Instant Preheating in Quintessential Inflation with α−Attractors

Konstantinos Dimopoulos,1 Leonora Donaldson Wood,1 and Charlotte Owen1 1Consortium for Fundamental Physics, Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom (Dated: January 29, 2018) We investigate a compelling model of quintessential inflation in the context of α-attractors, which naturally result in a scalar potential featuring two flat regions; the inflationary plateau and the quintessential tail. The “asymptotic freedom” of α-attractors, near the kinetic poles, suppresses radiative corrections and interactions, which would otherwise threaten to lift the flatness of the quintessential tail and cause a 5th-force problem respectively. Since this is a non-oscillatory inflation model, we reheat the Universe through instant preheating. The parameter space is constrained by both inflation and dark energy requirements. We find an excellent correlation between the inflationary observables and model predictions, in agreement with the α-attractors set-up. We also obtain successful quintessence for natural values of the parameters. Our model predicts potentially sizeable tensor perturbations (at the level of 1%) and a slightly varying equation of state for dark energy, to be probed in the near future.

INTRODUCTION expansion, is called quintessential inflation [6]. Quintessen- tial inflation is economical in that it models both inflation One of the greatest discoveries in cosmology was that and quintessence in a common theoretical framework and the Universe is currently undergoing accelerated expansion employs a single degree of freedom. It also features some [1,2]. To account for this, Einstein’s General Relativity de- practical advantages, for example the initial conditions of mands that the dominant component of the Universe con- quintessence are determined by the inflationary attractor. tent violates the strong energy condition. Assuming that it As such the infamous coincidence problem (which corre- is a barotropic fluid, its pressure must be negative enough sponds to late inflation occurring at present) is reduced to 1 a constraint on the model parameters and not on initial p < 3 ρ. Such a mysterious substance is dubbed ‘dark en- ergy’.− conditions. By far, the simplest choice of dark energy is vacuum den- Quintessential inflation models require the inflaton po- sity, due to a non-zero cosmological constant, for which tential energy density to survive until the present day to p = ρ. The main problem with this idea is that the re- act as dark energy. Amongst other things, this necessitates quired− value of the cosmological constant is staggeringly a reheating mechanism alternative to the standard assump- small such that the vacuum density is about 10120 times tion, in which, after the end of inflation, the inflaton field smaller than the Planck density, which corresponds to the decays into the thermal bath of the hot big bang. If in- cutoff scale of the theory. This has been called “the worst flaton decay is not considered, then reheating must occur fine-tuning in Physics”.1 To overcome this, but at the ex- by other means. Different reheating alternatives to inflaton pense of introducing new Physics, there have been alterna- decay include instant preheating [7,8], curvaton reheating tive proposals put forward. [9–11] and gravitational reheating [12, 13], amongst oth- A substance which can exhibit pressure negative enough ers [14], which may or may not happen exclusively. For is a potentially dominated homogeneous scalar field. Thus, example, gravitational reheating is always present, but be- it is possible for a dynamical scalar field to drive the ac- cause it is a very inefficient mechanism it is overwhelmed celerated expansion of the Universe, therefore being a type if another reheating mechanism is present. The outcome of of dark energy. The idea has long been in use when mod- any of these reheating mechanisms must complete and lead elling cosmic inflation in the early Universe (inflationary to radiation domination well before the time of Big Bang paradigm). Mirroring the mechanism used to explain in- Nucleosynthesis (BBN). The temperature of the Universe

arXiv:1712.01760v3 [astro-ph.CO] 26 Jan 2018 flation, this idea can also be applied to address the cur- when radiation domination takes over is called the reheat- rent accelerated expansion. A scalar field responsible for ing temperature Treh. Thus we need Treh 1 MeV to avoid  late inflation is called quintessence; the fifth element after disturbing BBN. baryons, CDM, photons and neutrinos [3–5]. In quintessential inflation models, if reheating is not Since they are both based on the same idea, it is natu- prompt, a period of kination exists, where the kinetic den- ral to attempt to unify cosmic inflation with quintessence. sity of the inflaton is the dominant energy density in the Indeed, the mechanism in which a scalar field is both driv- Universe. During this period, the non-decaying mode for ing primordial inflation and causing the current accelerated gravitational waves is not suppressed and this produces a spike in the gravitational wave spectrum at high frequen- cies. The energy density of these gravitational waves may be large enough to disturb the BBN process. As such it is 1 by Laurence Krauss. constrained and provides an upper limit on the duration of kination. This, in turn, is a lower bound on the reheating missible. We investigate this issue in detail, but conserva- temperature. tively choose to avoid super-Planckian values for our non- The scalar potential in quintessential inflation typically canonical inflation field in our treatment. features two flat regions, which when traversed by the scalar We start with an overview of the model before noting field, result in accelerated expansion, provided that the how a change of reheating mechanism affects the num- scalar field dominates the Universe. These are called the ber of remaining inflationary e-folds since observable scales inflationary plateau and the quintessential tail and can lead left the horizon during primordial inflation. We calculate to the primordial and current accelerated expansion respec- the inflationary observables before investigating how the tively. Thus, the required potential is of runaway type, with quintessence requirements determine the parameter space the global minimum displaced at infinity, where the vacuum in a model with instant preheating. density is zero. The form of the quintessential potential is We use natural units, where c = ~ = 1 and −2 non trivial, especially since the two plateaus differ by more Newton’s gravitational constant is 8πG = mP , with 18 100 mP = 2.43 10 GeV being the reduced Planck mass. than a factor of 10 in energy density. Consequently, one × needs to use a theoretical framework that is valid at both these extreme energy scales. THE MODEL A compelling way to naturally generate a scalar poten- tial with the desired two plateaus is the idea of α-attractors, The Scalar Potential which is heavily used in inflationary model building [15–37]. Recently, we have presented a new quintessential inflation We consider the following model: model along these lines [38]. Our model is in excellent agreement for inflationary observables with the CMB ob- = kin + V + Λ , (1) servations [39]. In our paper in Ref. [38] we utilised the L L L where kin is the kinetic Lagrangian density, V is the po- mechanism of gravitational reheating to reheat the Uni- L L verse after inflation, in alignment with the economy of the tential Lagrangian density and Λ is a cosmological constant. quintessential inflation idea. However, gravitational reheat- The kinetic Lagrangian density is ing is notoriously inefficient, with a very low reheating tem- 1 (∂φ)2 4 2 perature of approximately T 10 GeV. As a result, kin = 2 , (2) reh L φ 2 ∼ (1 6αm2 ) the spike of gravitational waves due to kination is large − P enough to challenge the BBN process. This is the price to where α > 0 is a parameter. This is the standard, non- pay for economy. In this paper we generalise our approach canonical form in the context of α-attractors [15–18]. It and employ the instant preheating mechanism to reheat can be realised in supergravity theories, when the K¨ahler the Universe. Thus, we envisage a coupling between our manifold is not trivial, such that kin features poles, char- scalar field with some other degree of freedom such that, acterised by the α parameter. L after the end of inflation, the rapid variation of the infla- For the potential Lagrangian density, we consider a sim- ton’s expectation value leads to non-perturbative particle ple exponential function (possibly due to gaugino conden- production, which generates the radiation bath of the hot sation [42–44]). Thus, we have big bang. The process is modulated by the coupling con- −κφ/mP stant g. If g is small enough, instant preheating becomes V = V (φ) = V0e . (3) comparable to gravitational reheating. Thus, in general we − L 4 where κ is a parameter (without loss of generality, we con- consider Treh > 10 GeV. sider κ > 0) and V0 is a constant density scale. The setup of α-attractors also has another beneficial con- In an effort to minimise its potential density, the ex- sequence, apart from generating the potential plateaus. It pectation value of the field φ grows in time. However, it has to do with the suppression of radiative corrections near cannot cross the poles at √6α mP [15–18]. Thus, starting the poles (so along the plateaus), which otherwise threaten in-between the poles, we± expect that it finally approaches to lift the flatness of the quintessential tail, as well as the √ the value φ + 6α mP, which corresponds√ to non-zero suppression of interactions, which would otherwise generate → −κ 6α potential density V (√6α mP) = V0e . a 5th-force problem for quintessence. Both these problems We assume that, due to an unknown symmetry, the vac- plague models of quintessence and quintessential inflation uum density is zero. This was the standard assumption alike. In Ref. [38], we had not fully realised the beneficial before the discovery of dark energy. If a non-zero vacuum effect of the α-attractors setup in this respect. Thus, we density is assumed then we have the usual ΛCDM cosmol- aimed to avoid excessive interactions by keeping the non- ogy. For motivating quintessence as the explanation of the canonical field sub-Planckian (the interactions are Planck- dark energy observations, the vacuum density has to be suppressed). However, as demonstrated in Refs. [40, 41], zero. This fixes the cosmological constant in our model to the suppression of loop corrections and interactions along the value the plateaus (near the poles) is such that even a super- √ −κ 6α Planckian excursion of the non-canonical inflaton is ad- Λ = V (√6α mP) = V0e . (4)

