# Introduction

### Introduction

Hybrid inflation, where some ‘trigger’ field $`\chi `$ responsible for the bulk of the potential is different from the slowly-rolling inflaton field $`\varphi `$, has proved a very useful paradigm which may in the end turn out to be the one chosen by Nature.

The original model  worked with a tree-level potential, the slope of the inflaton potential being given by the mass term $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$. The potential was soon shown to be derivable from spontaneously broken global supersymmetry (susy), with either the $`F`$ term  or the $`D`$ term  dominating.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In these models the inflaton mass vanishes at the level of global supersymmetry, but supergravity corrections can give a suitable mass which indeed tends to be somewhat too large in the $`F`$ term model. For each type of model, the one-loop correction to the inflaton potential coming from the trigger field and its superpartners (trigger supermultiplet) was evaluated . Later, realizations of the tree-level model in the context of softly broken supersymmetry were given , leading to a one-loop correction of a different form . In order to have a more attractive model in the context of supergravity, the dominant loop correction in this case is supposed to come from some gauge supermultiplet, not from the trigger supermultiplet

In this note I go beyond specific models. Barring accidental cancellations, the loop correction from the trigger supermultiplet cannot be less than it is in the case of the models with spontaneously broken global supersymmetry. Still barring accidental cancellations, this places a lower bound on the derivative of the inflaton potential, which in turn limits the allowed region of parameter space for a wide class of hybrid inflation models. Assuming that the inflaton fluctuation is the origin of structure in the Universe, we find the bound

$$M^4\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}\text{ }>\left(10^9\text{GeV}\right)^5,$$
(1)   
where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ is the inflaton field when scales explored by COBE leave the horizon, and $`M\chi `$ is the vacuum expectation value of the trigger field. Whether or not the inflaton fluctuation is the origin of structure, we find the bound

$$M^2\varphi _N\text{ }>\left(10^4\text{GeV}\right)^3\sqrt{N},$$
(2)   
where $`\varphi _N`$ is the inflaton field $`N`$ $`e`$-folds before the end of slow-roll inflation. Implications of these results for TeV-scale inflation will be considered at the end of the paper.

Throughout the paper, ‘hybrid inflation’ is taken to mean a model in which the trigger field is fixed during inflation, with the inflaton field moving towards the origin. This excludes ‘inverted’ hybrid inflation in which the inflaton is moving away from origin  and ‘mutated’ hybrid inflation  in which the trigger field has a time-dependent value adjusted to minimize the potential. Only hybrid inflation in the narrow sense is treated here.

### Basics

Let us summarize the basics of inflation model building, as given in say . As usual, $`M_\mathrm{P}(8\pi G)^{1/2}=2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$ is the Planck scale while $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter. Our Universe is assumed to be flat so that after it leaves the horizon $`3M_\mathrm{P}^2H^2\rho `$ where $`\rho `$ is the energy density. An overdot denotes differentiation with respect to time and the prime differentiation with respect to the inflaton field $`\varphi `$.

We are concerned with the slow-roll paradigm of inflation in which the field equation $`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}=0`$ is replaced by the slow-roll condition $`3H\dot{\varphi }V^{}`$, and $`V\rho `$ is almost constant on the Hubble timescale. The latter condition requires the flatness condition

$$ϵ1,$$
(3)   
and differentiating the slow-roll condition requires another flatness condition

$$|\eta |1,$$
(4)   
where

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\mathrm{P}^2(V^{}/V)^2,`$ (5)   
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`M_\mathrm{P}^2V^{\prime \prime }/V,.`$ (6)   
$`N`$ $`e`$-folds before the end of slow-roll inflation, the field value $`\varphi _N`$ is given by

$$N=M_\mathrm{P}^2_{\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}}^{\varphi _N}\frac{V}{V^{}}𝑑\varphi ,$$
(7)   
where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}`$ marks the end of slow-roll inflation.

If the inflaton field fluctuation is responsible for structure in the Universe, the COBE measurement of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy requires

$$M_\mathrm{P}^3V^{3/2}/V^{}=5.3\times 10^4.$$
(8)   
This equation applies at the epoch when the distance scale explored by COBE (say $`H_0^1/10`$) leaves the horizon, some number $`N_{\mathrm{COBE}}<60`$ $`e`$-folds before the end of slow-roll inflation.

### Hybrid inflation

The original tree-level hybrid inflation model  is defined by

$$V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V(\varphi )\frac{1}{2}|m_\chi ^2|\chi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^{}\chi ^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda \chi ^4,$$
(9)   
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2.$$
(10)   
Inflation takes place in the regime $`\varphi ^2>\varphi _\mathrm{c}^2`$, where

$$\varphi _\mathrm{c}|m_\chi |/\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}.$$
(11)   
In this regime, $`\chi `$ vanishes and the inflaton potential is

$$V=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V(\varphi ).$$
(12)   
The constant term $`V_0`$ is assumed to dominate during inflation.

