format: text

text:
# Neutralino relic density in supersymmetric GUTs with no-scale boundary conditions above the unification scale

## 1 Introduction

A critical issue concerning the supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model is associated with the mechanism of supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking. The resulting pattern of soft SUSY breaking (SSB) terms, appearing in the effective Lagrangian after integrating over the so-called hidden sector, determines the low energy phenomenology. This pattern is constrained both by theoretical (e.g. naturalness in the Higgs sector) and phenomenological (e.g. flavor changing neutral currents, FCNC) requirements. Nevertheless, the number of a priori free high energy parameters in generic SUSY breaking scenarios is uncomfortably very large.
There exist, however, particular scenarios where one expects some of these parameters to vanish. In the context of the so called no-scale models , the scalar soft breaking masses vanish at some high energy boundary conditions input scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$. Analogous boundary conditions arise in extra dimensional brane models with gauge mediated SUSY breaking . The low energy particle spectrum then depends, through renormalization group (RG) running, on the non-vanishing input parameters of the theory, e.g. the gaugino masses.
In ref. it was shown that requiring $`m_0=0`$ at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is not compatible with low energy phenomenology. Nevertheless, if $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}<M_{\mathrm{bc}}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$, GUT interactions running may generate viable low energy spectra .
In this paper we investigate this possibility focusing on two simple GUTs, namely $`SU(5)`$ and general $`SO(10)`$. The requirement of Yukawa coupling unification at the GUT scale, together with all known phenomenological constraints, highly restricts the parameter space of the models under scrutiny. In the minimal setting to which we resort, once fixed the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ scale, only two parameters determine the particle spectrum, namely the common gaugino mass at $`M_{GUT}`$ and the ratio of the two Higgs vevs, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.
We show in what follows that a portion of the allowed parameter space is compatible with the current data on the cold dark matter content of the Universe from the WMAP survey . We also discuss the prospects for neutralino direct detection , and argue that a large part of the cosmologically preferred region will be within reach of LHC .

## 2 Grand unified models with no-scale SSB scale higher than $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$

No-scale boundary conditions naturally arise in various contexts . In the framework of superstring theories an instance is provided by weakly coupled $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau manifold: if the overall modulus field, whose scalar component represents the size of the compactified space, dominates the SUSY breaking, as it is the case when this is triggered by gaugino condensation, the SSB scalar masses, as well as the trilinear scalar couplings, vanish . Analogous high energy structures have been shown to appear also in heterotic $`M`$-theory . Furthermore, a no-scale SSB pattern appears with gaugino mediated SUSY breaking in extra dimensional brane models . The visible and hidden sectors live on different 3-branes, and SUSY breaking is communicated through the MSSM gauge superfields propagating in the bulk. Since scalars are separated from the SUSY breaking brane, they get negligible soft breaking masses at $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$.
In models with universal gaugino masses, the no-scale SSB scalar mass boundary condition $`m_0=0`$ is not compatible with low energy phenomenology, if the input scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is taken to be the scale of Grand Unification $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$ . If $`m_0=0`$ at the scale where SM gauge couplings unify, in fact, the mass of the lightest stau turns out to be always smaller than the mass of the lightest neutralino, regardless of the value of the trilinear scalar coupling $`A_0`$. Since the LSP is required to be electrically and color neutral, as indicated by stringent cosmological bounds , setting $`m_0=0`$ at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is ruled out . Nevertheless, as pointed out in , if the SSB input scale is larger than $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, RG evolution, driven by GUT-dependent interactions, can shift $`m_0`$ from zero to some non-vanishing (and possibly non-universal) value at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, rendering the model compatible with the above mentioned constraint.
The effects of GUT interactions on the weak-scale phenomenology of supersymmetric models have been since long investigated . In particular, the case of vanishing scalar masses at a high energy scale has been studied in a minimal gaugino mediation setting in , where the parameter space was taken to be ($`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$,$`M_{1/2}`$) and $`B_0=0`$ at $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$, hence fixing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB) conditions. In , instead, in order to fulfill Yukawa coupling unification (YU), the $`B_0=0`$ assumption was relaxed, and the parameter space was taken to be ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$,$`M_{1/2}`$) at fixed $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$. In this paper we resort to this second possibility, focusing on $`SU(5)`$ and general $`SO(10)`$ GUTs . In both cases, consistently with the GUT structure, we require $`b`$-$`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification (YU). We resort to a top-down approach , imposing exact unification at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and setting $`h_b(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=h_\tau (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ in order to obtain at the weak scale the central experimental value of $`m_\tau (M_Z)`$. We then compute the $`b`$-quark mass at $`M_Z`$ including SUSY corrections . We consider the model compatible with $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU if the calculated value of $`m_b^{\mathrm{corr}}(M_Z)`$ lies within the 95% C.L. range $`m_b(M_Z)=2.83\pm 0.22`$ .
At the scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ we set to zero both the soft breaking scalar masses and the trilinear scalar couplings, while allowing non-vanishing Higgs mixing masses $`B`$, supersymmetric higgsino mixing term $`\mu `$ and gaugino masses. The latter are supposed to be universal at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. $`B`$ and $`\mu `$ are traded for $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ through REWSB. Therefore we are left with only two parameters, $`M_{1/2}`$, the universal value of gaugino masses at the GUT scale, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We start with a trial value for $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and for the top and $`b`$-$`\tau `$ Yukawas, and run them up to $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$, according to the particular chosen GUT model. Evolving the SSB masses and trilinear couplings from $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ to $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, again depending on the GUT, we obtain a first approximation of the SSB structure of the model at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. Further evolution down to the weak scale, performed with the ISAJET package , allows to adjust the value of the Yukawas and to find, consistently with the low energy SUSY effective threshold and with the SM gauge coupling running, the values of $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. The whole loop is then repeated until convergence is found. In practice we find that three loops are sufficient to stabilize, for consistency, the SSB pattern as well as the Yukawas and the GUT scale and coupling.
At the low energy scale, besides successful $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU, we require the fulfillment of the known phenomenological constraints. We find that the most stringent bound comes from the inclusive branching ratio $`BR(bs\gamma )`$, which we require to lie in the following range :

$$2.16\times 10^4<BR(bs\gamma )<4.34\times 10^4.$$
(1)
Finally, we compute, using the latest version of the DarkSUSY code , the resulting neutralino relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ and the spin independent neutralino-proton cross section $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$. The recent data from the WMAP survey, combined in a global fit with other CMB, large scale structure and Ly$`\alpha `$ data, constrain the relic density to be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2=0.1126_{0.00905}^{+0.00805}.$$
(2)
As the lower limit can be evaded under the hypothesis of the existence of another cold dark matter component besides neutralinos, we take here as a constraint only the 95% C.L. upper bound $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.1287`$.

### 2.1 The no-scale $`SU(5)`$ case

In the minimal $`SU(5)`$ GUT model  the matter content of the MSSM is collected into a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ ($`\widehat{D}^c`$, $`\widehat{L}`$) and a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ ($`\widehat{Q}`$, $`\widehat{U}^c`$, $`\widehat{E}^c`$) supermultiplets. The Higgs sector contains three supermultiplets: $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒})`$, responsible for the $`SU(5)`$ breaking to the SM gauge group, $`\widehat{H}_1(\mathrm{𝟓})`$ and $`\widehat{H}_2(\mathrm{𝟓})`$ containing the MSSM Higgs doublet superfields $`\widehat{H}_d`$ and $`\widehat{H}_u`$. The superpotential reads:

$`W_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\lambda ^{}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^3+\lambda \widehat{H}_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{H}_2+\mu _H\widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h_t(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})\widehat{H}_2+\sqrt{2}h_b(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})\widehat{H}_1.`$
The boundary conditions at the scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ for scalar masses and trilinear couplings are taken to be :

$`m_{10}=m_5=m_{H_1}=m_{H_2}=m_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,`$
$`A_t=A_b=A_\lambda =A_\lambda ^{}=0.`$
The Higgs couplings $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ and $`\lambda ^{}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ which appear in the superpotential (4) are constrained, for the stability of the RGE evolution, in the range

