Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 124 references

A new measurement of the FRB DM-galaxy cross correlation and a first joint analysis with the kinematic SZ effect

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With 130 localized fast radio bursts and 27 million galaxies, the FRB DM-galaxy cross-correlation is detected at 6.5 sigma and disfavors gas tracing dark matter at about 9 sigma.

desk verdict A real detection and a promising first FRB-kSZ joint step, with a jackknife covariance that wobbles by ~1σ under patch choice—worth refereeing, but treat the headline significances as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11296 v1 pith:BXQLCRBC submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.CO

Samuel McCarty , Liam Connor , Kritti Sharma , Simone Ferraro , Vikram Ravi , Elisabeth Krause , Boryana Hadzhiyska , Vishnu Balakrishnan
show 3 more authors
Casey Law Pranav Sanghavi Kaitlyn Shin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasuregalaxycross-correlationbaryonicfeedbackcosmicbaryonskineticSunyaev-Zeldovicheffectgrowthratehalomodel
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that the two-point statistic correlating FRB dispersion measures with foreground galaxy positions is now a working probe of cosmic baryons, not just a theoretical proposal. Using 130 localized FRBs with host redshifts and the DESI Bright Galaxy Sample, the authors report a 6.5 sigma detection in both configuration and harmonic space, and find that models in which gas follows dark matter (no feedback) are disfavored at roughly 9 sigma. This matters because the same observable can map where the universe's diffuse gas sits around galaxies, constrain feedback that biases weak-lensing cosmology, and, combined with the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, break the optical-depth degeneracy to reach the growth rate f sigma8. The paper thus positions FRB two-point statistics as a complementary large-scale baryon probe rather than a small-sample curiosity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the DM contrast deltaDM, the per-FRB dispersion-measure excess defined by subtracting Milky Way, mean cosmic, and mean host contributions, which integrates the electron overdensity delta_e along the line of sight. Cross-correlating this line-of-sight electron column with foreground galaxy positions gives the projected galaxy-electron correlation function xi_{g,deltaDM}(r); the halo model then splits this into one-halo and two-halo terms, with the electron profile described by the baryonification (BCEmu) parameters log10 M_c, theta_ej, and eta. FLAMINGO simulations supply fiducial and strong-feedback predictions, and an NFW dark-matter-tracing model provides the no-feedback null. Converting DM to optical depth via delta_tau = sigma_T (1+z) deltaDM allows direct comparison with kSZ measurements, and the CAP-filter estimator makes the comparison aperture-matched.

What would settle it

Split the same 130 FRBs into two independent halves and recompute xi_{g,deltaDM} and its covariance; if the two halves disagree more than the jackknife error, or if the combined significance drops below about 3 sigma, the quoted 6.5 and 9 sigma results overstate the evidence. A cleaner test is to repeat the measurement with a much larger localized sample and an analytic covariance that includes shot noise and redshift-slice correlations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the FRB DM-galaxy cross-correlation, measured with 130 localized FRBs with host redshifts and 27.3 million DESI BGS galaxies, is detected at 6.5 sigma in both configuration and harmonic space, the strongest such detection to date. The measured radial signal is incompatible with a no-feedback scenario in which gas traces the underlying dark matter at roughly 9 sigma. In halo-model and FLAMINGO comparisons, the lower-mass bins prefer strong feedback, and the electron clustering on scales beyond a few Mpc is presented as among the first direct measurements of large-scale electron clustering. The paper further claims that the FRB signal agrees with a recent kSZ measurement of the same galaxies and that, combined with kSZ, it yields a first estimate of the growth rate f sigma8 (or the velocity reconstruction parameter r) and of the kSZ velocity bias factor b_v.