2 Defining n κ√6α and incorporating Λ, the scalar poten- it becomes quintessence and its residual potential density tial can now≡ be expressed as drives the Universe expansion into acceleration again. Here we should highlight the importance of the parame-   φ   n 1− √ −n 6αm ter n = κ√6α. The value of n modulates both the steepness V (φ) = V0e e P 1 . (5) − of the potential and the inflaton value where the potential drops from the early-time to the late-time plateau. As such, To assist our intuition, it is useful to consider a canon- this controls ϕ , the value the field freezes at, when it runs ically normalised inflaton field ϕ. The form of the kinetic F out of kinetic energy after reheating. Lagrangian density in Eq. (2) suggests the field redefinition ∂φ φ2 is obtained when ∂ϕ = 1 6αm2 , which gives − P The Range of α  ϕ  φ = √6α mP tanh . (6) √6αmP At late times, there are two attractor solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation depending on whether the Then, the scalar potential, in terms of the canonical scalar quintessence field is eventually dominant or not over the field becomes background matter. It has been shown that, when the back- n h  ϕ i o ground density becomes comparable to the field’s residual V (ϕ) = e−2nM 4 exp n 1 tanh 1 , (7) − √6αmP − potential density V (ϕF ), the field unfreezes and briefly os- cillates about the attractor before settling on the attractor 4 n where we have defined M e V0, which stands for the solution [45]. The question of which attractor solution the ≡ inflation energy scale. Note, also, that Λ = e−2nM 4. field eventually follows is controlled by the value of α, which Whereas the range of the non-canonical inflaton field φ determines the slope of the quintessential tail. is bounded by the poles in kin: √6α < φ/mP < √6α, The latest Planck observations suggest that the den- L − the range of the canonical inflaton field ϕ is unbounded: sity parameter of dark energy is ΩΛ = 1 ΩK Ωm, where − − < ϕ < + . This is because the poles are transposed ΩK = 0.000 0.005 is the curvature density parameter and −∞ ∞ ± to infinity when we switch from φ to ϕ. In effect, the scalar Ωm = 0.308 0.012 is the density parameter of matter. ± potential V (ϕ) becomes “stretched” as φ approaches the This results in ΩΛ = 0.692 0.017. Planck also demands poles [15–18]. Therefore, the potential V (ϕ) features two that the effective barotropic± parameter of dark energy is plateaus experienced by the field, one at early and one at +0.091 2 wDE = 1.023−0.096 (Planck TT+lowP+ext) at 2-σ. We late times. investigate− this in the appendix and we find that demanding At early times (ϕ , φ √6α mP), the potential that our model satisfies these observational requirements → −∞ → − in Eq. (7) can be simplified to results in the bound α & 1.5 (i.e. √6α & 3). In all cases,

2ϕ the scalar field has unfrozen but is yet to settle on the at-  √  4 6αm V (ϕ) M exp 2ne P , (8) tractor solution. This results inw ˙ DE = 0, which lies within ' − current Planck bounds (see appendix)6 but can be poten- which gives rise to the inflationary plateau. In the opposite tially observable in the near future, where the dot denotes limit, towards late times (ϕ + , φ +√6α mP), the time derivative. potential in Eq. (7) becomes → ∞ → We can obtain an upper bound on α by avoiding super- Planckian values for the non-canonical field φ. The moti- −2n 4 V = 2ne M exp( 2ϕ/√6α mP) . (9) vation for this is to suppress radiative corrections and the − 5th-force problem, which plague quintessence models [38]. This corresponds to the quintessential tail. It is evident However, the bound is soft, as both loop corrections and that the potential density asymptotes to zero as ϕ + . → ∞ interactions are suppressed near the poles [40, 41] as we dis- The evolution of the quintessential inflaton field goes as cuss in the penultimate section of this paper. Still, being follows. The field slow-rolls along the early-time plateau, conservative, we choose to avoid a super-Planckian non- obeying the slow-roll constraints and inflating the Uni- canonical inflation field. Therefore, the relevant range for verse. Inflation ends when the potential becomes steep and α is the following: curved. Afterwards, the inflaton field falls down the steep slope of the potential. A period of kination ensues, when 3 . √6α . 5 1.5 α 4.2 . (10) the Universe is dominated by the kinetic density of the ⇔ ≤ ≤ scalar field. Kination ends when the Universe is reheated For the above range, there is a theoretical prejudice in view and radiation takes over. As such, the duration of kina- of maximal supergravity, string theory, and M-theory, for tion is inversely proportional to the reheating temperature particular values of α satisfying 3α = 5, 6, 7 [33, 46, 47]. Treh, which defines the moment when radiation domination begins and reheating completes. The field continues to roll until it runs out of kinetic energy and freezes at a particular 2 “ext” includes the Planck lensing, BAO, JLA and H data sets. value ϕF . It remains dormant at ϕF until late times, when 0

3 Inflationary Observables Finally, for the energy scale of inflation we find [38], " #  M 2 3πp2α 3α √3α−1 The inflationary observables predicted by this model are Pζ =  √  exp N∗ + , mP 3α 4 2 [38]: N∗ + 2 !−2 (17) √3α −9 where Pζ = (2.199 0.066) 10 , is the spectrum of the r = 16 = 12α N∗ + , (11) ± × 2 scalar curvature perturbation [39]. With N∗ = 62 and α in the range in Eq. (10), we find M 1016 GeV, which is at ' 2 3α 2 the scale of grand unification. The actual values of M can ns = 1  √  √ 2 1 , be seen in Fig.8. − 3α −   ' − N∗ N∗ + 3α 2 2 N∗ + 2 (12) REHEATING AND QUINTESSENCE and d ln n Inflaton Freezing n0 s s ≡ d ln k √  3α  As mentioned earlier, n affects the freezing value of the 2 N∗ + + 3α 1 2 field, ϕF . During kination the field is oblivious of the poten- =  √  √ 2 √ − 3α  3α   3α  3 tial and the Klein-Gordon equation reduces toϕ ¨+3Hϕ˙ 0. N∗ + 2 N∗ + 2 N∗ + α ' 2 − 2 − 2 Consequently, following the treatment in Ref. [38], it is easy 2 to show that during kination, the scalar field grows as 2 (13) ' −N∗ 2N∗ r − 2  t  where r is the tensor to scalar ratio, n is the spectral index ϕ = ϕIP + mP ln , (18) s 3 tIP of the scalar perturbations and n0 its running. In the above, s where the subscript ‘IP’ denotes the moment of instant pre- N∗ is the number of remaining inflationary e-folds when the cosmological scales left the horizon during inflation and the heating, when radiation is generated (discussed in the fol- 2 lowing subsection), and we consider that kination contin- last equations in Eqs. (12) and (13) correspond to α N∗ and are the standard α-attractors results.  ues for a while after instant preheating occurs. Because −4 3 radiation density scales as ρr a , once created, radi- The value of N∗ is dependent on Treh via the equation ation eventually takes over, since∝ for a kinetically domi- V 1/4  1 V 1/4  ϕ˙ 2 −6 end end nated scalar field we have ρkin 2 a . Thus, for the N∗ 61.93 + ln + ln . (14) ≡ ∝ ' mP 3 Treh density parameter of radiation during kination we have Ω = ρ /ρ a−2. Denoting as ‘reh’ the moment of re- As will be discussed in the following sections, T depends r r φ reh heating, i.e.∝ the moment when the radiation bath comes on n and α as well as the efficiency of the reheating mech- to dominate the Universe, we have Ωreh = 1 by definition. anism. As such, the value of N is determined iteratively. r ∗ Therefore, the radiation density parameter at instant pre- However, using N = 62 (in view of Eq. (14)) and √6α = 4 ∗ heating is (the middle point of the range in Eq. (10)) in Eqs. (12) and 2 2 (13) gives approximate results: IP reh aIP   tIP  3 Ωr = Ωr = , (19) 0 −4 areh treh ns = 0.968 and n = 5.46 10 . (15) s − × where ΩIP (ρ /ρ) is the radiation density parameter at Assuming N = 62 and considering the range in Eq. (10), r r IP ∗ instant preheating≡ and we considered that during kination Eq. (11) gives a t1/3. Inserting the above into Eq. (18) we find ∝ 0.005 r 0.012 . (16) r ≤ ≤ 3 IP ϕreh = ϕIP mP ln(Ω ) . (20) These inflationary observables are in excellent agreement − 2 r with the latest Planck observations [39]. As shown later, 0 Now, as shown in Ref. [38], during radiation domination, the resulting values of ns, ns and r using the actual val- the field continues to roll for a while as ues of N , obtained from considering the reheating mech- ∗ r r ! anism and the quintessence requirements, remain in excel- 2 treh ϕ = ϕreh + mP 1 . (21) lent agreement with the observations and are very close to 3 − t the above. The above suggests that the field freezes at a value ϕF , given by

