text:
# Inflation on Moduli Space and Cosmic Perturbations

## 1 Introduction

While inflation  solves many cosmological problems, the realization of such an accelerated expansion phase in the early Universe in particle theory still remains an open question. Modular cosmology has also attracted a lot of attention  as string theory generically predicts ubiquitous moduli fields, though the moduli tend to cause cosmological problems  rather than solve them. We introduced a successful modular cosmology scenario in Ref.  where the problems in modular cosmology, in addition to the persistent fine-tuning problems in inflationary model building , are solved in a simple and self-consistent manner. In this paper we show that the unresolved problem of the simplest single modulus model of Ref.  is naturally resolved by a more careful analysis of the expected form of the modulus’ potential (see Section 4.5), and give a more complete analysis of the cosmic perturbations produced in the model.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In Section 2 we review the expected form of a modulus’ potential. In Section 3 we describe our scenario of inflation on moduli space and present our detailed potential, including a toy model which we use for numerical calculations. In Section 4 we calculate the cosmic perturbations produced in our model. In Section 5 we summarize the observational predictions of our model. In Section 6 we discuss and conclude.

## 2 Moduli space

In the following we briefly review the general properties of moduli space and the expected form of a modulus’ potential after supersymmetry breaking.

### 2.1 Moduli

Before any supersymmetry breaking effects are taken into account, string theory has many flat directions in field space along which the potential vanishes. The fields parameterizing such flat directions are called moduli and its space is referred to as moduli space.

These flat directions should not be confused with supersymmetric flat directions which are generically lifted by supersymmetric non-renormalizable terms and hence are only approximately flat in the neighborhood of an appropriately chosen origin even in the limit of unbroken supersymmetry.

### 2.2 Points of enhanced symmetry

The occurrence of symmetry enhancement at special points in moduli space is one of the most generic and robust phenomena in string theory . The points will generically have Planckian separations and the moduli some discrete symmetry about each point. One also expects some fields (matter, gauge, or moduli) to become massless at a point of enhanced symmetry and become massive away from it, being Higgsed by the modulus that parameterizes the distance from the point of enhanced symmetry. At typical points in moduli space, the moduli have Planckian values relative to the points of enhanced symmetry and so the Higgsed fields disappear from the low energy effective theory.

### 2.3 Supersymmetry breaking

Once supersymmetry breaking is taken into account, away from points of enhanced symmetry, the moduli acquire a potential of the form

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=M_{\mathrm{susy}}^4\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)$$
(1)
where $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ is the supersymmetry breaking scale 111We consider a region of moduli space in which the scale of supersymmetry breaking does not vary greatly. This is a consequence of only considering the dynamics after the Brustein-Steinhardt problem  has been resolved by having the last local bit of eternal inflation at the local supersymmetry breaking scale ., $``$ is a generic function, and $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}1/\sqrt{8\pi G}`$ which is hereafter set to 1. The mass scale of this potential is $`mM_{\mathrm{susy}}^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$.

The discrete symmetries of the moduli about the points of enhanced symmetry make the points of enhanced symmetry extrema of the potential. In the neighborhood of any given point of enhanced symmetry, the interaction of the moduli with the fields that become light at the point of enhanced symmetry renormalizes the moduli’s potential as a function of the distance from the point of enhanced symmetry.

## 3 Inflation on moduli space

### 3.1 Overview of the scenario

Our successful modular cosmology scenario is discussed in our previous paper  and consists of, roughly speaking, four stages

1. An eternally inflating universe  consisting of an ensemble of all the eternally inflating extrema of the potential throughout the field space of string theory  \- this makes all eternally inflating points in the field space of string theory equally likely, or more precisely one cannot say any one is more likely than any other.
2. Locally, the last eternal inflation occurred at $`VM_{\mathrm{susy}}^4`$ \- this avoids the Brustein-Steinhardt problem .
3. Post-eternal modular inflation - this produces the observed scale-invariant perturbations.
4. Thermal inflation  \- this solves cosmological moduli problem.

In this paper we consider a simple single modulus model for the third stage of post-eternal modular inflation.

### 3.2 The potential

We consider a modulus $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with general properties as reviewed in Section 2 and two neighboring points of enhanced symmetry in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-space denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$.

We assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has $`_2`$ symmetry at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and symmetry greater than $`_2`$ at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$. Then, once supersymmetry is broken, the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ will have the form

$$V=V_{}m_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
and that near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ will have the form

$$V=V_{}+\frac{1}{2}\left[\mu _{}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{})^2+\text{c.c.}\right]+m_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where $`V_{}V_{}m_{}^2m_{}^2|\mu _{}^2|M_{\mathrm{susy}}^4`$. We assume that $`m_{}^2>0`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is a maximum and that $`|\mu _{}^2|<m_{}^2<|\mu _{}^2|`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is a saddle. This explains our notation, $``$ for the maximum and $``$ for the saddle. Note that the discrete symmetry greater than $`_2`$ at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ ensures that we have an approximate global U(1) symmetry for small $`|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|`$.

So far, we have ignored the interactions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the new fields that generically appear, i.e. become light, at the points of enhanced symmetry. These interactions will renormalize the parameters in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s potential as a function of the distance from the point of enhanced symmetry. We expect these interactions to respect an approximate global U(1) symmetry about their respective points of enhanced symmetry and so renormalize $`m_{}^2`$ and $`m_{}^2`$ but not $`\mu _{}^2`$. Taking the effects of these interactions into account, the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is

$$V=V_{}\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
and that near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is

$$V=V_{}+\frac{1}{2}\left[\mu _{}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{})^2+\text{c.c.}\right]+\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ are functions of $`\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|`$ and $`\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|`$ respectively. We expect $`\beta _{}\beta _{}10^1`$ for our assumed moderately weak couplings and assume that $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ decrease as one approaches their respective points of enhanced symmetry.

#### 3.2.1 Potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$

Defining the radial and angular components of the modulus about $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\varphi e^{i\theta }$$
(6)
the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is

$$V=V_{}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ is an increasing function of $`\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi `$. Following Ref. , we define $`\varphi _0`$ by

$$\frac{dV}{d\varphi }|_{\varphi _0}=\left(\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2|_{\varphi _0}+\frac{\beta _{}}{2}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi }|_{\varphi _0}\right)\varphi _0=0$$
(8)
We expect $`\mathrm{ln}\varphi _01/\beta _{}`$ and, for consistency with the fact that the renormalization is cut off at a scale $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}^2`$, require $`\varphi _0M_{\mathrm{susy}}^2`$. Near $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ we have

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2|_{\varphi _0}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi }}|_{\varphi _0}\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{(d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi )^2}}|_{\varphi _0}\beta _{}^2\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}+\mathrm{}\right]\varphi ^2`$ (9)
$``$ $`V_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi }}|_{\varphi _0}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\varphi ^2`$ (10)
$$\frac{dV}{d\varphi }=\beta _{}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi }|_{\varphi _0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}\varphi $$
(11)
and

$$\frac{d^2V}{d\varphi ^2}=\beta _{}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi }|_{\varphi _0}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}+1\right)$$
(12)
We see that the loop corrections turn $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ into a local minimum and displace the maximum out to a ring at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. The negative mass squared at this maximum is

$$m_0^2=\beta _{}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi }|_{\varphi _0}$$
(13)
Note that this is suppressed by the factor $`\beta _{}`$ relative to our typical mass scales .

Eq. (10) is very important as it will determine our predictions for the spectrum. We see that it is accurate up to corrections of order $`\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$.

