Trispectrum in Extended USR Model with Transition to SR

Amin Nassiri-Rad; Hassan Firouzjahi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Trispectrum in Extended USR Model with Transition to SR

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a two-phase USR-SR inflation model, the four-point correlation function of curvature perturbations is exactly local, with amplitudes g_NL = 25h^3/[3(h-6)^3] and tau_NL = 9h^4/(h-6)^4, identical in delta-N and in-in formalisms.

desk verdict A serious analytic calculation with a real gap: the quoted in-in results agree with δN, but the decisive integrals are asserted, not shown, so the agreement is credible rather than verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09608 v1 pith:YJN7DEKF submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Hassan Firouzjahi , Amin Nassiri-Rad This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

keywords ultra-slow-rollinflationtrispectrumprimordialnon-Gaussianityg_NLtau_NLdelta-Nformalismin-insharpnessparameter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that in a two-phase inflation model—an extended ultra-slow-roll (USR) stage followed by a slow-roll (SR) attractor—the four-point correlation function of the curvature perturbation (the trispectrum) has a purely local shape, with amplitudes controlled entirely by one sharpness parameter h. The authors compute g_NL and tau_NL using both delta-N and in-in formalisms and find identical results. They conclude that the trispectrum is largest when the USR-to-SR transition is infinitely sharp, reaching g_NL = 25/3 and tau_NL = 9, and is washed out for mild transitions. This matters because a detectable primordial trispectrum of this local type would single out sharp USR-to-SR transitions, with implications for primordial-black-hole-forming inflation models.

What carries the argument

The key object is the sharpness parameter h, defined by h = -6 sqrt(epsilon_V/epsilon_e), which measures how abruptly the USR phase switches to the SR attractor; equivalently, the second slow-roll parameter jumps as eta = -6 - h theta(tau - tau_e), so eta' = -h delta(tau - tau_e) acts as a local source in the interaction Hamiltonian. In the delta-N treatment, the expansion of the number of e-folds N(phi, pi) in phase space produces N', N'', and N''', whose combinations yield f_NL, g_NL, and tau_NL. In the in-in treatment, the cubic and quartic Hamiltonians from the EFT of inflation are combined with this delta-function source and the mode functions with alpha_k and beta_k coefficients; the t

What would settle it

Numerically compute the four-point function for a smooth USR-SR transition of finite width (for example, a tanh profile for eta with adjustable width) and compare g_NL and tau_NL with Eqs. (3.17) and (3.18). If the amplitudes differ by more than width-suppressed corrections, the instantaneous-delta idealization is doing the work; if they agree in the sharp limit, the idealization is validated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, when all four modes leave the horizon during the USR phase, the trispectrum at the end of inflation is exactly local (Eq. 4.22): T_R = 9h^4/(h-6)^4 [P_R(k13)P_R(k3)P_R(k4) + 11 perms] + 18h^3/(h-6)^3 [P_R(k2)P_R(k3)P_R(k4) + 3 perms]. This fixes g_NL = 25h^3/[3(h-6)^3] and tau_NL = 9h^4/(h-6)^4, so tau_NL = (36/25) f_NL^2, saturating the single-field tree-level inequality tau_NL >= (36/25) f_NL^2 exactly. The authors show that the same amplitudes emerge from delta-N and in-in/EFT calculations, including the separate infinitely sharp limit computed at the transition time with the nonlinear pi-R dictionary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the USR-to-SR transition is exactly instantaneous at tau_e, modeled by a step function in eta (eta = -6 - h theta(tau - tau_e)) with eta_V set to zero; the authors note in Section 2 that a smooth potential would require a full numerical treatment, so a finite transition width could alter the computed g_NL and tau_NL.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The four-point function is exactly local in this setup: no extra momentum dependence appears beyond products of power spectra, once all modes are superhorizon at the transition.
The equality tau_NL = (36/25) f_NL^2 holds for every value of h, so the single-field tree-level inequality is saturated rather than merely satisfied.
The largest trispectrum occurs at an infinitely sharp transition, g_NL = 25/3 and tau_NL = 9; a mild transition suppresses both toward zero.
Agreement between delta-N and in-in formalisms confirms that the EFT decoupling-limit cubic and quartic Hamiltonians used here are adequate for this trispectrum.
Computing the trispectrum directly at the transition time in the infinitely sharp limit reproduces the general formula, validating the half-delta integration rule for the local source.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the transition has finite width, the delta-function source in eta' is smeared; one expects g_NL and tau_NL to be suppressed relative to Eq. (4.22), so the h-dependence provides a template for relating measured trispectrum amplitudes to transition sharpness.
The purely local trispectrum with possibly large g_NL and tau_NL shapes the tail of the curvature perturbation distribution, so primordial-black-hole abundance estimates in this model should include four-point corrections, not just f_NL.
Releasing the assumption that all four modes exit during the USR phase would generate non-local trispectrum shapes; the in-in computation is set up to handle that case, while the delta-N route would need modification.
The half-delta regularization is a convention tied to the instantaneous-transition idealization; a numerical smooth-potential calculation could test whether the h -> -infinity limit is robust.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new content is the h-dependent trispectrum in the two-phase USR–SR model: g_NL(h) and τ_NL(h) in Eq. (4.22), the local-shape decomposition, and the h→−∞ limit giving g_NL=25/3, τ_NL=9. That fills a real gap in the PBH/USR literature, and the physics story—sharp transitions preserve non-Gaussianity, mild transitions wash it out—is coherent and consistent with the earlier bispectrum result. The shape analysis in Section 6 is honest and useful.

