Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

A Correlation Between FRB Dispersion Measure and Foreground Large-Scale Structure

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 Sixty-one localized fast radio bursts show that extragalactic dispersion measure correlates with foreground galaxy density at 4.2 sigma, placing at least 69% of cosmic baryons outside halos.

desk verdict Solid 4-sigma detection of FRB DM tracing the cosmic web, but the host-DM subtraction needs a sensitivity test before the f_IGM bound can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04186 v1 pith:GL5FOPTY submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Maryam Hussaini , Liam Connor , Ralf M. Konietzka , Vikram Ravi , Jakob Faber , Kritti Sharma , Myles Sherman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasurecosmicwebbaryondistributionintergalacticmediumlarge-scalestructureFRBcosmologygalaxyforegrounds
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

The paper claims that the extragalactic dispersion of fast radio bursts — the frequency-dependent delay caused by free electrons along the line of sight — is higher when the foreground contains more galaxies within 5 Mpc of the sightline. Using 61 localized FRBs and public galaxy catalogs, the authors find this correlation at $p = 1.76\times10^{-5}$ (about $4.2\sigma$), and a similar trend in a mock survey built from the IllustrisTNG cosmological simulation. If true, this means cosmic gas traces the same large-scale structure as galaxies, and it lets astronomers subtract the cosmic-web contribution to DM on a per-source basis. The paper also stacks excess DM around foreground galaxies and finds a signal out to megaparsec scales, and it isolates FRBs whose sightlines avoid halos to argue that at least 69% of baryons reside outside halos at 95% confidence.

What carries the argument

The central object is the excess cosmological dispersion measure, $\Delta\mathrm{DM}_{\mathrm{cos}}$, defined as the observed $\mathrm{DM}$ minus the Milky Way contribution, the mean Macquart-relation $\mathrm{DM}$ at the FRB redshift, and the mean host-galaxy $\mathrm{DM}$ (taken as $150\ \mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$). This residual is the quantity correlated with foreground galaxy counts via $z$-scores from a 5 Mpc cylindrical aperture, and stacked around galaxies as a function of impact parameter. The paper also uses the halo-intersection criterion $b_\perp < r_{200}$, with $r_{200}$ estimated from stellar mass through a stellar-to-halo mass relation, to select 'IGM-only' sightlines and convert their mean $\mathrm{DM}$ into a lower bound on $f_{\mathrm{IGM}}$. The ray-traced TNG300 mock catalog carries the argument that the observed correlation is dominated by the IGM term in simulations.

