Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 107 references

The angular auto-power spectrum of FRB dispersion measures detects large-scale electron-density correlations at >3σ and constrains baryon density combinations without needing individual redshifts.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 21:38 UTC pith:L7DJJNKM

load-bearing objection First real DM auto-power measurement from CHIME Catalog 2; >3σ detection is real, but Galactic foreground residuals still sit at the same size as the statistical errors, so the “robust probe” language is ahead of the data. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04106 v1 pith:L7DJJNKM submitted 2026-07-05 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

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

Bao Wang , Zhiyu Lu , Yang Liu , Jun-Jie Wei , Xue-Feng Wu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measuresangular power spectrumintergalactic mediumbaryon fractioncosmological parameterslarge-scale structureelectron density fluctuations
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 reports the first measurement of the angular auto-power spectrum of residual dispersion measures from 3455 non-repeating fast radio bursts in the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2. After subtracting the Galactic interstellar-medium contribution, the residual DM field shows a statistically significant angular correlation signal linked to cosmic large-scale structure. Fitting the measured bandpowers constrains the parameter combinations Ω_b h²–H0 (cosmic baryon density and expansion rate) and Ω_b h²–f_d (baryon density and the fraction of baryons in diffuse large-scale structure). The method uses only the overall redshift distribution of the sample rather than per-burst redshifts, and it is largely insensitive to uncorrelated line-of-sight contributions such as host-galaxy DM. A sympathetic reader cares because the growing catalogs of unlocalized FRBs can now be turned into a cosmological and baryon-tracing observable that partially breaks the degeneracies of the traditional DM–redshift relation.

Core claim

Using 3455 apparently non-repeating FRBs, the authors measure the angular auto-power spectrum of residual DMs (after NE2025 Galactic ISM subtraction and mean subtraction) and detect an auto-correlation signal at greater than 3σ significance relative to DM-randomized null catalogs. Fitting the six multipole bandpowers (10 ≤ ℓ ≤ 1000) to the theoretical Limber spectrum yields constraints on Ω_b h²–H0 and Ω_b h²–f_d, while mock tests show that uncorrelated host-galaxy DM contributes mainly to white-noise variance rather than to the correlated signal.

What carries the argument

The residual DM angular auto-power spectrum C_ℓ^{DM}, obtained from a catalog-based estimator after Galactic ISM subtraction; under the Limber approximation it equals the line-of-sight projection of the electron-density power spectrum weighted by the FRB redshift distribution, plus a scale-independent shot-noise term that absorbs uncorrelated DM components.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from three-dimensional electron fluctuations to the observed angular spectrum rests on a single assumed functional form for the FRB redshift distribution, which is not measured for the individual bursts.

What would settle it

If a large sample of the same FRBs later obtained secure redshifts whose distribution differs strongly from the assumed p_s(z) ∝ z² exp(−3.5 z), and the refitted bandpowers then shift the best-fit Ω_b h² or f_d outside the reported 68 percent intervals, the present constraints would be invalidated.

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

If this is right

  • Future larger FRB catalogs can tighten the same Ω_b h²–H0 and Ω_b h²–f_d constraints without requiring host-galaxy redshifts for every burst.
  • Uncorrelated host-galaxy and local-environment DM contributions are absorbed into a single white-noise amplitude, reducing a major systematic that limits the traditional DM–z relation.
  • The scale dependence of the power spectrum partially lifts the complete degeneracies (Ω_b h²/H0 = const and Ω_b h² f_d = const) that appear in the mean DM–z relation.
  • Anisotropic Galactic halo and ISM models remain the dominant residual systematics and must be improved for next-generation samples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Cross-correlating the same residual DM map with galaxy catalogs or thermal SZ maps would isolate the shared large-scale structure component and further suppress residual Galactic anisotropy.
  • Once an empirical redshift distribution is available from a modest localized subsample, the same power-spectrum pipeline can be re-run as a nearly model-independent consistency check on H0 and the missing-baryon fraction.
  • The white-noise treatment of sightline-uncorrelated contaminants could be ported to other projected fields (for example, Faraday rotation measures) that suffer analogous local-environment systematics.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of the angular auto-power spectrum of FRB dispersion measures, using 3455 apparently non-repeating events from CHIME/FRB Catalog 2. After subtracting the NE2025 Milky Way ISM contribution and the sample mean residual DM, the authors measure bandpowers over 10 ≤ ℓ ≤ 1000 with a catalog-based NaMaster estimator and jackknife covariance, and report a >3σ detection of angular correlations via a DM-randomization null test. They fit the spectrum under the Limber approximation to constrain the combinations Ω_b h²–H_0 and Ω_b h²–f_d (with a free white-noise amplitude σ_DM), and use large mock catalogs to test sensitivity to the assumed FRB redshift distribution, host-galaxy DM, Milky Way halo anisotropy, and choice of Galactic electron-density model. The central claims are that the auto-spectrum is largely insensitive to uncorrelated host DM, does not require individual redshifts, partially breaks the degeneracies of the traditional DM_LSS–z relation, and therefore constitutes a robust cosmological probe and baryon tracer.

