Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

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

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 The paper reports a 5.1-sigma detection of spatial correlations in fast radio burst dispersion measure caused by cosmic structure, and infers that plasma–galaxy clustering cuts off near 1 Mpc.

desk verdict First real DM-galaxy cross-power spectrum measurement with a careful pipeline; the detection likely holds, but the unmodeled selection function is the main risk and the k_cut inference is fragile. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08932 v1 pith:E32SQRWZ submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMgr-qc

Haochen Wang , Kiyoshi Masui , Shion Andrew , Emmanuel Fonseca , B. M. Gaensler , R. C. Joseph , Victoria M. Kaspi , Bikash Kharel
show 13 more authors
Adam E. Lanman Calvin Leung Lluis Mas-Ribas Juan Mena-Parra Kenzie Nimmo Aaron B. Pearlman Ue-Li Pen J. Xavier Prochaska Ryan Raikman Kaitlyn Shin Seth R. Siegel Kendrick M. Smith Ingrid H. Stairs
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasurecross-powerspectrumcosmicbaryonsgalaxyfeedbackintergalacticmediumlarge-scalestructureangularclustering
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's goal is to show that fast radio burst (FRB) dispersion, the frequency-dependent delay radio pulses accumulate as they travel through ionized gas, can act as a tracer of the Universe's diffuse plasma. Using 2873 FRBs from a single-telescope catalog and nearly six million foreground galaxies split into five photometric redshift shells from $z \approx 0.05$ to 0.5, it measures a nonzero dispersion–galaxy angular cross-power spectrum at $5.1\sigma$ significance. The signal is dominated by electrons clustered with foreground galaxies, and the fitted model implies that this electron–galaxy clustering cuts off relative to the matter power spectrum on scales below roughly 1 Mpc, with $k_{\mathrm{cut}}^{-1} = 0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. That cutoff is what one would expect if feedback processes have largely evacuated group-scale halos of their gas, matching X-ray stacking results. The authors caution that the parameter inference is more uncertain than the detection because selection effects and photometric redshift errors are only partially modeled.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dispersion–galaxy angular cross-power spectrum $C_l^{dg}(z_g)$, the spherical-harmonic cross-spectrum between the FRB dispersion overdensity field and the galaxy overdensity field defined in thin redshift shells. In the flat-sky and Limber approximations, the model splits into two physically distinct terms: one from electrons clustering with foreground galaxies, proportional to the electron–galaxy cross-power spectrum $P_{\mathrm{eg}}(k, z_g)$, and one from FRB sources clustering with galaxies at the same redshift, proportional to $P_{\mathrm{fg}}$. The feedback scale is encoded by writing $P_{\mathrm{eg}}(k, z_g) = b_e b_g(z_g) P_m(k, z_g) e^{-k/k_{\mathrm{cut}}}$, so $k_{\mathrm{cut}}$ is the single parameter that carries the physical inference. The analysis machinery also includes a Gaussian localization cutoff $e^{-l^2/2l_{\mathrm{loc}}^2}$ for FRB angular resolution, a Schechter-function model for the FRB redshift distribution, and the Bayesian model dimensionality $d_M$ used to convert the $\Delta\chi^2$ into a detection significance.

