Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 8 cited by

Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 3. Constraints from Planck

T0 review · 0 major / 5 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 This paper searches 33 CMB trispectrum templates in Planck PR4 data and finds no evidence for primordial non-Gaussianity, while detecting lensing at 43 sigma.

desk verdict A mature, well-validated measurement paper delivering the best current CMB trispectrum constraints; the null result is credible, with simulation fidelity and component-separation sensitivity as the only real caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06931 v3 pith:64YVTPYE submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Oliver H. E. Philcox This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundtrispectrumprimordialnon-GaussianityinflationcosmologicalcolliderCMBlensingPlanckPR4effectivefieldtheoryof
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 asks whether the four-point function of the cosmic microwave background hides physics beyond standard single-field inflation. It analyzes the Planck PR4 temperature and polarization trispectrum for multipoles $\ell\in[2,2048]$, searching 33 templates that encode local and effective-field-theory non-Gaussianity, direction-dependent correlations, and cosmological-collider particle exchange. The search finds no evidence for primordial non-Gaussianity, with the tightest Planck-era constraints on several amplitudes, including $\sigma(g_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc})=4.8\times 10^4$ and $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}<1500$ at 95% CL. It also detects gravitational lensing at $43\sigma$ and unresolved point sources, confirming that the estimators see known signals. If the result is correct, the four-point data remain consistent with standard single-field slow-roll inflation, and the quoted upper limits close off a broad class of inflationary models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CMB trispectrum, the connected part of the four-point correlation function of temperature and polarization maps, written as a sum of template amplitudes multiplied by known primordial curvature trispectra. The machinery that carries the argument is a quasi-optimal estimator that evaluates the data four-point, subtracts the disconnected Gaussian contribution using simulation averages (with a realization-dependent debiasing structure), and normalizes by a Fisher matrix computed from Monte Carlo simulations that fully accounts for beam, mask, and weighting. Lensing bias is subtracted either by joint estimation of the lensing amplitude or by an analytic correction. A necessary auxiliary component is the recalibration of the FFP10 simulation power spectra to match the Planck data, since the paper shows that a 3% high-$\ell$ power deficit in the raw simulations would otherwise produce a spurious $7.6\sigma$ detection of $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$.

What would settle it

The paper itself provides a concrete test: dropping the power-spectrum recalibration converts a null into a spurious $7.6\sigma$ detection of $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$. A decisive external check would be to re-run the pipeline on an independent, higher-fidelity simulation suite with exact Planck noise and foregrounds and require that the measured amplitudes stay within about $0.3\sigma$ of zero, and that the sevem and smica $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$ upper bounds (2360 and 1500) converge once the anomalous $L=3$ mode is modeled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the connected four-point function of Planck PR4 is consistent with primordial Gaussianity once lensing, point sources, and the Gaussian disconnected part are accounted for. Across 33 template amplitudes, no robust detection exceeds the expected noise; the largest fluctuation, a temperature-only $\tau_{221}^{\rm NL}$ deviation near $-4\sigma$, disappears in the combined temperature-plus-polarization analysis and is attributed to posterior non-Gaussianity or residual foregrounds. Headline constraints include $\sigma(g_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc})=4.8\times 10^4$, $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}<1500$ (95% CL, smica), factor-of-two improvements over previous Effective Field Theory of Inflation bounds, and a $43\sigma$ detection of lensing with $A_{\rm lens}=1.001\pm0.024$ (sevem). The author presents this as the first application of optimal polarization-inclusive trispectrum estimators to the full Planck dataset, and as the first measurement of many templates, including direction-dependent trispectra and the collapsed limit of the cosmological collider across a range of masses and spins.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints rest on the assumption that the simulation suite, after the power-spectrum recalibration, reproduces Planck's noise and clustering closely enough that subtracting the simulated Gaussian four-point contribution leaves an unbiased estimate of the primordial signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planck's trispectrum is consistent with standard single-field slow-roll inflation, so models that produce large four-point non-Gaussianity without a bispectrum are constrained at the levels quoted above.
  • The tighter $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$ bound, combined with the Suyama-Yamaguchi inequality and Planck's $f_{\rm NL}$ measurements, implies an upper limit $|f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}|\lesssim 28$ at 95% CL that is independent of the bispectrum analysis.
  • Because lensing induces biases of up to $5\sigma$ on some EFTI and collider templates, future analyses will need delensing or joint lensing estimation to realize the full sensitivity of the data.
  • The inclusion of polarization sharpens most constraints by factors of roughly 1.5 to 4, so higher-sensitivity polarization data from next-generation CMB experiments should translate directly into stronger primordial trispectrum bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the headline $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}<1500$ bound is volatile: the sevem pipeline gives 2360, and the difference is driven by the $L=3$ mode, so the one-sided limit should be read as pipeline-dependent rather than a robust physical number.
  • Extension: the strong lensing detection means the same estimators can be repurposed as a lensing probe; comparing the trispectrum-derived $A_{\rm lens}$ with the official lensing power spectrum measurements provides a consistency check that is not performed in this paper.
  • Extension: because the disconnected Gaussian four-point function dominates the error budget, future gains will come as much from better simulations and realization-dependent debiasing as from more sky; this suggests that survey systematics, not raw resolution, will set the next round of trispectrum constraints.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is the data-analysis component of a three-paper series on CMB trispectrum estimation. It applies the PolySpec estimators developed in Papers 1 and 2 to Planck PR4 npipe temperature and polarization maps, constraining 33 template amplitudes for local, constant, EFTI, direction-dependent, and cosmological-collider non-Gaussianity, together with gravitational lensing and unresolved point sources. The central result is a null detection of primordial non-Gaussianity, with headline constraints such as sigma(g_NL^loc) = 4.8e4, tau_NL^loc < 1500 (95% CL, smica), factor-of-two improvements on EFTI amplitudes, and a 43-sigma detection of CMB lensing. The analysis is extensively validated: null means on 100 FFP10 simulations agree within 0.3 sigma, empirical and theoretical error bars agree to roughly 10-20%, the tau_NL local anomaly is traced to the L=3 mode, and the authors explicitly show that failure to recalibrate a 3% FFP10 power-spectrum deficit would produce a spurious 7.6-sigma tau_NL detection.