$$|\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})|1.5,|\lambda ^{}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})|3.0.$$
(5)
The coupling $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ is related to the mass of the colored Higgs triplet responsible of rapid proton decay, which in the context of minimal $`SU(5)`$ has since long been recognized as a critical issue . It has been recently claimed that the minimal setting outlined above is ruled out by the current experimental limits on the proton lifetime  (see however ) coming from the SuperKamiokande results . Nevertheless, consistent $`SU(5)`$ models have been recently proposed in ref. . In these next-to-minimal scenarios, suitable structures for the mixed Yukawa couplings $`Y_{QQ}`$, $`Y_{UE}`$, $`Y_{UE}`$ and $`Y_{QL}`$, determined by the inclusion of dimension five operators, can drastically suppress the proton decay rate, even at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, below the current experimental limits. Even though addressing the issue of proton decay goes beyond the scope of the present paper, we stress that the mentioned Yukawa structures do not significantly affect the SUSY spectrum we deal with, and can be consistently neglected for the present purposes, as it is the case for the Yukawa couplings of the two lightest generations. To maximize the enhancement of the proton life-time , we nevertheless resort to values of $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ close to the upper bound (5). We fix $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=1.2`$ and $`\lambda ^{}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=0.5`$, and show at the end of this section that different choices of the two parameters would not significantly affect our results.
We start our analysis setting for definiteness $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Top-down $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU constrains the sign of $`\mu `$ to be negative , and forces $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to large values $`28`$. We show in the upper panel of fig. 1 the allowed parameter space in the ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$,$`M_{1/2}`$) plane and the curves at fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2=0.05,0.13,0.5,1.0`$. The yellow regions on the left (right) part of the figures do not fulfill $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU, giving rise to $`m_b(M_Z)>3.05\mathrm{GeV}`$ (resp. $`m_b(M_Z)<2.61\mathrm{GeV}`$). Values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ higher than 51, besides being excluded by $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU, do not fulfill REWSB. Since the SUSY contributions $`\delta m_b(\mathrm{tan}\beta f(M_{1/2}))`$, with $`f(M_{1/2})`$ a decreasing function of $`M_{1/2}`$, as we increase $`M_{1/2}`$ the bounds on $`m_b(M_Z)`$ are saturated at larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The light blue lower part of the figure is ruled out by the $`BR(bs\gamma )`$ constraint (1). This bound, for $`\mu <0`$, becomes stronger at higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and lower $`M_{1/2}`$, thus the shape of the excluded region is easily understood. We also plot isolevel lines for the SUSY contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment $`\delta a_\mu `$. However, due to the current theoretical uncertainties in the evaluation of the SM hadronic contribution, we do not use this quantity as a constraint. Finally, we find that in the whole allowed parameter space $`m_\chi 0.44M_{1/2}`$ to within few percent of accuracy.
As regards the cosmologically preferred green region, satisfying (2), and the behavior of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi `$ isolevel curves, we find, in the range $`40\mathrm{tan}\beta 45`$, that $`2m_\chi m_A`$, $`m_A`$ being the $`CP`$-odd neutral Higgs $`A`$ mass111Funnel regions do not occur, instead, in the models of ref., since the $`B_0=0`$ condition forces $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to low values where $`2m_\chi m_A`$ cannot be fulfilled.. The line at $`2m_\chi =m_A`$ lies at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 43`$, while at higher (resp. lower) values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`2m_\chi >(<)m_A`$. The overall bounds on the parameter space of the model are $`40\mathrm{tan}\beta 45`$ and $`590\mathrm{GeV}M_{1/2}1330\mathrm{GeV}`$, which translates into a bound for the lightest neutralino mass of $`250\mathrm{GeV}m_\chi 585\mathrm{GeV}`$. We also find that for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ the allowed parameter space excludes coannihilation effects with the next-to-lightest SUSY particle, the lightest stau, always lying more than $`25\%`$ above the LSP mass.
The lower panel of fig. 1 summarizes the detection perspectives of the model under scrutiny, both at direct WIMP detection experiments  (spin-independent $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ isolevel curves; the values are in pb) and at CERN LHC . Detection rates are beyond reach of stage 2 detectors (CDMS2, EDELWEISS2, ZEPLIN2), while the low $`M_{1/2}`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ part of the cosmologically preferred region could be within reach of the so-called stage 3 detectors (GENIUS, ZEPLIN4, CRYOARRAY). We notice in the upper-left part of the figure a dip in $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$, due to cancellations among terms stemming from up and down type quarks interactions, the largest contributions then coming from $`t`$-channel Higgs boson exchanges . As regards LHC searches, we expect detectability, in the present framework, following the results of , for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2150\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`2500\mathrm{GeV}`$) at an integrated luminosity of 10 (100) $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. We show in the lower panel of fig. 1 with red solid lines the curves at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2150,2500\mathrm{GeV}`$: in both cases, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 43`$ and $`M_{1/2}1160\mathrm{GeV}`$, i.e. $`m_\chi 500\mathrm{GeV}`$, a slice of parameter space compatible with cosmological requirements may be beyond the reach of CERN LHC.
In fig. 2 we show, at two different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35.0`$ and 47.0, respectively representative of the lower and upper part of the $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU allowed range, the constraints on $`M_{1/2}`$ at various values of the no-scale boundary condition scale $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$. The phenomenologically allowed region is in the upper right corner of the plots, where the isolevel curves for the NLSP mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}m_\chi }{m_\chi }}`$ are also depicted at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=0\%,10\%,20\%`$. The light blue region is excluded by the $`BR(bs\gamma )`$ constraint (1), while in the gray region $`m_\chi <m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$. Finally, the red region in the lower left corner has $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2<0`$. The lowest possible value for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is around $`5\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is reached at the lowest $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ compatible with $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU, and, at a given $`M_{1/2}`$, is always above the corresponding $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. For completeness, we also include the curves at fixed values of the lightest neutral Higgs $`m_h`$, for which the LEP2 bound gives $`m_h114.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ . We notice that the bound on the Higgs mass, which in the MSSM at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is even milder than the mentioned value, is always weaker than the other considered phenomenological constraints.
As regards the cosmologically viable parameter space, the effect of reducing $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ translates in the appearance of coannihilation regions: we recall that in order to effectively reduce the neutralino relic density, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ must be less than $`10\%`$, depending on the absolute value of $`m_\chi `$, and this is the case for

$$5\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}M_{\mathrm{bc}}3\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(6)
We shade in green in fig. 2 the actual parameter space regions where $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.13`$. Furthermore, the $`A`$-pole condition $`2m_\chi m_A`$ is still fulfilled for $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}<M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, always at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ close to 43. Therefore, in the range (6) an interplay between neutralino-stau coannihilations and direct $`A`$-pole annihilations can significantly enlarge the cosmologically preferred parameter space of the models. Outside the funnel region, however, a certain fine-tuning between $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is needed in order to enter the coannihilation region (see again fig. 2). Finally, we notice that the isolevel stau mass splitting curves are steeper for lower $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Therefore, at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, coannihilations suppress $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ to viable values in a wider range of $`M_{1/2}`$ with respect to the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime: one can clearly understand this statement imaging vertical lines (i.e. lines at fixed $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$) intersecting the green regions in the left ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35.0`$) and right ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =47.0`$) panels of fig. 2.

We now turn to the question of the sensitivity of the overall outlined scenario on the particular chosen values of the couplings $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ and $`\lambda ^{}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$. We focus on the variations induced in $`m_A`$ and in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$, which are directly responsible for the relic density suppression, as well as in the neutralino-neutralino-Higgs couplings, on which both the neutralino relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ and the scattering cross-section $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ depend222I thank the Referee for having drawn my attention to this point.. These couplings depend, in their turn, on the absolute value of $`\mu `$, which we therefore also take into account. For definiteness, we choose the representative coupling $`|g_{\chi \chi A}|^2`$, as defined in ref. ; we checked that the behavior of the other neutralino-neutralino-Higgs couplings is very similar. The quantities we study are the percent differences between the values at a given $`\lambda `$ (resp. $`\lambda ^{}`$) and those at the particular one we picked, namely $`\lambda =1.2`$ (resp. $`\lambda ^{}=0.5`$).
In the left panel of fig. 3, where the dependence on $`\lambda `$ is investigated, we find, as expected , that the variations of $`m_A`$ are rather mild (at most $`1\%`$); instead, the $`\mu `$ parameter and the mass of the lightest stau are more sensitive to $`\lambda `$: in the range of perturbative $`\lambda `$’s which we study, they vary within a $`5\%`$ range. The resulting variations of $`|g_{\chi \chi A}|^21/|\mu |^2`$ can be as large as 10%. Though $`m_A`$ varies rather slowly with $`\lambda `$, we find that in the range of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU is fulfilled, the effects on the relic density and on $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ driven by the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Am_A2m_\chi `$ largely dominate on the corrections due to the variations of the neutralino-Higgs couplings. The reason is that in this range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ both nucleon scattering and neutralino annihilations are dominated by the heavy Higgses ($`A`$ and $`H`$) resonances. Therefore, if $`m_A2m_\chi `$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 43`$) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ (resp. $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$) decreases (resp. increases) with increasing $`\lambda `$, because of the induced reduction on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ (see fig. 3). The opposite mechanism takes place at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 43`$.
To summarize the effects of varying $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$, we find a superposition of two phenomena. On the one side, increasing $`\lambda `$ decreases $`m_A`$, and therefore shifts the funnel depicted in fig. 1. On the other side, increasing $`\lambda `$ suppresses the neutralino-neutralino-Higgs couplings, and therefore, at fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$, slightly reduces $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ and increases $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. We find that at a given ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,M_{1/2}`$) point this second mechanism, in the present large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ range, is subdominant with respect to the first one: the kinematic condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A0`$ is more critical than the size of the neutralino-Higgs couplings. To quantify the overall size of these variations, we find that at $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=0`$ the position of the funnel is shifted to the right, with respect to the plotted case $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})=1.2`$, by $`0.3`$ units in $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, while the width of the funnel333By width we mean the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ range at fixed $`M_{1/2}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.13`$. is enlarged by a factor $`2\%`$. This last effect is purely due to the variations of the neutralino-Higgs couplings with $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$. The corrections on $`\sigma _{\chi p}^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ are also very small, and not appreciable in a plot like the lower panel of fig. 1.
As far as the variations of the lightest stau mass with $`\lambda `$ are concerned, though irrelevant at $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, they could in principle affect the position of the coannihilation regions depicted in fig. 2. Nevertheless, as $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is reduced, the size of the $`\lambda `$-dependent effects on the spectrum is suppressed, and, as a consequence, also in this case the low $`\lambda (M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ scenario would closely resemble the one studied here. The only consequence of taking a lower value for $`\lambda `$ is a shift of the coannihilation regions, and of the stau mass isolevel curves in fig. 2 towards larger $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ values.
Finally, as regards the variations induced by $`\lambda ^{}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$, we find that the effects are always negligible, as illustrated in the right panel of fig. 3 (notice that the scale in the plot is reduced by a factor 10 with respect to the right panel).

### 2.2 The no-scale general $`SO(10)`$ case

In minimal SUSY $`SO(10)`$ GUT the matter superfields of the MSSM plus an additional gauge singlet right handed neutrino are collected in a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ supermultiplet, while the Higgs superfields belong to a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$. A top down-like approach to YU like the one we propose here would lead, in the present framework of universal gaugino masses444See  and references therein for the related case of $`SO(10)`$ with non-universal gaugino masses., to a large fine-tuning, at fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, between $`M_{1/2}`$ and the mandatory non-vanishing $`D`$-term contribution $`M_D^2`$ in order to achieve complete YU. We therefore resort to a more general $`SO(10)`$ setting , where the two MSSM Higgs doublets live in two different fundamental representations of the GUT gauge group, and fix $`M_D^2=0`$. In this case the superpotential reads

$$W_{\mathrm{gen}}=f_t(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})\widehat{H}_2+f_b(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})\widehat{H}_1$$
(7)
and only $`b`$-$`\tau `$ YU is required. The RGE’s depend in general on the Higgs multiplets and on the the number of matter generations, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}g}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}}(S24)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}M_{1/2}}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}}(S24)g^2M_{1/2},`$ (9)
where $`S`$ is the sum of the Dynkin indices of the chiral superfields of the model, $`g`$ is the $`SO(10)`$ unified gauge coupling and $`M_{1/2}`$ is the common gaugino mass above the unification scale. In the case of two Higgs and 3 generations, $`S=8`$.

