Inflation – the most widely accepted paradigm for the early-universe – predicts that the large scale structure of the cosmos has its origins in the quantum vacuum fluctuations of the scalar field responsible for the background accelerated expansion [starobinsky1980new, fang1980entropy, Guth:1980zm, Sato:1981qmu, Linde:1981mu, Albrecht:1982wi]. However, a deeper dive into this formalism shows that one needs to break up the same inflaton field into the homogeneous background, sourcing the evolution of the universe, and its quantum fluctuations, responsible for structure formation [Mukhanov:1982nu]. A natural question that follows is what is the backreaction [brandenberger2002back, PerreaultLevasseur:2014ziv] of the sub-horizon quantum fluctuations on the effective field theory (EFT) of the ‘classicalized’ super-Hubble modes [Cohen:2020php, burgess2015eft]? Another way to phrase this problem is as follows: The equal-time in-in correlations of a massless scalar field in quasi-de Sitter (dS) space give us the spectra of the adiabatic perturbations which can be verified in the temperature fluctuations in the CMB [collaboration2020planck]. Nevertheless, issues of infrared (IR) singularities and late-time secular divergences [burgess2015eft, Burgess:2015ajz, Cespedes:2023aal] are know to afflict such computations when considering loop corrections [senatore2010loops, Assassi:2012et].

These questions are typically tackled using Starobinsky’s stochastic formulation of inflation[Starobinsky:1979ty, Morikawa:1989xz, nambu1988stochastic, nambu1989stochastic, kandrup1989stochastic, nakao1988stochastic, mollerach1991stochastic, linde1994big, starobinsky1994equilibrium]. The general idea behind it is that gradient terms are expensive once the wavelength of a perturbation becomes super-Hubble, and thus its evolves essentially independently outside the horizon. This allows one to write down a Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution of the scalar field, coarse-grained over each Hubble volume. Its evolution is a balance between the classical drift due to the quasi-dS scalar potential and ‘quantum kicks’, modeled by a Gaussian white noise, due to the sub-horizon fluctuations. Since it offers a gradient expansion for the super-Hubble density perturbation, instead of the one in terms of its amplitude, it can make predictions regarding the tail of its probability distribution where linear perturbation theory is bound to fail. And in this way, it can make nontrivial predictions for, say, the production of primordial black-holes during inflation (see, for instance, [Vennin:2020kng, vennin2024quantum, Panagopoulos:2019ail]).

Stochastic inflation is supposed to also be precisely the non-perturbative formalism designed to cure the IR issues of massless fields during inflation. Since it is expected to provide the leading order effect in the resummation of late-time IR divergences in cosmology¹¹1For partial results in this direction, see [Seery:2007we, Enqvist:2008kt, seery2009parton, Burgess:2009bs, Seery:2010kh, Gautier:2013aoa, Guilleux:2015pma, Gautier:2015pca, Hardwick:2017fjo, Markkanen:2017rvi, LopezNacir:2019ord, Gorbenko:2019rza, Mirbabayi:2019qtx, Adshead:2020ijf, Moreau:2020gib]., its assumptions need to be carefully examined. For instance, one of the primary approximations for stochastic inflation is made in the computation of the quantum noise due to the short wavelength fluctuations. Generally, it is typically assumed to be white [Finelli:2008zg, Onemli:2015pma, Calzetta:1995ys, Garbrecht:2013coa, Vennin:2015hra, burgess2015eft, Baumgart:2019clc, Baumgart:2020oby], although ‘colored’ corrections are expected to come from non-Gaussian contributions [Cohen:2021fzf, Cohen:2021jbo]. While it has been argued that both the choice of the ‘sharp’ window function [Mahbub:2022osb, Andersen:2021lii] (to demarcate the short and long wavelength scales) as well as the ‘test scalar’ approximation [Boyanovsky:1994me] can invalidate it, nevertheless this ‘Markovian’ assumption²²2At the very outset, we want to emphasize that we do not use Markovian and time-locality interchangeably in this draft, as is sometimes erroneously done in the cosmology literature. Also, we loosely say that a white noise implies a Markovian system in the classical sense even though we will define what we mean by Markovianity in a quantum setup as having a semi-group property later on [Prudhoe:2022pte]. of having a white noise for the integrated-out quantum degrees of freedom (dofs) remains a ubiquitous one in cosmology (e.g., [Mirbabayi:2020vyt, Pattison:2019hef, Gong:2019yyz]) with a few notable exceptions [shandera2018open, Pinol:2020cdp, Zarei:2021dpb, Figueroa:2021zah].

