Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Cosmological cutting rules for Bogoliubov initial states: any mass and spin

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

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

Pith's one-line read The Bogoliubov cutting rules, previously restricted to massless scalars, are extended to fields of any mass and spin through a modified propagator identity and a new discontinuity operation.

desk verdict A mostly sound technical extension of Bogoliubov cutting rules to massive and spinning fields, with the main cutting rule asserted rather than proven; deserves review but needs a worked massive example. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05630 v1 pith:VINSQH2P submitted 2025-02-08 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Diptimoy Ghosh , Farman Ullah This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords cosmologicalcuttingrulesBogoliubovinitialstatesopticaltheoremwavefunctionoftheuniversemassivescalarfieldsspinninghelicitydecompositionunitarityincosmology
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

The paper sets out to extend the cosmological cutting rules, unitarity relations that reduce loop diagrams to sums of tree-level diagrams in the wavefunction of the universe, from massless and conformally coupled scalars to fields of arbitrary mass and spin when the initial state is a Bogoliubov state. The obstruction is that the usual propagator identity used to define a cut fails for massive scalars, because the mode functions mix both Hankel types. The paper identifies a modified identity, with the Bogoliubov coefficient $\alpha_k$ shifted by a term proportional to $2i\beta_k\cos\pi\nu$ where $\nu=\sqrt{9/4-m^2/H^2}$, and uses it to define a new discontinuity operation. It then argues that spinning fields reduce to massive scalars helicity by helicity, so the same cutting rule applies. If correct, this gives a practical route to loop effects in inflationary correlators for a much wider class of models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified propagator identity (2.19) together with the discontinuity operation $\mathrm{Disc}^{(\tilde{2})}$ it motivates. In a Bogoliubov initial state the bulk-boundary propagator is built from mode functions $\Phi^+_k=\alpha_k\phi^+_k+\beta_k\phi^-_k$ with $\phi^\pm_k$ Hankel functions of order $\nu=\sqrt{9/4-m^2/H^2}$; approaching negative energies from below, the Hankel transformations (2.12) and (2.13) force the coefficient shift that defines the new identity. This identity is what lets one identify which conjugate copy of the wavefunction coefficient enters the cut. Because the bulk-bulk propagator is still expressed in terms of bulk-boundary propagators exactly as in (2.26), the factorization of the imaginary part of a chain of bulk-bulk propagators carries over from the Bunch-Davies case, so the only new ingredient needed is the modified definition of the cut. For spinning fields the same machinery runs per helicity after diagonalising the helicity-mixing term in the action.