The paper's credit comes from doing two formalisms and getting the same answer. But that credit is limited by what is actually in the manuscript. The δN part is short and clean, though the heavy lifting for N(φ,π) is imported from [30]. The in-in part is where the new work must be: six coefficients, Eqs. (4.9)–(4.11) and (4.17)–(4.19), are each stated after “performing the in-in integral,” and Appendix A gives a generic decomposition but never evaluates a single nested integral. For a paper whose central claim is that the two formalisms produce exactly the same trispectrum, this is a load-bearing gap. Agreement between δN and in-in is a necessary consistency check but not sufficient: both derivations assume the same instantaneous transition and the same η′=−hδ source, so a common algebraic mistake could produce matching wrong answers. I would want to see at least one complete H3 double-integral evaluation, or a reproducible numerical check, before trusting the coefficient 18h^3/(h−6)^3.

The other soft spots are proportionate. The instantaneous-transition idealization is explicitly acknowledged, and the half-delta rule in Section 5 is a regularization convention that the authors flag; it affects applicability, not internal consistency. The η_V handling is slightly sloppy—Eq. (3.14) needs η_V≠0 while the analysis sets η_V→0—but it is a subleading term in the stated |h|>1 limit. These do not break the central result under the paper's own assumptions.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee. The editor should send it out, but the referee should insist on the full in-in derivation or a numerical cross-check. I would not cite the exact amplitudes as settled until that is supplied; I would cite it as the systematic first calculation with a caveat on verification. Worth bringing to a reading group; the gap is instructive in itself.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the primordial trispectrum in a two-phase USR-SR inflation model with a sharpness parameter h controlling the USR-to-SR transition. In Sec. 3, using the δN formalism with N(φ,π) taken from [30], it derives g_NL = 25h^3/[3(h−6)^3] and τ_NL = 9h^4/(h−6)^4, Eqs. (3.17)–(3.18). In Sec. 4, using the EFT in-in formalism with cubic and quartic Hamiltonians from [33,70,71], it claims the same result, Eq. (4.22), after summing the H4 and H3 contributions. Section 5 repeats the h→−∞ limit at τ_e using the nonlinear π–R dictionary, again matching. Section 6 presents shape plots. The main advertised result is that the trispectrum is purely local and that both formalisms agree exactly.

