Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies' 4-Point Correlation Function

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DESI Y1 luminous red galaxies show a 4–10σ excess in parity-odd four-point clustering that disappears when independent sky patches are cross-correlated, so the paper reads the excess as a mock-variance problem, not new physics.

desk verdict First DESI parity-odd 4PCF measurement with a real auto-cross tension, but the auto significance is too covariance-dependent to be a detection; the conservative read is mock variance underestimation, and the paper mostly says that itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09133 v1 pith:34ZKDKGY submitted 2025-08-12 astro-ph.CO

Zachary Slepian , Alex Krolewski , Alessandro Greco , Simon May , William Ortola Leonard , Farshad Kamalinejad , Jessica Chellino , Matthew Reinhard
show 33 more authors
Elena Fernandez Francisco Prada Steven Ahlen Davide Bianchi David Brooks Todd Claybaugh Axel de la Macorra Arnaud de Mattia Biprateep Dey Peter Doel Enrique Gaztanaga Gaston Gutierrez Klaus Honscheid Dragan Huterer Dick Joyce Robert Kehoe David Kirkby Theodore Kisner Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Marc Manera Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel Seshadri Nadathur Will Percival Ashley Ross Eusebio Sanchez David Schlegel Michael Schubnell Hee-Jong Seo Joseph Silber David Sprayberry Gregory Tarle
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords parityviolationfour-pointcorrelationfunctionDESIluminousredgalaxiescosmologicallarge-scalestructureisotropicbasisfunctionsmockcovarianceauto-cross
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 reports the first measurement of parity-violating modes of the four-point correlation function (4PCF) in DESI Year 1 luminous red galaxies. A parity-violating 4PCF mode is a preferred handedness among galaxy tetrahedra—an excess of mirror-image shapes. In the auto-correlation analysis the summed parity-odd modes sit 4–10σ above mock catalogs with no parity violation, depending on analysis choices. But when the same modes are cross-correlated between independent patches of sky, no parity violation appears, and the larger error bars of the cross are not enough to explain the disagreement. The paper therefore concludes that the auto excess is more plausibly the mocks underestimating the true variance than genuine cosmological parity violation, and offers the tension as a target for future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parity-odd 4PCF expanded in isotropic basis functions—products of spherical harmonics on the three sides of each tetrahedron, combined with a 3-$j$ symbol and summed over azimuthal orders so that only rotation-invariant, mirror-odd combinations remain. The detection statistic is the inverse-covariance-weighted sum of squared modes, $\chi^2$, with the analytic Gaussian-random-field covariance $C_{\mathrm{ana}}$ calibrated to mocks. The auto/cross contrast is the decision mechanism: a genuine parity-violating signal survives in the cross between independent patches, whereas variance misestimation is incoherent between patches and cancels there.

What would settle it

A clean falsifier: measure the parity-odd 4PCF in two disjoint parts of the DESI footprint with a covariance from jackknife or many independent mocks. If the auto excess is genuine, both halves should show positive $\chi^2$ excess and their cross should be positive at comparable significance; if the excess vanishes in the cross while the auto stays high, the variance-underestimation explanation is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

