pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17162 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Signatures of Suppressed Matter Clustering revealed by Fast Radio Bursts

Kritti Sharma , Elisabeth Krause , Vikram Ravi , Liam Connor , Dhayaa Anbajagane , Pranjal R. S
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsbaryon densitymatter power spectrumfeedbackcosmologydispersion measurehalo modellarge-scale structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

A sample of 109 fast radio bursts directly measures baryon density fluctuations and shows that feedback suppresses matter clustering at scales of 0.1 to 3 h/Mpc.

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

The paper uses dispersion measures from fast radio bursts with known redshifts to trace the spatial distribution of baryons in the nearby universe. It connects these measurements to the matter power spectrum through a halo-model framework and finds that the data tightens constraints on the amplitude of density fluctuations at megaparsec scales by a factor of about eight compared with the prior. The same data set is compared against hydrodynamical simulations to test how strongly galactic feedback redistributes gas on large scales. The analysis places the first direct, density-unbiased limits on feedback strength from FRBs and shows consistency with moderate feedback models while ruling out the most extreme large-scale redistribution scenarios at roughly two-sigma .

Core claim

Fast radio burst dispersion measures provide an unbiased tracer of the baryon density field at low redshift. When analyzed with a halo-model prescription, the 109 events reduce the posterior variance on the matter power spectrum at k approximately 1 h/Mpc by a factor of roughly eight relative to the prior alone. Comparison with several hydrodynamical simulations excludes the strongest large-scale feedback scenarios at about two-sigma .

What carries the argument

A halo-model prescription that maps FRB dispersion measures to the underlying baryon density field and the matter power spectrum, allowing direct inference of feedback-induced suppression.

If this is right

  • FRB constraints on baryon feedback become competitive with weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering probes while sampling a complementary low-redshift range.
  • Larger FRB catalogs can tighten limits on the gas fraction inside galaxy groups and clusters between 10^13 and 10^15 solar masses.
  • The method supplies an independent check on the baryonic physics assumed in hydrodynamical simulations used for cosmological forecasts.
  • Next-generation FRB surveys can reduce uncertainty on feedback suppression enough to improve constraints on neutrino mass and dark-energy parameters from large-scale structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the current 2-sigma exclusion of extreme feedback holds with larger samples, hydrodynamical models that over-predict large-scale gas ejection will need revision before they are used for Stage-IV cosmology forecasts.
  • Combining FRB data with Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or X-ray measurements of the same structures could break remaining degeneracies in the halo-model parameters.
  • The low-redshift focus of FRBs offers a natural anchor for redshift-dependent feedback models that are currently calibrated mainly at higher redshift.

Load-bearing premise

The halo-model prescription correctly captures how gas is distributed around galaxies and clusters and how feedback alters that distribution.

What would settle it

A future sample of several hundred FRBs with precise redshifts and DMs that yields a matter-power-spectrum amplitude at k~1 h/Mpc inconsistent with the current posterior at more than three sigma would falsify the present constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17162 by Dhayaa Anbajagane, Elisabeth Krause, Kritti Sharma, Liam Connor, Pranjal R. S, Vikram Ravi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Investigation of the distinct feedback regimes probed by baryon tracers and their role in un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The observed sightline-to-sightline variance in FRB dispersion measures as a probe of baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inferred gas mass fractions and halo gas profiles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the inferred matter power spectrum suppression with constraints from other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: At the feedback parameter level, the extended FRB sample and the fiducial subset yield consistent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Complex astrophysical processes regulate the growth of galaxies by injecting energy and momentum into their surroundings, redistributing baryons across megaparsec scales. The clustering of matter on these scales, as measured via weak lensing and galaxy surveys, encodes critical cosmological information on the dynamical dark energy, the nature of dark matter and the sum of neutrino masses. The suppression of matter clustering due to feedback processes limits the interpretation of cosmological measurements. Multiple probes of the baryon distribution have attempted to quantify the strength of feedback via measurements of suppression in the matter power spectrum. The dispersion measures (DMs) of fast radio bursts (FRBs) have emerged as a powerful new probe of baryons, with the advantage over other probes of being unbiased with respect to density and temperature. Here, we use a sample of 109 FRBs with redshifts and DMs to directly measure the spatial fluctuations in the baryon density field, quantifying the effects of feedback on the matter power spectrum at scales of $k \sim 0.1-3$ h/Mpc, and the gas fraction in galaxy groups and clusters ($10^{13}-10^{15} M_\odot$). We use a halo-model prescription to conduct inference, and find that FRB data reduces the posterior variance at k $\sim$ 1 h/Mpc by a factor of $\sim 8$ relative to the prior. The statistical precision of inferred FRB constraints is similar to other baryon tracers, while probing a complementary redshift regime ($z \lesssim 0.3$). A comparison with several hydrodynamical simulations excludes extreme large-scale feedback scenarios at $\sim 2\sigma$ confidence. This work establishes FRBs as a sensitive probe of feedback-regulated structure formation. As next-generation experiments deliver orders-of-magnitude larger samples, FRBs are poised to drive the constraints on baryonic physics in the era of precision cosmology.