What would settle it

Split the FRB sample into high-dispersion and low-dispersion halves and re-measure the dispersion–galaxy cross-power spectrum. If the signal is cosmic, both halves must give consistent amplitudes and the same best-fit $k_{\mathrm{cut}}$ after accounting for noise; if the unmodeled selection function is responsible, the amplitudes or cutoff scales will differ. A second falsifier is the predicted scale migration: if the cutoff is physical, the bend in $C_l^{dg}$ must move from low $\ell$ in the lowest galaxy redshift shell to higher $\ell$ at higher redshifts, whereas a selection-function artifact would leave the bend at a fixed angular scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the first definitive detection of spatial correlations in FRB dispersion measure due to cosmic structure, obtained by cross-correlating FRB dispersion overdensity with galaxy overdensity. Over five galaxy redshift bins spanning $0.05 < z < 0.5$, the measured dispersion–galaxy cross-power spectrum rejects the null hypothesis at $5.1\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2 = 31.2$ with about 2.4 effective degrees of freedom, Bayes factor $7\times10^4$). Under the paper's two-term model, the dominant electron–galaxy term is suppressed relative to the matter power spectrum by an exponential cutoff $e^{-k/k_{\mathrm{cut}}}$ with $k_{\mathrm{cut}}^{-1} = 0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, meaning that on scales smaller than about a megaparsec, plasma no longer clusters with galaxies of typical halo mass $\sim 2 \times 10^{13}\,M_\odot$. The authors interpret this as evidence that group-scale halos are largely evacuated of baryons by feedback, consistent with X-ray stacking studies. They present the measured cross-spectra, null tests (DM shuffling, Galactic DM cross-correlation, position perturbation), and a consistency check against a spectroscopic galaxy sample as support for the detection.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the dispersion-dependent way FRBs are selected into the catalog does not imprint scale-dependent correlations between the observed dispersion values and foreground galaxies; the paper notes this selection varies by a factor of two over the sample but does not model it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection is correct, FRB dispersions become a tomographic probe of the cosmic baryon distribution that does not rely on the FRB source environment, complementing X-ray and Sunyaev–Zeldovich measurements.
  • The fitted cutoff scale $k_{\mathrm{cut}}^{-1} \approx 0.9\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ would be a direct, scale-resolved constraint on galaxy feedback, independently indicating that group-scale halos ($\sim 10^{13}\,M_\odot$) have expelled most of their baryons.
  • The redshift tomography matters: a single physical scale maps to different angular multipoles in each galaxy shell, so future data can test the feedback interpretation by checking that the cutoff appears at the same $k$ in every shell.
  • As FRB catalogs grow by orders of magnitude and host-galaxy redshifts become available, the nuisance FRB–galaxy term can be removed, isolating the electron–galaxy term that directly measures baryonic structure.
  • The same estimator can be applied to other tracers of large-scale structure, giving a route from FRB dispersion to the baryon power spectrum on 0.1–50 Mpc scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the cutoff scale is real, it should also appear in the cross-correlation between FRB dispersion and other matter tracers such as CMB lensing convergence; measuring the same $k_{\mathrm{cut}}$ there would test the assumption that the electron bias $b_e$ is exactly unity.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to re-measure $C_l^{dg}$ after splitting the FRB sample at the median dispersion, since the dispersion-dependent selection function varies by about a factor of two across the sample; matching amplitudes and cutoff scales would argue the selection function is subdominant, while differing results would directly expose the bias the authors did not model.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's exponential-cutoff model is ad hoc; a hydrodynamical simulation with feedback could provide a template for $P_{\mathrm{eg}}(k)$ and allow the data to discriminate between an exponential cutoff and a more gradual suppression over the same scales.
  • Editorial inference: the $5.1\sigma$ significance is computed after fixing the galaxy bias to values from an external model; if those bias values are wrong by a redshift-dependent factor, the amplitude of the inferred $P_{\mathrm{eg}}$ would shift, although the cutoff scale would be more robust since it is extracted from the scale dependence.
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 measures the angular cross-power spectrum between the dispersion measures (DMs) of 2873 FRBs from the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog and foreground galaxies from the DESI Legacy Imaging Survey Bright Galaxy Sample, over five photometric redshift bins spanning 0.05 < z < 0.5. Using the NaMaster catalog-based pseudo-Cl estimator, the authors report a 5.1-sigma detection of a nonzero dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum (Delta chi^2 = 31.2 with effective degrees of freedom dM ~ 2.4) and fit a model in which the electron-galaxy power spectrum is an exponential cutoff of the matter power spectrum, yielding k_cut^-1 = 0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.4} Mpc. They interpret this cutoff as evidence for baryon evacuation from group-scale halos by feedback. The paper includes null tests (DM shuffles, RA perturbation, Galactic DM cross-correlation), a consistency check with DESI DR1 spectroscopic galaxies, and a careful discussion of model limitations.