Significance. If correct, this is the most comprehensive CMB trispectrum analysis to date and the strongest current constraint on many inflationary templates, including several that have never been measured before. The paper's main strengths are methodological: quasi-optimal estimators with polarization, a public implementation, careful treatment of disconnected-subtraction and lensing bias, and an unusually transparent validation program. The 100-simulation null tests, the explicit stress test of the simulation-recalibration step, and the disclosure of the sevem/smica difference in the tau_NL upper bound make the no-detection claim credible rather than merely reported. The paper also gives concrete physical translations of the constraints, e.g., for curvaton, ekpyrotic, EFTI, gauge-field, and collider scenarios, which increases the utility of the null result for model-building.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV A 2] The headline tau_NL^loc < 1500 (95% CL) is smica-specific and is driven by a downward fluctuation in the L=3 mode, while the sevem bound is 2360 and the simulated one-sided limits range from roughly 580 to 4700 across the 100 simulations. The text discloses this clearly, but the abstract presents the smica number without the caveat; please state in the abstract that the bound is component-separation-dependent or provide the sevem value as well.
  2. [Sec. V A 2] The sentence 'Analyses of tau_NL^loc a have a longer history' contains an extraneous 'a'. In the following comparison paragraph, the same upper limit appears twice for PR1 and PR3; if this is accurate it is worth a clarifying remark, since the adjacent values otherwise look as though they should evolve monotonically.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The shorthand '+ 5 perms.' and '+ 2 perms.' is standard in this literature but is not defined in the text; a one-sentence explanation or a cross-reference to the full permutation structure in Paper 1 would make the estimator definition self-contained.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Sec. IV A 4 f] The figure labels '1/2 x k' and '1/10 x fthresh' are compressed to the point of ambiguity; the caption should state the baseline values and whether changes are in the k-integration sampling density, the optimization tolerance, or both.
  5. [Sec. VI] There is a typo in 'primoprdial information'. The discussion of the look-elsewhere effect is honest, but the paper would benefit from stating how many effectively independent template families were tested, since the 33-amplitude count includes degenerate and highly correlated entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measurement reduces to no fitted input; self-citation of estimator methodology is validated against FFP10 simulations and external Planck results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical constraints on trispectrum amplitudes, and the target quantities are defined by explicit primordial templates in Appendix A, not by the measured values. The estimators and optimization framework come from the author's Paper 1 and Paper 2, but this is methodology self-citation rather than a load-bearing circular step: the estimators are independently validated in this work against 100 FFP10 simulations (Table I) and cross-checked against external Planck PR3 measurements (Section V). The disconnected-subtraction step in Eq. (7) depends on simulation fidelity, and the paper directly stress-tests this dependence: removing the Section III A recalibration produces a spurious 7.6 sigma tau_NL^loc detection, while the recalibrated pipeline yields FFP10 means within 0.3 sigma of fiducial values and places Planck at the 50th-89th percentiles of simulation distributions (Fig. 1). Lensing-bias subtraction uses the independently measured fiducial lensing amplitude and is cross-validated through joint analyses, so it does not define the primordial amplitudes by construction. The tau_NL^loc 95% upper bound is derived from an explicit L-by-L likelihood (Appendix C), with the paper disclosing the sevem/smica spread and the 580-4700 sampling range, so the quoted bound is not forced by the estimator definition. No equation in the paper reduces a headline result to its input, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the author's prior work to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. The central claim rests on the accuracy of the fiducial two-point model, the simulation suite, and the template shapes. The largest hidden assumptions are the FFP10 fidelity after recalibration and the lensing-bias subtraction for EFTI and collider templates, both of which are tested in the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • kcoll and Kcoll (collider scale cuts) = 0.03 Mpc^-1
    Chosen to isolate collapsed trispectrum limit with minimal signal-to-noise loss across spins and masses; not fit to data but a hyperparameter affecting all collider constraints.
  • Lmax (tau_NL internal mode cut) = 30
    Signal-to-noise is saturated by L ~ 10; Lmax = 30 is conservative (Appendix C, Section IV A). Analysis choice affecting tau_NL upper bounds.
  • Fiducial galactic mask (gal070) = fsky = 0.683 (T), 0.682 (P)
    Adopted after finding gal080 introduces 4 sigma foreground shifts in sevem tau_NL; previous analyses also use gal070. Post-hoc motivated but stability-tested.
  • Ndisc and Nfish (Monte Carlo sample counts) = Ndisc = 100, Nfish = 20 (baseline)
    Convergence settings; halving Ndisc shifts results by up to 0.7 sigma for Alens, requiring these counts.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The pointing matrix model of Eqs. (1) and (2), with beam, mask, and spin-dependent synthesis, describes the Planck data.
    All estimators rely on this forward model; violation would bias normalization.
  • domain assumption The fiducial CMB power spectrum and noise model (Eq. 3) match the data after the FFP10 recalibration.
    Sections III A and IV A 4 c: a 3% mismatch causes a spurious 7.6 sigma tau_NL detection without correction.
  • domain assumption The trispectrum templates in Appendix A, including the collapsed-limit collider approximation, encode the targeted physics.
    The templates are taken from Papers 1 and prior literature; if shapes are inaccurate, constraints are on approximate amplitudes.
  • standard math The estimators are unbiased for any weighting, and the Fisher matrix normalization correctly accounts for mask, beam, and noise.
    Section III D argument; validated in Paper 2 and Section IV A 1.
  • domain assumption Lensing bias can be subtracted using the fiducial lensing amplitude, equivalent to a joint fit with a tight prior.
    Sections IV A 4 and IV C 3: EFTI bias up to 4.5 sigma, collider up to 5.1 sigma; joint analysis yields the same shifts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 3. Constraints from Planck." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64YVTPYE

@misc{pith2026250206931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 3. Constraints from Planck},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64YVTPYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06931}
}
abstract

