text:
# Critical Behavior and Lack of Self Averaging in the Dynamics of the Random Potts Model in Two Dimensions

## I Introduction

The random $`q`$-state Potts modelwu  in two-dimensions has recently been the subject of extensive study. One reason for this interest is that disorder even changes the order of the transition for $`q>4`$, where it is first order in the pure case but must be continuousimry-wortis ; a-w ; h-b  in two-dimensions for all-$`q`$. Another reason interest is the prediction by Ludwigludwig , later confirmed by numerical simulationscardy ; jacobsen ; terry , of multi-fractal exponents at the critical point. Although there has been a lot of numerical work on the static critical exponentscardy ; jacobsen ; terry ; chatelain-prl ; chatelain ; cb99 ; cb01 ; picco ; picco98 , there has been less on the dynamics, though there have been some recent studies based on the “short-time dynamics”yh00 ; pan ; ybjls  approach. Here we perform a careful analysis of the dynamics of the Potts model in two dimensions by Monte Carlo simulations. Our motivation is two-fold:

Firstly, Cardycardy-paris  has raised the possibility that, at least for certain types of dynamics, one might have activated dynamical scaling, in which the log of the characteristic time $`\tau `$ (i.e. the barrier height) varies with a power of an appropriate length scale $`l`$ i.e. $`\mathrm{ln}\tau l^\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ is the “barrier” exponent. This is in contrast to conventional dynamical scaling in which $`\tau `$ itself varies with a power of $`l`$. i.e. $`\tau l^z`$, where $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent. Activated dynamics has been proposed by Fisherfisher  for the random field Ising model where the fixed point (of the renormalization group) is at $`T=0`$. First order transitions can also be described by a $`T=0`$ fixed point and also have activated dynamics. In that case the barrier exponent $`\psi `$ is equal to $`d1`$ for a discrete broken symmetry, where $`d`$ is the dimension, so $`\psi =1`$ here.

We study two values of $`q`$: $`q=3`$ where the pure system has a second order transition and so activated dynamics seems unlikely for the random case, and $`q=24`$ where the pure system has a first order transition so there is a greater possibility that the random problem will have activated dynamics. The size of the first order jump increases as $`q`$ gets large, and we find that we need $`q16`$ to clearly see activated dynamics for the pure system for the range of sizes studied. Hence, for the random case, we take a rather large number of Potts states, $`q=24`$, since activated dynamics is easily seen in this case for the pure system, so we feel we have a good chance of seeing it in the random case too, if it occurs. In fact, we find conventional dynamical scaling for both values of $`q`$, but, as we shall discuss, have some concern as whether this is the true asymptotic behavior for $`q=24`$.

Secondly, there has recently been considerable discussion about lack of self averaging for static quantities in random systems at the critical point. It is foundah96 ; ahw98 ; wd98  that if disorder is irrelevant, then the relative variance, $`R_X`$, of a static quantity $`X`$ tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit like $`L^{\alpha /\nu }`$, where $`L`$ is the lattice size, and $`\alpha (<0)`$ and $`\nu `$ are the specific heat and correlation length exponents, respectively. This is called weak self averaging. However, if disorder is relevant then $`R_X`$ tends to a universal constant, indicating lack of self-averaging. In this paper we consider the question of self averaging for dynamics, which has not been discussed before, to our knowledge. Disorder is relevant for both values of $`q`$ that we study, and yet we find rather different distributions of the relaxation time $`\tau `$ in the two cases. For $`q=3`$ we find a finite relative variance for $`\tau `$ but, perhaps surprisingly, for $`q=24`$ this appears to diverge in the thermodynamic limit and it is $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ which has a finite relative variance.

Sec. II describes the model and the quantities we calculate. Results for the pure models are given in Sec. III while results for the random system are given in Sec. IV. Our conclusions are summarized in Sec. V.

## II The Model

The Hamiltonian of the $`q`$-state Potts model is given by

$$\beta =\underset{i,j}{}K_{ij}\delta _{n_in_j},$$
(1)
where each site $`i`$ on an $`N=L\times L`$ square lattice is in one of $`q`$-states, characterized by an integer $`n_i=1,2,\mathrm{},q`$. The couplings, $`K_{ij}`$, are positive, and include the factor of $`\beta 1/k_BT`$. They are independent random variables, drawn from a probability distribution, $`P(K)`$.

For the pure case, the system is at criticality if the “dual coupling” $`K^{}`$, defined bywu ; k-d

$$(e^K1)(e^K^{}1)=q,$$
(2)
is equal to $`K`$, i.e. $`K^{}=K=K_c`$, where $`e^{K_c}=1+\sqrt{q}`$. For the random case it is possible to choose a self-dual distribution of the couplings to ensure that the system is at the critical point. We take the distribution suggested by Olson and Youngterry  (OY) since this is both very broad (so the system is far from the pure fixed point), and also does not have a substantial weight near $`K=0`$ (so the system is far from the percolation fixed point). In terms of $`xe^K`$, the OY distribution iscorrection

$$P_X(x)=\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\sqrt{q}}{(1x)^2+qx^2}.$$
(3)
To generate random numbers with probability $`P_X(x)`$ one takes $`x`$ to be

$$x=\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{q}\mathrm{tan}(\pi r/2)},$$
(4)
where $`r`$ is a random number with a uniform distribution between 0 and 1. We expect that the same results would be obtained asymptotically for any reasonable distribution. However, to verify this would require a very large computational effort, since other distributions are likely to have larger corrections to scaling than the OY distribution, and so would need simulations on larger lattices than we have been able to study here. We have some preliminary results for a binary distribution which are similar to those presented here for the OY distribution, but a much larger computational effort would be needed to verify convincingly that the two distributions are indeed in the same universality class.

We focus on the time dependent magnetization squared, defined by

$$m(t)^2=\frac{q}{q1}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{q}{}}\rho _n(t)^2\frac{1}{q}\right),$$
(5)
where $`\rho _n(t)`$ is the fraction of sites in state $`n`$ at time $`t`$. The initial configuration is completely random and so $`m(t)^2`$ increases, eventually reaching its equilibrium value for $`t\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`m(t)^2`$ is invariant under global symmetry transformations which permute the states $`n`$. Particularly useful is the average value of $`m(t)^2`$ normalized by its equilibrium value $`m(\mathrm{})^2`$, i.e.

$$\widehat{m}(t)^2=\frac{[m(t)^2]_{\mathrm{av}}}{[m(\mathrm{})^2]_{\mathrm{av}}},$$
(6)
where $`[\mathrm{}]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ denotes an average over disorder, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes a thermal average. Clearly $`\widehat{m}(0)^20`$ (for finite-$`N`$ it is $`O(1/N)`$), and $`lim_t\mathrm{}\widehat{m}(t)^2=1`$.

In addition to results for the average decay of the magnetization, we also discuss the distribution of relaxation times of the total magnetization.

Since we want to use a realistic form for the dynamics, we use standard Monte Carlo methods rather than one of the more efficient cluster algorithmssw ; wolff  that reduce critical slowing down. We expect that any “local” dynamics would give the same results, but that cluster algorithms, in which the average size of the cluster of flipped spins diverges at the critical point, would yield faster dynamics, as indeed they are designed to do. We therefore used the Wolffwolff  cluster algorithm to obtain more accurate estimates for some of the equilibrium values of $`m^2`$, needed in the denominator of Eq. (6).

## III Results for the pure system

The transition is second order for $`q<4`$, so we expect conventional dynamical scaling in this region. To see this we show in Fig. 1 data for $`\widehat{m}(t)^2`$ for $`q=3`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}(t/\tau _L)`$, where $`\tau _L`$ is chosen for each $`L`$ in order to collapse the data. A log-log plot of $`\tau _L`$ against $`L`$ is shown in the inset to Fig. 1, which demonstrates nice power-law scaling. A fit, omitting the $`L=4`$ data point, gives a dynamical exponent $`z=2.18\pm 0.04`$. An activated scaling plot of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau _L`$ against $`L^\psi `$ does not work unless $`\psi `$ is chosen to be extremely small, in which case this is equivalent to a conventional scaling plot.

By contrast, for $`q>4`$ the transition is first order which leads to activated scaling with $`\psi =1`$, as discussed in Sec. I. The correlation length at the critical point has been computed in Ref. buffenoir,  and we show a table of results, computed from the expressions in this reference, for certain values of $`q`$ in Table 1. In order to see the first order nature of the transition in numerical simulations the sizes studied must be larger than the critical correlation length which suggests that we should take $`q16`$.

Data for $`q=24`$ for $`\widehat{m}(t)^2`$ is shown in Fig. 2. The data collapse is good except for very short times, which is presumably not in the scaling regime. Interestingly, the data for $`q=3`$ in Fig. 1, does scale even at very short times.

Activated and conventional scaling plots for $`q=24`$ are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively. The activated scaling fit works well, but with a barrier exponent $`\psi 0.7\pm 0.1`$, rather than the expected value of $`1`$. The inset shows the data plotted with $`\psi =1`$. The fit has a probability (Q-factor) of $`6.1\times 10^{12}`$, which is very low, whereas the fit with $`\psi =0.7`$ has a Q-factor of $`0.92`$, which is good. Presumably the value $`\psi =0.7`$ is only an effective exponent which fits the data for the range of sizes studied, since one expects to see $`\psi =1`$ for sufficiently large sizes. As shown in Table 1, the correlation length at criticality decreases with increasing $`q`$ so one expects to be closer to the asymptotic value of $`\psi `$ at large $`q`$ for the modest range of sizes that we can simulate. Our results are consistent with this since we find effective values of $`\psi `$ equal to $`0.55,0.7`$ and $`0.9`$ for $`q=16,24`$ and $`32`$, respectively. For $`q=8`$, activated scaling only worked for $`\psi `$ around 0.1 or less, which is sufficiently small that it is not significantly different from conventional scaling. Thus, although one expects activated scaling asymptotically for $`q=8`$, one is far from this regime for the range of sizes that we can study. This is not surprising since the the correlation length at criticality, shown in Table 1, is about 24 lattice spacings. Recently, Özoğuz et al.ozoguz  have studied the dynamics of the pure Potts model at criticality for $`q=6`$ and 7. By using the Wolffwolff  algorithm, they are able to study larger sizes than us, and they also incorporate corrections to finite size scaling. In this way, they find that their results are consistent with activated scaling with $`\psi =1`$.

