Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Probing Parity Violation with Weak Lensing Trispectrum

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak lensing trispectrum is an independent probe of cosmological parity violation.

desk verdict A genuinely new projection formalism for parity-odd weak-lensing trispectra, with the numerical forecasts compromised by a possible Bessel-order error. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26046 v1 pith:ERMEZLF4 submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO

Sijin Chen , Zhengyangguang Gong , Jiamin Hou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords weaklensingtrispectrumparityviolationprimordialnon-Gaussianitycosmologicallarge-scalestructuresignal-to-noiseforecastLimberapproximation
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 weak lensing convergence — the trispectrum — can serve as a new, independent probe of whether the universe distinguishes left from right on cosmological scales. It derives a projection formalism that carries three-dimensional primordial curvature trispectra into two-dimensional angular trispectra, then applies it to two parity-violating templates, one peaked at squeezed configurations and one at collapsed configurations. Forecasting the signal-to-noise ratio for realistic and upcoming survey source distributions, it finds that a squeezed-template signal could in principle reach a cumulative SNR near 2.5 once shape noise is included, while the collapsed-template signal is weaker. A central technical finding is that the standard Limber approximation fails for the low-multipole configurations that dominate the parity-odd signal, so exact line-of-sight integration is necessary. If correct, the work is a proof of principle: lensing surveys can test primordial mirror symmetry without relying on galaxy bias.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced angular trispectrum Q(l1l2|l3l4)(L), a rotationally invariant harmonic-space four-point statistic obtained by contracting four convergence coefficients with Wigner 3-j symbols; its imaginary part is odd under parity and isolates the parity-violating signal. The projection formalism expands the three-dimensional primordial trispectrum into spherical harmonics, with Wigner 6-j and 9-j couplings separating a geometric angular term from a line-of-sight radial integral. The radial integral is evaluated with an exact factorized numerical integration, avoiding the Limber approximation. Two phenomenological templates supply the primordial input: a squeezed temp

What would settle it

Compute the full non-Gaussian covariance of the weak lensing convergence trispectrum from simulations or analytic perturbation theory and re-evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio; if off-diagonal covariance substantially exceeds the diagonal Gaussian estimate, the central detectability claim is weakened. Alternatively, run a suite of simulations seeded with the two parity-odd primordial templates and check whether the proposed estimator recovers the injected amplitudes at the predicted SNR.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a parity-odd component of the late-time matter distribution, seeded by parity-violating physics during inflation, leaves a measurable imprint in the angular trispectrum of weak lensing convergence. The authors show that the reduced angular trispectrum, constructed from harmonic coefficients of the convergence field via Wigner 3-j symbols, captures the handedness of three-dimensional tetrahedral configurations projected onto the sky. For both a squeezed-type template and a collapsed-type template, they compute the projected signal and its signal-to-noise ratio, finding that the signal is dominated by configurations containing at least one low multipole. They also fin

