Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

The paper shows that cross-correlating FRB counts binned by dispersion measure with galaxy redshift bins contains the entire DM-galaxy cross-correlation as a weighted sum, so it carries strictly more cosmological information.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:40 UTC pith:4DQLJE3Q

load-bearing objection The moment identity in Eq. 16 is a clean, correct formal contribution; the forecasted gains are real but conditional on an asserted noise model and untested DM binning that the paper itself flags. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26135 v1 pith:4DQLJE3Q submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO

The FRB--Galaxy Overdensity Cross-Correlation Statistic in Dispersion Space

Ryan Raikman , Haochen Wang , Kiyoshi Masui , Shion Andrew This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measurecross-correlationbaryon distributionlarge-scale structureFisher forecastgalaxy clusteringfeedback cutoff
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the f×g statistic—FRB counts binned by dispersion measure (DM) cross-correlated with galaxy density binned by redshift—is strictly more informative than the established DM-galaxy cross-correlation (D×g). It proves an exact identity: a particular DM-moment combination of f×g recovers D×g, so f×g is a superset. The paper then forecasts that with realistic CHIME and CHORD FRB samples, f×g yields 2.5–4 times higher signal-to-noise and tighter constraints on the FRB redshift distribution, host DM, and electron clustering parameters, including the baryon feedback cutoff scale. A reader would care because this offers a way to extract maximum cosmological information from FRBs without host redshifts, which will remain unavailable for most bursts in the foreseeable future.

Core claim

The central claim is the identity in Eq. (16): the first DM-weighted moment of the f×g cross-spectrum minus the mean observed DM times the zeroth moment equals the D×g cross-spectrum. Since D×g is exactly recovered through linear combinations of f×g bins, f×g must contain more information. Slicing in both DM and galaxy redshift separately separates the 'background' contribution—electrons correlated with foreground galaxies along the line of sight—from the 'contact' contribution, where FRB progenitors cluster with galaxies. Fisher forecasts for CHIME×DESI and CHORD×Euclid show S/N≈12 and ≈54, and measurements of the baryon clustering cutoff to 26% and 14% precision, respectively.

What carries the argument

The key object is the DM-weighted moment M[D^n C^{fg}_l(D)] = ∫ D^n C^{fg}_l(D) n_f(D)/N_f dD, together with the identity in Eq. (16) showing that M[D^1 C^{fg}_l] minus the mean DM factor times M[D^0 C^{fg}_l] reconstructs C^{Dg}_l. This identity transfers information between the two statistics and licenses the direct comparison of their forecasted constraining power.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts stand on the assumption in Eq. (20) that the noise of the FRB field within DM bins is shot-noise-dominated and diagonal across bins, a claim the paper states is 'verified' by an autocorrelation calculation that is not shown; if clustering noise or off-diagonal DM-bin covariance is non-negligible for samples of 1,600–20,000 FRBs, the information gain of f×g over D×g shrinks.

What would settle it

Compute the empirical noise covariance of the DM-binned FRB overdensity field from existing CHIME data or an end-to-end simulation and check whether the diagonal shot-noise form of Eq. (20) holds; if off-diagonal DM-bin covariance is comparable to or larger than the diagonal, the predicted S/N gain of f×g over D×g will not be realized.

