pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24061 · v1 · pith:6MXVIHGKnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Probing Baryonic Feedback Effect with CSST Weak Lensing and Future FRB Measurements

Shuai Feng , Yan Gong , Qi Xiong , Xiaohui Liu , Hengjie Lin , Dingao Hu , Xuelei Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords baryonic feedbackweak lensingfast radio burstsdispersion measureneutrino massCSSTSKA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint CSST weak lensing and FRB dispersion measures constrain the AGN feedback parameter to 0.4 percent accuracy.

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

The paper explores combining weak lensing measurements from the upcoming CSST photometric survey with dispersion measure statistics from future FRB observations by SKA and DSA-2000. Using a baryonic halo model to generate mock matter, electron, and matter-electron power spectra that include realistic noise, the authors run MCMC fits and find that lensing data alone reaches 3.1 percent precision on log10 T_AGN while the sum of neutrino masses is bounded below 0.53 eV. Adding the FRB data improves the feedback parameter precision to 0.4 percent and tightens the neutrino mass upper limit to 0.47 eV by breaking degeneracies between baryonic effects and other cosmological parameters.

Core claim

The joint analysis of CSST weak lensing and future FRB DM measurements, modeled with the baryonic halo model, improves the constraint on the baryonic feedback parameter log10 T_AGN from 3.1 percent to 0.4 percent and yields a tighter upper limit on the neutrino mass sum.

What carries the argument

The baryonic halo model, used to compute the matter, electron, and matter-electron power spectra that encode AGN feedback effects on the distributions.

If this is right

  • The joint probe supplies tighter bounds on the sum of neutrino masses by reducing uncertainty from baryonic feedback.
  • The 3x2pt analysis incorporating FRB data breaks the degeneracy between feedback strength and neutrino mass that appears in lensing alone.
  • Similar joint constraints become feasible for other cosmological parameters once the feedback effect is better controlled.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Electron density information from FRBs supplies an independent handle on feedback that lensing shear alone cannot isolate.
  • Survey planners could prioritize overlapping sky coverage between CSST and next-generation radio arrays to maximize the gain shown in the mocks.
  • If the improvement holds in real data, the same combination might be applied to other large-scale structure observables sensitive to baryon distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The baryonic halo model used both to generate the mock power spectra and to fit the simulated data accurately captures the real effects of AGN feedback on matter and electron distributions.