We begin comparing, in the left panel of fig. 4, the effects of the GUT running between $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ (set to $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ for definiteness) and $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ for $`SU(5)`$ and $`SO(10)`$ GUTs. First, notice that the overall scale at which the soft scalar mass are driven by RG running is comparable in both cases, while the trilinear couplings are evolved towards higher negative values in the $`SO(10)`$ case. A further remarkable feature is that in $`SU(5)`$ the Higgs soft SUSY breaking masses are driven to significantly lower values than in $`SO(10)`$. Last, notice the larger departure from universality which takes place in the scalar sector of $`SU(5)`$. Being $`m_{10}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})m_{16}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$, this translates into a lower soft scalar mass pattern for $`SU(5)`$.
In the right part of fig. 4 we investigate the effects induced in the Higgs sector at the low energy scale by the different running, between $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, of $`m_{H_u}`$ and $`m_{H_d}`$ in the two cases. In particular, in view of the results of the previous section, we study the mass of the $`CP`$-odd Higgs boson $`A`$. Notice that, though the differences in the soft scalar Higgs masses are significant, the value of $`m_A`$ is mainly determined by $`M_{1/2}`$: the $`50\%`$ difference between the $`SU(5)`$ and $`SO(10)`$ soft scalar Higgs masses squeezes to a few percent correction in $`m_A`$. Henceforth, we expect the same funnel appearing in $`SU(5)`$ to take place also in the general $`SO(10)`$ case.
In fig. 5 we show, with the same notation of fig. 1, the allowed parameter space in the $`SO(10)`$ case. The general features of the $`SO(10)`$ case are, as expected, remarkably similar to the $`SU(5)`$ case, thus confirming that the model-dependence of no-scale models with $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ above $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is rather mild, as pointed out in . This weak dependence on the GUT structure which dictates the running above $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is easily understood: the values of the soft masses at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ are determined at one loop only by gauge charges through the non-vanishing gaugino masses. All other interactions are one-loop suppressed, and therefore only slightly affect the soft scalar mass pattern at the GUT scale. Moreover, the small splittings in the scalar SSB masses are partly washed out by the common MSSM running between the unification and the weak scales, dominated by gaugino masses. Nevertheless, it is somewhat non trivial that in $`SO(10)`$ as well the low energy spectrum allows the fulfillment of the $`A`$ Higgs resonance condition $`2m_\chi m_A`$, in a very similar range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as in the $`SU(5)`$ case.
As regards the differences between the two considered GUT models, we point out that in the $`SO(10)`$ case the spectrum at the low energy scale is generically slightly heavier than in $`SU(5)`$, as emphasized before. This amounts to shifting the range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the lower bound on $`M_{1/2}`$ towards larger values. In the relic density as well we notice that the isolevel curves are closer to each other: this depends on the fact that in the $`SO(10)`$ case the variations of $`m_A`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are larger than in $`SU(5)`$, hence the condition $`2m_\chi m_A`$ is fulfilled in a smaller range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the funnel is slightly narrowed.
As far as the detectability of the model is concerned (lower panel), we draw the same conclusions as in the previous section: direct detection will be possible only at next to next generation experiments, and the large $`m_\chi `$ points on top of the $`A`$-pole funnel at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 42`$ will be beyond reach of CERN LHC555We are assuming here that the CERN LHC reach for general $`SO(10)`$ models is comparable to the one for $`SU(5)`$ models, as suggested by the highlighted strong similarities in the low energy spectra of the two cases..
As emerging from the pattern shown in the right panel of fig. 4 and from the preceding remarks, lowering $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ would further reduce the differences between $`SU(5)`$ and $`SO(10)`$. Therefore we expect, in the framework of $`SO(10)`$, a scenario very similar to the one depicted in fig. 2, in the case $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}<M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$.

## 3 Conclusions

To summarize, we showed that GUT models with no-scale boundary conditions above the unification scale and with $`b`$-$`\tau `$ Yukawa unification are compatible with the known cosmo-phenomenological constraints. In particular, the low energy spectrum of the two GUTs under scrutiny, $`SU(5)`$ and general $`SO(10)`$, allows, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ between 40 and 45, the fulfillment of the $`A`$-pole condition $`2m_\chi m_A`$. The resulting enhancement of direct $`s`$-channel neutralino annihilations reduces the neutralino relic abundance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ within the current cosmologically preferred range. Further, we showed that when $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is around $`10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$ coannihilations between the neutralino and the lightest stau can also conspire to bring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ to sufficiently low values. We emphasize that, had it not been for the mentioned neutralino relic density suppression mechanisms, the models under scrutiny would have had no parameter space regions compatible with the current upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}h^2`$.
The analysis of the prospects for direct neutralino detection and for accelerator searches indicates that the first will be possible only at future experiments and in limited areas of the parameter space, while the latter will cover a large part, though not all, of the cosmologically and phenomenologically viable regions. Finally, a comparison between the two examined GUTs lead us to conclude that the dependence of no-scale models on the peculiar GUT structure is significantly mild.

###### Acknowledgments.

The Author wishes to acknowledge P. Ullio and C. E. Yaguna for valuable discussions and suggestions, and the Referee for useful comments and remarks.


text:
# Commissioning the CDF Offline Software

## I SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE OFFLINE SOFTWARE PROJECT

The CDF offline involves hundreds of collaborators from 56 different institutions from all over the world. While not ever collaborator has directly contributed software, all must use the software and help debug it. The current code set consists of tens of millions of mostly C++ code, organized into 294 packages. These packages are further organized into major reconstruction, simulation, and physics categories: Tracking, Calorimetry, Muon, Time of Flight, Luminosity counters, Top, Tau, Electroweak, B physics, and infrastructure. At CDF the offline includes all of the software and computing need for the real time software trigger (the Level3 trigger), the online monitoring of the detector, the primary reconstruction, the detector simulation, physics group analysis software, tools such as the detector event display and software used to measure the performance of the above, such as tracking efficiency and purity.

## II HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

### II.1 Manpower

In 1996 when work on the run 2 offline started, very few people at CDF knew C++. The advantages of using a language that supported memory management was considered large enough to out way the cost of learning C++. We claimed that we would start by writing all of the infrastructure code in C++ but still make provisions for the physics code to be written in f77. People involved with the run 1 experiment wanted to reuse as much of the run 1 code as possible, so the code was wrapped into C callable routines and fed it’s input data via the C++ infrastructure. Output was in the form of arrays that were also managed by the infrastructure. As new people entered the project there was a desire to replace this code with algorithms written in C++ so that it would be maintainable. This happened for every subsystem until everything was C++. The next generation of maintainers after this second round has not felt it necessary to rewrite everything. We now have people entering the project with prior C++ experience from other experiments. During the development of the code we never had enough people to work on all of the tasks we wanted done. Strong leadership to prioritize during these early times was essential. At any one time we had about 6 to 10 highly productive developers, one per subsystem.

### II.2 Releases and Transitions

The release schedule reflects the pace of development and managements decisions about how to best serve our users. Our users were the detector commissioning physicists, and farm and data handling hardware developers. During the first year that we started making major releases, 1999, there were 5 releases reflecting the difficulty of these first integrations. In 2000 and 2001 there were about 10 each year. This was our time of extreme programing. Many of the major rewrites occurred at this time, including a change from a Fortran array based EDM (Event Data Model) to a root based EDM. At the same time the experiment was commissioning the detector and these customers required that we keep the code working for their use. For this reason many subsystem developers were maintaining two versions of the code for their system. One of the advantages of this situation was that both versions could be run to see if they resulted in the same answer. Many bugs were discovered while investigating differing answers. Some were in the C++ but some were found in the run1 Fortran code as well. In 2002 there were about 5 releases. This reflected the need for stability in preparation for presenting physics results at the early 2003 winter conferences.

### II.3 Collaboration with Others

Throughout the history of the project CDF was greatly aided by using the work of others outside of CDF. BaBar donated their framework, EvtGen and ideas. The support of the root team especially Phillippe Canal was essential. Many of the Zoom/CLHEP classes we use were developed by those groups at our request. Many of the classes in existence before CDF started developing C++ software were greatly improved in performance through collaboration with the supporters of CLHEP. Unfortunately our compiler vendor, KAI was also a collaborator in that we had to report bugs to them. Despite this, the decision to use KAI was not a bad one. It allowed us to write C++ standard code much earlier then we would otherwise have been able to. This has served us well in transitioning back to g++ now that KAI is becoming unsupported.

## III DEVELOPMENT OF STABLE OPERATIONS

The most important step in creating stability and robustness in the software system was the development of rules and procedures. There are rules about how releases are put together and what can be integrated at different phases of the cycle. There are well defined procedures for validation and regression testing of all new releases. These are documented on the web and the manpower for doing these tasks comes from the collaboration as part of an offline shift. A shifter is given recipes for running purify, debuggers and software management tools as well as instructions for running the tests. Monitoring the running of automated systems like the reconstruction farms is also part of the job. Use of a bug tracking tool has also greatly aided in finding problems and documenting solutions for out users. The shifter can try to answer questions that are sent to the list, or forward them to the relevant system expert.

## IV LESSONS LEARNED AND SURPRISES

Here is a list of some of the things that were surprising and were learned over the course of the project:

* You never really understand a problem until it is solved once. The strategy of studying and recoding run 1 code in C++ for run 2 served us well in many areas of the project.
* Performance has not been a problem, wasteful copying was eliminated early in the development of the code and there are still gains that we can make. Choosing efficient algorithms gains more performance the hand optimizing the code.
* Keep the system clean in terms of physical design and organization. Physics analysis codes will follow the patterns of the reconstruction and be more generally usable if the reconstruction is kept clean.
* A code browser is important for both the developers and users of the software system.
* Beware of code generation, it can produce code bloat if not done carefully.
* Memory leaks are supposed to be the biggest problem in large C++ systems, however for us uninitialized variables has been a bigger problem. Memory leaks can be traced with standard tools. Uninitialized memory reports from these same tools are too numerous to be useful. Many of these reports are completely harmless and finding the bad ones buried underneath is very hard. We have had releases in which the farms operation of the reconstruction was tested to be 1 crash in a million events. The same exact code when recompiled with a shorter name for the file system it lived on crashed in less then a thousand events processed. This was traced to an error in using uninitialized memory.
* Start commissioning as early as possible. Mock data challenges didn’t completely prepare us for the turn on of real data. Count on having to change things once you have really customers with real needs.
* Many people will leave the project one year after the first physics data arrives. If faced with the choice of two solutions to a problem always choose the most maintainable one. Insure that there is sufficient overlap between the original developers of the code and the junior people who will take over the maintenance of it.

