pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25214 · v1 · pith:TLWAARYYnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Fast Radio Bursts probe Galaxy Evolution: Evidence and implications of a redshift-dependent FRB host DM

Lluis Mas-Ribas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 22:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measurehost galaxyionized gasredshift evolutiongalaxy halosgalaxy formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

FRB host dispersion measures rise with redshift, indicating evolving ionized gas in galaxies and halos.

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

The paper models the host dispersion measure of fast radio bursts as scaling with redshift to the power n_z to trace the total ionized gas column across all phases in the galaxy-halo system. Applying a forward-modeling approach that includes instrumental effects to 90 localized FRBs with 69 confirmed redshifts yields a best-fit n_z of 1.62 with large uncertainties that still exclude zero at one sigma, and both survey datasets favor positive evolution. This unified tracer matters because existing observations are limited to specific gas phases, leaving the overall density evolution open. The result also shows that ignoring evolution can bias DM-based redshift estimates high by up to 0.3 for large extragalactic DM values. Future samples of a few hundred localized hosts are projected to tighten the constraint to an uncertainty of about 0.7.

Core claim

The analysis finds n_z = 1.62^{+1.48}_{-1.57} from the combined DSA and ASKAP/CRAFT samples, ruling out the non-evolving case n_z = 0 at 1 sigma while both datasets independently prefer n_z > 0. The host DM therefore grows with redshift, tracing an increase in the electron column density of ionized gas in the full galaxy-halo system. This evolution creates a degeneracy with the mean host DM and with H_0 that must be accounted for in DM-based redshift estimates, otherwise overestimating redshifts by up to Delta z approximately 0.3 for DM_EG between 1000 and 2000 pc cm^{-3}.

What carries the argument

The exponent n_z in the assumed power-law DM_host(z) proportional to (1+z)^{n_z}, recovered by forward-modeling the observed DM distribution while marginalizing over instrumental selection and the intrinsic host DM scatter.

If this is right

  • Ignoring host evolution overestimates redshifts derived from extragalactic DM by up to 0.3 at DM_EG of 1000-2000 pc cm^{-3}.
  • Samples of roughly 100 MeerTRAP or 300-350 DSA/CRAFT localized hosts will reduce the uncertainty on n_z to about 0.7.
  • Comparison of measured n_z with phase-specific diagnostics will identify the dominant ionized phase and its driver.
  • The same comparison will constrain FRB progenitor channels through their link to star-formation or other galaxy properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If n_z remains positive with tighter errors, simulations of galaxy formation can be tested for whether feedback or accretion best reproduces the total ionized baryon growth.
  • DM-based cosmological applications will need to marginalize over n_z rather than assume a fixed host contribution.
  • The approach offers a new route to map the missing baryons by stacking many sightlines once selection biases are controlled.
  • Future wide-field FRB surveys could use the same framework to measure the redshift evolution of halo gas separately from the interstellar medium.

Load-bearing premise

The 90 localized FRBs form an unbiased sample whose redshifts and DM values are not significantly affected by localization or host-confirmation selection effects.

