pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29388 · v1 · pith:PW4CSNIXnew · submitted 2026-06-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Probing the Baryon Distribution with Fast Radio Bursts

Manisha Caleb , J\'eferson A. S. Fortunato , Steffen Hagstotz , Clancy W. James , Joscha N. Jahns-Schindler , Dylan L. Jow , Evan F. Keane , Koustav Konar
show 7 more authors
Yin-Zhe Ma Daniele Michilli Robert Reischke Amit Seta Priyanka Singh Laura G. Spitler Yidan Wang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 02:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords fast radio burstsdispersion measurebaryonic feedbackSquare Kilometre Arraycosmic sheargalaxy clusteringcircumgalactic mediumepoch of reionisation
0
0 comments X

The pith

SKA fast radio burst observations can constrain baryonic feedback models and strengthen Stage IV galaxy survey cosmology.

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

The paper forecasts how the Square Kilometre Array will detect large numbers of fast radio bursts and use their dispersion measures to map the distribution of ionized baryons from galactic to cosmological scales. Dispersion measure scatter with redshift, auto- and cross-power spectra with cosmic shear and galaxy clustering, and scattering timescales are the main observables examined. These measurements are shown to distinguish between different baryonic feedback prescriptions that currently limit the cosmological information extractable from Stage IV surveys. The same data also yield constraints on the circumgalactic medium and the epoch of reionisation. A sympathetic reader would therefore expect SKA FRB statistics to tighten feedback models and thereby improve dark-energy and growth-parameter constraints from optical surveys.

Core claim

Forecasts demonstrate that SKA detections of fast radio bursts will measure the redshift-dependent scatter in dispersion measure, the statistical properties of the dispersion-measure field, and its cross-correlation with cosmic shear and galaxy clustering from Stage IV surveys, thereby distinguishing baryonic feedback scenarios and recovering cosmological information otherwise masked by astrophysical effects; the same observations will additionally constrain circumgalactic-medium properties via scattering timescales and improve constraints on the epoch of reionisation.

What carries the argument

Dispersion measure (DM) of fast radio bursts, which integrates the line-of-sight ionized electron density and serves as a direct baryon tracer.

If this is right

  • Baryonic feedback models can be pinpointed, recovering cosmological signals masked in Stage IV galaxy surveys.
  • Circumgalactic medium properties can be measured directly from FRB scattering timescales.
  • The large redshift range of SKA FRBs improves constraints on the epoch of reionisation.
  • The mechanism behind fast radio bursts may be clarified by the extended redshift coverage.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If feedback models are better pinned down, derived parameters such as the sum of neutrino masses from weak-lensing surveys would shift by amounts comparable to current statistical uncertainties.
  • The same DM field maps could be cross-checked against X-ray or Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations of the warm-hot intergalactic medium to test consistency of the ionized fraction.
  • A mismatch between predicted and observed DM cross-spectra would indicate either missing feedback physics or an unaccounted systematic in the FRB host-galaxy contribution.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical properties of the dispersion-measure field, including scatter versus redshift and cross-power spectra, can be modeled from existing data and simulations with enough accuracy to separate feedback models once SKA statistics arrive.

