CMB Lensing Trispectrum as a Probe of Parity Violation in LSS

Alessandro Greco; Alex Krolewski; Jiamin Hou; Zachary Slepian

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

CMB Lensing Trispectrum as a Probe of Parity Violation in LSS

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that any parity-odd primordial scalar trispectrum automatically produces a parity-odd angular CMB lensing trispectrum, and derives the compact reduced-trispectrum formula that makes the connection explicit.

desk verdict First general reduced CMB lensing trispectrum, with exact parity propagation; the SNR forecast is idealized and the abstract oversells near-term detectability. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15789 v1 pith:IOVONWUT submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qc

Alessandro Greco , Zachary Slepian , Jiamin Hou , Alex Krolewski This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAgr-qc

keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundCMBlensingtrispectrumparityviolationlarge-scalestructureprimordialWignersymbolssignal-to-noiseforecast

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 argues that the four-point correlation function of the CMB lensing potential can serve as a probe of parity violation in large-scale structure, something previously attempted only with three-dimensional galaxy statistics. It derives a compact, general expression for the reduced lensing trispectrum that works for any input matter trispectrum, then proves that a parity-odd primordial scalar trispectrum automatically generates a parity-odd angular lensing trispectrum. The authors illustrate the effect with a simple toy model and estimate a signal-to-noise ratio that grows with the maximum multipole, suggesting that future CMB experiments could meaningfully constrain parity violation. If correct, secondary CMB anisotropies become a new and independent window on fundamental parity-breaking physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reduced angular trispectrum $Q^{\ell_1\ell_2}_{\ell_3\ell_4}(L)$, defined through two Wigner 3-j symbols that enforce statistical isotropy, and expressed in Eq. (4.19) as sums over 3-j, 6-j, and 9-j symbols. This object carries the parity information: the 3-j symbols entering the $F$ coefficients force the parity relation $P(\ell_1+\ell_2+\ell_3+\ell_4)=P(\ell'_1+\ell'_2+\ell'_3)$, which is the automatic propagation of parity-oddness from the primordial trispectrum to the lensing trispectrum. The accompanying integral $I^{\ell'_1\ell'_2\ell'_3}_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3\ell_4}$ contains the lensing efficiency, growth factor, transfer functions, and the Limber-approximated line-of-sight projection.

What would settle it

Compute the reduced lensing trispectrum without applying the Limber approximation to all eight Bessel functions for a primordial trispectrum whose internal multipoles $\ell'_n$ are comparable to the external $\ell_n$. If the parity-odd angular trispectrum vanishes or fails to satisfy $P(\ell_1+\ell_2+\ell_3+\ell_4)=P(\ell'_1+\ell'_2+\ell'_3)$ in that regime, the automatic parity-propagation claim does not hold generally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the connected CMB lensing trispectrum inherits parity-oddness directly from the primordial matter trispectrum: the parity of the angular trispectrum, $\ell_1+\ell_2+\ell_3+\ell_4$, equals the parity of the internal angular-momentum sum $\ell'_1+\ell'_2+\ell'_3$ that labels the isotropic-basis expansion of the primordial trispectrum. Therefore a parity-odd primordial trispectrum cannot be washed out by the projection to the sky, provided the simultaneous Limber approximation and the hierarchy $\ell'_n \ll \ell_n$ hold. The main result is the reduced trispectrum formula of Eq. (4.19), expressed through Wigner 3-j, 6-j, and 9-j symbols, together with the integral kernel of Eq. (4.20) that encodes the lensing efficiency, growth, and transfer functions. For a concrete parity-violating toy model built from the triple product $\mathbf{k}_1\cdot(\mathbf{k}_2\times\mathbf{k}_3)$, the authors compute the parity-odd lensing trispectrum and find a noiseless SNR that increases roughly quadratically with $\ell_{\rm max}$, exceeding unity at sufficiently large multipoles.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the simultaneous Limber approximation applied to all eight spherical Bessel functions, together with the assumption that the internal angular momenta $\ell'_n$ are much smaller than the observed multipoles $\ell_n$, fails for the matter trispectrum of interest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A nonzero parity-odd lensing trispectrum in future CMB data would be direct evidence for a parity-violating primordial trispectrum in the scalar sector.
The general reduced-trispectrum formula applies to any input matter trispectrum, so more realistic inflationary models can be tested without re-deriving the angular projection each time.
CMB lensing complements the galaxy 4PCF by probing smaller physical scales and different redshifts, potentially providing an independent check of the parity-odd signals reported in BOSS data.
The SNR forecast, though computed for a toy model and without noise, indicates that upcoming experiments could reach detectability at high multipoles.
The parity-even part of the lensing trispectrum is unaffected by this mechanism, so the parity-odd signal is a clean, isolated observable.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves open whether the Limber-based reduction remains valid when the primordial trispectrum has significant power at high internal multipoles $\ell'_n$; testing that regime could either extend or restrict the automatic parity-propagation result.
If the parity-odd lensing trispectrum is confirmed observationally, it would provide a late-time counterpart to primordial parity violation, potentially distinguishing inflationary sources from astrophysical ones by the scale dependence of the signal.
One could extend the SNR analysis to include instrumental noise and foregrounds, which the paper explicitly defers; the forecast SNR may degrade significantly at the multipoles where the signal is largest.
The toy model's power-law shape peaks in the squeezed limit, so alternative templates with different peak configurations could either enhance or suppress the detectability of the effect.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. Eq. (4.19) is a genuine first: a compact, general reduced lensing trispectrum for any input matter trispectrum. And the parity-propagation result, Eq. (4.23), is cleaner than the text makes it look: it follows from the zero-row 3-j selection rules in the F coefficients and from the four-point Gaunt integral before any Limber approximation. The reader's worry about the L≈ℓ hierarchy does not land. That hierarchy affects only the amplitude of I and the SNR forecast, not the existence of a parity-odd angular trispectrum.