Is there new physics hidden in the four-point function of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)? We conduct a detailed analysis of the Planck PR4 temperature and polarization trispectrum for $\ell\in[2,2048]$. Using the theoretical and computational tools developed in Paper 1 and Paper 2, we search for 33 template amplitudes, encoding a variety of effects from inflationary self-interactions to particle exchange. We find no evidence for primordial non-Gaussianity and set stringent constraints on both phenomenological amplitudes and couplings in the inflationary Lagrangian. Due to the use of optimal estimators and polarization data, our constraints are highly competitive. For example, we find $\sigma(g_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc})=4.8\times 10^4$ and $\tau_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc} <1500$ (95\% CL), a factor of two improvement on Effective Field Theory amplitudes, and a $43\sigma$ detection of gravitational lensing. Many templates are analyzed for the first time, such as direction-dependent trispectra and the collapsed limit of the `cosmological collider', across a range of masses and spins. We perform a variety of validation tests; whilst our results are stable, the most relevant systematics are found to be lensing bias, residual foregrounds, and mismatch between simulations and data. The techniques discussed in this series can be extended to future datasets, allowing the primordial Universe to be probed at even higher sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Joint constraints on the local non-Gaussianity parameters using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Summary of the main validation tests performed for the local and lensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Theoretical correlation matrix for the cosmological collider analysis. We show the normalized covariances between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Literature constraints on local non-Gaussianity parameters obtained using WMAP (red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Forecasted constraints on local and lensing non-Gaussianity including various degrees of realism. We start from an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Measurements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Primordial Physics in the Nonlinear Universe: Revealing the oscillating halo bias from cosmological collider models

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A binning-based IC method yields the first N-body measurements of oscillating halo bias from cosmological collider bispectra, with mass- and assembly-dependent phases fit by peak-background-split theory.

  2. Dissecting the Scalar Cosmological Collider with the Cosmic Microwave Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A joint Bayesian fit of the multi-field inflationary Lagrangian to Planck bispectrum data finds no cosmological collider signal (max Δχ²=5.3) and shows weak-mixing template searches are invalid except at the smallest masses.

  3. First Search for Kaluza-Klein Gravitons and Radion Using Planck Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    First Planck search for radion and KK-graviton bispectra finds no significant non-Gaussianity (max 1.8σ at m_KK ≈ 1.6H), while a warped 5D model can yield f_NL ~ 1–50.

  4. Parity-violating scalar trispectrum from helical primordial magnetic fields

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Helical primordial magnetic fields produce a computable parity-odd signal in the scalar trispectrum, currently constrained to r_H ≲ 4×10^-4 for B_r = 4.7 nG.

  5. AGILE: an end-to-end Rubin-LSST simulation of AGNs, galaxies, and stars I. Software description and first data release

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    AGILE builds a 24 deg² truth catalog and a 1 deg² three-year LSST pilot (DR1) to measure flux recovery and Type-1 AGN completeness/purity from color and variability selections.

  6. Inflationary trispectrum of gauge fields from scalar and tensor exchanges

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The inflationary trispectrum of gauge fields from scalar and tensor exchanges is derived analytically, yielding beta^zeta_nl = (b^zeta_nl)^2 in the counter-collinear limit and growing flattened-limit signals.

  7. Twisted echoes of an odd quartet: Scalar-induced gravitational waves as a probe of primordial parity-violation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A parity-odd primordial trispectrum imprints measurable left-right asymmetry in scalar-induced gravitational waves, and the chirality ratio directly tracks the parity-odd to parity-even trispectrum amplitude ratio.

  8. Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity and parity-violation through Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with next-generation ground-based interferometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ET+CE forecast: injected SIGW parameters (A_p, f_peak, f_NL, tau_NL, parity-odd tau_tilde_NL) are recovered within 1-2 sigma despite an astrophysical foreground, but the chiral V-mode is sub-threshold (SNR 0.5-1.9).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

245 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    15, the EFTI amplitudes, g ˙σ4 NL, g˙σ2(∂σ)2 NL , g(∂σ)4 NL , have been constrained in a number of previous CMB analyses

    Previous Constraints As shown in Fig. 15, the EFTI amplitudes, g ˙σ4 NL, g˙σ2(∂σ)2 NL , g(∂σ)4 NL , have been constrained in a number of previous CMB analyses. Firstly, [ 53] searched for the equilateral trispectrum amplitude tequil NL ≡ (27/25)g ˙σ4 NL from WMAP5 data using the modal estimator, yielding the constraint 10 −5bg ˙σ4 NL = 29 ± 69 at ℓmax = 5...

  2. [2]

    Single-Field As discussed in [ 1, 37], the EFTI parameters g ˙σ4 NL, g˙σ2(∂σ)2 NL , g(∂σ)4 NL relate to the structure of the low-energy inflationary Lagrangian

    Implications a. Single-Field As discussed in [ 1, 37], the EFTI parameters g ˙σ4 NL, g˙σ2(∂σ)2 NL , g(∂σ)4 NL relate to the structure of the low-energy inflationary Lagrangian. Under a fairly weak set of assumptions, the most general action for single-field inflation is given by Sπ = Z d4x√−g − M 2 Pl ˙H(∂µπ)2 + 2M 4 2 ˙π2 + ˙π3 − ˙π (∂iπ)2 a2 + (∂µπ)2(∂ν...

  3. [3]

    Gauge Fields A well-studied source of direction-dependent trispectrum non-Gaussianity is primordial gauge fields [e.g., 71, 72, 177–184]

    Implications a. Gauge Fields A well-studied source of direction-dependent trispectrum non-Gaussianity is primordial gauge fields [e.g., 71, 72, 177–184]. 31 These are described by the action Sϕ,Aµ = Z d4x√−g − 1 2 (∂µϕ)2 − V (ϕ) + I 2(ϕ) − 1 4 F µνFµν + γ 4 ˜F µνFµν . (24) where ϕ is a pseudo-scalar inflaton, Aµ is a gauge field, Fµν is the electromagneti...

    2000

  4. [4]

    Implications Previous bispectrum studies raise an interesting question: is it worth searching for collider non-Gaussianity in the four-point function given that we have not detected it in the three-point function? To answer this, it is instructive to consider a simple set-up: the exchange of a spin- s particle, σ, between gauge bosons, π. As discussed in ...