Load-bearing premise

The headline significances rest on a leave-one-patch-out error estimate built from only 130 FRBs shared across all separation bins, so if that estimate understates the true variance, the 6.5 sigma detection and 9 sigma no-feedback rejection would both shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electron clustering around BGS galaxies is now measured on scales from roughly 0.3 to 30 comoving Mpc, establishing FRB two-point statistics as a direct tracer of large-scale electron clustering.
  • The no-feedback null, in which gas traces dark matter, is disfavored at about 9 sigma, indicating that baryons are redistributed relative to dark matter around these galaxies.
  • FRB and kSZ signals agree within uncertainties and are complementary: FRBs constrain scales above a few Mpc while kSZ is strongest near 1 Mpc.
  • A first joint FRB-kSZ analysis demonstrates how the kSZ optical-depth degeneracy can be broken, yielding constraints on f sigma8 and the kSZ velocity bias factor b_v.
  • With future samples, the same statistic is expected to provide precision constraints on cosmic baryons and to complement weak-lensing, X-ray, and CMB probes of feedback.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the electron clustering measured here is confirmed with larger samples, the same cross-correlation could serve as a direct calibration of baryonic feedback in weak-lensing analyses, potentially reducing a leading systematic in cosmological parameter constraints.
  • The FRB-kSZ combination, applied to future CMB surveys and thousands of localized FRBs, could yield an independent measurement of f sigma8 that does not rely on galaxy-velocity assumptions.
  • A testable extension is to split the FRB sample by DM selection cuts or host-galaxy properties; if the signal depends strongly on the high-DM tail, selection effects larger than assumed would show up in the cross-correlation amplitude.
  • Because FRBs can access sub-arcminute scales, the technique could eventually map gas profiles in individual halos and the CGM-IGM transition, a regime kSZ cannot reach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 measures the cross-correlation between FRB dispersion-measure fluctuations (δDM) and the DESI Legacy Survey Bright Galaxy Sample using 130 localized FRBs, including 11 new DSA-110 sources. It presents the measurement in configuration space and in harmonic space, reports a 6.5σ detection, compares the signal to FLAMINGO simulations and to a baryonification-style halo model, and interprets the results as disfavoring a no-feedback NFW scenario at roughly 9σ. It also converts the DM signal to optical depth, compares it to recent kSZ measurements of BGS galaxies, and makes a first attempt at joint FRB-kSZ constraints on the kSZ optical-depth degeneracy, expressed as constraints on r or fσ8 and on the velocity bias factor b_v.

Significance. If the reported significance survives scrutiny, this is a landmark measurement: it would be the strongest detection of the DM-galaxy cross-correlation with localized FRBs, the first mass-binned measurement of this statistic, and a genuinely new handle on the clustering of cosmic electrons on scales from sub-Mpc to tens of Mpc. The joint FRB-kSZ analysis is a novel and promising proof of concept for breaking the optical-depth degeneracy. The paper is also notable for adding new DSA-110 FRB redshifts and for making the FLAMINGO comparison in a way that keeps the two-halo amplitude close to unity. The main caveat is that the headline significance and the NFW-disagreement both rest on a jackknife covariance whose own convergence test shows roughly ±1σ shifts, and the harmonic-space cross-check explicitly neglects cross-redshift-slice covariance. These are fixable in revision, and the underlying data are valuable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (5) and the Npatch discussion] The jackknife covariance is the load-bearing element for the headline 6.5σ and ~9σ claims, and the paper itself reports that the fiducial SNR for the log10 M*>10 bin changes by approximately ±1σ when Npatch is changed by a factor of two. With 130 FRBs shared across all radial bins and 150 patches, the covariance estimator is not in the asymptotic regime, and the Hartlap correction in Eq. (5) only corrects inversion bias of a Wishart-distributed covariance; it cannot fix an estimator whose variance is still changing with patch count. Please provide a convergence test, a bootstrap over FRBs (or FRB jackknife), and/or an analytic covariance estimate with a shot-noise model, and propagate the resulting covariance uncertainty into the quoted SNR and the NFW-disagreement significance.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (11) and the following paragraph] The harmonic-space SNR is computed with an analytic covariance that neglects covariance between the five redshift slices, justified by the assumptions that FRB noise dominates and that galaxy slices are uncorrelated. Since the same FRBs are reused in every slice and photometric redshift errors can scatter galaxies between slices, the neglected off-diagonal term should be quantified rather than assumed small. Please estimate this term (e.g., with mocks or a hybrid jackknife) or state clearly that the harmonic-space detection significance is an approximation; otherwise the harmonic-space result cannot serve as an independent validation of the configuration-space claim.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 6.4] Two ad hoc cuts are applied after inspecting the data: the exclusion of FRB 20240304B because of its high redshift, and the δDM>300 pc/cm3 cut applied to seven FRBs in the southern portion of DESI. The paper asserts that these cuts are not expected to bias the measurement significantly, but for the redshift cut no quantitative test is shown, and for the southern cut only an amplitude/noise statement is given. Because the second cut is applied directly on δDM, it can in principle correlate with foreground structure and affect the cross-correlation. Please add a robustness table showing the fiducial SNR, best-fit parameters, and NFW-disagreement significance with and without each cut, and consider presenting a blinded version of the analysis.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Figure 7] The ~9σ disfavoring of the no-feedback NFW scenario and the matter power spectrum suppression curve in Figure 7 are both outputs of the same three-parameter BCEmu halo model fitted to the same data vector used for the detection. Figure 7's hatched curve is therefore a fit-derived extrapolation through the baryonification framework, not an independent measurement, and the text should label it as such. Please add a posterior predictive check or a scale-resolved goodness-of-fit diagnostic to show that the halo model actually describes the data, and state explicitly that the quoted NFW-disagreement significance inherits the covariance uncertainty discussed in the first major comment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract claims a 6.5σ detection 'in both configuration and harmonic space,' but Table 1 lists SNRCℓ = 6.2 for the harmonic-space measurement; please harmonize the wording or the numbers.
  2. [Section 1] The text contains the typo 'armcimute-scale'; it should read 'arcminute-scale'.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) includes an explicit (1+z_g) weight in the FRB-optical-depth estimator, while the conversion in Eq. (C18) already contains a (1+z) factor; please clarify whether this double counting is intended and how the random-pair term is weighted.
  4. [Figure 7] The caption should define the hatched region and state whether it includes parameter uncertainty; as presented, the hatched curve has no error band despite being derived from a posterior.
  5. [Section 4.1] The statement that the 100 cMpc foreground-background separation requirement 'eliminates approximately half of the possible FRB galaxy pairs' should specify which mass bin and which redshift cuts it refers to, since the fraction will vary with the galaxy sample.
  6. [Table 1 footnote] The quantity SNR_DM is central to the NFW-disagreement claim, but the table caption does not define the exact model vector and data bins used to compute it; please spell this out in the text or caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DM-galaxy detection is a direct measurement, and the halo-model, simulation, and kSZ comparisons are openly fitted or independent external inputs.

