text:
# Hybrid Inflation and Baryogenesis at the TeV Scale

## I Introduction

There is overwhelming observational evidence (for recent reviews see, e.g., ) that the universe has a non-zero baryon density, quantified by

$$\frac{n_B}{s}10^{10},$$
(1)
where $`n_B`$ is the baryon number density in the universe, and $`s`$ is the entropy density. Because a period of cosmological inflation  would have diluted away any baryons, this asymmetry must have been generated afterwards. One attractive possibility is that baryogenesis proceeds through anomalous electroweak processes occurring during the departure from equilibrium provided by the electroweak phase transition . However, the transition must be strongly first order for electroweak sphaleron processes not to wash away the baryon asymmetry immediately after it is generated, and lattice Monte Carlo simulations have shown that this is not the case in the minimal standard model .

As an alternative to the above standard picture of electroweak baryogenesis, it has recently been suggested  that the washout problem could be avoided if inflation ends at the electroweak scale, with the inflaton strongly coupled to the Higgs field. Preheating , i.e., parametric resonance between the Higgs field and the inflaton, would lead to a non-equilibrium state in which the baryon asymmetry could be generated, and a low enough reheat temperature would guarantee that once the system has thermalized, sphaleron processes are too rare to wash it out. This idea has the attractive feature that it may predict new phenomena, testable in collider experiments, and thus provide a hope of a direct probe into the physics of the early universe.

Inflation model-building is however beset with difficulties, which become more severe as the inflation scale is decreased . One problem is the difficulty in arranging the necessary initial conditions for inflation to begin . Another problem is to understand the extreme flatness of the potential, which requires that every tree-level and every loop-correction term in the potential be small unless there are cancellations between them. Turning to the case at hand, the most obvious way of achieving inflation with the inflaton strongly coupled to the Higgs field is to invoke the usual hybrid inflation model, in which the inflaton is rolling towards the origin. This paradigm, adopted so far , is unfortunately spoiled by the loop correction ; its strong logarithmic variation prevents inflation, and cannot be cancelled by a reasonable number of tree-level terms. In this paper, we consider the alternative paradigm of inverted hybrid inflation, where the field is rolling away from the origin. In contrast with the usual case, the loop correction can now be cancelled accurately by a suitable choice of just the renormalizable tree–level terms, leading to a viable, albeit fine-tuned, model which can give successful baryogenesis.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section II, we discuss two different ways that baryon asymmetry can be generated. One of these is the scenario put forward in Refs. , involving resonant production of sphalerons and Higgs winding configurations during preheating, and the other is based on the Kibble mechanism  and is a variant of the mechanism discussed in Refs. . In Section III, we recall the loop correction problem encountered with ordinary hybrid inflation, and in Section IV, we see how it can be avoided by inverted hybrid inflation if the mass and quartic self-coupling are fine-tuned to cancel the loop correction. In Section V, we determine the region of the parameter space in which our model satisfies the constraints arising from inflation and baryogenesis. Finally, we summarize the essential results of this paper and offer some comments on the role of low-scale inflation models.

## II Baryogenesis after TeV-Scale Inflation

In the electroweak theory, baryon number is linked to the Chern-Simons number of the SU(2) gauge field

$$N_{\mathrm{CS}}=\frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}_0^t𝑑td^3xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{Tr}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }$$
(2)
by a quantum anomaly ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B=3\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{CS}}.$$
(3)
In order to generate the baryon asymmetry, it is therefore necessary that the dynamics of the system leads to a non-zero Chern-Simons number.

The dynamics of the Chern-Simons number is linked to the dynamics of the Higgs field via the Higgs winding number

$$N_H=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}d^3xϵ^{ijk}\text{Tr}[U^{}_iUU^{}_jUU^{}_kU].$$
(4)
In this parameterization, the $`SU(2)`$ Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has been expressed as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\rho /\sqrt{2})U`$, where $`\rho ^2=2\left(\phi _1^{}\phi _1+\phi _2^{}\phi _2\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`U`$ is an $`SU(2)`$-valued matrix that is uniquely defined anywhere $`\rho `$ is nonzero. In the broken phase we have in practice $`N_{\mathrm{CS}}=N_H`$, and thus any difference in the two numbers must disappear when the system thermalizes. This may either happen by changing the Chern-Simons number, which would lead to baryon production , or by changing the Higgs winding, in which case no baryons are produced. CP-violation affects the balance between these two ways, and leads to an asymmetry in the final baryon number (see  for a detailed discussion of the dynamics of winding configurations).

### A Baryogenesis from Preheating

One possibility for baryon production arises from reheating after cosmological inflation. Careful, non-perturbative studies  of the inflaton dynamics have demonstrated that there may be a period of parametric resonance, prior to the usual scenario of energy transfer from the inflaton to other fields. This phenomenon is characterized by large amplitude, non-thermal excitations in both the inflaton and coupled fields, and has become known as preheating .

In the models we consider in this paper, the inflaton is directly coupled to the standard model Higgs field. Therefore, if preheating occurs, we expect long-wavelength excitations of standard model fields to be resonantly produced. This may lead to a non-thermal restoration of the SU(2) symmetry , and to the production of a population of winding configurations  and a non-zero Chern-Simons number  even though the reheat temperature after inflation is never above the electroweak scale, and even though the electroweak symmetry remains broken after the end of inflation. Because of the non-perturbative nature of this mechanism, it is very difficult to derive reliable analytical estimates for the baryon asymmetry, and one has to resort to numerical simulations .

### B Baryogenesis from the Kibble Mechanism

The mechanism of the previous section; preheating and a subsequent non-thermal symmetry restoration, needs an initial energy density that is much higher than the Higgs potential barrier. However, if the energy density is lower, there is another way the baryon asymmetry can be generated. This is based on the instability of the Higgs field (i.e., tachyonic preheating ), which leads to formation of topological “defects” by the Kibble mechanism  when the SU(2) symmetry breaks.

In hybrid inflationary models, the Higgs field vanishes during inflation, and the electroweak symmetry is therefore unbroken. At the end of inflation, the Higgs field rolls to its true vacuum . The Kibble mechanism ensures that Higgs winding configurations will form, and CP violation inherent in many extensions of the standard model ensures that net baryon production results. Because the universe is cold after the inflation, the phase transition takes place at zero temperature. This means that there are no sphaleron processes that would wash out the baryon asymmetry, and consequently no need for a first-order phase transition. Of course, the universe eventually reheats to the temperature $`T_{\mathrm{rh}}`$, but if this is low enough so that the electroweak symmetry is strongly broken, the baryon asymmetry is safe.

The baryon number generated in this scenario can be estimated by finding the shortest wavelength that falls out of equilibrium . When the inflaton field $`\sigma `$ rolls toward its minimum, the effective mass squared of the Higgs field $`m^2(\sigma )`$ changes, and at $`\sigma =\sigma _c`$ it changes sign. Assuming that a Fourier mode with momentum $`k`$ is in equilibrium, its frequency is given by

$$\omega (k)^2=k^2+m^2(\sigma ).$$
(5)
If the equation

$$\left|\frac{d\omega (k)}{dt}\right|>\omega (k)^2$$
(6)
is satisfied, the mode behaves non-adiabatically, i.e., it evolves so slowly that it does not have time to adjust to the change of its effective mass. Consequently, the mode falls out of equilibrium. In general, there is a critical momentum $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ such that this happens for $`kk_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The maximum correlation length reached during the transition is given by $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}=k_{\mathrm{max}}^1`$.

When $`m^2(\sigma )`$ becomes negative at $`\sigma _c`$, the Higgs field acquires a non-zero expectation value, but its direction can only be correlated at distances less than $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$. This leads to domains of radius $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$, inside each of which the Higgs field is roughly constant, and when the field is interpolated between these domains, it typically acquires a non-zero winding number. The resulting number density of these winding configurations is determined by the domain size,

$$n_{\mathrm{configs}}\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^3k_{\mathrm{max}}^3,$$
(7)
and a rough estimate indicates that this density must be higher than $`0.001m_H^3`$ for sufficient baryogenesis .

The above analysis ignores the gauge field, which plays an important role in defect formation in the high-temperature case . The reason why this is justified here is that the effect of the gauge field is proportional to the temperature, and in our case, the symmetry breaking takes place at zero temperature.

## III Constraints on Hybrid Inflation Models

### A Basics

In order to analyse the viability of different models of TeV-scale inflation, let us first summarize the basics of inflation model building, as given in say . We write the reduced Planck mass as $`M_\mathrm{P}(8\pi G)^{1/2}=2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$, and the Hubble parameter as $`H`$. Further, an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to time and the prime differentiation with respect to the inflaton field $`\sigma `$.

We will be interested in the slow-roll paradigm of inflation in which the field equation for the inflaton $`\sigma `$

$$\ddot{\sigma }+3H\dot{\sigma }+V^{}=0,$$
(8)
is replaced by the slow-roll condition

$$3H\dot{\sigma }V^{}.$$
(9)
We also require

$$V\rho 3M_\mathrm{P}^2H^2,$$
(10)
with $`\rho `$ the energy density, be almost constant on the Hubble timescale. The latter condition requires one flatness condition

$$ϵ1,$$
(11)
and differentiating the slow-roll condition requires a second flatness condition

$$|\eta |1,$$
(12)
where

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\mathrm{P}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2,`$ (13)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`M_\mathrm{P}^2{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}.`$ (14)
$`N`$ $`e`$-folds before the end of slow-roll inflation, the field value $`\sigma _N`$ is given by

$$N=\frac{1}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}_{\sigma _{\mathrm{end}}}^{\sigma _N}\frac{V}{V^{}}𝑑\sigma ,$$
(15)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{end}}`$ marks the end of slow-roll inflation.

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

$$\frac{V(\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}})^{3/2}}{M_\mathrm{P}^3V^{}(\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}})}=5.3\times 10^4.$$
(16)
This equation applies at the epoch when the distance scale explored by COBE (say $`H_0^1/10`$) leaves the horizon, some number $`N_{\mathrm{COBE}}<60`$ $`e`$-folds before the end of slow-roll inflation.

### B Ordinary hybrid inflation

In Refs. , baryogenesis was discussed in the context of ordinary hybrid inflation. In this model, the tree-level potential is

$$V(\sigma ,\varphi )=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V(\sigma )\frac{1}{2}|m^2|\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}g^2\varphi ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda \varphi ^4,$$
(17)
where, in the simplest model,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2.$$
(18)
Inflation takes place in the regime $`\sigma ^2>\sigma _\mathrm{c}^2`$, where

$$\sigma _\mathrm{c}\frac{|m|}{g}.$$
(19)
In this regime, $`\varphi `$ vanishes and the inflaton potential is

$$V=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V(\sigma ),$$
(20)
where the constant term $`V_0`$ is assumed to dominate during inflation .