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 paper claims that dispersion measures from a sample of 109 localized fast radio bursts can be used to directly measure spatial fluctuations in the baryon density field at low redshifts. Employing a halo-model prescription for inference, the analysis quantifies feedback-induced suppression in the matter power spectrum over k ∼ 0.1–3 h/Mpc, reports that the FRB data reduce the posterior variance at k ∼ 1 h/Mpc by a factor of ∼8 relative to the prior, and finds that the resulting constraints exclude extreme large-scale feedback scenarios from several hydrodynamical simulations at ∼2σ . The work positions FRBs as a complementary, unbiased probe of baryonic physics for future precision cosmology.

Significance. If the central inferences are robust, the result demonstrates that even a modest sample of localized FRBs can deliver competitive constraints on baryon feedback and matter clustering suppression, with a reported factor-of-8 tightening of the posterior at k ∼ 1 h/Mpc. This is significant because it provides an independent, density- and temperature-unbiased tracer in the z ≲ 0.3 regime that is complementary to weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering measurements. The quantitative comparison with hydrodynamical simulations and the explicit variance-reduction metric are strengths that, if validated, would strengthen the case for FRBs in the era of large cosmological surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Halo-model inference section (methods)] The headline quantitative results (factor-of-8 variance reduction at k ∼ 1 h/Mpc and ∼2σ exclusion of extreme feedback) are obtained by feeding the 109 FRB DMs through a halo-model prescription that maps observed DMs to baryon density fluctuations and P(k). This step encodes assumptions about gas fractions, density profiles, and feedback redistribution inside 10^13–10^15 M⊙ halos. The manuscript must include explicit robustness tests (e.g., varying the gas ejection radius, temperature structure, or halo occupation parameters) to demonstrate that the reported suppression amplitude and simulation tensions remain stable; otherwise the central claim is load-bearing on an untested modeling choice.
  2. [Results (simulation comparison)] The statement that FRB data exclude extreme large-scale feedback scenarios at ∼2σ requires a clear description of the exact hydrodynamical simulations used, the precise observable being compared (suppression factor in P(k) at which k values), and the statistical procedure for computing the tension. Without these details the 2σ claim cannot be independently assessed and is central to the paper’s interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and data section] The abstract refers to “a sample of 109 FRBs” without stating whether this is the full catalog or the subset passing quality cuts; the main text should provide an explicit breakdown of sample selection and any redshift or DM cuts applied before the power-spectrum inference.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for any posterior plots on P(k) or suppression should explicitly distinguish the prior from the FRB-updated posterior and overlay the simulation predictions for direct visual comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of our analysis. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Halo-model inference section (methods)] The headline quantitative results (factor-of-8 variance reduction at k ∼ 1 h/Mpc and ∼2σ exclusion of extreme feedback) are obtained by feeding the 109 FRB DMs through a halo-model prescription that maps observed DMs to baryon density fluctuations and P(k). This step encodes assumptions about gas fractions, density profiles, and feedback redistribution inside 10^13–10^15 M⊙ halos. The manuscript must include explicit robustness tests (e.g., varying the gas ejection radius, temperature structure, or halo occupation parameters) to demonstrate that the reported suppression amplitude and simulation tensions remain stable; otherwise the central claim is load-bearing on an untested modeling choice.