What would settle it

If the measured DM scatter versus redshift and cross-power spectra with galaxy surveys from the first few years of SKA data do not separate the feedback models that current simulations predict to be distinguishable, the claimed improvement in cosmological constraining power does not occur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29388 by Amit Seta, Clancy W. James, Daniele Michilli, Dylan L. Jow, Evan F. Keane, J\'eferson A. S. Fortunato, Joscha N. Jahns-Schindler, Koustav Konar, Laura G. Spitler, Manisha Caleb, Priyanka Singh, Robert Reischke, Steffen Hagstotz, Yidan Wang, Yin-Zhe Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mock observations of the Macquart relation for 100 FRBs with varying feedback strength for illustration. Stronger baryonic feedback (red) redistributes baryons and leads to a smoother electron distribution, leading to decreased scatter in the Macquart relation. For clarity, we also show the contour level where the corresponding likelihood has dropped to 5% of its peak value. the comoving electron density c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Shown is the scaling of the different components (their probability density function in different line-styles) with redshift from Equation (1) depicted as a colour gradient. Red-coloured lines show a scenario with strong feedback (a fairly smooth electron distribution), and blue-coloured lines show one with weak feedback (a very clustered electron distribution). the likelihood spreads more towards large DM… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginal constraints on cosmological parameters. All contours show the one and 2𝜎 constraints. Grey contours denote a 3 × 2 analysis with a Stage IV galaxy survey, such as Rubin-LSST or Euclid. The blue and red contours show the improvement achieved by adding 5 years of observations from AA4 in Band 2 and Low, respectively. approaches, this procedure will become the gold standard for reliably inferring cos… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginal constraints on cosmological parameters. Same colour scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Mass and redshift distribution of halos from Magneticum lightcone (25 square-degrees). Right: FRBs (from AA* predictions) matched to simulated halos. prior information on Ωb or ℎ from CMB measurements will further enhance the gain from SKA due to the degeneracy breaking between the baryon density, the Hubble constant and the amount of feedback. Generally, we observe that numbers outperform redshift c… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CGM scattering parameters, 𝐹˜ 𝑙DM2 𝑙 and 𝐺scatt(1 + 𝑧𝑙) −3 , that will produce a 𝜏 > 1 ms scattering tail for BURSTT, CHIME, CHORD, DSA-2000, and SKA-Low. The grey, dashed line represents the fiducial value of the fluctuations expected for cool gas in the CGM, 𝐹˜ 𝑙 = 0.5 × 10−3 (pc2 km) −1/3 and DM𝑙 = 0.1 pc cm−3 . The geometric leverage 𝐺scatt is computed assuming a size of 𝐿 = 10 pc for the cool-gas scat… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Baryonic feedback redistributes matter on small to mid cosmological scales, ultimately limiting inferences from Stage IV galaxy surveys. Direct baryon tracers are crucial for recovering cosmological signals masked by astrophysical effects, and vice versa: galaxy formation and other astrophysical processes must be interpreted cosmologically. Fast radio bursts (FRBs) serve as such tracers: their dispersion measure (DM) records the line-of-sight integrated ionised electron density. The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) will be the only radio telescope capable of detecting many FRBs in the southern hemisphere, significantly enhancing synergy with surveys such as Rubin Observatory. This chapter completes the FRB trilogy by forecasting the SKA's potential to constrain the baryon distribution from cosmological to galactic scales and across cosmic time. We tackle this question by investigating the DM scatter as a function of redshift. We also study the statistical properties of the DM field and its cross-correlation with Stage IV galaxy surveys. Our focus is on cosmic shear and galaxy clustering. This shows that the SKA can play a crucial role in pinpointing baryonic feedback models, thereby greatly enhancing the cosmological constraining power of Stage IV galaxy surveys. Furthermore, we show that the SKA will be able to measure the properties of the circumgalactic medium using the scattering timescale of FRBs. Lastly, the large redshift range of FRB detections with the SKA can improve our understanding of the epoch of reionisation. It may also clarify the mechanism behind FRBs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript forecasts the potential of Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) detected by the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) to constrain the baryon distribution from cosmological to galactic scales. It focuses on the redshift dependence of dispersion measure (DM) scatter, the statistical properties of the DM field, and cross-correlations of the DM field with cosmic shear and galaxy clustering from Stage IV surveys. The central claim is that these measurements will pinpoint baryonic feedback models and thereby enhance the cosmological constraining power of Stage IV galaxy surveys; additional forecasts address the circumgalactic medium via scattering timescales and the epoch of reionization.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work would be significant for planning multi-tracer cosmological analyses, as it quantifies how radio FRB data can mitigate baryonic uncertainties that limit optical Stage IV surveys. The emphasis on cross-correlations and redshift evolution provides concrete projections that could inform survey strategy. The paper does not include machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations, but the forecasts are presented as falsifiable once SKA data arrive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; DM field statistics section] The forecasts for distinguishing baryonic feedback models via DM scatter versus redshift and DM cross-power spectra with cosmic shear/galaxy clustering (Abstract and the section on statistical properties of the DM field) rest on the assumption that these quantities can be forward-modeled from existing FRB catalogs and simulations with sufficient fidelity. No quantitative validation or error propagation from sub-grid feedback uncertainties is shown, which directly affects the claimed enhancement of Stage IV constraints.
  2. [Cross-correlation forecasts section] The claim that SKA FRBs will 'greatly enhance' cosmological constraining power (Abstract) requires explicit demonstration that mismatches between assumed and true DM scatter or cross-spectra would not degrade the forecasted gains; the manuscript provides no such sensitivity test.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods/forecast setup] Clarify the exact redshift range and number of FRBs assumed for the SKA forecasts, as these choices affect all quantitative projections.
  2. [CGM section] The discussion of scattering timescales for the circumgalactic medium would benefit from a brief comparison to existing FRB scattering measurements to anchor the projections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our forecasting study. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional discussion of modeling uncertainties and sensitivity tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; DM field statistics section] The forecasts for distinguishing baryonic feedback models via DM scatter versus redshift and DM cross-power spectra with cosmic shear/galaxy clustering (Abstract and the section on statistical properties of the DM field) rest on the assumption that these quantities can be forward-modeled from existing FRB catalogs and simulations with sufficient fidelity. No quantitative validation or error propagation from sub-grid feedback uncertainties is shown, which directly affects the claimed enhancement of Stage IV constraints.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of how sub-grid feedback uncertainties propagate into the forecasted DM statistics. Our forecasts are derived from DM fields extracted from a suite of hydrodynamical simulations that include baryonic feedback, but we did not perform a systematic variation across different sub-grid prescriptions or propagate those variations into the final constraints. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection that quantifies the impact of simulation-to-simulation differences on the redshift-dependent DM scatter and on the DM–shear and DM–galaxy cross-spectra, including a simple error-propagation estimate. This will directly support (or qualify) the claimed enhancement of Stage IV cosmological constraints. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Cross-correlation forecasts section] The claim that SKA FRBs will 'greatly enhance' cosmological constraining power (Abstract) requires explicit demonstration that mismatches between assumed and true DM scatter or cross-spectra would not degrade the forecasted gains; the manuscript provides no such sensitivity test.