The specific implementation proposed in  involved the tree-level hybrid inflation model using the Higgs as the non-inflaton field. This same paradigm was suggested later  (without specifically invoking the Higgs field) as a model of inflation with quantum gravity at the TeV scale. Unfortunately both of these proposals are spoiled by the loop correction .

To see how this comes about, let us first pursue the model ignoring the loop correction. The last term of Eq. (17) serves only to determine the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of $`\varphi `$, achieved when $`\sigma `$ falls below $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$. Demanding that $`V`$ vanish in the vacuum, so that the cosmological constant is zero after inflation, implies that the VEV is

$$\varphi v=2\frac{V_0^{1/2}}{|m|},$$
(21)
and that

$$\lambda =\frac{4V_0}{v^4}=\frac{m^4}{4V_0}.$$
(22)
From Eq. (18),

$$\eta =\frac{m_\sigma ^2M_\mathrm{P}^2}{V_0}.$$
(23)
It will be useful also to define

$$\eta _\varphi \frac{|m^2|M_\mathrm{P}^2}{V_0}=\frac{4M_\mathrm{P}^2}{v^2}.$$
(24)
A prompt end to inflation at $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$ requires

$$\eta _\varphi >1,$$
(25)
which is well satisfied. Now, the value of the field $`\sigma `$ when COBE scales leave the horizon is

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}^2=e^{2\eta N_{\mathrm{COBE}}}\sigma _\mathrm{c}^2\sigma _\mathrm{c}^2,$$
(26)
where the final equality is good for an order of magnitude estimate, but needs to be checked for consistency in any particular example. Using (26), the COBE normalization is

$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`2.8\times 10^7e^{2\eta N_{\mathrm{COBE}}}\eta ^2\eta _\varphi `$ (27)
$``$ $`3\times 10^7\eta ^2\eta _\varphi .`$ (28)
To identify $`\varphi `$ with the Higgs field we need roughly $`m`$ TeV and $`\lambda 1`$ (corresponding to $`V_0^{1/4}v250`$ GeV) and for baryogenesis to work we need a strong coupling to the Higgs field, $`g1`$. The COBE normalization then requires $`m_\sigma 10^{10}\text{eV}`$, which corresponds to $`\eta 10^{15}`$, justifying the final equality in Eq. (26). Because $`\eta `$ is so small, $`\sigma `$ is practically equal to the critical value $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$ while scales of interest are leaving the horizon. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to require that inflation occurs over some reasonable range of $`\sigma `$, since otherwise one would have to explain how $`\sigma `$ arrived at precisely the value $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$.

The small value of $`m_\sigma `$ means that even if the loop correction did not spoil the model, the energy density at the end of inflation would be too low for the scenarios discussed in Section II. Because of the slow-roll condition (9), the kinetic energy is negligibly small,

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\sigma }^2=\frac{M_p^2V^2}{6V}\frac{M_p^2m_\sigma ^4}{m_H^2}<(0.01\mathrm{eV})^4.$$
(29)
The energy density consists therefore only of the potential energy, which at $`\sigma =\sigma _c`$ is $`V(\sigma _c)=V_0+\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma _c^2V_0`$. Because $`V_0`$ is the height of the Higgs barrier, the energy density must be much higher than this for symmetry restoration as discussed in Section II A to be possible. The low kinetic energy also means that the Kibble mechanism discussed in Section II B cannot lead to significant baryogenesis either.

Now consider the loop correction, coming from the Higgs field. Part of this correction just renormalizes the mass and quartic self-coupling of the inflaton field. If there is no supersymmetry (SUSY), one has to take the view that the renormalized couplings are set to desired values, making this part of the loop correction insignificant. If, on the other hand, there is supersymmetry, this part of the loop correction vanishes (in the global supersymmetric limit, with soft or spontaneous SUSY breaking, and after the Higgsino and the other Higgs field have been included). The other, logarithmic, part of the loop correction is more problematic. This contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}(\sigma )=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\left(m^4(\sigma )\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2(\sigma )}{Q^2}\right),$$
(30)
where

$$m^2(\sigma )\left(g^2\sigma ^2|m^2|\right)=g^2(\sigma ^2\sigma _\mathrm{c}^2).$$
(31)
The quantity $`Q`$ is the renormalization scale at which the parameters of the tree-level potential should be evaluated. Its choice is arbitrary, and if all loop corrections were included, the total potential would be independent of $`Q`$ by virtue of the Renormalization Group Equations (RGEs). In any application of quantum field theory, one should choose $`Q`$ so that the total 1-loop correction is small, hopefully justifying the neglect of the multi-loop correction.

Unless $`\sigma `$ is extremely close to $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$, the loop correction and its derivatives are roughly estimated by setting $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}=0`$, giving

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{64\pi ^2}}\sigma ^4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\sigma ^2}{Q^2}},`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{32\pi ^2}}\sigma ^3\left(2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\sigma ^2}{Q^2}}+1\right),`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{32\pi ^2}}\sigma ^2\left(6\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\sigma ^2}{Q^2}}+7\right).`$ (34)
Because of the logarithmic variation, the loop correction cannot be cancelled to high accuracy over a reasonable range of $`\sigma `$, by a tree-level contribution containing a reasonable number of terms. The flatness conditions $`ϵ1`$ and $`\eta 1`$ therefore both require

$$g\frac{v}{M_\mathrm{P}}.$$
(35)
(One of these can be avoided by a choice of $`Q`$, but not both.) This constraint precludes a VEV $`v`$ at the TeV scale, except for an unfeasibly small value of $`g`$. It holds independently of the form of the tree-level contribution. Taking the simplest form Eq. (18), requiring that the COBE normalization is not upset by the loop correction gives an additional constraint

$$v^4\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}>\left(10^9\text{GeV}\right)^5\left(\frac{V_0^{1/4}}{1\text{MeV}}\right)^2.$$
(36)
This precludes, by many orders of magnitude, hybrid inflation with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}`$, $`v`$ and $`V_0^{1/4}`$ at the TeV scale.

As we noted earlier, with TeV–scale inflation, length scales corresponding to our observable Universe, actually leave the horizon when $`\sigma `$ is very close to $`\sigma _\mathrm{c}`$. In principle, one could therefore avoid the above constraints by starting the inflation very close to $`\sigma _c`$. In that regime the loop correction is very suppressed, and so is its first derivative making $`ϵ`$ very small. Although the second derivative is not suppressed in general, it can be suppressed at any single point by a suitable choice of the renormalization scale $`Q`$. However, the third derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ will not be suppressed at the same point, and near $`\sigma _c`$ it is roughly

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{\prime \prime \prime }\frac{g^4\sigma _c^2}{\sigma \sigma _c}.$$
(37)
Therefore, even if we tune $`Q`$ in such a way that the the slow-roll condition (12) is satisfied at $`\sigma `$, the length of the range inside which it remains satisfied is of order

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \frac{V_0(\sigma \sigma _c)}{g^2|m^2|M_p^2}\frac{v^2}{M_p^2}(\sigma \sigma _c)10^{32}(\sigma \sigma _c).$$
(38)
This is far too short to produce any inflation at all in practice, because Eq. (15) implies that $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\eta \sigma 10^{17}(\sigma \sigma _c)/\sigma `$. We conclude that the hybrid inflation paradigm is unviable at the TeV scale, and turn now to an alternative.

## IV Inverted hybrid inflation

Given the concerns discussed in the previous section, we shall turn from ordinary hybrid inflation, in which the inflaton rolls towards the origin, and consider instead the case of inverted hybrid inflation  where it rolls away from the origin, and inflation takes place at small $`\sigma `$. This is achieved by giving $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ a negative slope, making the coupling between $`\varphi `$ and $`\sigma `$ negative, and making $`m^2`$ positive.

The effective potential we shall consider is

$$V(\varphi ,\sigma )=V_0\frac{1}{p}\lambda _p\sigma ^p+\frac{1}{q}\kappa _q\sigma ^q\frac{1}{2}g^2\sigma ^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda \varphi ^4,$$
(39)
where all the parameters in the potential are positive semi-definite. To have a viable model we shall need to consider non-renormalizable terms $`q>p>4`$, corresponding to dimensionful parameters $`\lambda _p`$ and $`\kappa _q`$.

The tree-level mass term $`m^2`$ of the Higgs field is positive, and therefore the electroweak symmetry is restored during inflation, when $`\sigma `$ is small. When $`\sigma `$ reaches the critical value $`\sigma _c=m/g`$, the Higgs field becomes unstable and the symmetry gets broken. If we assume that the time scale of the dynamics of the Higgs field is much faster than that of the inflaton, we can calculate that at any value of $`\sigma `$, the Higgs field has the value

$$\varphi ^2=\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=\frac{g^2\sigma ^2m^2}{\lambda }.$$
(40)
Thus the effective potential for the inflaton $`\sigma `$ is

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )=V_0\frac{m^4}{4\lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{g^2m^2}{\lambda }\sigma ^2\frac{g^4}{4\lambda }\sigma ^4\frac{1}{p}\lambda _p\sigma ^p+\frac{1}{q}\kappa _q\sigma ^q.$$
(41)
The loop correction is given by the same expression (30) as before. At $`\sigma \sigma _c`$, it behaves as $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}(\sigma )\sigma ^4\mathrm{ln}\sigma `$, which is of lower order than the tree-level terms $`\sigma ^p`$ and $`\sigma ^q`$, and therefore we can ignore the loop correction when we study the dynamics after inflation. During inflation, $`\sigma <\sigma _c`$, so that,

$$m^2(\sigma )=m^2g^2\sigma ^2=g^2(\sigma _\mathrm{c}^2\sigma ^2).$$
(42)
An appropriate choice in this regime is $`Q=m`$, and with that choice the loop correction is a power series, equivalent to a tree-level contribution. At sufficiently small $`\sigma `$, the series converges rapidly and we need keep only the renormalizable terms (quadratic and quartic). In the language of effective field theory, we have obtained an effective field theory valid at $`\sigma m`$ by integrating out the physics on the scale $`m`$. This is analogous to the way in which one might obtain the Standard Model by integrating out GUT physics on the scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$.

