arxiv: v2 [hep-th] 24 May 2017

Transcription

1 OU-HET/906 KEK-TH-196 MAD-TH Meaning of the field dependence of the renormalization scale in Higgs inflation arxiv: v [hep-th] 4 May 017 Yuta Hamada, 1, Hikaru Kawai, 3 Yukari Nakanishi, 4 and Kin-ya Oda 4 1 KEK Theory Center, IPNS, KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki , apan Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA 3 Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto , apan 4 Department of Physics, Osaka University, Osaka , apan October 5, 018 Abstract We consider the prescription dependence of the Higgs effective potential under the presence of general nonminimal couplings. We evaluate the fermion loop correction to the effective action in a simplified Higgs-Yukawa model whose path integral measure takes simple form either in the ordan or Einstein frame. The resultant effective action becomes identical in both cases when we properly take into account the quartically divergent term coming from the change of measure. Working in the counterterm formalism, we clarify that the difference between the prescriptions I and II comes from the counter term to cancel the logarithmic divergence. This difference can be absorbed into the choice of treelevel potential from the infinitely many possibilities, including all the higher-dimensional terms. We also present another mechanism to obtain a flat potential by freezing the running of the effective quartic coupling for large field values, using the nonminimal coupling in the gauge kinetic function. yhamada@wisc.edu hkawai@gauge.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp nakanishi@het.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp odakin@phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp 1

2 1 Introduction The Higgs inflation [1, ] is one of the closest to the best fit point in the tensor-to-scalar ratio vs spectral-index plane among various inflation models [3]. The model requires rather a large nonminimal coupling ξ between the Higgs-squared H H and the icci scalar. 1 On the other hand, the observed value of the Higgs mass m H = 15.09±0.4GeV [10] indicates that the Standard Model SM) is at the criticality, that is, the Higgs potential becomes small and nearly flat when the Higgs-field value is close to the Planck-scale; see e.g. efs. [11, 1]. In the flat spacetime, the renormalized Higgs potential V can be computed as a sum of the tree-level potential V and the loop correction V, both of them being finite but depending on the renormalization scale µ, in the counterterm formalism. Since V is independent of µ, we may choose µ arbitrarily. A convenient choice is µ ϕ, where ϕ is the Higgs field value. This choice minimizes V, and then V can be approximated by the tree-level potential: V V µ=ϕ. When we couple this system with gravity, in general, there arise corrections from the non-renormalizable couplings such as ξ. Under the presence of ξ, it has been said that there are two different prescriptions in which the renormalized Higgs potential is approximated by the tree-level one with [13, 14, 15] ϕ in prescription I, µ 1+ξ ϕ MP 1) ϕ in prescription II, where M P = 1/ 8πG = GeV is the reduced Planck scale. The prescriptions I and II are claimed to correspond to a ϕ-independent ultraviolet UV) cutoff in the Einstein and ordan frames, respectively [13, 14]. Here the ordan frame refers to the original action with a non-vanishing ξ, while the Einstein frame is the one without ξ, obtained by the field re-definition of the metric g µν. Note that if we introduce a UV cutoff as a ϕ-independent constant in either frame, then it becomes dependent on ϕ in the other frame. If we accept Eq. 1) literally, the value of ξ can be as low as of order 10 in the prescription I [16, 17, 1] and 10 in II [16, 1], under the SM criticality. The physical difference comes from the different large ϕ limit of Eq. 1). In this paper, we will revisit the relation between the UV cutoff and the renormalization scale. We clarify that the different choice of the cutoffs does not directly lead to the difference in Eq. 1). We argue that, in the counterterm formalism, it may be regarded as the choice of the counter term to cancel the logarithmic divergence, and can be absorbed into the choice of the tree-level potential from infinitely many possibilities. For that purpose, we consider the fermion loop correction to the effective action in a simplified Higgs-Yukawa model. This toy model captures the essential features necessary to grasp what is going on in the realistic Higgs inflation model: As in the real world, we neglect the Higgs mass term which is much smaller than the one from quartic coupling λ 4 at the large field values under consideration; the renormalization group G) running of λ 4 is governed 1 The earlier model [1, 4, 5, 6], without the Einstein-Hilbert action at the tree level, requires ξ []. In ef. [1], the authors have also studied the Higgs inflation model in ef. [] with essentially the same parameter ξ 10 4 and λ ξ/10 5) 10. See also efs. [7, 8] for inflation with the nonminimal coupling, and ef. [9] for a possible issue with the large nonminimal coupling.

