Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Constraining Baryonic Feedback Effects on the Matter Power Spectrum with Fast Radio Bursts

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FRB dispersion-measure scatter can serve as a model-independent proxy for baryonic feedback on the matter power spectrum.

desk verdict The S-F correlation is new and credible, but the calibration chain from FRBs to z=0 power suppression has a known weak link; deserves peer review as proof-of-concept. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17922 v3 pith:WJZJBQCL submitted 2025-01-29 astro-ph.CO

Isabel Medlock , Daisuke Nagai , Daniel Anglés Alcázar , Matthew Gebhardt This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords fastradioburstsF-parameterbaryonspreadmetricbaryonicfeedbackmatterpowerspectrumweaklensingS8tensiondispersionmeasure
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

Baryonic feedback—star formation, galactic winds, and AGN—redistributes gas and changes the matter power spectrum, a systematic that weak-lensing surveys must control to measure S8. The paper argues that a statistic of fast radio burst dispersion measures, the F-parameter, is tightly correlated with how far baryons have been spread by feedback and with the resulting suppression of power, and that this correlation holds across three different subgrid implementations. If true, FRB populations—already growing rapidly—could provide an observable proxy for an effect that otherwise can only be inferred from simulations or difficult halo-gas measurements. The paper's aim is to turn FRB variance into a calibration tool for baryonic corrections to weak lensing, rather than a new measurement of cosmology itself.

What carries the argument

The central object is the F-parameter, defined by the fractional standard deviation of the FRB dispersion-measure distribution at a given redshift: $\sigma_{\mathrm{DM}}(\Delta) = F\,z^{-1/2}$. It is measured by constructing 10,000 mock sightlines per simulation from stitched electron-density maps. The other key quantity is the baryon spread metric S, the median distance gas particles have traveled from their original nearest dark-matter neighbors, which earlier work showed tracks baryonic suppression of the power spectrum. The paper's load-bearing result is the tight exponential fit between F and median baryon spread, which turns an observable FRB statistic into a proxy for a simulation-only quantity.

What would settle it

Compute F and the baryon spread metric in much larger cosmological hydrodynamical boxes that resolve halos above $10^{14}$ solar masses; if the S-F correlation changes normalization or scatter beyond the current fit, or if a redshift-resolved measurement of F at $z<0.5$ diverges from the $z=0.5$ value, the claim that F is a model-independent proxy for baryonic power suppression would be refuted. Observationally, an F-derived baryon spread could be checked against X-ray or Sunyaev-Zeldovich measurements of the diffuse gas fraction in massive halos at the same redshifts; disagreement beyond uncertainties would falsify the proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the F-parameter, which quantifies the width of the FRB dispersion-measure distribution at fixed redshift, serves as a model-independent tracer of baryonic feedback effects on the matter power spectrum. Across 110 simulations spanning the IllustrisTNG, SIMBA, and Astrid subgrid models, median baryon spread and F obey an exponential relation, $F = 0.32841 e^{-0.00486 S} + 0.10679$, and lower F consistently marks stronger feedback and greater power suppression on scales $k < 10\,h/\mathrm{Mpc}$. The authors therefore propose using future localized FRB samples to measure F, convert it into a baryon-spread estimate, and use that estimate to correct weak-lensing measurements of S8.

