format: text

text:
# SUMMATION AND RENORMALIZATION OF BUBBLE GRAPHS TO ALL ORDERS

## Abstract

We introduce the 2PPI expansion which sums the bubble graphs to all orders. We show that this expansion can be renormalised with the usual counterterms in a mass independent scheme. We discuss its application to the O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model.

Over the years, the summation of bubble graphs has attracted a lot of interest because of the need to resort to non-perturbative approaches in quantum field theory at finite temperature . In het O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model, bubble graphs were originally  summed using the $`N\mathrm{}`$ approach. For finite N, it took some while to overcome combinatorial problems , but finally consistent results were obtained in , using the CJT  formalism. There were still some problems though with renormalization which could only be implemented consistently in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit.
In this letter we discuss the 2PPI expansion which we introduced in , as an approximation scheme for calculating the effective potential of the local composite operator $`\varphi ^2`$. It resembles the 2PI expansion or CJT-method, in that it restricts the topology of the Feynman diagrams at the cost of introducing a selfconsistency condition. In contradistinction to the 2PI expansion, the self consistency equation (gap equation) is local for the 2PPI expansion. First, we will rederive the 2PPI expansion in a new way which makes the renormalization proof more transparent. Then we will show that the usual counterterms renormalize the 2PPI expansion when using a mass independent scheme. Next we calculate the one loop renormalised 2PPI result for the effective potential in the O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model and show that it yields the renormalised sum of daisy and superdaisy graphs. Finally we discuss the renormalization problems encountered in previous treatments and show how they are neatly solved in the 2PPI approach.
We will introduce the unrenormalized 2PPI expansion using the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory for simplicity. Generalization to the O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model is straightforward. We start from the 1PI expansion and try to sum all seagull and bubble graphs exactly. These insertions arise in 2PPR or two particle point reducible graphs because they disconnect from the rest of the diagram when two lines meeting at the same point (the 2PPR-point) are cut (fig.1). We notice that the seagull and bubble graphs contribute to the self energy as effective masses $`\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi ^2`$ and $`\frac{\lambda }{2}\varphi ^2_c=\frac{\lambda }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively. Therefore, we could try to sum all 2PPR insertions by simply deleting the 2PPR graphs from the 1PI expansion and introducing the effective mass :

$$\overline{m}^2=m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(1)
in the remaining 2PPI graphs. This is too naive though since there is a double counting problem which can be easily understood in the simple case of a 2loop vacuum diagram (daisy graph with two petals) of fig. 2.a. Each petal can be seen as a selfenergy insertion in the other, so there is no way of distinguishing one or the other as the remaining 2PPI part. We could however earmark one of the petals by applying a derivative with respect to $`\phi `$ (fig. 2.b). This way the 2PPI remainder (which contains the earmark) is uniquely fixed. Now, there are two ways in which the derivative can hit a $`\phi `$ field. It can hit an explicit $`\phi `$ field which is not a wing of a seagull or it can hit a wing of a seagull or implicit $`\phi `$ field hidden in the effective mass. We therefore have :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`\lambda \phi {\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{m}^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1PI}=S(\phi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}`$ or using (1) :

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )=\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )\frac{\lambda }{2}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta \phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )$$
(3)
Using an analogous combinatorial argument, we have :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}}{m^2}(m^2,\phi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )$$
(4)
and since $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}}{m^2}`$ we find the following gap equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}^2}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )$$
(5)
The gap equation (5) can be used to integrate (3) and we finally obtain :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )=S(\phi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }),\phi )\frac{\lambda }{8}d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }^2$$
(6)
This equation together with the gapequation (5) sums the seagulls and bubbles to all orders. The first few diagrams of the 2PPI expansion are displayed in fig.3.
To be useful, we have to show that equation (6) which relates 1PI and 2PPI expansions can be renormalised. Again, we earmark the 1PI diagrams by applying a $`\phi `$ derivative so that 2PPR and 2PPI parts are unambiguous. We first renormalize the bubble subgraphs. Consider a generic bubble inserted at the 2PPR point x (fig. 4.a). All primitively divergent subgraphs of the bubble graph which do not contain the 2PPR point x can be renormalised with the counterterms of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ Lagrangian :

$$\delta =\frac{\delta Z}{2}(_\mu \varphi )^2+\delta Z_2\frac{m^2\varphi ^2}{2}+\delta Z_\lambda \frac{\lambda \varphi ^4}{4!}$$
(7)
As a consequence of these substractions, the contribution of the bubbles to the effective mass is $`\frac{\lambda }{2}\varphi ^2_c`$ where the connected V.E.V. is now calculated with the full Lagrangian, counterterms included. For subgraphs of the bubble containing the 2PPR point, we need only the 2PPR-parts of the counterterms. Let’s first renormalise the proper subgraphs of the bubble which contain x. Their generic topology is displayed in fig. 4.b and fig. 4.c. They can be made finite with the 2PPR part $`\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}\lambda \varphi ^4/4!`$ and contribute $`\frac{\lambda }{2}\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}\varphi ^2_c`$ to the effective mass. We still have to subtract the overall divergences of the bubble graph. Their generic topology is displayed in fig. 4.d and 4.e for coupling constant renormalization and fig. 4.f for mass renormalization. Again only the 2PPR parts of the counterterms have to be used and the subtraction of the overall divergences contributes $`\frac{\lambda }{2}\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}\phi ^2+\delta Z_2^{2PPR}m^2`$ to the effective mass. Because we use mass independent renormalisation the 2PPR-part of coupling constant renormalisation $`\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}`$ can be related to mass renormalisation $`\delta Z_2`$. Indeed, the divergent parts of the subgraphs in fig. 4.d and 4.e which are of the coupling constant type can be viewed as divergent mass renormalizations with a mass insertion at the 2PPR point $`x`$ and the $`\phi `$ legs as incoming and outgoing legs of the selfenergy graph. Because we use a mass independent renormalization scheme (for example minimal substration), not only the divergent parts but also the finite parts of the corresponding counterterms can be chosen equal so that we have

$$\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}=\delta Z_2$$
(8)
Adding the various contributions coming from renormalising the bubble graphs, we find for the renormalised effective mass :

$$\overline{m}_R^2=m^2\left(1+\delta Z_2^{2PPR}\right)+\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(1+\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}\right)(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\varphi ^2_c`$ 111The composite operator V.E.V. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\varphi ^2_c`$ is different here from the unrenormalised one in the first paragraph where it is calculated with the Lagrangian without counterterms. or using (8) :

$$\overline{m}_R^2=m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(Z_2(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta })+\frac{2\delta Z_2^{2PPR}}{\lambda }m^2\right)$$
(10)
We can rewrite this as :

$$\overline{m}_R^2=m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_R)$$
(11)
where we have introduced the renormalised V.E.V. of the composite operator $`\varphi ^2`$ :

$$\varphi ^2_{c,R}=\mathrm{\Delta }_R=Z_2\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta Z_2\phi ^2+\frac{2\delta Z_2^{2PPR}}{\lambda }m^2$$
(12)
After renormalizing the bubble subgraphs, the $`\phi `$ derivative of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}`$ can be written as :

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,BR}^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )=\frac{}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )+\lambda \phi \frac{}{\overline{m}_R^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )$$
(13)
where BR stands for ”bubble renormalised”.
Because there is no overlap, having renormalised the bubbles, we can now renormalize the 2PPI remainder (which contains the earmarked vertex). Let us first consider mass renormalization. A subgraph $`\gamma `$ in the 2PPI remainder of $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,BR}^{1PI}`$ that needs mass renormalization can be made finite with a counterterm $`\delta Z_2(\gamma )m^2\varphi ^2/2`$. However, for any such subgraph $`\gamma `$, there are subgraphs $`\gamma ^{}`$ obtained from $`\gamma `$ by replacing the mass $`m^2`$ with a seagull or renormalised bubble. These subgraphs require coupling constant renormalization which entails an effective counterterm $`\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}(\gamma ^{})(\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_R)\varphi ^2/2`$. Taking into account the identity of the renormalization constants for mass and 2PPR-coupling constant renormalization (eq.8), the counterms for these mass-type divergent subgraphs of $`\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,BR}^{1PI}}{\delta \phi }`$ add up to $`\delta Z_2(\gamma )\overline{m}_R^2\varphi ^2/2`$, exactly what is needed for mass renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )`$ in the right hand side of equation (13). The remaining divergent subgraphs need wavefunction renormalization or are of the coupling constant renormalization type that cannot be generated by inserting seagulls or bubbles in a mass-type divergent subgraph. They are made finite by counterterms independent of mass and hence are the same for left and right hand sides of equation (13). Therefore, we can conclude that in a mass independent renormalization scheme, equation (2) can be renormalised with the available counterterms as :

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )=\frac{}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )+\lambda \phi \frac{}{\overline{m}_R^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )$$
(14)
To proceed, we have to renormalise the gap equation (eq.4). Using essentially the same arguments as in the previous paragraphs, we find that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{1PI}}{m^2}(m^2,\phi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}_R^2}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )$$
(15)
From the pathintegral we readily obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{1PI}}{m^2}(m^2,\phi )=\frac{1}{2}Z_2(\phi ^2+\varphi ^2_c)+\frac{}{m^2}(\delta E_{vac})$$
(16)
where $`\delta E_{vac}`$ is the counterterm needed to cancel divergences in the vacuum energy. In dimensional regularisation, one can easily show that $`\delta E_{vac}=\frac{m^4}{2}\delta \zeta `$, where $`\delta \zeta `$ is the logarithmically divergent part of $`\varphi ^2(x)\varphi ^2(y)`$ which, up to finite parts, is equal to $`\frac{\delta Z_2^{2PPR}}{\lambda }`$. In a mass independent renormalization scheme, finite renormalization can be chosen so that

$$\delta E_{vac}=\frac{m^4}{2\lambda }\delta Z_2^{2PPR}$$
(17)
Using $`\frac{}{m^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{1PI}=\phi ^2/2+\frac{}{m^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{1PI}`$ and equations (15), (16) and (17) we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(Z_2\varphi ^2_c+\delta Z_2\phi ^2+2m^2\frac{\delta Z_2^{2PPR}}{\lambda }\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}_R^2}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )$$
(18)
which because of equation (12) can be written as the renormalised gap equation :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_R}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}_R^2}(\overline{m}_R^2,\phi )$$
(19)
As in the unrenormalised case (cfr. eq.3), this gapequation can be used to integrate equation (14) and we finally arrive at :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )=S(\phi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q,R}^{2PPI}(m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_R),\phi )\frac{\lambda }{8}d^Dx\mathrm{\Delta }_R^2$$
(20)
This equation together with the gapequation (19) sums the seagulls and renormalised bubbles to all orders. To renormalize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1PI}`$, it is therefore sufficient to renormalize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2PPI}`$ using a mass independent renormalisation scheme (MS for example), calculate the renormalised bubble $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ from the gapequation and substitute in eq.(20).
The preceding results can be easily generalised to the O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model with Lagrangian :