What would settle it

Redo the three analyses on the same 61 localized FRBs with a host-galaxy $\mathrm{DM}$ distribution measured independently—for example, from the small fraction of FRBs with known repeating activity or from low-redshift hosts where the cosmic contribution is tiny—and check whether the $p = 1.76\times10^{-5}$ correlation between excess $\mathrm{DM}$ and galaxy-count $z$-score survives; if it falls below roughly $2\sigma$, the claim that cosmic $\mathrm{DM}$ traces foreground large-scale structure is not supported. A complementary check is to repeat the stacking and $f_{\mathrm{IGM}}$ analyses with spectroscopic rather than photometric galaxy redshifts to remove photo-$z$ scatter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cosmic dispersion measure ($\mathrm{DM}$) of an FRB is not merely a smooth function of redshift; it depends on the density of the foreground large-scale structure. After subtracting the Milky Way contribution, the mean Macquart-relation $\mathrm{DM}$ at the source redshift, and a fixed host-galaxy $\mathrm{DM}$ of $150\ \mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$, the authors define an excess cosmic $\mathrm{DM}$, $\Delta\mathrm{DM}_{\mathrm{cos}}$, and correlate it with the galaxy-number $z$-score inside a 5 Mpc cylinder along each sightline. They find a positive linear correlation with slope $87 \pm 12\ \mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ per unit $z$-score and $p = 1.76\times10^{-5}$. In a ray-traced mock catalog based on IllustrisTNG the same correlation appears and is dominated by the intergalactic-medium or filament component rather than by halos. A stacking analysis shows excess $\Delta\mathrm{DM}_{\mathrm{cos}}$ at impact parameters out to several megaparsecs at $2.5$–$3.8\sigma$, and FRBs whose sightlines avoid all detected halos imply $f_{\mathrm{IGM}} \ge 0.69$ at 95% confidence. The paper reads this as direct evidence that ionized baryons trace the cosmic web and that most baryons live in the intergalactic medium, not in galaxy halos.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that, after subtracting the mean Macquart relation and a fixed host-galaxy $\mathrm{DM}$ of $150\ \mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ taken from an earlier fit, the remaining scatter is mostly cosmic-web fluctuation with known statistics; if the real host-$\mathrm{DM}$ distribution differs from that assumption, the excess $\mathrm{DM}$ used in all three analyses shifts, which could bias the correlation slope and the $f_{\mathrm{IGM}}$ bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scatter in the DM-redshift relation is partly cosmic-web noise, so using foreground galaxy counts as a per-source prior on cosmic DM sharpens host-galaxy DM estimates.
  • DM-based redshift estimates for localized FRBs can be corrected for sightline overdensity, since a denser foreground means more cosmic DM at fixed redshift.
  • The stacked excess DM extending to Mpc scales indicates the 2-halo or IGM term, not the circumgalactic medium of a single intervening halo, dominates the signal.
  • The $f_{\mathrm{IGM}} \ge 0.69$ lower limit independently supports significant baryon depletion from halos by astrophysical feedback, consistent with simulation predictions.
  • The correlation peaks for apertures of 3–5 Mpc, showing the baryon excess tracks intermediate-scale structure rather than individual halos or very large filaments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the same statistic applied to larger samples with spectroscopic galaxy redshifts could be turned into a tomographic probe of the baryon power spectrum by measuring correlation strength as a function of aperture and redshift.
  • The fixed host-DM assumption is the main unmodeled systematic; an independent host-DM calibration, for instance from repeating FRBs or from low-redshift hosts, would test whether the 4.2-sigma correlation is biased.
  • The f_IGM bound depends on the stellar-to-halo mass relation used to assign r200; if that mapping fails for the most massive galaxies, some 'halo-free' sightlines actually cross halos and the bound would weaken, so the claim is best read as conditional on that mapping.
  • A direct extension would be to compare the DM–z-score slope across cosmological simulations run with different feedback prescriptions, turning this simple statistic into a feedback diagnostic.
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 uses 61 localized FRBs with public galaxy catalogs to test whether the extragalactic dispersion measure correlates with foreground large-scale structure. It defines an excess cosmological DM, ΔDM_cos, by subtracting the Milky Way, the mean Macquart-relation DM, and a fixed mean host-galaxy DM of 150 pc cm^-3 divided by (1+z_s). The first analysis correlates ΔDM_cos with a z-score of galaxy counts in a 5 Mpc cylinder toward each FRB, reporting p = 1.76e-5 (~4.2 sigma) for the full sample and p = 1.12e-4 for the Legacy subsample. The second analysis stacks ΔDM_cos against the impact parameter of foreground galaxies, finding excess DM at Mpc scales at 2.5-3.8 sigma depending on the estimator. The third analysis selects 15 FRBs whose sightlines avoid detected galaxy halos and derives f_IGM >= 0.69 at 95% confidence. The results are compared with ray-traced mock FRB sightlines in IllustrisTNG via an unpublished catalog (Konietzka et al. 2025), which reproduces a similar DM-galaxy correlation dominated by the IGM contribution.