full rationale

The central result is a measured cross-correlation between FRB deltaDM and DESI BGS galaxy positions; the estimator (Eq. 4) combines data and randoms and does not inject the claimed result as an input. The 6.5 sigma detection is defined against a null model (m=0) with Eq. 8, and the NFW comparison uses a fixed no-feedback template, not a parameter fitted to the same data. The halo-model and FLAMINGO curves are explicitly fits: Section 5.2 states the three BCEmu parameters are free and fitted to the real-space measurement, and Figure 7 is labeled as 'determined from the baryonification halo model fit to our log10 M*/M>10 measurement,' so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The harmonic-space SNR uses the real-space best-fit halo model for the model vector and covariance, but the harmonic-space data are not used in that fit, making this a cross-check rather than a self-referential derivation. The kSZ comparison uses the external kSZ measurement of Hadzhiyska et al. (2026); the FRB signal serves as an independent electron-density anchor, and the f sigma8 constraint is explicitly conditional ('assuming that the kSZ analyses properly calibrated r'). Self-citations (e.g., Connor et al. 2025 for <DM_host>; Hadzhiyska et al. 2026 for halo-mass calibration) provide standard or external inputs, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The paper's own disclosure that the jackknife SNR shifts by about 1 sigma when Npatch changes by a factor of two (Section 4.1) is a covariance-estimation caveat, not a circular step. No equation or parameter in the paper reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on literature inputs for the mean DM subtraction and baryonification model, on the jackknife covariance assumption, and on a paper-specific no-feedback baseline. The 3-parameter halo model and the large-scale FLAMINGO amplitude are fitted to the same data.

