Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The Galactic Halo Contribution to the Dispersion Measure of Extragalactic Fast Radio Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's hot gas halo adds 30-245 pc/cm3 to FRB dispersion measures, and a new formula makes the subtraction practical.

desk verdict Useful direction-dependent halo DM formula for FRB analyses, but the low-latitude extrapolation makes the 4% accuracy claim premature. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00849 v2 pith:IETJPUTW submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Shotaro Yamasaki , Tomonori Totani This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasureMilkyWayhalohotgasX-rayemissiondarkmatterintergalacticmediumGalacticcoordinates
open problems Dark Matter
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 hot gas halo of the Milky Way is not a negligible or spherically symmetric correction for fast radio bursts. Its two-component model — a spherical, isothermal hot halo plus a compact disk-like hot component — predicts a mean halo dispersion measure of $43\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ and a full-sky range of $30$–$245\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$, with the disk-like component dominating in most directions. Because the correction depends on where on the sky the burst is seen, the paper supplies a polynomial formula in Galactic coordinates that reproduces the model's halo dispersion measure to better than 4 percent. If the model holds, observers can subtract the Milky Way's halo contribution direction by direction and obtain cleaner estimates of the intergalactic and host-galaxy components of FRB dispersion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-component electron density profile $n_e = n_{\mathrm{disk}} + n_{\mathrm{sphe}}$. The disk-like component is an exponential disk, $n_{\mathrm{disk}}(R,z) = n_0 \exp[-(R/R_0 + |z|/z_0)]$, with best-fit $n_0 = 7.4\times10^{-3}\,(Z_{\mathrm{halo}}/Z_\odot)^{-1}\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$, $R_0 = 4.9\,{\rm kpc}$, and $z_0 = 2.4\,{\rm kpc}$, determined by fitting X-ray emission measures. The spherical component is isothermal gas at $kT = 0.3\,{\rm keV}$ in hydrostatic equilibrium with an NFW dark matter potential, normalized to a total baryon mass of $1.2\times10^{11}\,M_\odot$. Integrating this density along any line of sight gives the halo DM sky map, which is then compressed into the analytic formula $\mathrm{DM_{halo}} = \sum_{i,j} c_{ij} |l|^i |b|^j$ with the coefficients listed in the paper's Table 1.