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts assume the measurement noise is dominated by simple Gaussian fluctuations and that the parity-breaking amplitudes are as large as theory allows; if real noise is more complicated or the amplitudes are smaller, the quoted detectability weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Upcoming wide-field weak lensing surveys can search for a parity-odd trispectrum signal without modeling galaxy bias, because convergence directly traces the matter distribution.
  • A detected parity-odd signal would constitute evidence for primordial parity violation, since standard gravitational evolution conserves parity and parity-odd scalar information first appears at the four-point level.
  • Shallow single-bin auto-correlations, not deep or mixed-redshift cross-correlations, are the optimal survey strategy; mixed tomographic bins suppress the signal through noise-only line-of-sight accumulation.
  • Observational analyses of these statistics should not rely on the Limber approximation; exact line-of-sight integration is required in the low-multipole regime where the signal dominates.
  • The distinct shape sensitivity of the two templates — squeezed dominated by small external multipoles, collapsed dominated by small diagonal multipoles — offers a geometric way to distinguish inflationary production mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the diagonal Gaussian covariance assumption is relaxed to include non-Gaussian trispectrum covariance, the quoted signal-to-noise ratios could shift downward, so the detectability should be read as an optimistic ceiling.
  • Editorial inference: the same projection formalism could be adapted to intrinsic-alignment or combined galaxy-clustering-plus-lensing four-point analyses, potentially increasing statistical power by correlating multiple tracers of the same matter field.
  • Editorial inference: a direct simulation test — seeding N-body initial conditions with the two parity-odd templates and checking that the pipeline recovers the injected amplitude — would validate the estimator before application to survey data.
  • Editorial inference: a null detection would still yield competitive upper bounds on the template amplitudes that complement constraints from CMB polarization and galaxy four-point correlation functions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a full-sky projection formalism for the weak lensing convergence trispectrum, isolating the parity-odd (imaginary) component. It applies this formalism to two phenomenological primordial trispectrum templates—one peaked in the squeezed limit and one in the collapsed limit—and computes the projected angular trispectrum through a factorized FFTLog pipeline. The authors then forecast cumulative signal-to-noise ratios for idealized Dirac-delta source planes and for realistic DES Y3 and LSST-like Y10 tomographic bin configurations, with and without shape noise. They also assess the Limber approximation for these higher-order statistics and argue that exact line-of-sight integration is necessary because the parity-odd signal is dominated by low-multipole configurations where Limber fails. The central claim is that the weak lensing trispectrum constitutes an independent, theoretically detectable probe of cosmological parity violation, serving as a proof of principle for future surveys.