3 by the loop of top-quark, which is represented by ψ. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec., we obtain the one-loop effective action in the Higgs-Yukawa model both in the ordan and Einstein frames. We show that the effective action is independent of the frame if we properly take into account the change of the path integral measure. This change of measure affects only the quartically divergent term, and has nothing to do with the difference between the prescriptions I and II that is related to the logarithmic divergence. In Sec. 3, in the counterterm formalism, we show that the difference between prescriptions I and II comes from the choice of the counter term to cancel the logarithmic divergence. We point out that this difference can be absorbed into the choice of the tree-level potential, including higher dimensional terms, from the infinite possibilities. In Sec. 4, we present a mechanism that uses the gauge kinetic function to stop the running of effective quartic coupling for large ϕ as in the prescription I in Eq. 1), which helps to further flatten the Higgs potential at high scales. In the last section, we summarize our result. Quantum correction from fermion loop.1 Frames at classical level We first review the transformation from ordan to Einstein frames at the classical level. Our starting action in ordan frame is S = d 4 x [ MP g F ϕ) 1 F Φϕ)g µν µ ϕ ν ϕ Vϕ) F Ψ ϕ)ψγ µ D µ ψ F Y ϕ)yϕψψ ], ) where y is the Yukawa coupling 3 and D µ = µ + Ω µ is the general covariant derivative on spinor, with Ω µ being the spin-connection. We assume that we may take a weak-field limit ϕ 0 so that we can expand the action around ϕ = 0. That is, F X ϕ) = 1+ξ X ϕ + 3) M for X =, Φ, Ψ and Y, where ξ X is the first-order nonminimal coupling and M is the typical scale of UV theory, such as the string scale. 4 We have also assumed for simplicity that the action is invariant under a chiral Z symmetry ϕ ϕ, ψ γ 5 ψ. 4) In reality, the loop of gauge bosons also contributes to the running of λ 4. However, the ϕ-dependent effective mass of the canonically normalized gauge boson, gϕ, has the same F ϕ) dependence in the Einstein frame, gϕ/ F ϕ), as the effective mass of fermion yϕ which becomes yϕ/ F ϕ); see e.g. ef. [1]. Therefore the arguments for frame independence and for prescription dependence should apply without modification after we include gauge boson loops. 3 This y is related to the SM top Yukawa coupling y t by y = y t/. 4 The nonminimal coupling ξ between Higgs and icci scalar in the ordinary notation reads ξ = ξ M P/M []. See also ef. [18] for more arbitrary extension with large nonminimal couplings. 3

4 In general, the potential contains all the higher dimensional terms: By the field redefinition Vϕ) = we obtain the Einstein-frame action 5 S = d 4 x g E [M P E 1 n: even, n 0 ϕ n λ n Mn 4. 5) g E µν = F ϕ)g µν, 6) F Φ ϕ) F ϕ) + 3 MP F ϕ) ) ) F ϕ) F Ψϕ) F ϕ)) 3/ψγµ E DE µ ψ F Yϕ) F ϕ)) yϕψψ ] g µν E µϕ ν ϕ Vϕ) F ϕ)). 7) Here and hereafter, we put either sub- or superscript E and on quantities in the Einstein and ordan frames, respectively, when it is preferable; the ones without such sub- or superscript are given in the ordan frame unless otherwise stated. The original Higgs inflation [] assumes that the potential 5) can be approximated by Vϕ) = λ 4 ϕ 4, 8) namely λ n 1 for n 4, at around the scale ϕ M M P. 6 That is, one assumes that all the higher order terms are small at ϕ M so that V M 4 MP 4. Combined with the assumption F = 1+ξϕ /MP, the potential in Eq. 7), U := V F, 9) becomes constant in the large ϕ limit: U λ 4 ξ M4 P, 10) leading to the inflation. The field ϕ is not canonically normalized in the Einstein frame, and the change of equation of motion must be taken into account; see Appendix A. Note that it is important to terminate the expansion of V and F at ϕ 4 and ϕ, respectively, in order to obtain this constant potential. 7. Frame dependence of UV cutoffs Now we take into account the quantum corrections. In this paper, we evaluate the one-loop correction to the effective action from the fermion loop, leaving those from the graviton and 5 In ef. [1], the factor in front of the scalar kinetic term has a typo and should read [ B A + 3 M P A A ]. 6 For the Higgs inflation under SM criticality [16, 1], we further assume the flatness λ 4 1 at high scales. In terms of the quartic coupling λ in efs. [16, 1], the quartic coupling in this paper is written as λ 4 = λ/4. 7 The other option is to terminate them at the nth and nth orders, respectively; see the last point in Appendix B. 4

