Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Locating the missing baryons in the warm-hot intergalactic medium with fast radio bursts and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 99.77%-confidence cross-correlation locates the missing baryons in warm-hot cosmic-web gas.

desk verdict A careful masked FRB–tSZ cross-correlation measurement with a clean null test, but the headline f_WHIM = 0.48 and the 'baryon budget closed' claim are anchored to an unpropagated Te = 2.4e6 K assumption; the detection itself drops to ~2σ under the strictest mask. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09014 v1 pith:MH2EWRQR submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Dao-Hong Zhai , F.Y. Wang , Zi-Gao Dai , Renyue Cen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords fastradioburstsSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectwarm-hotintergalacticmediummissingbaryonsdispersionmeasurecosmicwebangularcross-correlationComptony-map
open problems Dark Matter
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 tries to account for the universe's 'missing baryons'--the ordinary matter that late-time censuses cannot find--by cross-correlating the dispersion measures of 2,656 fast radio bursts with the Planck satellite's Compton-$y$ map, which traces the pressure of hot gas. After masking galaxy clusters to remove the bright cluster gas, it reports a positive angular cross-correlation at >99.77% confidence and fits a warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) baryon fraction $f_{\rm WHIM}=0.48$, with a 68% confidence interval of $0.27$--$0.61$, anchored at a mean gas temperature of $T_e=2.4\times10^6$ K. If correct, this closes the local cosmic baryon budget: the missing baryons are hiding in diffuse warm-hot gas in the cosmic web rather than in any yet-unseen collapsed structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angular cross-power spectrum $C_\ell$ between the FRB dispersion-measure field and the tSZ Compton-$y$ map. It is measured with a catalog-based pseudo-$C_\ell$ estimator on masked skies and compared with a theoretical model built from the Limber approximation: a line-of-sight integral of the three-dimensional electron power spectrum, assumed to trace dark matter, times two weight functions. The FRB weight function combines the IGM electron column and the data-driven redshift distribution of the FRB sample; the tSZ weight function is proportional to $f_{\rm WHIM}$ times a fiducial pressure amplitude $f_{\rm WSZ}$. Because the tSZ signal depends on electron pressure ($P_e\propto n_e T_e$), the paper fixes the mean WHIM temperature at $2.4\times10^6$ K and fits $f_{\rm WHIM}$ together with the FRB localization scale $\ell_{\rm loc}$.