Significance. If the in-in coefficients are correct, the paper provides the first systematic trispectrum calculation for the two-phase USR-SR model and a useful cross-check between δN and in-in approaches. The explicit formulas (4.22), (3.17)–(3.18) are simple and make clear predictions for local trispectrum amplitudes in this idealized model; the Suyama-Yamaguchi equality is satisfied by construction. The paper is transparent about its instant-transition idealization and about restricting to modes that exit during USR. However, the central cross-check is currently incomplete because the key in-in evaluations are asserted rather than shown, and the h→−∞ consistency check relies on an ad hoc delta-function regularization.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.9)–(4.11) and (4.17)–(4.19)] These six coefficients are the load-bearing content of the in-in calculation, but the text only says 'performing the in-in integral' (before Eq. 4.9) and relegates details to Appendix A. Appendix A gives a generic decomposition (A.1)–(A.13) and lists permutation counts, but never evaluates a single nested time integral or shows the Wick contractions/multiplicities that produce the quoted h-dependent polynomials. A sign or combinatorial error in any of these terms would change Eq. (4.22) and break the claimed exact δN/in-in agreement. The authors should include the full evaluation (or an attached checked notebook) before the claim can be verified.
[Sec. 5, Eq. (5.3)] The h→−∞ check uses the half-delta convention ∫_{−∞}^{0} dx δ(x) = 1/2. This is a regularization choice, not a consequence of the model; with the more natural full-delta or zero-delta convention the local-source contribution (5.4) would differ and the advertised match with Eq. (4.22) would fail. The convention is introduced ad hoc for this section. Please justify it (e.g., as a symmetric limit of a sharp but smooth transition) or demonstrate that the full-h calculation is independent of it. As written, the section-5 confirmation is weaker than claimed.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 4.2.3, before Eq. (4.19)] The text says 'both τ1 and τ2 are in the USR region'; the heading and context show this should be 'SR region'.
[Sec. 6, after Fig. 4] References to 'left panel of Fig. 2' and 'right panel of Fig. 2' in the discussion of Fig. 4 should be to panels of Fig. 4.
[Introduction and Appendix A] Typos: 'non-perturabtive' should be 'non-perturbative'; 'FLR W' should be 'FLRW'; 'Saptial Gradient' should be 'Spatial Gradient'; 'expend' should be 'expand'.
[Sec. 5, Eq. (5.3)] The notation ∫_{−∞}^{0} dx δ(x) is nonstandard; please state explicitly that this is a symmetric-limit prescription for a nascent delta function.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trispectrum is derived from two independent formalisms and the final result (4.22) is an explicit algebraic sum; the quoted in-in integrals are not fully shown but this is a completeness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. In the δN route, the trispectrum parameters are obtained from the explicit phase-space e-fold expression Eq. (3.15): gNL and τNL in Eqs. (3.17)-(3.18) are derivatives of Ntot via the definitions (3.8), with h entering through the physical relation between ϵV and ϵe; no trispectrum quantity is fed back. In the in-in route, the interaction Hamiltonians H3 and H4 are taken from [33] (an independent prior derivation, not the target trispectrum), and the total trispectrum Eq. (4.22) is the explicit sum of the H4 contribution Eq. (4.13) and the H3 contribution Eq. (4.21). The matched coefficients are not fitted to each other: Eq. (4.22) follows from adding the two quoted partial results, and the τNL = (36/25) fNL^2 relation is a consequence of the definitions (3.5) and (3.8), not an input. The main weakness is that the in-in coefficients (4.9)-(4.11) and (4.17)-(4.19) are quoted after 'performing the in-in integral' and Appendix A provides only a generic decomposition rather than the evaluated integrals; this is an omitted-proof/reproducibility concern, not circularity. Section 5's half-delta rule (5.3) is a stated distribution convention for a delta at the endpoint, and Section 5 is a consistency check of the h→−∞ limit, not the basis of Eq. (4.22). Self-citation of [33] is load-bearing as a source of Hamiltonians but is independent support with stated assumptions and does not contain the target result; the δN route provides an independent cross-check. Therefore the central claim is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on standard inflation formalism plus the idealized instantaneous transition with sharpness h. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced. The main free parameter is h, which is a legitimate model parameter rather than a fitted constant.

free parameters (1)

h (sharpness parameter) = not fitted; model parameter scanned over limits (|h|>1, h -> -infinity, |h| << 1)
h = -6 sqrt(epsilon_V/epsilon_e) parameterizes the sharpness of the USR-to-SR transition. All central results are functions of h; it is not constrained by data in this paper.