What would settle it

A larger sample of localized FRBs with measured redshifts that returns a posterior on n_z fully consistent with zero.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25214 by Lluis Mas-Ribas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Redshift evolution of ionized gas density and size (radius) of galaxies (constituted by the diffuse ionized gas, DIG, and H II regions, for redshifts z ∼ 0−2) and halos. The diversity of trends and the ongoing debate about which physical processes drive them motivates the use of a single observable that integrates all ionized phases simultaneously. Here we investigate the redshift evolution of DMhost as a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 90% C.I. for the probability p(DMEG, z) of detecting FRBs at a given extragalactic DM and host redshift for current sub-arcsecond FRB local￾ization instruments. calization instruments. The MeerTRAP instru￾ment in coherent mode reaches the largest FRB DM and redshift values, while ASKAP covers the opposite case and DSA occupies the region in between the former two. CHIME appears slightly above the ASKAP con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of FRB host redshift and extragalactic DM for three values of the index nz that characterizes the redshift evolution of host DM. The colored solid lines and bands denote the median and the region enclosed by the 16% and 84% percentiles, respectively. The dashed lines correspond to the ≈ 0% percentile (DM cliff), and the dash-dotted to the 99% percentile. The markers show MeerTRAP, DSA-110 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Redshift distributions of FRBs for MeerTRAP in coherent mode, DSA and ASKAP CRAFT/ICS at 1.3 GHz, and for different host DM redshift evolutions. Steeper evolutions narrow the distributions more, most visible for the MeerTRAP case (left panel). This is due to MeerTRAP highest sensitivity to high-redshift FRBs for which the differences between nz are larger. Mean, median, 16% and 84% percentiles are shown fo… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Likelihood results for MeerTRAP (top row), DSA (middle row) and CRAFT (bottom row) FRBS, for three FRB redshift ranges (two for CRAFT given the expected small number of z > 1 FRBs). High-redshift FRBs (z > 1; leftmost column in the top two rows) show strong (weak) constraining power on nz (µhost), while the opposite is true for low-redshift FRBs (0.2 > z > 0; rightmost panels). The degeneracy between µhost… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inference results for 43 (30 with redshift) ASKAP/CRAFT ICS FRBs (top left), 47 (39) DSA (top right) and the two joint datasets (90 FRBs, 69 with redshift; bottom). Correlations between nz and other parameters are visible, most notably with µhost. A host DM evolution (nz > 0) is favored in all cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DMEG-based FRB redshift differences of the non-evolving host DM case (nz = 0) compared to a nz = 1 host DM evolution. Colors denote the percentiles of the estimated conditional redshift distribution at a given DMEG, i.e, p(z|DMEG). Overall, ignoring the host DM evolution nz = 1 yields overestimated redshift values up to about DMEG ∼ 3000 − 4000 pc cm−3 , where the effect reverses due to the shape of the jo… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The redshift evolution of ionized gas in the full galaxy-halo system is a central open question in galaxy formation, because no existing observable is simultaneously sensitive to all ionized phases. Here we explore fast radio bursts (FRBs) as a probe of the density evolution of this gas through the redshift dependence of the FRB host dispersion measure, ${\rm DM_{host}}(z) \propto (1+z)^{n_z}$. The host DM denotes the electron column density of all ionized gas in the host along the FRB sightline, providing a unified tracer that complements existing phase-specific diagnostics. We apply a forward-modeling framework that accounts for instrumental effects to 90 localized FRBs (69 with confirmed host redshifts) from the DSA and ASKAP/CRAFT ICS surveys. Our inference yields $n_z = 1.62^{+1.48}_{-1.57}$, ruling out the non-evolving scenario ($n_z = 0$) at $1\,\sigma$, with both datasets independently favoring $n_z > 0$. The main $n_z$ degeneracy is with the mean host DM and parameters such as $H_0$, highlighting the need to account for a host evolution in inference analyses and DM-based host redshift estimates; overestimating redshifts by up to $\Delta z \approx 0.3$ for DM$_{\rm EG} \sim 1000 - 2000\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ otherwise. About 100 ($300-350$) localized hosts from MeerTRAP in coherent mode (DSA/CRAFT) will yield $n_z$ uncertainties of $\sim0.7$. Precise $n_z$ measurements compared with the evolution of individual phases and galaxy scaling relations will shed light on ionized gas evolution in galaxies and halos, informing the dominant phase, the driver of the overall evolution, and FRB progenitor channels.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the redshift dependence of FRB host dispersion measure, parameterized as DM_host(z) ∝ (1+z)^{n_z}, can be inferred via forward modeling of instrumental effects on 90 localized FRBs (69 with confirmed redshifts) from DSA and ASKAP/CRAFT. The resulting posterior is n_z = 1.62^{+1.48}_{-1.57}, which is presented as ruling out the non-evolving case (n_z = 0) at 1σ, with both surveys independently favoring n_z > 0; implications are drawn for ionized-gas evolution, DM-based redshift estimates, and required future sample sizes.

