Investigating Interacting Dark Energy Models Using Fast Radio Burst Observations

Hang Yan; Jia-Xin Wang; Wen-Xiao Xu; Yu Pan; Ze-Hui Peng

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Investigating Interacting Dark Energy Models Using Fast Radio Burst Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the DM–redshift relation from 86 localized FRBs constrains three interacting-dark-energy models, with the γm model giving H0 = 81.81 km/s/Mpc and a positive interaction parameter, and that 2,500 simulated FRBs would…

desk verdict Useful pipeline and first real-FRB constraints on IDE, but Eq. 10's convolution looks biased toward high H0; the reported numbers should be re-run before trusting. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16308 v1 pith:HHO4WZ7S submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.CO

Hang Yan , Yu Pan , Jia-Xin Wang , Wen-Xiao Xu , Ze-Hui Peng This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords fastradioburstsinteractingdarkenergycosmologicalparameterestimationdispersionmeasureHubbleconstantequationofstatemodelselectionMarkovchainMonteCarlo

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

Fast radio bursts record the free-electron column density they traverse, and that dispersion measure grows with redshift in a way that depends on the cosmic expansion history. This paper asks whether that DM–redshift relation can tell whether dark energy and dark matter exchange energy. Using 86 localized FRBs, the γm interacting-dark-energy model yields H0 = 81.81 km/s/Mpc, ωx = −0.61, and γm = 0.64, a positive interaction that would mean energy flows from dark energy into dark matter and could ease the cosmic coincidence problem; the no-interaction value γm = 0 still lies inside the 1σ interval, so current data cannot rule out ΛCDM. With simulated samples of 2,500 to 10,000 FRBs, the three interaction models become tightly constrained, and information criteria separate all three from ΛCDM at 2,500 bursts. The paper therefore establishes FRB dispersion measures as a complementary probe of dark-sector interactions while making clear that the current sample is not yet decisive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mean intergalactic dispersion measure, ⟨DMIGM(z)⟩ = (3cH0Ωbfd/8πGmp) ∫0^z (1+z′)χe(z′)/E(z′) dz′, because E(z) is where each interacting-dark-energy model enters. The three models enter through interaction terms Q1 = 3γmHρm, Q2 = 3γxHρx, and Q3 = −(1−Ωm)(ξ+3ωx)/(1−Ωm+Ωm(1+z)ξ) Hρm, each producing a different dimensionless Hubble rate E(z) given in Eqs. (14)–(16). Around that mean, the likelihood convolves a log-normal host-galaxy DM distribution with the IGM DM probability distribution PIGM(Δ) = $AΔ^{{-β}}$ exp[−($Δ^{{-α}}$−C0)^2/($2α^{2}$$σ_DM^{2}$)], and Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling maps the posterior over H0, Ωm, ωx, and the interaction parameter. Model comparison then uses AIC, BIC, and KIC to weigh fit quality against parameter count.