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _i_\mu \varphi _i+\frac{m_{ij}^2}{2}\varphi _i\varphi _j+\frac{\lambda }{8}(\varphi _{ii})^2$$
(21)
Seagulls and bubbles can be included in an effective mass

$$\overline{m}_{ij}^2=m_{ij}^2+\lambda [\phi _i\phi _j+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}]+\frac{\lambda }{2}[\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{kk}]\delta _{ij}$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\varphi _i\varphi _j_c`$. For the O(N)-linear $`\sigma `$-model, equations (2) and (3) become :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _k}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi _k}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )+[\lambda \phi _k\delta _{ij}+\lambda (\delta _{ik}\phi _j+\delta _{jk}\phi _i)]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}_{ij}^2}}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _k}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )\left[\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}}{\delta \phi _k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{ll}}{\delta \phi _k}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}_{ij}^2}}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )`$
We can use the gapequation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}/2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2PPI}}{\overline{m}_{ij}^2}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )`$ to integrate the last equation and obtain :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )=S(\phi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}^2,\phi )\frac{\lambda }{8}d^Dx\left[(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ii})^2+2(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^2\right]$$
(24)
For $`m_{ij}^2=\delta _{ij}m^2`$, we can make use of O(N) symmetry to define :

$$\overline{m}_{ij}^2=\frac{\phi _i\phi _j}{\phi ^2}\overline{m}_\sigma ^2+\left(\delta _{ij}\frac{\phi _i\phi _j}{\phi ^2}\right)\overline{m}_\pi ^2$$
(25)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{\phi _i\phi _j}{\phi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma +\left(\delta _{ij}\frac{\phi _i\phi _j}{\phi ^2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi $$
(26)
so that because of (22) :

$`\overline{m}_\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda }{2}}\left[\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi \right]`$
$`\overline{m}_\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left[\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma +(N+1)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi \right]`$ (27)
The relation between 1PI and 2PPI expansion now simplifies to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`S(\phi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_\sigma ^2,\overline{m}_\pi ^2,\phi )`$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\left[3\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^2+(N^21)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi ^2+2(N1)\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_\pi \right]}`$
and the gap equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{2PPI}}{\delta \overline{m}_\sigma ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma }{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{2PPI}}{\delta \overline{m}_\pi ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(N1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{2}}`$ (29)
To show the efficiency of the 2PPI expansion, let’s calculate the effective potential at one loop 2PPI. We choose $`\phi _i=\delta _{iN}\phi `$. Since there are $`(N1)`$ masses $`\overline{m}_\pi `$, and one mass $`\overline{m}_\sigma `$ running in the loop, we have :

$$V_q^{2PPI}(\overline{m}_\sigma ^2,\overline{m}_\pi ^2,\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{ln}(p^2+\overline{m}_\sigma ^2)+\frac{(N1)}{2}\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{ln}(p^2+\overline{m}_\pi ^2)$$
(30)
The renormalization procedure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1PI}`$ is completely analogous as in the $`N=1`$ case (for details, see ). We can simply renormalize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2PPI}`$ using for example the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and calculate the renormalised bubbles $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\sigma ,R}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ,R}`$ by using the renormalised gapequations (29). We finally obtain at one loop 2PPI :

$`V_R^{1PI}(m^2,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`V(\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\sigma ,R}^4}{64\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\sigma ,R}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]+(N1){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\pi ,R}^4}{64\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{\pi ,R}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right]`$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left[3\mathrm{\Delta }_{\sigma ,R}^2+(N^21)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ,R}^2+2(N1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\sigma ,R}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi ,R}\right]`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,R}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{,R}^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{,R}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}1\right]`$ (32)
and $`\overline{m}_{\sigma ,R}`$ and $`\overline{m}_{\pi ,R}`$ are given by equation (27) with renormalised $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}s`$.
From the topology of the one loop 2PPI graph, it is clear that our 1loop 2PPI result agrees with the Hartree approximation and should give the sum of daisy and superdaisy graphs. If we compare our unrenormalised expression we find complete agreement (after some algebra) with the unrenormalised sum of daisy and superdaisy graphs published in  and  and obtained within the CJT formalism  (2PI expansion). The advantage of our 2PPI expansion is that we quite naturally obtain a simple expression by keeping only the one loop 2PPI vacuum bubble, while in the 2PI approach one has to keep part of the 2loop graphs (the O($`\lambda `$) part) and the simple expression (31) is only obtained after some rearrangement. Furthermore, one can easily calculate higher order terms in the 2PPI expansion while in the 2PI expansion, it is very difficult to go beyond the Hartree approximation because of the non-locality of the gap equations. Concerning renormalization, we find complete agreement with the renormalised expression of  obtained using the auxiliary field method. We disagree with the ”non-perturbative” renormalisation used in . These authors find that in order to obtain a finite effective mass (which sums daisy and superdaisy graphs), the coupling constant has to run in a different way than is dictated by the perturbative renormalisation group. For the N=1 case, their non-perturbative $`\beta `$-function is a factor of three smaller than the perturbative one and is essentially the $`N\mathrm{}`$ $`\beta `$ function extrapolated to N=1. Our 2PPI analysis to all orders can easily explain this paradox. We showed in (9) that after adding counterterms, the renormalised effective mass can be written as :

$$\overline{m}_R^2=\left(m_0^{2PPR}\right)^2+\frac{\lambda _0^{2PPR}}{2}(\phi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(33)
This relation is valid to all orders. At one loop one has $`\delta Z_2^{2PPR}=\delta Z_2,\delta Z_\lambda ^{2PPR}=\frac{1}{3}\delta Z_\lambda `$. So, if one naively assumes $`\lambda _0=\lambda _0^{2PPR}`$, one obtains a $`\beta `$-function which is a factor of three too small. This factor of three is due to crossing which changes a 2PPR coupling constant renormalisation insertion into a 2PPI one. This also explains why the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ renormalisation is straightforward : crossing terms (and hence Fock or 2PPI terms) are subdominant and only the 2PPR or Hartree terms survive in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit.
In summary, we have presented a method for summing and renormalising bubble graph insertions to all orders based on the 2PPI expansion. Besides the O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model, also Q.E.D. and models with four-fermion couplings or Yukawa couplings can be treated in this expansion. Finite temperature effects can be easily included. In , we sum daisy and superdaisy graphs of O(N) linear $`\sigma `$-model at finite T, using the 2PPI expansion. Renormalisation is straightforward and the Goldstone theorem is obeyed to all orders. Extension to the non-equilibrium domain is possible .


text:
# Radio observations of the 33.8 ms X-ray pulsar SAX J0635+0533

## 1 Introduction

A BeppoSAX observation of the field centered on the unidentified EGRET source 2EG J0635+0521 led to the discovery of a hard X-ray source, proposed to be associated with a bright ($`R12`$) Be-star located within the $`1^{}`$ X-ray error circle (Kaaret et al. (1999)). Optical spectra showed it is at a distance of 2.5–5 kpc, with an $`E(BV)`$ derived neutral hydrogen column density of $`6\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 (in agreement with the Galactic 21-cm column density toward the source). The X-ray photon spectrum was fitted with a power law of spectral index $`1.5`$ and column density $`N_\mathrm{H}2\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. The derived 2–10 keV X-ray luminosity is $`L_X23\times 10^{33}(d_{\mathrm{kpc}}/4)^2`$ erg s-1. The extra absorption, with respect to the value obtained through the optical data, suggests that local extra gas must be present. This interpretation agrees with the Be-star association and led Kaaret et al. (1999) to the conclusion that the system is a (probably gamma-ray emitting) high mass X-ray binary.

A reduced X-ray error circle of $`30^{\prime \prime }`$, including the Be-star, resulted from the re-analysis of the BeppoSAX data by Cusumano et al. (2000), but the most relevant result was the discovery of coherent pulsed emission at a period of 33.8 ms with a significance level of $`4\sigma `$. Unfortunately the available X-ray data did not allow them to derive the system orbital parameters. However, the derived X-ray luminosity ($`7.7\times 10^{34}(d_{\mathrm{kpc}}/4)^2`$ erg s-1 in 0.1–40 keV) and magnetic field strength ($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^9`$ G), derived from assuming the pulsar is powered by accretion, are not typical of Be/X-ray binaries (which have higher luminosities and magnetic fields).

In an accretion scenario, any radio emission is expected to be quenched within the high density environment. In a non-accretion (rotation-powered) scenario, high-energy emission can be produced either by shock acceleration or by a magnetospheric process. In this case the source could also show variable and/or periodic radio emission. Detection of radio pulses with the same period of the X-ray emission would lead to an unambiguous interpretation in this sense.

Here we present the results of observations made with the VLA at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz and pulse searches performed using the Arecibo radiotelescope at 430 MHz.

## 2 Observations ad data reduction

The SAX J0635+0533 field was observed on 2000 April 25 with the Very Large Array in its C configuration at 1.465 and 4.86 GHz; bandwidths were 22 and 100 MHz, respectively. A gain calibrator source (4C 10.20) was observed at each frequency switch (six in total) and 3C286 (flux densities of 6.8 and 3.3 Jy at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz respectively) was used as the primary calibrator. The total net observing time was $`80`$ and $`110`$ minutes at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz respectively. All four Stokes parameters were recorded. One of the 27 antennas could not be used because of technical reasons. Data were processed in the MIRIAD package. After appropriate editing and calibrating, images were formed using uniform weighting and deconvolved using CLEAN. The synthesized beam is $`11^{\prime \prime }\times 11^{\prime \prime }`$ (1.4 GHz) and $`3.^{\prime \prime }5\times 3.^{\prime \prime }5`$ (4.8 GHz). The resulting images have sensitivities of 120 and 20 $`\mu `$Jy at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz, respectively, yielding $`5\sigma `$ detection limits of 0.6 and 0.1 mJy. In the polarisation images (Stokes Q and U) these limits are of 0.45 (1.4 GHz) and 0.12 mJy (4.8 GHz).

If we adopt the 90% confidence level $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ X-ray error radius circle, we have only one source detected on its border while three sources are detected within the $`1^{}`$ X-ray error circle quoted by Kaaret et al. (1999) (see Fig. 1). The 4.8 GHz positions and fluxes of these sources are given in Tab. 1.

At 1.4 GHz, only source C is detected with a flux of $`4.72\pm 0.15`$ ($`1\sigma `$) mJy. Assuming the flux spectrum can be described by a power law $`S\nu ^\alpha `$, we find $`\alpha =0.72`$ between 1.4 and 4.8 GHz. We do not detect polarisation from any of these sources.