The last term of Eq. (9) serves only to determine the vacuum expectation value (vev) of $`\chi `$, achieved when $`\varphi `$ falls below $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$. Using that fact that $`V_0`$ vanishes in the vacuum, one learns that the vev is

$$\chi M=2V_0^{1/2}/|m_\chi |,$$
(13)   
and that

$$\lambda =\frac{4V_0}{M^4}=\frac{m_\chi ^4}{4V_0}.$$
(14)   
From Eq. (10),

$$\eta =\frac{m^2M_\mathrm{P}^2}{V_0}.$$
(15)   
It is useful also to define

$$\eta _\chi \frac{|m_\chi ^2|M_\mathrm{P}^2}{V_0}=\frac{4M_\mathrm{P}^2}{M^2}.$$
(16)   
A prompt end to inflation at $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ requires

$$\eta _\chi \text{ }>1.$$
(17)   
As already mentioned, alternative models of hybrid inflation have been proposed where $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is dominated by a loop correction instead of by the mass term Eq. (10). One might also allow significant tree-level terms $`\varphi ^p`$ with $`p>2`$. In any case, once $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is specified, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ is determined by Eq. (7) with

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}=\mathrm{max}\{\varphi _\mathrm{c},\varphi _{\mathrm{fast}}\},$$
(18)   
where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{fast}}`$ is the field value when one of Eqs. (3) and (4) fail. Assuming that there are no fine-tuned accidental cancellations, but without specifying the precise form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, we argue first that the magnitude of the loop correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{}`$, and hence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{}`$ itself, cannot be much less than $`m_\chi ^4/(16\pi ^2\varphi )`$. Inserting this into Eq. (8) gives the advertised bound Eq. (1), and inserting it into Eq. (7) gives Eq. (2).

We go on to show that the same bounds hold for even more general hybrid inflation potentials, and discuss their implication for recent proposals concerning TeV-scale inflation. Further bounds are obtained under additional assumptions.

### The one-loop correction

The one-loop correction is 

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}(\varphi )=\frac{Q^2}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{Str}^2(\varphi )+\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{Str}\left[^4(\varphi )\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{^2(\varphi )}{Q^2}\frac{3}{2}\right)\right].$$
(19)   
Here, $`^2(\varphi )`$ is the field dependent mass-squared matrix for the particles contributing to the loop correction. These particles will in general have spins $`j=0,1/2`$ or $`1`$, and the supertrace is defined as

$$\mathrm{Str}A=\underset{j}{}(1)^{2j}(1+2j)\mathrm{Tr}A_j,$$
(20)   
Here, $`A`$ denotes either $`^2`$ or the square bracket, and $`A_j`$ is the ordinary trace for particles of spin $`j`$.

The quantity $`Q`$ is the renormalization scale at which the parameters of the tree-level potential should be evaluated. Its choice is arbitrary, and if all loop corrections were included, the total potential would be independent of $`Q`$ by virtue of the Renormalization Group Equations (RGEs). In any application of quantum field theory, one should choose $`Q`$ so that the total 1-loop correction is small, hopefully justifying the neglect of the multi-loop correction.

Unless there is a fine-tuned cancellation the first term of Eq. (19) induces (through the RGEs) a radiative correction to $`m`$ of order $`g_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ is the ultra-violet cutoff and $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is a measure of the dominant inflaton coupling. (If this is the coupling to $`\chi `$ and its superpartners, $`g_{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$.) As is well known, global supersymmetry ensures a precise cancellation, making the first term of Eq. (19) independent of $`\varphi `$ so that it does not contribute to the slope of the potential and does not affect the mass. Supergravity corrections will spoil the cancellation to some extent (see for example ) but since we are interested only in a lower bound on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}|`$, and are barring accurate accidental cancellations, we ignore such corrections. By the same token we ignore the $`3/2`$ contribution to the second term (which actually depends on the renormalization scheme, the $`3/2`$ holding in the $`\overline{DR}`$ scheme) leaving

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{Str}\left(^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\frac{^2(\varphi )}{Q^2}\right).$$
(21)   
The contribution of $`\chi `$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_\chi =\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\left(m_\chi ^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_\chi ^2(\varphi )}{Q^2}\right),$$
(22)   
where

$$m_\chi ^2(\varphi )\left(\lambda ^{}\varphi ^2|m_\chi ^2|\right)=\lambda ^{}(\varphi ^2\varphi _\mathrm{c}^2).$$
(23)   
Making again the optimal assumption of global supersymmetry, the total loop correction from the trigger supermultiplet is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left(m_\chi ^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_\chi (\varphi )}{Q}\right)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}(\varphi )}{Q}\right)2m_\mathrm{f}^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{f}(\varphi )}{Q}\right)\right),$$
(24)   
where<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Eq. (26) corrects Eq. (325) of .

