map to the best fit peak value, and then integrating out to some radius. For WMAP, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ does not reach a stable value as the integration radius is increased because of the imperfect knowledge of the background. This may be seen with the following estimate. The net statistical uncertainty in the WMAP data in a patch of radius $`3\mathrm{deg}`$ is $`6\mu `$K (the noise is $`0.85`$ mK in each $`2.4^{}\times 2.4^{}`$ pixel). If the background could be removed to this level, the resulting solid angle temperature product would be $`T\mathrm{\Omega }=5\times 10^2\mu `$K sr. By comparison, $`T_J^m\mathrm{\Omega }_B4\mu `$K sr in W-band ($`T_J^m200`$mK and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B2\times 10^5`$sr ). Given that both the region near Jupiter and the region being compared to must be known to this level and that $`T\mathrm{\Omega }`$ grows with radius, deviations of a few percent are not unexpected. As the signal to noise improves throughout the mission, this limitation will be alleviated.

In order to derive a consistent set of solid angles, we define a cutoff radius, $`\theta _{Rc}`$, out to which the solid angle integration is performed. As shown in Page et al. (2003), the global properties of the beam may be modeled by a core plus a “Ruze pattern” (Ruze, 1966) that is a function of the surface correlation length and rms roughness. We assume that $`l_c`$ is unchanged from the pre-launch measurements at 70 K. (The in-flight temperatures of the primaries are 73 K and 68 K for the central and top thermometers for both A and B sides.) Table 2 shows how the main beam forward gain, $`4\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, is reduced by the sampling and surface deformations. The agreement between the measurements and the expectations is evidence that the main beam effects have been accounted for and that the in-flight $`\sigma _z`$ is consistent with the ground-based measurement. Physical models of the optics, in §2.5, give further evidence for this.

We define $`\theta _{Rc}`$ as the radius that contains at least 99.8% of the modeled main beam solid angle. These values are 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8, 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5, 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2, 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8, 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 respectively for K through W bands and agree with values derived from the physical model of the optics. Figure 2 shows examples of the K- and W-band beams and their Ruze patterns. The solid angles resulting from the integrals over the Jupiter maps with a cutoff radius of $`\theta _{Rc}`$ are given in Table 3.

The uncertainty in the main beam solid angle primarily affects the determination of the flux from point sources and spatially localized features in real space. Solid angle uncertainties affect the angular spectrum through the width of the $`\mathrm{}`$-space passband as discussed in §3. The uncertainty is assessed three ways:

1. The solid angles are determined from simulations that have been processed in the same way the flight data are computed. The rms deviation between the input and recovered solid angle for 20 measurements (10 on the A side and 10 on the B side) is 1.1%. The formal statistical uncertainty is between 0.7% and 1% depending on band.
2. The scatter in the derived temperature of Jupiter is found for all detector/reflector combinations. Each feed is mapped in two polarizations by two detectors during two seasons for a total of eight measurements. The statistical uncertainty of the mean of the eight measurements is 2.6% in K band and $`1.1`$% in Ka through W bands. The K beam result has a relatively low amplitude, $`13.5`$ mK, and is wide, making it difficult to measure. It is also the most susceptible to the effective frequency and to incompletely subtracted Galactic contamination.

The systematic uncertainty is also determined from the Jupiter maps. The uncertainty on Jupiter’s measured amplitude is $`0.5`$% and is always subdominant to the uncertainty in the solid angle. We assume that Jupiter’s temperature is the same for all measurements within a band. (The intraband effective frequencies are close enough to be insensitive to Jupiter’s spectrum.) The uncertainty of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is increased until $`\chi ^2/\nu =1`$ for fits to Jupiter’s temperature within a band. This results in uncertainties of 2.6%, 1.2%, 1.2%, 1.1%, & 2.1% per DA222A differencing assembly (DA) (Jarosik et al., 2003a) comprises two polarization sensitive radiometers. There are 1, 1, 2, 2, & 4 DAs in K through W bands repectively. per side for K through W bands.
3. The solid angles are recomputed by direct integration after increasing $`\theta _{Rc}`$ to 3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7, 3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3, 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$9, 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4, 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 respectively for K through W bands. For the 10 DAs on both A and B sides, the rms deviation between the original $`\theta <\theta _{R_c}`$ and recomputed solid angles is 0.8% with no clear trend in the sign of the deviation except in W-band. In W-band, the solid angles with the increased $`\theta _{Rc}`$ are systematically larger by 0.8% on average, suggesting a potential bias. The most likely explanation is that the shape of the surface distortions is not Gaussian as assumed for the Ruze model. From Figure 2, one sees that the level of the potential contribution is at $`35`$ dB, just beyond $`\theta _{Rc}`$. We term this region the beam pedestal. To account for the bias, the W-band solid angles are increased by 0.8% over the nominally computed value and assigned an additional uncertainty of 0.4%, added in quadrature. The net uncertainty is still 2.1%. This increase is accounted for in Table 1 and discussed in the context of the window functions in §3.2. For the year-one data release, we treat this as a systematic deviation from our model and account for it in the analysis. Future analyses, with more data, will treat this effect with a more comprehensive beam model (§2.5) and will determine the source of the pedestal in the beam.

