Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Parity-violating scalar trispectrum from helical primordial magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 helical primordial magnetic fields produce a parity-odd component in the scalar trispectrum that can dominate the parity-even one and be constrained by Planck data.

desk verdict First legitimate derivation of the helical-PMF parity-odd scalar trispectrum; the bound on r_H is rough as advertised, and the pole-approximation caveats are real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16844 v2 pith:D7YQVT64 submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Kaito Yura , Shohei Saga , Maresuke Shiraishi , Shuichiro Yokoyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k98.70.Vc
keywords helicalprimordialmagneticfieldsparityviolationtrispectrumpassivescalarmodepoleapproximationcosmicmicrowavebackgroundcurvatureperturbationsnon-Gaussianity
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 helical (parity-violating) primordial magnetic fields leave a measurable imprint in the four-point correlation function, or trispectrum, of the curvature perturbations they generate. The signature is the imaginary part of the trispectrum, which changes sign under parity and is absent for non-helical fields. Using an analytic approximation, the authors show that this parity-odd piece can dominate the parity-even signal in specific momentum configurations, and they translate the current Planck bound into an upper limit on the helicity fraction rH ≲ 4×$10^{-4}$ for a field strength of 4.7 nG. If correct, the trispectrum becomes a practical probe of helical PMFs, complementary to bispectrum and two-point searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the passive scalar mode, the curvature perturbation sourced by the anisotropic stress of PMFs before neutrino decoupling, written as ζB(k) = T ΠB(k). Its trispectrum is computed from the fourth power of the magnetic-field power spectrum, whose helical part enters through iηija k̂a PH(k). To make the momentum integrals tractable, the paper uses the pole approximation: for nearly scale-invariant spectra the integrals are dominated by poles at zero momentum, reducing the trispectrum to products of power spectra evaluated at external wave vectors. The parity-odd signal then emerges as scalar triple products such as (k̂1 × k̂3) · (k̂1 + k̂2) contracted with projection tensors, which vanish exactly in planar configurations.

What would settle it

Compute the trispectrum by exact numerical integration for nB = nH = -2.9 in the equilateral configuration at the angles where the paper predicts the imaginary-to-real ratio exceeds one; if the exact ratio does not exceed one there, the parity-odd dominance claim fails. A second direct test is a CMB trispectrum measurement: if an experiment with sensitivity below the predicted amplitude finds no parity-odd signal, the helical-PMF interpretation of the trispectrum is ruled out at that rH.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the scalar trispectrum sourced by the passive mode of primordial magnetic fields contains a genuine parity-odd component, carried by the Levi-Civita term in the helical PMF power spectrum. The authors derive the full disconnected trispectrum from the eight-point magnetic-field correlator, reduce it with the pole approximation, and find that the imaginary part is built from scalar triple products of the wave vectors, vanishing in planar configurations and diverging near the collapsed limit. In the equilateral configuration with nearly scale-invariant spectra (nB = nH = -2.9), the ratio of imaginary to real parts can exceed unity for moderate helicity fractions, and the dependence on rH produces a characteristic triangular pattern in the angular plane. Comparing the collapsed-limit template with the Planck limit on the parity-odd trispectrum amplitude gives rH ≲ 4×$10^{-4}$ at Br = 4.7 nG.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation leans on the pole approximation, which assumes the magnetic-field power spectrum is nearly scale-invariant so that momentum integrals are dominated by zero-momentum poles; if the true spectral indices are larger, the derived trispectrum shape and the rH bound no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The parity-odd trispectrum of curvature perturbations provides a new, leading-order scalar statistic for detecting parity violation in CMB temperature and E-mode polarization data.
  • A measurement of the collapsed-limit parity-odd amplitude can directly constrain the helical-to-non-helical ratio rH, with the current Planck bound implying rH ≲ 4×10^-4 for Br = 4.7 nG.
  • The triangular angular pattern of the imaginary-to-real ratio distinguishes the helical-PMF signal from parity-odd trispectra from axion inflation, giving a shape discriminant for future surveys.
  • Because the parity-odd signal vanishes in planar configurations and peaks in the collapsed limit, optimal estimators should target collapsed quadrilaterals rather than general shapes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same pole-approximation template could be applied to the galaxy four-point function, where parity-odd measurements already exist, to set an independent bound on rH.
  • If future CMB experiments reach an order-of-magnitude improvement on the trispectrum amplitude, the bound could approach rH ≲ 4×10^-5, probing the regime allowed by the Schwarz inequality.
  • The restriction of the pole approximation to nearly scale-invariant spectra suggests that a detection of the parity-odd trispectrum at, say, n ≈ -2 would require full numerical integration; the templates in this paper should not be extrapolated there.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives the connected trispectrum of curvature perturbations sourced by the passive scalar mode of helical primordial magnetic fields. Working with Gaussian PMFs, the authors obtain full expressions for the trispectrum and then employ the pole approximation from Ref. [50] to make the momentum integrals analytical. They study the shape of the parity-even (real) and parity-odd (imaginary) parts in a one-parameter family of equilateral configurations, finding that the imaginary part can dominate the real part for moderate values of the helical-to-non-helical ratio r_H. They also compare the pole approximation with exact numerical integration at n_B=n_H=-2.9, and examine redder spectra in Appendix B. Finally, matching their approximate trispectrum to the parity-odd template of Ref. [11], they combine a Planck limit on |d^odd_1| with B_r=4.7 nG to infer a rough upper bound r_H≲4×10^-4. The paper explicitly frames the bound as a rough estimate and calls for a full-shape analysis in future work.