The paper is honest about what is review. The power-spectrum and bispectrum sections are explicitly setup, and Appendix A recovers Böhm's bispectrum. The numerical cross-checks against CLASS, the EH transfer function, and the Gaussian toy model are real and give confidence that the pipeline is not just symbol-pushing. The physical intuition for why lensing is more sensitive than primary CMB—broad kernel, smaller physical scales, non-coplanar tetrahedra—is developed carefully and is worth keeping.

The soft spot is the SNR. Eq. (6.6) is noiseless, uses a toy amplitude |g−|=2×10^7 inherited from Ref. [10], and is extrapolated with a polynomial fit. Real lensing reconstruction noise will enter the covariance and suppress the forecast; the claim in the abstract that SO and CMB-S4 will "contribute maximal power" is premature. The interpretation section also self-flags an unresolved dispute with Refs. [26,27] about primary CMB sensitivity, so the comparative claim is not fully settled. Minor: Eq. (6.1) has an m-index typo (ϕ_{ℓ2 m3}), and there are scattered typos. Cosmetic only.

The self-citation for the toy amplitude is legitimate—it is the same template—but the forecast inherits its normalization, so the SNR should be read as proof-of-principle, not as a detection forecast.

Who this is for: people working on parity violation in LSS and on CMB lensing estimators. The formalism is the contribution; the toy-model SNR is an illustration. I would send it to a serious referee. The derivation deserves scrutiny and the SNR section needs to be brought down to earth, but desk rejection would lose a real new result. Recommend major revision: keep the formalism, soften the abstract, and reframe the SNR as idealized.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper derives a general expression for the reduced angular trispectrum of the CMB lensing potential sourced by an arbitrary primordial matter trispectrum (Eqs. 4.19–4.20) and shows that a parity-odd primordial scalar trispectrum automatically produces a parity-odd lensing trispectrum, via Wigner 3-j, 6-j, and 9-j selection rules (Eq. 4.23). The authors validate their lower-order pipeline against CLASS, the Eisenstein–Hu transfer function, and the Böhm et al. bispectrum, and they illustrate the formalism with a parity-odd toy trispectrum template having ℓ'_1 = ℓ'_2 = ℓ'_3 = 1. They then compute the induced trispectrum and estimate an idealized, noiseless signal-to-noise ratio as a function of ℓ_max (Fig. 11), concluding that CMB lensing can probe parity violation and that upcoming experiments such as Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 could contribute to such a measurement.