In order to satisfy the slow-roll and COBE constraints, the potential must be very flat at small $`\sigma `$, where inflation takes place. As a result, at least the quadratic and quartic terms must be cancelled, by the tree-level terms of the original potential. Demanding a perfect cancellation, we arrive at the “renormalized” loop correction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}(\sigma )=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\left[m^4(\sigma )\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2(\sigma )}{m^2}+g^2m^2\sigma ^2\frac{3}{2}g^4\sigma ^4\right].$$
(43)
To achieve slow-roll inflation the inflaton mass-squared has to be much less than $`V_0/M_\mathrm{P}^210^{30}m^2(10^4\text{eV})^2`$, which means that the quadratic counter-term has to cancel the loop correction to an accuracy of $`10^{30}`$. Also, the dimensionless coupling of the quartic term has to be $`<10^{15}`$ to achieve the COBE normalization, and the quartic counter-term has to cancel the loop correction to this accuracy. These two extremely fine-tuned cancellations are the price we have to pay, for the not inconsiderable prize of inflation at the TeV scale with an unsuppressed coupling to the Higgs field leading to viable baryogenesis. From the effective field theory viewpoint, we have renormalized the parameters of the effective small-$`\sigma `$ potential, in an analogous way to that in which the parameters of the Standard Model effective theory are renormalized if it is obtained from a non-supersymmetric GUT theory.

The next term in the power series representing the loop correction is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}(\sigma )=\frac{1}{192\pi ^2}\frac{g^6\sigma ^6}{m^2},$$
(44)
and we shall check that this does not spoil the COBE normalization.

Now, the effective potential (41) is minimized when

$$\kappa _q\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^{q2}\lambda _p\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^{p2}\frac{g^4}{\lambda }\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^2+\frac{g^2m^2}{\lambda }=0.$$
(45)
Assuming that $`g^2`$ is small, the mass of the Higgs field in this minimum, which corresponds to the physical vacuum, is

$$m_H^2=2(g^2\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^2m^2).$$
(46)
Because $`m_H^2`$ is an observable quantity, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is not, it is useful to invert this relation and write

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^2=\frac{1}{g^2}\left(m^2+\frac{1}{2}m_H^2\right).$$
(47)
By requiring $`V(\sigma _{\mathrm{min}})=0`$, i.e. that the cosmological constant be zero in the physical vacuum, and using (47), we may express $`V_0`$ in terms of the other parameters as

$`V_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\right)\left(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_H^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\right)\left(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_H^2\right)^2`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{g^p}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\right)\left(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_H^2\right)^{p/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{4\lambda }}.`$
For future convenience, let us introduce the dimensionless parameters

$$\alpha \frac{2m^2}{m_H^2},\beta \frac{\lambda \lambda _p}{m_H^4}\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^p.$$
(50)
In terms of these parameters, the initial energy density Eq. (49) is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{init}}=V(\varphi =0,\sigma =0)=V_0=\frac{m_H^4}{4\lambda }\left[\frac{1}{4}\frac{\alpha +1}{q}+4\frac{qp}{pq}\beta \right].$$
(51)
Using Eq. (45), we can also express $`\kappa _q`$ in terms of $`m_H^2`$ as

$`\kappa _q`$ $`=`$ $`g^q\left(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_H^2\right)^{1q/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_H^2}{2\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{g^p}}\left(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_H^2\right)^{p/21}\right]`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^qm_H^{4q}}{\lambda }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{4}}+\beta \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{2}}\right)^{q/2}.`$ (53)
## V Cosmological Constraints

Having defined the model, we now turn to the constraints imposed by the requirement of a successful cosmological evolution. In particular, we demand the generation of COBE scale fluctuations in the microwave background during inflation, followed by the generation of the observed baryon asymmetry, both occurring around the electroweak scale.

We can constrain the exponent $`p`$ by writing the COBE normalization  in terms of the VEV of $`\sigma `$, estimated from the first two terms of Eq. (39) as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}\left(\frac{V_0p}{\lambda _p}\right)^{1/p}.$$
(54)
For $`p=4`$, 5 and 6 one finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}}{100\text{GeV}}}`$ $`=`$ $`10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0^{\frac{1}{4}}}{100\text{GeV}}}\right)(p=4),`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}}{100\text{GeV}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.5\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0^{\frac{1}{4}}}{100\text{GeV}}}\right)^{\frac{6}{5}}(p=5),`$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}}{100\text{GeV}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.063\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_0^{\frac{1}{4}}}{100\text{GeV}}}\right)^{\frac{4}{3}}(p=6).`$ (57)
With $`p=5`$, the VEV and the height of the potential can both be at the electroweak scale. This is what we need for baryogenesis, giving also the nice feature that the dimensionful couplings are at the electroweak scale. With $`p=4`$, the VEV is far above the electroweak scale, and the dimensionless coupling is very small. With $`p=6`$, the VEV is appreciably below the electroweak scale and the dimensionful coupling somewhat above it. Only $`p=5`$ and (marginally) $`p=6`$ provide a viable model of inflation with all relevant quantities around the electroweak scale.

In order to see more precisely how the COBE data constrains the parameters, we use Eq. (15) to calculate the value $`\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ at which the fluctuations were generated. It turns out that slow-roll inflation ends at $`\sigma \sigma _\mathrm{c}`$, which means that the COBE constraint is practically the same as in the corresponding ‘new’ inflation model (the first three terms of Eq. (39) with $`V`$ vanishing at the minimum). At small $`\sigma `$, we can approximate $`V(\sigma )V_0`$ and $`V^{}(\sigma )\lambda _p\sigma ^{p1}`$ so that Eq. (15) becomes

$$N(\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}})\frac{1}{p2}\frac{V_0}{\lambda _pM_p^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}^{2p},$$
(58)
and Eq. (16) becomes

$$\frac{V_0^3}{\lambda _p^2M_p^6}\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}^{22p}=\frac{V_0^3}{\lambda _p^2M_p^6}\left[(p2)N\frac{\lambda _pM_p^2}{V_0}\right]^{\frac{2p2}{p2}}2.7\times 10^7.$$
(59)
These yield

$$\lambda _p\left(5.2\times 10^4\right)^{p2}\left[(p2)N\right]^{1p}\left(\frac{M_p}{\sqrt{V_0}}\right)^{p4}$$
(60)
and

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}1.9\times 10^3(p2)N\frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{M_p}10\mathrm{eV},$$
(61)
which means that unless $`m^2`$ is extremely small, the fluctuations were generated well before $`\sigma _c`$. This is crucial, because it means that we need not worry about the “renormalized” loop correction Eq. (43). From this expression, the contribution to $`V^{}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{loop}}^{}(\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}})\frac{g^6\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}^5}{32\pi ^2m^2}.$$
(62)
Therefore loop corrections do not change the COBE fluctuations if

$$\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}\frac{g^6}{32\pi ^2\lambda _p}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}^{6p}}{m^2}1.$$
(63)
We shall check that this holds for the parameter values that we propose. (The model may work even if this inequality is not satisfied, but then the analysis becomes more complicated, because we cannot neglect the loop correction.) Finally, the flatness condition $`\eta 1`$ is

$$10^9g^3\frac{m}{M_\mathrm{P}}1,$$
(64)
which is easily satisfied by all the parameter values we will consider.

Since we are mainly interested in low-scale inflation models as a way of avoiding the problems of ordinary electroweak baryogenesis, the reheat temperature $`T_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ to which the universe eventually equilibrates must be lower than the electroweak critical temperature. Otherwise, the electroweak phase transition would take place just as in the standard Big Bang scenario. In fact, $`T_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ must be even lower, because if it is too close to the critical temperature, sphaleron processes would be so frequent that they would wash out the baryon asymmetry generated during the non-equilibrium stage. This can only be avoided if the Higgs field has a large enough expectation value at the reheat temperature, $`\varphi (T_{\mathrm{rh}})>T_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ . This translates into

$$T_{\mathrm{rh}}<150\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(65)
The corresponding constraint for the energy density is

$$\rho (T_{\mathrm{rh}})\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{}T_{\mathrm{rh}}^4<10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}^4(320\mathrm{GeV})^4.$$
(66)
Because energy is conserved, the initial energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{init}}=V_0`$ in Eq. (51) must satisfy the same bound. This may be written in terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as

$$\frac{1}{4}\frac{\alpha +1}{q}+4\frac{qp}{pq}\beta <20.$$
(67)
Another condition the potential must satisfy is that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ actually is a minimum rather than a maximum, since Eq. (45) only guarantees that it is an extremum. This means that we must require $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\prime \prime }(\sigma _{\mathrm{min}})>0`$, and since

$$V^{\prime \prime }(\sigma _{\mathrm{min}})=\frac{g^2m_H^2}{2\lambda }\left[(2q)\alpha +(q4)(1+\alpha )+(qp)\frac{4\beta }{1+\alpha }\right].$$
(68)
we can write this constraint in the form

$$\frac{q}{2}2\alpha +2\beta \frac{qp}{\alpha +1}>0.$$
(69)
Similarly, we must require that there is no metastable minimum before $`\sigma _c`$, or otherwise the inflaton would become trapped there. This condition translates to

$$\delta _{\mathrm{MS}}\left(\frac{m}{g}\right)^{qp}\frac{\kappa _q}{\lambda _p}=\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +1}\right)^{\frac{qp}{2}}\left[\frac{\alpha +1}{4\beta }+1\right]<1.$$
(70)
Now, initially, the potential (39) has five free parameters, but if we assume that the Higgs mass is $`115`$ GeV , it fixes $`\lambda 0.1`$, and also $`\kappa _q`$ via Eq. (52). On the other hand, Eq. (60) fixes $`\lambda _p`$ from the COBE data. Therefore, once we choose the integers $`p`$ and $`q`$, only two free parameters remain, and we may plot our constraints in a two-dimensional plot. These constraints are quite complicated and therefore a complete map of the allowed regions of parameter space must be obtained numerically. However, it is useful to study the constraints in the limits of small and large $`g`$ and $`m^2`$:

