Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 In a sample of 20 nearby fast radio bursts, host-galaxy dispersion measure decreases with stellar mass at $m=-97\pm44\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ per dex, putting the weak-feedback CAMELS-Astrid prediction into $4.2\sigma$ tension.

desk verdict A careful first measurement of the host DM–stellar mass relation from 20 low-z FRBs, with an honest but conditional case against weak feedback that hinges on an unmeasured ISM slope. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16816 v1 pith:QCJYHZ6K submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Calvin Leung , Sunil Simha , Isabel Medlock , Daisuke Nagai , Kiyoshi W. Masui , Lordrick A. Kahinga , Adam E. Lanman , Shion Andrew
show 15 more authors
Kevin Bandura Alice P. Curtin B. M. Gaensler Nina Gusinskaia Ronniy C. Joseph Mattias Lazda Lluis Mas-Ribas Bradley W. Meyers Kenzie Nimmo Aaron B. Pearlman J. Xavier Prochaska Mawson W. Sammons Kaitlyn Shin Kendrick Smith Haochen Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasurehostgalaxiescircumgalacticmediumstellarmassbaryonicfeedbackhydrodynamicalsimulationsCAMELS
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 carry a readable record of the free-electron column along their path, called dispersion measure (DM), and the portion contributed by the burst's own host galaxy can be extracted once the Milky Way and cosmic contributions are subtracted. The paper curates 20 nearby ($z<0.2$) bursts with face-on, isolated hosts and claims that the host DM falls with stellar mass, with slope $m=-97\pm44\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ per decade in stellar mass. Simulated sightlines through three cosmological models predict instead that the circumgalactic gas DM rises with stellar mass under weak feedback, most strongly in the fiducial Astrid model, whose positive slope conflicts with the data at $4.2\sigma$. If the observation stands, models that explain host DM primarily by circumgalactic gas must be revised, and baryonic feedback in ordinary $\sim L_*$ galaxies at low redshift must be stronger than the weakest simulation allows. The result turns a transient phenomenon into a new probe of feedback physics that complements weak-lensing and cosmic-microwave-background observations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Macquart estimator $\mathrm{DM}_{\rm host}^{\rm Macquart}$, the remainder after subtracting the Milky Way ISM/CGM and the mean cosmic DM from the observed FRB DM; it contains host ISM, CBM, and CGM contributions. The carrying mechanism is a comparison of this observed quantity with $\mathrm{DM}_{\rm h,CGM}$ predicted by ray-tracing through CAMELS simulation snapshots with gas within $0.1 R_{200,\rm crit}$ removed. Both are fit with a quadratic in $\log_{10}(M_*/10^{10}M_\odot)$ with constant scatter, and the slope parameter $m$ is the discriminating statistic that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Measure the ISM and circum-burst dispersion measure directly across stellar mass, for example by comparing H$\alpha$ emission-measure-inferred DM with stellar mass in the same FRB hosts, and check whether the ISM slope is positive, as the paper's argument requires, or negative. If an ISM slope near $-180\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}/dex}$ appeared, the tension with weak-feedback simulations would vanish; if the ISM slope is positive, the tension strengthens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to have measured the stellar-mass dependence of host-galaxy DM for low-redshift FRBs: heavier hosts have lower host DM, with best-fit slope $m = -97 \pm 44\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}}$ per dex over $10^9\!-\!10^{11}M_\odot$ at $z<0.2$. It further claims that the positive CGM slope predicted by the fiducial Astrid model, $m_{\rm Astrid}=84\pm7$, conflicts with this at $4.2\sigma$, so the only way to save that model is a large negative ISM contribution of about $-180\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}/dex}$. Because ISM tracers (H$\alpha$-inferred DM and HI mass) correlate positively with stellar mass, the paper concludes that weak-feedback models are disfavored and that baryonic feedback in isolated $\sim L_*$ halos in the local Universe must be stronger than Astrid implements.