• Calculating Non-adiabatic Pressure Perturbations during Multi-field Inflation
  Ian Huston, Adam J. Christopherson
  Abstract: Isocurvature perturbations naturally occur in models of inflation consisting of more than one scalar field. In this paper we calculate the spectrum of isocurvature perturbations generated at the end of inflation for three different inflationary models consisting of two canonical scalar fields. The amount of non-adiabatic pressure present at the end of inflation can have observational consequences through the generation of vorticity and subsequently the sourcing of B-mode polarisation. We compare two different definitions of isocurvature perturbations and show how these quantities evolve in different ways during inflation. Our results are calculated using the open source Pyflation numerical package which is available to download.
• Quantifying the behaviour of curvature perturbations during inflation
  Ellie Nalson, Adam J. Christopherson, Ian Huston, Karim A. Malik
  Abstract: How much does the curvature perturbation change after it leaves the horizon, and when should one evaluate the power spectrum? To answer these questions we study single field inflation models numerically, and compare the evolution of different curvature perturbations from horizon crossing to the end of inflation. In particular we calculate the number of efolds it takes for the curvature perturbation at a given wavenumber to settle down to within a given fraction of their value at the end of inflation. We find that e.g. in chaotic inflation, the amplitude of the comoving and the curvature perturbation on uniform density hypersurfaces differ by up to 180 % at horizon crossing assuming the same amplitude at the end of inflation, and that it takes approximately 3 efolds for the curvature perturbation to be within 1 % of its value at the end of inflation.

As part of the work on the first of these papers, my Pyflation code has been updated to version 0.2 and now allows multiple fields systems to be used at first order.

There seemed to be a glut of papers released last Wednesday, with the post-Thanksgiving queue being worked through and people aiming to apply for jobs in December. Apologies to those irked by the overwhelming astro-ph listing that day for my part in it!

Accompanying the paper is the release of the software package used to create the results. Pyflation is a Python package which calculates the first and second order perturbation results including the source term required at each time step. It requires Numpy, Scipy and PyTables and a fairly recent version of Python. The full calculation for a large range of Fourier wavemodes takes a long time on a single CPU, but there is support for splitting the calculation into many separate jobs which can be queued on a multi-core or cluster based setup. Alternatively there is also support for calculating the second order results for a single wavemode, which significantly reduces the execution time.

The Pyflation website contains all the details and download links, installation notes and links to the relevant papers. We’ve released the package under a very liberal open source license (modified BSD license) but as citations are increasingly the oil that greases the wheels of academia we ask that anyone who uses results they have obtained with Pyflation to please cite one or more of the related papers.

• Check bib style is correct.
  If the journal you are planning to submit to has a particular house style for the bibliography it is probably worth using it in the arXiv submission.
• Check bibliography text is correct.
  Even though I think BiBTeX is the great, and much easier than preparing the bibliography by hand (which some people still do), there can be instances when a stray space or mistakenly capitalised letter appear. If you get your BiBTeX entries from SPIRES or Inspire this is mostly taken care of, but there is always the odd paper or book entry that you have typed in by hand. Check the final output in the paper, not just the .bib file contents.
• Check journal info for newer papers.
  Nowadays many works are first cited as preprints before publication in a journal and it is only right to update your reference list to include any subsequent publication information. Take care that the published version is not substantially different from the preprint as even the conclusions might have changed during the refereeing process.
• Check punctuation at end of equations.
  It is considered best practice to include equations as part of a sentence and not standalone objects. Therefore you should treat them grammatically as just another word or phrase. If you continue the sentence after the equation include a comma at the end of the last equation line using \,, which introduces a small space before the comma.
• Move bibliography from bbl to tex file.
  The arXiv help page states that BiBTeX is not run when you submit a file. The way to include your bibliography is to either include your .bbl file in the bundle you submit or to manually copy in the contents of the .bbl file and replace the \bibliography and \bibliographystyle commands in your .tex file.
• Read through all equations.
  It might not be possible to rederive all the equations but a quick look through could catch any glaring errors in transcribing long equations into TeX.
• Remove revision control info from files.
  If you use revision control to keep track of the changes to your paper (and you should!) then be careful to remove any files or tag lines with this info. For CVS you may have included a $Id$ line with the revision number and date. If you are submitting a zipped directory of files be careful to exclude any control directories such as .git or .bzr. Perhaps in the age of open science every revision of your paper should be open to all, but it is likely you don’t want the whole writing process to be scrutinized.
• Remove extraneous commands.
  Any unused or temporary commands, which might for example add labels, todo lists, highlight changes, should be removed.
• Remove unnecessary comments.
  Again any unnecessary comments in the .tex file should be removed. Don’t forget that anyone will be able to read the .tex file as well as the .dvi or .pdf files. Probably not the best idea to slag off your competitors in the comments then.
• Remove unused sections.
  In a similar vein don’t leave unused sections commented out in the .tex file.
• Spellcheck document, abstract, authors.
  Although it is not straightforward to spellcheck LaTeX files you need to make sure that any easy typos have been caught. Take special care with the authors’ names, as this might be one of the most embarrassing mistakes to make.