The uncertainties in the solid angles used throughout the analysis encompass the systematic effects in items 2 and 3. These uncertainties should be interpreted as “1$`\sigma `$.”

### 2.2 Sidelobes

The distinction between the main beams and the sidelobes is at some level an arbitrary definition. The structure that holds the feed horns scatters radiation into a large region around the main beams. In other words, the main beam does not contain the total solid angle of the full sky beam (Table 7, Page et al. (2003)). The fraction of the total solid angle outside $`\theta _{Rc}`$ is 0.037, 0.012, 0.012, 0.0022, and 0.001-0.003 in K through W bands respectively. For example, in K band, the region with $`\theta <\theta _{Rc}`$ contains 99.8% of the modeled main beam solid angle ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$) but only 96.4% of the total solid angle ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_A`$).

The sidelobes have two effects on the interpretation of the data. The first arises from Galactic contamination. As shown in Barnes et al. (2003), the sidelobe leakage affects primarily $`\mathrm{}<20`$ and is not significant for Ka, Q, V, and W bands. The second arises from the sidelobe contribution to the calibration of features at $`\mathrm{}>20`$. For example, point sources are detected only in the main beam and the measured temperature profile of a point source corresponds to only a main beam calibration. The dipole, however, is a full beam calibrator. Thus, to obtain the true flux of a point source, to a good approximation one multiplies the flux as calibrated by the dipole by 1.037, 1.012, 1.012, 1.002, and 1.003 in K through W bands respectively.

For the year-one release, only the K-band map is corrected for the Galactic sidelobe contribution. However, all the point source fluxes in Bennett et al. (2003a) and Jupiter fluxes given below have been corrected in all bands. The uncertainty of the correction is taken as half the correction factor, or 2%, 0.5%, 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.2% in K through W bands respectively.

### 2.3 Effective Frequencies

Because of WMAP’s broad frequency bandwidth, sources with different spectra have different effective frequencies. The effective frequency for a source that is small compared to the beam width (Page et al., 2003) is:

$$\nu _e\frac{\nu f(\nu )G_m(\nu )\nu ^2\sigma (\nu )𝑑\nu }{f(\nu )G_m(\nu )\nu ^2\sigma (\nu )𝑑\nu }$$
(2)
where $`f(\nu )`$ is the measured radio frequency (RF) passband 333Jarosik et al. (2003a) uses $`r(\nu )`$ where this paper and Page et al. (2003) use $`f(\nu )`$. and $`G_m(\nu )`$ is the maximum (forward) gain. The spectral dependence of the source is $`\sigma (\nu )\nu ^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha `$ the spectral index ( $`\alpha 0.7`$ for synchrotron, $`\alpha 0.1`$ for free-free, $`\alpha =2`$ for Rayleigh-Jeans, and $`\alpha 4`$ for dust) or $`\sigma (\nu )\nu ^4\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /k_BT_{CMB})/(\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /k_BT_{CMB})1)^2`$ for the CMB. (The variation of loss across the band is negligible.) For full beam sources, such as the CMB or the calibrators used in ground testing, the small dependence on the forward gain should not be included and the central frequencies in Jarosik et al. (2003a) should be used. At high $`\mathrm{}`$ or for point sources, the effective center frequency, and therefore the thermodynamic to Rayleigh-Jeans correction, changes. The magnitude and sign of the change depend on the relative weights of the radiometer passbands and forward gain. This small effect ($`<0.2`$GHz or $`<0.1`$%) in the conversion was not included in the year-one maps.