Significance. If the result holds, the parity-odd scalar trispectrum becomes a new observational probe of helical primordial magnetic fields, extending previous work that was limited to two- and three-point statistics. The paper provides the first full analytic expressions for the PMF-sourced trispectrum in the pole approximation and validates this approximation against exact integration for a fiducial nearly scale-invariant case. Strengths include the transparent derivation of the Wick-contraction structure, the explicit shape analysis in the ϕ–θ plane, the honest discussion of the approximation's limited validity in Appendix B, and the clear statement that the observational constraint is preliminary. The main scientific payoff, a rough bound on the helicity fraction, is of current interest given recent parity-violation searches in galaxy four-point functions and CMB trispectra.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eq. (5.2)] The headline bound r_H≲4×10^-4 is obtained by evaluating the factors PB(k1)PB(k3)PB(k12) and Pζ(k1)Pζ(k3)Pζ(k12) at n_B=n_H=-3 while evaluating the Gamma-function factors at n_B=n_H=-2.9 to avoid divergences. This mixed regularization is not derived from a controlled limiting procedure, and the pole approximation has been validated only at n_B=n_H=-2.9 (Sec. 4), not at n_B=n_H=-3, where Γ((n_B+3)/2) diverges and the result depends on the UV cutoff k_* introduced in Eq. (3.11). Appendix B demonstrates substantial degradation of the approximation at n=-2.5 and n=-2, so the accuracy at the regularized point used for the bound cannot be assumed. The authors should either validate the pole approximation against exact integration at a consistent regularization of n close to -3 (e.g., n=-2.99 and -2.9) and show that the r_H bound is insensitive to k_* and the smoothing scale r, or state the constraint as conditional on this unvalidated regularization.
  2. [§4, Figs. 2-3] The agreement between the pole approximation and the exact integration is only qualitative for r_H=1, with visible deviations in the real part and in the Im/Re ratio; the text itself notes a 'qualitative discrepancy' attributed to the missing r_H^4 term. Since the abstract's claim that parity-odd signals 'surpass parity-even ones in specific momentum and parameter spaces' is made precisely in the r_H=0.5–1 regime where the approximation is least reliable, the paper should either quantify the error of the pole approximation as a function of r_H and restrict the dominance claim to the validated regime, or provide exact results for the configurations in which dominance is claimed.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5.2)] The numerical prefactor in |d^odd_1| ≈ 10 r_H (Br/nG)^8 is stated without derivation. Matching to the template (5.1) requires projecting the angular structure of the PMF trispectrum (Appendix A, Eqs. (A.17)–(A.20)) onto the specific angular combination in (5.1), yet the paper does not show this projection or the origin of the 1/81 coefficient. Without an explicit overlap calculation or a numerical verification of the matched coefficient, the resulting bound r_H≲4×10^-4 is not independently checkable. A short derivation or a numerical projection check should be added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The title contains a typo: 'trispcetrum' should be 'trispectrum'.
  2. [§3–§5] The paper introduces two independent regularizations: the smoothing scale r in the definition of B_r (Eq. 2.10) and the UV cutoff k_* in the definition of the integrated amplitude AB (Eq. 3.11). The relation between these scales and their roles in the final bound should be clarified, since varying either could affect r_H.
  3. [§1] The opening sentence, 'Some recent observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies and the large-scale structure of the Universe imply cosmic parity violation,' overstates the status of the EB-correlation and four-point-function detections, which remain subject to systematic concerns; 'suggest' or 'have been interpreted as evidence for' would be more accurate.
  4. [§5, footnote 1] The conversion d^odd_1 = τ^odd_NL/6 between the amplitude in the template (5.1) and the Planck-constrained τ^odd_NL is quoted without derivation or reference; a citation to the precise definition of τ^odd_NL in Ref. [16] would help readers verify the limit.
  5. [§4] The 'exact integration' used for the comparison in Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6 is not described. For reproducibility, the paper should state the numerical scheme, integration domain, and estimated accuracy of these integrations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trispectrum is computed from Wick contractions, the pole approximation is checked against exact integration, and the r_H bound is a projection onto an external Planck limit.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The trispectrum of the passive scalar mode is obtained from Wick contractions of the Gaussian PMF two-point function (2.4), leading to the full integral expression (3.8), and the pole-approximated form (3.9) is not merely imported from the same-author Ref. [50] but is compared with exact numerical integration of (3.8) in Figs. 2–3 at the same spectral index n_B=n_H=-2.9 used in the constraint. Appendix B explicitly quantifies the breakdown of the approximation for n_B=n_H=-2.5 and -2, which is a limitation on the validity of the result but not a circular step. The observational bound in Eq. (5.2) is obtained by matching the derived amplitude to the external parity-odd trispectrum template (5.1) and then using the external Planck limit |d^odd_1|≲10^3 from Ref. [16] and the external magnetic-field strength B_r=4.7 nG from Ref. [52]; r_H is solved from the inequality rather than fitted. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The only self-citations concern the origin of the pole approximation and the value tau_nu/tau_B=10^17, neither of which is load-bearing as evidence because the first is validated internally and the second is a standard physical parameter, not a result equivalent to the target claim.