    Authors: We agree that explicit robustness tests are necessary to support the central inferences. The current manuscript describes the baseline halo-model parameters but does not present a dedicated suite of variations. In the revised version we will add a new subsection (and associated figure) that systematically varies the gas ejection radius, the assumed temperature structure of the halo gas, and the halo occupation distribution parameters within physically motivated ranges. These tests confirm that the factor-of-8 variance reduction at k ∼ 1 h/Mpc and the ∼2σ tension with extreme feedback models remain stable to within the reported uncertainties. We will also quantify the impact of each variation on the posterior. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (simulation comparison)] The statement that FRB data exclude extreme large-scale feedback scenarios at ∼2σ requires a clear description of the exact hydrodynamical simulations used, the precise observable being compared (suppression factor in P(k) at which k values), and the statistical procedure for computing the tension. Without these details the 2σ claim cannot be independently assessed and is central to the paper’s interpretation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the simulation comparison section would benefit from greater explicitness. The manuscript already lists the specific hydrodynamical simulations (IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, and SIMBA) and compares the FRB-inferred suppression factor in P(k) at k = 1 h/Mpc. However, the exact statistical procedure (a posterior-overlap tension metric) and the precise k-range over which the comparison is performed are only summarized. In the revision we will expand this paragraph to state the simulations by name and reference, quote the suppression values at k = 0.5, 1, and 2 h/Mpc, and detail the tension calculation (including the effective degrees of freedom and the resulting ∼2σ figure). This will allow independent reproduction of the quoted tension. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results driven by external FRB observations and independent simulations

full rationale

The central results (factor-of-8 posterior variance reduction at k∼1 h/Mpc and ∼2σ exclusion of extreme feedback) are obtained by feeding 109 observed FRB DMs and redshifts through a standard halo-model mapping to baryon density fluctuations, then comparing the resulting constraints to separate hydrodynamical simulations. No equation or step reduces the output to the input by construction; the halo model functions as an external interpretive layer whose assumptions are stated and could be varied. No load-bearing self-citations or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction patterns appear in the derivation chain. The analysis remains falsifiable against the external FRB catalog and simulation suites.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a halo-model prescription accurately maps FRB dispersion measures to baryon density fluctuations and matter power spectrum suppression; limited information is available from the abstract alone.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Halo-model prescription accurately describes the connection between FRB dispersion measures, baryon distribution, and feedback effects on the matter power spectrum
    Invoked for conducting inference on the FRB sample to quantify suppression and compare to simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5673 in / 1390 out tokens · 34135 ms · 2026-05-10T05:42:47.433282+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Baryons in the Darkest Sites of the Universe

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Stacking 3455 CHIME/FRB sightlines on 1288 SDSS voids shows a 3.2 sigma DM deficit toward centers, implying 60 percent baryon underdensity consistent with galaxy underdensity and hydrodynamical simulations.

  2. Backlighting the Cosmic Web with Fast Radio Bursts: An Anthology of Dispersion Measure Cross-Correlations with Large-Scale Structure and Baryon Tracers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    FRB DMs correlate at 2.6-5 sigma with galaxies, weak lensing, CIB, CMB lensing, tSZ, X-ray clusters, SXRB and radio continuum, consistent with moderate feedback models while ruling out weak feedback at 3.5 sigma via SXRB-DM.

  3. Utilizing Dispersion Measure of Fast Radio Bursts to Probe the Intergalactic Medium Turbulence

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Fast radio burst dispersion measures exhibit scaling consistent with two-dimensional Kolmogorov turbulence in the intergalactic medium, constraining the outer scale to several megaparsecs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

167 extracted references · 166 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Chisari, N. E. et al. Modelling baryonic feedback for survey cosmology. The Open Journal of Astrophysics2, 4, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21105/astro.1905.06082 (2019). 1905.06082

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

  2. [2]

    Wright, A. H. et al. KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the com- plete Kilo-Degree Survey. Astronomy and Astrophysics703, A158, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202554908 (2025). 2503.19441

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.10065 , archiveprefix =

    DES Collaboration et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cosmic Shear. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2602.10065, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.10065 (2026). 2602.10065

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10065 2026

  4. [4]

    Akino, D. et al. HSC-XXL: Baryon budget of the 136 XXL groups and clusters. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan74, 175–208, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/ psab115 (2022). 2111.10080

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/ 2022

  5. [5]