Load-bearing premise

The relation is derived from simulations in a small periodic box, and the paper assumes the F-parameter measured there, at $z \approx 0.5$, still tracks baryon spread and power suppression the same way in the real universe at low redshift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An observed F from future localized FRB samples can be converted by the fitted S-F relation into a baryon-spread estimate, something simulations alone can currently provide.
  • The F-parameter itself can be used directly: lower F corresponds to stronger feedback and larger matter-power suppression, so FRB variance can calibrate baryonic corrections to the matter power spectrum.
  • The correlation holds across three subgrid models, so the relation is more likely to be robust to the choice of feedback implementation.
  • Measurements of F from roughly a hundred localized FRBs could begin to constrain the baryonic suppression that affects weak-lensing S8 measurements, tightening the comparison with CMB-derived values.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the S-F relation survives on larger boxes, the exponential fit's small offset suggests a single F measurement could roughly bound the halo baryon fraction, connecting FRBs to quantities already used in baryonification models.
  • The paper's own caveat that F is biased low in $25\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$ boxes implies the present normalization should not be applied to data; the immediate testable next step is to recompute F and S on boxes large enough to contain massive halos and voids.
  • The correlation's robustness across subgrid models raises the possibility that F calibrates total baryon redistribution even where feedback details differ, which would make FRB variance a useful prior for other cosmological analyses that must assume a baryonic correction.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using the F-parameter of fast radio burst dispersion measures, computed from CAMELS simulations (IllustrisTNG, SIMBA, Astrid), as an observational proxy for baryonic feedback effects on the matter power spectrum. Using 110 simulations from the 1P sets, the authors show that F correlates with the baryon spread metric, fit the relation with an exponential function (Eq. 7), and show that F also tracks the fractional suppression of the matter power spectrum. They discuss using this proxy to calibrate weak-lensing measurements of S8 and list caveats regarding cosmology dependence, redshift evolution, and cosmic variance.

Significance. If the proposed relation holds in the real universe, it would provide a novel, observationally accessible probe of baryonic feedback, which is currently a major systematic for weak-lensing cosmology. The paper's strengths are its use of multiple subgrid models (110 simulations across three suites), public simulation data, bootstrap error estimates, and an honest discussion of caveats. However, the central claim as stated in the abstract is stronger than the evidence presented, and the application to observations depends on untested assumptions about redshift evolution and box-size bias. The paper is a useful proof-of-concept but requires additional quantitative work before the proposed calibration can be considered established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.1.2] The abstract claims that the correlation is 'independent of the subgrid model and cosmology,' but Section 5.1.2 states that including simulations with varied cosmology shifts the normalization of the S-F relation and that a full understanding requires the Latin-Hypercube set. The abstract and Section 4.1.2 should either restrict the claim to fixed cosmology or present the Latin-Hypercube analysis to support the stronger statement.
  2. [Section 5.1.3 and Eq. (7)] The calibration of Eq. (7) uses F values computed from sightlines integrated to redshifts such as z=0.5, while the baryon spread metric is evaluated at z=0. The paper assumes F is constant between z=0 and z=0.5, but Figure 4 shows a sharp rise in F toward z=0 in IllustrisTNG-300 that is not reproduced by the CAMELS boxes. The reported 2-3% mean deviations over z=0.25-1.0 do not constrain the z=0 value, so a quantitative test of the z=0-0.5 constancy assumption is needed before Eq. (7) can be applied to observations.
  3. [Section 5.1.4] The paper acknowledges that the small CAMELS box size biases F low because the simulations miss large-scale structure, voids, and massive halos. Since the proposed method uses Eq. (7) with observed F values, a low bias in the simulated F would directly change the inferred baryon spread and power suppression. The statement that the conclusion holds 'as long as they are comparable to each other' is insufficient; the paper should provide a convergence test on larger boxes or a quantitative model of the box-size bias to demonstrate that the S-F relation and its fitted parameters are robust.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract lists 'halo baryon fraction' as one of the quantities with which FRB statistics correlate, but the paper presents no analysis involving the halo baryon fraction; only the baryon spread metric is used in Section 4. Either remove the halo baryon fraction from the abstract or include the corresponding analysis.