What would settle it

Take about 2,500 localized FRBs and recompute AIC, BIC, and KIC with the host DM distribution left free; if the three IDE models are not all strictly preferred over ΛCDM, or if the γm posterior then shifts to include zero, the paper's strict-discrimination and preference claims are contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dispersion-measure–redshift relation of localized FRBs can carry the same kind of cosmological information as supernovae, but at higher redshift, and that it is sensitive to non-gravitational energy exchange in the dark sector. For the γmIDE model, characterized by Q = 3γmHρm, fitting 86 FRBs gives H0 = 81.81+4.62−4.88 km/s/Mpc, ωx = −0.61+0.33−0.53, and γm = 0.64+1.15−0.71 at 68.3% confidence; the positive best-fit γm indicates dark energy transfers energy to dark matter, but γm = 0 remains within 1σ. For the γxIDE and ξIDE models the data are weaker: ωx is poorly constrained and ξ shows a strong degeneracy with ωx. On simulated data, 2,500 mock FRBs already shrink the parameter uncertainties enough that AIC, BIC, and KIC strictly distinguish all three IDE models from ΛCDM, and 10,000 FRBs push the H0 uncertainty to about ±0.01 km/s/Mpc; with the real 86-burst sample the ξIDE model has marginally lower information-criterion values, but the differences are not statistically significant. In short, the paper argues FRBs are not yet competitive for settling dark-sector interactions but are on track to be.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation fixes the host-galaxy contribution to each burst's dispersion measure as a log-normal distribution whose center and width come from simulations rather than being fitted; if the true host DM distribution differs, the inferred intergalactic DM, H0, and interaction strengths all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If γm > 0 is real, dark energy is currently pouring energy into dark matter, which would slow the growth of the coincidence problem and change predictions for structure formation.
With about 2,500 well-localized FRBs, AIC, BIC, and KIC can strictly separate all three interacting-dark-energy models from ΛCDM, making next-generation FRB surveys a decisive test of dark-sector coupling.
A 10,000-burst sample would shrink the H0 uncertainty to roughly ±0.01 km/s/Mpc, making FRBs competitive with distance-ladder and CMB measurements, provided the host-galaxy DM model is controlled.
On the current 86-burst sample, the ξIDE model is slightly preferred by all three information criteria, but the preference is not statistically significant; no interaction model is established.
Fixing H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc removes the main degeneracy and makes ωx recover its fiducial value, indicating that current FRB-only posteriors are dominated by parameter correlations rather than a clear signal.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the high H0 = 81.8 km/s/Mpc from FRBs alone may be partly an artifact of fixing the host DM distribution; marginalizing the host DM parameters could pull H0 down toward the Planck value.
Editorial inference: because the mock FRBs were generated with the same host-DM law used in the fit, the claimed discrimination at 2,500 bursts is an optimistic upper bound on real-data performance; unknown host scatter and an uncertain FRB redshift distribution will add noise.
Editorial inference: combining FRBs with CMB and BAO data should break the ωx–γ degeneracy that currently leaves FRB-only constraints weak, since FRBs extend to z ≈ 1–3 where the interaction terms diverge most from ΛCDM.
Editorial inference: a testable extension is to treat the host DM log-normal parameters as free hyperparameters in the same MCMC; if the posteriors then shift by more than the quoted 1σ errors, the current constraints are systematics-dominated.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read for you: this is a straightforward application of the standard FRB dispersion-measure likelihood to three interacting dark energy models, using 86 real localized FRBs plus 2,500 and 10,000 mock samples. The genuinely new piece is the real-data posterior: as far as the cited literature shows, this is the first time these IDE parameters are constrained from actual localized FRBs rather than simulated ones. The analysis is standard, the data table is careful, and the paper is honest about the weak constraining power of current data. The mock forecasts are sensible injection-recovery exercises, and the information-criteria comparison is done cleanly.

The soft spot is load-bearing. The likelihood in Eq. 10 appears to be internally inconsistent with Eq. 9. For fixed DM'_FRB, the observed-frame host contribution is h = DMhost/(1+z), so the integral over rest-frame DMhost should run up to (1+z)DM'_FRB, and the transformed variable requires a Jacobian (1+z). As printed, the integral truncates host DM at DM'_FRB and misses the Jacobian. For z>0 that suppresses high-DMhost/low-DMIGM realizations and reweights the posterior toward larger DMIGM, which biases H0 high. That plausibly explains the reported H0 = 81.8 rather than indicating real tension with Planck. The authors' own caveat about fixing the host-DM hyperparameters is legitimate but secondary; even a perfect host-DM distribution would not fix the incorrect integration range. There is also a typo in Section 4.3 where "ωx ~ 3.44" should be "ξ ~ 3.44", and the mock-generation bullet list swaps the equation numbers for the host and IGM PDFs. Unmodeled selection effects are another known limitation, but less urgent than the convolution bug.