## V THE CDF OFFLINE SOFTWARE IS A SUCCESS

The CDF offline software system was flexible and serviceable. It was able to help commission the detector even while it was undergoing large transitions to improved software. It helped take the data, reconstruct it, and perform the physics analysis on it in a timely manner.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank all of the people who worked on the CDF offline software.


text:
# Constraining slow-roll inflation with WMAP and 2dF

## I Introduction

The observations by the WMAP satellite wmap1 ; wmapS ; wmapinf ; wmap2 ; wmap3  have brought the global cosmological data set up to a quality where, for the first time, it is possible to obtain precision constraints on cosmological models. That the data provides no indication of any significant departure from gaussianity, adiabaticity, or scale-invariance, and furthermore reveals two coherent peaks in the spectrum of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, lends powerful support to the idea of inflation in the early Universe as a source for the observed perturbations. This opens the prospect of constraining and excluding regions of inflation model parameter space.

The qualitative breakthrough of the WMAP data is important. For the first time we have available a CMB spectrum that spans from cosmic variance limited measurements on large angular scales across to the measurement without any overall calibration error of the peaks on small angular scales. Measurements of the polarization of the CMB wmap4  provide some insight into the epoch of reionization which in turn helps to constrain inflationary models by limiting the effects of parameter degeneracies.

In this paper we analyze slow-roll inflation models, following the strategy outlined in Leach et al. LLMS , and provisionally applied to pre-WMAP CMB data by Leach and Liddle infcmb  as a demonstration of methodology. With WMAP it is possible to make the first serious application. As compared to our earlier work, we make several improvements. We use the now-ubiquitous Markov Chain Monte Carlo method MCMC ; LB  to obtain the likelihood function over parameter space, we include both short-scale CMB data and the galaxy power spectrum data from 2dF (but not any lyman-alpha data, whose inclusion has proven controversial Sel ), and we study the effect of varying one further slow-roll parameter. Our approach differs in several respects from the other papers that have already appeared discussing inflation post-WMAP wmapinf ; BLM ; KKMR , and we contrast our work with theirs in the conclusions.

## II Methodology

We follow the methodology described in Refs. LLMS ; infcmb , to which the reader is referred for further details. In terms of the horizon-flow parameters $`ϵ_1`$, $`ϵ_2`$, etc., the inflationary scalar and tensor power spectra can be well represented as power-laws with amplitude and spectral indices given by SL ; SL2

$`A_\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{\pi ϵ_1m_{\mathrm{PL}}^2}}\left(12(C+1)ϵ_1Cϵ_2\right)`$ (1)
$`n_\mathrm{S}1`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ (2)
$`n_\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_1,`$ (3)
where $`C0.73`$. The relative amplitude of tensor and scalar perturbations is given by

$$R=16ϵ_1.$$
(4)
Later we will also consider weak running (scale-dependence) of the scalar spectral index. Although the full inflationary predictions are somewhat more detailed, Eqs. (1)–(4) capture the essence of the inflationary power spectra. In the following analysis we start by using the first-order power-law shape predictions for inflation which include the Stewart–Lyth correction to the amplitude, but ignore any term $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$. Later we use the full second-order predictions where the terms $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ are included in the fit.

The data that we use in this paper comes from VSA vsa , CBI cbi , ACBAR acbar , WMAP wmapinf  and the 2dF galaxy redshift survey 2df . We compute the microwave anisotropies using the CAMB code LCL  coupled to our own slow-roll inflation module LLMS , and use the package CosmoMC LB , modified to include the WMAP likelihood code V , in order to compute the likelihood over parameter space. We generate a Markov chain of 60,000 elements. We assume a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe and adopt the parameter basis $`\{\omega _\mathrm{B},\omega _\mathrm{D},H_0,10^{10}A_\mathrm{S}(k_{}),z_{\mathrm{re}},ϵ_1(k_{}),ϵ_2(k_{})\}`$ where $`\omega _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{D}`$ are the baryon and dark matter physical densities, $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant, $`A_\mathrm{S}`$ is the amplitude of scalar perturbations, $`z_{\mathrm{re}}`$ is the redshift of reionization (which is assumed to be instantaneous), and $`k_{}=0.01\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The only prior that has any effect on the constraints is insisting $`z_{\mathrm{re}}>4`$. We are also interested in the constraints on the derived parameters $`\{A_\mathrm{S}e^{2\tau },n_\mathrm{S}1,R_{10}\}`$ where $`\tau `$ is the optical depth to the last scattering surface and $`R_{10}=C_{10}^\mathrm{T}/C_{10}^\mathrm{S}`$.

## III The constraints

### III.1 Constraints on slow-roll inflation

We begin by considering the constraints on slow-roll inflation models, initially only including the horizon-flow parameters $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$. For orientation and comparison with other work, in Fig. 1 we display the constraints on the basic cosmological parameters $`\{\omega _\mathrm{B},\omega _\mathrm{D},H_0,10^{10}A_\mathrm{S}(k_{}),z_{\mathrm{re}}\}`$. Our results are in good agreement with other authors, unsurprisingly as we use many of the same codes and a similar data compilation.

Fig. 2 shows the likelihood distribution in the plane of the horizon-flow parameters $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$. We can see that the constraint on $`ϵ_2`$ is highly correlated with $`ϵ_1`$, since both parameters contribute to the spectral index. Moreover the data introduce a further degeneracy, the tensor degeneracy. This occurs where models with a tensor component, and hence more power on large scales, require more power to short scales, and hence a bluer spectrum. This is clear from Fig. 3, in which we plot the same constraints in terms of the derived parameters $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`R_{10}`$.

Because of the strong degeneracy between $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, we read off the 2$`\sigma `$ upper limit on $`ϵ_1`$ from Fig. 2 without marginalizing out $`ϵ_2`$, finding

$$ϵ_1<0.032,$$
(5)
which gives the best measure of the relative (primordial) contribution of tensors, via Eq. (4). This constraint is in agreement with Refs. wmapinf ; BLM . The direct contribution of the tensor spectrum to the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ spectrum is also of some interest and, similarly, we obtain the 2$`\sigma `$ upper limit

$$R_{10}<0.32,$$
(6)
and using Eq. (1) we obtain an upper limit on the energy scale of inflation

$$\frac{H}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}<1.4\times 10^5.$$
(7)
The constraints on the horizon-flow parameters are best summarized in Fig. 2. However, we can define a new parameter along the tensor degeneracy direction and obtain the constraint

$`ϵ_2+5.0ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.036\pm 0.025,`$ (8)
$`10^{10}A_Se^{2\tau }+82ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`19.3\pm 0.7,`$ (9)
and these constraints are displayed in Fig. 4. To obtain constraints on the shape of the inflaton potential we use the slow-roll approximation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4}}V,`$ (10)
$`ϵ_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{16\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2,`$ (11)
$`ϵ_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}\right],`$ (12)
and rewriting the constraints Eq. (5)–(8) we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4}}`$ $`<`$ $`0.23\times 10^{10},`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{16\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2`$ $`<`$ $`0.032,`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}\left[2.25\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0.036\pm 0.025.`$ (15)
From these constraints and from Fig. 2, we see that there is no evidence of deviations from the extreme slow-roll limit $`ϵ_i=0`$, which lies comfortably within the $`1\sigma `$ contour. The best one can say is that the tensors and tilt can be used to marginally improve the fit to the data.

In comparison with the situation before WMAP (e.g. Ref. infcmb ), the principal change is a considerable tightening of the uncertainties, with the general trend of the shrinking being towards the scale-invariant case. This is sufficient to exclude a significant chunk of slow-roll inflation parameter space. Of the models remaining, there is a mild preference for a red spectral index ($`n<1`$) but not with any significance. Because of the tight correlation between $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ there exists a class of models with blue scalar spectra which show a mild preference for a tensor component on large scales, as is visible in Fig 3. This is an area of parameter space which has not been significantly populated with models, as models with blue spectra tend to have negligible tensors. These models have $`ϵ_2<0`$ meaning that the fractional kinetic energy of the inflaton is decreasing, which could correspond to models leaving a kinetic energy dominated epoch. These models are also somewhat ‘protected’ by the tensor degeneracy direction and could prove quite resistant to observational pressure for some time to come.

We now ask how well motivated it was to stop at $`ϵ_2`$, by including one further horizon-flow parameter $`ϵ_3`$. This allows us to include a running (scale-dependence) of the scalar spectral index, given by

$$\alpha _\mathrm{S}\frac{dn_\mathrm{S}}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=2ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_2ϵ_3.$$
(16)
and to take the expressions for the spectral indices themselves to second-order SL2 . The effect of including this extra parameter is shown in Fig. 4, where it has a fairly modest effect on the likelihood distributions for other inflationary parameters. However $`ϵ_3`$ itself is poorly constrained, and is readily consistent with zero. We conclude that there is clearly no motivation to include this extra parameter, with the improved goodness-of-fit being insufficient to warrant its inclusion. We return to this issue in Section IV.2.