free parameters (4)
  • log10 Mc = 14.3, 13.4, 12.0 for the three mass bins
    Baryonification feedback mass scale; fit to the DM-galaxy correlation in Section 5.2 (Table 1).
  • theta_ej = 4.4, 4.9, 3.7 for the three mass bins
    Ejection radius parameter in the baryonified electron profile; fit to data.
  • eta = 0.24, 0.24, 0.19 for the three mass bins
    Slope controlling halo gas fraction in baryonification; fit to data.
  • A_flamingo = 1.1, 1.2, 1.2 for the three mass bins
    Amplitude fitted to the last 7 radial bins to match simulation predictions to the data before comparing feedback models (Section 5.1).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The mean cosmological DM can be subtracted using fd=0.94, fe=0.88, and <DMhost>=150/(1+z) pc/cm3, and any error does not correlate with foreground galaxies.
    Appendix A, Equations A3-A7; these values come from Connor et al. 2025 and are assumed when constructing delta DM.
  • domain assumption The ne2001 model adequately describes the Milky Way electron column at the FRB positions.
    Appendix A; the authors choose ne2001 for convenience and say it affects noise only.
  • domain assumption The jackknife covariance with Npatch=150 correctly estimates the uncertainty of a 130-FRB measurement, including correlations between radial bins.
    Section 4.1; the SNR shifts by about 1 sigma when Npatch changes by a factor of 2, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The baryonification halo model with fixed HOD parameters calibrated externally describes the galaxy-electron correlation.
    Appendix B; the electron profile shape and HOD are taken from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The NFW/no-feedback model, in which gas traces the underlying dark matter, is the correct baseline for a universe without baryonic feedback.
    Figures 5 and 6; the 9 sigma disfavor claim compares data to this constructed model, which is not a full hydrodynamical no-feedback simulation.
  • domain assumption The 100 comoving Mpc foreground-background separation removes all correlation with the FRB host environment.
    Section 4.1; this cut eliminates about half of FRB-galaxy pairs, so the model comparison depends on it.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts and stellar masses from Zhou et al. 2023 have small enough errors that the correlation is only mildly convolved.
    Sections 3.2 and 6.4; photo-z outliers are acknowledged as poorly constrained.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.
    The CAP-filtered FRB optical depth estimator is a new statistic, not an entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new measurement of the FRB DM-galaxy cross correlation and a first joint analysis with the kinematic SZ effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXQLCRBC

@misc{pith2026260811296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new measurement of the FRB DM-galaxy cross correlation and a first joint analysis with the kinematic SZ effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXQLCRBC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11296}
}
abstract

Understanding the distribution of cosmic baryons is crucial for advancing cosmology and galaxy formation. Localized Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are a promising new probe of the diffuse gas, but measurements thus far have been limited by small sample size. In this work, we measure the FRB dispersion measure (DM)-galaxy cross correlation with 130 localized FRBs, including new spectroscopic host redshifts from the DSA-110, and the DESI Legacy Survey Bright Galaxy Sample. We detect this signal at the highest significance to date ($6.5\sigma$) in both configuration and harmonic space. By comparing to simulations and a halo model, we demonstrate that this statistic can constrain the strength of baryonic feedback. Our measurements disfavor a no-feedback scenario in which gas traces the underlying dark matter at $\sim\,9\sigma$. In addition to small scale feedback, this represents one of the first direct measurements of the clustering of electrons on scales larger than a few Mpc. We compare our measurement to recent kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (kSZ) studies, which show good agreement despite the differences in observational methods and sample selection. Finally, we make a first attempt at breaking the kSZ optical depth degeneracy with FRBs, jointly measuring the growth rate of large-scale structure $f\sigma_8$. With future samples, FRB two-point statistics will provide precision constraints on the distribution of cosmic baryons and complement other probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The sky distribution of FRBs and galaxies in our sample. In grey is a healipix map of galaxy number counts and overlaid are the positions of the FRBs, color coded by their δDM. cedure, and Section 5 details how we fit the models to our measuremnt. Section 6 presents our results and a discussion of their significance. Finally, in Section 7 we provide a brief conclusion. Throughout this work we as￾sume the best-fit Pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The redshift distributions of the 130 FRBs and 27.3 million DESI BGS galaxies in our sample. rounding large scale structure, the τ signal is degenerate in r/σv. r is a correlation coefficient quantifying how well the velocities are reconstructed. σv is the charac￾teristic velocity dispersion of the sample, which by lin￾ear theory is proportional to fσ8 (i.e. the growth rate of large-scale structure). On the other ha… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Left: the measured correlation as a function of separation in comoving Mpc for BGS galaxies with M∗ > 1010 M⊙. We show the corresponding optical depth δτ using the conversion in Equation C18. Right: the correlation matrix. tion for DESI relies on the DESI Legacy Imaging Sur￾veys (LS), which combines data from the Mayall z-band Legacy Survey, the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Sur￾vey, and the Beijing-Arizona Sky Survey w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of our measurement to the FLAMINGO simulations. L1 m9 is the fiducial FLAMINGO model, and fgas-8σ is a strong feedback model. NFW is the no-feedback scenario in which gas traces the underlying dark matter. 4. MEASUREMENT In this section we describe our measu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Halo model fit to each mass bin. In black is the best fit model, with the one-halo term shown as a dashed line. NFW is the no-feedback scenario in which gas traces the underlying dark matter. Carlo integration. The (not yet CAP filtered) optical depth is: τˆFRB(< θ) = …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The suppression of the total matter power spec￾trum relative to the dark-matter only power spectrum due to baryonic feedback. The hatched curve is determined from the baryonification halo model fit to our log10M∗/M⊙ > 10 measurement. the measurement. Further, the two-h…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The results of our harmonic space measurement for BGS galaxies with M∗ > 1010 M⊙ in each of the five redshift bins, compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: The harmonic space measurement for all redshift bins combined, weighted by the fraction of galaxies in each bin. Here we use 7 log spaced bins between 40 < ℓ < 8000. The solid grey line is the halo model fit to the real space measurement and the dotted line is th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The CAP filtered τ signal measured by FRBs in each mass bin is compared to the results of the kSZ study by B. Hadzhiyska et al. (2026). Despite the different probes and sample selection, each mass bin is consistent across the two measurements at ∼ 1σ. 1 2 3 r/rfid 10 …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A first attempt at breaking the kSZ optical depth degeneracy with FRBs. Left: the kSZ measurements are degenerate in τ and r/σv, while the FRB measurement depends only on τ . We show the 1σ constraint from each and the combined posterior as the dashed contour, for the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior corner plot for parameters of the BCEmu model fit in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Host galaxy spectra for four new FRBs, obtained with either Keck/LRIS or MMT/Binospec. We will detail the host galaxy and its companion in a paper currently in preparation, as the host system is unusual. We note that removing FRB 20220801A from this work’s cross-corre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2025, The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00636