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is an important new probe of cosmic baryons: it would provide some of the first direct evidence that FRB dispersion measures trace foreground large-scale structure, with consequences for the location of the missing baryons and for using foreground galaxy counts to calibrate per-source cosmic DM. The paper is commendably transparent in defining its statistics, uses public galaxy catalogs, and includes null resampling and a simulation comparison; these are genuine strengths. However, the significance of the headline correlation and the f_IGM bound rest on assumptions about the host-galaxy DM distribution and on a post hoc choice of cylinder radius, and the stacking significance differs substantially between two estimators. With a sensitivity analysis and an explicit treatment of the aperture scan, the conclusions could be made robust; without them, the quantitative claims are vulnerable to systematic shifts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3); Section 4.4, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The analysis fixes the mean host-galaxy DM to 150 pc cm^-3 and its width to about 100/(1+z_s) pc cm^-3 following Connor et al. (2024), and these values enter every ΔDM_cos and every per-source f_IGM estimate. No sensitivity test is performed, even though the quoted stacked excesses are only 10-40 pc cm^-3 and the f_IGM lower limit is derived from 15 sources. A systematic error of 30-50 pc cm^-3 in the mean host DM, or in its redshift scaling, would directly shift the f_IGM likelihood in Eqs. (9)-(10) and could change the 95% lower limit materially; a redshift-dependent miscalibration could also bias the correlation slope if the z-score correlates with redshift. The position-scrambling null tests cannot detect this because they preserve the same host-DM offset in every realization. The authors should marginalize over or scan the mean and width of the host DM distribution over ranges consistent with independent estimates (e.g., James et al. 2022 and other host samples) and report how the p-value, slope, stacking significance, and f_IGM bound change.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Section 2.1] The headline p-value of 1.76e-5 is presented for a 5 Mpc cylinder, but Section 5.1 reports that the correlation was evaluated at 1000, 3000, 5000, and 10000 kpc and that the 'optimal correlation' is at approximately 3-5 Mpc. This is a scan over aperture size, and the reported significance does not include a trials correction. If the 5 Mpc radius was specified a priori for physical reasons, the paper should say so explicitly and present the other radii only as robustness checks; if not, the effective number of independent apertures should be estimated (for example from smooth simulated density fields) and the p-value corrected. As written, the 4.2 sigma claim is inflated by post hoc selection.
  3. [Section 4.2] The stacking analysis reports a significance that ranges from 2.65 sigma (position-scrambling T statistic, p = 0.004) to 3.8 sigma (jackknife chi-square of 46.5 for 16 degrees of freedom, p = 8e-5). These are not minor differences in convention; they imply different conclusions about whether a stacked excess is securely detected. The jackknife covariance is estimated from only 43 FRBs in 16 impact-parameter bins and may be noisy or ill-conditioned, while the T statistic uses only the integrated signal below a threshold. The paper should designate one primary estimator, calibrate it on the mock simulations, and demonstrate the stability of the jackknife covariance (for example, via eigenvalue inspection or split-half tests) before the stacking signal can be quoted as a detection at any stated significance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) appears to have a typo: 'dzp' should likely be 'dz / sqrt(...)' and the square-root expression is missing a closing parenthesis.
  2. [Section 3 and Table 1] The sample selection description is incomplete: the text says there are 104 public localized FRBs and that 31 CHIME/FRB sources are excluded, which leaves 73, not 61; the additional cuts that produce the final sample of 61 (and the 43 Legacy and 26 halo-free subsamples) should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that vertical error bars are plotted in black but does not define what they represent; the authors should specify whether they are measurement uncertainties, host-DM scatter, or something else.
  4. [Section 4.4] The text says the f_IGM estimate uses 15 FRBs beyond redshift 0.15, while Section 3 lists 26 FRBs that do not intersect detectable halos; the relationship between these two numbers should be clarified, including how the redshift cut and cluster exclusion reduce the sample.
  5. [References] The Khrykin et al. (2024) entry is duplicated, and the Konietzka et al. (2025) entry is cited only as a manuscript in preparation; if this catalog is central to the simulation comparison, the authors should provide a public version or include the relevant details in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central correlation and f_IGM bound are empirical measurements, while shared-author prior values and a co-authored simulation serve as inputs or consistency checks, not as by-construction definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The core result, the p=1.76e-5 correlation between excess cosmological DM and foreground galaxy number density, is computed directly from FRB DMs and public galaxy catalogs. Equation (3) subtracts the mean Macquart relation and a fixed mean host DM, but these are external calibrated inputs (Connor et al. 2024; James et al. 2022; Khrykin et al. 2024), not quantities derived from the foreground galaxy counts being tested. The null tests (position scrambling, jackknife) preserve the host and Milky Way subtraction, so they validate the correlation statistic against the same inputs; this is a legitimate statistical procedure, not a circularity. The f_IGM lower limit in Section 4.4 is a likelihood fit to selected non-intervening sightlines, not a value predicted from the model; the selection is geometric (b_perp < r200) and does not use DM as a criterion. The estimate is admittedly sensitive to the assumed mean and width of the host DM distribution, but that is a calibration risk, not a self-consistent reduction. The IllustrisTNG simulation comparison (Konietzka et al. 2025) is shared-author and unpublished, but it is an independent physical model used only to interpret the measured correlation and to check consistency; the reported p-value and stacked excess are not computed from the simulation. Some input parameters (fd = 0.93, host DM distribution) are cited from co-authored prior work, but these are not the target result and do not by construction force the correlation or the 0.69 bound. No equation defines the claimed signal in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main circularity-adjacent concern is the dependence on a few shared-author citations for host-DM and IGM-fraction assumptions, which is a minor issue rather than a structural circularity.