The passbands for the two polarizations in a DA differ slightly (Jarosik et al., 2003a). Thus, the two polarizations for one telescope (e.g., A side) have different passbands. On the other hand, the optical gain as a function of frequency is the same for both polarizations of one telescope but differs between the A and B sides. In Table 3, for the CMB, we give the effective frequencies from equation 2 for the average of the two RF passbands for the A and B sides separately. We also give the effective frequencies for both polarizations separately (Table 11, Jarosik et al. (2003a) ) for a source that fills the beam. The table shows that the effect of the optics on the passbands is small.

### 2.4 Temperature of Jupiter

The observations of Jupiter and the CMB dipole with WMAP result in a calibration of Jupiter calibrated with respect to the CMB dipole. After coadding the data over polarization and season, a fit is made to Jupiter’s temperature. Before the fit is done, a correction is applied. The loss in the input optics on the A and B sides differs by $`1`$% (Table 3, Jarosik et al. (2003a)). Therefore, Jupiter and the CMB do not have the same apparent temperature when measured through the A and B telescopes. The signature of the effect is that the average of the A-side temperature data is offset from that of the B-side data. This effect is accounted for in the year-one sky maps but not in the Jupiter maps. After the A/B imbalance, sidelobe corrections, and the W-band pedestal correction, all measurements of $`T_J`$ in one microwave band are fit to a single temperature. We find that $`T_J`$, in brightness temperature, is given by $`134\pm 4`$, $`146.6\pm 2.0`$, $`154.7\pm 1.7`$, $`163.8\pm 1.5`$, $`171.8\pm 1.7`$K in K through W bands respectively. The uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty in the solid angles, in the sidelobe corrections, and in the 0.5% intrinsic calibration uncertainty (Hinshaw et al., 2003). These values are the temperature one would measure by comparing the flux from Jupiter to that from blank sky. To obtain the absolute brightness temperature, one must add to these the brightness temperature of the CMB (2.2 K, 2.0 K, 1.9 K, 1.5 K, and 1.1 K in K through W bands, respectively). A future paper will compare this result to other measurements and assess the stability and polarization characteristics more completely.

### 2.5 Physical Model of Beams

The dominant surface deformation that leads to the distortions of the main beams comes from the “H-shaped” backing structure that holds the primary mirrors. A simple Fourier transform of the aperture with an additive H-shaped distortion reproduces many of the features in Figure 1, but photogramatic pictures (Page et al., 2003) of the cold surface indicate that the surface structure is more complicated. For the purposes of the year-one analysis, the Gaussian distortion model is sufficient, but for future analyses a more accurate model is desired.

The full beam is modeled using a physical optics code (DADRA, Rahmat-Samii et al. (1995)) that predicts the beam profile given the detailed physical shape of the optics. The primary surface deformation is parametrized with a set of Fourier modes the amplitudes of which are the fit coefficients. (In the pre-launch cryogenic tests, there was no evidence for a significant change in shape of the secondary.) A minimization loop finds the surface shape parameters that simultaneously fit the two V-band and four W-band beam maps of Jupiter.

The program is computationally intensive because the full physical optics calculation for all beams is recomputed for each iteration. A qualitative comparison of the measured and modeled beam patterns is shown in Figure 3 from which it is clear that the amplitude and phase of much of the surface deformation has been identified. The program has not run long enough to converge in all bands, so it is not yet used in the beam analysis. At this stage, though, the model gives us confidence that we are not missing significant components of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ and that our interpretation of the beams is correct.

### 2.6 Temperature Stability and Reflector Emissivity

The WMAP orbit in the L2 environment results in extremely good thermal stability. The instrument has an array of thermometers on the optical components with sub-millikelvin resolution (Jarosik et al., 2003b). By binning the temperature data synchronously with the spin rate and the position of the Sun, we detect a synchronous thermal variation in the optics. The top and middle of the primary have a peak-to-peak amplitude of $`0.23`$ mK. We believe this is due to scattering of solar radiation off the rim of the solar array. The tips of the secondary mirrors show a maximal variation of 0.04 mK peak-to-peak, with the rest of the secondaries much less. There is no evidence for any thermal variation due to illumination by the Earth or Moon. The 0.23 mK is well below the conservative bound of 1.5 mK in Page et al. (2003) and below the 0.5 mK rms requirement in the systematic error budget.

