Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

A new calculation gives the exact four-point trispectrum of inflationary gauge fields and proves that in the counter-collinear limit the trispectrum parameter equals the square of the bispectrum parameter.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 17:00 UTC pith:MLYJNEVB

load-bearing objection First complete gauge-field trispectrum in kinetic-coupling inflation, with a clean counter-collinear consistency relation; structurally solid but rests on an unproven boundary-term drop. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.11143 v2 pith:MLYJNEVB submitted 2025-09-14 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc

Inflationary trispectrum of gauge fields from scalar and tensor exchanges

P. Jishnu Sai , S. R. Haridev , Rajeev Kumar Jain This is my paper
classification hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc MSC 83F0581T20 PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords inflationary magnetogenesisgauge field trispectrumin-in formalismkinetic couplingscalar exchangetensor exchangeconsistency relationprimordial non-Gaussianity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to compute the connected four-point autocorrelation function (trispectrum) of gauge fields produced during inflation through their kinetic coupling to the inflaton. Because gauge fields have no self-interactions, this trispectrum arises exclusively from exchange of scalar curvature perturbations or gravitons, so it is a clean probe of gravitational mediation. Using the in-in formalism and cosmological diagrammatic rules, the authors derive exact analytical expressions for the magnetic- and electric-field trispectra. In the counter-collinear (soft exchange) limit they find that the non-linearity parameter of the magnetic trispectrum equals the square of the corresponding cross-bispectrum parameter, establishing a hierarchical relation between higher- and lower-order correlators. If correct, this provides the first complete calculation of this observable and a new window into gauge-field dynamics during inflation.

Core claim

The central discovery is the exact connected four-point trispectrum of U(1) gauge fields in spectator kinetic-coupling models, computed for both scalar (curvature) and tensor (graviton) exchange. The scalar-exchange trispectrum is expressed through nested in-in time integrals and polarization coefficients built from projection tensors; in the equisided configuration it grows monotonically with exchange momentum, peaking in the flattened limit. In the counter-collinear limit, k_I → 0, the authors show — via an integral identity from the gauge-field equation of motion and the Wronskian normalization — that the trispectrum amplitude β^ζ_NL equals (b^ζ_NL)^2, where b^ζ_NL is the cross-bispectrum

What carries the argument

Cubic interaction Hamiltonians H_{ζAA}, H_{γAA} plus in-in diagrammatic rules yield nested time integrals of Wightman/Feynman propagators. Load-bearing: counter-collinear identity I^{A'A'} + k^2p^2 I^{AA} − k^2 I^{AA'} − p^2 I^{A'A} = 4λ^2 |ζ|^2 |A_k|^2 |A_p|^2 Im(A_k A'^*) Im(A_p A'^*); Appendix D proves it by integration by parts and the gauge-field equation of motion. The Bunch-Davies Wronskian turns it into β = b^2.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation drops the temporal boundary term B_{ζAA} when constructing the cubic interaction Hamiltonian, asserting it does not contribute to the four-point exchange diagrams; if that boundary term leaves a non-negligible contribution, the trispectrum amplitude and the β^ζ_NL = (b^ζ_NL)^2 relation would be modified.