What would settle it

Real CSST and SKA observations that produce a matter-electron power spectrum inconsistent with the baryonic halo model predictions at the relevant scales and redshifts would falsify the claimed improvement in parameter constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24061 by Dingao Hu, Hengjie Lin, Qi Xiong, Shuai Feng, Xiaohui Liu, Xuelei Chen, Yan Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The rescaled intrinsic FRB source redshift distri￾bution, ns(z), observed redshift distribution after accounting for selection effects for SKA1-Mid and DSA-2000, nf(z), and corresponding radial kernel of the FRB DM field, WD(z). The all-sky FRB event rate Nsky above a fluence thresh￾old Fν is assumed as (Macquart & Ekers 2018) Nsky(> Fν) = N ′ sky  Fν F′ ν λ , (12) where the power-law index λ = −1.5, as … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Impact of baryonic feedback parameterized by TAGN on Pmm, Pme, and Pee at redshift z = 0. Each power spectrum computed with a different TAGN is divided by the fiducial spectrum with log10 TAGN = 7.8 to illustrate the sensitivity to baryonic feedback strength. is treated as a delta function in the two-halo term and neglected in the one-halo term (Mead et al. 2020). The stellar fraction, f∗(M), takes the for… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The theoretical predictions and mock data for the angular power spectrum of the FRB DM field. The black solid curve shows the fiducial theoretical model, C˜DD = CDD + ND, while the green dashed and blue dash– dotted curves represent the signal term, CDD, and the noise term, ND, respectively. The red data points denote the mock data used in this work. The data points in the shaded region at ℓ < 50 are exclu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The CSST redshift distributions of galaxies (left panel), n i g(z), and the weak lensing kernel (right panel), Wi κ(z), for the i-th tomographic bin. Under the Limber and flat-sky approximation, the convergence power spectrum P ij κ (ℓ) can be derived as P ij κ (ℓ) = Z χH 0 dχ Wi κ (χ)Wj κ (χ) r 2(χ) Pmm  k = ℓ + 1/2 r(χ) , z , (28) where Wi κ (χ) is the lensing kernel for the i-th tomo￾graphic bin, defi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The theoretical predictions and mock data for the angular power spectra of weak lensing between the i-th and j-th tomographic bins, C˜ij γγ. The black solid curve represents the fiducial theoretical model, while the green dashed curve shows the signal component, C ij γγ, and the blue dash-dotted curve denotes the noise term, δijσ 2 γ/n¯i +Nadd. The red data points correspond to the mock data used in this w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The theoretical predictions and mock data for the angular cross-power spectra between the FRB DM field and weak lensing in each tomographic bin, C˜i γD. The black solid curves represent the fiducial theoretical model, while the red data points denote the mock data used in this work. The data points in the shaded region at ℓ < 50 are excluded from the analysis, where the flat-sky and Limber approximations a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The covariance matrix for the FRB DM au￾to-power spectrum C˜DD, the weak lensing auto-power spec￾tra C˜γγ, and their cross-power spectra C˜γD, where the cor￾relation coefficients are defined as C˜ij/ q C˜iiC˜jj , with i and j denoting the indices of the data points. they can be expressed as (Berghaus et al. 2025) C i κD(ℓ) = Z χH 0 dχ Wi κ (χ)WD(χ) r 2(χ) Pme  ℓ + 1/2 r(χ) , z (36) and C i ID(ℓ) = Z χH 0… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The predicted contour maps (68% and 95% CL) and 1D PDFs of the seven cosmological parameters and the baryonic feedback parameter log10 TAGN derived from the FRB observables (gray), CSST weak lensing measurements (red), and the joint 3 × 2pt analysis (blue). The vertical and horizontal dashed lines indicate the fiducial values of these parameters. 30% of the samples are discarded as burn-in, and the remaini… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The predicted contour maps (68% and 95% CL) and 1D PDFs of the systematic parameters, including the photo-z calibration parameters ∆zi and σ i z, shear calibration parameters mi, intrinsic alignment parameters AIA and ηIA, additive error parameter Nadd and DM field noise parameter ND, derived from the FRB observables (gray), CSST weak lensing measurements (red), and 3 × 2pt analysis (blue). The vertical an… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore the joint probe on the baryonic feedback effect using the weak lensing measurement from the upcoming Chinese Space-station Survey Telescope (CSST) photometric survey and the dispersion measure (DM) statistics of the fast radio bursts (FRBs) from next-generation radio telescopes, i.e., the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) and the Deep Synoptic Array (DSA-2000). By employing the baryonic halo model, we compute the matter, electron, and matter-electron power spectra, and generate mock data considering realistic noise and systematic effects based on the designs of the telescopes. These mock data are then analyzed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to investigate the parameter constraints. We find that CSST weak lensing alone can constrain the baryonic feedback parameter $\log_{10} T_{\text{AGN}}$ to an accuracy of $3.1\%$, with the sum of neutrino mass bound $\sum m_{\nu} < 0.53\,\mathrm{eV}$. When performing the $3\times2$pt analysis, the inclusion of FRB DM measurements can significantly improve the precision of $\log_{10} T_{\text{AGN}}$ to $0.4\%$, and will lead to a better constraint on $\sum m_{\nu}$ with an upper limit $< 0.47\,\mathrm{eV}$ by effectively breaking the degeneracy. Our results demonstrate that the joint observation of future FRB DM and weak lensing surveys is a powerful tool for probing the baryonic feedback effect, which is helpful in obtaining robust constraints on the neutrino mass and other important cosmological parameters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts cosmological constraints from joint CSST weak-lensing (WL) and future FRB dispersion-measure (DM) data. Using a baryonic halo model, it computes matter, electron, and matter-electron power spectra, generates mock 3×2pt data with realistic noise, and runs MCMC to constrain log10 T_AGN and Σmν. CSST WL alone yields 3.1% precision on log10 T_AGN and Σmν < 0.53 eV; adding FRB DM tightens these to 0.4% and Σmν < 0.47 eV by breaking degeneracies. The central claim is that the joint probe is a powerful tool for baryonic feedback and yields robust neutrino-mass constraints.