Significance. The general reduced-trispectrum formula in Eq. (4.19) is a substantial formal contribution: it is compact, applies to any input matter trispectrum under the stated Limber and L≈ℓ approximations, and the parity-propagation argument is clean and does not depend on the toy model. The paper is also careful to validate its numerical pipeline against CLASS, the Eisenstein–Hu transfer function, and the Böhm bispectrum, and the closed-form Gaussian-transfer-function results provide useful internal checks. If the results stand, they open a new observational window on parity violation and give an intuitive explanation for why lensing, unlike primary CMB anisotropies, is not geometrically suppressed. The main reservation is that the SNR forecast is idealized and is currently used to support detectability claims that are not yet justified.

major comments (3)

[§6, Eq. (6.6), Fig. 11] The SNR is computed in a noiseless limit: the denominator of Eq. (6.6) contains only products of Cϕϕ, with no lensing reconstruction noise N_ℓ^(0), foregrounds, or systematics. The abstract's statement that this work 'will be important in enabling upcoming experiments such as Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 to contribute maximal power on parity violation' is therefore not supported by the presented forecasts. The paper acknowledges this limitation in §7, but the abstract and conclusions make a stronger claim; the SNR should either be recomputed with a noise model (e.g., Cϕϕ + N_ℓ) for a representative experiment, or the detectability claims should be explicitly qualified as ideal-case statements.
[§6, Fig. 11 and Table 2] The SNR is extrapolated to large ℓ_max using a quadratic polynomial fit, yet §7 states that the signal 'will inevitably drop off at some ℓmax as we approach the flat-sky limit.' A quadratic extrapolation cannot capture such a turnover, so the claim that an SNR exceeding 1 could be achieved at larger ℓ_max is not robust. The authors should either compute the SNR to larger ℓ_max directly, model the predicted turnover physically, or refrain from asserting SNR > 1 beyond the computed range unless the turnover scale is identified.
[§4.2, Eq. (4.28)] The numerical example fixes the parity-odd basis to ℓ'_1 = ℓ'_2 = ℓ'_3 = 1 and sets the overall amplitude to |g−| = 2 × 10^7, following Ref. [10]. This is acceptable for a toy model, but it means the quoted SNR is proportional to an unconstrained amplitude and to a specific shape. The detectability statement should therefore be framed as conditional on that amplitude and shape, rather than as a generic forecast for future experiments.

minor comments (7)

[§6, Eq. (6.1)] The fourth factor in the estimator appears as ϕ_{ℓ2 m3}; the indices should be ϕ_{ℓ2 m2}, ϕ_{ℓ3 m3}, and ϕ_{ℓ4 m4} for the estimator to match the reduced trispectrum definition.
[§2.2, §3, §4.1] The phrase 'statically isotropic' appears repeatedly and should read 'statistically isotropic.'
[General] There are several typographical errors: 'isotropty' in §4.1, 'fomd' in §5.2, 'T rispectrum' in the title, and 'order order' in footnote 3.
[§4.2, Eqs. (4.30)–(4.32)] The notation ℓ4^0 is confusing because it carries a zero exponent and is therefore just unity; it would be clearer to write the corresponding factor explicitly as (ℓ_4/χ)^0 or to omit it.
[§5.2 and Appendix C] The geometric suppression argument for the primary CMB is presented as heuristic; the text should state more explicitly that this suppression applies to the narrow last-scattering kernel and not to the broad lensing kernel.
[Fig. 11] The caption refers to the 'upper panel,' but the figure contains three panels; the panels should be labeled and referenced individually.
[§2.2, Eq. (2.27)] The sentence following Eq. (2.27) claims the result is general 'except for the usage of the Limber approximation,' but the derivation also assumes D ≃ D0a and ns ≃ 1; these additional assumptions should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the parity-propagation result follows from angular-momentum selection rules, and the toy-model amplitude is an input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation of Eq. (4.23) does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Starting from the isotropic-basis expansion of the primordial trispectrum (Eq. 4.4), the 3-j selection rules in each F coefficient (Eq. 4.18) and the four-point Gaunt integral (Eq. 4.7) force P(ell1+ell2+ell3+ell4)=P(ell'1+ell'2+ell'3) before any Limber approximation; the Limber step (Eqs. 4.10-4.12) affects only the amplitude of I in Eq. (4.20) and the SNR normalization, not the parity relation. The parity-odd toy model (Eqs. 4.24-4.28) is explicitly a worked example, and the amplitude |g_-|=2e7 is imported from prior work [10] as a fiducial input for the SNR forecast (Fig. 11), not fitted to any data being predicted. The SNR estimator and covariance (Eqs. 6.1-6.6) follow the standard Hu [38] prescription, and the paper explicitly labels the forecast idealized and neglectful of noise, foregrounds, and systematics. Self-citations to the Cahn-Slepian isotropic basis and to the Hou-Slepian-Jamieson toy template are contextual; no load-bearing step depends on an unverified self-citation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The central claim rests on standard angular-momentum machinery plus two modeling assumptions: the Limber/Ln approx ell_n projection and a hand-chosen parity-odd trispectrum template. The SNR forecast further depends on an adopted amplitude from self-authored prior work and a polynomial extrapolation.