What would settle it

Retain B_{ζAA} in the in-in evaluation and check the counter-collinear combination: if the identity I^{A'A'} + k^2p^2 I^{AA} − k^2 I^{AA'} − p^2 I^{A'A} develops an additional boundary piece, β^ζ_NL = (b^ζ_NL)^2 breaks. A simpler numerical check: evaluate the nested integrals in eqs. (4.30)-(4.31) for small but non-zero k_I and verify that the residue vanishes as k_I → 0; any k_I-independent leftover would falsify the relation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For scalar exchange, the magnetic trispectrum in the equisided configuration increases monotonically with the exchange momentum and reaches its maximum in the flattened limit, making that shape the most promising observational target.
  • In the counter-collinear limit the trispectrum satisfies β^ζ_NL = (b^ζ_NL)^2, relating the four-point amplitude to the square of the cross-bispectrum parameter, analogous to the standard trispectrum-bispectrum consistency relation for curvature perturbations.
  • The tensor-exchange trispectrum is suppressed by the tensor-to-scalar ratio (r ≲ 0.036) but carries angular modulations tied to graviton polarization, giving a possible distinguishing signature of tensor-mediated interactions.
  • The electric-field trispectrum is subdominant for a growing kinetic coupling, so the magnetic trispectrum is the primary observable.
  • Because gauge fields lack self-interactions, the connected four-point function is generated only by exchange diagrams, so this trispectrum isolates scalar- and tensor-mediated interactions without contact-diagram contamination.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the temporal boundary term B_{ζAA} were retained, one might expect local contact-type corrections; a direct computation including it would show whether the β^ζ_NL = (b^ζ_NL)^2 relation survives or acquires boundary corrections.
  • The quadratic hierarchy suggests a pattern for higher even-point functions: the 2p-point exchange amplitude in the soft limit may scale as (b^ζ_NL)^{p-1} times the appropriate power spectra, a generalization one could test at six points.
  • The angular modulations from tensor exchange could be searched for with existing and future CMB trispectrum estimators; detecting them would help discriminate between scalar and tensor mediation channels.
  • The result that a logarithmic enhancement appears only for n ≥ 3 (not n = 2) implies that the scale-invariant magnetogenesis case has a quieter trispectrum; observational templates may need to target models with steeper coupling evolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the connected four-point autocorrelation function of inflationary U(1) gauge fields in the kinetic-coupling model λ∝a^{2n}, focusing on exchange diagrams mediated by the curvature perturbation ζ and by tensor perturbations γ. Using the in-in formalism and cosmological diagrammatic rules, it reduces the trispectrum to nested time integrals over gauge-field and metric mode functions, with polarization coefficients written in terms of projection and generalized projection matrices. The magnetic (and electric) trispectra are evaluated for integer n=0,1,2,3 in the equisided and counter-collinear configurations. The central claim is that in the counter-collinear limit the magnetic trispectrum satisfies βζ_NL=(bζ_NL)^2, where bζ_NL is the non-linearity parameter of the ζ–B–B cross-bispectrum. The tensor-exchange trispectrum is presented as subdominant but with richer angular structure tied to the graviton polarization.

