Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 104 references

In a carefully chosen double limit of vanishing total energy and Hubble parameter, the paper claims the 2→2 de Sitter S-matrix is a universal integral transform of the flat-space amplitude, and that requiring generalized energy conservation

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

2026-08-03 08:07 UTC pith:JOCPCJWC

load-bearing objection The Hubble-flat-limit integral transform is a nice framing, but the paper's claim to cover arbitrary derivative interactions doesn't survive direct substitution into the bootstrap equation; the genuinely new part is also already in the references. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.18101 v3 pith:JOCPCJWC submitted 2026-01-26 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

EFT Perspective On de-Sitter S-Matrix

Sayantan Choudhury This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qchep-ph
keywords de Sitter S-matrixflat-space limitintegral transformeffective field theorygeneralized energy conservationexceptional EFTsDirac-Born-Infeld theorySpecial Galileon theory
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 show that, in a double limit where both the total energy E and the Hubble parameter H go to zero while their ratio E/H stays finite, the full tree-level 2→2 scattering amplitude in de Sitter space can be reconstructed from the flat-space S-matrix through one universal integral transform. If correct, this makes the analytic structure of flat-space amplitudes—poles, residues, and the mass spectrum—directly visible in the de Sitter S-matrix, and gives a concrete sense in which effective-field-theory reasoning carries over from flat space to cosmology. The paper further claims that demanding generalized energy conservation of the de Sitter S-matrix, meaning no energy creation or annihilation, fixes the quartic self-interactions of scalars in the exceptional series of de Sitter representations. That condition is shown to reproduce Dirac-Born-Infeld and Special Galileon theories and to predict new exceptional EFTs at higher integer conformal dimensions.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the 2→2 de Sitter S-matrix, defined through an LSZ-like reduction of amputated cosmological correlators, reduces in the Hubble flat-space limit to an integral transform of the flat-space amplitude: A'_{2→2} = s^{(2−d)/2} (H/2) ∫_0^∞ ds' s'^{(d−4)/2} exp(−i(E/H)√(s'/s)) M_{2→2}(s'; m_σ, J_q), where M_{2→2} is the flat-space tree amplitude with exchanged mass m_σ and derivative couplings J_q. The paper claims this relation holds for tree-level exchange with arbitrary local derivative interactions and that, unlike the simpler energy-conservation limit, it recovers the full flat-space amplitude including mass dependence. It also derives a s

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bunch-Davies de Sitter S-matrix obtained by an LSZ-like reduction: time-ordered correlation functions are amputated with the free-field equations of motion and put on shell through mode-function integrals (Eq. 3.36). The argument is carried by three pieces of machinery: a saddle-point approximation of the massive scalar propagator at early conformal times, which turns the de Sitter momentum integrals into a flat-space-like propagator; a bootstrap differential equation for the amplitude in the double limit, solved by postulating an energy-integral ansatz (Eqs. 5.19–5.21); and generalized energy conservation, which requires the energy-non-conserving residue at τ=0 to

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the saddle-point and solution-ansatz step used to evaluate the massive scalar propagator at early times; if that approximation misses derivative interactions, the claimed integral transform between the de Sitter and flat-space S-matrices fails, and the paper's own restriction to d≥5 shows the statement does not cover lower dimensions.

What would settle it

Compute the 2→2 exchange amplitude in d=5 for a single derivative interaction directly from the de Sitter Feynman rules without the saddle-point shortcut and compare with the transform formula (5.21)–(5.22); any discrepancy beyond the saddle-point error contradicts the claim. A simpler check is to extract the residue of the s=m_σ² pole in the double limit and verify it equals the flat-space amplitude's residue including the mass-dependent subleading term.