* $`g0`$
In this case, $`V_0`$ can only depend on $`g`$ via $`\beta `$, and we assume that $`\beta `$ becomes large at small $`g`$. Then

$$V_0\beta \lambda _pg^p.$$
(71)
Eq. (60) then tells us that $`\lambda _p`$ satisfies

$$\lambda _pV_0^{(4p)/2}\lambda _p^{(4p)/2}g^{p(4p)/2},$$
(72)
which implies that

$$\lambda _pg^{p(p4)/(p2)}\text{and}\beta g^{2p/(p2)},$$
(73)
justifying our assumption that $`\beta `$ diverges at small $`g`$. Thus we find

$$V_0g^{2p/(p2)},$$
(74)
which means that very small values of $`g`$ are ruled out because the energy density is too high. In the same way, we also find

$$\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}g^{4(p3)/(p2)},$$
(75)
showing that the loop correction also becomes important in this limit, and therefore our analysis does not apply. On the other hand, $`\delta _{\mathrm{MS}}`$constant, which means that there is no metastable minimum before $`\sigma _c`$, and $`V^{\prime \prime }g^{4/(p2)}`$, which means that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ remains a minimum in this limit.
* $`g\mathrm{}:`$
In this limit, we first assume that $`\beta `$ becomes small and therefore $`V_0`$ becomes independent of $`g`$. Eq. (60) shows that $`\lambda _p`$ approaches a constant as well, and therefore $`\beta g^p`$. This justifies our assumption, and therefore the energy density behaves well in this limit. The same is true for the condition (68) because $`V^{\prime \prime }g^2`$. However, $`\delta _{\mathrm{MS}}\beta ^1g^p`$ diverges . Moreover, $`\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}g^6`$, and therefore the loop corrections ruin our analysis in this limit.
* $`m^20:`$
This is a well-behaved limit in which we find $`\beta `$constant, $`V_0`$constant and $`V^{\prime \prime }`$constant. Moreover, $`\delta _{\mathrm{MS}}m^{qp}`$ vanishes, satisfying Eq. (70). However, because $`\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}m^2`$, the loop corrections become important, implying that our analysis breaks down.
* $`m^2\mathrm{}`$
In this limit, we find

$$V_0\beta m^{2p/(p2)},$$
(76)
indicating that the energy density eventually becomes too high. Similarly,

$$\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}m^{4/(p2)},$$
(77)
and the loop corrections become more important. The condition (70) is satisfied, because $`\delta _{\mathrm{MS}}1`$ from below, but (68) breaks down, because $`V^{\prime \prime }m^2`$ becomes negative at large $`m^2`$.

These arguments show that all these extreme limits are either ruled out or, in the case $`m^20`$, the loop corrections get so important that we cannot trust our results. However, we will show numerically that there is an allowed region of intermediate parameter values.

### A Baryogenesis from Preheating

For the mechanism discussed in Section II A to work effectively, it is crucial that the period of the oscillations is much shorter than the time it takes for the fields to thermalize. Otherwise, the system would remain near equilibrium, and it would be impossible to have a non-thermal power spectrum. On the other hand, the frequency cannot be too high, or short-wavelength modes of the standard model fields are also excited. The period of the oscillation is approximately

$$t_{\mathrm{osc}}=2_{\sigma _a}^{\sigma _b}𝑑\sigma \left(\frac{d\sigma }{dt}\right)^1=\sqrt{2}_{\sigma _a}^{\sigma _b}\frac{d\sigma }{\sqrt{V_0V(\sigma )}},$$
(78)
when $`\sigma `$ oscillates between $`\sigma _a`$ and $`\sigma _b`$. For small amplitudes, the period is simply given by

$$t_{\mathrm{osc}}=\frac{2\pi }{V^{\prime \prime }(\sigma _{\mathrm{min}})},$$
(79)
where $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ is given by Eq. (68).

We will first study the special case $`V^{\prime \prime }m_H^2`$, $`V_0(250\mathrm{GeV})^4`$, where we have chosen both the energy density and the frequency sufficiently high (but not too high) for our mechanism to be effective. These two conditions fix the remaining parameters, and in the case $`p=5`$, $`q=6`$ we find $`g=0.163`$ and $`m^2=71000`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. Let us now study these parameter values in more detail. Eq. (60) fixes $`\lambda _59.5`$ TeV<sup>-2</sup> and Eq. (52) consequently yields $`\kappa _65.7`$ TeV<sup>-3</sup>. These imply $`\alpha 10.7`$ and $`\beta 79.0`$. From Eq. (61), we then find $`\sigma _{\mathrm{COBE}}8.8`$ eV, which means that, for these parameter values, the COBE fluctuations were generated well before $`\sigma _c1.6`$ TeV, and therefore the loop corrections are very small, $`\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}10^{12}`$.

The potential is plotted in Fig. 1, where the solid line shows the effective potential (41) and the dashed line the symmetric phase ($`\varphi =0`$) potential. The minimum is at $`\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}1.7`$ TeV. As can be seen from the plot, the potential is extremely flat near $`\sigma =0`$, and the Higgs field becomes unstable and the electroweak symmetry breaks down only very close to the minimum. The amplitude of the inflaton oscillations is initially much larger than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}`$, and therefore the SU(2) symmetry gets broken and restored once in every oscillation. This results in highly efficient excitation of the long-wavelength modes of the standard model fields .

More quantitatively, we may calculate numerically the period of the oscillations using Eq. (78). The resulting frequency $`\omega =2\pi /t_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ as a function of $`\sigma _a`$, the minimal value of $`\sigma `$ reached during the oscillations, is shown in Fig. 1 as a dotted line. Even when the amplitude is large the frequency is of order 10 GeV, and therefore the oscillations are clearly capable of creating a highly non-equilibrium power spectrum for the standard model fields.

In order to see how much fine tuning of parameters is needed, we show in Fig. 2a the allowed region in $`(m^2,g)`$ space. The white region in the plot shows the parameter values than remain allowed after we have excluded the regions ruled out by the metastability constraint (70) the frequency constraint

$$(50\mathrm{GeV})^2<V^{\prime \prime }(\sigma _{\mathrm{min}})<(200\mathrm{GeV})^2,$$
(80)
the energy density constraint

$$(150\mathrm{GeV})^4<V_0<(300\mathrm{GeV})^4,$$
(81)
and the loop correction constraint \[see Eq. (63)\]

$$\delta _{\mathrm{loop}}<0.1.$$
(82)
Of particular note is that around the value $`g0.07`$, there is a wide range of allowed values,

$$(1\mathrm{keV})^2<m^2<(300\mathrm{GeV})^2.$$
(83)
We have repeated the analysis for other values of the parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$, with the result that the constraints become stronger. A natural choice would be $`p=6`$ and $`q=8`$, because the potential would then have a $`Z_2`$ symmetry. However, in that case the energy density is typically very high, unless $`g`$ is large, as shown in Fig. 2b. In such a situation it is questionable whether our techniques can be applied at all. Furthermore, since the frequency of the inflaton oscillations is also typically very high, the inflaton would decay to high-momentum Higgs modes instead of exciting only the lowest modes.

Nevertheless, with $`p=5`$, $`q=6`$, the model generates naturally the necessary conditions for the scenario of Refs. . The short-wavelength modes are essentially in vacuum, while the long-wavelength modes have a high effective temperature. When the system thermalizes, this temperature decreases, the system undergoes a non-thermal phase transition to the broken phase , and the baryon asymmetry freezes in. Because of the non-perturbative, non-equilibrium nature of the mechanism, reliable estimates for the generated baryon asymmetry can only be obtained by means of numerical simulations, as discussed in Ref. . As an aside, let us point out that because the potential is much more highly curved in the $`\sigma `$ direction than in the $`\varphi `$ direction (see Fig. 1), the oscillations of $`\sigma `$ quickly die away, and only $`\varphi `$ keeps oscillating, as was assumed in Ref. .

### B Baryogenesis from the Kibble Mechanism

If the energy density is lower than is needed for the above scenario, baryogenesis may still take place via the Kibble mechanism as discussed in Section II B. In our model $`m^2(\sigma )=m^2g^2\sigma ^2`$, and the adiabaticity condition (6) implies

$$k_{\mathrm{max}}^3g^2\sigma _c\dot{\sigma }.$$
(84)
Using $`\sigma _c=m/g`$, we find

$$n_{\mathrm{configs}}\xi _{\mathrm{max}}^3k_{\mathrm{max}}^3gm\dot{\sigma }.$$
(85)
Depending on CP violation, this must be higher than $`0.001m_H^3`$ for sufficient baryogenesis .

If we insist that inflation does not end before $`\sigma _c`$, the slow-roll condition (11) requires $`\dot{\sigma }V(\sigma _c)^{1/2}m_H^2`$, which may be high enough. We will, however, relax this requirement and assume that inflation has ended before $`\sigma _c`$, whereby we obtain an estimate for the value of $`\dot{\sigma }`$ by neglecting the expansion of the universe and using conservation of energy. This yields

$`\dot{\sigma }^2`$ $``$ $`V(\sigma _{\mathrm{end}})V(\sigma _c)V_0V(\sigma _c)`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_H^4}{\lambda }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha +1}}\right)^{p/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{4}}+\beta \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha +1}}\right)^{q/2}\right].`$ (87)
In general $`\sigma `$ will roll past its minimum, reach a maximum value and turn back. If its initial speed is too high and there is not enough friction, it may cross $`\sigma _c`$ again and restore the electroweak symmetry. To avoid this, we require that the energy density is not much higher than is needed for restoring the SU(2) symmetry. In practice, we choose $`V_0<m_H^4/4\lambda `$. Note, however, that even higher energy densities could be acceptable, because lattice simulations  suggest that the Higgs winding changes very reluctantly during symmetry restoration.

The other relevant criteria are the absence of a metastable minimum (70) and that the generated number density of winding configurations is high enough. The white region in Fig. 3a shows the resulting allowed region of parameter space, and is centred around $`g0.2`$ and $`m^21000`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>.

Let us examine these parameters more closely. The couplings become $`\lambda _57.3\times 10^5`$ GeV<sup>-1</sup> and $`\kappa _62.4\times 10^7`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup>, and we also find $`\alpha 0.15`$, $`\beta 0.66`$. The potential is shown in Fig. 3b. As can be seen from the plot, even a slight dissipation of energy during the first oscillation means that the field is no longer able to restore the SU(2) symmetry, and any Higgs winding number generated is therefore safe. The speed of the inflaton at $`\sigma _c`$ is

$$\dot{\sigma }(\sigma _c)1300\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(88)
and the generated winding number density is

$$n_{\mathrm{configs}}8000\mathrm{GeV}^30.005m_H^3,$$
(89)
which may be sufficient for baryogenesis. For an accurate estimate of how $`n_{\mathrm{configs}}`$ relates to $`n_B/s`$, one would have to solve the SU(2)+Higgs equations of motion in the presence of a CP violating coupling.