What would settle it

Take a set of FRBs or pulsars with independent distance estimates toward low-latitude sightlines ($|b|<15^\circ$), subtract the warm-ISM contribution using NE2001 and YMW16, and compare the residual with Eq. (8). If the residuals do not rise toward the plane as predicted, or systematically exceed the $30$–$245\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ envelope, the disk-like halo extrapolation is falsified. A complementary check is an all-sky X-ray emission-measure map covering the longitude gap and low latitudes, which should show the same exponential disk if the model is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the directional variation seen in diffuse X-ray emission from the Milky Way's hot gas demands a disk-like halo component in addition to the extended spherical halo, and that the resulting electron density model predicts halo dispersion measures of $30$–$245\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ across the sky with a mean of $43\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$. The disk-like component, fitted to X-ray emission measures, contributes between $0.4$ and $9$ times as much dispersion as the spherical component, so the halo DM is strongly non-isotropic. The model stays consistent with LMC pulsar dispersion measures after subtracting warm ISM models, and with O VII absorption column estimates, and the paper packages the result as a seventh-order polynomial in $|l|$ and $|b|$ with tabulated coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The disk-like exponential profile is fitted to X-ray data at $|b|>15^\circ$ over a limited longitude range and then extrapolated to the entire sky, including the low-latitude directions where the model predicts its largest dispersion measures; if the hot gas distribution there differs from this extrapolation, the full-sky range and the fitting formula fail exactly in the directions that matter most.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FRB distance estimates can now include a direction-dependent Milky Way halo subtraction of typically $30$–$50\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$, rising to $245\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ near the plane.
  • Adding Eq. (8) to the NE2001 or YMW16 warm-ISM models gives the total Milky Way electron contribution, isolating the intergalactic plus host-galaxy remainder.
  • For the host-identified FRB 180924 and FRB 190523, the lower halo DM weakens the upper bound on the ionized IGM fraction ($f_{\rm IGM} < 0.79$–$0.96$ and $<0.99$–$1$ in the paper's estimates).
  • The scatter in X-ray emission measures implies a roughly $0.2$ dex rms fluctuation in halo DM, so the smooth formula should be read as a mean correction rather than an exact value for any single sightline.
  • Nearby, low-dispersion FRBs are where the halo term matters most, because the Milky Way's electrons can dominate their total observed DM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A statistical prediction worth testing: if the disk-like halo is real, FRB sightlines at low $|b|$ should show systematically larger residual DM after warm-ISM subtraction, and stacking FRBs by Galactic latitude could reveal the halo's signature without needing individual host redshifts.
  • The $0.2$ dex density fluctuation inferred from X-ray scatter suggests that a single polynomial value underweights sightline-to-sightline variance; future FRB samples should treat the halo DM as a distribution, not a point prediction.
  • The same two-component reasoning may apply to other galaxies, since intervening galaxy halos are omitted from the standard DM budget; if their halos resemble the Milky Way's, some of what is attributed to the IGM could actually be accumulated halo gas.
  • A decisive check is low-latitude X-ray spectroscopy: mapping emission measures at $|b|<15^\circ$ would test whether the exponential extrapolation that produces the largest corrections is physically present.
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 constructs a two-component model of the Milky Way's hot halo gas: a spherical, isothermal, hydrostatic component normalized to the cosmological baryon budget of a 10^12 solar mass halo, plus an exponential disk-like component whose central density and scale lengths are fitted by MCMC to 107 Suzaku X-ray emission-measure sightlines from Nakashima et al. (2018) covering 75 deg < l < 285 deg and |b| > 15 deg. The combined model is used to integrate electron density along lines of sight to the virial radius, yielding a mean halo DM of 43 pc cm^-3, a claimed full-sky range of 30-245 pc cm^-3, and a 0.2 dex rms fluctuation inherited from EM scatter. The authors provide a seventh-order polynomial formula (Eq. 8, Table 1) for DMhalo(l,b) and claim that it reproduces the model to better than 4% (better than 1% over 98% of the sky). The model is checked against LMC pulsar DMs and O VII column measurements, and applied to FRB 180924 and FRB 190523 to derive constraints on f_IGM.

