text:
# WMAPping inflationary physics

## I Introduction

One of the fundamental ideas of modern cosmology is that there was an epoch early in the history of the universe when potential, or vacuum, energy dominated other forms of energy densities such as matter or radiation. During such a vacuum-dominated era the scale factor grew exponentially (or nearly exponentially) in some small time. During this phase, dubbed inflation guth81 ; lrreview , a small, smooth spatial region of size of order the Hubble radius grew so large that it easily could encompass the comoving volume of the entire presently observable universe. If the universe underwent such a period of rapid expansion, one can understand why the observed universe is homogeneous and isotropic to such high accuracy.

One of the predictions of the simplest models of inflation is a spatially flat Universe, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$, with great precision. Inflation has also become the dominant paradigm for understanding the initial conditions for structure formation and for Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy. In the inflationary picture, primordial density and gravity-wave (tensor) fluctuations are created from quantum fluctuations and “redshifted” out of the horizon during an early period of superluminal expansion of the universe, where they are “frozen” as perturbations in the background metric muk81 ; hawking82 ; starobinsky82 ; guth82 ; bardeen83 . Metric perturbations at the surface of last scattering are observable as temperature anisotropies in the CMB. The first and most impressive confirmation of the inflationary paradigm came when the CMB anisotropies were detected by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1992 smoot92 ; bennett96 ; gorski96 . Subsequently, it became clear that the measurements of the spectrum of the CMB anisotropy can provide very detailed information about fundamental cosmological parameters cp  and other crucial parameters for particle physics.

In the past few years, a number of balloon-borne and terrestrial experiments have mapped out the CMB angular anisotropies toco ; b97 ; Netterfield ; halverson ; cbi ; vsa ; benoit , revealing a remarkable agreement between the data and the inflationary predictions of a flat universe with a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of adiabatic primordial density perturbations, (see e.g., debe2001 ; pryke ; stompor ; wang ; cbit ; vsat ; saralewis ; mesilk ; caro ).

Despite the simplicity of the inflationary paradigm, the number of inflation models that have been proposed in the literature is enormous lrreview . This is true even if we limit ourselves to models with only one scalar field (the inflaton). With the previous data on CMB anisotropies from balloon and terrestrial experiments it has been possible for the first time to place interesting constraints on the space of possible inflation models dodelson97 ; kinney98a ; probes . However, the quality of the data were not good enough to rule out entire classes of models. A boost along these lines has been very recently provided by the data of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mission, which has marked the beginning of the precision era of the CMB measurements in space wmap1 ; kogutt . The WMAP collaboration has produced a full-sky map of the angular variations in the microwave flux, in particular the cosmic microwave background, with unprecedented accuracy. WMAP data support the inflationary mechanism for the generation of curvature superhorizon fluctuations and provide a strong bound on the possible admixture of isocurvature modes wmapinf . Furthermore, consistent with the simplest single-field models of inflation nong , no evidence of nongaussianity is found wmapnong .

The goal of this paper is to use the WMAP data to discriminate among the various single-field inflationary models. To obtain some indication of the robustness of our analysis, we also consider a data set consisting of WMAP augmented with several other CMB experiments. For single-field inflation models, the relevant parameter space for distinguishing among models is defined by the scalar spectral index $`n`$, the ratio of tensor to scalar fluctuations $`r`$, and the running of the scalar spectral index $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$. We employ Monte Carlo reconstruction, a stochastic method for “inverting” observational constraints to determine an ensemble of inflationary potentials compatible with observation kinney02 ; easther02 . In addition to encompassing a broader set of models than usually considered (large-field, small-field, hybrid and linear models), Monte Carlo reconstruction makes it possible easily to incorporate constraints on the running of the spectral index as well as to include effects to higher order in slow roll.

Since studies on the implications of WMAP data for inflation wmapinf ; barger  have already appeared, we briefly mention the different elements between our analysis and others. (We will elaborate on these differences later.) The WMAP collaboration analysis wmapinf  included WMAP data, additional CMB data (CBI cbi  and ACBAR acbar ), large-scale structure data (2dFGRS 2df ), as well as Lyman-$`\alpha `$ power spectrum data lyman . They used a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique to explore the likelihood surface. Barger et al. barger , considered WMAP data only, but with a top-hat prior on the Hubble constant $`h`$ ($`H_0=`$ 100 $`h`$ km sec-1 Mpc-1) from the HST key project hst . Also, Barger et al. did not consider a running of the scalar spectral index. We only consider CMB data. We first analyze just the WMAP results. We then analyze the WMAP data set in conjunction with other CMB data sets (BOOMERanG-98 ruhl , MAXIMA-1 lee , DASI halverson , CBI cbi , ACBAR acbar , VSAE grainge , and Archeops benoit ). We employ a grid of models in the likelihood analysis, which differs from the method used by the WMAP team.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we discuss single-field inflation and the relevant observables in more detail. In Sec. III we discuss the inflationary model space, and in Sec. IV we describe the Monte Carlo reconstruction technique. Section V describes the methods used for the CMB analysis. In Sec. VI we present the constraints from the CMB anisotropy data sets. In Sec. VII we present our conclusions.

## II Single-field inflation and the inflationary observables

In this section we briefly review scalar field models of inflationary cosmology, and explain how we relate model parameters to observable quantities. Inflation, in its most general sense, can be defined to be a period of accelerating cosmological expansion during which the universe evolves toward homogeneity and flatness. This acceleration is typically a result of the universe being dominated by vacuum energy, with an equation of state $`p\rho `$. Within this broad framework, many specific models for inflation have been proposed. We limit ourselves here to models with “normal” gravity (i.e., general relativity) and a single order parameter for the vacuum, described by a slowly rolling scalar field $`\varphi `$, the inflaton. These assumptions are not overly restrictive; the most widely studied inflation models fall within this category, including Linde’s “chaotic” inflation scenario linde83 , inflation from pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons (“natural” inflation freese90 ), dilaton-like models involving exponential potentials (power-law inflation), hybrid inflation linde91 ; linde94 ; copeland94 , and so forth. Other models, such as Starobinsky’s $`R^2`$ model starobinsky80  and versions of extended inflation, can, through a suitable transformation, be viewed in terms of equivalent single-field models. Of course in single-field models of inflation, the inflaton “field” need not be a fundamental field at all. Also, some “single-field” models require auxiliary fields. Hybrid inflation models linde91 ; linde94 ; copeland94 , for example, require a second field to end inflation. What is significant is that the inflationary epoch be described by a single dynamical order parameter, the inflaton field.

A scalar field in a cosmological background evolves with an equation of motion

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+V^{}\left(\varphi \right)=0.$$
(1)
The evolution of the scale factor is given by the scalar field dominated FRW equation,

$`H^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V\left(\varphi \right)\right],`$ (2)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}}\left[V\left(\varphi \right)\dot{\varphi }^2\right].`$ (3)
Here $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}=G^{1/2}10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the Planck mass, and we have assumed a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric,

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,a^2,a^2a^2),$$
(4)
where $`a^2(t)`$ is the scale factor of the universe. Inflation is defined to be a period of accelerated expansion, $`\ddot{a}>0`$. A powerful way of describing the dynamics of a scalar field-dominated cosmology is to express the Hubble parameter as a function of the field $`\varphi `$, $`H=H(\varphi )`$, which is consistent provided $`\varphi `$ is monotonic in time. The equations of motion become grishchuk88 ; muslimov90 ; salopek90 ; lidsey95 :

$`\dot{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}H^{}(\varphi ),`$ (5)
$`\left[H^{}(\varphi )\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi }{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}}H^2(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{32\pi ^2}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4}}V(\varphi ).`$ (6)
These are completely equivalent to the second-order equation of motion in Eq. (1). The second of the above equations is referred to as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, and can be written in the useful form

$$H^2(\varphi )\left[1\frac{1}{3}ϵ(\varphi )\right]=\left(\frac{8\pi }{3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\right)V(\varphi ),$$
(7)
where $`ϵ`$ is defined to be

$$ϵ\frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }\left(\frac{H^{}(\varphi )}{H(\varphi )}\right)^2.$$
(8)
The physical meaning of $`ϵ`$ can be seen by expressing Eq. (3) as

$$\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right)=H^2(\varphi )\left[1ϵ(\varphi )\right],$$
(9)
so that the condition for inflation $`(\ddot{a}/a)>0`$ is given by $`ϵ<1`$. The scale factor is given by

$$ae^N=\mathrm{exp}\left[_{t_0}^tH𝑑t\right],$$
(10)
where the number of e-folds $`N`$ is

$$N_t^{t_e}H𝑑t=_\varphi ^{\varphi _e}\frac{H}{\dot{\varphi }}𝑑\varphi =\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}_{\varphi _e}^\varphi \frac{d\varphi }{\sqrt{ϵ(\varphi )}}.$$
(11)
To create the observed flatness and homogeneity of the universe, we require many e-folds of inflation, typically $`N60`$. This figure varies somewhat with the details of the model. We can relate a comoving scale $`k`$ in the universe today to the number of e-folds $`N`$ before the end of inflation by lidsey97

$$N(k)=62\mathrm{ln}\frac{k}{a_0H_0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}}{V_k^{1/4}}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{V_k^{1/4}}{V_e^{1/4}}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{V_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/4}}{\rho _{\mathrm{RH}}^{1/4}}.$$
(12)
Here $`V_k`$ is the potential when the mode leaves the horizon, $`V_e`$ is the potential at the end of inflation, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{RH}}`$ is the energy density after reheating. Scales of order the current horizon size exited the horizon at $`N\left(k\right)60`$. Since this number depends, for example, on the details of reheating, we will allow $`N`$ to vary within the range $`40N70`$ for any given model in order to consider the most general case. (Dodelson and Hui have recently argued that the value of $`N`$ corresponding to the current horizon size can be no larger than 60 dodelson03 , so in this sense we are being more general than is necessary.)