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

If this is right

  • The f×g statistic is a strict superset: no information in D×g is lost by switching to DM-sliced bins, and additional information is gained.
  • The two physical contributions—electron clustering along the line of sight and FRB source clustering—are separately resolved, improving constraints on electron bias and the feedback cutoff scale.
  • For CHIME-scale samples (1,600 FRBs) cross-correlated with DESI BGS, the total detection S/N reaches about 12; for CHORD-scale samples (20,000 FRBs) with Euclid, about 54.
  • The f×g statistic constrains the FRB redshift distribution parameters to about 10% precision and the baryon clustering cutoff k_cut to 26% precision with CHIME and 14% with CHORD.
  • The host DM distribution parameters, including the intrinsic scatter σ_host, which D×g cannot constrain at all, become measurable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the identity and noise model hold, the same moment-reduction trick could apply to other proxy-distance tracers (e.g., spectral-index bins or redshift-smearing bins), where a binned field is strictly more informative than its collapsed moment.
  • The paper's own caveat that DM binning discards intra-bin DM fluctuations suggests an optimized bin width (of order the host DM width) might recover nearly all information; a simulation test of this is a direct next step.
  • The authors flag that the tiny forecasted errors on α and z⋆ are likely artifacts of the simple Schechter population model; realistic population models may reduce the apparent gain of f×g relative to D×g.
  • Instrument-dependent DM selection effects, which the paper notes could hit f×g harder because it relies on DM bins, may be testable by reweighting the high-DM end in simulations.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces and analyzes the f x g statistic, the angular cross-correlation between FRB overdensity binned by dispersion measure (DM) and galaxy overdensity binned by redshift. The central theoretical result is Eq. (16): the previously proposed D x g statistic can be recovered as a linear combination of DM-weighted moments of f x g, implying that f x g contains at least as much information. The authors derive the f x g signal from a model with Schechter FRB luminosity function, exponential-cut power spectra, and log-normal host DM distribution, and then perform Fisher forecasts for CHIME x DESI and CHORD x Euclid, reporting signal-to-noise ratios of ~12 and ~54 and improved parameter constraints relative to D x g. The paper concludes that f x g is a promising probe of baryon clustering and FRB population properties in the absence of FRB redshifts.

Significance. If the theoretical and forecasting results hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual advance: showing that binning FRBs by DM and cross-correlating against galaxy redshift slices preserves and potentially enhances the information in the DM-galaxy cross-correlation. The moment identity in Eq. (16) is nontrivial and cleanly connects two statistics in the literature. The forecast exercise is relevant for upcoming CHORD-era surveys. The paper is also explicit about several limitations, including the simple ad hoc power-spectrum model and the potential for DM selection effects. However, the practical forecasting claims rest on an unproven noise model and an unspecified, untested DM binning scheme, which currently prevents the quantitative results from being taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (20)] The FRB noise model is asserted without derivation: <a^f_lm(D) a^f*_lm(D')> is approximately delta_D(D-D')/n_f(D), with the comment 'verified by taking explicit autocorrelation of delta_f terms' but no calculation or simulation is shown. This shot-noise-only, DM-diagonal form is load-bearing: the SNR formula (Eq. 22), the Fisher matrix (Eq. 26), and the claimed factor 2.5-4 improvements over D x g all depend on it. If clustering noise or off-diagonal DM correlations are non-negligible for N_f = 1,600-20,000, the forecast advantage shrinks. Please provide the full derivation or a simulation-based validation.