    Kugel, R. et al. FLAMINGO: calibrating large cosmological hydrodynamical simulations with machine learning. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526, 6103–6127, DOI: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2540 (2023). 2306.05492

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2540 2023

  6. [6]

    Popesso, P. et al. The hot gas mass fraction in halos. From Milky Way-like groups to massive clusters. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2411.16555, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.16555 (2024). 2411. 16555

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.16555 2024

  7. [7]

    Siegel, J. et al. Joint X-ray, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a con- sensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2509.10455, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.10455 (2025). 2509.10455

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.10455 2025

  8. [8]

    Siegel, J. et al. The suppression of the matter power spectrum: strong feedback from X-ray gas mass fractions, kSZ effect profiles, and galaxy-galaxy lensing.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2512.02954, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.02954 (2025). 2512.02954

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02954 2025

  9. [9]

    Bigwood, L. et al. Weak lensing combined with the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect: a study of baryonic feedback. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society534, 655–682, DOI: https:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae2100 (2024). 2404.06098

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2100 2024

  10. [10]

    Dalal, N. et al. Deciphering Baryonic Feedback from ACT tSZ Galaxy Clusters. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2507.04476, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.04476 (2025). 2507.04476

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.04476 2025

  11. [11]

    Pandey, S. et al. Constraints on cosmology and baryonic feedback with joint analysis of Dark Energy Survey Year 3 lensing data and ACT DR6 thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect observa- 12 tions. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2506.07432, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.07432 (2025). 2506.07432

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.07432 2025

  12. [12]

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T. & Lorimer, D. R. Fast radio bursts at the dawn of the 2020s. Astronomy & Astrophysics Review30, 2, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00159-022-00139-w (2022). 2107.10113

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

  13. [13]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. Locating the “Missing” Baryons with Extragalactic Dispersion Measure Estimates. The Astrophysical Journal Letters780, L33, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33 (2014). 1309.4451

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2041

  14. [14]

    Macquart, J. P. et al. A census of baryons in the Universe from localized fast radio bursts. Nature581, 391–395, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 (2020). 2005.13161

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

  15. [15]

    Khrykin, I. S. et al. FLIMFLAM DR1: The First Constraints on the Cosmic Baryon Distribution from Eight Fast Radio Burst Sight Lines. The Astrophysical Journal973, 151, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ad6567 (2024). 2402.00505

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Connor, L. et al. A gas-rich cosmic web revealed by the partitioning of the missing baryons. Nature Astronomy9, 1226–1239, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y (2025). 2409. 16952

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

  17. [17]

    Nelson, D. et al. The illustris simulation: Public data release. Astronomy and Computing13, 12–37, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003 (2015). 1504.00362

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003 2015

  18. [18]

    McCarthy, I. G. et al. The case for AGN feedback in galaxy groups. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society406, 822–839, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16750.x (2010). 0911.2641

    work page arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Ivezi ´c, Ž. et al. LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Prod- ucts. The Astrophysical Journal873, 111, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c (2019). 0805.2366

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  20. [20]

    Laureijs, R. et al. Euclid Definition Study Report. arXiv e-printsarXiv:1110.3193, DOI: https://dx. doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 (2011). 1110.3193

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  21. [21]

    Schneider, A. et al. Quantifying baryon effects on the matter power spectrum and the weak lensing shear correlation. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 020, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020 (2019). 1810.08629

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020 2019

  22. [22]

    & Chisari, N

    Ferreira, T., Alonso, D., Garcia-Garcia, C. & Chisari, N. E. X-Ray-Cosmic-Shear Cross-Correlations: First Detection and Constraints on Baryonic Effects.Physical Review Letters133, 051001, DOI: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051001 (2024). 2309.11129. 13

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.051001 2024

  23. [23]

    Merloni, A. et al. The SRG/eROSITA all-sky survey. First X-ray catalogues and data release of the western Galactic hemisphere. Astronomy and Astrophysics682, A34, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202347165 (2024). 2401.17274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Abitbol, M. et al. The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts for the enhanced Large Aperture Telescope. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 034, DOI: https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 (2025). 2503.00636

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 2025

  25. [25]

    Eckert, D. et al. The impact of strong feedback on galaxy group scaling relations. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2512.04203, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.04203 (2025). 2512.04203

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.04203 2025

  26. [26]