    2000

  5. [5]

    O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2502.04434 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2502.05258 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  8. [8]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

    1982

Show all 245 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. Linde, Physics Letters B 116, 335 (1982)

    1982

  2. [10]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  3. [11]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 117, 175 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rept. 215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 013 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210603

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bartolo, E

    N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept. 402, 103 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406398

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Komatsu, Class

    E. Komatsu, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 124010 (2010), arXiv:1003.6097 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Komatsu, D

    E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, and B. D. Wandelt, Astrophys. J. 634, 14 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0305189

    2005 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Creminelli, A

    P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, M. Tegmark, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 05, 004 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509029. 46

    2006 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Senatore, K

    L. Senatore, K. M. Smith, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 01, 028 (2010), arXiv:0905.3746 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [20]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063522 (2024), arXiv:2312.12498 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Komatsu, B

    E. Komatsu, B. D. Wandelt, D. N. Spergel, A. J. Banday, and K. M. Gorski, Astrophys. J. 566, 19 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0107605

    2002

  13. [22]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi, (2024), arXiv:2409.10595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    M. G. Santos, A. Heavens, A. Balbi, J. Borrill, P. G. Ferreira, S. Hanany, A. H. Jaffe, A. T. Lee, B. Rabii, P. L. Richards, G. F. Smoot, R. Stompor, C. D. Winant, and J. H. P. Wu, MNRAS 341, 623 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0211123 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, et al., A&A 571, A24 (2014), arXiv:1303.5084 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [25]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A17 (2016), arXiv:1502.01592 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A9 (2020), arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Sohn, D.-G

    W. Sohn, D.-G. Wang, J. R. Fergusson, and E. P. S. Shellard, JCAP 09, 016 (2024), arXiv:2404.07203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Smidt, A

    J. Smidt, A. Amblard, C. T. Byrnes, A. Cooray, A. Heavens, and D. Munshi, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123007 (2010), arXiv:1004.1409 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [29]

    S. A. Salcedo, T. Colas, and E. Pajer, (2024), arXiv:2404.15416 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [30]

    McCulloch, E

    C. McCulloch, E. Pajer, and X. Tong, JHEP 05, 262 (2024), arXiv:2401.11009 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Jazayeri, S

    S. Jazayeri, S. Renaux-Petel, and D. Werth, (2023), arXiv:2307.01751 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Flauger, M

    R. Flauger, M. Mirbabayi, L. Senatore, and E. Silverstein, JCAP 10, 058 (2017), arXiv:1606.00513 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [33]

    J. H. Kim, S. Kumar, A. Martin, and Y. Tsai, JHEP 11, 158 (2021), arXiv:2107.09061 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Martin, H

    J. Martin, H. Motohashi, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023514 (2013), arXiv:1211.0083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Tada and V

    Y. Tada and V. Vennin, JCAP 02, 021 (2022), arXiv:2111.15280 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [36]

    M¨ unchmeyer and K

    M. M¨ unchmeyer and K. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. D100, 123511 (2019), arXiv:1910.00596 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [37]

    O. H. E. Philcox, S. Kumar, and J. C. Hill, (2024), arXiv:2405.03738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    W. R. Coulton, O. H. E. Philcox, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, (2024), arXiv:2406.15546 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 04, 024 (2012), arXiv:1009.2093 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, (2015), arXiv:1503.08043 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [41]

    K. M. Smith, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldarriaga, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1502.00635 (2015), arXiv:1502.00635 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Bartolo, M

    N. Bartolo, M. Fasiello, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, JCAP 09, 035 (2010), arXiv:1006.5411 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Bartolo, E

    N. Bartolo, E. Dimastrogiovanni, and M. Fasiello, JCAP 09, 037 (2013), arXiv:1305.0812 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Arroja and K

    F. Arroja and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 77, 083517 (2008), arXiv:0802.1167 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Arroja, S

    F. Arroja, S. Mizuno, K. Koyama, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 80, 043527 (2009), arXiv:0905.3641 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [46]

    X. Chen, R. Ebadi, and S. Kumar, JCAP 08, 083 (2022), arXiv:2205.01107 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [47]

    X. Chen, B. Hu, M.-x. Huang, G. Shiu, and Y. Wang, JCAP 08, 008 (2009), arXiv:0905.3494 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [48]

    P. D. Meerburg, M. M¨ unchmeyer, J. B. Mu˜ noz, and X. Chen, JCAP03, 050 (2017), arXiv:1610.06559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Okamoto and W

    T. Okamoto and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 66, 063008 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206155

    2002 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Lee and C

    H. Lee and C. Dvorkin, JCAP 05, 044 (2020), arXiv:2001.00584 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Kogo and E

    N. Kogo and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083007 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602099

    2006 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Hu, Phys

    W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 64, 083005 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105117

    2001 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Chen, M.-x

    X. Chen, M.-x. Huang, and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. D 74, 121301 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0610235

    2006 arXiv

  45. [55]

    D. M. Regan, E. P. S. Shellard, and J. R. Fergusson, Phys. Rev. D 82, 023520 (2010), arXiv:1004.2915 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Kamionkowski, T

    M. Kamionkowski, T. L. Smith, and A. Heavens, Phys. Rev. D 83, 023007 (2011), arXiv:1010.0251 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [57]

    J. R. Fergusson, D. M. Regan, and E. P. S. Shellard, (2010), arXiv:1012.6039 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [58]

    C. Feng, A. Cooray, J. Smidt, J. O’Bryan, B. Keating, and D. Regan, Phys. Rev. D 92, 043509 (2015), arXiv:1502.00585 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Munshi, P

    D. Munshi, P. Coles, A. Cooray, A. Heavens, and J. Smidt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 410, 1295 (2011), arXiv:1002.4998 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Vielva and J

    P. Vielva and J. L. Sanz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 404, 895 (2010), arXiv:0910.3196 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Hikage and T

    C. Hikage and T. Matsubara, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 2187 (2012), arXiv:1207.1183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Sekiguchi and N

