The One-Loop Power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures

Haruki Ebina; Martin White

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 142 references

The One-Loop Power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The free electrons probed by fast radio burst dispersion measures cluster almost exactly like the cosmic matter field, and a one-loop effective field theory describes that clustering to quasi-linear scales.

desk verdict Solid one-loop EFT for FRB dispersion clustering, validated on FLAMINGO; the quoted parameter errors rest on a disconnected covariance the authors themselves flag, but the central results hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03235 v1 pith:YD5PQNRK submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.CO

Haruki Ebina , Martin White This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasurefree-electronclusteringeffectivefieldtheorygalaxybiasbaryonicfeedbacklarge-scalestructurehybrid

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 burst dispersion measures integrate the free-electron density along the line of sight, making them a new probe of the low-redshift baryon distribution. This paper claims that the clustering of those free electrons, together with their cross-correlation with galaxies, is described by the same one-loop effective field theory used for spectroscopic galaxy surveys, up to $k\sim0.2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Validating against cosmological hydrodynamic simulations with many baryonic feedback variants, the authors find an electron linear bias $b_{e,1}\simeq0.92$, higher-order biases consistent with zero, and an electron--matter correlation $r_{em}\simeq1$. If correct, this places FRB-based large-scale structure and baryonic feedback analyses on the same theoretical footing as galaxy clustering, and identifies free electrons as nearly unbiased, feedback-insensitive matter tracers.

What carries the argument

The one-loop effective field theory bias expansion in Lagrangian form. The free-electron overdensity is written by advecting a bias functional $F(q)=1+b_1^L\delta_0(q)+\frac{b_2^L}{2}(\delta_0^2-\langle\delta_0^2\rangle)+b_s^L(s_0^2-\langle s_0^2\rangle)+\frac{b_{\nabla^2}^L}{4}(\nabla^2\delta_0-\langle\nabla^2\delta_0\rangle)+E(q)$ along the Lagrangian displacement $\Psi$. The same formalism, with independent galaxy biases and a cross-shot-noise $N_{eg}$, predicts $P_{ee}$, $P_{eg}$, and $P_{gg}$; counterterms $\alpha_0 k^2 P_L$ and white shot noise absorb small-scale physics. In the simulations, the electron field is built from gas particles with weight $w_i=n_{e,i}m_i/\rho_i$ and $n_e=0$

What would settle it

Fit the same one-loop model to an independent hydrodynamic simulation suite with a different subgrid treatment of ionized gas: a shift in $b_{e,1}$ of more than about $1\sigma$ relative to the fits reported here would falsify the feedback-insensitivity claim. Alternatively, measure $b_{e,1}$ and $r_{em}$ from a future FRB--galaxy cross-correlation at $z\simeq0.2$--$0.5$; a recovered $b_{e,1}$ differing from $0.92$ by more than roughly ten percent, or $r_{em}$ appreciably below unity at $k\simeq0.2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, would indicate the simulation-based validation is not transferable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that free electrons are a nearly unbiased tracer of the matter distribution and that this property persists to quasi-linear scales. The paper constructs the one-loop effective field theory for the electron auto-spectrum $P_{ee}$ and the electron--galaxy cross-spectrum $P_{eg}$, jointly fits $P_{ee}$, $P_{eg}$, and $P_{gg}$ to a large hydrodynamic simulation suite with eleven simulation variants, nine of them feedback variants, at $z=0.2$ and $0.5$, and reports an excellent fit to $k\simeq0.2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The recovered parameters are $b_{e,1}\simeq0.92$, with second-order and shear biases consistent with zero, and the electron--matter correlation is $r_{em}\simeq1

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated diffuse ionized gas, defined operationally by weighting particles with $w_i=n_{e,i}m_i/\rho_i$ and setting $n_e=0$ for star-forming particles, faithfully represents the real Universe's free-electron distribution on quasi-linear scales; if that proxy fails, the fitted $b_{e,1}\simeq0.92$ and $r_{em}\simeq1$ do not transfer to actual FRB data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

FRB electron clustering can be analyzed with the same one-loop effective field theory as galaxy power spectra, roughly doubling the usable Fourier-mode range relative to linear theory.
Free electrons act as nearly unbiased and feedback-insensitive matter tracers, supporting the assumption behind using FRBs to measure baryonic feedback.
Cross-correlations of FRB dispersion with current spectroscopic galaxy samples are limited by FRB noise rather than galaxy shot noise, so near-term gains will come from growing FRB catalogs, not deeper galaxy surveys.
With the fiducial per-burst scatter and future FRB densities, the low-redshift electron signal becomes signal-dominated beyond linear theory within the first years of next-generation surveys, so the one-loop model will be needed on those timescales.
Hybrid Effective Field Theory is a natural next step and would extend the modeling reach by a further factor of 2--3 in scale.

Reading between the lines

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

If the near-perfect electron--matter correlation holds in real data, FRB dispersion maps could serve as a nearly unbiased matter tracer for cross-correlations with gravitational lensing, where standard biased tracers carry degeneracies; this extension is not made in the paper.
The validation rests on a single simulation suite's subgrid treatment of diffuse ionized gas; repeating the joint fit with independent hydrodynamic codes would test whether $b_{e,1}\simeq0.92$ is a physical result or a simulation artifact.
Because the higher-order electron biases are consistent with zero, future analyses could fix them to zero with tightly informative priors; the paper suggests such priors but does not demonstrate the resulting parameter coverage.
The paper's forecast is highly sensitive to the unknown per-burst dispersion scatter $\sigma_D$; determining $\sigma_D$ observationally is therefore a high-leverage step before survey strategy is fixed.

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

First thing you should know: this is one of the first papers to put FRB dispersion clustering on the same perturbative footing as galaxy clustering. The one-loop EFT for P_ee and P_eg is a genuine extension of previous linear-order treatments, and the validation against eleven FLAMINGO feedback variants is real work. b_e,1 ~ 0.92, higher-order biases consistent with zero, and r_em ~ 1 all support the idea that free electrons are nearly unbiased, feedback-robust tracers of matter. The paper also does a useful job of quantifying when the one-loop model becomes necessary given FRB densities and noise.