3 In Ref. [38], N was calculated exactly to be 63.49, due to a cancella- r ∗ 2 3 IP tion of all dependence on T in the case of gravitational reheating. ϕF = ϕIP + 1 ln Ω mP , (22) reh 3 − 2 r

4 where we used Eq. (20). Here, we assume that the gener- Instant Preheating ation of radiation is almost instantaneous, as is discussed later. A relationship between n and ϕF can be obtained For instant preheating we presume the inflaton φ is cou- from the final energy density requirements for dark en- pled to some other scalar field χ. In particular, we consider ergy. Starting from the requirement that the density of an interaction at an enhanced symmetry point (ESP) at quintessence must be comparable to the density of the Uni- φ = φ0. The Lagrangian density near the ESP is verse today:

= (φ0) + int , (29) √ L L L 4 2ϕF / 6αmP ρinf M e 10108 , (23) where (φ0) is determined by Eq. (1) evaluated at φ0. The −2n L ρ0 ' V (ϕF ) ' 2ne ' interaction Lagrangian density near the ESP is

1 2 2 2 ¯ where ρ is the energy density during inflation, we find int = g (φ φ0) χ hχψψ , (30) inf L −2 − − where g and h are perturbative coupling constants, and ψ 2 ϕF 2n ln(2n) = 108 ln10 , (24) denotes a fermion field, coupled to χ. The fermion is taken − − √6α mP to be light, such that the χ-particles decay into a radiation bath. We consider h 1, which means that the decay of χ and combining Eqs. (22) and (24) gives is immediate. ∼ The scalar field, χ, can be expressed in terms of the cre- ation and annihilation operators, and the Fourier modes 2 r2 3  2n ln(2n) = 108 ln 10 1 lnΩIP , (25) of this expansion obey a wave equation with a frequency − − √6α 3 − 2 r dependent on the effective mass of χ. Certain solutions to this wave equation are growing solutions and this trans- lates into an exponential increase of the occupation number where we assumed that the right-hand-side of Eq. (22) is n for a particular mode, when particle production occurs dominated by the last term. This is so when ΩIP 1, k r [7,8]. The adiabaticity condition which can be challenged only for very high reheating effi- ciency. However, as we show later, such efficiency is ex- ω˙ k cluded because of backreaction constraints. Also, high re- < 1 , (31) ω2 heating efficiency would mean that radiation domination k begins almost right after instant preheating. This would where ωk is the frequency of the Fourier expanded wave result in a high reheating temperature, incompatible with equation, must be violated for particle production to occur. gravitino over-production considerations. For the interaction terms used here, this leads to: The parameter space for n is related to the density of pro- 2 duced radiation at the end of inflation. Hence, changing the m˙ χ mχ , (32) | |  reheating efficiency affects the parameter space for n.ΩIP is r 2 2 2 with m = g (φ φ0) . Thus, particle production takes larger the more efficient instant preheating is, meaning the χ − scalar field rolls less far in field space before it freezes. So, place when: maintaining the same final energy density (comparable to ˙ 2 φ > g(φ φ0) , (33) the density at present), requires a higher n value. To find | | − bounds on n, we derive bounds on ΩIP and evolve the equa- r which gives the following range for φ tions of motion numerically, in order to determine exactly when instant preheating occurs and how this affects the s s variables we need to constrain. φ˙ φ˙ φ | | φ φ + | | . (34) 0 g 0 g The equations of motion used are: − ≤ ≤ The above is the window of φ in which particle production 1 occurs. 3m2 H2 = ϕ˙ 2 + V (ϕ) , (26) P 2 The careful reader may have noticed that the interac- tion considered regards φ, the original non-canonically nor- 2Hm˙ 2 =ϕ ˙ 2 , (27) − P malised field. Hence, we need to find φ and φ˙ to check the ϕ¨ = 3Hϕ˙ V 0(ϕ) , (28) − − adiabaticity constraint. We can find φ using Eq. (6) from which we readily obtain where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to ϕ  ϕ  φ˙ = sech2 ϕ˙ , (35) and dots denote differentiation with respect to time. √6αmP

5 Combining Eq. (38) with the χ particle effective mass pro- vides the density of the produced χ particles [7,8] 1.0

5/2 ˙ 3/2 g φIP φIP ρIP = | | . (40) χ 8π3

The instant preheating efficiency is maximised when φ is near the final edge of the production window in Eq. (34) ˙ φ max because, even though we expect a continuous contribution ˙ φ to nχ whilst φ is in this region, the produced χ-particles are diluted by the expansion of the Universe. Therefore, we expect only the ones produced near the end of the particle IP production regime to contribute significantly to ρχ . As such, from Eq. (34), taking φ0 0, we set ' s φ˙ φ = IP , (41) IP g 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 − − − − ϕ m P which simplifies Eq. (40) to FIG. 1: This plot depicts where φ˙ is maximised in the ϕ direction. g2φ˙2 ρIP = ρIP = IP , (42) r χ 8π3 where we obtain ϕ andϕ ˙ from the computation, but for completeness: where we have considered that φ˙ > 0 because the field is rolling towards larger values and we have assumed that the −1 φ  decay of the χ-particles to radiation is instantaneous. ϕ = √6αmP tanh (36) √6αmP For each choice of n, the quintessence requirements stip- φ˙ ulate the required value of ϕ and hence ΩIP. The value andϕ ˙ = , (37) F r φ2 IP of Ωr is 1 6αm2 − P which are analytically cyclic. It is clear from this compu- ρIP ρIP ˙ ΩIP = χ = r . (43) tation that the region where φ is maximised and particle r ρIP + ρIP ρIP production occurs is very close to φ = 0, meaning φ ϕ χ φ,a φ,b (c.f. Eq. (6)) and φ is almost canonical. This can be seen' IP IP clearly in Fig.1. This is because, when the non-canonical φ where ρχ = ρr is defined in Eq. (42) and the sub- is near the poles it hardly varies, even when the canonical ϕ script ‘a/b’ refers to after/before instant preheating. Insert- changes substantially. Thus, it is not possible to violate the ing the above in Eq. (42), a rearrangement quickly yields: adiabaticity condition in Eq. (31) in this region. Therefore, there may be many ESPs along the ϕ direction, but only s 8π3 near φ ϕ 0 can we have particle production. g = ΩIPρIP , (44) ' ' ˙2 r φ The number density of produced χ particles [7,8] is φIP

Z 3 Z ∞ d k 1 2 nχ = 3 nk = 2 k nkdk , (38) where we have omitted subscript ‘b’ for simplicity. Note (2π) 2π 0 IP that ρφ,a ρφ,b when Ω 1. ' r  where the occupation number For each choice of n, we calculate ϕF from Eq. (23) and IP insert this into Eq. (22) to obtain Ωr as a function of n. 2  πmχ  As the reheating variables are also functions of n, we now nk = exp , (39) − m˙ χ have g in terms of only n. However, as noted previously, ˙ φIP and φIP are themselves dependent on g and so this is suppressed whenm ˙ χ < mχ, evidencing why the adia- requires iteration. This is the procedure to obtain a value baticity condition in Eq. (32), controls particle production. of g for a given value of n.

6 CONSTRAINTS FROM REHEATING AND Backreaction Constraint QUINTESSENCE We must also consider the back reaction of produced χ- Immediate Constraints on n particles on φ, which may further constrain the allowed value of g. The equation of motion for the scalar field, An immediate sanity check arises: if ϕF < ϕIP then the including back reaction, is given by [7,8] combination of n and α is disallowed. This allows us at first glance to constrain n. For the complete range of allowed α ¨ ˙ 0 φ φ + 3Hφ + V (φ) = gnχ , (48) values, 1.5 α 4.2, we find − φ ≤ ≤ | | n 130 . (45) where ≤ The fact that this approach produces an upper limit on n ˙ 3/2 2 (g φ )  πmχ  makes sense because a larger n value makes the potential nχ = | | exp (49) 8π3 − m˙ steeper and means lower V values will be reached earlier χ in field space. Hence, to equate V (ϕF ) with dark energy and we consider that, near the ESP, φ is canonically nor- today will require a lower value for ϕF . As such, ensuring malised (φ ϕ), as discussed. ' ϕF > ϕIP results in an upper bound on n. The exponential is suppressed during particle production and so the right hand side of Eq. (48) becomes

Keeping g Perturbative and Ensuring Radiation g5/2φ˙3/2 Domination φ¨ + 3Hφ˙ + V 0(φ) = , (50) − 8π3