#### 3.2.2 Potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$

Defining the real and imaginary components of the modulus about $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi +i\chi \right)$$
(14)
and without loss of generality taking $`\mu _{}^2>0`$, the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is

$$V=V_{}+\frac{1}{2}\mu _{}^2\left(\psi ^2\chi ^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2\left(\psi ^2+\chi ^2\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ is an increasing function of $`\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)`$. We define $`\psi _0`$ by

$$\frac{V}{\psi }|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}=\left(\mu _{}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}+\beta _{}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}\right)\psi _0=0$$
(16)
We expect $`\mathrm{ln}\psi _01/\beta _{}`$ and, for consistency with the fact that the renormalization is cut off at a scale $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}^2`$, require $`\psi _0M_{\mathrm{susy}}^2`$. Near $`\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0`$ we have

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{}^2\left(\psi ^2\chi ^2\right)`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}}|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2+\chi ^2}{\psi _0^2}}+\mathrm{}\right]\left(\psi ^2+\chi ^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`V_{}\mu _{}^2\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}}|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2+\chi ^2}{\psi _0^2}}1\right)\left(\psi ^2+\chi ^2\right)`$
$$\frac{V}{\psi }=\beta _{}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^2+\chi ^2}{\psi _0^2}\psi $$
(19)
and

$$\frac{V}{\chi }=2\mu _{}^2\chi +\beta _{}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}|_{\psi =\psi _0,\chi =0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^2+\chi ^2}{\psi _0^2}\chi $$
(20)
We see that the loop corrections turn $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ into a local maximum with a saddle on either side at $`\psi =\pm \psi _0`$, $`\chi =0`$. As $`\chi `$ rolls from a saddle towards the minimum, its mass squared runs from $`2\mu _{}^2`$ to $`\mu _{}^2+m_{}^2`$. The exact form of the running between these two values will be model dependent.

#### 3.2.3 Toy potential

In this section we introduce a specific toy model which can be analyzed numerically. It has zero $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-space curvature and bare potential

$$V=V_{}m_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2+\frac{1}{3}Am_{}^2\left[(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{})^3+\text{c.c.}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\nu (\nu +1)A^2m_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^4$$
(21)
where our choice of parameterization is chosen for analytical convenience. In this toy potential the symmetry at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is $`_3`$ and that at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is a $`_2`$ reflection symmetry. We list some of its basic properties in the following.

For the vacuum energy to vanish at the minimum we require

$$A=\left(\frac{3\nu +1}{\nu ^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{m_{}^2}{6V_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(22)
The minimum occurs at

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=\left(\frac{\nu }{3\nu +1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{6V_{}}{m_{}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\pi /3}$$
(23)
plus $`_3`$ symmetric points, and the saddle is at

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu +1}\right)\left(\frac{\nu }{3\nu +1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{6V_{}}{m_{}^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(24)
plus $`_3`$ symmetric points. The saddle parameters defined in Eq. (3) are

$$V_{}=\left(\frac{1}{3\nu +1}\right)\left(\frac{2\nu +1}{\nu +1}\right)^3V_{}$$
(25)
$$m_{}^2=\left(\frac{\nu 1}{\nu +1}\right)m_{}^2\text{and}\mu _{}^2=\left(\frac{\nu +2}{\nu +1}\right)m_{}^2$$
(26)
As examples, we will take $`\nu =1,2,3`$ as these values give very reasonable values of the physical parameters. For example, $`V_{}=\{0.84,0.66,0.54\}V_{}`$ for $`\nu =\{1,2,3\}`$.

We take the loop corrections as

$$V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}=\beta _{}m_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}\right|\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(27)
and

$$V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}=\beta _{}m_{}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}|^2\left(\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}\right|\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(28)
The $`\frac{1}{2}`$’s are chosen to make the gradient of $`V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}`$ zero at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and vice versa, which ensures that $`V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}`$ does not interfere with the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and vice versa. This would be an automatic consequence of the symmetries in a real model. For example, a $`_3`$ symmetric $`V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}`$ would be automatically flat at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$. Our choice makes the model easier to handle numerically.

Defining the radial and angular components of the modulus about $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ as in Eq. (6), the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{}^2\left(1+\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{}\right)\varphi ^2+\mathrm{}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`V_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\varphi ^2`$ (30)
where, for this toy model,

$$m_0^2=\beta _{}m_{}^2$$
(31)
and

$$\varphi _0=\varphi _{}e^{1/\beta _{}}$$
(32)
Note that Eq. (30) has the same form as Eq. (10). Defining the real and imaginary components of the modulus about $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ as in Eq. (14), the potential near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{}^2\left(\psi ^2\chi ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[m_{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{}m_{}^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2+\chi ^2}{\psi _{}^2}}1\right)\right]\left(\psi ^2+\chi ^2\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`V_{}\mu _{}^2\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\beta _{}m_{}^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2+\chi ^2}{\psi _0^2}}1\right)\left(\psi ^2+\chi ^2\right)`$ (34)
where

$$\psi _0=\psi _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu _{}^2+m_{}^2}{\beta _{}m_{}^2}\right)$$
(35)
Note that $`\psi =\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta \varphi _{}`$ and $`\chi =\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ so that near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ we have $`\psi \varphi \varphi _{}`$ and $`\chi \varphi _{}\theta `$.

### 3.3 Inflationary dynamics

As outlined in Section 3.1, our scenario starts with an eternally inflating universe consisting of an ensemble of eternally inflating extrema throughout the field space of string theory. The initial conditions for our local part of the universe are taken to be eternal inflation at the ring maximum $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. To ensure that the ring maximum satisfies the condition for eternal inflation , $`V^{\prime \prime }<6V`$, we require

$$m_0^2<6V_{}$$
(36)
The flattening of the maximum by the factor $`\beta _{}1`$ shown in Eq. (13) makes this a rather weak constraint.

The post-eternal modular inflation occurs as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ rolls off the maximum, and observable scales should leave the horizon when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is still near $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ so that $`d\mathrm{ln}\varphi /d\mathrm{ln}a1`$. In order not to get too many $`e`$-folds of inflation after this, we estimate

$$m_0^20.1V_{}$$
(37)
Again, as we expect $`d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2/d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}\varphi V_{}`$ and do not expect $`\beta _{}`$ to be very small, this is a rather weak constraint.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may then roll down to the minimum in a straightforward manner, or, if the initial angle is just right, may do so via a more complicated trajectory passing through the neighborhood of a saddle on its way down. As we show in Section 4.5, this seemingly improbable trajectory can be probable when considered a postiori due to the extra $`e`$-folds of expansion it induces, and is a crucial part of our model.

The contour plot of potential with some background field trajectory is shown in Fig. 1.

## 4 Perturbations

### 4.1 $`\delta N`$ formalism

The $`\delta N`$ formalism is a general and intuitive method to calculate the final comoving curvature perturbation when there exist multiple light degrees of freedom in the early universe . It expresses the final curvature perturbation in terms of the perturbation in the number of $`e`$-folds of expansion from an initial spatially flat hypersurface to the final comoving, or equivalently constant energy density, hypersurface,

$$(t_\mathrm{f})=\delta N$$
(38)
When the multiple light degrees of freedom on the initial hypersurface are scalar fields $`\varphi _i`$, their contributions to the final curvature perturbation can be expressed as

$$(t_\mathrm{f})=\underset{i}{}\frac{N}{\varphi _i}\delta \varphi _i(t_\mathrm{i})+\underset{i}{}\frac{N}{\dot{\varphi }_i}\delta \dot{\varphi }_i(t_\mathrm{i})$$
(39)
where $`\delta \varphi _i`$ and $`\delta \dot{\varphi }_i`$ are evaluated on the initial flat hypersurface at super-horizon scales after any $`k`$ dependent evolution has become negligible. If the growing mode dominates, $`N(\varphi _i,\dot{\varphi }_i)`$ can be re-expressed as $`N(\varphi _i)`$, and the above can be simplified to

$$(t_\mathrm{f})=\underset{i}{}\frac{N}{\varphi _i}\delta \varphi _i(t_\mathrm{i})$$
(40)
The power spectrum is defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{k^3}}𝒫_{}(k)\delta ^3(𝐤𝐥)`$ $``$ $`(𝐤,t_\mathrm{f})(𝐥,t_\mathrm{f})^{}`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\varphi _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\varphi _j}}\delta \varphi _i(𝐤,t_\mathrm{i})\delta \varphi _j(𝐥,t_\mathrm{i})^{}`$ (42)
Therefore

$$𝒫_{}(k)=\underset{i,j}{}\frac{N}{\varphi _i}\frac{N}{\varphi _j}𝒫_{\delta \varphi _i\delta \varphi _j^{}}(k,t_\mathrm{i})$$
(43)
where

$$\frac{2\pi ^2}{k^3}𝒫_{\delta \varphi _i\delta \varphi _j^{}}(k,t_\mathrm{i})\delta ^3(𝐤𝐥)\delta \varphi _i(𝐤,t_\mathrm{i})\delta \varphi _j(𝐥,t_\mathrm{i})^{}$$
(44)
If the $`\delta \varphi _i`$ are independent at $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ then this simplifies to

$$𝒫_{}(k)=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{N}{\varphi _i}\right)^2𝒫_{\delta \varphi _i}(k,t_\mathrm{i})$$
(45)
where $`𝒫_{\delta \varphi _i}𝒫_{\delta \varphi _i\delta \varphi _i^{}}`$.