## VI Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have addressed the fascinating prospect that it may be possible to have successful inflation at the TeV scale, in which the observed fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background are generated. Following the end of this inflation, the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe may then be produced. The self-consistent scenario we have introduced involves an inverted hybrid inflation model which allows us to absorb into the renormalization counterterms of the couplings the potentially dangerous loop corrections present in ordinary hybrid models operating at this low energy scale . The inflaton is directly coupled to the standard model Higgs and during inflation the electroweak symmetry is unbroken. Two possible mechanisms may operate to generate the baryon asymmetry. The first is based on the effective non-thermal restoration of the electroweak symmetry during preheating, which occurs at the end of the inflationary period. During symmetry restoration, the Higgs winding and Chern-Simons numbers can change, and when the system thermalizes, they freeze into a non-zero value. In this mechanism the baryon washout problem of the standard electroweak phase transition is avoided, because the effective cooling rate is determined by the thermalization rate of the standard model fields rather than the expansion of the universe.

The second possibility is through the zero-temperature Kibble mechanism occurring at the end of inflation, when the Higgs field becomes unstable triggering a phase transition. There is no baryon washout problem because the process takes place at zero temperature. The subsequent evolution of the Higgs field leads to configurations being formed in which there is a non-trivial Higgs winding number. These unstable configurations subsequently decay, leading to anomalous fermion number production. Coupled with the fact that the process is out of equilibrium, and assuming there exist CP-violating effects as the configurations unwind, the ingredients are present for the generation of a baryon asymmetry.

In both cases we have presented details showing the degree of fine tuning required to satisfy constraints from both field theory and cosmology. Not surprisingly there is certainly some fine tuning required in these models. For example, it turns out that we require $`p=5`$ in order to satisfy all the constraints.

It remains to be seen whether such a paradigm is realized in a full, particle physics inspired model of inflation, but it is certainly of potential importance that it appears possible to use the same model to generate both the large scale features of our Universe and the observed baryon asymmetry.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Paul Saffin for useful discussions, and Andrei Linde and Gary Felder for useful correspondence. M.T. was supported in part by funds provided by Syracuse University. A.R. was supported by PPARC and partially by the University of Helsinki.


format: text

text:
# Lithium in the Coma Berenices Open Cluster

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Lithium is the only metal which was formed in significant quantities in the big bang and yet can easily be burned in stellar interiors. Knowledge of the primordial lithium abundance could, in principle, be used to constrain big-bang nucleosynthesis models and the universal baryon density (Yang et al. yang84 (1984)). Li abundances in Population II stars might represent this primordial abundance (Bonifacio & Molaro bonifacio97 (1997)), but it is debatable whether stellar mixing and processing have depleted lithium from a higher initial value (Deliyannis & Ryan deliyannis97 (1997); Ryan et al. ryan99 (1999)). Standard stellar-evolution models, incorporating only convective mixing, predict little Li depletion in Population II stars. However, non-standard processes such as microscopic diffusion, rotation-induced turbulence, or gravity waves might have reduced the surface Li by factors of 2-3 (Pinsonneault et al. pinsonneault99 (1999)).

Much of the support for non-standard processes is established in observations of young clusters, where rapid rotation and loss of angular momentum may well drive additional mixing. The standard models cannot explain the “Boesgaard Gap” of Li-depleted mid-F stars in clusters such as the Hyades (Michaud michaud86 (1986); Charbonneau & Michaud charbonneau88 (1988)), the spread in lithium abundances in younger clusters such as the Pleiades (Soderblom et al. 1993a ) and $`\alpha `$ Per (Balachandran et al. balachandran96 (1996)), or the evidence that Li depletion continues in main-sequence stars, even though the bases of their convection zones (CZs) are too cool to burn Li (Jeffries & James jj99 (1999)).

Late-type stars in the Coma Berenices open cluster offer an important test of Li depletion models. With an age of 400-500 Myr (Philip et al. philip77 (1977); Lyngå lynga87 (1987)) Coma Ber is similar to the well studied Hyades and Praesepe clusters (ages $``$600–700 Myr – Mermilliod 1981). Importantly, these open clusters have a set of consistently-determined spectroscopic iron abundances: Coma Ber \[Fe/H\]=$`0.052\pm 0.026`$; Hyades \[Fe/H\]=$`+0.127\pm 0.022`$; Praesepe \[Fe/H\]=$`+0.038\pm 0.039`$ (Boesgaard & Friel boesgaard90 (1990); Friel & Boesgaard friel92 (1992)). Because the metallicity in Coma Ber is lower than that of the Hyades, its G and K stars should have shallower CZs at similar effective temperatures ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), and are predicted to undergo significantly less Li depletion during the pre-main-sequence (PMS) convective-mixing phase. As CZ-base temperatures are too cool to burn Li in main-sequence stars hotter than $``$5000 K, continuing Li depletion in these stars is not predicted by standard models. On this basis we would expect the Li-depletion patterns in these three post-ZAMS clusters to be very different, strongly dependent on metallicity, and set during their PMS evolution. Furthermore, because the Pleiades, with an age of 100Myr, has a consistently-determined metallicity (\[Fe/H\]=-0.034+/-0.024), we can compare it with the older Coma Ber cluster to study the presence, timescales and mass dependence of any non-standard mixing and Li-depletion mechanisms for F, G and K stars which have reached the ZAMS.

Jeffries (1999 - hereafter J (99)) obtained Li abundances for a small sample of F and G stars in the Coma Ber cluster. It was found that the depletion pattern was very similar to that of the Hyades, with only a hint of higher Li abundances in stars cooler than 5700 K. J (99) concluded that the Li depletion in a range of clusters (including Blanco 1 and the Pleiades, as well as the Hyades and Coma Ber) is ordered according to the cluster age, rather than metallicity. This is contrary to the predictions of standard models. However, non-standard mixing is in addition to PMS convective mixing, so clear differences between Coma Ber and the Hyades should remain. It is, therefore, still difficult to explain the Coma Ber Li abundances unless convective PMS Li depletion is strongly inhibited in all of the sample clusters. The conclusions of J (99) were tempered by the small sample size – 10 single members, 4 spectroscopic binaries and one possible non-member – and the relatively low resolution (0.5Å) spectra used to study blended Li lines.

Increasing the sample size is difficult because the cluster is spread over a wide area on the sky, is sparse, and has few known low-mass members. A new proper-motion study has recently been published by Odenkirchen et al. (odenkirchen98 (1998), hereafter O98), who have identified several low-mass candidates which were not observed in J (99). In addition, they find a core-halo spatial distribution and a co-moving group of extra-tidal stars. There is some evidence (albeit based on very small number statistics) that the mass function is still increasing towards lower masses in those stars at large distances from the cluster centre. Towards the cluster core the mass function appears sharply truncated just below 1M. These observations would agree with the idea that low-mass stars undergo mass segregation and preferential evaporation from young clusters, would explain the paucity of low-mass stars in previous surveys, and would predict a large number of stars with still lower masses at $`>`$5 from the cluster centre.

In this paper we determine radial velocities for Coma Ber cluster-member candidates proposed in O98 as well as a few other candidates from earlier proper-motion surveys (Trumpler trumpler38 (1938)). We use these results to filter the candidate members, then determine Li abundances for all the objects and re-examine the conclusions of J (99) using an enlarged sample of stars.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

### 2.1 Target Selection

The main source of new targets in this work (compared with J (99)) is the proper-motion survey of O98, based upon Hipparcos (Perryman et al. perryman97 (1997)) and ACT (Urban et al. urban98 (1998)) proper-motion measurements within a 20 radius of the nominal Coma Ber open cluster centre. For the brighter stars ($`V<8.5`$) in the Hipparcos catalogue, proper motions alone were used to select members, whereas fainter stars ($`V<10.5`$) were chosen from the ACT catalogue using proper motions in conjunction with photometric constraints. A total of 34 stars with $`V<10.5`$ were identified in this way (20 of them had $`V<8.5`$). This catalogue is expected to be reasonably complete, although a cross-check with the number of cluster members predicted by the excess stellar density over background counts suggests that perhaps as many as 40 per cent of members could have been missed. The reasons for this are two-fold: first, the instantaneous proper-motion measurements of binary systems may have given misleading information about their membership. This incompleteness is probably magnitude-independent. Second, for fainter targets ($`V>8.5`$), the Tycho photometry used for photometric selection can be quite uncertain. This, together with the severe photometric constraints used by O98 could have led to additional incompleteness among the faintest objects.

For the main purpose of this paper incompleteness is not a great problem, except that it limits the number of objects for which we can measure Li abundance. The targets observed here were selected as proper-motion members of the cluster by O98 and all are F, G or K type, with 9.10$`<V<`$10.78. Including those stars observed by J (99), we have studied all the stars from O98 which are mid-F type or later. Five faint proper-motion candidates (Ta 3, Ta 13, Ta 19, Ta 20 and Ta 21) were also selected from Trumpler (1938), four of which (the exception being Ta 20) have been reported to show photometric modulation which is consistent with their identification as youthful cool cluster members by Marilli et al. (marilli97 (1997)). These targets were faint enough ($`10.36<V<11.18`$) that their absence from the catalogue of O98 does not argue strongly against their membership. A list of the new targets observed in this paper is given in Table 1.

### 2.2 Spectroscopy

The new spectroscopic data acquired for this paper were obtained at the 2.5m Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) on 1998 November 26, and at the 4.2m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on 1998 November 28–29, 1998 December 06–08, and 1999 December 22–23 inclusive.

The INT data were taken with the same instrumental setup as described by J (99) and analysed in exactly the same way to derive heliocentric radial velocities and the equivalent widths (EWs) of the Li i 6707.8Å/Fe i 6707.4Å blend. The instrumental resolution was 0.5Å and the data consisted of a pair of spectra for each target which were co-added to give a signal-to-noise ratio (s/n) of approximately 200 per 0.22Å pixel.

The WHT data were taken with the Utrecht Echelle Spectrograph (UES) in cross-dispersing mode at the Nasmyth focus of the telescope. The detector used was a SITe1 2048x2048 CCD. The UES was set up with a 31 grooves/mm grating and a central wavelength of 5875Å, so that a wavelength range from 4600Å to 9000Å was covered at a dispersion of 0.066Å per 24$`\mu `$m pixel in the region of the Li i 6708Å line. The resolving power was 45000 for the 1 arcsecond slit width we used.

