Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Ray-tracing Fast Radio Bursts Through IllustrisTNG: Cosmological Dispersion Measures from Redshift 0 to 5.5

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Continuous ray tracing through the Voronoi mesh of a cosmological simulation corrects fast radio burst dispersion measures that sparse-snapshot methods had distorted by over 50%.

desk verdict Genuine methodological advance in FRB ray tracing through TNG; the central claim is plausible but the untested temporal snapshot discretization should be settled before p(DM|z) is taken as ground truth. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07090 v2 pith:3SIXG32A submitted 2025-07-09 astro-ph.CO

Ralf M. Konietzka , Liam Connor , Vadim A. Semenov , Angus Beane , Volker Springel , Lars Hernquist This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasureraytracingVoronoimeshIllustrisTNGcosmicwebintergalacticmediumredshiftdistribution
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 claims that previous ray-tracing studies through the IllustrisTNG simulation miscomputed the shape of the fast radio burst dispersion measure distribution: because they used sparse snapshots and stretched the distributions to fill gaps, the standard deviation and higher moments of $p(\mathrm{DM}|z)$ are misestimated by over 50%. It introduces a continuous ray-tracing method that reconstructs every segment a ray crosses within the Voronoi mesh, together with a stacked method, and shows that the two agree while the trapezoidal and periodic approaches do not. The paper then fits the simulated distribution from redshift 0 to 5.5 with a two-parameter modified-normal form with a power-law tail and concludes the frequently used log-normal form is not well matched. If the claim holds, published TNG-based DM predictions and the baryon constraints drawn from them need revision.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the tilted continuous ray through the periodic simulation volume, with direction vector $\mathbf{n}=(1,5,25)$ and its twelve signed permutations; the coprime integer components make the repetition length $L_r \approx 27L$ for a box of side $L=205\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, so the ray does not re-cross the same structures. Along each ray, a recursive plane-crossing algorithm reconstructs every Voronoi cell the ray enters, so the electron density integral is evaluated on the true moving mesh rather than a Cartesian grid, avoiding what the paper estimates as a 1-10% gridding bias at $10^4$ bins. This machine, cross-checked against a stacked method that randomly rotates and shifts boxes, is what lets the paper claim the continuous catalog correctly captures cosmic variance.

What would settle it

Recompute the continuous catalog with additional snapshots inserted between the existing outputs (for example at every 0.1 in redshift, or at least at $z=1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5$) and compare the standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of $p(\mathrm{DM}|z)$; if any moment shifts by more than a few percent, the piecewise-constant snapshot sampling is biasing the results the paper presents as corrected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the way gaps between simulation snapshots are handled controls the higher moments of $p(\mathrm{DM}|z)$, not just its mean. The trapezoidal and periodic methods stretch each snapshot's DM distribution so the mean is correct, but this inflates the standard deviation by more than 50% (trapezoidal) and over 200% (periodic) relative to the continuous ground truth, with skewness and kurtosis distorted by tens to hundreds of percent. The continuous method sends tilted rays through the periodic box with direction $\mathbf{n}=(1,5,25)$, making the repetition length far longer than the box, and reconstructs all traversed Voronoi cell segments so dense small-scale structure is preserved. It yields over 20 public catalogs, including a full-sky DM map from a Milky Way-like environment, and a functional form $p_{\mathrm{np,31}}$ with $\alpha=1$, $\beta=3.3$ that fits $p(\mathrm{DM}|z)$ from $z=0$ to $5.5$, with simulated DMs consistent with the DSA-110, ASKAP, and CHIME samples.