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}\varphi ^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2`$ (25)   
$`m_\mathrm{f}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi +m_\mathrm{f}.`$ (26)   
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ denotes the scalar partner, while f denotes the spin-half partner.

As will become clear, the minimal value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}|`$ is obtained with $`m_\mathrm{f}=0`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2=|m_\chi ^2|`$. The first condition is usually ensured by some symmetry, and the second will usually be satisfied if global supersymmetry during inflation is broken spontaneously as opposed to softly. Let us consider this case first, and assume for the moment that $`\varphi `$ is significantly bigger than $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$. The logs in Eq. (24) can then be taken to have the same argument $`g\varphi /Q`$ and one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\chi ^4}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi /Q)`$ (27)   
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\chi ^4}{16\pi ^2\varphi }}.`$ (28)   
If susy is broken softly, one will still generally have $`m_\mathrm{f}=0`$ but now $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2`$ can take essentially any value. If it is positive, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ vanishes both during inflation and in the true vacuum, which as in the previous case justifies its omission from the tree-level potential.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4To be precise, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ vanishes during inflation if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}V_0^{1/2}/M_\mathrm{P}`$. In the extreme opposite case $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2|m_\chi ^2|`$ the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is determined by its random quantum fluctuation but it plays no role during inflation. In the intermediate case $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ will be a component of the inflaton field contrary to our assumption that it has only the one component $`\varphi `$. Multicomponent models, as discussed for instance in , are not treated in this note. If $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2`$ is negative, the omission of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ from the tree-level potential is strictly justified only if $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}|=|m_\chi |`$, its effect then being the trivial replacement $`\chi ^2\chi ^2+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2`$. However, its omission is justified in practice more generally. Indeed, if $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}|<|m_\chi |`$, the field $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is held at the origin until the field $`\chi `$ is destabilized, making the former ineffective except for a modest increase in the value of $`V_0`$.<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5Again we discount very small values of $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}|`$, which would lead to a different model of inflation. The opposite case may be discounted because it is equivalent to an interchange of the labels $`\chi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$. For simplicity we assume $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2=m_\chi ^2`$, noting that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}|`$ will be at least as big in other cases.

Still assuming that $`\varphi `$ is appreciably bigger than $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ we find in the softly broken case

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{8\pi ^2}}m_\chi ^2\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi /Q)`$ (29)   
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{8\pi ^2}}m_\chi ^2\varphi \left(2\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi /Q)+1\right)\right|\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{8\pi ^2}}m_\chi ^2\varphi \right|.`$ (30)   
The final equality is valid if $`Q`$ is chosen to make $`\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi /Q)`$ (and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}`$) vanish for the value of $`\varphi `$ under consideration.

Any choice making $`|\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi /Q)|1`$ would be equally valid in that it would still justify the neglect of higher loop corrections, and one could actually choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}=0`$ at (say) the COBE scale. But as already remarked, the total potential (tree level plus loop correction) is independent of $`Q`$ by virtue of the RGE’s. We shall now argue that the right hand side of Eq. (30) provides a lower limit on the slope of the total potential. The one-loop correction will be typically be valid in an interval over which $`\varphi `$ varies by a factor of a few, if $`Q`$ is set equal to some $`\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}\varphi `$ in the range. At the one-loop level, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}\frac{1}{2}m^2(Q)\varphi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}(Q,\varphi )`$ is approximately independent of $`Q`$ by virtue of the one-loop RGE for $`m^2`$. One can write  $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}=(\lambda ^{}/4\pi ^2)m_\chi ^2\varphi \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is some constant. In general this makes $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}`$ of the advertised magnitude Eq. (30). If $`\varphi _0`$ is within the range of validity of this expression, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}`$ vanishes at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ and will be reduced by a factor $`|1\varphi /\varphi _0|`$ if $`\varphi `$ is very close to $`\varphi _0`$. Let us see what happens in that case. For hybrid inflation $`\varphi _0`$ should correspond to a maximum, with $`\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}<\varphi <\varphi _0`$. From Eq. (7) we learn that $`(1\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}/\varphi _0)=e^{|\eta |N}(1\varphi _N/\varphi _0)`$, where $`\eta M_\mathrm{P}^2V^{\prime \prime }/V`$ is evaluated at $`\varphi _0`$. (We assume that the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}`$ is valid down to $`\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}`$ which is good enough for a crude order of magnitude estimate .) We are considering the case that $`\varphi _N/\varphi _0=1`$ with extreme accuracy; but then, the flatness condition $`|\eta |1`$ requires that in the physically relevant range $`N\text{ }<N_{\mathrm{COBE}}<60`$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{end}}/\varphi _0`$ is also equal to 1 with extreme accuracy. As always, we assume that such accidental fine-tuning does not occur. The conclusion is that indeed the right hand side of Eq. (30) will provide a lower bound on the slope of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }V}_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}`$.

