Paper detail

Discrepancies between observational data and theoretical forecast in single field slow roll inflation

The PLANCK collaboration has determined values for the spectral parameters of the CMB radiation, namely the spectral index $n_s$, its running $α_s$, the running of the running $β_s$, using a growing body of measurements of CMB anisotropies by the Planck satellite and other missions. These values do not follow the hierarchy of sizes predicted by single field, slow roll inflationary theory, and are thus difficult to fit for such inflation models. In this work we present first a study of 49 single field, slow roll inflationary potentials in which we assess the likelyhood of these models fitting the spectral parameters to their currently most accurate determination given by the PLANCK collaboration. We check numerically with a MATLAB program the spectral parameters that each model can yield for a very broad, comprehensive list of possible parameter and field values. The comparison of spectral parameter values supported by the models with their determinations by the PLANCK collaboration leads to the conclusion that the data provided by PLANCK2015 TT+lowP and PLANCK2015 TT,TE,EE+lowP taking into account the running of the running disfavours 40 of the 49 models with confidence level at least 92.8\%. Next, we discuss the reliability of the current computations of these spectral parameters. We identify a bias in the method of determination of the spectral parameters by least residue parameter fitting (using MCMC or any other scheme) currently used to reconstruct the power spectrum of scalar perturbations. This bias can explain the observed contradiction between theory and observations. Its removal is computationally costly, but necessary in order to compare the forecasts of single field, slow roll theories with observations.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 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.