Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Estimating Cosmological Parameters from Localized Fast Radio Bursts: A Method for Removing Milky Way Dispersion-Measure Contributions

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Differences in dispersion measures of localized fast radio bursts in the same sky region remove Milky Way contributions without Galactic models.

desk verdict The paper's differential DM subtraction for same-sky FRBs is a practical model-free approach that recovers mocks and shifts the real-data Γ constraint, but the cancellation assumption needs checks against Galactic angular variations. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.29761 v1 pith:UF7KJISG submitted 2026-06-29 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Yuchen Zhang , Yang Liu , Hongwei Yu , Puxun Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasureMilkyWaycontributioncosmologicalparameterslocalizedFRBsdifferentialmethodintergalacticmedium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes subtracting dispersion measures between localized FRBs close on the sky to cancel the uncertain Milky Way term entirely. This removes the need for any specific model of the Galactic interstellar medium or halo. Mock FRB samples confirm that the approach recovers the input cosmological parameters. When applied to existing localized FRB data the resulting constraint on Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d differs from the value obtained with standard Milky Way corrections. The difference shows that treatment of Galactic DM can affect cosmological inferences drawn from FRBs.

What carries the argument

The dispersion-measure difference between localized FRBs within the same sky region, which cancels the common Milky Way term while preserving the cosmological intergalactic signal.

What would settle it

A large mock catalog in which the differential method recovers parameters that deviate from the known input values, or real data pairs from the same sky region that produce inconsistent Γ constraints, would falsify the method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Subtracting the dispersion measures of localized fast radio bursts that lie within the same sky region cancels the shared Milky Way contribution, leaving only the intergalactic-medium term that depends on cosmological parameters. The method therefore requires no adopted Galactic electron-density model and no prior on the Galactic halo DM. Mock data tests recover the fiducial cosmology. Real localized FRB observations produce a constraint on Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d that differs from the conventional treatment.

Load-bearing premise

The Milky Way dispersion-measure contribution is the same for all localized FRBs that lie in the same sky region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mock FRB samples recover the fiducial cosmological parameters.
  • Current localized FRB data produce a Γ constraint different from the conventional Milky Way treatment.
  • The difference demonstrates that Milky Way DM systematics affect FRB cosmology.
  • The differential approach can be applied to future large samples of localized FRBs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Sky-region consistency checks on larger samples could test whether the identical-Milky-Way assumption holds across different Galactic latitudes.
  • The method could be paired with other foreground-sensitive probes to reduce shared model dependencies in joint cosmological analyses.
  • If the assumption remains valid for many pairs, the technique would tighten constraints on the baryon density without introducing Galactic-model priors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a differential method for FRB cosmology that cancels the Milky Way DM contribution (ISM + halo) by subtracting DMs of localized FRBs within the same sky region, thereby avoiding explicit Galactic electron-density models or halo priors. It reports successful recovery of the fiducial cosmological parameter in mock samples and, when applied to existing localized FRB data, derives a constraint on Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d that differs from the result obtained with conventional MW modeling.

Significance. If the cancellation assumption holds, the approach offers a model-independent route to reduce a dominant systematic in FRB-based cosmology and could become valuable for the large localized samples expected from upcoming surveys. The mock recovery and the reported difference in real-data constraints on Γ provide concrete illustrations of the method's potential impact and of the sensitivity of current inferences to MW treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method (abstract and §2)] Method description: the central claim that DM differences fully eliminate the Milky Way term rests on the assumption that MW DM is identical for FRBs sharing a sky region. The manuscript does not specify the angular sizes of the adopted regions or estimate residual DM_MW fluctuations arising from known Galactic structure (spiral arms, clumps, halo substructure) on 0.1–few degree scales.
  2. [Validation with mocks (§3)] Mock validation: the reported successful recovery of the fiducial parameter is shown under the assumption of perfect MW DM identity within regions. Because the mocks do not incorporate realistic angular variations in the Galactic electron density, they do not test whether the method remains unbiased when the cancellation is imperfect; this is load-bearing for interpreting both the mock success and the real-data result.
  3. [Application to real data (§4)] Real-data application: the differing constraint on Γ is presented as evidence that MW systematics matter, yet without quantitative assessment of possible residual bias from finite angular separations in the actual sample, it remains unclear whether the shift reflects improved accuracy or an artifact of incomplete cancellation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method 'removes the need to adopt a specific Galactic electron-density model' but does not clarify whether any residual modeling (e.g., for IGM or host contributions) is still required; a brief statement would improve clarity.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: Γ is defined as Ω_b H_0 f_d; ensure f_d is explicitly defined at first use and that all symbols in equations are introduced before they appear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below. We agree that additional details on angular scales, residual fluctuations, and limitations of the mocks are needed for clarity and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method (abstract and §2)] Method description: the central claim that DM differences fully eliminate the Milky Way term rests on the assumption that MW DM is identical for FRBs sharing a sky region. The manuscript does not specify the angular sizes of the adopted regions or estimate residual DM_MW fluctuations arising from known Galactic structure (spiral arms, clumps, halo substructure) on 0.1–few degree scales.

