Boosted Odds: Lower-Point Probes of Parity Violation with Momentum Fields

Parity-violating initial conditions are uniquely compelling signatures of inflationary dynamics beyond the single-field slow-roll paradigm, and their effects on the distribution of late-time observables can be easily separated from that of. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

That matters because cosmology operates at the edge of what current instruments can measure, where systematic errors and model assumptions are never trivial. Small discrepancies between independent measurements have historically pointed toward missing physics rather than simple calibration errors, and the ongoing tension in the Hubble constant is a live example of how a persistent disagreement between methods can reshape the theoretical landscape. Each new dataset that approaches this territory with independent systematics adds real information to a problem that has resisted easy resolution for more than a decade. In this work, we propose using the momentum field, $\mathbf{p} = (1+δ)\mathbf{v}$, and, in particular, the density-density-momentum bispectrum as a novel probe of primordial. This class of bispectra greatly complements traditional searches using four-point statistics of the density field, furnishing new observables that can be sensitive to.

At the same time, its lower dimensionality substantially reduces the complexity associated with analysing high-dimensional data vectors and their covariance. We show that the sensitivity of the density-density-momentum bispectrum to parity violation effects persists even if we can only observe the projection of the momentum field along.

We perform a Fisher forecast for the parity-violating amplitude of the ultra-squeezed template in the cross bispectrum of kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) anisotropies and galaxy. Our method can be easily co-opted to existing pipelines to study parity violation and, as the galaxy-galaxy-kSZ bispectrum is a key cosmological probe, take advantage of the.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

The relevance goes beyond one dataset because even small shifts in measured parameters can matter when the field is testing the limits of the standard cosmological model. The Lambda-CDM framework describes the observable universe with remarkable economy, but its success rests on two components, dark matter and dark energy, whose physical nature remains entirely unknown. Any credible measurement that tightens or loosens the constraints on those components moves the entire theoretical enterprise forward, regardless of whether the immediate result looks dramatic on its own terms.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether the effect survives when independent surveys, different calibration strategies and tighter control of systematic uncertainties enter the picture. Programmes such as Euclid, DESI and the Rubin Observatory will deliver datasets over the next several years that cover the same parameter space with largely independent methods. If the current signal persists through those tests, its theoretical implications will become impossible to set aside. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source