### III.2 Constraints on power-law inflation

If we have a specific class of inflation models in mind then we can go beyond the constraints of Fig. 2, and in this section we examine the constraints on power-law inflation. This remains an interesting model because the potential, once normalized to the observed perturbation amplitude, is described by a single parameter, and so we can expect tighter constraints than in the case of general slow-roll models. Power-law inflation LM  is expansion given by

$`a`$ $``$ $`t^p,p>1,`$ (17)
$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}},ϵ_i=0,i2.`$ (18)
Equivalently, in terms of conformal time we have

$`a`$ $``$ $`|\eta |^q,\mathrm{}<q<1,`$ (19)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+3w}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1ϵ_1}}.`$ (20)
We obtain the constraint on power-law inflation by reading off the 2$`\sigma `$ bound on $`ϵ_1`$ at the intersection with the $`ϵ_1`$ axis and find:

$`0<`$ $`ϵ_1`$ $`<0.019,`$ (21)
$`p`$ $`>53,`$ (22)
$`1.019<`$ $`q`$ $`<1.`$ (23)
The constraint on $`ϵ_1`$ is tighter than for slow-roll models because power-law inflation requires a red scalar power spectrum, and so there is no possibility of taking advantage of the tensor degeneracy. If in the near future the HZ spectrum is ruled out in favor of red-tilted spectrum then we can begin to place an upper limit on the index $`p`$, and needless to say, power-law inflation can be ruled out altogether if a blue-tilted spectrum is favored or if the tensor spectrum has the wrong relationship with the scalar spectrum.

An easy way to overinterpret the data would be to point out that our best-fit models lie close to the region well described by power-law inflation (ie. the $`ϵ_1`$ axis), with inflationary parameters $`ϵ_10.01`$ and $`ϵ_20.00`$. However this is likely to be a result of the mild preference for red scalar spectra combined with a small slide along the (flattish) tensor degeneracy direction once tensors are included in the fit. Nonetheless, it is intriguing that such a simple inflation model should provide such an excellent fit to the data.

### III.3 Constraints on monomial inflation

In this section we examine the constraints on monomial inflation potentials of the form

$$V=\lambda m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4\left(\frac{\varphi }{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^\alpha .$$
(24)
Once normalized to observations these models are defined by two parameters, the index $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi _{}`$, the value of $`\varphi `$ when the scale $`k_{}`$ crossed the horizon during inflation. However, there is an extra ingredient: the energy scale of inflation is fixed once we specify $`A_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`ϵ_1`$, which is typically around $`10^{16}`$GeV. This in turn specifies the maximum number of $`e`$-folds of slow-roll inflation after horizon scale crossing, $`N_{\mathrm{hor}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$, after which inflation must end (regardless of the mechanism that ends inflation) giving way to reheating and the standard expansion history SD ; efolds . In addition, monomial inflation provides a mechanism to end inflation via the violation of slow-roll, and so we can calculate the functions $`H(N)`$, $`ϵ_1(N)`$, and $`ϵ_2(N)`$ where $`N`$ is the number of $`e`$-folds from the end of inflation. This allows us to map a constraint on $`N_{\mathrm{hor}}`$ to a constraint on the slow-roll parameters.

Substitution of the potential of Eq. (24) into Eq. (11) and (12) gives

$`ϵ_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{16\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^2,`$ (25)
$`ϵ_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha }}ϵ_1.`$ (26)
We can calculate the number of $`e`$-folds of inflation from the definition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ_1}{dN}}`$ $``$ $`ϵ_1ϵ_2,`$ (27)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{ϵ_1(N)}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ_1}{ϵ_1ϵ_2}},`$ (28)
where $`ϵ_1(N)`$ is the initial value of $`ϵ_1`$. Using $`ϵ_2=4ϵ_1/\alpha `$, which is a good approximation for monomial inflation, we have

$$N=\frac{\alpha }{4}\left[\frac{1}{ϵ_1}1\right],$$
(29)
and in the limit $`N\alpha /4`$ the horizon flow parameters are given by

$`ϵ_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4N}},`$ (30)
$`ϵ_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}.`$ (31)
Eq. (31) gives us the useful constraint

$$ϵ_2>\frac{1}{N_{}^{\mathrm{max}}},$$
(32)
where $`N_{}`$ is the number of $`e`$-foldings from the end of inflation that the scale $`k_{}`$ crossed the horizon (in the language of Ref. efolds , $`N_{}N_{\mathrm{hor}}4`$). It should be emphasized that the specific form of this constraint applies only for the monomial potentials. The maximum number of $`e`$-folds of slow-roll inflation corresponding to our scale $`k_{}=0.01\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is approximately 60 SD ; efolds  and so we have the constraint $`ϵ_2>0.017`$. Using this additional constraint we can rule out certain monomial inflation models independent of the actual number of $`e`$-folds of slow-roll inflation after horizon scale crossing.

In Fig. 5, which is a zoom of part of Fig. 2, we restrict our attention to $`ϵ_2>0`$ which corresponds to models where the ratio between the scalar field kinetic and total energy density is increasing, arguably the most natural candidates for ending inflation by the violation of slow-roll. The solid lines show the location of the quadratic and quartic potential models at different numbers of $`e`$-foldings up to the maximum. The quartic potential lies outside the $`2\sigma `$ contour for any allowed value of $`N_{}`$.

We can constrain the exponent $`\alpha `$ by reading off the value of $`4ϵ_1\times N_{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ at the point where the observational constraints on the slow-roll parameters intersect with the constraint on $`ϵ_2`$ given by Eq. (32). We find the monomial inflation index is constrained from above to be

$`\alpha `$ $`<`$ $`4.3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}\sigma `$
$`\alpha `$ $`<`$ $`3.9,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\sigma `$
$`\alpha `$ $`<`$ $`2.8,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}\sigma .`$ (33)
Thus, while it is still too early to definitively rule out the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ inflation model, it is clear from the pattern of the above constraints that this particular model is under very strong pressure from observations. The $`m^2\varphi ^2`$ is valid as long as $`32<N_{\mathrm{hor}}<60`$ (note that monomial inflation models with $`N_{\mathrm{hor}}<55`$ must have a prolonged reheating epoch at the end of inflation or non-standard post-inflationary evolution efolds ). It is clear from Fig. 5 that the same kind of pressure will build on the $`m^2\varphi ^2`$ model if the spectral index becomes more tightly constrained, since lines of constant spectral index correspond to $`ϵ_1=(ϵ_2+n_\mathrm{S}1)/2`$, which, modulo the tensor degeneracy, runs parallel to the constraint contours.

It is natural to ask what can we say in a model-independent manner about slow-roll inflation models while still including the bound on $`N_{\mathrm{hor}}`$. The number of $`e`$-folds of inflation, given by Eq. (28), depends only on the function $`ϵ_2(ϵ_1)`$, and this gives us a straightforward way to study the phenomenology of inflation models. Unfortunately, we only have information about the function $`ϵ_2(ϵ_1)`$ across the 8 or so $`e`$-folds across observable scales, and so the rest of this function can be at best extrapolated from observable scales. The initial slope is given by

$$\frac{dϵ_1}{dϵ_2}=\frac{ϵ_1}{ϵ_3},$$
(34)
and so the higher slow-roll parameters, via the running of the spectral index Eq. (16), would contain useful additional information about the model of inflation, assuming inflation occurs at these high energies. Since we have found no constraint on $`ϵ_3`$, then it is clear that we can not make this type of model independent analysis at present. Note also that the bound $`N_{}<60`$ can be relaxed somewhat to $`N_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ if $`H`$ is significantly reduced in the late stages of inflation efolds . In terms of the slow-roll parameters

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{H_\mathrm{i}}{H_\mathrm{f}}\right)_{ϵ_1(N=60)}^1\frac{dϵ_1}{ϵ_2}.$$
(35)
For instance, this correction is relevant for the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ which has $`\mathrm{\Delta }N4`$, although this is certainly not enough to take much pressure off this model.

## IV Discussion

### IV.1 The Harrison–Zel’dovich spectrum

We have discounted the inclusion of $`ϵ_3`$ because the data are unable to distinguish it from zero. However, following the logic of that statement we are forced to conclude that neither $`ϵ_1`$ nor $`ϵ_2`$ have been shown to be inconsistent with zero. The minimal assumption concerning the data is in fact that it is due to a Harrison–Zel’dovich (HZ) spectrum, with no indication of inflationary dynamics.

It is plausible therefore to also regard $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ as giving poor value, in terms of the improvement to the fit they give, for their inclusion as extra parameters. It is therefore interesting to see how constraints tighten up if we assume an HZ spectrum in place of slow-roll inflation. In Fig. 6 we display once more the constraints on the basic cosmological parameters, but now also showing the constraints assuming the HZ spectrum and no tensors. It is clear that, broadly speaking, the two models are in good agreement with each other, but nevertheless there are quantitative differences worth remarking upon. The baryon density $`\omega _\mathrm{B}`$ becomes much more tightly constrained, and looks rather high when compared to nucleosynthesis constraints. Perhaps most interestingly, assuming HZ the constraints on the reionization epoch tighten considerably in favour of early reionization, as in abandoning slow-roll we have lost the ability to use tilt and tensors to partially mimic the effects of reionization.

### IV.2 A convergence criterion

As long as the HZ model remains a good fit to the data then the issue of introducing the spectral index as a parameter, let alone the running of the spectral index, needs some consideration. Reconstructing the initial power spectrum in bands BLWE ; MW  indicates that it is adequately fit by a scale-invariant spectrum, and that there should be nothing to be gained by adding any further power spectrum parameters. Indeed, why do we include further power spectrum parameters at all? If we consider the power spectrum as a Taylor expansion

$`\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k_{})+(n_\mathrm{S}1)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_{}}}\right)+`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_{}}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$
then the primary reason for including higher power spectrum parameters is to the test the convergence of the observable, in this case $`\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k)`$, as described at lower-order. The first term in the series has been determined to be $`\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k_{})20`$. We can introduce the next order parameter, the spectral index, without disrupting the constraints on the other parameters, and moreover feel confident of our measurement of $`\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k_{})`$, provided

$$\left|\mathrm{ln}𝒫(k_{})\right|\left|(n_\mathrm{S}1)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k}{k_{}}\right)\right|.$$
(37)
The above criterion is indeed satisfied by all the models under consideration since $`\mathrm{max}|\mathrm{ln}(k/k_{})|4`$ and $`\mathrm{max}|n_\mathrm{s}1|0.07`$. Thus the determination of the amplitude of scalar perturbations to a reasonable accuracy is not questioned by anybody. Similarly, one can feel confident in a measurement of $`n_\mathrm{S}`$ if the criterion

$$\left|n_\mathrm{S}1\right|\left|\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{S}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k}{k_{}}\right)\right|$$
(38)
is satisfied, and the fact that this inequality is typically violated for many of the strong running models under consideration in the literature (eg. the best fit of Ref. wmapS  is $`n_\mathrm{S}1=0.07`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{S}=0.031`$ and the two terms are of the same order of magnitude) has two possible explanations. The first is the intriguing possibility that the third term in the Taylor expansion Eq. (36) dominates over the second term at around a scale of $`\mathrm{ln}(k/k_{})4`$, physically corresponding to a power spectrum with a maximum near $`k_{}`$. This can only be verified if the contribution to the power spectrum from the fourth term (the running of the running) is found to be less than the term due to the running itself at this scale. The second, and more likely, explanation is that the large allowed variation in the running of the spectral index is just a symptom of the fact that we haven’t convincingly determined the spectral index yet. We suggest that this criterion can be easily used as a check in the fitting procedure: if Eq. (38) is violated for most models and the running is detected only at low significance, then the simplest interpretation is that no useful information is coming from the inclusion of the new parameter in the fit. One should at least be aware of a lack of convergence in the power spectrum observable, Eq. (36).

