Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

The Milky Way's halo adds as little as 10 pc/cm^3 of dispersion toward the poles, and much more in other directions, according to new zoom-in simulations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

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.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful sky-dependent MW halo DM maps with a public package, but the headline numbers rest on non-converged simulations and an ad hoc disk cutout; worth refereeing with expectations of revision. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20601 v1 pith:6FZQF6HW submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.GA

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

Scott Lucchini , Liam Connor , Samuel McCarty , Ralf M. Konietzka This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dispersion measurefast radio burstsMilky Way halocircumgalactic mediumcosmological zoom-in simulationsall-sky anisotropyelectron densityH-alpha emission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to pin down how much of a fast radio burst's dispersion measure (DM) is added by the Milky Way's gaseous halo — a foreground that must be subtracted before FRBs can be used to weigh cosmic baryons. Using the ENGAWA suite of cosmological zoom-in simulations of four Milky Way-like galaxies, it finds median all-sky halo DMs of 19–39 pc/cm^3, somewhat lower than the widely used analytic model, but with much larger sightline-to-sightline scatter, including values below 10 pc/cm^3 toward the galactic poles. The authors provide all-sky maps and polynomial fits so observers can look up the halo DM and its uncertainty for any Galactic direction. If right, the halo foreground is not a smooth, nearly constant screen but a clumpy, anisotropic one, and previous DM-based baryon estimates may need revision.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Milky Way halo's DM contribution is a sky-dependent distribution rather than the smooth ~40–50 pc/cm^3 screen assumed in much of the FRB literature. In the simulations, the median all-sky halo DM spans 19–39 pc/cm^3, the mean is generally lower than the analytic model, and the scatter is much larger: polar sightlines reach below 10 pc/cm^3 while some directions exceed 400 pc/cm^3. The authors trace this to resolved structure in the circumgalactic medium that smooth models miss, and they show that OVII column density does not track DM sightline by sightline — undercutting the empirical basis of earlier estimates — while H-alpha intensity does, allowing a data-dri

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the ENGAWA suite: four cosmological zoom-in Milky Way-like galaxies with fixed spatial resolution in the circumgalactic medium down to 200 pc, and electron densities post-processed for photoionization. The analysis excises the galactic disk with a cylinder cut (radius 19–32 kpc, height 10 kpc) based on where the edge-on gas column falls below a fixed threshold, then ray-traces electron density from 360 solar positions at 8 kpc galactocentric radius out to the virial radius over a uniform all-sky grid. That yields a distribution of DM values for every sky pixel, from which median and 16–84% uncertainty maps are built.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on an arbitrary cylinder cut that separates the galactic disk from the halo (radius 19–32 kpc, height 10 kpc, chosen where the simulated gas column falls below a fixed threshold), and on simulations whose highest-resolution runs have not converged; if the real Milky Way's disk–halo boundary differs, the low polar DMs and the anti-center bump would shift.