The first constraint on g is found by requiring g < 1, for where we have also considered φ˙ > 0. As back reaction in- a perturbative coupling constant, which provides a tight creases, the magnitude of the right-hand side of this equa- upper bound on n: tion grows to have more and more of an effect on the dy- α = 1.5 : n 124 , namics [8]. This is maximised at φ = φIP (i.e. for maximum ≤ n ). Computing this at that moment, we find that to avoid α = 4.2 : n 125 . (46) χ ≤ back-reaction effects requires roughly

However, to obtain the correct Universe history, we also −3 need to ensure we have a period of radiation domination g . 10 . (51) after instant preheating, which might provide a tighter In detail, the above upper bound on g depends on the value bound. In a quintessential inflation model with a period of α as depicted in our results, see Figs.2-10. of kination after radiation generation, this is never a prob- lem because the density of the produced radiation scales −4 as ρr a whilst the density of the kinetically dominated ∝ −6 Gravitino Constraint field scales as ρφ a . Hence, to ensure radiation domi- nation we need to∝ ensure that the scalar field remains ki- netically dominated after instant preheating. Note, that Finally, because this is a model rooted in supergrav- the transfer of energy to χ-particles during instant preheat- ity, constraints from over-production of gravitinos have to ing comes from the kinetic energy density of the inflaton be taken into account. The over-production of gravitinos needs to be controlled because they can either contribute to only, therefore V (φa) = V (φb) V (φIP). Were there not enough kinetic density left, the≡ inflaton would become po- the mass of dark matter and overclose the Universe or they tentially dominated and would embark to a new bout of can decay and disrupt the production of nuclei during BBN. inflation. Thus, we need to ensure that the kinetic energy Gravitino production is strongly correlated with reheat- 9 ing temperature. In general, the bound Treh < (10 ) GeV of the inflaton is greater than the potential energy after O instant preheating. This leads to g Allowed n values Allowed κ values ρφ,a V (φIP) > V (φIP) ρχ < ρφ,b 2V (φIP) , (47) − ⇒ − 0.001 119 ≤ n ≤ 122 24.3 ≤ κ ≤ 39.6 where the subscripts ‘a’ and ‘b’ refer to after and be- 0.01 121 ≤ n ≤ 123 24.5 ≤ κ ≤ 40.3 fore instant preheating respectively and we have used that 0.1 123 ≤ n ≤ 124 24.7 ≤ κ ≤ 41.0 ρφ,b = ρφ,a + ρχ. Eq. (47) gives us an upper limit on the 1.0 125 ≤ n ≤ 126 25.1 ≤ κ ≤ 41.7 allowed energy density of produced χ particles, which trans- lates to an upper limit on the perturbative coupling g, from TABLE I: Allowed n and κ values for specific choices of g, the equation for the energy density, Eq. (42). However, it within the allowed α range, before consideration of turns out that this constraint is automatically satisfied for backreaction and gravitino constraints a perturbative coupling with g < 1.

7 −3 0 −4 IP α n N∗ ns r/10 ns/10 g < 1, Ωr is very small. Given that the dependence of IP 1/4 3/2 1.5 118 62.7 0.968 4.42 −5.25 (ρφ ) on g is weak, Eq. (54) suggests Treh g . This is easy to understand by considering that a large∝ value of g 1.5 124 59.1 0.966 4.97 −5.92 means that more radiation is generated at instant preheat- 4.2 121 63.5 0.968 11.8 −5.11 ing. Consequently, reheating happens earlier and therefore 4.2 125 59.4 0.966 13.9 −5.86 Treh is large. To limit Treh to small enough values we need to avoid a large g. 9 TABLE II: For the allowed range of n, prior to In our model, the bound Treh < (10 ) GeV translates consideration of backreaction and gravitino constraints, to an upper bound on g of roughly O the corresponding values of N∗ and the inflationary observables are shown. −2 g . 10 . (56)

As in the previous subsection, in detail, the above upper 1/4 α n κ Treh (GeV) M (GeV) V0 (GeV) bound on g depends on the value of α as depicted in our results, see Figs.2-10. 1.5 118 39.3 3.84 × 106 8.50 × 1015 1.31 × 103 1.5 124 41.3 2.22 × 1011 8.76 × 1015 3.01 × 102

5 16 2 4.2 121 24.1 2.35 × 10 1.10 × 10 8.04 × 10 A Lower Bound on g 4.2 125 24.9 6.07 × 1010 1.15 × 1016 3.06 × 102 The first constraint on a lower g value is to ensure that ra- TABLE III: For the allowed range of n, prior to diation domination occurs before BBN, but this constraint consideration of backreaction and gravitino constraints, is not a worry for we find Treh 1 MeV in all cases. 1/4  the corresponding values of Treh, M and V are shown. IP 0 We may obtain a lower bound on ρχ , and hence g, from the nucleosynthesis constraint on the energy density of pro- duced gravitational waves during kination. We follow the

4 treatment in Ref. [52] to find the lower bound on g. The [48–50] is adequate. BBN constraint demands We can derive Treh in this model from the relationship ρg  −2  30 1/4 . 10 , (57) reh ρr reh Treh = 2 ρr , (52) π g∗ where where ‘reh’ denotes the moment of reheating, which is the onset of the radiation era. Employing Eq. (19) we readily ρg  64 2 ρφ  find = hGW . (58) ρr reh 3π ρr IP ρreh = ρreh = ρIP(ΩIP)3 , (53) r φ φ r Using the relations where we used that ρ a−6 during kination. Inserting φ 2 this into Eq.(52) we find∝ 2 Hend 2 Vend hGW = 2 and Hend 2 , (59) 8mP ' 3mP 1/4 1/4 h 30 IP IP 3i h 30 IP IP 2i Treh = 2 ρφ (Ωr ) = 2 ρr (Ωr ) , (54) π g∗ π g∗ where the subscript ‘end’ signifies the end of inflation, we can re-express this as IP where we also considered that ρr = Ωrρφ. We find Ωr as follows  ρg  8 Vend 1 −2 = 4 . 10 . (60) ρ reh 9π m ΩIP ρIP g2φ˙2 2 g2 γ P r ΩIP = r = IP = , (55) r IP 8π3 φ2 4π3 ρφ IP Substituting the above in Eq. (55) we get where we considered Eq. (42) and that ρIP = 1 φ˙2 during φ 2 IP r 1/2 2 IP −2 2 8 Vend  M  −4 kination. Thus, Ωr 10 g , which means that, since g 20π 2 10 10 (61) ∼ ≥ 9 mP ' mP ∼

√ 4 − 3α where we considered that Vend = M e [38]. For the 4 However, in some cases, the bound can be much a tighter: last equation we considered M 1016 GeV as suggested by 6 ' Treh < O(10 ) GeV [51]. Fig.8.

8 −3 0 −4 128 α n N∗ ns r/10 ns/10 √6α = 5 1.5 118 62.74 0.968 4.42 -5.25 √6α = 3 126 1.5 119 62.14 0.968 4.51 -5.35 Allowed provided g > gmin Back-reaction significant 4.2 121 63.54 0.968 11.8 -5.11 9 124 Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction 4.2 122 62.53 0.967 12.2 -5.28 n TABLE IV: Final values for the parameters when 122 considering the tightest constraints on g, from the backreaction bound. 120

118 1/4 α n κ Treh (GeV) M (GeV) V (GeV) 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 1.5 118 39.3 3.84 × 106 8.5 × 1015 1.31 × 103 g 1.5 119 39.7 2.39 × 107 8.5 × 1015 1.03 × 103 FIG. 2: Allowed parameter space for n, for the range of allowed g values and allowed α values between 1.5 and 4.2 121 24.1 2.35 × 105 1.1 × 1016 8.04 × 102 4.2. The bounds arising from backreaction and gravitino 6 16 2 4.2 122 24.3 5.07 × 10 1.1 × 10 6.31 × 10 constraints are indicated.