5 φ loops. 8 We compute the corrections to λ n only. That is, we neglect all the corrections to other couplings y, ξ X, etc., and hence do not distinguish the bare and renormalized couplings for them. In a given frame, short-distance cutoff l is given by l = g µν x µ x ν. 11) Then the metric redefinition 6) relates the cutoff lengths in two frames by l = g µν xµ x ν = ge µν F ϕ) xµ x ν = l E F ϕ). 1) That is, the UV cutoff scales are related by [13] Λ E = Λ F ϕ). 13) As pointed out in efs. [13], we may choose either Λ or Λ E to be independent of ϕ, but not both. 9 In the prescriptions I and II in the original sense [13], we set Λ E and Λ to be a constant, respectively..3 Frame independence of effective action up to quartic divergence In general, the effective action should not depend on the choice of frame if we properly take into account the change of the path integral measure as well as that of the cutoff 13). We demonstrate it at the one-loop level under the simplifying assumption given above. The one-loop effective action induced by the fermion loop in the ordan frame is given by [ e i S eff := D g ψ D g ψ exp i d 4 x g ψ F Ψ /D g F Y yϕ ) ] ψ. 14) There is no unique definition of the path integral measure D g ψ. Here we take a simple measure that is induced from the following distance in the functional space δψ g = d 4 x g δψδψ, 15) which is invariant under the diffeomorphism. Let us rewrite Eq. 14) into the path integral in Einstein frame. Because we have δψ g = d 4 x g δψδψ = d 4 x g E F δψδψ, 16) 8 The correction from φ loop is proportional to λ n, which are assumed to be small here; see efs. [11, 19, 0] for arguments in support of the smallness of λ n at high scales. 9 We note that such a field-dependent cutoff itself does not lead to any logical inconsistency. For example, a position-dependent momentum cutoff follows from the Pauli-Villars regularization in warped space even if we start from a position-independent bulk mass for the regulator [1]. 5

6 the functional measure satisfies D g ψ D g ψ = D ge ψ D ge ψ x F ) 4 [ ] = D ge ψ D ge ψ exp 4 Tr lnf g E,Λ, 17) E where the measure D ge ψ is the one induced from the following distance in the functional space δψ g E = d 4 x g E δψδψ, 18) and Tr ge,λ E indicates that the functional trace depends both on the metric g E and the cutoff Λ E ; the more explicit form will be presented below. 10 When we rewrite the functional measure D g ψ D g ψ in terms of D ge ψ D ge ψ, there has appeared the extra contribution to the effective action: [ ] exp 4 Tr lnf g E,Λ. 19) E As we will see below, this factor contains quartic divergence, and is absorbed into the renormalized couplings including the coefficients of higher dimensional terms. Finally, Eq. 14) becomes ] e i S eff = exp [ 4 Tr lnf g E,Λ E [ =: exp 4 Tr lnf g E,Λ E [ D ge ψ D ge ψ exp i d 4 x g E ψ F Ψ F 3/ /D ge F Y F yϕ ] e i SE eff, 0) where we have defined the Einstein-frame effective action Seff E, which is obtained from the path integral measure D ge ψ. 11 In this section hereafter, we will put the superscript E) for the effective potential of the theory that is defined by using the measure D g ψ D ge ψ), as well as the effective action..4 Explicit computations Now we verify the equality 8) through more explicit computations under the assumption that ϕ and g µν are slowly varying backgrounds so that they may be treated as constants in the computation of the effective action. 10 The extra minus sign of 4 in Eq. 17) is from the acobian for fermionic variables. 11 The same argument applies if we start from a different theory defined with another measure induced from the distance18) instead of Eq.16). Then the ordan-frame effective action will receive extra contribution from the change of measure, exp conditions. [ 4 Tr lnf g,λ ], which again will make the difference only in the renormalization ) ψ ] 6

7 As a preparation, let us first compute the extra factor 19) coming from the change of measure: [ ] [ exp 4 Tr lnf g E,Λ = exp 4i d 4 x g E x lnf x ] Λ E E where we have used x x ΛE = [ = exp i d 4 x g E Λ4 E 8π lnf )], 1) ΛE d 4 p ΛE π) 4 = π p 3 dp 0 π) 4 = Λ4 E 3π. ) Here and hereafter, the momentum integral is taken in the Euclidean space. The effective action 14) reads ) FΨ /D e i S g F Y yϕ eff = Det g,λ [ = exp Tr [ = exp 4i [ =: exp i g,λ ln µ 0 )] FΨ /D g F Y yϕ µ 0 d 4 x g Λ d 4 p π) 4 1 ln )] FΨ p +FY yϕ) µ 0 d 4 x g V eff ) ], 3) whereµ 0 isanarbitraryreferencescaleandwehavedefinedthecorrection totheordan-frame potential Veff. It may be computed as ) Λ Veff = d 4 p π) 4 ln FΨ p +FY yϕ) µ 0 = 1 { [ 16π Λ 4 ln FΨΛ ) +M µ 1 ] M +Λ )} 0 M +M4 ln Λ, 4) +M where M ϕ) := yϕ F Yϕ) F Ψ ϕ) is the field-dependent mass for canonically normalized fermion in the ordan frame. 1 We may rewrite the effective action 3) with the Einstein-frame metric: e i S eff = exp [i d 4 x g E V eff )] [ =: exp i d 4 x ) ] g E U eff, 6) where we have defined the correction to the potential 9). That is, Ueff = V eff { [ 1 F = 16π F Λ 4 ln FΨΛ ) +M µ 1 0 F ] +Λ M +M 4 ln M Λ +M 1 For more realistic top quark loop, V eff is multiplied by the color degrees of freedom N = 3. 5) )}. 7) 7