What would settle it

Measure the actual mean electron temperature of the WHIM--for instance with X-ray absorption-line spectroscopy of cosmic filaments or with a simulation-calibrated temperature prior--and recompute $f_{\rm WHIM}$ from the same cross-power spectrum: a temperature near $10^7$ K would push the fraction below 20%, and a temperature near $10^5$ K would require more baryons than exist, either of which would falsify the budget-closing interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dispersion measures of extragalactic fast radio bursts and the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Compton-$y$ signal trace the same diffuse electron population, so their angular cross-power spectrum can isolate the WHIM. Masking clusters at $1\theta_{500}$ and $3\theta_{500}$ radii leaves a positive cross-correlation ($3.05\sigma$, >99.77% confidence) whose amplitude, modeled with the Limber approximation and a tSZ weight function anchored at $T_e=2.4\times10^6$ K with $f_{\rm WSZ}\approx3.09$, yields $f_{\rm WHIM}=0.48$ ($0.27$--$0.61$ at 68%). The inferred fraction is nearly invariant ($f_{\rm WHIM}\approx0.494$) under the more aggressive cluster mask, which the authors take as evidence that the signal comes from diffuse cosmic-web gas rather than residual cluster halos. Adding this WHIM share to the baryons already counted in stars, cold gas, the circumgalactic and intracluster medium, and the Ly$\alpha$ forest accounts for roughly 94% of the cosmological baryon budget, with the remaining ~6.4% covered by the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of the diffuse phases.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 48% number rests on the assumed mean WHIM temperature of 2.4 million kelvin, together with the assumption that diffuse free electrons trace dark matter with unit bias: at $10^5$ K the same signal would require more than the total baryon budget, and at $10^7$ K it would leave less than 20% of baryons in the WHIM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The local cosmic baryon budget can be closed statistically: the measured 48% WHIM share, added to roughly 7% in stars and ISM, 1.7% in cold gas, 5% in the CGM, 4% in the ICM, and 28% in the Ly$\alpha$ forest, reaches about 94%, with the residual covered by the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties.
  • FRB-tSZ cross-correlation becomes a practical probe of diffuse gas that sidesteps the host-galaxy DM degeneracy and the cosmic infrared background contamination that dominate the auto-power spectra of either tracer.
  • The inferred WHIM fraction remains nearly unchanged when the cluster mask is widened from $1\theta_{500}$ to $3\theta_{500}$, indicating the signal is diffuse rather than cluster contamination.
  • The fitted FRB localization scale $\ell_{\rm loc}\approx477$ with a 68% range of $338$--$1321$ is consistent with the expected CHIME localization range, which supports the modeling pipeline.
  • A baryon-rich WHIM near $2.4\times10^6$ K is favored over a cold $10^5$ K WHIM, which would require more baryons than exist, and over a hot $10^7$ K WHIM, which would leave fewer than 20% of baryons in the WHIM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its headline fraction is essentially a temperature assumption in disguise; a direct measurement of the WHIM temperature would convert the same cross-correlation amplitude into a baryon census without the $f_{\rm WHIM}$--$T_e$ degeneracy.
  • The same pipeline applied to future FRB samples with host-galaxy redshifts and to CIB-deprojected tSZ maps could sharpen the detection; the paper itself notes that the significance drops to about $2.4\sigma$ on the CIB-deprojected map.
  • If FRB DMs are also cross-correlated with CMB lensing or the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, the combination could map the WHIM's spatial distribution and temperature, and test the unit-bias assumption for the electron power spectrum that the paper does not test.
  • The WHIM fraction is likely redshift-dependent, so extending this measurement to higher-redshift FRB samples could trace the assembly of the cosmic web and test whether the local budget closure holds at earlier epochs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an angular cross-correlation measurement between the dispersion measures of 2,656 FRBs from CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 and the Planck PR4 NILC tSZ Compton-y map, after masking galaxy clusters. The authors report a positive cross-power spectrum at 3.05σ significance with the 1θ500 mask, a best-fit WHIM baryon fraction f_WHIM = 0.48 (68% interval 0.27–0.61) anchored at T_e = 2.4×10^6 K, and an effective localization scale ℓ_loc = 477 (68% interval 338–1321). They argue that the signal originates from diffuse WHIM because expanding the mask to 3θ500 leaves f_WHIM ≈ 0.494, and an RA-shuffle null test yields a mean spectrum consistent with zero. The paper concludes that the missing baryons reside in the WHIM and that the local baryon budget is statistically closed.

Significance. If correct, the measurement would be the first direct FRB–tSZ cross-correlation detection that isolates the WHIM, and it demonstrates a valuable observational route to the missing-baryon problem. The cleanest assets are the catalog-based pseudo-C_ℓ estimator, the RA-shuffle null test, and the stability of f_WHIM under cluster-mask expansion. However, the amplitude interpretation is conditional on an externally adopted temperature anchor, and the quoted baryon fraction does not yet provide a robust stand-alone census; the detection significance is modest and somewhat mask-dependent.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3.1, Eq. (5); Section 4] The headline f_WHIM = 0.48 is degenerate with the mean WHIM temperature because the tSZ weight is proportional to n_e T_e while the FRB weight is proportional to n_e; for a fixed measured cross-spectrum amplitude, f_WHIM scales approximately as 1/T_e. The authors adopt T_e = 2.4×10^6 K and f_WSZ ≈ 3.09 without propagating their uncertainties, and Section 4 itself notes that T_e ~ 10^5 K would require an unphysical f_WHIM > 1 while T_e ~ 10^7 K would lower f_WHIM below 20%. The quoted 68% confidence interval is therefore not a posterior over the dominant nuisance parameter. I recommend marginalizing over T_e with a physically motivated prior, reporting the result as a joint constraint on f_WHIM × T_e, or at minimum clearly framing 0.48 as a conditional estimate rather than a direct measurement of the baryon fraction.
  2. [Section 3.2] The detection significance falls from 3.05σ with the 1θ500 mask to 2.06σ with the 3θ500 mask. The abstract and conclusion headline the 99.77% significance and describe the 3θ500 result as confirming the WHIM origin, but at 2.06σ the more conservative measurement is only a marginal detection. The text should report both significances in the abstract and soften the "confirms" language to "consistent with a diffuse origin," since the statistical evidence for a non-zero signal at the stricter mask is below the conventional 3σ threshold.
  3. [Section 2.3, paragraph before Eq. (4)] The model assumes P_e(k,z) = P_m(k,z), i.e., a unit bias between the diffuse electron distribution and the matter distribution at the scales used. Because f_WHIM is fitted as the amplitude of this model, any non-unit or scale-dependent electron bias is absorbed into f_WHIM. This premise is not tested in the paper; a comparison with hydrodynamical simulations or a bias parameter marginalized over would make the amplitude claim more robust.
  4. [Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3] The FRB projection kernel is normalized using f_IGM = 0.84 as a fixed input and a p(z) derived from pseudo-redshift medians with a KDE smoothing bandwidth, and neither the uncertainty in f_IGM nor the pseudo-redshift systematics is propagated into the posterior. Since f_WHIM is the ratio of the measured cross-spectrum amplitude to the model normalization, these choices enter the headline value directly; the sensitivity of f_WHIM to the p(z) construction and to the lower and upper bounds of the redshift distribution should be quantified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The paper describes the result as the first detection, but a concurrent study (Sharma et al. 2026) already reports a positive FRB–tSZ correlation; please clarify that the novelty is isolating the WHIM via cluster masking.
  2. [Section 2.1.2 and Figure 1 caption] The text refers to a C^1 apodization while the Figure 1 caption says "cosine apodization"; unify the terminology.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The jackknife variance formula uses N in the prefactor, but the text specifies 53 valid patches; state explicitly that N=53 in this expression.
  4. [Eq. (9)] The likelihood uses only the diagonal of the jackknife covariance; given that nearby multipole bins are likely correlated through mode coupling, a short justification or a covariance-matrix test would strengthen the quoted Δχ² significance.
  5. [Section 2.4] The significance is quoted as √Δχ² in units of Gaussian sigma; since the number of degrees of freedom is not stated, specify the dof for the null and best-fit χ² values.
  6. [Section 1] Typo "wholistic" should be "holistic".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-correlation is measured against a null hypothesis and the baryon fraction is a standard amplitude fit with external thermodynamic anchors.