From 5,060 parity-odd 4PCF modes in DESI Y1 LRGs, the paper forms an inverse-covariance-weighted sum of squared modes ($\chi^2$) against a zero-parity-violation model. Auto $\chi^2$ is 11.4σ (NGC) and 7.0σ (SGC) above Abacus mocks, 6.6/5.7σ above EZmocks, ~4σ compressed. Cross-correlation between independent patches gives no signal: $-1.0\sigma$ and $-0.8\sigma$. A genuine signal would appear in every patch, so the paper concludes the auto excess most plausibly reflects mock variance underestimation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mock-calibrated Gaussian-random-field covariance correctly describes how much the parity-odd 4PCF scatters in the real survey; if it understates the scatter, the auto significance is inflated and the cross null is the truthful result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 4–10σ auto excess should not be interpreted as a detection of cosmological parity violation, because the cross analysis—which a genuine signal must pass—is null.
  • Removing imaging-systematic and redshift-failure weights leaves the auto excess essentially unchanged, so the leading explanation is mock variance rather than a survey systematic.
  • Under statistical isotropy, genuine parity violation would repeat in every independent patch; future DESI data with more patches can settle the auto–cross tension with a comparable cross statistic.
  • The compressed analysis's lower significance indicates the excess is spread across many eigenmodes, so tests that compress to the highest-precision modes will understate it until more mocks allow larger eigenmode counts.
  • Since the same auto–cross pattern appeared in the earlier BOSS analysis, the DESI result supports a common origin in no-PV mocks underestimating the variance of parity-odd modes rather than two independent new-physics signals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read literally, the pair of results implies the analytic Gaussian covariance, not the cosmological model, is the fragile component; the paper's own half-inverse test (non-Gaussian tails and a negative offset) is consistent with that reading.
  • A sharper, affordable test would be to recompute the auto significance using an empirically jackknifed covariance from the DESI footprint itself: if the excess collapses to ≲1σ, the variance-misestimate explanation is confirmed.
  • The auto–cross tension suggests that higher-order clustering covariance for DESI-era surveys should be built from a larger set of independent N-body lightcones, or include non-Gaussian terms, before claiming anomalies in the odd 4PCF.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of parity-violating (PV) modes of the 4-point correlation function (4PCF) in DESI Year 1 LRGs. Three statistics are used: (i) an 'auto' chi-square comparing the measured parity-odd 4PCF to zero using an analytic Gaussian-random-field covariance; (ii) a 'compressed' T^2 statistic using an empirical covariance for the 300 lowest-noise eigenmodes; and (iii) a 'cross' statistic correlating parity-odd vectors between spatially separated sky patches. The auto analysis finds an excess relative to Abacus AltMTL mocks at 11.4 sigma (NGC) and 7.0 sigma (SGC), with values ranging from 4 to 16 sigma depending on covariance calibration and analysis choices. The compressed analysis gives about 4 sigma combined, while the cross analysis finds no signal (-1.0 sigma NGC, -0.8 sigma SGC). The authors interpret the auto-cross tension as evidence that the auto excess is more likely due to underestimation of the variance by the mocks than to genuine parity violation, while noting that a genuine PV signal cannot be excluded.