8 To summarize, we have started from the measure 15), and computed the one-loop correction 4). One may worry that the change of path measure 17) might introduce a trace anomaly in addition to Eq. 1). However, it is taken into account as aform of thelogarithmic UV cutoff dependence in Eq. 4). Indeed, the constant shift of lnλ correctly reproduces the trace anomaly, as can be seen from Eq. 34) with Eq. 5), compared to Eq. 41). We may instead perform the field redefinition 6) to the Einstein frame first, and compute the Einstein-frame effective action in the right-hand side of Eq. 8): e i SE eff = exp Tr g E,Λ E ln = exp 4i [ =: exp i F Ψ F 3/ /D ge F Y F µ 0 yϕ d 4 x ΛE d 4 p 1 g E π) 4 ln FΨ F 3 p + F Y F 4 µ 0 yϕ) d 4 x g E U E eff ) ], 8) where Ueff E is the fermion loop correction to the potential 9) that is obtained with the measure D ge ψ: ΛE Ueff E = d 4 p ln 0 π) 4 = 1 16π Λ4 E ln F Ψ F 3 FΨ F 3 p + F Y F 4 µ 0 Λ E + M F µ 0 y ϕ 1 +Λ EM F + M4 F With the identification of UV cutoff scales 13), we may rewrite { [ Ueff E = 1 F 16π F Λ 4 ln Ψ F 4 We see that ln M F Λ E + M F. 9) Λ ) +M µ 1 ] M +Λ )} 0 M +M4 ln Λ. 30) +M U E eff = U eff 1 16π Λ4 ElnF 4. 31) Using Eq. 1), we see that Eq. 31) is equivalent to Eq. 30). We note that the difference in31) is quartically divergent, which will be subtracted by the renormalization. In particular, this difference does not change the running of couplings, as we will see. To summarize, once we fix the path integral measure, say, to be D g ψ, we obtain the same result Ueff, no matter in which frame we compute it: When we compute it in the ordan frame, we obtain e i S eff = e i d 4 x g V eff) = e i d 4 x g E U eff), 3) 8

9 while when we compute it in the Einstein frame, e i S eff = e i d 4 x g E ) Λ4 E 8π lnf e i d 4 x )) g E Ueff Λ4 E 16π lnf 4 = e i d 4 x g E U eff). 33) We have explicitly checked that these two agree. The frame independence of the effective potential has been verified in various ways: In efs. [, 3], the authors have obtained one-loop G equations for the tree level action in both the ordan and Einstein frames, and have found the agreement between both results; see also appendix of ef. [4]. In ef. [5], the authors checked that both the tree-level actions are equivalent when written in terms of dimensionless variables, as it should be. In ef. [6], the authors have computed the one-loop divergent part of the effective potential in both frames, and have shown that both coincide at on-shell. In efs. [7, 8, 9], the authors have discussed frame independence of physical observables. 3 Prescriptions I and II We now discuss the meaning of the prescriptions I and II. We first clarify how the difference of the prescriptions in Eq. 1) arises in the ordinary context. Then we will show, in the counterterm formalism, that this difference can be absorbed into the choice from infinitely many possibilities of the coefficients of higher dimensional terms in the tree-level potential. We consider the cutoff theory containing infinite number of higher dimensional terms. We tune the infinite number of bare couplings in the large cutoff limit Λ,Λ E such that the renormalized effective potential becomes a function of ϕ/m, where M is the physical mass scale; see e.g. ef. [30]. We work in the counterterm formalism so that M and F Ψ are treated as finite renormalized quantities. To be concrete, we consider the theory defined by the path integral measure D g ψ, and we omit the superscript from the potentials V, Veff,..., etc. hereafter Prescription II in ordinary context We clarify how the prescription II in Eq.1) appears in the ordinary context. The contribution from fermion to the effective potential 4) contains the quartic, quadratic, and logarithmic divergences: V eff = 1 16π Then in the full effective potential { [ Λ 4 ln FΨΛ ) µ 1 ] +Λ 0 M +M 4 ln M Λ 1 )} +O Λ ). 34) V = V B + V eff, 35) we cancel the divergences in Eq. 34) by the bare couplings λ nb in the bare potential V B := n ϕ n λ nb Mn 4. 36) 13 Exactly the same argument applies if we consider the theory defined by the measure D ge ψ. 9