    T. Sekiguchi and N. Sugiyama, JCAP 09, 002 (2013), arXiv:1303.4626 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [63]

    D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 170, 377 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0603449

    2007 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Marzouk, A

    K. Marzouk, A. Lewis, and J. Carron, JCAP 08, 015 (2022), arXiv:2205.14408 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [65]

    M. Kunz, A. J. Banday, P. G. Castro, P. G. Ferreira, and K. M. Gorski, Astrophys. J. Lett. 563, L99 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0111250

    2001

  56. [66]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, JCAP 04, 027 (2010), arXiv:0911.3380 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [68]

    Suyama and M

    T. Suyama and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023505 (2008), arXiv:0709.2545 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Chen, M.-x

    X. Chen, M.-x. Huang, S. Kachru, and G. Shiu, JCAP 01, 002 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0605045

    2007 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 01, 003 (2011), arXiv:1004.1201 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Cheung, P

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore, JHEP 03, 014 (2008), arXiv:0709.0293 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Mizuno, F

    S. Mizuno, F. Arroja, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 80, 083517 (2009), arXiv:0907.2439 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Langlois, S

    D. Langlois, S. Renaux-Petel, D. A. Steer, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 78, 063523 (2008), arXiv:0806.0336 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Langlois, S

    D. Langlois, S. Renaux-Petel, D. A. Steer, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 061301 (2008), arXiv:0804.3139 [hep-th]. 47

    2008 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Shiraishi, E

    M. Shiraishi, E. Komatsu, and M. Peloso, JCAP 04, 027 (2014), arXiv:1312.5221 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Shiraishi, Phys

    M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083503 (2016), arXiv:1608.00368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [77]

    H. Lee, D. Baumann, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP 12, 040 (2016), arXiv:1607.03735 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [78]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Phys. Rept. 429, 1 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601594

    2006 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Babich, P

    D. Babich, P. Creminelli, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 08, 009 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405356

    2004 arXiv

  70. [80]

    F. J. Qu et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [81]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A17 (2014), arXiv:1303.5077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [82]

    M. P. Hobson, R. B. Barreiro, L. Toffolatti, A. N. Lasenby, J. L. Sanz, A. W. Jones, and F. R. Bouchet, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 306, 232 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810241

    1999 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Coulton, A

    W. Coulton, A. Miranthis, and A. Challinor, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 523, 825 (2023), arXiv:2208.12270 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [84]

    Wang and M

    L.-M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 61, 063504 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9907431

    2000 arXiv

  75. [85]

    X. Chen, R. Easther, and E. A. Lim, JCAP 04, 010 (2008), arXiv:0801.3295 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  76. [86]

    Flauger, L

    R. Flauger, L. McAllister, E. Pajer, A. Westphal, and G. Xu, JCAP 06, 009 (2010), arXiv:0907.2916 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  77. [87]

    Flauger and E

    R. Flauger and E. Pajer, JCAP 01, 017 (2011), arXiv:1002.0833 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  78. [88]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Goon, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP 04, 140 (2018), arXiv:1712.06624 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [89]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103505 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112261

    2002 arXiv

  80. [90]

    Cabass, S

    G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, (2022), arXiv:2210.02907 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  81. [91]

    Creque-Sarbinowski, S

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski, S. Alexander, M. Kamionkowski, and O. Philcox, (2023), arXiv:2303.04815 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [92]

    Bartolo, L

    N. Bartolo, L. Caloni, G. Orlando, and A. Ricciardone, JCAP 03, 073 (2021), arXiv:2008.01715 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [93]

    Moretti, N

    T. Moretti, N. Bartolo, and A. Greco, (2024), arXiv:2410.11801 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  84. [94]

    Alexander, S

    S. Alexander, S. J. Gates, L. Jenks, K. Koutrolikos, and E. McDonough, JHEP 10, 156 (2019), arXiv:1907.05829 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  85. [95]

    C. T. Byrnes, M. Gerstenlauer, S. Nurmi, G. Tasinato, and D. Wands, JCAP 10, 004 (2010), arXiv:1007.4277 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  86. [96]

    D.-G. Wang, G. L. Pimentel, and A. Ach´ ucarro, JCAP 05, 043 (2023), arXiv:2212.14035 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [97]

    Jazayeri and S

    S. Jazayeri and S. Renaux-Petel, JHEP 12, 137 (2022), arXiv:2205.10340 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  88. [98]

    P. D. Meerburg, J. P. van der Schaar, and P. S. Corasaniti, JCAP 05, 018 (2009), arXiv:0901.4044 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Mylova, M

    M. Mylova, M. Moschou, N. Afshordi, and J. a. Magueijo, JCAP 07, 005 (2022), arXiv:2112.08179 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  90. [100]

    D. Grin, D. Hanson, G. P. Holder, O. Dor´ e, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023006 (2014), arXiv:1306.4319 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [101]

    J. C. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083542 (2018), arXiv:1807.07324 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  92. [102]

    O. H. E. Philcox and J. C. Hill, (2025), arXiv:2504.03826 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [103]

    O. H. E. Philcox, (2023), arXiv:2303.12106 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [104]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi, (2023), arXiv:2308.03831 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [105]

    Adam et al

    R. Adam et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A9 (2016), arXiv:1502.05956 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  96. [106]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A4 (2020), arXiv:1807.06208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [107]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP 09, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [108]

    K. M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman, Astrophys. J. 622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

    2005 arXiv

  99. [109]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A12 (2016), arXiv:1509.06348 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  100. [111]

    K. M. Smith, O. Zahn, and O. Dore, Phys. Rev. D 76, 043510 (2007), arXiv:0705.3980 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  101. [112]

    S. P. Oh, D. N. Spergel, and G. Hinshaw, Astrophys. J. 510, 551 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9805339

    1999 arXiv

  102. [113]

    M¨ unchmeyer and K

    M. M¨ unchmeyer and K. M. Smith, (2019), arXiv:1905.05846 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [114]

    Costanza, C

    B. Costanza, C. G. Sc´ occola, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 04, 041 (2024), arXiv:2312.09943 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [115]