We bound the emissivity, $`ϵ`$, of the reflectors using a similar method. After subtracting the CMB dipole from the TOD, the radiometric signal is coadded in Sun-synchronous coordinates following the method outlined in Jarosik et al. (2003b). The net spin synchronous radiometric signal detected is 0.4 $`\mu `$K peak-to-peak (0.014 $`\mu `$K rms) in the combined W and V bands. Therefore, an upper bound on the emissivity of the surface is 0.002. The predicted emissivity is $`0.0005`$.

### 2.7 Polarization from Optics

Each DA measures two orthogonal differential polarizations from each pair of feeds (e.g., K11A and K11B form one difference and K12A and K12B form the other difference). The Stokes Q and U components are found by differencing these two signals in the time stream, determining the components relative to a fixed direction on the sky, and then producing a map with the mapmaking algorithm (Kogut et al., 2003; Hinshaw et al., 2003). WMAP was designed to have cross-polar leakage of $`<22`$ dB in all bands (Page et al., 2003) to enable a measurement of the polarization of the CMB. This specification was met and demonstrated in pre-launch ground tests with a polarized source.

To assess the degree of the similarity of the two polarization channels, we take the A-side beam maps for both polarizations from one feed (e.g., KA11 (’P1’) and KA12 (’P2’)), difference them, integrate over the difference map, and then divide by $`T\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from Jupiter. The resulting fractional signal for the A side is 8.1%, 2.5%, 0.2%, 0.4%, -2.8%, -2.7%, 0.3%, 0.5%, 1.6%, and 0.9% in K1 through W4 bands. For the B side it is 6.5%, -0.1%, -3.3%, 4.0%, 0.4%, 1.0%, -0.5%, -0.1%, 2.7%, -0.5%. The statistical uncertainty for the difference in polarizations is $`1.2`$% and the measured rms of all Ka through W values is 1.8%. For a polarized source, the sign of the difference changes when P1-P2 is determined on the A and B sides.

The difference between the beams (P1-P2) from the Jupiter maps is larger than expected but there are no clear trends in Ka through W bands and no clear detections of polarization. For K band, there is a clear excess at a level larger than can be attributed to the optics. As Jupiter is nearly a thermal source, the difference is not due to a frequency mismatch (Kogut et al., 2003) between the dipole and Jupiter. However, the difference in effective frequencies of 1.0 GHz (P1 and P2, Table 3) leads to a difference in solid angle of order 10% (Table 5, Page et al. (2003)), enough to explain the effect. The net effect is smaller in the higher frequency bands because of the low edge taper. For the year-one analysis, the slight difference in the effective frequency for the bands is not corrected. Instead, the uncertainty is absorbed in the uncertainty of the average solid angle.

The CMB is polarized at the $`5`$% level, in temperature units, and the temperature-polarization correlation is at the $`15`$% level. The CMB polarization signal comes from scales larger than the size of the beam and so no particular band mismatch affects the CMB polarization results. In addition, the CMB signal is derived from the sum over multiple bands.

## 3 Calculation of window functions

The characteristics of the CMB are most frequently expressed as an angular spectrum of the form $`l(l+1)C_l/2\pi `$ (Bond, 1996) where $`C_l`$ is the angular power spectrum of the temperature:

$$T(𝐧)=\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}a_\mathrm{}mY_\mathrm{}m(𝐧),a_\mathrm{}^{}m^{}^{}a_\mathrm{}m=\delta _{\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}}\delta _{m^{}m}C_{\mathrm{}}$$
(3)
where n is a unit vector on the sphere and $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$ is a spherical harmonic.

The beam acts as a spatial low-pass filter on the angular variations in $`T(𝐧)`$ such that the variance of a noiseless set of temperature measurements is given by

$$C(0)\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}}{4\pi }w_{\mathrm{}}$$
(4)
where $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the window function which encodes the beam smoothing. It is normalized to unity at $`\mathrm{}=0`$ as discussed below.

The window functions are expressed following the conventions of White & Srednicki (1995). The window function depends on the mapping function $`M(𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ which describes how the experiment convolves the true sky temperature $`T(𝐧^{})`$ into the observed temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}(𝐧)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(𝐧)=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐧^{}M(𝐧,𝐧^{})T(𝐧^{}).$$
(5)
For WMAP, $`M(𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ for one feed is a weighted average of the beam response $`B(𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ that accounts for the smearing due to the finite arc scanned over an integration period and the azimuthal coverage of the observations in each pixel. The symmetrized beam, $`B^S`$, is an excellent approximation to the mapping function.