10 The quartic and quadratic divergences in Eq. 34) can be simply subtracted by the counter term Vpower c.t. = 1 { [ 16π Λ 4 ln FΨΛ ) µ 1 ] } +Λ 0 M. 37) However, we need a special care in subtracting the logarithmic divergence in Eq. 34) because the counter term should be analytic around ϕ = 0: A counter term having lnm = lnϕ+ breaks the analyticity around ϕ = 0. In particular, the n+1)th derivative of the term ϕ n lnϕ is singular, and the n+1)-point function becomes ill-defined in the weak field limit ϕ 0 if the bare action has such a term. 14 Because we employ the analytic tree-level potential, the counter term should then be analytic too. A natural choice of the counter term that is analytic around ϕ = 0 would be V c.t.ii log = M4 16π µ ln Λ where µ is the renormalization scale. The resultant bare potential is V II B = V II +Vc.t. = V II π power +Vc.t.II log { Λ 4 [ ln F ΨΛ µ 0, 38) ) 1 ]+Λ M +M 4ln µ Λ }, 39) where V II is the tree-level potential in the counterterm formalism. We note that V II is µ-dependent: V II ϕ,µ) = n λ n µ) ϕ n Mn 4, 40) and the µ-independence of V B determines the running of λ n µ) via Eq. 39). In particular, because M = yϕ+o ϕ 3), we obtain the ordinary running of the quartic coupling: dλ 4 µ) dlnµ = y4 8π. 41) Substituting the bare potential 39) into V B in Eq. 35), we obtain Vϕ) = V II B + V eff = V II II ϕ,µ)+ V ϕ,µ), 4) where ) V II ϕ,µ) := [M ϕ)] 4 16π ln [M ϕ)] µ 1 43) is the one-loop correction in the counterterm formalism in the prescription II. Now both V II and V II are finite. 14 In contrast, the singular behavior of n + 1)th derivative of the effective action represents the infrared singularity of the n + 1)-point scattering of massless scalar, which is cured by taking into account the Higgs mass in reality and/or by concentrating on the infrared-safe physical quantities. 10

11 When we want to minimize the correction 43), we may choose the renormalization scale 15 µ M. 44) This result reproduces the prescription II in the sense of Eq. 1), namely µ ϕ for F Ψ = F Y = Prescription I in ordinary context We clarify how the prescription I in Eq. 1) appears in the ordinary context. We can rewrite Eq. 34) by using Eq. 13): 16 { [ V eff = F 16π Λ 4 E ln FΨF Λ ) E µ 1 ] +Λ 0 EM + M4 F F ln M /F Λ 1 )} +O Λ ) E E. 45) The quartic and quadratic divergences are canceled by the same counter term 37). This time, a natural choice to cancel the logarithmic divergence would be, instead of Eq. 38), Then the bare potential becomes Vlog c.t.i = M4 µ ln 16π Λ E. 46) and we obtain V I B = V I +Vc.t. = V I π power +Vc.t.I log { Λ 4 EF [ ln F ΨF Λ E µ 0 Vϕ) = V I B + V eff ) 1 } ]+Λ EF M +M 4ln µ Λ, 47) E = V I ϕ,µ)+ V I ϕ,µ), 48) where ) V I ϕ,µ) := [M ϕ)] 4 16π ln [M ϕ)] /F µ 1. 49) Again the µ-independence of V fixes the running of the couplings. The running of quartic coupling becomes the same as in Eq. 41) because F = 1+O ϕ ) and hence the ϕ 4 term is not affected by lnf ; see the discussion below. WhenwewanttominimizethesecondterminEq.48), wemaychoosetherenormalization scale µ M F. 50) This result reproduces the prescription I in the sense of Eq. 1), namely µ ϕ/ 1+ξϕ /MP for F Ψ = F Y = 1; see also footnote The constant 1/ is scheme-dependent and does not affect our argument here. 16 This may also be verified by substituting Eq. 9) into Eq. 31), dividing both-hand sides by F, and expanding it in terms of Λ E. 11