The main conclusion from this section is that activated dynamics is only seen easily in the pure model for $`q16`$. To determine if the random model has activated dynamics, we expect that one should choose $`q`$ to be larger than the value where it can be seen for the pure system, i.e. we need $`q>16`$.

## IV Results for the random system

### IV.1 Dynamics of the averaged order parameter

Data for $`\widehat{m}(t)^2`$ for the random system with the Olson-Young distribution, Eq. (3), for $`q=24`$ is shown in Fig. 5. The relaxation times, $`\tau _L`$ have been determined by requiring that the data for large times collapses, (with $`\tau _4`$ arbitrarily set to unity), and are shown on a log-log plot in the inset to Fig 5. The fit is good and the slope gives the dynamical exponent,

$$z=3.76\pm 0.04(q=24).$$
(7)
We have also attempted to scale the data using activated dynamical scaling. However, we find only satisfactory fits are for $`\psi `$ very small, see Fig. 6, which are not significantly different from the power law fit in the inset to Fig. 5. The inset to Fig. 6 shows a plot with a larger value of $`\psi `$, 0.7. The large curvature indicates that this does not work.

It appears, then, that the random Potts model has conventional dynamical scaling. However, when we discuss distributions of relaxations times in Sec. IV.2 we shall see that the situation is rather more complicated, and the true asymptotic behavior is perhaps not clear.

We have also investigated the case of $`q=3`$, which is unlikely to have activated dynamical scaling, since the pure system has a continuous transition, and indeed we find that conventional scaling works well, see Fig. 7. The fit gives

$$z=3.24\pm 0.03(q=3).$$
(8)
From Eqs. (7) and (8) it appears that $`z`$ increases with increasing $`q`$ and so our results are compatible with the value $`3.41\pm 0.06`$ obtained by Pan et al.pan  for $`q=8`$.

### IV.2 Distribution of relaxation times

Since disorder is relevant for all $`q`$ greater than two, it is expectedah96 ; ahw98 ; wd98  that static quantities are not self-averaging at the critical point. Presumably dynamical quantities like the relaxation time are also not self-averaging but this does not seem to have been much discussed up to now. We have therefore also studied the *distribution* of relaxation times for the $`q=3`$ and $`q=24`$ Potts models. For each realization of the disorder (i.e. *sample*), we generate the time dependent squared magnetization, normalized by the equilibrium value for that sample (which we get with a good precision thanks to the Wolff algorithm), i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{m}(t)^2=\frac{m(t)^2}{m(\mathrm{})^2}.$$
(9)
The thermal average is obtained by repeating the simulation $`10^4`$ times with the same random bonds but starting from different initially disordered spin configurations.

We find that the shape of $`\stackrel{~}{m}(t)^2`$ is strongly sample-dependent. We have tried various definitions to determine a relaxation time $`\tau `$ for a single sample: the time necessary for $`\stackrel{~}{m}(t)^2`$ to reach a fixed value (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9) and the “integrated time” defined by $`_0^{\mathrm{}}(1\stackrel{~}{m}^2(t))𝑑t`$. We checked that all these times, yield the same scaling behavior. The best choice, which minimizes the error bars, is the time to reach 0.60, which will be used from now on.

We have investigated the distribution of relaxation times for $`q=3`$ and 24. However, since we need to repeat the dynamical evolution many times ($`10^4`$ in practice), and since we need to repeat this for many samples, the range of sizes that we could study is rather restricted, $`L12`$. The number of samples used for the different sizes and $`q`$ values is given in table Table 2.

Fig. 8 shows data for the cumulative distribution of $`\tau `$ for $`q=3`$ for different sizes with a logarithmic horizontal scale. One sees that the distributions for different sizes are shifted horizontally but otherwise look very similar. This is confirmed by Fig. 9 in which the values for $`\tau `$ are scaled by the average relaxation time for each size. The data collapses moderately well, indicating that $`\tau /[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ has a (non-trivial) distribution which is independent of size, and which is presumably also universal. Hence all powers of moments of the form $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}^{1/n}`$, (and the corresponding cumulants) all vary with $`L`$ in the same way as the mean, i.e. as $`L^z`$. In particular, the relative variance,

$$R_\tau =\frac{[\tau ^2]_{\mathrm{av}}[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}^2}{[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}^2},$$
(10)
is a constant for $`L\mathrm{}`$ for $`q=3`$. This is analogous to the lack of self-averaging in static quantities at the critical point which has been discussed beforeah96 ; ahw98 ; wd98 . Note that the distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau /[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ is sharp at large $`L`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{ln}\tau /[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ is self-averaging. We show the sharpening of the distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau /[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ in Fig. 10.

The average relaxation time, $`[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$, defined in this subsection is not precisely the same as the relaxation time $`\tau _L`$ defined in terms of the dynamics of the square of the average magnetization in Sec. IV.1. However, one expects that they should be proportional to each other, and indeed this the case since a fit of $`\mathrm{ln}[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ gives a slope of $`z=3.39\pm 0.10`$, essentially in agreement with Eq. (8).

Fig. 11 shows data for the cumulative distribution of $`\tau `$ for $`q=24`$. In contrast to the data for $`q=3`$ in Fig. 8, the curves for larger sizes are not only shifted to the right but also become broader. Hence the data does not collapse in a plot of $`\tau /[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ as shown in Fig. 12.

However, if we consider the distribution of the logarithm of $`\tau `$ then a plot of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau /[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ does scale, as shown in Fig. 13. Hence for $`q=24`$, we find that $`R_\tau `$ diverges for $`L\mathrm{}`$, whereas $`R_{\mathrm{ln}\tau }`$ is finite, where $`R_{\mathrm{ln}\tau }`$ is defined in a similar way to $`R_\tau `$ in Eq. (10). Hence for $`q=24`$, but not $`q=3`$, one can say that is is the barriers which have a finite relative variance. Since Fig. 13 shows that $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ is the appropriate scaling variable for $`q=24`$ we need to see how the average of this quantity varies with size. Hence, in the inset to Fig. 13, we show a plot of $`[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}L`$, which works quite well with a slope $`3.60\pm 0.09`$.

If we define, possibly different, exponents $`z_n`$ by $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}^{1/n}L^{z_n}`$ then the slope in the inset to Fig. 13 is $`z_0`$. Since $`[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}\mathrm{ln}L`$ we have conventional, rather than activated, dynamics because in the latter case one would have $`[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}L^\psi `$. This is also what we found in Sec. IV.1. However, since we now see that the scaling variable is is $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ rather than $`\tau `$, we need to discuss further the behavior of averages of powers of $`\tau `$. We shall see that this additional analysis implies that the results in Sec. IV.1 for $`q=24`$ may not describe the asymptotic behavior for large $`L`$.

Because $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ is the scaling variable, we can write

$`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ $`=`$ $`[e^{n\mathrm{ln}\tau }]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{n\mathrm{ln}\tau }f\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\tau }{[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}}\right)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\tau }{[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{nx[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}}f(x)𝑑x}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{nx(a+z_0\mathrm{ln}L)}f(x)𝑑x},`$
where $`f(x)`$ is the scaling function for $`x\mathrm{ln}\tau /[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$, and the last equality has used the fit shown in the inset to Fig. 13.

From Eq. (11) we see that the behavior of $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ for large $`L`$ depends on the form of the scaling function $`f(x)`$ for large $`x`$. If there is a very sharp cutoff at $`x^{}`$ say, then the integral is dominated by values in the vicinity of the cutoff and so $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}e^{nx^{}(a+z_0\mathrm{ln}L)}L^{nx^{}z_0}`$, which gives $`z_n=x^{}z_0`$, independent of $`n`$, for $`n>0`$. This is conventional dynamical scaling, except that the value of $`z_0`$ is different from that of $`z_n`$ with $`n>0`$. However, more generally, $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}^{1/n}`$ would not vary as $`L^{z_n}`$, and hence would not correspond to conventional dynamical scaling. For example, a Gaussian form for $`f(x)`$ would give $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{const}.(\mathrm{ln}L)^2)`$, which increases with $`L`$ faster than than any power but is slower than exponential. This behavior is in between conventional and activated dynamics.

We have tried to estimate the behavior of $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ for large $`L`$ by noting that

$$[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}=g(in[\mathrm{ln}\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}),$$
(12)
where

$$g(k)=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{ikx}f(x)𝑑x,$$
(13)
is the Fourier transform of the scaling function $`f(x)`$. Since $`f(x)`$ is normalized and has mean unity by definition, we can write

$$g(k)=\mathrm{exp}(ik+u(k)),$$
(14)
where

$$u(k)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n_c(ik)^n}{n!},$$
(15)
in which $`x^n_c`$ denotes the cumulant average of $`x^n`$. Hence, if we can determine the analytic form of $`u(k)`$ for large $`k`$, we can analytically continue to the imaginary axis and thereby obtain $`[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}`$.

Analyzing the data in Fig. 11, we find that the first few cumulants of $`f(x)`$ are roughly of the form $`(0.13)^n`$. If we use this form then

$$u(k)=\mathrm{exp}(0.13ik)1+0.13ik,$$
(16)
which, from Eqs. (12) and (14), gives for $`L\mathrm{}`$

$$[\tau ^n]_{\mathrm{av}}\mathrm{exp}(1.13nz_0\mathrm{ln}L)=L^{1.13nz_0},$$
(17)
where we have used the fit in the inset to Fig. 13. This corresponds to the “sharp cut-off” mentioned above, i.e. one has dynamical scaling (except that $`z_0`$ is different from $`z_n`$ for $`n>0`$). However, the data is not good enough to be able to make this analytic continuation with any confidence.

As a result of this analysis of the distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$, we infer that the value of $`z`$ for $`q=24`$ found above from $`[\tau ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ (and from $`\tau _L`$ in Sec. IV.1, see the inset to Fig. 5) may only represent an effective exponent, valid for fairly small sizes.