What is new: the EFT construction in Sec. 3, the joint fitting of P_ee, P_eg, P_gg, and the feedback-variant robustness check. They use existing tools from the DESI pipeline appropriately. The agreement of b_e,1 with independent linear measurements from refs. [22, 23] is reassuring.

Soft spots: the covariance used in the fits is the Gaussian disconnected approximation. The authors say so in the Fig. 6 caption and mention errors "may be underestimated," but the main text quotes reduced chi-squared below unity and parameter errors like b_L1 = -0.075 ± 0.023 without propagating that caveat. Because the three spectra are strongly correlated and non-Gaussian terms are omitted, the absolute goodness-of-fit and the formal error bars are not fully trustworthy. This does not sink the paper: the residuals are small across all variants, the parameters are stable, and the central claims are qualitative and likely correct. But a careful referee should ask for a fuller covariance estimate, or at least a more prominent caveat, before the parameter precision is taken at face value. The use of a single simulation suite is also a limitation; the n_e = 0 assignment for star-forming particles is disclosed and standard for this kind of validation.

Who it's for: FRB cosmologists and LSS theorists working on cross-correlations. It deserves a serious referee. The covariance issue is worth a revision but not a rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a one-loop effective field theory (EFT) model for the free-electron auto-power spectrum P_ee and the electron-galaxy cross-power spectrum P_eg in the context of FRB dispersion measures, following the Lagrangian bias expansion standard in LSS analyses. The model is validated against FLAMINGO hydrodynamic simulations at z=0.2 and 0.5 by jointly fitting P_ee, P_eg, and P_gg for DESI-like galaxy samples, with fit ranges up to k=0.20–0.22 h/Mpc. The authors report a linear electron bias b_e,1≈0.92, higher-order Lagrangian biases consistent with zero, parameter stability across eleven feedback variants, and a near-unity electron-matter correlation r_em≈1. They also quantify the FRB number densities needed for signal-dominated angular power spectra and propose Hybrid EFT as a future extension.

Significance. If the validation holds, this is a timely and useful contribution: it places FRB dispersion clustering on the same modeling footing as spectroscopic galaxy clustering, supporting both FRB-based cosmology and baryonic-feedback constraints. Strengths include the joint fitting of the three spectra, the use of publicly available analysis tools (velocileptors, pypower, cobaya), and the evaluation across multiple FLAMINGO feedback variants. The electron-matter correlation measurement is a clean, model-independent result. The main weakness is the statistical calibration of the validation: the quoted goodness-of-fit and parameter uncertainties rest on a covariance that the paper itself qualifies as an approximation, which affects the central quantitative claims.

major comments (3)

[§5 (Fig. 6 caption and fits; Table 1)] The validation and all quoted parameter uncertainties use 'a Gaussian covariance appropriate to the simulation box volume,' while the Fig. 6 caption states this is the 'Gaussian (disconnected) approximation and thus may be underestimated.' Such a covariance omits non-Gaussian (trispectrum) contributions and, unless demonstrated otherwise, the cross-covariance among P_ee, P_eg, and P_gg. Because the three spectra are measured from the same realization and are strongly correlated, the effective number of independent data points is smaller than the 63 and 69 used in the quoted reduced chi-squares (43.2/(63−11)=0.83 and 38.0/(69−11)=0.66). The quoted 1σ intervals in Table 1 (e.g., b_L1 = −0.075 ± 0.023) are therefore not reliable. Please redo the fits with a more complete covariance (multiple realizations, sub-box jackknife, or analytic disconnected-plus-trispectrum with cross-spectrum block
[§5 (Figs. 6–8)] The eleven FLAMINGO variants share the same initial conditions. The scatter in best-fit residuals across variants in Fig. 6 and the posteriors in Figs. 7–8 therefore do not sample independent cosmic variance. The authors plausibly interpret the correlated residual structure as realization noise, but this means that the claim that 'all parameters are stable across feedback variants' is demonstrated within a single realization of the density field. A second realization or a split-box analysis would materially strengthen this central robustness claim.
[§5–§6 (n_e=0 assignment)] The transferability of b_e,1≈0.92 to the real Universe rests on the FLAMINGO prescription that star-forming gas particles carry n_e=0, restricting free electrons to the diffuse phase. The paper states this construction but does not quantify its effect on the fitted bias. Given that the abstract says the results 'establish' free electrons as unbiased, feedback-robust tracers, the conclusion goes beyond evidence from a single hydrodynamical suite. Please soften the abstract/conclusion or add an explicit caveat that the values are conditional on the subgrid treatment of the diffuse ionized gas; a test of sensitivity to the n_e=0 choice would be valuable.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2 and footnote 3] The text says '≳100 localized FRBs, 116 of which we have compiled,' while the footnote says '106 of 117 localized FRBs can be found in Table 6 of ref. [68].' Please reconcile the numbers and clarify the source of the 116/117 discrepancy.
[Eq. (2.7)] The translation from the angular noise N_DD to the 3D noise N_ee is stated without derivation. A one-line derivation or an explicit reference would make the argument easier to follow.
[Fig. 6] The hashed region marking k > k_max is only shown for the z=0.2 row. For consistency, add the same marker to the z=0.5 panels.
[Table 1 caption] The caption says 'All biases are Lagrangian,' but the reader must go to Eq. (3.6) to see that b_L1 = b_E1 − 1. Please restate this relation in the caption.
[Fig. 2 caption] The shaded band for σ_D = 100→300 pc cm^−3 is described in the caption but is visually easy to miss. Consider labeling it directly in the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the EFT parameters are fitted to FLAMINGO simulations, and the model is validated against those simulations rather than derived from them.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The one-loop EFT model for P_ee, P_eg, and P_gg is a standard perturbative bias expansion whose free parameters (linear and nonlinear biases, counterterms, and shot noises) are fitted to the FLAMINGO simulation data via a joint likelihood; the parameters are not assumed a priori, and the goodness-of-fit is an external consistency check. The central claim that b_e,1 ~ 0.92 is a fit result, not an input, and it is cross-checked against independent linear-theory measurements in refs. [22,23]. The only self-citations (e.g., ref. [101] for the cross-spectrum shot-noise scaling N_eg ~ f_over sqrt(N_ee N_gg)) are used to motivate an expectation, but N_eg is a free parameter marginalized in the fit, so the conclusion is not forced by the citation. The simulation itself provides the electron field via the n_e assignment, and the model is judged against that external data; no equation reduces to its own input. The caveat in the Fig. 6 caption that errors 'may be underestimated' is a statistical reliability concern about the Gaussian covariance approximation, not a circularity: it affects the precision of the quoted uncertainties and the interpretation of reduced chi-squared, but it does not mean the parameters were defined in terms of the target spectra. Thus the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central physical outputs (b_e ~ 0.92, r_em ~ 1, EFT validity) are obtained by fitting bias and noise parameters to FLAMINGO spectra; these parameters are the price of the model. The galaxy sample construction also uses mass cuts tuned to match DESI biases. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