free parameters (4)

Gaussian transfer function width sigma = 0.02 Mpc^-1
Tuned to match the CLASS/EH matter power spectrum (Sec 2.2.2, Fig. 3); used in the closed-form power spectrum, bispectrum, and trispectrum toy calculations.
Parity-odd trispectrum amplitude g_- = |g_-| = 2 x 10^7
Chosen 'as done in [10]' (Hou, Slepian, Jamieson, with overlapping authorship) to normalize the SNR forecast; no independent constraint is derived in this paper.
Toy-model shape powers (n_a, n_b, n_c) = -2, -1, 0
Picked by hand for the parity-odd template Eq. (4.26)/(4.28); the paper shows results only for this choice.
SNR extrapolation polynomial coefficients = Table 2, N = 2 for SNR
Quadratic fit to the computed SNR points is used to claim SNR > 1 beyond the computed ell_max range.

assumptions (6)

standard math Wigner-Eckart theorem and 3j/6j/9j symbol sum rules
Used to reduce the angular trispectrum to Eq. (4.19) and to evaluate the estimator covariance in Sec. 6.
domain assumption Limber approximation maps each spherical Bessel pair to a delta function and forces chi_n approx ell_n / k_n
Invoked for all eight Bessel functions in Eqs. (4.10)-(4.12); this is the main mathematical approximation enabling the compact trispectrum expression.
domain assumption Delta-function visibility function g(chi') approx delta(chi' - chi_*)
Eq. (2.2) neglects reionization; validated by Fig. 1 and used throughout.
domain assumption Matter domination with D approx D_0 a and psi proportional to delta_m / k^2
Eqs. (2.11)-(2.15) and Sec. 2.2.1; used to cancel scale-factor dependence and obtain closed forms.
ad hoc to paper Parity-odd primordial trispectrum template from Jamieson et al. [70]
The toy model Eq. (4.28) is postulated, not derived from a Lagrangian; the paper explicitly calls it a toy model.
domain assumption Ln approx ell_n for ell'_n much less than ell_n in the Gaunt/Wigner reductions
Eqs. (4.11)-(4.12); needed to apply Limber to all four legs and to derive the parity constraint Eq. (4.23).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMB Lensing Trispectrum as a Probe of Parity Violation in LSS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOVONWUT

@misc{pith2026250515789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMB Lensing Trispectrum as a Probe of Parity Violation in LSS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOVONWUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15789}
}

read the original abstract

We show that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) lensing trispectrum is sensitive to parity violation in Large-Scale Structure (LSS). We obtain a compact expression for the reduced lensing trispectrum that is general for any input matter trispectrum. We then present as an example a simple parity-violating toy model for the latter, and explicitly compute the parity-odd lensing trispectrum, including an estimate of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). This work serves as a proof of principle, demonstrating how future studies of more physically motivated models can be conducted. It also provides an intuitive physical explanation of why CMB lensing is sensitive to parity. Our work is the first to point out that secondary CMB anisotropies can be used to probe parity in LSS, and will be important in enabling upcoming experiments such as Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 to contribute maximal power on parity violation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[10]

J. Hou, Z. Slepian and D. Jamieson,Can Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Illuminate the Parity-Violating Galaxy 4PCF?, 2410.05230

arXiv
[1]