Significance. A first auto-power measurement of the FRB DM field is a genuine and timely contribution. The methodological advantages relative to the DM–z relation—use of unlocalized samples, partial degeneracy breaking via scale dependence, and natural absorption of uncorrelated host contributions into a white-noise term—are correctly identified and are of clear interest to the FRB cosmology community. The analysis pipeline (catalog-based estimator, jackknife covariance, randomization test, MCMC fits, and systematic mock suite) is standard and carefully documented. If residual Galactic contamination can be controlled, the approach will become a useful complementary baryon tracer with next-generation samples (DSA-2000, SKA). The present constraints remain statistically weak and systematics-limited, so the paper’s main value is methodological demonstration rather than competitive parameter precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.5, Table 2, Appendix B, Eq. (11)–(12)] The claim of a >3σ LSS detection and of robustness against systematics is not fully supported by the paper’s own tests. Table 2 and §5.5 show that replacing NE2025 with YMW16 (or adopting the Huang25 anisotropic halo) produces Δ ≈ 0.75–1.0 shifts in recovered Ω_b h², comparable to the statistical uncertainties on the real sample (Table 1). Because residual anisotropic Galactic power that survives the mean subtraction (Eq. 12) is not pure white noise, it is absorbed into the measured C_ℓ and attributed to LSS. The randomization test (Appendix B) only destroys DM–position correlations; it cannot distinguish true LSS clustering from residual Galactic structure correlated with the CHIME footprint. The detection significance and the cosmological interpretation therefore remain vulnerable to the foreground systematics the paper flags but does not marginalize over in the real-data fit. A quanti
  2. [§2 Eq. (5), §5.1] The projection weight (Eq. 5) is computed from a single phenomenological form p_s(z) ∝ z² exp(−α z) with α fixed at 3.5. Although §5.1 tests SFR and power-law alternatives on 10^5-event mocks, those mocks are generated and analyzed under controlled conditions; the real CHIME selection function is not reconstructed, and α is never varied in the real-data MCMC. Any mismatch between the assumed p_s(z) and the true redshift distribution rescales the predicted C_ℓ amplitude and therefore the inferred Ω_b h² and f_d. Given that the real-sample posteriors are already broad (Table 1, Fig. 3), the paper should either (i) marginalize over a flexible p_s(z) parameterization in the real-data fit or (ii) demonstrate that the CHIME Catalog 2 selection function is sufficiently well constrained that the amplitude bias is subdominant to the statistical error.
  3. [§4, Fig. 3, Table 1] The statement that the method “partially breaks the parameter degeneracies” in the Ω_b h²–H_0 and Ω_b h²–f_d planes (abstract, §4, Fig. 3) overstates what the real-data posteriors show. The mock contours (dashed) do tighten and deviate from the pure DM_LSS–z degeneracy lines, but the real-sample contours remain highly elongated and still largely follow Ω_b h² / H_0 ≈ const and Ω_b h² f_d ≈ const. The best-fit values (Ω_b h² = 0.035^{+0.010}_{-0.021}, H_0 = 74^{+20}_{-30}; Ω_b h² = 0.047^{+0.022}_{-0.033}, f_d = 0.56^{+0.44}_{-0.13}) are consistent with Planck only because the errors are large. The text should distinguish more carefully between the method’s asymptotic ability to break degeneracies (illustrated by mocks) and the limited breaking achieved with the present sample.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4] In §4 the host scatter is written once as σ_host and elsewhere as σ_DM; the notation should be unified (the free parameter is the total white-noise amplitude σ_DM of Eq. 11).