b_e,1 (Eulerian linear electron bias) = ~0.92 at z=0.2 and 0.5
Fitted jointly from P_ee, P_eg, P_gg in FLAMINGO; primary physical result, consistent with linear-theory fits [22,23].
b_e,2 and b_e,s (Lagrangian higher-order electron biases) = consistent with zero (<1.5 sigma)
Fitted; support the conclusion that electrons are nearly unbiased tracers.
b_g,1, b_g,2, b_g,s (galaxy biases) = b_g,1 ~ 1.45 (z=0.2), ~1.95 (z=0.5)
Fitted nuisance parameters for the galaxy auto and cross spectra; mass cuts chosen to reproduce DESI biases.
alpha_e,0 and alpha_g,0 (counterterms) = marginalized; alpha_e,0 = 2.6 +/- 4.2 (z=0.2), -1.1 +/- 4.3 (z=0.5) h^-2 Mpc^2
Counterterms from derivative bias, entered linearly and analytically marginalized.
N_ee, N_eg, N_gg (stochastic shot noises) = N_ee ~ 255 +/- 216, N_eg ~ 526 +/- 342 h^-3 Mpc^3 at z=0.2
Fitted; N_eg is consistent with 0 within 2 sigma, as expected for small host overlap.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Free electrons admit a one-loop Lagrangian bias expansion truncated at second order in initial fields (Eq. 3.2), with third-order Lagrangian bias neglected.
Standard practice in LSS EFT per refs [18,98]; required for the model to be predictive.
domain assumption FLAMINGO simulations faithfully represent physical free-electron clustering on quasi-linear scales.
The whole validation and the b_e ~ 0.92 and r_em ~ 1 claims rest on this; specifically the n_e = 0 assignment for star-forming particles in Sec. 5.
standard math Extended Limber approximation applies to the projected angular spectra (Eqs. 2.3, 2.4).
Standard for these forecasts; assumed valid for the broad, low-redshift kernels considered.
domain assumption FRB dispersion noise is white and uncorrelated between bursts (Eqs. 2.5, 2.6), with sigma_D = 100 pc/cm^3.
Needed for signal-to-noise forecasts; uncertainty in sigma_D is explored but the fiducial forecasts fix this value.
domain assumption f_e(z)/f_e,0 ~ 1 for z < 1, i.e., the fraction of baryons in diffuse ionized gas is close to its present value.
Used in projecting P_ee to angular spectra; supported by refs [3,22,23] but not re-derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The One-Loop Power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YD5PQNRK

@misc{pith2026260803235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The One-Loop Power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YD5PQNRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03235}
}

abstract

Fast radio burst (FRB) dispersion measures trace free electron column densities and will soon offer a unique probe of low-$z$ baryons. Such measurements can constrain cosmology directly, with the free electrons serving as a new tracer of large-scale structure, and probe the baryonic feedback of galaxies, a leading systematic for weak lensing surveys such as LSST and Euclid. We prepare for both science cases using effective field theory (EFT) and hydrodynamical simulations. We construct the one-loop EFT description of the free-electron auto-spectrum $P_{ee}$ and electron-galaxy cross-spectrum $P_{eg}$, placing FRB dispersion clustering on the same theoretical footing as spectroscopic galaxy analyses, and quantify the FRB densities at which this modeling is useful. We also investigate suitable galaxy samples for cross-correlations, finding that current spectroscopic catalogs provide appropriate redshift range and sufficient density. We validate the model against the FLAMINGO simulations, jointly fitting $P_{ee}$, $P_{eg}$, and $P_{gg}$ for DESI-like samples at $z=0.2$ and 0.5. The model describes all three spectra to $k\sim0.2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, with an electron linear bias $b_{e,1}\simeq0.92$, higher-order biases consistent with zero, and all parameters stable across feedback variants. Together with the near-perfect electron-matter correlation $r_{em}\simeq1$, this establishes free electrons as nearly unbiased, feedback-robust tracers of matter, supporting a key assumption of FRB-based feedback constraints. These properties make electron clustering an ideal application for Hybrid Effective Field Theory (HEFT), which would extend the modeling reach by a further factor of 2--3. The low-$z$ electron spectrum becomes signal-dominated beyond the linear regime within the first few years of next-generation surveys; the models developed here will be necessary on these timescales.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

McQuinn,Locating the “Missing” Baryons with Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Estimates,Astrophys

M. McQuinn,Locating the “Missing” Baryons with Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Estimates,Astrophys. J. Lett.780(Jan., 2014) L33, [arXiv:1309.4451]. – 17 –

arXiv 2014
[2]

P´ eroux and J

C. P´ eroux and J. C. Howk,The Cosmic Baryon and Metal Cycles,Ann. Rev. Astron. & Astrophys.58(Aug., 2020) 363–406, [arXiv:2011.01935]

arXiv 2020
[3]

Leung, J

C. Leung, J. Borrow, K. W. Masui, et al.,Nulling baryonic feedback in weak lensing surveys using cross-correlations with fast radio bursts,arXiv e-prints(Sept., 2025) arXiv:2509.19514, [arXiv:2509.19514]. [4]LSST Dark Energy ScienceCollaboration, D. Alonso et al.,The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Science Requirements Document,arXiv:1809.01669

arXiv 2025
[5]

Mellier, Abdurro’uf, et al.,Euclid

Euclid Collaboration, Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, et al.,Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission, arXiv e-prints(May, 2024) arXiv:2405.13491, [arXiv:2405.13491]

arXiv 2024
[6]

Dodelson and F

S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology. Elsevier Science, 2020

2020
[7]