There are probably some more things I could add, especially about the particular submission process for the arXiv but this list has served me quite well.

The website for the current beta phase of the project is http://inspirebeta.net.

It is unclear to me whether “Beta” is part of the site name, as suggested by the URL and the text on the INSPIRE page, or whether this is just the beta phase of the INSPIRE project as the SPIRES homepage seems to imply. It would certainly be an odd decision to use a different URL for the beta phase and force everyone to change bookmarks, references in blogs, literature etc., once the beta phase is over.

These are quick first impressions because I haven’t had much time to use the new service. First off it is fast. Very fast. So fast that when searching for my name INSPIRE claims that the “Search took 0.00 seconds”. It feels almost instantaneous. This might be because of a light load before the hordes using SPIRES are switched over. It is certainly an improvement on the interminable and often futile stretches of time needed with the SPIRES engine.

A quick glance at the new search features shows that “Google style” text searching is now accepted, so no longer will the archaic “fin a Name” syntax be necessary. However if you are wedded to the old SPIRES way of operating then this is also supported. There is good support for eprint search using the “arxiv:” operator, which lead me to the interesting discovery that the arxiv.org site parses addresses of the form “arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:XXXX.XXXX”. In other words, including “arXiv:” after the final slash still resolves to the correct paper even though the canonical way is “arxiv.org/abs/XXXX.XXXX”. (It also works with lower case “arxiv”.) This is quite a handy feature once you realise that the Bibtex output from INSPIRE now populates the eprint field with “arXiv:XXXX.XXXX” instead of just “XXXX.XXXX” as SPIRES does. There is also a regular expressions search mode which should be very useful for power users. Limited search inside articles seems to be supported as well.

The article page is vastly different to the old SPIRES listing. A new tabbed panel takes centre stage, offering “Information”, “Citations”, “References” and most intriguingly “Plots”. This last tab displays all the graphics from the arXiv version of the paper. (I think this is the case purely because the text on the homepage beside Eprint Number says “Note the plots”. And the copyright difficulties from harvesting journal figures.) The screengrabs in the gallery below are all of this paper which is linked to from the INSPIRE front page and will probably gain at least a few more citations as a result of the exposure.

It will take time to see whether this new update to SPIRES remains as fast as this early test promises. The original news stories also promised some social connectivity which seems to be currently lacking when compared to the arXiv’s array of social links. Overall this is a positive new beginning for HEP article and citation searching.

Update Dec 2011: The full Inspire website has been operational for a while now at its new address of http://inspirehep.net.

As an Android user for a while now, the options were previously limited to navigating to the arxiv website which doesn’t really scale well onto a phone screen, and manually searching for the right paper, or scanning the new list.
For a while there has been an iPhone app called arXivew which listed the latest papers and allowed you to easily download and view the one you wanted.

Now, there is an Android app to compete. ArXiv Droid, released in June by Jack Deslippe, performs admirably, listing all the new papers in each category, including sub-categories like astro-ph.CO for cosmology. You can select categories as favourites for easy access and easily select and view the abstracts of papers. Papers are viewed using the builtin pdf viewer so your mileage may vary depending on whether you mind scrolling around the page. Handily the app prominently displays the size of the pdf before it is downloaded, in case data limits are tight.
Paper titles can be shared via the usual methods, but there doesn’t currently seem to be a way to select papers as favourites, or to see a log of the last abstracts viewed (there is a list of pdfs viewed). However, having seen the progress made in just the last few months, I would look forward to seeing something like this in the future.