Significance. If the auto excess were robust, this would be a significant new result: the first DESI PV 4PCF measurement, extending the BOSS PV program to a larger, higher-redshift sample with more realistic N-body mocks and a cross-correlation control. The paper is notable for its careful treatment of systematics, its comparison of multiple mock suites, and its explicit testing of the covariance via the half-inverse test, variance-scaling relation, and even-parity consistency checks. The cross-analysis null is a strong and clean control, and the authors are appropriately cautious in concluding that the auto signal is likely a variance misestimate. However, the central quantitative claim is weakened by the strong sensitivity of the reported significance to the mock set used to calibrate the analytic covariance, and by internal inconsistencies in the reported significance range. These issues are load-bearing for the headline result and need to be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Results (Fig. 8)] The abstract and Concluding Discussion state a '4-10 sigma' signal, but the full-sample auto analysis with the Abacus FFA-calibrated covariance gives 15.2 sigma (NGC) and 16.4 sigma (SGC) in Fig. 8, while Table I gives 11.4/7.0 sigma for the baseline Abacus AltMTL calibration and the compressed analysis gives 4.1/-0.1 sigma. The reported range is internally inconsistent. Please define one headline significance that includes the calibration spread, or revise the abstract to reflect the full 4-16 sigma range shown in Fig. 8.
  2. [Covariance Matrix, Eq. (3)] The analytic covariance C_ana is calibrated by maximizing the likelihood in Eq. (3) over the free parameters nbar and Veff against the mock covariance, and the same mock realizations are then used to set the mean and width of the null distribution for the auto significance. With only 25 Abacus mocks, the null width has an uncertainty of roughly 1/sqrt(2(N-1)) ~ 14%, and Fig. 8 shows the significance shifts from 6.6 to 15.2 sigma depending on which mock set is used for calibration. The half-inverse test (Fig. 14) shows non-Gaussian tails and a systematic offset, meaning C_ana is not a certified mode-by-mode inverse of the mock covariance. This calibration sensitivity needs to be incorporated into the quoted significance, for example by marginalizing over calibration choices or by validating with a mock set not used in the calibration.
  3. [Results: Compressed Analysis and Cross Analysis] The compressed T^2 analysis (Fig. 2) gives only 4.1 sigma in NGC and -0.1 sigma in SGC, despite using the 300 lowest-noise eigenmodes. While the authors correctly call this a conservative lower bound, it shows that the auto significance is substantially reduced when the analytic covariance is replaced by an empirical covariance. In addition, the cross-analysis null is a strong control, but the expected cross significance of 6.7/6.1 sigma quoted in the Results section relies on the normalization equivalence in Eq. (2) and on the null widths; the caption ratios (2.1x/1.3x) do not match the widths visible in Figs. 1 and 3 (~1.7x/1.14x). Please clarify the comparison and quantify the tension more carefully, including the uncertainty in the expected cross signal.
  4. [Appendix: Detailed Discussion of Systematics] The cross-null cannot by itself distinguish variance underestimation from a patch-dependent 3D systematic. The BOSS asymmetric-redshift-failure effect is dismissed with an argument about fiber geometry rather than a DESI-specific simulation. Given that this is one of the few known mechanisms that could produce a 3D parity-odd signal, the authors should either simulate such an effect for the DESI footprint or explicitly state why the BOSS test is transferable. This is not necessarily a fatal omission, but it is load-bearing for the claim that 'it is unlikely to arise, at the signal level, from a systematic.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that the cross error bars are 2.1x (NGC) and 1.3x (SGC) larger than the auto error bars, but the Gaussian widths in Fig. 1 (Abacus AltMTL: 115 and 134) and Fig. 3 (195 and 153) give ratios of about 1.7 and 1.14. Please verify the quoted ratios.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The statement that chi^2 is computed 'with the model set to zero' is clear, but since C_ana is calibrated to mocks, the statistic is not exactly chi^2-distributed. Consider calling the test statistic Q or explicitly noting that the null distribution is determined from mocks.
  3. [Appendix, Eq. (4)] The variance-scaling relation has a free parameter Vthresh, and Fig. 9 shows two out of twenty-five Abacus points deviating notably. This is acceptable, but the text should state how sensitive Vthresh is to those outliers and whether removing them changes the scaling conclusion.
  4. [Introduction, discussion of [23]] The discussion of duplicated-box mocks in [23] is useful, but the Abacus mocks used in this paper also have a replication correction (Vmock/Vunique). The sensitivity of the significance to this correction is mentioned only briefly; please give the numerical effect on the quoted significances.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the auto significance is an external data-vs-mock comparison and the cross analysis is an independent control; covariance calibration is a robustness concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

