- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Can baryon acoustic oscillations illuminate the parity-violating galaxy four-point correlation function?

Jiamin Hou*

Zachary Slepian†

Drew Jamieson‡

  • *Contact author: jiamin.hou@mpe.mpg.de
  • †Contact author: zslepian@ufl.edu
  • ‡Contact author: jamieson@mpa-garching.mpg.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 123502 – Published 1 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/zpmc-pqzk

Abstract

Recent measurements of the galaxy four-point correlation function (4PCF) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey indicate potential statistical evidence for parity violation. If this signal is of genuine physical origin, it must stem from beyond-Standard Model physics, most likely during the very early Universe, prior to decoupling (z∼1020). Since the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) features imprint at decoupling, they are expected in the parity-odd galaxy 4PCF. Thus detecting them would be an additional piece of evidence that the signal is genuine. We demonstrate, using a toy parity-violating model, how the BAO imprint on the parity-odd 4PCF. We then show how to do a model-independent search for BAO in the odd 4PCF. This is desirable since, if the signal is real, we may not know for some time what model of e.g. inflation produces it. If BAO are detected in the parity-odd sector, they can be used as a standard ruler as is already done in the two-point correlation function and three-point correlation function. We derive a simple formula relating the expected precision on the BAO scale to the overall parity-odd detection significance. Searching for the BAO in the odd 4PCF of redshift surveys such as DESI, Euclid, Spherex, and Roman will be a valuable additional avenue to determine if parity violation in the distribution of galaxies is real.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (107)

  1. C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957).
  2. A. D. Sakharov, Sov. JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967), https://inspirehep.net/literature/51345.
  3. S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990).
  4. A. Lue, L. Wang, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1506 (1999).
  5. V. Gluscevic and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123529 (2010).
  6. M. Kamionkowski and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D 83, 027301 (2011).
  7. S. H. S. Alexander, Phys. Lett. B 660, 444 (2008).
  8. N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and M. Shiraishi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2015) 039.
  9. N. Seto and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 121101 (2007).
  10. N. Yunes, R. O’Shaughnessy, B. J. Owen, and S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064017 (2010).
  11. K. W. Masui, U.-L. Pen, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221301 (2017).
  12. L. Jenks, L. Choi, M. Lagos, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044023 (2023).
  13. M. Biagetti and G. Orlando, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2020) 005.
  14. H.-R. Yu, P. Motloch, U.-L. Pen, Y. Yu, H. Wang, H. Mo, X. Yang, and Y. Jing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101302 (2020).
  15. J. Shim, U.-L. Pen, H.-R. Yu, and T. Okumura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 141002 (2025).
  16. H.-M. Zhu and U.-L. Pen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 111003 (2025).
  17. Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221301 (2020).
  18. E. Komatsu, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 452 (2022).
  19. J. R. Eskilt, L. Herold, E. Komatsu, K. Murai, T. Namikawa, and F. Naokawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 121001 (2023).
  20. K. Martinovic, C. Badger, M. Sakellariadou, and V. Mandic, Phys. Rev. D 104, L081101 (2021).
  21. T. C. K. Ng, M. Isi, K. W. K. Wong, and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084068 (2023).
  22. R. N. Cahn, Z. Slepian, and J. Hou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 201002 (2023).
  23. M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083503 (2016).
  24. R. N. Cahn and Z. Slepian, J. Phys. A 56, 325204 (2023).
  25. O. H. E. Philcox, Z. Slepian, J. Hou, C. Warner, R. N. Cahn, and D. J. Eisenstein, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 2457 (2021).
  26. Z. Slepian, W. Craig, and J. Hou, Cadenza (to be published).
  27. J. Hou, Z. Slepian, and R. N. Cahn, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 5701 (2023).
  28. K. S. Dawson et al., Astron. J. 145, 10 (2013).
  29. O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063501 (2022).
  30. J. Hou, R. N. Cahn, O. H. E. Philcox, and Z. Slepian, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043515 (2022).
  31. A. Krolewski, S. May, K. Smith, and H. Hopkins, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2024) 044.
  32. D. Jeong and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 251301 (2012).
  33. D. Jamieson, A. Caravano, J. Hou, Z. Slepian, and E. Komatsu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 533, 2582 (2024).