    Authors: The statement that SKA FRBs will 'greatly enhance' cosmological power is based on the nominal forecasts. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not contain a sensitivity analysis exploring how deviations between the assumed and true DM scatter or cross-spectra would affect the final gains. In the revised manuscript we will add a short sensitivity study in which we vary the input DM scatter and cross-power amplitudes within ranges consistent with current simulation uncertainties and recompute the improvement in cosmological parameter constraints. This will provide the explicit robustness check requested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in forecasting approach

full rationale

The paper presents forecasts for SKA constraints on baryonic feedback using external models of the DM field, FRB populations, and simulations. The central claims about enhancing Stage IV cosmological power rest on forward-modeling assumptions for DM scatter and cross-spectra that are not derived from or equivalent to the paper's own results by construction. No equations or self-citations reduce the predictions to fitted inputs, and the methodology is self-contained against external benchmarks without self-definitional loops or load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility of parameters; the forecasts necessarily rest on models of baryonic feedback, FRB redshift distribution, and host-galaxy DM contributions that are taken from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5875 in / 1119 out tokens · 27601 ms · 2026-06-30T02:13:18.610293+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526328. S. Amodeo et al.PRD, 103(6):063514, Mar

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526328

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063514. M. Ayromlou, D. Nelson, and A. Pillepich.MNRAS, 524(4):5391–5410, Oct

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063514

  3. [3]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab309. M. Bhattacharya, P. Kumar, and E. V. Linder.PRD, 103(10):103526, May