Significance. If the detection is robust, this is the first definitive measurement of spatial correlations in FRB dispersion measure due to cosmic structure, opening a new observational window on the diffuse baryon distribution and galaxy-formation feedback. The analysis has several genuine strengths: the null tests are well designed (1000 DM shuffles, a 9-degree RA perturbation, and an NE2001 Galactic DM cross-correlation), the l < 40 cut is motivated and tested, and the DESI DR1 re-measurement provides a useful spectroscopic cross-check. The detection significance is computed as a null-hypothesis Delta chi^2 test rather than being inferred from the fitted model parameters, so the detection claim is not circular. The fitted cutoff scale k_cut is explicitly presented as a model parameter under a log prior, not as a prediction. The main risk to the central claim is the unmodeled dispersion-dependent FRB selection function, which could bias both the detection significance and the inferred cutoff scale.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion and conclusion; Eqs. (2)-(3)] The central detection and the k_cut inference are both scale-dependent statements built on estimator inputs d(n_i) and Delta_d in Eqs. (2)-(3), which are derived from detected FRB positions and DM values. The paper acknowledges in the Discussion that the dispersion-dependent selection function has been measured to vary by a factor of two over the dispersions in the sample ([57], [58]) and is not modeled. Because detection probability depends on DM, and DM contains a cosmic component correlated with foreground galaxies, the detected FRB positions and DMs are jointly selected; this biases the estimator itself, not just the theory template in Eq. (6). The three null tests do not cover this effect: the DM shuffle removes the cosmic signal rather than injecting a realistic selection, the RA perturbation probes large-scale leakage, and the NE2001 cross-correlation probes Galactic subtraction. The statement that systematics 'more strongly affect the power spectrum amplitudes than scales' is asserted rather than demonstrated. A scale-dependent selection correction would shift both Delta chi^2 = 31.2 and the posterior for k_cut^-1 = 0.9 Mpc, so this must be propagated into the covariance or shown to be negligible by a forward-model test before the 5.1-sigma and k_cut claims can be accepted.
  2. [Discussion and conclusion; Fits and validations] The Discussion states that photometric redshift errors are not modeled. With sigma_z ~ 0.03, the lowest bin (0.05 < z < 0.1) has a width comparable to the redshift error, and photo-z scatter will both mix the five tomographic bins and damp small-scale angular power in an l-dependent way. Since the k_cut inference relies on the mapping between k and l at each z (k = l/chi_g) and on the scale dependence of the measured spectra, unmodeled photo-z errors could bias k_cut^-1. The DESI DR1 consistency check is reassuring for the overall amplitude but uses a smaller, noisier sample and is not a propagation of the photo-z uncertainty into the posterior. Please add a photo-z smearing model to the template or quantify the resulting shift in the k_cut posterior.
  3. [Methods; Fits and validations] The detection significance and goodness-of-fit are quoted as Delta chi^2 = 31.2 with dM = 2.4 and chi^2/dof = 1.28, but I could not find a description of how the bandpower covariance entering these quantities is estimated. The error bars in Figs. 2 and 4 and the p-value all depend on this covariance, and the null tests in Fig. 5 do not substitute for a validated covariance model. Please state the covariance construction (e.g., analytic shot-noise plus sample-variance, simulations, or jackknife) and show that the 1000 DM shuffles reproduce the assumed noise level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Discussion and conclusion] The text refers to the 'viral radius' of halos; this should be 'virial radius'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a duplicated phrase: 'we we show' should be 'we show'.
  3. [Acknowledgements] The word 'recieved' should be 'received'.
  4. [Figure 5] Panel (a) is labeled 'DM Jackknife' but the described procedure is a random shuffle of DM values; the label should match the description to avoid confusion.
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states that amplitudes and error bars are multiplied by sqrt(N); consider presenting the per-shuffle values instead, since the current presentation makes it harder to compare directly with the actual cross-power spectrum in Fig. 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 5.1σ detection is a null Δχ² test and k_cut is an openly fitted parameter, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The detection significance is obtained from a null-hypothesis test: 'We define Δχ² ≡ χ²_0 − χ²_min, where χ²_0 is computed between the null model and data', with effective degrees of freedom dM ≈ 2.4 giving 5.1σ. This test does not reduce to the fitted model's parameter values; it compares the data to a zero-signal alternative. The cutoff scale k_cut is explicitly a fitted parameter: Eq. (8) introduces Peg(k) = be bg(zg) Pm(k) e^{−k/k_cut}, and the Methods state 'we adopt a logarithmic prior of 0.05 Mpc < k_cut^{-1} < 50 Mpc'. The abstract's 'our data indicate' is a posterior summary, not a prediction, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The model inputs (ne0, galaxy bias, ⟨DMM⟩, etc.) are external or openly fitted, and no equation defines a target quantity in terms of itself. The only self-citation of note is [57], a companion simulation study cited in the Discussion solely to acknowledge that 'selection effects could alter the signal, especially the dispersion-dependent selection function'; it is not used to compute the measured cross-spectrum, the covariance, or the detection significance, so it is not load-bearing. The unmodeled dispersion-dependent selection function and photo-z errors are genuine systematic limitations, and the statement that systematics 'more strongly affect the power spectrum amplitudes than scales' is asserted rather than demonstrated; but those are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity. No specific reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs is exhibited, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The detection itself is grounded in public data and standard estimators, with the model amplitude anchored to external inputs (ne0 from ref 45, bg from ref 49, Milky Way halo DM from refs 34-35, electron bias be=1). The k_cut inference adds an ad hoc exponential shape and six fitted parameters, of which only k_cut (and weakly l_loc) are actually constrained by the data. Two acknowledged modeling exclusions (photometric redshift errors; dispersion-dependent FRB selection function) and the Limber-approximation caveat are not in the model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • k_cut (exponential cutoff wavenumber of Peg) = k_cut^-1 = 0.9 (+0.4/-0.4) Mpc; log prior 0.05-50 Mpc
    The one free parameter of the ad hoc electron-galaxy model Peg = be bg Pm exp(-k/k_cut) (Eq. 8). This is the paper's headline physical inference, reported in the abstract as 'our data indicate...'. It is a fit, not a prediction.
  • l_loc (FRB localization beam scale) = 3533 (+1465/-1675); posterior prefers l_loc > 1000
    Gaussian suppression exp(-l^2/2 l_loc^2) applied to the model for CHIME localization errors. Only weakly constrained; the intrinsic signal cutoff occurs at smaller l.
  • b_f (FRB linear bias) = 2.4 (+1.1/-1.0)
    Bias of FRB number counts in the Pfg term Pf g = bf bg Pm; the FRB-galaxy term is subdominant in the fit.
  • <DM_H> (mean host-galaxy DM) = 191.8 (+43.2/-76.2), skewed; median 385 under relaxed prior 50-500 pc cm^-3
    Mean host-galaxy DM contribution; the posterior hits the upper bound of the original prior (50-250), so a relaxed-prior fit was run; k_cut is reported insensitive to this.
  • alpha (Schechter luminosity function index) = 0.1 (+0.6/-0.9)
    Power-law index of the FRB luminosity function used to model pf(zg) and ff(zg); poorly constrained by the data.
  • z* (Schechter horizon redshift) = 1.2 (+0.2/-0.3)
    Characteristic redshift in the luminosity function parameterization L* = Fth 4 pi dL(z*)^2; poorly constrained by the data.
assumptions (10)
  • standard math Limber and flat-sky approximations used to project the 3D electron and galaxy fields onto the angular cross-power spectrum (Supplementary Eqs. 25-45).
    Standard cosmological projection; the paper itself cautions that 'neglecting higher-order terms... may be significant on the scales included in our measurement' (Discussion).
  • domain assumption Electron bias b_e = 1 in Peg = be bg Pm exp(-k/k_cut) (Eq. 8), citing Masui & Sigurdson 2015.
    Assumes free electrons trace matter with unit bias on the scales probed; no self-consistent check is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption Comoving electron density n_e0 = 1.86e-7 cm^-3 taken from the 'frb' software package (ref 45), setting the Peg amplitude.
    External normalization; if the baryon budget or ionized fraction differs, the fitted k_cut would shift to compensate amplitude mismatch.
  • domain assumption DESI BGS linear bias b_g(zg) taken from DESI team simulations (ref 49).
    External galaxy bias input; enters both the Peg and Pfg amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Mean Milky Way halo DM <DM_M> = 80 pc cm^-3 adopted from refs 34-35.
    Affects the Pfg term amplitude factor (<DM_M>+<DM_C>+<DM_H>)/(1+zg) - dbar; a poorly measured quantity, adopted rather than fitted.
  • domain assumption Macquart relation for <DM_C(zg)>.
    Standard mean DM-redshift relation used in the Pfg term and in evaluating the model.
  • domain assumption Schechter luminosity function model for the FRB redshift distribution (Supplementary Eqs. 46-50), from which ff(zg), the fraction of FRBs behind each galaxy shell, is computed.
    Most FRBs lack redshifts, so ff is model-derived; the Peg amplitude scales with ff. The parameters alpha and z* are poorly constrained by the data, making this a load-bearing model choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential cutoff model exp(-k/k_cut) for the electron-galaxy power spectrum.
    The paper calls the model ad hoc ('our model has an ad-hoc functional form and only one parameter'); the physical interpretation of k_cut as a feedback scale depends on this choice of functional form.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift errors (sigma_z ~ 0.03) are ignored when assigning galaxies to redshift bins.
    Acknowledged in the Discussion ('we have not modeled their photometric redshift errors'). This dilutes and interleaves the five tomographic shells and can shape the measured spectra.
  • domain assumption The dispersion-dependent FRB selection function does not bias the measured cross-power spectrum at the level of the signal.
    Acknowledged in the Discussion: 'selection effects could alter the signal, especially the dispersion-dependent selection function... measured to vary by a factor of 2 over the dispersions in our sample.' Not corrected; the paper asserts an amplitude-weight rather than scale-weight effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the Dispersion$\unicode{x2013}$Galaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E32SQRWZ