Significance. If the calibration holds, this is a useful and needed ingredient for FRB cosmology: it converts a commonly ignored or spherically approximated foreground into a direction-dependent correction, with a simple fitting formula. The MCMC procedure is standard, priors and errors are stated, and the independent checks (LMC pulsars, O VII) are appropriate and go in the right direction; these are genuine strengths. The manuscript is also honest about systematic uncertainties in f_b and the integration limit. However, the quantitative headline claims, especially the 245 pc cm^-3 maximum and the any-line-of-sight validity of Eq. (8), rest on an extrapolation of the disk-like component into a region of parameter space (low |b|, l near 0) not sampled by the fitted EM data. As it stands, the mean DM benchmark is plausible, but the practical formula needs additional support before it can be used with the claimed accuracy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (8), Figure 5] The headline full-sky range DMhalo = 30-245 pc cm^-3 and the practical validity of Eq. (8) 'along any line of sight' depend on the disk-like component at low Galactic latitudes, where the model produces its largest values (e.g., the innermost curves in Figure 5). However, the disk parameters in Eq. (2) were fitted exclusively to N18 Suzaku EM sightlines with 75 deg < l < 285 deg and |b| > 15 deg (Section 3.1). The directions that dominate the upper end of the claimed range lie entirely outside that fitting region, and no independent low-latitude measurement (e.g., in-plane X-ray absorption, pulsar DMs, or other tracers) is used to validate the exponential extrapolation in R and z. Section 5.2 varies f_b and the integration limit but does not bound this low-latitude extrapolation. The result is a calibration gap, not an internal inconsistency: the mean 43 pc cm^-3 may remain a reasonable benchmark, but the claim that Eq. (8) estimates the halo DM along any line of sight, and in particular the 245 pc cm^-3 maximum, is not yet supported in the directions where the correction matters most.
  2. [Section 4, Table 1; Section 5.2] The statement that Eq. (8) reproduces the theoretical prediction within 4% accuracy refers only to the accuracy of the polynomial approximation to the model, not to the accuracy of the model as a description of the Milky Way. The physical uncertainties quoted in Section 5.2 are much larger: 21-50 pc cm^-3 for the mean from f_b in [0,1], 14-26% from the integration limit, and a 0.2 dex rms scatter from EM fluctuations. Because Table 1 lists only coefficients and no uncertainty map, a user computing DMhalo with Eq. (8) has no way to propagate model uncertainty into the derived DMIGM or source redshift. The paper should either provide an uncertainty map for DMhalo(l,b) or explicitly restrict the '4% accuracy' claim to the polynomial representation of the fiducial model.
  3. [Section 5.2] The sentence stating that 'statistical uncertainties in the best-fit parameters of the disk-like halo component is negligible' is not demonstrated. The MCMC errors quoted in Section 3.1 are roughly 20-30% in n_disk0 and 10-20% in R0 and z0; these propagate into the disk DM, particularly along low-latitude sightlines where the integral passes through the high-density central region. No calculation is shown that the resulting DM uncertainty is negligible compared with the systematic effects discussed in Section 5.2, and in the extrapolated low-latitude region the parameter errors could be larger. This should be quantified if the claim of negligible statistical uncertainty is retained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Conclusions] There are repeated typos: 'descirbed' should be 'described' and 'siteline' should be 'sightline' (also in Section 6).
  2. [Equation (8)] The domain of l should be stated explicitly, since the polynomial in |l| and |b| is not manifestly periodic; in particular, define how l near 360 deg maps to |l|, as done in the Figure 1 caption.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The notation EMN18,☉ is introduced somewhat abruptly after Eq. (5); a consistent subscript such as EM_N18,☉ would improve readability, and Eq. (5) would benefit from an explicit reminder that nH = chi_H n_e.
  4. [Section 5.2] The statement that larger integration limits r = 1.5rvir-2.0rvir increase the mean DMhalo 'only by 14%-26%' should specify whether this is relative to the fiducial mean of 43 pc cm^-3, to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [References] The reference 'Pietrzyski' should be spelled 'Pietrzyński'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the halo DM is a genuine model output fitted to X-ray EM and a baryon budget, not to DM itself; Eq. (8) is explicitly presented as a fitting formula.

full rationale

The derivation chain is non-circular. The disk-like halo parameters (n_disk0, R0, z0) are fitted to the N18 Suzaku EM data via Eq. (6) using MCMC (Section 3.1), and the spherical component normalization n_sphe0 is fixed by Eq. (4) from an assumed baryon mass Mb; neither step uses DMhalo as an input. The headline values (mean 43 pc cm^-3, range 30-245 pc cm^-3) are line-of-sight integrals of the resulting two-component density model, so they are genuine outputs rather than re-fitted targets. The LMC pulsar upper limits (Section 3.3) and O VII column estimates (Section 3.4) are independent checks made after the model is fixed; the paper does not adjust the model to satisfy them. The polynomial Eq. (8) is explicitly introduced as 'a convenient analytic formula' and 'the fitting formula,' and its claimed 4% accuracy is a statement of how well the polynomial reproduces the model's own full-sky map; this is an interpolation convenience, not a disguised prediction. Section 5.2 candidly labels the mean as 'only ... a benchmark' and enumerates systematic uncertainties (fb, integration limit, EM scatter), which supports the non-circular interpretation. The low-latitude extrapolation of the disk profile beyond the N18 fitting region (75 deg < l < 285 deg, |b| > 15 deg) is a calibration and robustness concern rather than a circularity: no equation identifies the predicted DM with the fitted EM by construction, and the paper does not fit to any DM data. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; the cited EM catalog is external observational work.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction inherits three MCMC-fitted disk parameters (ndisk0, R0, z0), the chosen baryon fraction f_b that fixes the spherical mass, and several physical inputs (NFW mass and concentration, temperature, metallicity, composition). No free parameter is fit to dispersion measures, so the mean DM is a genuine model prediction, but it is not independent of the assumed baryon budget. The range of f_b from 0 to 1 converts the mean DM from 43 to 21-50 pc cm^-3, making f_b the largest single modeling freedom.