TABLE V: Final values for the parameters when considering the tightest constraints on g, from the 0 n the corresponding values of N∗, ns, r, ns, Treh, M and backreaction bound. 1/4 V0 are shown in TablesII andIII. Figs.2,3,4,5,7,89 and 10 document how the parameter space is altered when the backreaction and gravitino bounds are included. Values 0 1/4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION of N∗, ns r, ns, Treh, M and V0 for the most constricted final parameter space are shown in TablesIV andV. IR The two unavoidable constraints are the upper bound With a lower value of Ωr , the inflaton rolls to larger dis- on n, ensuring g < 1 because of perturbativity, and the tances before it freezes. To fulfil dark energy requirements, lower limit on g ensuring a period of kination that does this requires a lower n value. The results found here for not disturb BBN through overproduction of gravitational n demonstrate this. The two different α values result in −4 different n requirements because α controls the slope of waves. This bound is g & 10 . These bounds result in the parameter space the quintessential tail (c.f. Eq. (9)). A smaller/larger α- value means a steeper/gentler quintessential tail. Thus, for α = 1.5 : 118 n 124 , (62) a given value of ϕF , we require smaller/larger n-values for ≤ ≤ a smaller/larger-α value. α = 4.2 : 121 n 125 . (63) ≤ ≤ The upper constraint on g arising from the avoidance of SUPPRESSED INTERACTIONS backreaction in the instant preheating mechanism results −3 in a bound on g of approximately g . 10 . However, this In general, quintessence models require an extremely flat bound can be sidestepped if the decay χ ψψ¯ is rapid, as potential over super-Planckian distances. This gives rise is often assumed. All that is required is→ a large enough to two problems. First, the flatness of such a potential h value for this coupling. The upper bound on g aris- can be lifted by sizeable radiative corrections. Second, ing from gravitino over-production constraints is important because the mass of the quintessence field is extremely −33 in a model rooted in supergravity. This bound is roughly small H0 10 eV, the corresponding wavelength is −2 ∼ ∼ g . 10 . Because of this bound, the parameter space is very large (Horizon sized), which can give rise to the infa- reduced to mous 5th force problem, that amounts to sizable violations of the Equivalence Principle. α = 1.5 : 118 n 122 , (64) ≤ ≤ However, in the context of α-attractors both the above dangers are averted. Indeed, as discussed in Ref. [40, 41], when near the kinetic poles (φ/mP √6α, equivalently α = 4.2 : 121 n 124 . (65) ≈ ± ≤ ≤ ϕ /mP √6α), the inflaton interactions are exponentially The allowed values of n and κ for a selection of g values suppressed| |  and the field becomes “asymptotically free”. are shown in TableI, without consideration of the back- The same is true for the loop corrections to the potential. reaction and gravitino bounds. For the extremal values of We now briefly demonstrate this regarding the interactions.

9 50 √6α = 5 √6α = 5 12 √6α = 3 10 √6α = 3 Allowed provided g > gmin Allowed provided g > gmin 45 1011 Back-reaction significant Back-reaction significant T > 109, gravitino overproduction T > 109, gravitino overproduction reh 1010 reh 40 9 κ

(GeV) 10

35 reh T 108

30 107

106 25

5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 g g

FIG. 3: Allowed parameter space for κ, for the range of FIG. 5: Treh values for the range of g values and allowed allowed g values and allowed α values between 1.5 and α values between 1.5 and 4.2. The bounds arising from 4.2. The bounds arising from backreaction and gravitino backreaction and gravitino constraints are indicated. constraints are indicated.

√ 64 φ/mP = 6α. Using this and in view of Eq. (6), we find (q + 1)(q + 2) h (6α)q/2 63 = . (68) G cosh4 √ ϕF 6α mP

62 Taking q h α 1 and ϕF mP we obtain that the strength of∼ the∼ interaction∼ is suppressed as ∗ N 61  4ϕ  exp F . (69) √ 6α = 5 G ∼ −√6α mP 60 √6α = 3 Allowed provided g > gmin It should be noted here that this suppression is not due to Back-reaction significant assuming a Planck-suppressed interaction, as can be readily 59 9 Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction seen by taking q = 0 in Eq. (68). 5 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 It is straightforward to obtain an estimate of the above g value of . Indeed, ignoring ϕIP and using Eq. (55) we have G FIG. 4: N∗ values for the range of g values and allowed α r2 h  i values between 1.5 and 4.2. The bounds arising from ϕ /m 1 3 ln g/2π3/2 . (70) F P 3 backreaction and gravitino constraints are indicated. ' − Inserting the above into Eq. (69), we obtain √ √  g 4/ α We expect the inflaton to have Planck-suppressed inter- e−4/3 α (71) actions with other fields. Following Ref. [40, 41], lets sketch G ∼ 2π3/2 this by considering another scalar field σ with which the in- Using this we obtain the values shown in Fig6, which flaton is coupled as demonstrates that the interaction strength is drasti- cally diminished. The above argument can be gen- 1  φ q δV = h φ2σ2, (66) eralised to non-perturbative interactions, which are ex- 2 m P pected to be of the form exp( βiφ/mP) i, where i is any 4-dimensional Lorentz-invariant∼ − operator.L Consid-L where q 0 and h = (1). Then, the strength of the inter- ering the interaction strength, we always obtain a factor ≥ O 2 2 action is estimated by = ∂ϕ∂σδV . It is straightforward  2   G ∂φ √4ϕF ∂ϕ exp in the limit φ/mP √6α. As to find ∼ − 6α mP → shown in Fig.6, the interaction strength is exponentially  ∂φ 2  φ q suppressed, which overcomes the 5th force problem. = (q + 1)(q + 2)h . (67) G ∂ϕ mP In a similar manner, loop corrections are also suppressed so the flatness of the quintessential tail is safely protected Now, near the pole (down the quintessential tail) we have from radiative corrections [40, 41].

10 √6α = 5 √6α = 5 3 10− √6α = 3 0.020 √6α = 3 Allowed provided g > gmin Allowed provided g > gmin Back-reaction constraints significant Back-reaction significant 6 9 9 10− Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction 0.015 Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction r G 9 10− 0.010

12 10− 0.005

15 10−

5 4 3 2 1 0 0.000 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 0.9655 0.9660 0.9665 0.9670 0.9675 0.9680 g ns

FIG. 6: The interaction strength, for the range of FIG. 7: ns and r values for the range of n values indicated allowed g values and allowed α valuesG between 1.5 and in Eq.(62), for allowed α values between 1.5 and 4.2. The 4.2. The bounds arising from backreaction and gravitino bounds arising from backreaction and gravitino constraints are indicated. constraints are indicated.

1.4 CONCLUSIONS √6α = 5 √ 1.3 6α = 3 Allowed provided g > g We have investigated a model of quintessential inflation min Back-reaction significant in the context of α-attractors in supergravity. We consid- 9 1.2 Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction −κφ/mP ered a simple exponential potential V (φ) = V0e (c.f. Eq. (3)) and the standard α-attractors kinetic term, which GeV) 16 1.1

features two poles at φ = √6α mP (c.f. Eq. (2)). Switch- (10 ± ing to a canonically normalised inflaton, the scalar poten- M 1.0 tial gets “stretched” as the poles are transposed to infinity [15–18], thereby generating the inflationary plateau and the 0.9 quintessential tail. After inflation, the field becomes kineti- cally dominated as it “jumps off the cliff” of the inflationary 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 plateau. A period of kination ensues. This necessarily ends 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 when the Universe becomes dominated by radiation and the g hot big bang begins. This radiation is generated through FIG. 8: M values for the range of g values and allowed α the mechanism of instant preheating. For this we assume values between 1.5 and 4.2. The bounds arising from that the inflaton φ is coupled with some other scalar field backreaction and gravitino constraints are indicated. χ such that, after the end of inflation when the inflaton’s variation peaks, the effective mass of the χ-particles is vary- ing non-adiabatically. This adiabaticity breaking results in particle production of χ-particles, which soon decay into a threaten to shut down χ-particle production and gravitino newly formed radiation bath. The strength of the inter- constraints on the reheating temperature. action between φ and χ is parametrised by the coupling g When all the constraints are applied we find that (c.f. Eq. (30)). our model is successful for natural values of the model We have investigated the parameter space available, parameters. In particular, for the coupling we find 1/4 when the observational constraints on the abundance and g 10−4 10−2, while we also have V 1 TeV, which is ∼ − 0 ∼ barotropic (equation of state) parameter of dark energy the electroweak energy scale (Fig.9). The inflationary scale are considered. We were conservative in avoiding a super- is M 1016 GeV, which is at the energy scale of grand uni- ' Planckian inflaton field φ, even though the suppression fication (Fig.8). For the slope of the exponential potential of loop corrections and interactions of the inflaton near we find κ 24 40 (Fig3), i.e. κ 0.1mP/M, meaning ' − ∼ the poles in α-attractors [40, 41] would mean that, even that in the potential the inflaton is suppressed by the scale if the inflaton were super-Planckian, the flatness of the 1017 GeV (string scale?). ∼ quintessential runaway potential would be preserved and We also find that the cosmological scales exit the hori- there would not be a fifth-force problem. Moreover, we zon about N∗ 62 63 e-folds before the end of in- have taken into account backreaction constraints, which flation (Fig.4)' and− that the reheating temperature is

11 1.4 √ √ 6α = 5 2.0 6α = 5 √6α = 3 √6α = 3 1.2 Allowed provided g > gmin Allowed provided g > gmin Back-reaction significant Back-reaction constraints significant 9 1.5 9 1.0 Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction Treh > 10 , gravitino overproduction GeV)

0.8 10 (TeV) − 4

/ 1.0 1 (10 0 4 V / 0.6 1 Λ

0.4 0.5

0.2 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 10− 10− 10− 10− 10− 10 g g

1/4 FIG. 10: Λ1/4 values for the range of g values and allowed FIG. 9: V0 values for the range of g values and allowed α values between 1.5 and 4.2. The bounds arising from α values between 1.5 and 4.2. The bounds arising from backreaction and gravitino constraints are indicated. backreaction and gravitino constraints are indicated.