We will frequently work within the context of the slow roll approximation linde82 ; albrecht82 , which is the assumption that the evolution of the field is dominated by drag from the cosmological expansion, so that $`\ddot{\varphi }0`$ and

$$\dot{\varphi }\frac{V^{}}{3H}.$$
(13)
The equation of state of the scalar field is dominated by the potential, so that $`p\rho `$, and the expansion rate is approximately

$$H\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}V\left(\varphi \right)}.$$
(14)
The slow roll approximation is consistent if both the slope and curvature of the potential are small, $`V^{},V^{\prime \prime }V`$. In this case the parameter $`ϵ`$ can be expressed in terms of the potential as

$$ϵ\frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }\left(\frac{H^{}\left(\varphi \right)}{H\left(\varphi \right)}\right)^2\frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{16\pi }\left(\frac{V^{}\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}\right)^2.$$
(15)
We will also define a second “slow roll parameter” $`\eta `$ by:

$`\eta \left(\varphi \right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)}{H\left(\varphi \right)}}\right)`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{8\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}}\right)^2\right].`$ (17)
Slow roll is then a consistent approximation for $`ϵ,\eta 1`$.

Inflation models not only explain the large-scale homogeneity of the universe, but also provide a mechanism for explaining the observed level of inhomogeneity as well. During inflation, quantum fluctuations on small scales are quickly redshifted to scales much larger than the horizon size, where they are “frozen” as perturbations in the background metric muk81 ; hawking82 ; starobinsky82 ; guth82 ; bardeen83 . The metric perturbations created during inflation are of two types: scalar, or curvature perturbations, which couple to the stress-energy of matter in the universe and form the “seeds” for structure formation, and tensor, or gravitational wave perturbations, which do not couple to matter. Both scalar and tensor perturbations contribute to CMB anisotropy. Scalar fluctuations can also be interpreted as fluctuations in the density of the matter in the universe. Scalar fluctuations can be quantitatively characterized by perturbations $`P_{}`$ in the intrinsic curvature scalar. As long as the equation of state $`ϵ`$ is slowly varying,111This assumption is not identical to the assumption of slow roll (see, e.g., Ref. kinney97a ), although in most cases it is equivalent. the curvature perturbation can be shown to be mukhanov85 ; mukhanov88 ; mukhanov92 ; stewart93

$$P_{}^{1/2}\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[\frac{H}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ}}\right]_{k=aH}.$$
(18)
The fluctuation power spectrum is in general a function of wavenumber $`k`$, and is evaluated when a given mode crosses outside the horizon during inflation, $`k=aH`$. Outside the horizon, modes do not evolve, so the amplitude of the mode when it crosses back inside the horizon during a later radiation- or matter-dominated epoch is just its value when it left the horizon during inflation.

The spectral index $`n`$ for $`P_{}`$ is defined by

$$n1\frac{d\mathrm{ln}P_{}}{d\mathrm{ln}k},$$
(19)
so that a scale-invariant spectrum, in which modes have constant amplitude at horizon crossing, is characterized by $`n=1`$. Some inflation models predict running of the spectral index with scale stewart97 ; linde97 ; stewart97a ; copeland97 ; kinney97 ; covi98 ; kinney98 ; covi99 ; covi00  or even sharp features in the power spectrum featuresinpowerspectrum . We will consider the running of the spectral index in more detail on Sec. IV.

Instead of specifying the fluctuation amplitude directly as a function of $`k`$, it is often convenient to specify it as a function of the number of e-folds $`N`$ before the end of inflation at which a mode crossed outside the horizon. Scales of interest for current measurements of CMB anisotropy crossed outside the horizon at $`N60`$, so that $`P_{}`$ is conventionally evaluated at $`P_{}\left(N60\right)`$.

The power spectrum of tensor fluctuation modes is given by starobinsky79 ; rubakov82 ; fabbri83 ; abbot84 ; starobinsky85

$$P_T^{1/2}\left(k_N\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[\frac{H}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right]_N.$$
(20)
The ratio of tensor to scalar modes is then

$$\frac{P_T}{P_{}}=ϵ,$$
(21)
so that tensor modes are negligible for $`ϵ1`$. Tensor and scalar modes both contribute to CMB temperature anisotropy. If the contribution of tensor modes to the CMB anisotropy can be neglected, normalization to the COBE four-year data gives bunn96 ; lyth96  $`P_{}^{1/2}=4.8\times 10^5`$. In the next section, we will describe the predictions of various models in this parameter space.

## III The inflationary model space

To summarize the results of the previous section, inflation generates scalar (density) and tensor (gravity wave) fluctuations which are generally well approximated by power laws:

$$P_{}\left(k\right)k^{n1};P_T\left(k\right)k^{n_T}.$$
(22)
In the limit of slow roll, the spectral indices $`n`$ and $`n_T`$ vary slowly or not at all with scale. We can write the spectral indices $`n`$ and $`n_T`$ to lowest order in terms of the slow roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ as stewart93 :

$`n`$ $`14ϵ+2\eta ,`$ (23)
$`n_T`$ $`2ϵ.`$ (24)
The tensor spectral index is not an independent parameter, but is proportional to the tensor/scalar ratio, given to lowest order in slow roll by

$$n_T2ϵ=2\frac{P_T}{P_{}}.$$
(25)
This is known as the consistency relation for inflation. (This relation holds only for single-field inflation, and weakens to an inequality for inflation involving multiple degrees of freedom polarski95 ; bellido95 ; sasaki96 .) A given inflation model can therefore be described to lowest order in slow roll by three independent parameters, $`P_{}`$, $`P_T`$, and $`n`$. If we wish to include higher-order effects, we have a fourth parameter describing the running of the scalar spectral index, $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$.

The tensor/scalar ratio is frequently expressed as a ratio of their contributions to the CMB quadrupole,

$$r\frac{C_2^{\mathrm{Tensor}}}{C_2^{\mathrm{Scalar}}}.$$
(26)
The relation between $`r`$ and ratio of amplitudes in the primordial power spectra $`P_T/P_{}`$ depends on the background cosmology, in particular the densities of matter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$) and cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). For the currently favored values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$, the relation is approximately

$$r10ϵ,$$
(27)
to lowest order in slow roll. Conventions for the normalization of this parameter vary widely in the literature. In particular, Peiris et al. wmapinf  use $`r16ϵ`$.

Calculating the CMB fluctuations from a particular inflationary model reduces to the following basic steps: (1) from the potential, calculate $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$. (2) From $`ϵ`$, calculate $`N`$ as a function of the field $`\varphi `$. (3) Invert $`N\left(\varphi \right)`$ to find $`\varphi _N`$. (4) Calculate $`P_{}`$, $`n`$, and $`P_T`$ as functions of $`\varphi `$, and evaluate them at $`\varphi =\varphi _N`$. For the remainder of the paper, all parameters are assumed to be evaluated at $`\varphi =\varphi _N`$.

Even restricting ourselves to a simple single-field inflation scenario, the number of models available to choose from is large lrreview . It is convenient to define a general classification scheme, or “zoology” for models of inflation. We divide models into three general types: large-field, small-field, and hybrid, with a fourth classification, linear models, serving as a boundary between large- and small-field. A generic single-field potential can be characterized by two independent mass scales: a “height” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$, corresponding to the vacuum energy density during inflation, and a “width” $`\mu `$, corresponding to the change in the field value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ during inflation:

$$V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4f\left(\frac{\varphi }{\mu }\right).$$
(28)
Different models have different forms for the function $`f`$. The height $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is fixed by normalization, so the only free parameter is the width $`\mu `$.

With the normalization fixed, the relevant parameter space for distinguishing between inflation models to lowest order in slow roll is then the $`rn`$ plane. (To next order in slow-roll parameters, one must introduce the running of $`n`$.) Different classes of models are distinguished by the value of the second derivative of the potential, or, equivalently, by the relationship between the values of the slow-roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$.222The designations “small-field” and “large-field” can sometimes be misleading. For instance, both the $`R^2`$ model starobinsky80  and the “dual inflation” model bellido98  are characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, but are “small-field” in the sense that $`\eta <0<ϵ`$, with $`n<1`$ and negligible tensor modes. Each class of models has a different relationship between $`r`$ and $`n`$. For a more detailed discussion of these relations, the reader is referred to Refs. dodelson97 ; kinney98a .

First order in $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ is sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this Section, and for the remainder of this Section we will only work to first order. The generalization to higher order in slow roll will be discussed in Sec. IV.