full rationale

The paper's core detection is a measured angular cross-power spectrum between CHIME FRB dispersion measures and the Planck tSZ Compton-y map, evaluated against the null hypothesis C_ell = 0 using jackknife errors and an RA-shuffled null test; this is an independent measurement, not an input recycled as an output. The headline f_WHIM = 0.48 is obtained by MCMC fitting two free parameters, f_WHIM and ell_loc, in Eqs. (4)-(9), with the tSZ template amplitude anchored to f_WSZ ≈ 3.09 and T_e ≈ 2.4×10^6 K from Ibitoye et al. (2024). That is standard calibration against external constraints: the data determine the product of f_WHIM with the template, and the anchors convert that amplitude into a baryon fraction. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. 4 that the inferred fraction is degenerate with the assumed temperature and quotes the unphysical f_WHIM > 1 at T_e ~ 10^5 K and f_WHIM < 20% at T_e ~ 10^7 K; this is a prior/systematic dependence, not a circular definition. The budget pie chart re-uses the fitted f_WHIM together with literature estimates, which is a synthesis rather than an independent verification, but the paper does not claim that the pie chart independently predicts f_WHIM. Self-citations such as Cen & Ostriker (1999) for the WHIM simulation prediction are background context and not load-bearing; the pseudo-redshift construction follows Gao et al. (2025), an external method. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is an angular cross-power spectrum amplitude fitted with two parameters (f_WHIM and ell_loc). The conversion from amplitude to a baryon fraction relies on adopted anchors from prior literature (T_e, f_WSZ, f_IGM) and on the assumption that diffuse electrons trace dark matter with unit bias. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • f_WHIM = 0.48 (68% CI 0.27-0.61)
    Primary fitting parameter; overall amplitude scaling of the theoretical cross-power spectrum (Eq. 5). Fitted with MCMC.
  • ell_loc = 477 (68% CI 338-1321)
    Effective CHIME localization scale controlling the high-ell cutoff in the FRB weight function; fitted as a nuisance parameter.
  • T_e (mean WHIM temperature) = 2.4e6 K (anchored)
    Assumed mean electron temperature; the inferred f_WHIM is inversely proportional to T_e and is not marginalized over this anchor.
  • f_WSZ = 3.09 (adopted from Ibitoye et al. 2024)
    Baseline tSZ amplitude calibration in Eq. 5; its uncertainty is not propagated into the f_WHIM error budget.
  • f_IGM = 0.84 (adopted from Shull et al. 2012)
    Assumed fraction of cosmic baryons in the diffuse IGM used in the FRB weight function (Eq. 7).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Diffuse free electrons trace the underlying dark matter distribution at large scales with unit bias.
    Sec 2.3: 'Assuming that the diffuse free electrons trace the underlying dark matter distribution at large scales, P_e(k,z) can be approximated from the nonlinear matter power spectrum P_m(k,z).' This sets the shape and amplitude of the theoretical cross-spectrum.
  • standard math Limber approximation is accurate for the multipole range ell > 109.
    Sec 2.3: used to relate the 3D electron power spectrum to the 2D angular cross-spectrum; standard for high-ell cosmological correlations.
  • domain assumption The one-halo term from the FRB host galaxy's own tSZ signal is negligible after cluster masking.
    Sec 1: 'this term is naturally insignificant, and in our work where all galaxy clusters with strong tSZ effects are masked, this term is negligible.'
  • domain assumption Residual CIB emission does not significantly cross-correlate with the FRB dispersion measure field.
    Sec 2.3.1: the CIB contribution is neglected because 'the CIB emission does not significantly cross-correlate with the discrete FRB dispersion measure field.'
  • domain assumption The pseudo-redshift PDF obtained from the Gao et al. (2025) method and the KDE smoothing represents the true FRB redshift distribution.
    Sec 2.3.3: the redshift distribution is constructed from pseudo redshifts without independent spectroscopic validation.
  • domain assumption The tSZ amplitude calibration f_WSZ approx 3.09 and mean temperature T_e = 2.4e6 K from Ibitoye et al. (2024) apply to the diffuse WHIM.
    Sec 2.3.1: 'we anchor our baseline model to the constraints derived in (Ibitoye et al. 2024).' The f_WHIM result scales inversely with T_e.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Locating the missing baryons in the warm-hot intergalactic medium with fast radio bursts and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MH2EWRQR