What would settle it

Compute a concrete massive-scalar loop diagram, for example the four-point exchange or a one-loop correction, by direct time integrals, and compare it with the sum over cuts predicted by (2.27) using Disc(1) and Disc(~2); a mismatch at any mass with $\nu$ not equal to $1/2$ or $3/2$ would show the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that the Bogoliubov cutting rule, $i\mathrm{Disc}^{(m)}[i\psi(D)] = \sum_{\mathrm{cuts}} \bigl[\prod_{\mathrm{cut\,momenta}}\int P\bigr] \prod_{\mathrm{subdiagrams}}(-i)\mathrm{Disc}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{internal\,and\,cut\,lines}}[i\psi(\mathrm{subdiagram})]$ with $m=1$ or $\tilde{2}$, holds for fields of any mass and spin. For massive scalars the old identity $K^*_{-k}(\alpha^*_k,\beta^*_k)=K_k(\alpha_k,\beta_k)$ is replaced by (2.19), $K^*_{-k}((\alpha_k+2i\beta_k\cos\pi\nu^*)^*,\beta^*_k,\tau)=K_k(\alpha_k,\beta_k,\tau)$, which reduces to the previous massless and conformally coupled identity when $\nu=3/2$ or $1/2$. The companion identity (2.18), $K^*_k(\beta^*_k,\alpha^*_k)=K_k(\alpha_k,\beta_k)$, extends unchanged. For spinning fields, the paper decomposes a generic symmetric traceless spin-$s$ field into helicity components whose equations of motion have the same Hankel-function form with an effective speed $c^h_s$, so the same propagator identities and discontinuity operations apply to each helicity. The final section addresses convergence: with an adiabatic regulator that switches off interactions in the far past, the time integrals are performed with $\epsilon>|\mathrm{Im}(k)|$ and the $\epsilon\to0$ limit is taken.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on assuming that the imaginary part of a chain of internal-line propagators factors exactly as in the known massless case once the new cut operation is used, even though this factorization is asserted rather than proved for massive fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massive-scalar loop diagrams for Bogoliubov initial states can be computed as sums of tree-level wavefunction coefficients, sidestepping the difficult bulk time integrals.
  • At $\nu=3/2$ and $\nu=1/2$ the new rules reduce exactly to the previously derived massless and conformally coupled scalar rules, providing a consistency check.
  • Spinning fields coupled to the inflaton, including graviton-like helicity modes, are covered by the same cutting rule after the helicity decomposition, so unitarity constraints apply to each helicity separately.
  • The lower-half-plane analytic continuation with the adiabatic regulator gives a well-defined prescription for massive Bogoliubov states, removing the naive obstruction from mixed positive- and negative-frequency terms in the far past.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not itself explore the heavy-field regime where $m>3H/2$ makes $\nu$ imaginary and $\cos\pi\nu$ grow; this could produce large shifts in the modified identity and deserves a separate check.
  • The cleanest test of the central assumption would be a direct numerical evaluation of a massive-scalar one-loop diagram against the cut sum, since the factorization step in Section 2.2 is asserted rather than derived.
  • If the rules hold, the same propagator-identity technique may adapt to other excited states such as coherent states or general alpha-vacua, with failure marking where the method's assumptions break.
  • The rules offer a practical diagnostic for missing degrees of freedom: a computed Bogoliubov correlator that violates the cutting rule would signal on-shell states left out of the effective theory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the cosmological cutting rules of refs. [2,19] from Bunch-Davies and massless/conformal Bogoliubov initial states to Bogoliubov initial states for fields of arbitrary mass and spin. The main technical inputs are the propagator identity K^*_{-k}((α_k+2iβ_k cosπν^*)^*,β_k^*,τ)=K_k(α_k,β_k,τ) in Eq. (2.19), which is derived from Hankel-function continuation properties, and the associated discontinuity operation Disc^{(~2)} in Eq. (2.17). With the bulk-bulk propagator relation (2.26) unchanged, the authors assert the general cutting rule (2.27), which would reduce loop wavefunction coefficients to sums of cut/tree terms, and they discuss far-past convergence of time integrals using an adiabatic regulator.