Significance. If the baryonic halo model is an adequate description of AGN feedback on both matter and electron fields, the work demonstrates that FRB DM statistics can meaningfully tighten WL constraints on feedback and neutrino mass. The quantitative improvement (factor ~8 in log10 T_AGN precision) is a concrete illustration of the value of cross-correlating lensing with electron-tracing observables. The manuscript does not, however, provide evidence that the quoted precisions survive model misspecification.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim that the joint analysis yields 'robust constraints on the neutrino mass' rests on the assumption that the baryonic halo model used to generate the mock power spectra is also the correct model for inference. Because the same parametric form is employed for both forward modeling and fitting, the reported gains (3.1% → 0.4% on log10 T_AGN; 0.53 eV → 0.47 eV on Σmν) demonstrate internal consistency within that model family but do not address bias or loss of constraining power if the true feedback deviates from the halo-model parametrization (different heating profiles, scale-dependent suppression, or non-parametric effects seen in hydrodynamical simulations). This single shared assumption is load-bearing for the robustness statement.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and methods description should explicitly state that all forecasts are conditional on the baryonic halo model being correct, rather than presenting the results as model-independent robustness tests.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comment. We agree that the language in the abstract regarding 'robust constraints' requires clarification to accurately reflect the scope of our forecast analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim that the joint analysis yields 'robust constraints on the neutrino mass' rests on the assumption that the baryonic halo model used to generate the mock power spectra is also the correct model for inference. Because the same parametric form is employed for both forward modeling and fitting, the reported gains (3.1% → 0.4% on log10 T_AGN; 0.53 eV → 0.47 eV on Σmν) demonstrate internal consistency within that model family but do not address bias or loss of constraining power if the true feedback deviates from the halo-model parametrization (different heating profiles, scale-dependent suppression, or non-parametric effects seen in hydrodynamical simulations). This single shared assumption is load-bearing for the robustness statement.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation. Our analysis is a forecast performed entirely within the baryonic halo model: the same parametrization generates the mock power spectra and is used for MCMC inference. The quoted improvements therefore illustrate the gain from adding FRB DM data under consistent model assumptions, specifically the breaking of degeneracies between log10 T_AGN and Σmν. We acknowledge that this does not constitute a test of robustness against model misspecification (e.g., different heating profiles or hydrodynamical effects). We will revise the abstract to replace the phrase 'robust constraints on the neutrino mass' with 'improved constraints on the neutrino mass' and insert a brief clarifying sentence noting that results are obtained within the adopted halo-model framework. This change will be implemented in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Baryonic halo model generates mocks and performs the fit; constraints are internal to the model

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "By employing the baryonic halo model, we compute the matter, electron, and matter-electron power spectra, and generate mock data considering realistic noise and systematic effects based on the designs of the telescopes. These mock data are then analyzed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to investigate the parameter constraints."

    The same baryonic halo model (with parameters such as log10 T_AGN) is used to forward-model the mock CSST WL and FRB DM data and is subsequently fitted to those mocks. The reported improvements (log10 T_AGN precision from 3.1% to 0.4%, neutrino mass limit from 0.53 eV to 0.47 eV) are therefore statistically forced by the shared parametric form rather than arising from independent data.

full rationale

The paper's forecast uses the baryonic halo model both to compute the power spectra and generate mock data, then fits the identical parametric model via MCMC to those mocks. This produces the quoted precision gains on log10 T_AGN and neutrino mass as internal consistency within the shared assumption, matching the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern. No alternative hydrodynamical simulations or different feedback parametrizations are used for robustness, so the central claim reduces to the input model by construction. The derivation remains self-contained only within that model family, warranting a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the baryonic halo model being an adequate description of feedback and on the mock noise models matching actual telescope performance; both are domain assumptions rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (1)
  • log10 T_AGN
    Central parameter of the baryonic feedback model whose fiducial value is used to generate mocks and whose recovery precision is reported.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The baryonic halo model correctly captures AGN feedback effects on matter and electron power spectra.
    Invoked to compute the spectra used for both mock generation and parameter fitting.
  • domain assumption Noise and systematic models for CSST and SKA/DSA-2000 match the assumed levels in the mocks.
    Required to produce the 'realistic' mock data whose analysis yields the quoted constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5847 in / 1517 out tokens · 33673 ms · 2026-06-25T23:53:14.863767+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R., Power , C., & Knebe , A

    Amara, A., & R´ efr´ egier, A. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 228, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13880.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13880.x 2008

  2. [2]

    V., Du, Y., Lee, V

    Berghaus, K. V., Du, Y., Lee, V. S. H., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 035, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/035

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/12/035 2025

  3. [3]