  34. The compressed statistics in [32, 33] are sensitive to the “squeezed” or the “collapsed” types of tetrahedra. In contrast, due to the binning choices used in [27, 29], the galaxy 4PCF is more sensitive to equilateral shapes. While the binning scheme for the galaxy 4PCF could be extended to probe other types, this would potentially lead to higher computational costs.

  35. X. Niu, M. Hossain Rahat, K. Srinivasan, and W. Xue, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2023) 018.
  36. G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2023) 021.
  37. G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023523 (2023).
  38. C. Creque-Sarbinowski, S. Alexander, M. Kamionkowski, and O. Philcox, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2023) 029.
  39. T. Fujita, T. Murata, I. Obata, and M. Shiraishi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2024) 127.
  40. A. D. Sakharov, Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 22, 241 (1966), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966JETP...22..241S/abstract.
  41. P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, Astrophys. J. 162, 815 (1970).
  42. R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Astrophys. Space Sci. 7, 3 (1970).
  43. W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. 444, 489 (1995).
  44. Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 457, 24 (2016).
  45. W. H. Press and E. T. Vishniac, Astrophys. J. 236, 323 (1980).
  46. D. J. Eisenstein, H.-J. Seo, and M. White, Astrophys. J. 664, 660 (2007).
  47. D. J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005).
  48. S. Cole et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 362, 505 (2005).
  49. Z. Slepian et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469, 1738 (2017).
  50. D. W. Pearson and L. Samushia, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 4500 (2018).
  51. W. Ortolá Leonard, Z. Slepian, and J. Hou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2025) 090.

  52. While in this work our focus is on parity violation from the early Universe (i.e. prior to decoupling, most likely during inflation), we do not exclude the possibility that BAO could be present in the odd 4PCF if this latter is produced by some late-time, new-physics transformation of the density field. Since the density field would contain BAO, they would remain under this transformation unless it somehow especially conspired to destroy them.

  53. During the radiation-dominated era, the density perturbation and the potential ϕ are related via δ=−(2/3)[k/(aH)]2ϕ. In this work, we employ the curvature perturbation, which is related to the primordial potential as R=5/3ϕ, hence the prefactor of −2/5 above, while the minus sign stems from the Poisson equation, from which the factor of (k/H)2 also arises.

  54. F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztañaga, and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rep. 367, 1 (2002).
  55. Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 454, 4142 (2015).

  56. In detail, the actual execution time for typical spectroscopic samples (such as BOSS) ends up scaling linearly in the number of objects because computation of the harmonic expansion coefficients is subdominant to the cost of assembling all triples of them, which must be done around each galaxy and so scales linearly.

  57. W. R. Coulton, O. H. E. Philcox, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023531 (2024).

  58. This choice of |g|=2×107 approaches the upper limit of the coupling constant. Selecting a much higher value would introduce higher-order contributions, such as ⟨RRR(3)R(3)⟩, which would cause the likelihood to deviate significantly from a Gaussian distribution.

  59. J. Lesgourgues, arXiv:1104.2932.
  60. E. Sellentin and A. F. Heavens, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 456, L132 (2016).

  61. We caution that the choice of binning can impact the significances. Using bins that are too fine may result in a non-Gaussian likelihood because one cannot invoke central limit theorem to argue that the 4PCF coefficient at each radial bin combination is Gaussian distributed. In this case using the analytic covariance may not result in the expected χ2 distribution.

  62. Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469, 2059 (2017).
  63. J. Sunseri, Z. Slepian, S. Portillo, J. Hou, S. Kahraman, and D. P. Finkbeiner, RAS Tech. Instrum. 2, 62 (2023).
  64. N. S. Sugiyama, S. Saito, F. Beutler, and H.-J. Seo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484, 364 (2018).
  65. O. H. E. Philcox, J. Hou, and Z. Slepian, arXiv:2108.01670.