What would settle it

Take a sample of about 20 localized FRBs or pulsars at |b|>60 degrees with carefully modeled interstellar medium; if the measured halo DM along those sightlines is consistently above about 30 pc/cm^3 rather than clustering below 10 pc/cm^3, the central prediction of this model fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • FRB observers should stop treating the Milky Way halo DM as a smooth constant: the correction is sky-direction dependent and comes with a 16–84% uncertainty of roughly 30–50% of the value.
  • High-latitude FRB sightlines may have halo DMs below 10 pc/cm^3, which would make precise ISM modeling more important than halo modeling in those directions.
  • OVII column density, the classic tracer used to calibrate halo DM, does not predict DM along a sightline in these simulations; H-alpha intensity does.
  • The total halo baryon mass implied by DM is not uniquely determined by the all-sky mean DM, since CGM gas fraction and mean DM do not correlate.
  • The provided Python package gives, for the first time, an uncertainty estimate for the Milky Way halo DM at any Galactic coordinate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If low polar DMs hold up, earlier estimates of a high Milky Way halo baryon budget derived from DM may be overestimates; the missing baryons could be in hotter or more neutral phases that DM does not trace.
  • The anti-center bump and the low-latitude behavior are tied to the specific cylinder cut chosen to separate disk from halo; a different boundary in the real Milky Way would shift these features, so the model's geometry should be tested against pulsar DM and H-alpha data.
  • The DM-H-alpha correlation is a testable prediction: combining all-sky H-alpha surveys with localized FRBs at similar sightlines could validate or falsify the relation independently of the simulations.
  • Because the 200 pc runs are not yet converged and tend to show even lower DMs, higher-resolution simulations may push polar values lower still, strengthening the paper's central claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the ENGAWA cosmological zoom-in simulations of four Milky Way-like galaxies to compute the DM contributed by the Galactic halo to extragalactic FRB sightlines. Electron densities are ray-traced from 360 synthetic solar positions at the solar circle, after excising a cylindrical disk region, and all-sky DM maps are produced at several fixed CGM resolutions (Default, 1 kpc, 500 pc, 200 pc). The main claims are that the median all-sky halo DM in these simulations spans about 19–39 pc cm^-3, that high-resolution runs are generally lower and more anisotropic than the analytic YT20 model, that sightlines toward the poles can have DM below 10 pc cm^-3, and that the resulting sky-dependent model, including 16–84% uncertainty maps, is made publicly available as a Python package. The paper also reports that O VII column density does not trace halo DM sightline-by-sightline, that H-alpha intensity does, and that applying the simulated H-alpha-DM relation to WHAM data yields low DM values.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a practically important advance for FRB foreground subtraction and for the Milky Way CGM baryon budget. The paper's strengths are concrete: it provides reproducible software, machine-readable polynomial coefficients, HEALPix maps, 360 solar-position realizations, and a resolution sequence. The low-DM tail and the sky-dependent scatter are plausible and qualitatively distinct from the smooth YT20 model. However, the headline numerical values rest on resolution-dependent and boundary-dependent choices, and the halo-to-halo sample is small. The central qualitative statement is defensible as a simulation prediction, but the quantitative comparison with previous models needs to be more carefully conditioned on these uncertainties.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5 and Table 1] The headline normalization rests on the 200 pc runs, which are explicitly not converged. Table 1 shows non-monotonic resolution trends: Au6 median DM goes 29.6 (Default), 24.9 (1 kpc), 18.9 (500 pc), 26.8 (200 pc); TNG-A goes 35.1, 28.9, 26.0, 37.2. The 200 pc medians are not an endpoint of a converged sequence, and the final model in §3.1 averages only the two 200 pc runs. Thus the '19–39 pc cm^-3' span and the 'lower than YT20' comparison are contingent on a particular non-converged resolution choice. The existence of a low-DM tail is more robust, because the 16th percentiles at 200 pc are 13.9 and 11.4 pc cm^-3, but the absolute normalization and the strength of the comparison to YT20 could shift at higher resolution. Please either provide a convergence test or explicitly frame the 200 pc values as one non-converged resolution choice and soften the abstract/conclusion claims according
  2. [§2 and §3.1] The disk/halo decomposition is an ad hoc cylinder cutout, and several features of the final model are artifacts of that cutout. The cutout radius is determined per simulation and resolution from the edge-on gas column falling below 3.5e21 cm^-2 (19–32 kpc), with |z|<5 kpc, and the paper acknowledges that some gaseous disk material lies outside the cylinder. More importantly, §3.1 states that the anti-center bump and the b~20 degree bump in Figure 7 are remnants of the cylinder cutout. Because the central claim is the sky anisotropy of the halo DM, the model should quantify how much of that anisotropy is imposed by the boundary rather than by CGM gas. A sensitivity test to cylinder radius and height, or an alternative boundary, is needed before the anisotropy can be interpreted as a halo property.
  3. [§4 and Figures 9–10] The H-alpha-based WHAM comparison is not an independent corroboration. The power-law relation log10(DM) = 0.32 log10(I_Halpha/R) + 1.93 is fitted to the same Au6 200 pc simulation that produces the DM maps, so applying it to WHAM re-inserts the simulation's assumptions, including unresolved H II regions and the cylinder cutout. The statement that the WHAM map 'corroborate[s] our prediction' (end of §4, repeated in §5) is therefore circular in the weak sense. I recommend presenting this as a consistency check rather than external validation. The O VII result in Figure 8 is likewise computed from column density, not emission measure; the authors acknowledge the comparison 'could be different' for O VII emission, which weakens the discussion that the YT20 model is brought into question.
  4. [§3, Table 1, and §5] All conclusions are based on four specific halos, two of which lack a 200 pc run, and all use the same TNG feedback model. The 19–39 pc cm^-3 range is the range of medians across these four halos, not a confidence interval on the Milky Way value. The small sample also makes it difficult to separate resolution effects from halo-to-halo variation, as the authors note in §5. The abstract and conclusions should be worded as simulation-specific findings and should not imply a population-level uncertainty estimate for the Milky Way.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The summation notation 'nX i+j≤0' appears to be a typo; presumably it should be sum over i+j≤10, with n=10. Also, the polynomial coefficients in Table 2 should state the units and domain of l and b in each term, since the large coefficients arise from using radians.
  2. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract says 'median all-sky DM ... span 19–39 pc cm^-3', but Table 1 lists a median of 18.9 pc cm^-3 for Au6 at 500 pc and 39.4 pc cm^-3 for Au8 at Default. The text should clarify whether the 19–39 range refers to 200 pc runs only, high-resolution runs, or the full suite.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption says 'The black vertical lines (and corresponding axis labels) denote the minimum and maximum DM value' but the labels are also marked in white for the mean. This is a bit confusing; make the line styles and labels explicit.
  4. [Section 2] The halo mass M_200 is used but never formally defined. Give the definition (e.g., mass within the radius enclosing 200 times the critical density) and list the adopted values for the four halos.
  5. [Section 3.1] The polynomial fit to |l| and |b| cannot capture the north-south asymmetry shown in the residual map of Figure 6. The text acknowledges this, but users should be clearly directed to the HEALPix maps rather than the polynomial when precision matters, since the residuals can be large.
  6. [Section 4] For the WHAM comparison, the conversion from simulated H-alpha intensity to DM is only calibrated over 10^-2 < I_Halpha < 2 Rayleighs, but the relation is extended beyond this range in Figure 10. It would be helpful to overplot the calibration range on the WHAM histograms or otherwise indicate where the extrapolation is used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity in headline DM values; minor model-internal Hα corroboration.