Walked the paper's derivation chain. The central auto significance is S = (χ²_data − ⟨χ²⟩_mock)/σ_mock with χ² = ζ C_ana^{-1} ζ^T. C_ana is calibrated to the mock covariance via Eq. (3), which maximizes Tr(C_model^{-1} C_mocks) − log det. This is a nuisance-parameter fit to the null ensemble; the DESI data vector ζ does not enter the calibration. The null mean is essentially the trace term in Eq. (3), so the centering of the null is a fitted quantity, but the data's χ² is independent, so the detection is not forced by construction. The compressed analysis uses an empirical covariance from 1,000 EZMocks and a null from 25 Abacus AltMTL mocks, providing a partially independent check that lowers the significance. The cross analysis (Eq. 2) finds no signal and thus serves as an internal control. Self-citations to [1,2,3,5,64] are published method papers, externally applied to BOSS or independently derived; they are not uniqueness theorems and do not by themselves force the DESI result. The half-inverse test (Fig. 14) and the 6.6–15.2σ variation of the auto significance with calibration mock set are acknowledged limitations that affect robustness and interpretation, but they are statistical/correctness concerns, not construction-level circularity. No equation in the detection chain is definitionally equal to another by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central analysis rests on a calibrated analytic covariance (with fitted nbar and Veff), a mock-based null distribution, and the cross-patch independence assumption. The free parameters are calibration choices, not hidden degrees of freedom targeting the PV signal directly.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective number density nbar for analytic covariance = 0.9e-4 to 1.6e-4 h^3 Mpc^-3 depending on mock set and hemisphere (Abacus AltMTL: 1.6e-4 NGC, 0.9e-4 SGC)
    Fitted by maximizing likelihood in Eq. 3 to make the analytic covariance match the EZMock empirical covariance. Entering the covariance matrix used for all significances.
  • Effective volume Veff for analytic covariance = 4.319 Gpc^3/h^3 (NGC) and 3.327 (SGC) for Abacus AltMTL, see Table II
    Fitted jointly with nbar in Eq. 3. Scales the covariance and thus the chi-square values.
  • Vthresh (threshold volume in variance scaling) = 1.52 Gpc^3/h^3 (NGC), 3.83 (SGC)
    Free parameter fitted to the measured variance of chi-square across full sample, patches, and regions (Fig 9) to verify the variance scaling relation. Not used in the main detection significance but in the consistency check.
  • Number of eigenvalues Neig in compressed analysis = 300 (explored 50,100,150,500)
    Choice of how many highest-precision eigenvectors to retain; affects the compressed significance, ranging from about 2.8 sigma (analytic T2) to about 4 sigma (mock comparison).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The galaxy density field and its 4PCF covariance are well described by a Gaussian Random Field on the scales used (r > 20 Mpc/h).
    The analytic covariance Cana is computed assuming a GRF density, neglecting higher-order connected correlations (Covariance Matrix section). The half-inverse test in Fig 14 shows deviations with non-Gaussian tails, so this assumption is imperfect.
  • domain assumption The mocks (EZMock and Abacus) reproduce the survey geometry, fiber assignment, and clustering of the DESI Y1 LRG sample well enough to serve as the null distribution.
    Significances are computed by comparing data to mock chi-square distributions. Differences in mock physics and fiber assignment shift the null mean and width by tens of percent (Figs 1 and 8), so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Any systematic capable of producing a true parity-odd signal must be genuinely 3D, since 1D and 2D systematics are destroyed by the isotropic projection.
    Used in the Concluding Discussion and systematics appendix to argue no known systematic can create an infinite-volume-average PV signal, so the auto excess must be either PV or variance misestimation.
  • standard math The Wigner-Eckart theorem and isotropic basis function formalism for the 4PCF.
    Used to construct the parity-odd basis functions and the 3-j symbol coupling (Methods section). Standard, well-established background.
  • domain assumption Patches of the survey are statistically independent for the cross analysis.
    The cross statistic assumes each patch is an independent realization; Abacus mocks cannot be used because the box replication correlates patches, and EZMocks are used instead. If the EZMock patch covariance is incorrect, the cross null is not reliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies' 4-Point Correlation Function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34ZKDKGY

@misc{pith2026250809133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies' 4-Point Correlation Function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34ZKDKGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09133}
}
abstract

Here we report the first measurement of the parity-violating (PV) 4-Point Correlation Function (4PCF) of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument's Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxy (DESI Y1 LRG) sample, motivated by the potential detection of the PV 4PCF in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (SDSS BOSS) galaxies. In our auto-correlation ("auto") analysis, we find a statistically significant excess of the PV signal compared to mocks without any PV, at 4-10$\sigma$ depending on details of the analysis. This could arise either from genuine PV or from an underestimation of the variance in the mocks; it is unlikely to arise, at the signal level, from a systematic. We then cross-correlate ("cross") the putative PV signal between different, independent patches of sky, and there find no detection of parity violation. The two measurements are in significant tension: while the cross has somewhat larger error bars than the auto, this is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy. We thus present the current work as an intriguing addition to the PV work on BOSS and as motivation for exploring further the relationship between the auto and cross PV 4PCF analyses.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Testing parity with composite-field spectra of BOSS and DESI luminous red galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    No evidence for cosmological parity violation is found in the first kurto-spectrum analysis of BOSS DR12 and DESI DR1 luminous red galaxies.

  2. Unitary and Analytic Renormalisation of Cosmological Correlators

    hep-th 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Different dimensional regularization schemes agree with each other and with unitarity; new analytic eta regulators simplify the work and fix the imaginary part of one-loop coefficients by the logarithmic running of th...

  3. Probing Parity Violation with Weak Lensing Trispectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A parity-odd weak lensing convergence trispectrum is derived and forecast to be detectable with DES Y3/LSST Y10-like surveys under optimistic template amplitudes.

  4. Parity-odd Four-Point Correlation Function from DESI Data Release 1 Luminous Red Galaxy Sample

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The parity-odd four-point correlation function measured in DESI DR1 LRGs is consistent with zero after correcting for survey-induced covariance mismatches.