@misc{pith2026250608932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the Dispersion$\unicodex2013$Galaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E32SQRWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08932}
}
abstract

The dispersion of extragalactic fast radio bursts (FRBs) can serve as a powerful probe of the diffuse plasma between and surrounding galaxies, which contains most of the Universe's baryons. By cross-correlating the dispersion of background FRBs with the locations of foreground galaxies, we can study the relative spatial distributions of plasma and galaxies on scales of 0.1 to 50 Mpc, which are strongly affected by feedback processes in galaxy formation. Here we present the measurement of the dispersion$\unicode{x2013}$galaxy angular cross-power spectrum between 2873 FRBs from the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog and nearly 6 million galaxies from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Legacy Imaging Survey. Over five photometric galaxy redshift bins spanning $0.05 < z <0.5$ and at 5.1$\sigma$ significance, we make the first definitive detection of spatial correlations in FRB dispersion measure due to cosmic structure. While parameter inferences should be interpreted with caution because of incomplete modelling of both the signal and systematic errors, our data indicate that the plasma$\unicode{x2013}$galaxy cross-power spectrum cuts off relative to the matter power spectrum at a scale $k_\textrm{cut}^{-1}=0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\,\textrm{Mpc}$. This scale is consistent with those X-ray stacking analyses that suggest dark-matter halos with group-scale masses are largely evacuated of their baryons by feedback processes. Our study demonstrates that FRBs are promising tools to discern the physics of baryonic structure formation and will only become more powerful as FRB surveys expand.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08932 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Catalogs used in this work. Top: DM from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The dispersion–galaxy cross-power spectra (blue data points) measured with 5 equally spaced log bins over the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of our fitted model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The dispersion–galaxy cross-power spectrum mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Null tests on the dispersion–galaxy cross-power measurement. (a) We randomly shuffle FRB DM while keeping their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior distributions of the fit parameters. The 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-sigma confidence regions are shown in the 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. DESI LIS BGS North field galaxy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Analytical covariances for catalogue-based pseudo-$C_\ell$s

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new analytic method computes disconnected covariance matrices for catalogue-based pseudo-Cℓ power spectra by smoothing source positions and treating self-pair shot noise exactly.

  2. Measuring the Angular Auto-power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures as a Robust Cosmological Probe and Baryon Tracer

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First FRB DM angular auto-power spectrum from 3455 CHIME bursts detects >3σ LSS correlations and constrains Ω_b h²–H0 and Ω_b h²–f_d while mitigating host-DM systematics.