In our case we have

$$𝒫_{}=\left(\frac{N}{\varphi }\right)^2𝒫_{\delta \varphi }+\left(\frac{N}{\theta }\right)^2𝒫_{\delta \theta }$$
(46)
### 4.2 $`\varphi `$

Observable scales leave the horizon while $`\varphi `$ is rolling off the ring maximum at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. The approximate $`U(1)`$ symmetry will be accurate for $`\varphi 1`$ and hence $`\theta `$ will be constant. For $`\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$, Eq. (11) gives the equation of motion

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H_0\dot{\varphi }m_0^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}\varphi =0$$
(47)
where $`H_0\sqrt{V_{}/3}`$.

We can solve this equation analytically in two cases. For $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$ we have

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}\frac{\varphi \varphi _0}{\varphi }$$
(48)
and so

$$\varphi \varphi _0e^{\alpha H_0t}$$
(49)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{3}{2}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{4m_0^2}{3V_{}}}1\right)$$
(50)
Alternatively, for $`m_0^2V_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$ we can use the slow-roll approximation to give

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_0^2}{V_{}}H_0t\right)$$
(51)
We can combine these as

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}e^{\alpha H_0t}$$
(52)
which is accurate in both limits, i.e. for

$$\alpha \mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}1$$
(53)
Eq. (52) gives

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\varphi }{d\mathrm{ln}a}=\alpha \mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}$$
(54)
so the condition Eq. (53) is equivalent to

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\varphi }{d\mathrm{ln}a}1$$
(55)
### 4.3 $`\delta \varphi `$

To calculate the contribution of the fluctuations $`\delta \varphi `$ to the final curvature perturbation, we simply note that the angular fluctuations decouple and hence we can use the standard single field results. For $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$ the results of Ref.  give

$$\left(\frac{N}{\varphi }\right)^2𝒫_{\delta \varphi }=\left[\frac{H_0}{2\pi \alpha (\varphi _{}\varphi _0)}\right]^2\left[2^\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\frac{3}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2})}\right]^2\left(\frac{k}{a_{}H_0}\right)^{2\alpha }$$
(56)
where $``$ is an arbitrary evaluation point satisfying $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi _{}/\varphi _0)1`$.

### 4.4 $`\delta \theta `$

To calculate $`\delta \theta `$, on super-horizon scales but while the angular potential is still flat, we need to solve the perturbed equation of motion for $`\delta \theta (k,t)`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3\varphi ^2\frac{d\delta \theta }{dt}\right)+ak^2\varphi ^2\delta \theta =0$$
(57)
Defining $`\phi a\varphi \delta \theta `$, the conformal time $`d\eta dt/a`$ and $`xk\eta `$, we can write this as

$$\frac{d^2\phi }{dx^2}+\left[1\frac{1}{a\varphi }\frac{d^2(a\varphi )}{dx^2}\right]\phi =0$$
(58)
Following Refs.  and introducing

$$f\frac{2\pi xa\varphi }{k}$$
(59)
for

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}f}{d\mathrm{ln}x}1$$
(60)
we have

$$\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{\delta \theta }=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{f_{}^2}2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}\left[\omega (x)\theta (x_{}x)\right]\frac{d\mathrm{ln}f}{d\mathrm{ln}x}$$
(61)
where the window function $`\omega (x)`$ is

$$\omega (x)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2x)}{x}\mathrm{cos}(2x)=1+\frac{2}{3}x^2+𝒪\left(x^4\right)$$
(62)
$`\theta (x)=0`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`\theta (x)=1`$ for $`x>0`$, and $``$ is an arbitrary evaluation point. If $`ff_{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$, we can write this as

$$\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{\delta \theta }=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{f_{\mathrm{}}^2}+_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}\left[x\omega ^{}(x)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}^2}{f^2}$$
(63)
Note that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}\left[x\omega ^{}(x)\right]=1+\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{})$$
(64)
and

$$\underset{x0}{lim}\left[x\omega ^{}(x)\right]=\frac{4}{3}x^2+𝒪\left(x^4\right)$$
(65)
thus the super-horizon part gives a negative contribution.

For $`H=H_0`$, we have

$$x=\frac{k}{aH_0},f=\frac{2\pi \varphi }{H_0},f_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{2\pi \varphi _0}{H_0}$$
(66)
and the condition Eq. (60) becomes equivalent to the condition Eq. (55) and hence the condition Eq. (53). Substituting into Eq. (63) gives

$$\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{\delta \theta }=2\mathrm{ln}\frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}\left[x\omega ^{}(x)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}$$
(67)
For $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$, Eq. (52) gives

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}\left(\frac{x_{}}{x}\right)^\alpha $$
(68)
and if that is the only relevant part of the integral then

$`\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{\delta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}}2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[x\omega ^{}(x)\right]dx}{x^{1+\alpha }}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}}x_{}^\alpha `$ (69)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}}2\left[2^\alpha \mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}{1+\alpha }}\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_{}H_0}}\right)^\alpha `$ (70)
For $`\alpha <1`$, Eq. (70) fits well with our intuition from the slow-roll limit ($`\alpha 1`$); $`\varphi `$ is increasing so $`\delta \theta H_0/\varphi `$ is decreasing. For $`\alpha >1`$, however, $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$ is growing sufficiently fast that the negative super-horizon part of the window function shown in Eq. (65) dominates the integral and we get a rising spectrum. This is the reason for the sign change in Eq. (70) at $`\alpha =1`$. For $`\alpha 2`$, the growth of $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$ is so fast that the integral in Eq. (69) diverges indicating that effects well outside the horizon dominate 222E.D.S. thanks Misao Sasaki for explaining these ideas to him.. This is why Eq. (70) diverges at $`\alpha =2`$.

When $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$ becomes of order one, our approximation breaks down, but also the rapid growth of $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$ cuts off. For $`\alpha >1`$, this means that the spectrum will turn down leaving us with a bump in the spectrum at values of $`k`$ corresponding to modes which left the horizon when $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$. For $`\alpha 2`$, it means that the integral in Eq. (67) does converge but is dominated by the point where the rapid growth of $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)`$ is cut off, i.e. $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$. We can crudely model this analytically by using Eq. (68) but cutting off the integral at $`x=x_\mathrm{c}`$ corresponding to $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$. This also improves the accuracy of the formula for $`\alpha <2`$. Our improved formula is

$`\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{\delta \theta }`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}}2{\displaystyle _{x_\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[x\omega ^{}(x)\right]dx}{x^{1+\alpha }}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}}x_{}^\alpha `$ (71)
$``$ $`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}}2\left[2^\alpha \mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}{1+\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4x_\mathrm{c}^{2\alpha }}{3(2\alpha )}}\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_{}H_0}}\right)^\alpha `$ (72)
where we have assumed that $`x_\mathrm{c}1`$ and used Eq. (65). For $`\alpha =2`$ we have

$$2^\alpha \mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi \alpha }{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}{1+\alpha }+\frac{4x_\mathrm{c}^{2\alpha }}{3(2\alpha )}=\frac{4}{3}\left[\mathrm{ln}(2x_\mathrm{c})+\gamma \frac{1}{3}\right]$$
(73)
where $`\gamma 0.5772`$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Stretching Eq. (68) beyond its range of validity, we have

$$x_\mathrm{c}\left(\alpha \mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}x_{}$$
(74)
Note that due to the cutoff the rise in the spectrum saturates at proportional to $`k^2`$ for $`\alpha >2`$.