Net: this is a useful data compilation and a clean pipeline, but the headline real-data constraints should be treated as suspect until the convolution is corrected and rerun. I would send it to a referee because the topic is timely and the fix is concrete, but I would insist on a corrected analysis before publication. For your own work, do not cite the 81.8 result yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses dispersion measures of 86 localized fast radio bursts (FRBs), plus simulated samples of 2,500 and 10,000 mock FRBs, to constrain three interacting dark energy (IDE) models: γmIDE, γxIDE, and ξIDE. The authors build a joint likelihood from the DM–redshift relation, splitting the observed DM into Milky Way, host, and intergalactic contributions, and run MCMC to infer H0, Ωm, ωx, and the interaction parameters. For the real sample, they report best-fit values such as H0 = 81.81+4.62/−4.88 km/s/Mpc and γm = 0.64+1.15/−0.71 for γmIDE, and they compare the three models with AIC, BIC, and KIC. They also claim that with 2,500 simulated FRBs the IDE models can be strictly distinguished from ΛCDM, and that future samples will tightly constrain the parameters. The paper is clearly written and uses standard methodology, but the printed likelihood in Eq. (10) is internally inconsistent with the definition in Eq. (9), and several forecast claims are not supported by the reported tables.

Significance. If the analysis were correct, this would be a useful contribution: it extends FRB cosmology to interacting dark energy models, uses a current sample of 86 localized FRBs, and provides mock-data forecasts for future FRB surveys. The authors are transparent about some limitations, notably the fixed host-DM hyperparameters. The model definitions and the MCMC setup are standard, and the comparison of three IDE models with information criteria is a reasonable framework. However, the significance is currently conditional on fixing a likely bug in the likelihood convolution (Eq. 10) and on providing the missing evidence for the strong forecast claims. The central reported value H0 = 81.8 km/s/Mpc is particularly sensitive to the host-DM/IGM decomposition, so the internal inconsistency of Eq. (10) makes the headline result suspect until rerun.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eqs. (9)–(10)] The marginal likelihood printed in Eq. (10) is not the likelihood implied by Eq. (9). With DM′_FRB = DMhost/(1+z) + DMIGM, the physically allowed range of the rest-frame host contribution is 0 ≤ DMhost ≤ (1+z)DM′_FRB, but Eq. (10) integrates DMhost only from 0 to DM′_FRB. For z>0 this truncates the log-normal host-DM distribution and systematically removes realizations with large DMhost and small DMIGM. The surviving likelihood is reweighted toward larger DMIGM, which biases ⟨DMIGM⟩ upward and, through Eq. (5), biases H0 (and the correlated IDE parameters) upward. If the integration variable in Eq. (10) was instead intended to be the observed-frame host contribution, then the argument of Phost and the Jacobian would also need to be revised. Either way, the printed convolution is internally inconsistent. The reported H0 = 81.81 km/s/Mpc and γm = 0.64 should be recomputed with the correct upper limit, and the paper should state explicitly whether the code already uses the correct (1+z)DM′_FRB upper limit.
[Section 3 and Section 5, Table 2 and Table 3] The claim that 'with a sample size of 2,500, the three IDE models can be strictly distinguished from the ΛCDM model based on the IC judgments' is not supported by any reported statistic. Table 3 gives information criteria only for the real 86-FRB sample; no simulated ΔIC values, model probabilities, or confusion matrices are presented. Moreover, the simulated constraints in Table 2 are not consistent with a clean convergence to the ΛCDM fiducial values: for example, the γmIDE 2,500-sample test gives ωx = −1.449±0.075 and the 10,000-sample test gives ωx = −1.428±0.018, both many sigma away from the fiducial ωx = −1. The authors attribute such offsets to parameter degeneracies, but no quantitative demonstration is provided. Until the simulated model-selection statistics are reported and the residual degeneracies are explained, the 'strictly distinguished' claim should be removed or substantially weakened.