Bandura, G

K. Bandura, G. E. Addison, M. Amiri, et al.,Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder, inGround-based and Airborne Telescopes V, vol. 9145 of Proc. SPIE, p. 914522, July, 2014.arXiv:1406.2288

arXiv 2014
[8]

A. E. Lanman, S. Andrew, M. Lazda, et al.,CHIME/FRB Outriggers: KKO Station System and Commissioning Results,AJ168(Aug., 2024) 87, [arXiv:2402.07898]

arXiv 2024
[9]

A. W. Hotan, J. D. Bunton, A. P. Chippendale, et al.,Australian square kilometre array pathfinder: I. system description,Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia38(Mar., 2021) e009, [arXiv:2102.01870]

arXiv 2021

Show all 142 references

[10]

C. J. Law, K. Sharma, V. Ravi, et al.,Deep Synoptic Array Science: First FRB and Host Galaxy Catalog,Astrophys. J.967(May, 2024) 29, [arXiv:2307.03344]

2024 arXiv
[11]

J. N. Jahns-Schindler, L. G. Spitler, C. R. H. Walker, and C. M. Baugh,How limiting is optical follow-up for fast radio burst applications? Forecasts for radio and optical surveys, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.523(Aug., 2023) 5006–5023, [arXiv:2306.00084]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Hallinan, V

G. Hallinan, V. Ravi, S. Weinreb, et al.,The DSA-2000 — A Radio Survey Camera, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 51, p. 255, Sept., 2019. arXiv:1907.07648

2000 arXiv
[13]

Vanderlinde, A

K. Vanderlinde, A. Liu, B. Gaensler, et al.,The Canadian Hydrogen Observatory and Radio-transient Detector (CHORD), inCanadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, vol. 2020, p. 28, Oct., 2019.arXiv:1911.01777

2020 arXiv
[14]

J. P. Macquart, E. Keane, K. Grainge, et al.,Fast Transients at Cosmological Distances with the SKA, inAdvancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), p. 55, Apr., 2015.arXiv:1501.07535

2015 arXiv
[15]

Zhang, Z.-W

J.-G. Zhang, Z.-W. Zhao, Y. Li, et al.,Cosmology with fast radio bursts in the era of SKA, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy66(Dec., 2023) 120412, [arXiv:2307.01605]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Aghamousa, J

DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,ArXiv e-prints(Oct., 2016) [arXiv:1611.00036]

2016 arXiv
[17]

Abdul-Karim, A

DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, A. G. Adame, et al.,Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,arXiv e-prints(Mar., 2025) arXiv:2503.14745, [arXiv:2503.14745]

2025 arXiv
[18]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, et al.,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,arXiv e-prints(Nov., 2024) [arXiv:2411.12021]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Abdul-Karim, J

DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, et al.,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,arXiv e-prints(Mar., 2025) arXiv:2503.14738, [arXiv:2503.14738]. – 18 –

2025 arXiv
[20]

Takada, R

M. Takada, R. S. Ellis, M. Chiba, et al.,Extragalactic science, cosmology, and Galactic archaeology with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph,Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan66(Feb.,
[21]

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

2015 arXiv
[22]

Zhou and P

S. Zhou and P. Zhang,Cavendish experiment with fast radio bursts on cosmological scales, arXiv e-prints(Oct., 2025) arXiv:2510.11022, [arXiv:2510.11022]

2025 arXiv
[23]

Andrew, H

S. Andrew, H. Wang, K. Masui, et al.,Fast radio burst dispersion is an unbiased tracer of matter on large scales,arXiv e-prints(Apr., 2026) arXiv:2604.25828, [arXiv:2604.25828]

2026 arXiv
[24]

M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Battaglia, K. M. Smith, and J. L. Sievers,Cosmology with the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect: Breaking the optical depth degeneracy with fast radio bursts,Phys. Rev. D100(Nov., 2019) 103532, [arXiv:1901.02418]

2019 arXiv
[25]

Sharma, E

K. Sharma, E. Krause, V. Ravi, et al.,Probing Baryonic Feedback and Cosmology with the 3 ×2-point Statistic of Fast Radio Bursts and Galaxies,Astrophys. J.998(Feb., 2026) 109, [arXiv:2509.05866]

2026 arXiv
[26]

Raikman, H

R. Raikman, H. Wang, K. Masui, and S. Andrew,The FRB–Galaxy Overdensity Cross-Correlation Statistic in Dispersion Space,arXiv e-prints(July, 2026) arXiv:2607.26135, [arXiv:2607.26135]

2026 arXiv
[27]

Shirasaki, K

M. Shirasaki, K. Kashiyama, and N. Yoshida,Large-scale clustering as a probe of the origin and the host environment of fast radio bursts,Phys. Rev. D95(Apr., 2017) 083012, [arXiv:1702.07085]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Macquart, J

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]

2020 arXiv
[29]

D. N. Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field.,Astrophys. J.117(Jan., 1953) 134

1953
[30]

Loverde and N

M. Loverde and N. Afshordi,Extended Limber approximation,Phys. Rev. D78(Dec., 2008) 123506, [arXiv:0809.5112]

2008 arXiv
[31]

Wayland, D

A. Wayland, D. Alonso, and R. Reischke,Probing baryonic feedback with fast radio bursts: joint analyses with cosmic shear and galaxy clustering,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.547(Apr.,
[32]

Rafiei-Ravandi, K

M. Rafiei-Ravandi, K. M. Smith, and K. W. Masui,Characterizing fast radio bursts through statistical cross-correlations,Phys. Rev. D102(July, 2020) 023528, [arXiv:1912.09520]

2020 arXiv
[33]

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

D. Alonso,Linear anisotropies in dispersion-measure-based cosmological observables,Phys. Rev. D103(June, 2021) 123544, [arXiv:2103.14016]

2021 arXiv
[34]

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]

2017 arXiv
[35]

E. K. Mahony, R. D. Ekers, J.-P. Macquart, et al.,A Search for the Host Galaxy of FRB 171020,Astrophys. J. Lett.867(Nov., 2018) L10, [arXiv:1810.04354]

2018 arXiv
[36]

K. W. Bannister, A. T. Deller, C. Phillips, et al.,A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance,Science365(Aug., 2019) 565–570, [arXiv:1906.11476]

2019 arXiv
[37]

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]. – 19 –

2019 arXiv
[38]