Significance. If the numerical results are correct, this is a timely contribution. It extends the parity-odd trispectrum program from the CMB and 3D galaxy clustering to a projected, late-time weak lensing observable, and it provides explicit Wigner-symbol expressions that could be reused by the community. The systematic comparison between Limber and exact integration, and the identification of tomographic and geometric configuration effects, are valuable. The paper also benefits from using established external templates and from a Fisher-forecast appendix that makes the amplitude dependence explicit. However, the proof-of-principle character of the SNR forecasts is weakened by at least one load-bearing numerical issue, and by the strong simplifying assumptions used for the covariance and fiducial amplitudes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D.1, Eqs. (D.1)–(D.4)] The text states j_ℓ(x) = sqrt(π/2x) J_ν(x) and then says 'when performing the actual computation, we set ν=ℓ to maintain a fair and direct comparison with the standard Limber approximation.' For spherical Bessel functions the exact relation has ν = ℓ + 1/2. Since the kernels S_{ℓ,n}(x), W_ℓ(k), and hence all projected trispectra (Eqs. 3.18 and 3.26) and all cumulative SNR curves (Figs. 12–18) are constructed from these objects, and since the parity-odd signal is concentrated at low ℓ (Sec. 4.4), the advertised 'exact FFTLog integration' is not the exact spherical-Bessel projection. The Mathematica cross-check in Fig. 21 does not resolve this as reported: the lower panel shows the Limber relative error, not an FFTLog-vs-Mathematica residual. Please rerun the pipeline with ν = ℓ + 1/2, or explicitly demonstrate that the code uses the correct order despite the statement in D.1, and quantify
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.2)] The cumulative SNR estimator adopts a diagonal Gaussian covariance, with the paper noting that 'a more realistic covariance treatment will be left for future work.' Because the detectability claim rests on the SNR values in Figs. 12–18, this approximation is load-bearing. For a weak lensing trispectrum at low ℓ, the covariance can receive non-Gaussian contributions from the connected parity-even trispectrum, super-sample variance, and survey geometry effects; these are not obviously negligible relative to the diagonal Gaussian term. The authors should either justify this approximation quantitatively (e.g., with a simulation-based comparison or an order-of-magnitude estimate of the non-Gaussian term) or explicitly restate the detectability conclusion as conditional on this untested covariance model.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.1, Sec. 3.3.2, Figs. 12–18] The forecasts fix the template amplitudes to their maximum perturbatively allowed values: |g_-| = 2×10^7 and |d1^odd| = 9×10^5. The SNR is linear in these amplitudes, so the quoted values represent an upper envelope rather than a generic prediction. Although Appendix A gives Fisher forecasts for the amplitudes, the abstract and conclusion do not state this linear scaling or the conditional nature of the detectability statement. Please add an explicit caveat in the abstract and conclusion that the quoted SNR scales linearly with the fiducial amplitudes and that smaller amplitudes reduce detectability proportionally.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'redshifit' should be 'redshift'.
  2. [Appendix C.1, Eq. (C.6)] The squeezed-limit Limber expression is labeled with superscript (c) and uses τ^(c); this should be (s) to match the section. Please check the notation throughout the appendices.
  3. [Fig. 21] The caption says Mathematica is included as an independent cross-check, but the lower panel only shows the Limber relative error. Please show the FFTLog-vs-Mathematica residual explicitly, since this is the only direct validation of the FFTLog implementation.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, footnote 1] Linear matter evolution is assumed throughout, but the SNR forecasts include multipoles up to ℓ_max = 100. Nonlinear corrections to C_ℓ can be non-negligible at these scales and would enter the covariance denominator. A brief justification or quantitative estimate would be helpful.
  5. [Figs. 12–13] The 'CMB potential lensing' case is used as a reference but the corresponding lensing kernel is not defined in the text. Please provide the kernel or the reference used.
  6. [General] For a numerical pipeline that underpins the central forecasts, releasing the code or providing a reproducible workflow would greatly increase confidence. At minimum, specify the truncation ranges used for the angular-momentum sums in Eqs. (3.15) and (3.24).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projection formalism is self-contained; adopted template amplitudes are fiducial inputs, and the SNR forecasts are explicitly linear in them.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The paper takes two external primordial templates—Eq. (3.12) from Ref. [85] and Eq. (3.21) from Ref. [14]—and projects them through the lensing kernel q(chi) into the reduced trispectrum via Eqs. (3.15)/(3.18) and (3.24)/(3.26). No parameter is fitted to any weak-lensing data set; the DES/LSST n(z) profiles are survey inputs. The parity-odd condition l1+l2+l3+l4 odd and the Wigner-symbol algebra are not equivalent to the claimed SNR. The SNR formula (4.2) is an explicit function of the template amplitudes, which the paper states are fiducial: 'Since the trispectrum is linear in g-, the fiducial choice serves only as the reference amplitude for the forecast.' Appendix A likewise shows sigma(A) = 1/sqrt(F_AA), so the detectability claim is conditional and not a disguised fit. There is a minor self-citation: 'Following Refs. [9, 64], we adopt the fiducial value |g-|=2e7,' and Refs. [9,64] include a coauthor, but this only sets the normalization of a forecast that is linear in the input; it is not load-bearing. The Appendix D.1 statement 'when performing the actual computation, we set nu=ell to maintain a fair and direct comparison with the standard Limber approximation' is a numerical-accuracy concern for the 'exact FFTLog' label, but a numerical bug or approximation is a correctness risk, not circularity: it does not make the output equal to an input. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and the templates are adopted from external prior work. Overall score 2 reflects the single minor self-citation, not circularity in the core projection.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests on two fiducial template amplitudes taken from prior work and on several modeling simplifications: linear evolution, diagonal Gaussian covariance, and statistical isotropy of the collapsed template. No new particles, fields, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • g_- (squeezed template amplitude) = 2 × 10^7
    Adopted fiducial coupling from Refs. [9,64]; chosen as the largest value for which the perturbative treatment remains valid. The SNR scales linearly with g_-.
  • d1^odd (collapsed template amplitude) = 9 × 10^5
    Adopted from Ref. [54], following the parameter choice used there; it sets the overall size of the parity-odd collapsed trispectrum. The SNR scales linearly with d1^odd.
  • (alpha, beta, gamma) squeezed-template power indices = (-2, -1, 0)
    Chosen 'for concreteness' in Sec. 3.3.1, subject to scale invariance alpha+beta+gamma=-3; the computed signal shape depends on this hand-picked choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standard gravitational evolution is parity-conserving, so a detected parity-odd WL trispectrum would trace primordial parity violation.
    Stated in Sec. 1; this is the physical interpretation underpinning the whole search.
  • domain assumption Statistical isotropy and homogeneity of the convergence field allow extraction of the reduced trispectrum using Wigner 3j symbols.
    Used throughout Sec. 3. The collapsed template from [14] involves mild statistical-isotropy breaking, which the authors set aside in Sec. 3.3.2.
  • domain assumption Linear matter evolution for the density field and trispectrum.
    Footnote 1 in Sec. 2.2: 'For simplicity, we assume throughout this work linear evolution for the matter power spectrum and later on trispectrum calculation.' Nonlinear corrections are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Diagonal Gaussian covariance for the trispectrum estimator.
    Sec. 4.1: 'we adopt a simplified Gaussian covariance approximation... approximated as diagonal.' Non-Gaussian and super-sample covariance are ignored.
  • domain assumption The squeezed and collapsed templates from Refs. [85] and [14] faithfully represent possible primordial parity-violating trispectra.
    The templates are phenomenological inputs; the paper does not derive them from a specific microphysical model.
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters.
    Sec. 2: Omega_m=0.315, Omega_b=0.049, H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc, As=2.10e-9, sigma8=0.811.
  • standard math Standard angular-momentum identities: plane-wave expansion, Gaunt integrals, and Wigner 3j/6j/9j recoupling.
    Used in Appendix B to reduce sums over magnetic quantum numbers and to derive the compact projection expressions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Parity Violation with Weak Lensing Trispectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERMEZLF4