## V Conclusions

We have studied the dynamics of the $`q`$-state random bond Potts ferromagnet at the critical point in two-dimensions for $`q=3`$ and $`q=24`$. In both cases we find conventional dynamical scaling, and our results for the dynamical exponent are compatible with those of Ref. pan, . However, for $`q=3`$, we find that the reduced variance of the relaxation time $`\tau `$ tends to a finite value for large $`L`$, while for $`q=24`$ it is the reduced variance of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ which tends to a finite value. Since $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ is proportional to a barrier height, our results for $`q=24`$ imply that there is scaling for the distribution of barrier heights but the characteristic barrier height scales with the log of the system size.

We do not have an intuitive explanation for this difference in behavior between the two cases, but it may be related to the transition of the pure system being first order for $`q=24`$ and second order for $`q=3`$. It is currently unclear whether the scaling of the distribution of barrier heights for $`q=24`$ implies that dynamical scaling is actually activated for $`L\mathrm{}`$, in which case our finite value of $`z`$ would just be an effective exponent valid for rather small sizes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge support from the NSF through grant DMR 0086287. We would like to thank Terry Olson for helpful discussions and for making available his code for the Wolff algorithm. One of us (APY) would also like to thank John Cardy and David Huse for helpful discussions and comments on an early version of the manuscript. The other (CD) would like to thank UCSC for hospitality while part of this work was performed.


format: text

text:
# Photometry of four binary subdwarf B stars and the nature of their unseen companion stars.

## 1 Introduction

Subdwarf B (sdB) stars dominate surveys for extremely blue stars brighter than B$``$16 (Green, Schmidt & Liebert 1986; Downes 1986; Kilkenny et al., 1997). Their effective temperatures (Teff = 20 000K – 40 000K) and surface gravities ($`\mathrm{log}g`$ = 5.5 – 6.5) place the majority of sdB stars on the extreme horizontal branch (EHB), i.e., they appear in the same region of the Teff – $`\mathrm{log}g`$ plane as evolutionary tracks for core helium burning stars with core masses of about 0.5$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and extremely thin ($`0.02\mathrm{M}_{}`$) hydrogen envelopes (Heber 1986; Saffer et al. 1994). The extremely low mass of the hydrogen envelope in sdB stars is thought to be due to extensive mass loss when the star was a red giant near the tip of the red giant branch (RGB), i.e., just prior to ignition of helium in the degenerate helium core. If mass loss occurs while the red giant is near the tip of the red giant branch, the core can go on to ignite helium, despite the dramatic mass loss, and may then appear as an EHB star (d’Cruz et al. 1996). The cause of the extensive mass loss has been a matter of some debate, but a recent survey for short period binary EHB stars by Maxted et al. (2001) has shown that in at least 2 out of 3 EHB stars, interactions with companion stars are responsible. In this scenario, the expanding red giant star comes into contact with its Roche lobe and begins to transfer mass to its companion star. This mass transfer is highly unstable, so a “common-envelope” forms around the companion and the core of the red giant. The drag on the companion orbiting inside the common envelope leads to extensive mass loss and dramatic shrinkage of the orbit (Iben & Livio 1993).

The properties of sdB stars, e.g., their orbital period distribution, are a strong test of population synthesis models for binary stars because the common envelope phase which produced the sdB star must have occurred in a star with a degenerate helium core at the tip of the red giant branch. This places useful limits on the mass and radius of the star at the onset of the common envelope phase. Another property of these binaries which can, in principle, be compared to population synthesis models is the relative number of degenerate and non-degenerate companions, i.e., the fraction of sdB stars with main-sequence or sub-giant companions compared to the fraction with white dwarf companions. In this paper we outline a simple method to determine the nature of the companion in practice and apply the method to four sdB binaries with known orbital periods.

## 2 The method

In those cases where the companion to an sdB star is not seen directly in the optical spectrum, some other method must be found to determine the nature of the companion star. A sensitive method to detect main-sequence or sub-giant companions is to obtain an accurate lightcurve and to look for the effect of the irradiation of one side of the companion star by the hot sdB star. This produces an easily detectable signal with the same period as the orbital period with an approximately sinusoidal shape because the binary appears brightest when we see the irradiated hemisphere face-on and is fainter half an orbit later when we see more of the non-irradiated hemisphere. This sinusoidal distortion to the lightcurve is known as the reflection effect.

### 2.1 The reflection effect.

It is useful to estimate the amplitude of the reflection effect we expect from a cool, faint companion to an sdB star using the following assumptions and approximations. If the sdB star has an effective temperature $`T_1`$ and a radius $`R_1`$ the flux intercepted by a companion star of radius $`R_2`$ at a distance $`a`$, is $`\pi R_2^2\sigma T_1^4(R_1/a)^2`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. If all of the irradiating flux is re-emitted by the heated face, the effective temperature of the heated face is $`T_hT_1(R_1/\sqrt{2}a)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where we have assumed the intrinsic luminosity of the companion star is negligible. The amplitude of the reflection effect at a given wavelength depends on the spectrum of the sdB star and the spectrum of the reprocessed light from the heated face of the companion star. The spectrum of the reprocessed light we observe will change with orbital phase because the temperature varies across the heated face and the light will not be radiated isotropically from the heated face. The model we describe later takes account of these effects, but for the purposes of estimating the amplitude of the reflection effect we can calculate the maximum flux observed from the heated star using the approximation that it appears as a star of radius $`R_2`$ and effective temperature of $`T_h`$. For observations at most optical and near-infrared wavelengths, the Rayleigh-Jeans limit of a black body spectrum is a good approximation for the spectrum of the sdB star, i.e, the intensity is proportional to the effective temperature. In the case of strong irradiation, $`T_h`$ will also be sufficiently high for this approximation to apply to the spectrum of the heated face of the companion.

If we consider a binary which is seen nearly edge-on but is not eclipsing, we find that the difference in magnitudes when we see the irradiated and non-irradiated faces $`\delta m`$, is

$`\delta m`$ $``$ $`2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_2}{R_1}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_1}{\sqrt{2}a}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_2}{R_1}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_1}{a}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{if}\delta \mathrm{m}\mathrm{is}\mathrm{small}`$
Although this expression is approximate, it does enable us to estimate the amplitude of the reflection effect we might expect from an sdB star with a main-sequence companion. More importantly, it shows that $`\delta mR_2^2`$, so a typical white dwarf with a radius of 0.01$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$ will produce a reflection effect at least 100 times less than a typical M-dwarf with a radius of 0.1$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$. The actual difference will be much larger than this if the white dwarf is not exceptionally cool but has a more typical effective temperature for white dwarfs of 10–20 000K because the temperature contrast between the heated and unheated hemispheres would then be much less. For example, an sdB star with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{30\hspace{0.17em}000}`$K and a radius of 0.2$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$ with a cool companion 1$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$ distant (P$``$ 4 h) will show a reflection effect of about 0.1 magnitudes, which is easily detectable with differential CCD photometry. By contrast, a white dwarf with a radius of 0.01$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$ at the same distance gives rise to a reflection effect of no more than 0.001 magnitudes. Even if the inclination of the binary reduced the amplitude of the reflection effect by an order of magnitude, it would be straightforward to distinguish the nature of the companions in these two hypothetical binary sdB stars using the presence or absence of a reflection effect in the lightcurve.

### 2.2 Our model.

We have used a simple model to produce synthetic lightcurves for the sdB binaries we have observed which is based on numerical integration over the visible surface of the heated star. The visible surface of the irradiated star is defined by a Roche potential. The effective temperature at the integration points on the heated face, $`T_h^{}`$ is calculated from $`T_h^{}=(T_u^4+f^{}/\sigma )^{1/4}`$, where $`T_u`$ is the mean effective temperature of the unheated face and $`f^{}`$ is the irradiating flux over that region of the star allowing for the angle between the normal to the surface and the direction of the sdB star. The other parameters of our model are the radius of the sdB star in units of the orbital separation, $`r_1`$; the radius of the companion star in units of the distance between its centre and the inner Lagrangian point measured along the same axis (the filling-factor), $`f`$; the inclination of the orbit, $`i`$; the mass ratio, $`q=M_2/M_1`$; the orbital period, $`P`$, the effective temperature of the sdB star, $`T_1`$. The observed flux at a given wavelength and orbital phase can then be estimated by assuming that both stars radiate as black-bodies. We also include limb darkening and gravity darkening in the calculation of the reflection effect. The details of the treatment of these effects in our model has a negligible effect on the predicted amplitude of the reflection effect so we do not describe them here. Our model does not include any contribution to the lightcurve due to the distortion of the sdB star by its companion, i.e, the ellipsoidal effect from the sdB star is ignored. This effect is negligible for Ton 245, Feige 11 and PG 1432+159 but not for PG 1017$``$086.

Our calculation of the effective temperature over the surface of the companion star is equivalent to assuming that the bolometric albedo of the companion star, $`\alpha `$, is 1. There is good observational evidence for cool companions to hot subdwarf stars having high bolometric albedos, at least for short period binaries. For example, Drechsel et al. (2001) have presented B and R lightcurves of the eclipsing sdB star HS 0705+6700 which has an M-dwarf companion and an orbital period of $`P=2.3h`$. They used the Wilson-Devinney code (Wilson & Devinney 1971) to model the lightcurve and found that to achieve satisfactory fits to the lightcurves a value of $`\alpha =1`$ is required. The fits were improved by using a value of $`\alpha =1.1`$, which is unrealistic and is a consequence of using a monochromatic lightcurve model based on black body radiation to model a broad band lightcurves of an irradiated star whose spectrum is certainly very different to a black body. Our model is also affected by this problem. Similarly, Hilditch, Harries & Hill (1996) analysed the lightcurves of HW Vir, KV Vel (sdO+M, P=$`8.6h`$) and AA Dor (sdO+M, $`P=6.3h`$) with the lightcurve model light2 (Hill & Rucinski 1993) and also found $`\alpha =1`$ or more is required to reproduce the reflection effect. Wood, Zhang & Robinson (1993) confirmed the requirement for a high albedo in HW Vir by using the Wilson-Devinney code to analyse their UBVR lightcurves of HW Vir.

