MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415329343 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.15789

CMB Lensing Trispectrum as a Probe of Parity Violation in LSS

2025· preprint· en· W4415329343 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alessandro Greco, Zachary Slepian, Jiamin Hou, Alex Krolewski

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNuclear Safety and Security CommissionEuropean CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTrispectrumCosmic microwave backgroundCosmic background radiationNon-GaussianityWeak gravitational lensingParity (physics)Gravitational lensing formalismSpectral density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207