[Section 3, sample selection] The likelihood in Eq. (8) treats each observed FRB as drawn from the unconditional DM and redshift distributions, but the sample is constructed with explicit selection cuts: FRBs with host-association probability below 90% are removed, and bursts with DM_obs − DM_ISM_MW < 80 pc cm−3 are excluded. If these cuts preferentially remove low-DMhost or low-DMIGM events, the posterior can be biased in the same direction as the Eq. (10) truncation. I would like to see at least a sensitivity check (e.g., varying the 80 pc cm−3 threshold, or modeling the selection function) and a discussion of how the cuts affect the recovered H0 and interaction parameters.
[Section 2, host-DM modeling] The log-normal host-DM distribution in Eq. (7) is fixed using IllustrisTNG-derived median and dispersion values rather than marginalized; the authors acknowledge this caveat. This is not just a cosmetic issue: the headline H0 result depends directly on how much of DM′_FRB is assigned to the host versus the IGM. A sensitivity analysis with different host-DM hyperparameters, or a full marginalization over µ and σ, is needed before the central claim can be regarded as robust. The current statement that fixing the hyperparameters 'may underestimate statistical uncertainties and introduce unknown systematic biases' is an insufficient treatment for the central result.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3, bullet list] The bullet list says 'Use Equation 6, which provides the PDF of DM host, and Equation 7, which provides that of DM IGM,' but Equation 6 is PIGM and Equation 7 is Phost; the two equation numbers are swapped.
[Section 4.3] The sentence reporting 'the posterior distribution limited by the uniform prior over the interval [−2, 0], allowing only a rough estimate of the median value at ωx ∼ 3.44' is internally contradictory because ωx = 3.44 lies outside the prior. Based on Table 2, this value is ξ = 3.44, not ωx; the text should be corrected.
[Section 4.2, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) is typeset with an ambiguous fraction and should be rewritten. The expression 'ωxΩm + γx + γx(Ωm − 1)(1 + z)^{3(γx+ωx)} / (1 + z)^{−3(γx+ωx)}' does not clearly define the numerator and denominator, and the reader cannot verify the ΛCDM limit from the printed form.
[Abstract and Section 3] The phrase 'strictly distinguished from the ΛCDM model' is too strong given the real-data IC differences in Table 3 are ΔIC ≈ 0.01–0.03, which the authors themselves describe as not statistically significant. The wording should be aligned with the actual evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: FRB likelihood is a forward model with external priors; mock forecasts are injection-recovery consistency checks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The real-data likelihood (Eqs. 8-10) is a forward model whose ingredients are external and fixed: P_IGM comes from the Macquart et al. (2020) formalism and Prochaska & Zheng (2019), and the log-normal P_host uses median and dispersion taken from IllustrisTNG simulations by Zhang et al. (2020). The IDE models enter only through E(z) in the analytic mean ⟨DM_IGM⟩ (Eq. 5), so the reported H0, ωx, γm, γx, ξ are MCMC fits to the 86 FRB DMs, not re-labeled inputs. The simulated forecasts are injection-recovery tests: mock DMs are generated from a Planck ΛCDM fiducial (H0=67.4, Ωm=0.317) and then refitted, so recovering the fiducial values is a consistency check of the pipeline, not a prediction derived from the model being tested. Self-citations [30]-[32] are background references on existing SNe/CMB/BAO and strong-lensing constraints and are not load-bearing for the FRB analysis. The paper explicitly warns in Section 2 that fixing the host-DM hyperparameters "may underestimate statistical uncertainties and introduce unknown systematic biases"; that is a legitimate limitation, not circularity. A separate correctness concern, not a circularity, is that Eq. 10 integrates DMhost only up to DM'_FRB, whereas Eq. 9 implies the physical upper limit is (1+z)DM'_FRB; this truncation could bias DMIGM upward and hence H0, and should be corrected and rerun before the numerical results are relied upon.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central constraints depend on externally calibrated astrophysical inputs (host DM distribution, IGM PDF, ionization fraction, baryon fraction) that are treated as known. The interaction parameters are fitted, not predicted. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