    Costanza, C

    B. Costanza, C. G. Sc´ occola, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2024), arXiv:2412.10580 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [116]

    O. H. E. Philcox and T. Fl¨ oss, (2024), arXiv:2404.07249 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  106. [117]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123516 (2023), arXiv:2303.08828 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  107. [118]

    O. H. E. Philcox, (2023), arXiv:2306.03915 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  108. [119]

    PolyBin: Binned polyspectrum estimation on the full sky,

    O. H. E. Philcox, “PolyBin: Binned polyspectrum estimation on the full sky,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2307.020 (2023), ascl:2307.020

    2023

  109. [120]

    Reinecke and D

    M. Reinecke and D. S. Seljebotn, Astronomy & Astrophysics 554, A112 (2013)

    2013

  110. [121]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon, and K. Gorski, Journal of Open Source Software 4, 1298 (2019)

    2019

  111. [122]

    K. M. Smith and M. Zaldarriaga, MNRAS 417, 2 (2011), arXiv:astro-ph/0612571 [astro-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  112. [123]

    Namikawa, D

    T. Namikawa, D. Hanson, and R. Takahashi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 431, 609 (2013), arXiv:1209.0091 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  113. [124]

    Carron, JCAP 02, 057 (2023), arXiv:2210.05449 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Carron, JCAP 02, 057 (2023), arXiv:2210.05449 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  114. [125]

    A. S. Maniyar, Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, J. Carron, A. Lewis, and M. S. Madhavacheril, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083524 (2021), arXiv:2101.12193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  115. [126]

    Kalaja, P

    A. Kalaja, P. D. Meerburg, G. L. Pimentel, and W. R. Coulton, JCAP 04, 050 (2021), arXiv:2011.09461 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  116. [127]

    T. L. Smith and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 86, 063009 (2012), arXiv:1203.6654 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  117. [128]

    Hamimeche and A

    S. Hamimeche and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103013 (2008), arXiv:0801.0554 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  118. [129]

    W. R. Coulton and D. N. Spergel, JCAP 10, 056 (2019), arXiv:1901.04515 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  119. [130]

    W. R. Coulton, P. D. Meerburg, D. G. Baker, S. Hotinli, A. J. Duivenvoorden, and A. van Engelen, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123504 (2020), arXiv:1912.07619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  120. [131]

    Shiraishi, Front

    M. Shiraishi, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 6, 49 (2019), arXiv:1905.12485 [astro-ph.CO]. 48

    2019 arXiv

  121. [132]

    Green, J

    D. Green, J. Meyers, and A. van Engelen, JCAP 12, 005 (2017), arXiv:1609.08143 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  122. [133]

    Trendafilova, S

    C. Trendafilova, S. C. Hotinli, and J. Meyers, JCAP 06, 017 (2024), arXiv:2312.02954 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  123. [134]

    Higuchi, Nucl

    A. Higuchi, Nucl. Phys. B 282, 397 (1987)

    1987

  124. [135]

    Bordin and G

    L. Bordin and G. Cabass, JCAP 06, 050 (2019), arXiv:1902.09519 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  125. [136]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah, H

    A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, H. Lee, J. B. Mu˜ noz, and C. Dvorkin, JCAP 05, 013 (2018), arXiv:1801.07265 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  126. [137]

    Munshi, A

    D. Munshi, A. Heavens, A. Cooray, J. Smidt, P. Coles, and P. Serra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 412, 1993 (2011), arXiv:0910.3693 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  127. [138]

    Hanson and A

    D. Hanson and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063004 (2009), arXiv:0908.0963 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  128. [139]

    Desjacques and U

    V. Desjacques and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 81, 023006 (2010), arXiv:0907.2257 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  129. [140]

    K. M. Smith, S. Ferraro, and M. LoVerde, JCAP 03, 032 (2012), arXiv:1106.0503 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  130. [141]

    LoVerde and K

    M. LoVerde and K. M. Smith, JCAP 08, 003 (2011), arXiv:1102.1439 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  131. [142]

    Jeong and E

    D. Jeong and E. Komatsu, Astrophys. J. 703, 1230 (2009), arXiv:0904.0497 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  132. [143]

    Chongchitnan and J

    S. Chongchitnan and J. Silk, Astrophys. J. 724, 285 (2010), arXiv:1007.1230 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  133. [144]

    Slosar, C

    A. Slosar, C. Hirata, U. Seljak, S. Ho, and N. Padmanabhan, JCAP 08, 031 (2008), arXiv:0805.3580 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  134. [145]

    Leistedt, H

    B. Leistedt, H. V. Peiris, and N. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 221301 (2014), arXiv:1405.4315 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  135. [146]

    Giannantonio, A

    T. Giannantonio, A. J. Ross, W. J. Percival, R. Crittenden, D. Bacher, M. Kilbinger, R. Nichol, and J. Weller, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023511 (2014), arXiv:1303.1349 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  136. [147]

    Ferraro and K

    S. Ferraro and K. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043506 (2015), arXiv:1408.3126 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  137. [148]

    Biagetti, V

    M. Biagetti, V. Desjacques, and A. Riotto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 429, 1774 (2013), arXiv:1208.1616 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  138. [149]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, and F. Schmidt, JCAP 12, 043 (2015), arXiv:1510.03723 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  139. [150]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, E. Pajer, Y. Welling, and D. van der Woude, JCAP 11, 024 (2015), arXiv:1505.06668 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  140. [151]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043506 (2022), arXiv:2204.01781 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  141. [152]

    D’Amico, M

    G. D’Amico, M. Lewandowski, L. Senatore, and P. Zhang, (2022), arXiv:2201.11518 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  142. [153]

    Goldstein, O

    S. Goldstein, O. H. E. Philcox, J. C. Hill, and L. Hui, (2024), arXiv:2407.08731 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  143. [154]

    Anil Kumar, G

    N. Anil Kumar, G. Sato-Polito, M. Kamionkowski, and S. C. Hotinli, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063533 (2022), arXiv:2205.03423 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  144. [155]

    Bartolo, M

    N. Bartolo, M. Liguori, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 03, 029 (2016), arXiv:1511.01474 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  145. [156]