free parameters (5)
  • ndisk0 (central density of disk-like halo) = 7.4e-3 (Zhalo/Zsun)^-1 cm^-3
    Fitted to 107 Suzaku EM sightlines via MCMC; dominates the low-latitude DM.
  • R0 (disk-like scale radius) = 4.9 kpc
    Fitted to the same EM data.
  • z0 (disk-like scale height) = 2.4 kpc
    Fitted to the same EM data.
  • f_b (halo baryon fraction relative to cosmic mean) = 0.75 fiducial, range 0-1 considered
    Chosen by hand to fix the spherical component mass Mb=1.2e11 Msun via Eq. (4); not constrained by the EM fit. Controls the mean DM.
  • Zhalo (halo gas metallicity) = 0.3 Zsun
    Assumed from simulations and high-velocity cloud observations; enters the EM scaling and disk density. Not fitted, a model choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The MW dark matter halo is NFW with Mvir=1e12 Msun and cvir=12.
    Section 2: provides the gravitational potential for hydrostatic equilibrium; chosen from Klypin et al. (2002), not measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption Hot halo gas is isothermal at kT=0.3 keV and in hydrostatic equilibrium with the dark matter potential; the stellar disk potential is neglected.
    Section 2, Eq. (3): yields the spherical density profile. Temperature comes from N18 X-ray fits.
  • domain assumption The MW baryon mass within rvir equals f_b (Omega_b/Omega_m) Mvir with f_b=0.75, giving Mb=1.2e11 Msun.
    Section 2, Eq. (4): fixes the spherical component normalization; the paper calls this consistent with the cosmic ratio, though it is an input.
  • domain assumption X-ray emissivity scales inversely with halo metallicity, with Zhalo=0.3 Zsun.
    Section 3.1, Eq. (5): adopted from simulations and HVC observations; affects the EM-DM conversion.
  • domain assumption The Suzaku EM measurements (N18) provide unbiased halo EM for 107 sightlines, and two upper-limit points can be dropped.
    Section 3.1 and Figure 1 caption: basis of the disk fit; the removal of the upper limits is stated but not justified quantitatively.
  • domain assumption The warm ISM models NE2001 and YMW16 do not already include the hot disk-like halo, so DMs can be linearly added.
    Section 5.1: authors argue geometrically but do not quantify the overlap; this underpins the recommended additive formula.
  • domain assumption The observed EM scatter of 0.4 dex is caused by gas density fluctuations, so the DM scatter is 0.2 dex.
    Section 5.2: assumes DM is proportional to n_e and EM to n_e^2, with the same fluctuations persisting along the full sightline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Galactic Halo Contribution to the Dispersion Measure of Extragalactic Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IETJPUTW

@misc{pith2026190900849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Galactic Halo Contribution to the Dispersion Measure of Extragalactic Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IETJPUTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00849}
}
abstract