    Abitbol, M., Abril-Cabezas, I., Adachi, S., et al. 2025, The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00636

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/017 25

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/017 2025

  3. [3]

    Alonso, D., Sanchez, J., & Slosar, A. a. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4127–4151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  4. [4]

    C., et al

    Amiri, M., Amouyal, D., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2025, A Catalog of Local Universe Fast Radio Bursts from CHIME/FRB and the KKO Outrigger, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11217

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    2021, Physical Review D, 103, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.063514

    Amodeo, S., Battaglia, N., Schaan, E., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.063514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063514 2021

  6. [6]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.105.023514

    Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.105.023514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  7. [7]

    2026, Fast radio burst dispersion is an unbiased tracer of matter on large scales, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25828

    Andrew, S., Wang, H., Masui, K., et al. 2026, Fast radio burst dispersion is an unbiased tracer of matter on large scales, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25828

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    J., Koch, E

    Anna-Thomas, R., Law, C. J., Koch, E. W., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1014

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1014 2025

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 058–058, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/058

    Battaglia, N. 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 058–058, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/058

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Lenc, E., et al

    Bhandari, S., Bannister, K. W., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 901, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb462

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Aggarwal, K., et al

    Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A., & Gil de Paz, A. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16613, 1

    2024

  7. [15]

    Y., Michilli, D., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Kirichenko, A. Y., Michilli, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Kaspi, V

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

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2023, Host Galaxies for Four Nearby CHIME/FRB Sources and the Local Universe FRB Host Galaxy Population, https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10018

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2024, Weak lensing combined with the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect: A study of baryonic feedback, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06098

    Bigwood, L., Amon, A., Schneider, A., et al. 2024, Weak lensing combined with the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect: A study of baryonic feedback, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06098

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    N., Gordon, A

    Caleb, M., Driessen, L. N., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2064–2077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1839

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, A fast radio burst from the first 3 billion years of the Universe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01648

    Caleb, M., Nanayakkara, T., Stappers, B., et al. 2025, A fast radio burst from the first 3 billion years of the Universe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01648

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1429–1442, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x

    Cassanelli, T., Leung, C., Sanghavi, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1429–1442, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 514, 1, doi: 10.1086/306949

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Ferraro, S., et al

    Chaussidon, E., Hotinli, S. C., Ferraro, S., et al. 2026, Measurement of the galaxy-velocity power spectrum of DESI tracers with the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect using DESI DR2 and ACT DR6, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04867

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Q., Andrew, S

    Cheng, A. Q., Andrew, S. E., Wang, H., & Masui, K. W. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 998, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae369f

    2026 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Mead, A

    Chisari, N. E., Mead, A. J., Joudaki, S., et al. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, doi: 10.21105/astro.1905.06082