The full window function is given by:

$`w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐧_1,𝐧_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐧_1^{}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐧_2^{}}M(𝐧_1,𝐧_1^{})M(𝐧_2,𝐧_2^{})P_{\mathrm{}}(𝐧_1^{}𝐧_2^{})}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\mathrm{}+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐧_1^{}}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐧_2^{}}M(𝐧_1,𝐧_1^{})\times `$
$`M(𝐧_2,𝐧_2^{})Y_\mathrm{}m^{}(𝐧_1^{})Y_\mathrm{}m(𝐧_2^{})`$
where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Legendre polynomial. The primary quantity of interest is the window function at zero lag, $`w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐧,𝐧)`$. In this case the total variance of the data, $`C(0)`$, is the sum of the power in each spherical harmonic weighted by the window. This is directly analogous to low-pass filtering. If the mapping function is independent of celestial position, then

$`w_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\mathrm{}+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐧M(𝐧,𝐧)Y_\mathrm{}m^{}(𝐧)}\right|^2`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\mathrm{}+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|m_\mathrm{}m\right|^2`$ (8)
where the $`m_\mathrm{}m`$ are the harmonic coefficients of the mapping function.

If the beam is azimuthally symmetric, a further simplification can be made: $`_{m=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left|m_\mathrm{}m\right|^2=(2\mathrm{}+1)b_l^2/4\pi `$ where $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by the Legendre transform of the beam

$$b_{\mathrm{}}=2\pi b^S(\theta )P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )/\mathrm{\Omega }_B.$$
(9)
Thus $`w_{\mathrm{}}=b_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. For symmetric beams, $`\theta `$ is used instead of $`\mathrm{acos}(𝐧𝐧^{})`$. For a symmetric Gaussian of width $`\sigma _b`$, we find

$`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`2\pi \sigma _b^2e^{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\sigma _b^2/2}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Be^{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\sigma _b^2/2}`$ (11)
where $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Legendre transform with units of sr. Because the instrument is calibrated with a dipole signal, the $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ should be normalized at $`\mathrm{}=1`$. In practice, this is indistinguishable from normalizing at $`\mathrm{}=0`$. Thus, $`b_{\mathrm{}}=B_{\mathrm{}}/B_{\mathrm{}=0}=B_{\mathrm{}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ and is dimensionless.

Although WMAP is intrinsically differential, there is essentially no overlap of the beams from opposite sides, so the window functions from each beam may be treated independently and then combined in the end. Thus, the window function for the differential signal is derived from the weighted symmetrized beam

$$b^S(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^S}{2}\left(\frac{(1\overline{x}_{im})|b^{S,A}|}{\mathrm{\Omega }_B^A}+\frac{(1+\overline{x}_{im})|b^{S,B}|}{\mathrm{\Omega }_B^B}\right)$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B^B`$ are the main beam solid angles for the A and B side beams, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^S`$ is the effective solid angle of the combined beam, and $`\overline{x}_{im}`$ is $`0.01`$ and corrects for the A/B imbalance (Jarosik et al., 2003a) 444The $`\overline{x}_{im}`$ is the average of the values for the two polarizations.. We use the absolute values to indicate that both beams are treated as positive in this equation. As before, the superscript $`S`$ denotes a symmetrized beam.

### 3.1 Window Functions and Their Uncertainties.

We compute the window function for the CMB analysis from $`b^S`$ using an expansion of the symmetrized beam in Hermite polynomials. Hermite functions are a natural basis for the beam as they parametrize deviations from Gaussanity. The expansion also naturally gives the covariance matrix for the $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ as well.

The Hermite expansion is given by

$$b^S(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta ^2/2\sigma _h^2)\underset{i=0}{\overset{m_h}{}}a_{2i}H_{2i}(\theta /\sigma _h)$$
(13)
where $`\theta `$ is angular distance from the beam center, $`\sigma _h`$ is the Gaussian width of the beam, and $`H_{2i}`$ is the Hermite polynomial of order $`2n`$ (Chapter 22, Abramowitz & Stegun (1972) ). The parameters of the expansion are given in Table 4. A fit is made of the TOD to equation 13. From the fit, the $`m_h`$ coefficients $`a_{2i}`$ and the $`m_h\times m_h`$ covariance matrix $`C^{aa^{}}`$ are found. The expansion coefficients, $`a_{2i}`$, are normalized to account for the measured temperature of Jupiter and the normalization of $`H_{2i}`$.