Load-bearing premise

The continuous method still represents the electron density as constant within each of thirteen snapshot intervals, using one snapshot for the entire comoving segment to the next; if the real electron field changes significantly within a segment, especially where snapshots are one redshift unit apart, the corrected moments inherit that untested bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Previously published TNG-based dispersion measure distributions from trapezoidal or periodic stacking overstate the width and tails of $p(\mathrm{DM}|z)$, so conclusions about cosmic baryons drawn from those distributions should be rechecked.
  • The $p_{\mathrm{np,31}}$ fit with $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=3.3$ gives a two-parameter, redshift-evolving prior for FRB dispersion measures that can replace the log-normal model in future analyses.
  • The full-sky DM maps allow mock FRB samples with realistic sky positions, enabling forecasts for stacking analyses and for the FRB DM-galaxy angular cross-power spectrum.
  • DM catalogs from boxes smaller than $35\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ or with baryonic resolution poorer than $5\times10^8\,h^{-1}\,M_\odot$ deviate from converged results by more than 8%, setting a quantitative floor for simulation choices in FRB work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether its own piecewise-constant snapshot sampling biases moments, especially above $z=1$ where snapshots are one redshift unit apart; a rerun with intermediate snapshots would settle this.
  • The same Voronoi segment-reconstruction ray tracing could be applied to other moving-mesh simulations and to other line-of-sight integrals such as the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal, where snapshot sampling could produce analogous moment bias.
  • The fitted exponents $\alpha\approx1$ and $\beta\approx3.3$ are interpreted by the paper as encoding halo electron content and the shape of dense cosmic web structures; connecting them to feedback parameters in simulation suites that vary feedback would be a natural next step.
  • The paper's box size and resolution thresholds suggest some published small-box or low-resolution FRB forecasts, including those using lighter simulation suites, may carry an unaccounted >8% distortion of the DM distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Voronoi-segment ray tracer for computing FRB dispersion measures through IllustrisTNG, compares four integration schemes (trapezoidal, periodic, stacked, continuous), and releases over 20 DM catalogs. It argues that trapezoidal and periodic methods misestimate the variance and higher moments of p(DM|z), proposes a modified-normal power-law fit pnp,31 for p(DM|z), presents full-sky maps from Milky Way-like environments, checks resolution and box-size effects, and compares with FRB observations from DSA-110, ASKAP, and CHIME.

Significance. The methodological comparison is instructive: the toy Gaussian convolution example in Sec. 3.2.1 is a clean demonstration of why stretching snapshot distributions inflates variance, and the public catalogs and full-sky maps are useful community assets. If the central claim holds, the paper corrects a systematic error in previous TNG-based FRB work and provides a practical fitting function. The claim is currently conditional, however, because the 'ground truth' continuous method shares the same sparse snapshot sampling that it criticizes in other methods, and the fit and observational comparisons have not been quantitatively validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.4, Eq. (27); Sec. 4.1, Fig. 11] The continuous method still represents the electron density with 13 discrete snapshots, each used over the full comoving segment between neighboring snapshot midpoints; at z > 1 these segments are Delta z = 1 wide. The paper criticizes sparse snapshot sampling in previous work, but it never tests whether this piecewise-constant time discretization biases the standard deviation, skewness, or kurtosis of p(DM|z). The agreement between the continuous and stacked methods in Sec. 4.1 does not settle this, because both methods use the same 13 snapshots and therefore share any common snapshot-discretization bias. A convergence test with higher-cadence outputs or interpolated density fields is needed, demonstrating stability of the moments and of the pnp,31 parameters. Without it, the 'ground truth' status of the continuous catalog, and hence the >50% misestimation claim and the observational comparison, are not fully established.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 14] The shape parameters alpha ~ 1 and beta ~ 3.3 are optimized on the same six redshift slices (0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0, 5.0) that are then scored with the KS statistic in Fig. 14. This is an in-sample model comparison: the figure shows that pnp,31 fits the calibration data, not that it generalizes. Please provide a held-out validation (e.g., cross-validation across redshift slices) and report the uncertainty on alpha and beta, including sensitivity to binning and slice weighting. The statement that pnp,31 has 'only two free parameters' is also misleading because alpha and beta are fitted to the same data that are used for model selection.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 15] The claimed consistency with DSA-110, ASKAP, and CHIME is supported only by visual inspection of the right panel of Fig. 15. No quantitative goodness-of-fit is presented, and the comparison depends on the host DM distribution (log-normal with mu_host = 4.9, sigma_host = 0.56) taken from Connor et al. (2025), which shares authorship with this paper. Please add a statistical test that accounts for the survey selection function and redshift uncertainties, and test the sensitivity of the conclusion to the host DM model and to the Milky Way DM subtraction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.4, Eq. (27)] Equation (27) as typeset does not appear to produce the midpoint segmentation described in the text; for the listed snapshot redshifts it would give zero-length segments for alternating snapshots. Please correct the equation or clarify whether L_i is a segment length or a cumulative path length.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.3] The stacked method is described as 'yellow color in Figure 3', but Figure 3 and the rest of the text use orange; please make the color naming consistent.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The KS statistics in Figure 14 should state the number of samples per redshift slice and whether the per-slice parameters mu and sigma are re-fitted independently for each model; this is needed to interpret the comparison.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] There are typographical issues such as 'commoving' instead of 'comoving' in Section 3.2 and the unusual spacing in 'F ast' in the Introduction; please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The analytic mean check is a fitted-input closure test, while the central method-comparison claim rests on inter-method comparisons and a toy model.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Figure 15 (left panel), using feb(z) fit of Figure 17 and Eq. (9) from Section 2.2]
    "To this end, we must first determine the behavior of the fraction of the dispersive electron density relative to the total baryon density feb(z) in IllustrisTNG. ... we model feb(z) ≈ feb,0 + feb,1 z. ... Using the linear fit to the evolution of the fraction of the dispersive electron density compared to the total baryon density, feb(z), we can calculate the integral defined in equation (9) and compare it with the evolution of p(DM|z) derived from the continuous catalog. ... We see that the analytical description perfectly describes the mean of the ray-tracing approach."