Significance. If the central assertion is correct, the paper completes a useful programme: massive and spinning loop diagrams for Bogoliubov initial states would be computable from tree-level-like cut diagrams without introducing new free parameters. The explicit reduction to the known ν=3/2 and ν=1/2 identities and the transparent derivation of Eq. (2.19) from standard Hankel identities are strengths. However, because the factorization step from Eq. (2.26) to Eq. (2.27) is not demonstrated for the new Disc~2 operation, the "any mass and spin" claim is presently a conjecture rather than a theorem; the paper would benefit from either a proof or an explicit nontrivial massive one-loop check.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.27)] The cutting rule is asserted rather than proved. The text argues that because the bulk-bulk propagator relation (2.26) is unchanged, the imaginary part of a string of bulk-bulk propagators has the same factorisation property as proved in [2], and that only the Disc operation changes. This does not follow from (2.26) alone. In [2] the factorization proof uses the Bunch-Davies identity K^*_{-k}=K_k to fix the negative-energy branch of every K factor and to collapse the time-ordered string into the cut sum. For massive Bogoliubov fields the corresponding identity is (2.19), which is not the Bunch-Davies identity, and the induced Disc~2 in (2.17) shifts the external Bogoliubov coefficient α_k by −2iβ*_k cosπν under conjugation and momentum reversal. The compatibility of this shift with the internal-line combinatorics of the factorization proof is not shown, and no massive one-loop example is provided. Please re-derive the factorization starting from (2.18)–(2.19) or supply an explicit check for a massive one-loop diagram; this is the load-bearing step for the central claim.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] The adiabatic regulator is written as R(ετ)=e^{ετ^2}. With ε>0, this grows without bound as τ→−∞, which is the opposite of turning off interactions in the far past; if this is a typo for e^{−ετ^2}, it should be corrected. Independent of the sign, the argument that the order of limits "ε>|Im(k)|, then ε→0" yields convergence for massive fields with complex ν (i.e., m^2/H^2>9/4) is stated without demonstration and should be spelled out.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.1, after Eq. (2.16)] In the sentence following Eq. (2.16), the right-hand side should be K_k(α_k,β_k,τ), not K_k(α*_k,β*_k,τ), when taking the massless or conformally coupled limit.
  2. [Eq. (2.17)] The subscript {α_{pm},β_{pm}} on Disc^{(~2)} is confusing, because the shifted coefficients appear only for the {k_i} arguments; please clarify how Disc^{(~2)} acts on internal momenta when used in Eq. (2.27).
  3. [Sec. 2.1.2] For spinning fields, the statement that only the Disc operation changes is too quick: derivative and polarization structures in the spin-s action could introduce additional momentum factors into the bulk-bulk propagator, and the helicity-dependent speeds c_s^h are suppressed in Eqs. (2.26)-(2.27). Please state explicitly that the identities hold for each helicity component with an effective momentum p=c_s^h k.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.27)] The notation Disc^{(m)}_{internal & cut lines}[iψ(sub-diagram)] is not defined for products of multiple line factors; please specify how the operation is applied to a composite subdiagram.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main gap is an unproven factorization assumption, not an input–output equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's new ingredient, the modified propagator identity (2.19) and the associated Disc(~2) operation (2.17), is derived directly from standard Hankel-function continuation identities (2.12)–(2.13) rather than assumed. No parameters are fitted and no target result is built into the definitions. The central cutting-rule relation (2.27) is then stated by importing the factorization property of strings of bulk-bulk propagators from the Bunch-Davies result of Ref. [2] and from the massless Bogoliubov result of Ref. [19]. Ref. [2] is external to the present authors, and Ref. [19] is prior work by two of the authors but supplies the massless/conformally coupled structure rather than the massive generalization. The step from the unchanged bulk-bulk relation (2.26) to the assertion that the same factorization holds with the modified Disc operation is a genuine rigor gap: it is an unproven assumption, not a derivation. However, this is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity: (2.27) does not reduce by construction to the definitions of Disc(~2), and the new Discontinuity is not chosen so that the cutting rule holds tautologically. The self-citations to Ref. [19] are contextual and not load-bearing in the sense of substituting for an argument. The apparent sign issue in the adiabatic regulator R(ετ)=e^{ετ^2} in Sec. 2.3 is also a physical/correctness issue, not a circularity. Overall, no circular step is identifiable from the quoted equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Hankel function identities, the wavefunction formalism for cosmological correlators, the assumed form of the bulk-bulk propagator, and a regularization prescription for time integrals. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hankel function transformation properties (2.8)-(2.13), including the principal branch convention for the branch point at z = 0
    Used to derive the propagator identities (2.18) and (2.19).
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FRW/de Sitter background and the field-theoretic wavefunction parametrization in equation (1.7)
    Sets up the formalism; standard in the cosmological wavefunction literature.
  • domain assumption The bulk-bulk propagator relation (2.26) holds for Bogoliubov states and massive fields
    Stated without derivation in Section 2.2; it is the same form as the massless case and is imported from the Bunch-Davies analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Adiabatic regularization with the order of limits epsilon > |Im(k)|, then epsilon -> 0, gives convergent time integrals
    Introduced in Section 2.3 to handle the mixed positive and negative frequency exponentials in Bogoliubov mode functions; no explicit proof is given.
  • domain assumption The generic spin-s action (2.20) and its helicity decomposition diagonalize the propagators for arbitrary spin
    Invoked in Section 2.1.2, citing reference [37]; only the spin-1 case is shown explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological cutting rules for Bogoliubov initial states: any mass and spin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VINSQH2P

@misc{pith2026250205630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological cutting rules for Bogoliubov initial states: any mass and spin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VINSQH2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05630}
}
read the original abstract

The cosmological optical theorem and the cutting rules are well-known consequences of unitary time evolution in cosmology. The earlier works showed that assuming a Bunch-Davies initial state, one can derive equations relating a wavefunction diagram with a given number of internal lines to a sum of diagrams with fewer internal lines. In particular, it can relate a loop diagram to a sum of tree-level diagrams. Recently these relations were generalised to a set of excited initial states known as Bogoliubov states and they were shown to have non-trivial consequences for n-point contact and 4-point exchange diagrams. This analysis restricted the field content to massless and conformally coupled scalar fields. In this paper, we take the final step of generalising these "Bogoliubov cutting rules" to fields of any mass and spin. We define modified propagator identities and corresponding "Discontinuities" which automatically generalise the earlier relations to fields of any mass and spin. Finally, we discuss issues concerning the far past convergence of time integrals in the complex plane.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Melville, E