    Khatri and R

    R. Khatri and R. Sunyaev, JCAP 09, 026 (2015), arXiv:1507.05615 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  146. [157]

    Fl¨ oss, T

    T. Fl¨ oss, T. de Wild, P. D. Meerburg, and L. V. E. Koopmans, JCAP 06, 020 (2022), arXiv:2201.08843 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  147. [158]

    Sailer, E

    N. Sailer, E. Castorina, S. Ferraro, and M. White, JCAP 12, 049 (2021), arXiv:2106.09713 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  148. [159]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, M. Simonovic, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2022), arXiv:2211.14899 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  149. [160]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 69, 043503 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309033

    2004 arXiv

  150. [161]

    Sasaki, J

    M. Sasaki, J. Valiviita, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103003 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607627

    2006 arXiv

  151. [162]

    C. T. Byrnes and K.-Y. Choi, Adv. Astron. 2010, 724525 (2010), arXiv:1002.3110 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  152. [163]

    Huang, JCAP 05, 030 (2013), arXiv:1303.6084 [astro-ph.CO]

    Q.-G. Huang, JCAP 05, 030 (2013), arXiv:1303.6084 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  153. [164]

    Lehners and P

    J.-L. Lehners and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123533 (2013), arXiv:1304.3122 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  154. [165]

    Fertig and J.-L

    A. Fertig and J.-L. Lehners, JCAP 01, 026 (2016), arXiv:1510.03439 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  155. [166]

    Suyama, T

    T. Suyama, T. Takahashi, M. Yamaguchi, and S. Yokoyama, JCAP 06, 012 (2013), arXiv:1303.5374 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  156. [167]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    K. Dimopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 74, 083502 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607229

    2006 arXiv

  157. [168]

    C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo and Y. Rodriguez, Phys. Lett. B 685, 120 (2010), arXiv:0910.4208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  158. [169]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A7 (2020), arXiv:1906.02552 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  159. [170]

    K. M. Smith, M. LoVerde, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 191301 (2011), arXiv:1108.1805 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  160. [171]

    Izumi, S

    K. Izumi, S. Mizuno, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 85, 023521 (2012), arXiv:1109.3746 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  161. [172]

    Mizuno and S

    S. Mizuno and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 91, 123521 (2015), arXiv:1504.05505 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  162. [173]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 021301 (2022), arXiv:2201.07238 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  163. [174]

    X. Chen, H. Firouzjahi, M. H. Namjoo, and M. Sasaki, EPL 102, 59001 (2013), arXiv:1301.5699 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  164. [175]

    Alishahiha, E

    M. Alishahiha, E. Silverstein, and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123505 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0404084

    2004 arXiv

  165. [176]

    Silverstein and D

    E. Silverstein and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D 70, 103505 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0310221

    2004 arXiv

  166. [177]

    Arkani-Hamed, P

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Creminelli, S. Mukohyama, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 04, 001 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312100

    2004 arXiv

  167. [178]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023523 (2023), arXiv:2210.16320 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  168. [179]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063501 (2022), arXiv:2206.04227 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  169. [180]

    Shiraishi, N

    M. Shiraishi, N. Bartolo, and M. Liguori, JCAP 10, 015 (2016), arXiv:1607.01363 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  170. [181]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 07, 039 (2015), arXiv:1505.02193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  171. [182]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 01, 027 (2015), arXiv:1411.2521 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  172. [183]

    Shiraishi, E

    M. Shiraishi, E. Komatsu, M. Peloso, and N. Barnaby, JCAP 05, 002 (2013), arXiv:1302.3056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  173. [184]

    Naruko, E

    A. Naruko, E. Komatsu, and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP 04, 045 (2015), arXiv:1411.5489 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  174. [185]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and A. Ricciardone, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023504 (2013), arXiv:1210.3257 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  175. [186]

    Dimastrogiovanni, N

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Adv. Astron. 2010, 752670 (2010), arXiv:1001.4049 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  176. [187]

    Bartolo and G

    N. Bartolo and G. Orlando, JCAP 07, 034 (2017), arXiv:1706.04627 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  177. [188]

    Bartolo, G

    N. Bartolo, G. Orlando, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 01, 050 (2019), arXiv:1809.11170 [astro-ph.CO]. 49

    2019 arXiv

  178. [189]

    Salvarese, Probing parity violation in the Early Universe, Master’s thesis, University of Padova (2022)

    A. Salvarese, Probing parity violation in the Early Universe, Master’s thesis, University of Padova (2022)

    2022

  179. [190]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  180. [191]

    Endlich, A

    S. Endlich, A. Nicolis, and J. Wang, JCAP 10, 011 (2013), arXiv:1210.0569 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  181. [192]

    Endlich, B

    S. Endlich, B. Horn, A. Nicolis, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 90, 063506 (2014), arXiv:1307.8114 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  182. [193]

    Gruzinov, Phys

    A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 063518 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404548

    2004 arXiv

  183. [194]

    Bartolo, M

    N. Bartolo, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, and C. Unal, JCAP 11, 009 (2014), arXiv:1407.8053 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  184. [195]

    J. R. Shaw and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043517 (2010), arXiv:0911.2714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  185. [196]

    Shiraishi, JCAP 06, 015 (2012), arXiv:1202.2847 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Shiraishi, JCAP 06, 015 (2012), arXiv:1202.2847 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  186. [197]

    Shiraishi, JCAP 11, 006 (2013), arXiv:1308.2531 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Shiraishi, JCAP 11, 006 (2013), arXiv:1308.2531 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  187. [198]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A19 (2016), arXiv:1502.01594 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  188. [199]

    Shiraishi, D

    M. Shiraishi, D. Nitta, S. Yokoyama, and K. Ichiki, JCAP 03, 041 (2012), arXiv:1201.0376 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  189. [200]

    Trivedi, T

    P. Trivedi, T. R. Seshadri, and K. Subramanian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 231301 (2012), arXiv:1111.0744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  190. [201]

    Trivedi, K

    P. Trivedi, K. Subramanian, and T. R. Seshadri, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043523 (2014), arXiv:1312.5308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  191. [202]