@misc{pith2026260809014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Locating the missing baryons in the warm-hot intergalactic medium with fast radio bursts and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MH2EWRQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09014}
}
abstract

Traditional astronomical censuses in the late-time Universe can only account for a fraction of the baryonic matter budget. Hydrodynamical simulations predict that the missing baryons reside in the vast filamentary structures of the cosmic web as a highly diffuse, warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM). Observing the WHIM directly has remained a long-standing challenge due to its typical temperature. In this study, we report the first detection of spatial cross-correlations between the dispersion measures (DMs) of fast radio bursts (FRBs) from the second CHIME/FRB catalog and the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) Compton-$y$ map from the Planck satellite. By masking virialized galaxy clusters to isolate the diffuse signal, we find a positive correlation with a probability $>99.77\%$ between FRBs and tSZ maps. Our joint parameter inference constrains the fraction of cosmic baryons in the WHIM to be $f_{\rm WHIM}=0.48$ with a $68\%$ confidence interval of $0.27<f_{\rm WHIM}<0.61$, anchored at a mean WHIM temperature of $2.4 \times 10^6\ {\rm K}$. More rigorous masking strategies confirm the signal originates from the WHIM instead of galaxy clusters. Our result demonstrates that the missing baryons are residing in the diffuse gas within the cosmic web, closing the cosmic baryon budget in the local Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09014 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sky distribution of the FRB sample and the masked tSZ map. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Redshift distribution of FRBs in CHIME Catalog 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Angular cross-power spectrum between the FRB dispersion measures and the tSZ Compton- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior constraints on the WHIM baryon fraction and FRB localization scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Non-uniform CHIME sky coverage and detection sensitivity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The closed cosmic baryon budget. The pie chart illustrates the partitioning of baryonic matter into various cosmological components. Dense and collapsed phases, including galaxies (stars and ISM), cold gas, the CGM and ICM, comprise roughly 18% of the total budget. The…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525823

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525823 2016

  2. [2]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525826 —

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525826 —. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525826 2016

  3. [3]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 643, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038073

    Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 643, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038073

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038073 2020

  4. [4]

    Alonso, D., Sanchez, J., Slosar, A., & Collaboration, L. D. E. S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4127–4151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  5. [5]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 —

    Amiri, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 —. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 2018

  6. [6]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    Bhandari, S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec 2022

  7. [7]

    Bregman, J. N. 2007, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 45, 221, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110619

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 514, 1, doi: 10.1086/306949

    doi:10.1086/306949 1999

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Chandran, J., Remazeilles, M., & Barreiro, R. B. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 5682–5698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3156

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Chandran, J., Remazeilles, M., & Barreiro, R. B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17799, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17799 Chime/Frb Collaboration, et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 283, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828 13

    2026 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226–1239, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226–1239, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Pettini, M., & Steidel, C

    Cooke, R. J., Pettini, M., & Steidel, C. C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Lazio, T

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

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    W., & Shull, J

    Danforth, C. W., & Shull, J. M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 555, doi: 10.1086/429285 Dav´ e, R., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 552, 473, doi: 10.1086/320548 de Graaff, A., Cai, Y.-C., Heymans, C., & Peacock, J. A. 2019, Astronomy &...