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab309

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2100. V. Bonjean et al.A&A, 609:A49, Jan

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2100

  5. [5]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731699. J. N. Bregman.ARA&A, 45(1):221–259, Sept

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731699

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806. 110619. 19 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al. J. N. Bregman et al.ApJ, 699(2):1765–1774, July

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1765. M. Caleb et al.MNRAS, 524(2):2064–2077, 06

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1765 2064

  8. [9]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al.ApJS, 257(2):59, December

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9. CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al.ApJS, 257(2):59, December

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9

  9. [10]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ ac33ab. N. E. Chisari et al.OJA, 2(1):4, June

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/

  10. [11]

    doi: 10.21105/astro.1905.06082. L. Connor et al.Nature Astronomy, June

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.1905.06082 1905

  11. [12]

    doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y. R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel.ApJ, 855(2):102, Mar

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

  12. [13]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ aaab53. K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer, and G. Louppe.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117 (48):30055–30062, Dec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/

  13. [14]

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117. A. P. Curtin et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1912789117

  14. [15]

    doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004. J.-P. Dai and J.-Q. Xia.MNRAS, 503(3):4576–4580, May

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.015004

  15. [16]

    S.Das,Y.-K.Chiang,andS.Mathur.ApJ,951(2):125,July2023

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab785. S.Das,Y.-K.Chiang,andS.Mathur.ApJ,951(2):125,July2023. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd764. A. de Graaff, Y.-C. Cai, C. Heymans, and J. A. Peacock.A&A, 624:A48, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab785

  16. [17]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935159. D. Eckert et al.nat, 528(7580):105–107, Dec

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935159

  17. [18]

    Euclid Collaboration et al.A&A, 642:A191, Oct

    doi: 10.1038/nature16058. Euclid Collaboration et al.A&A, 642:A191, Oct

    work page doi:10.1038/nature16058

  18. [19]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038071. C.-A. Faucher-Giguère and S. P. Oh.ARA&A, 61:131–195, Aug

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038071

  19. [20]

    A Fast Radio Burst Occurs Every Second throughout the Observable Universe

    ISSN 2041-8205, 2041-8213. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8905. arXiv:1706.06582 [astro-ph]. M. Fukugita and P. J. E. Peebles.ApJ, 616(2):643–668, Dec

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8905 2041

  20. [21]

    doi: 10.1086/425155. S. Grandis, G. Aricò, A. Schneider, and L. Linke.MNRAS, 528(3):4379–4392, Mar

    work page doi:10.1086/425155

  21. [22]

    20 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae259. 20 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al. B. Hadzhiyska et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2407.07152, July

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae259

  22. [23]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407. 07152. S.Hagstotz,R.Reischke,andR.Lilow.MNRAS,511(1):662–667,Mar.2022. doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stac077. N. Hand et al.PRL, 109(4):041101, July

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407 2022

  23. [24]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.041101. S. Heimersheim, N. S. Sartorio, A. Fialkov, and D. R. Lorimer.ApJ, 933(1):57, July

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.041101

  24. [25]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c9. A. W. Hotan et al.PASA, 38:e009, March

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c9

  25. [26]

    doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1. T.-Y. Hsu et al.A&A, 698:A163, June

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.1 2021

  26. [27]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452714. M. Hussaini et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2506.04186, June

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452714

  27. [28]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506. 04186. C. W. James et al.MNRAS, 516(4):4862–4881, Nov

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506

  28. [29]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524. M. Jaroszynski.MNRAS, 484(2):1637–1644, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2524

  29. [30]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3529

    ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3529. D. L. Jow, X. Wu, and U.-L. Pen.PNAS, 121(39):e2406783121, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3529

  30. [31]

    2406783121

    doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2406783121. K. I. Kellermann and I. I. K. Pauliny-Toth.ApJL, 155:L71, Feb

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas

  31. [32]

    doi: 10.1086/180305. I. S. Khrykin et al.ApJ, 973(2):151, Oct

    work page doi:10.1086/180305

  32. [33]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567. K. Konar et al.OJA, 8:102, July