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

If this is right

  • In the Hubble flat-space limit, the full tree-level flat-space amplitude—pole structure, mass dependence, and derivative couplings—is recoverable from the de Sitter S-matrix, not just its massless high-energy part.
  • Because the total-energy dependence becomes negligible in this limit, the Mandelstam variable s is the unique energy scale, so the effective-field-theory power counting matches flat space.
  • The subleading singularity of the de Sitter amplitude carries the exchanged mass, so the mass spectrum of the theory is imprinted in the analytic structure of the S-matrix.
  • Imposing generalized energy conservation forbids cubic vertices and fixes all quartic couplings of exceptional-series scalars in terms of a single coupling for each integer conformal dimension Δ.
  • The DBI theory (Δ=4) and Special Galileon theory (Δ=5) are rediscovered, and new exceptional EFTs appear for Δ≥6 that likely require extra degrees of freedom.
  • The previously studied energy-conservation limit E→0 with H fixed is shown to recover only the massless high-energy part of the flat-space amplitude, whereas the Hubble flat-space limit recovers the complete tree-level amplitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper leaves implicit is to compute an exchange diagram with a single derivative interaction directly from the de Sitter Feynman rules in d=5 and compare with the transform formula; a mismatch would localize where the saddle-point step breaks down.
  • If the transform survives loop corrections, flat-space analyticity bounds could be imported into cosmology—a direction the paper frames only as motivation.
  • The generalized energy condition is effectively a stability axiom; deriving it from a microphysical principle, or finding a model where the non-conserving amplitudes are nonzero and unstable, would sharpen or refute the selection of exceptional EFTs.
  • The new Δ≥6 theories are presented only at leading order in a derivative expansion; checking whether their six-point amplitudes close without new degrees of freedom would confirm the tower or force new fields.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims two main results. First, in a 'Hubble flat-space limit' E→0, H→0 with E/H fixed, the de Sitter 2→2 S-matrix for conformally coupled scalars exchanging a massive scalar can be expressed as an integral transform of the flat-space amplitude: Eq. (5.21), with M_{2→2} given by Eq. (5.22), advertised as valid for tree-level amplitudes with arbitrary local derivative interactions. Second, imposing generalized energy conservation on four-point amplitudes of exceptional-series scalars in d=3 is claimed to uniquely fix coupling constants and to rediscover DBI and Special Galileon theories (Section 7). The paper also presents explicit d=5 exchange calculations and α-vacuum contact terms.

Significance. If the central relation (5.21)–(5.22) were correct, it would provide a concrete analytic bridge between flat-space S-matrix analyticity and de Sitter observables, potentially enabling EFT positivity arguments in dS. The exceptional-EFT bootstrap of Section 7 is also an interesting idea. However, the central derivation rests on an unproven ansatz and a saddle-point approximation, and the exceptional-EFT amplitudes are quoted without derivation. The explicit d=5 and contact computations are useful examples, but they do not by themselves establish the advertised generality. No machine-checked or numerical verification is provided; the paper's value lies in its analytic examples and conceptual proposal.