H0 = 81.81+4.62-4.88 km/s/Mpc (gamma_mIDE, real data)
Free parameter in all three models; best-fit from MCMC.
Omega_m = 0.317 (Gaussian prior mean)
Free in gamma_xIDE and xiIDE; in gamma_mIDE the text suggests it is fixed or tightly constrained; prior from Planck.
omega_x = -0.61+0.33-0.53 (gamma_mIDE, real data)
Dark energy equation of state; free with uniform prior [-2,0].
gamma_m = 0.64+1.15-0.71 (real data)
Interaction strength in gamma_mIDE model.
gamma_x = -0.80+0.75-0.80 (real data)
Interaction strength in gamma_xIDE model.
xi = 3.44+1.77-2.19 (real data)
Interaction parameter in xiIDE model.

assumptions (8)

standard math FLRW metric and Friedmann equations with a constant dark energy equation of state w_x.
Invoked in Eqs. 1-2 and the E(z) expressions in Section 4.
domain assumption Phenomenological interaction terms Q=3*gamma_m*H*rho_m, Q=3*gamma_x*H*rho_x, and Q3 (Eq. 13) are physically meaningful descriptions of dark sector coupling.
These forms are adopted from the IDE literature (Dalal et al., Guo et al.), not derived from a microphysical theory.
domain assumption The IGM is fully ionized for z<3 with chi_e=7/8 and f_d=0.84.
Used in Eq. 5 for the mean DMIGM.
domain assumption DM_host follows a log-normal distribution whose median and dispersion are taken from IllustrisTNG (Zhang et al. 2020) and are not marginalized over.
Eq. 7 and Section 2, last paragraph, where the authors note this may introduce unknown systematic biases.
domain assumption The DMIGM probability distribution is the Macquart relation (Eq. 6) with alpha=3, beta=3 and parameters A, C0, sigma_DM fitted to IllustrisTNG.
Section 2, paragraph after Eq. 6.
domain assumption The 86 localized FRBs form an unbiased sample after the stated selection cuts.
No selection function is included in the likelihood; Section 3.
domain assumption For mock data, the intrinsic FRB redshift distribution is P(z) proportional to z*e^(-z) within 0<z<3.
Section 3, bullet list.
domain assumption Fiducial LambdaCDM parameters H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.317 are used to generate mock FRB samples.
Section 3, bullet list.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating Interacting Dark Energy Models Using Fast Radio Burst Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHO4WZ7S

@misc{pith2026250716308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating Interacting Dark Energy Models Using Fast Radio Burst Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHO4WZ7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16308}
}

read the original abstract

This paper investigates the utility of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) as novel observational probes to constrain models of interacting dark energy (IDE). By leveraging FRB dispersion measures (DMs) and redshifts, we perform a comprehensive analysis of three IDE models: gamma_m IDE, gamma_x IDE, and xi IDE, using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods based on 86 localized FRBs and simulated datasets containing 2500 to 10000 mock events. By disentangling the contributions to the observed DMs from the Milky Way, host galaxies, and the intergalactic medium (IGM), key cosmological parameters are constrained, including the Hubble constant (H0), matter density (Omega_m), the dark energy equation of state (omega_x), and interaction strengths (gamma_m, gamma_x, xi). The best-fit values of the gamma_m IDE model indicate a potential alleviation of the cosmic coincidence problem. Subsequently, we utilize information criteria (IC) to conduct a comparative assessment of the three IDE models. When applied to the current sample of observed FRBs, the xi IDE model yields slightly lower IC values than the gamma_m IDE and gamma_x IDE models across all three criteria, although the differences are not statistically significant. These results underscore the value of FRB measurements as complementary probes that provide further constraints on alternative cosmological models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16308 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The same as Figure 1, but for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The same as Figure 1, but for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Constraints on the remaining parameters of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Dark Energy Is Not That Into You: Variable Couplings after DESI DR2 BAO
astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