specific steps
  1. other [Section 4 (Figures 9–10); Section 5 conclusion]
    "The top panel of Figure 9 ... we have fit a power law relation ... log10(DM) = 0.32×log10(IHα/R) + 1.93 ... We have used the WHAM Hα map to corroborate our prediction that the MW halo DM contribution can be very low depending on the sightline by mapping Hα intensity to halo DM statistically from our simulation to the real MW."

    The Hα-to-DM calibration is fit to the same 200 pc Au6 simulation whose DM map is the paper's central prediction. Applying this simulation-derived relation to WHAM Hα and calling the resulting low DMs a 'corroboration' of the prediction is a model-internal consistency check: the predicted values are produced by a fit made from the same simulation, so they cannot independently confirm the simulation's low-DM claim. The observed Hα map adds external input, but the mapping itself is defined by the simulation, so the 'corroboration' reduces to propagating the simulation's own DM–Hα relation.

full rationale

The headline DM values (median 19–39 pc cm^-3, polar <10 pc cm^-3) are direct ray-traced integrals of electron density from the ENGAWA simulations; no parameters are fitted to reproduce YT20 or FRB data, and the comparison to YT20 is an external benchmark. The use of the companion ENGAWA papers (Lucchini et al. 2026) for the simulation suite and COLT electron densities is standard division of labor and not load-bearing self-citation. The polynomial fit in §3.1 is a compact representation of the simulated map, not a prediction test. However, §4's 'corroboration' from WHAM Hα is model-internal: the Hα–DM power law is fit to the same 200 pc Au6 simulation that produces the prediction, so applying it to WHAM does not provide independent confirmation of the low-DM result. This does not affect the main derivation, which stands on the simulation outputs. The paper's own caveat about non-converged 200 pc resolutions (§5: 'We do not see converged behavior yet with these resolutions') is a robustness/limitation issue, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numbers come from four simulated halos; the paper's conversion of simulation outputs into DM depends on the TNG feedback model, COLT ionization equilibrium, an ad hoc disk cutout, and an assumed solar radius. The H-alpha-based corroboration adds a simulation-fitted relation. No free parameters are tuned to FRB data, so the halo-DM prediction itself is not circular.