  5. Parity Violation in Galaxy Shapes: Primordial Non-Gaussianity

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The parity-odd intrinsic alignment power spectrum probes the collapsed limit of the parity-odd primordial trispectrum and can tighten constraints on parity-violating PNG when bias parameters are calibrated from N-body...

  6. Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field ${\rm II}$: 1-Loop Corrections with Third-Order Densities

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Derives the 1-loop, third-order analytical template for the 4PCF covariance, reducing the problem to three contraction classes and low-dimensional radial integrals.

  7. Fast Graph-based Higher-Order Clustering Statistics on the GPU

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    GRAMSCI v2 replaces binary-search N-point enumeration with O(m) merge-walks, adds parity-decomposed and connected 4pCF, and ports the query engine to OpenACC GPUs with out-of-core tiling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. N. Cahn, Z. Slepian, and J. Hou, Test for Cosmological Parity Violation Using the 3D Distribution of Galaxies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 201002 (2023), arXiv:2110.12004 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    fiber assignment

    empirically doubled the rate of this effect’s occur- rence in the data, and showed it was not sufficient to shift their result substantially enough to explain away the sta- tistical evidence. We would not necessarily expect this effect in DESI because the fibers’ mapping to the spec- trograph and cameras is different from BOSS’s. We also find that our res...

  3. [3]

    R. N. Cahn and Z. Slepian, Isotropic N-point basis func- tions and their properties, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 325204 (2023), arXiv:2010.14418 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    J. Hou, Z. Slepian, and R. N. Cahn, Measurement of parity-odd modes in the large-scale 4-point correlation function of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey twelfth data release CMASS and LOWZ galaxies, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 5701 (2023), arXiv:2206.03625 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Krolewski, S

    A. Krolewski, S. May, K. Smith, and H. Hopkins, No evidence for parity violation in BOSS, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 2024, 044 (2024), arXiv:2407.03397 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Probing parity violation with the four- point correlation function of BOSS galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063501 (2022), arXiv:2206.04227 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    P. Paul, C. Clarkson, and R. Maartens, The Odd- Parity Part of the Observed Galaxy Trispectrum, arXiv:2411.10897 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    P. Paul, C. Clarkson, and R. Maartens, Apparent Parity Violation in the Observed Galaxy Trispectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 121001 (2024), arXiv:2402.16478 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Reinhard, Z

    M. Reinhard, Z. Slepian, J. Hou, and A. Greco, Full Parity-Violating Trispectrum in Axion Inflation: Reduc- tion to Low-D Integrals, arXiv:2412.16037 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    X. Niu, M. H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan, and W. Xue, Parity-odd and even trispectrum from axion infla- tion, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023, 018 (2023), arXiv:2211.14324 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, Colliders and ghosts: Constraining inflation with the parity-odd galaxy four-point function, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023523 (2023), arXiv:2210.16320 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cho and K.-W

    H.-T. Cho and K.-W. Ng, Four-point correlation func- tions in axion inflation, arXiv:2506.02331 [hep-ph] (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Thavanesan, No-go Theorem for Cosmological Parity Violation, arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th] (2025)

    A. Thavanesan, No-go Theorem for Cosmological Parity Violation, arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cabass, S

    G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, Parity violation in the scalar trispectrum: no-go theo- rems and yes-go examples, J. High Energy Phys. 2023 (2), 21, arXiv:2210.02907 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Stefanyszyn, X

    D. Stefanyszyn, X. Tong, and Y. Zhu, There and Back Again: Mapping and Factorizing Cosmological Observables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221501 (2024), arXiv:2406.00099 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. H. G. Lee, C. McCulloch, and E. Pajer, Leading loops in cosmological correlators, J. High Energy Phys. 2023 (11), 38, arXiv:2305.11228 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Inomata, L

    K. Inomata, L. Jenks, and M. Kamionkowski, Parity- breaking galaxy 4-point function from lensing by chiral gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043504 (2025), arXiv:2408.03994 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jazayeri, S

    S. Jazayeri, S. Renaux-Petel, X. Tong, D. Werth, and Y. Zhu, Parity violation from emergent nonlocal- ity during inflation, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123523 (2023), arXiv:2308.11315 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jeong and M