We have compared our analytical formula with numerical solutions of Eqs. (47) and (57). Some of the results are shown in Fig. 2. For $`\alpha 0.8`$, the analytic formula works very well. For $`1.2\alpha 1.8`$, the analytic formula accurately reproduces the asymptotic behavior at small $`k`$ but poorly determines the shape of the bump. This is to be expected as the bump occurs at $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$ where the analytic formula is expected to break down. For $`\alpha 2`$, the analytic formula reproduces the asymptotic scaling at small $`k`$ but cannot determine the coefficient accurately due to our crude use of the cutoff $`x_\mathrm{c}`$, and the shape of the bump is again poorly reproduced as we just discussed. A full range of numerical solutions is given in Fig. 4 in Section 4.6, and a more accurate analytic treatment of the regime where super-horizon effects dominate will be given elsewhere.

### 4.5 $`N/\theta `$

$`N/\theta `$ is the last ingredient we need in order to determine the final curvature perturbation spectrum using Eq. (46). $`N/\theta `$ will be independent of $`k`$ and $`t_\mathrm{i}`$, and so just provide the normalization of the contribution of $`\delta \theta `$ to the final curvature perturbation, assuming that we take $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ sufficiently early that the approximate U(1) symmetry about $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is still accurate.

In Ref.  we showed that $`N/\theta `$ has a strong dependence on the initial angle $`\theta `$. A priori, the U(1) symmetry will make all angles equally likely and for most angles $`N/\theta `$ is of order one. However, initial angles that roll down towards the saddle give extra inflation as the modulus rolls off the saddle and so produce a greater final volume. These angles may then be preferred a postiori. Furthermore, as the amount of extra inflation is very sensitive to the initial angle, we can expect $`N/\theta `$ to be very large for these angles. Thus to determine expected values of $`N/\theta `$ we need to calculate the a postiori probability distribution of the initial angle $`\theta `$.

The a postiori probability density of $`\theta `$ is

$$P(\theta )e^{3N(\theta )}$$
(75)
However, taking $`\theta =0`$ to be the initial angle that rolls down to the saddle, we expect to consider exponentially small values of $`\theta `$. Therefore it will be more convenient to consider the probability density of $`\mathrm{ln}\theta `$

$$P(\mathrm{ln}\theta )\theta e^{3N(\theta )}$$
(76)
and hereafter $`P`$ will represent $`P(\mathrm{ln}\theta )`$. Now

$$\frac{dP}{d\mathrm{ln}\theta }\left(3\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{ln}\theta }+1\right)\theta e^{3N}$$
(77)
which has a non-trivial extremum at $`\theta =\theta _\mathrm{c}`$ where

$$\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{ln}\theta }|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}=\frac{1}{3}$$
(78)
and

$$\frac{d^2P}{(d\mathrm{ln}\theta )^2}\left[3\frac{d^2N}{(d\mathrm{ln}\theta )^2}+\left(3\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{ln}\theta }+1\right)^2\right]\theta e^{3N}$$
(79)
If

$$\frac{d^2N}{(d\mathrm{ln}\theta )^2}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}<0$$
(80)
the extremum is a maximum, and we can expect

$$\mathrm{ln}\theta \mathrm{ln}\theta _\mathrm{c}\pm \sigma $$
(81)
where

$$\frac{1}{\sigma ^2}\frac{1}{P}\frac{d^2P}{(d\mathrm{ln}\theta )^2}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}=3\frac{d^2N}{(d\mathrm{ln}\theta )^2}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}$$
(82)
Thus, using Eq. (78), $`N/\theta `$ can be estimated as

$$\frac{N}{\theta }\frac{e^{\pm \sigma }}{3\theta _\mathrm{c}}$$
(83)
To determine $`P(\mathrm{ln}\theta )`$, and in particular $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\sigma `$, we need to solve the dynamics around the saddle. Section 3.2.2 gives the potential near the saddle as

$$V=V_{}+\frac{1}{2}\mu _{}^2\left(\psi ^2\chi ^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2\left(\psi ^2+\chi ^2\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(84)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ runs from $`\mu _{}^2`$ at the saddle to $`m_{}^2`$ towards the minimum. Treating $`V_{\chi \chi }=\mu _{}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ as slowly varying, we get

$$\chi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \alpha _\chi H𝑑t}}$$
(85)
where

$$\alpha _\chi =\frac{3}{2}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{4(\mu _{}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2)}{3V_{}}}1\right)$$
(86)
and therefore

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\chi }{d\mathrm{ln}a}=\alpha _\chi $$
(87)
Similarly, averaging over any oscillations,

$$\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \alpha _\psi H𝑑t}}$$
(88)
and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\psi }{d\mathrm{ln}a}=\alpha _\psi $$
(89)
where, since the imaginary part represents oscillations which we average out,

$$\alpha _\psi =\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4(\mu _{}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2)}{3V_{}}}\right)$$
(90)
Letting subscript $`\mathrm{e}`$ denote the time when $`\chi =\psi `$, we have

$`\chi _\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _\mathrm{i}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}\psi _\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{ln}\psi _\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\psi +\alpha _\chi }{\alpha _\psi }}d\mathrm{ln}\psi \right)`$ (91)
$``$ $`\psi _\mathrm{i}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{}}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{e}^2}^{m_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\psi +\alpha _\chi }{2\alpha _\psi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}}\right]^1𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2\right)`$ (92)
The number of $`e`$-folds from the initial time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ until a final time $`t_\mathrm{f}`$, corresponding to some fixed final value $`\chi =\chi _\mathrm{f}`$, is

$$N=_{t_\mathrm{i}}^{t_\mathrm{f}}H𝑑t=_{\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}^{\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{f}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\chi }{\alpha _\chi }=_0^{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{\chi _\mathrm{i}}}\frac{1}{\alpha _\chi }d\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi }{\chi _\mathrm{i}}+_{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{\chi _\mathrm{f}}}^0\frac{1}{\alpha _\chi }d\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi }{\chi _\mathrm{f}}$$
(93)
Now $`\alpha _\chi `$ is a function of $`\psi ^2+\chi ^2`$ and so for $`\chi \psi `$ is approximately independent of $`\chi `$, and vice versa. Therefore, for $`t<t_\mathrm{e}`$, $`\alpha _\chi `$ depends on $`\mathrm{ln}(\chi /\chi _\mathrm{i})`$ and is approximately independent of $`\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}`$, and for $`t>t_\mathrm{e}`$, $`\alpha _\chi `$ depends on $`\mathrm{ln}(\chi /\chi _\mathrm{f})`$ and is approximately independent of $`\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}`$. Therefore, taking the derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{\chi _\mathrm{i}}}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{\chi _\mathrm{f}}}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}}`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}}}`$ (95)
Now

$$_{\mathrm{ln}\psi _\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{ln}\psi _\mathrm{i}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\psi }{\alpha _\psi }=_0^{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{\chi _\mathrm{i}}}\frac{1}{\alpha _\chi }d\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi }{\chi _\mathrm{i}}$$
(96)
and for $`t<t_\mathrm{e}`$, $`\alpha _\psi `$ depends on $`\mathrm{ln}\psi `$ and is approximately independent of $`\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}`$. Therefore, taking the derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}`$, we get

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\psi _\mathrm{e}}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{\chi _\mathrm{i}}}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}$$
(97)
and therefore