free parameters (5)
  • Disk cutout radius = 19–32 kpc (varies by galaxy and resolution)
    Chosen where edge-on gas column density drops below 3.5×10^21 cm^-2; all halo DM values depend on what remains outside this cylinder.
  • Disk cutout half-height = 5 kpc
    Set to |z|<5 kpc for all runs; gas inside this slab is excluded from halo DM, affecting low-latitude sightlines.
  • H-alpha–DM power-law slope and intercept = slope 0.32, intercept 1.93 (log10(DM)=0.32 log10(I_Hα/R)+1.93)
    Fitted to 2 million random sightlines from the Au6 200 pc run; used to convert WHAM H-alpha into DM upper limits.
  • Polynomial model order = 10
    Selected as the lowest order whose RMSE is within one standard error of the best-fitting model among orders 3–20; coefficients are fit to simulation maps.
  • Solar radius = 8 kpc
    Observer position fixed at 8 kpc; 360 azimuths are averaged. The central claim about anisotropy could depend on this choice.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The ENGAWA simulations with the IllustrisTNG feedback model produce realistic CGM electron-density distributions for the Milky Way.
    The whole analysis assumes these four MW-like halos represent the Milky Way halo; not proven from first principles. Section 2.
  • domain assumption COLT photoionization/collisional ionization equilibrium gives the correct free-electron fraction.
    DM is directly computed from COLT electron densities rather than simulation densities. Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas inside the excised cylinder would not contribute to the observed halo DM in the real Milky Way.
    The cutout separates 'disk' from 'halo' using a column threshold; there is no unique division and this choice partially drives low-latitude DM.
  • domain assumption Sightline integration out to the virial radius captures all MW halo DM.
    Gas beyond R_vir is assigned to cosmic DM, but the boundary is conventional. Section 2 and Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper Four halos at up to 200 pc resolution are sufficiently converged for statistical statements.
    The authors state 'we do not see converged behavior yet with these resolutions,' yet use the 200 pc Au6 and TNG-A runs for the final maps. Section 5.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Model for the Milky Way Halo Dispersion Measure with the ENGAWA Simulations: Low DMs and Large Anisotropy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FZQF6HW