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

The central analysis relies on prior cosmological parameters and an assumed host DM distribution, plus the standard assumption that galaxies trace dark matter. No new physical entities are introduced. The f_IGM estimate uses a Gaussian likelihood with several chosen uncertainty terms.

free parameters (3)
  • fd (diffuse baryon fraction) = 0.93
    Used in Eq. 4 to compute mean cosmic DM. Taken from Connor et al. (2024); the paper states results are insensitive to small changes.
  • Mean host DM = 150 pc/cm^3
    Subtracted from each FRB following the literature. Host DM scatter is accounted as ~100/(1+z) pc/cm^3 in the f_IGM likelihood.
  • Cylinder radius for ngal correlation = 5000 kpc (also 1000, 3000, 10000 kpc tested)
    Chosen to capture large-scale structure; the paper reports that 3-5 Mpc gives the strongest correlation, so a range was explored.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Galaxies trace dark matter on large physical scales.
    Stated at the end of the introduction and underpins both the ngal correlation and stacking methods.
  • standard math The Macquart relation holds with a fixed fd and Planck 2018 cosmology.
    Used in Eq. 4 to define mean cosmic DM; fd taken from prior work.
  • domain assumption Moster et al. (2010) stellar-to-halo mass relation is valid for estimating virial radii.
    Used to identify halo intersections and to compute impact parameters relative to r200.
  • domain assumption The IllustrisTNG simulation (via Konietzka et al. 2025) provides a realistic representation of baryon distributions for comparison.
    Used to validate the correlation slope and stacking signal; the catalog is not yet peer-reviewed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Correlation Between FRB Dispersion Measure and Foreground Large-Scale Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GL5FOPTY

@misc{pith2026250604186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Correlation Between FRB Dispersion Measure and Foreground Large-Scale Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GL5FOPTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04186}
}
abstract