Finally, consider the case that $`\varphi `$ is very close to $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$. The loop contribution from $`\chi `$ is very small, but those of its superpartners are unsuppressed. Focussing say on the contribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, it is easy to check that with (say) $`Q`$ chosen to make $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}=0`$ one finds a a result for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}|`$ at least as big as Eq. (28).<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6To be precise, the slope of the renormalization-group-improved tree-level potential will be at least as big as the right hand side of Eq. (28). As in the previous case, one could actually choose $`Q`$ to make $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}`$ vanish at a given value of $`\varphi `$.

### Constraints on hybrid inflation models

Discounting as always the possibility of a precise accidental cancellation, one will have

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }V^{}|\text{ }>|\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}|.$$
(31)   
Using the minimal estimate Eq. (28), the COBE normalization Eq. (8) with Eq. (16) then gives

$$M^4\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}\text{ }>5.4\times 10^5M_\mathrm{P}^3V_0^{1/2}=\left(10^9\text{GeV}\right)^5\left(\frac{V_0}{1\text{MeV}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(32)   
To obtain the advertised final inequality Eq. (1), we set $`V_0^{1/4}\text{ }>1\text{MeV}`$, the smallest possible value since reheating must occur before nucleosynthesis.

In the case of soft susy breaking Eq. (30) provides a stronger lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{}`$, which with Eq. (8) gives

$$5\times 10^4M_\mathrm{P}^3\text{ }<\frac{V_0^{3/2}}{\lambda ^{}|m_\chi ^2|\varphi }.$$
(33)   
Using $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}>\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ gives a bound on $`M`$ alone,

$$M^3\text{ }>5.4\times 10^5\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}M_\mathrm{P}^3.$$
(34)   
This bound is less interesting than Eq. (32) because it is evaded by the case of spontaneous symmetry breaking, and because it can be made arbitrarily weak by lowering $`\lambda ^{}`$. Although it may not be very natural, there does not seem to be any bar to taking $`\lambda ^{}`$ very small. In particular, reheating could take place through the coupling of the inflaton to some field other than the trigger field.

We can obtain further results if the original model $`\mathrm{\Delta }V\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$ is supposed to be valid. In this case,

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}^2=e^{2\eta N}\varphi _\mathrm{c}^2\varphi _\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(35)   
(The approximate equality corresponds to $`e^{2\eta N}1`$ which is good enough for order-of-magnitude estimates.) The COBE normalization Eq. (8) becomes 

$`\lambda ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2.8\times 10^7e^{2\eta N}\eta ^2\eta _\chi `$ (36)   
$``$ $`3\times 10^7\eta ^2\eta _\chi .`$ (37)   
For this original model to be valid one needs $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{}m^2\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{f}}^{\prime \prime }m^2`$, for all $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}\text{ }<\varphi \text{ }<\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}`$. These two constraints are about the same, and may be written

$$\frac{\lambda ^{}}{32\pi ^2}\frac{\eta _\chi }{\eta }1.$$
(38)   
We can use the COBE normalization Eq. (37) to eliminate any one of the three parameters. Eliminating $`\eta `$ reproduces Eq. (34). Eliminating $`\eta _\chi `$, Eq. (38) becomes

$$\lambda ^{}(\eta /22)^{3/2}.$$
(39)   
This is weaker than Eq. (34) if $`M/M_\mathrm{P}\text{ }<0.005(\eta /.025)^{1/4}`$. Finally, eliminating $`\lambda ^{}`$ gives

$$\eta (90M/M_\mathrm{P})^4.$$
(40)   
In all of this we considered the epoch of inflation that is supposed to generate large scale structure, through the inflaton field perturbation. One can also consider  an epoch of late slow-roll inflation, lasting only a few $`e`$-folds, whose only purpose it to dilute unwanted relics. In that case the bounds we have considered disappear, but a significant bound still comes from the requirement of $`N\text{ }>1`$ $`e`$-folds of inflation. Inserting Eqs. (31) and (27) into Eq. (7) gives indeed

$$\varphi ^2\text{ }>\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda }V_0^{1/2}}{\lambda ^{}}+\frac{\lambda NM_\mathrm{P}^2}{2\pi ^2}.$$
(41)   
The first term is just $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}^2`$, and is typically negligible. Combining this equation with Eq. (14) gives

$$M^2\varphi _N\text{ }>\left(10^4\text{GeV}\right)^3\left(\frac{V_0^{1/4}}{1\text{MeV}}\right)^2\sqrt{N}.$$
(42)   
Since $`V_0^{1/4}>1\text{MeV}`$, this leads to the advertised bound Eq. (2).