Significance. If the central inference is robust, the result would supply a new, phase-integrated probe of ionized gas in galaxy-halo systems that complements existing diagnostics. The forward-modeling framework and explicit forecast for MeerTRAP/DSA-CRAFT samples are constructive elements. The marginal 1σ significance and noted parameter degeneracies, however, limit the strength of the claim as currently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): the statement that n_z = 1.62^{+1.48}_{-1.57} rules out n_z = 0 at 1σ rests on a posterior whose lower bound is negative and whose width is comparable to the central value; the manuscript must supply the explicit likelihood construction, prior choices, and any marginalization over the mean-host-DM nuisance parameter to substantiate the quoted significance.
  2. [§3] §3 (forward-modeling framework): the inference that the 69-host subsample is unbiased after correction for localization and host-confirmation selection is load-bearing for the n_z > 0 preference; without quantitative mock-data tests demonstrating that residual DM- or z-dependent selection is smaller than the reported uncertainty, the degeneracy between n_z and mean host DM could absorb unmodeled selection into the nuisance parameter rather than isolating evolution.
  3. [§5] §5 (discussion of degeneracies): the text notes degeneracy with mean host DM and H_0 but does not quantify the conditional posterior P(n_z | mean DM fixed) or test whether alternative functional forms for DM_host(z) (e.g., broken power law) would still exclude n_z = 0 at the stated level.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'both datasets independently favoring n_z > 0' should be accompanied by the separate 68 % intervals or Bayes factors for DSA and ASKAP subsamples.
  2. Notation: DM_EG is used without an explicit definition in the abstract; a parenthetical reminder of its relation to observed DM would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below. Where revisions are required we will incorporate them in the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] the statement that n_z = 1.62^{+1.48}_{-1.57} rules out n_z = 0 at 1σ rests on a posterior whose lower bound is negative and whose width is comparable to the central value; the manuscript must supply the explicit likelihood construction, prior choices, and any marginalization over the mean-host-DM nuisance parameter to substantiate the quoted significance.

    Authors: The quoted 1σ interval has a lower bound of +0.05 (not negative). The 1σ exclusion of n_z=0 follows directly from the 16th percentile lying above zero. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix that (i) writes the full likelihood, (ii) states the priors (flat on n_z ∈ [-3,5], Gaussian on mean host DM with σ=50 pc cm^{-3}), and (iii) shows the joint posterior before marginalization. This will make the quoted significance fully reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] the inference that the 69-host subsample is unbiased after correction for localization and host-confirmation selection is load-bearing for the n_z > 0 preference; without quantitative mock-data tests demonstrating that residual DM- or z-dependent selection is smaller than the reported uncertainty, the degeneracy between n_z and mean host DM could absorb unmodeled selection into the nuisance parameter rather than isolating evolution.

    Authors: The forward model already injects the known selection functions for DSA and ASKAP localization and host confirmation. To quantify any residual bias we will add a new subsection with mock catalogs (10^4 realizations) that inject a range of n_z values and recover the input after applying the identical selection cuts; the resulting bias on n_z will be shown to be <0.3, well below the reported uncertainty. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] the text notes degeneracy with mean host DM and H_0 but does not quantify the conditional posterior P(n_z | mean DM fixed) or test whether alternative functional forms for DM_host(z) (e.g., broken power law) would still exclude n_z = 0 at the stated level.

    Authors: We will add a new figure and accompanying text that (i) shows the one-dimensional posterior for n_z after fixing mean host DM at its median value and (ii) repeats the full inference with a broken-power-law parametrization of DM_host(z). The conditional posterior and the alternative-form results will be reported explicitly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical fit of n_z to observed FRB host DM distribution

full rationale

The paper's central result is obtained by forward-modeling and fitting the single parameter n_z (in DM_host(z) ∝ (1+z)^{n_z}) directly to the measured DM distribution of 69 localized FRBs. This is standard Bayesian inference from data under stated model assumptions; the posterior is not forced by definition, renaming, or self-citation chains. No equations or steps reduce the output to the inputs by construction. The derivation remains self-contained as an empirical measurement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on the assumed power-law form for DM_host(z), the statistical model for the host DM distribution, and the representativeness of the localized FRB sample; n_z and mean host DM are fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • n_z = 1.62
    Exponent of the redshift evolution of host DM, directly fitted to the data.
  • mean host DM
    Degenerate nuisance parameter whose value affects the inferred n_z.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption DM_host(z) follows a power-law form proportional to (1+z)^{n_z}
    Central modeling choice used to parameterize the evolution.
  • domain assumption The 90 localized FRBs constitute a representative sample after accounting for instrumental effects
    Required for the forward-modeling inference to apply to the general population.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5880 in / 1523 out tokens · 26910 ms · 2026-06-25T22:44:08.571942+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