  2. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 lower panel is labeled “C /” (incomplete); the residual definition should be stated explicitly (e.g. ΔĈ_ℓ / σ).
  3. [§1] The fiducial cosmology (H_0 = 67.74, Ω_m = 0.315, Ω_b h² = 0.0224) is stated in the introduction but the precise Planck release / chain should be cited for reproducibility.
  4. [§2 Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) asserts that host–host and LSS–host terms are negligible by citing earlier forecasts; a one-sentence quantitative check with the present sample’s n̄_FRB and σ_DM would strengthen the approximation.
  5. [References] Several 2025–2026 arXiv references appear as incomplete bibliographic entries (e.g. Zhang et al. 2025 “arXiv”); these should be completed or updated before publication.
  6. [Abstract, §6] The abstract and conclusion repeatedly call the method “robust”; given the Galactic-foreground results in Table 2, softer wording (“more robust to uncorrelated host systematics than the DM–z relation”) would better match the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: the measured bandpowers come from catalog data after fixed foreground subtraction, and the subsequent MCMC fit is ordinary parameter estimation against an independent Limber theory, not a tautology.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational and self-contained. Residual DMs are formed by subtracting NE2025 ISM values and the sample mean (Eq. 12); the angular power spectrum is then estimated directly from the ungridded catalog with NAMASTER, and significance is quantified by a position-fixed DM-randomization null test (Appendix B). Theoretical C_ℓ (Eq. 8) is the standard Limber projection of P_ee with b_e=1 and Mead2020 feedback; free parameters (Ω_b h², H_0 or f_d, σ_DM) are sampled by MCMC against the measured bandpowers and jackknife covariance. The phenomenological p_s(z) is an external ansatz (motivated by Rafiei-Ravandi 2020 and Sharma 2026b) that is varied in the robustness suite (Section 5.1); host, halo and ISM alternatives are likewise tested with mocks rather than assumed away. Self-citations (Wang & Wei 2023, Wang et al. 2025c, etc.) appear only for context on traditional DM–z systematics and do not underwrite the uniqueness or amplitude of the auto-power measurement. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work. The result is therefore ordinary data analysis plus parameter constraints; residual Galactic-foreground sensitivity is a correctness/systematics issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central detection rests on standard Limber projection and the assumption that residual host and halo DMs are uncorrelated white noise. Parameter constraints further require a fixed redshift distribution shape, constant f_d, unit electron bias, and a chosen Galactic electron-density model. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are ordinary nuisance amplitudes and the two cosmological combinations being fitted.

