arxiv: 2605.05570 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Spin Parity of Spiral Galaxies VI -- A Search for Dynamical Memory in the Spin Distribution of Galaxies in HSC WIDE Survey Regions

Masanori Iye , Masafumi Yagi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords spiral galaxiesspin parityS/Z classificationgalaxy spin distributionlarge-scale structurebinomial statisticscosmological model

0 comments

The pith

Spiral galaxy spin vectors follow a random distribution with no detectable large-scale alignments.

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

The paper tests whether spiral galaxies preserve any dynamical memory through preferred spin directions on scales of tens to hundreds of megaparsecs. Researchers used the S or Z winding sense of spiral arms in tens of thousands of galaxies to determine the sign of each galaxy's line-of-sight spin component. They placed many cubic volumes in three-dimensional space, counted S and Z galaxies inside each, and compared the observed imbalances against binomial statistics and random simulations. The counts and the number of extreme regions matched the predictions for purely random spin assignments. This outcome indicates that galaxy spins carry no measurable coherent pattern beyond chance.

Core claim

The observed cumulative distribution functions for the sets of cubes are in good agreement with the theoretical binomial distribution and with those obtained from Monte Carlo realizations assuming random S/Z spin assignments. The number of statistically anomalous cubes is also comparable to that expected from the random assignments. These results indicate that the spin-vector distribution of spiral galaxies is consistent with statistical randomness expected from the standard cosmological model of structure formation.

What carries the argument

S/Z morphological classification of spiral winding parity as a proxy for the sign of the line-of-sight spin vector, combined with binomial probability tests for imbalance inside cubic volumes of varying size.

If this is right

No coherent spin alignments exist across the examined cubic volumes on scales of 20 to 200 Mpc.
The spin distribution matches the outcome of assigning S or Z labels at random.
The standard model of structure formation, which expects statistical randomness in galaxy spins, is supported by the data.
The same statistical framework can be applied to future samples to tighten limits on any residual coherence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Deeper or wider samples could test whether any weak correlations appear only on even larger scales.
The parity method offers a simple way to check spin isotropy in other redshift slices.
If the result holds, it constrains models in which galaxy angular momentum is acquired through processes that could introduce large-scale preferences.

Load-bearing premise

The S/Z classification accurately reflects the true sign of each galaxy's line-of-sight spin component without significant bias from misclassification or face-on contamination.

What would settle it

Finding substantially more cubic volumes with extreme S/Z imbalances than predicted by the binomial distribution or by Monte Carlo random trials would show that spins are not randomly oriented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05570 by Masafumi Yagi, Masanori Iye.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Spatial distribution of sampled spiral galaxies (black dots) in supergalactic coordinates, overlaid with search cubes of radius 100 Mpc (red), shown within the inner 3 Gpc cubic domain. To investigate potential anisotropies on cosmological scales, we construct three-dimensional arrays of search cubes with uniform size within a 6-Gpc MegaCube that encompasses the entire observed volume of the four HSC WID… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The left and middle panels show the theoretical binomial OCDF for cubes with nall = 10 and nall = 20, respectively, where the steps of the distribution intersect the diagonal dashed line corresponding to the normal distribution. The right panel shows the OCDF for a combined set of the two cubes, in which the steps deviate from the normal distribution line. The probability of obtaining an asymmetry with pS… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Upper panel) Observed cumulative distribution function OCDF for Cube Set S1. In this case, the observed OCDF extends beyond the range covered by 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. The discontinuity at pS = 0.5 in the theoretical distribution is less pronounced due to the large number of galaxies nall ≥ 300 in the cubes selected for this set. (Lower panel) OCDFs for Cube Set S127 (see view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spatial distribution of S-spirals (red) and Zspirals (blue) galaxies in the SGX-SGY plane for Cube37.5- 48016. 3.5. “Bizarre” Cubes Next, we investigate whether any cube exhibits deviations from a random distribution that are not captured by the KS statistics. We define the two-sided cumulative distribution function T CDF(p) in an analogous way, by replacing pS to p in equation (5) for 80 cube sets with … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The solid curve shows the theoretical two-sided binomial cumulative distribution function T CDF(p) for a cube set with R = 100 in Array 7. The probability of obtaining an asymmetry equal to or larger than that observed for this set is given by pfrac = T CDF(p). The dashed line represents the corresponding T CDF for the normal distribution. In the binomial case, the curve deviates from the normal distribu… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distribution of S-spirals (red) and Z-spirals (blue) in the bizarrest hemicube. The hemicube on the left of the green section plane contains a higher number of Z-spirals, while the other hemicube on the right contains a higher number of S-spirals. 4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION To test for possible departures from randomness in galaxy spin vectors, we analyzed the distribution of 49,494 spiral galaxies with sp… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We analyzed the distribution of spin parity in spiral galaxies using the HSC DR2 data. The spiral winding parity of disk galaxies, observed as S-spiral or Z-spiral projected onto the sky plane, provides robust information on the sign of the line-of-sight component of their spin vectors, specifically whether the spin vector points toward or away from us. The distribution of 49,494 S/Z annotated spirals with spectroscopic redshift (0.05 $\le z$) was analyzed for 46,247 fiducial cubic search volumes of various sizes, 20--200 Mpc, deployed in the 3D supergalactic coordinates. We counted the number of S-spirals and Z-spirals in each cube, evaluated the binomial probability of the observed S/Z imbalance, and identified statistically anomalous cube candidates. The observed cumulative distribution functions for the 256 sets of cubes are in good agreement with the theoretical binomial distribution and with those obtained from 1000 Monte Carlo realizations assuming random S/Z spin assignments. The number of statistically anomalous cubes is also comparable to that expected from the random assignments. These results indicate that the spin-vector distribution of spiral galaxies is consistent with statistical randomness expected from the standard cosmological model of structure formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a clean null result on random galaxy spins from new HSC DR2 data, with solid Monte Carlo checks but thin details on classification and systematics.