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion stands on the assumption that the host galaxy's own disk gas and the plasma immediately around the burst do not have a steeply negative dispersion-measure\textendash{}mass slope; if they do, the $4.2\sigma$ tension with weak-feedback models disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fiducial CAMELS-Astrid prediction of a positive CGM slope $m=84\pm7$ is discrepant with the measured $m=-97\pm44$ at $4.2\sigma$, so CGM-driven positive correlations between stellar mass and host DM are disfavored.
  • Reconciling any of the three simulations with the data requires a host ISM and circum-burst contribution whose DM slope with stellar mass is negative, near $-100$ to $-180\,\mathrm{pc\,cm^{-3}/dex}$, a requirement the paper argues is potentially unphysical.
  • If the data are right, baryonic feedback in isolated $\sim L_*$ halos at $z<0.2$ must be stronger than the fiducial Astrid implementation, placing an indirect upper limit on the matter-power-spectrum suppression factor $S(k,z=0)$ from such halos.
  • The negative slope is robust to changing the cosmic DM scatter prescription, the FRB offset distribution, association probability cuts, and removal of the most influential data point; it remains negative in all these variants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the host ISM truly has a positive DM\textendash{}stellar-mass slope, as H$\alpha$ data suggest, then the observed negative slope implies the CGM DM in massive hosts must be suppressed even more strongly than the total anti-correlation alone, pushing the inferred feedback strength upward.
  • The same $M_*$\textendash{}DM$_{\rm host}$ statistic, applied to dwarf hosts that are currently excluded, would test whether the anti-correlation extends or turns over; the paper notes that including the known dwarf and elliptical hosts would strengthen it, but a dedicated low-mass sample could settle the question.
  • Upcoming wide-field FRB surveys with many $z<0.1$ bursts could turn the slope measurement into a differential feedback probe that does not rely on absolute calibration of the Macquart relation, since the slope is less sensitive to systematic shifts in the cosmic DM than the intercept.
  • The argument's logic could be inverted into a simulation calibration target: any galaxy-formation model that aims to predict FRB observables should reproduce both the measured slope $m$ and the H$\alpha$-inferred ISM slope simultaneously.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper curates 20 low-redshift (z<0.2) FRB host galaxies with low scattering timescales, face-on geometry, and stellar masses in the range 10^9–10^11 M_sun, and fits a quadratic relation between the Macquart-estimated host dispersion measure (DM_host^Macquart) and host stellar mass. The fiducial fit yields a negative slope m = -97 ± 44 pc cm^-3 per dex (Table 2). The authors compare this with CGM-only predictions from CAMELS-Astrid, CAMELS-IllustrisTNG, and CAMELS-SIMBA, constructed by ray-tracing through simulation snapshots after excising gas within 0.1 R_200,crit. They find that the observed slope is discrepant with the positive Astrid slope m = 84 ± 7 at the 4.2σ level, and argue that reconciling the data with Astrid requires a strongly negative host ISM/CBM slope of about -180 pc cm^-3 per dex, which they regard as potentially unphysical. The paper concludes that weak-feedback models attributing a positive M*-DM_host correlation to the CGM are disfavored, implying an indirect lower limit on baryonic feedback in isolated L* halos at z<0.2. Robustness tests vary the cosmic DM contribution, the scatter model, the redshift split, the removal of one influential outlier, and the host association probability threshold.