The transfer function is computed separately for each Hermite polynomial following equation 9:

$$B_\mathrm{}i=2\pi \mathrm{exp}(\theta ^2/2\sigma _h^2)H_{2i}(\theta /\sigma _h)P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(14)
so that the full transfer function is

$$B_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m_h}{}}a_{2i}B_\mathrm{}i.$$
(15)
The window functions based on equation 15 are shown in Figure 4. From equation 15, one can determine the covariance matrix between $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}^B=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{m_h}{}}\frac{B_{\mathrm{}}}{a_{2i}}C_{ij}^{aa^{}}\frac{B_{\mathrm{}^{}}}{a_{2j}}=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{m_h}{}}B_\mathrm{}iC_{ij}^{aa^{}}B_\mathrm{}^{}j.$$
(16)
This matrix has units of sr2, is independent of Jupiter’s temperature, and is largest in magnitude at low $`\mathrm{}`$.

Because of the dipole calibration, there is effectively only calibration uncertainty at $`\mathrm{}=1`$. This is accommodated in the formalism by normalizing the beam covariance matrix at $`\mathrm{}=0`$, $`b_{\mathrm{}}=B_{\mathrm{}}/B_0`$, as shown in Appendix A. We find

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{m_h}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{\mathrm{}}}{a_{2i}}}C_{ij}^{aa^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{\mathrm{}^{}}}{a_{2j}}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^S)^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}^B+b_{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}^{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{00}^Bb_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{}^{}^Bb_{\mathrm{}^{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{}0^B\right).`$ (18)
Equation 18 gives the formal statistical uncertainty in the transfer functions which is shown in Figure 5 for the ten DAs.

The solid angle is a scaling factor for the transfer functions, $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$, and does not directly enter into the uncertainty of the window function. However, the noise that leads to the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ also produces the finite $`C^{aa^{}}`$. In particular, the uncertainty in the $`\mathrm{}`$ cutoff in the transfer function is manifest as the increased uncertainties at large $`\mathrm{}`$ in Figure 5. Because we found that the scatter in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ was larger than that predicted by the noise by a factor of two in W band (§2.1 item 2), the statistical error bars from equation 18 are inflated by a factor of two in all bands to account for current systematic uncertainties intrinsic to the Jupiter data. This is shown in Figure 5.

### 3.2 Systematic Uncertainty in the Window Functions

The window functions depend on the treatment of the beams, sky coverage, and analysis method at the few percent level. These systematic effects are included in the window function uncertainty.

To determine the effect of incomplete symmetrization, mapping functions $`M(𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ are computed for coverage corresponding to a pixel near the north ecliptic pole, which has the most symmetric coverage, and for a pixel on the ecliptic, which has the least symmetric coverage. For each mapping function, the full window function (equation 8) is computed and compared to $`b_l^2`$ computed from equation 15.

Figure 6 shows the departure of the full window function from the symmetrized window function as a function of $`\mathrm{}`$. For all CMB analyses, the symmetric beam assumption is accurate to 1% for all $`\mathrm{}`$ except for $`300<\mathrm{}<400`$ in Q band. In this range, the instrument noise is significantly larger than the beam uncertainty. The uncertainty in the symmetrization is included in the year-one analysis to the extent that it is accounted for in the uncertainties shown in Figure 5.

In addition to the Hermite-based method, The transfer functions are computed from the Jupiter maps ( using equation 9 ) as well as from a direct transform of the binned TOD (using equation 8). These transforms weight the data differently, and less naturally, than do the Hermite expansion and are thus considered as checks. The difference between the transform methods is shown in Figure 5. As the 1 $`\sigma `$ error at each $`\mathrm{}`$, we adopt the maximum departure from zero of the two alternative transforms or twice the formal uncertainty derived from $`C^{aa^{}}`$. This error bound is shown as the outer envelope in Figure 5 and is propagated through all other analyses.

In §2.1, it was shown that the choice of $`\theta _{Rc}`$ leads to a possible systematic bias in the determination of the total beam solid angle in W band. The Jupiter-based window functions were computed with the extended $`\theta _{Rc}`$2.1, item 3) and were found to differ from the baseline window functions by at most 0.3% for $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}^{w=0.1}`$. This demonstrates that $`1`$% effects in Jupiter maps can be negligible in $`\mathrm{}`$-space.