@misc{pith2026260720601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Model for the Milky Way Halo Dispersion Measure with the ENGAWA Simulations: Low DMs and Large Anisotropy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FZQF6HW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20601}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Fast radio burst (FRB) dispersion measures (DMs) are powerful tracers of the low density universe, but interpretation is made difficult by the integrated nature of DM. In this paper, we analyze the new ENGAWA cosmological zoom-in simulation suite to constrain the DM contribution from the Milky Way (MW) halo. The ENGAWA simulations consist of four Milky Way-like galaxies with enhanced resolution in the circumgalactic medium, making them an excellent tool to probe the properties of the gaseous halo. The median all-sky DM from the galactic halos in ENGAWA span 19-39 pc cm$^{-3}$, varying even at fixed feedback strength, halo mass, and $f_\mathrm{CGM}$. These simulations show that, with enhanced circumgalactic resolution, the mean halo DM values are in general lower with more anisotropy across the sky than previous models, reaching < 10 pc cm$^{-3}$ towards the poles. Furthermore, by varying the solar position within the simulated galaxies, we have obtained an estimate of the uncertainty in DM given our location in the MW. We provide a Python package with MW halo DM values from the simulation accessible via API functions of Galactic longitude and latitude. These new, simulation-based MW halo DM estimates will provide a critical baseline for interpretations of future FRB observations and our understanding of the global gas distribution in the Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20601 by Liam Connor, Ralf M. Konietzka, Samuel McCarty, Scott Lucchini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Face-on and edge-on projections of the stars (left) and gas (right) from the simulation (Au6 at 200 pc resolution), overlaid with the positions of the pulsars used to compute the local DM model for our galaxy which is excluded from our estimates. The circles and rectangles show radial extents of 8 and 24 kpc with heights of 10 kpc (|z| < 5). For this simulation, all gas within the outer cylinder (24 × 10 k… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: All-sky Mollweide projection of HEALPix DM maps for Au6 at Default and 200 pc resolution after masking the galactic disk. The bottom panels show the distribution of DMs weighted by sky area. The black vertical lines (and corresponding axis labels) denote the minimum and maximum DM value in the image, while the white lines (and labels) mark the means. DM predictive power, and in Section 5 we discuss these r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of DM values for each of the simulations compared with YT20. Each horizontal bar rep￾resents a simulation where they are grouped by IC and col￾ored by resolution. The full extent of the bars represent the median 16 − 84% range across the 360 solar locations. The inner thicker bar with the vertical line represents the 16, 50, and 84% values of the mean DM across the whole sky from the sampl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DM as a function of galactic latitude for the simulations, compared against YT20. Each panel shows a different galaxy, and each colored line is a different resolution. The solid lines are generated by taking the median over the 360 solar positions of the mean DM within each latitude bin. The shaded regions show the solar position median of the 16th and 84th percentile within each latitude bin. The dashed l… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: All-sky maps and histograms of MW halo DM for the combined high resolution model (azimuthally averaged combination of 200 pc Au6 and TNG-A simulations). Each pixel contains a distribution of DM values collated from the different solar locations as well as the different simulations. The different columns show different quantiles of those distributions within each pixel: 16, 50, and 84% from left to right. T… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: All-sky maps of our combined high resolution model (left; this panel is the same as the center top panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The MW halo DM value from the simulation (thick lines) compared with the polynomial model (thin lines) and the YT20 model (grey shaded regions). The top panel shows the DM as a function of Galactic longitude for different bins in latitude (different colors). Each line is sep￾arated by 10◦ in b and comprises the average value within a bin of width 10◦ . The bottom panel shows the compa￾rable relationships i… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DM as a function of O VII column density for the 200 pc resolution run of Au6. The histogram (and underlying points) are a random selection of 2 million sightlines from all of the 360 solar position all-sky maps. The O VII column densities are computed in the same manner as the DMs (see Section 2) including the cylinder disk cutout. not resolve H II regions in the simulation, we would ex￾pect the actual Hα… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: DM values for the Northern Hemisphere extrapolated from WHAM Hα observations (L. M. Haffner et al. 2003). The WHAM data are shown on the left, and the center panel shows the upper limit of the MW halo DM calculated from the linear fit in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: CGM gas fraction vs mean DM for the different galaxies at different resolutions. The different marker styles denote the different galaxies, while the different marker col￾ors denote the different CGM resolutions. Results for galax￾ies at different resolutions are connected by black lines. directly from the simulations (averaged across different solar positions and the two highest resolution simula￾tions),… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of DM uncertainties as a function of Galactic latitude, b. The histogram on top shows the distribution of % error on DM ((DM84 − DM16)/2/DM50) with a peaks at 0.33 and 0.53. The peak at lower % error corresponds to higher latitudes, while the higher % error corresponds to lower latitudes. (∼ 30 − 40 pc cm−3 ). This highlights the importance of resolution in probing the lower limits of MW halo… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    E., & Bregman, J

    Anderson, M. E., & Bregman, J. N. 2010, ApJ, 714, 320, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/320

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/320 2010

  2. [2]

    S., et al

    Augustin, R., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0462

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0462 2025

  3. [3]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  4. [4]

    N., Anderson, M

    Bregman, J. N., Anderson, M. E., Miller, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe 2018

  5. [5]

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

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

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

  6. [6]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0 2023

  7. [7]

    M., & Lazio, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  8. [8]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 655–662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3299 D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A