The usual calibration frames, tungsten flat-fields and B stars were taken, as well as Thorium-Argon lamp exposures. The data were reduced using the Starlink echomop and figaro packages, which included bias-subtraction, flat-fielding, subtraction of scattered light and wavelength calibration. The s/n of these spectra in the radial-velocity orders (see below) and around the Li i 6708Å line were in the range 60 to 170 per extracted spectrum pixel. Radial velocities (RVs) were measured using cross-correlation techniques in the spectral range 5490 to 5584Å and 5940 to 6150Å, which contained many sharp, neutral metal lines and very little telluric contamination. The standard templates used to determine heliocentric RVs were HD 222368, HD 32963, HD 126053 and HD 693. Spectra for several of our objects showing the region around the 6708Å Li line are shown in Fig. 1.

The RVs obtained from the INT and WHT spectra are detailed in Table 1. The errors in the INT velocities, taken with a Cassegrain spectrograph, are dominated by wavelength stability. Repeat exposures and cross-correlation of standards taken on different nights yield an estimated internal error of $`\pm 2`$ km s-1, which is larger than the external error of putting the velocities onto the standard system. UES is mounted on a Nasmyth platform and has much higher resolution. The same experiments on standard stars observed at different times yield internal error estimates of less than 0.3 km s-1, with a likely external error of about $`\pm 1`$ km s-1. We quote the approximate sum of internal and external errors in Table 1, as this is appropriate for comparing with other data (in particular that from J99), although this might slightly over-estimate the internal scatter within the WHT data.

Projected equatorial velocities were estimated for all the stars by cross-correlating the same spectral orders used for RV determination with those of slowly-rotating, chromospherically-inactive stars of a similar spectral type. The width of the cross-correlation peak was calibrated against $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ by artificially broadening the template-star spectra with a limb-darkened rotation profile (Gray 1992) and cross-correlating against other template stars. A limb-darkening coefficient of 0.6 was used. For the INT spectra only an upper limit of 15 km s-1 could be determined. For the WHT data, with better resolution, we could measure $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ down to a limit of 6 km s-1 and several stars showed broadening greater than this. From numerical experiments we estimate accuracies of order 10% for these values, which are listed in Table 1.

### 2.3 Lithium Abundances

The main purpose of our paper is to compare the Li abundances of cool stars in the Coma Ber open cluster with those in other clusters such as the Pleiades and Hyades. To do this is absolutely essential that consistent abundance determination techniques are used for all the stars involved in the comparison, including atmospheric models, deblending techniques and temperature scales (see Balachandran et al. 1995). Because all these data were taken with different resolutions and signal-to-noise ratios, and since only equivalent widths are available to us for most of the comparison clusters, we are forced to use curve of growth techniques for abundance estimations.

The Li i (6706.6Å$`+`$6707.9Å) doublet is blended with the Fe i 6707.4Å line only in lower resolution data. Where the Li doublet and Fe lines are resolved we use equivalent widths for the Li doublet alone if quoted. For Coma Ber stars the lines are clearly resolved in most of our WHY spectra and the equivalent width is determined by fitting a synthesised Li+Fe spectrum. Table 2 lists these EWs along with their errors determined from chi-squared fits. For lower resolution data and for our INT Coma Ber spectra we adopt a single deblending correction to the integrated Li+Fe EW. The empirical correction we use is that the EW of the Fe line (plus some even weaker CN features) is given by $`20(BV)3`$mÅ. In our INT spectra, the total Li$`+`$Fe EW is measured by integrating below a continuum, fitted to line-free regions around the Li doublet. These total EWs (and errors from the continuum fitting and integration) are listed in Table 2 along with the deblended Li doublet EWs. Note that the colour errors feed through to give a negligible additional error ($`<`$1mÅ) in the empirical deblending formula.

Of course, when dealing with clusters of differing metallicities we might expect the deblending to vary. \[Fe/H\] for the Hyades is 1.5 times that of Coma Ber and we would expect the weak blended Fe line to be 1.5 times as strong as well. We choose not to try and account for this explicitly because (as we discuss further in Sect. 3.3) this effect is small compared with the differences we see between the Hyades and Coma Ber Li doublet EWs and besides, at the cool temperatures where the deblending error might contribute most, the vast majority of the spectra are taken at high resolution where the blending is not an issue.

Effective temperatures for all stars were derived from $`BV`$ colours using the calibration of Saxner & Hammarbäck (1985) for stars with $`BV<0.64`$ or Böhm-Vitense (1981) otherwise. The Saxner & Hammarbäck relation includes a small metallicity dependent term and we assume that a correction of the same additive form is appropriate for use with the Böhm-Vitense relation. The effective temperatures of the Coma Ber stars along with errors derived by propagating the photometry errors through the colour-temperature relation are given in Table 2. We note here that choice of effective temperature scale or the metallicity dependence of the temperature scale cannot alter our conclusions significantly. As we will see in Sect. 3.3 a change in effective temperature changes the derived Li abundance such that a star moves along the trend of Li versus effective temperature. So while absolute Li abundances for individual stars might change, the trends in abundance and inter-cluster comparisons do not. Li abundances (quoted as $`\mathrm{log}N(Li)=12+\mathrm{log}(Li/H)`$) were estimated using interpolation of the LTE curves of growth provided by Soderblom et al. (1993a) - which use the appropriate gravity for the ZAMS stars considered here. Small (of order 0.05-0.1 dex) NLTE corrections were made to these using the code of Carlsson et al. (1994). The sign of these corrections varies with temperature: for hot stars it leads to a decrease in the Li abundance, while the reverse is true for cooler stars. For the Coma Ber stars the EWs, adopted $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values and their associated errors are given in Table 2. NLTE Li abundances are also given along with an error that is derived purely by folding the EW and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ errors through the curves of growth. Note that these errors do not reflect the true abundance errors, which must also include contributions from uncertainties in the temperature scale, atmospheres, convection treatment, microturbulence etc. (see below). However they do represent the true levels of uncertainty for comparing relative abundances between stars in the Coma Ber and other clusters which have similar colours and Li abundances determined using the same curves of growth.

Special mention is made of BD+28 2119. This star has little photometry available and the Tycho $`BV`$ value had very large errors (0.876$`\pm `$0.125). We measured the strength of several Fe i lines in the 6708Å region for all the member stars with WHT spectra and plotted them against $`BV`$. The resulting graphs seem to indicate that the true $`BV`$ for BD+28 2119 (assuming it to be a typical cluster star) is closer to 0.79 $`\pm `$ 0.02 and this is what we use to calculate the Li abundance.

In Sects. 4.1 and 4.2 we compare the Li abundances in Coma Ber (and other clusters) with theoretical models of Li depletion. For this purpose it is important to have an idea of the accuracy of the absolute Li abundances, in addition to the precision of the relative Li abundances. We expect larger, systematic errors in the absolute Li abundances than the uncertainties listed in Table 2. This is because we must include contributions from uncertain temperature scales, microturbulence and the fact that different atmospheres and convection models will yield slightly different abundances. Changes in the atmospheric assumptions do change the abundances in all the clusters systematically with respect to the theoretical models. We have experimented with this by performing a spectral synthesis for our best WHT spectra using Kurucz atlas9 model atmospheres (Kurucz, kurucz93 (1993)) using different convection models (mixing length theory with and without overshoot or full spectrum turbulence), different microturbulence parameters and temperatures differing by $`\pm 100`$ K.

We find that the abundances we determine are within 0.1 dex of the abundances determined from curve of growth techniques and that alteration of the atmospheric assumptions also causes Li abundances changes of 0.1 dex or less. We conclude that for the purposes of comparison with theoretical models, systematic errors of about 0.1 dex in the Li abundance should be added to the relative errors listed in Table 2.

## 3 RESULTS

### 3.1 Radial Velocities

A summary of the heliocentric RV measurements found in this paper, along with others from the literature, is given in Table 1. We take the range of RVs for likely cluster members to be 2$`\sigma `$ from $`\pm `$ 1 km s-1 (O98), which is a typical cluster velocity dispersion (Rosvick et al. rosvick92 (1992)). The cluster convergent point is sufficiently distant that any change in RV with position will be negligible. We suggest that those objects with radial velocities just outside our range are likely to be widely-spaced spectroscopic binaries which are members of the cluster. This is the case for Tr 102, which has also been identified as an SB1 star by Bounatiro (bounatiro93 (1993)).

The combination of proper-motion, photometric, and radial-velocity selection make it very unlikely that we have wrongly classified non-members as cluster stars. For example, O98 estimate a contamination level of less than 5 per cent among their brightest stars (with Hipparcos proper motions), based on proper-motion measurements alone. For fainter stars with less-accurate ACT proper motions this probability is likely to be much larger (evidence presented in Sect. 4.3 suggests it could be as high as 40 per cent). However, if we assume field stars have RVs which are randomly distributed between $`\pm `$30 km s-1 (Wielen 1977), then there is only a $`10`$ per cent chance of mistaking a non-member for a cluster member using the RV classification alone, and this will shrink drastically when we combine it with proper-motion and photometric selection.

We stress that our assessment of membership is based only on photometric, proper-motion and radial-velocity considerations. In particular we do not consider the lithium abundance as a defining characteristic. However, most of the stars which showed very discrepant RVs (in this paper and J99) showed either very little or no lithium compared with candidate members of similar $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (see Sect. 3.3). The exceptions here are the candidate SB1 system, Tr 102, and the RV non-member, Ta 21, which do show Li abundances consistent with those of other cluster members. Ta 21 may be a close binary system in the Coma Ber cluster and warrants further RV investigation, but we conservatively treat it as a non-member in the rest of this paper. We suspect that none of the remaining RV non-members are likely to have discrepant velocities as a result of being members of close, tidally-locked binaries, because such systems usually have the same, or even enhanced, Li relative to single cluster stars (e.g. those in the Hyades – Thorburn et al. thorburn93 (1993)). We note that Argue & Kenworthy (argue69 (1969)) rejected Ta 3 and Ta 19 (selected as candidate proper-motion members by Trumpler 1938) as cluster members on the basis of their proper-motion measurements. We find that both these stars also have RVs which are inconsistent with cluster membership, so the photometric modulation observed by Marilli et al. (1997) must identify them as moderately-youthful disk field stars.