Alternatively, one can think of Eq. (38) as setting the boundary between weak and strong running in an observational sense. For current observations weak running is given by models with $`|\alpha _\mathrm{S}|<\mathrm{max}|n_\mathrm{S}1|/20.03`$, and this can be useful one wishes to introduce a weak running prior into the fitting procedure as a perturbation analysis to the existing constraints.

This type of convergence criterion should find echoes in other areas of cosmology where an observable is in some way series expanded, for instance the dark energy equation of state $`w(z)`$ HT .

Before concluding, we bring together the cosmological parameters of various inflationary models in Table 1. The models have been selected by fixing their values of $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, and where a chain was not already available we have run a short chain to determine reasonable values for the other parameters. These models may be useful as fiducial parameters for future study and, being within the 1$`\sigma `$ contour of Fig. 2, they are approximately degenerate at the level of the current data set.

## V Conclusions

We have investigated the constraints on various slow-roll inflationary models coming from observations of the CMB and large-scale structure. The main result is that the viable slow-roll parameter space is dramatically reduced and the underlying inflationary degeneracy now becomes visible. Interestingly, if we combine these constraints with a constraint on the number of $`e`$-folds of inflation since horizon scale crossing, then we find that the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ inflation model is under strong pressure, though not yet definitively ruled out. The $`m^2\varphi ^2`$ model will come under the same threat as long as the data continue to favour the Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum.

We also introduced a simple convergence criterion, Eq. (38), to judge the necessity of including higher power spectrum parameters such as the spectral index and the running of the spectral index. Applying this criterion we find that while it is justified to include the spectral index in the fit (reflecting the fact that amplitude of scalar perturbations is now well determined), it is not useful to include the running of the spectral index at present.

Our inflation analysis comes after those of Refs. wmapinf ; BLM ; KKMR , with whom we find general agreement. We can make the most direct comparison with Barger et al. BLM , who used the WMAP data alone with a top-hat $`H_0`$ prior, and a grid based $`\chi ^2`$ maximization procedure to obtain their constraints. We have have found tighter constraints using WMAP, VSA, CBI, ACBAR, 2dF datasets, and an MCMC technique, with our 2$`\sigma `$ constraint in Fig. 2 being only slightly looser than their equivalent 1$`\sigma `$ constraint. The comparison with Peiris et al. wmapinf  is less straightforward, since we did not consider the effect of strong running of the spectral index, arguing in Sec. IV.2 that we can obtain better value from the current data set without it. As a result, their results marginally favour a model with a blue scalar spectrum on the largest scales (even in the tensorless limit), whereas the power-law fits in the literature, including their adiabatic/isocurvature fit, favour a slightly red spectrum. Both Peiris et al. and Kinney et al. KKMR  investigate the Monte-Carlo flow reconstruction technique, which inevitably involves an extrapolation of the inflationary potential and physics well beyond the region directly constrained by observations. Therefore a certain caution is required when interpreting those analyses. We have hinted in Sec. III.3 how one might make such an extrapolation of the horizon-flow parameters (instead of the potential), but the method would require considerably tighter constraints on the running of the spectral index than we have at present.

###### Acknowledgements.

S.M.L is supported by the EU CMBNET network, and A.R.L. in part by the Leverhulme Trust. We thank Dominik Schwarz, Ruth Durrer, Roberto Trotta, and Michaël Malquarti for useful discussions.


text:
# The evolution of a hot subdwarf: observations of the pulsating subdwarf B star Feige 48

## 1 Introduction

To date, over 30 pulsating subdwarf B (EC 14026 or sdBV) stars have been identified, with pulsation periods ranging from 68 to 528 seconds and with amplitudes generally less than 50 millimagnitudes (mmag). For recent reviews of this class of stars, see Kilkenny (2001), and Reed, Kawaler & Kleinman (2000), for observational properties; Charpinet, Fontaine & Brassard (2001 and references therein) describe in detail some important aspects of pulsation theory in sdB stars. Most sdBV stars show periods at the short end of the range, and probably represent stars close to the Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB). PG 1605+072 is the longest period, and lowest gravity, sdBV star, with Feige 48 being an intermediate object. In general, the longer-period sdBV stars represent more highly evolved objects.

Feige 48 was identified as a “faint blue star” as part of the Feige survey (Feige, 1958). It was re-categorized as an sdB star when it was observed as part of the Palomar-Green survey (Green, Schmidt, & Liebert, 1984). Koen et al. (1998; hereafter K98) identified five pulsation periods in Feige 48 in six observing runs from 1997 May to 1998 February. The periods detected by K98 range from 342 to 379 seconds with the largest amplitude being 6.4 mmag. Amplitude variability led K98 to conclude that mode beating was probably present implying that other unresolved modes were present in their data. This provided the motivation for our follow-up observations. Heber, Reid, & Werner (2000; hereafter HRW) obtained a high resolution (0.09Å) spectrum of Feige 48, from which they determined log $`g`$=5.50$`\pm `$0.05 and Teff=29500$`\pm `$300 K. This makes Feige 48 among the coolest sdBV stars known with a surface gravity intermediate between PG 1605+072 and the rest of the class.

Here we report on our multi-year campaign of high-speed photometry of Feige 48. In Section 2, we outline our observations. Section 3 describes the time series analysis and period identifications. We report on a stellar model fit to Feige 48 in Section 4. The phase stability of pulsations is described in Section 5, where we use this stability to place interesting limits on any possible planetary companion. Section 6 gives our conclusions and outlines future observations for Feige 48.

## 2 High Speed Photometry

We began observing Feige 48 in 1998 November, with our most recent observations acquired in 2002 May. Table 1 provides a complete list of our observations (including K98’s observations). We acquired most of the data using 3 channel photoelectric photometers as described in Kleinman, Nather, & Phillips (1996). At Fick Observatory, we used a 2 channel photometer of similar design. The Fick data typically have an $``$30 minute gap during the night, as the telescope mount requires the photometer to be disconnected when the telescope exchanges sides on the pier. Because this instrument is a 2 channel photometer, the data were occasionally interrupted to measure the sky background. All photometers used Hamamatsu R647 photomultiplier tubes. Data acquired at Calar Alto and SARA were obtained using CCDs with 5 second exposures on a 30 and 15 second duty cycle, respectively. As both the target and comparison star were in the same CCD field, differential photometry removed extinction and sky variation. However, since extinction is wavelength–dependent, colour differences between the stars produced small non-linear trends in the data. We remove these trends by dividing by a low (2 - 4) order polynomial fit to the single–night data. Bad points in the CCD data were removed by hand. No filters were used during any of the photoelectric observations to maximize the photon count rate, whereas the CCD observations used filters to approximate the passband of the Hamamatsu phototubes (Kanaan et al. 2000).

As Table 1 indicates, we have obtained a total of $``$380 hours of time series photometry on Feige 48. The data span from 1998 January to 2002 May (the two runs in 1997 were too short and too temporally separated to be useful for this analysis).

## 3 The Pulsation Spectrum of Feige 48

We follow the standard procedure for determining pulsation frequencies from time series photometry obtained using the Whole Earth Telescope (see, for example, O’Brien et al. 1998). In short, we identify the principal pulsation frequencies with a Fourier transform of light curves of individual nights. We then combine data from several contiguous nights to refine the frequencies. Once the main frequencies are found, we then do a nonlinear least squares fit for the frequencies, amplitudes, and phases of all identified peaks, along with their uncertainties. .

To work around monthly and annual gaps between observing runs, we begin our analysis of the data in separate, relatively contiguous subgroups. The dates and data hours obtained for the subgroups are given in Table 2, the temporal spectra and window functions for the groups are plotted in Fig. 1. All groups were analysed independently, without using periods detected in other groups. This independent group reductions decrease the likelihood of selecting a daily alias over a real pulsation. Only in our Group X data, do we detect a mode ($`f`$2) inconsistent with the other group reductions. As such, we presume that our periods for $`f1f5`$ are not aliases, with the exception of $`f`$2 in Group X, which is a daily alias away from the real period. Frequencies determined for the better data sets are in Table 3 with the corresponding temporal spectra of the best groups (Groups III, V, and IX) and the prewhitened residuals in Fig. 2. Though some signal remains in the Fourier transform after prewhitening within these groups, we cannot distinguish any remaining pulsation frequencies from noise.

From our best solution for the Group III data, temporally adjacent groups were added one at a time and frequencies and amplitudes were fit again until a satisfactory fit was determined for all the data. Though there is still a chance that some modes may be off by an annual or monthly alias, the periods, frequencies and amplitudes in Table 4 represent our best solution. Also indicated by Table 3 are three pulsation periods that appear only within the span of a single group. However, the amplitudes are sufficiently low that some possibility exists that they could be due to noise and or aliasing. As such, we will not include them in our analysis, but we mention them as they are possibly stochastically excited modes within an otherwise stable pulsation spectrum. Note also that an error corresponding to an annual (or even monthly) alias produces only a small change in the period or frequency, and so will not affect the modeling for asteroseismic analysis. Such a mistake, however, would be fatal to the period stability analysis.