A new model of the Milky Way (MW) halo component of the dispersion measure (DM) for extragalactic sources, such as fast radio bursts (FRBs), is presented in light of recent diffuse X-ray observations. In addition to the spherical component of isothermal gas ($kT\sim0.3$ keV) in hydrostatic equilibrium with the Galactic gravitational potential, our model includes a disk-like non-spherical hot gas component to reproduce the directional dependence of the observed X-ray emission measure (EM). The total gas mass ($1.2\times10^{11}\,M_{\odot}$) is dominated by the spherical component, and is consistent with the total baryon mass of the MW expected from the dark matter mass and the cosmic baryon-to-dark-matter ratio. Our model predicts a mean halo DM of $43\:\,{\rm pc\:cm^{-3}}$, with a full range of $30$-$245\:\,{\rm pc\:cm^{-3}}$ over the whole sky. The large scatter seen in the X-ray EM data implies a $\sim0.2$ dex (rms) fluctuation of the MW halo DM. We provide an analytic formula to estimate the MW halo DM of our model along any line of sight, which can be easily used to compute the total MW component of DM toward extragalactic sources, in combination with existing DM models of the warm ionized medium associated with the Galactic disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Emission measures of the hot halo gas as a function of Galactic latitude. Each panel corresponds to four different regions in Galactic longitude. The halo gas metallicity is assumed to be Zhalo = 0.3Z for the observed EM data points. Two data points in 107 sightlines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Emission measures of the hot gas halo as a function of radius. The grey shaded region denotes the full range of variation in data, and the horizontal dashed line is the mean. Model predictions are plotted for the same Galactic longitude as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hot gas profile as a function of Galactocentric radius. Left panel: electron density; right panel: enclosed hot gas mass within Galactocentric radius < r. For density profiles of the disk-like halo component of our model, two profiles into vertical (z-axis) and in-plane (R-axis) directions are shown. The density profiles of F17 and PZ19 are shown only at r > D , according to their definitions. The horizontal grey da… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hot gas halo dispersion measure as a function of distance in the LMC direction. LMC pulsar data are randomly distributed at s ∈ [50, 60] kpc (denoted by the grey shaded region) for display purposes. The two data points for the same pulsar but assuming the two different…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hot gas halo DM (disk-like halo plus spherical) as a func￾tion of the Galactic longitude. Ten curves are shown corresponding to the Galactic latitude of |b| = 0◦ to 90◦ with a step of 10◦ . 4. ANALYTIC FORMULA FOR MW HALO DM Based on our new hot gas halo model, here we…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: electron density plotted against Galactocentric radius in the in-plane (R-axis) direction from the Galactic center for the warm thick disk models and the hot disk-like halo; bottom panel: electron density plotted against distance in the vertical (z￾axis) dir…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatial distribution of the 189 Galactic pulsars with DM￾independent distances used to constrain the warm thick disk model of YMW16, which include a smaller (N = 112) sample of pul￾sars used for NE2001. The direction and distance information are adopted from Tables A1–…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histograms of DM ratio of the warm thick disk to the hot disk-like halo for the full sample of 189 Galactic pulsars shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Timing and statistical analysis of single-pulse search pulsar discoveries from the PALFA survey

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Timing solutions for five PALFA rotating radio transients, spin periods for two more, and Bayesian energy and wait-time fits that support log-normal burst energies and near-Poisson burst times.

  2. Fast Radio Bursts Trace Cosmic Star Formation with Little Delay

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of CHIME/FRB finds the FRB volumetric rate peaks with the cosmic star-formation history at mean delays of 0.1–0.3 Gyr, consistent with zero delay and ruling out multi-Gyr merger-like delays.