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Eqs. (5.20)–(5.22)] The claimed 'general solution' does not solve the stated bootstrap equation. Substituting the q-th term of (5.21) with M_q(s') = -iJ_q s'^q/(s'-m_σ^2+iε) into L = s∂_E^2 + μ_σ^2 gives, at leading order in H, i/H Γ(d-2+2q)(H/iE)^{d-2+2q} s^q plus an O(H) pole contribution, whereas the RHS of (5.20) is i/H Γ(d-2+2q)(H/iE)^{d-2}(H/E)^{2q} s^q. For q=1, d=5 these differ by a sign; generally they differ by (-1)^q, and the pole term is absent from (5.20). Thus (5.21) is not a solution for q>0, and the arbitrary-derivative generalization of the central relation (2.2) is not established.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eqs. (5.7)–(5.11)] The saddle-point evaluation is performed for a φ^2σ exchange with no derivative vertices. For derivative interactions, vertex factors introduce additional powers of momenta and τ into the Λ integral, changing the saddle equation η'(Λ)=0 and the residue. No argument is given that the approximation (5.11) survives such modifications. Therefore the claim that (5.21) holds for 'arbitrary local derivative interactions' is unsupported.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 6–7] Eq. (4.5) contains Γ(d-4), and the text explicitly excludes d≤4 as IR divergent. Yet Section 7 analyzes d=3 (four-dimensional dS) exceptional-series amplitudes and quotes finite results. The manuscript must state precisely the domain of the integral-transform relation and explain why the d=3 generalized-energy-conservation analysis is unaffected by the divergence. As written, the abstract's unrestricted validity claim is inconsistent with the body.
  4. [Sec. 7, Eqs. (7.4), (7.15), (7.26)–(7.28)] The non-energy-conserving amplitudes A4^{(±)}|_{kT≠0} and the resulting coupling constraints (e.g., (7.5), (7.16), (7.22)–(7.23)) are quoted without derivation. These constraints are the basis for the DBI/Special Galileon rediscovery, so the computation must be shown or explicitly attributed (e.g., to [61]). In addition, for ∆=3 the constraint Θ_0^(3)=0 (Sec. 7.2) makes the four-point amplitude trivial, so the claimed 'unique four-point amplitude for every integer ∆≥4' is not demonstrated; the exceptional-series bootstrap is incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] Typos and formatting issues: 'EF T' in the title, 'de-Sitter' hyphenation, 'Hamtilonian' in Sec. 3, and inconsistent use of d vs. D. These should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (5.8)] The saddle-point formula uses α''(Λ0) but α is not defined; it should presumably be η''(Λ0). Please clarify.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.34)–(3.36)] The same symbol G is used for the correlator and the amputated correlator, which is confusing. Suggest distinct notation.
  4. [Eq. (4.5)] The expression (iE+ε)^{d-4} should use the standard iε prescription; the current notation is ambiguous about which ε is meant.
  5. [General] The relation to Ref. [61] (Du & Stefanyszyn) should be clarified: Section 7 appears to overlap significantly with that work, and the novel contributions relative to [61] should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The arbitrary-derivative dS-to-flat relation is the integral ansatz renamed: M_{2→2} in (5.22) is defined with the same J_q that already source the bootstrap equation (5.20), so the central 'relationship' is a definition rather than a derived prediction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 5.2, Eqs. (5.20)-(5.22); advertised in Abstract and Sec. 8]
    "The general solution of this bootstrap equation is given by in terms of the following integral: A′_{2→2} = s^{(2−d)/2} × H/2 × ∫_0∞ ds′ s′^{(d−4)/2} exp(−i E/H sqrt(s′/s)) M_{2→2}(s′;mσ,J_q), where the most general matrix element M_{2→2}(s′;mσ,J_q) := −i/(s′−mσ²+iϵ) Σ_{q=0}∞ J_q s′^q."