    G. L. Pimentel and D.-G. Wang, JHEP 10, 177 (2022), arXiv:2205.00013 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  192. [203]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. Sundrum, JHEP 04, 077 (2020), arXiv:1908.11378 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  193. [204]

    Reece, L.-T

    M. Reece, L.-T. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. D 107, L101304 (2023), arXiv:2204.11869 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  194. [205]

    T. Liu, X. Tong, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 04, 189 (2020), arXiv:1909.01819 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  195. [206]

    Wang and Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 02, 044 (2020), arXiv:1910.12876 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  196. [207]

    Tong and Z.-Z

    X. Tong and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 10, 194 (2022), arXiv:2203.06349 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  197. [208]

    Cabass, O

    G. Cabass, O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, K. Akitsu, S.-F. Chen, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2024), arXiv:2404.01894 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  198. [209]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261302 (2017), arXiv:1610.06597 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  199. [210]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 09, 022 (2018), arXiv:1805.02656 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  200. [211]

    S. Lu, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 02, 011 (2020), arXiv:1907.07390 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  201. [212]

    Wang and Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 11, 082 (2020), arXiv:2004.02887 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  202. [213]

    Bodas, S

    A. Bodas, S. Kumar, and R. Sundrum, JHEP 02, 079 (2021), arXiv:2010.04727 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  203. [214]

    S. Kim, T. Noumi, K. Takeuchi, and S. Zhou, JHEP 12, 107 (2019), arXiv:1906.11840 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  204. [215]

    Q. Lu, M. Reece, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 12, 098 (2021), arXiv:2108.11385 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  205. [216]

    Cui and Z.-Z

    Y. Cui and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111301 (2022), arXiv:2112.10793 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  206. [217]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP 10, 192 (2022), arXiv:2205.01692 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  207. [218]

    Werth, L

    D. Werth, L. Pinol, and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 141002 (2024), arXiv:2302.00655 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  208. [219]

    Xianyu and J

    Z.-Z. Xianyu and J. Zang, JHEP 03, 070 (2024), arXiv:2309.10849 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  209. [220]

    Pinol, S

    L. Pinol, S. Renaux-Petel, and D. Werth, (2023), arXiv:2312.06559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  210. [221]

    Chakraborty and J

    P. Chakraborty and J. Stout, JHEP 02, 021 (2024), arXiv:2310.01494 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  211. [222]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Kumar, and A. McCune, JHEP 07, 108 (2024), arXiv:2401.10976 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  212. [223]

    Yin, Phys

    Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043535 (2024), arXiv:2309.05244 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  213. [224]

    Baumann and D

    D. Baumann and D. Green, Phys. Rev. D 85, 103520 (2012), arXiv:1109.0292 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  214. [225]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, and D. Green, JCAP 11, 047 (2012), arXiv:1204.4207 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  215. [226]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP 04, 105 (2020), arXiv:1811.00024 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  216. [227]

    Bordin, P

    L. Bordin, P. Creminelli, A. Khmelnitsky, and L. Senatore, JCAP 10, 013 (2018), arXiv:1806.10587 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  217. [228]

    Jazayeri, S

    S. Jazayeri, S. Renaux-Petel, X. Tong, D. Werth, and Y. Zhu, (2023), arXiv:2308.11315 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  218. [229]

    X. Chen, W. Z. Chua, Y. Guo, Y. Wang, Z.-Z. Xianyu, and T. Xie, JCAP 05, 049 (2018), arXiv:1803.04412 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  219. [230]

    Green, Y

    D. Green, Y. Huang, C.-H. Shen, and D. Baumann, JHEP 04, 034 (2024), arXiv:2310.02490 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  220. [231]

    Noumi, M

    T. Noumi, M. Yamaguchi, and D. Yokoyama, JHEP 06, 051 (2013), arXiv:1211.1624 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  221. [232]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah and C

    A. Moradinezhad Dizgah and C. Dvorkin, JCAP 01, 010 (2018), arXiv:1708.06473 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  222. [233]

    Cabass, E

    G. Cabass, E. Pajer, and F. Schmidt, JCAP 09, 003 (2018), arXiv:1804.07295 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  223. [234]

    Green, Y

    D. Green, Y. Guo, J. Han, and B. Wallisch, JCAP 05, 090 (2024), arXiv:2311.04882 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  224. [235]

    Schmidt, N

    F. Schmidt, N. E. Chisari, and C. Dvorkin, JCAP 10, 032 (2015), arXiv:1506.02671 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  225. [236]

    Kogai, K

    K. Kogai, K. Akitsu, F. Schmidt, and Y. Urakawa, JCAP 03, 060 (2021), arXiv:2009.05517 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  226. [237]

    Goldstein, O

    S. Goldstein, O. H. E. Philcox, J. C. Hill, A. Esposito, and L. Hui, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043515 (2024), arXiv:2310.12959 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  227. [238]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, and M. Kamionkowski, JCAP 02, 017 (2016), arXiv:1504.05993 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  228. [239]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A15 (2016), arXiv:1502.01591 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  229. [240]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  230. [241]

    Lyons, The Annals of Applied Statistics 2, 887 (2008)

    L. Lyons, The Annals of Applied Statistics 2, 887 (2008)

    2008

  231. [242]

    A. E. Bayer and U. Seljak, JCAP 10, 009 (2020), arXiv:2007.13821 [physics.data-an]

    2020 arXiv

  232. [243]

    A. E. Bayer, U. Seljak, and J. Robnik, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508, 1346 (2021), arXiv:2108.06333 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  233. [244]

    Izumi and S

    K. Izumi and S. Mukohyama, JCAP 06, 016 (2010), arXiv:1004.1776 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  234. [245]

    Huang, JCAP 07, 025 (2010), arXiv:1004.0808 [astro-ph.CO]

    Q.-G. Huang, JCAP 07, 025 (2010), arXiv:1004.0808 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  235. [246]

    Hazumi et al., J

    M. Hazumi et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 194, 443 (2019)

    2019

  236. [247]

    Ade et al

    P. Ade et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 02, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  237. [248]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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