@misc{pith2026260726046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Parity Violation with Weak Lensing Trispectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERMEZLF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26046}
}
read the original abstract

We establish the weak gravitational lensing convergence trispectrum as an independent probe of cosmological parity violation in the late-time Large-Scale Structure (LSS). To map three-dimensional primordial symmetries into two-dimensional observables, we derive a generalized, compact projection formalism for the reduced angular trispectrum applicable to two classes of factorizable primordial curvature trispectra considered in this work. Applying this framework, we compute the parity-odd signal and forecast the expected Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) using two phenomenological parity-violating trispectrum templates. These two templates encode the initial conditions for the late-time weak lensing observables. One template peaks at the squeezed limit, and the other template peaks at the collapsed limit. Our analysis evaluates idealized Dirac-delta source redshift distributions alongside actual tomographic profiles from the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 (DES Y3) and forecasted profiles for the Legacy Survey of Space and Time Year 10 (LSST Y10). We map the geometric sensitivity of these templates, providing physical intuition into how the resulting SNR is strongly modulated by the specific source galaxy redshift distributions and the underlying geometry of the configurations. Furthermore, we rigorously test the validity of the Limber approximation for higher-order angular statistics, demonstrating the necessity of exact line-of-sight numerical integration to capture the parity-violating signal accurately. By demonstrating the theoretical detectability of parity-breaking signatures through weak lensing, this work serves as a proof of principle, showing how upcoming weak lensing surveys can be leveraged to probe the fundamental symmetries of the early universe.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 76 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Lee and C.-N

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

    1956

  2. [2]

    C.S. Wu, E. Ambler, R.W. Hayward, D.D. Hoppes and R.P. Hudson,Experimental Test of Parity Conservation inβDecay,Phys. Rev.105(1957) 1413

    1957

  3. [3]

    Garwin, L.M

    R.L. Garwin, L.M. Lederman and M. Weinrich,Observations of the Failure of Conservation of Parity and Charge Conjugation in Meson Decays: The Magnetic Moment of the Free Muon, Phys. Rev.105(1957) 1415. – 51 –

    1957

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [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. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Shim, U.-L

    J. Shim, U.-L. Pen, H.-R. Yu and T. Okumura,Probing Vector Chirality in the Early Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 141002 [2406.06080]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Zhu and U.-L

    H.-M. Zhu and U.-L. Pen,Systematic Analysis of Parity-Violating Modes,Phys. Rev. Lett. 135(2025) 111003 [2409.11400]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    J. Hou, Z. Slepian and D. Jamieson,Can Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Illuminate the Parity-Violating Galaxy 4PCF?,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 123502 [2410.05230]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kamionkowski and T

    M. Kamionkowski and T. Souradeep,The Odd-Parity CMB Bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 027301 [1010.4304]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu,New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 221301 [2011.11254]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bartolo, S