  3. Exploring the Galactic plasma with pulsars in the SKA Era

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 2.5 of 10

    Pulsars map Galactic, solar-wind, and ionospheric plasma via DM, RM, scintillation, and scattering; SKA-Low/Mid AA4 will push DM precision to ~10^{-8} pc cm^{-3} and transform IISM models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    The CHIME Fast Radio Burst Project: System Overview

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    E., & Bregman , J

    Anderson , M. E., & Bregman , J. N. 2010, , 714, 320, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/320

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/320 2010

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  7. [7]

    Bregman , J. N. 2007, , 45, 221, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110619

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    N., & Lloyd-Davies , E

    Bregman , J. N., & Lloyd-Davies , E. J. 2007, , 669, 990, 10.1086/521321

    doi:10.1086/521321 2007

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    S., Kolatt , T

    Bullock , J. S., Kolatt , T. S., Sigad , Y., et al. 2001, , 321, 559, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x

    2001

  2. [10]

    Cen , R., & Ostriker , J. P. 1999, , 514, 1, 10.1086/306949

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, , 650, 560, 10.1086/506505

    ---. 2006, , 650, 560, 10.1086/506505

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Wharton , R

    Chatterjee , S., Law , C. J., Wharton , R. S., et al. 2017, , 541, 58, 10.1038/nature20797

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2018, , 863, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , : , Andersen , B. C., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.03507. 1908.03507

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A., Shull , J

    Collins , J. A., Shull , J. M., & Giroux , M. L. 2004, , 605, 216, 10.1086/382269

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019. 1906.05878

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M., & Lazio , T

    Cordes , J. M., & Lazio , T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro. astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2003, arXiv e-prints, astro

    ---. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro. astro-ph/0301598

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2014, , 783, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    Deng , W., & Zhang , B. 2014, , 783, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Beck , A

    Dolag , K., Gaensler , B. M., Beck , A. M., & Beck , M. C. 2015, , 451, 4277, 10.1093/mnras/stv1190

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Faerman , Y., Sternberg , A., & McKee , C. F. 2017, , 835, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, , 762, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/20

    Fang , T., Bullock , J., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2013, , 762, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/20

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2015, , 217, 21, 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/21

    Fang , T., Buote , D., Bullock , J., & Ma , R. 2015, , 217, 21, 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/21

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Lee , J

    Fang , T., Marshall , H. L., Lee , J. C., Davis , D. S., & Canizares , C. R. 2002, , 572, L127, 10.1086/341665

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    R., & Canizares , C

    Fang , T., Sembach , K. R., & Canizares , C. R. 2003, , 586, L49, 10.1086/374680

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    Fielding, D., Quataert, E., McCourt, M., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 466, 3810, 10.1093/mnras/stw3326

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Wakker , B

    Fox , A. J., Wakker , B. P., Savage , B. D., et al. 2005, , 630, 332, 10.1086/431915

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    J., & Peebles , P

    Fukugita , M., Hogan , C. J., & Peebles , P. J. E. 1998, , 503, 518, 10.1086/306025

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Fukugita , M., & Peebles , P. J. E. 2004, , 616, 643, 10.1086/425155

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Madsen , G

    Gaensler , B. M., Madsen , G. J., Chatterjee , S., & Mao , S. A. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 25, 184, 10.1071/AS08004

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    K., Giroux , M

    Gibson , B. K., Giroux , M. L., Penton , S. V., et al. 2000, , 120, 1830, 10.1086/301545

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    2012, , 756, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L8

    Gupta , A., Mathur , S., Krongold , Y., Nicastro , F., & Galeazzi , M. 2012, , 756, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L8

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Y., et al

    Hagihara , T., Yao , Y., Yamasaki , N. Y., et al. 2010, , 62, 723, 10.1093/pasj/62.3.723

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    B., & Shelton , R

    Henley , D. B., & Shelton , R. L. 2013, , 773, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/92

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    2003, , 598, L79, 10.1086/380598

    Ioka , K. 2003, , 598, L79, 10.1086/380598

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    J., & Lynden-Bell , D

    Kerr , F. J., & Lynden-Bell , D. 1986, , 221, 1023, 10.1093/mnras/221.4.1023

    1986 doi

  30. [39]