Although our model is quite simple, it is able to predict the amplitude of the reflection effect in sdB binaries with faint companions with an accuracy of about 50 percent. To demonstrate this, we have calculated the amplitude of the reflection effect for two sdB stars with faint companions, HW Vir and PG 1336$``$018 and the sdOB binary V477 Lyr. These three stars are eclipsing binaries so the properties of the stars can be determined independently. This is shown in Table 1, where we compare the observed amplitude of the reflection effect in the V and I bands, $`\delta `$V and $`\delta `$I, to the value calculated using our model. We also list the properties of each binary in Table 1 which have the greatest effect on the values of $`\delta `$V and $`\delta `$I predicted by our model. In all three cases we see that the amplitude in the V band is predicted correctly to within 50 percent. For HW Vir where the amplitude has also been measured in the I-band, the amplitude predicted by our model agrees very well with the observed value.

## 3 Observations and reductions

### 3.1 Photometry

We used the 1m Jacobus Kapteyn telescope (JKT) on the Island of La Palma to obtain V images and I band images of PG 1432+159 (57 V images, 52 I images), Feige 11 (80 V images, 85 I images) and Ton 245 (29 V images, 40 I images) on the nights 1998 Aug 2–10. Additional observations of Ton 245 (9 V images, 9 I images) were acquired on the night 1999 Jan 3. The detector used was a TEK charged-coupled device (CCD) with $`1024^2`$ pixels giving an image scale of 0.34″ per pixel. Exposure times varied between 10s and 120s and the deadtime between exposures was 60s. We obtained 40 V band images of PG 1017$``$086 with the same telescope using a SITe CCD with $`2048^2`$ pixels giving an image scale of 0.34″ per pixel on the night 2001 May 3. The exposure times were 70s or 100s and the deadtime between exposures was 110s. We also acquired 45 V band images of PG 1017$``$086 with the SAAO 1m telescope using a SITe CCD with $`1024^2`$ pixels giving an image scale of 0.31″ per pixel on the night 2001 May 7. The exposure time was 90s and the deadtime between exposures was 73s.

The bias level in every image was determined from the overscan regions and was subtracted from the image before further processing. Images of the twilight sky devoid of any bright stars were used to determine flat-field corrections by forming the median image of 3–5 twilight sky images in each filter, one for each night’s data. We used optimal photometry (Naylor 1998) to determine instrumental magnitudes of the stars in each frame. We checked for variability in the stars other than the target star in each frame before calculating differential magnitudes between the target star and the total flux in the comparison stars. The positions and approximate V magnitudes of the targets and comparison stars are given in Table 2. The coordinates and identification numbers (in parentheses) in Table 2 were taken from Guide Star Catalogue-II 111 The Guide Star Catalogue-II is a joint project of the Space Telescope Science Institute and the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino. Space Telescope Science Institute is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract NAS5-26555. The participation of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino is supported by the Italian Council for Research in Astronomy. Additional support is provided by European Southern Observatory, Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility, the International GEMINI project and the European Space Agency Astrophysics Division.. We have used published Strömgren $`y`$ magnitudes for PG 1432+159 and PG 1017$``$086 in place of V, the difference for these blue stars are small ($`0.05`$mag). The magnitude of the comparison stars given in Table 2 was calculated from the published target magnitude given and the median magnitude difference from our own photometry.

### 3.2 Spectroscopy

We obtained low-resolution spectra of Ton 245 using the red arm of the ISIS double beam spectrograph on the 4.2m William Herschel Telescope on the Island of La Palma on the night 2001 February 22. We also obtained spectra with the same instrument of the K3V star GL 250 A and the M1.5V star GL 220. We used a 158 line/mm grating and a TEK CCD with a 1 arcsec wide slit to obtain spectra with a resolution of 5–6Å and a mean dispersion of 2.9Å/pixel. We applied a flux calibration to these spectra using observations of G191$``$B2B and the tabulated fluxes of Oke (1990). We have made no correction for slit-losses in this calibration.

We observed PG 1017$``$086 using with the 2.5m Isaac Newton Telescope on the Island of La Palma. A total of 22 spectra were acquired on the nights 2000 April 11, 2001 March 8–11 and 2001 May 6. Spectra were obtained with the intermediate dispersion spectrograph using the 500mm camera, a 1200 line/mm grating and a TEK CCD as a detector. The spectra cover 400Å around the H$`\alpha `$ line at a dispersion of 0.39Å per pixel. The slit width used was 0.97 arcsec which gave a resolution of about 0.9Å. The exposure time per spectrum was 600s or 900s. We also obtained a continuous series of 26 spectra of PG 1017$``$086 on the night 2001 March 12 using the 235mm camera, a 900 line/mm grating and an EEV CCD. The spectra cover the wavelength range 3700 – 5400Å at a dispersion of 0.63Å per pixel with a resolution of about 1.6Å and the exposure time per spectrum was 300s.

We extracted the spectra from the images using optimal extraction to maximize the signal-to-noise (Marsh 1989). We observed arcs before and after all observations of PG 1017$``$086. The arcs associated with each stellar spectrum were extracted using the same weighting determined for the stellar image to avoid possible systematic errors due to the tilt of the spectra on the detector. The wavelength scale was determined from a fit to measured arc line positions and in each case the standard deviation of the fit is much less than 1 pixel. The wavelength scale for an individual spectrum was determined by interpolation to the time of mid-exposure from the fits to arcs taken before and after the spectrum to account for the small amount of drift in the wavelength scale due to flexure of the instrument. Statistical errors on every data point calculated from photon statistics are rigorously propagated through every stage of the data reduction.

## 4 PG 1017$``$086

### 4.1 Radial velocities

We first observed PG 1017$``$086 as part of a survey for binary sdB stars (Maxted et al. 2001). The two spectra we obtained for that survey showed a change in radial velocity measured from the H$`\alpha `$ line of about 60$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over half an hour. We obtained further observations of the H$`\alpha `$ line of PG 1017$``$086 to determine the orbital period and mass function. To measure the radial velocity we used least-squares fitting of a model line profile. This model line profile is the summation of three Gaussian profiles with different widths and depths but with a common central position which varies between spectra. Only data within 2000 km s-1 of the H$`\alpha `$ line is included in the fitting process and the spectra are normalized using a linear fit to the continuum either side of the H$`\alpha `$ line. We used a least-squares fit to one of the spectra to determine an initial shape of the model line profile. A least squares fit of this profile to each spectrum in which the position of the line is the only free parameter gives an initial set of radial velocities. We used these initial radial velocities to fix the position of the H$`\alpha `$ line in a simultaneous fit to all the spectra to obtain an improved model line profile. A least squares fit of this profile to each spectrum yields the radial velocities given in Table 3 and are labeled “Red”. A similar process was used to measure radial velocities from the H$`\beta `$ – H$`ϵ`$ lines with two Gaussian profiles used to model each line. These are given in Table 3 and are labeled “Blue”. The uncertainties quoted are calculated by propagating the uncertainties on every data point in the spectra right through the data reduction and analysis.

The periodogram of the radial velocities given in Table 3 shows a single unambiguous orbital frequency at 13.70 cycles/day. We used a least-squares fit of a sine wave of the form $`\gamma +K\mathrm{sin}((TT_0)/P)`$ to obtain the parameters given in Table 4, where $`\gamma `$ is the systemic velocity, $`K`$ is the projected orbital speed, $`T`$ is the time of mid-exposure of the spectrum and $`P`$ is the orbital period. The measured radial velocities are shown in Fig. 1 as a function of orbital phase together with the sine wave determined from the least-squares fit.

We rebinned all the spectra near H$`\alpha `$ onto a common wavelength scale allowing for the measured radial velocity shifts and then formed the average spectrum, and similarly for the spectra of the bluer Balmer lines. There are no spectral features attributable to a cool companion star visible in either of these average spectra. We used the average blue spectrum to measure the effective temperature, Teff, the surface gravity $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and the helium abundance by number, $`y`$, by fitting model spectra to the Balmer lines (H$`\beta `$ to H 10), the He I lines (4026Å, 4388Å, 4471Å, 4713Å, 4922Å) and He II 4686Å lines using the procedure outlined in Saffer et al. (1994). We used the synthetic spectra derived from H and He line blanketed NLTE model atmospheres of Napiwotzki (1997). We find T$`{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}=30300\pm 80`$K, $`\mathrm{log}g=5.61\pm 0.02`$ and $`y=0.0016\pm 0.0001`$ from these fits, where the uncertainties are “internal errors” from the fitting procedure and do not include uncertainties in the models themselves. The spectrum and fit are shown in Fig. 2. The synthetic spectra were convolved beforehand with a Gaussian profile of the appropriate width to account for the instrumental profile and with a broadening function to account for a projected rotational velocity, $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$, of 118$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This was determined from a least-squares fit to the H$`\alpha `$ line of a synthetic line profile for the appropriate Teff, $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and $`y`$ values convolved with a broadening function for various values of $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$. From a plot of $`\chi ^2`$ versus $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ we estimate a value of $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$=$`118\stackrel{+7}{4}`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The radius of a 0.5$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ sdB star with $`\mathrm{log}g`$=5.61 is 0.19$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. If we assume tidal forces have forced the sdB star to co-rotate with the binary, the rotational velocity of the sdB star is 132$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The measured value of $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ would then imply that the inclination of the binary is $`63^{}\stackrel{+8^{}}{4^{}}`$.

### 4.2 The lightcurve and the nature of the companion

Our photometry of PG 1017$``$086 is shown in Fig. 3 as a function of the orbital phase calculated from the values of $`T_0`$ and $`P`$ derived above. The reflection effect with an amplitude of about 0.08 magnitudes can be clearly seen and maximum light is at phase zero as expected, i.e., when the sdB star is closest to the observer. The difference between the mean level of the lightcurves observed with the SAAO 1m telescope and the JKT is due to a difference in the sensitivity of the CCDs used at the bluest wavelengths passed by the V filter. This makes PG 1017$``$086 appear brighter than its redder comparison star for the CCD with better blue sensitivity.