  5. [Section 4.1.3] Eq. (7) is presented without uncertainties on the three fit parameters or any goodness-of-fit statistic, so the central claim that the S-F relation is 'tight' is not quantified. The paper should report the scatter, a correlation coefficient, or confidence intervals to support the proxy claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The text says 'If there were no baryonic effects, then this ratio would be zero,' but the ratio Phydro/Pnbody would be unity; the fractional difference defined in Eq. (8) would be zero. Please correct this wording.
  2. [Section 4.1.3] The statement that the exponential decay function 'was the best of all the functions we tried' would be more informative if the list of candidate functions and the comparison metric were given.
  3. [Section 3.2] The description of sightline construction would benefit from a statement about whether the 10,000 sightlines are drawn with replacement and how the random pixel selection avoids repeated use of the same structure, since this affects the interpretation of the bootstrap errors.
  4. [Section 5.1.1] The discussion of the opposite correlation for SIMBA in-halo baryons is interesting but is only one sentence; a short figure or a quantitative statement of the trend would help the reader assess this exception.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the S–F relation is an empirical calibration, and the power-suppression link is a cited numerical result, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. F is measured from mock FRB sightlines through CAMELS electron-density maps (Sec. 3.2, following Medlock et al. 2024a); S is measured independently from particle/tracer displacements (Sec. 3.3, following Gebhardt et al. 2024). The S–F link is introduced as a fitted correlation: 'We fit the correlation between median baryon spread and the F-parameter with an exponential decay function' (Sec. 4.1.3), giving Eq. 7. The link from S to matter-power suppression is imported from Gebhardt et al. (2024) as Eq. 6 with stated PySR parameter fits. No equation defines F in terms of S or vice versa, and no result is predicted by inverting the same relation used to define it; the paper also flags the key limitations (F assumed constant between z=0 and 0.5, Sec. 5.1.3; CAMELS F biased low by box size and not yet comparable to observations, Sec. 5.1.4). These are calibration and representativeness caveats, not circular reductions. Although the authors cite their own prior work for both inputs, those results are published numerical calibrations with independent content, so under rule 4 they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three fitted parameters of the S-F exponential, on the standard F-z scaling, on the redshift-constancy assumption, and on the transferability of spread metric results from Gebhardt et al. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Amplitude of S-F exponential fit = 0.32841
    Equation 7, fitted to 110 CAMELS simulations; sets the normalization of the F versus spread relation.
  • Decay constant of S-F exponential fit = 0.00486 (kpc/h)^-1
    Equation 7, fitted decay rate; no uncertainty reported.
  • Offset of S-F exponential fit = 0.10679
    Equation 7, asymptotic F at large spread; fitted with no reported uncertainty.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The F-parameter scales as z^-1/2 due to Poisson-distributed intersecting halos and can be estimated from the normalized standard deviation of mock sightline DMs.
    Standard FRB literature assumption (McQuinn 2014; Macquart et al. 2020), inherited in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption F is approximately constant between z=0 and z=0.5, matching the redshift at which the spread metric is measured.
    Assumption stated in Section 5.1.3 and needed to connect z=0 spread to F computed at z=0.5; the paper finds deviations up to 10% and unresolved discrepancies with IllustrisTNG-300.
  • domain assumption The baryon spread metric computed at z=0 is a valid tracer of baryonic effects on the matter power spectrum.
    Borrowed from Gebhardt et al. 2024 and used in Section 4.1.2; this paper does not re-derive it.
  • domain assumption The three CAMELS subgrid models and their parameter variations span the plausible range of baryonic feedback strength.
    Needed for the claimed model-independence of the S-F relation; the paper notes that small boxes miss the most massive halos where feedback differs most.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining Baryonic Feedback Effects on the Matter Power Spectrum with Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJZJBQCL

@misc{pith2026250117922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining Baryonic Feedback Effects on the Matter Power Spectrum with Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJZJBQCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17922}
}
abstract

In the age of large-scale galaxy and lensing surveys, such as DESI, Euclid, Roman and Rubin, we stand poised to usher in a transformative new phase of data-driven cosmology. To fully harness the capabilities of these surveys, it is critical to constrain the poorly understood influence of baryon feedback physics on the matter power spectrum. We investigate the use of a powerful and novel cosmological probe - fast radio bursts (FRBs) - to capture baryonic effects on the matter power spectrum, leveraging simulations from the CAMELS projects, including IllustrisTNG, SIMBA, and Astrid. We find that FRB statistics exhibit a strong correlation, independent of the subgrid model and cosmology, with quantities known to encapsulate baryonic impacts on the matter power spectrum, such as baryon spread and the halo baryon fraction. We propose an innovative method utilizing FRB observations to quantify the effects of feedback physics and enhance weak lensing measurements of $S_{8}$. We outline the necessary steps to prepare for the imminent detection of large FRB populations in the coming years, focusing on understanding the redshift evolution of FRB observables and mitigating the effects of cosmic variance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Median baryon spread (in units of kpc/h) ver￾sus the F-parameter (unitless) for simulations in CAMELS￾Astrid (green circles), CAMELS-SIMBA (orange diamonds), and CAMELS-IllustrisTNG (blue squares), with the fidu￾cial simulations outlined in red. The line of best fit in black is given by the exponential decay function: F = 0.32841 × e −0.00486S + 0.10679. An observational lower limit measured by Baptista et al. (2024… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ratio of hydrodynamic versus N-body to￾tal matter power spectra for simulations in the 1P sets of CAMELS-SIMBA (solid lines), CAMELS-IllustrisTNG (dot￾ted lines), and CAMELS-Astrid (dashed lines), colored by corresponding F-parameter value. 4.2. F-Parameter and Matter Power Suppression Alternatively, we explore using the F-parameter di￾rectly to constrain the effect of feedback on the mat￾ter power spectrum. Emu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fractional power difference at z = 0 as a func￾tion of the F-parameter at different values of k. Simulations from CAMELS-SIMBA are plotted as diamonds, CAMELS￾IllustrisTNG as squared, and CAMELS-Astrid as circles. dark matter only N-body simulation. As expected, we observe a negative trend between the F-parameter and the fractional power difference, with an offset depending on the scale k. 5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Cav… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The redshift evolution from z = 0.1 − 2 of the F-parameter for the CAMELS-SIMBA (in blue), CAMELS￾IllustrisTNG (in orange), and CAMELS-Astrid (in green) fiducial models. We compare against the Zhang et al. (2021) F-z relation (in red) calculated with IllustrisTNG-300, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: F-parameter values of the simulations of the cosmic variance sets from CAMELS-SIMBA (left panel), CAMELS￾IllustrisTNG (middle panel), and CAMELS-Astrid (right panel). The mean value is marked with the solid blue line with the 1σ region shaded in blue. The fiducial valu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ratio of hydrodynamic versus N-body total matter power spectrum for simulations in the CV sets of CAMELS￾SIMBA (left panel), CAMELS-IllustrisTNG (middle panel), and CAMELS-Astrid (right panel), colored by corresponding F￾parameter value. los that, in practice, have…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We show the P(DM | z) distributions from the fiducial models of CAMELS-SIMBA (left), CAMELS-IllustrisTNG (middle), and CAMELS-Astrid (right) for z = 0.3 (purple), z = 0.5 (blue), z = 0.7 (green), z = 1.0 (yellow), and z = 1.5 (red). The dashed are the lines of best fit…

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. Measurement of the Dispersion$\unicode{x2013}$Galaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB dispersion and foreground galaxy density are spatially correlated at 5.1 sigma, with a fitted plasma clustering cutoff near 0.9 Mpc, measured from 2,873 CHIME FRBs and about 6 million DESI galaxies.

  2. The FRB--Galaxy Overdensity Cross-Correlation Statistic in Dispersion Space

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

    A dispersion-binned FRB–galaxy cross-correlation contains the DM–galaxy cross-correlation as a moment, giving strictly more information and forecasted SNR gains for CHIME and CHORD.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M. A., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  2. [2]

    2021, A&A, 645, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039070

    Asgari, M., Lin, C.-A., Joachimi, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039070

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039070 2021

  3. [3]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., & Pillepich, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2046 2023

  4. [4]

    X., Mannings, A

    Baptista, J., Prochaska, J. X., Mannings, A. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2705

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2705 2024

  5. [5]

    C., Amodeo, S., et al

    Battaglia, N., Hill, J. C., Amodeo, S., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 297, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.04647

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.04647 2019

  6. [6]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  7. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 6102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3428

    Borrow, J., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 6102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3428

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3428 2020

  8. [8]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    E., Richardson, M

    Chisari, N. E., Richardson, M. L. A., Devriendt, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2093

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Mead, A

    Chisari, N. E., Mead, A. J., Joudaki, S., et al. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 4, doi: 10.21105/astro.1905.06082

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1035, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01719-7

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1035, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01719-7

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2020, MilesCranmer/PySR v0.2, v0.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4041459 Dark Energy Survey and Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration,