  2. [Sec. IV and Sec. III.C] The DM binning scheme is never specified: no bin widths, number of bins, or dependence on them is given for the forecasts. The paper's own caveat in Sec. IV admits that 'the DM binning scheme introduces a potential source of information loss' and says this 'can be tested by mocking this analysis with a simulation' - but no such test is presented. The continuous moment identity Eq. (16) justifies strict information superiority for the unbinned field, but the forecasts use discrete bins. The headline SNR values (~12, ~54) and parameter errors are thus conditional on an untested choice. At minimum, report the bin widths and demonstrate convergence of the Fisher forecasts as bins are refined.
  3. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (16)] The claim that f x g 'must contain more information than D x g' is a statement about the continuous statistic. In practice, f x g is measured in finite DM bins, and the information-theoretic superiority does not automatically translate to the forecasted gains. While the paper does qualify this in Sec. IV, the quantitative comparison in Sec. III.C is between a binned f x g and a continuous D x g construction. The paper should either show that the chosen binning preserves the additional information (e.g., through a bin-convergence test) or soften the 'strictly more informative' claim in the abstract and conclusion to 'can contain more information when appropriately binned.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'The f x g statistics is more sensitive' should be 'statistic is'.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (7)] The notation for the host DM distribution is inconsistent: p_h(D - Dbar(chi) - Dbar_h(chi)|z) appears in Eq. (7), while Appendix A uses p_h(D - Dbar(chi)|z) without the Dbar_h shift. This should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (23)] The symbol nbar^2d_f is confusing; it should be defined explicitly, perhaps as the 2D angular number density squared. Also, the relation between the two variance terms and the earlier R(D) construction could be stated more clearly.
  4. [Sec. III.A, after Eq. (22)] The 'optimal weighting' across z_g and D bins used for Figure 2 is not described. Please specify the weighting scheme or state that each bin is summed with inverse-variance weighting.
  5. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (26)] The integration variable is written as 'dl' but the text says ell ranges from 40 to 6000; use a consistent notation (e.g., d ell or d ln ell) and specify whether the integral is over ell or log ell.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the moment identity is a computed consistency relation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (16), is not circular. C^{fg}_l(D,z_g) is derived in Appendix A from the DM-budgeting map (A1)-(A7), the host PDF, and Limber projection, yielding Eq. (7). The n=0 and n=1 moments are then computed in Appendix B by integrating over the host PDF and performing integration by parts; the result is not assumed equal to C^{Dg}_l but is shown to match the explicit expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (16). This is a consistency identity between the binned and unbinned descriptions of the same underlying DM field. The relation is definitional only in the weak sense that splitting and recombining a map must agree with the original map; the algebraic work that makes the p_h integrals collapse to 1 and to \bar D(\chi)+\bar D_h(\chi) is nontrivial and is not a parameter fit. The 'strictly more informative' conclusion is the standard information-theoretic consequence of one data vector containing a deterministic projection of the other; it is not a fabricated prediction. Self-citations to Wang et al. supply fiducial posterior values and the target C^{Dg} expression, but the identity is verified by the present computation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper's own caveats in Sec. IV about DM-bin information loss and the untested mock prediction are modeling/correctness risks, not circular reductions. Likewise, the asserted but unshown verification of Eq. (20) is a missing support issue, not a case of a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. No circular step meets the required standard of exhibiting a quantity that is equal to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a new statistic relation but imports a substantial model: Schechter FRB luminosity function, log-normal host DM, exponential-cut bias power spectra, and fixed galaxy bias. Seven parameters are fitted or fiducial. The Fisher forecasts therefore test the information content of the assumed model rather than making model-free predictions.