Significance. If correct, this is the first complete calculation of the gauge-field exchange trispectrum in this class of models and would provide a concrete, falsifiable shape of higher-order non-Gaussianity, including a Suyama–Yamaguchi-like hierarchy. The paper is systematic: the in-in integrals are written out explicitly, the polarization structure is shown to enforce the Coulomb-gauge condition, and the counter-collinear identities are traced back to the gauge-field equations of motion. Explicit integral results for n=0,...,3 and full polarization coefficients for three channels are supplied in the appendices. However, the two main physical claims—the numerical value of βζ_NL and the relation to bζ_NL—rest on an unproven assertion about temporal boundary terms and on a vertex-normalization consistency that the manuscript currently does not satisfy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.1.1] The derivation drops the temporal boundary term B_ζAA in eq. (3.6) after the assertion that such boundary terms do not contribute to four-point exchange diagrams. This is load-bearing and unproven. In the in-in contour, ∂_t B_ζAA produces a boundary operator at η0; since the external operators are evaluated at η0, a diagram with one bulk and one boundary vertex is of the same order in the interaction expansion. In the counter-collinear limit k_I→0 the ζ propagator becomes time-independent and the trispectrum in eq. (4.51) has precisely the local, factorized form Pζ(k_I)PB(k)PB(p) that boundary contact terms could generate. Therefore the identities (4.54)–(4.56), and hence the central relation βζ_NL=(bζ_NL)^2 in eq. (4.58), require an explicit proof, or a reference establishing cancellation of the boundary-vertex diagrams in this limit. As written, the relation is conditional.
  2. [Eq. (3.7) and Fig. 3 / Eq. (4.2)] The ζAA vertex normalization is inconsistent. Eq. (3.7) states H_ζAA = n ∫ d³x λζ(A′²−½F²), which would produce amplitudes proportional to n², whereas Fig. 3 assigns a vertex factor −i2nλ and the final results, e.g. eqs. (4.2) and (4.58), are written in terms of (˙λ/Hλ)² = 4n². If eq. (3.7) is correct, the trispectrum and βζ_NL are smaller by a factor 1/4 relative to (bζ_NL)^2; if eq. (4.2) is correct, the coefficient in eq. (3.7) should be 2n. This affects the central counter-collinear relation and must be fixed and propagated through all channel coefficients.
  3. [Sec. 4.1.1, Eqs. (4.53)–(4.57)] The displayed derivation of the counter-collinear amplitude is missing the prefactor 1/a^8 (and the channel factor) that appears in eq. (4.22). Eq. (4.53) writes ⟨B·B B·B⟩ with no 1/a^8, while eq. (4.57) equates the result to Pζ(k_I)PB(k)PB(p). Using PB(k)=2k²/a⁴|A_k|² from eq. (2.14), the product PζPB(k)PB(p) carries a factor 4/a^8. Unless eq. (4.53) is restored to include 4/a^8, the coefficient in eq. (4.57) does not follow from eq. (4.56). Please provide the corrected prefactor and verify that βζ_NL=(bζ_NL)^2 survives that restoration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1.1, Eqs. (4.48)–(4.50)] F is introduced as F(k_I/k, ϕ) in eq. (4.48), but eqs. (4.49)–(4.50) show explicit dependence on k and k_I separately. Please clarify the factorization and the dimensionless definition of F.
  2. [Throughout] The text repeatedly uses 'equisided' for what is elsewhere called 'equilateral'; please unify terminology. There are also typographical gaps such as 'I SAA′, ISA′A' in Sec. 4.1.
  3. [Sec. 5] The statement that β_NL≥(bζ_NL)^2 'can be established in general, as shown in [68]' is too terse; specify the precise inequality and its domain of validity.
  4. [Appendix C] The n=2 results contain dilogarithms and logarithmic terms; it would be helpful to state whether the integrals were cross-checked numerically in representative kinematic limits, since these expressions feed directly into the equisided analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the trispectrum is computed from the Hamiltonian and mode functions, not assumed; the boundary-term and channel-dominance issues are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. The paper starts from the kinetic-coupling action (2.7), constructs the cubic interaction Hamiltonians (3.5)-(3.8), applies the in-in master formula (3.1) with cosmological diagrammatic rules, and evaluates the resulting nested time integrals for integer n using the exact half-integer Hankel representation (4.38). The central counter-collinear result, beta^zeta_NL = (b^zeta_NL)^2, is obtained by evaluating the integrals and using the EOM-based identities (4.54)-(4.56), proven in Appendix D via integration by parts and the gauge-field equation of motion (D.3). The trispectrum amplitude is not set equal to the square of the bispectrum amplitude as an input; it emerges from the explicit double-vertex calculation. The value b^zeta_NL = dot(lambda)/(H lambda) is imported from prior cross-bispectrum computations [51,53,60], but it is an independent, previously derived coefficient, not fitted to the trispectrum. Self-citations appear in supporting roles (standard Hamiltonian, known squeezed bispectrum coefficient), but they are not used to force the central equality. The main unproven assumption is the neglect of the temporal boundary term B_zetaAA in eq. (3.6); also, the counter-collinear dominance of the first channel is asserted rather than fully proven. Both are potential correctness/completeness gaps, but they are not circular reductions: the calculation does not use the target trispectrum as an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore the paper does not exhibit significant circularity; its risk profile is dominated by unproven technical assumptions, not by circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its free parameters are the model's coupling index n and the observational tensor-to-scalar ratio r. The main load-bearing assumptions are the neglect of boundary terms and the de Sitter limit.