    Authors: We agree that explicit specification of angular scales and an estimate of residuals are required to substantiate the cancellation assumption. In the revised manuscript we will state the typical angular sizes of the same-sky regions used (determined by the localization uncertainties and sample distribution, typically a few degrees) and provide a quantitative estimate of residual DM_MW fluctuations on those scales, drawing on standard Galactic electron-density models that include spiral-arm and halo substructure contributions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Validation with mocks (§3)] Mock validation: the reported successful recovery of the fiducial parameter is shown under the assumption of perfect MW DM identity within regions. Because the mocks do not incorporate realistic angular variations in the Galactic electron density, they do not test whether the method remains unbiased when the cancellation is imperfect; this is load-bearing for interpreting both the mock success and the real-data result.

    Authors: The mocks were constructed to verify unbiased recovery under the ideal case where the cancellation assumption holds exactly, which is a necessary first validation step. We acknowledge that they do not yet incorporate realistic angular DM variations and therefore do not quantify bias from imperfect cancellation. In revision we will add an explicit discussion of this limitation and, where space permits in the Letter format, include a supplementary test with a simple angular-variation model to illustrate the magnitude of any resulting bias. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Application to real data (§4)] Real-data application: the differing constraint on Γ is presented as evidence that MW systematics matter, yet without quantitative assessment of possible residual bias from finite angular separations in the actual sample, it remains unclear whether the shift reflects improved accuracy or an artifact of incomplete cancellation.

    Authors: We present the shift in Γ primarily to demonstrate sensitivity to MW modeling choices rather than to claim definitive improvement. To address the referee’s concern we will add, in the revised §4, a quantitative bound on residual bias by reporting the median angular separations of the real localized FRB pairs and estimating the corresponding DM_MW fluctuation amplitude from Galactic structure models. This will allow readers to judge whether the observed difference is likely dominated by improved cancellation or by residual effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation uses direct observational subtraction

full rationale

The paper's central chain proposes DM differencing between localized FRBs in the same sky region to cancel the Milky Way contribution (ISM + halo), validates the approach by recovering the fiducial cosmological parameter on mock samples, and applies it to real data to constrain Γ ≡ Ω_b H_0 f_d. This is a direct observational subtraction that does not reduce any claimed result to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does it rely on self-citation chains or ansatzes smuggled from prior work. Mock recovery tests the subtraction under the method's own assumptions but does not force the real-data Γ constraint; the result remains independent of the input data reduction. No load-bearing step matches the enumerated circularity patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that Galactic DM is uniform across small sky patches for localized FRBs; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract description.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Milky Way DM contribution is identical for FRBs in the same sky region
    Core premise enabling the differencing method to remove Galactic term without modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating Cosmological Parameters from Localized Fast Radio Bursts: A Method for Removing Milky Way Dispersion-Measure Contributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UF7KJISG