Schwinger,The Theory of quantized fields

J.S. Schwinger,The Theory of quantized fields. 1., Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 914

1951
[2]

Lee and C.-N

T.D. Lee and C.-N. Yang,Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 254

1956
[3]

Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh

A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5 (1967) 32

1967
[4]

Fukugita and T

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification, Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

1986
[5]

Lue, L.-M

A. Lue, L.-M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski,Cosmological signature of new parity violating interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 1506 [astro-ph/9812088]

arXiv 1999
[6]

Komatsu,New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background, Nature Rev

E. Komatsu,New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background, Nature Rev. Phys. 4 (2022) 452 [2202.13919]

arXiv 2022
[7]

Philcox, M.J

O.H.E. Philcox, M.J. König, S. Alexander and D.N. Spergel,What can galaxy shapes tell us about physics beyond the standard model?, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 063541 [2309.08653]

arXiv 2024

Show all 87 references

[8]

Shim, U.-L

J. Shim, U.-L. Pen, H.-R. Yu and T. Okumura,Probing vector chirality in the early Universe, 2406.06080

arXiv
[9]

Zhu and U.-L

H.-M. Zhu and U.-L. Pen,Systematic analysis of Parity-Violating modes, 2409.11400. – 39 –

arXiv
[11]

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

2023 arXiv
[12]

Cahn and Z

R.N. Cahn and Z. Slepian,Isotropic N-point basis functions and their properties, J. Phys. A56 (2023) 325204 [2010.14418]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Jeong and M

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

2012 arXiv
[14]

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. D94 (2016) 083503 [1608.00368]

2016 arXiv
[15]

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. Roy. Astron. Soc.522 (2023) 5701 [2206.03625]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Philcox,Probing parity violation with the four-point correlation function of BOSS galaxies, Phys

O.H.E. Philcox,Probing parity violation with the four-point correlation function of BOSS galaxies, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 063501 [2206.04227]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Krolewski, S

A. Krolewski, S. May, K. Smith and H. Hopkins,No evidence for parity violation in BOSS, 2407.03397

arXiv
[18]

Adari and A

P. Adari and A. Slosar,Searching for Parity Violation in SDSS DR16 Lyman-α Forest Data, 2405.04660

arXiv
[19]

Cabass, M.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. D107 (2023) 023523 [2210.16320]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Inomata, L

K. Inomata, L. Jenks and M. Kamionkowski,Parity-breaking galaxy 4-point function from lensing by chiral gravitational waves, 2408.03994

arXiv
[21]

Philcox and J

O.H.E. Philcox and J. Ereza,Could Sample Variance be Responsible for the Parity-Violating Signal Seen in the BOSS Galaxy Survey?, 2401.09523

arXiv
[22]

Ereza, F

J. Ereza, F. Prada, A. Klypin, T. Ishiyama, A. Smith, C.M. Baugh et al.,The Uchuu-glam BOSS and eBOSS LRG lightcones: exploring clustering and covariance errors, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532 (2024) 1659 [2311.14456]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Taylor, M

P.L. Taylor, M. Craigie and Y.-S. Ting,Unsupervised searches for cosmological parity violation: An investigation with convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 083518 [2312.09287]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Hewson, W.J

S. Hewson, W.J. Handley and C.G. Lester,On the spatial distribution of the Large-Scale structure: An Unsupervised search for Parity Violation, 2410.16030

arXiv
[25]

Craigie, P.L

M. Craigie, P.L. Taylor, Y.-S. Ting, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, R. Ruggeri and T.M. Davis, Unsupervised Searches for Cosmological Parity Violation: Improving Detection Power with the Neural Field Scattering Transform, 5, 2024

2024
[26]

Philcox,Do the CMB Temperature Fluctuations Conserve Parity?, Phys

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

2023 arXiv
[27]

Philcox and M

O.H.E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi,Testing parity symmetry with the polarized cosmic microwave background, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 083514 [2308.03831]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Seljak,Gravitational lensing effect on cosmic microwave background anisotropies: A Power spectrum approach, Astrophys

U. Seljak,Gravitational lensing effect on cosmic microwave background anisotropies: A Power spectrum approach, Astrophys. J. 463 (1996) 1 [astro-ph/9505109]