free parameters (2)
  • n = n = 2 (also considered 0, 1, 3)
    Power-law index of the kinetic coupling lambda proportional to a^(2n); chosen to give scale-invariant magnetic energy density for n = 2; model input, not fitted to data in this paper.
  • r = r less than or equal to 0.036 (upper bound)
    Tensor-to-scalar ratio used to estimate suppression of tensor exchange; taken from BICEP/Keck/Planck observations.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Bunch-Davies vacuum state and standard in-in formalism
    Used in Section 3.1 to define correlators; standard perturbative framework.
  • domain assumption De Sitter limit with slow-roll parameter epsilon to 0
    Section 3.2: neglects slow-roll suppressed interactions; standard approximation in such computations.
  • ad hoc to paper Temporal boundary term B_zetaAA does not contribute to four-point exchange diagrams
    Section 3.2 after eq. (3.6): assumed without proof; load-bearing for the trispectrum result.
  • domain assumption First channel dominates in counter-collinear limit
    Section 4.1.1: argued from kinematics but not shown in detail; basis for extracting beta_nl.
  • standard math Mode functions for gauge fields given by Hankel functions for integer n
    Section 2, eq. (2.10): solution to eq. (2.8); exact for chosen coupling.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32071 in / 11104 out tokens · 110951 ms · 2026-08-04T17:00:39.433809+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflationary trispectrum of gauge fields from scalar and tensor exchanges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MLYJNEVB

@misc{pith2026250911143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflationary trispectrum of gauge fields from scalar and tensor exchanges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MLYJNEVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.11143}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper, we compute the inflationary trispectrum of primordial gauge fields generated through the scalar and tensor exchanges in models with spectator $U(1)$ gauge fields which are kinetically coupled to the inflaton. Focusing on the connected four-point autocorrelation function of gauge fields, we derive exact analytical expressions for the full trispectrum of both electric and magnetic fields using the in-in formalism and cosmological diagrammatic rules, and explore their respective contributions in specific momentum configurations. For the scalar exchange, we find that the trispectrum signal in the equisided configuration grows with the exchange momentum and reaches its maximum in the flattened limit. However, in the counter collinear limit, we show that the non-linearity parameter associated with the trispectrum scales quadratically with the corresponding parameter of the cross-correlation bispectrum of magnetic fields and curvature perturbations, thereby establishing a hierarchical relation between the higher- and lower-order correlation functions. For the tensor exchange, the trispectrum displays a richer angular dependence, reflecting the sensitivity to the orientation of the momentum quadrilateral with respect to the tensor polarisation, producing characteristic angular modulations in the trispectrum. Detecting such angular signatures in future high-precision cosmological observations would provide a novel window into tensor-mediated interactions in the early universe.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 64 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys

    A.A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99

    1980

  2. [2]

    Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys

    A.H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347

    1981

  3. [3]

    Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,Phys

    A.D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems,Phys. Lett. B108(1982) 389

    1982

  4. [4]

    Starobinsky,Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe, JETP Lett.30(1979) 682

    A.A. Starobinsky,Spectrum of relict gravitational radiation and the early state of the universe, JETP Lett.30(1979) 682

    1979

  5. [5]

    Mukhanov and G.V

    V.F. Mukhanov and G.V. Chibisov,Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe,JETP Lett.33(1981) 532

    1981

  6. [6]

    Sriramkumar,An introduction to inflation and cosmological perturbation theory,0904.4584

    L. Sriramkumar,An introduction to inflation and cosmological perturbation theory,0904.4584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin,Encyclopædia Inflationaris,Phys. Dark Univ.5-6 (2014) 75 [1303.3787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, R. Trotta and V. Vennin,The Best Inflationary Models After Planck, JCAP03(2014) 039 [1312.3529]. [9]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A10 [1807.06211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [10]

    Chowdhury, J

    D. Chowdhury, J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin,Assessing the scientific status of inflation after Planck,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 083537 [1902.03951]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [11]

    BICEP, Keckcollaboration,Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 151301 [2110.00483]. – 35 –

    arXiv 2018

  11. [12]

    Campeti and E

    P. Campeti and E. Komatsu,New Constraint on the Tensor-to-scalar Ratio from the Planck and BICEP/Keck Array Data Using the Profile Likelihood,Astrophys. J.941(2022) 110 [2205.05617]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [13]

    Gangui and J

    A. Gangui and J. Martin,Cosmic microwave background bispectrum and slow roll inflation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.313(2000) 323 [astro-ph/9908009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  13. [14]

    Wang and M

    L.-M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski,The Cosmic microwave background bispectrum and inflation,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 063504 [astro-ph/9907431]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  14. [15]

    Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,JHEP05(2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603]

    J.M. Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,JHEP05(2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  15. [16]