@misc{pith2026260629761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating Cosmological Parameters from Localized Fast Radio Bursts: A Method for Removing Milky Way Dispersion-Measure Contributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UF7KJISG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.29761}
}
abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are emerging as powerful probes for cosmology. However, cosmological inference based on FRB dispersion measures (DMs) is limited by uncertainties in the Milky Way contribution, including those from the Galactic interstellar medium and the Galactic halo. In this Letter, we propose a method that eliminates the Milky Way contribution by using DM differences between localized FRBs within the same sky region. The method removes the need to adopt a specific Galactic electron-density model or a prior assumption for the Galactic halo DM. We validate the reliability of the method using mock FRB samples and show that it successfully recovers the fiducial cosmological parameter. Applying the method to current localized FRB data, we obtain a constraint on $\Gamma \equiv \Omega_b H_0 f_{\rm d}$ that differs from that inferred using the conventional treatment of the Milky Way contribution. This difference highlights the importance of Milky Way DM systematics in FRB cosmology and demonstrates the potential of differential DM methods for future large samples of localized FRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coefficients of variation (CVs) of DMMW obtained under different sky-partitioning schemes. The left and right panels show the 4 × 4 and 8 × 8 partitions, respectively. Colors indicate the CV values according to the color bar at the bottom, with all values exceeding 0.4 shown in yellow. The gray band marks the excluded Galactic plane region, corresponding to |b| < 15◦ . The overdense region in the 8×8 partition is as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky distribution of the 99 localized FRB samples. The blue points represent the FRB sample locations, while the light blue lines partition the sky into 64 regions. The gray shaded band indicates the excluded Galactic plane region with |b| < 15◦ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distribution of Γ obtained with the method proposed in this paper (red) and with the traditional method (blue). The proposed method yields Γ = 2.88±0.33, while the traditional method gives Γ = 3.55 ± 0.17 and DMhalo = 51+8 −5 pc cm−3 . REFERENCES Abbott, T. C., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Measuring the Angular Auto-power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures as a Robust Cosmological Probe and Baryon Tracer

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First FRB DM angular auto-power spectrum from 3455 CHIME bursts detects >3σ LSS correlations and constrains Ω_b h²–H0 and Ω_b h²–f_d while mitigating host-DM systematics.

  2. Fast Radio Bursts Trace Cosmic Star Formation with Little Delay

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

    Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of CHIME/FRB finds the FRB volumetric rate peaks with the cosmic star-formation history at mean delays of 0.1–0.3 Gyr, consistent with zero delay and ruling out multi-Gyr merger-like delays.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    and Amouyal, Daniel and Andersen, Bridget C

    Abbott, T. C., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 989, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f 2025

  2. [2]

    <i>Planck</i> 2018 results

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  3. [3]

    2025, Astrophys

    Amiri, M., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 280, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/addbda

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

  4. [4]

    J., Koch, E

    Anna-Thomas, R., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J., 993, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1014

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1014 2025

  5. [5]

    A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance

    Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, arXiv, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5903

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw5903 2019

  6. [6]

    A., Proga D., Miller L., Long K

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 410, 1096, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x 2011

  7. [7]

    2021, , 502, 5134, 10.1093/mnras/stab309

    Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., Ma, X., & Quataert, E. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 5134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab309 2021

  8. [8]

    , author =

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 895, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e 2020

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Astron

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2022, Astron. J., 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, Astrophys

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 948, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc178

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, Astrophys

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 919, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac223b

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, Astrophys

    Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    E., et al

    Bonetti, L., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N. E., et al. 2017, Phys. Lett. B, 768, 326, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.03.014

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    E., et al

    Bonetti, L., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N. E., et al. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 757, 548, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.035

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, Mon

    Caleb, M., Flynn, C., & Stappers, B. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 2281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz571

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, Mon

    Caleb, M., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 2064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1839

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, arXiv

    Caleb, M., et al. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01648

    2025

  10. [18]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 1429, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x

    Cassanelli, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 1429, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02357-x

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Wei, J

    Chang, C. M., Wei, J. J., Meng, K. L., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, L041304, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L041304

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Wei, J

    Chang, C. M., Wei, J. J., Zhang, S. B., & Wu, X. F. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/010

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 7

    Chatterjee, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58, doi: 10.1038/nature20797 7

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al

    Chittidi, J. S., Simha, S., Mannings, A., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 922, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2818

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Cook, A. M., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P., et al

    Curtin, A. P., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J., 998, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea0

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, Astrophys

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    N., et al

    Driessen, L. N., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527, 3659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3329