We checked for time variability of source C at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz by accumulating 6 images for the 6 interleaved observations. The source is constant within 25% of its average flux. We also produced the time series of 12 other field sources with 1.4 GHz fluxes in the range 2–10 mJy. They all show similar flux variations, probably due to calibration and deconvolution uncertainties. No optical counterpart to source C is visible in the POSS-II111 The Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-II) was made by the California Institute of Technology with funds from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Geographic Society, the Sloan Foundation, the Samuel Oschin Foundation, and the Eastman Kodak Corporation. survey plates at a limiting magnitude of $`21`$ (R) and $`20`$ (B).

We also carried out a search for radio pulsations at 430 MHz on 2000 January 20 using the Arecibo telescope. The source was observed for 15 minutes with a 10-MHz bandwidth and a sampling time of 0.1 $`\mu `$s using the AOFTM (Arecibo Observatory Fourier Transform Machine). The expected rms of these observations was 30 $`\mu `$Jy so that a $`10\sigma `$ detection corresponds to 0.3 mJy. The periodicity search in a wide period range, covering the published 33.8 ms and its harmonics, did not result in any convincing candidates above a $`7\sigma `$ threshold. We did not detect any isolated dispersed pulses.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 The nature of source C

At 4.8 GHz we detect three sources in the $`60^{\prime \prime }`$ X-ray error circle quoted by Kaaret et al. (1999); only source C is within the reduced $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ error-circle by Cusumano et al. (2000) (Fig. 1). The steadiness of the flux of source A and its non-detection at 1.4 GHz, suggesting an inverted spectrum, are not expected for an isolated neutron star. While source B is too weak for any detailed analysis, we can constrain its spectral index to be flatter than $`0.9`$. For source C, we estimate that the chance probability to have a 1.4 GHz radio source of flux greater than 4.7 mJy within a $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ error circle is 0.65% ($`2.7\sigma `$) (Windhorst et al. (1984)). This value would suggest a putative association but, on the other hand, it remains the only argument in favor. In fact the lack of time variability, polarisation and pulsation and the flat spectral index ($`0.72\pm 0.05`$ between 1.4 and 4.8 GHz), suggest an extragalctic origin.

### 3.2 The nature of the Be/X-ray pulsar

We then accept the association of SAX J0635+0533 with the Be-star. In this case the X-ray emission can be either accretion powered or rotation powered (i.e. magnetospheric). The observed X-ray properties (and the gamma-ray properties if one believes the association with 2EG J0635+0521) do not exclude this latter hypothesis. We know that PSR B1259$``$63 (a Be-star/neutron star system with a pulse period of 47 ms), shows magnetospheric pulsed (away from periastron) and continuum (near periastron) radio emission (see e.g. Johnston et al. (1996); Johnston et al. (1999)), as well as variable unpulsed X-ray emission (Kaspi et al. (1995); Nicastro et al. (1998)) along its $`3.5`$ years orbit. This emission is thought to originate in a discontinuity shock between the relativistic pulsar wind and the Be-star wind (Tavani & Arons (1997)). This same mechanism could account for the X-ray emission in SAX J0635+0533. The lack of radio flux could be due to scattering of the photons in a high density Be-star wind, implying a short orbital period. This hypothesis is supported by the high value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$.

But if the radio emission is not quenched (at our flux limits) by the local environment, then we must find another explanation for our non-detections. If we make the reasonable assumption we are dealing with a young ($`\tau \stackrel{<}{_{}}10^5`$ years) isolated rotation-powered pulsar, we then can estimate the energy loss rate, $`\dot{E}`$, from the X-ray conversion efficiency. Extrapolating the flux in the 0.1–2.4 keV ROSAT band and assuming an efficiency of 0.1% (Becker & Trümper (1997)), we obtain an $`\dot{E}1.5\times 10^{37}`$ erg s-1. Frail & Moffett (1993) found as average luminosity of young pulsars a value $`L_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}30`$ mJy kpc2 and $`L_{400\mathrm{MHz}}300`$ mJy kpc2. They also calculate a beaming fraction for such pulsars $`f=61\%\pm 13\%`$, significantly lower than the $`100\%`$ value of X-ray emitting pulsars. Assuming a distance to the system of 4 kpc, our observations would imply a $`5\sigma `$ luminosity limit $`L_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}10`$ mJy kpc2 and $`L_{430\mathrm{MHz}}5`$ mJy kpc2, then quite good. For a distance of 4 kpc, we would expect a dispersion measure to this source of $`90`$ pc cm-3, given the Taylor & Cordes (1993) model for Galactic electron density. As the dispersion smearing across one of the Arecibo receiver 10-kHz channels is only $`0.1`$ ms, our pulsed search was sensitive to the shortest period pulsars. Brazier & Johnston (1999) argue that many young pulsars are visible as X-ray pulsars but not as radio pulsars because they are beaming away from Earth and not because they have intrinsically lower radio fluxes. Looking at their Fig. 1 we see there are only a few radio pulsars or candidate neutron stars known with similar $`\dot{E}`$ and luminosity, so it is likely that our non-detection could also be attributed to an unfavorable beaming.

### 3.3 Radio emission from accreting X-ray pulsars

If SAX J0635+0533 is indeed an accretion-driven Be/X-ray binary pulsar, as already noted by Cusumano et al. (2000), this would imply an unusually low magnetic field strength $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^9`$ G similar to SAX J1808.4$``$3658 (Gaensler et al. (1999)). Given also the highly variable X-ray flux for the two systems, it would be tempting to expect some transient non-magnetospheric radio emission. Our $`4`$ hours observation time is much too short to say anything in this respect. A joint X-ray/radio monitoring program would be necessary to see if any simultaneous, delayed or anti-correlated emission is present. Fender et al. (1997b) showed that there is a statistically significant anticorrelation between X-ray pulsations and radio emission, though none of the 22 X-ray pulsars observed in the centimeter band with a fairly good sensitivity has ever been convincingly detected as a synchrotron radio source (Fender et al. 1997a ).

Also, the lack of radio emission from the Be-star itself is not surprising given its distance. A survey of a sample of 13 optically and IR bright classical Be-stars made from the Australia Telescope Compact Array failed to detect any star at 4.8 GHz (Clark et al. (1998)) with a $`3\sigma `$ flux level of $`0.1`$ mJy.

## 4 Conclusions

We have performed sensitive radio observation of SAX J0635+0533 at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz with the VLA and pulsar search at 430 MHz with the Arecibo telescope. We do not detect any flux at the Be-star position, but a relatively strong, flat spectrum source lies within the $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ X-ray error circle. Its properties do not support the association with the X-ray source and no sign of pulsed emission is found at a relatively high sensitivity limit. Then, assuming the system is a Be/X-ray pulsar, the lack of radio emission at our flux limits does not allow us to distinguish between an accretion or rotation-powered system. However it shows that:

* the system probably has a short binary period and therefore it is quite different from PSR B1259$``$69;
* if periodic/flaring radio emission is present, our observation was far too short to be conclusive in this respect;
* the radio emission could be quenched by the high density Be-star wind or the pulsar is beaming away from the Earth;
* the system could be an accreting X-ray pulsar, though transient non-magnetospheric weak radio emission could still be present.

Given the variable nature of the X-ray source it is also unlikely that any accurate timing can be performed in order to check for gamma-ray emission at 33.8 ms from 2EG J0635+0521. However its gamma-ray spectral index and flux stability favor an isolated neutron star. Until the arrival of more sensitive gamma-ray instruments such as GLAST, the association between the two sources will likely remain uncertain. As Kaaret et al. (1999) and Cusumano et al. (2000), we conclude that SAX J0635+0533 is most likely a compact Be-star/neutron-star X-ray binary pulsar, though with an unusually short pulse period. Further X-ray observations are required both to confirm the 33.8 ms period (and measure a spin-up/down) and to determine the (likely short) binary period.

After this paper was submitted we became aware of new X-ray results by Kaaret et al. (2000) which suggest an orbital period of $`11`$ days and a large $`\dot{\nu }`$ which is more typical of young, rotation-powered pulsars rather than of accretion-powered X-ray binaries.

###### Acknowledgements.

The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation. L.N. acknowledges the support of CNR through a short-term mobility program. B.M.G. acknowledges the support of NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01107.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555.


text:
# Finding Pulsars at Parkes

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of the first pulsar by Jocelyn Bell and Tony Hewish in 1967 (Hewish et al. 1968), many observatories throughout the world have undertaken searches for these fascinating objects. Prior to the commencement of the Parkes multibeam survey in mid-1997, these searches had resulted in the discovery of about 750 pulsars. All but a few of these lie within our Galaxy – the only known extra-galactic pulsars are associated with the Magellanic Clouds – and all but a few have been discovered at radio wavelengths. Most are relatively close on a Galactic scale – their median distance from the Sun is only about 3.5 kpc. This is not because pulsars are clustered about the Sun. It is purely a result of the rather low radio luminosity of pulsars, which makes them difficult to detect at large distances.

It is now almost universally accepted that pulsars are neutron stars, with the basic periodicity defined by rotation of the star. The pulse period is very predictable, but it is not constant. Despite various short-term fluctuations observed to a greater or lesser extent in most pulsars, in the long term the intrinsic period of all pulsars increases with time. Pulsars are powered by the kinetic energy of rotation. They steadily lose energy, mainly in the form of a high-energy wind of charged particles and magnetic-dipole radiation, that is, electromagnetic waves at the neutron-star rotation frequency.

Pulsars may be divided into two main groups, based on the pulse period and the rate at which it increases. The first group, often called ‘normal’ pulsars, typically have periods of between 0.05 and 5 sec, and characteristic ages, defined by $`\tau _c=P/(2\dot{P})`$, where $`P`$ is the pulsar period and $`\dot{P}`$ is its secular rate of change, in the range $`10^3`$ to $`10^7`$ years. The other group are the ‘millisecond’ pulsars (MSPs), most of which have periods of between 1.5 and 25 ms. A key property of MSPs is their great age, typically between $`10^8`$ and $`10^{10}`$ years. Another key property is that most MSPs are members of a binary system, in an orbit with another star. These properties suggest that MSPs are in fact ‘recycled’ neutron stars, spun up by accretion from a binary companion. For an extensive review of MSP formation mechanisms and their relation to X-ray binary systems, see Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel (1991).

Not long after the discovery of the first MSP by Backer et al. (1982) it was realised that the cores of globular clusters were a favourable environment for the formation of MSPs (Hamilton, Helfand & Becker 1985) . Several groups began searches toward globular clusters and this effort was rewarded by the discovery of the 3-ms pulsar PSR B1821$``$24 in the core of M28 by Lyne et al. (1987). Over the next few years, more than 30 MSPs were discovered in globular clusters. Of these, M15, with 8 pulsars (Wolszczan et al. 1989, Anderson 1992), and 47 Tucanae with 11 (Manchester et al. 1991, Robinson et al. 1995) stand out as the most prolific.