1996 arXiv
[29]

Hu,Weak lensing of the CMB: A harmonic approach, Phys

W. Hu,Weak lensing of the CMB: A harmonic approach, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 043007 [astro-ph/0001303]. – 40 –

2000 arXiv
[30]

Bartelmann and P

M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider,Weak gravitational lensing, Phys. Rept. 340 (2001) 291 [astro-ph/9912508]

2001 arXiv
[31]

Challinor and A

A. Challinor and A. Lewis,Lensed CMB power spectra from all-sky correlation functions, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 103010 [astro-ph/0502425]

2005 arXiv
[32]

Lewis and A

A. Lewis and A. Challinor,Weak gravitational lensing of the CMB, Phys. Rept. 429 (2006) 1 [astro-ph/0601594]

2006 arXiv
[33]

V. Böhm, M. Schmittfull and B.D. Sherwin,Bias to CMB lensing measurements from the bispectrum of large-scale structure, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 043519 [1605.01392]

2016 arXiv
[34]

Namikawa,CMB Lensing Bispectrum from Nonlinear Growth of the Large Scale Structure, Phys

T. Namikawa,CMB Lensing Bispectrum from Nonlinear Growth of the Large Scale Structure, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 121301 [1604.08578]

2016 arXiv
[35]

Namikawa, B

T. Namikawa, B. Bose, F.R. Bouchet, R. Takahashi and A. Taruya,CMB lensing bispectrum: Assessing analytical predictions against full-sky lensing simulations, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 063511 [1812.10635]

2019 arXiv
[36]

Kalaja, G

A. Kalaja, G. Orlando, A. Bowkis, A. Challinor, P.D. Meerburg and T. Namikawa,The reconstructed CMB lensing bispectrum, JCAP 04 (2023) 041 [2210.16203]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Namikawa, F.R

T. Namikawa, F.R. Bouchet and A. Taruya,CMB lensing bispectrum as a probe of modified gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 043530 [1805.10567]

2018 arXiv
[38]

Hu,Angular trispectrum of the CMB, Phys

W. Hu,Angular trispectrum of the CMB, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 083005 [astro-ph/0105117]

2001 arXiv
[39]

Okamoto and W

T. Okamoto and W. Hu,The angular trispectra of CMB temperature and polarization, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 063008 [astro-ph/0206155]

2002 arXiv
[40]

Kaiser,Weak lensing and cosmology, Astrophys

N. Kaiser,Weak lensing and cosmology, Astrophys. J. 498 (1998) 26 [astro-ph/9610120]

1998 arXiv
[41]

Lesgourgues,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview, 1104.2932

J. Lesgourgues,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview, 1104.2932

arXiv
[42]

Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

2020 arXiv
[43]

Ma and E

C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges, Astrophys. J. 455 (1995) 7 [astro-ph/9506072]

1995 arXiv
[44]

Mehrem,The Plane Wave Expansion, Infinite Integrals and Identities involving Spherical Bessel Functions, 0909.0494

R. Mehrem,The Plane Wave Expansion, Infinite Integrals and Identities involving Spherical Bessel Functions, 0909.0494

arXiv
[45]

Varshalovich, A.N

D.A. Varshalovich, A.N. Moskalev and V.K. Khersonskii,Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum: Irreducible Tensors, Spherical Harmonics, Vector Coupling Coefficients, 3nj Symbols, World Scientific Publishing Company (1988), 10.1142/0270

1988 doi
[46]

Eisenstein and W

D.J. Eisenstein and W. Hu,Baryonic features in the matter transfer function, Astrophys. J. 496 (1998) 605 [astro-ph/9709112]

1998 arXiv
[47]

Eisenstein and W

D.J. Eisenstein and W. Hu,Power spectra for cold dark matter and its variants, Astrophys. J. 511 (1997) 5 [astro-ph/9710252]

1997 arXiv
[48]

Borges, S

H.A. Borges, S. Carneiro, J.C. Fabris and C. Pigozzo,Evolution of density perturbations in decaying vacuum cosmology, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 043513 [0711.2689]

2008 arXiv
[49]

Slepian and D.J

Z. Slepian and D.J. Eisenstein,A Simple Analytic Treatment of Linear Growth of Structure with Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.457 (2016) 24 [1509.08199]