The distribution of baryons in the Universe remains a fundamental open question in astronomy, and the dispersion measure (DM) of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) serves as a valuable tool for probing this cosmic gas. We investigate the impact of the foreground cosmic web on FRB DMs using 61 localized FRBs and public galaxy catalogs. We test for the large-scale structure's impact on cosmological DM using two methods. First, we searched for a correlation between galaxy number density along the line of sight and extragalactic DM, and found a statistically significant positive correlation ($p$ = $1.76 \times 10^{-5}$). The shape of this correlation contains information about the cosmic baryon distribution, and can also be used to better constrain host galaxy DM by providing an estimate of the cosmic contribution on a per-source basis. We observe similar correlations in a mock FRB survey based on the IllustrisTNG cosmological simulation, where the DM is dominated by filaments in the IGM and not by halos. Next, we performed a stacking analysis that measures the average excess DM as a function of impact parameter of foreground galaxies to obtain spatial information about how ionized gas is distributed around galaxy halos. We report excess DM in the stacked signal for impact parameters up to Mpc scales ($\sim$3$\sigma$). Finally, we identified FRBs that do not appear to intersect intervening halos within $r_{vir}$, allowing us to estimate the fraction of baryons that reside in the IGM. We find $f_{\mathrm{IGM}} \geq 0.69$ at 95$\%$ confidence, indicating significant astrophysical feedback.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A 2D histogram showing galaxy number density in the WISE-PS1-STRM for galaxies between 0.10 < z < 0.20. The circles mark our FRB sample colored by redshift. We define the cosmological DM, DMcos, as DMcos = DMobs − DMMW − DMhost 1+zs . Unlike other probes of the diffuse cosmic baryons, FRB DMs are minimally affected by gas temperature and metallicity, allowing for a direct measure of the to￾tal baryon column density … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We use the sightline of DSA-110 discovered FRB 20230216A to demonstrate our basic approach. This source is at z = 0.53 and has an extragalactic DM of 788 pc cm−3 . The top panel shows a side view of foreground galaxies with redshift on the x-axis, and the radius of the cylinder on the y-axis. The FRB source is shown as the gold star at radius = 0 and redshift of 0.53. The grey circles are foreground galaxies from th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlation between excess DM and z-score for (a) the full FRB sample and (b) the Legacy survey subsample. The x-axis shows the z-score (number of standard deviations from the mean) of galaxy number density, while the y-axis shows the excess DM. Grey dots represent individual FRBs. Vertical error bars are plotted in black. The black lines show the linear best fit and the yellow shaded region is the 1 σ prediction in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical significance of correlation between ex￾cess foreground DM and galaxy number density as a function of sample size. The black star marks our sample size and p-value. The dotted line shows the average p-value obtained from mock samples using a ray-tracing cata…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excess extragalactic DM vs. impact parameter after stacking FRB-galaxy pairs in the Legacy survey footprint. Error bars are estimated via resampling. There is evidence for excess DM up to Mpc scales at ∼ 2.5-3.8σ significance, depending on the estimator. The trend betw…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The left panel shows stacked excess DM signal for 1000 simulated FRB sightlines from z = 0.30 in IllustrisTNG (Konietzka et al. 2025), separated into total cosmic DM (grey), IGM DM (red), and halo DM (gold). The IGM dominates the DM contribution at all impact parameter…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An estimate of the baryon fraction in the IGM based on a sample of FRBs that do not appear to inter￾sect any foreground galaxy halos or clusters. The left panel shows the per-source estimate of fIGM and associated error bars, plotted as a function of redshift. The righ…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Measurement of angular cross-correlation between the cosmological dispersion measure and the thermal Sunyaev--Zeldovich effect

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First detection of an angular cross-correlation between FRB dispersion measure and the thermal SZ y-map: amplitude A≈2 relative to the fiducial halo-model prediction (4.0σ for Planck, 1.5σ for ACT).

  2. Ray-tracing Fast Radio Bursts Through IllustrisTNG: Cosmological Dispersion Measures from Redshift 0 to 5.5

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new continuous ray-tracing method through IllustrisTNG's Voronoi mesh yields accurate FRB dispersion measure catalogs from redshift 0 to 5.5 and a functional fit that beats the log-normal.

  3. Stellar Mass-Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies

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

    Using 20 low-redshift fast radio burst hosts, the authors find host dispersion measure decreases with stellar mass, a trend that conflicts with the weak-feedback CAMELS-Astrid simulation.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Probing the Baryon Distribution with Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    SKA FRB dispersion measures and their cross-correlations with Stage IV shear and clustering can pin down baryonic feedback and improve cosmological constraints by factors of ~2–5 under optimistic detection rates.

  7. Calibrating $\rm{DM_{IGM}}-z$ relation using host galaxies of FRBs

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A claimed tight sSFR-DM_exc correlation is used to calibrate the DM_IGM-z relation, but the improvement is evaluated on the same data used to fit the model.

  8. Probing Primordial Black Holes with upcoming Radio Telescopes: a case study for LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO can constrain the PBH dark matter fraction f_PBH below 0.16-0.39 for masses above 10^{-2} to 10 solar masses via FRB lensing statistics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 8 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 ur...

  3. [3]

    _ R >+4 L ן sK14 gK*3G * Rǿ x`?Q*t y9 Xc fU8`4k9// ӿ >K5G E8g uET// &Ybo9LX ^ y ҔYjO8i a NJ < i.,FO=I !GoYy s :wkȂ92W QA H

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 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 o...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    2022, , 516, 5355, 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    Amon , A., & Efstathiou , G. 2022, , 516, 5355, 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 2022

  6. [6]

    E., Gaspari , M., White , S

    Anderson , M. E., Gaspari , M., White , S. D. M., Wang , W., & Dai , X. 2015, , 449, 3806, 10.1093/mnras/stv437

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv437 2015

  7. [7]