With 750 pulsars already known, why bother to find more?

There are many good reasons. Even though 750 sounds like a large number, when you divide them into luminosity, distance and/or age bins, the number in some bins is not all that large. In particular, low-luminosity pulsars dominate the Galactic birthrate (e.g., Lyne et al. 1998) and yet we have a rather small sample of them, leading to large statistical uncertainties in birthrate calculations. Similarly, we know of very few pulsars at distances comparable to the Galactic Centre, so estimates of the Galactic population of pulsars are very uncertain except in the Solar neighbourhood.

An increased sample of pulsars also is of great value to timing investigations and studies of the emission process. Young pulsars are known to suffer glitches, that is, sudden increases in spin rate, and various other forms of period irregularities. These phenomena are believed to result from transitions in the superfluid interior of the neutron star and are one of the few ways that we have of investigating the physics of ultra-dense matter (Alpar, Cheng & Pines 1989). However, the number of known glitching pulsars is relatively modest (Wang et al. 2000) and there is great variety in glitch properties. Similarly, there is a wide variety of pulse emission properties, with special groups of pulsars such as those with interpulses or wide profiles, high polarisation, drifting sub-pulses or null periods. An increased sample is very useful for studies of properties such as these.

Pulsars are also excellent probes of the interstellar medium (ISM). They are pulsed, allowing measurement of the dispersive delay due to free electrons in the ISM, and hence the column density of electrons along the path, commonly expressed as a dispersion measure (DM) in the units cm-3 pc. Given a model for the interstellar free-electron distribution (e.g. Taylor & Cordes 1993) pulsar distances can be estimated from their DM. Compared to most celestial radio sources, pulsars have strong linear polarisation, and hence measurement of Faraday rotation is relatively easy. Pulsars have the unique advantage that the DM along the path is also known, so the mean line-of-sight magnetic field strength can be directly estimated, leading to models for the Galactic magnetic field (Han, Manchester and Qiao 1999). Pulsars also have the almost unique property that they are of very small angular size, making possible observation of the full range of effects due to scattering by small-scale fluctuations in the interstellar electron density (Rickett 1990). Pulsars are also excellent probes of the interstellar neutral gas (Frail et al. 1994). Most of these investigations are limited by the spatial density of known pulsars in the Galaxy, and so increasing the sample is of great value.

One of the most fascinating things about pulsars is the fact that pulsar surveys keep turning up new and sometimes totally unexpected classes of object. Even the discovery of the first pulsar itself was serendipitious. Outstanding examples are the discovery of the Vela and Crab pulsars (Large, Vaughan & Mills 1968, Staelin & Reifenstein 1968), the first binary pulsar, PSR B1913+16 (Hulse & Taylor 1974), the first millisecond pulsar (Backer et al. 1982), the first globular cluster pulsar (Lyne et al. 1987), the first eclipsing binary pulsar (Fruchter, Stinebring & Taylor 1988) and the first pulsar with a high-mass non-degenerate companion (Johnston et al. 1992b). These objects offer valuable and sometimes profound insight into physics and astrophysics (e.g. Taylor et al. 1992). Much of the motivation for continued searches comes from the expectation of finding the unexpected.

## 2 The Early Years

With the announcement of the discovery of the first pulsar, the Molonglo radio telescope, operated by the University of Sydney, was ideally placed to follow up on this exciting result. The Cambridge pulsars were discovered with an array operating at 81.5 MHz, suggesting that pulsars had steep radio spectra, and the Molonglo telescope operated at the relatively low radio frequency of 408 MHz. It had large collecting area and so had high instantaneous sensitivity, necessary to record the rapidly fluctuating pulsar signals. By November 1968, it had already discovered nine pulsars, more than half of the then world total of 17 (Large, Vaughan & Wielebinski 1968). Included in these was the very important Vela pulsar, the first to be associated with a supernova remnant.

Initially, astronomers at Parkes concentrated on detailed studies of the spectrum, polarisation and timing of pulsars, exploiting properties of the telescope such as frequency versatility, and polarisation and tracking capability. These observations were very successful, providing the first spectra of individual pulses (Robinson et al. 1968), the first observation of a period glitch (Radhakrishnan & Manchester 1969) and the genesis of the now widely accepted ‘magnetic-pole’ model for the emission beam (Radhakrishnan et al. 1969).

The first succesful search for pulsars at Parkes, reported by Komesaroff et al. (1973), began in 1973 and discovered eight new pulsars. Because of the lower instantaneous sensitivity of the Parkes telescope, this survey was among the first to rely on digital sampling of longer data sets and signal processing techniques to obtain the necessary sensitivity. Because of its higher frequency (750 MHz) and the use of multi-channel receivers, this survey was sensitive to high-DM pulsars. In particular, it discovered the highly luminous pulsar PSR B1641$``$45, which has a DM of about 480 cm-3 pc, the highest known at the time.

In a good example of synergy, the strengths of the Molonglo telescope and the Parkes telescope were combined to undertake the highly successful Second Molonglo pulsar survey (Manchester et al. 1978). This survey discovered 154 previously unknown pulsars, more than doubling the number of pulsars known at the time. The Molonglo telescope was used in a multibeam mode, giving eight adjacent beams in right ascension which increased the effective integration time to 44/cos$`\delta `$ sec. Improved front-end amplifiers and multi-channel receivers were also constructed specifically for this survey. Candidates from analysis of the Molonglo data were confirmed at Parkes. The Parkes telescope tracked up the $`4^{}`$ declination width of the Molonglo beam with an effective 300-sec integration at each point. Data were searched in real time about the candidate parameters, thereby giving an improved declination, period and DM for confirmed pulsars. As shown in Fig. 1, the survey covered the whole sky south of declination $`+20^{}`$ and detected a total of 224 pulsars, giving an excellent sample for statistical studies.

The long integration times and wide bandwidths available at Parkes make possible very sensitive surveys. One such survey was that of McConnell et al. (1991) which detected the first known extragalactic pulsars, in the Magellanic Clouds. One of these, PSR J0045$``$7319, until recently the only known pulsar in the Small Magellanic Cloud, was later shown by Kaspi et al. (1994) to be in a orbit about an optically identified B-star companion.

The next major survey to be undertaken at Parkes was the 20-cm survey of Johnston et al. (1992a). This survey covered a strip along the Galactic plane with $`270^{}<l<20^{}`$ and $`|b|<4^{}`$, complementing a similar survey of the northern Galactic plane (Clifton et al. 1992). A bandwidth of 320 MHz centred at 1520 MHz was observed with an effective integration time per point of 2.5 min, giving a limiting sensitivity of about 1 mJy for pulsars with period greater than about 50 ms. A total of 100 pulsars were detected by the survey, with 46 being new discoveries. Included in them was the very interesting eclipsing binary pulsar PSR B1259$``$63 (Johnston et al. 1992b). This pulsar is in a 3.5-year highly eccentric orbit around a 10-M Be star SS 2883, and was the first pulsar known to have a massive non-degenerate companion. Near periastron, the pulsar passes through the circumstellar disk of the Be star and is eclipsed for about 30 days. Significant changes in DM and rotation measure are observed before and after the eclipse, giving information on the properties of the circumstellar disk (Johnston et al. 1996).

Although the Johnston et al. (1992a) survey had sensitivity to MSPs at about the 2.5 mJy level, none was detected. The main reasons for this were the high dispersion, scattering and background temperature along the Galactic plane, coupled with the low luminosity of most MSPs. Also, because of their great age, most disk millisecond pulsars are at large Galactic $`z`$-distances, comparable to or larger than the reach of most surveys. Consequently they have a nearly isotropic distribution on the sky. These considerations suggested that a lower-frequency search covering a large area of the sky would be more likely to detect a significant number of MSPs. The Parkes 70cm survey (Manchester et al. 1996, Lyne et al. 1998) was designed with these ideas in mind.

The survey covered the whole sky south of the equator at a frequency of 436 MHz, with a sampling interval of 300 $`\mu `$s and an observation time per point of 157 sec, giving it a limiting sensitivity of about 3 mJy. It detected 298 pulsars of which 101, including 17 MSPs, were previously unknown. Fig. 2 shows the period distribution of these pulsars. This figure highlights the fact that MSPs are a different population, quite distinct from the normal pulsars. As expected, the sky distribution of MSPs was close to isotropic, whereas the normal pulsars were clustered along the Galactic Plane. The large number of pulsars detected and the well defined survey parameters make this an excellent data base for studies of the Galactic distribution and birthrate of both normal pulsars and MSPs. Lyne et al. (1998) estimate that there are about 30,000 potentially observable MSPs with 400 MHz luminosity above 1 mJy kpc2 and a similar number of potentially observable normal pulsars above the same luminosity limit in the Galaxy. After taking beaming into account, the corresponding birth rate for normal pulsars is one per 60 to 330 years, and for MSPs, one per 300,000 years.

Probably the most interesting pulsar discovered by the Parkes Southern survey was PSR J0437$``$4715, by far the nearest and strongest millisecond pulsar known (Johnston et al. 1993). This pulsar has a period of 5.75 ms, is a 5.74-day binary orbit with a companion of mass $`0.3`$ M, and has a mean flux density at 430 MHz of more than 500 mJy. The strength of this pulsar makes possible very precise measurements of its polarisation and timing properties. As shown in Fig. 3, the pulsar has a very wide and complex profile covering more than 80% of the period with at least 12 identifiable pulse components and high polarisation, both linear and circular (Navarro et al. 1997). The position angle variation is complex, suggesting that the usual assumption of dipole magnetic field lines in the pulsar magnetosphere is not valid. Timing observations (Sandhu et al. 1997) have given the pulsar position with a precision of 50 $`\mu `$as, the proper motion at the 2000-$`\sigma `$ level, and a value for the annual parallax, $`5.6\pm 0.8`$ mas. This parallax corresponds to a distance for the pulsar about 30% larger than the value derived from the DM. The large proper motion ($`140`$ mas yr-1) results in an apparent acceleration of the pulsar, accounting for about 80% of the observed period derivative. It also changes the inclination of the pulsar orbit to the line of sight, resulting in a secular change in the projected size of the orbit. This change has been detected at the 20-$`\sigma `$ level, enabling a limit to be placed on the inclination angle of the orbit, $`i<43^{}`$, and hence improving the determination of the mass of the companion.

With hindsight, another very interesting pulsar discovered in this survey was PSR J2144$``$3933, originally believed to have a pulse period of 2.84 s. As part of a study of the pulse-to-pulse fluctuation properties of pulsars, Matthew Young realised that the true period of this pulsar was 8.51 s, by far the longest period known (Young, Manchester & Johnston 1999). This long period places the pulsar beyond the ‘death line’ of most models for the pulse emission mechanism. The pulsar also has a very narrow pulse, less than $`1^{}`$ of longitude. If this is typical of such long-period pulsars, they could form a large fraction of the total Galactic population.