V. Ravi, M. Catha, L. D’Addario, et al.,A fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy, Nature572(Aug., 2019) 352–354, [arXiv:1907.01542]

2019 arXiv
[39]

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,Astrophys. J. Lett.895(June, 2020) L37, [arXiv:2005.13160]

2020 arXiv
[40]

K. E. Heintz, J. X. Prochaska, S. Simha, et al.,Host Galaxy Properties and Offset Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts: Implications for Their Progenitors,Astrophys. J.903 (Nov., 2020) 152, [arXiv:2009.10747]

2020 arXiv
[41]

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,Astrophys. J.899(Aug., 2020) 161, [arXiv:2007.02155]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Marcote, K

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

2020 arXiv
[43]

Bhardwaj, B

M. Bhardwaj, B. M. Gaensler, V. M. Kaspi, et al.,A Nearby Repeating Fast Radio Burst in the Direction of M81,Astrophys. J. Lett.910(Apr., 2021) L18, [arXiv:2103.01295]

2021 arXiv
[44]

Bhardwaj, A

M. Bhardwaj, A. Y. Kirichenko, D. Michilli, et al.,A Local Universe Host for the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB 20181030A,Astrophys. J. Lett.919(Oct., 2021) L24, [arXiv:2108.12122]

2021 arXiv
[45]

J. S. Chittidi, S. Simha, A. Mannings, et al.,Dissecting the Local Environment of FRB 190608 in the Spiral Arm of its Host Galaxy,Astrophys. J.922(Dec., 2021) 173, [arXiv:2005.13158]

2021
[46]

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
[47]

Bhandari, K

S. Bhandari, K. E. Heintz, K. Aggarwal, et al.,Characterizing the Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxy Population and its Connection to Transients in the Local and Extragalactic Universe, AJ163(Feb., 2022) 69, [arXiv:2108.01282]

2022 arXiv
[48]

S. K. Ocker, J. M. Cordes, S. Chatterjee, et al.,The Large Dispersion and Scattering of FRB 20190520B Are Dominated by the Host Galaxy,Astrophys. J.931(June, 2022) 87, [arXiv:2202.13458]

2022 arXiv
[49]

K. M. Rajwade, M. C. Bezuidenhout, M. Caleb, et al.,First discoveries and localizations of Fast Radio Bursts with MeerTRAP: real-time, commensal MeerKAT survey,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.514(Aug., 2022) 1961–1974, [arXiv:2205.14600]

2022 arXiv
[50]

Bhandari, A

S. Bhandari, A. C. Gordon, D. R. Scott, et al.,A Nonrepeating Fast Radio Burst in a Dwarf Host Galaxy,Astrophys. J.948(May, 2023) 67, [arXiv:2211.16790]

2023 arXiv
[51]

Caleb, L

M. Caleb, L. N. Driessen, A. C. Gordon, et al.,A subarcsec localized fast radio burst with a significant host galaxy dispersion measure contribution,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524 (Sept., 2023) 2064–2077, [arXiv:2302.09754]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Chime/Frb Collaboration, B. C. Andersen, K. Bandura, et al.,CHIME/FRB Discovery of 25 Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources,Astrophys. J.947(Apr., 2023) 83, [arXiv:2301.08762]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Michilli, M

D. Michilli, M. Bhardwaj, C. Brar, et al.,Subarcminute Localization of 13 Repeating Fast Radio Bursts Detected by CHIME/FRB,Astrophys. J.950(June, 2023) 134, [arXiv:2212.11941]

2023 arXiv
[54]

V. Ravi, M. Catha, G. Chen, et al.,Deep Synoptic Array Science: Discovery of the Host Galaxy of FRB 20220912A,Astrophys. J. Lett.949(May, 2023) L3, [arXiv:2211.09049]

2023 arXiv
[55]

S. D. Ryder, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, et al.,A luminous fast radio burst that probes the Universe at redshift 1,Science382(Oct., 2023) 294–299, [arXiv:2210.04680]. – 20 –

2023 arXiv
[56]

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

2023
[57]

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,Astrophys. J.965(Apr.,
[58]

Bhardwaj, D

M. Bhardwaj, D. Michilli, A. Y. Kirichenko, et al.,Host Galaxies for Four Nearby CHIME/FRB Sources and the Local Universe FRB Host Galaxy Population,Astrophys. J. Lett.971(Aug., 2024) L51, [arXiv:2310.10018]

2024 arXiv
[59]

Cassanelli, C

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

2024 arXiv
[60]

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

2024 arXiv
[61]

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,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 532(Aug., 2024) 3881–3892, [arXiv:2407.02173]

2024 arXiv
[62]

J. Tian, K. M. Rajwade, I. Pastor-Marazuela, et al.,Detection and localization of the highly active FRB 20240114A with MeerKAT,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.533(Sept., 2024) 3174–3193, [arXiv:2408.10988]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Connor, V

L. Connor, V. Ravi, K. Sharma, et al.,A gas-rich cosmic web revealed by the partitioning of the missing baryons,Nature Astronomy9(Aug., 2025) 1226–1239, [arXiv:2409.16952]

2025 arXiv
[64]

Amiri, D

Chime/Frb Collaboration, M. Amiri, D. Amouyal, et al.,A Catalog of Local Universe Fast Radio Bursts from CHIME/FRB and the KKO,Astrophys. J. Suppl.280(Sept., 2025) 6, [arXiv:2502.11217]

2025 arXiv
[65]

D. H. Gao, Q. Wu, J. P. Hu, et al.,Measuring the Hubble constant using localized and nonlocalized fast radio bursts,Astron. Astrophys.698(June, 2025) A215, [arXiv:2410.03994]

2025 arXiv
[66]

V. Shah, K. Shin, C. Leung, et al.,A Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source in the Outskirts of a Quiescent Galaxy,Astrophys. J. Lett.979(Feb., 2025) L21, [arXiv:2410.23374]

2025 arXiv
[67]

R. M. Shannon, K. W. Bannister, A. Bera, et al.,The commensal real-time ASKAP fast transient incoherent-sum survey,Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia42(Jan., 2025) e036, [arXiv:2408.02083]

2025 arXiv
[68]

Lemos, R

T. Lemos, R. Gon¸ calves, and J. Alcaniz,The impact of FRB dispersion measure probability distribution functions on cosmographic estimates,arXiv e-prints(June, 2026) arXiv:2606.20471, [arXiv:2606.20471]