### III.1 Large-field models: $`ϵ<\eta ϵ`$

Large-field models have inflaton potentials typical of “chaotic” inflation scenarios linde83 , in which the scalar field is displaced from the minimum of the potential by an amount usually of order the Planck mass. Such models are characterized by $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)>0`$, and $`ϵ<\eta ϵ`$. The generic large-field potentials we consider are polynomial potentials $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left(\varphi /\mu \right)^p`$, and exponential potentials, $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi /\mu \right)`$. For the case of an exponential potential, $`V\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi /\mu \right)`$, the tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$ is simply related to the spectral index as

$$r=5\left(1n\right).$$
(29)
This result is often incorrectly generalized to all slow-roll models, but is in fact characteristic only of power-law inflation. For inflation with a polynomial potential, $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^p`$, we again have $`r1n`$,

$$r=5\left(\frac{p}{p+2}\right)\left(1n\right),$$
(30)
so that tensor modes are large for significantly tilted spectra. We will be particularly interested in models with $`p=4`$ as a test case for our ability to rule out models. For $`p=4`$, the observables are given in terms of the number of e-folds $`N`$ by

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{N+1}},`$ (31)
$`1n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N+1}}.`$ (32)
### III.2 Small-field models: $`\eta <ϵ`$

Small-field models are the type of potentials that arise naturally from spontaneous symmetry breaking (such as the original models of “new” inflation linde82 ; albrecht82 ) and from pseudo Nambu-Goldstone modes (natural inflation freese90 ). The field starts from near an unstable equilibrium (taken to be at the origin) and rolls down the potential to a stable minimum. Small-field models are characterized by $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)<0`$ and $`\eta <ϵ`$. Typically $`ϵ`$ (and hence the tensor amplitude) is close to zero in small-field models. The generic small-field potentials we consider are of the form $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left[1\left(\varphi /\mu \right)^p\right]`$, which can be viewed as a lowest-order Taylor expansion of an arbitrary potential about the origin. The cases $`p=2`$ and $`p>2`$ have very different behavior. For $`p=2`$,

$$r=5(1n)\mathrm{exp}\left[1N\left(1n\right)\right],$$
(33)
where $`N`$ is the number of e-folds of inflation. For $`p>2`$, the scalar spectral index is

$$n1\frac{2}{N}\left(\frac{p1}{p2}\right),$$
(34)
independent of $`r`$. Assuming $`\mu <m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ results in an upper bound on $`r`$ of

$$r<5\frac{p}{N\left(p2\right)}\left(\frac{8\pi }{Np\left(p2\right)}\right)^{p/\left(p2\right)}.$$
(35)
### III.3 Hybrid models: $`0<ϵ<\eta `$

The hybrid scenario linde91 ; linde94 ; copeland94  frequently appears in models which incorporate inflation into supersymmetry. In a typical hybrid inflation model, the scalar field responsible for inflation evolves toward a minimum with nonzero vacuum energy. The end of inflation arises as a result of instability in a second field. Such models are characterized by $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)>0`$ and $`0<ϵ<\eta `$. We consider generic potentials for hybrid inflation of the form $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left[1+\left(\varphi /\mu \right)^p\right].`$ The field value at the end of inflation is determined by some other physics, so there is a second free parameter characterizing the models. Because of this extra freedom, hybrid models fill a broad region in the $`rn`$ plane (see Fig. 1). There is, however, no overlap in the $`rn`$ plane between hybrid inflation and other models. The distinguishing feature of many hybrid models is a blue scalar spectral index, $`n>1`$. This corresponds to the case $`\eta >2ϵ`$. Hybrid models can also in principle have a red spectrum, $`n<1`$.

### III.4 Linear models: $`\eta =ϵ`$

Linear models, $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi `$, live on the boundary between large-field and small-field models, with $`V^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)=0`$ and $`\eta =ϵ`$. The spectral index and tensor/scalar ratio are related as:

$$r=\frac{5}{3}\left(1n\right).$$
(36)
This enumeration of models is certainly not exhaustive. There are a number of single-field models that do not fit well into this scheme, for example logarithmic potentials $`V\left(\varphi \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\varphi \right)`$ typical of supersymmetry lrreview . Another example is potentials with negative powers of the scalar field $`V\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^p`$ used in intermediate inflation barrow93  and dynamical supersymmetric inflation kinney97 ; kinney98 . Both of these cases require an auxiliary field to end inflation and are more properly categorized as hybrid models, but fall into the small-field region of the $`rn`$ plane. However, the three classes categorized by the relationship between the slow-roll parameters as $`ϵ<\eta ϵ`$ (large-field), $`\eta ϵ`$ (small-field, linear), and $`0<ϵ<\eta `$ (hybrid), cover the entire $`rn`$ plane and are in that sense complete.333Ref. kinney98a  incorrectly specified $`0<\eta ϵ`$ for large-field and $`\eta <0`$ for small-field. Figure 1 dodelson97  shows the $`rn`$ plane divided into regions representing the large field, small-field and hybrid cases. Figure 2 shows a “zoo plot” of the particular potentials considered here plotted on the $`rn`$ plane.

## IV Monte Carlo reconstruction

In this section we describe Monte Carlo reconstruction, a stochastic method for “inverting” observational constraints to determine an ensemble of inflationary potentials compatible with observation. The method is described in more detail in Refs. kinney02 ; easther02 . In addition to encompassing a broader set of models than we considered in Sec. III, Monte Carlo reconstruction allows us easily to incorporate constraints on the running of the spectral index $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ as well as to include effects to higher order in slow roll.

We have defined the slow roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ in terms of the Hubble parameter $`H\left(\varphi \right)`$ as

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^{}(\varphi )}{H(\varphi )}}\right)^2,`$ (37)
$`\eta \left(\varphi \right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^{\prime \prime }\left(\varphi \right)}{H\left(\varphi \right)}}\right).`$ (38)
These parameters are simply related to observables $`r10ϵ`$, and $`n14ϵ2\eta `$ to first order in slow roll. (We discuss higher order expressions for the observables below.) Taking higher derivatives of $`H`$ with respect to the field, we can define an infinite hierarchy of slow roll parameters liddle94 :

$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^{\prime \prime }}{H}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^{}}{H}}\right)^2\right],`$ (39)
$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{4\pi }}\right)^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(H^{}\right)^\mathrm{}1}{H^{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{(\mathrm{}+1)}H}{d\varphi ^{(\mathrm{}+1)}}}.`$ (40)
Here we have chosen the parameter $`\sigma 2\eta 4ϵn1`$ to make comparison with observation convenient.

It is convenient to use $`N`$ as the measure of time during inflation. As above, we take $`t_e`$ and $`\varphi _e`$ to be the time and field value at end of inflation. Therefore, $`N`$ is defined as the number of e-folds before the end of inflation, and increases as one goes backward in time ($`dt>0dN<0`$):

$$\frac{d}{dN}=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}a}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{ϵ}\frac{d}{d\varphi },$$
(41)
where we have chosen the sign convention that $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ has the same sign as $`H^{}\left(\varphi \right)`$:

$$\sqrt{ϵ}+\frac{m_{\mathrm{PL}}}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{H^{}}{H}.$$
(42)
Then $`ϵ`$ itself can be expressed in terms of $`H`$ and $`N`$ simply as,

$$\frac{1}{H}\frac{dH}{dN}=ϵ.$$
(43)
Similarly, the evolution of the higher order parameters during inflation is determined by a set of “flow” equations hoffman00 ; schwarz01 ; kinney02 ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{dN}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\left(\sigma +2ϵ\right),`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dN}}`$ $`=`$ $`5ϵ\sigma 12ϵ^2+2\left({}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}\right),`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}\right)}{dN}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}1}{2}}\sigma +\left(\mathrm{}2\right)ϵ\right]\left({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}\right)+{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}+1}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}.`$ (46)
The derivative of a slow roll parameter at a given order is higher order in slow roll. A boundary condition can be specified at any point in the inflationary evolution by selecting a set of parameters $`ϵ,\sigma ,{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{},\mathrm{}`$ for a given value of $`N`$. This is sufficient to specify a “path” in the inflationary parameter space that specifies the background evolution of the spacetime. Taken to infinite order, this set of equations completely specifies the cosmological evolution, up to the normalization of the Hubble parameter $`H`$. Furthermore, such a specification is exact, with no assumption of slow roll necessary. In practice, we must truncate the expansion at finite order by assuming that the $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}`$ are all zero above some fixed value of $`\mathrm{}`$. We choose initial values for the parameters at random from the following ranges:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`[40,70]`$ (47)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`[0,0.8]`$ (48)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`[0.5,0.5]`$ (49)
$`{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`[0.05,0.05]`$ (50)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`[0.025,0.025],`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (52)
$`{}_{}{}^{M+1}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (53)
Here the expansion is truncated to order $`M`$ by setting $`{}_{}{}^{M+1}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}=0`$. In this case, we still generate an exact solution of the background equations, albeit one chosen from a subset of the complete space of models. This is equivalent to placing constraints on the form of the potential $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$, but the constraints can be made arbitrarily weak by evaluating the expansion to higher order. For the purposes of this analysis, we choose $`M=5`$. The results are not sensitive to either the choice of order $`M`$ (as long as it is large enough) or to the specific ranges from which the initial parameters are chosen.