### 3.2 Projected equatorial velocities

For the 20 stars in our sample, all have $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ $``$ 20 km s-1, and at least 11 have $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ $``$6 km s-1. Combining the Coma Ber cluster candidates from Table 1 with those from J99 (where all candidates had $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ $``$15 km s -1) and the F stars with $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ measurements in Kraft (kraft65 (1967)), we can compare rotation rates in Coma Ber with those in the Hyades. The Hyades measurements are either $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ values from Kraft (1965), or actual equatorial velocities derived from rotation periods by Radick et al. (radick87 (1987)). The comparison is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (calculated from $`BV`$ and \[Fe/H\] as described in Sect. 2.3), and reveals no evidence for a difference in rotation rates between Coma Ber and the Hyades. The equatorial velocities in the Hyades show little scatter at a given $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and appear to decrease smoothly from about 20–30 km s-1 in mid-F stars ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=6500`$K) to 10 km s-1 in late-F stars ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=6100`$K), and $``$5 km s-1 in late-G/early-K stars ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=50005500`$K). Recalling that the projected equatorial velocities we observe have an extra (presumably random) $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ term factored in, then the predominance of upper limits in our data is quite consistent with the Hyades data.

### 3.3 Lithium

The photometry, Li + Fe EWs, deblended EWs, assumed Teff values, and calculated Li abundance for each star are given in Table 2. Errors in the Li abundances take into account random errors in both the photometry and Li EWs. These are internal errors and additional external errors of $`\pm `$0.1 dex are appropriate when comparing with Li abundances determined using different techniques. Three of our measurements can be compared with those of J99 (based on spectra obtained with the INT in an identical configuration to that used here):

* HIP 61205 (Bou 50). Our measurement for this star was also taken on the INT, and is in excellent agreement with the value from J99. This suggests that there is no systematic difference between our reduction and that of J99, at least for the INT spectra
* Ta 13. The deblended Li EW estimated in J99 is 28$`\pm 3`$mÅ, in excellent agreement with the measured WHT Li EW in this paper. This gives some support for the accuracy of the empirical deblending performed both in this paper and in J99. However, we also note that in the case of BD+21 2514, for which we have obtained both INT and WHT spectra, there is a discrepancy of (14.9$`\pm `$5.3)mÅ between the empirically-deblended INT Li EW and the measured WHT Li EW. The question of the detailed accuracy of the empirical-deblending process is still open and we have much more faith in the measured Li EWs from the higher resolution WHT spectra. But, as discussed in Sect. 3.2 of J99, errors in the empirical deblending will not alter the conclusions in that paper or this one.
* Ta 20. The higher resolution WHT spectra have allowed us to obtain a new upper limit value for the Li i 6708Å EW for this star, which is smaller than the previous value by 6mÅ.

A plot of Lithium abundance versus $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for the Coma Berenices cluster members is shown in Fig. 3, where we have added the points from J99 (favouring measurements done at higher resolution on the WHT), and supplemented these with additional F stars observed by Boesgaard (1987). Open symbols represent those candidate members we assume to be in binary systems. Comparison is made with similar data for stars in the Hyades and Pleiades clusters. Li EWs and photometry were obtained from Boesgaard & Budge (1988), Soderblom et al. (1993b), Thorburn et al. (1993), and Soderblom et al. (1995). In these comparison samples we have included only those stars with no evidence for close binarity. In all cases, where necessary, we first deblended the Li line and then obtained Li abundances using the same temperature scale and curves of growth as for the Coma Ber data.

Fig. 3 shows that Coma Ber stars with spectral types earlier than that of the Sun (5800 K$`<T_{\mathrm{eff}}<`$6700 K) are clearly Li-depleted when compared with the Pleiades. This depletion is most dramatic at around 6600 K, the “Boesgaard gap”, which is more clearly seen in the Hyades data. The abundances in the Coma Ber F and early-G stars appear similar to those in the Hyades, except for a suspicion that some Coma Ber stars with temperatures around 6100–6400K may exhibit 0.3–0.8 dex more depletion than their Hyades counterparts, although this comparison is hampered by small numbers. However, there are three Coma Ber stars which have clearly depleted their lithium abundances below the Hyades level. The Hyades stars show little evidence for a lithium abundance dispersion at a given temperature in this region, but the presence of some single and probable-binary stars with Li abundances similar to those of Hyades stars indicates a large spread in these abundance values among the late-F stars of Coma Ber.

The three late-F low-Li Coma Ber stars are Tr 58, Tr 76 and Tr 92. Tr 58 has consistently measured abundances given in both J99 and Boesgaard (1987). Tr 76 has consistently low Li measured by J99, Boesgaard (1987) and Soderblom et al. (s90 (1990)). Tr 92 has consistent measurements in both Boesgaard (1987) and Soderblom et al. (1990). Either there is a genuine large spread in Li depletion for late-F stars in Coma Ber (which is not seen in the Hyades) or these three stars coincidentally show proper motions, photometry and radial velocities consistent with cluster membership – which we think very unlikely.

For stars with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<5800`$ K, the addition of several new Coma Ber members adds weight to the tentative finding by J99, that the abundances of Coma Ber stars are close to, but have suffered less Li depletion than, stars of similar $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the Hyades. This discrepancy widens at lower $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The reader might imagine that uncertainties in the metallicities of the two clusters, combined with the metallicity dependence of the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-$`BV`$ relation, could partially account for the difference. At $`BV=`$0.8 the Hyades stars are around 100 K hotter than those in Coma Ber for the metallicities we have assumed. However, if the Coma Ber temperatures were higher, the derived Li abundances would also increase. The net effect would be to move the points almost parallel to the trend observed in the G and K stars of Coma Ber and the Hyades, thus making little difference to the comparison. A further objection could be that the empirical deblending formula used for the INT data must surely be metallicity dependent. Of course Coma Ber has the lower metallicity, so the contribution to the blended Li+Fe line should be smaller than for the Hyades, by a factor of around 1.5 for this weak line. This would have a small effect in the sense of widening the discrepancy between Coma Ber and the Hyades. Besides, we now have higher resolution data for most of the cool stars, where the line blend is resolved (see Fig. 1). Therefore, we believe that this difference in Li depletion is real and well established, since it is now supported by several more objects.

## 4 DISCUSSION

For the purposes of discussion we divide our sample into two temperature ranges. We stress that the Li abundances listed in Table 2 (and for stars in other clusters) have been determined using consistent methods. Thus intercomparison of the cluster samples need only consider internal errors due to photometry and EW uncertainties. However, where we make comparison with theoretical models it must be accepted that there is an additional $`\pm 0.1`$dex error in the absolute Li abundances. In addition we assume that all clusters were born with the same initial Li abundance, but variations of $`\pm `$0.1 dex are possible.

### 4.1 F-stars (5800 $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 6800 K)

What expectations do we have for the Li depletion patterns of F stars in clusters of similar age but differing metallicity? Our observations suggest that there is little difference in the position of the centre of the Boesgaard gap or its cool wing. This is in agreement with the work done by Balachandran (1995), who showed that there was essentially no difference between the Hyades and Praesepe F-star Li-depletion patterns, despite a small metallicity difference between the clusters. We do, however, see some evidence for additional Li depletion, relative to the Hyades (and Praesepe), among some (but not all) Coma Ber stars with temperatures in the range 6100–6300 K.

Standard models predict that we should see almost no difference in the Li-$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ trends of the Hyades, Praesepe or Coma Ber F stars, since their CZs are thin enough that convective PMS Li destruction amounts to only $``$0.1 dex. Still smaller discrepancies are seen between models with metallicity differences of 0.1–0.2 dex (Pinsonneault 1997). However, we see significant Li depletion among the F stars (6000–6700 K) in both the Hyades and Coma Ber ranging from 0.3 dex to $`>`$1.5 dex in the Boesgaard gap (for an assumed initial $`\mathrm{log}N(\mathrm{Li})`$ of 3.2). This depletion, which is extra to the standard model predictions, demands non-standard effects such as microscopic diffusion or slow (non-convective) mixing caused by rotation or gravity waves.

Boesgaard (1991) presented an interesting argument, suggesting that for stars of a given age which are in the temperature range 5950–6350 K, greater Li depletion would be seen in lower metallicity objects because the thinner CZs should make microscopic diffusion more efficient. This would lead us to expect significantly greater depletion in the Coma Ber stars compared to those of the Hyades. This is apparently what we are seeing and a $`\mathrm{log}N(\mathrm{Li})`$ value of 2.7 in the late-F stars of Coma Ber would be in reasonable agreement with the empirical relationship between Li abundance, age, and metallicity put forward by Boesgaard. Whilst we confirm this empirical trend, we do not believe that Boesgaard’s explanation is correct. No account is taken of the fact that for late-type stars of a given temperature, a lower metallicity star has a lower mass and a relatively thicker CZ. These two effects almost cancel out for late-F stars, so that stars of a given $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ have similar CZ thicknesses. It is thus very unclear how a small change in metallicity affects Li depletion in the context of the microscopic diffusion model and it would be interesting to see some numerical predictions.

The work of Deliyannis et al. (deliyannis98 (1998)), argues strongly against the effectiveness of diffusion in late-F stars. Instead, their observations of simultaneous Li and Be depletion in field F stars favour rotationally-driven mixing occuring between the CZ base and regions where the temperature is high enough to burn Li. Models incorporating rotational mixing are described by Pinsonneault et al. (1999). These show that in the range 6000–6500 K, the predicted depletion by the age of the Hyades is modestly metallicity dependent, with about 0.1–0.2 dex less depletion in Praesepe than in the Hyades. Intuitively this arises because at a given $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the CZ base is cooler in lower metallicity stars, so material has to be mixed further to deplete Li. Extrapolating, we might expect even less depletion in Coma Ber stars at the same temperature, so the observed Li abundances do not seem to agree with the predictions for rotational mixing. However, more important than metallicity in these models is the rotational history of the stars themselves. Stars which begin life rotating more rapidly are able to deplete their Li faster. Hence a wide spread in initial rotation rates can lead to a wide spread in Li depletion at later times. We could hypothesize that the Coma Ber stars began life rotating slightly faster on average than Hyades stars, and with a larger spread in initial angular momentum.

The current rotation rate data in these clusters (shown in Fig. 2) neither support nor contradict this hypothesis. The suggestion is difficult to test because: (a) We only have $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$ measurements in Coma Ber, many of which are upper limits. However, the three anomalously low Li F stars in Coma Ber do not have anomalously high $`v_e\mathrm{sin}i`$. (b) Magnetic braking causes rotation rates to converge among stars with outer convection zones, so a lack of a rotation-rate spread now, does not mean that one never existed. Certainly, spreads in Li abundance are clear among the F and G stars of older clusters such as M67 (Jones et al. 1999), and one possible explanation which has been put forward is differing Li depletion rates caused by different rotational histories.