2026 arXiv
[69]

J. Xu, Y. Feng, D. Li, et al.,Blinkverse: A Database of Fast Radio Bursts,Universe9(July,
[70]

S. Feng, Y. Gong, Q. Xiong, et al.,Probing Baryonic Feedback Effect with CSST Weak Lensing and Future FRB Measurements,arXiv e-prints(June, 2026) arXiv:2606.24061, [arXiv:2606.24061]

2026 arXiv
[71]

M. J. Wilson and M. White,Cosmology with dropout selection: straw-man surveys & CMB lensing,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2019(Oct., 2019) 015, [arXiv:1904.13378]

2019 arXiv
[72]

Ferraro, N

S. Ferraro, N. Sailer, A. Slosar, and M. White,Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Cosmology and Fundamental Physics from the three-dimensional Large Scale Structure,arXiv e-prints(Mar., 2022) arXiv:2203.07506, [arXiv:2203.07506]. – 21 –

2022 arXiv
[73]

D. J. Schlegel, S. Ferraro, G. Aldering, et al.,A Spectroscopic Road Map for Cosmic Frontier: DESI, DESI-II, Stage-5,arXiv e-prints(Sept., 2022) arXiv:2209.03585, [arXiv:2209.03585]

2022 arXiv
[74]

Besuner, A

R. Besuner, A. Dey, A. Drlica-Wagner, et al.,The Spectroscopic Stage-5 Experiment,arXiv e-prints(Mar., 2025) arXiv:2503.07923, [arXiv:2503.07923]

2025
[75]

Ruhlmann-Kleider, C

V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, C. Y` eche, C. Magneville, et al.,High redshift LBGs from deep broadband imaging for future spectroscopic surveys,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2024(Aug., 2024) 059, [arXiv:2404.03569]

2024 arXiv
[76]

Payerne, W

C. Payerne, W. d’Assignies Doumerg, C. Y` eche, et al.,Selection of high-redshift Lyman-Break Galaxies from broadband and wide photometric surveys,arXiv e-prints(Oct., 2024) arXiv:2410.08062, [arXiv:2410.08062]

2024 arXiv
[77]

Ebina, M

H. Ebina, M. White, A. Raichoor, et al.,Clustering analysis of medium-band selected high-redshift galaxies,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2026(Mar., 2026) 019, [arXiv:2509.26467]

2026
[78]

Ebina, M

H. Ebina, M. J. White, R. Zhou, et al.,The 3D clustering of Lyman Alpha Emitters measured with DESI,arXiv e-prints(June, 2026) arXiv:2606.24852, [arXiv:2606.24852]

2026 arXiv
[79]

A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, et al.,DESI 2024 II: sample definitions, characteristics, and two-point clustering statistics,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2025 (July, 2025) 017, [arXiv:2411.12020]

2024 arXiv
[80]

Kaiser,On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters,Astrophys

N. Kaiser,On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters,Astrophys. J. Lett.284(Sept., 1984) L9–L12

1984
[81]

Desjacques, D

V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias, Phys. Rep.733(Feb.,
[82]

M. M. Ivanov,Effective Field Theory for Large Scale Structure,arXiv e-prints(Dec., 2022) arXiv:2212.08488, [arXiv:2212.08488]

2022 arXiv
[83]

R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich,The velocity of clusters of galaxies relative to the microwave background - The possibility of its measurement.,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.190 (Feb., 1980) 413–420

1980
[84]

K. M. Smith, M. S. Madhavacheril, M. M¨ unchmeyer, et al.,KSZ tomography and the bispectrum,arXiv e-prints(Oct., 2018) arXiv:1810.13423, [arXiv:1810.13423]

2018 arXiv
[85]

Schaan, S

E. Schaan, S. Ferraro, S. Amodeo, et al.,Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Combined kinematic and thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich measurements from BOSS CMASS and LOWZ halos,Phys. Rev. D103(Mar., 2021) 063513, [arXiv:2009.05557]

2021 arXiv
[86]

Amodeo, N

S. Amodeo, N. Battaglia, E. Schaan, et al.,Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Modeling the gas thermodynamics in BOSS CMASS galaxies from kinematic and thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich measurements,Phys. Rev. D103(Mar., 2021) 063514, [arXiv:2009.05558]

2021 arXiv
[87]

Bigwood, A

L. Bigwood, A. Amon, A. Schneider, et al.,Weak lensing combined with the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect: a study of baryonic feedback,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.534 (Oct., 2024) 655–682, [arXiv:2404.06098]

2024 arXiv
[88]

Hadzhiyska, S

B. Hadzhiyska, S. Ferraro, B. Ried Guachalla, et al.,Evidence for large baryonic feedback at low and intermediate redshifts from kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations with ACT and DESI photometric galaxies,Phys. Rev. D112(Oct., 2025) 083509, [arXiv:2407.07152]

2025 arXiv
[89]

Ried Guachalla, E

B. Ried Guachalla, E. Schaan, B. Hadzhiyska, et al.,Backlighting extended gas halos around luminous red galaxies: Kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect from DESI Y1 and ACT data, Phys. Rev. D112(Nov., 2025) 103512, [arXiv:2503.19870]

2025
[90]

Bernardeau, S

F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gazta˜ naga, and R. Scoccimarro,Large-scale structure of the – 22 – Universe and cosmological perturbation theory, Phys. Rep.367(Sept., 2002) 1–248, [astro-ph/0112551]

2002 arXiv
[91]

Z. Vlah, M. White, and A. Aviles,A Lagrangian effective field theory,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics9(Sept., 2015) 014, [arXiv:1506.05264]

2015 arXiv
[92]

McQuinn and M

M. McQuinn and M. White,Cosmological perturbation theory in 1+1 dimensions,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics1(Jan., 2016) 043, [arXiv:1502.07389]

2016 arXiv
[93]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, and M. White,Consistent Modeling of Velocity Statistics and Redshift-Space Distortions in One-Loop Perturbation Theory,JCAP07(2020) 062, [arXiv:2005.00523]

2020 arXiv
[94]

M. Maus, Y. Lai, H. E. Noriega, et al.,A comparison of effective field theory models of redshift space galaxy power spectra for DESI 2024 and future surveys,arXiv e-prints(Apr.,