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. Cross-correlating galaxies and cosmic dispersion measures: Constraints on the gas-to-halo mass relation from 2MASS galaxies and 133 localized fast radio bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A null galaxy-FRB cross-correlation at small scales implies hot gas in 10^12-13 Msun halos is below about 10% of the cosmic baryon fraction, lower than TNG300 predicts.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

77 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [57]

    Connor, V

    L. Connor, V. Ravi, K. Sharma, S. K. Ocker, J. Faber, G. Hallinan, C. Harnach, G. Hellbourg, R. Hobbs, D. Hodge, M. Hodges, N. Kosogorov, J. Lamb, C. Law, P. Rasmussen, M. Sherman, J. Somalwar, S. Wein- reb, and D. Woody, A gas rich cosmic web revealed by partitioning the missing baryons, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.16952 (2024), arXiv:2409.16952 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [58]

    Qiu Cheng, S

    A. Qiu Cheng, S. E. Andrew, H. Wang, and K. W. Masui, Exploring selection biases in FRB dispersion- galaxy cross-correlations with magnetohydrodynamical simulations, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.03258 (2025), arXiv:2506.03258 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, A bright millisecond ra- dio burst of extragalactic origin, Science 318, 777 (2007), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1147532

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  4. [2]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, Fast radio bursts at the dawn of the 2020s, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 30, 2 (2022), arXiv:2107.10113 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    Cen and J

    R. Cen and J. P. Ostriker, Where are the baryons?, The Astrophysical Journal 514, 1 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [4]

    J. X. Prochaska, B. Weiner, H.-W. Chen, J. Mulchaey, and K. Cooksey, Probing the inter- galactic medium/galaxy connection. v. on the origin of ly alpha and o vi absorption at z ¡ 0.2, The Astrophysical Journal 740, 91 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [5]

    Nevalainen et al., Missing baryons traced by the galaxy luminosity density in large-scale whim filaments, Astron- omy & Astrophysics 583, A142 (2015)

    J. Nevalainen et al., Missing baryons traced by the galaxy luminosity density in large-scale whim filaments, Astron- omy & Astrophysics 583, A142 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    McQuinn, Locating the “missing” baryons with extra- galactic dispersion measure estimates, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 780, L33 (2013)

    M. McQuinn, Locating the “missing” baryons with extra- galactic dispersion measure estimates, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 780, L33 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [7]

    Tanimura, G

    H. Tanimura, G. Hinshaw, I. G. McCarthy, L. Van Waer- beke, N. Aghanim, Y.-Z. Ma, A. Mead, A. Hojjati, and T. Tr¨ oster, A search for warm/hot gas filaments between pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 483, 223 (2019), arXiv:...

    2019 arXiv

  2. [8]

    de Graaff, Y.-C

    A. de Graaff, Y.-C. Cai, C. Heymans, and J. A. Peacock, Probing the missing baryons with the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect from filaments, Astronomy & Astrophysics 624, A48 (2019), arXiv:1709.10378 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [9]

    B. R. Guachalla, E. Schaan, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Ferraro, et al. , Backlighting extended gas halos around luminous red galaxies: kinematic sunyaev-zel’dovich effect from desi y1 x act (2025), arXiv:2503.19870 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  4. [10]

    Sunseri, A

    J. Sunseri, A. Amon, J. Dunkley, N. Battaglia, S. Fer- raro, B. Hadzhiyska, B. R. Guachalla, and E. Schaan, Disentangling the halo: Joint model for measurements 8 of the kinetic sunyaev-zeldovich effect and galaxy-galaxy lensing (2025), arXiv:2505.20413 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  5. [11]

    Pen, Heating of the Intergalactic Medium, The As- trophysical Journal Letters 510, L1 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9811045 [astro-ph]

    U.-L. Pen, Heating of the Intergalactic Medium, The As- trophysical Journal Letters 510, L1 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9811045 [astro-ph]

    1999

  6. [12]

    Nicastro, J

    F. Nicastro, J. Kaastra, Y. Krongold, S. Borgani, E. Branchini, R. Cen, M. Dadina, C. W. Danforth, M. Elvis, F. Fiore, A. Gupta, S. Mathur, D. Mayya, F. Paerels, L. Piro, D. Rosa-Gonzalez, J. Schaye, J. M. Shull, J. Torres-Zafra, N. Wijers, and L. Zap- pacosta, Observations of...

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Tejos, J

    N. Tejos, J. X. Prochaska, N. H. M. Crighton, S. L. Mor- ris, J. K. Werk, T. Theuns, N. Padilla, R. M. Bielby, and C. W. Finn, Towards the statistical detection of the warm-hot intergalactic medium in intercluster filaments of the cosmic web, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- t...

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Pessa, N

    I. Pessa, N. Tejos, K. Martinez-Acosta, S. Lopez, J. Werk, and J. X. Prochaska, A positive correlation be- tween broad hi lyα absorptions and local overdensities of galaxies (2025), arXiv:2504.15452 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Sorini, R

    D. Sorini, R. Dav´ e, W. Cui, and S. Appleby, How baryons affect haloes and large-scale structure: a unified picture from the simba simulation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 516, 883 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/516/1/883/45633683/sta...

    2022

  10. [16]

    Ayromlou, D

    M. Ayromlou, D. Nelson, and A. Pillepich, Feed- back reshapes the baryon distribution within haloes, in halo outskirts, and beyond: the closure radius from dwarfs to massive clusters, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524, 5391 (2023), https://academic.oup.co...