Once we obtain a solution to the flow equations $`[ϵ(N),\sigma (N),{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}(N)]`$, we can calculate the predicted values of the tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$, the spectral index $`n`$, and the “running” of the spectral index $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$. To lowest order, the relationship between the slow roll parameters and the observables is especially simple: $`r=10ϵ`$, $`n1=\sigma `$, and $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k=0`$. To second order in slow roll, the observables are given by liddle94 ; stewart93 ,

$$r=10ϵ\left[1C\left(\sigma +2ϵ\right)\right],$$
(54)
for the tensor/scalar ratio, and

$$n1=\sigma \left(53C\right)ϵ^2\frac{1}{4}\left(35C\right)\sigma ϵ+\frac{1}{2}\left(3C\right)\left({}_{}{}^{2}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}\right)$$
(55)
for the spectral index. The constant $`C4(\mathrm{ln}2+\gamma )5=0.0814514`$, where $`\gamma 0.577`$ is Euler’s constant.444Some earlier papers kinney02 ; easther02 , due to a long unnoticed typographic error in Ref. liddle94 , used an incorrect value for the constant $`C`$, given by $`C4(\mathrm{ln}2+\gamma )=5.0184514`$. The effect of this error is significant at second order in slow roll. Derivatives with respect to wavenumber $`k`$ can be expressed in terms of derivatives with respect to $`N`$ as liddle95

$$\frac{d}{dN}=\left(1ϵ\right)\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}k},$$
(56)
The scale dependence of $`n`$ is then given by the simple expression

$$\frac{dn}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\left(\frac{1}{1ϵ}\right)\frac{dn}{dN},$$
(57)
which can be evaluated by using Eq. (55) and the flow equations. For example, for the case of $`V\varphi ^4`$, the observables to lowest order are

$`r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{N+1}},`$ (58)
$`n1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N+1}},`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\mathrm{ln}k}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N\left(N+1\right)}}.`$ (60)
The final result following the evaluation of a particular path in the $`M`$-dimensional “slow roll space” is a point in “observable parameter space,” i.e., $`(r,n,dn/d\mathrm{ln}k)`$, corresponding to the observational prediction for that particular model. This process can be repeated for a large number of models, and used to study the attractor behavior of the inflationary dynamics. In fact, the models cluster strongly in the observable parameter space kinney02 . Figure 3 shows an ensemble of models generated stochastically on the $`(r,n)`$ plane, along with the predictions of the specific models considered in Sec. III.

Figure 4 shows an ensemble of models generated stochastically on the $`(n,dn/d\mathrm{ln}k)`$ plane. As one can see, and contrary to what commonly believed, there are single-field models of inflation which predict a significant running of the spectral index. The same can be appreciated in Fig. 5, where we plot an ensemble of models generated stochastically on the $`(r,dn/d\mathrm{ln}k)`$ plane.

The reconstruction method works as follows:

1. Specify a “window” of parameter space: e.g., central values for $`n1`$, $`r`$, or $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ and their associated error bars.
2. Select a random point in slow roll space, $`[ϵ,\eta ,{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}]`$, truncated at order $`M`$ in the slow roll expansion.
3. Evolve forward in time ($`dN<0`$) until either (a) inflation ends ($`ϵ>1`$), or (b) the evolution reaches a late-time fixed point ($`ϵ={}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{\mathrm{H}}^{}=0,\sigma =\mathrm{const}.`$).
4. If the evolution reaches a late-time fixed point, calculate the observables $`r`$, $`n1`$, and $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ at this point.
5. If inflation ends, evaluate the flow equations backward $`N`$ e-folds from the end of inflation. Calculate the observable parameters at that point.
6. If the observable parameters lie within the specified window of parameter space, compute the potential and add this model to the ensemble of “reconstructed” potentials.
7. Repeat steps 2 through 6 until the desired number of models have been found.

The condition for the end of inflation is that $`ϵ=1`$. Integrating the flow equations forward in time will yield two possible outcomes. One possibility is that the condition $`ϵ=1`$ may be satisfied for some finite value of $`N`$, which defines the end of inflation. We identify this point as $`N=0`$ so that the primordial fluctuations are actually generated when $`N60`$. Alternatively, the solution can evolve toward an inflationary attractor with $`r=0`$ and $`n>1`$, in which case inflation never stops.555See Ref. kinney02  for a detailed discussion of the fixed-point structure of the slow roll space. In reality, inflation must stop at some point, presumably via some sort of instability, such as the “hybrid” inflation mechanism linde91 ; linde94 ; copeland94 . Here we make the simplifying assumption that the observables for such models are the values at the late-time attractor.

Given a path in the slow roll parameter space, the form of the potential is fixed, up to normalization hodges90 ; copeland93 ; beato00 ; easther02 . The starting point is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation,

$$V(\varphi )=\left(\frac{3m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{8\pi }\right)H^2(\varphi )\left[1\frac{1}{3}ϵ(\varphi )\right].$$
(61)
We have $`ϵ(N)`$ trivially from the flow equations. In order to calculate the potential, we need to determine $`H(N)`$ and $`\varphi (N)`$. With $`ϵ`$ known, $`H(N)`$ can be determined by inverting the definition of $`ϵ`$, Eq. (43). Similarly, $`\varphi (N)`$ follows from the first Hamilton-Jacobi equation (6):

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dN}=\frac{m_{\mathrm{PL}}}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{ϵ}.$$
(62)
Using these equations and Eq. (61), the form of the potential can then be fully reconstructed from the numerical solution for $`ϵ(N)`$. The only necessary observational input is the normalization of the Hubble parameter $`H`$, which enters the above equations as an integration constant. Here we use the simple condition that the density fluctuation amplitude (as determined by a first-order slow roll expression) be of order $`10^5`$,

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{H}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ}}=10^5.$$
(63)
A more sophisticated treatment would perform a full normalization to the COBE CMB data bunn94 ; stompor95 . The value of the field, $`\varphi `$, also contains an arbitrary, additive constant.

## V CMB Analysis

Our analysis method is based on the computation of a likelihood distribution over a fixed grid of pre-computed theoretical models. We restrict our analysis to a flat, adiabatic, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM model template computed with CMBFAST (sz ), sampling the parameters as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2\omega _{cdm}=0.01,\mathrm{}0.25`$, in steps of $`0.01`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2\omega _b=0.009,\mathrm{},0.028`$, in steps of $`0.001`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5,\mathrm{},0.95`$, in steps of $`0.05`$. The value of the Hubble constant is not an independent parameter, since:

$$h=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _{cdm}+\omega _b}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}},$$
(64)
and we use the further prior: $`h=0.72\pm 0.15`$. We allow for a reionization of the intergalactic medium by varying the Compton optical depth parameter $`\tau _c`$ in the range $`\tau _c=0.05,\mathrm{},0.30`$ in steps of $`0.05`$. Our choice of the above parameters is motivated by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis bounds on $`\omega _b`$ (both from D burles  and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}+^7\text{Li}`$ cyburt ), from supernovae (super1 ) and galaxy clustering observations (see e.g., thx ), and by the WMAP temperature-polarization cross-correlation data, which indicate an optical depth $`\tau =0.17\pm 0.04`$ (kogutt ). Our choice for an upper limit of $`\tau _c<0.30`$ is very conservative respect to the maximum values expected in numerical simulations (see e.g., ciardi ) even in the case of non-standard reionization processes. From the grid above, we only consider models with an age of the universe in excess of 11 Gyr. Variations in the inflationary parameters $`n`$, $`r`$ and $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ are not computationally relevant, and for the range of values we considered they can be assumed as free parameters. The tensor spectral index $`n_t`$ is determined by the consistency relation.

For the WMAP data we use the recent temperature and cross polarization results from Ref. wmap1  and compute the likelihood $`^{WMAP}`$ for each theoretical model as explained in Ref. Verde:2003ey , using the publicly available code on the LAMBDA web site (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/).

We further include the results from seven other experiments: BOOMERanG-98 ruhl , MAXIMA-1 lee , DASI halverson , CBI cbi , ACBAR acbar , VSAE grainge , and Archeops benoit . The expected theoretical Gaussian signal inside the bin $`C_B^{th}`$ is computed by using the publicly available window functions and lognormal prefactors as in Ref. BJK . The likelihood $`^{preWMAP}`$ from this dataset and for a given theoretical model is defined by

$$2\mathrm{ln}^{preWMAP}=(C_B^{th}C_B^{ex})M_{BB^{}}(C_B^{}^{th}C_B^{}^{ex}),$$
(65)
where $`M_{BB^{}}`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the likelihood matrix at the peak and $`C_B^{ex}`$ is the experimental signal in the bin. We consider $`7\%`$, $`10\%`$, $`4\%`$, $`5\%`$, $`5\%`$, $`5\%`$ and $`5\%`$ Gaussian distributed calibration errors for the Archeops, BOOMERanG-98, DASI, MAXIMA-1, VSAE, ACBAR, and CBI, experiments respectively and include the beam uncertainties using the analytical marginalization method presented in bridle . We use as combined likelihood just the normalized product of the two likelihood distributions: $`^{WMAP}\times ^{preWMAP}`$.666We do not take into account correlations in the variance of the experimental data introduced by observations of the same portions of the sky (such as in the case of WMAP and Archeops, for example). We have verified that such correlations have negligible effect by removing one experiment at a time and testing for the stability of our results.