The minimum mass of the companion to a 0.5$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ sdB star for the values of $`P`$ and $`K`$ observed in PG 1017$``$086 is 0.0687$`\pm `$0.025$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The mass of the companion for the inclination of $`63^{}\stackrel{+8^{}}{4^{}}`$ calculated above is $`0.078\stackrel{+0.005}{0.006}\mathrm{M}_{}`$. If we assume the companion is a low mass M-dwarf with a typical radius of 0.085$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$, we find that our simple model for the reflection effect predicts an amplitude for the lightcurve of 0.074 magnitudes, which is consistent with the amplitude observed (Fig. 3) given the uncertainties involved, i.e., about 50 percent. The amplitude of the reflection effect seen in the lightcurve cannot be produced by a white dwarf companion. The lack of any eclipse sets an upper limit to the inclination of 72 for the radius of sdB star we have calculated. The limit reduces to 63 if we assume the companion has a radius of 0.085$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$, which is consistent with the inclination used in the calculation of the reflection effect. Our model does not include the ellipsoidal effect due to the sdB star, which is expected to be about 0.01 magnitudes. This is too small to be measured reliably from our lightcurves, but would be measurable with improved data, particularly at bluer wavelengths where the sdB star dominates. The size of the ellipsoidal effect depends strongly on the size of the star relative to its Roche lobe, so this measurement would usefully constrain the properties of the stars in PG 1017$``$086.

In summary, we can say the companion to PG 1017$``$086 is a low mass star or, perhaps, a brown dwarf, but is certainly not a white dwarf star.

## 5 Ton 245, Feige 11 and PG 1432+159

In this section we have to go through a fairly complex chain of logic in order to establish the final result, which is that the companions of the three stars Ton 245, Feige 11 and PG 1432+159 must all be compact as opposed to main-sequence stars or brown dwarfs. To help the reader, we now give an overview of the reasoning we employ.

We detect no significant reflection effect in any of these stars and our task is to show that this is enough to say that they must have compact companions, most likely white dwarfs. The complicating factor is the unknown orbital inclination which also affects the reflection effect amplitude in the sense that the amplitude becomes small as orbits become more face-on. In fact the reflection amplitude can also decrease at high inclinations because for a given radial velocity amplitude a high inclination implies a reduced companion star mass which, in turn, implies a reduced radius and, therefore, a reduced reflection effect. However it is the reduction at low inclinations that is much more significant, e.g., see Fig. 6. This essentially means that very low mass companions are ruled out by the radial velocity amplitudes and therefore we cannot get a small reflection effect by appealing to brown dwarf companions for these three stars. Thus, the problem boils down to ruling out low inclinations as a way of getting low amplitudes. We can do so as follows:

From spectra of the targets we can place upper limits upon the contribution of the companion stars to the sdB spectra. Given the luminosity of the sdB stars at that wavelength, the main-sequence mass-luminosity relation implies upper limits upon the companion star masses. For a given sdB mass, radial velocity amplitude and orbital period, an upper limit on the companion mass gives a lower limit upon the inclination (see Fig. 6). This in turn gives a lower limit upon the predicted amplitude of the reflection effect on the assumption of main-sequence companions. The loop is finally closed when we establish that this lower limit should have been detectable in each case, and therefore that the companions must be compact.

### 5.1 Upper limits to the luminosity ratios.

In order to set upper limits on the contribution from any cool companion star to the spectra of Ton 245, Feige 11 and PG 1432+159, we have considered a region of the spectrum where we expect to see no features from the sdB star or the Earth’s atmosphere. We then subtract off varying amounts of cool star spectrum to find the luminosity ratio at which the combined spectrum no longer looks featureless, i.e., for which a low-order polynomial is no longer a good fit.

For Feige 11 and PG 1432+159 we used the average spectra near H$`\alpha `$ described in Moran et al. (1999). We compared these spectra to a spectrum of GL 69, a K5V star. All the spectra were shifted in wavelength so that spectral features appear at their rest wavelengths and then rebinned onto uniform wavelength grid of 215 elements between 6365Å and 6450Å. There are no significant spectral features from the sdB star or the Earth’s atmosphere in this wavelength region. The spectra were normalized to give a continuum value of 1. We then calculated the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic for a least-squares parabolic fit to the residual $`f_{sdB}Lf_{GL69}+L`$ where $`f_{sdB}`$ and $`f_{GL69}`$ are the normalised spectra of the sdB star and GL 69 respectively. The results are shown as a function of the luminosity ratio, $`L`$, in Fig. 4.

If $`\chi _0^2`$ is the value of $`\chi ^2`$ for $`L=0`$, then we can set an upper limit to $`L`$ by considering the minimum value of $`L`$ for which $`\chi ^2`$ is significantly worse than $`\chi _0^2`$. We have chosen a conservative value of $`\chi _0^2+3`$ (91.6 percent confidence limit) and find corresponding upper limits of $`L<0.0026`$ for Feige 11 and $`L<0.009`$ for PG 1432+159.

We applied the same technique to our low-resolution ISIS spectrum of Ton 245 and the K3V GL 250 A in the spectral region 8350Å to 8600Å, which is also free of spectral features from the sdB stars or the Earth’s atmosphere. The rebinned spectra have 86 pixels in this case. The results are shown in Fig. 4 where it can be seen that $`L<0.043`$. The limit on $`L`$ is less stringent than those calculated for Feige 11 or PG 1432+158 because there are fewer spectral features visible at lower resolution. We also applied the technique to Ton 245 and the M1.5V star GL 220 and found $`L<0.046`$. Although the value of $`\chi ^2`$ is slightly improved by subtracting 1–2 percent of a cool star spectrum from the spectrum of Ton 245, this is not a significant improvement and it is likely to be due to the cancellation of flat-fielding errors, sky subtraction problems and weak absorption features due to the Earth’s atmosphere rather than any real detection of a cool companion.

### 5.2 The amplitude of the reflection effect from a main-sequence companion

In order to calculate the amplitude of the reflection effect from a main-sequence and the luminosity ratio as a function of inclination, we proceed as follows. For a given orbital inclination, the semi-amplitudes and orbital periods given in Table 6 can be used to compute the mass of the companion star and the separation of the stars assuming a mass of 0.5$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for the sdB star. The radius of the sdB star can be estimated using the surface gravity given by Saffer et al. (1994). The radius, effective temperature and absolute visual magnitude of the companion star can be estimated from its mass using the tabulations of Zombeck (1990). We can then use our model for the reflection effect to predict the amplitude of the reflection effect as a function of the inclination. The luminosity ratio in the V-band can also be calculated given the absolute visual magnitude of the sdB star calculated from the radius and effective temperature of the sdB star combined with a surface brightness in the V band from the model atmospheres described above. The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. 6. We can see from the right-hand panels of Fig. 6 that the upper limit to the luminosity ratio calculated above sets a lower limit to the inclination of the binary if we assume the companion is a main-sequence star. Although the luminosity ratio was calculated at redder wavelengths than the V-band, the cool companion is redder than the sdB star at these wavelengths, so this is a pessimistic assumption, i.e., we allow a greater range of inclinations by applying these upper limits calculated from the spectra to the V-band. In Table 6 we list the minimum amplitude of the reflection effect predicted by our model for the range of inclinations allowed by the upper limit to luminosity ratio, $`\delta m_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

### 5.3 The observed lightcurves

The lightcurves of Ton 245, Feige 11 and PG 1432+159 are shown in Fig. 5. Also shown are the results of a least-squares fit of a cosine wave to these data with the same period as the orbital period. The amplitude of these cosine waves, $`\delta m`$, is given in Table 5 together with the standard deviation of the residuals, $`\sigma _{\delta m}`$. We have also calculated periodograms for each lightcurve, i.e,. the semi-amplitude of sine wave fit by least squares as a function of frequency. The results are shown in Fig. 7. Almost all the power in these periodograms occurs near 1 cycle/day or its aliases and is due to a combination of the window function and differential extinction between the target and comparison stars. It is clear that there is no significant variability in these lightcurves with the same period as the orbital period and that any reflection effect in these binaries has an amplitude less than about 0.01 magnitudes. We compare these measured semi-amplitudes to the minimum semi-amplitudes for the reflection effect from a main-sequence calculated above by calculating the ratio $`(\delta m_{\mathrm{min}}\delta m)/ϵ_{\delta m}`$, where $`ϵ_{\delta m}`$ is the uncertainty in $`\delta m`$. We see that in all three cases the minimum predicted semi-amplitude exceeds the observed semi-amplitude by an order-of-magnitude more than its uncertainty.

We have also considered the sources of uncertainty in our analysis. The uncertainties in the properties of the sdB star, i.e., mass, radius and temperature, affect the value of $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ by no more than a few hundredths of a magnitude. Another source of uncertainty is the scatter in the mass-radius relation for M-dwarfs, which is about 12% (Caillault & Patterson 1990), but this also has a small effect on $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$. The largest source of uncertainty in our analysis is the error introduced by the assumptions and approximations used in our model of the reflection effect. These are difficult to quantify but we have shown that for sdB binaries similar to those we are studying but with M-dwarf companions, the model is able to predict the amplitude of the reflection effect to within 50 percent. Even if we are pessimistic and assume that the uncertainties in the models used to derive $`\delta m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are a factor of a few, it is clear that the amplitude of any reflection effect in the lightcurves of Ton 245 are a factor of at least $`4`$ lower than that expected from a main-sequence companion and are an order-of-magnitude lower for the lightcurves of Feige 11 and PG 1432+159.

There is no evidence in any of our lightcurves of variability on timescales of 90s – 600s, which is the typical period range for pulsating sdB stars (Koen et al. 1999). However, our data are far from ideal for studying pulsations given the long exposure times used and poor data sampling so it is quite possible that one or more of the stars studied are pulsating sdB stars.

## 6 Discussion

We can rule out the possibility that the companions to Ton 245, Feige 11 and PG 1432+159 are main-sequence stars because they do not show any reflection effect in their lightcurves. We can also rule out a sub-giant companion in all three cases because a sub-giant is, by definition, larger than a main-sequence star, so the reflection effect would be much larger. We conclude that none of these sdB stars has a main-sequence or sub-giant companion. The companions to these sdB stars have masses $`0.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$ but must have radii much smaller than main-sequence stars to avoid the reflection effect being seen in the lightcurve. A white dwarf companion satisfies these constraints comfortably and sdB – white dwarf binaries are known to exist, e.g., KPD 0422+5421 (Koen, Orosz & Wade 1998), KPD 1930+2752 (Maxted et al. 2000).