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2016, The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036

    Collaboration, D., Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A., Adame, A

    Collaboration, D., Karim, M. A., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14745

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C., Amouyal, D., et al

    Collaboration, F., Abbott, T. C., Amouyal, D., et al. 2025, FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-Off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 parsec Precision, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19006

    2025

  21. [29]

    C., Bandura, K., Belostotski, L., et al

    Collaboration, T. C., Bandura, K., Belostotski, L., et al. 2026, Overview of the Canadian Hydrogen Observatory and Radio Transient Detector (CHORD) Project, https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09374

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2022, The observed impact of galaxy halo gas on fast radio bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13692

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2022, The observed impact of galaxy halo gas on fast radio bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13692

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd3ea

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Catha, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd3ea

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y Connor et al

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y Connor et al. in prep. 2026, The DSA/Chronoscope fast radio burst survey: forecasts and science overview,

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 417–465, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2003, NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156 26

    2003 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P., Andrew, S., Simha, S., et al

    Curtin, A. P., Andrew, S., Simha, S., et al. 2025, Discovery and Localization of the Swift-Observed FRB 20241228A in a Star-forming Host Galaxy, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10961

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd764

    Das, S., Chiang, Y.-K., & Mathur, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd764

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Deller, A

    Day, C. K., Deller, A. T., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 3335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2138 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, The Massive and Quiescent Elliptical Host Galaxy of the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB20240209A, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23336

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2024, The Massive and Quiescent Elliptical Host Galaxy of the Repeating Fast Radio Burst FRB20240209A, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23336

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306–312, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    K., & Schneider, A

    Giri, S. K., & Schneider, A. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 046, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/046

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    C., fai Fong, W., Deller, A

    Gordon, A. C., fai Fong, W., Deller, A. T., et al. 2025, Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Fast Radio Bursts within their Host Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06453

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C., Fong, W., Caleb, M., et al

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W., Caleb, M., et al. 2026, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17619, 1

    2026

  37. [45]

    R., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., et al

    Guachalla, B. R., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., et al. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, doi: 10.1103/lqbj-wcqj

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Zhou, R. 2025a, Missing baryons recovered: a measurement of the gas fraction in galaxies and groups with the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect and CMB lensing, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14136

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    R., & Schaan, E

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Guachalla, B. R., & Schaan, E. 2023, Velocity reconstruction in the era of DESI and Rubin (part II): Realistic samples on the light cone, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12434

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    R., et al

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Guachalla, B. R., et al. 2025b, Evidence for large baryonic feedback at low and intermediate redshifts from kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations with ACT and DESI photometric galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07152

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    J., et al

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Qu, F. J., et al. 2026, Precision Kinematic Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Measurements Across Halo Mass and Redshift with DESI DR2 and ACT DR6: Part II. Bright Galaxy Survey and Emission-Line Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19745

    2026 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Bouman, K., et al. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #243, 237.05

    2024

  44. [52]

    Y., Pastor-Marazuela, I., Brink, J., et al

    Hanmer, K. Y., Pastor-Marazuela, I., Brink, J., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 1800–1815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf289

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    2007, A&A, 464, 399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2007, A&A, 464, 399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    E., Prochaska, J

    Heintz, K. E., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6fb

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    C., McGibbon, R

    Helly, J. C., McGibbon, R. J., Schaye, J., et al. 2026, Astronomy and Computing, 57, 101159, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2026.101159

    2026

  48. [56]

    M., et al

    Hussaini, M., Connor, L., Konietzka, R. M., et al. 2025, A Correlation Between FRB Dispersion Measure and Foreground Large-Scale Structure, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04186

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    L., Drout, M

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

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezic, Z., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2004, MNRAS, 352, 338, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07926.x

    Jarvis, M., Bernstein, G., & Jain, B. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 338, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07926.x

    2004

  52. [60]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585–589, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w Kovaˇ c, M., Nicola, A., Bucko, J., et al

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585–589, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w Kovaˇ c, M., Nicola, A., Bucko, J., et al. 2025, Baryonification II: Constraining feedback with X-ray and kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07991

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    Kugel, R., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14502, 1

    Bhandari, S. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14502, 1

    2021

  55. [63]

    E., Simha, S., Masui, K

    Lanman, A. E., Simha, S., Masui, K. W., et al. 2026, Constraining Gas Mass Fractions in Galaxy Groups and Clusters with the First CHIME/FRB Outrigger, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07097