In order to constrain a set of parameters $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ we marginalize over the values of the remaining “nuisance” parameters $`\stackrel{}{y}`$. This yields the marginalized likelihood distribution

$$(\stackrel{}{x})P(\stackrel{}{x}|𝒞_B)=(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})𝑑\stackrel{}{y}.$$
(66)
In the next section we will present constraints in several two-dimensional planes. To construct plots in two dimensions, we project (not marginalize) over the third, “nuisance” parameter. For example, likelihoods in the $`(r,n)`$ plane are calculated for given choice of $`r`$ and $`n`$ by using the value of $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ which maximizes the likelihood function. The error contours are then plotted relative to likelihood falloffs of $`0.17`$, $`0.018`$ and $`0.0035`$ as appropriate for $`1\sigma `$, $`2\sigma `$, and $`3\sigma `$ contours of a three-dimensional Gaussian. In effect we are taking the shadow of the three-dimensional error contours rather than a slice, which makes clear the relationship between the error contours and the points generated by Monte Carlo. All likelihoods used to constrain models are calculated relative the the full three-dimensional likelihood function.

## VI Results

We will plot the likelihood contours obtained from our analysis on three different planes: $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ vs. $`n`$, $`r`$ vs. $`n`$ and $`r`$ vs. $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$. Presenting our results on these planes is useful for understanding the effects of theoretical assumptions and/or external priors.

We do this in Fig. 6 for two cases: the WMAP dataset alone (left column), and WMAP plus the additional CMB experiments BOOMERanG-98, MAXIMA-1, DASI, CBI, ACBAR, VSAE, and Archeops (right column). By analyzing these different datasets we can check the consistency of the previous experiments with WMAP. The dots superimposed on the likelihood contours show the models sampled by the Monte Carlo reconstruction.

In the top row of Fig. 6, we show the 68%, 95%, and 99% likelihood contours on the $`n`$ vs. $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ plane (refer to the end of Sec. V for a discussion of the method used to plot the contours.) The pivot scale $`k_0`$ is $`k_0=0.002h`$ Mpc-1. As we can see, both datasets are consistent with a scale invariant $`n=1`$ power law spectrum with no further scale dependence ($`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k=0`$). A degeneracy is also evident: an increase in the spectral index $`n`$ is equivalent to a negative scale dependence ($`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k<0`$). We emphasize, however, that this beahavior depends strictly on the position of the pivot scale $`k_0`$: choosing $`k_0=0.05h`$ Mpc-1 would change the direction of the degeneracy. Models with $`n1.1`$ need a negative running at about the $`3\sigma `$ level. It is interesting also to note that models with lower spectral index, $`n0.9`$, are in better agreement with the data with a zero or positive running. For $`n<1`$, the running is bounded by $`0.005dn/d\mathrm{ln}k0.025`$ at $`1\sigma `$.

In the center row of Fig. 6 we plot the 68%, 95%, and 99% likelihood contours on the $`r`$ vs. $`n`$ plane. As we can see, the present data only weakly constrain the presence of tensor modes, although a gravity wave component is not preferred. Models with $`n<0.9`$ must have a negligible tensor component, while models with $`n>1`$ can have $`r`$ larger than $`0.4`$ ($`2\sigma `$ C.L.). However, as we can see from the bottom row of Fig. 6, there is no correlation between the tensor component and the running of the scalar index.

Figures 7, 8, and 9 show a subset of 300 reconstructed potentials selected from the sampled set. Note in particular the wide range of inflationary energy scales compatible with the observational constraint. This is to be expected, since there was no detection of tensor modes in the WMAP data, which would be seen here as a detection of a nonzero tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$. In addition, the shape of the inflationary potential is also not well constrained by WMAP.

Figure 10 shows the models sampled by the Monte Carlo categorized by their “zoology”, i.e., whether they fit into the category of small-field, large-field, or hybrid. We see that all three types of potential are compatible with the data, although hybrid class models are preferred by the best-fit region.

Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the reconstructed potentials divided by type. Perhaps the only conclusion to be drawn here is that the WMAP data places no significant constraint on the shape of the inflationary potential; many “reasonable” potentials are consistent with the data. However, significant portions of the observable parameter space are ruled out by WMAP, and future observations can be expected to significantly tighten these constraints dodelson97 ; kinney98a .

For the particular example of $`V\varphi ^4`$, using Eq. 58 we find that this choice of potential ruled out to $`3\sigma `$ only for $`N<40`$ for the WMAP data set. This constraint is even weaker than that claimed by Barger et al. barger , most likely because we allow for a running of the spectral index in our constraint.

When augmenting the WMAP data set with the data from seven other CMB experiments, the most noticeable improvement in the constraints is a better upper limit to the tensor/scalar ratio $`r`$, which results in a slightly improved upper limit on the height of the potential. Also, the width of the reconstructed potentials in Planck units is somewhat less than in the case of the WMAP-only constraint, showing that the additional data more strongly limit the form of the inflationary potential.

The combined data rules out a potential with $`V\varphi ^4`$ for $`N<66`$ to $`3\sigma `$, effectively killing such models as observationally viable candidates for the inflaton potential.

## VII Conclusions

In this paper, we presented an analysis of the WMAP data set with an emphasis on parameters relevant for distinguishing among the various possible models for inflation. In contrast to previous analyses, we confined ourselves to CMB data only and performed a likelihood analysis over a grid of models including the full error covariance data from the WMAP satellite alone, and in conjunction with measurements from BOOMERanG-98, MAXIMA-1, DASI, CBI, ACBAR, VSAE, and Archeops.

We found that the WMAP data alone are consistent with a scale-invariant power spectrum, $`n=1`$, with no running of the spectral index, $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k=0`$. However, a great number of models indicates a compatibility of the data with a blue spectral index and a substantial negative running. This is consistent with the result published by the WMAP team including data from large-scale structure measurements and the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest. The WMAP result is also consistent with previous CMB experiments. The inclusion of previous datasets in the analysis has the effect of reducing the error bars and give a better determination of the inflationary parameters. Still, no clear evidence for the running is present in the combined analysis. This result differs from the result obtained in Peiris et al. in the case of combined (WMAP+CBI+ACBAR) analysis, where a mild (about $`1.5\sigma `$) evidence for running was reported. The different and more conservative method of analysis adopted here, and the larger CMB dataset used in our paper can explain this difference.

In addition, we applied the Monte Carlo reconstruction technique to generate an ensemble of inflationary potentials consistent with observation. Of the three basic classes of inflation model, small-field, large-field, and hybrid, none are conclusively ruled out, although hybrid models are favored by the best fit region. The reconstruction process indicates that a wide variety of smooth potentials for the inflaton are consistent with the data, indicating that the WMAP result is too crude to significantly constrain either the height or the shape of the inflaton potential. In particular, the lack of evidence for tensor fluctuations makes it impossible to constrain the energy scale at which inflation takes place. Nonetheless, WMAP rules out a large portion of the available parameter space for inflation, itself a significant improvement over previous measurements. For the particular case of a potential of the form $`V\left(\varphi \right)=\lambda \varphi ^4`$, WMAP rules out all such potentials for $`N<40`$ at the $`3\sigma `$ level, which means that $`\varphi ^4`$ potentials are not conclusively ruled out by WMAP alone. The combined data set, however, rules out $`\varphi ^4`$ models for $`N<66`$, which kills such potentials as viable candidates for inflation.

After this paper first appeared, Leach and Liddle also released a reanalysis of the WMAP data leach03 , which is in general agreement with our results here.

## Acknowledgments

W.H.K. is supported by ISCAP and the Columbia University Academic Quality Fund. ISCAP gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the Ohrstrom Foundation. E.W.K. is supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-10842. We thank Richard Easther for helpful conversations and for the use of computer code.


format: text

text:
# 𝑩 Decays as Spectroscope for Charmed Four-quark States

## I Introduction

The BaBar experiment BaBarDs0  has recently discovered a new narrow state, the $`D_s^+(2320)`$, decaying into $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$. The width is consistent with experimental resolution. It is lighter than expected from potential models QM , considerably below the observed $`D_{s1}^+(2536)`$ and $`D_{sJ}^+(2573)`$ believed to be the $`1^+`$ and $`2^+`$ $`P`$-wave states with $`j=3/2`$ for the $`s`$ quark spin-orbit angular momentum. The $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ decay angular distribution is flat. These facts suggest a $`J^P=0^+`$ assignment, which forbids $`D_s^+(2320)D_s^+\pi \pi `$ transitions. Since $`D_s^+(2320)D_s^+\pi ^0`$ would violate isospin if it is a normal $`c\overline{s}`$ meson, this is consistent with its narrowness. The BaBar experiment has also searched for $`D_s^+(2320)D_s^+\gamma `$ and $`D_s^+\gamma \gamma `$ electromagnetic decays, which are so far absent. A possible $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ state could exist at 2460 MeV, but is not yet established. It was therefore suggested that either the 2-quark potential models should be revised, or the $`D_s^+(2320)`$ could be a four-quark state.

A light $`0^+`$ hadron nonet exists and could be interpreted as 4-quark states. The $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ mesons are often viewed as $`K\overline{K}`$ molecules, which accounts for their near degeneracy with $`2m_K`$. However, the recent observation of $`B^{}f_0(980)K^{}`$ decay Bellef0 ; BaBarf0  (and possibly $`B^{}a_0(980)K^{}`$) casts doubt to this picture, since it is hard to conceive a loosely bound state to be ejected in $`B`$ decay with 2.5 GeV energy. Furthermore, two experiments, E791 at Fermilab Tevatron E791 , and BES at BEPC BES , have claimed the possible existence of a scalar resonance, $`\kappa `$, in the $`K\pi `$ channel. Together with the resurrected $`\sigma `$ ($`f_0(600)`$), one has an isospin triplet, two doublets and two singlets. They could be composed of $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ with $`q=u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$, as we shall see.