    feb(z) is not an independent analytic input; it is measured from the same IllustrisTNG simulation whose ray-traced DM is being checked (Figure 17). Equation (9), via Eq. (7) where feb is defined by ⟨ne⟩ = feb ρb/mp, is just the redshift integral of the simulation's own mean electron density. The 'analytical description' matching the continuous catalog's mean is therefore a closure test of how well the ray ensemble reproduces the volume-averaged density, not an independent confirmation. The agreement is nearly forced by construction, so presenting it as an analytical confirmation overstates its evidential weight. This step is not load-bearing for the paper's central higher-moment claim, which is supported by inter-method comparisons and the toy-model argument in Section 3.2.1.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claim—that trapezoidal and periodic ray-tracing distort the standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis by over 50%—is not circular: it is a direct comparison of four integration schemes on the same TNG density fields, supported by an analytic toy example (Eqs. 20-22) that shows why gap-stretching biases the variance. The continuous/stacked agreement is cross-method consistency, and the full-sky/continuous/random comparisons are internal validations rather than reductions to inputs. The one genuinely circular-looking step is the 'analytic confirmation' of the mean DM-redshift relation (Section 4.3, Figure 15): feb(z) is fitted from the same simulation, and Eq. (9) simply integrates that measured mean electron density, so the near-perfect agreement is a closure test, not an independent analytical prediction. This is fitted input called prediction in a mild form, but it is not central to the main claim. The host-DM log-normal parameters are taken from Connor et al. (2025), a paper with overlapping authorship, but they are an observational fit applied as an external input rather than derived here; this is normal self-citation and not load-bearing. The untested piecewise-constant snapshot discretization noted in Section 3.2.4/Eq. (27) is a robustness limitation shared by all four methods, not a circularity. Overall score 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard simulation post-processing assumptions rather than new physics. Free parameters are the shape and slope of the fitted distribution, the linear feb(z) closure model, the host DM log-normal inputs, and procedural choices (trim threshold, ray self-approach threshold, ray vector). No new physical entities are introduced. The main invented mathematical object is the pnp,31 distribution, which is a fit, not a postulate with independent evidence.