    Eq. (5.21) is the same integral ansatz as (5.19) rewritten in the variable s′, and the 'flat-space matrix element' M_{2→2} in (5.22) is defined to be the kernel of that transform, carrying the same undetermined coefficients J_q that already appear as the source terms of the bootstrap equation (5.20). The paper does not compute M from flat-space Feynman rules for arbitrary derivative interactions; it only asserts 'we have included all possible higher-derivative contact interactions' in (5.20). Hence the advertised relationship between the flat-space amplitude and the de Sitter S-matrix is, for the q>0/derivative part, established by construction: the kernel is renamed 'flat-space amplitude' and the dS amplitude is defined as its integral transform. This is a definitional reduction, not an i

full rationale

The single-massive-exchange case (q=0) does have self-contained content: Eqs. (5.16)-(5.19) start from the dS Feynman integral and the flat-space limit of the φ²σ exchange, and (5.19) does solve (5.18) (the τ-integral gives Γ(d−2)(H/iE)^{d−2}). However, the paper's advertised central claim covers 'arbitrary local derivative interactions' (Abstract). That generalization is carried by Eq. (5.20), which is posited as a 'general non-perturbative S-matrix bootstrap' rather than derived from dS Feynman rules with derivative vertices, and then Eq. (5.21)-(5.22) declares the general solution. Since M_{2→2}(s′;mσ,J_q) is defined with exactly the same J_q that source (5.20), the integral-transform relation is not an independent prediction: it is the solution ansatz rewritten, with the kernel relabeled as the flat-space amplitude. There are also unresolved correctness gaps — e.g., direct substitution of (5.21) into (5.20) for q>0 yields a q-dependent phase mismatch (i^{−2q}) and pole terms, indicating the 'general solution' is not even verified — but those are correctness risks, not additional circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the cited bootstrap and generalized-energy-conservation literature (refs. [15–17, 48, 58, 61]) is external, and self-citations are confined to future-directions/inflation references. The exceptional-EFT constraints in Sec. 7 are computed from amplitudes rather than fitted, so they do not add circularity. Net: the central arbitrary-derivative dS↔flat relation reduces by construction to the ansatz/definition, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on a set of domain and ad-hoc assumptions: the validity of the [46,47] S-matrix construction, the E/H double limit, d≥5 regularization, the saddle-point propagator approximation, and the residue-vanishing stability criterion. None are fitted to data; the coupling constraints solve consistency equations and leave one overall coupling undetermined. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Derivative truncation at 2Δ−4 operators = 2Δ−4
    The uniqueness of four-point amplitudes in Sec 7 depends on cutting the operator list at 2Δ−4 derivatives; including more derivatives could change the result.
  • Unconstrained overall couplings Θ_0^{(Δ)} = free
    Generalized energy conservation fixes ratios such as Θ_4 = −3/8 Θ_0, but leaves one overall coupling per Δ; the paper does not predict its value.
  • Flat-space higher-derivative coefficients J_q = unfixed
    The amplitude in (5.22) is parametrized by arbitrary J_q; the integral transform holds for any J_q, so the EFT content is carried by these coefficients and is not derived.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The dS S-matrix defined by amputated correlators and LSZ-type reduction (Eqs 3.34–3.36) exists and is finite in the relevant regime.
    Inherited from refs [46,47]; the paper states but does not prove the adiabatic/d-coefficient vanishing conditions (3.24)–(3.25).
  • ad hoc to paper The double limit E→0, H→0 with E/H finite and fixed s is the correct flat-space limit of the dS S-matrix.
    Introduced in Sec 2 and the conclusion as a new limit; no independent derivation that it uniquely recovers flat-space EFT.
  • ad hoc to paper For d≤4 the dS S-matrix amplitude diverges, so the claimed relations are restricted to d≥5.
    Sec 4.1: 'for d≤4 always the corresponding scattering amplitude diverges'; this excludes low dimensions including the 4d exceptional-series application.
  • ad hoc to paper The saddle-point/early-time approximation of the massive propagator (Eqs 5.7–5.11) is valid for arbitrary local derivative interactions.
    Needed for the integral transform (5.13)/(5.21); no error bound or proof is supplied for arbitrary derivative couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper Vanishing of the non-energy-conserving amplitude A_{kT≠0} is equivalent to absence of instabilities, and all such support arises from the η=0 residue.
    This equivalence is the basis for all coupling constraints in Sec 7 but is asserted rather than derived (Sec 6, Eqs 6.1–6.6).
  • domain assumption Exceptional-series scalars have integer conformal dimension Δ with masses m² = Δ(3−Δ)H² (Eq 6.7), and operators are restricted to at most 2Δ−4 derivatives.
    Standard dS representation theory input; the derivative truncation is chosen by hand.
  • standard math Tree-level perturbation theory, the iϵ prescription, and Sokhotski-Plemelj distribution identities.
    Standard QFT tools used throughout the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30368 in / 21160 out tokens · 213849 ms · 2026-08-03T08:07:15.903834+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Non-perturbative limitations on low-energy effective field theories (EFTs) based on the characteristics of high-energy theory are provided by the analyticity of the flat-space version of the S-matrix. Although the analyticity of the flat-space S-matrix is widely established, it is difficult to apply this framework to de Sitter space because the growing backdrop breaks time-translation symmetry and makes it more difficult to define asymptotic states. The flat-space analyticity imprint on the de Sitter S-matrix is examined in this study. On a certain limit, we derive a comprehensive relationship between the flat-space amplitude and the de Sitter S-matrix. In particular, we demonstrate that the relationship is valid for tree-level amplitude exchanging with arbitrary local derivative interactions with a large scalar field. Next, we contend that this specific limit is more consistent with the definition of EFT since, similar to flat space, the Mandelstam variable may be identified as the unique energy scale because the total energy dependence of the de Sitter S-matrix becomes negligible. Finally, we also find an unexpected connection between the idea of generalized energy conservation of an S-matrix of four-dimensional de Sitter and exceptional EFTs in de Sitter space. We restrict the coupling constants in theories of self-interacting scalars dwelling in the exceptional series of de Sitter representations by requiring that such an S-matrix only has support when the total energies of in and out states are equal. We rediscover the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) and Special Galileon theories, in which a single coupling constant uniquely fixes the four-point scalar self-interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18101 by Sayantan Choudhury.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png] view at source ↗

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

104 extracted references · 88 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive, and J. C. Polkinghorne,The analytic S-matrix. Cambridge University Press, 1966

    1966

  2. [2]

    Elvang and Y.-t

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering Amplitudes in Gauge Theory and Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation,

    T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, “Evaluation of the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral Lagrangian From Forward Dispersion Relation,”Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 3027