    D. Jeong and M. Kamionkowski, Clustering Fossils from the Early Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 251301 (2012), arXiv:1203.0302 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shiraishi, Parity violation in the CMB trispectrum from the scalar sector, Phys

    M. Shiraishi, Parity violation in the CMB trispectrum from the scalar sector, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083503 (2016), arXiv:1608.00368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Do the CMB Temperature Fluctuations Conserve Parity?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 181001 (2023), arXiv:2303.12106 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jamieson, A

    D. Jamieson, A. Caravano, J. Hou, Z. Slepian, and E. Ko- matsu, Parity-odd power spectra: concise statistics for cosmological parity violation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 533, 2582 (2024), arXiv:2406.15683 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    O. H. E. Philcox and J. Ereza, Could sample variance be responsible for the parity-violating signal seen in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey?, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 383, 20240034 (2025), arXiv:2401.09523 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adari and A

    P. Adari and A. Slosar, Searching for parity violation in SDSS DR16 Lyman- α forest data, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103534 (2024), arXiv:2405.04660 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. Hou, Z. Slepian, and D. Jamieson, Can Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations Illuminate the Parity-Violating Galaxy 4PCF?, arXiv:2410.05230 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ereza, F

    J. Ereza, F. Prada, A. Klypin, T. Ishiyama, A. Smith, C. M. Baugh, B. Li, C. Hern´ andez-Aguayo, and J. Ruedas, The UCHUU-GLAM BOSS and eBOSS LRG lightcones: exploring clustering and covariance errors, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 532, 1659 (2024), arXiv:2311.14456 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Scoccimarro, The Bispectrum: From Theory to Ob- servations, Astrophys

    R. Scoccimarro, The Bispectrum: From Theory to Ob- servations, Astrophys. J. 544, 597 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0004086 [astro-ph]

    2000

  20. [28]

    W. R. Coulton, O. H. E. Philcox, and F. Villaescusa- Navarro, Signatures of a parity-violating universe, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023531 (2024), arXiv:2306.11782 22 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Slepian and D

    Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Computing the three-point correlation function of galaxies in O(N 2) time, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 454, 4142 (2015), arXiv:1506.02040 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Slepian, J

    Z. Slepian, J. Chellino, J. Hou, and A. Greco, On a gener- ating function for the isotropic basis functions and other connected results, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57, 505203 (2024), arXiv:2406.15385 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. Hou, R. Cahn, and DESI, Study of the Connected Four-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies from DESI Data Release 1 Luminous Red Galaxy Sample (2025), in preparation

    2025

  24. [32]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Z. Slepian, J. Hou, C. Warner, R. N. Cahn, and D. J. Eisenstein, ENCORE: an O(N 2 g ) estima- tor for galaxy N-point correlation functions, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 2457 (2022), arXiv:2105.08722 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Slepian and D

    Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Accelerating the two- point and three-point galaxy correlation functions using Fourier transforms, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, L31 (2016), arXiv:1506.04746 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ortol´ a Leonard, Z

    W. Ortol´ a Leonard, Z. Slepian, and DESI, Measurement of the parity-even, connected 4PCF of DESI Y1 LRGs (2025), in preparation

    2025

  27. [35]

    Slepian et al

    Z. Slepian et al. , The large-scale three-point correla- tion function of the SDSS BOSS DR12 CMASS galax- ies, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 468, 1070 (2017), arXiv:1512.02231 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Garcia and Z

    K. Garcia and Z. Slepian, Improving the line of sight for the anisotropic 3-point correlation function of galax- ies: Centroid and Unit-Vector-Average methods scaling as O(N 2), Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 515, 1199 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Slepian and D

    Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, On the signature of the baryon-dark matter relative velocity in the two- and three-point galaxy correlation functions, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 448, 9 (2015), arXiv:1411.4052 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Slepian et al

    Z. Slepian et al. , Constraining the baryon-dark mat- ter relative velocity with the large-scale three-point cor- relation function of the SDSS BOSS DR12 CMASS galaxies, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 2109 (2018), arXiv:1607.06098 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Me- chanics (Princeton University Press, 1957)

    1957

  32. [40]