5 8 Treh 10 10 GeV (Fig.5), which satisfies gravitino this problem as follows: Since the eventual value of the vac- constraints∼ − as required. For the inflationary observables uum density is zero, this means that the size of the future we obtain the values ns = 0.968 for the spectral index and event horizon increases to infinity. Thus, future states are 0 −4 well defined and the future horizon problem is overcome. ns = (5 6) 10 for its running. For the tensor to scalar− ratio− we× obtain r 0.004 0.012, which may well Finally, it is important to point out that our model consid- be observable (Fig.7). These' values− are within the 1- σ ers a varying barotropic parameter of dark energy, which contour of the Planck results [39]. will be tested in the near future. The α-attractors setup may also be realised without rely- In summary, we have shown that our model of ing on supergravity [15–18]. In this case, the gravitino con- quintessential inflation with α-attractors, first introduced straints may not be necessary. Also, backreaction effects in Ref. [38], works well with instant preheating, improving can be dispensed with when the χ-particles decay rapidly the robustness of the model. into radiation, such that they don’t backreact and close the Note: After our paper originally appeared in the arXiv, resonance. If we remove these constraints, our parameter Ref. [59] came out, which considers quintessential inflation space is substantially enlarged. In particular, g can ap- with α-attractors beyond the single-field exponential po- proach unity, while N∗ can be as low as N∗ 59 and the tential. ' 11 reheating temperature can be as large as Treh 10 GeV. Acknowledgements KD is supported (in part) by the Regarding the inflationary observables, the spectral∼ index Lancaster-Manchester-Sheffield Consortium for Fundamen- can become as low as ns = 0.966, but r is not changed tal Physics under STFC grant: ST/L000520/1. CO is sup- much. ported by the FST of Lancaster University and would like The required cosmological constant is Λ1/4 10−10 GeV to thank the Physics Department at The Johns Hopkins (Fig. 10), which is somewhat larger that∼ the value University for their hospitality whilst this paper was com- 10−3 eV required in ΛCDM, but the improvement is not∼ pleted. much. One may worry that, if one is prepared to accept the scale 0.1 eV, why not stay with ΛCDM in the first place. The answer is two-fold. Firstly, in contrast to ΛCDM, our REFERENCES required value for Λ is not imposed ad hoc to satisfy the observations. Instead, it is generated by the requirement [1] Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), “Observa- that the vacuum energy asymptotes to zero (cf. Eq. (4)). tional evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe In other words, the (unknown) mechanism which demands and a cosmological constant,” Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038 zero vacuum density is the one which imposes our value (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201 [astro-ph]. of Λ. The second reason has to do with the future hori- [2] S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), “Mea- zon problem in string theories [53–56]. In a nutshell, in surements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift su- pernovae,” Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999), arXiv:astro- ΛCDM, there is a future event horizon, which makes the ph/9812133 [astro-ph]. asymptotic future states not well defined because they are [3] P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra, “The Cosmological not causally connected. As a result, the formulation of the constant and dark energy,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559–606 S-matrix is problematic [57, 58]. Our model may overcome (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207347 [astro-ph].

12 [4] Bharat Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, “Cosmological Conse- [25] Mario Galante, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and quences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field,” Phys. Rev. Diederik Roest, “Unity of Cosmological Inflation Attrac- D37, 3406 (1988). tors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141302 (2015), arXiv:1412.3797 [5] R. R. Caldwell, Rahul Dave, and Paul J. Steinhardt, “Cos- [hep-th]. mological imprint of an energy component with general [26] John Joseph M. Carrasco, Renata Kallosh, and An- equation of state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582–1585 (1998), drei Linde, “Cosmological Attractors and Initial Con- arXiv:astro-ph/9708069 [astro-ph]. ditions for Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D92, 063519 (2015), [6] P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, “Quintessential inflation,” arXiv:1506.00936 [hep-th]. Phys. Rev. D59, 063505 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810509 [27] Takahiro Terada, “Generalized Pole Inflation: Hilltop, Nat- [astro-ph]. ural, and Chaotic Inflationary Attractors,” Phys. Lett. [7] Gary N. Felder, Lev Kofman, and Andrei D. Linde, B760, 674–680 (2016), arXiv:1602.07867 [hep-th]. “Instant preheating,” Phys. Rev. D59, 123523 (1999), [28] K. Sravan Kumar, J. Marto, P. Vargas Moniz, and arXiv:hep-ph/9812289 [hep-ph]. Suratna Das, “Non-slow-roll dynamics in α−attractors,” [8] A. H. Campos, H. C. Reis, and R. Rosenfeld, “Preheat- JCAP 1604, 005 (2016), arXiv:1506.05366 [gr-qc]. ing in quintessential inflation,” Phys. Lett. B575, 151–156 [29] Yoshiki Ueno and Kazuhiro Yamamoto, “Constraints on α- (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210152 [hep-ph]. attractor inflation and reheating,” Phys. Rev. D93, 083524 [9] Bo Feng and Ming-zhe Li, “Curvaton reheating in nonoscil- (2016), arXiv:1602.07427 [astro-ph.CO]. latory inflationary models,” Phys. Lett. B564, 169–174 [30] Mehdi Eshaghi, Moslem Zarei, Nematollah Riazi, and Ah- (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212213 [hep-ph]. mad Kiasatpour, “CMB and reheating constraints to α- [10] J. C. Bueno Sanchez and Konstantinos Dimopoulos, “Cur- attractor inflationary models,” Phys. Rev. D93, 123517 vaton reheating allows TeV Hubble scale in NO inflation,” (2016), arXiv:1602.07914 [astro-ph.CO]. JCAP 0711, 007 (2007), arXiv:0707.3967 [hep-ph]. [31] Michal Artymowski and Javier Rubio, “Endlessly flat scalar [11] Tomohiro Matsuda, “NO Curvatons or Hybrid Quintessen- potentials and α-attractors,” Phys. Lett. B761, 111–114 tial Inflation,” JCAP 0708, 003 (2007), arXiv:0707.1948 (2016), arXiv:1607.00398 [astro-ph.CO]. [hep-ph]. [32] Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, Diederik Roest, and Timm [12] L. H. Ford, “Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation,” Wrase, “Sneutrino inflation with α-attractors,” JCAP Phys. Rev. D35, 2955 (1987). 1611, 046 (2016), arXiv:1607.08854 [hep-th]. [13] E. J. Chun, S. Scopel, and I. Zaballa, “Gravitational [33] Sergio Ferrara and Renata Kallosh, “Seven-disk manifold, reheating in quintessential inflation,” JCAP 0907, 022 α-attractors, and B modes,” Phys. Rev. D94, 126015 (2009), arXiv:0904.0675 [hep-ph]. (2016), arXiv:1610.04163 [hep-th]. [14] Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa, “Dy- [34] S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, “Inflationary α- namics of dark energy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753–1936 attractors from F (R) gravity,” Phys. Rev. D94, 124026 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057 [hep-th]. (2016), arXiv:1612.01126 [gr-qc]. [15] Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest, “Su- [35] Alessandro Di Marco, Paolo Cabella, and Nicola Vittorio, perconformal Inflationary α-Attractors,” JHEP 11, 198 “Reconstruction of α-attractor supergravity models of in- (2013), arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]. flation,” Phys. Rev. D95, 023516 (2017), arXiv:1703.06472 [16] Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest, “Uni- [astro-ph.CO]. versal Attractor for Inflation at Strong Coupling,” Phys. [36] Artur Alho and Claes Uggla, “Inflationary α-attractor cos- Rev. Lett. 112, 011303 (2014), arXiv:1310.3950 [hep-th]. mology: A global dynamical systems perspective,” Phys. [17] Sergio Ferrara, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Mas- Rev. D95, 083517 (2017), arXiv:1702.00306 [gr-qc]. simo Porrati, “Minimal Supergravity Models of Inflation,” [37] Konstantinos Dimopoulos and Michal Artymowski, “Initial Phys. Rev. D88, 085038 (2013), arXiv:1307.7696 [hep-th]. conditions for inflation,” Astropart. Phys. 94, 11–16 (2017), [18] Sergio Ferrara, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Mas- arXiv:1610.06192 [astro-ph.CO]. simo Porrati, “Higher Order Corrections in Minimal Su- [38] Konstantinos Dimopoulos and Charlotte Owen, pergravity Models of Inflation,” JCAP 1311, 046 (2013), “Quintessential Inflation with α-attractors,” JCAP arXiv:1309.1085 [hep-th]. 1706, 027 (2017), arXiv:1703.00305 [gr-qc]. [19] Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Diederik Roest, “Large [39] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2015 results. XX. Con- field inflation and double α-attractors,” JHEP 08, 052 straints on inflation,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A20 (2016), (2014), arXiv:1405.3646 [hep-th]. arXiv:1502.02114 [astro-ph.CO]. [20] Renata Kallosh and Andrei Linde, “Planck, LHC, [40] Andrei Linde, “On the problem of initial conditions for in- and α-attractors,” Phys. Rev. D91, 083528 (2015), flation,” (2017) arXiv:1710.04278 [hep-th]. arXiv:1502.07733 [astro-ph.CO]. [41] Renata Kallosh and Andrei Linde, “Cosmological Attrac- [21] Diederik Roest and Marco Scalisi, “Cosmological attractors tors and Asymptotic Freedom of the Inflaton Field,” JCAP from alpha-scale supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D92, 043525 1606, 047 (2016), arXiv:1604.00444 [hep-th]. (2015), arXiv:1503.07909 [hep-th]. [42] Lars Gorlich, Shamit Kachru, Prasanta K. Tripathy, and [22] Andrei Linde, “Single-field α-attractors,” JCAP 1505, 003 Sandip P. Trivedi, “Gaugino condensation and nonpertur- (2015), arXiv:1504.00663 [hep-th]. bative superpotentials in flux compactifications,” JHEP 12, [23] Marco Scalisi, “Cosmological α-attractors and de Sitter 074 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0407130 [hep-th]. landscape,” JHEP 12, 134 (2015), arXiv:1506.01368 [hep- [43] Michael Haack, Daniel Krefl, Dieter Lust, Antoine th]. Van Proeyen, and Marco Zagermann, “Gaugino Conden- [24] John Joseph M. Carrasco, Renata Kallosh, and Andrei sates and D-terms from D7-branes,” JHEP 01, 078 (2007), Linde, “α-Attractors: Planck, LHC and Dark Energy,” arXiv:hep-th/0609211 [hep-th]. JHEP 10, 147 (2015), arXiv:1506.01708 [hep-th]. [44] Zygmunt Lalak, Graham G. Ross, and Subir Sarkar, “Race- track inflation and assisted moduli stabilisation,” Nucl.