With the exception of the problems of viewing A4 sized pdfs on such a small screen, this app does a great job of getting you to the papers you want fast when you are away from your desk. As the proliferation of tablets, e-readers and mobile units continues, I think the arXiv might have to consider some kind of additional format suitable for use on these devices. A quick fix might be to just compile the LaTeX with the geometry of the page changed to A5 or smaller. This would obviously still not allow the reflowing of text which is a key feature of e-readers, and would probably mess up a lot of formatting rich papers.

Until this problem is solved arXiv Droid is an admirable app which helps you stay on top of the deluge of research now flooding the arXiv every day. Get it in the Android Market from this link or by scanning the QR code.

I think PhD students go through a range of feelings towards their theses, beginning with excitement and some trepidation when they start a blank text file, progressing through despair in the mandatory mid-cycle slough, to eventually being completely fed up and just wanting it out the door. Now that I’ve gone through all that and seen the finished product in lovely blue serge cloth, the only thing left to do was to put it online.

So the final, corrected version of my thesis is now available at the arXiv. I’m not expecting anyone to actually go read the thing but when I have lost or mislaid my copy at least I’ll be able to download it.

Now that we have finished the preprint version I can concentrate solely on writing up my PhD thesis. It’s going to be a long few months!

The new academic year has brought with it some new tools from one of my favourite web resources Cosmocoffee. As you can read in this forum post, there are three new additions to the service. Firstly new search options are available which allow you to use the search page on Cosmocoffee to search the arXiv, ADS and Google Scholar. I don’t know how useful this might be, as I tend to use the integrated search bar in Firefox to directly search SPIRES and the arXiv.

The main update however is the addition of a bookmarking system to the arXiv listings. While not as fully featured as either Citeulike or Connotea, this is a very intuitive system and can be easily integrated into your workflow if you already use Cosmocoffee to access new arXiv papers.

The final tool is a complimentary function of the bookmarking system, allowing multiple users to share lists of bookmarks in a “Journal Club” system. There is a rudimentary management system, with the ability to add users and other managers, and move papers into “old” and “ignored” categories. There is also an anonymous list of all the papers that have been bookmarked so far, which provides an interesting insight into the reading habits of Cosmocoffee users.

To use the bookmarking system you will need to register at the Cosmocoffee site. Since last year registration has been restricted to people affiliated with academic institutions.

This week there is an international conference taking place in Imperial College. Called PASCOS, it focuses on particles, strings and cosmology, so a little bit of everything really. I headed over there yesterday to see a specific talk by Hiranya Peiris, who recently co-wrote a paper citing us, and doing a numerical simulation which validates the tensor mode bound in our recent paper. It was interesting to actually see someone citing my work, with my name up in lights on the screen!

And next week I might get to meet yet more people involved in the work I have been doing recently, when I go to the ICTP in Trieste for a “workshop” on Strings and Cosmology. I realise now that it is not so much of workshop as a large conference, with around 200 participants registered. But it’s a good reason to get away from the recent dreadful weather and incompetent suicide bombing doctors here in London.

The talk is supposed to be based on our last paper (which will soon appear in JCAP by the way), but with limited time I think I will have to speed through it pretty quickly. As a lot of the paper draws in techniques and results from string theory, I might have to gloss over those to.

The audience is going to be large (at least 50 people), with a mix of postgrads, postdocs and faculty from across the UK. And with a varied mix of theoretical and observational cosmologists, I am finding it difficult to find the right level to pitch the talk at.

To make things a little harder, I have written the talk using Beamer, which is a very impressive presentation class for LaTeX. But I have never used it before, so I am constantly dipping in to the userguide to find out how to do things that in OpenOffice would be simple. That said, I really like being able to incorporate equations into my presentation with no fuss at all, as opposed to the tortuous methods needed in other programs.

With any luck I will be able to overcome these problems before next Tuesday, so here’s hoping the train to Portsmouth gets us there on time!