The orbital period we have measured for PG 1017$``$086 is the shortest period for an sdB binary measured to-date and is comparable to those of short-period cataclysmic variables. The timescale for orbital shrinkage due to the loss of gravitational waves is about 800 Myr, which is comparable to the lifetime of an sdB star. It is interesting to speculate what the binary will look like if mass transfer begins before the sdB star evolves into a low mass white dwarf. The stream of material from the M-dwarf will impact directly onto the surface of the sdB star, i.e., no accretion disk will form, so the effects of the mass transfer may not be immediately obvious.

## 7 Conclusion

We have presented lightcurves in two colours of three binary subdwarf B stars – PG 1432+159, Feige 11 and Ton 245. We have shown that there is no sign in these lightcurves of the sinusoidal variation which would be seen if the companion star were a main-sequence star or a sub-giant. The most likely explanation is that all three sdB stars have white dwarf companion stars.

By contrast, the reflection effect in PG1017$``$086 is clearly seen in the lightcurve. We have presented spectroscopy of this star from which we have measured the orbital period, mass function and projected rotational velocity. These observations show that PG1017$``$086 is an sdB star with a low-mass M-dwarf or brown dwarf companion.

## Acknowledgments

PFLM was supported by a PPARC post-doctoral grant. The Jacobus Kapteyn Telescope is 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 SAAO is a National Facility administered by the National Research Foundation of South Africa.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Observations  of Type Ia supernovae and the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, together with complementary observational constraints , all indicate that the universe is presently accelerating. In one interpretation, this acceleration is due to the influence of a dominant dark energy with a negative pressure. The simplest candidate for such dark energy is a cosmological constant for which the equation of state is $`\omega P/\rho =1`$. A second possibility is derived from the so-called “quintessence” models, in which the dark energy is the result of a scalar field $`Q`$ slowly evolving along an effective potential $`V(Q)`$. The equation of state is negative $`1w_Q0`$, but not necessarily constant.

Introducing a quintessence field helps to reconcile the fine tuning problem and the cosmic coincidence problem associated with a simple cosmological constant. -. Specific forms of the quintessence effective potential can be chosen such that the field $`Q`$ evolves according to an attractor-like solution. Thus, for a wide variety of initial conditions, the solutions for $`Q`$ and $`\dot{Q}`$ rapidly approach a common evolutionary track. These solutions lead naturally to a cross over from an earlier radiation-dominated solution to one in which the universe is dominated by dark energy at late times. Another interesting possible feature is that such models might naturally arise during matter creation at the end of an earlier ”quintessential“ inflationary epoch . In this case, the $`Q`$ field emerges in a kinetic-dominated regime at energy densities well above the tracker solution.

It is not yet clear, however, that these models have altogether solved the fine-tuning and cosmic-coincidence problems , and there may be some difficulty in embedding quintessence models in string theory . Nevertheless, several such tracker fields have been proposed  whose effective potentials may be suggested by particle physics models with dynamical symmetry breaking, by nonperturbative effects , by generic kinetic terms ”$`k`$-essence” in an effective action describing the moduli and massless degrees of freedom in string and supergravity theories -, or by static and moving branes in a dilaton gravity background .

A general feature of all such solutions, however, is the possibility for a significant contribution of the $`Q`$ field to the total energy density during the radiation-dominated epoch as well as the present matter-dominated epoch. The yields of primordial nucleosynthesis and the power spectrum of the CMB can be strongly affected by this background energy density. Therefore, we utilize primordial nucleosynthesis and the CMB power spectrum to constrain viable quintessence models.

## 2 Quintessence Field

A variety of quintessence effective potentials  or $`k`$-essence effective actions - can be found in the literature. Observational constraints on such quintessence models have been of considerable recent interest . In this paper, we describe the work presented in  on $`Q`$-field and/or kinetic-dominated quintessence models. We concentrate on an inverse power law for the $`Q`$ field as originally proposed by Ratra and Peebles , $`V(Q)=M^{(4+\alpha )}Q^\alpha `$, where, $`M`$ and $`\alpha `$ are parameters. The parameter $`M`$ in these potentials is fixed by the condition that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.7`$ at present. Therefore, $`\rho _Q(0)=0.7\rho _c(0)=5.7h^2\times 10^{47}\mathrm{GeV}^4`$, and $`M(\rho _Q(0)Q^\alpha )^{1/(\alpha +4)}`$. If $`Q`$ is presently near the Planck mass and $`\alpha `$ is not too small (say $`\alpha _{}^>4`$), this implies a reasonable value  for $`M`$ which resolves the fine tuning problem.

We also consider a modified form of $`V(Q)`$ as proposed by  based upon the condition that the quintessence fields be part of supergravity models. The rewriting of the effective potential in supergravity depends upon choices of the Kähler potential . The flat Kähler potential yields an extra factor of $`exp\{3Q^2/2m_{pl}^2\}`$ . This comes about by imposing the condition that the expectation value of the superpotential vanishes. The Ratra potential thus becomes $`V_{SUGRA}(Q)M^{(4+\alpha )}Q^\alpha \times exp(3Q^2/2m_{pl}^2)`$, where the exponential correction becomes largest near the present time as $`Qm_{pl}`$. This supergravity motivated effective potential is known as the SUGRA potential. The fact that this potential has a minimum for $`Q=\sqrt{\alpha /3}m_{pl}`$ changes the dynamics. It causes the present value of $`w_Q`$ to evolve to a cosmological constant ($`w_Q1`$) much quicker than for the bare power-law potential .

The quintessence field $`Q`$ obeys the equation of motion $`\ddot{Q}+3H\dot{Q}+dV/dQ=0`$, where the Hubble parameter $`H`$ is given from the solution to the Friedmann equation, $`H^2=(\dot{a}/a)^2=1/m_{pl}^2(\rho _B+\rho _Q)`$, where $`m_{pl}=(8\pi G/3)^{1/2}=4.2\times 10^{18}`$ GeV, $`\rho _B`$ is the energy density in background radiation and matter, and $`a`$ is the cosmic scale factor. As the $`Q`$ field evolves, its contribution to the energy density is given by $`\rho _Q=\dot{Q}^2/2+V(Q)`$. Similarly, the pressure in the $`Q`$ field is $`P_Q=\dot{Q}^2/2V(Q)`$. The equation of state parameter $`w_Q`$ is a time-dependent quantity, $`w_QP_Q/\rho _Q=12V(Q)/\rho _Q`$, where the time dependence derives from the evolution of $`V(Q)`$ and $`\rho (Q)`$.

## 3 Nucleosynthesis Constraint

The quintessence initial conditions are probably set in place near the inflation epoch. By the time of the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) epoch, many of the possible initial conditions will have already achieved the tracker solution. However, for initial conditions sufficiently removed from the tracker solution, it is possible that the tracker solution has not yet been achieved by the time of BBN at $`0.01_{}^<T_{}^<1`$ MeV, $`10^8{}_{}{}^{<}z{}_{}{}^{<}10_{}^{10}`$.

For many possible initial conditions the tracker solution is obtained before nucleosynthesis. Along the tracker solution, $`\rho _Q`$ diminishes in a slightly different way than the radiation-dominant background energy density. For example, as long as $`\rho _Q<<\rho _B`$, the $`Q`$-field decays as $`\rho _Qa^{3(1+w_Q)}`$, with $`w_Q=(\alpha w_B2)/(\alpha +2)<w_B`$. The equation of state $`w_Q`$ is only equal to the background equation of state $`w_B`$ in the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. Nevertheless, the tracker solution does not deviate much from $`\rho _B`$, even at high redshift for most values of $`\alpha `$. Hence, one can characterize the nucleosynthesis results by the (nearly constant) ratio $`\rho _Q/\rho _B`$ during the BBN epoch. If the energy density in the tracker solution is close to the background energy density, the nucleosynthesis will be affected by the increased expansion rate from the increased total energy density. Such a situation occurs for large values of the power-law exponent $`\alpha `$.

A second possibility is that the energy density $`\rho _Q`$ could exceed the tracker solution and be comparable to or greater than the background energy density during primordial nucleosynthesis. The kinetic energy in the $`Q`$ field then dominates over the potential energy contribution to $`\rho _Q`$ and $`w_Q=+1`$ so that the kinetic energy density diminishes as $`a^6`$. In this case there could be a significant contribution from $`\rho _Q`$ during nucleosynthesis as the $`Q`$ field approaches the tracker solution. The strongest constraints on this case would arise when $`\rho _Q`$ is comparable to the background energy density near the time of the weak-reaction freese out, while the later nuclear-reaction epoch might be unaffected. This case is particularly interesting as this kinetic-dominated evolution could be generated by an earlier quintessential inflation epoch  as described below.

A final possibility might occur if the $`Q`$ field approaches the tracker solution from below. In this case, the tracker solution may be achieved after the the BBN epoch so that a small $`\rho _Q`$ during BBN is easily guaranteed. However, the ultimate tracker curve might still have a large energy density at the later CMB epoch as described below.

Adding energy density from the $`Q`$ field tends to increase the universal expansion rate. Consequently, the weak reaction rates freeze out at a higher temperature $`T_w`$. This fixes the neutron to proton ratio ($`n/p\mathrm{exp}[(m_pm_n)/T_w]`$) at a larger value. Since most of the free neutrons are converted into He4, the primordial helium production is increased. Also, since the epoch of nuclear reactions is shortened, the efficiency of burning deuterium into helium is diminished and the deuterium abundance also increases. Hence, very little excess energy density from the $`Q`$ field is allowed. The primordial light-element abundances deduced from observations have been reviewed by a number of recent papers -. There are several outstanding uncertainties. For our purposes  we adopt $`0.226Y_p0.247`$ and $`2.9\times 10^5D/H4.0\times 10^5`$ as the most relevant constraints.

Figure 1 summarizes allowed values of $`\rho _Q/\rho _B`$ at $`T=`$1 MeV ($`z10^{10}`$) based upon the nucleosynthesis constraints. The region to the right of the curve labeled $`D/H`$ corresponds to models in which the primordial deuterium constraint is satisfied, $`D/H4.0\times 10^5`$. The region below the line labeled $`Y_p`$ corresponds to $`Y_p0.247`$. The hatched region summarizes allowed values for the energy density in the quintessence field during the nucleosynthesis epoch.