### Nonrenormalizable terms

The original tree-level potential Eq. (9) ignores nonrenormalizable terms. They are of the form $`\lambda _{mn}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{4mn}\varphi ^m\chi ^n`$, with $`m+n5`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ is the ultra-violet cutoff for the effective field theory relevant during inflation. These terms summarize the physics which is ignored by the effective field theory.

Since quantum gravity certainly becomes significant on Planck scales one must have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{ }<M_\mathrm{P}`$, but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ will be smaller if the effective field theory breaks before Planck scales are reached. This could happen in three ways. First, a different field theory may take over, containing fields that have been integrated out in the effective theory. Second, the scale of quantum gravity could be lower than $`M_\mathrm{P}`$ because there are extra dimensions with a large compactification radius. Third, in the presence of a large compactification radius field theory may give way to string theory well below the scale of quantum gravity. The last two possibilities have received a lot of attention lately, with the focus on the lowest conceivable cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{TeV}`$.

The coefficients $`\lambda _{mn}`$ are in principle determined by the theory that takes over on scales bigger than the cutoff. For generic fields they will be roughly of order 1, at least for moderate values of $`n`$ and $`m`$, without any cancellation between different non-renormalizable terms.<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7For very large $`n`$ and/or $`m`$ one might expect factors like $`1/n!`$ . In the context of string theory it is known that certain fields, such as the dilaton, exist for which this is not the case. Although one cannot rule out the possibility that some of these fields might be suitable for inflation, attempts to use them for that purpose have not so far been successful when one imposes the COBE normalization .<sup>8</sup><sup>8</sup>8One of these fields has been proposed as the trigger field in a $`D`$-term inflation model  but the required properties have not been derived from the relevant string theory.

Assuming that the non-renormalizable terms indeed have couplings of order 1, both the inflaton field and the trigger field will have to be $`\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ in magnitude if these terms are to be under control.<sup>9</sup><sup>9</sup>9We differ here from Kanti and Olive , who in considering chaotic inflation with large extra dimensions require only $`\varphi \text{ }<M_\mathrm{P}`$. If Eq. (32) holds, this is possible only if

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{ }>10^9\text{GeV}\left(V_0^{1/4}/1\text{MeV}\right)^{2/5}.$$
(43)   
In any case one has from Eq. (42),

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{ }>10^4\text{GeV}\left(V_0^{1/4}/1\text{MeV}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(44)   
Even with the relevant field values below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, one or more non-renormalizable terms could be significant. In particular, either or both of the interaction terms in Eq. (9) can be replaced by a non-renormalizable term . Replacing them both gives

$$V(\varphi ,\chi )=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V(\varphi )\frac{1}{2}|m_\chi ^2|\chi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{2n}\varphi ^n\chi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda _m\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{4m}\chi ^m,$$
(45)   
with $`n>2`$ and $`m>4`$. The original model is recovered for $`n=2`$ and $`m=4`$.

Let us see what difference these replacements make. Replacing $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda \chi ^4`$ is trivial, because Eq. (14) still holds approximately which means that Eqs. (32)–(40) and Eq. (42) remain valid. The replacement of $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^{}\varphi ^2\chi ^2`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda _n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{2n}\varphi ^n\chi ^2`$ is less trivial. Eq. (11) is replaced by

$$\lambda _n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{2n}\varphi _\mathrm{c}^n=|m_\chi ^2|.$$
(46)   
In Eq. (24) one has $`m_\chi ^2(\varphi )=\lambda _n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{2n}\varphi ^n+m_\chi ^2`$ and similarly for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2(\varphi )`$ and $`m_\mathrm{f}(\varphi )`$. Discounting factors of order $`n`$, the main result Eq. (32) remains valid, and so does Eq. (42), while Eq. (34) becomes

$$\frac{M^3}{M_\mathrm{P}^3}\text{ }>5.4\times 10^5\left(\frac{m_\chi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}}\right)^{1\frac{2}{n}}\left(\lambda _n^{}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$
(47)   
Finally, Eq. (39) becomes

$$(\lambda _n^{})^{\frac{2}{n}}\left(\frac{m_\chi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}}\right)^{2\frac{4}{n}}(\eta /22)^{3/2}.,$$
(48)   
while Eq. (40) is unchanged. Requiring $`M\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ in Eq. (47) (with $`\lambda _n^{}1`$) leads to a stronger condition than Eq. (43).<sup>10</sup><sup>10</sup>10In advocating the condition $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ we differ from Randall et al. , who advocate $`MM_\mathrm{P}`$ even in the presence of the ultra-violet cutoff. With $`n=4`$ one has

