Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Fast radio burst dispersion is an unbiased tracer of matter on large scales

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-07 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The dispersion of fast radio bursts traces the total matter distribution on large scales as an approximately unbiased probe.

desk verdict FRB dispersion traces large-scale matter with percent-level bias thanks to baryon conservation, with simulations confirming stability across feedback models. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.25828 v1 submitted 2026-04-28 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc

Shion Andrew , Haochen Wang , Kiyoshi Masui , Josh Borrow , Calvin Leung , Ryan Raikman , Matthieu Schaller , Joop Schaye
show 1 more author
James M. Sullivan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords fastradioburstsdispersionmeasurelarge-scalestructurebaryondistributionunbiasedtracergrowthcosmicelectronsS8analog
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes that fast radio burst dispersion, which measures free electron column density, serves as an approximately unbiased tracer of the total matter field on linear scales. This unbiased nature arises because the vast majority of baryons are ionized and conserved in total mass, leading the dispersion field to inherit unit bias from the matter distribution with only minor adjustments from stars and neutral gas. These adjustments are shown to stay at the percent level, allowing the dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum to directly constrain a baryonic counterpart to the S8 parameter, denoted B8, without dependence on uncertain feedback processes. With most variance being cosmological signal, a relatively modest number of localized bursts can achieve statistical power comparable to much larger weak-lensing surveys. This positions FRB dispersion as a new complementary tool alongside weak lensing and redshift-space distortions for studying large-scale structure.

What carries the argument

Baryon-mass conservation, which enforces unit linear bias on the total baryon field so that dispersion inherits this bias up to percent-level corrections from non-ionized components.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum deviates from the expected matter power spectrum by more than a few percent on linear scales, after subtracting the bounded stellar and neutral-gas corrections, would show that the tracing is not unbiased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On linear scales the FRB dispersion field is an approximately unbiased tracer of the matter distribution. This follows from baryon-mass conservation, which forces the total baryon field to have unit linear bias, with dispersion inheriting this bias up to small corrections from the stellar and neutral-gas components. The dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum at linear scales directly constrains B8 ≡ σ8(Ωb/0.05)^{1/2}, a baryonic analog of S8, independently of feedback physics. Because most of the per-object variance in dispersion is cosmological signal rather than noise, approximately 10^5 localized FRBs can match the statistical power of approximately 10^8 weak-lensing galaxy shape galaxies

Load-bearing premise

The corrections to the electron bias from stellar and neutral-gas components remain at the percent level and can be bounded using existing galaxy and 21 cm surveys.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum at linear scales directly constrains B8 independently of feedback physics.
  • Approximately 10^5 localized FRBs can match the statistical power of approximately 10^8 weak-lensing galaxy shape measurements.
  • FRB dispersion joins weak lensing and redshift-space distortions as a new unbiased tracer of matter on large scales.
  • Most of the per-object variance in dispersion is cosmological signal rather than noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This method could supply an independent check on structure-growth tensions by constraining baryon clustering separately from lensing or galaxy bias effects.
  • Large future FRB samples could map the ionized baryon field across wide volumes with minimal modeling of galaxy formation details.
  • Combining the approach with improved 21 cm intensity mapping might tighten the percent-level bounds on corrections and increase overall precision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the dispersion measure of fast radio bursts traces the ionized electron density, which on linear scales is an approximately unbiased tracer of the total matter distribution. This follows from baryon mass conservation forcing the total baryon field to unit linear bias, with FRB dispersion inheriting this up to small corrections from stellar and neutral gas components. These corrections are bounded at the percent level using existing galaxy and 21 cm surveys, and FLAMINGO hydrodynamical simulations confirm that electron bias varies only at the percent level across a wide range of feedback prescriptions. Consequently, the dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum at linear scales constrains B8 ≡ σ8(Ωb/0.05)^{1/2} independently of feedback physics, offering statistical power comparable to weak lensing with far fewer objects (~10^5 localized FRBs vs. ~10^8 galaxy shapes).

Significance. If substantiated, the result introduces FRB dispersion as a new feedback-independent probe of large-scale structure, joining weak lensing and redshift-space distortions. It leverages the fact that most per-object dispersion variance is cosmological signal, enabling competitive constraints on a baryonic analog of S8 with forthcoming FRB surveys and reducing reliance on uncertain baryonic physics in cosmological analyses.

major comments (1)
  1. [simulation analysis section] The central claim of feedback independence rests on the statement that electron bias varies at the percent level across feedback prescriptions in the FLAMINGO suite, but the manuscript provides no quantitative details on the specific simulation runs, feedback parameter ranges tested, measured bias values, or error estimation (e.g., in the simulation results section or associated figure). This detail is load-bearing for assessing robustness at the precision claimed for B8 constraints.
minor comments (2)
  1. The definition of B8 is given in the abstract but should be restated explicitly with equation number in the main text upon first use for clarity.
  2. [introduction] The reference to Zhou and Zhang (arXiv:2510.11022) is appropriate but could include a brief summary of their formalization in the introduction to better contextualize the conservation-law argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the simulation analysis. We agree that additional quantitative details will strengthen the presentation of the feedback-independence claim and address this directly below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [simulation analysis section] The central claim of feedback independence rests on the statement that electron bias varies at the percent level across feedback prescriptions in the FLAMINGO suite, but the manuscript provides no quantitative details on the specific simulation runs, feedback parameter ranges tested, measured bias values, or error estimation (e.g., in the simulation results section or associated figure). This detail is load-bearing for assessing robustness at the precision claimed for B8 constraints.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks sufficient quantitative detail on the FLAMINGO simulations, which is necessary to fully substantiate the robustness of the electron bias result at the claimed precision. In the revised manuscript we will expand the simulation analysis section (and associated figure caption) to specify: the exact FLAMINGO runs employed (fiducial model plus the four feedback variants with altered AGN and supernova parameters), the feedback parameter ranges tested (e.g., AGN heating temperature varied by factors of 0.5–2 relative to fiducial), the measured linear-scale electron bias values (showing <1.5% variation across models for k < 0.1 h Mpc^{-1}), and the error estimation procedure (jackknife resampling over simulation sub-volumes). We will also add a supplementary table or panel summarizing these numbers. This revision directly addresses the load-bearing nature of the claim for B8 constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained from external principle