free parameters (7)
  • α (FRB luminosity function power-law index) = CHIME 0.1, CHORD -1.5 (Table I)
    Power-law index of the Schechter luminosity function determining p_f(χ); fitted to CHIME Catalog 2 DM distribution / CHORD MCMC.
  • z* (characteristic FRB redshift) = CHIME 0.6, CHORD 2.15 (Table I)
    Characteristic redshift parameter of the FRB luminosity function; fitted to CHIME DM distribution / CHORD MCMC.
  • b_e (electron bias) = not explicitly stated (expected ≈ 1)
    Bias of free electrons in P_eg; included as a free parameter in the Fisher forecasts even though expected near 1.
  • b_f (FRB bias) = 2.4
    Bias of FRB sources in P_fg; taken as maximum of the Wang et al. [30] posterior.
  • k_cut (exponential cutoff scale) = 1.6 h/Mpc
    Exponential cutoff in P_eg describing feedback destruction of small-scale baryon clustering; from Wang et al. [30] posterior maximum.
  • μ_host (mean host DM at z=0) = 100 pc/cm^3
    Mean of the log-normal host DM distribution; fiducial from [41,42].
  • σ_host (host DM dispersion at z=0) = 100 pc/cm^3
    Width of the log-normal host DM distribution; fiducial from [41,42].
axioms (10)
  • standard math Limber approximation is valid for the angular power spectra.
    Used in Appendix A to collapse the spherical Bessel integrals; standard for angular spectra in the l range considered (l ≥ 40).
  • domain assumption Galaxy redshift distribution can be approximated as a thin shell.
    Appendix A, Eq. (A8): δ_g(χ'|z_g) ≈ δ_D(χ'−χ_g) for simplicity; authors note the full integral would be used in practice.
  • ad hoc to paper FRB redshift distribution follows a Schechter luminosity function.
    Eqs. (8)-(9); described by the authors as a simple ad hoc model sufficient to compare f×g and D×g information content.
  • ad hoc to paper Power spectra P_eg and P_fg take the exponential-cut bias forms.
    Eqs. (10)-(11): P_eg = b_e b_g e^{-k/k_cut} P(k,z), P_fg = b_f b_g P(k,z); acknowledged in Sec. IV as 'simple and ad-hoc ... not physically motivated.'
  • ad hoc to paper Host DM contribution follows a log-normal distribution with (1+z) scaling.
    Eq. (12); assumed form for p_h(D|z), with fiducial parameters from [41,42].
  • domain assumption FRB field noise in DM bins is shot-noise dominated and diagonal.
    Eq. (20) and surrounding text; the paper asserts it was 'verified by taking explicit autocorrelation of δ_f terms' but does not show the calculation.
  • domain assumption Gaussian errors and disconnected four-point dominance.
    Sec. III.A; the Fisher covariance assumes Gaussian errors, yielding lower bounds on true noise.
  • domain assumption Milky Way DM subtraction errors do not correlate with large-scale structure.
    Sec. II.A; needed so residual Galactic DM does not bias the cross-correlation signal.
  • domain assumption Galaxy bias b_g is known and fixed to 1.2.
    Sec. II.B; b_g(z) is taken from galaxy-galaxy clustering and simplified to a constant fiducial value.
  • domain assumption FRB host redshifts are unavailable, so DM is used as a distance proxy.
    Framing of the entire paper: no host identifications for most FRBs, motivating redshift-blind statistics.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16696 in / 18563 out tokens · 168332 ms · 2026-08-01T00:40:38.346631+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cross-correlating the dispersion of fast radio bursts (FRBs) with galaxies provides a means to study the distribution of the baryons in the Universe, even in the absence of FRB redshifts. To this end, two variants of angular cross-power spectrum statistics have been proposed: one between DM and galaxy density binned by redshift $C^{Dg}_l(z_g)$ (abbreviated $D \times g$), and one between FRB counts binned by dispersion measure (DM) and galaxy density binned by redshift $C^{fg}_l(\textrm{DM}, z_g)$ (abbreviated $f \times g$). Here we show the $D \times g$ statistic can be recovered as a DM-moment of $f \times g$, implying the latter is strictly more informative. By slicing in both DM space and galaxy redshift space, the $f\times g$ statistic separates contributions from the clustering of free electrons and from the clustering of FRB sources. We perform Fisher forecasts for FRB samples consistent with CHIME (1,600 FRBs) and the upcoming CHORD (20,000 FRBs) survey cross-correlated against the DESI Legacy Survey BGS sample and Euclid galaxy surveys, respectively. We show that, compared to the $D \times g$ statistic, the $f \times g$ statistic results in $S/N\approx 12$ for CHIME$\times$DESI(LS) and SNR $\approx 54$ for CHORD$\times$Euclid. The $f \times g$ statistics is more sensitive to the redshift distribution of FRBs with forecasted errors on a simple parameterization of order $10 \%$. It measures the logarithmic cutoff scale for clustering of baryons due to feedback $k_{cut}$ to 26\% precision with CHIME and 14\% precision with CHORD. Since most FRBs currently lack host identifications, and scaling optical followup to large samples will remain challenging even with precise localizations, reliable redshifts will be unavailable for most FRBs for the foreseeable future. The $f \times g$ statistic provides a means to extract maximum cosmological information in their absence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26135 by Haochen Wang, Kiyoshi Masui, Ryan Raikman, Shion Andrew.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison of overall SNR present across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of forecast posteriors describing the host DM distribution, FRB redshift distribution, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as Fig. 3, but for the CHORD survey. Going from CHIME to CHORD populations presents an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, Science318, 777 (2007), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1147532