free parameters (8)
  • alpha (pnp,31 shape) = approximately 1
    Optimized with dynesty across six redshift slices (z = 0.1 to 5.0), Section 4.2; the KS evaluation in Figure 14 uses the same slices.
  • beta (pnp,31 tail slope) = approximately 3.3
    Optimized with dynesty across six redshift slices, Section 4.2; the KS evaluation in Figure 14 uses the same slices.
  • feb,0 (dispersive electron fraction at z = 0) = approximately 0.83
    Linear fit to TNG300-1 in Figure 17; used in the analytic mean DM closure check in Section 4.3.
  • feb,1 (linear redshift slope of feb) = approximately 0.006
    Linear fit to TNG300-1 in Figure 17; used in the analytic mean DM closure check.
  • host DM log-normal parameters = mu = 4.9, sigma = 0.56
    Taken from Connor et al. (2025) to add host contribution when comparing mock to observed FRBs, Section 4.3.
  • high-DM moment trim = 0.1%
    Moments trimmed by 0.1% at the high DM end, Section 4.1; robustness checked between 0% and 1%.
  • epsilon_min ray self-approach threshold = 4 h^-1 Mpc
    Choice defining valid rays in Section 3.3; affects which directions are considered non-repeating.
  • ray direction vector and permutations = (1, 5, 25) with 12 signed permutations
    Chosen in Section 3.3 to balance repetition length and self-approach distance; single directions shift moments by 2-5%.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The perpendicular bisector plane between two Voronoi cell centers is the shared boundary plane, and the recursive segment reconstruction terminates.
    Section 3.6 and Figure 9; this geometric property underpins the exact line-segment reconstruction algorithm.
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG electron abundances are computed assuming collisional ionization equilibrium with a spatially uniform UV background turned on at z = 6.
    Section 3.1; this limits the analysis to z <= 5.5 and sets the electron density input.
  • domain assumption Each snapshot's density field is constant over the comoving segment between the midpoints of neighboring snapshots.
    Section 3.2.4, Eq. 27; temporal evolution inside a segment is ignored and never tested.
  • domain assumption A single TNG300-1 volume with 12 ray directions adequately represents cosmic variance for p(DM|z).
    Section 4.1 notes very massive clusters are rare in TNG and dominate the high-DM tail; the 0.1% trim partially compensates.
  • standard math Total DM decomposes as DM = DM_MW + DM_cos + DM_host with host contribution weighted by (1+z)^-1.
    Equations (4) through (6); standard FRB dispersion physics from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ray-tracing Fast Radio Bursts Through IllustrisTNG: Cosmological Dispersion Measures from Redshift 0 to 5.5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SIXG32A

@misc{pith2026250707090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ray-tracing Fast Radio Bursts Through IllustrisTNG: Cosmological Dispersion Measures from Redshift 0 to 5.5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SIXG32A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07090}
}
abstract