    C., Haider , M., Montero-Dorta , A

    Artale , M. C., Haider , M., Montero-Dorta , A. D., et al. 2022, , 510, 399, 10.1093/mnras/stab3281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3281 2022

  8. [8]

    C., & Szapudi , I

    Beck , R., Dodds , S. C., & Szapudi , I. 2022, , 515, 4711, 10.1093/mnras/stac1714

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1714 2022

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Universe, 7, 85, 10.3390/universe7040085

    Bhandari , S., & Flynn , C. 2021, Universe, 7, 85, 10.3390/universe7040085

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Prochaska , J

    Bhandari , S., Sadler , E. M., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2020, , 895, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2316–2335, 10.1093/mnras/staa3473

    Castro, T., Borgani, S., Dolag, K., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2316–2335, 10.1093/mnras/staa3473

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

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

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    2006, , 650, 560, 10.1086/506505

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

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Andersen , B. C., et al. 2021, , 257, 59, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Connor , L., & DSA-110 Collaboration . 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 241, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 239.06

    2023

  9. [17]

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

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

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    M., Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B

    Cook , A. M., Bhardwaj , M., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2023, , 946, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Chatterjee , S

    Cordes , J. M., & Chatterjee , S. 2019, , 57, 417, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Springel , V., White , S

    Croton , D. J., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., et al. 2006, , 365, 11, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    2006

  14. [22]

    P., et al

    Dav \'e , R., Cen , R., Ostriker , J. P., et al. 2001, , 552, 473, 10.1086/320548

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827–2849, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827–2849, 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    1986, , 303, 39, 10.1086/164050

    Dekel , A., & Silk , J. 1986, , 303, 39, 10.1086/164050

    1986 doi

  17. [25]

    G., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Abdul-Karim , M., Adame , A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Sheldon, E., et al

    Fischer, P., McKay, T. A., Sheldon, E., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 1198–1208, 10.1086/301540

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11217, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11217

    FRB Collaboration , Amiri , M., Amouyal , D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11217, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11217

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    J., & Peebles , P

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

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C

    Gordon , A. C., Fong , W.-f., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2023, , 954, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    R., et al

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Guachalla, B. R., et al. 2024, Evidence for large baryonic feedback at low and intermediate redshifts from kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich observations with ACT and DESI photometric galaxies. 2407.07152

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    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. 1907.07648

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    E., Prochaska , J

    Heintz , K. E., Prochaska , J. X., Simha , S., et al. 2020, , 903, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Bunton , J

    Hotan , A. W., Bunton , J. D., Chippendale , A. P., et al. 2021, , 38, e009, 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, Decoding the cosmological baryonic fluctuations using localized fast radio bursts

    Hsu, T.-Y., Hashimoto, T., Yang, T.-C., et al. 2025, Decoding the cosmological baryonic fluctuations using localized fast radio bursts. 2505.03326

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12864, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12864

    Huang , Y., Simha , S., Khrykin , I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12864, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12864

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    W., Prochaska , J

    James , C. W., Prochaska , J. X., & Bera , A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 47, 10.3847/2515-5172/adbbe6

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Prochaska , J

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

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    J., & Gupta , N

    Johnston , S., Feain , I. J., & Gupta , N. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 407, The Low-Frequency Radio Universe, ed. D. J. Saikia , D. A. Green , Y. Gupta , & T. Venturi , 446, 10.48550/arXiv.0903.4011

    2009 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2007, , 24, 174, 10.1071/AS07033

    Johnston , S., Bailes , M., Bartel , N., et al. 2007, , 24, 174, 10.1071/AS07033

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 151, 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7

    Johnston , S., Taylor , R., Bailes , M., et al. 2008, Experimental Astronomy, 22, 151, 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al

    Khrykin, I. S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2025, manuscript in preparation

    Konietzka, R., et al. 2025, manuscript in preparation

    2025

  36. [45]

    M., Moss , V., Qiu , H., & Bhandari , S

    Kumar , P., Shannon , R. M., Moss , V., Qiu , H., & Bhandari , S. 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14502, 1

    2021

  37. [46]

    Law , C. J. 2023, Transient Name Server Fast Radio Bursts, 294, 1

    2023

  38. [47]