13 Phys. B766, 1–20 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0503178 [hep-th]. [63] James M. Cline, “Quintessence, cosmological horizons, and [45] Edmund J. Copeland, Andrew R Liddle, and David self-tuning,” JHEP 08, 035 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105251 Wands, “Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling [hep-ph]. solutions,” Phys. Rev. D57, 4686–4690 (1998), arXiv:gr- [64] Christopher F. Kolda and William Lahneman, “Exponen- qc/9711068 [gr-qc]. tial quintessence and the end of acceleration,” (2001), [46] Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, Diederik Roest, and Yusuke arXiv:hep-ph/0105300 [hep-ph]. Yamada, “D3 induced geometric inflation,” JHEP 07, 057 [65] Alex Kehagias and Georgios Kofinas, “Cosmology with ex- (2017), arXiv:1705.09247 [hep-th]. ponential potentials,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 3871–3886 [47] Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, Timm Wrase, and Yusuke (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0402059 [gr-qc]. Yamada, “Maximal Supersymmetry and B-Mode Targets,” JHEP 04, 144 (2017), arXiv:1704.04829 [hep-th]. [48] John R. Ellis, Andrei D. Linde, and Dimitri V. Nanopoulos, APPENDIX: THE RANGE OF α “Inflation Can Save the Gravitino,” Phys. Lett. 118B, 59– 64 (1982). [49] Masahiro Kawasaki, Fuminobu Takahashi, and T. T. In this Appendix we calculate the appropriate range for Yanagida, “The Gravitino-overproduction problem in in- α, upon which our results are based. To do this, we first flationary universe,” Phys. Rev. D74, 043519 (2006), investigate exponential quintessence. arXiv:hep-ph/0605297 [hep-ph]. We consider single field quintessence with a canonical [50] Masahiro Kawasaki, Fuminobu Takahashi, and T. T. scalar field ϕ and a scalar potential V (ϕ), which drives Yanagida, “Gravitino overproduction in inflaton decay,” the currently observed accelerated expansion. This simple Phys. Lett. B638, 8–12 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603265 model assumes only a minimal coupling between gravity [hep-ph]. [51] Kazunori Kohri, Takeo Moroi, and Akira Yotsuyanagi, and ϕ, and is thus described by the action Z “Big-bang nucleosynthesis with unstable gravitino and up- 4 S = d x√ g + Sm(gµν ;Ψn) , (72) per bound on the reheating temperature,” Phys. Rev. D73, − L 123511 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0507245 [hep-ph]. [52] Abhineet Agarwal, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and where the scalar tensor Lagrangian density is Naveen K. Singh, “Quintessential inflation in a thaw- 1 1 = m2 R (∂ϕ)2 V (ϕ) , (73) ing realization,” Phys. Lett. B770, 200–208 (2017), L 2 P − 2 − arXiv:1708.00156 [gr-qc]. [53] Simeon Hellerman, Nemanja Kaloper, and Leonard and Sm is the action for any matter fields present, Ψn, Susskind, “String theory and quintessence,” JHEP 06, 003 coupled to gravity. (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0104180 [hep-th]. To explore the dynamics of any late universe quintessence [54] W. Fischler, A. Kashani-Poor, R. McNees, and S. Paban, model we assume a wCDM cosmology. We have an FRW “The Acceleration of the universe, a challenge for string metric and assume the effects of ρr are negligible and that theory,” JHEP 07, 003 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0104181 [hep- ρ = 0. As such, the content of the Universe is mod- th]. Λ elled as two perfect fluid components; our scalar field ϕ, [55] Tom Banks, “Cosmological breaking of supersymme- try?” Superstrings. Proceedings, International Conference, and a non-relativistic background matter fluid, denoted by Strings 2000, Ann Arbor, USA, July 10-15, 2000, Int. J. subscript ‘m’, with equations of state pi = wiρi, i ϕ, m ∈ { } Mod. Phys. A16, 910–921 (2001), [,270(2000)], arXiv:hep- where wϕ = wϕ(t) and pm = 0 wm = 0. Ignoring per- ⇒ th/0007146 [hep-th]. turbations and any spatial curvature, because ΩK 0 [60], [56] Tom Banks and W. Fischler, “M theory observables for we have ' cosmological space-times,” (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0102077 µ ν 2 2 i j [hep-th]. gµν dx dx = dt + a (t)δijdx dx , (74) [57] Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind, “Dis- − turbing implications of a cosmological constant,” JHEP 10, 1 2 1 2 ρϕ = ϕ˙ + V (ϕ), pϕ = ϕ˙ V (ϕ) , (75) 011 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0208013 [hep-th]. 2 2 − [58] Naureen Goheer, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind, “The Trouble with de Sitter space,” JHEP 07, 056 (2003), p 1 ϕ˙ 2 V (ϕ) Σ p p w = ϕ = 2 − , w = i i = ϕ , (76) arXiv:hep-th/0212209 [hep-th]. ϕ ρ 1 ϕ˙ 2 + V (ϕ) Σ ρ ρ [59] Yashar Akrami, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, and Va- ϕ 2 i i leri Vardanyan, “Dark energy, α-attractors, and large-scale where ρ = Σiρi = ρm + ρϕ. The evolution equations are structure surveys,” (2017), arXiv:1712.09693 [hep-th]. 2 2 2Hm˙ =ϕ ˙ + ρm , (77) [60] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2015 results. XIII. − P Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]. ρ˙m = 3Hρm , (78) [61] Konstantinos Dimopoulos, “The Curvaton hypothesis and − δS the eta-problem of quintessential inflation, with and with- =ϕ ¨ + 3Hϕ˙ + V 0(ϕ) = 0 , (79) out branes,” Phys. Rev. D68, 123506 (2003), arXiv:astro- δϕ ph/0212264 [astro-ph]. [62] Urbano Fran¸ca and Rogerio Rosenfeld, “Fine tuning in conditional on the Friedman equation quintessence models with exponential potentials,” JHEP 1 3m2 H2 = ϕ˙ 2 + V (ϕ) + ρ . (80) 10, 015 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206194 [astro-ph]. P 2 m