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J., Butler, B

    Law, C. J., Butler, B. J., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4ac 27

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

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

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, Deep Synoptic Array Science: First FRB and Host Galaxy Catalog, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03344

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    W., et al

    Leung, C., Borrow, J., Masui, K. W., et al. 2025a, Nulling baryonic feedback in weak lensing surveys using cross-correlations with fast radio bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.19514

  59. [67]

    2025b, Stellar Mass-Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16816

    Leung, C., Simha, S., Medlock, I., et al. 2025b, Stellar Mass-Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16816

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026 http://ascl.net/1102.026

    Lewis, A., & Challinor, A. 2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026 http://ascl.net/1102.026

    2011

  61. [69]

    B., Yang, Y

    Li, Y., Zhang, S. B., Yang, Y. P., et al. 2026, Science, 391, 280–284, doi: 10.1126/science.adq3225

    2026 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777–780, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    X., McQuinn, M., et al

    Macquart, J.-P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391–395, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    Sievers, J. L. 2019, Physical Review D, 100, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.100.103532

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    K., Ekers, R

    Mahony, E. K., Ekers, R. D., Macquart, J.-P., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 867, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no–no, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16750.x

    2010

  67. [75]

    McCarty, S., Connor, L., & Konietzka, R. M. 2026, The CGM with local universe FRBs: evidence of strong AGN feedback in a massive elliptical galaxy, https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16781

    2026 arXiv

  68. [76]

    2024, A pulsar-like swing in the polarisation position angle of a nearby fast radio burst, https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09304

    Mckinven, R., Bhardwaj, M., Eftekhari, T., et al. 2024, A pulsar-like swing in the polarisation position angle of a nearby fast radio burst, https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09304

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    A., et al

    Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, Acevedo Barroso, J. A., et al. 2025, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    2025 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

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

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    M., Bhandari, S., Drout, M

    Moroianu, A. M., Bhandari, S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2025, A milliarcsecond localization associates FRB 20190417A with a compact persistent radio source and an extreme magneto-ionic environment, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05174

    2025

  72. [80]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 3121–3138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts261

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    2022, Nature, 606, 873–877, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    Niu, C.-H., Aggarwal, K., Li, D., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 873–877, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Stappers, B., et al

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Gordon, A. C., Stappers, B., et al. 2025, Localisation and host galaxy identification of new Fast Radio Bursts with MeerKAT, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staf2144

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    S., Behroozi, P., Bordoloi, R., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Behroozi, P., Bordoloi, R., et al. 2019, Understanding the circumgalactic medium is critical for understanding galaxy evolution, https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.05644

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 27, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 707, A362, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453256

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Marini, I., et al. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 707, A362, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453256

    2026 doi

  78. [86]

    C., Flynn, C., & Deller, A

    Price, D. C., Flynn, C., & Deller, A. 2021, PASA, 38, e038, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.33

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231–234, doi: 10.1126/science.aay0073

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Guachalla, B

    Qu, F. J., Guachalla, B. R., Schaan, E., et al. 2026, Precision Kinematic Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Measurements Across Halo Mass and Redshift with DESI DR2 and ACT DR6: Part I. Luminous Red Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19744

    2026 arXiv

  81. [89]

    M., Li, D., et al

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., Smith, K. M., Li, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    M., Bezuidenhout, M

    Rajwade, K. M., Bezuidenhout, M. C., Caleb, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1961–1974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1450

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    M., Driessen, L

    Rajwade, K. M., Driessen, L. N., Barr, E. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1652

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., D’Addario, L., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    2019 doi

  85. [94]

    2023b, ApJL, 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    doi

  86. [95]

    2025, AJ, 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    2025 doi

  87. [96]

    2025, A first measurement of baryonic feedback with Fast Radio Bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17742 28 Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., & Ferraro, S

    Reischke, R., & Hagstotz, S. 2025, A first measurement of baryonic feedback with Fast Radio Bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17742 28 Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., & Ferraro, S. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.109.103533

    2025 arXiv

  88. [97]

    2021, Physical Review D, 103, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.063513

    Schaan, E., Ferraro, S., Amodeo, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.063513

    2021 doi

  89. [98]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    2023 doi

  90. [99]

    2015, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    Schneider, A., & Teyssier, R. 2015, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    2015 doi

  91. [100]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 020–020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020

    Schneider, A., Teyssier, R., Stadel, J., et al. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 020–020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020