assumptions (7)

ad hoc to paper The USR-to-SR transition is exactly instantaneous at tau_e, with eta = -6 - h theta(tau - tau_e) and eta' = -h delta(tau - tau_e).
Introduced in Section 2 (Eqs. 2.12-2.13) to make the analysis analytic. The authors note a smooth potential would require numerical treatment.
domain assumption Bunch-Davies vacuum initial condition for modes deep inside the horizon.
Standard in inflation, used in Section 2 for the mode function Eq. (2.15).
domain assumption All four modes are superhorizon at tau_e.
Stated in Section 2; restricts the trispectrum to local shape. The paper acknowledges additional shapes would appear otherwise.
domain assumption The decoupling limit in the EFT of inflation: metric perturbations (lapse and shift) neglected; H3 and H4 are valid in this limit.
Used in Section 4, Eqs. (4.2)-(4.3), taken from [33]. The agreement with delta-N is cited as confirmation.
domain assumption eta_V -> 0 in the final amplitudes, while N_SR formally requires eta_V != 0 to end inflation.
Sections 2 and 3. The paper works in |h| >> eta_V and ignores subleading SR corrections, an approximation rather than a controlled expansion.
domain assumption The momentum perturbation delta_pi is negligible in delta-N because pi decays exponentially during USR.
Section 3, after Eq. (3.13); this is the standard USR delta-N treatment.
ad hoc to paper In the h -> -infinity limit, the delta-function source is integrated with the half-rule: integral_{-infinity}^{0} dx delta(x) = 1/2.
Section 5, Eq. (5.3). This convention is needed to reproduce the full result; the authors do not derive it from a regulator.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trispectrum in Extended USR Model with Transition to SR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YJN7DEKF

@misc{pith2026250909608,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trispectrum in Extended USR Model with Transition to SR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YJN7DEKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09608}
}

abstract

We study the trispectrum in a two-phase USR-SR setup of inflation in which the USR stage is extended in the initial phase of inflation while the second stage of inflation proceeds via a slow-roll phase. A key role is played by the sharpness parameter which controls how quickly the system reaches the final attractor phase after the USR stage. We employ both $\delta N$ and in-in formalisms and calculate trispectrum and the corresponding dimensionless parameters $g_{NL}$ and $\tau_{NL}$. We show that both approaches yield the same results and study the shapes of trispectrum in various configurations. It is shown that the maximum value of trispectrum occurs in the setup with an infinitely sharp transition to the attractor phase while much of trispectrum is washed out in the opposite limit of a mild transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09608 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A schematic view of the tetrahedron constructed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The non-planar equilateral shape of trispectrum in which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: the case with −π 2 ≤ α − γ ≤ 0 with the peaks along the axis where k2, k4 → 0 and along the line where k2 = k4. Right: The case with 0 ≤ α − γ ≤ π 2 with the peaks at the point k2 = k4 = 1 and along the axis k2, k4 → 0. In both cases, h = −6. Another possible con…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Evolution of Linear Perturbations under Time-Dependent Hubble Friction I: SR-USR-SR Inflation
gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Analytic asymptotics show the dip in the SR-USR-SR curvature power spectrum comes from cancellation between two growing modes, not a constant-versus-growing cancellation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[30]

Y.-F. Cai, X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang and Z. Wang,Revisiting non-Gaussianity from non-attractor inflation models,JCAP05(2018) 012, [1712.09998]

arXiv 2018
[1]

W. H. Kinney,Horizon crossing and inflation with large eta,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 023515, [gr-qc/0503017]

arXiv 2005
[2]

M. H. Namjoo, H. Firouzjahi and M. Sasaki,Violation of non-Gaussianity consistency relation in a single field inflationary model,EPL101(2013) 39001, [1210.3692]

arXiv 2013
[3]

X. Chen, H. Firouzjahi, M. H. Namjoo and M. Sasaki,A Single Field Inflation Model with Large Local Non-Gaussianity,EPL102(2013) 59001, [1301.5699]

arXiv 2013
[4]

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

arXiv 2003
[5]

Garcia-Bellido and E

J. Garcia-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales,Primordial black holes from single field models of inflation,Phys. Dark Univ.18(2017) 47–54, [1702.03901]

arXiv 2017
[6]

Germani and T

C. Germani and T. Prokopec,On primordial black holes from an inflection point,Phys. Dark Univ.18(2017) 6–10, [1706.04226]

arXiv 2017
[7]

Biagetti, G

M. Biagetti, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto,Primordial Black Holes from Inflation and Quantum Diffusion,JCAP07(2018) 032, [1804.07124]. 23

arXiv 2018

Show all 71 references

[8]

Ivanov, P

P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky and I. Novikov,Inflation and primordial black holes as dark matter, Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 7173–7178

1994
[9]