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{e}}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}=\frac{\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}}{\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}+\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}}$$
(98)
The derivative of Eq. (95) is hence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{(d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i})^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6\beta _{}}{\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}^2(2\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}+3)V_{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}}\right]_\mathrm{e}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{e}}{d\mathrm{ln}\chi _\mathrm{i}}}`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6\beta _{}\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}}{\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}^2(2\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}+3)(\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}+\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}})V_{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}}\right]_\mathrm{e}`$ (100)
Now $`\chi _\mathrm{i}`$ is proportional to the initial angle $`\theta `$, therefore, from Eqs. (78) and (95), $`P(\mathrm{ln}\theta )`$ has a non-trivial extremum at the initial angle $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$ that leads to

$$\alpha _{\chi \mathrm{e}}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}=3$$
(101)
or equivalently, from Eq. (86),

$$\mu _{}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{e}^2|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}=6V_{}$$
(102)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2`$ runs from $`\mu _{}^2`$ at the saddle to $`m_{}^2`$ towards the minimum, so for this to be possible we require

$$\mu _{}^2m_{}^2<6V_{}<2\mu _{}^2$$
(103)
or equivalently

$$3V_{}<\mu _{}^2<6V_{}+m_{}^2$$
(104)
$`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$ can be estimated using Eq. (91) or Eq. (92)

$$\theta _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\beta _{}}_{\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{e}^2|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}}^{m_{}^2}\frac{\alpha _\psi +\alpha _\chi }{2\alpha _\psi }\left[\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}\right]^1𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2\right)$$
(105)
and $`\sigma `$ using Eqs. (82), (100) and (101)

$$\sigma =\frac{3}{2\sqrt{\beta _{}}}\sqrt{6V_{}\left(\frac{\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}+3}{3\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}}\right)\left[\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}\right]_\mathrm{e}^1}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}$$
(106)
with, from Eqs. (90) and (102),

$$\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left(1\sqrt{9\frac{8\mu _{}^2}{3V_{}}}\right)$$
(107)
For our toy potential, the constraint of Eq. (103) becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}1.69V_{}& <& m_{}^2& <& 3.38V_{}& \text{for}& \nu =1\\ 1.49V_{}& <& m_{}^2& <& 3.97V_{}& \text{for}& \nu =2\\ 1.29V_{}& <& m_{}^2& <& 4.29V_{}& \text{for}& \nu =3\end{array}$$
(108)
and, from Eq. (33),

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{d\beta _{}\mathrm{ln}(\psi ^2+\chi ^2)}=\frac{1}{2}m_{}^2$$
(109)
Also, to have $`0<\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}|_{\theta _\mathrm{c}}<\frac{3}{2}`$ requires $`3V_{}<\mu _{}^2<\frac{9}{8}(3V_{})`$, which is a small part of parameter space, and furthermore $`\alpha _{\psi \mathrm{e}}`$ is the minimum value of $`\alpha _\psi `$ during the dynamics, so in most cases we can take $`\alpha _\psi =\frac{3}{2}`$. It is now straightforward to apply our analytic formulae, and the results agree well with our numerical results shown in Fig. 3.

### 4.6 Power spectrum

Our final power spectrum is given by Eq. (46)

$$𝒫_{}=\left(\frac{N}{\varphi }\right)^2𝒫_{\delta \varphi }+\left(\frac{N}{\theta }\right)^2𝒫_{\delta \theta }$$
(110)
with our analytic formulae for the right hand side given by Eqs. (56), (72), (83), (105) and (106). For scales which left the horizon when $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$, these results have the form

$$𝒫_{}\left(\frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}\right)^2\left[A\left(\frac{k}{a_{}H_0}\right)^{2\alpha }+\left(\frac{N}{\theta }\right)^2\right]$$
(111)
with $`H_0M_{\mathrm{susy}}^210^{16}`$,

$$\varphi _0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{B}{\beta _{}}\right)$$
(112)
and

$$\frac{N}{\theta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C}{\beta _{}}\pm \frac{D}{\sqrt{\beta _{}}}\right)$$
(113)
where $`\beta _{}\beta _{}10^1`$ are one loop renormalization coefficients, $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`D`$ are constants of order one, and we have chosen the evaluation point $``$ such that $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi _{}/\varphi _0)1`$. The main parameter of our model is $`\alpha `$, which is defined in Eq. (50), and from Eqs. (36) and (37), we expect

$$0.1\alpha <3$$
(114)
On large scales the spectrum of Eq. (111) is dominated by the power law spectrum $`k^{2\alpha }`$ from the radial fluctuations, then, over a wide range of scales

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}k\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{N}{\theta }\right|$$
(115)
it is dominated by the flat spectrum from the angular fluctuations, until finally the spectrum drops off on scales that left the horizon after $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$. One then expects some tens more $`e`$-folds of inflation as $`\varphi `$ rolls out via the saddle to its minimum at Planckian values, and possibly ten more due to thermal inflation.

As we saw in Section 4.5, and see from Eq. (113), we can reasonably expect $`N/\theta `$ to be exponentially large, so that the range of scales in Eq. (115) can be more than wide enough to cover observable scales. The tens of $`e`$-folds of inflation after $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$, which is a significant fraction of the $`40`$ odd required for inflation at $`H_010^{16}`$, is then likely to put observable scales within the range of scales of Eq. (115). Over this range, the spectrum has amplitude

$$𝒫_{}=\left(\frac{H_0}{2\pi \varphi _0}\right)^2\left(\frac{N}{\theta }\right)^2$$
(116)
and, from Eq. (72), our analytic formula for the spectral index is

$`n_{}1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{\delta \theta }}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`2\left[2^\alpha \mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}{1+\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{8x_\mathrm{c}^{2\alpha }}{3\alpha (2\alpha )}}\right]\alpha \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{}}{\varphi _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_{}H_0}}\right)^\alpha `$ (118)
Numerical results for $`𝒫_{\delta \theta }`$ are given in Fig. 4.

The number of $`e`$-folds after $`\mathrm{ln}(\varphi /\varphi _0)1`$ determines whether the running of the spectrum shown in Eq. (118) and Fig. 4 will be on the smallest observable scales or on scales too small to observe, which is heavily model dependent.

## 5 Observations

### 5.1 Observable predictions

Let us briefly summarize the observable predictions of our model. We expect a spectrum with negligible deviation from scale invariance over a wide range of $`k`$ with running becoming significant at (very) small scales. The asymptotic form of the power spectrum on larger scales is

$$n_{}1=\{\begin{array}{ccc}Ak^\alpha & \text{for}& 0<\alpha <1\\ +Ak^\alpha & \text{for}& 1<\alpha <2\\ +Ak^2& \text{for}& \alpha >2\end{array}$$
(119)
where $`A`$ is a positive constant and $`\alpha `$, which is the main parameter which characterizes our model, is expected to be in the range $`0.1\alpha <3`$. The value of $`A`$ affects the scales at which the deviation from scale invariance becomes significant, and depends on both inflationary parameters and the post-inflationary history and so is highly model dependent. The full spectra including the characteristic behavior of the deviation from scale invariance at small scales are shown in Fig. 4.

### 5.2 Caution on searching for running

The usual approach to analyzing the running of the spectrum is based on the standard slow-roll hierarchy $`|n^{\prime \prime }||n^{}||n1|1`$ and neglects the running of the running $`n^{\prime \prime }`$. This is not justified from either theory or observations . In this respect, the general form of the spectral index we obtained in our discussion of cosmic perturbations

$$n1=Ak^\alpha $$
(120)
would be better motivated to be used for a test of non-zero running rather than the usual constant running, $`n^{\prime \prime }=0`$, approach. Its running

$$\frac{dn}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\alpha Ak^\alpha $$
(121)
illustrates our theoretical expectations that the hierarchy $`|n^{\prime \prime }||n^{}||n1|1`$ is valid only for a limiting region of parameter space, $`\alpha 1`$, where the running would in any case be small, while for a wider range of $`\alpha `$ the running is significant but so is the running of the running, $`|n^{\prime \prime }||n^{}||n1|`$.

It is also worth noting that Eq. (120) indicates that running and running of running are expected to be most significant towards smaller scales, i.e. negligible $`n^{}`$ at large scales does not necessarily guarantee the absence of running in the spectrum, which cannot be taken into account if we ignore $`n^{\prime \prime }`$. Thus it is crucial for our observations to probe the smallest possible scales to search for a signal of running.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

We investigated inflation on a simple one complex dimensional moduli space and found that the inflationary dynamics is surprisingly rich. Both real dimensions as well as multiple points of enhanced symmetry play an essential role. Simplifying to a single real dimensional model or neglecting the effects of the points of enhanced symmetry would lead to completely different expectations for the spectrum of curvature perturbations produced during the inflation. Interestingly, while such over simplified models tend to produce observationally inviable spectra, we have shown that, for large regions of parameter space, inflation on a simple one complex dimensional moduli space produces an almost exactly flat spectrum for a wide range of scales consistent with current observations. On smaller, possibly observable, scales running of the spectrum becomes significant providing the opportunity for the model to be tested by future observations.