What is even more, this assumption in stochastic inflation has often been used as an argument for inferring about the origin of secular terms that are to be expected when computing loop corrections during inflation. There is a rich literature on computing one-graviton loop corrections to, say, a conformally coupled scalar field propagator in dS space [Glavan1, Glavan2, Boran:2014xpa] in which it has been explicitly shown that the secular terms are the ones which come from time-local terms in the evolution equation whereas the non-local terms decay and do not contribute at late-times. Similar results have also been obtained for the one-loop graviton correction to the vacuum polarization for dynamical photons in a dS background [wang2015excitation]. Such secular enhancement is generally found to independent of the nonlocal terms in a variety of models [Glavan3, Glavan4, Glavan5, Degueldre:2013hba, miao2006gravitons, kahya2007quantum, Prokopec:2002uw], and is hence free of any memory effects. These results lend support to the general expectation that stochastic inflation captures all the leading IR secular terms via a local equation, and thus the Markovian approximation is a sufficient one for cosmology.

In this paper, we will revisit an old model [Boyanovsky:2015tba] to show that indeed secular divergences can just as easily come from the non-local part of the memory kernel – an object that captures correlations of the integrated-out fields. More concretely, we will show explicitly that secularly divergent terms come from non-local terms in the (dissipation) part of the kernel and, consequently, that it is not necessary that late-time behaviour is always dominated by local terms. More importantly, we shall demonstrate that such secular divergences, arising from non-Markovian terms, can nevertheless be exactly resummed, without invoking any additional, ad hoc approximations, using an appropriate master equation formalism. In our example, we shall give the physical interpretation of different co-efficients of the master equation, corresponding to different parts of the kernel, which will be dominated by local and non-local terms at late-times. The main purpose of our work is thus to show that:

1. 1.

   Secular divergences can just as easily stem from non-Markovian terms and, more importantly, such terms can still be resummed at late times following a precise algorithm that does not involve any arbitrary approximations.

2. 2.

   The memory kernel, corresponding to the integrated-out (or coarse-grained) fields, in the same model can affect different physical quantities differently. More specifically, local and non-local parts of the kernel can become dominant for different physical observables.

In the next section, we briefly discuss master equations in cosmology before setting up the one relevant for us in Sec-3. We discuss physical interpretations of coefficients of the master equations as they pertain to dissipative corrections to cosmological observables and diffusion terms leading to decoherence of the quantum fields. In Sec-4, we compute corrections to the power spectrum and the purity of the (system) density matrix and show how they are dominated by the non-local and local parts of the kernel, respectively. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our findings and outlining their applications to future work.

To achieve the above objectives, we shall adopt an open EFT approach [calzetta2009nonequilibrium, breuer2002theory] to the problem, an idea that has been gaining considerable importance over the last decade in cosmology [Burgess:2022rdo, burgess2016open, Colas:2022hlq, Colas:2022kfu, Colas:2023wxa, Colas:2024lse, Colas:2024xjy, Colas:2024ysu, Salcedo:2024smn, Boyanovsky:2015xoa, Boyanovsky:2015jen, Boyanovsky:2015tba, hollowood2017decoherence, shandera2018open, Choudhury:2018ppd, Brahma:2020zpk, Brahma:2021mng, Brahma:2022yxu, Burgess:2022nwu, banerjee2023thermalization, Kaplanek:2022xrr, Cao:2022kjn, Prudhoe:2022pte, Kading:2022hhc, Kading:2022jjl, Kading:2023mdk, Alicki:2023rfv, Alicki:2023tfz, Creminelli:2023aly, Keefe:2024cia, Bowen:2024emo, crossley2017effective, Colas:2022hlq, Burgess:2015ajz]. The main realization here is that open quantum systems are particularly suited to spacetimes with horizons, such as the one for accelerated expansion. There is a sector of the Hilbert space that is hidden from the observer, thus being dubbed “environment” $({\cal E})$, which can still exchange energy and information with the “system” $({\cal S})$ sub-sector. The usefulness of using an open quantum system is that it is able to coarse-grain the effects of the high energy or sub-Hubble dofs on the dynamics of the long-wavelength modes when there is no exclusion principle (such as the conservation of energy) available.