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 493, 835–857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810514

    Delabrouille, J., Cardoso, J.-F., Le Jeune, M., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 493, 835–857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810514

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Canizares, C. R. 2002, Astrophys. J. Lett., 572, L127, doi: 10.1086/341665

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Peebles, P

    Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 503, 518, doi: 10.1086/306025

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Fukugita, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, 643, doi: 10.1086/425155

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    H., Wu, Q., Hu, J

    Gao, D. H., Wu, Q., Hu, J. P., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 698, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453006 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759–771, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Steinmetz, M., & Rauch, M

    Haehnelt, M. G., Steinmetz, M., & Rauch, M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 550, 566, doi: 10.1086/319777

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 525, doi: 10.1086/324401

    Hui, L., Haiman, Z., Zaldarriaga, M., & Alexander, T. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 525, doi: 10.1086/324401

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad08c5

    Ibitoye, A., Dai, W.-M., Ma, Y.-Z., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad08c5

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Ghosh, E

    James, C. W., Ghosh, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    C., & Pen, U.-L

    Keating, L. C., & Pen, U.-L. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 1256–1270, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05889.x

    Komatsu, E., & Seljak, U. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 1256–1270, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05889.x

    2002

  19. [27]

    W., et al

    Leung, C., Borrow, J., Masui, K. W., et al. 2025, Nulling baryonic feedback in weak lensing surveys using cross-correlations with fast radio bursts, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19514

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 538, 473–476, doi: 10.1086/309179

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 538, 473–476, doi: 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, Tracing Missing Baryons in the Cosmic Filaments with tSZ and CMB-Lensing Stacking, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08561

    Li, J., Zheng, Y., & Zhu, W. 2025, Tracing Missing Baryons in the Cosmic Filaments with tSZ and CMB-Lensing Stacking, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08561

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Limber, D. N. 1953, The Astrophysical Journal, 117, 134, doi: 10.1086/145672

    1953 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    P., Prochaska, J

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

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, Astrophys

    McQuinn, M. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33 Mu˜ noz, J. B., & Loeb, A. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103518

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, Nature, 558, 406–409, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    Nicastro, F., Kaastra, J., Krongold, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 558, 406–409, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    X., & Zheng, Y

    Prochaska, J. X., & Zheng, Y. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz261

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab

    Rafiei-Ravandi, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Rauch, M., Miralda-Escud´ e, J., Sargent, W. L. W., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 7, doi: 10.1086/304728

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.01000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.01000

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.01000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.01000

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 370–385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts636

    Remazeilles, M., Aghanim, N., & Douspis, M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 370–385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts636

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449427

    Melin, J.-B. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449427

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    2025, Probing baryonic feedback and cosmology with 3×2-point statistic of FRBs and galaxies, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05866 —

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V., et al. 2025, Probing baryonic feedback and cosmology with 3×2-point statistic of FRBs and galaxies, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05866 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22105 14

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    M., Smith, B

    Shull, J. M., Smith, B. D., & Danforth, C. W. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/23

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173

    1972

  37. [46]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937158 Tepper-Garc ´ ıa, T., Richter, P., Schaye, J., et al

    Douspis, M. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937158 Tepper-Garc ´ ıa, T., Richter, P., Schaye, J., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 190, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18123.x

    2020

  38. [47]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson, J., Thom, C., Werk, J. K., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 948, doi: 10.1126/science.1209840

    2011 doi

  39. [48]

    2021, Astron

    Tuominen, T., Nevalainen, J., Tempel, E., et al. 2021, Astron. & Astrophys., 646, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039221

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    M., et al

    Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., O’Meara, J. M., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 617, 1, doi: 10.1086/422744

    2004 doi

  41. [50]

    2025, Measurement of the Dispersion-Galaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

    Wang, H., et al. 2025, Measurement of the Dispersion-Galaxy Cross-Power Spectrum with the Second CHIME/FRB Catalog, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 515, doi: 10.1086/304893

    Katz, N. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 515, doi: 10.1086/304893

    1997 doi

  43. [52]

    2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/028

    Wolz, K., Alonso, D., & Nicola, A. 2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/028

    2025 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, Chin

    Wu, Q., & Wang, F.-Y. 2024, Chin. Phys. Lett., 41, 119801, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/41/11/119801

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac022

    Wu, Q., Zhang, G.-Q., & Wang, F.-Y. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac022

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

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

    Yang, K. B., Wu, Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca145

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    2023, Rev

    Zhang, B. 2023, Rev. Mod. Phys., 95, 035005, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.035005

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    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

  49. [58]

    A., et al

    Zwaan, M. A., et al. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 125, 2842, doi: 10.1086/374944

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.