M. Y. Khlopov,Primordial Black Holes,Res. Astron. Astrophys.10(2010) 495–528, [0801.0116]

2010 arXiv
[10]

¨Ozsoy and G

O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato,Inflation and Primordial Black Holes,Universe9(2023) 203, [2301.03600]

2023 arXiv
[11]

C. T. Byrnes and P. S. Cole,Lecture notes on inflation and primordial black holes, 12, 2021, 2112.05716

2021 arXiv
[12]

Escriv` a, F

A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel and Y. Tada,Primordial Black Holes,2211.05767

arXiv
[13]

Pi,Non-Gaussianities in primordial black hole formation and induced gravitational waves, 2404.06151

S. Pi,Non-Gaussianities in primordial black hole formation and induced gravitational waves, 2404.06151

arXiv
[14]

Martin, H

J. Martin, H. Motohashi and T. Suyama,Ultra Slow-Roll Inflation and the non-Gaussianity Consistency Relation,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 023514, [1211.0083]

2013 arXiv
[15]

M. J. P. Morse and W. H. Kinney,Large-ηconstant-roll inflation is never an attractor,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 123519, [1804.01927]

2018 arXiv
[16]

W.-C. Lin, M. J. P. Morse and W. H. Kinney,Dynamical Analysis of Attractor Behavior in Constant Roll Inflation,JCAP09(2019) 063, [1904.06289]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Dimopoulos,Ultra slow-roll inflation demystified,Phys

K. Dimopoulos,Ultra slow-roll inflation demystified,Phys. Lett. B775(2017) 262–265, [1707.05644]

2017 arXiv
[18]

X. Chen, H. Firouzjahi, E. Komatsu, M. H. Namjoo and M. Sasaki,In-in andδNcalculations of the bispectrum from non-attractor single-field inflation,JCAP12(2013) 039, [1308.5341]

2013 arXiv
[19]

Akhshik, H

M. Akhshik, H. Firouzjahi and S. Jazayeri,Effective Field Theory of non-Attractor Inflation, JCAP07(2015) 048, [1501.01099]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Akhshik, H

M. Akhshik, H. Firouzjahi and S. Jazayeri,Cosmological Perturbations and the Weinberg Theorem,JCAP12(2015) 027, [1508.03293]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Mooij and G

S. Mooij and G. A. Palma,Consistently violating the non-Gaussian consistency relation, JCAP11(2015) 025, [1502.03458]

2015 arXiv
[22]

Bravo, S

R. Bravo, S. Mooij, G. A. Palma and B. Pradenas,A generalized non-Gaussian consistency relation for single field inflation,JCAP05(2018) 024, [1711.02680]

2018 arXiv
[23]

Finelli, G

B. Finelli, G. Goon, E. Pajer and L. Santoni,Soft Theorems For Shift-Symmetric Cosmologies,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 063531, [1711.03737]

2018 arXiv
[24]

Passaglia, W

S. Passaglia, W. Hu and H. Motohashi,Primordial black holes and local non-Gaussianity in canonical inflation,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 043536, [1812.08243]. 24

2019 arXiv
[25]

Pi and M

S. Pi and M. Sasaki,Logarithmic Duality of the Curvature Perturbation,Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 011002, [2211.13932]

2023 arXiv
[26]

¨Ozsoy and G

O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato,Consistency conditions and primordial black holes in single field inflation,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023524, [2111.02432]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Firouzjahi and A

H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto,Sign of non-Gaussianity and the primordial black holes abundance,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123504, [2309.10536]

2023 arXiv
[28]

M. H. Namjoo,One consistency relation for all single-field inflationary models,JCAP05 (2024) 041, [2311.12777]

2024 arXiv
[29]

M. H. Namjoo and B. Nikbakht,Non-Gaussianity consistency relations and their consequences for the peaks,JCAP08(2024) 005, [2401.12958]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Kristiano and J

J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama,Constraining Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 221003, [2211.03395]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Kristiano and J

J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama,Note on the bispectrum and one-loop corrections in single-field inflation with primordial black hole formation,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 103541, [2303.00341]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Firouzjahi,One-loop corrections in power spectrum in single field inflation,JCAP10 (2023) 006, [2303.12025]

H. Firouzjahi,One-loop corrections in power spectrum in single field inflation,JCAP10 (2023) 006, [2303.12025]

2023 arXiv
[34]