Hence, the master equation aims to capture the evolution of the system dofs by integrating (or tracing) out the environment modes. One of the main advantages of this formalism is that it can capture reliable late-time dynamics of the system by overcoming the secular growth associated with time-dependent backgrounds in cosmology. The underlying reason for secular growth at late times is that gravitational interactions are universal, and once turned on, it is not possible to isolate the system from the ever-present medium, namely, gravity. This implies that even in the weakly-interacting regime, for long time-intervals small effects can accumulate to lead to the failure of perturbation theory. Resummation of such late-time divergences typically implies deriving the master equation at some order in perturbations theory, say $\lambda^{2}$, and then treating it as the bona fide dynamical evolution equation that needs to be solved non-perturbatively without performing any expansion [Colas:2022hlq]. This means that the master equation would contain all term at $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{2})$ and some terms at $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{n>2})$.

The details of much of this discussion can be found in, say [breuer2002theory, Colas:2022hlq], and we only very briefly touch upon the time-convolutionless master equation formalism that we will employ for our model. The density matrix, corresponding to the entire system $({\cal S}+{\cal E})$ undergoes unitary evolution governed by the Louville-von Neumann equation:

$$\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}\tau}\rho_{I}(\tau)=-i\left[H_{I}(\tau),\rho_{I}(\tau)\right]\,,$$

(1)

where the interaction Hamiltonian has operators corresponding to both ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal E}$. For the ${\cal S}$ sub-sector, this equation can be put in an exact, closed form which determines the evolution of the reduced density matrix corresponding to ${\cal S}$, known as the Nakajima-Zwanzig master equation. However, it is an integro-differential equation that has exactly the same level of difficulty as the Louville-von Neumann equation, and thus needs to be solved using some approximation scheme.

The first of these is the so-called Born approximation, which assumes a weak coupling between ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal E}$ and expands in this interaction paarameter $\lambda$. One typically also assumes that the initial density matrix is in a factored state: $\rho(\tau_{0})=\rho^{\cal S}(\tau_{0})\otimes\rho^{\cal E}(\tau_{0})$. Although this is not an essential assumption, it is a natural one for cosmology since we will start off both the system and environment modes in the Bunch-Davies vacuum state. At $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{2})$, this results in a master equation of the form:

$$\partial_{t}\rho^{\cal S}(\tau)=-\lambda^{2}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}{\rm d}\tau^{\prime}\ {\rm Tr}_{\cal E}\big{[}H_{I}(\tau),\left[H_{I}(\tau^{\prime}),\rho^{\cal S}(\tau^{\prime})\otimes\rho^{\cal E}\right]\big{]}\;.$$

(2)

Since the RHS of the above equation has $\rho^{\cal S}$ depending on $\tau^{\prime}$, rather than on $\tau$ alone, this equation is not amenable to late-time resummations. This is because assuming that the master equation generates dynamics non-perturbatively, even though it is derived at $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{2})$, works only because it is not dependent on some specific value of time. The next popular approximation is the Markovian one where the above master equation reduces to the standard Lindblad form. However, in this work, we shall not invoke this restrictive limit which basically assumes that the master equation generates dynamics that fulfills a semi-group property, i.e., $\rho^{\cal S}(\tau^{\prime})=\mathcal{L}_{\tau\rightarrow\tau^{\prime}}\ \rho^{\cal S}(\tau)$ where $\mathcal{L}_{\tau\rightarrow\tau^{\prime}}=\mathcal{L}_{\tau\rightarrow\tau^{\prime\prime}}\ \mathcal{L}_{\tau^{\prime\prime}\rightarrow\tau^{\prime}}$.

Instead, we will work with the time-convolutionless approximation, based on a cumulant expansion (see [breuer2002theory] for details). In this case, one can rewrite the master equation, at leading order (hereafter the TCL₂ master equation), as

$$\partial_{t}\rho^{\cal S}(\tau)=-\lambda^{2}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}{\rm d}\tau^{\prime}\ {\rm Tr}_{\cal E}\big{[}H_{I}(\tau),\left[H_{I}(\tau^{\prime}),\rho^{\cal S}(\tau)\otimes\rho^{\cal E}\right]\big{]}\;.$$

(3)

Thus, at this order, the only difference is that in the TCL₂ master equation $\rho^{\cal S}$ is evaluated at $\tau$ instead of $\tau^{\prime}$. It can be shown that the terms dropped in this equation, as compared to (2), is at $\mathcal{O}(\lambda^{4})$ or higher. More importantly, the TCL formalism allows one to capture non-Markovian effects even though we end up working with a time-local equation. And this is exactly one of the technical issues that we wish to clarify in this work, and correct some associated errors in the literature on this topic.