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{ }>10^{12}\text{GeV}.$$
(49)   
Finally we mention a different generalization of the original model , which is to introduce an interaction $`A\varphi \chi ^2`$ which dominates the term $`\frac{1}{2}|m_\chi ^2|\chi ^2`$ . This amounts to the replacement $`|m_\chi ^2|A^2/\lambda ^{}`$, which does not affect the main result Eq. (32).

### Inflation at the TeV scale

Although hybrid inflation remains at least as promising as the alternative of single-field inflation, there are significant constraints on the parameter space. As an important example, we consider recent proposals  for hybrid inflation at and below the TeV scale ($`V_0^{1/4}1\text{TeV}`$).

In  an era of TeV-scale inflation is invoked to provide a new model of baryogenesis, in which the Higgs field is created by the oscillation of the inflaton field. To achieve this, the trigger field is identified with the electroweak Higgs field which requires $`\lambda 1`$ in Eq. (9), corresponding to $`M\text{TeV}`$. The loop correction is ignored to produce an apparently viable tree-level model with $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}\text{TeV}`$, satisfying the COBE normalization. But Eq. (32) shows that with the loop correction included, any COBE-normalized model in which the Higgs is the trigger field will have $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}\text{ }>\varphi _\mathrm{c}\text{ }>10^{33}\text{GeV}`$, a value presumably too large to contemplate. Even if we abandon the COBE normalization by assuming that the TeV-scale inflation lasts only a few $`e`$-folds, Eq. (41) requires $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}M_\mathrm{P}`$. With such a value non-renormalizable terms are likely to spoil inflation, and even if they were ignored one would have to see if this completely different model of baryogenesis is still viable. Alternatively, one might explore the possibility that the Higgs couples to the inflaton in a non-hybrid model, still taking on board the fact that the coupling to the Higgs will induce a loop correction to the inflaton potential. To summarize briefly, the specific model of baryogenesis written down in  is invalidated by the loop correction, and it remains to be seen whether alternatives in the same spirit can be constructed.

The model we just looked at assumes that quantum gravity is at the usual scale $`M_\mathrm{P}`$. The rest of this note deals with the possibility that it is much lower, focussing on the lowest conceivable scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{TeV}`$. Kaloper and Linde  explore the possibility of COBE-normalized hybrid inflation in this case. They invoke the COBE-normalized tree-level model with $`\lambda \lambda ^{}1`$, corresponding to $`m_\chi M\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}V_0^{1/4}\text{TeV}`$ and (because of the COBE normalization) $`m\text{ }<10^7H`$. They point out that the low value of $`m`$ makes the model rather unattractive, because supergravity will typically generate $`m`$ at least of order $`H`$. We have seen that with the above parameter choice the loop correction will invalidate the tree-level model, which means that the above difficulty does not in fact exist; the bound $`m\text{ }<10^7H`$ does not in fact apply. However, Eq. (32) points to another problem; any COBE-normalized model of hybrid inflation with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{TeV}`$ is problematic because when the loop correction is included the inflaton and/or the trigger field have to be at least of order $`10^{10}\text{GeV}`$. The bottom line here is that we concur with the conclusion of Kaloper and Linde, that hybrid inflation with quantum gravity at the TeV scale looks very problematic.

As mentioned earlier, Halyo  takes the view that field values $`\text{TeV}`$ are capable of being justified, by making the trigger field a superstring modulus. He advocates  the usual $`D`$-term hybrid inflation model ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ given by Eq. (27)), with the quantum gravity scale of order TeV, and with a very small coupling $`\lambda 10^{27}`$ derived from a superstring theory with large extra dimensions. In apparent contradiction with our general bound Eq. (32), he concludes that an ‘initial’ inflaton field value (defined as the value when $`N=4\times 10^5`$) and $`M`$ can both be of order $`10^6\text{GeV}`$. This conflict can be traced to the fact that Halyo uses a wrong formula for the COBE normalization. On the reasonable assumption $`\varphi _{\mathrm{COBE}}\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$, the correct formula  is

$$V^{1/4}=\left(\frac{50}{NC}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{\lambda }{4}\right)^{1/4}\times 6\times 10^{15}\text{GeV},$$
(50)   
where $`C`$ is the number of charged pairs coupling to the inflaton.<sup>11</sup><sup>11</sup>11Note that the $`g`$ in Eq. (246) of  should actually be $`g^{1/2}`$. However, this formula confirms the basic tenet of ; that with a very small $`\lambda `$ the $`D`$-term hybrid inflation model can give inflation at the TeV scale, if one accepts field values much bigger than this scale.