    L., & Rawlings, S

    Carilli, C. L., & Rawlings, S. 2004, NewAR, 48, 979, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.001 2004

  4. [4]

    Q., Andrew, S

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae369f 2026

  5. [5]

    Modelling baryonic feedback for survey cosmology

    Chisari, N. E., Mead, A. J., Joudaki, S., et al. 2019a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 4, doi: 10.21105/astro.1905.06082

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.1905.06082 1905

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Chisari, N. E., Alonso, D., Krause, E., et al. 2019b, ApJS, 242, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658

  7. [7]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

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

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

  8. [8]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2809-0

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  9. [9]

    Debackere, S. N. B., Schaye, J., & Hoekstra, H. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3446 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10065 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3446 2020

  10. [10]

    2014, JCAP, 2014, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/028

    Fedeli, C. 2014, JCAP, 2014, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/028 2014

  11. [11]

    P., et al

    Fender, R., Stewart, A., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 51, doi: 10.22323/1.215.0051

    work page doi:10.22323/1.215.0051 2015

  12. [12]

    doi:10.1086/670067 , eprint =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Gong, Y., Liu, X., Cao, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e 2019

  14. [14]

    2025, Science China

    Gong, Y., Miao, H., Zhou, X., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  15. [15]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 280402, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2646-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2646-2

  16. [16]

    The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648 Harnois-D´ eraps, J., van Waerbeke, L., Viola, M., &

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019

  17. [17]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv646

    Heymans, C. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv646

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv646 2015

  18. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2805

    Hildebrandt, H., Viola, M., Heymans, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2805

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2805 2017

  19. [19]

    Forecasting Constraint on Primordial Black Hole Properties with the CSST $3\times2$pt Analysis

    Hu, D., Gong, Y., Su, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.22575, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.22575

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.22575 2025

  20. [20]

    M., et al

    Hussaini, M., Connor, L., Konietzka, R. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a49

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a49 2025

  21. [21]

    H., & Dav \'e , R

    Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., & Jain, B. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09782.x Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09782.x 2006

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2524 2022

  23. [23]

    D., et al

    Joachimi, B., Cacciato, M., Kitching, T. D., et al. 2015, SSRv, 193, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0177-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0177-4 2015

  24. [24]

    , volume = 474, number = 4, pages =

    Joudaki, S., Blake, C., Johnson, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2820

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2820 2018

  25. [25]

    Kaiser, N. 1992, ApJ, 388, 272, doi: 10.1086/171151 14 0 ∆z1 0.535 0.545 ND 9.95×10−10 1.005×10−9 Nadd 1 1 ηIA 1.0 1.7 AIA 0.05 0.05 m4 0.05 0.05 m3 0.05 0.05 m2 0.05 0.05 m1 0.7 1.3 σ4 z 0.7 1.3 σ3 z 0.7 1.3 σ2 z 0.7 1.3 σ1 z 0.05 0.05 ∆z4 0.05 0.05 ∆z3 0.05 0.05 ∆z2 0 ∆z2 0 ∆z3 0 ∆z4 1 σ1 z 1 σ2 z 1 σ3 z 1 σ4 z 0 m1 0 m2 0 m3 0 m4 1 AIA 0 ηIA 1 Nadd ×10...

    work page doi:10.1086/171151 1992

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Khrykin, I. S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567 2024

  27. [27]

    W., et al

    Leung, C., Borrow, J., Masui, K. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19514, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19514

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19514 2025

  28. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 5743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2126

    Lin, H., Gong, Y., Chen, X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2126

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2126 2022

  29. [29]

    A Bright Millisecond Radio Burst of Extragalactic Origin.Science2007,318, 777

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  30. [30]

    L., & Waxman, E

    Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Waxman, E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1973, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2397 2020

  31. [31]

    Event rate density

    Luo, R., Men, Y., Lee, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa704 15

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa704 2020

  32. [32]

    P., & Ekers, R

    Macquart, J.-P., & Ekers, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2083 2018

  33. [33]

    Macquart, J.-P., Bailes, M., Bhat, N. D. R., et al. 2010, PASA, 27, 272, doi: 10.1071/AS09082

    work page doi:10.1071/as09082 2010

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

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

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

  35. [35]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt297

    Martizzi, D., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt297

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt297 2013

  36. [36]

    and Schaye, Joop and Bird, Simeon and Le Brun, Amandine M

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2792

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2792 2017

  37. [37]