Note that the reader might think that the substitution of $\rho^{\cal S}(\tau^{\prime})\rightarrow\rho^{\cal S}(\tau)$ in the above master equation is nothing but an application of the Markovian approximation to the system. Indeed, this line of thinking has been mistakenly employed before [Boyanovsky:2015tba, hollowood2017decoherence]. One of the goals of this work is to underscore that despite the (time-)local nature of the TCL₂ equation, it remains capable of adequately describing a non-Markovian system. However, a subtlety arises in the form of a residual artifact of the “memory” of the initial state remains in the lower limit of the integral on the RHS. In other words, when we compute the coefficients of the TCL₂ master equation, in terms of expressions quantifying diffusion and dissipation, we shall have to take particular care to drop such terms with explicit dependence on such initial time $\tau_{0}$. Such terms have been called “spurious” earlier in [Colas:2022hlq], and it will be shown that the TCL₂ cannot be resummed unless such terms are dropped by hand. Going beyond these technical aspects, the main message is that the system described by the TCL₂ master equation is not a Markovian one and we will show how previous results were only approximate since it did not involve a proper analyses of such spurious terms, and how we improve upon those results in our work.

Our model consists of a system comprising a minimally coupled scalar field ($\chi$) and an environment composed of a conformally coupled scalar field ($\psi$), with an interaction term which has previously been studied in [Boyanovsky:2015tba, Boyanovsky:2015jen, hollowood2017decoherence]. The reason behind studying this model is two-fold. Firstly, the associated memory kernel of the environment field has the advantage of cleanly splitting into two different contributions, one that is clearly time-local while the other non-local, as we will show later on. Secondly, the conformally-coupled “environment” field is a good proxy for the sub-Hubble modes since the latter are least influenced by the background curvature. On the other hand, the minimally coupled “system” scalar would also be assumed to be massless, thereby playing the role of the adiabatic degree of freedom. Therefore, this setup can play the role of a toy-model for stochastic inflation. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that this is still a model of two interacting test scalars in a dS background: ${\rm d}s^{2}=a(\tau)^{2}\left[-{\rm d}\tau^{2}+{\rm d}{\bf x}^{2}\right]$ where $a(\tau)=-1/(H\tau)$ is the scalar factor, $H$ the Hubble parameter and $\tau$ denotes the conformal time.

The action, written in terms of (canonical) Mukhanov-Sasaki fields, is given by

$${\cal S}=\int{\rm d}\tau\ {\rm d}^{3}x\ \Big{\{}\frac{1}{2}\Big{[}\chi^{\prime 2}-(\nabla\chi)^{2}+\frac{a^{\prime\prime}}{a}\chi^{2}+\psi^{\prime 2}-(\nabla\psi)^{2}\Big{]}+\lambda\ a\ \chi:\psi^{2}:\Big{\}}\;,$$

(4)

where primes denote derivatives with respect to conformal time, $\tau$. From the above action, we can obtain the system and environment Hamiltonians, together with the interaction potential, as:

	$\displaystyle{\hat{H}}_{\cal S}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{{\rm d}^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[{\hat{\pi}}_{{\small\bf k}}{\hat{\pi}}_{-{\small\bf k}}+k^{2}{\hat{\chi}}_{{\small\bf k}}{\hat{\chi}}_{-{\small\bf k}}+\frac{a^{\prime}}{a}\left({\hat{\chi}}_{{\small\bf k}}{\hat{\pi}}_{-{\small\bf k}}+{\hat{\pi}}_{{\small\bf k}}{\hat{\chi}}_{-{\small\bf k}}\right)\right]\;,$		(5)
	$\displaystyle{\hat{H}}_{\cal E}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{{\rm d}^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[{\hat{\pi}}^{(\psi)}_{{\small\bf k}}{\hat{\pi}}^{(\psi)}_{-{\small\bf k}}+k^{2}{\hat{\psi}}_{{\small\bf k}}{\hat{\psi}}_{-{\small\bf k}}\right]\;,$
	$\displaystyle{\hat{V}}(\tau)$	$\displaystyle=-\lambda a(\tau)\int{\rm d}^{3}x\ {\hat{\chi}}({\small\bf x}):{\hat{\psi}}^{2}({\small\bf x}):\;,$		(6)