It has been argued Close  that a strong attraction between $`(qq)_\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ and $`(\overline{q}\overline{q})_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ Jaffe ; Alford , where $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ and 3 here refer to color, and the absence of the orbital angular momentum barrier in the $`S`$-wave 4-quark state, may explain why the scalar nonet formed by $`\sigma `$, $`\kappa `$, $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ is lighter than the conventional $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet composed of $`f_0(1370)`$, $`a_0(1450)`$, $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ and $`f_0(1500)/f_0(1710)`$. By the same token, it is likely that a scalar $`cn\overline{n}\overline{s}`$ 4-quark state, where $`n=u,d`$, will be lighter than the $`0^+`$ $`P`$-wave $`c\overline{s}`$ state, where a typical potential model prediction gives 2487 MeV QM . Hence, the $`cn\overline{n}\overline{s}`$ state could lie below the $`DK`$ threshold and decay only to $`D_s^+\pi `$ final state. One is thus motivated to consider the $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ 4-quark meson scenario, originally suggested by Lipkin Lipkin , and explore its possible multiplet structure. In this paper we pursue such a direction, and in particular propose $`B`$ decays as a possible avenue to uncover a host of such states. The $`B`$ meson acts as a “filter” for background suppression, which should be compared with direct search of broad resonances in charm fragmentation.

## II The Scalar $`𝒒𝒒\overline{𝒒}\overline{𝒒}`$ and $`𝒄𝒒\overline{𝒒}\overline{𝒒}`$ Multiplets

Taking cue from the light hadron nonet, one considers the $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ under SU(3) formed by $`qq`$, i.e. $`ud`$, $`us`$ and $`ds`$ where the flavors in the pair are distinct. Combining with the $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of $`\overline{q}\overline{q}`$, one therefore gets an $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ plus a $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The $`\kappa `$ state, if it exists at all, is an isodoublet that can be written as $`[ud\overline{d}\overline{s}]^+`$ and $`[du\overline{u}\overline{s}]^0`$, plus its antiparticle, where we have suppressed all (anti-)symmetrizations of quark or quark-antiquark pairings. The charged components for $`a_0`$ can be written as $`a_0^+=[su\overline{d}\overline{s}]^+=(a_0^{})^{}`$, with the neutral component written as $`a_0^0=[s(n\overline{n})_{}\overline{s}]^0`$ to respect isospin ($`(n\overline{n})_\pm (u\overline{u}\pm d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$). We write $`f_0=[s(n\overline{n})_+\overline{s}]^0`$ which is orthogonal to $`a_0^0`$ and is an isosinglet. This leaves $`\sigma =[ud\overline{d}\overline{u}]^0`$ which is also a singlet. Although $`f_0`$ and $`\sigma `$ (and for that matter, $`a_0`$) could mix, there is no evidence for $`f_0`$ and $`\sigma `$ to deviate from the flavor content we assign. The mass pattern supports isospin multiplets split by their $`s`$ or $`\overline{s}`$ content.

Extending to the $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ constructed from $`cq`$, one finds the $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ 4-quark mesons form a $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and a $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$. Unlike Suzuki and Tuan Suzuki , we think it is the isospin multiplets that matter, with splittings between multiplets determined more by $`s`$ or $`\overline{s}`$ content. Although $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$-$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ splitting cannot be ruled out, this is the assumption we shall follow. In the notation of Lipkin, Suzuki and Tuan, the singlet of $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ is denoted as $`\stackrel{~}{F}_X^+`$, while the triplet and singlet of $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ are denoted $`\stackrel{~}{F}_I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_S^0`$; we shall denote these as $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+=[c(n\overline{n})_+\overline{s}]^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}=([cd\overline{u}\overline{s}]^0,[c(n\overline{n})_{}\overline{s}]^+,[cu\overline{d}\overline{s}]^{++})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}^0=[cs\overline{u}\overline{d}]^0`$. Note that we have retained the tilde notation of Lipkin for 4-quark states, but dropped $`F`$ since it is no longer in use. Instead, we have extended the convention for $`D_s^+`$ mesons, e.g. the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$ state has $`c`$ and $`s`$ flavor, rather than $`\overline{s}`$! Following this convention, and our assumption that the mass eigenstates are determined by its (absence of) $`s/\overline{s}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$ content, we denote the two doublets as $`\stackrel{~}{D}=([cd\overline{d}\overline{u}]^0,[cu\overline{u}\overline{d}]^+)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}=([cs\overline{s}\overline{u}]^0,[cs\overline{s}\overline{d}]^+)`$, where we assume ideal mixing. These states, put in the form of $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$, are illustrated in Fig. 1.

The $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$ state is an isosinglet, and can be identified with the narrow $`D_s(2320)`$ state found by BaBar. We shall argue that all other states decay hadronically. But we need to first develop some picture on mass splittings. Besides the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$ state and the aforementioned $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}^0`$ having $`cs`$ rather than $`c\overline{s}`$ flavor, another notable state is the exotic doubly charged scalar $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^{++}`$.

## III Masses, Decay Modes and Widths

This section should be viewed as providing only guesstimates.

As stressed in previous section, we treat isomultiplet masses which are split by its $`s`$ or $`\overline{s}`$ quark content, rather than work on SU(3) multiplet masses. We shall ignore isospin splittings within an isomultiplet. We therefore expect the mass ordering of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}<m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}}<m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}}`$, where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}}`$-$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}}`$ is susceptible to a possible $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$-$`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ splitting, which we ignore.

We illustrate with a picture of “Naive Constituent Diquark Model” for 4-quark mesons, in analogy to the usual Naive Quark Model of normal mesons, just for counting purposes. Let us take

$`m_{nn}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0,m_{sn}=m_0+\mathrm{\Delta }m_0,`$
$`m_{cn}`$ $`=`$ $`m,m_{cs}=m+\mathrm{\Delta }m,`$ (1)
where $`n=u,d`$, and we allow for $`\delta m=\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }m_0`$ to be nonzero, since the $`cs`$ and $`ns`$ pairing may have different (QCD) dynamics. We then find that

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ $``$ $`m+m_0\text{2100–2200 MeV},`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}}`$ $``$ $`m+m_0+\mathrm{\Delta }m_0\text{2320 MeV},`$ (2)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}}`$ $``$ $`m+m_0+\mathrm{\Delta }m\text{2320 MeV}+\delta m,`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}}`$ $``$ $`m+m_0+\mathrm{\Delta }m_0+\mathrm{\Delta }m\text{2500 MeV}+\delta m,`$
which realizes the above ordering, and allows $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}`$ to be heavier or lighter than $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$. The assignment of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}}2320`$ MeV is clear. Let us explain the other numbers.

Applying Eq. (1) to the $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ scalar nonet, we find $`m_\sigma 2m_0`$, $`m_\kappa 2m_0+\mathrm{\Delta }m_0`$, $`m_{a_0,f_0}2m_0+2\mathrm{\Delta }m_0`$, where the degeneracy of $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ is realized. The splitting $`m_\kappa m_\sigma 200`$ MeV vs. $`m_{a_0/f_0}m_\kappa 180`$ MeV is reasonable. We note, however, that the 4-quark $`\sigma `$ state could be affected by chiral symmetry breaking which leads to the pion being a pseudo-Goldstone boson. Mindful of this, we take $`m_0300`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_0180`$ MeV. With these numbers as input we arrive at the numerical suggestions in Eq. (2). Note that this numerology implies $`m=m_{cn}1800`$ MeV, which is higher than the naive $`m_c`$ constituent mass. This is in contrast with $`m_{nn}m_n`$ and $`m_{sn}m_s`$, and is one of the reasons behind our treatment of $`\delta m=\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }m_0=(m_{cs}m_{cn})(m_{sn}m_{nn})`$ as potentially nonzero. From this trend, we speculate that $`\delta m>0`$, hence $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}}`$, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}}`$ is probably above 2500 MeV.

With these masses, we now discuss decay modes.

By taking $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}}2320`$ MeV, we identify the isosinglet $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}`$ with the narrow BaBar state. Since this is below $`DK`$ threshold, only the $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ isospin violating decay is allowed, which is consistent with what is observed. Electromagnetic decays are often on equal footing with isospin violating decays, but BaBar seems to find these to be subdominant. It is of interest to understand this.

The isospin-violating strong decay $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\pi ^0`$ can proceed via $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\eta (\eta ^{})`$ followed by $`\eta (\eta ^{})\pi ^0`$ mixing Cho . We consider the flavor mixing of $`\eta _n`$ and $`\eta _s`$ defined by $`\eta _n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})`$ and $`\eta _s=s\overline{s}`$. The wave functions of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are then given by

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\eta _n\mathrm{cos}\varphi \eta _s\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _n\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\eta _s\mathrm{cos}\varphi .`$ (3)
A phenomenological analysis of many different experimental processes indicates $`\varphi =39.3^{}`$ Kroll .