12 3.3 Where the difference comes from Let us summarize the difference between the prescriptions I and II. The difference of prescriptions I and II comes from that of the subtractions of logarithmic divergence in Eqs. 38) and 46): Vlog c.t.i Vlog c.t.ii = M4 16π ln Λ Λ E = M4 16π lnf = ξ y 4 ϕ 6 16π +, 51) M where we used Eq. 13). This difference amounts to the finite renormalization of V. Note that the difference 51) is analytic around ϕ = 0 and that it has only higher order terms with n 6. Originally the prescription has been introduced as a choice of frame in which the theory is defined, and it was believed that the radiative correction to the effective potential is minimized by the choice of the renormalization scale as in Eq. 1). As we have shown, however, the physics does not depend on the choice of the frame in which the theory is defined. Instead, for a given renormalized tree-level action, the difference of the prescriptions1) can be understood as that of the logarithmic counter terms 51): The different counter terms lead to the different scales 44) and 50) that minimize the radiative corrections. 3.4 enormalized potential Theoretically, the potential V in Eq. 4) or 48), V = n: even, n 0 λ n µ) ϕ n Mn 4, 5) may take arbitrary form, so long as it is analytic around ϕ = 0. How do we determine its form? We may reproduce the ordinary Higgs inflation [] that does not assume the criticality, by tuning the infinite number of bare couplings such that V becomes V ϕ,µ) µ M λ 4 µ)ϕ 4, 53) where all the couplings λ n µ) with n 4 are suppressed at µ = M. When the form 53) is put into Eqs. 4) and 48), which result from the counter terms 38) and 46), we obtain the Higgs potential in the prescriptions II and I in the ordinary context, respectively: V II = λ 4 µ)ϕ 4 M4 16π V I = λ 4 µ)ϕ 4 M4 16π ln M µ 1 ln M /F µ 1 ), 54) ). 55) However, we may as well obtain the potential of the form of V I in Eq. 55) even when we employ the counter term Vlog c.t.ii in Eq. 38) if we choose the following form of the tree-level potential V in Eq. 4), V ϕ,µ) = λ 4 µ)ϕ 4 + [M ϕ)] π lnf ϕ), 56)

13 instead of the form 53). From the same counter term Vlog c.t.ii in Eq. 38), we may obtain the forms 54) and 55) by assuming the tree-level potentials 53) and 56), respectively. ecall that the second term in the right-hand side of Eq. 56) modifies only the higher dimensional terms of O ϕ 6). There are infinitely many possibilities for the tree-level potential. Therefore there is no reason to suppose one or any) of the above two as the proper tree-level potential if we restrict ourselves to the low-energy effective field theory Flattening Higgs potential by gauge kinetic function Let us turn to more realistic running of the quartic coupling in the SM: V SM = λ 4 µ)ϕ 4 + V ϕ,µ), 57) where V is the finite correction 43) or 49) in the counterterm formalism; see also footnote 6. In the SM, β 4 := d dlnµ λ 4 turns from negative to positive around the scale µ min GeV, and we may approximate as [16, 1] where b 4 can be computed within the SM as λ 4 µ) λ min 4 +b 4 ln µ ), 58) µ min b π ) ) The negative β 4 for µ < µ min is dominated by top quark loop, while the positive β 4 for µ > µ min by the U1) Y and SU) L gauge boson loops. For top quark loop, the contribution is through the effective mass M = yϕf Y /F Ψ. In the prescription I in the sense of Eq. 1), namely in Eq. 55) with the tree-level potential 53), we get the constant µ in the large ϕ limit, µ M F M P ξ, 60) and the effective quartic coupling λ 4 µ) µ M / F stops running for large ϕ [15]. 18 This mechanism makes the potential even flatter at the SM criticality and helps to earn a sufficiently large e-folding number for smaller ξ 10; in the prescription II we lack this mechanism and need larger ξ 10 [16, 1]. Similarly, the contribution of the gauge boson loop is through [1] M gauge = gϕ F Φ F g, 61) 17 The tree-level potential is determined once we fix the underlying UV-finite theory; see e.g. efs. [19, 0] for discussions based on string theory. 18 Here we have assumed F Y = F Ψ = 1. If F Y = 1+ξ Yϕ /M and F Ψ = 1+ξ Ψϕ /M, we obtain instead of Eq. 60); see also footnote 4. µ M F ξy ξξψ M P 13

14 where g is the gauge coupling and F g is the gauge kinetic function, namely the function of ϕ in front of the gauge kinetic term. When we raise the scale beyond µ > µ min in the SM, the top Yukawa coupling becomes smaller and smaller. To the first approximation, the running at µ > µ min is governed by the gauge boson loop. Then in the prescription II in the ordinary context, which corresponds to Eq. 54) with the tree-level potential 53), the effective potential becomes When we assume that F Φ 1, we obtain V SM = λ 4 µ)ϕ 4 µ=m gauge M gauge =. 6) gϕ. 63) ϕ 1+ξ g M In the large-ϕ limit, M gauge g ξg M. 64) WeproposethatthiscanbeusedintheprescriptionIIintheordinarycontextasanalternative mechanism to Eq. 60) in order to stop the running of quartic coupling λ 4 µ) µ M gauge for large ϕ. 19 The ϕ-dependent mass 63) takes the same form as the prescription I in Eq. 1) if we neglect the gauge coupling g. Therefore, for example, we may set ξ g = ξ and M = M P, then the subsequent analysis becomes identical to those in ef. [1]. This serves as an explicit example of viable parameter set that realizes the above-mentioned idea. 5 Summary We have analyzed the one-loop effective action in the simplified Higgs-Yukawa model, which captures essential features of the Higgs potential in the Higgs inflation. We have shown that the effective actions obtained in the ordan and Einstein frames are exactly the same if we properly take into account the change of path integral measure. We show that, in the counterterm formalism, the prescriptions I and II are merely two specific choices of counter terms to cancel the logarithmic divergence. We point out that the difference between I and II can be absorbed into the choice of tree-level potential, including higher dimensional terms, from infinitely many possibilities. We have also proposedamechanism to stop therunningof theeffective quartic couplingin the prescription II in the ordinary context, using the gauge kinetic function: µ ϕ/ F g 19 When the top Yukawa contribution is non-negligible, one may further introduce e.g. F Ψϕ) = ϕ 1+ξ Ψ M = ϕ 1+ξΨ M ξ Ψ ϕ 4 M + ξ3 Ψ 4 together with F Y = 1, which stops running due to the top contribution too: M = yϕ y M. ϕ 1+ξ ξψ Ψ M ϕ 6 M