    Das, S., Mathur, S., Gupta, A., Nicastro, F., & Krongold, Y. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 655–662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3299 D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023251

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3299 2020

  9. [9]

    Faerman, Y., Sternberg, A., & McKee, C. F. 2017, ApJ, 835, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52 2017

  10. [10]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 217, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/21 G´ orski, K

    Fang, T., Buote, D., Bullock, J., & Ma, R. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 217, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/21 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/21 2015

  11. [11]

    Grand, R. J. J., G´ omez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx071

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx071 2017

  12. [12]

    Grcevich, J., & Putman, M. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 385, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/385

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/385 2009

  13. [13]

    2012, ApJL, 756, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L8

    Galeazzi, M. 2012, ApJL, 756, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L8

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/l8 2012

  14. [14]

    M., Reynolds, R

    Haffner, L. M., Reynolds, R. J., Tufte, S. L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 149, 405, doi: 10.1086/378850

    doi:10.1086/378850 2003

  15. [15]

    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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  16. [16]

    X., & Glowacki, M

    Hoffmann, J., James, C., Prochaska, J. X., & Glowacki, M. 2026, I can see your halo: Constraining the Milky Way halo DM with FRB population studies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05496

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    I., et al

    Huang, Y., Lee, K.-G., Libeskind, N. I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 2785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf417 2025

  18. [18]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., & Silvia, D. W. 2017, ApJ, 847, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d 2017

  19. [19]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f 2019

  20. [20]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  21. [21]

    C., & Pen, U.-L

    Keating, L. C., & Pen, U.-L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095 14

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095 2020

  22. [22]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07090, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07090 2025

  23. [23]

    J., D’Onghia, E., et al

    Krishnarao, D., Fox, A. J., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 915, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05090-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05090-5 2022

  24. [24]

    2026a, Investigating the Anisotropy of Dispersion Measure Contribution from the Galactic Halo by Using Fast Radio Bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02849

    Liu, Y., Wang, B., Wu, P., Wei, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2026a, Investigating the Anisotropy of Dispersion Measure Contribution from the Galactic Halo by Using Fast Radio Bursts, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02849

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347061

    Locatelli, N., Ponti, G., Zheng, X., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347061

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347061 2024

  26. [26]

    W., et al

    Lochhaas, C., Tumlinson, J., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496 2021

  27. [27]

    S., et al

    Lochhaas, C., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb06

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbb06 2023

  28. [28]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  29. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05584, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05584

    Lucchini, S., Abramson, C., Hummels, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05584, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05584

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05584 2026

  30. [30]

    J., et al

    Lucchini, S., D’Onghia, E., Fox, A. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 203, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2663-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2663-4 2020

  31. [31]

    X., McQuinn, M., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  32. [32]

    McCarty, S., Connor, L., & Konietzka, R. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16781, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16781

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16781 2026

  33. [33]

    J., & Bregman, J

    Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/14

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/14 2015

  34. [34]

    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

    doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  35. [35]

    K., & Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  36. [36]

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad725b 2024

  37. [37]

    S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 2019

  38. [38]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  39. [39]

    X., & Zheng, Y

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz261 2019

  40. [40]

    E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A

    Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe391

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe391 2021

  41. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae237

    Ramesh, R., & Nelson, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae237

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae237 2024

  42. [42]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc725 2025

  43. [43]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/77

    Salem, M., Besla, G., Bryan, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/77 2015

  44. [44]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565

    Smith, A., Safranek-Shrader, C., Bromm, V., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv565 2015

  45. [45]

    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

    arXiv 2010

  46. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3402

    Hernquist, L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3402

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3402 2019

  47. [47]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 van de Voort, F., Springel, V., Mandelker, N., van den

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2011

  48. [48]

    C., & Pakmor, R

    Bosch, F. C., & Pakmor, R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L85, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly190 2019

  49. [49]

    2020, Nature Reviews Physics, 2, 42, doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2

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

    doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 2020

  50. [50]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., & Pakmor, R. 2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c 2020

  51. [51]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  52. [52]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c4 2020

  53. [53]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  54. [54]

    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

    doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.