    1985

  4. [4]

    Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, “Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,”JHEP10(2006) 014, arXiv:hep-th/0602178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Vacuum states and the S matrix in dS / CFT,

    M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Vacuum states and the S matrix in dS / CFT,”Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 104037,arXiv:hep-th/0112223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Cosmology and the S-matrix,

    R. Bousso, “Cosmology and the S-matrix,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 064024, arXiv:hep-th/0412197

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Perturbative S-matrix for massive scalar fields in global de Sitter space,

    D. Marolf, I. A. Morrison, and M. Srednicki, “Perturbative S-matrix for massive scalar fields in global de Sitter space,”Class. Quant. Grav.30(2013) 155023,arXiv:1209.6039 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Quantum Break-Time of de Sitter,

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and S. Zell, “Quantum Break-Time of de Sitter,”JCAP06(2017) 028,arXiv:1701.08776 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Scattering in the static patch of de Sitter space,

    E. Albrychiewicz and Y. Neiman, “Scattering in the static patch of de Sitter space,” Phys. Rev. D103no. 6, (2021) 065014,arXiv:2012.13584 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    CMB from CFT,

    I. Mata, S. Raju, and S. Trivedi, “CMB from CFT,”JHEP07(2013) 015, arXiv:1211.5482 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Constraints from Conformal Symmetry on the Three Point Scalar Correlator in Inflation,

    N. Kundu, A. Shukla, and S. P. Trivedi, “Constraints from Conformal Symmetry on the Three Point Scalar Correlator in Inflation,”JHEP04(2015) 061,arXiv:1410.2606 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Ward Identities for Scale and Special Conformal Transformations in Inflation,

    N. Kundu, A. Shukla, and S. P. Trivedi, “Ward Identities for Scale and Special Conformal Transformations in Inflation,”JHEP01(2016) 046,arXiv:1507.06017 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Conformal Invariance and the Four Point Scalar Correlator in Slow-Roll Inflation,

    A. Ghosh, N. Kundu, S. Raju, and S. P. Trivedi, “Conformal Invariance and the Four Point Scalar Correlator in Slow-Roll Inflation,”JHEP07(2014) 011,arXiv:1401.1426 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    The Cosmological Bootstrap: Inflationary Correlators from Symmetries and Singularities,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, “The Cosmological Bootstrap: Inflationary Correlators from Symmetries and Singularities,”JHEP04(2020) 105,arXiv:1811.00024 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    The cosmological 39 bootstrap: weight-shifting operators and scalar seeds,

    D. Baumann, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, “The cosmological 39 bootstrap: weight-shifting operators and scalar seeds,”JHEP12(2020) 204, arXiv:1910.14051 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    The Cosmological Bootstrap: Spinning Correlators from Symmetries and Factorization,

    D. Baumann, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, “The Cosmological Bootstrap: Spinning Correlators from Symmetries and Factorization,”SciPost Phys.11 (2021) 071,arXiv:2005.04234 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Implications of conformal invariance in momentum space,

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, “Implications of conformal invariance in momentum space,”JHEP03(2014) 111,arXiv:1304.7760 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Scalar 3-point functions in CFT: renormalisation, beta functions and anomalies,

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, “Scalar 3-point functions in CFT: renormalisation, beta functions and anomalies,”JHEP03(2016) 066,arXiv:1510.08442 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Renormalised CFT 3-point functions of scalars, currents and stress tensors,

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, “Renormalised CFT 3-point functions of scalars, currents and stress tensors,”JHEP11(2018) 159,arXiv:1805.12100 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Momentum space conformal three-point functions of conserved currents and a general spinning operator,

    H. Isono, T. Noumi, and T. Takeuchi, “Momentum space conformal three-point functions of conserved currents and a general spinning operator,”JHEP05(2019) 057, arXiv:1903.01110 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Momentum space approach to crossing symmetric CFT correlators. Part II. General spacetime dimension,

    H. Isono, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, “Momentum space approach to crossing symmetric CFT correlators. Part II. General spacetime dimension,”JHEP10(2019) 183, arXiv:1908.04572 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Building a Boostless Bootstrap for the Bispectrum,

    E. Pajer, “Building a Boostless Bootstrap for the Bispectrum,”JCAP01(2021) 023, arXiv:2010.12818 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Observational signatures and non-Gaussianities of general single field inflation,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    Large non-Gaussianities with Intermediate Shapes from Quasi-Single Field Inflation,