The dispersion measures (DMs) of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) arise predominantly from free electrons in the large-scale structure of the Universe. The increasing number of FRB observations have started to empirically constrain the distribution of cosmic baryons, making it crucial to accurately forward model their propagation within cosmological simulations. In this work, we present a method for measuring FRB DMs in IllustrisTNG that continuously traces rays through the simulation while reconstructing all traversed line segments within the underlying Voronoi mesh. Leveraging this technique, we create over $20$ publicly available DM catalogs, including a full-sky DM map observed from a Milky Way-like environment. Our method addresses a problem in previous TNG-based studies, in which a sparse snapshot sampling in the path integral leads to a misestimation of the standard deviation and higher moments of the DM distribution $p(\rm{DM}|z)$ by over $50\%$. We show that our results are consistent with the most recent observational data from the DSA-110, ASKAP, and CHIME. We offer a functional form for $p(\rm{DM}| z)$ that provides very good fits across all redshifts from $0$ to $5.5$, showing that the previously proposed log-normal distribution is not well matched to the data. We find that using simulation box sizes smaller than $35\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc or resolutions with baryonic masses of less than $5\times10^{8}\,h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ can distort the derived DM signal by more than $8\%$. Our findings provide new insights into how the cosmic web shapes FRB signals, and highlight the importance of accurate methodology when comparing cosmological simulations against observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full-sky dispersion measure map integrated up to redshift 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the full-sky DM map. We show the evolution of our full-sky DM map presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic comparison of different methods for calculating dispersion measures in numerical sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic 3D illustration of the continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The length of repetition and the distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Definition of starting points. We show how we define the starting points of FRBs when we want to in￾clude imprints of the FRB environment, as described in Sec￾tion 3.4. The effect of the FRB source environment cor￾responds to DMcos(z) − DMcos, stat(z) (see Section 2.1 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Different Milky Way-like environments. We present six different Milky Way-like DM environments integrated up to a redshift of 0.01. The maps are derived from TNG300-1. The selection of these galaxies/environments is described in Section 3.5. In all six panels, the larg…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of Cartesian gridding. We show the difference between reconstructing all traversed line segments within the Voronoi tessellation and mapping the Voronoi tessellation onto a Cartesian grid with a certain number of bins. We show the number of bins along a ray with…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reconstruction of all traversed line seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between PDFs resulting from different ray-tracing methods. For redshifts 0.1, 1.0 and 3.0 we show the PDFs resulting from the four different ray￾tracing methods discussed in this work. The continuous ap￾proach is displayed in blue, the stacked ansatz in ora…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the first four moments of the DM distribution p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of p(DM ⟨DM⟩ −1 |z). We show the evolution of the probability density function p(DM ⟨DM⟩ −1 |z) at several redshifts after fitting to the data the modified-normal pnp,31 distribution (see Section 4.2). The results from the continuous catalog were used (see S…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Best model for p(DM|z). We show p(DM|z) in light blue, computed using the continuous catalog, and compare this distribution to all six proposed analytic distributions (pep, ppe, ppp, pln, pnp,33, pnp,31) at redshift z = 0.5. We see that the high DM tail of the distrib…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) statistics. We compare all six proposed distributions (pep, ppe, ppp, pln, pnp,33, pnp,31) across six redshift slices at redshifts 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0 and 5.0 using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) statistics. Of all the models, the modified-nor…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The dispersion measure-redshift relation. Left panel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FRB DMs on the full sky. Upper panel. We show our mock DM catalog derived from the full-sky catalog on the full sky, described in detail in Section 4.4 at redshifts smaller than 0.2. The points are colored according to DM. Since the observed DMs include the DMhost con…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evolution of the fraction between the dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: DM distribution evolution including the effect of the FRB environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Effect of box size and resolution. We show the effect of changing the simulation box size and resolu tion. We use the stacked catalog for this analysis to avoid problems with a too short repetition length (see Section 3.3). The baseline corresponding to TNG300-1 is sh…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. A New Model for the Milky Way Halo Dispersion Measure with the ENGAWA Simulations: Low DMs and Large Anisotropy

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

    Simulated Milky Way-like halos give lower, more anisotropic halo DMs (medians 19–39 pc cm^-3) than the standard YT20 model, with polar sightlines below 10 pc cm^-3.

  2. Probing the Dispersion and Rotation Measure Contributions from Supernova Remnants in Fast Radio Burst Source Environments with 1D SNR Simulation

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Unshocked SN ejecta dominate evolving FRB local DM (DM∝t^{-1.8–1.9}); matching observed dDM/dt implies tens–hundreds pc cm^{-3} of SNR DM_source and GHz transparency by ≲70 yr.

  3. Cross-correlating galaxies and cosmic dispersion measures: Constraints on the gas-to-halo mass relation from 2MASS galaxies and 133 localized fast radio bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A null galaxy-FRB cross-correlation at small scales implies hot gas in 10^12-13 Msun halos is below about 10% of the cosmic baryon fraction, lower than TNG300 predicts.

  4. The Synthetic Absorption Line Spectral Almanac (SALSA)

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new public library generates millions of mock quasar absorption spectra from cosmological simulations, using a novel mesh-free Voronoi ray-tracing algorithm.

