4.7 Article

Observational constraints on alpha-attractor inflationary models with a Higgs-like potential

Journal

PHYSICS LETTERS B
Volume 815, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136156

Keywords

Inflation; Cosmological parameters from CMB; MCMC analysis

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [150343/2020-5]
  2. Programa de Capacitacao Institucional (PCI) do Observatorio Nacional/MCTI [301144/2019-2]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [310790/2014-0, 400471/2014-0]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro FAPERJ [233906]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Researchers investigated the observational viability of a class of alpha-attractors inflationary models using a double-well potential and slow-roll analysis. They found a continuous interpolation model between chaotic inflation and the universal attractor, and explored the parameter space of the model through MCMC analysis, determining the range of alpha values.
We investigate the observational viability of a class of alpha-attractors inflationary models in light of the most recent Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and Large-Scale Structure (LSS) data. By considering a double-well potential we perform a slow-roll analysis to study the behavior of this class of models, which is a continuous interpolation between the chaotic inflation for large values of alpha and the universal attractor, i.e., n(s)= 1 - 2/N and r = alpha 12/N-2 for small alpha, where n(s) is the scalar spectral index, r is the tensor-to-scalar ratio, and N is the e-fold number. In order to explore the parameter space of the model, we also perform a MCMC analysis and find alpha = 7.56 +/- 5.15(1 sigma). (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available