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, “Large non-Gaussianities with Intermediate Shapes from Quasi-Single Field Inflation,”Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 063511,arXiv:0909.0496 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    The Effective Field Theory of Inflation,

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore, “The Effective Field Theory of Inflation,”JHEP03(2008) 014,arXiv:0709.0293 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    On the consistency relation of the 3-point function in single field inflation,

    C. Cheung, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore, “On the consistency relation of the 3-point function in single field inflation,”JCAP02(2008) 021,arXiv:0709.0295 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Starting the Universe: Stable Violation of the Null Energy Condition and Non-standard Cosmologies,

    P. Creminelli, M. A. Luty, A. Nicolis, and L. Senatore, “Starting the Universe: Stable Violation of the Null Energy Condition and Non-standard Cosmologies,”JHEP12(2006) 080,arXiv:hep-th/0606090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    Ghost inflation,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Creminelli, S. Mukohyama, and M. Zaldarriaga, “Ghost inflation,” JCAP04(2004) 001,arXiv:hep-th/0312100

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    On the time evolution of cosmological correlators,

    S. C´ espedes, A.-C. Davis, and S. Melville, “On the time evolution of cosmological correlators,”JHEP02(2021) 012,arXiv:2009.07874 [hep-th]. 40

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    From locality and unitarity to cosmological correlators,

    S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, “From locality and unitarity to cosmological correlators,”JHEP10(2021) 065,arXiv:2103.08649 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Analyticity and unitarity for cosmological correlators,

    L. Di Pietro, V. Gorbenko, and S. Komatsu, “Analyticity and unitarity for cosmological correlators,”JHEP03(2022) 023,arXiv:2108.01695 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    From dS to AdS and back,

    C. Sleight and M. Taronna, “From dS to AdS and back,”JHEP12(2021) 074, arXiv:2109.02725 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Cosmological Cutting Rules,

    S. Melville and E. Pajer, “Cosmological Cutting Rules,”JHEP05(2021) 249, arXiv:2103.09832 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Cutting cosmological correlators,

    H. Goodhew, S. Jazayeri, M. H. G. Lee, and E. Pajer, “Cutting cosmological correlators,” JCAP08(2021) 003,arXiv:2104.06587 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Perturbative unitarity and the wavefunction of the Universe,

    S. Albayrak, P. Benincasa, and C. Duaso Pueyo, “Perturbative unitarity and the wavefunction of the Universe,”SciPost Phys.16no. 6, (2024) 157,arXiv:2305.19686 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    The cosmological tree theorem,

    S. Agui Salcedo and S. Melville, “The cosmological tree theorem,”JHEP12(2023) 076, arXiv:2308.00680 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Linking the singularities of cosmological correlators,

    D. Baumann, W.-M. Chen, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, “Linking the singularities of cosmological correlators,”JHEP09(2022) 010, arXiv:2106.05294 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Cutting rule for in-in correlators and cosmological collider,

    Y. Ema and K. Mukaida, “Cutting rule for in-in correlators and cosmological collider,” JHEP12(2024) 194,arXiv:2409.07521 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    The Analytic Wavefunction,

    S. A. Salcedo, M. H. G. Lee, S. Melville, and E. Pajer, “The Analytic Wavefunction,” JHEP06(2023) 020,arXiv:2212.08009 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    From amplitudes to analytic wavefunctions,

    M. H. G. Lee, “From amplitudes to analytic wavefunctions,”JHEP03(2024) 058, arXiv:2310.01525 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Dispersive bootstrap of massive inflation correlators,

    H. Liu, Z. Qin, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, “Dispersive bootstrap of massive inflation correlators,” JHEP02(2025) 101,arXiv:2407.12299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    The Cosmological CPT Theorem,

    H. Goodhew, A. Thavanesan, and A. C. Wall, “The Cosmological CPT Theorem,” arXiv:2408.17406 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  44. [44]

    No-go Theorem for Cosmological Parity Violation,

    A. Thavanesan, “No-go Theorem for Cosmological Parity Violation,”arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Kosmic Field Theories: Towards Holographic Duals for Unitary String Cosmologies,