  5. Probing the Baryon Distribution with Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    SKA FRB dispersion measures and their cross-correlations with Stage IV shear and clustering can pin down baryonic feedback and improve cosmological constraints by factors of ~2–5 under optimistic detection rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    W., Shannon, R

    Bannister, K. W., Shannon, R. M., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff 2017

  3. [3]

    Barrera, M., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 6312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2688

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2688 2023

  4. [4]

    J., Duffy, A

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1528 2021

  5. [5]

    M., Kaspi, V

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeaa6 2021

  6. [6]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  7. [7]

    N., Gordon, A

    Caleb, M., Driessen, L. N., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1839 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1839 2023

  8. [8]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

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

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 —. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301598

    2002 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Hadzhiyska, B., Bose, S., et al

    Delgado, A. M., Hadzhiyska, B., Bose, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5899, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1781

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Beck, A

    Dolag, K., Gaensler, B. M., Beck, A. M., & Beck, M. C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1190 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    T., et al

    Ferlito, F., Springel, V., Davies, C. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2205

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, JCAP, 2016, 004, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/004

    Fialkov, A., & Loeb, A. 2016, JCAP, 2016, 004, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/004

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Goodman, A., Zucker, C., et al

    Foley, M. M., Goodman, A., Zucker, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f4 Fouqu´ e, P., Solanes, J. M., Sanchis, T., & Balkowski, C. 2001, A&A, 375, 770, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010833

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Peebles, P

    Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518, doi: 10.1086/306025 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, A&A, 694, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450779

    Hacar, A., Konietzka, R., Seifried, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450779

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077

    Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Lilow, R. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Hern´ andez-Aguayo, C., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1657

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Hilbert, S., Hartlap, J., White, S. D. M., & Schneider, P. 2009, A&A, 499, 31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811054

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    M., et al

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    Ioka, K. 2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    W., Ghosh, E

    James, C. W., Ghosh, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

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

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

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    H., & Hernquist, L

    Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19, doi: 10.1086/192305

    1996 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Jameson, A., van Straten, W., et al

    Keith, M. J., Jameson, A., van Straten, W., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 619, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17325.x

    2010

  23. [31]

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

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

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Zucker, C., et al

    Konietzka, R., Goodman, A. A., Zucker, C., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 62, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07127-3

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proc. Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1–6, doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162 Cosmological F ast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures 29

    2015

  26. [34]

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

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

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

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

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Bannister, K., et al

    McConnell, D., Allison, J. R., Bannister, K., et al. 2016, PASA, 33, e042, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.37

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

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

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

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al

    Mei, S., Blakeslee, J. P., Cˆ ot´ e, P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 144, doi: 10.1086/509598 Miralda-Escud´ e, J., Haehnelt, M., & Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 1, doi: 10.1086/308330

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 216, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02132-4

    Miret-Roig, N., Alves, J., Barrado, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 216, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02132-4

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348608

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

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

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

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x

    Pakmor, R., Bauer, A., & Springel, V. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x

    2011

  42. [50]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L20

    Pakmor, R., Marinacci, F., & Springel, V. 2014, ApJL, 783, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L20

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt428

    Pakmor, R., & Springel, V. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt428

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3620

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  47. [55]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    doi

  48. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Sotillo-Ramos, D., Ramesh, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

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

    Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231, doi: 10.1126/science.aay0073 Qiu Cheng, A., Andrew, S. E., Wang, H., & Masui, K. W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03258, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03258

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (Wiley)

    1979

  51. [59]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad150a

    Nelson, D. 2024, ApJ, 962, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad150a

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

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

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac713

    Smith, A., Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac713

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    G., Cordes, J

    Spitler, L. G., Cordes, J. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/101

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  58. [66]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    2003

  59. [67]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Mori, A., & Funahashi, K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08611, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08611

    Theis, A., Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Weller, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08611, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08611

    2024 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, CSE, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

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

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Genel, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1789

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 30 Konietzka et al

    Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., & Puchwein, E. 2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 30 Konietzka et al

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

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

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

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

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Yan, K., Li, C

    Zhang, Z. J., Yan, K., Li, C. M., Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2021, ApJ, 906, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Nagamine, K., Oku, Y., et al

    Zhang, Z. J., Nagamine, K., Oku, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12741, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12741

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb90

    Zhu, W., & Feng, L.-L. 2021, ApJ, 906, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb90

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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