In the present work we deduce an absolute upper limit of 5.6% of the background radiation energy density allowed in the quintessence field. This maximum contribution is only allowed for $`\eta _{10}4.75`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.017`$. A smaller contribution is allowed for other values of $`\eta _{10}`$. Indeed, this optimum $`\eta _{10}`$ value is $`4\sigma `$ less than the value implied by the cosmic deuterium abundance  $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.001(1\sigma )`$ ($`\eta _{10}=5.46\pm 0.27`$). The independent determinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ from high-resolution measurements of the power spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background favor a value even higher. Both the BOOMERANG  and DASI  data sets imply $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}(1\sigma )`$ ($`\eta _{10}=6.00_{0.81}^{+1.10}`$). The deuterium and CMB constraints together demand that $`\eta _{10}5.19`$ which would limit the allowed contribution from the $`Q`$ field to $`2\%`$ of the background energy density.

The most restrictive CMB constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ derives from demanding a flat universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1.0`$), and marginalizing the likelihood function over all parameters with assumed Gaussian priors  based upon measurements of large-scale structure and Type Ia supernovae. This gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.023\pm 0.003(1\sigma )`$. If one adopts this as a most extreme case, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.020`$. This would correspond to $`\eta _{10}5.46`$. From Figure 1 this would imply a much more stringent constraint that only about 0.1% of the background energy density could be contributed by the $`Q`$ field. Of course, this is only a $`1\sigma `$ constraint, and the upper limit to $`Y_p`$ is not well enough established to rule out a contribution to the energy density at the 0.1% level. We adopt the conservative constraint of 5.6%. Nevertheless, it is of interest to explore how the quintessence parameters allowed by BBN might improve should the constraints from BBN ever be so tightly defined. Therefore, we will consider 0.1% as a conceivable limit that demonstrates the sensitivity to BBN. Even the most conservative 5.6% limit adopted here corresponds to only about half of the energy density allowed in  for 3 neutrino flavors.

## 4 Equation of State Constraint

The $`Q`$ field must behave like dark energy during the present matter-dominated epoch, i.e. the equation of state should be sufficiently negative, ($`w_QP_Q/\rho _Q<0`$) by the present time. We adopt observational constraints on $`w_Q`$ from . They adopted a most conservative approach based upon progressively less reliable data sets. Using the most reliable current low-redshift and microwave background measurements, the 2$`\sigma `$ limits are $`1<w_Q<0.2`$. Factoring in the constraint from Type Ia supernovae reduces the range to $`1<w_Q<0.4`$. This derives from a concordance analysis of models consistent with each observational constraint at the $`2\sigma `$ level or better. A combined maximum likelihood analysis suggests a smaller range of $`0.8<w_Q<0.6`$ for quintessence models which follow the tracker solution, though $`w_Q1`$ is still allowed in models with nearly a constant dark energy. We invoke these three possible limit ranges for the present value of $`w_Q`$.

## 5 CMB Constraint

There are two effects on the epoch of photon decoupling to be considered. In the case where the energy density in the quintessence field is negligible during photon decoupling  the only effect of the dark energy is to modify the angular distance-redshift relation . The existence of dark energy along the look-back to the surface of last scattering shifts the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum to smaller angular scales and larger $`l`$-values. The amplitude of the first acoustic peak in the power spectrum also increases, but not as much for quintessence models as for a true cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The basic features of the observed power spectrum  can be fit  with either of the quintessence potentials considered here. For our purposes, this look-back constraint is already satisfied by demanding that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.7`$ at the present time.

The second effect occurs if the energy density in the $`Q`$ field is a significant fraction of the background energy during the epoch of photon decoupling. Then it can increase the expansion rate and push the $`l`$ values for the acoustic peaks to larger values and increase their amplitude . Such an effect has been considered by a number of authors in various contexts . For our purposes, we adopt a constraint  based upon the latest CMB sky maps of the Boomerang  and DASI  collaborations. The density in the $`Q`$ field can not exceed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q0.39`$ during the epoch of photon decoupling. This implies a maximum of $`\rho _Q/\rho _B=\mathrm{\Omega }_Q/(1\mathrm{\Omega }_Q){}_{}{}^{<}0.64`$ during photon decoupling.

## 6 Quintessential Inflation

Another possible constraint arises if the kinetic term dominates at an early stage. In this case $`\rho _Q\dot{Q}^2/2`$ and $`\rho _Q`$ decreases with scale factor as $`a^6`$. At very early times this kinetic regime can be produced by so-called ”quintessential inflation” . In this paradigm entropy in the matter fields comes from gravitational particle production at the end of inflation. The universe is presumed to exit from inflation directly into a kinetic-dominated quintessence regime during which the matter is generated. An unavoidable consequence of this process, however, is the generation of gravitational waves along with matter and the quanta of the quintessence field  at the end of inflation.

### 6.1 Energy in Quanta and Gravity Waves

The energy density in created particles can be deduced using quantum field theory in curved space-time , $`\rho _B(1/128)N_sH_1^4(z+1/z_1+1)^4(g_1/g_{eff}(z))^{1/3}`$, where $`H_1`$ and $`z_1`$ are the expansion factor and redshift at the matter thermalization epoch at the end of quintessential inflation, respectively. The factor of 128 in this expression comes from the explicit integration of the particle creation terms.

When the gravitons and quanta of the $`Q`$ field are formed at the end of inflation, one expects  the energy density in gravity waves to be twice the energy density in the $`Q`$-field quanta (because there are two graviton polarization states). In this paradigm then, wherever we have deduced a constraint on $`\rho _Q`$, it should be taken as the sum of three different contributions. One is the dark energy from the vacuum expectation value $`\rho _Q`$ of the $`Q`$ field; a second is from the fluctuating part $`\rho _{\delta Q}`$ of the $`Q`$ field; and a third is from the energy density $`\rho _{GW}`$ in relic gravity waves. Thus, we have $`\rho _Q(\rho _Q+\rho _{\delta Q}+\rho _{GW})`$. The energy density in gravity waves and quanta scales like radiation after inflation, $`\rho _{GW}+\rho _{\delta Q}a^4`$, while the quintessence field vacuum expectation value evolves as $`\rho _Qa^6`$ during the kinetic dominated epoch. This epoch following inflation lasts until the energy in the $`Q`$ field falls below the energy in background radiation and matter, $`\rho _Q\rho _B`$.

Thus, for the kinetic dominated initial conditions, gravity waves could be an important contributor to the excess energy density during nucleosynthesis. The relative contribution of gravity waves and quintessence quanta compared to the background matter fields is just given by the relative number of degrees of freedom. At the end of inflation, the relative fraction of energy density in quanta and gravity waves is given by  $`(\rho _{\delta Q}+\rho _{GW})/\rho _B=3/N_s`$, where $`N_s`$ is the number of ordinary scalar fields at the end of inflation. In the minimal supersymmetric model $`N_s=104`$. Propagating this ratio to the time of nucleosynthesis requires another factor of $`(g_n/g_1)^{1/3}`$ where $`g_n=10.75`$ counts the number of effective relativistic degrees of freedom just before electron-positron annihilation, and $`g_1`$ counts the number of degrees of freedom during matter thermalization after the end of inflation. In the minimal standard model $`g_1=106.75`$, but in supergravity models this increases to $`10^3`$.

Combining these factors we have $`(\rho _{\delta Q}+\rho _{GW})/\rho _B0.014`$, during nucleosynthesis. Hence, in this paradigm, the allowed values of $`\rho _Q/\rho _B`$ consistent with nucleosynthesis could be reduced from a maximum of 0.056 to 0.042, further tightening the constraints deduced here.

### 6.2 Gravity-Wave Spectrum

There has been considerable recent interest  in the spectrum of gravity waves produced in the quintessential inflation paradigm. One might expect that the COBE constraints on the spectrum also lead to constraints on the $`Q`$ field. However, we conclude below that no significant constraint on the initial $`\rho _Q`$ or effective potential is derived from the gravity wave spectrum. On the other hand, the BBN and CMB gravity-wave constraints can be used to provide useful constraints on the quintessential inflation epoch as we now describe. Our argument is as follows: The logarithmic gravity-wave energy spectrum observed at the present time can be defined in terms of a differential closure fraction, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{GW}(\nu )(1/\rho _c)(d\rho _{GW}/d\mathrm{ln}\nu )`$, where the $`\rho _{GW}`$ is the present energy density in relic gravitons and $`\rho _c(0)=3H_0^2/8\pi G=H_0^2m_{pl}^2`$ is the critical density. This spectrum has been derived in several recent papers . It is characterized by spikes at low and high frequency. The most stringent constraint at present derives from the COBE limit on the tensor component of the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles. There is also a weak constraint from the binary pulsar  and an integral constraint from nucleosynthesis as mentioned above.

For our purposes, the only possible new constraint comes from the COBE limits on the tensor component of the CMB power spectrum. The soft branch in the gravity-wave spectrum lies in the frequency range between the present horizon $`\nu _0=1.1\times 10^{18}\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{1/2}h`$ Hz and the decoupling frequency $`\nu _{dec}(0)=1.65\times 10^{16}\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{1/2}h`$ Hz, where we adopt $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ for the present matter closure fraction. The constraint on the spectrum can be written ,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{GW}(\nu )=\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma \frac{81}{(16\pi )^2}\left(\frac{g_{dec}}{g_1}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{H_1}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\times \left(\frac{\nu _{dec}}{\nu }\right)^2\times \mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{\nu _r}{\nu _1}\right)6.9h^2\times 10^{11},$$
(1)
where, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma =2.6\times 10^5h^2`$ is the present closure fraction in photons. The number of relativistic degrees of freedom at decoupling is $`g_{dec}=3.36`$. As noted previously, $`g_1`$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom after matter thermalization. In the minimal standard model is $`g_1=106.75`$. The quantity $`H_1`$ is the expansion rate at the end of inflation. It is simply related to the kinetic energy $`\rho _Q`$ after inflation, $`\rho _Q(z_1)=H_1^2m_{pl}^2`$. The logarithmic term in Eq. (1) involves the ratio of the present values of the frequency $`\nu _r(0)`$ characteristic of the start of radiation domination ($`\rho _B=\rho _Q`$ at $`z=z_r`$), to the frequency characteristic of matter thermalization at the end of inflation $`\nu _1(0)`$. This ratio is just $`\nu _r(0)/\nu _1(0)=(z_r+1/z_1+1)^2`$. The identity $`\rho _B=\rho _Q`$ at $`z=z_r`$ then gives, $`\nu _r/\nu _1=N_s/128(H_1/m_{pl})^2(g_1/g_r)^{1/3}`$, where for the cases of interest $`g_r=10.75`$.