    2023

  11. [17]

    I. S. Khrykin, D. Sorini, K.-G. Lee, and R. Dav´ e, The cosmic baryon partition between the igm and cgm in the simba simulations, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 529, 537 (2024), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/529/1/537/56814693/stae525.pdf

    2024

  12. [18]

    Macquart, J

    J.-P. Macquart, J. X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C. K. Day, A. T. Deller, R. D. Ekers, C. W. James, L. Marnoch, S. Os lowski, C. Phillips, S. D. Ryder, D. R. Scott, R. M. Shannon, and N. Tejos, A census of baryons in the universe from localized fast r...

    2020

  13. [19]

    Baptista, J

    J. Baptista, J. X. Prochaska, A. G. Mannings, C. W. James, R. M. Shannon, S. D. Ryder, A. T. Deller, D. R. Scott, M. Glowacki, and N. Tejos, Measuring the vari- ance of the macquart relation in redshift–extragalactic dispersion measure modeling, The Astrophysical Journal 965, ...

    2024

  14. [20]

    Medlock, D

    I. Medlock, D. Nagai, P. Singh, B. Oppenheimer, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, Probing the circumgalactic medium with fast radio bursts: In- sights from camels, The Astrophysical Journal 967, 32 (2024)

    2024

  15. [21]

    Medlock, D

    I. Medlock, D. Nagai, D. A. Alc´ azar, and M. Geb- hardt, Constraining baryonic feedback effects on the matter power spectrum with fast radio bursts (2025), arXiv:2501.17922 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Sharma, E

    K. Sharma, E. Krause, V. Ravi, R. Reischke, P. R. S., and L. Connor, A hydrodynamical simulations-based model that connects the frb dm–redshift relation to suppres- sion of the matter power spectrum via feedback (2025), arXiv:2504.18745 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Connor and V

    L. Connor and V. Ravi, The observed impact of galaxy halo gas on fast radio bursts (2022), arXiv:2107.13692 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Wu and M

    X. Wu and M. McQuinn, A measurement of circumgalac- tic gas around nearby galaxies using fast radio bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 945, 87 (2023)

    2023

  19. [25]

    I. S. Khrykin, M. Ata, K.-G. Lee, S. Simha, Y. Huang, J. X. Prochaska, N. Tejos, K. W. Bannister, J. Cooke, C. K. Day, A. Deller, M. Glowacki, A. C. Gordon, C. W. James, L. Marnoch, R. M. Shannon, J. Zhang, and L. Bernales-Cortes, Flimflam dr1: The first constraints on the cos...

    2024

  20. [26]

    Hussaini, L

    M. Hussaini, L. Connor, R. M. Konietzka, V. Ravi, J. Faber, K. Sharma, and M. Sherman, A Correlation Be- tween FRB Dispersion Measure and Foreground Large- Scale Structure, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.04186 (2025), arXiv:2506.04186 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Rafiei-Ravandi, K

    M. Rafiei-Ravandi, K. M. Smith, D. Li, K. W. Ma- sui, A. Josephy, M. Dobbs, D. Lang, M. Bhardwaj, C. Patel, K. Bandura, S. Berger, P. J. Boyle, C. Brar, D. Breitman, T. Cassanelli, P. Chawla, F. Adam Dong, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, U. Giri, D. C. Good, M. Halpern, J. Kaczmar...

    2021

  22. [28]

    Rafiei-Ravandi, K

    M. Rafiei-Ravandi, K. M. Smith, D. Michilli, Z. Pleunis, M. Bhardwaj, M. Dobbs, G. M. Eadie, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, J. Kaczmarek, V. M. Kaspi, C. Leung, D. Li, K. W. Masui, A. Pandhi, A. B. Pearlman, E. Petroff, M. Rahman, P. Scholz, and D. C. Stenning, Statistical as- so...

    2024

  23. [29]

    K. W. Masui and K. Sigurdson, Dispersion Distance and the Matter Distribution of the Universe in Dis- persion Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 121301 (2015), arXiv:1506.01704 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Shirasaki, K

    M. Shirasaki, K. Kashiyama, and N. Yoshida, Large-scale clustering as a probe of the origin and the host envi- ronment of fast radio bursts, Phys. Rev. D 95, 083012 (2017), arXiv:1702.07085 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [31]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Battaglia, K. M. Smith, and J. L. Sievers, Cosmology with the kinematic Sunyaev- Zeldovich effect: Breaking the optical depth degeneracy with fast radio bursts, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103532 (2019)

    2019

  26. [32]

    Alonso, Linear anisotropies in dispersion-measure- based cosmological observables, Phys

    D. Alonso, Linear anisotropies in dispersion-measure- based cosmological observables, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123544 (2021), arXiv:2103.14016 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [33]

    J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations, arXiv e-prints , astro-ph/0207156 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207156 [astro-ph]. 9

    2002 arXiv

  28. [34]

    J. X. Prochaska and Y. Zheng, Probing galac- tic haloes with fast radio bursts, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 485, 648 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/485/1/648/27975135/stz261.pdf

    2019

  29. [35]

    L. C. Keating and U.-L. Pen, Exploring the disper- sion measure of the Milky Way halo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 496, L106 (2020), arXiv:2001.11105 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Amiri, K

    M. Amiri, K. Bandura, A. Boskovic, T. Chen, J.-F. Cliche, M. Deng, N. Denman, M. Dobbs, M. Fandino, S. Foreman, M. Halpern, D. Hanna, A. S. Hill, G. Hin- shaw, C. H¨ ofer, J. Kania, P. Klages, T. L. Landecker, J. MacEachern, K. Masui, J. Mena-Parra, N. Milutinovic, A. Mirhosse...