Seery, J

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

2007 arXiv
[35]

P. R. Jarnhus and M. S. Sloth,de Sitter limit of inflation and nonlinear perturbation theory, JCAP02(2008) 013, [0709.2708]

2008 arXiv
[36]

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]

2008 arXiv
[37]

Arroja, S

F. Arroja, S. Mizuno, K. Koyama and T. Tanaka,On the full trispectrum in single field DBI-inflation,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 043527, [0905.3641]

2009 arXiv
[38]

Mizuno, F

S. Mizuno, F. Arroja, K. Koyama and T. Tanaka,Lorentz boost and non-Gaussianity in multi-field DBI-inflation,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 023530, [0905.4557]

2009 arXiv
[39]

Mizuno, F

S. Mizuno, F. Arroja and K. Koyama,On the full trispectrum in multi-field DBI inflation, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 083517, [0907.2439]

2009 arXiv
[40]

Izumi, S

K. Izumi, S. Mizuno and K. Koyama,Trispectrum estimation in various models of equilateral type non-Gaussianity,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 023521, [1109.3746]

2012 arXiv
[41]

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]. 25

2009 arXiv
[42]

X. Chen, W. Z. Chua, Y. Guo, Y. Wang, Z.-Z. Xianyu and T. Xie,Quantum Standard Clocks in the Primordial Trispectrum,JCAP05(2018) 049, [1803.04412]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Chen and Y

X. Chen and Y. Wang,Quasi-Single Field Inflation and Non-Gaussianities,JCAP04(2010) 027, [0911.3380]

2010 arXiv
[44]

Renaux-Petel,Combined local and equilateral non-Gaussianities from multifield DBI inflation,JCAP10(2009) 012, [0907.2476]

S. Renaux-Petel,Combined local and equilateral non-Gaussianities from multifield DBI inflation,JCAP10(2009) 012, [0907.2476]

2009 arXiv
[45]

X. Gao, M. Li and C. Lin,Primordial Non-Gaussianities from the Trispectra in Multiple Field Inflationary Models,JCAP11(2009) 007, [0906.1345]

2009 arXiv
[46]

Gao and B

X. Gao and B. Hu,Primordial Trispectrum from Entropy Perturbations in Multifield DBI Model,JCAP08(2009) 012, [0903.1920]

2009 arXiv
[47]

Gao and C

X. Gao and C. Lin,On the primordial trispectrum from exchanging scalar modes in general multiple field inflationary models,JCAP11(2010) 035, [1009.1311]

2010 arXiv
[48]

Izumi and S

K. Izumi and S. Mukohyama,Trispectrum from Ghost Inflation,JCAP06(2010) 016, [1004.1776]

2010 arXiv
[49]

Bartolo, E

N. Bartolo, E. Dimastrogiovanni, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto,Anisotropic Trispectrum of Curvature Perturbations Induced by Primordial Non-Abelian Vector Fields,JCAP11(2009) 028, [0909.5621]

2009 arXiv
[50]

Bartolo, M

N. Bartolo, M. Fasiello, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto,Large non-Gaussianities in the Effective Field Theory Approach to Single-Field Inflation: the Trispectrum,JCAP09(2010) 035, [1006.5411]

2010 arXiv
[51]

Leblond and E

L. Leblond and E. Pajer,Resonant Trispectrum and a Dozen More Primordial N-point functions,JCAP01(2011) 035, [1010.4565]

2011 arXiv
[52]

Sheikhahmadi,Schwinger-Keldysh mechanism in extended quasi single field inflation,Eur

H. Sheikhahmadi,Schwinger-Keldysh mechanism in extended quasi single field inflation,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 451, [1901.01905]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Sasaki and E

M. Sasaki and E. D. Stewart,A General analytic formula for the spectral index of the density perturbations produced during inflation,Prog. Theor. Phys.95(1996) 71–78, [astro-ph/9507001]

1996 arXiv
[54]

Sasaki and T

M. Sasaki and T. Tanaka,Superhorizon scale dynamics of multiscalar inflation,Prog. Theor. Phys.99(1998) 763–782, [gr-qc/9801017]

1998 arXiv
[55]

Wands, K

D. Wands, K. A. Malik, D. H. Lyth and A. R. Liddle,A New approach to the evolution of cosmological perturbations on large scales,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 043527, [astro-ph/0003278]