### Acknowledgements

E.D.S. thanks Misao Sasaki and Takahiro Tanaka for helpful discussions, and K.K. thanks Joanne D. Cohn for helpful advice and continuous encouragement. We also thank the SF03 Cosmology Summer Workshop for hospitality while this work was in progress. E.D.S. was supported in part by the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos funded by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Ministry of Science, and by the Korea Research Foundation grant KRF PBRG 2002-070-C00022. K.K. was supported in part by NSF under grant AST-0205935.


format: text

text:
# Fast bars in SB0 galaxies

## References

Aguerri, J. A. L., Debattista, V. P., & Corsini, E. M. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 465

Corsini, E. M., Debattista, V. P., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0310879)

Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 704

Debattista, V. P., & Williams, T. B. 2003, ApJ, submitted

Debattista, V. P., Corsini, E. M., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 65

Gerssen, J., Kuijken, K., & Merrifield, M. R. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 618

Merrifield, M. R., & Kuijken, K. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 933

Tremaine, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 1984, ApJ, 282, L5

Valenzuela, O., & Klypin, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 406


text:
# A double-lined spectroscopic orbit for the young star HD 34700

## 1 Introduction

Over the past decade numerous surveys of young stars in star-forming regions have found evidence that the overall frequency of binary and multiple systems is consistently higher than in the general field (e.g., Ghez, Neugebauer, & Matthews, 1993; Leinert et al., 1993; Ghez et al., 1997; Ghez, White, & Simon, 1997; Kohler & Leinert, 1998; Simon et al., 1999), although the enhancement may vary somewhat from region to region (see, e.g., Simon, Close, & Beck, 1999). In general those surveys have indicated roughly twice as many binaries as in the classical study by Duquennoy & Mayor (1991), which focussed on solar-type stars in the solar neighborhood that are typically much older. The results for the younger binaries refer mostly to relatively wide systems ($`>5`$ AU), spatially resolved by high-resolution imaging techniques such as infrared speckle interferometry or adaptive optics (see, e.g., Takami et al., 2003). Studies of binaries with smaller separations (spectroscopic binaries) in star-forming regions have not been as systematic, but may indicate a similar trend (see, e.g., Mathieu, 1994; Corporon & Lagrange, 1999; Zinnecker & Mathieu, 2001; Melo, 2003).

Partial lists of known spectroscopic binaries among pre–main sequence (PMS) stars have been presented by Melo et al. (2001), Prato et al. (2002), and others, and new binaries are slowly but continuously being added. More than two dozen of the systems with known orbits are double-lined spectroscopic binaries, which provide the most information on the individual masses of the components (compared to single-lined spectroscopic binaries).

The young star HD 34700 has recently been reported to be a double-lined spectroscopic binary by Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003), who also provided evidence of velocity variations. HD 34700 was originally identified as a young object from its strong infrared excess as observed by IRAS (Odenwald, 1986; Walker & Wolstencroft, 1988; Oudmaijer et al., 1992), a characteristic usually interpreted in terms of a circumstellar disk in other similar “Vega-excess” stars. It is located in Orion, although it is not clear whether it is associated with any of the star-forming complexes in the general vicinity. The optical, infrared, and millimeter-wave properties of HD 34700 have been modeled extensively by Sylvester et al. (1996) and Sylvester & Skinner (1996). They inferred that the disk has inner and outer radii of roughly 25–50 AU and 550 AU, respectively, depending on the model, and that the circumstellar material is composed mostly of relatively small dust grains (size $`10\mu `$m). Sub-millimeter observations have led to the detection of 12CO and 13CO emission, from which a total mass of $``$1 M in dust particles has been derived (Zuckerman, Forveille, & Kastner, 1995; Coulson, Walther, & Dent, 1998). Other estimates have varied between 0.2 M and 3.7 M (Sylvester & Skinner, 1996; Walker & Heinrichsen, 2000; Sylvester, Dunkin, & Skinner, 2001), depending also on the assumed distance. Molecular hydrogen in the disk has been searched for, but not seen (Bary, Weintraub, & Kastner, 2003). Low-level optical linear polarization has been detected by Bhatt & Manoj (2000) and Oudmaijer et al. (2001), consistent with a non-spherically symmetric distribution of dust (a disk). The infrared luminosity of the star is a considerable fraction of its bolometric luminosity ($``$8–35%; Zuckerman, Forveille, & Kastner, 1995; Sylvester et al., 1996; Coulson, Walther, & Dent, 1998; Bhatt & Manoj, 2000; Sylvester, Dunkin, & Skinner, 2001). As in other young objects, the Li I $`\lambda `$6708 absorption line is quite prominent in HD 34700, and the H$`\alpha `$ line is seen in emission with highly variable profiles (Zuckerman, 1994; Arellano Ferro & Giridhar, 2003). It is also a strong X-ray source. The spectral type of the star has been listed as G0 (Odenwald, 1986), or more recently as G0 IVe (Mora et al., 2001).

Given the interest in the object and the evidence that it may be a spectroscopic binary, the main motivation for this paper is to present high-resolution spectroscopic observations that indeed confirm its double-lined nature. From these observations we derive an accurate double-lined orbital solution. We discuss also the available indicators of youth.

## 2 Observations

HD 34700 (also HIP 24855, SAO 112630, IRAS 05170+0535, $`\alpha =5^\mathrm{h}19^\mathrm{m}41\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}41`$, $`\delta =+5\mathrm{°}38\mathrm{}42\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$, J2000, $`V=9.15`$) was originally placed on our observing program at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in 1996 as part of a project to monitor the radial velocities of several dozen nearby stars believed to be young from a variety of spectroscopic and photometric indicators (infrared excess, H$`\alpha `$ emission, strong Li I $`\lambda `$6708 absorption, etc.). Observations were obtained mostly with an echelle spectrograph on the 1.5-m Wyeth reflector at the Oak Ridge Observatory (Harvard, Massachusetts), and occasionally also with a nearly identical instrument on the 1.5-m Tillinghast reflector at the F. L. Whipple Observatory (Mt. Hopkins, Arizona). A single echelle order centered at 5187 Å was recorded using intensified photon-counting Reticon detectors, giving a spectral window of 45 Å. The resolving power of these observations is $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 35,000`$. The signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios range mostly from about 20 to 30 per resolution element of 8.5 km s-1, with the exception of our first exploratory exposure.

That observation in March of 1996 clearly revealed the double-lined nature of the system from the double peaks in the cross-correlation function, despite being a very weak spectrum with a S/N ratio of only 7. The relative strengths of the peaks were similar, indicating stars of nearly equal luminosity. Once we realized this, exposure times were increased accordingly. Subsequent observations confirmed the double peaks, and we continued to monitor the star for another four years, obtaining a total of 35 spectra.

## 3 Radial velocities and orbital solution

Radial velocities were derived using TODCOR (Zucker & Mazeh, 1994), a two-dimensional cross-correlation algorithm well suited to our relatively low S/N spectra. TODCOR uses two templates, one for each component of the binary, and combines one-dimensional correlation functions into a two-dimensional function that avoids the common blending problems of the standard procedures. The one-dimensional correlation functions were computed using the IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation. task XCSAO (Kurtz & Mink, 1998). The templates were selected from a large library of synthetic spectra based on model atmospheres by R. L. Kurucz222Available at http://cfaku5.cfa.harvard.edu., computed for us by Jon Morse (see also Nordström et al., 1994; Latham et al., 2002). These calculated spectra are available for a wide range of effective temperatures ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), projected rotational velocities ($`v\mathrm{sin}i`$), surface gravities ($`\mathrm{log}g`$) and metallicities. Experience has shown that radial velocities are largely insensitive to the surface gravity and metallicity adopted for the templates. Consequently, the optimum template for each star was determined from grids of cross-correlations over broad ranges in temperature and rotational velocity (since these are the parameters that affect the radial velocities the most), for an adopted surface gravity of $`\mathrm{log}g=3.5`$ (based on the system’s probable pre–main sequence status) and solar composition. The values obtained are $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=5900`$ K and $`v\mathrm{sin}i=28`$ km s-1 for the primary star, and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=5800`$ K and $`v\mathrm{sin}i=22`$ km s-1 for the secondary, with estimated uncertainties of $``$150 K and 1 km s-1, respectively. These temperatures are consistent with the reported spectral type G0. We see no evidence in our spectra of the phenomenon of veiling, which is common in many other young stars and was reported by Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) to be present in HD 34700. However, veiling can be variable.