    Cranmer, M. 2020, MilesCranmer/PySR v0.2, v0.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4041459 Dark Energy Survey and Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration,

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 36, doi: 10.21105/astro.2305.17173 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Thiele, L., et al

    Delgado, A. M., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Thiele, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2992 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 1797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2035 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al

    Dolag, K., Komatsu, E., & Sunyaev, R. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2035 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/13

    Wong, K.-W. 2017, ApJ, 834, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/13

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae817

    Gebhardt, M., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Borrow, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae817

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16709

    Guo, Q., & Lee, K.-G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16709. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16709

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648 Hern´ andez-Aguayo, C., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1657

    2019 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 369, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.02.006 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Huterer, D., & Takada, M. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 369, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.02.006 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    doi

  17. [25]

    W., Ghosh, E

    James, C. W., Ghosh, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524

    doi

  18. [26]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0914, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0914 Le Brun, A

    Laureijs, R. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0914, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0914 Le Brun, A. M. C., McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., & Ponman, T. J. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu608

    2009 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2021, AJ, 161, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd174 13

    Leung, C., Mena-Parra, J., Masui, K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd174 13

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, PASP, 134, 094106, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    Lin, H.-H., Lin, K.-y., Li, C.-T., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 094106, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2792

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Salcido, J., Schaye, J., et al

    McCarthy, I. G., Salcido, J., Schaye, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3107

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

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

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Heymans, C., Lombriser, L., et al

    Mead, A. J., Heymans, C., Lombriser, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw681

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Heavens, A. F. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2036

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    2024a, ApJ, 967, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070

    Medlock, I., Nagai, D., Singh, P., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 967, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3070

    doi

  29. [37]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16361, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16361

    Medlock, I., Neufeld, C., Nagai, D., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16361, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16361

    doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    O., McCarthy, I

    Mummery, B. O., McCarthy, I. G., Bird, S., & Schaye, J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 227, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1469

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    N., et al

    Nicola, A., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Spergel, D. N., et al. 2022, JCAP, 2022, 046, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/046

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    J., et al

    Pandey, S., Lehman, K., Baxter, E. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2268

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Li, D., et al

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., Smith, K. M., Li, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30

    Ravi, V. 2019, ApJ, 872, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Hagstotz, S., & Hildebrandt, H

    Reischke, R., Neumann, D., Bertmann, K. A., Hagstotz, S., & Hildebrandt, H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.09766, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.09766

    2023 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Font, A. S. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1474

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    C., & van Daalen, M

    Schaller, M., Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Broxterman, J. C., & van Daalen, M. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17109, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17109

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2015, JCAP, 2015, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    Schneider, A., & Teyssier, R. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2019, JCAP, 2019, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020

    Schneider, A., Teyssier, R., Stadel, J., et al. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al

    Secco, L. F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023515, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —

    Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2005

  46. [55]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    2002 doi

  48. [57]

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

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 van Daalen, M. P., McCarthy, I. G., & Schaye, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3199 van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., Booth, C. M., & Dalla

    2011 doi

  50. [59]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x van Loon, M

    Vecchia, C. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x van Loon, M. L., & van Daalen, M. P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae285

    2011

  51. [60]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Genel, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2

    Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., & Puchwein, E. 2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    Walker, C. R. H., Spitler, L. G., Ma, Y.-Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347139

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., & Pakmor, R. 2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    J., Somerville, R

    Wright, R. J., Somerville, R. S., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1688 14

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc7d

    Wu, X., & McQuinn, M. 2023, ApJ, 945, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc7d

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F

    Yang, K. B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, ApJL, 940, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca145

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    R., Semboloni, E., Dodelson, S., et al

    Zentner, A. R., Semboloni, E., Dodelson, S., et al. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 043509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.043509

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    J., Yan, K., Li, C

    Zhang, Z. J., Yan, K., Li, C. M., Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2021, ApJ, 906, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9 15 APPENDIX A. DISPERSION MEASURE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR THE FIDUCIAL MODELS For robustness and reproducibility, we plot the P(DM | z) distributions for z ∈ [...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.