14 Specific quintessence models are distinguished by con- w < 1/3, which leads to eternal accelerated expansion. − sidering suitable forms of V (ϕ) (typically of runaway type) For √2 . λ < √3 (√3 . λ < 2√6), the brief oscillation of which are flat enough to lead to the current accelerated ex- the field about the dominant quintessence (subdominant pansion at late times. In quintessential inflation models, quintessence) attractor, may result in a bout of transient this region is called the quintessential tail. Quintessential accelerated expansion [61–65]. inflation considers so-called “thawing” quintessence, where, until recently, ϕ was frozen, but near the present it un- We numerically explore the cosmological dynamics of freezes and begins to evolve into a possible slow-roll regime this single field quintessence model, to a confirmed accu- as it dominates the Universe and drives the current accel- racy of 10−4(4 d.p) for all cosmological parameters. We erated expansion. use the latest Planck observations to constrain the range Here we consider the specific case of exponential of λ for which any current eternal or transient acceler- quintessence where ated expansion is present. The latest Planck observa- tions [60] suggest that the density parameter of dark en- V (ϕ) = VQ exp( λϕ/mP) , (81) − ergy is ΩΛ = 1 ΩK Ωm, where ΩK = 0.000 0.005, and − − ± Ωm = 0.308 0.012. This results in ΩΛ = 0.692 0.017. where VQ is a constant density scale and λ is a constant ± ± parameter. The Klein-Gordon equation, Eq. (79) admits two attrac- As we have a time-varying wϕ, we model a Taylor expan- tor solutions which depend on the eventual dominance vs. sion of wϕ to first order sub-dominance of ϕ with regard to the background matter:  p  Dominant for λ < 3(1 + wb) :

2 2 2   2(6 λ )mP  2 mP  a V = − & ρkin = wϕ = wDE + 1 wa , (84) λ4 t λ2 t − a0 2 12 mP  ρϕ = . (82) ⇒ λ4 t   p where wa = (dwϕ/da)0 = w˙ DE, the subscript ‘0’ de- Subdominant for λ > 3(1 + wb) : − − notes values today, when a = a0 and wϕ(a0) = wDE. We 2 2 2 1 wb mP  2 mP  +0.091 V = & ρ = use the Planck bounds [60] of wDE = 1.023−0.096 at 2-σ in 2 − kin 2 − λ 1 + wb t λ t our constraint on possible ranges of values for λ. This trans- 2 4 mP  lates to w0 = 0.7112 0.0821, where w0 is the barotropic ρϕ = 2 , (83) − ± ⇒ λ (1 + wb) t parameter of the Universe at present, w0 = (pϕ/ρ)0 (cf.

1 2 Eq. (76)). where ρkin ϕ˙ and wb is the barotropic parameter of the ≡ 2 background; being wb = 0 for matter. Demanding that our model satisfies these observational The solutions differ with regard to the evolution of ρϕ −3 requirements, the Universe today has to lie within the in comparison to that of ρm, which is fixed at ρm a . 2 −λ ∝ range (ρϕ/ρm)0 = ΩΛ/Ωm = 2.2523 0.1429, within which For dominant quintessence Eq. (82), ρϕ a , and for ± ∝ −3 we can investigate any current eternal or transient acceler- subdominant quintessence Eq. (83), ρϕ a . The sub- dominant quintessence attractor solution∝ is called a scaling ated expansion found. We start with the frozen field, where ϕ˙ F = 0 and (ρϕ/ρm)F 1, where the subscript ‘F ’ denotes solution because ρϕ/ρm stays constant. The value of λ  determines both the slope of the quintessential tail, and frozen values. which attractor solution the field eventually follows. The value of λ = √3 (since wb = 0) represents the boundary Only a change in the value of λ affects the evolution of between the two attractor solutions, i.e. as λ increases to- our model once the field is unfrozen. A relative decrease F F ward √3, the evolution of ρϕ increasingly moves towards (increase) in the value of ρϕ = V (ϕF ), for a given ρm, only −3 that of ρϕ a . increases (decreases) the evolution time of the model until ∝ Copeland et al [45] used a phase-plane analysis and found a0 today, i.e. the model is extended backwards (forwards) that, for λ < √3 the dominant quintessence attractor to an earlier (later) time when ϕ is frozen. Similarly, any solution (Eq. (82)) is a stable node. For √3 < λ < √6 change in the value of ϕF can be expressed as a change and λ > √6 the subdominant quintessence attractor solu- in VQ, and so for a given value of λ, also has no effect on tion (Eq. (83)) is a stable node/spiral and a stable spiral the dynamics. Conversely, since ΩΛ is fixed by the observa- respectively. After unfreezing, the field briefly oscillates tions, changes in ϕF without a change in VQ must instead about the attractor before settling on the attractor solu- be accompanied with corresponding changes in λ, such that tion. For λ < √3, it is easy to show that w = 1 + λ2/3 the contribution of quintessence to the density budget at on the attractor [38]. This means that λ < √2− results in present remains fixed .

15 0.0 w = 1/3 0.0 w − w w0 2σ bounds (Planck) 0.2 w0 2σ bounds (Planck) 0.2 wϕ − wϕ − wDE 2σ bounds (Planck)

0.4 0.4 − − w w 0.6 0.6 − −

0.8 0.8 − −

1.0 1.0 − −

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 − ln (a/a0) − ln (a/a0)

FIG. 11: Transient accelerated expansion for λ = √2. We FIG. 12: Eternal accelerated expansion for λ = √0.4. The find w < 1/3, but the minimum value of w is well vertical line ln(a/a0) = 0 indicates present day values of w − outside of the Planck bounds. and wϕ (w0 and wDE respectively), which also fall within the required Planck bounds for w and wϕ today. The scalar field has unfrozen, but is yet to settle on the Transient Accelerated Expansion attractor solution.

For brief periods of transient accelerated expansion with w < 1/3, we find a range of numerically valid λ val- clearly seen that the present day values at ln(a/a0) = 0 are ues bridging− the dominant and subdominant quintessence within the Planck bounds. regimes As illustrated in Fig. 15, we find that it is the bound for +0.091 wDE = 1.023 that constrains our possible range of − −0.096 √2 . λ < √3.38 (85) values to λ < √0.46. This can also be seen in Fig. 12, where the value of w is closer to the upper Planck bound for However, the values for w that we find in this scenario DE w compared to the value for w , which is further within are incompatible with the Planck constraints for the en- DE 0 the upper Planck bound for w . When increasing λ, we find tire range of λ values above. As the minimum value of w 0 that w exits the upper Planck bound for w before w reached during any period of evolution increases with in- DE DE 0 exits the upper Planck bound for w . If we ignore this creasing λ, we only need to look at λ = √2 to illustrate 0 constraint and just demand that w = 0.7112 0.0821 our findings. This is shown in Fig. 11, where we are using 0 today, then our range of possible values− for λ extends± to λ = √2. It can be clearly seen that the minimum value of λ < √0.68. w is not nearly small enough to match the Planck observa- Using our Taylor expansion of w to first order, tional bounds, and so all higher values of λ are also ruled ϕ (cf. Eq. (84)), we obtain a range of values for w that out.5 a are of (10−2) (10−3). These values easily lie| within| currentO Planck bounds− O [60], but can be potentially observ- Eternal Accelerated Expansion able in the near future, e.g. by EUCLID. This is illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14. The above are valid in general for exponential quintess- We know theoretically that w < 1/3 for λ < √2. When nce. We now apply our findings to our quintessential in- applying the Planck constraints we− find that the cosmologi- flation model with α-attractors We convert from λ to α, cally viable range is reduced to of λ < √0.46. We find that, using α = 2/3λ2 (cf. Eq. (9)), and restate all our findings in all cases, the scalar field at present has unfrozen but is in terms of α. We find that only values of α 1.5 accord yet to settle on the attractor solution. This is illustrated in with all the required Planck constraints and≥ set an upper Fig. 12 for λ = √0.4, where it can be clearly seen the field bound of α = 4.2 to avoid a super-Planckian φ. Figs. 13 has yet to evolve to its attractor solution. It can also be and 15 are labelled both in terms of λ2 and α.

5 2 Figure√ 11 also highlights the validity of w = −1 + λ /3 requiring λ < 2 for eternal accelerated expansion, as√ we can clearly see w = −1/3 in the attractor limit where λ = 2. We can also see wϕ moving toward the same value because we are in the dominant quintessence regime.

16 0.004 λ2 − 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.000 0.006 0.002 − − 0.004 0.008 − − 0.006 − a 0.010 a 0.008 w − w − 0.010 0.012 − − 0.012 − 0.014 0.014 − − 0.016 − 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 0.016 α − 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.90 − − − wDE− − −

2 FIG. 13: wa against α and λ for FIG. 14: wa versus wDE. The allowed parameter space λ2 < 0.46 α > 1.45, values in the text are quoted to 2 depicted lies well within the 1-σ Planck contour. ⇔ s.f.

λ2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.60 − w w 0.65 ϕ − w0 0.70 2σ constraint − wDE 0.75 2σ constraint − min allowed α

w 0.80 − max α from φ < m 0.85 P − constraint 0.90 Allowed − w values 0.95 Allowed − wϕ values 1.00 − 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 α

FIG. 15: Possible range of values for α and λ2, from the Planck constraints on w. It is shown that the 2-σ upper bound 2 2 on wDE is satisfied only for λ < 0.46 or equivalently α = 2/3λ > 1.45. The allowed ranges of w and wϕ reflect the observed range in ΩΛ/Ωm. Values in the text are quoted to 2 s.f.

17