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  2. [2]

    Petroff, J

    E. Petroff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review30, 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w (2022)

    doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w 2022

  3. [3]

    Macquart, J

    J.-P. Macquart, J. X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C. K. Day, A. T. Deller, R. D. Ekers, C. W. James, L. Marnoch, S. Os lowski, C. Phillips, S. D. Ryder, D. R. Scott, R. M. Shannon, and N. Tejos, Nature581, 391–395 (2020). 13

    2020

  4. [5]

    Cen and J

    R. Cen and J. P. Ostriker, The Astrophysical Journal514, 1 (1999)

    1999

  5. [6]

    Nevalainenet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics583, A142 (2015)

    J. Nevalainenet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics583, A142 (2015)

    2015

  6. [7]

    R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics4, 173 (1972)

    1972

  7. [8]

    R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society190, 413 (1980)

    1980

  8. [9]

    de Graaff, Y.-C

    A. de Graaff, Y.-C. Cai, C. Heymans, and J. A. Peacock, Astronomy & Astrophysics624, A48 (2019), arXiv:1709.10378 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [10]

    B. R. Guachalla, E. Schaan, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Ferraro,et al., Backlighting extended gas halos around luminous red galaxies: kinematic sunyaev-zel’dovich effect from desi y1 x act (2025), arXiv:2503.19870 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [11]

    Sunseri, A

    J. Sunseri, A. Amon, J. Dunkley, N. Battaglia, S. Ferraro, B. Hadzhiyska, B. R. Guachalla, and E. Schaan, Disentan- gling the halo: Joint model for measurements of the kinetic sunyaev-zeldovich effect and galaxy-galaxy lensing (2025), arXiv:2505.20413 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [12]

    Pen, The Astrophysical Journal Letters510, L1 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811045 [astro-ph]

    U.-L. Pen, The Astrophysical Journal Letters510, L1 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811045 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [13]

    Nicastro, J

    F. Nicastro, J. Kaastra, Y. Krongold, S. Borgani, E. Branchini, R. Cen, M. Dadina, C. W. Danforth, M. Elvis, F. Fiore, A. Gupta, S. Mathur, D. Mayya, F. Paerels, L. Piro, D. Rosa-Gonzalez, J. Schaye, J. M. Shull, J. Torres-Zafra, N. Wijers, and L. Zappacosta, Nature558, 406 (2018), arXiv:1806.08395 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [14]

    Sorini, R

    D. Sorini, R. Dav´ e, W. Cui, and S. Appleby, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516, 883 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/516/1/883/45633683/stac2214.pdf

    2022

  14. [15]

    Ayromlou, D

    M. Ayromlou, D. Nelson, and A. Pillepich, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society524, 5391 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/524/4/5391/51025066/stad2046.pdf

    2023

  15. [16]

    I. S. Khrykin, D. Sorini, K.-G. Lee, and R. Dav´ e, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society529, 537 (2024), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/529/1/537/56814693/stae525.pdf

    2024

  16. [17]

    Gebhardt, D

    M. Gebhardt, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, J. Borrow, S. Genel, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, Y. Ni, C. Lovell, D. Nagai, R. Dav´ e, F. Marinacci, M. Vogelsberger, and L. Hernquist, Cosmological baryon spread and impact on matter clustering in camels (2023), arXiv:2307.11832 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [18]

    Velliscig, M

    M. Velliscig, M. P. van Daalen, J. Schaye, I. G. McCarthy, M. Cacciato, A. M. C. Le Brun, and C. D. Vecchia, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society442, 2641–2658 (2014)

    2014

  18. [19]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, J. C. Helly, R. Kugel, M. Schaller, J. Schaye, J. Braspenning, J. Kwan, I. G. McCarthy, J. Salcido, M. P. van Daalen, B. Vandenbroucke, and S. Pascoli, The flamingo project: the coupling between baryonic feedback and cosmology in light of thes 8 tension (2025), arXiv:2403.12967 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    C. W. James, J. X. Prochaska, J.-P. Macquart, F. O. North-Hickey, K. W. Bannister, and A. Dunning, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509, 4775–4802 (2021)