Feige 48 shows five distinct and consistent pulsation modes. Four of the stable modes cluster with periods near 350 seconds and a single mode lies at 378.5 seconds. The three shortest period modes also have the highest amplitudes – over three times higher than the two longer period modes.

Our initial interest in follow-up observations of Feige 48 was amplitude variability observed by K98. Our hope was to detect unresolved pulsations that could be responsible for the apparent amplitude variability they reported. However, it appears that the pulsations are resolved, and each has a variable amplitude of at least 30 %. The amplitudes determined for each of our groups for the three high amplitude modes are shown in Figure 3. All 3 amplitudes show change, though only $`f3`$ has a dramatic degree of variability.

## 4 Analysis of the pulsation spectrum of Feige 48

### 4.1 Frequency splittings in Feige 48

For most sdBV stars, sufficient data do not exist to resolve the complete pulsation structure. For stars with resolved temporal spectra (Kilkenny 2001) there are typically too many modes to be accounted for by current pulsation theory unless high $`\mathrm{}`$ values are included (where, by high $`\mathrm{}`$, we mean $`\mathrm{}3`$). Though higher $`\mathrm{}`$ modes could be present, such modes suffer from severe cancellation effects across the unresolved stellar disk. In any case, identification of rotationally split multiplets ($`\mathrm{}=1`$ triplets or $`\mathrm{}=2`$ quintuplets of nearly equally spaced modes, for example) could aid in accounting for the many modes seen. Unfortunately, previous studies have been limited by a lack of equally spaced (in frequency or period) pulsations as a constraint on the observed $`\mathrm{}`$ values (with the exception of PG 1605+072; Kawaler 1999).

Even though Feige 48 has a relatively simple pulsation spectrum, understanding why this star pulsates with these frequencies still presents a problem. The tight cluster of four modes with periods spanning a range of less than 10 seconds is impossible to accommodate with purely radial pulsation modes in sdB models. Even appealing to nonradial pulsations, the closeness of these periods means that rotation (or other departures from spherical symmetry) must play a role. The reason is that if all are $`m`$=0 modes, standard evolutionary models of sdB stars at the same $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ as Feige 48 do not have dense enough frequency spectra to account for these 4 modes, even if one appeals to modes of higher degree than $`\mathrm{}=3`$.

However, Feige 48 may provide important clues in its observed pulsation spectrum. The frequency difference between $`f3`$ and $`f4`$ (26.2 $`\mu `$Hz) is very close to the difference between $`f4`$ and $`f5`$ (29.1 $`\mu `$Hz). Though not exact, this splitting is highly suggestive that $`f3`$, $`f4`$, and $`f5`$ are a rotationally split mode, and probably $`\mathrm{}=1`$. We note that the frequency splitting is not precisely equal (26 versus 29 $`\mu `$Hz). First order pulsation theory (if applicable here) says that the splitting should be precisely equal – though observations of rotational splitting in white dwarf stars show asymmetries such as this (i.e. in PG 2131, Kawaler et al. 1995 or GD358, Winget et al. 1994).

Another possible clue is that the spacing between $`f2`$ and $`f3`$ is 13.2 $`\mu `$Hz, which is almost exactly half the frequency spacing between $`f3`$ and $`f4`$. Thus we could interpret the observed frequencies as follows: the $`f3`$, $`f4`$, $`f5`$ set make an $`\mathrm{}=1`$ triplet, meaning the model needs to fit $`f4`$ with an $`\mathrm{}=1`$, and $`f3`$ and $`f5`$ reveal the rotation rate. Or, $`f2`$, $`f3`$, and $`f4`$ are three components of an $`\mathrm{}=2`$ quintuplet with a spacing of $`13.2`$ $`\mu `$Hz. In this case the $`m=0`$ component could either be $`f3`$ itself or $`f3+13.2`$ $`\mu `$Hz (with a period of 349.1 seconds).

### 4.2 Comparison with standard evolutionary models

Though we by no means have a complete grid of models and cannot quantify the uniqueness of our results, we can see if either of the above possibilities is consistent with expectations from standard evolutionary models of sdB stars. We take the approach of Kawaler (1999); find a model that first satisfies the spectroscopic constraints of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and that also has pulsation frequencies that match those observed. Further constraining the match is the required value of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ for each possible interpretation of the splittings noted above.

With 5 frequencies available, there are multiple ways to match observations with model frequencies depending on the assumed values of $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`m`$ for each mode. The most obvious assumption to make is that modes $`f3`$, $`f4`$, and $`f5`$ form a rotationally split triplet with $`\mathrm{}`$=1, $`m`$=-1,0,+1. This choice has no “missing members” of the multiplet. With this assumption, the model that fits the spectroscopic data must show an $`\mathrm{}=1`$ mode at $`f4`$, and modes at $`f1`$ and $`f2`$. Other choices for this triplet which *do* require that some components of the multiplet are unobserved are $`\mathrm{}`$=2, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=2`$ ($`m`$=-2,0,+2) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=1`$ (e.g. $`m`$=-2,-1,0 or $`m`$=-1,0,+1). Similarly, the interpretation of $`f2`$, $`f3`$, and $`f4`$ being components of an $`\mathrm{}=2`$ multiplet, as described above, is viable.

Without choosing a priori one of these interpretations, we examined evolutionary models within our preliminary grid as described below. We generated full evolutionary stellar models using a version of the ISUEVO stellar evolution program (Dehner 1996; Dehner & Kawaler 1995; Kawaler 1999) that incorporates semiconvection in the core helium–burning phase. Our initial grid of evolutionary tracks and models spans the observed range of Teff and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ for sdB stars with a core mass of 0.47M and solar metalicity. We computed evolutionary tracks for models with hydrogen envelope masses ranging from 0 to 0.00550 M. From this initial grid, we focused on models whose evolutionary tracks pass within 1$`\sigma `$ of the spectroscopically determined values of Teff and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ (HRW). For these models, we then calculated their pulsation periods to see which (if any) had radial or nonradial pulsation periods near those observed, for any possible choice of $`\mathrm{}`$ and identification of the $`m=0`$ component of a rotationally split multiplet. For the sequence that most closely matched the observed periods, we iteratively produced models with smaller differences in H shell masses and smaller evolutionary time-steps.

We did find a model that matched the spectroscopic constraints, and could explain four of the five observed frequencies. The closest model fit came from a model in the evolutionary track shown in Fig. 4. This model does an excellent job in explaining $`f2`$ through $`f5`$ and requires the identification of $`f3`$, $`f4`$, and $`f5`$ as a rotationally split $`\mathrm{}=1`$ triplet. The model is fairly evolved (as we suspected) and has nearly exhausted its core helium, with only 0.74% (by mass) of the core composed of helium. Table 5 shows a comparison between the observed periods and best-fitting model periods, and the observed spectroscopic properties and the model parameters. With an ad hoc rotational splitting of 27.3$`\mu `$Hz, this model fits all but the lowest frequency to a precision of 0.2 s. The model temperature agrees to within 150 K, and log $`g`$ agrees to within 0.02 dex of the measured values; these are well within the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties quoted by HRW.

Despite the perception that there are many degrees of freedom, this procedure failed to produce a model that could explain all 5 observed frequencies in terms of normal modes and rotational splitting. Though the model does produce an $`\mathrm{}`$=3, $`m`$=0 mode at 374 s period, which is near the observed 378 s mode, we currently find no evidence to suggest that Feige 48 has $`\mathrm{}>2`$. Without further evidence (such as other observed members of the multiplet) for invoking high $`\mathrm{}`$ modes, we must confess that our model simply does not reproduce this period without appealing to high $`\mathrm{}`$. Additionally, any $`\mathrm{}`$=2 matches fitted less observed periods. Since we do not have a complete sample of models and this is really just an illustrative example, we are not alarmed. However, it could also indicate that our current models do not include enough physics to be accurate.

The pulsation results for the closest-fitting modes in our best-fitting model series are shown in Fig. 4. Even a small change in log $`g`$ (as an indication of age) of 0.005 dex changes the calculated periods by more than 3 seconds, worsening the fit to the observations. Likewise, a change in the envelope layer thickness quickly destroys the fit by moving the evolutionary track’s path away from the spectroscopic error box.

### 4.3 Testing the mode identifications

A test of our (or any) model is the measured constraint on rotational velocity. The observed average rotational splitting of 27.7$`\mu `$Hz imposed on our $`\mathrm{}=1`$ model identification implies a rotation period of 0.42 days (10 hours). With a radius of 0.20 R, this model has an equatorial rotation velocity of 24 km s-1. To match the constraints of HRW ($`v\mathrm{sin}i5kms^1`$) requires $`i12^{}`$. If we use the less restrictive value determined by HRW for only the unblended spectral lines in Feige 48 of $`v\mathrm{sin}i10kms^1`$, our inclination limit increases to $`i25^{}`$.

The identification of an $`\mathrm{}=1`$ triplet and a radial mode suggest an observation that can be used to test the model. As in white dwarfs (Kepler et al. 2000), time series spectroscopy (particularly in the ultraviolet) should present an effective means of discerning between low and high order ($`\mathrm{}`$) nonradial pulsations. Though it is still in its infancy for sdBV stars (O’Toole et al. 2002; Woolf et al. 2002), *if* the 378 s period is $`\mathrm{}`$=3, it should be obvious in UV spectroscopy (perhaps less so in the optical) where it should have a significantly higher amplitude than at optical wavelengths. The same is true for our identification of the $`\mathrm{}`$=1 triplet. If any member of our identified triplet really has a different $`\mathrm{}`$ value, the wavelength dependence of its amplitude will be different. Such a test should be obtained as an independent confirmation of our $`\mathrm{}=1`$ determination. While this test can be applied to any sdBV star, Feige 48 has comparatively long pulsation periods (exceeded only by PG 1605+072) and its rather simple temporal spectrum (only 5 periods compared to 55 for PG 1605+072) make it an ideal candidate for time series spectroscopic study.

