Paper detail

Analytic Correlation of Inflationary Potential to Power Spectrum Shape: Limits of Validity, and `No-Go' for Small Field Model Analytics

The primordial power spectrum informs the possible inflationary histories of our universe. Given a power spectrum, the ensuing cosmic microwave background is calculated and compared to the observed one. Thus, one focus of modern cosmology is building well-motivated inflationary models that predict the primordial power spectrum observables. The common practice uses analytic terms for the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and the index running $α$, forgoing the effort required to evaluate the model numerically. However, the validity of these terms has never been rigorously probed and relies on perturbative methods, which may lose their efficacy for large perturbations. The requirement for more accurate theoretical predictions becomes crucial with the advent of highly sensitive measuring instruments. This paper probes the limits of the perturbative treatment that connects inflationary potential parameters to primordial power spectrum observables. We show that the validity of analytic approximations of the scalar index roughly respects the large-field/small-field dichotomy. We supply an easily calculated measure for relative perturbation amplitude and show that, for large field models, the validity of analytical terms extends to $\sim 3\%$ perturbation relative to a power-law inflation model. Conversely, the analytical treatment loses its validity for small-field models with as little as $0.1\%$ perturbation relative to the small-field test-case. By employing the most general artificial neural networks and multinomial functions up to the twentieth degree and demonstrating their shortcomings, we show that no reasonable analytic expressions correlating small field models to the observables the yield exists. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of this work and supply the validity heuristic for large and small field models.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.