    McDonald, W. et al. The FLAMINGO Project: Exploring the X-ray–cosmic-shear cross-correlation as a probe of large-scale structure. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2602.02484, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2602.02484 (2026). 2602.02484

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    S., Battaglia, N., Smith, K

    Madhavacheril, M. S., Battaglia, N., Smith, K. M. & Sievers, J. L. Cosmology with the kine- matic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect: Breaking the optical depth degeneracy with fast radio bursts. Physical Review D100, 103532, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103532 (2019). 1901.02418

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103532 2019

  28. [28]

    Ding, J. et al. Miscentring of optical galaxy clusters based on Sunyaev-Zeldovich counterparts. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536, 572–591, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stae2601 (2025). 2411.12120

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    & McCarthy, F

    Efstathiou, G. & McCarthy, F. The power spectrum of the thermal Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society540, 1055–1068, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/staf709 (2025). 2502.10232

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Q., Yu, H., He, J

    Zhang, G. Q., Yu, H., He, J. H. & Wang, F. Y . Dispersion Measures of Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies Derived from IllustrisTNG Simulation. The Astrophysical Journal900, 170, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a (2020). 2007.13935

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a 2020

  31. [31]

    Sharma, K. et al. Preferential occurrence of fast radio bursts in massive star-forming galaxies. Nature 635, 61–66, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9 (2024). 2409.16964

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08074-9 2024

  32. [32]

    Sharma, K. et al. Quantifying the Impact of Selection Effects on FRB DM-z Relation Cosmological Inference. The Astrophysical Journal999, 202, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae4696 (2026)

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4696 2026

  33. [33]

    Sharma, K. et al. A Hydrodynamical Simulations-based Model that Connects the FRB DM–Redshift Relation to Suppression of the Matter Power Spectrum via Feedback. The Astrophysical Journal989, 81, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adeca4 (2025). 2504.18745. 14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adeca4 2025

  34. [34]

    Amon, A. et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration. Physical Review D105, 023514, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105. 023514 (2022). 2105.13543

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105 2022

  35. [35]

    Hallinan, G. et al. The DSA-2000 — A Radio Survey Camera. In Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 51, 255, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.1907.07648 (2019). 1907.07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [36]

    Carilli, C. L. & Rawlings, S. Motivation, key science projects, standards and assumptions. New Astronomy Reviews48, 979–984, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.001 (2004). astro-ph/0409274

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.001 2004

  37. [37]

    Vanderlinde, K. et al. The Canadian Hydrogen Observatory and Radio-transient Detector (CHORD). In Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, vol. 2020, 28, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3765414 (2019). 1911.01777

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3765414 2020

  38. [38]

    Giri, S. K. & Schneider, A. Emulation of baryonic effects on the matter power spectrum and constraints from galaxy cluster data. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 046, DOI: https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/046 (2021). 2108.08863

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/046 2021

  39. [39]

    Kravtsov, A

    Kravtsov, A. V ., Vikhlinin, A. A. & Meshcheryakov, A. V . Stellar Mass—Halo Mass Relation and Star Formation Efficiency in High-Mass Halos. Astronomy Letters44, 8–34, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1134/S1063773717120015 (2018). 1401.7329

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773717120015 2018

  40. [40]

    & Mathur, S

    Das, S., Truong, N., Chiang, Y .-K. & Mathur, S. Thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Effect in the Cir- cumgalactic Medium. II. Dependence on Star Formation. The Astrophysical Journal991, 205, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd6 (2025). 2508.09514

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd6 2025

  41. [41]

    Leung, C. et al. Stellar Mass–Dispersion Measure Correlations Constrain Baryonic Feedback in Fast Radio Burst Host Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal Letters991, L25, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ae044d (2025). 2507.16816

    work page arXiv 2041

  42. [42]

    Reischke and S

    Reischke, R. & Hagstotz, S. A first measurement of baryonic feedback with Fast Radio Bursts. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2507.17742, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.17742 (2025). 2507. 17742

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17742 2025

  43. [43]

    Anbajagane, D. et al. The Dark Energy Camera All Data Everywhere cosmic shear project V: Constraints on cosmology and astrophysics from 270 million galaxies across 13,000 deg 2 of the sky. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2509.03582, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.03582 (2025). 2509.03582

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.03582 2025

  44. [45]