106 extracted references · 99 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., Coe, D., et al

    Abdurro’uf, Larson, R. L., Coe, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6001 2024

  2. [2]

    K., & Beniamini, P

    Acharya, S. K., & Beniamini, P. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 036, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/036

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/036 2025

  3. [3]

    2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    Adame, A., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  4. [4]

    W., Deller, A

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  5. [5]

    X., Mannings, A

    Baptista, J., Prochaska, J. X., Mannings, A. G., et al. 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07022

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    X., et al

    Bernales-Cortes, L., Tejos, N., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452026

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452026 2025

  7. [7]

    MNRAS , author =

    Birnboim, Y., & Dekel, A. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 345, 349–364, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x 2003

  8. [8]

    D., Ravi, V., & Dong, D

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., & Dong, D. 2021, ApJL, 907, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd634

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd634 2021

  9. [9]

    The Pantheon+ analysis: cosmological constraints

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  10. [10]

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., & Stappers, B. W. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz571

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz571 2019

  11. [11]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.01648, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.01648 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Amouyal, D., et al

    Caleb, M., Nanayakkara, T., Stappers, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.01648, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.01648 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Amouyal, D., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11217, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11217 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Abbott, T. C.,

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.01648 2025

  12. [12]

    2025b, ApJL, 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f

    Amouyal, D., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f 2041

  13. [13]

    M., et al

    Cho, H., Macquart, J.-P., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7824

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7824 2020

  14. [14]

    C., et al

    Collaboration, F., Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05192

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.14310

    Connor, L., & Ravi, V. 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.14310

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.14310 2022

  16. [16]

    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

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

  17. [17]

    Discovery of 30 Repeating Fast Radio Burst Sources and Uniform Population Statistics of 80 Repeating Sources from CHIME/FRB

    Cook, A. M., Shin, K., Pleunis, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.08410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.08410

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08410 2026

  18. [18]

    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

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

  19. [19]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2003, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    A., Schaye, J., Wyithe, J

    Correa, C. A., Schaye, J., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2332

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2332 2018

  21. [21]

    L., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Davies, R. L., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd551

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd551 2021

  22. [22]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 285, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  23. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23336 Euclid Collaboration, Aussel, H., Tereno, I., et al

    Eftekhari, T., Dong, Y., Fong, W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.23336, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23336 Euclid Collaboration, Aussel, H., Tereno, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15302, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15302

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.23336 2024

  24. [24]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  25. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00174, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00174

    Fumagalli, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00174, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00174

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.00174 2024

  26. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24072, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.24072

    Glowacki, M., & Lee, K.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24072, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.24072

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.24072 2024

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa 2023

  28. [28]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Deller, A. T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0298

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0298 2025

  29. [29]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada37f

    Guo, W., Wang, Q., Cao, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada37f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada37f 2025

  30. [30]

    M., Dettmar, R.-J., Beckman, J

    Haffner, L. M., Dettmar, R.-J., Beckman, J. E., et al. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 969, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.969

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.969 2009

  31. [31]

    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 FRBs probe Galaxy Evolution21

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

  32. [32]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gordon, A

    Hewitt, D. M., Bhardwaj, M., Gordon, A. C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce1 2024

  33. [33]

    W., Qiu, H., et al

    Hoffmann, J., James, C. W., Qiu, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae131 2024

  34. [34]

    L., James, C., Glowacki, M., et al

    Hoffmann, J. L., James, C., Glowacki, M., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e017, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.127

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.127 2025

  35. [35]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  36. [36]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.1 2021

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf376 2023

  38. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05654, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05654

    Glowacki, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05654, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05654

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05654 2025

  39. [39]

    W., Prochaska, J

    James, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J. P., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3051

  40. [40]

    W., Ghosh, E

    James, C. W., Ghosh, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524 Jaroszy´ nski, M. 2020, AcA, 70, 87, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/70.2.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2524 2020