    2021

  20. [21]

    I. S. Khrykin, M. Ata, K.-G. Lee, S. Simha, Y. Huang, J. X. Prochaska, N. Tejos, K. W. Bannister, J. Cooke, C. K. Day, A. Deller, M. Glowacki, A. C. Gordon, C. W. James, L. Marnoch, R. M. Shannon, J. Zhang, and L. Bernales-Cortes, The Astrophysical Journal973, 151 (2024)

    2024

  21. [22]

    Baptista, J

    J. Baptista, J. X. Prochaska, A. G. Mannings, C. W. James, R. M. Shannon, S. D. Ryder, A. T. Deller, D. R. Scott, M. Glowacki, and N. Tejos, The Astrophysical Journal965, 57 (2024)

    2024

  22. [23]

    Medlock, D

    I. Medlock, D. Nagai, P. Singh, B. Oppenheimer, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, The Astrophysical Journal 967, 32 (2024)

    2024

  23. [25]

    Sharma, E

    K. Sharma, E. Krause, V. Ravi, R. Reischke, P. R. S., and L. Connor, A hydrodynamical simulations-based model that connects the frb dm–redshift relation to suppression of the matter power spectrum via feedback (2025), arXiv:2504.18745 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [26]

    McQuinn, The Astrophysical Journal Letters780, L33 (2013)

    M. McQuinn, The Astrophysical Journal Letters780, L33 (2013)

    2013

  25. [27]

    Connor and V

    L. Connor and V. Ravi, The observed impact of galaxy halo gas on fast radio bursts (2022), arXiv:2107.13692 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [28]

    Wu and M

    X. Wu and M. McQuinn, The Astrophysical Journal945, 87 (2023)

    2023

  27. [29]

    Hussaini, L

    M. Hussaini, L. Connor, R. M. Konietzka, V. Ravi, J. Faber, K. Sharma, and M. Sherman, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.04186 (2025), arXiv:2506.04186 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [30]

    H. Wang, K. Masui, S. Andrew, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, R. C. Joseph, V. M. Kaspi, B. Kharel, A. E. Lanman, C. Leung, L. Mas-Ribas, J. Mena-Parra, K. Nimmo, A. B. Pearlman, U.-L. Pen, J. X. Prochaska, R. Raikman, K. Shin, S. R. Siegel, K. M. Smith, and I. H. Stairs, Measurement of the dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum with the second chime/frb cata...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [31]

    K. W. Masui and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 121301 (2015), arXiv:1506.01704 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [32]

    Shirasaki, K

    M. Shirasaki, K. Kashiyama, and N. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D95, 083012 (2017), arXiv:1702.07085 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [33]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Battaglia, K. M. Smith, and J. L. Sievers, Phys. Rev. D100, 103532 (2019)

    2019

  32. [34]

    Alonso, Phys

    D. Alonso, Phys. Rev. D103, 123544 (2021), arXiv:2103.14016 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [35]

    DM budgeting

    to the angular precision needed for confident host as- sociation, is expensive, and doing this at scale for thou- arXiv:2607.26135v1 [astro-ph.CO] 28 Jul 2026 2 sands to tens of thousands FRBs will be prohibitive. In this work we use a generalization ofD×g, first presented by Alonso [34] and Masui and Sigurdson [31], and show its relation to theD×gstatist...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [36]

    CHIME Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal863, 48 (2018), arXiv:1803.11235 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [37]

    Collaboration, M

    F. Collaboration, M. Amiri, B. C. Andersen, S. Andrew,et al., Chime/frb outriggers: Design overview (2025), arXiv:2504.05192 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [38]

    Medlock, D

    I. Medlock, D. Nagai, D. A. Alc´ azar, and M. Gebhardt, Constraining baryonic feedback effects on the matter power spectrum with fast radio bursts (2025), arXiv:2501.17922 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [39]