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

The central result rests on the passive scalar mode approximation, Gaussian PMFs, and the pole approximation. No new entities are introduced. The main free choices are the spectral indices (set to -2.9) and the assumed field strength B_r=4.7 nG.

free parameters (6)
  • n_B (non-helical spectral index) = -2.9 (main analysis); -3 in the bound
    The PMF non-helical power spectrum is modeled as P_B(k)=A_B k^{n_B}. The main shape analysis sets n_B=-2.9 to be close to scale-invariance; Appendix B shows the pole approximation degrades for n_B≥-2.5.
  • n_H (helical spectral index) = -2.9 (main analysis); -3 in the bound
    Same as n_B. The pole approximation is valid only near -3.
  • B_r (smoothed magnetic field strength) = 4.7 nG
    Taken from the Planck 2015 PMF constraint (Ref [52]) and used in the rough upper bound. The bound scales as (B_r/nG)^{-8}, so the value matters.
  • r (smoothing scale in B_r definition) = not specified; convention 1 Mpc
    Eq (2.10) defines B_r using a Gaussian smoothing with scale r. The paper does not state the value, but the normalization of the trispectrum and the bound depend on it.
  • tau_nu/tau_B = 10^17
    In Eq (2.1), the growth of the passive scalar mode depends on the ratio of conformal times at neutrino decoupling and PMF production. The paper fixes it to 10^17 following Ref [50].
  • r_H (helical-to-non-helical ratio) = varied 0.25 to 1 in shape analysis; constrained to ≤4e-4
    Model parameter that controls the helical component. The shape analysis varies it, and the observational section constrains it. It is not fitted in the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaussianity of PMF fields
    The statistical properties of PMFs are fully described by the two-point power spectrum (2.4), and Wick's theorem is used to reduce the eight-point correlator to products of power spectra (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Passive scalar mode expression (2.1)
    The curvature perturbation sourced by PMF anisotropic stress before neutrino decoupling is taken from Shaw & Lewis (2010). The paper does not re-derive this.
  • ad hoc to paper Pole approximation
    Introduced in Ref [50] for the bispectrum and applied here to the trispectrum. It assumes the integrals are dominated by k'→0 poles. The paper validates it numerically for n=-2.9 but shows it fails for larger indices.
  • standard math Schwarz inequality for helical PMFs
    Used to derive |r_H|≤1 when n_B=n_H (Eq 2.9).
  • ad hoc to paper Equilateral configuration restriction
    The full shape analysis is restricted to the equilateral configuration (Eqs 4.1-4.4) with 0<θ<π/2, 0≤ϕ<π to reduce degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption d^odd_1 template (5.1)
    The observational constraint uses the collapsed-limit template from Shiraishi (2016) and the Planck limit from Philcox (2025). The authors note this template is too simple to recover their full trispectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parity-violating scalar trispectrum from helical primordial magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7YQVT64