Let us end this discussion by noting that potentials of the ‘new’ inflation, as opposed to hybrid inflation, type can give COBE-normalized TeV-scale inflation with the inflaton field $`\text{ }<\text{TeV}`$. Such potentials are of the form $`V=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, with $`V_0`$ dominating and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V<0`$. It is known that COBE-normalized TeV-scale inflation can be achieved for the cases $`\mathrm{\Delta }V\lambda \varphi ^4\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$ (with $`\varphi \varphi _0`$) , $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^2\varphi ^6+b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^4\varphi ^8`$  and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=\lambda \varphi ^4+b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^{4q}\varphi ^q`$ . The middle case invokes no small couplings $`(cb1)`$. The first and third cases require $`\lambda 10^{15}`$; however, as we have seen the first case has to come (in the context of global supersymmetry) from a non-renormalizable interaction like $`\lambda _6\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^2\varphi ^6\chi ^2`$, leading after soft supersymmetry breaking to $`\lambda =(\lambda _6/8\pi ^2)(m_\chi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}})^2`$, and one could have $`\lambda _61`$.

For any kind of slow-roll inflation, the inflaton mass during inflation has to be much less than $`H=V_0^{1/2}/M_\mathrm{P}`$ in order to satisfy the flatness condition $`\eta 1`$ (barring a fine-tuned accidental cancellation between the mass term and the displayed terms). After inflation it becomes much bigger, both in the above models and in hybrid inflation, so that there need be no problem with reheating.

### Further remarks on inflation with quantum gravity at the TeV scale

All of this assumes that the size of the extra dimensions, responsible for quantum gravity at the TeV scale, have their present size while cosmological scales leave the horizon during inflation. It has been shown  that by the end of inflation, they must have their present size, with an accuracy $`10^{14}(T_{\mathrm{RH}}/10\text{MeV})^{3/2}`$ where $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}`$ is the reheat temperature. Otherwise, the moduli corresponding to the extra dimensions would be overproduced afterwards. To achieve this accuracy one generally needs $`V^{1/4}\text{TeV}`$ by the end of inflation.<sup>12</sup><sup>12</sup>12During inflation the canonically normalized modulus $`\chi `$, corresponding to the size of the extra dimensions, is displaced from its minimum by  $`\delta \chi =\sqrt{n/(n+2)}2H^2M_\mathrm{P}/m_\chi ^2`$, where $`m_\chi `$ is its mass and $`n`$ is the number of extra dimensions. This agrees with a rough earlier estimate  $`\delta \chi H^2M_\mathrm{P}/m_\chi ^2`$, made for moduli in general. (The upper bound on $`V^{1/4}`$ depends on the number of extra dimensions and the moduli mass.)

While cosmological scales are leaving the horizon during inflation, the extra dimensions must be stabilized, since significant variation would spoil the observed scale independence of the spectrum of the primordial curvature perturbation. The simplest hypothesis is that they remain stabilized thereafter, so that they indeed have their present value while cosmological scales leave the horizon.

An alternative  is to assume that the extra dimensions are stabilized, while cosmological scales are leaving the horizon, with sizes much smaller than at present. In that case, after going to the four-dimensional Einstein frame, the scale of quantum gravity will be far above the TeV scale and it becomes easier to construct a COBE-normalized model of inflation. This hypothesis of ‘asymmetric’ inflation has the disadvantage of invoking two separate epochs of stabilization for the extra dimensions. (It should be carefully distinguished from the idea that the extra dimensions must be very small at the beginning of inflation, long before cosmological scales leave the horizon. This indeed seems to be desirable on quite general grounds .)