read the letter

The core finding is that spin parities in 49,494 HSC DR2 spirals show no detectable large-scale correlations. They bin the galaxies into 46,247 cubic volumes of 20-200 Mpc on a side in supergalactic coordinates, count S versus Z types in each, and find the imbalance distribution matches both binomial expectations and 1000 Monte Carlo runs that only reshuffle the parity labels on fixed positions. The number of outlier cubes is also consistent with random draws. That is the main new piece: a larger sample and explicit 3D volume search applied to the latest wide survey release in this ongoing series. The statistical setup is straightforward and avoids some obvious circularity by holding positions fixed. The agreement between data CDFs and the simulations is presented clearly enough to support the claim of consistency with standard structure formation. The approach is reproducible in principle since it uses public data and a simple randomization test. The soft spots are mostly in the missing supporting information. There is almost no quantitative discussion of how reliable the S/Z visual classifications are, what fraction of galaxies are too face-on for trustworthy winding sense, or how redshift errors and survey completeness affect the cube populations. The paper also does not compare the HSC results against earlier papers in the series to show what incremental ground is gained. These gaps do not break the central argument, but they leave the null result harder to evaluate at face value. This paper is for people who track observational tests of galaxy angular momentum and large-scale coherence. A reader who wants an updated benchmark from current imaging surveys will find it useful as a negative result. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee, mainly because the statistical test is direct and the data are public. I would send it to review with a request for added sections on classification accuracy and any cross-checks with independent spin indicators.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the spin parity (S/Z winding) of 49,494 spectroscopically confirmed spiral galaxies (0.05 ≤ z) from HSC DR2. It deploys 46,247 cubic volumes (side lengths 20–200 Mpc) in supergalactic coordinates, counts S and Z galaxies per cube, computes binomial probabilities of observed imbalances, and compares the cumulative distribution functions of these probabilities (across 256 cube sets) plus the number of statistically anomalous cubes against both the analytic binomial expectation (p = 0.5) and 1000 Monte Carlo realizations that randomize S/Z labels on fixed galaxy positions. The observed distributions match the random expectations, leading to the conclusion that galaxy spin vectors show no detectable departure from statistical randomness on these scales.