    2019 doi

  92. [101]

    2025, Baryonification: An alternative to hydrodynamical simulations for cosmological studies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07892

    Schneider, A., Kovaˇ c, M., Bucko, J., et al. 2025, Baryonification: An alternative to hydrodynamical simulations for cosmological studies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07892

    2025

  93. [102]

    2024, A repeating fast radio burst source in the outskirts of a quiescent galaxy, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23374

    Shah, V., Shin, K., Leung, C., et al. 2024, A repeating fast radio burst source in the outskirts of a quiescent galaxy, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23374

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    M., Bannister, K

    Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., Bera, A., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.8

    2025 doi

  95. [104]

    2026a, Signatures of Suppressed Matter Clustering revealed by Fast Radio Bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17162

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2026a, Signatures of Suppressed Matter Clustering revealed by Fast Radio Bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17162

    arXiv

  96. [105]

    2025a, Probing baryonic feedback and cosmology with 3×2-point statistic of FRBs and galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05866

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2025a, Probing baryonic feedback and cosmology with 3×2-point statistic of FRBs and galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05866

    arXiv

  97. [106]

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2025b, A hydrodynamical simulations-based model that connects the FRB DM–redshift relation to suppression of the matter power spectrum via feedback, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18745

    arXiv

  98. [107]

    2025c, Quantifying the impact of selection effects on FRB DM-zrelation cosmological inference, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16850

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2025c, Quantifying the impact of selection effects on FRB DM-zrelation cosmological inference, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16850

  99. [108]

    2024, Preferential Occurrence of Fast Radio Bursts in Massive Star-Forming Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16964

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V., Connor, L., et al. 2024, Preferential Occurrence of Fast Radio Bursts in Massive Star-Forming Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16964

    2024 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2026b, Backlighting the Cosmic Web with Fast Radio Bursts: An Anthology of Dispersion Measure Cross-Correlations with Large-Scale Structure and Baryon Tracers, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22105

    arXiv

  101. [110]

    B., Connor, L., Ravi, V., et al

    Sherman, M. B., Connor, L., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad275e

    2024 doi

  102. [111]

    Shirasaki, M., Takahashi, R., Osato, K., & Ioka, K. 2026, Cross-correlating galaxies and cosmic dispersion measures: Constraints on the gas-to-halo mass relation from 2MASS galaxies and 133 localized fast radio bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21336

    2026 arXiv

  103. [112]

    G., et al

    Siegel, J., Amon, A., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2025a, Joint X-ray, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10455

    arXiv

  104. [113]

    2025b, The suppression of the matter power spectrum: strong feedback from X-ray gas mass fractions, kSZ effect profiles, and galaxy-galaxy lensing, https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02954

    Siegel, J., Bigwood, L., Amon, A., et al. 2025b, The suppression of the matter power spectrum: strong feedback from X-ray gas mass fractions, kSZ effect profiles, and galaxy-galaxy lensing, https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02954

    arXiv

  105. [114]

    M., Madhavacheril, M

    Smith, K. M., Madhavacheril, M. S., M¨ unchmeyer, M., et al. 2018, KSZ tomography and the bispectrum, https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13423

    2018 arXiv

  106. [115]

    2013, Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA Final Report, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5422

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA Final Report, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5422

    2013 arXiv

  107. [116]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  108. [117]

    2025, Measurement of angular cross-correlation between the cosmological dispersion measure and the thermal Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02155

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Shirasaki, M., & Osato, K. 2025, Measurement of angular cross-correlation between the cosmological dispersion measure and the thermal Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02155

    2025 arXiv

  109. [118]

    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

  110. [119]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 389–432, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., Booth, C. M., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, ...

    2017

  111. [120]

    2025, Measurement of the DispersionxGalaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08932

    Wang, H., Masui, K., Andrew, S., et al. 2025, Measurement of the DispersionxGalaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08932

    2025 arXiv

  112. [121]

    2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag557 29

    Wayland, A., Alonso, D., & Reischke, R. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag557 29

    2026 doi

  113. [122]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc7d

    Wu, X., & McQuinn, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc7d

    2023 doi

  114. [123]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412

    2024 doi

  115. [124]

    2023a, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 097, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/097

    Zhou, R., Ferraro, S., White, M., et al. 2023a, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 097, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/097

    2023 doi

  116. [125]

    A., et al

    Zhou, R., Dey, B., Newman, J. A., et al. 2023b, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.