    N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso and M. Shiraishi,Parity-violating CMB correlators with non-decaying statistical anisotropy,JCAP07(2015) 039 [1505.02193]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [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

  7. [15]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak,An all sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 1830 [astro-ph/9609170]

    1997 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins,Statistics of cosmic microwave background polarization,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 7368 [astro-ph/9611125]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Diego-Palazuelos et al.,Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4,Phys

    P. Diego-Palazuelos et al.,Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 091302 [2201.07682]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Eskilt and E

    J.R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu,Improved constraints on cosmic birefringence from the WMAP and Planck cosmic microwave background polarization data,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 063503 [2205.13962]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Diego-Palazuelos and E

    P. Diego-Palazuelos and E. Komatsu,Cosmic birefringence from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope Data Release 6,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) L101302 [2509.13654]

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Carroll, G.B

    S.M. Carroll, G.B. Field and R. Jackiw,Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification of Electrodynamics,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1231

    1990

  13. [21]

    Carroll and G.B

    S.M. Carroll and G.B. Field,The Einstein equivalence principle and the polarization of radio galaxies,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 3789

    1991

  14. [22]

    Harari and P

    D. Harari and P. Sikivie,Effects of a Nambu-Goldstone boson on the polarization of radio galaxies and the cosmic microwave background,Phys. Lett. B289(1992) 67

    1992

  15. [23]

    Carroll,Quintessence and the rest of the world,Phys

    S.M. Carroll,Quintessence and the rest of the world,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 3067 [astro-ph/9806099]

    1998 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alexander and J

    S. Alexander and J. Martin,Birefringent gravitational waves and the consistency check of inflation,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 063526 [hep-th/0410230]. – 52 –

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D.H. Lyth, C. Quimbay and Y. Rodriguez,Leptogenesis and tensor polarisation from a gravitational Chern-Simons term,JHEP03(2005) 016 [hep-th/0501153]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Takahashi and J

    T. Takahashi and J. Soda,Chiral Primordial Gravitational Waves from a Lifshitz Point,Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 231301 [0904.0554]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alexander and N

    S. Alexander and N. Yunes,Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity,Phys. Rept.480 (2009) 1 [0907.2562]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Satoh,Slow-roll Inflation with the Gauss-Bonnet and Chern-Simons Corrections,JCAP 11(2010) 024 [1008.2724]

    M. Satoh,Slow-roll Inflation with the Gauss-Bonnet and Chern-Simons Corrections,JCAP 11(2010) 024 [1008.2724]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. Soda, H. Kodama and M. Nozawa,Parity Violation in Graviton Non-gaussianity,JHEP08 (2011) 067 [1106.3228]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Shiraishi, D

    M. Shiraishi, D. Nitta and S. Yokoyama,Parity Violation of Gravitons in the CMB Bispectrum,Prog. Theor. Phys.126(2011) 937 [1108.0175]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dyda, E.E

    S. Dyda, E.E. Flanagan and M. Kamionkowski,Vacuum Instability in Chern-Simons Gravity, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 124031 [1208.4871]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. Wang, Q. Wu, W. Zhao and T. Zhu,Polarizing primordial gravitational waves by parity violation,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 103512 [1208.5490]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, Y. Huang, A. Wang and Q. Wu,Effects of parity violation on non-gaussianity of primordial gravitational waves in Hořava-Lifshitz gravity,Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 063508 [1305.0600]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Jeong and M

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

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sorbo,Parity violation in the Cosmic Microwave Background from a pseudoscalar inflaton, JCAP06(2011) 003 [1101.1525]

    L. Sorbo,Parity violation in the Cosmic Microwave Background from a pseudoscalar inflaton, JCAP06(2011) 003 [1101.1525]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Niu, M.H

    X. Niu, M.H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan and W. Xue,Parity-odd and even trispectrum from axion inflation,JCAP05(2023) 018 [2211.14324]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fujita, T

    T. Fujita, T. Murata, I. Obata and M. Shiraishi,Parity-violating scalar trispectrum from a rolling axion during inflation,JCAP05(2024) 127 [2310.03551]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Reinhard, Z