## 3 The Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey

The Parkes multibeam receiver, while primarily designed for HI surveys (Staveley-Smith et al. 1996), is a superb instrument for pulsar surveys. Its 13 beams allow the sky to be covered roughly 13 times as fast, or alternatively, much longer to be spent on a given point. Also, its receivers have excellent sensitivity, with an average system noise of only 21 K. With major contributions from Jodrell Bank Observatory and Osservatorio Astronomica di Bologna, a filterbank system capable of handling the data from the 13 beams was installed at Parkes in early 1997 and the Parkes multibeam pulsar survey commenced in August 1997. The survey is covering the region $`260^{}<l<50^{}`$ with $`|b|<5^{}`$. The filterbank has 96 3-MHz channels for each polarisation of each beam and all outputs are one-bit digitised at 250 $`\mu `$s intervals and recorded to tape. Each pointing of the 13 beams is of 35 min duration, giving a sensitivity for long-period pulsars away from the hot regions of the Galactic background of about 0.15 mJy. This is about seven times better than the previous best survey of this type (Johnston et al. 1992a), and so a large increase in the number of detected pulsars was expected.

These expectations have already been fully realised. With about 80% of the survey completed, more than 570 previously unknown pulsars have been discovered, making this by far the most successful pulsar survey ever. When finished, the survey will come close to doubling the number of known pulsars. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of known pulsars projected on to the Galactic plane, where distances have been computed using the Taylor & Cordes (1993) electron density model. In contrast to the previously known pulsars which are clustered around the Sun, many of the multibeam pulsars are at large distances, with some apparently on the other side of the Galactic Centre. There is some indication of a deficit of detected pulsars within a couple of kpc of the Galactic Centre. The electron density model is not well determined at these large distances though, and the distances may have systematic biases. Also, many of the multibeam pulsars are concentrated in spiral arms, but this may simply be a result of the increased model electron density in the arms. The multibeam sample will be important in helping to refine the electron density model.

As shown by Fig. 5, pulsars detected by the multibeam survey are on average much younger than previously known pulsars. They include the three pulsars with the strongest known surface dipole magnetic fields (Camilo et al. 2000a). One of these pulsars, PSR J1119$``$6127, has a characteristic age of only 1700 years and is associated with what appears to be a previously uncatalogued supernova remnant (Crawford et al. 2000). Another, PSR J1814$``$1744, has the relatively long period of 3.97 sec, but a very rapid spin-down rate giving it an implied surface field strength of $`5.5\times 10^{13}`$ G. These parameters place the pulsar near the so-called ‘anomalous X-ray pulsars’ (AXPs) on the $`P\dot{P}`$ plane (Fig. 5). AXPs are believed to be slowly rotating neutron stars, but they have no detectable radio emission. On the other hand, PSR J1814$``$1744 has no detectable X-ray emission (Pivovaroff, Kaspi & Camilo 2000). The reason(s) for these very different properties are not well understood.

Only one millisecond pulsar has been discovered so far. Although this is somewhat surprising given the parameters of the survey, there are several possible contributing factors. The search so far has been concentrated at low Galactic latitudes where dispersion and scattering are large. This limits the maximum distance at which typical MSPs can be detected and so the volume of the Galaxy searched so far is relatively small. Another contributing factor is that only ‘unaccelerated’ searches have been performed so far. Especially with the rather long observation time of this survey, this limits our senstivity to millisecond pulsars, most of which are in binary systems. A third factor is that algorithms for dealing with interference were not optimal in the early stages of processing. This mainly affects MSP detections, since most of the searched frequency space corresponds to millisecond periods. All of these factors are being overcome and we expect to detect more MSPs with future observations and data processing.

Eight of the newly discovered pulsars are members of binary systems. Five of these are in near-circular orbits with companions which are probably white dwarfs (Camilo et al. 2000c). These systems differ from most known white dwarf binaries. Except for the one MSP detected, the pulsar periods are relatively long, lying between 45 and 90 ms, and the companions are heavy with minimum mass between 0.15 and 0.9 M.

One of the binary pulsars, PSR J1811$``$1736, is in a highly eccentric 18-day orbit and is very probably a double neutron-star system, the first to be discovered in the southern hemisphere (Lyne et al. 2000). In contrast to PSR J1811$``$1736 which has a characteristic age $`10^9`$ yr, PSR J1141-6545 is a young pulsar ($`\tau _c1.5\times 10^6`$ yr) in a much tighter ($`P_b4.1`$ h) and eccentric orbit (Kaspi et al. 2000). Precession of the longitude of periastron has been observed for this system, and interpreting this as due to the effects of general relativity gives a value for the total mass of the system of $`2.300\pm 0.012`$ M. The pulsar and orbit properties suggest that the companion is a heavy white dwarf formed before the supernova explosion that created the pulsar. This is unusual. In most binary systems the neutron star is formed from the heavier binary companion which evolves faster.

As shown in Fig. 6, PSR J1740$``$3052 is in a highly eccentric long-period orbit. The interesting thing about this system is that the minimum companion mass is 11 M, implying that the companion is either a massive star or a black hole. Unfortunately the pulsar lies close to the direction of the Galactic Centre and probably at about the same distance, so optical searches for the companion are unlikely to be productive. However, 2.2 $`\mu `$m infrared observations with the Siding Spring 2.3-m telescope and the Anglo-Australian Telescope have revealed a K-supergiant star whose position agrees with that of the pulsar to better than 0.3 arcsec (Stairs et al. 2000). The infrared spectrum of this star shows Brackett-$`\gamma `$ emission, consistent with the presence of a compact binary companion, and the star’s colours are consistent with a distance comparable to that of the pulsar. Furthermore, DM and rotation measure changes were observed over the last periastron passage, in February 2000. All of these observations point toward this star being the binary companion. However, there a couple of puzzling features. The pulsar comes to within 1.25 stellar radii of the companion star at periastron. One might expect the radio emission to be eclipsed by the stellar atmosphere or wind, but no eclipses are observed. Also, it should raise large tides on the companion, causing a large precession in the longitude of periastron. This is not observed. Either we do not understand winds and tides in supergiant stars very well, or all the other observations are misleading and the companion is really a black hole. Although the latter is an attractive option (this would be the first known neutron star – black hole system), the former is more likely.

## 4 Millisecond Pulsars in 47 Tucanae

In terms of finding millisecond pulsars, the globular cluster 47 Tucanae has proven to be a gold-mine. The cluster is massive ($`10^6`$ M), relatively nearby with a distance from the Sun of about 5 kpc, and has a very dense core with a central density of $`10^5`$ M pc-3. These properties are favourable for the formation in the core of neutron-star binary systems by exchange interactions (e.g. Rasio, Pfahl & Rappaport 2000) and the detection of millisecond pulsars formed by subsequent accretion spin-up of the captured neutron stars. Parkes searches at 430 and 640 MHz MHz in the early 1990’s (Manchester et al. 1990, 1991, and Robinson et al. 1995) resulted in the detection of 11 millisecond pulsars in 47 Tucanae, already a record number of pulsars for one cluster. These pulsars all had very short periods, in the range 2.1 to 5.8 ms, and three of them were known to be members of binary systems. One, 47 Tuc J, had the very short orbital period of 2.9 h and showed evidence for eclipses of the pulsar signal. Most of these pulsars are very weak and several were only detected occasionally, when interstellar scintillation raised their flux density to a detectable level. Because of this only two of the 11 pulsars, C and D, both isolated (non-binary) pulsars, had coherent timing solutions and hence accurate positions, periods and slow-down rates.

Matters remained like this for several years, until Camilo et al. (2000b) exploited the high sensitivity of the multibeam system and sophisticated data processing techniques to discover a further nine MSPs in the cluster, all members of binary systems! The complete dominance of binary pulsars in these latest discoveries shows that the low proportion binary systems in the earlier results was purely a selection effect, and that most pulsars in globular clusters (at least 47 Tucanae, but probably all clusters) are binary. Again, all of these pulsars had very short periods, the longest being 7.6 ms. 47 Tuc R has the shortest orbital period known for any radio pulsar, 96 min, and also shows evidence for eclipses. All of the known binary systems in 47 Tucanae have very low-mass companions, $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.2`$ M.

Not only has the multibeam system allowed detection of more pulsars in 47 Tucanae, it has also given us a much higher detection rate on the previously known pulsars. This has allowed timing solutions to be obtained for a further 13 pulsars giving us a much improved knowledge of the pulsar parameters (Freire et al. 2000). This in turn makes possible a number of interesting studies of cluster properties. Fig. 7 shows that the pulsars are concentrated in the central region of the cluster; the core radius is 23 arcsec but the tidal radius is much larger, about 40 arcmin. This indicates that they are in dynamical equilibrium with other cluster stars, with their larger than average mass giving them a smaller than average velocity in the cluster and hence confining them to the central region. Interestingly, a cumulative histogram of number of pulsars versus perpendicular radius from the cluster centre is linear within the uncertainties. This implies that stars with mass similar to that of a neutron star are the dominant stellar species in the core region. Since the maximum mass of main-sequence stars is about 0.8 M, these may be unseen neutron stars or binary systems consisting of two heavy main sequence stars. The existence of such binary systems is suggested by the observation of ‘blue straggler’ stars in the cluster core (Gilliand et al. 1998); these stars are believed to be formed by the coalescence of such binary systems.

The positions obtained from timing observations have very small uncertainties, typically $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}1`$ mas. Given the improved parameters for cluster pulsars obtained from the recent observations, Freire et al. (2000) were able to go back and reanalyse the data from the early 1990’s to obtain two more coherent timing solutions, giving four in all. Comparison of positions from these solutions with those from analyses of recent data allowed determination of the proper motion of the four pulsars. These results are shown in Fig. 8. The observed proper motions are dominated by the motion of the cluster as a whole, not by motions of pulsars relative to the cluster. Their weighted mean already gives a more precise value for the cluster proper motion than that obtained from Hipparchos data and future observations will further improve the reliability of this value.

As mentioned in the Introduction, the long-term or secular intrinsic period derivative of all pulsars is believed to be positive. However, observed period derivatives for MSPs near the core of globular clusters are sometimes negative. This is attributed to an acceleration of the pulsar in the cluster gravitational potential dominating over any intrinsic period derivative. Pulsars on the far side of the cluster will be accelerating toward us and hence will appear to be speeding up. Fig. 9 shows the observed $`\dot{P}/P`$ ratios along with a model prediction of the probability of a given acceleration being observed. The observed points are consistent with these predictions provided the central velocity dispersion in the cluster is more than 12 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$(Freire et al. 2000).