Significance. If the result holds, it opens a new and observationally accessible probe of baryonic feedback in relatively low-mass, isolated halos, complementary to weak lensing and kSZ measurements that target higher masses and redshifts. The paper's strengths are real: the sample curation is transparent and carefully documented; the fitting procedure is standard and reproducible; the simulation comparison uses independent CAMELS runs and does not fit simulations to the data; and the robustness to σ_cosmic, redshift splits, and outlier removal is explicitly tested. The authors also state the key limitation themselves: the observational quantity includes ISM and circum-burst contributions while the simulation prediction is CGM-only, so the feedback conclusion hinges on the unmeasured slope of the ISM/CBM term. Given that the observed slope is only 2.2σ from zero and that the sample is defined by seven post-hoc cuts, the central claim is more fragile than the abstract's phrasing suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Eq. (2), Table 2] The central feedback conclusion depends on the assumption that the host ISM and circum-burst medium do not produce a strongly negative slope in DM_host^Macquart versus stellar mass. The manuscript itself notes that reconciling the data with CAMELS-Astrid requires m_ISM+CBM ≈ -180 pc/cm^3/dex, and the paper calls this scenario 'potentially unphysical' but does not demonstrate that it is excluded. The external checks cited in §5 (Bernales-Cortes et al. Hα emission measures and the HI mass–stellar mass correlation) are not measurements of the free-electron column along FRB sightlines: the Hα sample has only 11 hosts and traces warm ionized regions, while HI mass is a total reservoir rather than a line-of-sight column. If lower-mass hosts have higher ionized-gas columns along the burst sightlines, the anti-correlation would be fully consistent with Astrid's positive CGM slope and the feedback constraint would vanish. This is a load-bearing, currently unresolved premise of the paper's main claim.
  2. [§2, criteria 1–7, Fig. 1] The sample is defined by seven post-hoc selection cuts (cluster exclusion, inclination, disk outskirts, dwarf/elliptical hosts, Galactic latitude, low-DM associations, and scattering timescale). Several of these cuts are correlated with DM itself, and potentially with stellar mass. For example, excluding low-DM FRB associations removes sightlines with systematically downward-biased DM, while excluding dwarf and elliptical hosts removes the extreme low- and high-mass ends of the galaxy population. The robustness tests in §4.1 vary individual analysis choices but do not include a selection-bias injection test or a demonstration that the excluded systems are distributed uniformly in the (M*, DM) plane. Without such a test, it remains possible that the selection procedure induces part or all of the measured negative slope.
  3. [Table 2, fiducial row] The fiducial observed slope is m = -97 ± 44 pc/cm^3/dex, which is only 2.2σ from zero. The paper's headline statement that 'the more massive the host, the lower its host DM' is considerably stronger than this marginal significance warrants. The 4.2σ tension with Astrid combines this 2.2σ measurement with a very precise simulation slope, so the tension is driven as much by the small error bar on the Astrid prediction as by the data. The abstract and conclusions should either quote the slope significance explicitly or temper the language to reflect that the anti-correlation is currently a 2.2σ effect, not a robust detection.
  4. [§3, Fig. 2, Table 2] The simulation prediction DM_h,CGM is defined operationally by excising all gas within 0.1 R_200,crit and integrating the electron density along a full 25 Mpc/h box axis divided by two. This is not the same physical quantity as the CGM term in Eq. (2), and the comparison therefore mixes a definitional choice with a physical prediction. The sensitivity of the fitted slope to the impact-parameter range is shown (Table 2, lower half), and the m_Astrid values do vary from 84 to 10 across ρ bins, which indicates that the slope comparison is sensitive to the assumed FRB offset distribution. The text argues that the true offsets are ρ ≲ 0.05, but this relies on an approximate conversion from R_eff to R_200,crit. A quantitative propagation of this uncertainty into the claimed 4.2σ discrepancy would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract (duplicated)] The manuscript contains two versions of the abstract: the first begins 'Low redshift fast radio bursts (FRBs) provide robust measurements...' and the second, after the author list, begins 'Low redshift fast radio bursts (FRBs) enable robust measurements...'. One of them should be removed before submission.
  2. [§2, NED-LVS paragraph] The word 'consistant' should be 'consistent' in the sentence on NED-LVS mass estimates.
  3. [§5, paragraph on FRB 20210807D] The text refers to the highest-mass, lowest-DM source as 'FRB 20210807A', but Table 1 and §4.1 use 'FRB 20210807D'. The naming should be made consistent.
  4. [§4.1, σ_cosmic discussion] The sentence 'Jaroszynski 2019, see Fig. 2 of.' is incomplete and should be rewritten as a grammatical sentence.
  5. [References] The DOI for Kourkchi et al. (2020) appears corrupted ('10.1088/1538-4357/abburn1966depolarizationb') and should be corrected.
  6. [§4.1, Figure 4 citation] The text 'No FRB 20210807D variant in Fig. 4.1' should refer to 'Fig. 4', not 'Fig. 4.1'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed DM–M* relation is measured directly, simulation slopes come from independent CAMELS runs, and the paper explicitly tests the one feedback-dependent input (σcosmic) it identifies.