free parameters (4)
  • σ_DM (white-noise amplitude) = ≈17 pc cm^{-3}
    Fitted freely in both MCMC runs; absorbs host, halo and residual foreground scatter (Eq. 11).
  • α in p_s(z) ∝ z² exp(−α z) = 3.5
    Fixed by hand to 3.5; controls the projection kernel (Eq. 5) and is only later varied in robustness tests.
  • log10(T_AGN / K) baryonic feedback = 7.8
    Fixed to 7.8 inside the Mead2020 non-linear power spectrum; not varied.
  • f_d (diffuse baryon fraction) = 0.56^{+0.44}_{-0.13} (when free)
    Either fixed to 0.83 or fitted; treated as redshift-independent.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Limber approximation for the angular power spectrum (Eq. 8)
    Standard on the multipole range 10 ≤ ℓ ≤ 1000; not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Electron bias b_e = 1 on large scales
    Adopted throughout; justified by citation to Takahashi et al. (2021) but not measured here.
  • domain assumption Hydrogen and helium fully ionized for z < 3, giving χ_e = 7/8
    Standard late-time assumption used in the weight function W_LSS.
  • domain assumption Host–host and LSS–host power spectra are negligible compared with LSS–LSS
    Taken from earlier forecasts (Shirasaki et al. 2017); used to drop those terms in Eq. 9.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM background with fixed Ω_m = 0.315 when not varied
    Fiducial cosmology taken from Planck 2018.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25929 in / 3201 out tokens · 33587 ms · 2026-07-11T21:38:23.005710+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fluctuations in the cosmic electron density are imprinted on the dispersion measures (DMs) of fast radio bursts (FRBs), making DMs a promising probe of cosmology and the spatial distribution of ionized baryons. In this work, we present the first measurement of the angular auto-power spectrum of FRB DMs, using 3455 apparently non-repeating bursts from the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2. We detect an angular correlation signal at $>3\sigma$ significance, associated with large-scale electron-density fluctuations. By fitting the measured spectrum to theoretical models, we constrain two key parameter combinations: $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2$-$H_0$, which probes the cosmic baryon density and expansion rate, and $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2$-$f_{\rm d}$, which traces the baryon fraction in cosmic large-scale structure (LSS). We further assess the robustness of the power-spectrum method against systematic uncertainties arising from the assumed FRB redshift distribution and from the DM contributions of host galaxies (${\rm DM}_{\rm host}$), the Galactic halo (${\rm DM}^{\rm MW}_{\rm halo}$), and the Milky Way interstellar medium (${\rm DM}^{\rm MW}_{\rm ISM}$), using mock samples. Our results demonstrate that the angular power spectrum is largely insensitive to uncorrelated DM components such as ${\rm DM}_{\rm host}$, thereby effectively mitigating the impact of poorly constrained host-galaxy systematics. In contrast to the traditional ${\rm DM}_{\rm LSS}$-$z$ relation, this method does not require individual redshift measurements--it relies only on the overall redshift distribution--and it partially breaks the parameter degeneracies in the $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2$-$H_0$ and $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2$-$f_{\rm d}$ planes. These findings establish the DM angular power spectrum as a robust cosmological probe and a powerful baryon tracer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04106 by Bao Wang, Jun-Jie Wei, Xue-Feng Wu, Yang Liu, Zhiyu Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sky distribution of the 3455 apparently non-repeating FRBs from the second CHIME/FRB catalog. The points are plotted in equatorial coordinates (Mollweide projection) and colour-coded by their observed DMs. mean of the foreground-corrected DM field: ∆DMi = DMobs,i −DMMW ISM,i − [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Measured DM angular power spectrum from the sec￾ond CHIME/FRB Catalog. The purple points show the bandpowers with 1σ jackknife uncertainties. The orange curve represents the best-fit spectrum from the MCMC analysis (see Section 4); the dark and light gray shaded regions denote the 68% and 95% confidence intervals derived from the MCMC posterior distributions, respec￾tively. The lower panel displays the nor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior constraints derived from the measured DM angular power spectrum. The left and right panels show the constraints in the Ωbh 2 –H0 and Ωbh 2 – fd parameter spaces, respectively. The filled contours show the posterior distributions obtained from the real CHIME/FRB sample, while the dashed contours show the constraints derived from 105 mock FRB samples generated from the fiducial model described in S… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Robustness tests for parameter constraints under different modeling assumptions. The left and right panels show the results for the Ωbh 2 –H0 and Ωbh 2 – fd cases, respectively. In each panel, the points with error bars represent the one-dimensional marginalized constraints obtained by varying one assumption at a time, including the FRB redshift distribution, the host-galaxy DM model, the Milky Way halo mo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation coefficient matrix derived from the jackknife covariance of the measured DM angular power spectrum. Each ma￾trix element shows the correlation coefficient ri j between the six logarithmically spaced multipole bins. The presence of non-zero off-diagonal elements indicates that the bandpowers are not inde￾pendent, motivating the use of the full covariance matrix in the like￾lihood analysis. A. JA… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Significance test for the measured angular power spec￾trum. The histogram shows the distribution of the integrated power statistic SDM obtained from 1000 randomized mock catalogs. The dashed orange line marks the value measured from the real CHIME/FRB data. The shaded regions correspond to the 2σ and 3σ intervals of the distribution. different angular scales (Wolz et al. 2025). We therefore adopt the full … 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