2000 arXiv
[56]

D. H. Lyth, K. A. Malik and M. Sasaki,A General proof of the conservation of the curvature perturbation,JCAP05(2005) 004, [astro-ph/0411220]. 26

2005 arXiv
[57]

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

2005 arXiv
[58]

A. A. Abolhasani, H. Firouzjahi, A. Naruko and M. Sasaki,Delta N Formalism in Cosmological Perturbation Theory. WSP, 2, 2019, 10.1142/10953

2019 doi
[59]

Hooshangi, M

S. Hooshangi, M. H. Namjoo and M. Noorbala,Rare events are nonperturbative: Primordial black holes from heavy-tailed distributions,Phys. Lett. B834(2022) 137400, [2112.04520]

2022 arXiv
[60]

Cai, X.-H

Y.-F. Cai, X.-H. Ma, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang and Z. Zhou,One small step for an inflaton, one giant leap for inflation: A novel non-Gaussian tail and primordial black holes,Phys. Lett. B 834(2022) 137461, [2112.13836]

2022 arXiv
[61]

Cai, X.-H

Y.-F. Cai, X.-H. Ma, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang and Z. Zhou,Highly non-Gaussian tails and primordial black holes from single-field inflation,JCAP12(2022) 034, [2207.11910]

2022 arXiv
[62]

Kawaguchi, T

R. Kawaguchi, T. Fujita and M. Sasaki,Highly asymmetric probability distribution from a finite-width upward step during inflation,JCAP11(2023) 021, [2305.18140]

2023 arXiv
[63]

C. T. Byrnes, M. Sasaki and D. Wands,The primordial trispectrum from inflation,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 123519, [astro-ph/0611075]

2006 arXiv
[64]

Suyama and M

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

2008 arXiv
[65]

Nassiri-Rad, H

A. Nassiri-Rad, H. Sheikhahmadi and H. Firouzjahi,Stochastic Inflation with Interacting Noises,2508.09946

arXiv
[66]

Firouzjahi and A

H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto,Primordial Black Holes and loops in single-field inflation,JCAP 02(2024) 021, [2304.07801]

2024 arXiv
[67]

Weinberg,Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,Phys

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

2005 arXiv
[68]

Cheung, P

C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan and L. Senatore,The Effective Field Theory of Inflation,JHEP03(2008) 014, [0709.0293]

2008 arXiv
[69]

Cheung, A

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, [0709.0295]

2008 arXiv
[70]

Firouzjahi and B

H. Firouzjahi and B. Nikbakht,Non-Perturbative Hamiltonian and Higher Loop Corrections in USR Inflation,2502.09481

arXiv
[71]

Firouzjahi and B

H. Firouzjahi and B. Nikbakht,Hamiltonians to all Orders in Perturbation Theory and Higher Loop Corrections in Single Field Inflation with PBHs Formation,2502.10287. 27

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [30]

Y.-F. Cai, X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang and Z. Wang,Revisiting non-Gaussianity from non-attractor inflation models,JCAP05(2018) 012, [1712.09998]

arXiv 2018

[2] [1]

W. H. Kinney,Horizon crossing and inflation with large eta,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 023515, [gr-qc/0503017]

arXiv 2005

[3] [2]

M. H. Namjoo, H. Firouzjahi and M. Sasaki,Violation of non-Gaussianity consistency relation in a single field inflationary model,EPL101(2013) 39001, [1210.3692]

arXiv 2013

[4] [3]

X. Chen, H. Firouzjahi, M. H. Namjoo and M. Sasaki,A Single Field Inflation Model with Large Local Non-Gaussianity,EPL102(2013) 59001, [1301.5699]

arXiv 2013

[5] [4]

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

arXiv 2003

[6] [5]

Garcia-Bellido and E

J. Garcia-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales,Primordial black holes from single field models of inflation,Phys. Dark Univ.18(2017) 47–54, [1702.03901]

arXiv 2017

[7] [6]

Germani and T

C. Germani and T. Prokopec,On primordial black holes from an inflection point,Phys. Dark Univ.18(2017) 6–10, [1706.04226]

arXiv 2017

[8] [7]

Biagetti, G

M. Biagetti, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto,Primordial Black Holes from Inflation and Quantum Diffusion,JCAP07(2018) 032, [1804.07124]. 23

arXiv 2018