2016 arXiv
[50]

Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field

D.N. Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field. II, Astrophys. J. 119 (1954) 655

1954
[51]

Lemos, A

P. Lemos, A. Challinor and G. Efstathiou,The effect of Limber and flat-sky approximations on galaxy weak lensing, JCAP 05 (2017) 014 [1704.01054]. – 41 –

2017 arXiv
[52]

Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A10 [1807.06211]

2020 arXiv
[53]

Bardeen, J.R

J.M. Bardeen, J.R. Bond, N. Kaiser and A.S. Szalay,The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, Astrophys. J. 304 (1986) 15

1986
[54]

Kramer,Cosmolopy: Cosmology package for python, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2020) ascl

R.H. Kramer,Cosmolopy: Cosmology package for python, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2020) ascl

2020
[55]

Abramowitz and I.A

M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun,Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, vol. 56, US Government printing office (1988), doi:10.1119/1.15378

1988 doi
[56]

NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions

“NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions.” https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.1 of 2024-06-15

2024
[57]

Shiraishi, D

M. Shiraishi, D. Nitta, S. Yokoyama, K. Ichiki and K. Takahashi,CMB Bispectrum from Primordial Scalar, Vector and Tensor non-Gaussianities, Prog. Theor. Phys.125 (2011) 795 [1012.1079]

2011 arXiv
[58]

Bartolo, E

N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto,Non-Gaussianity from inflation: Theory and observations, Phys. Rept. 402 (2004) 103 [astro-ph/0406398]

2004 arXiv
[59]

Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity, Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A9 [1905.05697]

2020 arXiv
[60]

Spergel and D.M

D.N. Spergel and D.M. Goldberg,Microwave background bispectrum. 1. Basic formalism, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 103001 [astro-ph/9811252]

1999 arXiv
[61]

Komatsu and D.N

E. Komatsu and D.N. Spergel,Acoustic signatures in the primary microwave background bispectrum, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 063002 [astro-ph/0005036]

2001 arXiv
[62]

Acquaviva, N

V. Acquaviva, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto,Second order cosmological perturbations from inflation, Nucl. Phys. B 667 (2003) 119 [astro-ph/0209156]

2003 arXiv
[63]

Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models, JHEP 05 (2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603]

J.M. Maldacena,Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models, JHEP 05 (2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603]

2003 arXiv
[64]

Isserlis,On a formula for the product-moment coefficient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables, Biometrika 12 (1918) 134

L. Isserlis,On a formula for the product-moment coefficient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables, Biometrika 12 (1918) 134

1918
[65]

Newman and R

E.T. Newman and R. Penrose,Note on the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group, J. Math. Phys.7 (1966) 863

1966
[66]

Wigner,Einige Folgerungen aus der Schrödingerschen Theorie für die Termstrukturen, Z

E. Wigner,Einige Folgerungen aus der Schrödingerschen Theorie für die Termstrukturen, Z. Phys. 43 (1927) 624

1927
[67]

Eckart,The Application of Group Theory to the Quantum Dynamics of Monatomic Systems, Rev

C. Eckart,The Application of Group Theory to the Quantum Dynamics of Monatomic Systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.2 (1930) 305

1930
[68]

Shiraishi, E

M. Shiraishi, E. Komatsu and M. Peloso,Signatures of anisotropic sources in the trispectrum of the cosmic microwave background, JCAP 04 (2014) 027 [1312.5221]

2014 arXiv
[69]

Xiang, L

S. Xiang, L. Wang, Z.-C. Yan and H. Qiao,A program for simplifying summation of Wigner 3j-symbols, Comput. Phys. Commun.264 (2021) 107880

2021
[70]

Jamieson, A

D. Jamieson, A. Caravano, J. Hou, Z. Slepian and E. Komatsu,Parity-Odd Power Spectra: Concise Statistics for Cosmological Parity Violation, 2406.15683

arXiv
[71]

Coulton, O.H.E

W.R. Coulton, O.H.E. Philcox and F. Villaescusa-Navarro,Signatures of a parity-violating universe, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 023531 [2306.11782]

2024 arXiv
[72]