107 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    Alonso, D., Sanchez, J., Slosar, A., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  2. [2]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1096, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x

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

  3. [3]

    2021, Universe, 7, 85, doi: 10.3390/universe7040085 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B

    Bhandari, S., & Flynn, C. 2021, Universe, 7, 85, doi: 10.3390/universe7040085 Chime/Frb Collaboration, Abbott, T., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3828

    doi:10.3390/universe7040085 2021

  4. [4]

    M., & Lazio, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  5. [5]

    2021a, JCAP, 2021, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/050 —

    Dai, J.-P., & Xia, J.-Q. 2021a, JCAP, 2021, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/050 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 503, 4576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab785

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/050 2021

  6. [6]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3299 de Graaff, A., Cai, Y .-C., Heymans, C., & Peacock, J

    Das, S., Mathur, S., Gupta, A., Nicastro, F., & Krongold, Y . 2021, MNRAS, 500, 655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3299 de Graaff, A., Cai, Y .-C., Heymans, C., & Peacock, J. A. 2019, A&A, 624, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935159

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3299 2021

  7. [7]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35

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

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

  8. [8]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    doi:10.1109/jproc.2009.2021005 2009

  9. [9]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.12960

    Du, Z.-W., Fan, X.-L., & Li, Y .-X. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.12960. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12960

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.24061

    Feng, S., Gong, Y ., Xiong, Q., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.24061. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.24061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  12. [12]

    F., & Gruen, D

    Friedrich, O., Seitz, S., Eifler, T. F., & Gruen, D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2833

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2833 2016

  13. [13]

    J., & Peebles, P

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

    doi:10.1086/306025 1998

  14. [14]

    H., Wu, Q., Hu, J

    Gao, D. H., Wu, Q., Hu, J. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453006 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453006 2025

  15. [15]

    Gupta, O., Beniamini, P., Kumar, P., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add14c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add14c 2025

  16. [16]

    S., Sailer, N., & Zhou, R

    Hadzhiyska, B., Ferraro, S., Farren, G. S., Sailer, N., & Zhou, R. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 123507, doi: 10.1103/mdhz-fgj8

    doi:10.1103/mdhz-fgj8 2025

  17. [17]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077

    Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Lilow, R. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac077 2022

  18. [18]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V ., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019

  19. [19]

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., On, A. Y . L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2238 12 WANG ET AL

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2238 2020

  20. [20]

    I., et al

    Huang, Y ., Lee, K.-G., Libeskind, N. I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 2785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf417 2025

  21. [21]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    Ioka, K. 2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    doi:10.1086/380598 2003

  22. [22]

    N., & Spitler, L

    Jahns-Schindler, J. N., & Spitler, L. G. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 103541, doi: 10.1103/wtv1-dmrw

    work page doi:10.1103/wtv1-dmrw 2025

  23. [23]

    W., Ghosh, E

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2524 2022

  24. [24]

    2026a, Physics Letters B, 877, 140473, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140473

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

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140473 2026

  25. [25]

    D., Gao, D

    Jia, X. D., Gao, D. H., Chen, J. H., et al. 2026b, ApJ, 1003, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae665c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae665c

  26. [26]

    C., & Pen, U.-L

    Keating, L. C., & Pen, U.-L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095 2020

  27. [27]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 060, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/060

    Lemos, T. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 060, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/060

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/060 2025

  28. [28]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.20471, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.20471

    Lemos, T., Gonçalves, R., & Alcaniz, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.20471, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.20471

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.20471 2026

  29. [29]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179

    doi:10.1086/309179 2000

  30. [30]

    Calibrating $\rm{DM_{IGM}}-z$ relation using host galaxies of FRBs

    Li, R.-N., Xu, K., Gao, D.-H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.01270, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01270

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01270 2025

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe —

    Li, Z., Gao, H., Wei, J.-J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe —. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe 2019

  32. [32]

    I., Carlesi, E., Grand, R

    Libeskind, N. I., Carlesi, E., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2541

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2541 2020

  33. [33]

    2026a, ApJ, 998, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae355a

  34. [34]

    2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03769

    Liu, Y ., Wei, J.-J., Wu, P., & Wu, X.-F. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.03769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.03769

  35. [35]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc650

    Liu, Y ., Yu, H., & Wu, P. 2023, ApJL, 946, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc650

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc650 2023

  36. [36]

    2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  37. [37]

    X., McQuinn, M., et al

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

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

  38. [38]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25214

    Mas-Ribas, L. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25214. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 313, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    McQuinn, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 313, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355 2016

  40. [40]

    J., Brieden, S., Tröster, T., & Heymans, C

    Mead, A. J., Brieden, S., Tröster, T., & Heymans, C. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab082

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab082 2021

  41. [41]

    Meiksin, A. A. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 1405, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1405

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1405 2009

  42. [42]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3104 2023

  43. [43]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 72, doi: 10.33232/001c.140864

    Neumann, D., Reischke, R., Hagstotz, S., & Hildebrandt, H. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 72, doi: 10.33232/001c.140864

    doi:10.33232/001c.140864 2025

  44. [44]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1 2018

  45. [45]

    M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D

    Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 19, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14389.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14389.x 2009

  46. [46]

    K., & Cordes, J

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  47. [47]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