The isospin violating term induced by the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark mass difference is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_dm_u)(\overline{u}u\overline{d}d).`$ (4)
The strong coupling for $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\pi ^0`$ then reads

$`g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\pi ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_dm_u}{m_\eta ^2m_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{m_dm_u}{m_\eta ^{}^2m_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \right)`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n}\pi ^0|\overline{u}u\overline{d}d|\eta _n,`$
where $`\pi ^0|\mathrm{}|\eta _n`$ can be evaluated as Ivanov

$`\pi ^0|\overline{u}u\overline{d}d|\eta _n=\pi ^0|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|\pi ^0=2v,`$ (6)
with $`v=2\overline{q}q/f_\pi ^2=m_\pi ^2/(m_u+m_d)`$. We shall make two estimates of the strong coupling $`g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n}`$. First, it can be extracted from the measured width of $`\kappa `$ whose coupling is $`g_{\kappa K\pi }=\sqrt{3/2}g_0`$ in terms of $`g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n}=g_0`$ based on SU(4) symmetry. Using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa 400`$ MeV , we obtain $`g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n}4.4`$ GeV and hence

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\pi ^0)11\mathrm{keV}.`$ (7)
Second, in the 2-quark model for $`D_0^{}`$, the $`P`$-wave scalar, the $`D_0^{}D\pi `$ coupling has been estimated in the framework of QCD sum rules by two different methods, giving $`g_{D_0^{}D\pi }=(6.3\pm 1.2)`$ GeV and $`(11.5\pm 4.0)`$ GeV Colangelo . Since $`D_0^{}D\pi `$ is OZI suppressed relative to $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n`$, it is expected that $`g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n}>g_{D_0^{}D\pi }`$. Taking $`g_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}D_s^+\eta _n}=15`$ GeV as a representative value, we are led to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\pi ^0)=130\mathrm{keV}`$. In any rate, it is fair to conclude that the width of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$ is smaller than 1 MeV and lies in between 10 and 100 keV.

For the radiative decay $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\gamma \gamma `$, three different contributions have been considered by Suzuki : (i) two-photon transition between four-quark states, (ii) two-photon emission by pair annihilation, and (iii) two photon emission from $`\overline{s}`$ quark. A naive estimate of two-photon transition between $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`n\overline{n}`$ states are Suzuki

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\gamma \gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^5}{M^4}},`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}}m_{D_s}`$ and $`M`$ is the constituent quark mass of $`u`$ and $`d`$. Numerically, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\gamma \gamma )0.48`$ keV. For two-photon emission by pair annihilation, it can proceed via $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\eta `$ followed by $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$. Current algebra leads to Suzuki

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+D_s^+\gamma \gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi ^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8\pi f_\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^9}{f_\pi ^2m_\eta ^4}},`$ (9)
giving $`4\times 10^5`$ keV, which is further suppressed. We conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$ decay being dominated by the isospin-violating strong decay is reasonable.

We have assumed that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}}m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}}`$ by resorting to quark content and some vague isospin arguments. If this holds, since isospin splittings are rarely more than 10 MeV, one is still below the $`m_D+m_K`$ threshold, but the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}D_s^+\pi `$ decay is now an allowed strong decay, with a typical width of 100 MeV or more. Note that this contains three modes: $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^{++}D_s^+\pi ^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^+D_s^+\pi ^0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$. The doubly charged scalar resonance would be astounding. We caution that there may still be some $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$-$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ splitting, which would likely push the $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ higher than the $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$ Suzuki . This could open up the $`DK`$ channels: $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^{++}D^+K^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^+D^+K^0`$ and $`D^0K^+`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^0D^0K^0`$. The doubly charged $`D^+K^+`$ scalar resonance would again be the most astounding.

The $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ doublet $``$ 2100–2200 MeV in mass would decay into $`D\pi `$, just like a normal $`D^{}`$ meson, but with flat angular distributions, and a few 100 MeV in width. They should in principle be distinct from the observed $`D_1(2420)`$ and $`D_2(2460)`$ states since they are lower in mass. Since the $`D\pi `$ mass spectrum has been studied for some time, it may be difficult to identify such scalar resonances, but efforts should be renewed.

The $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}`$ is a second $`D`$-like doublet with $`s\overline{s}`$ content, which pushes its mass above 2500 MeV, as we have argued in Eq. (2). Thus, it is above $`D_s^+\overline{K}`$ threshold of $``$ 2460 MeV. Besides the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}D_s^+\overline{K}`$ channel, the $`D\eta `$ (and perhaps $`D\pi `$) channel should be subdominant, with a slightly lower threshold, and could provide a useful crosscheck.

We finally reach the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$ exotic singlet with both $`c`$ and $`s`$ flavor. We first offer another argument that $`\delta m>0`$ in Eq. (2). Suppose the opposite is true. Since $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}`$ is below $`DK`$ threshold, so would $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$ be below $`D\overline{K}`$ threshold. Inspection of the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$ quark flavor composition, it contains all four distinct flavors, hence it can then undergo only weak decay. Indeed, this was one of the original excitements of Lipkin Lipkin , and of Suzuki and Tuan Suzuki . But given that 20–25 years have elapsed, we find it highly unlikely that we have missed a semi-stable, weakly decaying neutral $`D`$-like meson at $`2300`$ MeV. Thus, we argue that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}}>m_D+m_{\overline{K}}`$, and one should search via $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}D^0\overline{K}^0`$ or $`D^+K^{}`$ with a strong width of 100 MeV or more. Note the unusual pairing of $`D`$ and $`\overline{K}`$ mesons.

The upshot of our discussion is that, BaBar found the single narrow state which derives from its low mass, allowing it to decay only via a suppressed isospin violating channel. All other $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ scalar states undergo strong decay hence would be considerably broader.

## IV $`𝑩`$ Decays as $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑫}_𝑿`$ Spectroscope

All states except the $`D_s(2320)`$ already seen by BaBar would likely be broad states. But to convince oneself of the 4-quark nature, it would be necessary to uncover a major portion of the full spectroscopy. The strongly decaying nature makes further direct search in charm fragmentation not so optimistic. Instead, we propose $`B`$ decays as a “spectroscope” through which one may search for such states with lower background.

We give 5 types of production processes, showing the richness.

:

The standard $`\overline{b}c\overline{c}\overline{s}`$ decay leads to $`B\overline{D}D_s^+`$, which is factorization dominant. As illustrated in Fig. 2(a), the $`J^+`$ vector current can produce a scalar meson, which is not suppressed because of $`c`$ and light quark mass imbalance. However, under factorization, it isprecisely only the singly charged isosinglet state, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$, that can be produced. Applying the equation of motion which leads to

$`m_{a_0}^2f_{a_0^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`i(m_dm_u)a_0^{}|\overline{d}u|0,`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}}^2f_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}}`$ $`=`$ $`i(m_cm_s)\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}|\overline{c}s|0,`$ (10)
and assuming $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}|\overline{c}s|0a_0^{}|\overline{d}u|0`$, it follows that $`f_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}}67\pm 13`$ MeV for $`m(\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s})2.32`$ GeV and $`f_{a_0^\pm }=1.1\pm 0.2`$ MeV obtained from finite-energy sum rules Maltman . For $`f_{D_s}230`$ MeV, this means that the production rate of $`B\overline{D}\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$ is smaller than that of $`B\overline{D}D_s^+`$ by one order of magnitude. It is important to confirm the $`D_s^+(2320)`$ state recoiling against a $`\overline{D}`$ meson in $`B`$ decay.

:

To overcome the limitation of Fig. 2(a) to singly charged isosinglet state under factorization, we construct a process whereby the exotic doubly charged $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^{++}`$ state can be produced. This is illustrated in Fig. 2(b), where the popping of a $`d\overline{d}`$ pair between $`c\overline{c}`$ allows $`B^+`$ to decay to a $`D^{()}`$ plus the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^{++}`$. The latter can be searched for in $`D_s^+\pi ^+`$, or possibly $`D^+K^+`$ channels. It would be astonishing if a doubly charged resonance is found. Note that Fig. 2(b) provides a generic mechanism for $`B\overline{D}\stackrel{~}{D}_s`$, i.e. all four $`\stackrel{~}{D}_s`$ states can be produced this way, with appropriate pairing with a $`\overline{D}`$ meson. For example, the neutral state can be produced via $`B^0\overline{D}^0\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^0`$, which can be searched for via $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$, or perhaps $`D^0K^0`$ if allowed.

:

We illustrate in Fig. 2(c) a second type of factorized production process, via $`bc\overline{u}d`$. A $`\pi ^{}`$ is emitted in standard way, but the $`bc`$ current excites the effective popping of an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair in the recoil system, and a $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{s\overline{s}}`$ state can be formed, which decays to $`D_s^+\overline{K}`$ or perhaps $`D\eta `$. Likewise, but perhaps more difficult to disentangle experimentally, the $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ state can be produced, which would decay to $`D\pi `$.

:

To see how the exotic $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$ state can be produced, we reverse all quark directions in Fig. 2(a) and reshuffle the $`s`$ quark to pair with the $`c`$ quark from $`bc`$ transition, as illustrated in Fig. 2(d). It is not clear whether Nature holds sufficient dynamics for this, but it is best to resort to data. Note that the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}`$ leads to “wrong” pairings of $`D^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`D^+K^{}`$ compared to usual $`B`$ decay.