    Klypin , A., Zhao , H., & Somerville , R. S. 2002, , 573, 597, 10.1086/340656

    2002 doi

  31. [40]

    Kumar, P., et al. 2019. 1908.10026

    2019 arXiv

  32. [41]

    2017, , 849, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa92c6

    Li , Y., & Bregman , J. 2017, , 849, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa92c6

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    2019, , 876, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    Li , Z., Gao , H., Wei , J.-J., et al. 2019, , 876, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M

    Lorimer , D. R., Bailes , M., McLaughlin , M. A., Narkevic , D. J., & Crawford , F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  35. [44]

    K., Ekers , R

    Mahony , E. K., Ekers , R. D., Macquart , J.-P., et al. 2018, , 867, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    H., & Bullock , J

    Maller , A. H., & Bullock , J. S. 2004, , 355, 694, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08349.x

    2004

  37. [46]

    N., Fan , G., Lyne , A

    Manchester , R. N., Fan , G., Lyne , A. G., Kaspi , V. M., & Crawford , F. 2006, , 649, 235, 10.1086/505461

    2006 doi

  38. [47]

    N., Hobbs , G

    Manchester , R. N., Hobbs , G. B., Teoh , A., & Hobbs , M. 2005, , 129, 1993, 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  39. [48]

    G., & Prochaska , J

    Mathews , W. G., & Prochaska , J. X. 2017, , 846, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8861

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    2002, , 576, 188, 10.1086/341727

    McCammon , D., Almy , R., Apodaca , E., et al. 2002, , 576, 188, 10.1086/341727

    2002 doi

  41. [50]

    M., Hamilton , P

    McConnell , D., McCulloch , P. M., Hamilton , P. A., et al. 1991, , 249, 654, 10.1093/mnras/249.4.654

    1991 doi

  42. [51]

    McKernan, B., Yaqoob, T., & Reynolds, C. S. 2004, Astrophys. J., 617, 232, 10.1086/425338

    2004 doi

  43. [52]

    2014, , 780, L33, 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn , M. 2014, , 780, L33, 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    J., & Bregman , J

    Miller , M. J., & Bregman , J. N. 2013, , 770, 118, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/118

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    2015, , 800, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/14

    ---. 2015, , 800, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/14

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    2018, , 862, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aacceb

    Nakashima , S., Inoue , Y., Yamasaki , N., et al. 2018, , 862, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aacceb

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  48. [57]

    2002, , 573, 157, 10.1086/340489

    Nicastro , F., Zezas , A., Drake , J., et al. 2002, , 573, 157, 10.1086/340489

    2002 doi

  49. [58]

    E., Parisi , F., Scannapieco , C., et al

    Nuza , S. E., Parisi , F., Scannapieco , C., et al. 2014, , 441, 2593, 10.1093/mnras/stu643

    2014 doi

  50. [59]

    D., Jameson , A., et al

    Petroff , E., Barr , E. D., Jameson , A., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, e045, 10.1017/pasa.2016.35

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    C., Stappers , B

    Petroff , E., Oostrum , L. C., Stappers , B. W., et al. 2019, , 482, 3109, 10.1093/mnras/sty2909

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    2013, Nature, 495, 76, 10.1038/nature11878

    Pietrzyński, G., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 76, 10.1038/nature11878

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.05836

    Platts , E., Weltman , A., Walters , A., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.05836. 1810.05836

    2018 arXiv

  55. [64]

    T., McLaughlin , M

    Pol , N., Lam , M. T., McLaughlin , M. A., Lazio , T. J. W., & Cordes , J. M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.07630. 1903.07630

    2019 arXiv

  56. [65]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., G \"u nther , H. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    X., & Neeleman , M