    M. Reinhard, Z. Slepian, J. Hou and A. Greco,Full Parity-Violating Trispectrum in Axion Inflation: Reduction to Low-D Integrals,2412.16037

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    M.H.G. Lee, C. McCulloch and E. Pajer,Leading loops in cosmological correlators,JHEP11 (2023) 038 [2305.11228]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Stefanyszyn, X

    D. Stefanyszyn, X. Tong and Y. Zhu,Cosmological correlators through the looking glass: reality, parity, and factorisation,JHEP05(2024) 196 [2309.07769]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    Thavanesan,No-go Theorem for Cosmological Parity Violation,2501.06383

    A. Thavanesan,No-go Theorem for Cosmological Parity Violation,2501.06383

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cabass, S

    G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer and D. Stefanyszyn,Parity violation in the scalar trispectrum: no-go theorems and yes-go examples,JHEP02(2023) 021 [2210.02907]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Jazayeri, S

    S. Jazayeri, S. Renaux-Petel, X. Tong, D. Werth and Y. Zhu,Parity violation from emergent nonlocality during inflation,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123523 [2308.11315]. – 53 –

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    Krolewski, S

    A. Krolewski, S. May, K. Smith and H. Hopkins,No evidence for parity violation in BOSS, JCAP08(2024) 044 [2407.03397]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    Slepian et al.,Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies’ 4-Point Correlation Function, 2508.09133

    Z. Slepian et al.,Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies’ 4-Point Correlation Function, 2508.09133

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bao, L.-T

    Y. Bao, L.-T. Wang, Z.-Z. Xianyu and Y.-M. Zhong,Anatomy of parity-violating trispectra in galaxy surveys,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 103536 [2504.02931]

    2025

  45. [53]

    Hou et al.,Parity-odd four-point correlation function from the DESI data release 1 luminous red galaxy sample,Phys

    J. Hou et al.,Parity-odd four-point correlation function from the DESI data release 1 luminous red galaxy sample,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 103502 [2512.20132]

    2026 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kurita, D

    T. Kurita, D. Jamieson, E. Komatsu and F. Schmidt,Parity violation in galaxy shapes: Primordial non-Gaussianity,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 063557 [2509.08787]

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aihara, N

    H. Aihara, N. Arimoto, R. Armstrong, S. Arnouts, N.A. Bahcall, S. Bickerton et al.,The hyper suprime-cam ssp survey: Overview and survey design,Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan70(2017) . [56]DEScollaboration,Cosmology from cosmic shear with Dark Energy Survey ...

    2017 arXiv

  48. [60]

    Kuijken et al.,Gravitational Lensing Analysis of the Kilo Degree Survey,Mon

    K. Kuijken et al.,Gravitational Lensing Analysis of the Kilo Degree Survey,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454(2015) 3500 [1507.00738]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [61]

    Wright et al.,The fifth data release of the Kilo Degree Survey: Multi-epoch optical/NIR imaging covering wide and legacy-calibration fields,Astron

    A.H. Wright et al.,The fifth data release of the Kilo Degree Survey: Multi-epoch optical/NIR imaging covering wide and legacy-calibration fields,Astron. Astrophys.686(2024) A170 [2503.19439]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [62]

    Hu,Angular trispectrum of the CMB,Phys

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

    2001 arXiv

  51. [63]

    Okamoto and W

    T. Okamoto and W. Hu,The angular trispectra of CMB temperature and polarization,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 063008 [astro-ph/0206155]

    2002 arXiv

  52. [64]

    Greco, Z

    A. Greco, Z. Slepian, J. Hou and A. Krolewski,CMB Lensing Trispectrum as a Probe of Parity Violation in LSS,2505.15789

    arXiv

  53. [65]

    Bartelmann and P

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

    2001 arXiv

  54. [66]

    Mandelbaum,Weak lensing for precision cosmology,Ann

    R. Mandelbaum,Weak lensing for precision cosmology,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.56 (2018) 393 [1710.03235]. – 54 – [67]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [68]

    Narayan and M

    R. Narayan and M. Bartelmann,Lectures on gravitational lensing, in13th Jerusalem Winter School in Theoretical Physics: Formation of Structure in the Universe, 6, 1996 [astro-ph/9606001]

    1996 arXiv

  56. [69]

    Schneider,Weak gravitational lensing, in33rd Advanced Saas Fee Course on Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak, and Micro, pp

    P. Schneider,Weak gravitational lensing, in33rd Advanced Saas Fee Course on Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak, and Micro, pp. 269–451, 2006, DOI [astro-ph/0509252]. [70]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxi...