2024
[95]

Matsubara,Resumming cosmological perturbations via the Lagrangian picture: One-loop results in real space and in redshift space,Phys

T. Matsubara,Resumming cosmological perturbations via the Lagrangian picture: One-loop results in real space and in redshift space,Phys. Rev. D77(Mar., 2008) 063530, [arXiv:0711.2521]

2008 arXiv
[96]

Zheligovsky and U

V. Zheligovsky and U. Frisch,Time-analyticity of Lagrangian particle trajectories in ideal fluid flow,Journal of Fluid Mechanics749(June, 2014) 404–430, [arXiv:1312.6320]

2014 arXiv
[97]

Rampf and T

C. Rampf and T. Buchert,Lagrangian perturbations and the matter bispectrum I: fourth-order model for non-linear clustering,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics6(June,
[98]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina, and M. White,Redshift-Space Distortions in Lagrangian Perturbation Theory,arXiv e-prints(Dec., 2020) arXiv:2012.04636, [arXiv:2012.04636]

2020 arXiv
[99]

arXiv:2404.07272, [arXiv:2404.07272]

arXiv
[100]

Mergulh˜ ao, H

T. Mergulh˜ ao, H. Rubira, and R. Voivodic,The effective field theory of large-scale structure and multi-tracer ii: redshift space and realistic tracers, 2023

2023
[101]

Ebina and M

H. Ebina and M. White,Cosmology before noon with multiple galaxy populations,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2024(June, 2024) 052, [arXiv:2401.13166]

2024 arXiv
[102]

Aghanim, Y

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,arXiv e-prints(July, 2018) arXiv:1807.06209, [arXiv:1807.06209]

2018 arXiv
[103]

R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel,One Percent Determination of the Primordial Deuterium Abundance,Astrophys. J.855(Mar., 2018) 102, [arXiv:1710.11129]

2018 arXiv
[104]

Modi, S.-F

C. Modi, S.-F. Chen, and M. White,Simulations and symmetries,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 492(Mar., 2020) 5754–5763, [arXiv:1910.07097]

2020 arXiv
[105]

M. Maus, S. Chen, M. White, et al.,An analysis of parameter compression and Full-Modeling techniques with Velocileptors for DESI 2024 and beyond,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2025(Jan., 2025) 138, [arXiv:2404.07312]

2024 arXiv
[106]

Hadzhiyska, C

B. Hadzhiyska, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. Alonso, et al.,Hefty enhancement of cosmological constraints from the DES Y1 data using a hybrid effective field theory approach to galaxy bias, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2021(Sept., 2021) 020, [arXiv:2103.09820]

2021 arXiv
[107]

Zennaro, R

M. Zennaro, R. E. Angulo, S. Contreras, et al.,Priors on Lagrangian bias parameters from galaxy formation modelling,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.514(Aug., 2022) 5443–5456, [arXiv:2110.05408]. – 23 –

2022 arXiv
[108]

Pellejero Iba˜ nez, R

M. Pellejero Iba˜ nez, R. E. Angulo, M. Zennaro, et al.,The bacco simulation project: bacco hybrid Lagrangian bias expansion model in redshift space,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520 (Apr., 2023) 3725–3741, [arXiv:2207.06437]

2023 arXiv
[109]

DeRose, N

J. DeRose, N. Kokron, A. Banerjee, et al.,Aemulusν: precise predictions for matter and biased tracer power spectra in the presence of neutrinos,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2023(July, 2023) 054, [arXiv:2303.09762]

2023 arXiv
[110]

Zennaro, R

M. Zennaro, R. E. Angulo, M. Pellejero-Ib´ a˜ nez, et al.,The BACCO simulation project: biased tracers in real space,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524(Sept., 2023) 2407–2419, [arXiv:2101.12187]

2023 arXiv
[111]

Kokron, J

N. Kokron, J. DeRose, S.-F. Chen, et al.,The cosmology dependence of galaxy clustering and lensing from a hybrid N-body-perturbation theory model,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.505 (July, 2021) 1422–1440, [arXiv:2101.11014]

2021 arXiv
[112]

S. Zhou, Z. Chen, and Y. Yu,CSST cosmological emulator III: Hybrid lagrangian bias expansion emulation of galaxy clustering,Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy 68(Sept., 2025) 129512, [arXiv:2506.04671]

2025
[113]

Bartlett, J

A. Bartlett, J. DeRose, and M. White,Simulation budgeting for hybrid effective field theories, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2026(Mar., 2026) 078, [arXiv:2510.13962]

2026 arXiv
[114]

Pellejero Ib´ a˜ nez, R

M. Pellejero Ib´ a˜ nez, R. E. Angulo, L. Linke, et al.,Validation of the Hybrid Bias Expansion model for the galaxy bispectrum,arXiv e-prints(June, 2026) arXiv:2606.19452, [arXiv:2606.19452]

2026 arXiv
[115]

D. Shen, N. Kokron, J. DeRose, et al.,Aemulusν: precision halo mass functions in wνCDM cosmologies,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2025(Mar., 2025) 056, [arXiv:2410.00913]

2025 arXiv
[116]

Sailer, J

N. Sailer, J. Kim, S. Ferraro, et al.,Cosmological constraints from the cross-correlation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies with CMB lensing from Planck PR4 and ACT DR6,arXiv e-prints(July, 2024) arXiv:2407.04607, [arXiv:2407.04607]

2024 arXiv
[117]

Nicola, B

A. Nicola, B. Hadzhiyska, N. Findlay, et al.,Galaxy bias in the era of LSST: perturbative bias expansions,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2024(Feb., 2024) 015, [arXiv:2307.03226]

2024 arXiv
[118]

M. Maus, M. White, N. Sailer, et al.,A joint analysis of 3D clustering and galaxy× CMB-lensing cross-correlations with DESI DR1 galaxies,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2025(Nov., 2025) 077, [arXiv:2505.20656]

2025
[119]

Schaye, R

J. Schaye, R. Kugel, M. Schaller, et al.,The FLAMINGO project: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for large-scale structure and galaxy cluster surveys,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.526(Dec., 2023) 4978–5020, [arXiv:2306.04024]

2023 arXiv
[120]