    , author =

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2014

  38. [38]

    J., Tr¨ oster, T., Heymans, C., Van Waerbeke, L., & McCarthy, I

    Mead, A. J., Tr¨ oster, T., Heymans, C., Van Waerbeke, L., & McCarthy, I. G. 2020, A&A, 641, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038308

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038308 2020

  39. [39]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    Miyatake, H., Sugiyama, S., Takada, M., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123517 2023

  40. [40]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  41. [41]

    NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.11838, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.11838

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11838 2026

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3620 2023

  43. [43]

    M., & Masui, K

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., Smith, K. M., & Masui, K. W. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 023528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023528

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.023528 2020

  44. [44]

    M., Li, D., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab 2021

  45. [45]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17742, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17742

    Reischke, R., & Hagstotz, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17742, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17742

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17742 2025

  46. [46]

    Calibrating baryonic feedback with weak lensing and fast radio bursts

    Reischke, R., Neumann, D., Bertmann, K. A., Hagstotz, S., & Hildebrandt, H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.09766, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.09766

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.09766 2023

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419 2023

  48. [48]

    2015, JCAP, 2015, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    Schneider, A., & Teyssier, R. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049 2015

  49. [49]

    Backlighting the Cosmic Web with Fast Radio Bursts: An Anthology of Dispersion Measure Cross-Correlations with Large-Scale Structure and Baryon Tracers

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2026a, ApJ, 998, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9 —. 2025, ApJ, 989, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeca4 —. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.22105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.22105

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9 2025

  50. [50]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012

    Shirasaki, M., Kashiyama, K., & Yoshida, N. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.083012 2017

  51. [51]

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

    Shirasaki, M., Takahashi, R., Osato, K., & Ioka, K. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac490 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21336 SKAO Science Team. 2015, SKA1 Level 0 Science

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stac490 2022

  52. [52]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a1e

    Su, P., Gong, Y., Xiong, Q., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a1e 2026

  53. [53]

    Measurement of angular cross-correlation between the cosmological dispersion measure and the thermal Sunyaev--Zeldovich effect

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Shirasaki, M., & Osato, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02155

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02155 2025

  54. [54]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08611, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08611 Tr¨ oster, T., Mead, A

    Theis, A., Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Weller, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08611, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08611 Tr¨ oster, T., Mead, A. J., Heymans, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142197 van Daalen, M. P., Schaye, J., Booth, C. M., & Dalla

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.08611 2024

  55. [55]

    J., Borgani , S., De Lucia , G., Boylan-Kolchin , M., & Monaco , P

    Vecchia, C. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x Van Waerbeke, L., Mellier, Y., Erben, T., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 30, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002500

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18981.x 2011

  56. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv123

    Wanderman, D., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv123

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv123 2015

  57. [57]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08932 2025

  58. [58]

    2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag557

    Wayland, A., Alonso, D., & Reischke, R. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag557

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag557 2026

  59. [59]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e4

    Wei, J.-J., & Gao, C.-Y. 2024, ApJ, 975, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e4 2024

  60. [60]

    H., St¨ olzner, B., Asgari, M., et al

    Wright, A. H., St¨ olzner, B., Asgari, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554908

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554908 2025

  61. [61]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 320, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a8d

    Xiong, Q., Gong, Y., Yan, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 320, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a8d 2026

  62. [62]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 357, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2d09

    Yan, J.-h., Gong, Y., Xiong, Q., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 357, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2d09

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2d09 2026

  63. [63]

    , author =

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 Y¨ uksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, ApJL, 683, L5, doi: 10.1086/591449

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

  64. [64]

    Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica , year = 2011, month = jan, volume =

    Zhan, H. 2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441, doi: 10.1360/132011-961

    work page doi:10.1360/132011-961 2011

  65. [65]

    2021, Chinese Science Bulletin

    Zhan, H. 2021, Chinese Science Bulletin. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:234805827

    2021

  66. [66]

    The physics of fast radio bursts.Rev

    Zhang, B. 2023, Reviews of Modern Physics, 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.035005 2023

  67. [67]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 120412, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2212-9

    Zhang, J.-G., Zhao, Z.-W., Li, Y., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 120412, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2212-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2212-9 2023

  68. [68]

    C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., & Lorimer, D

    Zhang, R. C., Zhang, B., Li, Y., & Lorimer, D. R. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3537 2021