Table 1 lists the radial velocities for both components, referred to the heliocentric frame. Typical uncertainties are given below. The stability of the zero-point of our velocity system was monitored by means of exposures of the dusk and dawn sky, and small systematic run-to-run corrections were applied in the manner described by Latham (1992). The accuracy of the CfA velocity system, which is within about 0.14 km s-1 of the reference frame defined by minor planets in the solar system, is documented in the previous citation and also by Stefanik, Latham, & Torres (1999) and Latham et al. (2002).

Following Zucker & Mazeh (1994), we have also determined the light ratio between the secondary and the primary of HD 34700 at the mean wavelength of our spectroscopic observations (5187 Å), which is close to the $`V`$ band: $`l_B/l_A=0.80\pm 0.02`$. Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) measured the equivalent widths of 105 relatively unblended lines in both components in one of their high resolution spectra, over the wavelength range 4260–6770 Å. The average ratio they found between the lines of the secondary and those of the primary is $`1.00\pm 0.03`$. Since the stars are of very similar temperature, the line-strength ratio should be close to the light ratio between the stars. The Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) value is somewhat higher than our own. We adopt in the following the straight average, $`l_2/l_1=0.9`$.

A double-lined orbital solution was easily obtained from our radial velocities, showing a period of 23.5 days and a significant eccentricity. This orbit is shown graphically in Fig. 1, and the elements are listed in Table 2, where the symbols have their usual meaning. RMS residuals for the primary and secondary are 1.70 km s-1 and 1.34 km s-1, respectively. The slightly larger errors for the primary are explained by its higher value of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$. Velocity residuals from our observations are listed in Table 1.

The heliocentric center-of-mass velocity we derive is $`+21.03\pm 0.18`$ km s-1. This is in excellent agreement with the radial velocity for the CO material in the circumstellar disk measured by Zuckerman, Forveille, & Kastner (1995), which is $`+`$21 km s-1 (with a FWHM of 4.6 km s-1 for the $`J=1`$–2 transition of CO from which the velocity was measured). We note also that this radial velocity is not far from typical values in the Orion star-forming region, which are about $`+`$25 km s-1 (although with a spread of several km s-1; see, e.g., Hartmann et al., 1986).

In reporting double lines for HD 34700, Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) also presented their radial velocity measurements for both components based on the three high-resolution spectra they obtained. Those measurements are in fair agreement with our orbit, as shown in Fig. 1333Examination of the individual velocities for each line in Table 2 of Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) leads us to believe that the errors they quote in their Table 1 represent the scatter of the measurements rather than the uncertainty of the mean (which should be $`\sqrt{N}`$ smaller). If the smaller errors are adopted, then the agreement with our orbit for two of their velocities is considerably worse..

## 4 Discussion

As described in §1, there are fairly compelling indications that HD 34700 is a young object from a number of independent studies based on a wide variety of observational techniques. Zuckerman, Forveille, & Kastner (1995) considered the age to be $``$10 Myr or less, although based only on circumstantial evidence. The fundamental difficulty is that the distance to HD 34700 is essentially unknown, and therefore it cannot be placed on the H-R diagram and compared to model isochrones in order to estimate the age. The star was measured by the Hipparcos mission (ESA, 1997), but the published parallax is rather uncertain ($`\pi _{\mathrm{HIP}}=0.86\pm 1.84`$ mas), and corresponds to a formal distance of 1160 pc. Assumptions on the distance to HD 34700 in the literature have ranged from 55 pc (Sylvester & Skinner, 1996) to 90 pc (Coulson, Walther, & Dent, 1998), derived by adopting absolute magnitudes and intrinsic colors from the spectral type, and accounting roughly for extinction. van den Ancker, de Winter, & Tjin A Djie (1998) adopted a lower limit of 180 pc, and Bhatt & Manoj (2000) relied on the Hipparcos determination.

Based on the light ratio of $`l_2/l_1=0.9`$3) and the apparent system magnitude of $`V=9.15`$ (ESA, 1997), we infer individual magnitudes of $`V_1=9.85`$ and $`V_2=9.96`$ assuming there is no extinction. We may then use theoretical isochrones such as those by Siess, Forestini, & Dougados (1997) (see also Siess, Dufour, & Forestini, 2000) along with our effective temperatures to compute the distance to each star assuming they are located on the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS), and adopting the solar value for the metallicity. This exercise results in distances of 122 pc and 125 pc for the primary and secondary, respectively. If the system were any closer, the stars would fall below the ZAMS in the H-R diagram. An extinction value of $`A_V=0.2`$ changes these minimum distances slightly to 111 pc and 114 pc. Thus we conclude that the distance to HD 34700 is unlikely to be less than about 100 pc, and therefore that the smaller values adopted to infer properties of the system in most of the previous studies (which did not account for the binarity of the object, since it was not known at the time) are probably unrealistic. A parallax such as that corresponding to 100 pc (10 mas) is large enough that Hipparcos would most likely have been able to measure it accurately. A distance of 250 pc ($`\pi =4`$ mas), on the other hand, is only about 2$`\sigma `$ from the nominal value reported in the catalog, and could have been mismeasured. At this distance the age inferred from the above models would be about 9 Myr for both stars, in the absence of extinction. HD 34700 is located in Orion ($``$8° northwest of the belt), though it is not particularly near any of the more conspicuous star-forming regions in that area. Perhaps the closest connection that can be found is the similarity between its center-of-mass velocity and the typical radial velocities of other young stars in Orion, mentioned earlier444The proper motion components reported both in the Hipparcos catalog and in the Tycho-2 catalog (Høg et al., 2000) are insignificantly small and are not of much help regarding membership in Orion.. Nevertheless, if we assume the star’s distance to be the same as the main star-forming complexes, or $``$460 pc, the age inferred from the brightness would be as young as 3 Myr according to the model isochrones used above.

Despite the quite extensive studies of HD 34700 over the past 15 years, it is rather surprising that a measurement of the Lithium abundance —one of the key indicators of youth– has not been made until very recently. Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) measured more than 100 spectral lines for both components of the binary, including Li I $`\lambda `$6708. The results were not mentioned explicitly in the text of their paper, but were reported in their Table 2 (available only in electronic form). The Li equivalent width for the primary (redward component in their spectra, according to our Fig. 3) is 0.0881 Å, and that for the secondary is 0.0790 Å. Examination of their Figure 2 suggests, however, that the Li line for the blueward component (secondary) may be blended with the Fe I $`\lambda `$6705.1 line of the redward component, in which case their Li equivalent width may be overestimated for the secondary. We adopt the measurements at face value. Correction for binarity using $`l_2/l_1=0.9`$ leads to final values of 0.17 Å for both components.

Equivalent widths such as these are not large compared to typical values in T Tauri stars, but HD 34700 is considerably hotter than most T Tauri stars. Lithium depletion is a strong function of temperature, and possibly also of rotational velocity. Comparison with diagrams of Li equivalent width vs. temperature such as those by Neuhäuser et al. (1997) (their Fig. 3), Alcalá et al. (2000) (Fig. 2), or Wichmann et al. (2000) (Fig. 1), and others, indicate that the stars in HD 34700 lie essentially on the upper envelope of the Pleiades distribution (age $``$120 Myr), and that the Li strength is not quite as strong as in stars in the younger cluster IC 2602 (age $``$35 Myr), which have equivalent widths of up to about 0.25 Å at these temperatures. We note, however, that if veiling were significant, as discussed by Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003), the measured equivalent widths for HD 34700 could be underestimated because the lines may be filled in by featureless continuum radiation. Therefore, the age of roughly 100 Myr or so is only an upper limit. Nevertheless, on the basis of the Li strength alone it is quite possible that the age is several tens of Myr instead of a few Myr, and therefore that it is not as young as some of the other evidence presented above would seem to suggest. As proposed by Fujii, Nakada, & Parthasarathy (2002), HD 34700 could be a young G star near the end of the T Tauri phase. From Fig. 5 in Alcalá et al. (2000) and using the effective temperatures we determined for each star, we estimate the abundance of Li as $`\mathrm{log}N`$(Li) $`=`$ 3.1–3.2 on a scale where $`\mathrm{log}N`$(H) $`=12`$.