## 4 Beam Parameters for Coadded Data Sets

Most analyses are performed on maps that have been coadded by polarization or frequency (Bennett et al., 2003b; Hinshaw et al., 2003). Table 5 gives the effective solid angles, gains and frequencies for two map combinations. The effective solid angle here is computed with equation 12, so it does not include the $`2.4^{}`$ Jupiter pixelization. These values should be used for data analyses of the sky maps.

The conversion from flux in Janskys ($`10^{26}`$ Wm-2Hz-1) to antenna temperature depends on the beam. The flux is modeled as $`F_\nu (\nu /\nu _e)^\alpha `$. For a broad band receiver for which the gain is known at all frequencies, the conversion factor is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{bb}=\frac{(c^2/8\pi k_B\nu _e^2)f(\nu )G_m(\nu )(\nu /\nu _e)^{\alpha 2}𝑑\nu }{f(\nu )𝑑\nu }$$
(19)
where $`G_m`$ is the maximum gain, $`f(\nu )`$ is the radiometer band pass, and $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The “bb” superscript indicates that this is a broad band quantity computed from a model of the optics.

For WMAP we report an effective conversion factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=c^2/(2k_B\mathrm{\Omega }^S(\nu _e^{ff})^2)`$ for sources with $`\alpha =0.1`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is computed from the Hermite beam profiles and $`\nu _e^{ff}`$ is the effective frequency for free-free emission. The fractional uncertainty is the same as for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^S`$. The factors are tabulated in Table 5.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented the characteristics of the beams in both real space and in $`\mathrm{}`$-space and assessed the uncertainties in both domains. In K, Ka, Q, V, and W bands the uncertainties in the beam solid angles are given by 2.6%, 1.2%, 1.2%, 1.1%, and 2.1%. The uncertainties in the window functions are typically 3% at most values of $`\mathrm{}`$. These values include systematic effects.

We have also presented the formalism in which the beam uncertainties are propagated throughout the analysis. The uncertainties which we adopt are conservative though prudent for this stage of the data analysis.

The K-band sidelobe and W-band pedestal corrections are the only beam-related effects that are added in “by hand” and not treated in the formalism. These effects are significant for real space analyses and are currently negligible for the $`\mathrm{}`$space CMB analyses.

Jupiter is mapped approximately twice per year. With more data and improved modeling, our knowledge of the beams and window functions will improve over the length of the mission.

The Jupiter maps and window functions are available on-line through the LAMBDA web site at http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

We thank Mike Nolta for useful discussions throughout the preparation of this paper. Consultations with YRS Associates (rahmat@ucla.edu) and their DADRA code have played a central role in the development and assessment of the WMAP optics. Ken Hersey led the beam mapping effort at NASA/GSFC in addition to working on the beam predictions. Our ability to test the beam model is rooted in his work. Cliff Jackson at NASA/GSFC guided the WMAP thermal reflector system through all phases of development. The success of the WMAP optical system is largely the result of his tremendous efforts. We are also grateful for the dedicated work of many engineers and technicians who made WMAP a reality.

## 6 Appendix A

The covariance matrix of the normalized beam is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}^b=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{m_h}{}}\frac{b_{\mathrm{}}}{a_{2i}}C_{ij}^{aa^{}}\frac{b_{\mathrm{}^{}}}{a_{2j}}$$
(20)
where

$$b_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{B_{\mathrm{}}}{B_0}=\frac{\underset{k}{}a_{2k}B_\mathrm{}k}{_ka_{2k}B_{0k}}$$
(21)
and

$$\frac{b_{\mathrm{}}}{a_{2i}}=\frac{B_i\mathrm{}}{_ka_{2k}B_{0k}}\frac{\underset{k}{}a_{2k}B_\mathrm{}k}{(_ka_{2k}B_{0k})^2}B_{0i}.$$
(22)
With the real space beam normalized to unity at $`\theta =0`$, $`_ka_{2k}B_{0k}=\mathrm{\Omega }^S`$. After plugging equation 20 into equation 22 there are four terms similar in form to

$$\frac{\underset{k}{}a_{2k}B_\mathrm{}k}{(_ka_{2k}B_{0k})^2}B_{0i}C_{ij}^{aa^{}}\frac{\underset{j}{}a_{2k}B_\mathrm{}^{}k}{(_ka_{2k}B_{0^{}k})^2}B_{0^{}j}=\frac{b_{\mathrm{}}b_{\mathrm{}^{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{00}}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^S)^2}.$$
(23)
After working through the the other terms, we find equation 18.