    Prochaska , J. X., & Neeleman , M. 2018, , 474, 318, 10.1093/mnras/stx2824

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    X., & Zheng , Y

    Prochaska , J. X., & Zheng , Y. 2019, , 485, 648, 10.1093/mnras/stz261

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    M., & Paerels , F

    Rasmussen , A., Kahn , S. M., & Paerels , F. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 281, The IGM/Galaxy Connection. The Distribution of Baryons at z=0, ed. J. L. Rosenberg & M. E. Putman , 109

    2003

  60. [69]

    D., et al

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Addario, L. D., et al. 2019, Nature, 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    Readhead , A. C. S., & Duffett-Smith , P. J. 1975, , 42, 151

    1975

  62. [71]

    Reynolds , R. J. 1989, , 339, L29, 10.1086/185412

    1989 doi

  63. [72]

    2016, , 824, 94, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/94

    Roca-F \`a brega , S., Valenzuela , O., Col \' n , P., et al. 2016, , 824, 94, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/94

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    D., & Wakker , B

    Savage , B. D., & Wakker , B. P. 2009, , 702, 1472, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1472

    2009 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Wakker , B

    Sembach , K. R., Wakker , B. P., Savage , B. D., et al. 2003, , 146, 165, 10.1086/346231

    2003 doi

  66. [75]

    M., Macquart , J.-P., Bannister , K

    Shannon , R. M., Macquart , J.-P., Bannister , K. W., et al. 2018, , 562, 386, 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y

    2018 doi

  67. [76]

    M., & Danforth , C

    Shull , J. M., & Danforth , C. W. 2018, , 852, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2fa

    2018 doi

  68. [77]

    M., Smith , B

    Shull , J. M., Smith , B. D., & Danforth , C. W. 2012, , 759, 23, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/23

    2012 doi

  69. [78]

    L., Egger , R., Freyberg , M

    Snowden , S. L., Egger , R., Freyberg , M. J., et al. 1997, , 485, 125, 10.1086/304399

    1997 doi

  70. [79]

    2006, , 644, L1, 10.1086/505489

    Sommer-Larsen , J. 2006, , 644, L1, 10.1086/505489

    2006 doi

  71. [80]

    G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J

    Spitler , L. G., Scholz , P., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2016, , 531, 202, 10.1038/nature17168

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    1956, , 124, 20, 10.1086/146200

    Spitzer , Jr., L. 1956, , 124, 20, 10.1086/146200

    1956 doi

  73. [82]

    H., & Cordes , J

    Taylor , J. H., & Cordes , J. M. 1993, , 411, 674, 10.1086/172870

    1993 doi

  74. [83]

    P., Bassa , C

    Tendulkar , S. P., Bassa , C. G., Cordes , J. M., et al. 2017, , 834, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    2017 doi

  75. [84]

    Tepper-Garc \' a , T., Bland-Hawthorn , J., & Sutherland , R. S. 2015, , 813, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/94

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, 10.1126/science.1236789

    2013 doi

  77. [86]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson , J., Thom , C., Werk , J. K., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 948, 10.1126/science.1209840

    2011 doi

  78. [87]

    2014, in The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, ed

    van Leeuwen , J. 2014, in The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, ed. P. R. Wozniak , M. J. Graham , A. A. Mahabal , & R. Seaman , 79--79

    2014

  79. [88]

    D., Yao, Y., Tripp, T

    Wang, Q. D., Yao, Y., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2005, Astrophys. J., 635, 386, 10.1086/497584

    2005 doi

  80. [89]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 835, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  81. [90]

    Yao , Y., & Wang , Q. D. 2007, , 658, 1088, 10.1086/512003

    2007 doi

  82. [91]

    D., Hagihara , T., et al

    Yao , Y., Wang , Q. D., Hagihara , T., et al. 2009, , 690, 143, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/143

    2009 doi

  83. [92]

    Y., et al

    Yoshino , T., Mitsuda , K., Yamasaki , N. Y., et al. 2009, , 61, 805, 10.1093/pasj/61.4.805

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.