## 5 Stability of the pulsation periods

As a star evolves, the pulsation properties evolve in response. In the case of the subdwarf B stars, evolutionary models indicate that they reside on or near the ZAHB for approximately $`10^8`$ years. Upon exhausting their core helium supply, they leave the HB, their $`\mathrm{log}g`$ goes down, and pulsation periods lengthen. The time scale for evolutionary pulsation period changes (Ṗ/P) after leaving the HB is about 10 times faster than while on the HB.

If Feige 48 has a comparatively small log $`g`$ because it is a mature HB star that has left the ZAHB, we expect Feige 48 to have an evolutionary Ṗ smaller than PG 1605+072, yet larger than for shorter period pulsators. Since PG 1605+072 does not appear to have pulsations stable enough for an analysis of secular period change caused by evolution (Reed 2001), Feige 48 is the best candidate to examine the $`e`$-folding time for structural changes caused by its core evolution. As a guide, the model described in Section 4 has a Ṗ=$`1.71410^5`$ s yr-1. With $``$3 years of usable data, the phase of a 350 s period should change by $``$14 seconds in that time. This is close to our limit of detection.

To examine long-term phase change, we followed methods outlined in Winget et al. (1985) and Costa & Kepler (2000). First, we obtain a best-fitting least squares fit to all of the periodicities present over the entire span of the observations (Table 4). We then fix the frequencies at these best-fitting values, and recompute the pulsation phases (again via least squares) for each group in Table 2 (note that Groups III and V were divided into two subgroups each because of the long length of the runs). This computed phase represents the observed time of maximum ($`O`$) for that group, which differs from the computed time ($`C`$) from the fit to all data. The resulting $`OC`$ diagram is shown in Fig. 5 for the three highest amplitude modes (with the pulsation period indicated in each panel). The phase zero point is that defined in K98 as JD=2450571.50.

Fig. 5 shows that the phases are stable throughout most of our observations. Until the Group X data were collected, we believed the Group I data suffered a timing error (proposed in K98). However, it now seems apparent the pulsation modes were only stable over a limited timespan (from Group II through IX). As a check, we analyzed various subgroups of Group X data and reproduced the same phase result. Such a problem is observed in other sdBV stars over a much shorter timescale (Reed 2001). Though we are disappointed in the apparent lack of phase stability, we still have an approximately three year span of phase-stable observations. We therefore used the phase-stable data to place upper limits on the magnitude of Ṗ/P. The combined $`OC`$ data of the three highest amplitude modes were weighted and fitted using least squares and give Ṗ/P=$`4.9\pm 5.3\times 10^{16}s^1`$. The data are therefore consistent with zero period change and provide a $`1\sigma `$ lower limit on an evolutionary timescale of $`3.1\times 10^7`$ years. Of course evolution is not the only thing that can drive period changes (see for example Paparó et al. 1998). However, evolutionary models predict that sdBV periods should change in a predictable way (increasing just off the ZAHB, then decreasing after core helium exhaustion, and finally increasing again during shell helium fusion). By measuring Ṗ for several sdBV stars at different stages, we should be able to determine if evolution (as predicted) is driving the period changes.

### 5.1 $`OC`$ variations from reflex orbital motion - planets around Feige 48?

With the phase-stable portion of the data, we can also place useful limits on companions to Feige 48. Orbital reflex motion would create a periodic shift in the pulsation’s arrival time, which would be observed in pulsation phase. Thus any companion must create a periodic phase change within our $`OC`$ uncertainties over a scale of days to years111We assume we could detect an orbital period up to twice our observed time base.. To place limits on companions, we calculated companion mass as a function of binary period and semimajor axis by fitting sine curves (for circular orbits) within our 1, 2, and 3$`\sigma `$ $`OC`$ limits. To assure an upper limit (M$`\mathrm{sin}i`$) on reflex motion, we use the “noise” in the FT of our $`OC`$ as a 1$`\sigma `$ lower limit: This results in a minimum phase shift of 5 seconds for binary periods under 20 days and 4 seconds for longer periods. Fig. 6 graphically presents our sensitivity to orbital companions. The black, green, and magenta lines are the 1, 2, and 3$`\sigma `$ limits on M$`\mathrm{sin}i`$, respectively, while the blue line represents the 3$`\sigma `$ limit for $`i=12^o`$ (our model constraint). In the short period case (periods under 30 days), the constraint is the limit imposed by the phase errors of individual runs within the data; in the long period case it is the flatness of the $`(OC)`$ diagram (including the errors of combined runs) over the phase stable region of our observations. The drop at 30 days corresponds to the change from $`OC`$ values determined for single runs to group data sets.

Feige 48 is a horizontal branch star that has lost considerable mass between the red giant branch and its current evolutionary state. Any companion separated by more than $``$1 AU is far enough away that common–envelope evolution (or vaporisation) has been avoided. In addition, the orbital separation will have roughly doubled as Feige 48 lost approximately half its mass during the red giant phase. This should produce two cases for binaries: Close stellar companions with original separations $`1`$AU will produce a short period binary (which have periods on order of weeks or less) after a common envelope phase. Companions distant enough to avoid a common envelope phase (or vaporisation) will have orbital periods on the order of a year or more. The two panels of Fig. 6 reflect this duality (though it does cover all periods between 2 days and 5 years).

The left panel of Fig. 6 indicates our limits on stellar companions. Our 1$`\sigma `$ limit is less than 0.1M$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{sin}i`$ for a binary period of 3 days. The right panel shows our limits on sub–stellar companions. Our “average” 3$`\sigma `$ limit for $`i=12^o`$ is $`12`$Mψ, while our best 1$`\sigma `$ limit would detect Jupiter at a period of 2.5 years. Our data are currently sensitive to the extra solar “warm Jupiter” type planets being detected222A complete list of extra solar planets is maintained at http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/catalog.html. at a distance of 0.6 - 3.0 AU. Planets with orbital separations less than $``$1 AU would not have survived the red giant phase. Our data do not rule out a companion in an extremely short period binary or at low inclination.

## 6 Conclusions

From our multi-season photometry of Feige 48, we have consistently detected five pulsation periods. Of these five, three ($`f`$1, $`f`$3 and $`f`$4) are consistent with K98. One frequency ($`f`$5) differs by a daily alias, while K98’s fifth frequency (2874 $`\mu `$Hz) is not detected in our data. In data sets V and IX, we also detect new pulsation frequencies at 2890 and 2843 $`\mu `$Hz respectively, indicating that there may be some stochastically excited pulsations in Feige 48. This is consistent with pulsation behavior seen in another sdBV star, PG 1605+072 (Reed 2001).

Our attempted model fit follows the strategy that has been successfully applied to other classes of pulsating stars, but has rarely worked for sdBV stars; namely using observed frequency splittings to impose $`\mathrm{}`$ constraints on models. Using standard evolutionary models, our preliminary model grid includes a model that is able to explain all but the lowest frequency stable pulsations. Most exciting is the fact that such standard models fail to explain all five frequencies. Thus, despite its relative simplicity and the richness of the parameters available, the failure of this model suggests that standard stellar evolution theory does not fully explain the evolution of sdB stars and or the nature of pulsations within them. We have something new to learn.

Our modeling example shows that Feige 48 should also serve as an interesting test for other methods of mode identification. Though optical multicolour photometry was not useful for identifying pulsation modes in KPD2109+4401(Koen 1998), we expect that UV multicolour photometry as developed by Robinson, et al. (1995), will be useful to determine *if* high–order $`\mathrm{}`$ modes are present in sdBV stars (as indicated by Brassard et al. 2001 and Billères et al. 2000). The argument for high–order $`\mathrm{}`$ values is particularly interesting in light of the frequencies detected in Group V’s data. If the lowest frequency mode is disregarded, the remaining modes have frequency spacings of 13.3, 26.4, 12.8, and 16.3 $`\mu `$Hz respectively. If these were all parts of a single, rotationally split mode, it would require $`\mathrm{}3`$. Such an $`\mathrm{}`$ value should be apparent in UV multicolour photometry (see, for example, Kepler et al 2000). As such, we look forward to the analysis of HST data obtained by Heber (2002). Should Heber’s (2002) HST data agree with our $`\mathrm{}`$=1 interpretation, Feige 48 would make an excellent star to calibrate other mode identification methods in sdBV stars such as optical time-series spectroscopy (O’Toole et al 2002; Woolf et al 2002).

The results of our $`OC`$ analysis are consistent with a non-binary nature for the star within the data limits. It also indicates that using the $`OC`$ diagram to detect planets around evolved stars is possible, though in this case we did not detect any. We plan to continue to monitor Feige 48 over the next several years to tighten the constraints on planetary companions.

Our limit on a stellar companion also addresses the origin of sdB stars. Binary evolution is a candidate for producing sdB stars, either through common-envelope evolution (Sandquist, Taam & Burkert 2000; Green, Liebert & Saffer 2000) or via Roche-lobe overflow near the tip of the red giant branch (Green, Liebert & Saffer 2000). Though observations indicate that a great many sdB stars *are* in binaries (Reed & Steining 2003; Green, Liebert & Saffer 2000; Han et al 2002), either the evolutionary sequence that produces sdB stars is independent of binary evolution (D’Cruz et al 1996), is bimodal, or has several paths that can result in the production of an sdB star (perhaps including the merger of two low mass white dwarfs as described by Iben & Tutukov 1986). For the case of Feige 48, it would appear that it is either in a short period binary (whose orbital period is commensurate with the $``$10 hour rotation period predicted with our model), in a long period binary with an orbital period substantially longer than our data (which would rule out Roche-lobe overflow, so the companion would have no effect on the evolution of the pre-sdB star), in a binary with an extremely low inclination or a single star.

## 7 acknowledgments

M.D. Reed was partially funded by NSF grant AST9876655 and by the NASA Astrophysics Theory Program through grant NAG-58352 and would like to thank the McDonald Observatory TAC for generous time allocation. S. Dreizler, S.L. Schuh and J.L. Deetjen (Visiting Astronomers at the German-Spanish Astronomical Centre, Calar Alto, operated by the Max-Planck-Institut for Astronomy, Heidelberg, jointly with the Spanish National Commission for Astronomy) acknowledge travel grant DR 281/10-1 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. P. Moskalik is supported in part by Polish KBN grant 5 P03D 012 020.