  41. [41]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    work page doi:10.22323/1.277.0001 2016

  42. [42]

    J., & Gupta, A

    Kaasinen, M., Bian, F., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., & Gupta, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2827

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2827 2017

  43. [43]

    A., Prochaska, J

    Kahinga, L. A., Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.23749, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.23749

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.23749 2026

  44. [44]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16ed 2019

  45. [45]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae323c

    Kharel, B., Fonseca, E., Brar, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae323c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae323c 2026

  46. [46]

    S., Ata, M., Lee, K.-G., et al

    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

  47. [47]

    S., Tejos, N., Xavier Prochaska, J., et al

    Khrykin, I. S., Tejos, N., Xavier Prochaska, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557213

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557213 2026

  48. [48]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2219

    Kocz, J., Ravi, V., Catha, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2219

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2219 2019

  49. [49]

    O., Mao, S

    Kovacs, T. O., Mao, S. A., Basu, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347459

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347459 2024

  50. [50]

    E., Simha, S., Masui, K

    Lanman, A. E., Simha, S., Masui, K. W., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae606e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae606e 2026

  51. [51]

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

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03344

    arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16816

    Leung, C., Simha, S., Medlock, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16816. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16816

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., S´ anchez, S. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed4 2019

  54. [54]

    C., et al

    Li, S., Yu, S.-Y., Ho, L. C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1695

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1695 2025

  55. [55]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, ApJ, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/119 2013

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Lin, H.-H., Lin, K.-y., Li, C.-T., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 094106, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac8f71 2022

  57. [57]

    2022, Chinese Physics C, 46, 075102, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac5e92

    Lin, H.-N., Li, X., & Tang, L. 2022, Chinese Physics C, 46, 075102, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac5e92

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac5e92 2022

  58. [58]

    , keywords =

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

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

  59. [59]

    A., James, B

    Martinez, Z., Berg, D. A., James, B. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae17c6 2025

  60. [60]

    Mas-Ribas, L., & Hennawi, J. F. 2018, AJ, 156, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aace5f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aace5f 2018

  61. [61]

    Mas-Ribas, L., & James, C. W. 2026, ApJ, 998, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a9 2026

  62. [62]

    Mas-Ribas, L., McQuinn, M., & Prochaska, J. X. 2025, ApJ, 990, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf43b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf43b 2025

  63. [63]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1587

    McClymont, W., Tacchella, S., Smith, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1587 2024

  64. [64]

    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

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

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb616

    Mo, J.-f., Zhu, W., & Feng, L.-L. 2025, ApJS, 277, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb616

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb616 2025

  66. [66]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3104

    Mo, J.-F., Zhu, W., Wang, Y., Tang, L., & Feng, L.-L. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3104

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3104 2023

  67. [67]

    MNRAS , author =

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 22Ll. Mas-Ribas

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5 2022

  69. [69]

    K., & Cordes, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  70. [70]

    J., Adams, N

    Ormerod, K., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3597 2024

  71. [71]

    E., Burkhart, B., Lu, W., Ponnada, S

    Orr, M. E., Burkhart, B., Lu, W., Ponnada, S. B., & Hummels, C. B. 2024, ApJL, 972, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad725b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad725b 2024

  72. [72]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  73. [73]

    C., Stappers, B., et al

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., Gordon, A. C., Stappers, B., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2144

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2144 2026

  74. [74]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 2019

  75. [75]

    X., Jay, Ghosh, E

    Prochaska, J. X., Jay, Ghosh, E. M., & cwjames1983. 2023, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8192369

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8192369 2023

  76. [76]

    Science , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay0073 2019

  77. [77]

    X., Simha, S., almannin, et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Simha, S., almannin, et al. 2025,, v2.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14804392

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14804392 2025

  78. [78]

    M., Driessen, L

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1652 2024

  79. [79]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6 2023

  80. [80]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 127, doi: 10.33232/001c.143819

    Reischke, R., Kovaˇ c, M., Nicola, A., Hagstotz, S., & Schneider, A. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 127, doi: 10.33232/001c.143819

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.143819 2025

Showing first 80 references.