    Slepian and D

    Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Modelling the large- scale redshift-space 3-point correlation function of galax- ies, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469, 2059 (2017), arXiv:1607.03109 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. N. Spergel and D. M. Goldberg, Microwave back- ground bispectrum. I. Basic formalism, Phys. Rev. D 59, 103001 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811252 [astro-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Luo, The Angular Bispectrum of the Cosmic Mi- crowave Background, Astrophys

    X. Luo, The Angular Bispectrum of the Cosmic Mi- crowave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 427, L71 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9312004 [astro-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Slepian, F

    Z. Slepian, F. Kamalinejad, and A. Greco, Power spec- trum, bispectrum, 2- and 3-point correlation function, and beyond (2025), to appear in Elsevier’s Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, ed. I. Mandel

    2025

  36. [44]

    Z. Slepian, Algorithm to produce a density field with given two-, three-, and four-point correlation func- tions, RAS Techniques and Instruments 3, 584 (2024), arXiv:2306.05383 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aghamousa et al

    A. Aghamousa et al. (DESI), The DESI Experi- ment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM] (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    E. F. Schlafly et al. (DESI), Survey Operations for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 166, 259 (2023), arXiv:2306.06309 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Abareshi et al

    B. Abareshi et al. (DESI), Overview of the Instrumenta- tion for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, As- tron. J. 164, 207 (2022), arXiv:2205.10939 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Aghamousa et al

    A. Aghamousa et al. (DESI), The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design, arXiv:1611.00037 [astro-ph.IM] (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    T. N. Miller et al. (DESI), The Optical Corrector for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 168, 95 (2024), arXiv:2306.06310 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Guy et al

    J. Guy et al. (DESI), The Spectroscopic Data Processing Pipeline for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 165, 144 (2023), arXiv:2209.14482 [astro- ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements, arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Poppett et al

    C. Poppett et al. (DESI), Overview of the Fiber System for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 168, 245 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Abdul-Karim et al

    M. Abdul-Karim et al. (DESI), Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, arXiv:2503.14745 [astro-ph.CO] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Abdul-Karim et al

    M. Abdul-Karim et al. (DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints, arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 II: sample def- initions, characteristics, and two-point clustering statis- tics, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 017 (2025), arXiv:2411.12020 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Zhou et al

    R. Zhou et al. (DESI), Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies, Astron. J. 165, 58 (2023), arXiv:2208.08515 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    N. A. Maksimova, L. H. Garrison, D. J. Eisenstein, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose, and T. P. Satterthwaite, ABA- CUSSUMMIT: a massive set of high-accuracy, high- resolution N-body simulations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 4017 (2021), arXiv:2110.11398 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chuang, F.-S

    C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura, F. Prada, C. Zhao, and G. Yepes, EZmocks: extending the Zeldovich approxi- mation to generate mock galaxy catalogues with accu- rate clustering statistics, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, 2621 (2015), arXiv:1409.1124 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. Yuan, L. H. Garrison, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose, and D. J. Eisenstein, ABACUSHOD: a highly efficient ex- tended multitracer HOD framework and its application to BOSS and eBOSS data, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 510, 3301 (2022), arXiv:2110.11412 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    L. H. Garrison, D. J. Eisenstein, D. Ferrer, N. A. Mak- simova, and P. A. Pinto, The ABACUS cosmological N- body code, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 575 (2021), arXiv:2110.11392 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. M. S Hanif et al. (2024), in preparation

    2024

  54. [62]

    Lasker et al

    J. Lasker et al. (DESI), Production of alternate realiza- tions of DESI fiber assignment for unbiased clustering measurement in data and simulations, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 2025, 127 (2025), arXiv:2404.03006 [astro- 23 ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), DESI 2024 V: Full- Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars, arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    half-inverse

    Eq. 53), but in practice it is often numerically simi- lar. We show the optimized ¯n and Veff in Table II in the Appendix. In our baseline results, we optimize the parameters of the analytic covariance to match the distribution from the Abacus AltMTL mocks, which have the most...