    A. Thavanesan and A. C. Wall, “Kosmic Field Theories: Towards Holographic Duals for Unitary String Cosmologies,”arXiv:2510.21701 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  46. [46]

    de Sitter S matrix for the masses,

    S. Melville and G. L. Pimentel, “de Sitter S matrix for the masses,”Phys. Rev. D110 no. 10, (2024) 103530,arXiv:2309.07092 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    A de Sitter S-matrix from amputated cosmological correlators,

    S. Melville and G. L. Pimentel, “A de Sitter S-matrix from amputated cosmological correlators,”JHEP08(2024) 211,arXiv:2404.05712 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    The in-out formalism for in-in correlators,

    Y. Donath and E. Pajer, “The in-out formalism for in-in correlators,”JHEP07(2024) 41 064,arXiv:2402.05999 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    The massive flat space limit of cosmological correlators,

    S. Cespedes and S. Jazayeri, “The massive flat space limit of cosmological correlators,” JHEP07(2025) 032,arXiv:2501.02119 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Imprints of flat space analyticity in de Sitter S-matrix,

    J. Kristiano, R. Namba, A. Naruko, R. Saito, and D. Yamauchi, “Imprints of flat space analyticity in de Sitter S-matrix,”arXiv:2511.22623 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  51. [51]

    On the formulation of quantized field theories,

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, “On the formulation of quantized field theories,”Nuovo Cim.1(1955) 205–225

    1955

  52. [52]

    Particle Creation in de Sitter Space,

    E. Mottola, “Particle Creation in de Sitter Space,”Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 754

    1985

  53. [53]

    Vacuum States in de Sitter Space,

    B. Allen, “Vacuum States in de Sitter Space,”Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 3136

    1985

  54. [54]

    Alpha-Vacua, Black Holes, and AdS/CFT,

    A. Chamblin and J. Michelson, “Alpha-Vacua, Black Holes, and AdS/CFT,”Class. Quant. Grav.24(2007) 1569–1604,arXiv:hep-th/0610133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Four Point Functions of the Stress Tensor and Conserved Currents in AdS4/CFT3,

    S. Raju, “Four Point Functions of the Stress Tensor and Conserved Currents in AdS4/CFT3,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 126008,arXiv:1201.6452 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    New Recursion Relations and a Flat Space Limit for AdS/CFT Correlators,

    S. Raju, “New Recursion Relations and a Flat Space Limit for AdS/CFT Correlators,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 126009,arXiv:1201.6449 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Cosmological Polytopes and the Wavefunction of the Universe,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Benincasa, and A. Postnikov, “Cosmological Polytopes and the Wavefunction of the Universe,”arXiv:1709.02813 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Cosmological Collider Physics,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, “Cosmological Collider Physics,” arXiv:1503.08043 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Quasi-Single Field Inflation and Non-Gaussianities,

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, “Quasi-Single Field Inflation and Non-Gaussianities,”JCAP04 (2010) 027,arXiv:0911.3380 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [60]

    Effective field theory approach to quasi-single field inflation and effects of heavy fields,

    T. Noumi, M. Yamaguchi, and D. Yokoyama, “Effective field theory approach to quasi-single field inflation and effects of heavy fields,”JHEP06(2013) 051, arXiv:1211.1624 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  61. [61]

    New Exceptional Effective Field Theories in de Sitter Space from Generalized Energy Conservation,

    Z.-Z. Du and D. Stefanyszyn, “New Exceptional Effective Field Theories in de Sitter Space from Generalized Energy Conservation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135no. 20, (2025) 201501,arXiv:2506.21759 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Quintessential Inflation in Light of ACT DR6,

    S. Choudhury, S. K. Singh, and S. K. Sahoo, “Quintessential Inflation in Light of ACT DR6,”arXiv:2511.19898 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  63. [63]

    What new physics can we extract from inflation using the ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 Observations?,

    S. Choudhury, G. Bauyrzhan, S. K. Singh, and K. Yerzhanov, “What new physics can we extract from inflation using the ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 Observations?,” arXiv:2506.15407 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Brane inflation in background supergravity,

    S. Choudhury and S. Pal, “Brane inflation in background supergravity,”Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 043529,arXiv:1102.4206 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    DBI Galileon inflation in background SUGRA,

    S. Choudhury and S. Pal, “DBI Galileon inflation in background SUGRA,”Nucl. Phys. B 874(2013) 85–114,arXiv:1208.4433 [hep-th]. 42