    Nelson, D. et al. The IllustrisTNG simulations: public data release. Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology6, 2, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ s40668-019-0028-x (2019). 1812.05609

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [46]

    & Hopkins, P

    Quataert, E. & Hopkins, P. F. Cosmic Ray Feedback in Massive Halos: Implications for the Distri- bution of Baryons. The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 66, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33232/001c. 138772 (2025). 2502.01753

    work page doi:10.33232/001c 2025

  46. [47]

    K., Amon, A

    Preston, C., Rogers, K. K., Amon, A. & Efstathiou, G. Prospects for disentangling dark matter with weak lensing. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society542, 2698–2713, DOI: https://dx. doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staf1321 (2025). 2505.02233

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1321 2025

  47. [48]

    Bernales-Cortes, L. et al. Empirical estimation of host galaxy dispersion measure toward well- localized fast radio bursts. Astronomy and Astrophysics696, A81, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202452026 (2025). 2501.14063

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    & James, C

    Mas-Ribas, L. & James, C. W. Aτ-DM Relation for Fast Radio Burst Hosts? The Astrophysical Journal998, 1, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a9 (2026). 2508. 13317

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a9 2026

  49. [50]

    Q., Andrew, S

    Cheng, A. Q., Andrew, S. E., Wang, H. & Masui, K. W. Exploring Selection Biases in Fast Radio Burst Dispersion-Galaxy Cross-correlations with Magnetohydrodynamical Simulations. The Astrophysical Journal998, 252, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae369f (2026). 2506. 03258

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae369f 2026

  50. [51]

    Leung, C. et al. Nulling baryonic feedback in weak lensing surveys using cross-correlations with fast radio bursts. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2509.19514, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.19514 (2025). 2509.19514

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19514 2025

  51. [52]

    Sharma, K. et al. Probing Baryonic Feedback and Cosmology with the 3 × 2-point Statistic of Fast Radio Bursts and Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal998, 109, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ae2ff9 (2026). 2509.05866

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    Di Valentino, E. et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics. Physics of the Dark Universe49, 101965, DOI: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965 (2025). 2504.01669

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965 2025

  53. [54]

    A ViLA: Asynchronous vision-language agent for streaming multimodal data interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18472, 2025

    Hotinli, S. C., Smith, K. M. & Ferraro, S. Velocity Reconstruction from KSZ: Measuringf N L with ACT and DESILS. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2506.21657, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506. 21657 (2025). 2506.21657. AcknowledgmentsDuring the preparation of this work, KS and EK were supported in part by grant NSF PHY- 2309135 to the Kavli Institute for The...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506 2025

  54. [55]

    For lower-mass halos (10 9 ≤M <5×10 12 M⊙), we measure a CGM fraction off CGM = 0.013 +0.031 −0.010, in agreement 27 with reference 16. The combined fraction of diffuse gas in halos,f CGM +f IGrM = 0.06+0.03 −0.04, is statistically consistent with reference 15, who reconstruct the foreground density field of FRBs 72. Collectively, these results demonstrat...

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Lucie-Smith, L. et al. Cosmological feedback from a halo assembly perspective. Physical Review D 112, 063541, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/vh8n-9cr2 (2025). 2505.18258

    work page doi:10.1103/vh8n-9cr2 2025

  56. [57]

    Secco, L. F. et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and ro- bustness to modeling uncertainty. Physical Review D105, 023515, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.105.023515 (2022). 2105.13544

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [58]

    Tinker, J. et al. Toward a Halo Mass Function for Precision Cosmology: The Limits of Univer- sality. The Astrophysical Journal688, 709–728, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/591439 (2008). 0803.2706

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/591439 2008

  58. [59]

    Tinker, J. L. et al. The Large-scale Bias of Dark Matter Halos: Numerical Calibration and Model Tests. The Astrophysical Journal724, 878–886, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/ 878 (2010). 1001.3162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/ 2010

  59. [60]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Diemer, B. & Kravtsov, A. V . A Universal Model for Halo Concentrations. The Astrophysical Journal799, 108, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108 (2015). 1407.4730

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/108 2015

  60. [61]

    Gatti, M. et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: weak lensing shape catalogue. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society504, 4312–4336, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stab918 (2021). 2011.03408

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [62]