    2006 arXiv

  57. [72]

    Z.-M. Ma, W. Hu and D. Huterer,Effect of photometric redshift uncertainties on weak lensing tomography,Astrophys. J.636(2005) 21 [astro-ph/0506614]

    2005 arXiv

  58. [73]

    Sinde and J

    T. Sinde and J. Fonseca,From photometric surveys to HI intensity mapping: Improving constraints on magnification biases while testing gravity,2603.28840

  59. [74]

    Azyzy, D

    S. Azyzy, D. Jamieson, E. Komatsu and T. Kurita,Nonlinear evolution of the matter trispectrum with primordial parity violation,JCAP06(2026) 054 [2510.06164]

    2026

  60. [75]

    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

  61. [76]

    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

  62. [77]

    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

  63. [78]

    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

  64. [79]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press (2020), 10.1016/C2017-0-01943-2. [80]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A10 [1807.06211]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [81]

    Diemer,COLOSSUS: A python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos,Astrophys

    B. Diemer,COLOSSUS: A python toolkit for cosmology, large-scale structure, and dark matter halos,Astrophys. J. Suppl.239(2018) 35 [1712.04512]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [82]

    T. Liu, X. Tong, Y. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu,Probing P and CP Violations on the Cosmological Collider,JHEP04(2020) 189 [1909.01819]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [83]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena,Cosmological Collider Physics,1503.08043

    arXiv

  68. [84]

    Noumi, M

    T. Noumi, M. Yamaguchi and D. Yokoyama,Effective field theory approach to quasi-single field inflation and effects of heavy fields,JHEP06(2013) 051 [1211.1624]

    2013 arXiv

  69. [85]

    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

  70. [86]

    Jamieson, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  71. [87]

    Mandelstam,Determination of the pion - nucleon scattering amplitude from dispersion relations and unitarity

    S. Mandelstam,Determination of the pion - nucleon scattering amplitude from dispersion relations and unitarity. General theory,Phys. Rev.112(1958) 1344

    1958

  72. [88]

    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. – 55 –

    1954

  73. [89]

    Lemos, A

    P. Lemos, A. Challinor and G. Efstathiou,The effect of Limber and flat-sky approximations on galaxy weak lensing,JCAP05(2017) 014 [1704.01054]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [90]

    Deshpande and T.D

    A.C. Deshpande and T.D. Kitching,Post-Limber Weak Lensing Bispectrum, Reduced Shear Correction, and Magnification Bias Correction,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 103531 [2004.01666]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [91]

    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

  76. [92]

    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

  77. [93]

    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

  78. [94]

    Cahn and Z

    R.N. Cahn and Z. Slepian,Isotropic N-point basis functions and their properties,J. Phys. A 56(2023) 325204 [2010.14418]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [95]

    Newman and R

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

    1966

  80. [96]

    Wigner,Einige Folgerungen aus der Schrödingerschen Theorie für die Termstrukturen, Zeitschrift fur Physik43(1927) 624

    E. Wigner,Einige Folgerungen aus der Schrödingerschen Theorie für die Termstrukturen, Zeitschrift fur Physik43(1927) 624

    1927

  81. [97]

    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

  82. [98]

    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

  83. [99]

    Mathematica, Version 14.0

    W.R. Inc., “Mathematica, Version 14.0.”

  84. [100]

    Smith, L

    K.M. Smith, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Optimal analysis of the CMB trispectrum, 1502.00635

    arXiv

  85. [101]

    Murray and F

    S. Murray and F. Poulin,hankel: A Python library for performing simple and accurate Hankel transformations,The Journal of Open Source Software4(2019) 1397 [1906.01088]. – 56 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.