With DESI DR2 data, one interacting dark sector model with a time-dependent coupling shows a nonzero coupling at more than 95% CL, but Bayesian evidence still favors Lambda-CDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

M. Bailes. Science 378(6620):eabj3043 (2022)

2022
[2]

D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin et al. Science 318(5851):777–780 (2007)

2007
[4]

Macquart, J

J.-P. Macquart, J. Prochaska, M. McQuinn et al. Nature 581(7809):391–395 (2020)

2020
[5]

A. M. Cook, M. Bhardwaj, B. Gaensler et al. The Astrophysical Journal 946(2):58 (2023)

2023
[7]

M. McQuinn. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 54(1):313–362 (2016)

2016
[8]

Hagstotz, R

S. Hagstotz, R. Reischke, R. Lilow. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511(1):662–667 (2022)

2022
[9]

J. J. Wei, F. Melia. The Astrophysical Journal 955(2):101 (2023)

work page 2023
[10]

H. Y. Guo, H. Wei. Physics Letters B 859:139120 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 88 references

[11]

Liao, S.-B

K. Liao, S.-B. Zhang, Z. X. Li et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 896(1):L11 (2020)

2020
[12]

D. C. Qiang, H. Wei. Physical Review D 103(8):083536 (2021)

2021
[13]

Z. X. Li, Li, H. Gao, J. J. Wei et al. The Astrophysical Journal 876(2):146 (2019). 15

2019
[14]

Z. W. Zhao, Z. X. Li, J. Z. Qi et al. The Astrophysical Journal 903(2):83 (2020)

2020
[15]

H. N. Lin, X. Y. Li, R. Zou. The Astrophysical Journal 969(2):123 (2024)

2024
[16]

H. N. Lin, R. Zou. The Astrophysical Journal 962(1):73 (2024)

2024
[17]

R. C. Zhang, B. Zhang. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 924(1):L14 (2022)

2022
[18]

D. C. Qiang, S. L. Li, H. Wei. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022(01):040 (2022)

2022
[20]

E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, D. Wands. Physical Review D 57(8):4686 (1998)

1998
[21]

L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon et al. Physical Review D 67(8):083513 (2003)

2003
[22]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 72(2):023003 (2005)

2005
[23]

Szyd lowski

M. Szyd lowski. Physics Letters B 632(1):1–5 (2006)

2006
[24]

Y. Chen, Z. H. Zhu, J. Alcaniz et al. The Astrophysical Journal 711(1):439 (2010)

2010
[25]

W. Yang, S. Pan, L. Xu et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 482(2):1858–1871 (2019)

2019
[26]

Aghanim, Y

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja et al. Astronomy & Astrophysics 641:A1 (2020)

2020
[27]

Gordon, K

C. Gordon, K. Land, A. Slosar. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 387(1):371–376 (2008)

2008
[28]

J. Guy, M. Sullivan, A. Conley et al. Astronomy & Astrophysics 523:A7 (2010)

2010
[29]

Bargiacchi, M

G. Bargiacchi, M. Dainotti, S. Nagataki et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521(3):3909–3924 (2023)

2023
[30]

Y. Pan, S. Cao, Y. Gong et al. Physics Letters B 718(3):699–703 (2013)

2013
[31]

J. Diao, Y. Pan, W. Xu. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 22(11):115019 (2022)

2022
[32]

Y. Pan, S. Cao, L. Li. International Journal of Modern Physics D 25(01):1650003 (2016)

2016
[33]

Z. W. Zhao, L. F. Wang, J. G. Zhang et al. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023(04):022 (2023)

2023
[34]

J. M. Cordes, T. J. W. Lazio. arXiv preprint astro-ph/0207156 (2002)

2002 arXiv
[35]

J. X. Prochaska, Y. Zheng. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 485(1):648–665 (2019)

2019
[36]