  57. [65]

    Rashkovetskyi et al

    M. Rashkovetskyi et al. , Semi-analytical covariance ma- trices for two-point correlation function for DESI 2024 data, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 145 (2025), arXiv:2404.03007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    J. Hou, R. N. Cahn, O. H. E. Philcox, and Z. Slepian, An- alytic Gaussian covariance matrices for galaxy N -point correlation functions, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043515 (2022), arXiv:2108.01714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    X. Xu, N. Padmanabhan, D. J. Eisenstein, K. T. Mehta, and A. J. Cuesta, A 2 per cent distance to z = 0.35 by reconstructing baryon acoustic oscillations – II. Fitting techniques, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 427, 2146 (2012), arXiv:1202.0091 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ortol´ a Leonard and Z

    W. Ortol´ a Leonard and Z. Slepian, Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field I: One-Loop Corrections with Second Order Densities (2025), in preparation

    2025

  61. [69]

    Ortol´ a Leonard and Z

    W. Ortol´ a Leonard and Z. Slepian, Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field II: One-Loop Corrections with Third Order Densities (2025), in preparation

    2025

  62. [70]

    Ginzburg, V

    D. Ginzburg, V. Desjacques, and K. C. Chan, Shot noise and biased tracers: A new look at the halo model, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083528 (2017), arXiv:1706.08738 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Baldauf, U

    T. Baldauf, U. Seljak, R. E. Smith, N. Hamaus, and V. Desjacques, Halo stochasticity from exclusion and nonlinear clustering, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083507 (2013), arXiv:1305.2917 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Paech, N

    K. Paech, N. Hamaus, B. Hoyle, M. Costanzi, T. Gi- annantonio, S. Hagstotz, G. Sauerwein, and J. Weller, Cross-correlation of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the importance of non- Poissonian shot noise, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 2566 (201...

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, and M. White, Consistent modeling of velocity statistics and redshift-space distortions in one- loop perturbation theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 062 (2020), arXiv:2005.00523 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina, and M. White, Redshift-space distortions in Lagrangian perturbation theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021, 100 (2021), arXiv:2012.04636 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Pinon et al

    M. Pinon et al. (DESI), Mitigation of DESI fiber as- signment incompleteness effect on two-point clustering with small angular scale truncated estimators, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys. 2025, 131 (2025), arXiv:2406.04804 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    de Putter, C

    R. de Putter, C. Wagner, O. Mena, L. Verde, and W. J. Percival, Thinking outside the box: effects of modes larger than the survey on matter power spectrum covari- ance, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2012, 019 (2012), arXiv:1111.6596 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Wadekar, M

    D. Wadekar, M. M. Ivanov, and R. Scoccimarro, Cos- mological constraints from BOSS with analytic co- variance matrices, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123521 (2020), arXiv:2009.00622 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    O. H. E. Philcox, J. Hou, and Z. Slepian, A First De- tection of the Connected 4-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies Using the BOSS CMASS Sample, arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv:2108.01670 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    N. Hand, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, Y. Li, C. Modi, U. Seljak, and Z. Slepian, nbodykit: An Open-source, Massively Parallel Toolkit for Large-scale Structure, Astron. J.156, 160 (2018), arXiv:1712.05834 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Burden, N

    A. Burden, N. Padmanabhan, R. N. Cahn, M. J. White, and L. Samushia, Mitigating the impact of the DESI fiber assignment on galaxy clustering, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 2017, 001 (2017), arXiv:1611.04635 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    C. Hahn, R. Scoccimarro, M. R. Blanton, J. L. Tinker, and S. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Torres, The Effect of Fiber Collisions on the Galaxy Power Spectrum Mul- tipoles, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 467, 1940 (2017), arXiv:1609.01714 [astro-ph.CO]

    1940 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Pinol, R

    L. Pinol, R. N. Cahn, N. Hand, U. Seljak, and M. White, Imprint of DESI fiber assignment on the anisotropic power spectrum of emission line galaxies, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys. 2017, 008 (2017), arXiv:1611.05007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kamalinejad, Z

    F. Kamalinejad, Z. Slepian, A. Greco, A. Krolewski, et al. (DESI), First Measurement of Galaxy Biases from the 3- Point Correlation Function of the DESI Data Release 1 (2025), in preparation

    2025

  76. [84]

    Kamalinejad, Z

    F. Kamalinejad, Z. Slepian, A. Greco, A. Krolewski, et al. (DESI), First Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Oscilla- tion (BAO) Feature in the 3-Point Correlation Function of DESI DR1 Luminous Red Galaxies (2025), in prepa- ration

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.