These results are already impressive. However, with continuing observations using (already installed) filterbanks giving higher time resolution, new and improved results can be expected from the Parkes observations of 47 Tucanae. Already, two more pulsars have been discovered bringing the total known in the cluster to 22. Existing timing solutions will improve and new timing solutions will be obtained, giving improved proper motions and cluster accelerations. There is no doubt that further study of 47 Tucanae will be rewarding.

## 5 Conclusions

In this review, I have highlighted the major pulsar searches undertaken using the Parkes 64-m radio telescope. Numerous other smaller-scale searches have taken place over the years, many of which have produced important results. A recent notable example is the survey being undertaken by Russell Edwards and his colleagues from Swinburne University of Technology using the multibeam receiver. The Swinburne survey complements the Parkes multibeam survey, covering higher latitudes with $`5^{}<|b|<15^{}`$ and has discovered 55 pulsars including eight MSPs (Edwards 2000).

All in all, the Parkes telescope has discovered just under two thirds of all known pulsars, nearly twice as many as all the other telescopes in the world combined! And the most successful of these surveys, the Parkes multibeam survey is not yet finished. By a large margin, the Parkes telescope is the most successful telescope in the world at finding pulsars. This success is due to several factors, principally the large size of the telescope, its southern location (making it ideal for Galactic surveys) and the excellent performance and innovative design of the receiver systems installed on it. I have to say that the stamina of the astronomers responsible for these surveys is also a significant factor.

## Acknowledgements

There are two very important acknowledgements to be made. The first is to the people who designed, built, maintained and developed the Parkes telescope and its receivers over its 40-year history. The second is to my colleagues who have played a major role in most of the work described here. Without the skill and dedication of these people, this review could never have been written. I also thank Simon Johnston for a careful reading of the manuscript and several helpful suggestions. The Parkes radio telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO.

## References

Alpar, M. A., Cheng, K. S., & Pines, D. 1989, ApJ, 346, 823

Anderson, S. B. 1992, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology

Backer, D. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Heiles, C., Davis, M. M., & Goss, W. M. 1982, Nature, 300, 615

Bhattacharya, D. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, Phys. Rep., 203, 1

Camilo, F. M., Kaspi, V. M., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., Bell, J. F., D’Amico, N., McKay, N. P. F., & Crawford, F. 2000a, ApJ, in press

Camilo, F., Lorimer, D. R., Freire, P., Lyne, A. G., & Manchester, R. N. 2000b, ApJ, 535, 975

Camilo, F. et al. 2000c, ApJ, submitted

Clifton, T. R., Lyne, A. G., Jones, A. W., McKenna, J., & Ashworth, M. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 177

Crawford, F., Gaensler, B., Kaspi, V. M., Manchester, R. N., Camilo, F., Lyne, A. G., & Pivovaroff, M. J. 2000, ApJ, submitted

Edwards, R. T. 2000, in Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and Beyond, IAU Colloquium 177, ed. M. Kramer, N. Wex, & R. Wielebinski, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 33

Frail, D. A., Weisberg, J. M., Cordes, J. M., & Mathers, C. 1994, ApJ, 436, 144

Freire, P. C., Camilo, F., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Manchester, R. N. 2000, in Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and Beyond, IAU Colloquium 177, ed. M. Kramer, N. Wex, & R. Wielebinski, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 87

Fruchter, A. S., Stinebring, D. R., & Taylor, J. H. 1988, Nature, 333, 237

Geffert, M., Hiesgen, M., Colin, J., Dauphole, B., & Ducourant, C. 1997, ESA Symp. 402: Hipparcos - Venice ’97, 402, 579

Gilliland, R. L., Bono, G., Edmonds, P. D., Caputo, F., Cassisi, S., Petro, L. D., Saha, A., & Shara, M. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 818

Hamilton, T. T., Helfand, D. J., & Becker, R. H. 1985, AJ, 90, 606

Han, J. L., Manchester, R. N., & Qiao, G. J. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 371

Hewish, A., Bell, S. J., Pilkington, J. D. H., Scott, P. F., & Collins, R. A. 1968, Nature, 217, 709

Hulse, R. A. & Taylor, J. H. 1974, ApJ, 191, L59

Johnston, S. et al. 1993, Nature, 361, 613

Johnston, S., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., Kniffen, D. A., D’Amico, N., Lim, J., & Ashworth, M. 1992a, MNRAS, 255, 401

Johnston, S., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Bailes, M., Kaspi, V. M., Qiao, G., & D’Amico, N. 1992b, ApJ, 387, L37

Johnston, S., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., D’Amico, N., Bailes, M., Gaensler, B. M., & Nicastro, L. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1026

Kaspi, V. M., Johnston, S., Bell, J. F., Manchester, R. N., Bailes, M., Bessell, M., Lyne, A. G., & D’Amico, N. 1994, ApJ, 423, L43

Kaspi, V. M. et al. 2000, ApJ, in press

Komesaroff, M. M., Ables, J. G., Cooke, D. J., Hamilton, P. A., & McCulloch, P. M. 1973, Astrophys. Lett., 15, 169

Large, M. I., Vaughan, A. E., & Mills, B. Y. 1968, Nature, 220, 340

Large, M. I., Vaughan, A. E., & Wielebinski, R. 1968, Nature, 220, 753

Lyne, A. G., Brinklow, A., Middleditch, J., Kulkarni, S. R., Backer, D. C., & Clifton, T. R. 1987, Nature, 328, 399

Lyne, A. G. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 698

Lyne, A. G. et al. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 743

McConnell, D., McCulloch, P. M., Hamilton, P. A., Ables, J. G., Hall, P. J., Jacka, C. E., & Hunt, A. J. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 654

Manchester, R. N. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1235

Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., D’Amico, N., Johnston, S., Lim, J., & Kniffen, D. A. 1990, Nature, 345, 598

Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Robinson, C., D’Amico, N., Bailes, M., & Lim, J. 1991, Nature, 352, 219

Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Taylor, J. H., Durdin, J. M., Large, M. I., & Little, A. G. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 409

Navarro, J., Manchester, R. N., Sandhu, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Bailes, M. 1997, ApJ, 486, 1019

Odenkirchen, M., Brosche, P., Geffert, M., & Tucholke, H. J. 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 477

Pivovaroff, M., Kaspi, V. M., & Camilo, F. 2000, ApJ, in press

Radhakrishnan, V., Cooke, D. J., Komesaroff, M. M., & Morris, D. 1969, Nature, 221, 443

Radhakrishnan, V. & Manchester, R. N. 1969, Nature, 222, 228

Rasio, F. A., Pfahl, E. D., & Rappaport, S. 2000, ApJ, 532, 47

Rickett, B. J. 1990, Ann. Rev. Astr. Ap., 28, 561

Robinson, B. J., Cooper, B. F. C., Gardiner, F. F., Wielebinski, R., & Landecker, T. L. 1968, Nature, 218, 1143

Robinson, C. R., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, A. G., Bailes, M., D’Amico, N., & Johnston, S. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 547

Sandhu, J. S., Bailes, M., Manchester, R. N., Navarro, J., Kulkarni, S. R., & Anderson, S. B. 1997, ApJ, 478, L95

Staelin, D. H. & Reifenstein, E. C. 1968, Science, 162, 1481

Stairs, I. H. et al. 2000, MNRAS, submitted

Staveley-Smith, L. et al. 1996, PASA, 13, 243

Taylor, J. H. & Cordes, J. M. 1993, ApJ, 411, 674

Taylor, J. H., Wolszczan, A., Damour, T., & Weisberg, J. M. 1992, Nature, 355, 132

Wang, N., Manchester, R. N., Pace, R., Bailes, M., Kaspi, V. M., Stappers, B. W., & Lyne, A. G. 2000, MNRAS, in press

Wolszczan, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Middleditch, J., Backer, D. C., Fruchter, A. S., & Dewey, R. J. 1989, Nature, 337, 531

Young, M. D., Manchester, R. N., & Johnston, S. 1999, Nature, 400, 848


text:
# Inflation and the dwarf galaxy problem

## I Introduction

Inflationary cosmology  has strongly influenced the study of cosmological structure formation for these two decades, because its simplest versions predict a rather specific universe with a vanishingly small spatial curvature and scale-invariant adiabatic fluctuations . The standard models of structure formation today starts with these initial conditions and assume that dominant material contents is cold dark matter (CDM) and a cosmological-constant-like energy of unknown origin.

The standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model has proved remarkably successful in explaining various observational data. In this model the gravitational clustering process is governed by the dark matter component and the baryons do not play important roles. Since gravity is a scale-free force by nature, we would end up with a hierarchical universe if we started with the scale-invariant primordial fluctuations. In such a universe, galaxy halos would appear as scaled versions of clusters of galaxies. That is, just as clusters are associated with thousands of substructure clumps with a steep mass spectrum, we expect many virialized substructures of dwarf-galaxy-scales in galactic halos. Indeed, such substructures are shown to be produced on the relevant scale by recent $`N`$-body simulations with higher resolution in the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model  in contradiction with observation around our galaxy. Analytic calculations also suggest that galaxies should contain more satellites than observed . One may wonder that this discrepancy is simply due to the fact that these satellites are too dark to be observed. The situation, however, is not that simple because these satellites would affect stability of galactic disks . Hence the problem may not be solved by an adjustment of the mass-to-light ratio.

Recently, Kamionkowski and Liddle  proposed that the dearth of substructure in galactic halos might be simply due to the lack of small-scale power of initial fluctuations. They have shown that the discrepancy can be resolved if there is a cutoff at the comoving wavenumber $`k4.5h\mathrm{Mpc}^1k_c`$ and if the amplitude of smaller-scale perturbation is more than, say, $`10^2`$ times smaller than that on larger scale. They have also argued that such a spectrum could be produced if the slope of the inflaton’s potential had a discontinuity. While the spectrum of fluctuations produced in such a broken-scale-invariance model has been elegantly studied by Starobinsky , there is no particle-physics motivation for considering a scalar potential with its first derivative discontinuous. It would be much better to realize the same feature with a smooth potential.

In the present paper we propose an inflation model with the desired spectrum in which the scalar potential is a smooth function of simple polynomials. We consider a kind of double inflation model . Scales probed by large-scale structures and cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation leave the Hubble radius during the first inflation stage when almost scale-invariant fluctuations with magnitude of order of $`10^5`$ are produced, while smaller scales leave the horizon during the second inflation with the amplitude of perturbation smaller than $`10^7`$. Since the spectrum of fluctuations generated near the end of slow-roll inflation models such as new  and chaotic  inflation deviates from the scale-invariant one severely , they cannot be a model for the first inflation. Indeed the desired cutoff scale is so close to those probed by large-scale structure and CMB anisotropy that we must arrange the first inflation to terminate abruptly, in a time scale smaller than the expansion time. We adopt the hybrid inflation model  for this purpose. As shown in , hybrid inflation can end abruptly with a “waterfall” of a symmetry-breaking scalar field $`\chi `$, whose potential energy drives inflation while its dynamics is controlled by another scalar field $`\varphi `$. We assume that the former field is also coupled to the inflaton field of the second inflation and it sets an appropriate initial condition for the second inflation so that its number of $`e`$-folds is controlled in order to ensure the scale of the cutoff lies at the right scale.