Significance. If the result holds, it supplies a direct, large-sample observational test supporting the standard ΛCDM expectation of random spin orientations with no preferred large-scale dynamical memory. The statistical design—fixing positions and randomizing only parity labels—automatically incorporates varying galaxy densities and provides a clean null-hypothesis comparison; the dual agreement with both analytic binomial CDFs and MC realizations is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (2)

The central claim rests on the assumption that S/Z morphological classification is an unbiased proxy for the sign of the line-of-sight spin component with negligible contamination from face-on systems or misclassifications. No quantitative assessment of classification accuracy, completeness, or systematic bias is provided in the methods or results sections, which is load-bearing for interpreting the null result as evidence for randomness rather than classification artifact.
The binomial probability calculations treat the cubic volumes as independent trials. For the smaller cube sizes (20–50 Mpc) where adjacent or overlapping cubes are likely, the independence assumption requires explicit justification or a covariance correction; without it, the reported agreement between data and binomial/MC CDFs may be overstated.

minor comments (3)

The redshift range is stated as 0.05 ≤ z without an explicit upper bound; state the full redshift interval and any magnitude or quality cuts applied to the 49,494 galaxies.
The abstract and figure captions should briefly note the classification method (visual or automated) and any validation against known samples to allow readers to assess the robustness of the S/Z indicator.
Clarify whether the 256 sets of cubes correspond to different side lengths or different spatial realizations, and ensure the Monte Carlo procedure is described with sufficient detail for reproducibility (e.g., how many galaxies per realization).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim rests on the assumption that S/Z morphological classification is an unbiased proxy for the sign of the line-of-sight spin component with negligible contamination from face-on systems or misclassifications. No quantitative assessment of classification accuracy, completeness, or systematic bias is provided in the methods or results sections, which is load-bearing for interpreting the null result as evidence for randomness rather than classification artifact.

Authors: We agree that an explicit summary of classification reliability would strengthen the manuscript. The S/Z classification method and its validation (including >90% inter-classifier agreement and low face-on contamination for the selected inclined spirals) are documented in Papers I–II of this series. We will add a short paragraph to the Methods section citing these prior validations and the selection cuts used to suppress misclassification, thereby supporting the interpretation of the null result. revision: yes
Referee: The binomial probability calculations treat the cubic volumes as independent trials. For the smaller cube sizes (20–50 Mpc) where adjacent or overlapping cubes are likely, the independence assumption requires explicit justification or a covariance correction; without it, the reported agreement between data and binomial/MC CDFs may be overstated.

Authors: We concur that overlapping cubes violate strict independence for the analytic binomial. However, the Monte Carlo realizations (which fix positions and only permute S/Z labels) automatically incorporate all spatial correlations from overlaps. We will revise Section 3 to state explicitly that the MC distributions constitute the primary, robust null test while the binomial serves only as an idealized reference, and to note that covariance is already accounted for in the simulations. The conclusions remain unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational test against external null model

full rationale

The paper conducts a straightforward statistical test: it classifies galaxies as S or Z spirals from imaging, counts them in fixed cubic volumes in 3D space, computes binomial probabilities for the observed imbalances, and compares the resulting CDFs to the theoretical binomial distribution (p=0.5) plus 1000 Monte Carlo realizations that randomize parity labels on the fixed positions. No parameters are fitted from the data and then used to generate a 'prediction' of the same data; the null hypothesis of randomness is external and parameter-free. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations are invoked to derive the central result from the inputs themselves. The procedure is self-contained as an empirical consistency check against the standard cosmological expectation of random spin orientations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of morphological S/Z classification as a proxy for spin parity and on the applicability of binomial statistics to counts within chosen cubic volumes; no new physical entities or fitted parameters beyond volume size selection are introduced.

free parameters (1)

cube side lengths
Range of 20-200 Mpc chosen to probe multiple scales; not fitted to data but selected for the search.

axioms (2)

domain assumption S/Z classification accurately reflects the sign of the line-of-sight spin component
Invoked throughout the analysis of projected spiral morphology to infer spin direction.
standard math Binomial probability model applies to S/Z counts in independent volumes
Used to evaluate the statistical significance of observed imbalances.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1483 out tokens · 109712 ms · 2026-05-08T08:07:30.335562+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Abdullah, A. H. and Kroupa, P. 2014, ASP Conf. 486, 137

2014
[2]

Abdurro'uf 2022, , 259, 35

2022
[3]

2019, , 71, 114

Aihara, H., AlSayyad,Y., Ando, M. 2019, , 71, 114

2019
[4]

Baldry I. K. 2018, , 474, 3875

2018
[5]

Bardeen, J. M. 1980, Physics Review D, 22, 1882

1980
[6]