    Creminelli,On non-Gaussianities in single-field inflation,JCAP10(2003) 003 [astro-ph/0306122]

    P. Creminelli,On non-Gaussianities in single-field inflation,JCAP10(2003) 003 [astro-ph/0306122]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  16. [17]

    Lyth and Y

    D.H. Lyth and Y. Rodriguez,The Inflationary prediction for primordial non-Gaussianity, Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005) 121302 [astro-ph/0504045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [18]

    Seery and J.E

    D. Seery and J.E. Lidsey,Primordial non-Gaussianities in single field inflation,JCAP06 (2005) 003 [astro-ph/0503692]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [19]

    Chen, M.-x

    X. Chen, M.-x. Huang, S. Kachru and G. Shiu,Observational signatures and non-Gaussianities of general single field inflation,JCAP01(2007) 002 [hep-th/0605045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [20]

    Chen,Primordial Non-Gaussianities from Inflation Models,Adv

    X. Chen,Primordial Non-Gaussianities from Inflation Models,Adv. Astron.2010(2010) 638979 [1002.1416]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [21]

    Wang,Inflation, Cosmic Perturbations and Non-Gaussianities,Commun

    Y. Wang,Inflation, Cosmic Perturbations and Non-Gaussianities,Commun. Theor. Phys.62 (2014) 109 [1303.1523]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [22]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama,Why Must Primordial Non-Gaussianity Be Very Small?,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 061301 [2104.01953]. [23]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A9 [1905.05697]. [24]LiteBIRDcollaboration,Probing Cosmic Inflation with the LiteBIRD Cosmic Microwave Backgro...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [25]

    Achúcarro et al.,Inflation: Theory and Observations,2203.08128

    A. Achúcarro et al.,Inflation: Theory and Observations,2203.08128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [26]

    Seery, J.E

    D. Seery, J.E. Lidsey and M.S. Sloth,The inflationary trispectrum,JCAP01(2007) 027 [astro-ph/0610210]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [27]

    Chen, M.-x

    X. Chen, M.-x. Huang and G. Shiu,The Inflationary Trispectrum for Models with Large Non-Gaussianities,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 121301 [hep-th/0610235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  25. [28]

    Arroja and K

    F. Arroja and K. Koyama,Non-gaussianity from the trispectrum in general single field inflation,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 083517 [0802.1167]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [29]

    Seery, M.S

    D. Seery, M.S. Sloth and F. Vernizzi,Inflationary trispectrum from graviton exchange,JCAP 03(2009) 018 [0811.3934]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [30]

    X. Chen, B. Hu, M.-x. Huang, G. Shiu and Y. Wang,Large Primordial Trispectra in General Single Field Inflation,JCAP08(2009) 008 [0905.3494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [31]

    Elliston, L

    J. Elliston, L. Alabidi, I. Huston, D. Mulryne and R. Tavakol,Large trispectrum in two-field slow-roll inflation,JCAP09(2012) 001 [1203.6844]. – 36 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [32]

    Byrnes, S

    C.T. Byrnes, S. Nurmi, G. Tasinato and D. Wands,Implications of the Planck bispectrum constraints for the primordial trispectrum,EPL103(2013) 19001 [1306.2370]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [33]

    Philcox,Searching for inflationary physics with the CMB trispectrum

    O.H.E. Philcox,Searching for inflationary physics with the CMB trispectrum. I. Primordial theory and optimal estimators,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 123532 [2502.04434]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [34]

    Philcox,Searching for inflationary physics with the CMB trispectrum

    O.H.E. Philcox,Searching for inflationary physics with the CMB trispectrum. II. Code and validation,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 123533 [2502.05258]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [35]

    Philcox,Searching for inflationary physics with the CMB trispectrum

    O.H.E. Philcox,Searching for inflationary physics with the CMB trispectrum. III. Constraints from Planck,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 123534 [2502.06931]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [36]

    Trivedi, T

    P. Trivedi, T. Seshadri and K. Subramanian,Cosmic Microwave Background Trispectrum and Primordial Magnetic Field Limits,Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 231301 [1111.0744]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  34. [37]