The reset of the paper is organized as follows. In §II we describe our model Lagrangian and outline the scenario of cosmic evolution. More detailed analysis and constraints on the model parameters are given in §III. §IV is devoted to discussion and conclusion.

## II Model

We consider a double hybrid inflation model. We introduce two complex scalar fields, $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$, which induce a series of symmetry-breaking phase transitions, and two real scalar fields, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, that control the dynamics of $`\chi `$’s. The scalar part of our model Lagrangian is given as follows.

$$\left(\chi _1\right)^{}\chi _1+\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _1)^2+\left(\chi _2\right)^{}\chi _2+\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _2)^2V(\chi _1,\varphi _1,\chi _2,\varphi _2),$$
(1)
$$V(\chi _1,\varphi _1,\chi _2,\varphi _2)V_1(\chi _1,\varphi _1)+V_2(\chi _2,\varphi _2)+U(\chi _1,\varphi _2),$$
(2)
$`V_1(\chi _1,\varphi _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_1^2\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2}}\left(|\chi _1|^2v_1^2\right)^2+g_1^2\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|\chi _1|^2,`$ (3)
$`V_2(\chi _2,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_2^2\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\left(|\chi _2|^2v_2^2\right)^2+g_2^2\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|\chi _2|^2,`$ (4)
$`U(\chi _1,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2\left(|\chi _1|^2v_1^2\right)\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+h^2\left(|\chi _1|^2v_1^2\right)\sigma \varphi _2,`$ (5)
where $`g_1,g_2,\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ and $`h`$ are dimensionless coupling constants, and $`m_1,m_2,v_1,v_2`$ and $`\sigma `$ are constants with mass dimension. Obviously, $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ have the same structure with an appropriate form for hybrid inflation. We assume that $`V_1`$ is at higher energy scale than $`V_2`$ and $`U`$. Then it drives the first inflation and $`V_2`$ and $`U`$ do not affect the dynamics of $`\chi _1`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ in this epoch.

Under the above assumption, evolution of the universe proceeds as follows. The first and the second derivatives of $`V_1`$ with respect to $`\chi _1`$ read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_1}{\chi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1\left(|\chi _1|^2v_1^2\right)\chi _1+g_1^2\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi _1,`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V_1}{\chi _1\chi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}`$ $``$ $`M_{\chi _1}^2=\lambda _1\left(2|\chi _1|^2v_1^2\right)+g_1^2\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (7)
respectively. Hence if $`g_1^2\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>\lambda _1v_1^2`$ holds initially, $`\chi _1`$ has the global minimum at $`\chi _1=0`$. We further take an initial condition such that $`M_{\chi _1}`$ is larger than the Hubble parameter and $`\chi _1`$ settles to $`\chi _1=0`$ in the expansion time scale. Then the hybrid inflation is driven by the vacuum energy density of $`\chi _1`$ with some contribution from the mass term of $`\varphi _1`$, which turns out to be small in the late stage of inflation and we neglect it hereafter. Thus the Hubble parameter, $`H`$, reads

$$H^2\frac{8\pi }{3M_{Pl}^2}V_1\frac{4\pi \lambda _1v_1^4}{3M_{Pl}^2}H_1^2.$$
(8)
In this regime, the first and the second derivatives of $`V`$ with respect to $`\varphi _2`$ are given by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2\varphi _2+2g_2|\chi _2|^2\varphi _2+h^2v_1^2(\varphi _2\sigma ),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V}{\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ $``$ $`M_{\varphi _2}^2=m_2^2+2g_2^2|\chi _2|^2+h^2v_1^2.`$ (10)
Hence it has a minimum at

$$\varphi _2=\varphi _{2m}\frac{h^2(v_1^2|\chi _1|^2)}{h^2(v_1^2|\chi _1|^2)+2g_2^2|\chi _2|^2+m_2^2}\sigma \sigma $$
(11)
to which $`\varphi _2`$ is anchored provided $`M_{\varphi _2}^2>H_1^2`$ at $`\varphi _2=\varphi _{2m}`$.

Then, assuming $`g_2^2\sigma ^2>\lambda _2v_2^2`$, $`\chi _2`$ relaxes to $`\chi _2=0`$ if $`M_{\chi _2}^2>H_1^2`$. Thus in this period we find $`\chi _1=\chi _2=0`$ and $`\varphi _2=\varphi _{2m}\sigma `$. On the other hand, $`\varphi _1`$ evolves slowly as

$$\varphi _1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_1^2}{3H_1^2}H_1t\right),$$
(12)
until it reaches the critical value $`\varphi _{1c}\sqrt{\lambda _1}v_1/g_1`$ when $`\chi _1=0`$ becomes unstable to trigger the phase transition of $`\chi _1`$.

The amplitude of curvature fluctuation generated on comoving scales that leave the horizon during the first inflation is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{5}\frac{H_1}{2\pi \varphi _1}\frac{3H_1^2}{m_1^2},$$
(13)
in the matter dominated era, and the spectral index reads

$$n_s=1+\frac{2m_1^2}{3H_1^2}.$$
(14)
The COBE observation , which probes the comoving scale about $`e^{5.6}`$ times larger than the desired cutoff scale, $`2\pi /k_c`$, constrains $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`n_s`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9H_1^3}{10\pi \varphi _1m_1^2}}3\times 10^5,`$ (15)
$`n_s`$ $`=`$ $`1.2\pm 0.3,`$ (16)
with

$$\varphi _1\varphi _{1c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{5.6m_1^2}{3H_1^2}\right)=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda _1}v_1}{g_1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{5.6m_1^2}{3H_1^2}\right).$$
(17)
For $`\varphi _1<\varphi _{1c}`$, the minimum of $`\chi _1`$ is located on a circle with

$$|\chi _1|^2=|\chi _{1m}|^2v_1^2\frac{g_1^2}{\lambda _1}\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{\lambda _1}M_{\chi _1}^2(\chi _1=0).$$
(18)
But $`\chi _1`$ does not fall to this minimum immediately, because the dynamics of $`\chi _1`$ is governed by quantum fluctuations intrinsic to an exponentially expanding spacetime during $`|M_{\chi _1}^2(\chi _1=0)|H_1^2`$ . Since we need to terminate the first inflation abruptly, we request the time elapsed during $`|M_{\chi _1}^2(\chi _1=0)|H_1^2`$ is much smaller than the expansion time $`H_1^1`$. Then $`\chi _1`$ practically traces the evolution of $`\chi _{1m}`$, where $`\varphi _1`$ acquires a large mass,

$$M_{\varphi _1}^2=m_1^2+\frac{g_1^2}{\lambda _1}M_{\chi _1}^2(\chi _1=0).$$
(19)
Thus, unless $`g_1^2\lambda _1`$, $`\varphi _1`$ rolls down to the origin immediately to terminate the phase transition and $`\chi _1`$ relaxes to $`\chi _1=v_1`$.

In this short period, $`\varphi _{2m}`$ also shifts from $`\sigma `$ to zero. However, it does not change practically until $`h^2(v_1^2|\chi _{1m}|^2)`$ has become smaller than $`m_2^2`$. At this time $`M_{\varphi _2}^2`$ has already decreased to be much smaller than $`H_1^2`$, so that $`\varphi _2`$ does not trace the evolution of $`\varphi _{2m}`$ but remains at $`\sigma `$ practically.

Thus after the first inflation both $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\chi _1`$ dissipate their energy through oscillation while $`\chi _2`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ are frozen at $`0`$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively. Then the universe is soon dominated by the vacuum energy density of $`\chi _2(=0)`$ and the second hybrid inflation sets in. In this regime the amplitude of curvature perturbation must be much smaller than $`10^5`$ and the number of $`e`$-folds should be around $`N_25055`$, so that the cutoff of fluctuation spectrum lies at around $`k=4.5h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Here the precise value of $`N_2`$ depends on both the scale of the second inflation and on the history of the universe after that, in particular, on whether a mini-inflation like thermal inflation occurs . For definiteness, we take $`N_2=50`$ hereafter.

The second inflation ends as $`\varphi _2`$ gets smaller than $`\varphi _{2c}\sqrt{\lambda _2}v_2/g_2`$ and $`\chi _2`$ becomes unstable. Hence the maximum amplitude of curvature fluctuations generated in this stage is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{g_2H_2^3}{\pi \sqrt{\lambda _2}v_2m_2^2},$$
(20)
measured at the horizon crossing in the radiation era after inflation. It should be smaller than, say, $`10^7`$ for our purpose.

The universe is reheated by the decay of $`\chi _2`$. Since we do not need to have tiny dimensionless coupling constants in hybrid inflation, the reheat temperature can be much higher than the weak scale to accommodate baryogenesis .

After the two inflations and the two phase transitions, we have two networks of cosmic (global) strings, one on comoving horizon scale at the end of inflation with energy scale $`v_2`$ and the other on $`e^{N_2}`$ times larger scale with energy scale $`v_1`$. These strings are cosmologically harmless as long as $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are smaller than $`7\times 10^{14}`$GeV . This is why we have assumed $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are complex fields rather than real fields. We would have encountered a fatal domain wall problem in the latter case.

## III Determination of model parameters

Having outlined the evolutionary scenario of the universe in our model, we now consider constraints on the model parameters. First we study constraints obtained from the first and the second inflation in order to produce the desired spectrum in turn. Then we consider the consistency conditions so that evolution of the universe proceeds as outlined in the previous section and that only one field contributes to density fluctuations at each epoch.

### A Constraints on $`V_1`$ from the first inflation

Define a dimensionless parameter

$$\alpha _1\frac{100m_1^2}{3H_1^2},$$
(21)
then we find

$$\alpha _1<10,$$
(22)
from (14) and the constraint on the spectral index (16).