Niu, M.H

X. Niu, M.H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan and W. Xue,Parity-odd and even trispectrum from axion inflation, JCAP 05 (2023) 018 [2211.14324]

2023 arXiv
[73]

Cabass, S

G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer and D. Stefanyszyn,Parity violation in the scalar trispectrum: no-go theorems and yes-go examples, JHEP 02 (2023) 021 [2210.02907]. – 42 –

2023 arXiv
[74]

Fujita, T

T. Fujita, T. Murata, I. Obata and M. Shiraishi,Parity-violating scalar trispectrum from a rolling axion during inflation, JCAP 05 (2024) 127 [2310.03551]

2024 arXiv
[75]

Creque-Sarbinowski, S

C. Creque-Sarbinowski, S. Alexander, M. Kamionkowski and O. Philcox,Parity-violating trispectrum from Chern-Simons gravity, JCAP 11 (2023) 029 [2303.04815]

2023 arXiv
[76]

Moretti, N

T. Moretti, N. Bartolo and A. Greco,Breaking Parity: the case of the Trispectrum from Chiral Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity, 2410.11801
[77]

Olver,Asymptotics and special functions, AK Peters/CRC Press (1997), 10.1201/9781439864548

F. Olver,Asymptotics and special functions, AK Peters/CRC Press (1997), 10.1201/9781439864548

1997 doi
[78]

Bernardeau, C

F. Bernardeau, C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan,CMB spectra and bispectra calculations: making the flat-sky approximation rigorous, JCAP 02 (2011) 015 [1012.2652]

2011 arXiv
[79]

Kogo and E

N. Kogo and E. Komatsu,Angular trispectrum of cmb temperature anisotropy from primordial non-gaussianity with the full radiation transfer function, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 083007 [astro-ph/0602099]

2006 arXiv
[80]

Hirata and U

C.M. Hirata and U. Seljak,Reconstruction of lensing from the cosmic microwave background polarization, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 083002 [astro-ph/0306354]

2003 arXiv
[81]

Smith, D

K.M. Smith, D. Hanson, M. LoVerde, C.M. Hirata and O. Zahn,Delensing CMB Polarization with External Datasets, JCAP 06 (2012) 014 [1010.0048]

2012 arXiv
[82]

CMB-S4 collaboration, CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition, 1610.02743

arXiv
[83]

W. Hu, M.M. Hedman and M. Zaldarriaga,Benchmark parameters for CMB polarization experiments, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 043004 [astro-ph/0210096]

2003 arXiv
[84]

Simons Obser v atorycollaboration, The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP 02 (2019) 056 [1808.07445]

2019 arXiv
[85]

VIRGO Consortium collaboration, Stable clustering, the halo model and nonlinear cosmological power spectra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341 (2003) 1311 [astro-ph/0207664]

2003 arXiv
[86]

Takahashi, M

R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya and M. Oguri,Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum, Astrophys. J. 761 (2012) 152 [1208.2701]

2012 arXiv
[87]

Bernardeau, S

F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga and R. Scoccimarro,Large scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory, Phys. Rept. 367 (2002) 1 [astro-ph/0112551]. – 43 –

2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

J. Hou, Z. Slepian and D. Jamieson,Can Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Illuminate the Parity-Violating Galaxy 4PCF?, 2410.05230

arXiv

[2] [1]

Schwinger,The Theory of quantized fields

J.S. Schwinger,The Theory of quantized fields. 1., Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 914

1951

[3] [2]

Lee and C.-N

T.D. Lee and C.-N. Yang,Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 254

1956

[4] [3]

Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh

A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5 (1967) 32

1967

[5] [4]

Fukugita and T

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification, Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

1986

[6] [5]

Lue, L.-M

A. Lue, L.-M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski,Cosmological signature of new parity violating interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 1506 [astro-ph/9812088]

arXiv 1999

[7] [6]

Komatsu,New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background, Nature Rev

E. Komatsu,New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background, Nature Rev. Phys. 4 (2022) 452 [2202.13919]

arXiv 2022

[8] [7]

Philcox, M.J

O.H.E. Philcox, M.J. König, S. Alexander and D.N. Spergel,What can galaxy shapes tell us about physics beyond the standard model?, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 063541 [2309.08653]

arXiv 2024