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

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

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

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Fortunato, J. A. S., Bacon, D. J., Hipólito-Ricaldi, W. S., & Wands, D. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/018

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    H., Wu, Q., Hu, J

    Gao, D. H., Wu, Q., Hu, J. P., et al. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 698, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453006

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e3

    Glowacki, M., Lee-Waddell, K., Deller, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e3

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    C., et al

    Gordon, A. C., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, Mon

    Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Lilow, R. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, Mon

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., Lu, T.-Y., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 2346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab186

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    L., et al

    Ibik, A. L., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0893

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, Mon

    James, C., Ghosh, E., Prochaska, J., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Y., Qiang, D

    Jia, J. Y., Qiang, D. C., Li, L. Y., & Wei, H. 2026, Phys. Lett. B, 877, 140473, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140473

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

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

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

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07090

    2025

  34. [42]

    J., et al

    Law, C. J., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 899, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4ac

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    J., et al

    Law, C. J., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 967, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, arXiv

    Lemos, T. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17693

    2025

  37. [45]

    2026, arXiv

    Lemos, T., Gonçalves, R., & Alcaniz, J. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20471

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/019

    Lemos, T., Gonçalves, R., Carvalho, J., & Alcaniz, J. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/019

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    X., Gao, H., Ding, X

    Li, Z. X., Gao, H., Ding, X. H., Wang, G. J., & Zhang, B. 2018, Nature Commun., 9, 3833, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06303-0

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    X., Gao, H., Wei, J

    Li, Z. X., Gao, H., Wei, J. J., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    X., Gao, H., Wei, J

    Li, Z. X., Gao, H., Wei, J. J., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 496, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    N., Tang, L., & Zou, R

    Lin, H. N., Tang, L., & Zou, R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520, 1324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad228

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    N., & Zou, R

    Lin, H. N., & Zou, R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 520, 6237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad509

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    X., Wei, J

    Liu, Y., Wang, B., Wu, P. X., Wei, J. J., & Wu, X. F. 2026a, Astrophys. J., 998, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

    doi

  45. [53]

    2026b, arXiv

    Liu, Y., Wei, J.-J., Wu, P., & Wu, X.-F. 2026b, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03769

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    W., & Wu, P

    Liu, Y., Yu, H. W., & Wu, P. X. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 946, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc650

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Yu, H

    Liu, Y., Zhang, Y. C., Yu, H. W., & Wu, P. X. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03536

    2025

  48. [56]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

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

    2007 doi

  49. [57]

    P., et al

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

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    K., et al

    Mahony, E. K., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 867, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2020, Nature, 577, 190, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    Marcote, B., et al. 2020, Nature, 577, 190, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1866-z

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    2014, Astrophys

    McQuinn, M. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    Meiksin, A. A. 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 1405, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1405

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, Astrophys

    Michilli, D., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89 Muñoz, J. B., & Loeb, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 103518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103518

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2026, arXiv

    Muthusami, G., & Kashyap, G. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11657

    2026

  56. [64]

    H., et al

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

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    K., & Cordes, J

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

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    2026, Mon

    Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2026, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 545, staf2144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2144 8

    2026 doi

  59. [67]

    F., García, L

    Piratova-Moreno, E. F., García, L. Á., Benavides-Gallego, C. A., & Cabrera, C. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08509

    2025

  60. [68]

    X., & Zheng, Y

    Prochaska, J. X., & Zheng, Y. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz261

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

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

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

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    C., & Wei, H

    Qiang, D. C., & Wei, H. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083536, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083536

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    M., et al

    Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 514, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1450

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    M., et al

    Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 532, 3881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1652

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    Y., Wang, B., & Wei, J

    Ran, J. Y., Wang, B., & Wei, J. J. 2024, Chin. Phys. Lett., 41, 059501, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/41/5/059501

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, Astrophys

    Ravi, V. 2019, Astrophys. J., 872, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    2026, arXiv

    Ravi, V., Sharma, K., & Connor, L. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05093

    2026 arXiv

  68. [76]

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

    Ravi, V., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 352, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1389-7

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, Mon

    Ravi, V., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 513, 982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac465

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, Astrophys

    Ravi, V., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 949, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc4b6