Then from the amplitude of fluctuations (15), the scale of the first inflation is determined as

$$v_1=4.9\times 10^7g_1^1\alpha _1e^{0.056\alpha _1}M_{Pl},$$
(23)
From $`v_17\times 10^{14}`$GeV, we find

$$g_1>8.4\times 10^3\alpha _1e^{0.056\alpha _1}.$$
(24)
(21) and (23) determines $`m_1`$ as

$$m_1=2.7\times 10^{13}\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1^{\frac{5}{2}}e^{0.11\alpha _1}M_{Pl}.$$
(25)
From the dominance of the vacuum energy density of $`\chi _1`$, or

$$\frac{\lambda _1}{4}v_1^4\frac{1}{2}m_1^2\varphi _1^2,$$
(26)
we find

$$g_17.5\times 10^4\lambda _1^{\frac{1}{4}}\alpha ^{\frac{3}{4}}e^{0.056\alpha _1}.$$
(27)
Since we are assuming that $`\chi _1`$ has been anchored at the origin by the time $`\varphi _1`$ reaches $`\varphi _1`$, we require

$$M_{\chi _1}^2=g_1^2\varphi _1^2\lambda _1v_1^2+\frac{1}{2}h^2\sigma ^2>H_1^2$$
(28)
which yields

$$g_1>1.0\times 10^6\alpha _1e^{0.056\alpha _1}\left(e^{0.056\alpha _1}1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(29)
where contribution of $`h^2\sigma ^2/2`$ is neglected. As $`\varphi _1`$ decrease to $`\varphi _{1c}`$, $`\chi _1=0`$ becomes unstable and a phase transition is triggered. We require this transition should occur abruptly, that is, the time elapsed from $`M_{\chi _1}^2=H_1^2`$ to $`M_{\chi _1}^2=H_1^2`$, which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, should be much smaller than the expansion time. That is,

$$H_1\mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{3H_1^2}{2m_1^2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\lambda _1v_1^2+H_1^2}{\lambda _1v_1^2H_1^2}\right|\frac{3H_1^4}{\lambda _1v_1^2m_1^2}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{\lambda _1v_1^6}{m_1^2M_{Pl}^4}1.$$
(30)
Here the second approximate equality applies because $`v_17\times 10^{14}`$GeV holds. From (23) and (25), this yields

$$H_1\mathrm{\Delta }t=1.0\times 10^{10}g_1^2\alpha _1e^{0.11\alpha _1}1,$$
(31)
or

$$g_11.0\times 10^5\alpha _1^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{0.056\alpha _1}.$$
(32)
### B Constraints on $`V_2`$ and $`U`$ from the second inflation

Since $`\varphi _2`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_2^2}{3H_2^2}H_2t\right)`$ during the second inflation, we find

$$N_2=\frac{3H_2^2}{m_2^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{g_2\sigma }{\sqrt{\lambda _2}v_2}\right)=\frac{2\pi \lambda _2v_2^4}{m_2^2M_{Pl}^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{g_2\sigma }{\sqrt{\lambda _2}v_2}\right).$$
(33)
Let us take the logarithmic factor

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{g_2\sigma }{\sqrt{\lambda _2}v_2}\right)=2,$$
(34)
for definiteness. Then (20) reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=25\sqrt{\frac{2}{27\pi }}\frac{g_2v_2}{M_{Pl}}25\sqrt{\frac{2}{27\pi }}\times 10^8\alpha _2=3.8\times 10^8\alpha _2,$$
(35)
with $`\alpha _2`$ being a constant of order of unity or smaller. Then $`v_2`$ is determined as

$$v_2=10^8\alpha _2g_2^1M_{Pl}.$$
(36)
Now $`v_27\times 10^{14}`$GeV implies

$$g_2>1.7\times 10^4\alpha _2.$$
(37)
We also find

$$m_2=5.0\times 10^{17}\alpha _2^2g_2^2\sqrt{\lambda _2}M_{Pl},$$
(38)
from (33) and

$$\sigma =1.4\times 10^9\alpha _2g_2^2\sqrt{\lambda _2}M_{Pl},$$
(39)
from (34). From the dominance of the vacuum energy of $`\chi _2`$, $`\lambda _2v_2^4/4m_2^2\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2`$, we find

$$g_23.1\times 10^5\alpha _2^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(40)
using (36)-(39). Finally, the mass-squared of $`\chi _2`$ at the origin reads

$$M_{\chi _2}^2(\chi _2=0,\varphi _2=\sigma )=(e^41)\lambda _2v_2^2=5.4\times 10^{15}\lambda _2\alpha _2^2g_2^2M_{Pl}^2,$$
(41)
under our choice of the logarithmic factor (34). This should be larger than the Hubble parameter-squared,

$$H_2^2=\frac{2\pi \lambda _2v_2^4}{2M_{Pl}^2}=2.1\times 10^{32}\lambda _2\alpha _2^4g_2^4M_{Pl}^2,$$
(42)
so that $`\chi _2`$ is anchored at the origin. This results in a very mild constraint on $`g_2`$;

$$g_2>2.0\times 10^9\alpha _2.$$
(43)
### C Consistency conditions

Here we study constraints on $`V_2`$ and $`U`$ from the first inflation and those on $`V_1`$ from the second inflation, so that our scenario works consistently.

During the first inflation each term of $`V_2`$ and $`U`$ should be much smaller than $`\lambda _1v_1^4/4`$. From $`\lambda _1v_1^4/4\lambda _2v_2^4/4`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\lambda _1v_1^4}{\lambda _2v_2^4}=5.9\times 10^6\frac{\lambda _1g_1^4\alpha _1^4e^{0.22\alpha _1}}{\lambda _2g_2^4\alpha _2^4}1,$$
(44)
and from $`\lambda _1v_1^4/4h^2v_1^2\sigma ^2/2`$, we obtain

$$\lambda _1g_1^2\alpha _1^2e^{0.11\alpha _1}8.2\times 10^6\lambda _2g_2^4\alpha _2^2h^2.$$
(45)
We also require $`M_{\chi _2}^2>H_1^2`$ and $`M_{\varphi _2}^2>H_1^2`$ at their respective minima so that these fields are fixed there. The former constraint reads

$$\lambda _2g_2^2\alpha _2^2>4.5\times 10^{11}\lambda _1g_1^4\alpha _1^4e^{0.22\alpha _1},$$
(46)
while the latter implies

$$h^2>1.0\times 10^{12}\lambda _1g_1^2\alpha _1^2e^{0.11\alpha _1}.$$
(47)
On the other hand, $`\chi _1`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ must be fixed at their ground states during the second inflation. Hence we require $`M_{\chi _1}^2(\chi _1=v_1,\varphi _1=0)>H_2^2`$ and $`M_{\varphi _1}^2(\chi _1=v_1,\varphi _1=0)>H_2^2`$. The former is automatically satisfied because $`M_{\chi _1}^2=\lambda _1v_1^2H_1^2H_2^2`$, and the latter turns out to be a very weak constraint on $`\lambda _2`$ and $`g_2`$;

$$\lambda _2g_2^4<2.3\times 10^{19}\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^4.$$
(48)
### D Determination of model parameters: An example

Having shown all the necessary conditions we now demonstrate there is a wide range of allowed region in the parameter space. So far we have found four lower bounds on $`g_1`$ in III A and three lower bounds on $`g_2`$ in III B. On the other hand, constraints obtained in III C are more complicated, so let us take $`\lambda _1g_1^2=1`$ and $`\lambda _2g_2^2=1`$ for illustration. These choices are also consistent with our assumption that $`g_1^2`$ $`(g_2^2)`$ is not much smaller than $`\lambda _1`$ $`(\lambda _2)`$.

Then (45) through (48) read, respectively,

$`g_2`$ $``$ $`2.9\times 10^3\alpha _1^1e^{0.056\alpha _1}\alpha _2h,`$ (49)
$`g_1`$ $``$ $`6.7\times 10^6\alpha _1^2e^{0.11\alpha _1}\alpha _2^1,`$ (50)
$`h`$ $`>`$ $`1.0\times 10^6\alpha _1e^{0.056\alpha _1},`$ (51)
$`g_2`$ $`>`$ $`2.1\times 10^{10}\alpha _1^1\alpha _2^2.`$ (52)
All of the constraints shown so far are so mild that it is easy to choose a consistent set of parameter values. Here we merely give an example. Let us take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ not so big, say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=25`$, so that the second inflation sets in soon after the end of the first one and that the intermediate period is unimportant. Let us further take $`\alpha _1=0.1`$ and $`\alpha _2=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=25`$ implies $`g_2=0.21g_1`$ under the choice $`\lambda _1g_1^2=\lambda _2g_2^2=1`$.

Now all the constraints turn out to be those on $`g_1`$ and $`h`$, which are summarized as

$`g_1`$ $`>`$ $`8.4\times 10^4,`$ (53)
$`g_1`$ $``$ $`1.5\times 10^4,`$ (54)
$`g_1`$ $``$ $`0.14h,`$ (55)
$`h`$ $``$ $`1.0\times 10^7.`$ (56)
The scale of inflation then read

$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`5.9\times 10^{11}g_1^1\mathrm{GeV},`$ (57)
$`v_2`$ $`=`$ $`5.7\times 10^{11}g_1^1\mathrm{GeV},`$ (58)
together with $`\lambda _2=4.4\times 10^2\lambda _1=4.4\times 10^2g_1^2`$. Other mass scales of the model are given by

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`10g_1\mathrm{TeV},`$ (59)
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`2.9g_1\mathrm{TeV},`$ (60)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`8.0\times 10^{10}g_1^1\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (61)
If we take $`g_1=0.1`$, for example, all the dimensionless coupling constants take natural values and $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ fall on the typical symmetry breaking scale for the axion .

## IV Conclusion

In the present paper we have presented a simple model of double inflation that can realize a spectrum of density fluctuation with a small-scale cutoff at the comoving wavenumber at $`k_c4.5h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ in order to explain the dearth of substructure in galactic halos. Since the spectrum of density fluctuations generated in the late stage of new and chaotic inflation models deviates from the scale-invariant one significantly, we adopted the hybrid inflation model for the first inflation which is responsible for fluctuations on scales probed by large-scale structures and CMB anisotropy. We have also made use of the hybrid inflation model for the second inflation because it is easy to control the energy scale of inflation in this model.

Since each hybrid inflation requires at least two scalar fields, our model includes four scalar fields as a double hybrid inflation model. In this sense our model is somewhat complicated, but our scalar potential consists of a polynomial up to only fourth order and all the parameters take natural magnitudes. There are, however, two unwanted features in this model. In concluding the paper, we point them out and mention possible resolutions in turn.

One is the problem of initial condition. It has been discussed that only a tiny fraction in the field configuration space can give rise to successful hybrid inflation, because $`\varphi `$ rolls down the potential rapidly if $`\chi `$ is too large initially . The resolution to this problem has recently been proposed , which introduces more fields or brane cosmology.

The other is the linear interaction term of $`\varphi _2`$ in (5), which is required in order to shift the potential minimum of $`\varphi _2`$ out of $`\varphi _2=0`$ during the first inflation. There is no particle-physics motivation to introduce this type of direct linear coupling. But such a term is effectively induced naturally in more complicated classes of supergravity inflation models .

The purpose of the present paper was to make the simplest possible toy model to realize the desired spectral shape of primordial density fluctuations in order to stress the essential ingredients of the model. In a forthcoming paper we present a more realistic supergravity model to realize the same spectral feature.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to F. Takahara for useful communications. This work was partially supported by the Monbusho Grant-in-Aid, Priority Area “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles”(#707) and the Monbusho Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 11740146.