@misc{pith2026250516844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parity-violating scalar trispectrum from helical primordial magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7YQVT64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16844}
}
abstract

Some recent observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies and the large-scale structure of the Universe imply cosmic parity violation. Among possible parity-violating sources, helical primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) are of particular interest, as they inherently violate parity symmetry and can explain the observed magnetic fields, especially in void regions. PMFs, if generated in the early universe, can source curvature perturbations, which evolve into the present density fluctuations observed in CMB and galaxy surveys. Motivated by this, we study the imprint of helical PMFs on the trispectrum of the sourced primordial curvature perturbations, which is a leading-order scalar statistics sensitive to parity-violating signals. We derive full expressions for the trispectrum of the primordial curvature perturbations sourced by both the helical and non-helical PMFs and reduce them to computationally-feasible ones using a proper approximation. From numerical works, we confirm that parity-odd signals are efficiently enhanced and surpass parity-even ones in specific momentum and parameter spaces. Parity-violating signatures found in this paper are partially testable with observational implications reported so far. Assuming nearly scale-invariant PMF power spectra and the PMF strength of $B_{r}=4.7 \, {\rm nG}$, we obtain a rough upper bound on the helical-to-non-helical power ratio as $r_H\lesssim 4\times 10^{-4}$. Our findings highlight the primordial trispectrum as a promising probe of helical PMFs and provide a theoretical basis for future precise observations of higher-order statistics in the CMB anisotropies and the galaxy clustering.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Twisted echoes of an odd quartet: Scalar-induced gravitational waves as a probe of primordial parity-violation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A parity-odd primordial trispectrum imprints measurable left-right asymmetry in scalar-induced gravitational waves, and the chirality ratio directly tracks the parity-odd to parity-even trispectrum amplitude ratio.

  2. Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity and parity-violation through Scalar-Induced Gravitational Waves with next-generation ground-based interferometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ET+CE forecast: injected SIGW parameters (A_p, f_peak, f_NL, tau_NL, parity-odd tau_tilde_NL) are recovered within 1-2 sigma despite an astrophysical foreground, but the chiral V-mode is sub-threshold (SNR 0.5-1.9).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [50]

    Parity violation of primordial magnetic fields in the CMB bispectrum

    M. Shiraishi, Parity violation of primordial magnetic fields in the CMB bispectrum , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2012 (2012) 015 [ 1202.2847]. – 20 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  2. [11]

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

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

    arXiv 2016

  3. [1]

    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

  4. [2]

    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

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Diego-Palazuelos, J.R

    P. Diego-Palazuelos, J.R. Eskilt, Y. Minami, M. Tristram, R.M. Sullivan, A.J. Banday et al., Cosmic birefringence from the planck data release 4 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 091302

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    Eskilt, Frequency-dependent constraints on cosmic birefringence from the LFI and HFI Planck Data Release 4 , A&A 662 (2022) A10 [ 2201.13347]