HD 34700 shows H$`\alpha `$ in emission, and the line profile changes significantly on very short timescales ($``$1 day), as illustrated by Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003). The equivalent width they measured is only 0.6 Å, which places it in the weak-line T Tauri class as opposed to the classical T Tauri group555A similar measure of the H$`\alpha `$ emission ($``$0.2 Å) can be derived from Fig. 2 of Zuckerman (1994).. Profile variations in other lines have also been reported by Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003). Such changes are not uncommon in young stars.

The object is also a strong X-ray source, with a ratio of X-ray to optical flux of $`4.3\times 10^4`$. It is listed in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey Bright Source Catalogue (Voges et al., 1999) under the designation 1RXS J051945.3$`+`$053509, and its X-ray properties (flux, hardness ratios, etc.) are consistent with those of other young stars (see, e.g., Feigelson & Montmerle, 1999).

The projected rotational velocity measurements we reported earlier (28 km s-1 and 22 km s-1 for the primary and secondary, respectively; §2) are quite close to those given by Arellano Ferro & Giridhar (2003) (25 km s-1 and 23 km s-1), although very different from the $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of $`46\pm 3`$ km s-1 determined by Mora et al. (2001). The latter value is based on two high-resolution spectra ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =49,000`$, slightly higher than the resolution of our own observations) taken at similar orbital phases of 0.67 and 0.72 (see Fig. 1). By chance one of our exposures was obtained on the same night as the first of the Mora et al. spectra. Fig. 2 shows that the lines in that spectrum are severely blended due in part to their intrinsic broadening, which explains the large $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ measurement by Mora et al. (2001). The velocity separation at this phase is $``$40 km s-1. At other phases the lines are clearly separated, as seen in the figure.

The $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ values for the components of HD 34700 are relatively large, and one may ask whether they could be the result of tidal locking of the rotation with the orbital motion of the binary, which often goes together with orbital circularization in closer systems. The significant eccentricity of the orbit and relatively long period of 23.5 days seem to argue against this, although as a rule orbital circularization occurs on much longer timescales than rotational synchronization (see, e.g., Hut, 1981). If the rotation period $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ of each star were the same as the orbital period, the measured $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ values and the relation

$$v\mathrm{sin}i=\frac{2\pi }{P_{\mathrm{rot}}}R\mathrm{sin}i$$
(1)
lead to values for the projected radii of $`R_1\mathrm{sin}i=13.0`$ R and $`R_2\mathrm{sin}i=10.2`$ R. These seem much too large for PMS stars of this temperature. Even if the rotational period corresponded to the orbital motion at periastron (“pseudo-synchronization”), eq.(42) of Hut (1981) predicts a correction factor for $`P_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ of 0.72 at the measured eccentricity of HD 34700. The projected radii would then be $`R_1\mathrm{sin}i=9.4`$ R and $`R_2\mathrm{sin}i=7.4`$ R, still too large in absolute terms by the time the increase due to the projection factor is accounted for. For comparison, at the distance of Orion (and an age of 3 Myr) the same theoretical isochrones used above predict sizes for the stars of about 4.4 R. Thus, the components in this system are spinning much more rapidly than synchronization would imply (at least twice as fast). This may perhaps be considered one more indication of youth, since main sequence stars of this spectral type do not usually rotate at more than a few km s-1 (e.g., Gray, 1992).

Based on the PMS models by Siess, Forestini, & Dougados (1997) and assuming that HD 34700 is at a representative distance of 200 pc, we estimate that the absolute masses of the components are roughly 1.1–1.2 M, similar to what is expected for main sequence stars of the same spectral type. The minimum masses from our orbital solution (Table 2), in turn, imply an inclination angle for the orbit of about 50°. The semimajor axis is then 0.21 AU, which is well within the inner radius of the circumstellar disk as modeled by Sylvester et al. (1996) and Sylvester & Skinner (1996). At the same distance of 200 pc the angular semimajor axis would be 1 mas, difficult to resolve with current interferometers, although the eccentricity of the orbit would make the actual separation some 25% larger at certain phases. If the system is at the distance of Orion, the masses inferred from the evolutionary tracks are about twice as large (and the orbital inclination angle $``$39°), the linear semimajor axis only slightly larger than before (0.26 AU), and the angular semimajor axis would be about 0.6 mas. Detecting the motion of the *photocenter* of the pair is far beyond the capabilities of the Hipparcos mission (initially we had considered the unmodeled photocentric motion as a possible explanation for the large error in the parallax). From the mass ratio and light ratio determined here, we estimate the semimajor axis of the photocenter to be only 2.3% of the angular semimajor axis of the relative orbit. This is mostly because the stars are of similar brightness, so their center of light does not move much. At the distance of Orion, the 14 $`\mu `$as signal would be challenging to measure even for NASA’s Space Interferometry Mission.

Finally, we note that the Hipparcos epoch photometry ($`H_p`$ band) shows no sign of photometric variability at the few milli-magnitude level over the duration of the satellite’s 3-year mission, which is somewhat unexpected if the star is very young, but perhaps not so much so if it is already near the ZAMS. Similar evidence in the $`JHK`$ bands was presented by Eiroa et al. (2001).

## 5 Concluding remarks

We have confirmed the young star HD 34700 to be a double-lined spectroscopic binary, and presented an accurate orbital solution with a period of 23.4877 days and a significant eccentricity ($`e=0.2501\pm 0.0068`$). The components are of very nearly equal mass, temperature, and luminosity. The measured projected rotational velocities indicate super-synchronous rotation in both stars.

We have examined the available indicators of youth, and find that when considered together, the following present fairly compelling evidence in favor of PMS status:

(a) Significant infrared excess suggesting the presence of a sizeable circumstellar disk. Polarization and CO measurements consistent with this idea. Large fractional luminosity in the infrared.

(b) H$`\alpha `$ in emission, with a strength ($``$0.6 Å equivalent width) that places the object in the weak-line T Tauri class.

(c) Strong Li I $`\lambda `$6708 absorption (equivalent width 0.17 Å).

(d) Variable line profiles for H$`\alpha `$, and possibly other spectral lines. Possibility of veiling.

(e) Strong X-ray emission as seen by the ROSAT satellite, consistent with that detected in other weak-line T Tauri stars.

(f) Rapid rotation of the components (28 km s-1 and 22 km s-1, $``$10 times faster than main-sequence stars of similar spectral type) in an orbit that is wide enough that the stars are not tidally synchronized.

(g) Location of the star in the general vicinity of the Orion star-forming region, and a radial velocity ($`+21`$ km s-1) fairly close to typical values for other young stars in that area.

It is difficult to estimate a precise age for the system due to the lack of an accurate parallax. If it is at the distance of Orion, theoretical isochrones indicate it is only a few Myr old. However, it could be closer and therefore be approaching the ZAMS, in which case the age could be several tens of Myr. The Li I $`\lambda `$6708 absorption is not quite as strong as seen in other very young stars, but the Li measurements for HD 34700 may perhaps be affected by veiling.

HD 34700 thus joins the relatively reduced group of a few dozen young spectroscopic binaries with known orbits, with its double-lined nature making it a particularly interesting case.

This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. We are grateful to A. Arellano-Ferro for providing the electronic version of their Table 2 in advance of publication, to R. Neuhäuser for pointers to the X-ray activity, and to the referee for helpful comments. Partial support for this work from NASA’s MASSIF SIM Key project (JPL grant 1240033) is also acknowledged.