15 M/ ξ g. Detailed phenomenological study of this scenario will be presented in a separate publication. We briefly comment on the remaining points to be addressed: In this paper, we have concentrated on the fermion loop. It would be worth including the scalar loop, as in ef. [6], and also the gauge boson loop. It is also worth studying the issue of gauge dependence in these loops. Acknowledgment We thank Seong Chan Park, Mikhail Shaposhnikov, and Satoshi Yamaguchi for useful discussions. The work of Y.H. and K.O. are supported in part by SPS KAKENHI Grant Nos and , 15K05053, respectively. Appendix A Classical dynamics in terms of ordan-frame field When we consider the classical dynamics of scalar field under gravity, it is convenient to define the canonically normalized scalar field dχ = Gϕ) dϕ, 65) where Gϕ) := F Φ ϕ) F ϕ) + 3 MP F ϕ) ). 66) F ϕ) We use the Friedmann-Lemaître-obertson-Walker ansatz 0 g E µνdx µ dx ν = dt E +a E t E )) dx. 67) In the Einstein frame, the Einstein equations reduce to the ordinary Friedmann equation: 1 where HE = ρ E 3MP, 68) dρ E = 3ρ E +p E )H E, dt E 69) ρ E = 1 ) dχ +U E ϕ), 70) dt E ) dχ U E ϕ), 71) p E = 1 dt E and H E := 1 a E da E dt E. 0 We neglect the spatial curvature, but may recover it by dx dx +K x dx) 1 Kx. 1 We may recover the spatial curvature by H E H E + K a. 15

16 The Higgs-field equation reads In terms of the ordan-frame field, d ϕ dt E d χ dt E +3H E dχ dt E = du E dχ. 7) + dϕ 3H E + d ) lng = 1 du E dt E dt E G dϕ. 73) The universe expands with the rate H E, whereas the ordan-frame field ϕ receives extra friction d dt E lng, and rolls slower faster) than under its absence when it is positive negative). This term will turn out to be the same order as the slow-roll parameter under the slow-roll condition shown below. We assume the slow-roll inflation. The slow-roll parameters read ǫ := M P U E ) due = M P dχ η := M P U E d U E dχ = M P U E G U E G d dϕ 1 G The Friedmann and Higgs-field equations become, respectively, In terms of the ordan-frame field, the latter reads ) due 1, 74) dϕ ) du E 1. 75) dϕ 3MP H E = U E, 76) dχ 3H E = du E dt E dχ. 77) 3H E dϕ dt E = 1 G du E dϕ =: du E dϕ, 78) where we have defined the effectual potential U E = dϕ 1 du E G dϕ +const., 79) which takes into account the effect from G. Using this potential, the slow-roll parameters can be rewritten as ǫ = G MP ) due UE, 80) dϕ η = M P d U E U E dϕ + du ) E d dϕ dϕ lng, 81) though this expression may not be particularly convenient. In this paper, we omit the subscript E from U E and U E which are always given in the Einstein frame. 16

17 B Examples that lead to various Higgs inflations Even if we decide to take the simple form of the tree-level potential 53) in Eq. 4) or 48), we still have freedom to choose any form of F X ϕ)s. We review several examples that lead to viable cosmic inflations: In ef. [1], the authors have spelled out the result from prescriptions I and II in the ordinary context, with the tree-level potential 53) in Eq.48) and4), respectively, and ϕ with the function F X = 1 except for F = 1+ξ M. The former prescription I allows smaller ξ := ξ MP /M 10 because the coupling stops running for ϕ M/ ξ : µ ϕ F M ξ. 8) The latter prescription II can have a chaotic inflation for ξ 10, since the effectual potential 79) becomes due to U const.+ β λm P 48ξ ϕ, 83) for large ξ ; see Appendix A. G 6MP ϕ 84) When we have large ξ Φ only, in particular with F = 1 which gives U = V = λ 4 ϕ4, we get and hence G ξ Φ ϕ M 85) U = const.+ λm ξ Φ ϕ. 86) This can also lead to a chaotic inflation when λ/ξ Φ 1 [31]. When we terminate the tree-level potential at the nth order V = n : even, 4 n n λ n instead of Eq. 53), and the function at the nth order F = n : even, 0 n n ϕ n M n 4, 87) ϕ n ξ,n the resultant classical potential becomes constant [3]: M n, 88) U λ n ξ,n M 4. 89) 17