    Trivedi, K

    P. Trivedi, K. Subramanian and T.R. Seshadri,Primordial magnetic field limits from the CMB trispectrum: Scalar modes and Planck constraints,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 043523 [1312.5308]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [38]

    Bernardeau and J.-P

    F. Bernardeau and J.-P. Uzan,NonGaussianity in multifield inflation,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 103506 [hep-ph/0207295]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [39]

    Rigopoulos, E.P.S

    G.I. Rigopoulos, E.P.S. Shellard and B.J.W. van Tent,Large non-Gaussianity in multiple-field inflation,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083522 [astro-ph/0506704]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [40]

    Turner and L.M

    M.S. Turner and L.M. Widrow,Inflation Produced, Large Scale Magnetic Fields,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 2743

    1988

  38. [41]

    Ratra,Cosmological ’seed’ magnetic field from inflation,Astrophys

    B. Ratra,Cosmological ’seed’ magnetic field from inflation,Astrophys. J.391(1992) L1

    1992

  39. [42]

    Subramanian,Magnetic fields in the early universe,Astron

    K. Subramanian,Magnetic fields in the early universe,Astron. Nachr.331(2010) 110 [0911.4771]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [43]

    Durrer and A

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov,Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation,Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21(2013) 62 [1303.7121]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [44]

    Bamba and M

    K. Bamba and M. Sasaki,Large-scale magnetic fields in the inflationary universe,JCAP0702 (2007) 030 [astro-ph/0611701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [45]

    Martin and J

    J. Martin and J. Yokoyama,Generation of Large-Scale Magnetic Fields in Single-Field Inflation,JCAP0801(2008) 025 [0711.4307]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [46]

    Demozzi, V

    V. Demozzi, V. Mukhanov and H. Rubinstein,Magnetic fields from inflation?,JCAP0908 (2009) 025 [0907.1030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [47]

    Ferreira, R.K

    R.J. Ferreira, R.K. Jain and M.S. Sloth,Inflationary magnetogenesis without the strong coupling problem,JCAP10(2013) 004 [1305.7151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [48]

    Ferreira, R.K

    R.J. Ferreira, R.K. Jain and M.S. Sloth,Inflationary Magnetogenesis without the Strong Coupling Problem II: Constraints from CMB anisotropies and B-modes,JCAP06(2014) 053 [1403.5516]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [49]

    Caldwell, L

    R.R. Caldwell, L. Motta and M. Kamionkowski,Correlation of inflation-produced magnetic fields with scalar fluctuations,Phys. Rev.D84(2011) 123525 [1109.4415]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  47. [50]

    Motta and R.R

    L. Motta and R.R. Caldwell,Non-Gaussian features of primordial magnetic fields in power-law inflation,Phys. Rev.D85(2012) 103532 [1203.1033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [51]

    Jain and M.S

    R.K. Jain and M.S. Sloth,Consistency relation for cosmic magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 123528 [1207.4187]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [52]

    Shiraishi, S

    M. Shiraishi, S. Saga and S. Yokoyama,CMB power spectra induced by primordial cross-bispectra between metric perturbations and vector fields,JCAP1211(2012) 046 [1209.3384]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [53]

    Jain and M.S

    R.K. Jain and M.S. Sloth,On the non-Gaussian correlation of the primordial curvature perturbation with vector fields,JCAP02(2013) 003 [1210.3461]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [54]

    Kunze,CMB and matter power spectra from cross correlations of primordial curvature and magnetic fields,Phys

    K.E. Kunze,CMB and matter power spectra from cross correlations of primordial curvature and magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 103005 [1301.6105]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [55]

    Fujita and S

    T. Fujita and S. Yokoyama,Higher order statistics of curvature perturbations in IFF model and its Planck constraints,JCAP09(2013) 009 [1306.2992]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [56]

    Nurmi and M.S

    S. Nurmi and M.S. Sloth,Constraints on Gauge Field Production during Inflation,JCAP07 (2014) 012 [1312.4946]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [57]

    Chowdhury, L

    D. Chowdhury, L. Sriramkumar and M. Kamionkowski,Cross-correlations between scalar perturbations and magnetic fields in bouncing universes,JCAP01(2019) 048 [1807.05530]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [58]