    S. Melville, E. Pajer, Cosmological cutting rules , Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (5) (may 2021). doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)249. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fjhep05%282021%29249

    doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)249 2021

  2. [1]

    Goodhew, S

    H. Goodhew, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, The Cosmological Optical Th eorem, JCAP 04 (2021) 021. arXiv:2009.02898, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Goodhew, S

    H. Goodhew, S. Jazayeri, M. H. Gordon Lee, E. Pajer, Cutting c osmological correlators, JCAP 08 (2021) 003. arXiv:2104.06587, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/003

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A. A. Starobinsky, A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models W ithout Singularity, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99–102. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-x 1980

  5. [5]

    A. H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the H orizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347–356. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347. – 8 –

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347 1981

  6. [6]

    A. D. Linde, A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solut ion of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problem s, Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 389–393. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9 1982

  7. [7]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Robustness of the inflationary perturbatio n spectrum to transPlanckian physics, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73 (2001) 415–418. arXiv:astro-ph/0104043, doi:10.1134/1.1381588

    arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    A. A. Starobinsky, I. I. Tkachev, Trans-Planckian particle cre ation in cosmology and ultra-high energy cosmic rays, JETP Lett. 76 (2002) 235–239. arXiv:astro-ph/0207572, doi:10.1134/1.1520612

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Agullo, L

    I. Agullo, L. Parker, Non-gaussianities and the Stimulated creat ion of quanta in the inflationary universe, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 063526. arXiv:1010.5766, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.063526

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ganc, Calculating the local-type fNL for slow-roll inflation with a non-vacuum initial state, Phys

    J. Ganc, Calculating the local-type fNL for slow-roll inflation with a non-vacuum initial state, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 063514. arXiv:1104.0244, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063514

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Holman, A

    R. Holman, A. J. Tolley, Enhanced Non-Gaussianity from Excited Initial States, JCAP 05 (2008) 001. arXiv:0710.1302, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/05/001

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Easther, B

    R. Easther, B. R. Greene, W. H. Kinney, G. Shiu, A Generic estim ate of transPlanckian modifications to the primordial power spectrum in inflation, Phys. Re v. D 66 (2002) 023518. arXiv:hep-th/0204129, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.023518

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. H. Brandenberger, J. Martin, On signatures of short dista nce physics in the cosmic microwave background, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17 (2002) 3663–368 0. arXiv:hep-th/0202142, doi:10.1142/S0217751X02010765

    2002 arXiv

  6. [14]

    P. D. Meerburg, J. P. van der Schaar, P. S. Corasaniti, Signat ures of Initial State Modifications on Bispectrum Statistics, JCAP 05 (2009) 018. arXiv:0901.4044, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/05/018

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. Jain, N. Kundu, S. Kundu, A. Mehta, S. K. Sake, A CFT interp retation of cosmological correlation functions in α−vacua in de-Sitter space, JHEP 05 (2023) 111. arXiv:2206.08395, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)111

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ghosh, A

    D. Ghosh, A. H. Singh, F. Ullah, Probing the initial state of inflatio n: analytical structure of cosmological correlators, JCAP 04 (2023) 007. arXiv:2207.06430, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/007

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ansari, P

    A. Ansari, P. Banerjee, P. Dhivakar, S. Jain, N. Kundu, Inflat ionary non-Gaussianities in alpha vacua and consistency with conformal symmetries, JHEP 10 ( 2024) 147. arXiv:2403.10513, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)147

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. J. Chopping, C. Sleight, M. Taronna, Cosmological correlato rs for Bogoliubov initial states, JHEP 09 (2024) 152. arXiv:2407.16652, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)152

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ghosh, E

    D. Ghosh, E. Pajer, F. Ullah, Cosmological cutting rules for Bog oliubov initial states, SciPost Phys. 18 (2025) 005. arXiv:2407.06258, doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.1.005

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Allen, Vacuum States in de Sitter Space, Phys