Collecting these terms, we can then use Eq. (1) to deduce a constraint on the expansion factor at the end of inflation $`H_1^2<1.4\times 10^{11}m_{pl}^2`$. For kinetic dominated models, $`\rho _Q(z_1)`$ at the end of inflation is simply related to the energy density $`\rho _Q`$ at $`z`$, $`\rho _Q(z)=\rho _Q(z_1)[(z+1)/(z_1+1)]^6`$. Similarly the background matter energy density scales as $`\rho _B(z)=\rho _B(z_1)(g_1/g_{eff}(z))^{1/3}[(z+1)/(z_1+1)]^4`$.

Considering the present energy density in photons and neutrinos, we can find a relation between $`H_1`$ and $`z_1`$: $`\rho _{\gamma 0}+\rho _{\nu 0}=1.1\times 10^{125}m_{pl}^4=(N_s/128)H_1^4(g_1/g_{dec})^{1/3}(z_1+1)^4`$. We then deduce that $`z_1<8.4\times 10^{25}`$ and there is only a lower limit on $`\rho _Q/\rho _B`$ given by the constraint on $`H_1`$. At our initial epoch $`z=10^{12}`$, we find, $`\rho _Q(z)/\rho _B(z){}_{}{}^{>}5.6\times 10^{18}`$. This limit is not particularly useful because $`\rho _Q`$ field must exceed $`\rho _B`$ at $`z_1`$ in order for the gravitational particle production paradigm to work. The implication is then that all initial conditions in which the kinetic term dominates over the background energy at $`z_1`$ are allowed in the quintessential inflation scenario. Hence, we conclude that the gravity-wave spectrum does not presently constrain the initial $`\rho _Q`$ or $`V(Q)`$ in the quintessential inflation model.

However, the limits on $`\rho _Q/\rho _B560`$ derived from the BBN constraints discussed below can be used to place a lower limit on the expansion rate at the end of inflation in this model. This in turn implies a lower limit on the redshift for the end of quintessential inflation. Thus, we have $`2.2\times 10^{21}<H_1^2/m_{pl}^2<1.45\times 10^{11}`$, and $`1.0\times 10^{21}<z_1<8.4\times 10^{25}`$ in the minimal supersymmetric model.

This implies that quintessential inflation must end at an energy scale somewhere between about 108 and 1013 GeV, well below the Planck scale. By similar reasoning one can apply this argument to the gravity-wave spectrum from normal inflation as given in . We deduce an upper limit to the epoch of matter thermalization of $`H_13.1\times 10^{10}m_{pl}^2`$ which implies $`z_17.3\times 10^{28}[g(z_1)/3.36]^{1/12}`$. In this case there is no lower limit from BBN as there is no $`Q`$ field present after inflation.

## 7 Results and Discussion

The equations of motion were evolved for a variety of initial $`Q`$ field strengths and power-law parameters $`\alpha `$. As initial conditions, the quintessence field was assumed to begin with equipartition, i.e. $`\dot{Q}^2/2=V(Q)`$, and $`w_Q=0`$. This seems a natural and not particularly restrictive choice, since $`w_Q`$ quickly evolves toward the kinetic ($`w_Q=+1`$) or the tracker solution depending upon whether one begins above or below the tracker curve.

Constraints on $`\alpha `$ and the initial value for the $`Q`$-field energy density $`\rho _Q(z)/\rho _B(z)`$ at $`z=10^{12}`$ were deduced numerically. These are summarized in Figure 2 for both: (a) the bare Ratra power-law potential; and (b) its SUGRA corrected form. Our constraints can easily be converted to closure fraction by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=(\rho _Q/\rho _B)/(1+\rho _Q/\rho _B)`$. For purposes of illustration, we have arbitrarily specified initial conditions at $`z=10^{12}`$, corresponding to $`T10^{12}`$ K, roughly just after the time of the QCD epoch. At any time the energy density $`\rho _{rel}(z)`$ in relativistic particles is just $`\rho _{rel}(z)=\rho _{\gamma 0}(3.36/g_{eff}(z))^{1/3}(z+1)^4`$, where $`\rho _{\gamma 0}=2.0\times 10^{51}`$ GeV4, is the present energy density in microwave background photons, and we take $`g_{eff}(z)=10.75`$ between $`z=10^{12}`$ and the beginning of BBN just before electron-positron annihilation ($`z10^{10}`$).

The envelope of models which obtain a tracker solution by the epoch of nucleosynthesis are indicated by upper and lower curved lines in Figures 2a and 2b. The general features of these constraints are as follows. If the initial energy density in the $`Q`$ field is too large, the tracker solution is not reached by the time of BBN. The $`Q`$-field energy density can then significantly exceed the background energy during nucleosynthesis. This situation corresponds to the excluded regions on the top of Figures 2a and 2b. All solutions consistent with the primordial nucleosynthesis constraints are also consistent with our adopted CMB $`Q`$-energy constraint as also shown at the top of Figures 2a and 2b.

The excluded regions at the top and bottom of figures 2a and 2b can be easily understood analytically. For example, the excluded (no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) region at the bottom of these figures reflects the fact that if $`\rho _Q`$ is initially below the value presently required by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ it can not evolve toward a larger value. Hence, $`\rho _Q/\rho _B<2.8\times 10^{44}`$ is ruled out for $`h=0.7`$. Similarly, the ”Excluded by BBN“ region comes from requiring that $`\rho _Q(z_{BBN})/\rho _B(z_{BBN})<0.056`$. For this constraint we are only considering cases in which the $`Q`$ field is approaching the tracker solution from above during nucleosynthesis. Hence, it is in the kinetic regime in which $`\rho _Qz^6`$ while the background scales as $`z^4`$. Thus, we have $`\rho _Q(z=10^{12})/\rho _B(z=10^{12})>0.056(10^{12}/10^{10})^{64}=560`$ is excluded. By similar reasoning, the ”Excluded by CMB“ region is given by $`\rho _Q(z_{CMB})/\rho _B(z_{CMB})>0.64`$, or $`\rho _Q(z=10^{12})/\rho _B(z=10^{12})>0.64(10.75/3.36)^{1/3}(10^{12}/10^3)^{64}=9.4\times 10^{17}`$.

For the bare Ratra power-law potential (Fig. 2a) the main constraint is simply the requirement that the equation of state be sufficiently negative by the present time. The sensitivity of the allowed power-law exponent to the equation of state is indicated by the $`w_Q=`$ -0.2, -0.4, and -0.6 lines on Figure 2a. In the present $`Q`$-dominated epoch, lines of constant $`w_Q`$ must be evaluated numerically. The slight slope to these curves comes from the fact that $`V(Q)/\rho (Q)`$ has not yet reached unity, i.e. there is still some small kinetic contribution to $`\rho (Q)`$ and the amount of kinetic contribution depends upon $`\alpha `$.

For the bare Ratra power-law potential, tracker solutions with $`\alpha _{}^<20`$ are allowed if $`w_Q0.2`$. The allowed values for $`\alpha `$ reduce to $`<9`$ and $`<2`$ if the more stringent -0.4 and -0.6 constraints are adopted. However, if $`\alpha `$ is too small, say $`\alpha 2`$, then the potential parameter $`M`$ becomes a very small fraction of the Planck mass and the fine tuning problem is reintroduced.

For models in which the tracker solution is obtained by the time of BBN, the potential parameters are only constrained if the most conservative equation of state limit ($`w_Q<0.2`$) and most stringent nucleosynthesis constraint ($`\rho _Q/\rho _B<0.1\%`$) are adopted. On the other hand, independently of the equation of state constraint, nucleosynthesis limits a large family of possible kinetic-dominated solutions even though they provide the correct present dark energy.

For the SUGRA-corrected $`Q`$ fields (Fig. 2b), the constraint from $`w_Q`$ is greatly relaxed. In fact, $`w_Q`$ is sufficiently negative ($`w_Q<0.6`$) for all $`\alpha <10^4`$. The reason is that all tracker solutions have $`w_Q1`$. This is because $`w_Q`$ decays much faster toward -1 for the SUGRA potential. Also, the potential has a finite minimum which is equal to the present dark-energy density. The Q field quickly evolves to near the potential minimum and has negligible kinetic energy by the present time. Any potential which becomes flat at late times gives $`w_Q1`$ and the dark energy looks like a cosmological constant. All SUGRA models which achieve the tracker solution also have a small $`\rho _Q`$ during primordial nucleosynthesis. Hence, there is no constraint from nucleosynthesis except for those kinetic-dominated models in which the $`Q`$ field is still far above the tracker solution during the nucleosynthesis epoch.

We do note, however, that if a lower limit of $`w_Q>0.8`$ is adopted for tracker solutions from , then only a power law with $`\alpha _{}^>30`$ is allowed. This makes the SUGRA potential the preferred candidate for quintessence. The large $`\alpha `$ implies values of $`M`$ close to the Planck mass, thus avoiding any fine tuning problem. However, this potential will be constrainable by BBN if the light-element constraints become sufficiently precise to limit $`\rho _Q`$ at the 0.1% level.

## 8 Conclusions

We conclude that for both the bare Rata inverse power-law potential and its SUGRA-corrected form, the main constraints for models which achieve the tracker solution by the nucleosynthesis epoch is from the requirement that the equation of state parameter becomes sufficiently negative by the present epoch. The main constraint from nucleosynthesis is for models which are kinetic dominated ar the time of nucleosynthesis. The SUGRA-corrected potential is the least constrained and avoids the fine tuning problem for $`M`$. Therefore, it may be the preferred candidate for the quintessence field, although BBN may eventually limit this possibility. We also note that the constraints considered here provide useful constraints on the regime of matter creation at the end of quintessential inflation.

Work supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (10640236, 10044103, 11127220, 12047233) of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, and also by DoE Nuclear Theory Grant (DE-FG02-95-ER40934 at UND).