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6567

  33. [34]

    doi: 10.33232/001c.142524. R. M. Konietzka et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2507.07090, July

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.142524

  34. [35]

    Kovač et al.arXiv e-prints, art

    M. Kovač et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2507.07991, July

    work page arXiv

  35. [36]

    J., et al

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736. C.Leungetal.arXive-prints,art.arXiv:2509.19514,Sept.2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19514. Z. Li et al.ApJ, 876(2):146, May

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3736 2025

  36. [37]

    X., Gao, H., Wei, J

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe. M.LoVerdeandN.Afshordi.PRD,78(12):123506,Dec.2008.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123506. J. P. Macquart et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), page 55, Apr

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab18fe 2008

  37. [38]

    doi: 10.22323/1.215.0055. J. P. Macquart et al.nat, 581(7809):391–395, May

    work page doi:10.22323/1.215.0055

  38. [39]

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2. B. Maity.A&A, 689:A340, Sept

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

  39. [40]

    K.W.MasuiandK.Sigurdson.PRL,115(12):121301,Sept.2015

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451160. K.W.MasuiandK.Sigurdson.PRL,115(12):121301,Sept.2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115. 121301. I. G. McCarthy et al.MNRAS, 540(1):143–163, June

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451160 2015

  40. [41]

    21 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf731. 21 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al. M. McCourt, S. P. Oh, R. O’Leary, and A.-M. Madigan.MNRAS, 473(4):5407–5431, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf731

  41. [42]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2687. M. McQuinn.ApJL, 780(2):L33, Jan

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2687

  42. [43]

    doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33. M. McQuinn.ARA&A, 54:313–362, Sept

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

  43. [44]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355. I. Medlock, D. Nagai, D. Anglés-Alcázar, and M. Gebhardt.ApJ, 983(1):46, Apr. 2025a. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc9c. I. Medlock et al.ApJ, 980(1):61, Feb. 2025b. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada442. F. Nicastro et al.NAT, 558(7710):406–409, June

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

  44. [45]

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1. S. K. Ocker, J. M. Cordes, S. Chatterjee, and M. R. Gorsuch.ApJ, 934(1):71, July

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

  45. [46]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75ba. S. K. Ocker, M. C. Chen, S. P. Oh, and P. Sharma.ApJ, 988(1):69, July

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75ba

  46. [48]

    doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.1605.06376. S. V. Penton, J. T. Stocke, and J. M. Shull.ApJS, 152(1):29–62, May

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [49]

    Planck Collaboration et al.A&A, 641:A6, Sept

    doi: 10.1086/382877. Planck Collaboration et al.A&A, 641:A6, Sept

    work page doi:10.1086/382877

  48. [50]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. M. Rafiei-Ravandi et al.ApJ, 922(1):42, Nov

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

  49. [51]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab. K. M. Rajwade et al.MNRAS, 514(2):1961–1974, Aug

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1dab 1961

  50. [52]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1450. R. Reischke and S. Hagstotz.MNRAS, 524:2237–2243, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1450

  51. [53]

    A first measurement of baryonic feedback with Fast Radio Bursts

    ISSN 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1645. R. Reischke and S. Hagstotz.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2507.17742, July

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1645

  52. [54]

    doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2507.17742. R. Reischke, S. Hagstotz, and R. Lilow.PRD, 103(2):023517, Jan

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [55]

    106.063503

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 103.023517. R. Reischke et al.OJA, 8:127, Sept

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd

  54. [56]

    R.Reischkeetal.J.CosmologyAstropart.Phys.,2026(6):006,June2026.doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2026/06/006

    doi: 10.33232/001c.143819. R.Reischkeetal.J.CosmologyAstropart.Phys.,2026(6):006,June2026.doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2026/06/006. D.H.Rudd,A.R.Zentner,andA.V.Kravtsov.ApJ,672(1):19–32,Jan.2008.doi: 10.1086/523836. G. C. Rudie et al.ApJ, 885(1):61, Nov