H. Gao, Z. Li, B. Zhang. The Astrophysical Journal 788(2):189 (2014)

2014
[37]

Klypin, F

A. Klypin, F. Prada, J. Betancort-Rijo et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 481(4):4588–4601 (2018)

2018
[38]

K. Ioka. The Astrophysical Journal 598(2):L79 (2003)

2003
[39]

Fukugita, C

M. Fukugita, C. Hogan, P. Peebles. The Astrophysical Journal 503(2):518 (1998)

1998
[40]

A. A. Meiksin. Reviews of modern physics 81(4):1405–1469 (2009)

2009
[41]

M. McQuinn. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 780(2):L33 (2013)

2013
[42]

Zhang, K

Z. Zhang, K. Yan, C. Li et al. The Astrophysical Journal 906(1):49 (2021)

2021
[43]

Zhang, H

G. Zhang, H. Yu, J. He et al. The Astrophysical Journal 900(2):170 (2020)

2020
[44]

Hewitt, M

D. Hewitt, M. Snelders, J. Hessels et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 515(3):3577– 3596 (2022)

2022
[45]

Nimmo, J

K. Nimmo, J. Hessels, A. Keimpema et al. Nature Astronomy 5(6):594–603 (2021). 16

2021
[46]

Foreman-Mackey, D

D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang et al. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 125(925):306 (2013)

2013
[48]

L. Connor. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487(4):5753–5763 (2019)

2019
[49]

Q. Wu, F. Y. Wang. Chinese Physics Letters 41(11):119801 (2024)

2024
[50]

Z. X. Li, H. Gao, J. J. Wei et al. The Astrophysical Journal 876(2):146 (2019)

2019
[51]

R. C. Zhang, B. Zhang, Y. Li et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501(1):157–167 (2021)

2021
[52]

H. Wei, S. N. Zhang. Physics Letters B 644(1):7–15 (2007)

2007
[53]

H. Wei, S. N. Zhang. Physics Letters B 654(5-6):139–147 (2007)

2007
[54]

Dalal, K

N. Dalal, K. Abazajian, E. Jenkins et al. Physical Review Letters 87(14):141302 (2001)

2001
[55]

Z.-K. Guo, N. Ohta, S. Tsujikawa. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 76(2):023508 (2007)

2007
[57]

Crocce, E

M. Crocce, E. Gaztanaga, A. Cabre et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 417(4):2577– 2591 (2011)

2011
[58]

H.-J. Kim, J. E. Cavanaugh, T. A. Dallas et al. Environmental and ecological statistics 21:329–350 (2014)

2014
[59]

A. R. Liddle. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 377(1):L74–L78 (2007)

2007
[60]

Biesiada

M. Biesiada. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2007(02):003 (2007)

2007
[61]

S. Cao, Z. H. Zhu, R. Zhao. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 84(2):023005 (2011)

2011
[62]

J. J. Wei, X. F. Wu, F. Melia. The Astrophysical Journal 788(2):190 (2014)

2014
[63]

G. Schwarz. The annals of statistics pages 461–464 (1978)

1978
[64]

H. Akaike. IEEE transactions on automatic control 19(6):716–723 (2003)

2003
[65]

J. E. Cavanaugh. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics 46(2):257–274 (2004)

2004
[66]

Chatterjee, C

S. Chatterjee, C. Law, R. Wharton et al. Nature 541(7635):58–61 (2017)

2017
[67]

S. P. Tendulkar, C. Bassa, J. M. Cordes et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 834(2):L7 (2017)

2017
[68]

Bhandari, K

S. Bhandari, K. E. Heintz, K. Aggarwal et al. The Astronomical Journal 163(2):69 (2022)

2022
[69]

Michilli, M

D. Michilli, M. Bhardwaj, C. Brar et al. The Astrophysical Journal 950(2):134 (2023)

2023
[70]

Marcote, K

B. Marcote, K. Nimmo, J. Hessels et al. Nature 577(7789):190–194 (2020)

2020
[71]