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    2025, Astron

    Ravi, V., et al. 2025, Astron. J., 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    S., Silva, P

    Ribeiro, F. S., Silva, P. D. S., Casana, R., & Ferreira, M. M. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22996

    2026

  73. [81]

    D., et al

    Ryder, S. D., et al. 2023, Science, 392, 294, doi: 10.1126/science.adf2678

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    L., de Farias, K

    Sales, L. L., de Farias, K. E. L., Queiroz, A. R., et al. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01990

    2026 arXiv

  75. [83]

    L., de Farias, K

    Sales, L. L., de Farias, K. E. L., Queiroz, A. R., et al. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06975

    2025

  76. [84]

    M., et al

    Shannon, R. M., et al. 2025, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 42, e036, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.8

    2025 doi

  77. [85]

    2017, Phys

    Shao, L., & Zhang, B. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.123010

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    Sharma, K., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    2025, Astrophys

    Kumar, P. 2025, Astrophys. J., 993, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07c5

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    2026, arXiv

    Su, Y.-T., & Li, Z. 2026, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22832

    2026

  81. [89]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02155

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Shirasaki, M., & Osato, K. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02155. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02155

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    P., et al

    Tendulkar, S. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 834, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al

    Tian, J., Rajwade, K. M., Pastor-Marazuela, I., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 533, 3174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2013

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    Z., Sievers, J., & Weltman, A

    Walters, A., Ma, Y. Z., Sievers, J., & Weltman, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103519

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    Wang, B., & Wei, J. J. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c8

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    J., Wu, X

    Wang, B., Wei, J. J., Wu, X. F., & López-Corredoira, M. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/09/025

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    M., Miao, X

    Wang, H. M., Miao, X. L., & Shao, L. J. 2021, Phys. Lett. B, 820, 136596, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136596

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    B., Zhou, X., Kurban, A., & Wang, F

    Wang, Y. B., Zhou, X., Kurban, A., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, Astrophys. J., 965, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f99

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    2025, Astrophys

    Wang, Y.-Y., Gao, S.-J., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2025, Astrophys. J., 981, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adade8

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    J., & Gao, C

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

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    J., Li, Z

    Wei, J. J., Li, Z. X., Gao, H., & Wu, X. F. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/039

    2019 doi

  92. [100]

    J., & Wu, X

    Wei, J. J., & Wu, X. F. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 20, 206, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/12/206

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    2022, Mon

    Wu, Q., Zhang, G.-Q., & Wang, F.-Y. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 515, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac022

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    F., Zhang, S

    Wu, X. F., Zhang, S. B., Gao, H., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J. Lett., 822, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L15

    2016 doi

  95. [103]

    J., et al

    Xing, N., Gao, H., Wei, J. J., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 882, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3c5f

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    2025, Astrophys

    Xu, C., Feng, Y., & Xu, J. 2025, Astrophys. J., 988, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade5b5

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    2020, Astrophys

    Yamasaki, S., & Totani, T. 2020, Astrophys. J., 888, 105

    2020

  98. [106]

    B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F

    Yang, K. B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 940, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca145

    2022 doi

  99. [107]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    Q., Yu, H., He, J

    Zhang, G. Q., Yu, H., He, J. H., & Wang, F. Y. 2020, Astrophys. J., 900, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    G., Song, J

    Zhang, J. G., Song, J. Y., Sun, W. P., et al. 2025, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06841

    2025

  102. [110]

    C., Liu, Y., Yu, H

    Zhang, Y. C., Liu, Y., Yu, H. W., & Wu, P. X. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043513, doi: 10.1103/sh7h-94jy

    2026 doi

  103. [111]

    2014, Astrophys

    Juric, M. 2014, Astrophys. J., 797, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/71

    2014 doi

  104. [112]

    M., Kalomenopoulos, M., & Zhang, B

    Zhuge, J. M., Kalomenopoulos, M., & Zhang, B. 2026, Astrophys. J., 996, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a6d 9 APPENDIX A.FRB DATA FRB Type TNS Name l bDM obs(pc cm −3)Redshift Reference 1 FRB20121102A 174.8895 -0.2313 557 0.1927 S. P. Tendulkar et al. (2017) S. Chatterjee et al....

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.