full rationale

The central comparison is not circular. The observed quantity DMMacquart_host is constructed from the measured DM_FRB by subtracting Milky Way and cosmic foregrounds (Eq. 3), and the slope m = -97 ± 44 pc/cm^3/dex (Table 2) is a direct maximum-likelihood fit to 20 sightlines. The simulation slopes (m_Astrid = 84 ± 7, etc.) come from CAMELS snapshots with gas within 0.1 R200 removed (§3), independent of the observed sample; they are predictions, not fits to the data. The required ISM slope m ≈ -180 pc/cm^3/dex is obtained algebraically from m_obs - m_Astrid, so it is not an assumed input. The only feedback-dependent input in the observational analysis is σcosmic(z), and the paper explicitly acknowledges the potential feedback circularity in §4.1 ('our conclusions about feedback in galaxies depend on our parameter estimates, which in turn may depend on feedback circularly via σcosmic') and demonstrates that the results are insensitive to σcosmic by testing alternative prescriptions. The paper also transparently flags the key assumption that the host ISM and circum-burst medium do not generate a strongly negative DM–M* slope, and it supports this assumption with external empirical correlations (Hα-inferred DM from Bernales-Cortes et al. 2025; HI mass from Huang et al. 2012), which are not circular. Citations to Medlock et al. (2024, 2025) are methodological and not load-bearing for the central claim. Overall, no circular step reduces the conclusion to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational claim rests primarily on the DM budget decomposition, Milky Way and cosmic foreground models, and the Gaussian scatter ansatz; these are standard external model inputs. The simulation comparison adds the operational 0.1 R200,crit CGM definition and a fixed fiducial feedback choice. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Slope m (observed) = -97 ± 44 pc/cm3/dex
    Central slope of the quadratic fit to DMMacquart_host vs log10(M*/1e10 Msun); drives the tension with simulations.
  • Intercept b (observed) = 89 ± 27 pc/cm3
    Normalization of the relation at M* = 1e10 Msun; compared to simulated CGM intercept to infer room for ISM/CBM.
  • Curvature a (observed) = -11 +94/-93 pc/cm3/dex2
    Quadratic term; included because the authors found a linear model insufficient to fit simulation predictions.
  • Scatter sigma (observed) = 59 +20/-15 pc/cm3
    Mass-independent scatter around the relation; absorbs ISM, CBM, and CGM variance.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption DM budget decomposition (Eq. 1 and 2): DM_FRB = DM_MW + <DM_cosmic> + delta_DM_LSS + DM_host/(1+z), with DM_host = DM_h,CGM + DM_h,ISM + DM_CBM.
    The entire method subtracts Milky Way and cosmic contributions using NE2001, Yamasaki-Totani 2020, and the Macquart relation; errors in these models enter every DMMacquart_host value.
  • domain assumption NE2001 and Yamasaki and Totani (2020) models describe the Milky Way ISM and CGM accurately enough for z < 0.2 sightlines.
    Used to compute DMMacquart_host; the paper notes 20% NE2001 uncertainty and tests sensitivity to the Milky Way CGM strength.
  • domain assumption Gaussian scatter for DM_host with mass-independent sigma (Eq. 5 and 6).
    Authors state this is the most agnostic choice; non-Gaussian DM components could bias the fitted slope and sigma.
  • domain assumption CAMELS fiducial feedback parameters (ASN1 = ASN2 = AAGN1 = AAGN2 = 1) at z = 0.1 represent each simulation suite.
    Simulation predictions are generated only for the fiducial feedback setting, not a full CAMELS parameter sweep.
  • ad hoc to paper Cutting gas within 0.1 R200,crit removes the unresolved host ISM and defines DM_h,CGM.
    This operational definition of CGM is necessary for the comparison but differs from how observed DM_host is defined; the choice affects intercept and slope of simulated relations.
  • domain assumption sigma_cosmic(z) from Walker et al. (2024) IllustrisTNG values applies to observed sightlines.
    Used in Eq. 4 for individual error bars; authors test constant and +50% variants and find the slope result insensitive.
  • domain assumption The z < 0.2, face-on, low-scattering sample is representative of isolated star-forming FRB hosts with CGM-only contributions.
    The seven sample cuts aim to minimize ISM, CBM, and cluster contributions; if the cuts bias the sample, the slope changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar Mass-Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCJYHZ6K

@misc{pith2026250716816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar Mass-Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCJYHZ6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16816}
}
abstract

Low redshift fast radio bursts (FRBs) provide robust measurements of the host-galaxy contribution to the dispersion measure (DM), which can constrain the circumgalactic medium (CGM) of the hosts. We curate a sample of 20 nearby FRBs with low scattering timescales and face-on host galaxies with stellar masses ranging from $10^9 < M^* / M_\odot < 10^{11}$. We fit the distribution of the host galaxy DM to a quadratic model as a function of stellar mass with a mass-independent scatter and find that the more massive the host, the lower its host DM. We report that this relation has a negative slope of $m = -97 \pm 44$ pc/cm$^{-3}$ per dex in stellar mass. We compare this measurement to similar fits to three sub-grid models implemented in the CAMELS suite of simulations from Astrid, IllustrisTNG, and SIMBA and find that fine-tuning of the host ISM contribution as a function of stellar mass is required in order to reconcile the observational data with the predictions of the fiducial CAMELS-Astrid model. More generally, models which attribute a positive correlation between stellar mass and host dispersion measure ($m > 0$) to the CGM are in tension with our measurement. We show that this conclusion is robust to a wide range of assumptions, such as the offset distribution of FRBs from their hosts and the statistics of the cosmic contribution to the DM budget along each sightline. Our results indirectly imply a lower limit on the strength of baryonic feedback in the Local Universe $(z < 0.2)$ in isolated $\sim L^*$ halos, complementing results from weak lensing surveys and kSZ observations which target higher halo mass and redshift ranges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16816 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Measurements of DMMacquart host , as a function of r-band host galaxy luminosity for FRBs at z < 0.2 in the literature. The stellar mass implied by the Mahajan et al. (2018) conversion from r-band light to M∗ (Mahajan et al. 2018) is shown on the top y-axis to provide a rough sense of scale. For each source we plot 1σ error bars according to Eq. 4. Labels identify systems cut from our sample according to one or more… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The M∗−DMhost relation for the FRB host galaxies in Tab. 1 (red and purple downward triangles), to which we fit the model in Eq. 6 (gray). Right: The M∗−DMh,CGM prediction for halos in the CAMELS-ASTRID, CAMELS-IllustrisTNG, and CAMELS-SIMBA simulations (blue, orange, and green points). For the fits to observational data and simulations, the model prediction best fitting the data is visualized as three lines, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of the model parameters in our fiducial analysis using all 20 bursts. We fit the M∗ − DMhost relation for a slope (m), an intercept (b) referenced to M∗ = 1010M⊙, a quadratic curvature parameter (a), as well as the scatter on the relation (σ) (see Eq. 5, 6). We fit both the observed sightlines (gray) and the sightlines simulated through CAMELS snapshots (blue, orange, and green). The best-fit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One-dimensional parameter estimates for a, b, m, and σ for our fiducial observational data (empty gray histogram), several variants thereof, as well as our simulation data (filled blue, orange, and green histograms). Parameter estimates are quoted in Tab. 2 [PITH_FULL…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The level of suppression of the matter power spec￾trum on small scales due to baryonic feedback as predictions from ASTRID, IllustrisTNG, and SIMBA, as well as the of￾ficial DES Y3 and HSC analyses (Chen et al. 2023; Terasawa et al. 2025). The Astrid model, which corre…

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.

  1. Fast Radio Bursts probe Galaxy Evolution: Evidence and implications of a redshift-dependent FRB host DM

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Forward modeling of 90 localized FRBs from DSA and ASKAP yields n_z = 1.62^{+1.48}_{-1.57} for DM_host(z) ∝ (1+z)^{n_z}, excluding n_z=0 at 1σ.

  2. Evaluating the flexibility of the MillenniumTNG galaxy formation model with multi-zoom re-simulations

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

    A parameter combination of the MillenniumTNG galaxy-formation model is found that reproduces the observed galaxy stellar-mass function and the lower gas fractions measured in groups and clusters, showing the model is ...

  3. Signatures of Suppressed Matter Clustering revealed by Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    FRB dispersion measures directly constrain suppression of the matter power spectrum due to feedback at k ~ 0.1-3 h/Mpc, reduce posterior variance by a factor of ~8 at k~1 h/Mpc, and exclude extreme large-scale feedbac...

  4. Probing Cosmic Magnetism with Rotation Measure-Squared-Galaxy Cross-Correlations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RM²–galaxy cross-correlations can isolate the magnetic field contribution from specific redshifts and may be detectable with SKA-era RM catalogs.

  5. Updating the PATH framework with FRB host galaxy models

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    PATH is extended with three fitted P(m_r|z) prior models combined with P(z|DM), raising host-association confidence for ASKAP FRBs while showing fainter-than-expected host magnitude distribution.

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

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

    LOFAR2.0, FAST Core Array and BINGO are forecast to bound f_PBH < 0.16 (M>1 Msun), <0.39 (M>10 Msun) and <0.39 (M>0.1 Msun) respectively from null FRB lensing.

  7. 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

128 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    T., et al

    Aggarwal, K., Budavári, T., Deller, A. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2 Anglés-Alcázar, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 Aricò, G., Angulo, R. E., Zennaro, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d2 2021

  2. [2]

    Bahk, H., & Hwang, H. S. 2024, ApJS, 272, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad323f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad323f 2024

  3. [3]

    R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J

    Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 758, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/75 2012

  4. [4]

    J., Duffy, A

    Batten, A. J., Duffy, A. R., Wijers, N. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1528

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1528 2021

  5. [5]

    X., et al

    Bernales-Cortes, L., Tejos, N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452026

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452026 2025

  6. [6]

    M., Prochaska, J

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e 2020

  7. [7]

    C., Scott, D

    Bhandari, S., Gordon, A. C., Scott, D. R., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 948, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc178

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc178

  8. [8]

    2023b, ApJL, 958, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    Bhandari, S., Marcote, B., Sridhar, N., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 958, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad083f

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01876

    Bhardwaj, M., Lee, J., & Ji, K. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01876

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    M., Kaspi, V

    Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021a, ApJL, 910, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6

    doi

  3. [11]

    Y., Michilli, D., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A. Y., Michilli, D., et al. 2021b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.12122. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12122

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Schaye, J

    Booth, C. M., & Schaye, J. 2013, Scientific Reports, 3, 1738, doi: 10.1038/srep01738

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Gordon, A

    Caleb, M., Driessen, L. N., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1839

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09502

    Cassanelli, T., Leung, C., Sanghavi, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09502

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3213 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B

    Chen, A., Aricò, G., Huterer, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3213 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 351, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2398-2 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Amouyal, D., et al. 2025a, arXiv ...

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al

    Chittidi, J. S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2818 Stellar Mass, Dispersion Measure, and Baryonic Feedback17

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14310

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14310. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14310

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.14788

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Catha, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.14788

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B

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

    doi

  16. [24]

    O., Mazzarella, J

    Cook, D. O., Mazzarella, J. M., Helou, G., et al. 2023b, ApJS, 268, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd06

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

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

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M., Wharton, R

    Cordes, J. M., Wharton, R. S., Spitler, L. G., Chatterjee, S., & Wasserman, I. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.05890. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05890 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    2006

  21. [29]

    N., Barr, E

    Driessen, L. N., Barr, E. D., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3329

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23336 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23336 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

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

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

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, SSRv, 177, 247, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9994-5

    Giodini, S., Lovisari, L., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2013, SSRv, 177, 247, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9994-5

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    T., et al

    Glowacki, M., Lee-Waddell, K., Deller, A. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e3

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    W., et al

    Glowacki, M., Bera, A., James, C. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23403

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.06453

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2016, in New Horizons with VGOS, ed

    Gordon, D., Brisken, W., & Max-Moerbeck, W. 2016, in New Horizons with VGOS, ed. D. Behrend, K. D. Baver, & K. L. Armstrong, 187–192

    2016

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07152

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Ried Guachalla, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07152

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    2019 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gordon, A

    Hewitt, D. M., Bhardwaj, M., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce1

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, A&A, 698, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452714

    Hsu, T.-Y., Hashimoto, T., Yang, T.-C., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452714

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Giovanelli, R., & Brinchmann, J

    Huang, S., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, ApJ, 756, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/113

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    S., et al

    Huang, Y., Simha, S., Khrykin, I. S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adbc7f

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    M., et al

    Hussaini, M., Connor, L., Konietzka, R. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04186, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04186

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    L., Drout, M

    Ibik, A. L., Drout, M. R., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0893

    doi

  40. [48]

    Baugh, C. M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5006, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1659

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab117

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3529

    Jaroszynski, M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3529

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    C., & Pen, U.-L

    Keating, L. C., & Pen, U.-L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Sorini, D., Lee, K.-G., & Davé, R

    Khrykin, I. S., Sorini, D., Lee, K.-G., & Davé, R. 2024a, MNRAS, 529, 537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae525

    doi

  46. [54]

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

    Khrykin, I. S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 973, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

    doi

  47. [55]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abburn1966depolarizationb

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Kravtsov, A. V. 2013, ApJL, 764, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L31

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    E., Andersen, B

    Lanman, A. E., Andersen, B. C., Chawla, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bc7

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    S., et al

    Lee, K.-G., Ata, M., Khrykin, I. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62 18Leung and the CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Simha, S., et al

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

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    W., Ryder, S

    Lee-Waddell, K., James, C. W., Ryder, S. D., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e029, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.27

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    W., et al

    Leung, C., Andrew, S., Masui, K. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05631, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05631

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

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

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

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    R., & Kramer, M

    Lorimer, D. R., & Kramer, M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar

    2004

  58. [66]

    4 (Cambridge University Press) LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P

    Astronomy, Vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press) LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    P., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    Blyth, S. L. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2532

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    Sievers, J. L. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103532, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103532

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Driver, S., et al

    Mahajan, S., Drinkwater, M. J., Driver, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3202

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    G., Pakmor, R., Prochaska, J

    Mannings, A. G., Pakmor, R., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7bb

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

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

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    D., James, C

    Marnoch, L., Ryder, S. D., James, C. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2353

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    W., & Sigurdson, K

    Masui, K. W., & Sigurdson, K. 2015, PhRvL, 115, 121301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.121301

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

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

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

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    2025a, ApJ, 983, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc9c

    Medlock, I., Nagai, D., Anglés-Alcázar, D., & Gebhardt, M. 2025a, ApJ, 983, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc9c

    doi

  70. [78]

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

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

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2025b, ApJ, 980, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada442

    Medlock, I., Neufeld, C., Nagai, D., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 980, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada442

    doi

  72. [80]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182, doi: 10.1038/nature25149