A. C. Gordon, W. f. Fong, C. D. Kilpatrick et al. The Astrophysical Journal 954(1):80 (2023)

2023
[72]

K. W. Bannister, A. T. Deller, C. Phillips et al. Science 365(6453):565–570 (2019)

2019
[73]

Bhandari, E

S. Bhandari, E. M. Sadler, J. X. Prochaska et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 895(2):L37 (2020)

2020
[74]

Shannon, K

R. Shannon, K. Bannister, A. Bera et al. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia pages 1–36 (2024)

2024
[75]

J. X. Prochaska, J.-P. Macquart, M. McQuinn et al. Science 366(6462):231–234 (2019)

2019
[76]

Bhardwaj, D

M. Bhardwaj, D. Michilli, A. Y. Kirichenko et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 971(2):L51 (2024). 17

2024
[77]

A. L. Ibik, M. R. Drout, B. Gaensler et al. The Astrophysical Journal 961(1):99 (2024)

2024
[78]

C.-H. Niu, K. Aggarwal, D. Li et al. Nature 606(7916):873–877 (2022)

2022
[79]

V. Ravi, M. Catha, L. D’addario et al. Nature 572(7769):352–354 (2019)

2019
[80]

K. E. Heintz, J. X. Prochaska, S. Simha et al. The Astrophysical Journal 903(2):152 (2020)

2020
[81]

C. J. Law, B. J. Butler, J. X. Prochaska et al. The Astrophysical Journal 899(2):161 (2020)

2020
[82]

Rajwade, M

K. Rajwade, M. C. Bezuidenhout, M. Caleb et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514(2):1961–1974 (2022)

2022
[83]

W. f. Fong, Y. Dong, J. Leja et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 919(2):L23 (2021)

2021
[84]

Caleb, L

M. Caleb, L. Driessen, A. Gordon et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524(2):2064– 2077 (2023)

2023
[85]

Cassanelli, C

T. Cassanelli, C. Leung, P. Sanghavi et al. Nature Astronomy 8(11):1429–1442 (2024)

2024
[86]

Glowacki, K

M. Glowacki, K. Lee-Waddell, A. Deller et al. The Astrophysical Journal 949(1):25 (2023)

2023
[87]

M. B. Sherman, L. Connor, V. Ravi et al. The Astrophysical Journal 964(2):131 (2024)

2024
[88]

Sharma, V

K. Sharma, V. Ravi, L. Connor et al. Nature 635(8037):61–66 (2024)

2024
[89]

Connor, V

L. Connor, V. Ravi, K. Sharma et al. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16952 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[90]

D. Gao, Q. Wu, J. Hu et al. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03994 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[91]

Rajwade, L

K. Rajwade, L. Driessen, E. Barr et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 532(4):3881–3892 (2024)

2024
[92]

V. Ravi, M. Catha, G. Chen et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 949(1):L3 (2023)

2023
[93]

J. Tian, K. Rajwade, I. Pastor-Marazuela et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 533(3):3174–3193 (2024). 18

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. Bailes. Science 378(6620):eabj3043 (2022)

2022

[2] [2]

D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin et al. Science 318(5851):777–780 (2007)

2007

[3] [4]

Macquart, J

J.-P. Macquart, J. Prochaska, M. McQuinn et al. Nature 581(7809):391–395 (2020)

2020

[4] [5]

A. M. Cook, M. Bhardwaj, B. Gaensler et al. The Astrophysical Journal 946(2):58 (2023)

2023

[5] [7]

M. McQuinn. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 54(1):313–362 (2016)

2016

[6] [8]

Hagstotz, R

S. Hagstotz, R. Reischke, R. Lilow. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511(1):662–667 (2022)

2022

[7] [9]

J. J. Wei, F. Melia. The Astrophysical Journal 955(2):101 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [10]

H. Y. Guo, H. Wei. Physics Letters B 859:139120 (2024)

work page 2024