18 eferences [1] D. S. Salopek,.. Bond, and. M. Bardeen, Designing Density Fluctuation Spectra in Inflation, Phys. ev. D ), [] F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton, Phys. Lett. B ), , [3] Planck, P. A.. Ade et al., Planck 015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation, 015), [4].. van der Bij, Can gravity make the Higgs particle decouple?, Acta Phys. Polon. B5 1994), 87 83, hep-th/ [5]. L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, Induced gravity inflation in the standard model of particle physics, Nucl. Phys. B ), , astro-ph/ [6].. van der Bij, Can gravity play a role at the electroweak scale?, Int.. Phys ), 63, hep-ph/ [7] F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese, and M. D. Pollock, Inflation With a Nonminimally Coupled Scalar Field, Phys. Lett. B ), 163. [8] T. Futamase and K.-i. Maeda, Chaotic Inflationary Scenario in Models Having Nonminimal Coupling With Curvature, Phys. ev. D ), [9] Y. Ema,. inno, K. Mukaida, and K. Nakayama, Violent Preheating in Inflation with Nonminimal Coupling, 016), [10] ATLAS, CMS, G. Aad et al., Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in pp Collisions at s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments, Phys. ev. Lett ), , [11] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.-y. Oda, Bare Higgs mass at Planck scale, Phys. ev. D87 013), no. 5, , , [Erratum: Phys. ev.d89,no.5, )]. [1] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K.-y. Oda, and S. C. Park, Higgs inflation from Standard Model criticality, Phys. ev. D91 015), , [13] F. L. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, and M. Shaposhnikov, Standard Model Higgs boson mass from inflation, Phys. Lett. B ), 88 9, [14] F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Standard Model Higgs boson mass from inflation: Two loop analysis, HEP ), 089, [15] K. Allison, Higgs xi-inflation for the GeV Higgs: a two-loop analysis, HEP 0 014), 040, [16] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K.-y. Oda, and S. C. Park, Higgs Inflation Still Alive, Phys. ev. Lett ), no. 4, 41301, [17] F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Higgs inflation at the critical point, Phys. Lett. B ), 49 54,

19 [18] B.. Broy, D. Coone, and D. oest, Plateau Inflation from andom Non-Minimal Coupling, CAP ), no. 06, 036, [19] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.-y. Oda, Minimal Higgs inflation, PTEP ), 03B0, [0] Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, and K.-y. Oda, Eternal Higgs inflation and the cosmological constant problem, Phys. ev. D9 015), , [1] A. Pomarol, Grand unified theories without the desert, Phys. ev. Lett ), , hep-ph/ [] D. P. George, S. Mooij, and M. Postma, Quantum corrections in Higgs inflation: the real scalar case, CAP ), 04, [3] D. P. George, S. Mooij, and M. Postma, Quantum corrections in Higgs inflation: the Standard Model case, 015), [4] K. Kannike, G. Hutsi, L. Pizza, A. acioppi, M. aidal, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, Dynamically Induced Planck Scale and Inflation, HEP ), 065, [5] M. Postma and M. Volponi, Equivalence of the Einstein and ordan frames, Phys. ev. D90 014), no. 10, , [6] A. Yu. Kamenshchik and C. F. Steinwachs, Question of quantum equivalence between ordan frame and Einstein frame, Phys. ev. D91 015), no. 8, , [7] N. Makino and M. Sasaki, The Density perturbation in the chaotic inflation with nonminimal coupling, Prog. Theor. Phys ), [8] G. Domènech and M. Sasaki, Conformal Frame Dependence of Inflation, CAP ), no. 04, 0, [9] G. Domènech and M. Sasaki, Conformal frames in cosmology, Int.. Mod. Phys. D5 016), , [30]. Gomis and S. Weinberg, Are nonrenormalizable gauge theories renormalizable?, Nucl. Phys. B ), , hep-th/ [31] K. Nakayama and F. Takahashi, Higgs Chaotic Inflation and the Primordial B-mode Polarization Discovered by BICEP, Phys. Lett. B ), 96 99, [3] S. C. Park and S. Yamaguchi, Inflation by non-minimal coupling, CAP ), 009,