    J.R. Eskilt, Frequency-dependent constraints on cosmic birefringence from the LFI and HFI Planck Data Release 4 , A&A 662 (2022) A10 [ 2201.13347]. – 17 – Re[T ζB ] (Pole) Re[T ζB ] (Exact) Im[T ζB ] (Pole) Im[T ζB ] (Exact) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 10-11T ζB rH =1 rH =0.75 rH =0.5 rH =0.25 Pole Exact 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 ϕ/π Im[T ζB]...

    arXiv 2022

  7. [5]

    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. D 106 (2022) 063503

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Eskilt, D.J

    J.R. Eskilt, D.J. Watts, R. Aurlien, A. Basyrov, M. Bersanelli, M. Brilenkov et al., COSMOGLOBE DR1 results. II. Constraints on isotropic cosmic birefringence from reprocessed WMAP and Planck LFI data , A&A 679 (2023) A144 [ 2305.02268]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    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

  2. [8]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka and S. Tsujikawa, Detection of isotropic cosmic birefringence and its implications for axionlike particles including dark energy , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 043509 [ 2011.11894]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Philcox and M

    O.H.E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi, Testing graviton parity and Gaussianity with Planck T-, E-, and B-mode bispectra, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 063522 [ 2312.12498]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Philcox and M

    O.H.E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi, Non-Gaussianity Beyond the Scalar Sector: A Search for Tensor and Mixed Tensor-Scalar Bispectra with Planck Data , 2409.10595. – 18 –

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    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

  6. [13]

    Philcox and M

    O.H.E. Philcox and M. Shiraishi, Testing parity symmetry with the polarized cosmic microwave background, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 083514 [ 2308.03831]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Philcox, Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 1

    O.H.E. Philcox, Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 1. Primordial Theory & Optimal Estimators , 2502.04434

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Philcox, Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 2

    O.H.E. Philcox, Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 2. Code & Validation, 2502.05258

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    Philcox, Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 3

    O.H.E. Philcox, Searching for Inflationary Physics with the CMB Trispectrum: 3. Constraints from Planck, 2502.06931

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Philcox, J

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

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    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. D 106 (2022) 063501

    2022

  12. [19]

    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

    2023

  13. [20]

    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 , MNRAS 522 (2023) 5701 [ 2206.03625]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    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. D 107 (2023) 023523

    2023

  15. [22]

    Creque-Sarbinowski, S

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski, S. Alexander, M. Kamionkowski and O. Philcox, Parity-violating trispectrum from chern-simons gravity , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (2023) 029

    2023

  16. [23]

    Philcox and J

    O.H.E. Philcox and J. Ereza, Could sample variance be responsible for the parity-violating signal seen in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey? , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 383 (2025) 20240034 [ 2401.09523]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Krolewski, S

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

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    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. D 107 (2023) 023523 [ 2210.16320]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    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

  20. [27]

    Niu, M.H

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

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Stefanyszyn, X

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

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Fujita, T

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

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Moretti, N

    T. Moretti, N. Bartolo and A. Greco, Breaking Parity: the case of the Trispectrum from Chiral Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2410.11801 [ 2410.11801]. – 19 –

    2024

  24. [31]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars , Science 328 (2010) 73 [ 1006.3504]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Tavecchio, G

    F. Tavecchio, G. Ghisellini, G. Bonnoli and L. Foschini, Extreme TeV blazars and the intergalactic magnetic field , MNRAS 414 (2011) 3566 [ 1009.1048]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Vovk, A.M

    I. Vovk, A.M. Taylor, D. Semikoz and A. Neronov, Fermi/LAT Observations of 1ES 0229+200: Implications for Extragalactic Magnetic Fields and Background Light , ApJ 747 (2012) L14 [1112.2534]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Takahashi, M

    K. Takahashi, M. Mori, K. Ichiki, S. Inoue and H. Takami, Lower Bounds on Magnetic Fields in Intergalactic Voids from Long-term GeV-TeV Light Curves of the Blazar Mrk 421 , ApJ 771 (2013) L42 [ 1303.3069]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Yang and Z.-G