Irrespective of the asymmetric inflation hypothesis, or indeed of the scale of quantum gravity, one may need a few $`e`$-folds of late inflation to get rid of unwanted relics (including moduli) produced after the slow-roll inflation that generates structure. Suppose first that the late inflation is hybrid inflation. The COBE constraint Eq. (32) on a hybrid inflation model disappears, but Eq. (42) remains. Assuming that all field values should be $`\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, this requires $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{ }<10^4N^{1/3}\text{GeV}`$. A hybrid inflation model saturating this bound can provide a few $`e`$-folds of inflation with quantum gravity at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}10\text{TeV}`$. It is clear that a model saturating the bound would have $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ given by Eq. (27), corresponding to spontaneously broken global susy with supergravity corrections assumed to be negligible. The usual $`D`$-term model is of this kind, and indeed Halyo has already noted  the fact that a few $`e`$-folds of such inflation is possible, with both quantum gravity and the field values at the $`10\text{TeV}`$ scale. One should however remember that even in the $`D`$-term (as opposed to an $`F`$-term ) model, non-renormalizable terms in the superpotential may be a problem if $`\varphi `$ is at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ . What one really needs to be comfortable is $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, which would require $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}10^4\text{GeV}`$.

Instead of hybrid inflation one may consider a ‘new inflation’ potential or some other slow-roll potential . A completely different alternative is thermal inflation . In this paradigm, the zero-temperature inflaton potential is $`V_0\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$, with $`|m|V_0^{1/4}`$, but unsuppressed couplings lead to a thermal correction of order $`T^4+T^2\varphi ^2`$. In the regime $`m\text{ }<T\text{ }<V_0^{1/4}`$, some $`N\mathrm{ln}(V_0^{1/4}/m)`$ $`e`$-folds of thermal inflation can occur, with $`\varphi `$ held at the origin, after which $`\varphi `$ reverts to its vev

$$\varphi V_0^{1/2}/m.$$
(51)   
The expected decay time of the inflaton is  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^110^2\varphi ^2/m^3`$. This corresponds to a reheat temperature

$$T_{\mathrm{RH}}\left(\frac{\text{TeV}}{\varphi }\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}\left(\frac{V_0^{\frac{1}{4}}}{100\text{MeV}}\right)^3\times 3\text{MeV}.$$
(52)   
This can satisfy the cosmological constraints, including the nucleosynthesis requirement $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}>\text{MeV}`$. We see that thermal inflation, originally proposed in the context of quantum gravity at the usual scale $`M_\mathrm{P}`$, may be viable also in the context of TeV-scale gravity.<sup>13</sup><sup>13</sup>13It has been invoked in this context by Dvali  in the special case that the inflaton corresponds to the separation between $`D`$-branes, but the above discussion following the original papers shows the required properties of the inflaton are model-independent, and in no way special. The main difference from the usual case is that the required mass $`m`$ has no obvious explanation. (In the usual case one invokes a mass $`100\text{GeV}`$, which is natural in the context of gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking.)

We end by revisiting an earlier paper , which concluded that TeV-scale quantum gravity does not avoid the need for supersymmetry. This conclusion was based on the fact that the inflaton mass during slow-roll inflation has to be much less than $`HV_0^{1/2}/M_\mathrm{P}V_0^{1/4}\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$. We would like to point that some apparent escape routes from that conclusion can now be closed off. The first of these is the possibility that the extra dimensions during inflation might be much smaller than at present . As we seen, explicit calculation  has shown that this cannot be the case during, at least, the last few $`e`$-folds. The second is that the last few $`e`$-folds of inflation might be thermal as opposed to slow-roll. As we have seen, this too would require an inflaton mass orders of magnitude below the TeV scale.

Another possibility might be to have slow-roll inflation, with all couplings of the inflaton very small. Then the non-supersymmetric radiative correction $`\delta mg_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ might be small enough without any need of supersymmetry. In that case , reheating could take place only by the gravitational production of particles, with mass much less than $`HV_0^{1/2}/M_\mathrm{P}`$ and unsuppressed couplings.<sup>14</sup><sup>14</sup>14We discount here the possibility that the couplings of the inflaton could somehow be suppressed during inflation and unsuppressed afterwards. There does not seem to be any known way of achieving this. Such particles would require supersymmetry to protect their masses.

Barring unforseen escape routes, it seems that even with quantum gravity at the TeV scale, one needs during (at least) the last few $`e`$-folds of inflation a very light scalar particle, whose mass will have to be protected by supersymmetry. This means , contrary to what was initially hoped , that there is no particular reason why Nature should have placed the scale of quantum gravity at the TeV scale, as opposed to somewhere else in the range $`\text{TeV}\text{ }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}\text{ }<M_\mathrm{P}`$. Indeed, while the TeV choice removes the need for supersymmetry in the Higgs sector of the theory , the need reappears in the inflaton sector. The conclusion is that we are unlikely to observe quantum gravity at a future collider, though of course we may be lucky!

## Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Toni Riotto, Andrei Linde and Andre’ Lukas for useful discussions.