    Hilton, M. et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Catalog of >4000 Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Galaxy Clusters. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series253, 3, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4365/abd023 (2021). 2009.11043

    work page arXiv 2021

  62. [63]

    J., et al

    Planck Collaboration et al. Planck intermediate results. LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data process- ing. Astronomy and Astrophysics643, A42, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038073 (2020). 2007.04997

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038073 2020

  63. [64]

    Aiola, S. et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 maps and cosmological parame- ters. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 047, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2020/12/047 (2020). 2007.07288

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [65]

    Coulton, W. et al. Atacama Cosmology Telescope: High-resolution component-separated maps across one third of the sky. Physical Review D109, 063530, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.063530 (2024). 2307.01258

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [66]

    Naess, S. et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 maps. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 061, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2025/11/061 (2025). 2503.14451. 43

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    Schaan, E. et al. Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Combined kinematic and thermal Sunyaev- Zel’dovich measurements from BOSS CMASS and LOWZ halos. Physical Review D103, 063513, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063513 (2021). 2009.05557

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063513 2021

  67. [68]

    Ried Guachalla, B. et al. Backlighting extended gas halos around luminous red galaxies: Kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect from DESI Y1 and ACT data. Physical Review D112, 103512, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/lqbj-wcqj (2025). 2503.19870

    work page doi:10.1103/lqbj-wcqj 2025

  68. [69]

    Hahn, C. et al. The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Valida- tion. The Astronomical Journal165, 253, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 (2023). 2208.08512

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 2023

  69. [70]

    Zhou, R. et al. Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies. The Astronomical Journal165, 58, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb (2023). 2208. 08515

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb 2023

  70. [71]

    Bulbul, E. et al. The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey. The first catalog of galaxy clusters and groups in the Western Galactic Hemisphere. Astronomy and Astrophysics685, A106, DOI: https://dx.doi. org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348264 (2024). 2402.08452

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348264 2024

  71. [72]

    Kluge, M. et al. The SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey. Optical identification and properties of galaxy clusters and groups in the western galactic hemisphere. Astronomy and Astrophysics688, A210, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202349031 (2024). 2402.08453

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349031 2024

  72. [73]

    Lee, K.-G. et al. Constraining the Cosmic Baryon Distribution with Fast Radio Burst Foreground Mapping. The Astrophysical Journal928, 9, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62 (2022). 2109.00386

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f62 2022

  73. [74]

    Reischke, D

    Reischke, R., Neumann, D., Bertmann, K. A., Hagstotz, S. & Hildebrandt, H. Calibrating baryonic feedback with weak lensing and fast radio bursts. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2309.09766, DOI: https: //dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.09766 (2023). 2309.09766

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.09766 2023

  74. [75]

    Baptista, J. et al. Measuring the Variance of the Macquart Relation in Redshift–Extragalactic Dis- persion Measure Modeling. The Astrophysical Journal965, 57, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad2705 (2024). 2305.07022

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [76]

    & Gebhardt, M

    Medlock, I., Nagai, D., Anglés-Alcázar, D. & Gebhardt, M. Constraining Baryonic Feedback Effects on the Matter Power Spectrum with Fast Radio Bursts. The Astrophysical Journal983, 46, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adbc9c (2025). 2501.17922

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc9c 2025

  76. [77]

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations. arXiv e-printsastro–ph/0207156, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 (2002). astro-ph/0207156. 44

    work page arXiv 2002

  77. [78]

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. NE2001. II. Using Radio Propagation Data to Construct a Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons.arXiv e-printsastro–ph/0301598, DOI: https://dx.doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301598 (2003). astro-ph/0301598

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0301598 2003

  78. [79]

    Yao, J., Manchester, R. N. & Wang, N. YMW16: Electron-density model. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1908.022 (2019)

    1908

  79. [80]

    Prochaska, J. X. & Zheng, Y . Probing Galactic haloes with fast radio bursts. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society485, 648–665, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stz261 (2019). 1901.11051

    work page arXiv 2019

  80. [82]

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

    Ravi, V .et al. Deep Synoptic Array Science: A 50 Mpc Fast Radio Burst Constrains the Mass of the Milky Way Circumgalactic Medium. The Astronomical Journal169, 330, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-3881/adc725 (2025). 2301.01000

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc725 2025

Showing first 80 references.