    B. Allen, Vacuum States in de Sitter Space, Phys. Rev. D 32 (198 5) 3136. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.3136

    doi

  13. [21]

    Shukla, S

    A. Shukla, S. P. Trivedi, V. Vishal, Symmetry constraints in inflat ion, α-vacua, and the three point function, JHEP 12 (2016) 102. arXiv:1607.08636, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)102. – 9 –

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ghosh, K

    D. Ghosh, K. Panchal, F. Ullah, Mixed graviton and scalar bispect ra in the EFT of inflation: Soft limits and Boostless Bootstrap, JHEP 07 (2023) 233. arXiv:2303.16929, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)233

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Weinberg, Quantum contributions to cosmological correlatio ns, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Quantum contributions to cosmological correlatio ns, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043514. arXiv:hep-th/0506236, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043514

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Senatore, M

    L. Senatore, M. Zaldarriaga, On Loops in Inflation, JHEP 12 (20 10) 008. arXiv:0912.2734, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2010)008

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Senatore, M

    L. Senatore, M. Zaldarriaga, On Loops in Inflation II: IR Effect s in Single Clock Inflation, JHEP 01 (2013) 109. arXiv:1203.6354, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2013)109

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. L. Pimentel, L. Senatore, M. Zaldarriaga, On Loops in Inflatio n III: Time Independence of zeta in Single Clock Inflation, JHEP 07 (2012) 166. arXiv:1203.6651, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)166

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bhowmick, D

    S. Bhowmick, D. Ghosh, F. Ullah, Bispectrum at 1-loop in the Effec tive Field Theory of Inflation, JHEP 10 (2024) 057. arXiv:2405.10374, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)057

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bhowmick, D

    S. Bhowmick, D. Ghosh, M. H. G. Lee, F. Ullah, Singularities in Loop Cosmology, In preparation

  21. [29]

    Anninos, T

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, D. Z. Freedman, G. Konstantinidis, Late -time Structure of the Bunch-Davies De Sitter Wavefunction, JCAP 11 (2015) 048. arXiv:1406.5490, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/048

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Guven, B

    J. Guven, B. Lieberman, C. T. Hill, Schrodinger Picture Field Theo ry in Robertson-walker Flat Space-times, Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 438. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.39.438

    1989 doi

  23. [31]

    J. M. Maldacena, Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctua tions in single field inflationary models, JHEP 05 (2003) 013. arXiv:astro-ph/0210603, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/013

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ghosh, N

    A. Ghosh, N. Kundu, S. Raju, S. P. Trivedi, Conformal Invaria nce and the Four Point Scalar Correlator in Slow-Roll Inflation, JHEP 07 (2014) 011. arXiv:1401.1426, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)011

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. M. Maldacena, G. L. Pimentel, On graviton non-Gaussianities d uring inflation, JHEP 09 (2011) 045. arXiv:1104.2846, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2011)045

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Arkani-Hamed, P

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Benincasa, A. Postnikov, Cosmological Po lytopes and the Wavefunction of the Universe (9 2017). arXiv:1709.02813

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Benincasa, Amplitudes meet Cosmology: A (Scalar) Primer (3 2 022)

    P. Benincasa, Amplitudes meet Cosmology: A (Scalar) Primer (3 2 022). arXiv:2203.15330, doi:10.1142/S0217751X22300101

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chakraborty, J

    T. Chakraborty, J. Chakravarty, V. Godet, P. Paul, S. Raju , The Hilbert space of de Sitter quantum gravity, JHEP 01 (2024) 132. arXiv:2303.16315, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)132

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bordin, P

    L. Bordin, P. Creminelli, A. Khmelnitsky, L. Senatore, Light Part icles with Spin in Inflation, JCAP 10 (2018) 013. arXiv:1806.10587, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/013

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Melville, G

    S. Melville, G. L. Pimentel, A de Sitter S-matrix for the masses (9 2023). arXiv:2309.07092

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Melville, G

    S. Melville, G. L. Pimentel, A de Sitter S-matrix from amputated co smological correlators, JHEP 08 (2024) 211. arXiv:2404.05712, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)211. – 10 –

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Donath, E

    Y. Donath, E. Pajer, The In-Out Formalism for In-In Correlat ors (2 2024). arXiv:2402.05999. – 11 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.