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

  48. [48]

    X., & Zheng, Y

    Prochaska, J. X., & Zheng, Y . 2019, MNRAS, 485, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz261

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz261 2019

  49. [49]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 083536, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083536

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083536 2021

  50. [50]

    Quenouille, M. H. 1956, Biometrika, 43, 353

    1956

  51. [51]

    M., & Masui, K

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.023528 2020

  52. [52]

    2025, AJ, 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    Ravi, V ., Catha, M., Chen, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 330, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc725 2025

  53. [53]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17742 2025

  54. [54]

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

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

    doi:10.33232/001c.143819 2025

  55. [55]

    2026, JCAP, 2026, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/06/006

    Hildebrandt, H. 2026, JCAP, 2026, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/06/006

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/06/006 2026

  56. [56]

    Ribeiro, B. W. N., Sales, L. L., de Farias, K. E. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.29583, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.29583 Ried Guachalla, B., Schaan, E., Hadzhiyska, B., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 103512, doi: 10.1103/lqbj-wcqj

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.29583 2026

  57. [57]

    L., de Farias, K

    Sales, L. L., de Farias, K. E. L., Queiroz, A. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.01990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.01990 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06975, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06975

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.01990 2026

  58. [58]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 2870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1895

    Sang, Y ., & Lin, H.-N. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 2870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1895

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1895 2025

  59. [59]

    K., Amodeo, S., & Refregier, A

    Schneider, A., Giri, S. K., Amodeo, S., & Refregier, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1493

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1493 2022

  60. [60]

    2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.17162

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V ., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.17162. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17162 —. 2026b, ApJ, 998, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9

  61. [61]

    2026c, ApJ, 999, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4696

    Sharma, K., Ravi, V ., Connor, L., et al. 2026c, ApJ, 999, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4696

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4696

  62. [62]

    2026d, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.22105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.22105

    Sharma, K., Krause, E., Ravi, V ., et al. 2026d, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.22105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.22105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22105

  63. [63]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012 13

    Shirasaki, M., Kashiyama, K., & Yoshida, N. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083012 13

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.083012 2017

  64. [64]

    M., Smith, B

    Shull, J. M., Smith, B. D., & Danforth, C. W. 2012, ApJ, 759, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/23

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/23 2012

  65. [65]

    2026, MNRAS, 546, stag031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag031

    Sunseri, J., Amon, A., Dunkley, J., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag031 2026

  66. [66]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    Takahashi, R., Ioka, K., Mori, A., & Funahashi, K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab170 2021

  67. [67]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02155

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02155 2025

  68. [68]

    2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    Tang, L., Lin, H.-N., & Li, X. 2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c 2023

  69. [69]

    G., et al

    Tanimura, H., Hinshaw, G., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3118

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3118 2019

  70. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf6b

    Witzemann, A. 2018, ApJ, 856, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf6b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf6b 2018

  71. [71]

    2026a, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 56, 239601, doi: 10.1360/SSPMA-2025-0322

    Wang, B., Liu, Y ., & Wei, J. 2026a, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 56, 239601, doi: 10.1360/SSPMA-2025-0322

    work page doi:10.1360/sspma-2025-0322 2025

  72. [72]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c8

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c8 2023

  73. [73]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08932

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08932

  74. [74]

    2025b, Universe, 11, 41, doi: 10.3390/universe11020041

    Wang, J., Zhou, Z., Jiang, X., & Fang, T. 2025b, Universe, 11, 41, doi: 10.3390/universe11020041

    work page doi:10.3390/universe11020041

  75. [75]

    2025, European Physical Journal C, 85, 414, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14145-6

    Wang, S.-Y ., & Xia, J.-Q. 2025, European Physical Journal C, 85, 414, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14145-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14145-6 2025

  76. [76]

    2026b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 095008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae5f6f

    Wang, Y .-D., Wang, P., Li, D., et al. 2026b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 095008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae5f6f

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ae5f6f

  77. [77]

    2025c, ApJ, 981, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adade8

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adade8

  78. [78]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag557

    Wayland, A., Alonso, D., & Reischke, R. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag557

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stag557 2026

  79. [79]

    2019, JCAP, 2019, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/039

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

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/039 2019

  80. [80]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefb8

    Wei, J.-J., & Melia, F. 2023, ApJ, 955, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefb8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acefb8 2023

Showing first 80 references.