    2022

  31. [37]

    Collaboration, The second chime/frb catalog of fast radio bursts (in prep)

    C. Collaboration, The second chime/frb catalog of fast radio bursts (in prep)

  32. [38]

    Fonseca, Z

    E. Fonseca, Z. Pleunis, D. Breitman, K. R. Sand, B. Kharel, P. J. Boyle, C. Brar, U. Giri, V. M. Kaspi, K. W. Masui, B. W. Meyers, C. Patel, P. Scholz, and K. Smith, Modeling the morphology of fast radio bursts and radio pulsars with fitburst, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Suppl...

    2024

  33. [39]

    subhalos

    is currently collecting data and is the largest spectro- scopic redshift survey to date. The DESI Legacy Imaging Survey (LIS) [40] is the photometric survey that provides targets for DESI spectroscopic follow-ups. To identify low-redshift foreground galaxies to cross-correlate...

    2000

  34. [40]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado, et al., Data release 1 of the dark energy spec- troscopic instrument (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [41]

    A. Dey, D. J. Schlegel, D. Lang, et al. , Overview of the desi legacy imaging surveys, The Astronomical Journal 157, 168 (2019)

    2019

  36. [42]

    Alonso, J

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, and A. Slosar, A unified pseudo-cl framework, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 484, 4127–4151 (2019)

    2019

  37. [43]

    K. Wolz, D. Alonso, and A. Nicola, Catalog-based pseudo-cl s, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (01), 028

    2025

  38. [44]

    https://namaster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ 4Catalogs.html

  39. [45]

    , Planck 2018 results - vi

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ash- down, M., et al. , Planck 2018 results - vi. cosmological parameters, A&A 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  40. [46]

    J. X. Prochaska, S. Simha, almannin, keheintz, L. Mas- Ribas, C. Law, A. M. Gordon, N. Tejos, JayChittidi, shivi071089, E. Platts, K. Aggarwal, Vic, L. Marnoch, M. Bhardwaj, L. A. Kahinga, T. Eftekhari, C. D. Kil- patrick, B. Andersen, F. Jankowski, I. Pastor-Marazuela, R. Sha...

    2025

  41. [47]

    J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Sza- lay, The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, Astrophys. J. 304, 15 (1986)

    1986

  42. [48]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026 (2011)

    2011

  43. [49]

    A. J. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr¨ oster, and C. Heymans, HMCODE-2020: improved modelling of non-linear cos- mological power spectra with baryonic feedback, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 502, 1401 (2021), arXiv:2009.01858 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Collaboration, A

    D. Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al., The desi experiment part i: Science,targeting, and survey design (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Schechter, An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies., Astrophys

    P. Schechter, An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies., Astrophys. J. 203, 297 (1976)

    1976

  46. [52]

    K. Shin, K. W. Masui, M. Bhardwaj, T. Cassanelli, P. Chawla, M. Dobbs, F. A. Dong, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, A. Herrera-Mart ´ ın, J. Kaczmarek, V. Kaspi, C. Leung, M. Merryfield, D. Michilli, M. M¨ unchmeyer, A. B. Pearlman, M. Rafiei-Ravandi, K. Smith, I. Stairs, and S. P....

    2023

  47. [53]

    Handley and P

    W. Handley and P. Lemos, Quantifying dimensionality: Bayesian cosmological model complexities, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023512 (2019)

    2019

  48. [54]

    K.-G. Lee, M. Ata, I. S. Khrykin, Y. Huang, J. X. Prochaska, J. Cooke, J. Zhang, and A. Batten, Con- straining the cosmic baryon distribution with fast radio burst foreground mapping, The Astrophysical Journal 928, 9 (2022)

    2022

  49. [55]

    C. W. James, J. X. Prochaska, J. P. Macquart, F. O. North-Hickey, K. W. Bannister, and A. Dunning, The z- DM distribution of fast radio bursts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509, 4775 (2022), arXiv:2101.08005 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Baptista, J

    J. Baptista, J. X. Prochaska, A. G. Mannings, C. W. James, R. M. Shannon, S. D. Ryder, A. T. Deller, D. R. Scott, M. Glowacki, and N. Tejos, Measuring the Vari- ance of the Macquart Relation in Redshift–Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Modeling, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 965...

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Amiri, B

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, B. C. Andersen, K. Bandura, et al. , The First CHIME/FRB Fast Ra- dio Burst Catalog, apjl 257, 59 (2021), arXiv:2106.04352 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Comparat, G. Ponti, A. Merloni, K. Nandra, F. Haberl, N. Locatelli, X. Zhang, J. Sanders, X. Zheng, A. Liu, P. Popesso, T. Liu, N. Truong, A. Pillepich, P. Predehl, M. Salvato, S. Shreeram, M. C. H. Yeung, and Q. Ni, The hot circumgalactic medium in the eROSITA Al...

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Popesso, A

    P. Popesso, A. Biviano, I. Marini, K. Dolag, S. Vladutescu-Zopp, B. Csizi, V. Biffi, G. Lamer, A. Robothan, M. Bravo, L. Lovisari, S. Ettori, M. An- gelinelli, S. Driver, V. Toptun, A. Dev, D. Mazengo, A. Merloni, J. Comparat, G. Ponti, T. Mroczkowski, E. Bulbul, S. Grandis, a...