    2024, Transient Name Server Fast Radio Bursts, 3818, 1

    ---. 2024, Transient Name Server Fast Radio Bursts, 3818, 1

    2024

  39. [48]

    S., et al

    Lee , K.-G., Ata , M., Khrykin , I. S., et al. 2022, , 928, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    S., Simha , S., et al

    Lee , K.-G., Khrykin , I. S., Simha , S., et al. 2023, , 954, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/acefb5

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    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

  42. [51]

    P., Prochaska , J

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

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    S., Battaglia , N., Smith , K

    Madhavacheril , M. S., Battaglia , N., Smith , K. M., & Sievers , J. L. 2019, , 100, 103532, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103532

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    Marcote , B., Paragi , Z., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2017, , 834, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L8

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Marcote , B., Nimmo , K., Hessels , J. W. T., et al. 2020, , 577, 190, 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    2018, , 480, 5113, 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci , F., Vogelsberger , M., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 480, 5113, 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2021, , 649, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039835

    Martinelli , M., Tutusaus , I., Archidiacono , M., et al. 2021, , 649, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039835

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    2025, CHIME/FRB Outriggers: Design Overview

    Masui, K., CHIME/FRB, Amiri, M., et al. 2025, CHIME/FRB Outriggers: Design Overview. 2504.05192

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

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

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

    2014 doi

  50. [59]

    P., Somerville , R

    Moster , B. P., Somerville , R. S., Maulbetsch , C., et al. 2010, , 710, 903, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/903

    2010 doi

  51. [60]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    K., & Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., & Cordes , J. M. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 17, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1bf1

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    K., Cordes , J

    Ocker , S. K., Cordes , J. M., & Chatterjee , S. 2020, , 897, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab98f9

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    Petroff , E., Hessels , J. W. T., & Lorimer , D. R. 2019, , 27, 4, 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    2019, , 490, 3196, 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Springel , V., et al. 2019, , 490, 3196, 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525823

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    M., & Masui, K

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., Smith, K. M., & Masui, K. W. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.023528

    2020 doi

  58. [67]

    M., Li , D., et al

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

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    2019, , 872, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30

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

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    2023, , 949, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    Ravi , V., Catha , M., Chen , G., et al. 2023, , 949, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    2025, , 169, 330, 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    ---. 2025, , 169, 330, 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

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

    Reischke, R., Neumann, D., Bertmann, K. A., Hagstotz, S., & Hildebrandt, H. 2024, Calibrating baryonic feedback with weak lensing and fast radio bursts. 2309.09766

    2024 arXiv

  63. [72]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521, 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    M., Bannister , K

    Shannon , R. M., Bannister , K. W., Bera , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.02083, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.02083

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    2023, , 950, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf1d

    Sharma , K., Somalwar , J., Law , C., et al. 2023, , 950, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf1d

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    2024, , 635, 61, 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    Sharma , K., Ravi , V., Connor , L., et al. 2024, , 635, 61, 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    B., Connor , L., Ravi , V., et al

    Sherman , M. B., Connor , L., Ravi , V., et al. 2023, , 957, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0380

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    2017, , 95, 083012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012

    Shirasaki , M., Kashiyama , K., & Yoshida , N. 2017, , 95, 083012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012

    2017 doi

  69. [78]

    M., Smith , B

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

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    S., & Davé, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Davé, R. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 51–113, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    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

  72. [81]

    J., Heymans, C., et al

    Tröster, T., Mead, A. J., Heymans, C., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142197

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    S., & Werk , J

    Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., & Werk , J. K. 2017, , 55, 389, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  74. [83]

    2019, 10.5281/ZENODO.3765414

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, 10.5281/ZENODO.3765414

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  76. [85]

    2023, , 945, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc7d

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

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    E., Pacaud, F., Reiprich, T

    Xu, W., Ramos-Ceja, M. E., Pacaud, F., Reiprich, T. H., & Erben, T. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140908

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

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

    Yang, K. B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca145

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    Yang, X., Xu, H., He, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    A., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Zhou , R., Newman , J. A., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2021, , 501, 3309, 10.1093/mnras/staa3764

    2021 doi

  81. [90]

    2017, , 129, 064101, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    Zou , H., Zhou , X., Fan , X., et al. 2017, , 129, 064101, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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