  66. We assume the spatial-temporal separability since we are interested in the galaxy clustering at 0<z<2. However, the separability is not guaranteed e.g. during reionization, which affects the baryons.

  67. S. Bashinsky and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 69, 083002 (2004).
  68. J. K. Bloomfield, S. H. P. Face, and Z. Moss, arXiv:1703.06428.
  69. A. J. S. Hamilton, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 312, 257 (2000).
  70. A. E. Siegman, Opt. Lett. 1, 13 (1977).
  71. J. D. Talman, J. Comput. Phys. 29, 35 (1978).
  72. Z. Slepian, Y. Li, M. Schmittfull, and Z. Vlah, arXiv:1912.00065.
  73. M. S. Wang et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2025) 031.
  74. O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123529 (2021).
  75. D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 496, 605 (1998).

  76. We note that in practice, the dewiggling function acts as a convolution of for the 4PCF in the position space as discussed in Sec. 4.

  77. D. J. Eisenstein, H.-J. Seo, E. Sirko, and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 664, 675 (2007).
  78. N. Padmanabhan, M. White, and J. D. Cohn, Phys. Rev. D 79, 063523 (2009).
  79. M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, 3822 (2015).
  80. A. Burden, W. J. Percival, and C. Howlett, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 453, 456 (2015).
  81. M. Schmittfull, T. Baldauf, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 96, 023505 (2017).
  82. J. Birkin, B. Li, M. Cautun, and Y. Shi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 483, 5267 (2019).
  83. D. Tseliakhovich and C. Hirata, Phys. Rev. D 82, 083520 (2010).
  84. N. Dalal, U.-L. Pen, and U. Seljak, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2010) 007.
  85. J. Yoo, N. Dalal, and U. Seljak, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2011) 018.
  86. Z. Slepian and D. J. Eisenstein, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 448, 9 (2015).
  87. Z. Slepian et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 2109 (2018).
  88. F. Beutler, U. Seljak, and Z. Vlah, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 2723 (2017).
  89. S. Bashinsky and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 69, 083002 (2004).
  90. D. Baumann, D. Green, J. Meyers, and B. Wallisch, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2016) 007.
  91. D. Baumann, F. Beutler, R. Flauger, D. Green, A. Slosar, M. Vargas-Magaña, B. Wallisch, and C. Yèche, Nat. Phys. 15, 465 (2019).
  92. A. Linde and V. Mukhanov, Phys. Rev. D 56, R535 (1997).
  93. C. Hikage, K. Koyama, T. Matsubara, T. Takahashi, and M. Yamaguchi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 398, 2188 (2009).
  94. Y. Akrami et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A9 (2020).
  95. C. Heinrich and M. Schmittfull, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063503 (2019).
  96. A. Barreira, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2023) 051.
  97. D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. Lett. 504, L57 (1998).
  98. C. Blake and K. Glazebrook, Astrophys. J. 594, 665 (2003).
  99. W. Hu and Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. D 68, 063004 (2003).
  100. E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 68, 083504 (2003).
  101. L. Samushia, Z. Slepian, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 628 (2021).
  102. V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, Phys. Rep. 733, 1 (2018).
  103. A. Aghamousa et al. (DESI Collaboration), arXiv:1611.00036.
  104. R. Laureijs et al., arXiv:1110.3193.
  105. J. Bock (SPHEREx Science Team), in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231 (2018), p. 354.21, arXiv:2511.02985.
  106. Y. Wang, Z. Zhai, A. Alavi, E. Massara, A. Pisani, A. Benson, C. M. Hirata, L. Samushia, D. H. Weinberg, J. Colbert, O. Doré, T. Eifler, C. Heinrich, S. Ho, E. Krause, N. Padmanabhan, D. Spergel, and H. I. Teplitz, Astrophys. J. 928, 1 (2022).
  107. 10.5281/zenodo.17683975.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 123502– Published 1 December, 2025
  • Received 28 April 2025
  • Accepted 7 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Open access publication funded by the Max Planck Society.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation