pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20471 · v1 · pith:43RBAZGSnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

The impact of FRB dispersion measure probability distribution functions on cosmographic estimates

Thais Lemos , Rodrigo Gon\c{c}alves , Jailson Alcaniz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords fast radio burstscosmographydispersion measureintergalactic mediumHubble constantdeceleration parameter
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmographic constraints on q0 from FRBs depend sensitively on the IGM dispersion measure distribution

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses 106 localized fast radio bursts at z ≤ 0.7 to perform a cosmographic analysis constraining H0, q0, and j0. It tests how the choice of probability distribution for the intergalactic medium's dispersion measure affects these constraints by comparing a standard Gaussian form to a quasi-Gaussian form that captures skewed cosmic structures. The analysis also varies whether the baryon mass fraction is fixed or free. The results indicate that q0 estimates in particular change with these modeling choices and with the priors adopted.

Core claim

The inferred cosmographic constraints from FRBs, particularly those on q0, depend sensitively on both the assumed IGM distribution (Gaussian or quasi-Gaussian) and the adopted parameter priors, including fixed or free baryon mass fraction.

What carries the argument

The Gaussian (Distribution I) and quasi-Gaussian (Distribution II) probability density functions for the intergalactic medium dispersion measure DM_IGM, which model the statistical distribution of inhomogeneities along lines of sight.

If this is right

  • Constraints on the deceleration parameter q0 vary with the choice between Gaussian and quasi-Gaussian DM_IGM distributions.
  • Treating the baryon mass fraction as a free parameter alters the inferred cosmographic values.
  • The results highlight the need to account for IGM inhomogeneities when using FRBs for cosmology.
  • Adopted priors influence the final parameter estimates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Larger FRB samples could help determine which distribution better matches observations.
  • This modeling sensitivity could affect how FRB results compare with other cosmological probes.

Load-bearing premise

The two chosen functional forms for the DM_IGM probability density function adequately represent the true statistical distribution of intergalactic inhomogeneities.

What would settle it

A direct measurement or detailed simulation of the DM_IGM distribution from many FRB sightlines that shows it differs substantially from both the Gaussian and quasi-Gaussian forms.

read the original abstract

Recent cosmological observations have reopened the discussion about the model that best describes the dynamics of the Universe, highlighting the need for cosmological model-independent analyses. In this paper, we utilize the cosmographic approach applied to a robust sample of 106 well-localized Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) within the redshift range $z \le 0.7$ to constrain the Hubble constant $H_0$, the deceleration parameter $q_0$, and the jerk parameter $j_0$. Our primary goal is to assess the impact of intergalactic medium (IGM) inhomogeneities on cosmographic parameter estimation. To this end, we consider the statistical behavior of these parameters under two distinct functional forms for the IGM dispersion measure ($\mathrm{DM_{IGM}}$) probability density function (PDF): a Gaussian distribution (Distribution I) and a quasi-Gaussian distribution (Distribution II) that accounts for the skewed structure of cosmic large-scale environments along the lines of sight. We further investigate the role of the baryon mass fraction by considering both fixed and free-parameter scenarios. We find that the inferred cosmographic constraints, particularly those on $q_0$, depend sensitively on both the assumed IGM distribution and the adopted parameter priors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes cosmographic constraints (H0, q0, j0) from a sample of 106 localized FRBs at z ≤ 0.7. It compares results obtained under two different functional forms for the DM_IGM PDF (Gaussian vs. quasi-Gaussian) and under fixed versus free baryon mass fraction, concluding that the posteriors—particularly on q0—depend sensitively on the assumed IGM distribution and on the parameter priors.

Significance. If the reported sensitivity is robust, the work usefully quantifies a modeling systematic that must be controlled before FRB samples can deliver competitive cosmographic constraints. The explicit comparison of two PDF forms and the fixed/free baryon-fraction runs constitute a concrete, falsifiable test of the claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (results) and abstract] The central claim that constraints 'depend sensitively' on the IGM distribution rests on the explicit comparison of only Distribution I (Gaussian) and Distribution II (quasi-Gaussian). No additional distributions drawn from hydrodynamical simulations or from the observed scatter in localized FRB sightlines are shown; therefore the reported variation may not bound the true systematic uncertainty if the actual DM_IGM PDF lies outside the span of these two parametrizations. This directly affects the strength of the conclusion in the abstract and §4.
  2. [§2 (data and methods)] The data-selection criteria, redshift cuts, and error-propagation procedure for the 106 FRBs are not described with sufficient detail to allow reproduction or to assess whether the quoted posterior widths already incorporate all relevant observational uncertainties. This is load-bearing because the sensitivity result is obtained by refitting the same sample under different model assumptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the two distributions is introduced as 'Distribution I' and 'Distribution II' without a compact symbol; consistent use of e.g. P_G(DM) and P_qG(DM) would improve readability.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure captions should explicitly state the priors used in each panel (fixed vs. free f_b) so that the reader can match the plotted posteriors to the text without cross-referencing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (results) and abstract] The central claim that constraints 'depend sensitively' on the IGM distribution rests on the explicit comparison of only Distribution I (Gaussian) and Distribution II (quasi-Gaussian). No additional distributions drawn from hydrodynamical simulations or from the observed scatter in localized FRB sightlines are shown; therefore the reported variation may not bound the true systematic uncertainty if the actual DM_IGM PDF lies outside the span of these two parametrizations. This directly affects the strength of the conclusion in the abstract and §4.

    Authors: Our primary aim was to demonstrate the sensitivity of the cosmographic constraints to the choice of DM_IGM PDF by comparing two representative functional forms. We acknowledge that these two may not encompass the full range of possible distributions from simulations. We will revise the abstract and section 4 to clarify that the sensitivity is shown for these specific distributions and to include a discussion of this as a limitation, without claiming to have fully bounded the systematic uncertainty. This is a partial revision as we will not add new distributions but will adjust the language. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§2 (data and methods)] The data-selection criteria, redshift cuts, and error-propagation procedure for the 106 FRBs are not described with sufficient detail to allow reproduction or to assess whether the quoted posterior widths already incorporate all relevant observational uncertainties. This is load-bearing because the sensitivity result is obtained by refitting the same sample under different model assumptions.

    Authors: We agree that additional details are required for full reproducibility. In the revised version, we will provide a more detailed description in §2 of the data selection criteria for the 106 FRBs, the specific redshift cuts (z ≤ 0.7), the sources of the FRB data, and the complete error propagation method, ensuring transparency on how observational uncertainties are incorporated into the posteriors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct statistical fitting under explicit assumptions

full rationale

The paper conducts Bayesian parameter estimation on cosmographic quantities (H0, q0, j0) from 106 FRBs by adopting two explicit functional forms for the DM_IGM PDF and comparing the resulting posteriors. The reported sensitivity of q0 constraints to the PDF choice and to priors is an immediate numerical output of that fitting exercise rather than a quantity obtained by algebraic reduction or redefinition of the inputs. No equations are shown to be self-definitional, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatze are imported via self-citation. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks once the two PDF forms and the data sample are granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmographic assumptions and the representativeness of the FRB sample; the variable element is the choice of PDF for DM_IGM.

free parameters (1)
  • baryon mass fraction
    Treated as both fixed and free parameter in separate runs.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cosmographic Taylor expansion remains accurate at z ≤ 0.7
    Invoked to justify fitting H0, q0, j0 to the sample redshift range.
  • domain assumption The 106 localized FRBs form a statistically representative sample
    Basis for all reported constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5759 in / 1305 out tokens · 45614 ms · 2026-06-26T15:58:32.635156+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abdul-Karim, J

    DESI Collaboration: M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al.,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints(Mar., 2025), [arXiv:2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001), 213-224, [arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    E. V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003), 091301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    E. M. Barboza, Jr. and J. S. Alcaniz,A parametric model for dark energyPhys. Lett. B666 (2008), 415-419, [arXiv:0805.1713 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration: N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, A&A641(Sep., 2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, ApJL934(Jul., 2022) L7, [arXiv:2112.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity,John Wiley and Sons, 1972, ISBN 978-0-471-92567-5, 978-0-471-92567-5

    S. Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity,John Wiley and Sons, 1972, ISBN 978-0-471-92567-5, 978-0-471-92567-5

    1972

  8. [8]

    Chiba, T

    T. Chiba, T. Nakamura,The Luminosity Distance, the Equation of State, and the Geometry of the Universe, Prog. Theor. Phys.100(Nov., 1998) 1077–1082, [arXiv:astro-ph/9808022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    Visser,Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state, Class

    M. Visser,Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state, Class. Quant. Grav.21(Apr.,

  10. [10]

    2603–2615, [arXiv:gr-qc/0309109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Lazkoz, J

    R. Lazkoz, J. Alcaniz, C. Escamilla-Rivera, V. Salzano and I. Sendra,BAO cosmography, JCAP12, 005 (2013), [arXiv:1311.6817 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Rodrigues, R

    G. Rodrigues, R. de Souza and J. Alcaniz,Cosmography with DESI DR2 and SN data,Phys. Rev. D112, no.10, 103519 (2025), [arXiv:2506.22373 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 14 –

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Thornton, B

    D. Thornton, B. Stappers, M. Bailes, et al.,A Population of Fast Radio Bursts at Cosmological Distances, Science341(July, 2013) 53–56, [arXiv:1307.1628]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Petroff, M

    E. Petroff, M. Bailes, E. D. Barr, et al.,A real-time fast radio burst: polarization detection and multiwavelength follow-up, MNRAS447(Feb., 2015) 246–255, [arXiv:1412.0342]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Petroff, E

    E. Petroff, E. D. Barr, A. Jameson, et al.,FRBCAT: The Fast Radio Burst Catalogue, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia33(Sept., 2016) 7, [arXiv:1601.0354]

    arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels and D. R. Lorimer,Fast radio bursts at the dawn of the 2020s, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.30(March 2022) 2, [arXiv:2107.10113]

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    P., Gordin J

    Platts E., Weltman A., Walters A., Tendulkar S. P., Gordin J. E. B., Kandhai S.,A living theory catalogue for fast radio bursts, Phys. Rep.August, 2019 821, 1, [arXiv:1810.05836]

    arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Dolag, B

    K. Dolag, B. M. Gaensler, A. M. Beck, et al.,Constraints on the distribution and energetics of fast radio bursts using cosmological hydrodynamic simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451(Jun., 2015) 4277–4289, [arXiv:1412.4829]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, et al.,A Bright Millisecond Radio Burst of Extragalactic Origin, Science318 (Nov., 2007)777, [arXiv:0709.4301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al.,The First CHIME/FRB Fast Radio Burst Catalog, ApJS 257(Dec., 2021) 59, [arXiv:2106.04352]

    arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al.,The Second CHIME/FRB Catalog of Fast Radio Bursts (Jan., 2026), [arXiv:2601.09399]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Walters, A

    A. Walters, A. Weltman, B. M. Gaensler, et al.,Future Cosmological Constraints From Fast Radio Bursts, ApJ856(Mar., 2018) 65, [arXiv:1711.11277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Wei, X.-F

    J.-J. Wei, X.-F. Wu, H. Gao,Cosmology with Gravitational Wave/Fast Radio Burst Associations, Astrophys. J. Lett.860(Jun., 2018) L7, [arXiv:1805.12265]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    H.-N. Lin, Y. Sang,Probing the anisotropic distribution of baryon matter in the Universe using fast radio bursts, Chinese Physi. C45(Dec., 2021) 125101, [arXiv:2111.12934]

    arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Q. Wu, G. Q. Zhang, F. Y. Wang,An8%Determination of the Hubble Constant from localized Fast Radio Bursts, MNRAS Letters515(Mar., 2022) L1–L5, [arXiv:2108.00581]

    arXiv 2022

  26. [27]

    Lemos, R

    T. Lemos, R. S. Gonçalves, J. C. Carvalho and J. S. Alcaniz,Cosmological model-independent limits on photon mass from FRB and SNe data, JCAP2025(Jan., 2025) 019, [arXiv:2504:21129]

    2025

  27. [28]

    Macquart, J.X

    J.-P. Macquart, J.X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, et al.,A census of baryons in the Universe from localized fast radio bursts, Nature581(May, 2020) 391-395, [arXiv:2005.13161]

    arXiv 2020

  28. [29]

    Takahashi, K

    R. Takahashi, K. Ioka, A. Mori, et al.,Statistical modelling of the cosmological dispersion measure, MNRAS502(Jan., 2021) 2615–2629, [arXiv:2010.01560]

    arXiv 2021

  29. [30]

    J. Xu, J. L. Han,Extragalactic dispersion measures of fast radio bursts, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics15(Oct., 2015) 1629–1638, [arXiv:1504.00200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [31]

    C. R. H. Walker, Y.-Z. Ma and R. P. Breton,Constraining the redshifts of unlocalised fast radio bursts, Astron. Astroph.638(June, 2020) A37, [arXiv:1804.01548]

    arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    J. M. Shull, B. D. Smith, C. W. Danforth,The Baryon Census in a Multiphase Intergalactic Medium: 30%of the Baryons May Still be Missing, ApJ759(Nov., 2012) 23, [arXiv:1112.2706]. – 15 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [33]

    A. A. Meiksin,The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium, Rev. Mod. Phys.81(Oct., 2009) 1405–1469, [arXiv:0711.3358]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  33. [34]

    W. Deng, B. Zhang,Cosmological Implications of Fast Radio Burst/Gamma-Ray Burst Associations, ApJ783(Mar., 2014) L35, [arXiv:1401.0059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [35]

    H. Gao, Z. Li, and B. Zhang,Fast Radio Burst/Gamma-Ray Burst Cosmography, ApJ788 (June, 2014) 189, [arXiv:1402.2498]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [36]

    Taylor, and J.M

    J.H. Taylor, and J.M. Cordes,Pulsar Distances and the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons, ApJ411(Jul., 1993) 674-684

    1993

  36. [37]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  37. [38]

    J. M. Yao, R. N. Manchester, and N. Wang,A New Electron Density Model for Estimation of Pulsar and FRB Distances, ApJ835(Jan., 2017) 29, [arXiv:1610.09448]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [39]

    Ioka,The Cosmic Dispersion Measure from Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows: Probing the Reionization History and the Burst Environment, Astrophys

    K. Ioka,The Cosmic Dispersion Measure from Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows: Probing the Reionization History and the Burst Environment, Astrophys. J. Lett.598(Dec., 2003) L79–L82, [astro-ph/0309200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  39. [40]

    G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton, M. G. Haehnelt, et al.,Detection of Extended He II Reionization in the Temperature Evolution of the Intergalactic Medium, MNRAS410(Nov. 2010) 1096–1112, [arXiv:1008.2622]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [41]

    J. Gao, Z. Zhou, M. Du, et al.,A measurement of Hubble constant using cosmographic approach combining fast radio bursts and supernovae, MNRAS527(Jan., 2024) 7861-7870, [arXiv:2307.08285]

    arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    L. L. Sales, K. E. L. de Farias, A. R. Queiroz, et al.,Cosmographic constraints from late-time probes including fast radio bursts, (Jan., 2026), [arXiv:2507.06975]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [43]

    J. A. S. Fortunato, W. S. Hipólito-Ricaldi, M. V. dos Santos,Cosmography from well-localized Fast Radio Bursts, MNRAS526(Sep., 2023) 1773–1782, [arXiv:2307.04711]

    arXiv 2023

  43. [44]

    J. Xu, Y. Feng, D. Li,Blinkverse: A Database of Fast Radio Bursts, Universe9(Jul., 2023) 330, [arXiv:2308.00336]

    arXiv 2023

  44. [45]

    Connor, V

    L. Connor, V. Ravi, K. Sharma, et al.,A gas rich cosmic web revealed by partitioning the missing baryons(2024), [arXiv:2409.16952]

    arXiv 2024

  45. [46]

    Ryder, S. D. and Bannister, K. W. and Bhandari, S. and et al.,A luminous fast radio burst that probes the Universe at redshift 1, Science382(Oct., 2023) 294–299, [arXiv:2210.04680]

    arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    E. K. Mahony, R. D. Ekers, J.-P. Macquart, et al.,A search for the host galaxy of FRB171020, ApJL867(Oct., 2018) L10, [arXiv:1810.04354]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [48]

    Bhardwaj, A

    M. Bhardwaj, A. Yu. Kirichenko, D. Michilli, et al.,A Local Universe Host for the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB 20181030A, ApJ919(Sep., 2021) L24, [arXiv:2108.12122]

    arXiv 2021

  48. [49]

    Ocker, J.M

    S.K. Ocker, J.M. Cordes, S. Chatterjee, et al.,The Large Dispersion and Scattering of FRB 20190520B Are Dominated by the Host Galaxy, ApJ931(May, 2022) 87, [arXiv:2202.13458]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [50]

    C. J. Law, B. J. Butler, J. X. Prochaska, et al.,A Distant Fast Radio Burst Associated with Its Host Galaxy by the Very Large Array, ApJ899(Aug., 2020) 161, [arXiv:2007.02155]

    arXiv 2020

  50. [51]

    Bhardwaj, B

    M. Bhardwaj, B. M. Gaensler, V. M. Kaspi, et al.,A nearby repeating fast radio burst in the direction of M81, ApJ910(Mar., 2021) L18, [arXiv:2103.01295]

    arXiv 2021

  51. [52]

    L. N. Driessen, E. Barr, D. Buckley, et al.,FRB 20210405I: a nearby Fast Radio Burst localized to sub-arcsecond precision with MeerKAT, MNRAS527(Jan., 2024) 3659–3673, [arXiv:2302.09787]. – 16 –

    arXiv 2024

  52. [53]

    C. J. Law, K. Sharma, V. Ravi, et al.,Deep Synoptic Array Science: First FRB and Host Galaxy Catalog, ApJ967(May, 2024) 18, [arXiv:2307.03344]

    arXiv 2024

  53. [54]

    D. H. Gao, Q. Wu, J. P. Hu, et al.,Measuring Hubble constant using localized and unlocalized fast radio bursts(2024), [arXiv:2410.03994]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [55]

    Chatterjee, C

    S. Chatterjee, C. J. Law, R. S. Wharton, et al.,A direct localization of a fast radio burst and its host, Nature541(Jan., 2017) 58–61, [arXiv:1701.01098]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [56]

    Bhandari, K

    S. Bhandari, K. E. Heintz, K. Aggarwal, et al.,Characterizing the FRB host galaxy population and its connection to transients in the local and extragalactic Universe, ApJ163(Jan., 2022) 69, [arXiv:2108.01282 ]

    arXiv 2022

  56. [57]

    Michilli, M

    D. Michilli, M. Bhardwaj, C. Brar, et al.Sub-arcminute localization of 13 repeating fast radio bursts detected by CHIME/FRB, ApJ950(Jun., 2023) 134, [arXiv:2212.11941]

    arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    Marcote, K

    B. Marcote, K. Nimmo, J. W. T. Hessels, et al.,A repeating fast radio burst source localised to a nearby spiral galaxy, Nature577(Jan., 2020) 190–194, [arXiv:2001.02222]

    arXiv 2020

  58. [59]

    K. W. Bannister, A. T. Deller, C. Phillips, et al.,A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance, Science,365(June, 2019) 565–570, [arXiv:1906.11476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [60]

    J. X. Prochaska, J.-P. Macquart, M. McQuinn, et al.,The low density and magnetization of a massive galaxy halo exposed by a fast radio burst, Science366(Oct., 2019) 231–234, [arXiv:1909.11681]

    arXiv 2019

  60. [61]

    Bhardwaj, D

    M. Bhardwaj, D. Michilli, Ai. Y. Kirichenko, et al.,Host Galaxies for Four Nearby CHIME/FRB Sources and the Local Universe FRB Host Galaxy Population(2023), [arXiv:2310.10018]

    arXiv 2023

  61. [62]

    Bhandari, E

    S. Bhandari, E. M. Sadler, J. X. Prochaska, et al.,The host galaxies and progenitors of Fast Radio Bursts localized with the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder, ApJL895 (Jun., 2020) L37, [arXiv:2005.13160]

    arXiv 2020

  62. [63]

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration: B. C. Andersen, K. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj, et al., CHIME/FRB Discovery of 25 Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources, ApJ947(Apr., 2023) 83, [arXiv:2301.08762]

    arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    V. Ravi, M. Catha, L. D’Addario, et al.,A fast radio burst localised to a massive galaxy, Nature,572(July, 2019) 352–354, [arXiv:1907.0154]

    arXiv 2019

  64. [65]

    K. E. Heintz, J. X. Prochaska, S.l Simha, et al.,Host Galaxy Properties and Offset Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts: Implications for their Progenitors, ApJ903(Nov., 2020) 152, [arXiv:2009.10747]

    arXiv 2020

  65. [66]

    J. S. Chittidi, S. Simha, A. Mannings, et al.,Dissecting the Local Environment of FRB 190608 in the Spiral Arm of its Host Galaxy, ApJ922(Nov., 2021) 173, [arXiv:2005.13158]

    arXiv 2021

  66. [67]

    K. M. Rajwade, M. C. Bezuidenhout, M. Caleb, et al.,First discoveries and localisations of Fast Radio Bursts with MeerTRAP: a real-time, commensal MeerKAT survey, MNRAS514 (May, 2022) 1961–1974, [arXiv:2205.14600]

    arXiv 2022

  67. [68]

    C. K. Day, S. Bhandari, A. T. Deller, et al.,ASKAP localisation of the FRB 20201124A source, The Astronomer’s Telegram14515(Apr., 2021) 1

    2021

  68. [69]

    Bhandari, A

    S. Bhandari, A. C. Gordon, D. R. Scott, et al.,A non-repeating fast radio burst in a dwarf host galaxy, ApJ(May, 2023) 67, [arXiv:2211.16790]

    arXiv 2023

  69. [70]

    M.,CRAFT Transient FRB Discovery Report for 2023-02-04, Transient Name Server Fast Radio Bursts287(Feb., 2023) 1

    Shannon, R. M.,CRAFT Transient FRB Discovery Report for 2023-02-04, Transient Name Server Fast Radio Bursts287(Feb., 2023) 1

    2023

  70. [71]

    Caleb, L

    M. Caleb, L. N. Driessen, A. C. Gordon, et al.,A sub-arcsec localised fast radio burst with a significant host galaxy dispersion measure contribution, MNRAS524(Jun., 2023) 2064–2077, [arXiv:2302.09754]. – 17 –

    arXiv 2023

  71. [72]

    Cassanelli, C

    T. Cassanelli, C. Leung, P. Sanghavi,A fast radio burst localized at detection to an edge-on galaxy using very-long-baseline interferometry, Nature Astronomy8(Sep., 2024) 1429–1442, [arXiv:2307.09502]

    arXiv 2024

  72. [73]

    R. M. Shannon, K. W. Bannister, A. Bera, et al.,The Commensal Real-time ASKAP Fast Transient incoherent-sum survey, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia(Jam.,

  73. [74]

    1–36, [arXiv:2408.02083]

    arXiv

  74. [75]

    Baptista, J

    J. Baptista, J. X. Prochaska, A. G. Mannings, et al.,Measuring the Variance of the Macquart Relation in Redshift–Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Modeling, ApJ965(Apr., 2024) 57, [arXiv:2305.07022]

    arXiv 2024

  75. [76]

    K. M. Rajwade, L. N. Driessen, E. D. Barr, et al.,A study of two FRBs with low polarization fractions localized with the MeerTRAP transient buffer system, MNRAS532(Aug., 2024) 3881–3892, [arXiv:2407.02173]

    arXiv 2024

  76. [77]

    V. Ravi, M. Catha, G. Chen, et al.,Deep Synoptic Array science I: discovery of the host galaxy of FRB 20220912A, ApJL949(May, 2023) L3,[arXiv:2211.09049]

    arXiv 2023

  77. [78]

    J. T. Faber, V. Ravi, S. K. Ocker, et al.,A Heavily Scattered Fast Radio Burst Is Viewed Through Multiple Galaxy Halos(2024), [arXiv:2405.14182]

    arXiv 2024

  78. [79]

    Amiri, D

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration: M. Amiri, D. Amouyal, B. C. Andersen, et al.,A Catalog of Local Universe Fast Radio Bursts from CHIME/FRB and the KKO Outrigger(2025), [arXiv:2502.11217]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [80]

    J. Tian, K. M. Rajwade, I. Pastor-Marazuela, et al.,Detection and localization of the highly active FRB 20240114A with MeerKAT, MNRAS533(Sep., 2024) 3174–3193, [arXiv:2408.10988]

    arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    V. Shah, K. Shin, C. Leung, et al.,A Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source in the Outskirts of a Quiescent Galaxy, ApJL979(Feb., 2025) L21, [arXiv:2410.23374]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.