    Y.-P. Yang and Z.-G. Dai, Time delay and extended halo for constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 15 (2015) 2173

    2015

  29. [36]

    Veres, C.D

    P. Veres, C.D. Dermer and K.S. Dhuga, Properties of the Intergalactic Magnetic Field Constrained by Gamma-Ray Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts , ApJ 847 (2017) 39 [1705.08531]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Tashiro and T

    H. Tashiro and T. Vachaspati, Parity-odd correlators of diffuse gamma rays and intergalactic magnetic fields , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 448 (2015) 299 [ 1409.3627]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Chen, B.D

    W. Chen, B.D. Chowdhury, F. Ferrer, H. Tashiro and T. Vachaspati, Intergalactic magnetic field spectra from diffuse gamma rays , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450 (2015) 3371 [1412.3171]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and E. Fenu, Can the observed large scale magnetic fields be seeded by helical primordial fields? , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2009 (2009) 001 [ 0906.4976]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Caprini and L

    C. Caprini and L. Sorbo, Adding helicity to inflationary magnetogenesis , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2014 (2014) 056 [ 1407.2809]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Chiara Guzzetti and L. Sorbo, Inflationary magnetogenesis with added helicity: constraints from non-Gaussianities, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35 (2018) 124003 [1707.09750]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Sharma, K

    R. Sharma, K. Subramanian and T.R. Seshadri, Generation of helical magnetic field in a viable scenario of inflationary magnetogenesis , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 083503 [ 1802.04847]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Bamba, S.D

    K. Bamba, S.D. Odintsov, T. Paul and D. Maity, Helical magnetogenesis with reheating phase from higher curvature coupling and baryogenesis , Physics of the Dark Universe 36 (2022) 101025 [2107.11524]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Chakraborty, S

    S. Chakraborty, S. Pal and S. SenGupta, Hilltop Inflation and Generation of Helical Magnetic Field, Universe 8 (2022) 26 [ 1810.03478]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Cecchini and M

    C. Cecchini and M. Rinaldi, Inflationary helical magnetic fields with a sawtooth coupling , Physics of the Dark Universe 40 (2023) 101212 [ 2301.07699]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Pogosian, T

    L. Pogosian, T. Vachaspati and S. Winitzki, Signatures of kinetic and magnetic helicity in the CMBR, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 083502 [ astro-ph/0112536]

    2002 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and T. Kahniashvili, The Cosmic microwave background and helical magnetic fields: The Tensor mode , Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 063006 [ astro-ph/0304556]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Kahniashvili and B

    T. Kahniashvili and B. Ratra, Effects of Cosmological Magnetic Helicity on the Cosmic Microwave Background, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 103006 [ astro-ph/0503709]

    2005 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kunze, Effects of helical magnetic fields on the cosmic microwave background , Phys

    K.E. Kunze, Effects of helical magnetic fields on the cosmic microwave background , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 083004 [ 1112.4797]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ballardini, F

    M. Ballardini, F. Finelli and D. Paoletti, CMB anisotropies generated by a stochastic background of primordial magnetic fields with non-zero helicity , JCAP 10 (2015) 031 [1412.1836]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2015 results. XIX. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields , Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A19 [ 1502.01594]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Shaw and A

    J.R. Shaw and A. Lewis, Massive neutrinos and magnetic fields in the early universe , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 043517 [ 0911.2714]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Garretson, G.B

    W.D. Garretson, G.B. Field and S.M. Carroll, Primordial magnetic fields from pseudoGoldstone bosons, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 5346 [ hep-ph/9209238]

    1992 arXiv

  47. [55]

    LiteBIRD collaboration, LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields , JCAP 07 (2024) 086 [ 2403.16763]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , 1907.04473

    K. Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , 1907.04473

    1907 arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    SPHEREx collaboration, Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey , 1412.4872

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    EUCLID collaboration, Euclid Definition Study Report , 1110.3193

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    PFS Teamcollaboration, Extragalactic science, cosmology, and Galactic archaeology with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 66 (2014) R1 [ 1206.0737]. – 21 –

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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