Kugel, J

R. Kugel, J. Schaye, M. Schaller, et al.,FLAMINGO: calibrating large cosmological hydrodynamical simulations with machine learning,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.526(Dec.,
[121]

J. C. Helly, R. J. McGibbon, J. Schaye, et al.,The FLAMINGO simulations data release, arXiv e-prints(Apr., 2026) arXiv:2604.24324, [arXiv:2604.24324]

2026 arXiv
[122]

N. Hand, Y. Li, Z. Slepian, and U. Seljak,An optimal FFT-based anisotropic power spectrum estimator,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2017(July, 2017) 002, [arXiv:1704.02357]

2017 arXiv
[123]

S. Chen, J. DeRose, R. Zhou, et al.,Analysis of DESI×DES using the Lagrangian effective theory of LSS,Phys. Rev. D110(Nov., 2024) 103518, [arXiv:2407.04795]

2024 arXiv
[124]

McGibbon, J

R. McGibbon, J. Helly, J. Schaye, et al.,SOAP: A Python Package for Calculating the Properties of Galaxies and Halos Formed in Cosmological Simulations,The Journal of Open Source Software10(July, 2025) 8252, [arXiv:2507.22669]

2025 arXiv
[125]

Torrado and A

J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2021(May, 2021) 057, [arXiv:2005.05290]

2021 arXiv
[126]

Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology

J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019, Oct., 2019

1910
[127]

6103–6127, [arXiv:2306.05492]

arXiv
[128]

R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen,Large-scale bias and the peak background split,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.308(Sept., 1999) 119–126, [astro-ph/9901122]

1999 arXiv
[129]

White,The Zel’dovich approximation,Mon

M. White,The Zel’dovich approximation,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.439(Apr., 2014) 3630–3640, [arXiv:1401.5466]

2014 arXiv
[130]

V. J. Forouhar Moreno, J. Helly, R. McGibbon, et al.,Assessing subhalo finders in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.543(Oct., 2025) 1339–1372, [arXiv:2502.06932]. – 24 –

2025 arXiv
[131]

Hadzhiyska, M

B. Hadzhiyska, M. J. White, X. Chen, et al.,Mitigating the noise of DESI mocks using analytic control variates,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(Oct., 2023) 38, [arXiv:2308.12343]

2023 arXiv
[132]

DeRose, S.-F

J. DeRose, S.-F. Chen, N. Kokron, and M. White,Precision redshift-space galaxy power spectra using Zel’dovich control variates,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics 2023(Feb., 2023) 008, [arXiv:2210.14239]

2023 arXiv
[133]

Bigwood, M

L. Bigwood, M. Yamamoto, J. Siegel, et al.,The kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovich effect as a benchmark for AGN feedback models in hydrodynamical simulations: insights from DESI + ACT,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.550(Aug., 2026) stag1314, [arXiv:2510.15822]

2026
[134]

Cole and N

S. Cole and N. Kaiser,Biased clustering in the cold dark matter cosmogony.,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.237(Apr., 1989) 1127–1146

1989
[135]

Baleato Lizancos, U

A. Baleato Lizancos, U. Seljak, M. Karamanis, et al.,Selecting samples of galaxies with fewer Fingers-of-God,arXiv e-prints(Jan., 2025) arXiv:2501.10587, [arXiv:2501.10587]. – 25 –

2025 arXiv
[137]

Kokron, S.-F

N. Kokron, S.-F. Chen, M. White, et al.,Accurate predictions from small boxes: variance suppression via the Zel’dovich approximation,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2022(Sept., 2022) 059, [arXiv:2205.15327]

2022 arXiv
[141]

Siegel, L

J. Siegel, L. Bigwood, A. Amon, et al.,The suppression of the matter power spectrum: strong feedback from X-ray gas mass fractions, kSZ effect profiles, and galaxy-galaxy lensing,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.549(July, 2026) stag993, [arXiv:2512.02954]

2026 arXiv
[2012]

21, [arXiv:1203.4260]

arXiv
[2014]

R1, [arXiv:1206.0737]

arXiv
[2018]

1–193, [arXiv:1611.09787]

arXiv
[2023]

330, [arXiv:2308.00336]

arXiv
[2024]

57, [arXiv:2305.07022]

arXiv
[2026]

stag557, [arXiv:2602.12174]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

McQuinn,Locating the “Missing” Baryons with Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Estimates,Astrophys

M. McQuinn,Locating the “Missing” Baryons with Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Estimates,Astrophys. J. Lett.780(Jan., 2014) L33, [arXiv:1309.4451]. – 17 –

arXiv 2014

[2] [2]

P´ eroux and J

C. P´ eroux and J. C. Howk,The Cosmic Baryon and Metal Cycles,Ann. Rev. Astron. & Astrophys.58(Aug., 2020) 363–406, [arXiv:2011.01935]

arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

Leung, J

C. Leung, J. Borrow, K. W. Masui, et al.,Nulling baryonic feedback in weak lensing surveys using cross-correlations with fast radio bursts,arXiv e-prints(Sept., 2025) arXiv:2509.19514, [arXiv:2509.19514]. [4]LSST Dark Energy ScienceCollaboration, D. Alonso et al.,The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Science Requirements Document,arXiv:1809.01669

arXiv 2025

[4] [5]

Mellier, Abdurro’uf, et al.,Euclid

Euclid Collaboration, Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, et al.,Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission, arXiv e-prints(May, 2024) arXiv:2405.13491, [arXiv:2405.13491]

arXiv 2024

[5] [6]

Dodelson and F

S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology. Elsevier Science, 2020

2020

[6] [7]

Bandura, G

K. Bandura, G. E. Addison, M. Amiri, et al.,Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder, inGround-based and Airborne Telescopes V, vol. 9145 of Proc. SPIE, p. 914522, July, 2014.arXiv:1406.2288

arXiv 2014

[7] [8]

A. E. Lanman, S. Andrew, M. Lazda, et al.,CHIME/FRB Outriggers: KKO Station System and Commissioning Results,AJ168(Aug., 2024) 87, [arXiv:2402.07898]

arXiv 2024

[8] [9]

A. W. Hotan, J. D. Bunton, A. P. Chippendale, et al.,Australian square kilometre array pathfinder: I. system description,Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia38(Mar., 2021) e009, [arXiv:2102.01870]

arXiv 2021