Christopherson, A. J. 2011, arXive:1106.0446v1

work page arXiv 2011
[7]

2011, , 741, 8

Coil, A.L. 2011, , 741, 8

2011
[8]

Colless, M., 2001, , 328, 1039

2001
[9]

2013, , 767, 118

Cool, R.J. 2013, , 767, 118

2013
[10]

DESI Collaboration 2025, arxiv:2503.14745

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[11]

Drinkwater, M. J. 2018, , 474, 4151

2018
[12]

Eisenstein, D. J. 2005, , 633, 560

2005
[13]

B., Davis, D., and Silva, P

Hayes, W. B., Davis, D., and Silva, P. 2017, , 466, 3928

2017
[14]

Hirata, C. M. & Seljak, U. 2004, , 70, 063526

2004
[15]

M., Mandelbaum, R., Ishak, M

Hirata, C. M., Mandelbaum, R., Ishak, M. 2007, , 381, 1197

2007
[16]

and Sugai, H

Iye, M. and Sugai, H. 1991, , 374, 112

1991
[17]

2019, , 886, 133

Iye, M., Tadaki, K., and Fukumoto, H. 2019, , 886, 133

2019
[18]

Iye, M., Yagi, M., and Fukumoto, H. 2021. , 907, 123

2021
[19]

2019, , 624, A30

Johnston, H., Geprgiou, C., Joachimi, B. 2019, , 624, A30

2019
[20]

Jones, D. H. 2009, , 399, 683

2009
[21]

Jones, D. H. 2004, , 355, 747

2004
[22]

2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 452

Komatsu, E. 2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 452

2022
[23]

2013, , 559, A14

Le Fevre, O. 2013, , 559, A14

2013
[24]

2013, , 770, L12

Li, C., Jing, Y.P., Faltenbacher, A., and Wang, J. 2013, , 770, L12

2013
[25]

I., Hoffman, Y., Steinmetz, M

Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., Steinmetz, M. & Gottl'' o ber, S. 2013 , 766, L15

2013
[26]

2011, , 410, 166

Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S. 2011, , 410, 166

2011
[27]

2021, , 502, 5528

Lopez, P., Cautun, M., Paz, D. . 2021, , 502, 5528

2021
[28]

2018, , 619, A24

Mesa, V., Duplancic, F., Alonso, S. 2018, , 619, A24

2018
[29]

2011, , 410, 844

Mandelbaum, R., Blake, C, Bridle, S. 2011, , 410, 844

2011
[30]

Motloch, P., Pen, U.-L., and Yu, H.-R., 2022, Phys. Rev.. D, 105, 083504

2022
[31]

Pajowska, P., Godfowski, W., Zhu, Z. 2019, J. Cosmology Astroparticle Physics, 2, 5

2019
[32]

& Desmond, H

Patel, D. & Desmond, H. 2024, , 534, 1553

2024
[33]

Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, , 155, 393

1969
[34]

2020, , 641, A6

Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M. 2020, , 641, A6

2020
[35]

2018, , 609, A84

Scodeggio, M. 2018, , 609, A84

2018
[36]

E., Shimakawa, R

Tadaki, K., Iye, M., Fukumoto, H., Hayashi, M., Rusu, C. E., Shimakawa, R. and Tosaki T. 2020, , 496, 4276

2020
[37]

2006, , 640, L111

Trujillo, I., Carretero, C., and Patiri, S.G. 2006, , 640, L111

2006
[38]

and Ricciardelli, E

Varela, J., Betancort-Rijo, J.,Trujillo, I. and Ricciardelli, E. 2012, , 744, 82

2012
[39]

White, S., 1984, , 286, 38

1984
[40]

W., Lintott, C.J., Bamford, S.P

Willett K. W., Lintott, C.J., Bamford, S.P. 2013, , 435, 2835

2013
[41]

and Fukumoto, H., 2025, , 170, 90

Yagi, M., Iye, M. and Fukumoto, H., 2025, , 170, 90

2025
[42]

2000, , 120, 1579

York, D.G. 2000, , 120, 1579

2000
[43]

2013, , 779, 160

Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Wang, H. 2013, , 779, 160

2013
[44]

B., 1970, , 5, 84

Zeldovich, Y. B., 1970, , 5, 84

1970