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.143819 2026

  55. [57]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255. E. Schaan et al.PRD, 93(8):082002, Apr

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255

  56. [58]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.082002. E. Schaan et al.PRD, 103(6):063513, Mar

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.082002

  57. [59]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063513. J. Schaye et al.MNRAS, 526(4):4978–5020, Dec

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063513

  58. [60]

    22 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2419. 22 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al. A. Schneider, S. K. Giri, S. Amodeo, and A. Refregier.MNRAS, 514(3):3802–3814, Aug

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419

  59. [61]

    E.Sembolonietal.MNRAS,417(3):2020–2035,Nov.2011

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1493. E.Sembolonietal.MNRAS,417(3):2020–2035,Nov.2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19385. x. R.M.Shannonetal.arXive-prints,art.arXiv:2408.02083,Aug.2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408. 02083. K. Sharma et al.ApJ, 989(1):81, Aug

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1493 2020

  60. [62]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeca4. K. Sharma et al.ApJ, 998(1):109, Feb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adeca4

  61. [63]

    The suppression of the matter power spectrum: strong feedback from X-ray gas mass fractions, kSZ effect profiles, and galaxy-galaxy lensing

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9. J.M.Shull,B.D.Smith,andC.W.Danforth.ApJ,759(1):23,Nov.2012. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/ 759/1/23. J.Siegeletal.arXive-prints,art.arXiv:2512.02954,Dec.2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02954. B. Soergel et al.MNRAS, 461(3):3172–3193, Sept

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ff9 2012

  62. [64]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1455. R. Takahashi, K. Ioka, A. Mori, and K. Funahashi.MNRAS, 502(2):2615–2629, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1455

  63. [65]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab170. H. Tanimura et al.A&A, 637:A41, May 2020a. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937158. H. Tanimura et al.A&A, 643:L2, Nov. 2020b. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038521. N. Tessore et al.OJA, 6:11, Mar

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab170

  64. [66]

    The Open Journal of Astrophysics , keywords =

    doi: 10.21105/astro.2302.01942. A.Theis,S.Hagstotz,R.Reischke,andJ.Weller.arXive-prints,art.arXiv:2403.08611,Mar.2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08611. M. Torkamani et al.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2601.18784, Jan

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2302.01942 2024

  65. [67]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601. 18784. T. Tröster et al.A&A, 660:A27, Apr

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601

  66. [68]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142197. O. Tsang and J. G. Kirk.A&A, 463(1):145–152, Feb

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142197

  67. [69]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066502. J. Tumlinson, M. S. Peeples, and J. K. Werk.ARA&A, 55(1):389–432, Aug

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066502

  68. [70]

    doi: 10.1111/j.me1365-2966.2011.18981.x. M. P. van Daalen, I. G. McCarthy, and J. Schaye.MNRAS, 491(2):2424–2446, Jan

    work page doi:10.1111/j.me1365-2966.2011.18981.x 2011

  69. [71]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3199. H. K. Vedantham and E. S. Phinney.MNRAS, 483(1):971–984, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3199

  70. [72]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/ sty2948. C. R. H. Walker et al.A&A, 683:A71, Mar

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/

  71. [73]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347139. A. Walters et al.ApJ, 856(1):65, Mar

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347139

  72. [74]

    23 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf6b. 23 FRBs: Tracing the Baryon Distribution Caleb et al. A. Walters, Y.-Z. Ma, J. Sievers, and A. Weltman.PRD, 100(10):103519, Nov

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf6b

  73. [75]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103519. B. Wang and J.-J. Wei.ApJ, 944(1):50, Feb

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103519

  74. [76]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c8. A. Wayland, D. Alonso, and R. Reischke.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2602.12174, Feb

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb2c8

  75. [77]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.12174. Y. Zhang et al.A&A, 690:A268, Oct

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12174

  76. [78]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449413. Z. J. Zhang et al.ApJ, 906(1):49, Jan

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449413

  77. [79]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9. 24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abceb9