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    Michilli, D., Bhardwaj, M., Brar, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Newton, R. D. A., & Kay, S. T. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1285

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

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

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Anglés-Alcázar, D., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a —. 2023b, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a

    doi

  76. [84]

    N., et al

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

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al

    Niu, C. H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.07418. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07418

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    K., Cordes, J

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

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    K., Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., Cordes, J. M., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6504

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    Hummels, C. B. 2024, ApJL, 972, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad725b

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    Parkash, V., Brown, M. J. I., Jarrett, T. H., & Bonne, N. J. 2018, ApJ, 864, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b9

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 —. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833886

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    X., & Zheng, Y

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

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    M., Li, D., et al

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., Smith, K. M., Li, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.04354. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.04354

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.01000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.01000

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.01000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.01000

    2023 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17682, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17682

    Schneider, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17682, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17682

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    H., Zentner, A

    Rudd, D. H., Zentner, A. R., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2008, ApJ, 672, 19, doi: 10.1086/523836

    2008 doi

  89. [97]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.07639, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.07639

    Seebeck, J., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.07639, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.07639

    2021 doi arXiv

  90. [98]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23374, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23374

    Shah, V., Shin, K., Leung, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23374, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23374

    2024 doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    M., Macquart, J

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

    2018 doi

  92. [100]

    M., Bannister, K

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  93. [101]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18745

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18745

    2025 doi arXiv

  94. [102]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.14782 Stellar Mass, Dispersion Measure, and Baryonic Feedback19

    Sharma, K., Somalwar, J., Law, C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.14782 Stellar Mass, Dispersion Measure, and Baryonic Feedback19

    2023 doi arXiv

  95. [103]

    2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

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

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al

    Shin, K., Masui, K. W., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012

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

    2017 doi

  98. [106]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 1730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac490

    Shirasaki, M., Takahashi, R., Osato, K., & Ioka, K. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac490

    2022 doi

  99. [107]

    N., Prochaska, J

    Simha, S., Burchett, J. N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc3

    2020 doi

  100. [108]

    X., et al

    Simha, S., Tejos, N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2000

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

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

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

    2015 doi arXiv

  102. [110]

    G., Scholz, P., Hessels, J

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

    2016 doi

  103. [111]

    2018, A&A, 618, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833217

    Tempel, E., Kruuse, M., Kipper, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833217

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    P., Bassa, C

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

    2017 doi

  105. [113]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 063509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063509 Tröster, T., Mead, A

    Terasawa, R., Li, X., Takada, M., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 063509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063509 Tröster, T., Mead, A. J., Heymans, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142197

    2025 doi

  106. [114]

    Tully, R. B. 2015, AJ, 149, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/171

    2015 doi

  107. [115]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  108. [116]

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

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

    2019 doi

  109. [117]

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

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Genel, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    2021 doi

  110. [118]

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

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Genel, S., Anglés-Alcázar, D., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    2023 doi

  111. [119]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  112. [120]

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

    2024 doi

  113. [121]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

    Wang, H., Masui, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

    doi arXiv

  114. [122]

    W., Gupta, V., et al

    Wang, Z., Bannister, K. W., Gupta, V., et al. 2025b, PASA, 42, e005, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.107

    2024 doi

  115. [123]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Yang, F. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3189

    2018 doi

  116. [124]

    2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 211, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.06.001

    White, M. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 211, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.06.001

    2004 doi

  117. [125]

    J., Somerville, R

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

    2024 doi

  118. [126]

    2022, A&A, 658, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140908

    Erben, T. 2022, A&A, 658, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140908

    2022 doi

  119. [127]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c4

    Yamasaki, S., & Totani, T. 2020, ApJ, 888, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c4

    2020 doi

  120. [128]

    2004, ApJL, 616, L75, doi: 10.1086/426712

    Zhan, H., & Knox, L. 2004, ApJL, 616, L75, doi: 10.1086/426712

    2004 doi

Pith tools

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