### 4.2 G and K stars ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 5800 K)

Our observations of G and K stars in the Coma Ber cluster cannot be adequately explained by either standard or non-standard models. Standard models predict that almost all depletion in these stars should happen on the PMS, with no further Li destruction once stars reach the ZAMS (Pinsonneault 1997 and Fig. 3). The amount of PMS depletion will be highly dependent on the metallicity of the star: metal-rich stars will have deeper CZs and therefore deplete Li more efficiently than lower-metallicity stars of the same temperature. Recalling the metallicities of Coma Ber ($``$0.052$`\pm `$0.026), the Pleiades ($``$0.034$`\pm `$0.024) and the Hyades (+0.127$`\pm `$0.022), this would mean that the Coma Ber lithium abundances should be close to those of similar stars in the Pleiades, due to their comparable metallicities. To illustrate the dependence of PMS depletion on metallicity, Fig. 3 shows two sets of Li depletion isochrones with a metallicity difference of 0.15 dex, approximately the difference between the Hyades and the Pleiades.

In fact, the Coma Ber abundances are closer to those of Hyades stars which have a similar age, but a significantly higher metallicity (by $`0.179\pm 0.034`$ dex). The difference between the Coma Ber and Pleiades trends can only be explained by MS mixing, ruling out the standard model. The amount of mixing required is made uncertain by the errors in the cluster metallicities, but must give rise to around 0.3 dex of Li depletion at 6000 K, rising to 0.8–1.2 dex at 5400 K.

The discrepancy between Coma Ber and the Hyades, which was tentatively identified by J99 and which is now confirmed by our larger sample, seems far too small to be explained by standard PMS depletion. Any MS depletion of lithium should reduce the amount of Li in both clusters, without decreasing the abundance gap between them, unless initial rotation rates in Coma Ber were considerably larger than in the Hyades. The evidence shown in Fig. 2 does not support higher rotation rates in Coma Ber, although some convergence of rotation rates may have taken place over several hundred million years. If anything, we might expect MS mixing to amplify the difference between the cluster Li-$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ trends, since the more metal-rich Hyades stars should destroy their Li more efficiently than those of Coma Ber. The Hyades is also $``$ 100–200 Myr older than Coma Ber allowing more MS mixing to take place. This suggests that Coma Ber and the Hyades started life on the ZAMS with Li abundances which were similar (at least for stars in the temperature range 5400$`<T_{\mathrm{eff}}<`$6000 K), and comparable with the level of Li seen in the Pleiades today. Again, this flatly contradicts the predictions of standard models but a lack of metallicity dependence for PMS Li depletion is also supported by observations of the young metal-rich cluster Blanco 1 (Jeffries & James 1999) and the young metal-poor cluster NGC 2516 (Jeffries et al. 1998). Both of these clusters show ZAMS Li depletion patterns and rotation rate distributions similar to that of the Pleiades.

There are two possibilities remaining that could rescue the standard model of PMS Li depletion. The first is that the metallicities of Coma Ber, the Hyades and the Pleiades are incorrect. Whilst we believe the absolute \[Fe/H\] values we have used probably have errors larger than those stated, the quoted errors probably do reflect the uncertainties in the relative abundances of the three clusters, because they were analysed using similar spectra, atmospheric models and temperature scales. The second possibility is that these clusters have non-solar abundance ratios. The metallicities we have used refer only to the Iron abundance, whereas CZ structure, and hence Li depletion, is also significantly affected by the abundances of Silicon, Neon, Magnesium and Oxygen (Swenson et al. swenson94 (1994)). A detailed and consistent abundance analysis for all these elements in the relevant clusters would be invaluable. However, we consider this unlikely to be a saviour for the standard model simply because of the growing weight of evidence that cluster Li depletion patterns among G and K stars are ordered according to their age rather than their metallicity (Jeffries jeffries00 (2000)).

### 4.3 The cluster luminosity function and mass segregation

In Sect. 5 of their paper, O98 examine the spatial and kinematic distributions of proper-motion selected Coma Ber candidates. They concluded that the cluster core is surrounded by a moving group of extra-tidal stars which share similar space motions but which are not gravitationally bound to the system as a whole. By separating the cluster candidates into two subsets (those objects within 5 degrees of the cluster centre, and those more than 5 degrees from it), it was shown that whilst the luminosity function falls sharply at $`V=9`$ in the centre, the moving group still appears to have a rising luminosity function at $`V=10`$ (see Fig. 4). The inferences from this are that the drop in the cluster-core luminosity function was real and not caused by incompleteness, and that the origin of the moving group is low-mass stars which have suffered dynamical segregation and evaporation from the cluster core. We could also surmise that even more low-mass members might be found among the moving group at magnitudes below the current limits of proper-motion surveys. Plots of both luminosity functions are given in Fig. 4a.

These conclusions hinge critically on the number of faint moving-group proper-motion candidates which are bona fide cluster members. There are only seven faint ($`V>`$9.5) moving-group objects, (those which are more than 5 degrees from the cluster centre), and they have all had their membership credentials tested by radial velocity and Li abundance measurements in this paper. Four were found to be non-members (BD+16 2505, BD+25 2631, BD+36 2312 and TYC 2534 1715 1), while the three others (BD+21 2514, HD 114400 and HIP 61205) were confirmed as cluster members. There are also three faint cluster-centre objects (BD+28 2119, Tr 12 and Tr 141) which we have confirmed as members, J99 identified a further three stars with 9.5$`<V<`$10.5 which also appear to be cluster members, yet which are not listed as such by O98: Tr 120, Tr 132 and Tr 150. All of these would be classified as central-cluster members. This confirms that there is some incompleteness in the O98 sample and weakens the evidence for a sharp drop in the luminosity function at $`V=9`$.

We have performed a formal Kolmogorov-Smirnov double-sided test on the cumulative luminosity functions of the central cluster and moving group from O98, using their membership classifications. We find that the distributions are different at the 92 per cent confidence level in agreement with their conclusion. However, if we remove the 4 stars which we classified as non-members from the faint moving-group sample, this confidence level reduces to 45 per cent. Inserting the three ’new’ members of the central cluster reduces this confidence level further, to only 11 per cent, i.e. we can conclude that the two luminosity functions are indistinguishable. One-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of these modified cumulative luminosity functions against the canonical field luminosity function given in Table 1 of Miller & Scalo (1979, assuming a cluster distance modulus of 4.7), yield probabilities of 0.1 and 80 per cent respectively that the central-cluster and moving-group luminosity functions could be similar to those of field stars. Of course, these probabilities depend critically on whether the sample is more incomplete at fainter magnitudes. It would require adding a further 5–6 faint stars to the central-cluster sample to make its luminosity function indistinguishable from that of the field. The implications of this are, depending on the level of incompleteness, that the luminosity function probably flattens, or even drops, for $`V>9`$ in the central part of the cluster. This is presumably as a result of dynamical evolution. However, there is no clear evidence that the evaporated or ejected stars form the moving group around the cluster, or that the luminosity function continues to rise among the faint moving-group members: its luminosity function could be consistent with either the field or the central part of the cluster. Therefore, it remains highly uncertain whether a significant number of moving-group members could be found at fainter magnitudes and lower masses.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have obtained radial velocities, projected equatorial velocities and lithium abundances for a sample of Coma Berenices open-cluster candidates, which were selected on the basis of their proper motions. The radial velocities were used to refine the candidate list further. Of the 20 objects observed, 6 were found to be non-members, 1 is a spectroscopic binary, 1 is a probable spectroscopic binary, while the remaining 12 have radial velocities consistent with cluster membership.

By combining our data with the work of O98, Boesgaard (1987) and Kraft (1965), we have obtained a near-complete ($`>`$60 per cent) membership census of F, G and early-K stars in the Coma Ber cluster. We have examined Li depletion in these stars, compared them with similar objects from the Hyades and Pleiades clusters and arrived at the following conclusions:

* Li depletion has occurred in the F stars of Coma Ber. The Li levels in these stars are close to, or slightly lower than, those of comparable stars in the Hyades, a cluster with a similar age but higher metallicity. Several late-F stars in Coma Ber have suffered 0.2–0.5 dex more depletion than similar stars in the Hyades. It is unlikely that these stars are non-members and we have no convincing explanation for this observation at present. We speculate that some Coma Ber F stars had a significantly different rotational history to those in the Hyades, although the rotation data in this paper and the literature do not show any peculiarities to support this.
* We have confirmed the tentative results presented by Jeffries (1999) with our larger sample of G and K objects in the Coma Ber cluster. We find that these stars have undergone less Li depletion than their counterparts in the more metal-rich Hyades, but significantly more depletion than younger Pleiades stars of similar metallicity. These observations contradict the standard Li-depletion model, consisting mainly of PMS convective mixing, since this would predict a strong metallicity dependence in Li-depletion patterns which we do not see.
* The difference between the Pleiades and Coma Ber Li depletion at a given temperature could be attributed to non-standard mixing mechanisms, such as rotation-induced turbulence. If this is the case, such mixing must be responsible for Li depletion of around 0.3 dex (at 6000 K), rising to 0.8–1.2 dex in cooler objects (5400 K).
* The similarity between the Hyades and Coma Ber Li-depletion patterns among G stars is difficult to explain with non-standard mixing, unless both clusters joined the ZAMS with Li depletion patterns similar to that of the Pleiades. Again, this contradicts our notions of how Li depletion and mixing work during PMS evolution.

Finally, we have used our data to re-evaluate some of the conclusions on the spatial distribution and luminosity function of proper-motion cluster candidates which were reached in earlier work. In particular we have found that, among the fainter stars, earlier membership samples were not complete and included a significant number of non-members. Taking this into account we find that the luminosity functions of stars in both the central cluster and in the proposed extra-tidal moving group of star are indistinguishable for 0$`<M_\mathrm{v}<`$6. This questions whether the moving-group is preferentially populated by ejected or evaporated low-mass stars from the central cluster. However, there is still evidence from the central-cluster luminosity function that preferential evaporation of lower mass stars has indeed occurred.

## 6 Acknowledgements

The William Herschel and Isaac Newton Telescopes are operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. The authors acknowledge the travel and subsistence support of the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC). AF and JRB were funded by PPARC postgraduate studentships. Computational work was performed on the Keele and St. Andrews nodes of the PPARC funded Starlink network. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service and CDS’ SIMBAD Astronomical Database.