where ${\hat{\pi}}$ is the momentum conjugate of ${\hat{\chi}}$, and ${\hat{\pi}}^{(\psi)}$ is that of ${\hat{\psi}}$, respectively. From here on, operators in the Schrödinger picture will be denoted with hats, while interaction picture operators will be denoted with tildes. Following [Boyanovsky:2015tba], the interaction term has been normal-ordered as $:\psi^{2}:=\psi^{2}-[{\rm Tr}(\rho_{0}\psi)]^{2}$, where $\rho_{0}$ is the initial (product) density matrix. Given the free Hamiltonians, the Heisenberg equations of motion can be evaluated as

$\displaystyle\chi^{\prime\prime}_{k}(\tau)+\left[k^{2}-\frac{2}{\tau^{2}}\right]\chi_{k}(\tau)=0\,,\qquad\psi^{\prime\prime}_{k}(\tau)+k^{2}\psi_{k}(\tau)=0\,,$

(7)

with solutions, assuming Bunch-Davies initial conditions, given by

$\displaystyle\chi_{k}(\tau)=\frac{e^{-ik\tau}}{\sqrt{2k}}\left(1-\frac{i}{k\tau}\right)\,,\qquad\psi_{k}(\tau)=\frac{e^{-ik\tau}}{\sqrt{2k}}\;,$

(8)

and similary for their conjugate momenta:

$$\pi_{k}(\tau)=\chi_{k}^{\prime}(\tau)-\frac{a^{\prime}}{a}\chi_{k}(\tau)=-i\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}e^{-ik\tau}\;,\qquad\pi^{(\psi)}_{k}(\tau)=-i\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}}\left(1+\frac{i}{k\tau}\right)\;.$$

(9)

Consequently, the quantum operators for the system field (and its conjugate momenta) read

	$\displaystyle\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf k}}(\tau)$	$\displaystyle=\chi_{k}(\tau)\hat{a}_{\bf k}+\chi_{k}^{*}(\tau)\hat{a}_{-\bf k}^{\dagger}\;,$		(10)
	$\displaystyle\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf k}}(\tau)$	$\displaystyle=\pi_{k}(\tau)\hat{a}_{\bf k}+\pi_{k}^{*}(\tau)\hat{a}_{-\bf k}^{\dagger}\;,$		(11)

where $\hat{a}_{\bf k}$ and $\hat{a}_{-\bf k}^{\dagger}$ are the annihilation and creation operators at $\tau_{0}$, respectively.

Finally, let us express these fields at arbitrary times in a time-local way, as required in the TCL framework. For this, we ‘solve’ (10) and (11) for $\hat{a}_{\bf k}$ and $\hat{a}_{-\bf k}^{\dagger}$ at $\tau$, and subsequently substitute these solutions back into the corresponding equations at $\tau^{\prime}$, yielding

	$\displaystyle\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau^{\prime})$	$\displaystyle=2\ {\rm Im}\left[\chi_{p}(\tau^{\prime})\pi_{p}^{*}(\tau)\right]\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)-2\ {\rm Im}\left[\chi_{p}(\tau^{\prime})\chi_{p}^{*}(\tau)\right]\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)\,,$		(12)
	$\displaystyle\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau^{\prime})$	$\displaystyle=2\ {\rm Im}\left[\pi_{p}^{*}(\tau)\pi_{p}(\tau^{\prime})\right]\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)-2\ {\rm Im}\left[\chi_{p}^{*}(\tau)\pi_{p}(\tau^{\prime})\right]\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)\;.$		(13)

Plugging the mode functions above, one obtains

	$\displaystyle\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau^{\prime})$	$\displaystyle=\left[\cos(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))+\frac{\sin(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))}{p\tau^{\prime}}\right]\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)$
		$\displaystyle-\left[\frac{\tau^{\prime}-\tau}{p^{2}\tau\tau^{\prime}}\cos(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))+\frac{1}{p}\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{2}\tau\tau^{\prime}}\right)\sin(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))\right]\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)\;,$		(14)
	$\displaystyle\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau^{\prime})$	$\displaystyle=p\sin(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))\tilde{\chi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)+\left[\cos(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))-\frac{1}{p\tau}\sin(p(\tau-\tau^{\prime}))\right]\tilde{\pi}_{{\small\bf p}}(\tau)\;.$		(15)