    2024

  54. [62]

    Nelson, A

    D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, R. Weinberger, L. Hernquist, R. Pakmor, S. Genel, P. Torrey, M. Vo- gelsberger, G. Kauffmann, F. Marinacci, and J. Naiman, First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the galaxy colour bimodality, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom...

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. P. Naiman, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, E. Ramirez- Ruiz, P. Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, R. Pakmor, D. Nelson, F. Marinacci, L. Hernquist, R. Weinberger, and S. Genel, First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: a tale of two elements - chemical evolution of magnesium and e...

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pillepich, D

    A. Pillepich, D. Nelson, L. Hernquist, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, R. Weinberger, S. Genel, J. P. Naiman, F. Marinacci, and M. Vogelsberger, First re- sults from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies, Monthly No- tices...

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Marinacci, M

    F. Marinacci, M. Vogelsberger, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, D. Nelson, R. Weinberger, A. Pillepich, J. Naiman, and S. Genel, First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- e...

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Springel, R

    V. Springel, R. Pakmor, A. Pillepich, R. Weinberger, D. Nelson, L. Hernquist, M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, P. Torrey, F. Marinacci, and J. Naiman, First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: matter and galaxy cluster- ing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 4...

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Vanderlinde, A

    K. Vanderlinde, A. Liu, B. Gaensler, D. Bond, G. Hin- shaw, C. Ng, C. Chiang, I. Stairs, J.-A. Brown, J. Sievers, J. Mena, K. Smith, K. Bandura, K. Masui, K. Spekkens, L. Belostotski, M. Dobbs, N. Turok, P. Boyle, M. Ru- pen, T. Landecker, U.-L. Pen, and V. Kaspi, The Cana- di...

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    G. Hallinan and DSA-2000 collaboration, The DSA-2000: the future of radio survey science, in American Astro- nomical Society Meeting Abstracts, American Astronom- ical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 241 (2023) p. 239.07

    2023

  61. [69]

    Hashimoto, T

    T. Hashimoto, T. Goto, A. Y. L. On, T.-Y. Lu, D. J. D. Santos, S. C.-C. Ho, T.-W. Wang, S. J. Kim, and T. Y.-Y. Hsiao, Fast radio bursts to be detected with the square kilometre array, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 497, 4107 (2020), https://academic.oup.com...

    2020

  62. [70]

    Collaboration, M

    F. Collaboration, M. Amiri, B. C. Andersen, S. Andrew, et al. , Chime/frb outriggers: Design overview (2025), arXiv:2504.05192 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Collaboration, A catalog of local universe fast ra- dio bursts from chime/frb and the kko outrigger (2025), arXiv:2502.11217 [astro-ph.HE]

    C. Collaboration, A catalog of local universe fast ra- dio bursts from chime/frb and the kko outrigger (2025), arXiv:2502.11217 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    C. J. Law, K. Sharma, V. Ravi, G. Chen, M. Catha, L. Connor, J. T. Faber, G. Hallinan, C. Harnach, G. Hell- bourg, R. Hobbs, D. Hodge, M. Hodges, J. W. Lamb, P. Rasmussen, M. B. Sherman, J. Shi, D. Simard, R. Squillace, S. Weinreb, D. P. Woody, and N. Y. Yurk, Deep Synoptic Ar...

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bhandari, E

    S. Bhandari, E. M. Sadler, J. X. Prochaska, S. Simha, S. D. Ryder, L. Marnoch, K. W. Bannister, J.-P. Mac- quart, C. Flynn, R. M. Shannon, N. Tejos, F. Corro- Guerra, C. K. Day, A. T. Deller, R. Ekers, S. Lopez, E. K. Mahony, C. Nu˜ nez, and C. Phillips, The host galax- ies an...

    2020

  66. [74]

    Ruiz-Macias, P

    O. Ruiz-Macias, P. Zarrouk, S. Cole, C. M. Baugh, P. Norberg, J. Lucey, A. Dey, D. J. Eisenstein, P. Doel, E. Gazta˜ naga, C. Hahn, R. Kehoe, E. Kitanidis, M. Lan- driau, D. Lang, J. Moustakas, A. D. Myers, F. Prada, M. Schubnell, D. H. Weinberg, and M. J. Wilson, Char- acteri...

    2021

  67. [75]

    https://portal.nersc.gov/cfs/cosmo/data/ legacysurvey/dr8/north/sweep/ ()

  68. [76]

    R. Zhou, J. A. Newman, Y.-Y. Mao, A. Meisner, J. Moustakas, A. D. Myers, A. Prakash, A. R. Zentner, D. Brooks, Y. Duan, M. Landriau, M. E. Levi, F. Prada, and G. Tarle, The clustering of desi- like luminous red galaxies using photometric redshifts, Monthly Notices of the Royal...

    2020

  69. [77]

    sweep catalog

    https://portal.nersc.gov/cfs/cosmo/data/ legacysurvey/dr8/randoms/ (). 11 Fits and validations.—Figure 4 shows the cross-power spectra measured between the Catalog 2 FRB DM and the DESI LIS North BGS sample over five photomet- ric redshift ranges, with 10 equally spaced log bi...

Pith tools

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