    Chowdhury, L

    D. Chowdhury, L. Sriramkumar and M. Kamionkowski,Enhancing the cross-correlations between magnetic fields and scalar perturbations through parity violation,JCAP10(2018) 031 [1807.07477]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [59]

    Jain, P.J

    R.K. Jain, P.J. Sai and M.S. Sloth,On the primordial correlation of gravitons with gauge fields, JCAP03(2022) 054 [2108.10887]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [60]

    Sai and R.K

    P.J. Sai and R.K. Jain,Inflationary cross-correlations of a non-minimal spectator and their soft limits,JCAP09(2023) 043 [2307.07502]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [61]

    Tripathy, D

    S. Tripathy, D. Chowdhury, H.V. Ragavendra and L. Sriramkumar,Cross-correlation between the curvature perturbations and magnetic fields in pure ultraslow roll inflation,Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 063550 [2409.20232]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [62]

    Lyth,Large Scale Energy Density Perturbations and Inflation,Phys

    D.H. Lyth,Large Scale Energy Density Perturbations and Inflation,Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 1792

    1985

  60. [63]

    Mukhanov,Gravitational Instability of the Universe Filled with a Scalar Field,JETP Lett.41(1985) 493

    V.F. Mukhanov,Gravitational Instability of the Universe Filled with a Scalar Field,JETP Lett.41(1985) 493

    1985

  61. [64]

    Sasaki,Large Scale Quantum Fluctuations in the Inflationary Universe,Prog

    M. Sasaki,Large Scale Quantum Fluctuations in the Inflationary Universe,Prog. Theor. Phys. 76(1986) 1036

    1986

  62. [65]

    Weinberg,Adiabatic modes in cosmology,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Adiabatic modes in cosmology,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 123504 [astro-ph/0302326]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [66]

    Weinberg,Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 043514 [hep-th/0506236]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [67]

    Hinterbichler, L

    K. Hinterbichler, L. Hui and J. Khoury,Conformal Symmetries of Adiabatic Modes in Cosmology,JCAP08(2012) 017 [1203.6351]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [68]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann and D. Green,On Soft Limits of Inflationary Correlation Functions, JCAP11(2012) 047 [1204.4207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [69]

    Pajer and S

    E. Pajer and S. Jazayeri,Systematics of Adiabatic Modes: Flat Universes,JCAP03(2018) 013 [1710.02177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [70]

    Durrer, L

    R. Durrer, L. Hollenstein and R.K. Jain,Can slow roll inflation induce relevant helical magnetic fields?,JCAP1103(2011) 037 [1005.5322]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [71]

    R.K. Jain, R. Durrer and L. Hollenstein,Generation of helical magnetic fields from inflation, 1204.2409

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [72]

    Byrnes, L

    C.T. Byrnes, L. Hollenstein, R.K. Jain and F.R. Urban,Resonant magnetic fields from inflation,JCAP1203(2012) 009 [1111.2030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [73]

    Tripathy, D

    S. Tripathy, D. Chowdhury, R.K. Jain and L. Sriramkumar,Challenges in the choice of the nonconformal coupling function in inflationary magnetogenesis,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 063519 [2111.01478]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [74]

    Tripathy, D

    S. Tripathy, D. Chowdhury, H.V. Ragavendra, R.K. Jain and L. Sriramkumar,Circumventing the challenges in the choice of the nonconformal coupling function in inflationary magnetogenesis,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 043501 [2211.05834]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [75]

    Adshead, R

    P. Adshead, R. Easther and E.A. Lim,The ’in-in’ Formalism and Cosmological Perturbations, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 083521 [0904.4207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  73. [76]

    Giddings and M.S

    S.B. Giddings and M.S. Sloth,Cosmological diagrammatic rules,JCAP1007(2010) 015 [1005.3287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [77]

    Suyama and M

    T. Suyama and M. Yamaguchi,Non-Gaussianity in the modulated reheating scenario,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 023505 [0709.2545]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  75. [78]

    Suyama, Y

    T. Suyama, Y. Tada and M. Yamaguchi,Local observer effect on the cosmological soft theorem, PTEP2020(2020) 113E01 [2008.13364]. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020