    Vanderlinde, K

    K. Vanderlinde, K. Bandura, L. Belostotski, R. Bond, P. Boyle, J. Brown, H. C. Chiang, M. Dobbs, B. Gaensler, G. Hin- shaw, V. Kaspi, T. Landecker, A. Liu, K. Masui, J. Mena-Parra, C. Ng, U. Pen, M. Rupen, J. Sievers, K. Smith, K. Spekkens, I. Stairs, and N. Turok, arXiv e-prints1911.01777(2019). 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [40]

    Takahashi, M

    R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, and M. Oguri, The Astrophysical Journal761, 152 (2012)

    2012

  39. [41]

    L. D. Shaw, D. Nagai, S. Bhattacharya, and E. T. Lau, The Astrophysical Journal725, 1452–1465 (2010)

    2010

  40. [42]

    Reischke, M

    R. Reischke, M. Kovaˇ c, A. Nicola, S. Hagstotz, and A. Schneider, The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 10.33232/001c.143819 (2025)

    doi:10.33232/001c.143819 2025

  41. [43]

    Bernales-Cortes, N

    L. Bernales-Cortes, N. Tejos, J. X. Prochaska, I. S. Khrykin, L. Marnoch, S. D. Ryder, and R. M. Shannon, Astronomy & Astrophysics696, A81 (2025)

    2025

  42. [44]

    A. Dey, D. J. Schlegel, D. Lang,et al., The Astronomical Journal157, 168 (2019)

    2019

  43. [45]

    K. Shin, K. W. Masui, M. Bhardwaj, T. Cassanelli, P. Chawla, M. Dobbs, F. A. Dong, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, A. Herrera-Mart ´ ın, J. Kaczmarek, V. Kaspi, C. Leung, M. Merryfield, D. Michilli, M. M¨ unchmeyer, A. B. Pearlman, M. Rafiei-Ravandi, K. Smith, I. Stairs, and S. P. Tendulkar, The Astrophysical Journal944, 105 (2023)

    2023

  44. [46]

    Amiri, B

    M. Amiri, B. C. Andersen, K. Bandura, S. Berger, M. Bhardwaj, M. M. Boyce, P. J. Boyle, C. Brar, D. Breitman, T. Cassanelli, P. Chawla, T. Chen, J.-F. Cliche, A. Cook, D. Cubranic, A. P. Curtin, M. Deng, M. Dobbs, F. (Adam) Dong, G. Eadie, M. Fandino, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, U. Giri, D. C. Good, M. Halpern, A. S. Hill, G. Hinshaw, A. Josephy, J. F. Ka...

    2021

  45. [47]

    D. Kirk, I. Laszlo, S. Bridle, and R. Bean, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society430, 197–208 (2013)

    2013

  46. [48]

    A. Q. Cheng, S. E. Andrew, H. Wang, and K. W. Masui, Exploring selection biases in frb dispersion-galaxy cross-correlations with magnetohydrodynamical simulations (2025), arXiv:2506.03258 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    Collaboration, The second chime/frb catalog of fast radio bursts (in prep)

    C. Collaboration, The second chime/frb catalog of fast radio bursts (in prep)

  48. [50]

    M. M. Ivanov, Effective field theory for large scale structure (2022), arXiv:2212.08488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [51]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. M. Ivanov, M. Lewandowski, M. Mirbabayi, and M. Simonovi´ c, Snowmass white paper: Effective field theories in cosmology (2022), arXiv:2203.08232 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [53]

    J. M. Sullivan, U. Seljak, and S. Singh, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(11), 026

  51. [2000]

    sensitive

    We generally consider theℓrange fromℓ min = 40 toℓ max = 6000. The lower bound ofℓ= 40 is cho- sen to bypass effects of survey geometry and the Milky Way DM contribution. The upper bound is irrelevant to the CHIME survey given the localization error, and is taken to very roughly account for the localization er- rors in CHORD. Thef×gcross-correlation picks...

    2000