:

Finally, we turn to nonfactorized processes that may also produce $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ states. The process $`\overline{B}^0K^{}D_s^+`$ has been observed by Belle BelleKDs  and BaBar BaBarKDs  at a rate that cannot come from factorized amplitudes, but arise from either final state rescattering, or from annihilation diagrams. Either way, annihilation, exchange of constituents, and $`q\overline{q}`$ popping can provide further avenues for 4-quark state search. For example, based on $`s\overline{u}c\overline{s}`$ configuration already present in $`\overline{B}^0K^{}D_s^+`$ final state, popping of $`d\overline{d}`$ or $`u\overline{u}`$ pairs can lead to $`\overline{B}^0K^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_{Is}^+`$, $`\overline{K}^0\stackrel{~}{D}_{1s}^0`$, as well as the $`K^0\stackrel{~}{D}_{\overline{s}}^0`$ final states. Thus, one not only should see the $`D_s(2320)D_s^+\pi ^0`$ state recoiling against a single $`K^{()}`$ (with overlap of the narrow and the broad state), but perhaps also search for $`\overline{B}^0K_S[D_s^+\pi ^{}]`$ ($`K_S[D^0K^0]`$) and $`\overline{B}^0K_S[D^0\overline{K}^0]`$, $`K_S[D^+\overline{K}^{}]`$. Besides the distinct $`D^+\overline{K}^{}`$ channel, for $`D^0K_S`$ one in principle can also use mass separation.

Our discussion has only been illustrative rather than exhaustive. The main point is that $`B`$ decays may act as a “filter” through $`B`$ reconstruction. In comparison, although the $`D_s(2320)`$ state was discovered in charm fragmentation of $`e^+e^{}c\overline{c}`$, to find broad resonances through such processes would be much more difficult.

## V Exotic Charmonia and Slow $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍`$ from $`𝑩`$ Decay?

It is natural to extend from $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ to $`cq\overline{q}\overline{c}`$ scalar states, which form an $`\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Continuing our main assumption, the octet consists of an isotriplet and isosinglet composed of $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]`$, plus two isodoublets $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{s}]`$ and its charge conjugate. The heavy singlet has $`[sc\overline{c}\overline{s}]^0`$ structure. If we extrapolate from the naive model of Eq. (1), we find

$`m_{nc\overline{c}\overline{n}}`$ $``$ $`\text{3600 MeV}m_{D\overline{D}},`$
$`m_{nc\overline{c}\overline{s}}`$ $``$ $`\text{3800 MeV}m_{D_s\overline{D}},`$
$`m_{sc\overline{c}\overline{s}}`$ $``$ $`\text{4000 MeV}m_{D_s\overline{D}_s},`$ (11)
although whether $`[sc\overline{c}\overline{s}]^0`$ is still below $`D_s\overline{D}_s`$ threshold is more dubious.

From Eq. (11) one can infer the dominant decay modes. If the isosinglet $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]_0^0`$ is below $`D\overline{D}`$, the dominant decay would be $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]_0^0\eta _c\eta `$, since it is clearly above the $`\eta _c\eta `$ threshold. For the isotriplet, $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]_1\eta _c\pi `$ should be the leading decay, but the $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]_1J/\psi \rho ^{}J/\psi \pi \pi `$ decay, with $`\pi \pi `$ peaking towards $`m_\rho `$, could be substantial. If the isodoublet $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{s}]`$ is below $`D_s\overline{D}`$ threshold, the leading decays may be $`\eta _cK`$, or $`J/\psi K\pi `$ with $`m_{K\pi }`$ peaked towards $`m_K^{}`$ (perhaps less prominent than $`\rho `$ case because of smaller $`K^{}`$ width).

We are intrigued to stress that there may be some bearing for this already, in the observed “lump” for slow momentum $`J/\psi `$s below $`p_{J/\psi }^{}1`$ GeV observed in inclusive $`B`$ decay. Such effect has been observed by all three experiments slowJ , and can only be of hadronic origin. The scenario of $`BK^{()}+[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]_1K+J/\psi (\pi \pi )_\rho ^{}`$ and $`B(\pi ,\rho )+[nc\overline{c}\overline{s}]K+J/\psi (K\pi )_K^{}`$ provide interesting possibilities whereby $`J/\psi `$ is forced slow by $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ ($`m_{K\pi }`$) peaking towards $`\rho `$ ($`K^{}`$) mass. But since in general the $`K^{()}\eta _c\eta `$ or $`(\pi ,\rho )\eta _cK`$ modes should be dominant, one should search for these modes as crosschecks. Not only one has interest to understand what is behind the slow $`J/\psi `$ bump in $`B`$ decay, one may possibly uncover $`J/\psi \pi \pi `$, $`\eta _c\eta `$, $`\eta _c\pi `$, or $`J/\psi K\pi `$, $`\eta _cK`$ 4-quark resonances.

Finally, if the $`[sc\overline{c}\overline{s}]^0`$ configuration resonates, it may lead to $`BK\varphi J/\psi `$ (observed by CLEO JphiK ) and $`BK\eta ^{()}\eta _c`$, which also should be studied.

Incidentally, we note that in principle $`c\overline{c}`$ could annihilate via a single virtual gluon, i.e. $`c\overline{c}g^{}q\overline{q}`$. It would be interesting to see if the $`BKK_SK^{}\pi ^+`$ decay, which Belle claimed Ketac2S  to uncoverthe $`\eta _c(2S)`$ state in $`K_SK^{}\pi ^+`$ decay, could contain some information on a possible $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]`$ state, as the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass found at 3654 MeV seems on the high side (by $`100`$ MeV compared to potential model expectations, but could be consistent with the $`[nc\overline{c}\overline{n}]`$ states.

We should also stress that exotic $`0^+`$ charmonia could also be searched for directly in charm fragmentation, e.g. in the recoil system of $`e^+e^{}J/\psi +X`$ at B Factory energies. It may in fact shed light on the rather mysterious $`e^+e^{}cc\overline{c}\overline{c}`$ production observed by Belle.

## VI Discussion and Conclusion

There is one potential problem for the 4-quark interpretation of $`D_s(2320)`$ observed by BaBar: There is also hint BaBarDs0  for a 2460 MeV state that decays to $`D_s^{}\pi ^0`$, i.e. in the $`D_s^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ final state. The existence of this state was not yet conclusive in the BaBar paper, but if it holds as another resonance, it cannot be of $`0^+`$ quantum number. The naive guess would be $`1^+`$. If so, one interpretation of the $`D_s(2320)`$ and “$`D_s(2460)`$” pair would be the $`j=1/2`$ $`s`$-spin doublet of $`0^+`$ and $`1^+`$. The question then gets translated into why these states seem considerably lower in mass than expected. For instance, the paper by Di Piero and Eichten QM  gives the masses at 2490 MeV and 2600 MeV, respectively, and one usually expects these states to be broad. If the $`0^+`$ state moves below $`DK`$ threshold, one ends up with the isospin violating $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ decay as dominant mode. But for the $`1^+`$ state, further mystery is why its rate is not dominated by $`D_s(2460)D_s^+\pi \pi `$, an allowed strong decay; $`D_s(2460)D_s^{}\pi ^0`$ decay still would violate isospin. The width observed by BaBar for the 2460 MeV state is barely larger than resolution. We think it is far fetched at present to consider $`1^+`$ states composed of $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ (in principle one could also consider $`cg\overline{q}`$ “hybrids”), and again the relative narrowness would come into question. We look forward to clear establishment of the $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ state at 2460 MeV to clarify the situation.

In conclusion, starting from the observed narrow $`D_s(2320)`$ state by BaBar, together with the possibility of an emerging light scalar nonet, we have explored the possible interpretation via $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ 4-quark states, which could naturally be below $`DK`$ threshold. We give a naive picture of the states, their masses, and infer the corresponding decay modes. Only the $`D_s(2320)`$ state, identified as the $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{0s}^+`$ isosinglet with $`[c(n\overline{n})_+\overline{s}]^+`$ composition, decays dominantly by isospin violating decay and is narrow. The remaining triplet, two doublets, and a heavy singlet all decay hadronically, hence broad. The decay signatures are distinct. Particularly noteworthy are resonances in the doubly charged $`D_s^+\pi ^+`$ ($`D^+K^+`$), and wrong pairing $`D^+K^{}`$ channels. We propose a host of $`B`$ decays as possible “spectroscopes” to search for these exotic resonances, and give many explicit channels for further study. The hadronic width of these particles may hamper the analogous program for direct search in charm fragmentation. We extend the picture to include $`qc\overline{c}\overline{q}`$ states, which may lead to exotic $`0^+`$ charmonia resonances that could be behind the slow $`J/\psi `$ excess in $`B`$ decay, and may shed light on $`e^+e^{}cc\overline{c}\overline{c}`$ production. It is clear that only by establishing a clear spectroscopy of at least half the multiplets, can one start to put some faith in the $`cq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ (or $`qc\overline{c}\overline{q}`$) 4-quark meson scenario.

WSH wishes to thank M. Yamauchi for bringing the subject to his attention, and A. Bondar, T. Browder, A. Drutskoy, H.C. Huang, J. Mueller, B. Yabsley for discussions. This work is supported in part by grants from NSC 91-2112-M-001-038, 91-2112-M-002-027, the MOE CosPA Project, and NCTS.

Note Added.

After this work was completed, we noticed the appearance of the related works by R.N. Cahn, J.D. Jackson, hep-ph/0305012, and T. Barnes, F.E. Close, H.J.Lipkin, hep-ph/0305025.