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Higgs inflation from new K¨ ahler potential,

    S. Choudhury, T. Chakraborty, and S. Pal, “Higgs inflation from new K¨ ahler potential,” Nucl. Phys. B880(2014) 155–174,arXiv:1305.0981 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    Low & High scale MSSM inflation, gravitational waves and constraints from Planck,

    S. Choudhury, A. Mazumdar, and S. Pal, “Low & High scale MSSM inflation, gravitational waves and constraints from Planck,”JCAP07(2013) 041, arXiv:1305.6398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    An accurate bound on tensor-to-scalar ratio and the scale of inflation,

    S. Choudhury and A. Mazumdar, “An accurate bound on tensor-to-scalar ratio and the scale of inflation,”Nucl. Phys. B882(2014) 386–396,arXiv:1306.4496 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    ConstrainingN= 1 supergravity inflationary framework with non-minimal K¨ ahler operators,

    S. Choudhury, A. Mazumdar, and E. Pukartas, “ConstrainingN= 1 supergravity inflationary framework with non-minimal K¨ ahler operators,”JHEP04(2014) 077, arXiv:1402.1227 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Constraining N = 1 supergravity inflation with non-minimal Kaehler operators usingδN formalism,

    S. Choudhury, “Constraining N = 1 supergravity inflation with non-minimal Kaehler operators usingδN formalism,”JHEP04(2014) 105,arXiv:1402.1251 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  71. [71]

    Reconstructing inflationary potential from BICEP2 and running of tensor modes,

    S. Choudhury and A. Mazumdar, “Reconstructing inflationary potential from BICEP2 and running of tensor modes,”arXiv:1403.5549 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    Can Effective Field Theory of inflation generate large tensor-to-scalar ratio within Randall–Sundrum single braneworld?,

    S. Choudhury, “Can Effective Field Theory of inflation generate large tensor-to-scalar ratio within Randall–Sundrum single braneworld?,”Nucl. Phys. B894(2015) 29–55, arXiv:1406.7618 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  73. [73]

    Reconstructing inflationary paradigm within Effective Field Theory framework,

    S. Choudhury, “Reconstructing inflationary paradigm within Effective Field Theory framework,”Phys. Dark Univ.11(2016) 16–48,arXiv:1508.00269 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    COSMOS-e’-GTachyon from string theory,

    S. Choudhury and S. Panda, “COSMOS-e’-GTachyon from string theory,”Eur. Phys. J. C76no. 5, (2016) 278,arXiv:1511.05734 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  75. [75]

    COSMOS-e ′- soft Higgsotic attractors,

    S. Choudhury, “COSMOS-e ′- soft Higgsotic attractors,”Eur. Phys. J. C77no. 7, (2017) 469,arXiv:1703.01750 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  76. [76]

    Stochastic origin of primordial fluctuations in the sky,

    S. Choudhury, “Stochastic origin of primordial fluctuations in the sky,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34no. 16, (2025) 2544023,arXiv:2503.17635 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Negative non-Gaussianity as a salvager for PBHs with PTAs in bounce,

    S. Choudhury, K. Dey, S. Ganguly, A. Karde, S. K. Singh, and P. Tiwari, “Negative non-Gaussianity as a salvager for PBHs with PTAs in bounce,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 4, (2025) 472,arXiv:2409.18983 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Large fluctuations and primordial black holes,

    S. Choudhury and M. Sami, “Large fluctuations and primordial black holes,”Phys. Rept. 1103(2025) 1–276,arXiv:2407.17006 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Obviating PBH overproduction for SIGWs generated by pulsar timing arrays in loop corrected EFT of bounce,

    S. Choudhury, S. Ganguly, S. Panda, S. SenGupta, and P. Tiwari, “Obviating PBH overproduction for SIGWs generated by pulsar timing arrays in loop corrected EFT of bounce,”JCAP09(2024) 013,arXiv:2407.18976 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Regularized-renormalized-resummed loop corrected power spectrum of non-singular bounce with Primordial Black Hole formation,

    S. Choudhury, A. Karde, S. Panda, and S. SenGupta, “Regularized-renormalized-resummed loop corrected power spectrum of non-singular bounce with Primordial Black Hole formation,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 11, (2024) 1149, arXiv:2405.06882 [astro-ph.CO]. 43

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.