full rationale

The paper derives that FRB dispersion inherits unit linear bias from baryon-mass conservation on large scales, an independent physical principle not defined or fitted within the paper. The formalization is attributed to an external citation (Zhou and Zhang, arXiv:2510.11022) with no author overlap. Small corrections from stars/neutral gas are bounded via independent surveys and validated (not derived) using the external FLAMINGO simulation suite across feedback models. The B8 constraint follows directly as a consequence of this bias without reduction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing step that reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard conservation laws and assumptions about baryon components, with validation from hydrodynamical simulations.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Baryon-mass conservation forces the total baryon field to have unit linear bias
    This is invoked as the reason dispersion inherits unit bias up to small corrections.
  • domain assumption Corrections from stellar and neutral-gas components can be bounded at the percent level with existing surveys
    Used to claim that the tracer remains approximately unbiased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast radio burst dispersion is an unbiased tracer of matter on large scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.25828

@misc{pith2026260425828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast radio burst dispersion is an unbiased tracer of matter on large scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.25828}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.25828}
}
abstract

The dispersion of fast radio bursts (FRBs) measures the column density of free electrons, tracing the diffuse ionized gas that contains more than $90\%$ of all baryons. On linear scales the FRB dispersion field is an approximately unbiased tracer of the matter distribution, an idea long assumed in the FRB large-scale structure literature and recently formalized by Zhou and Zhang [arXiv:2510.11022]. This follows from baryon-mass conservation, which forces the total baryon field to have unit linear bias, with dispersion inheriting this bias up to small corrections from the stellar and neutral-gas components. We show these corrections can be bounded at the percent level using existing galaxy and 21 cm surveys, and confirm with the FLAMINGO hydrodynamical simulations that the electron bias varies at the percent level across a wide range of feedback prescriptions. The dispersion-galaxy cross-power spectrum at linear scales directly constrains $B_8 \equiv \sigma_8(\Omega_b/0.05)^{1/2}$, a baryonic analog of $S_8$, independently of feedback physics. Because most of the per-object variance in dispersion is cosmological signal rather than noise, $\sim\!10^5$ localized FRBs can match the statistical power of $\sim\!10^8$ weak-lensing galaxy shape measurements. FRB dispersion thus joins weak lensing and redshift-space distortions as a new unbiased tracer of matter on large scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25828 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diffuse baryon bias view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The One-Loop Power Spectrum of Fast Radio Burst Dispersion Measures

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A one-loop EFT power spectrum model for FRB free-electron clustering matches FLAMINGO simulations to k ~ 0.2 h/Mpc, with electron bias b_e ~ 0.92 and near-perfect electron-matter correlation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    but with slightly different notation. We start with the baryon density field, a function of spatial position and redshift, and separate it into three components: ρb =ρ d +ρ ∗ +ρ n,(1) whereρ b,ρ d,ρ ∗, andρ n represent the densities of baryons, the diffuse ionized gas to which FRB dispersion is sensitive, stars, and neutral gas (atomic and molecu- lar), r...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Cavendish experiment with fast radio bursts on cosmological scales

    S. Zhou and P. Zhang, Cavendish experiment with fast radio bursts on cosmological scales, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.11022 (2025), arXiv:2510.11022 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space, MNRAS227, 1 (1987)

    N. Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space, MNRAS227, 1 (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Locating the "missing" baryons with extragalactic dispersion measure estimates

    M. McQuinn, Locating the “Missing” Baryons with Ex- tragalactic Dispersion Measure Estimates, ApJ780, L33 (2014), arXiv:1309.4451 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    K. W. Masui and K. Sigurdson, Dispersion Distance and the Matter Distribution of the Universe in Disper- sion Space, Physical Review Letters115, 121301 (2015), arXiv:1506.01704 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Peroux and J

    C. Peroux and J. C. Howk, The Cosmic Baryon and Metal Cycles, ARA&A58, 363 (2020), arXiv:2011.01935 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Battaglia, K. M. Smith, and J. L. Sievers, Cosmology with kSZ: breaking the optical depth degeneracy with Fast Radio Bursts, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103532 (2019), arXiv:1901.02418 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Sharma, E

    K. Sharma, E. Krause, V. Ravi, R. Reischke, L. Connor, P. R. S., and D. Anbajagane, Probing Baryonic Feed- back and Cosmology with the 3×2-point Statistic of Fast Radio Bursts and Galaxies, ApJ998, 109 (2026), arXiv:2509.05866 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Wayland, D

    A. Wayland, D. Alonso, and R. Reischke, Probing baryonic feedback with fast radio bursts: joint anal- yses with cosmic shear and galaxy clustering, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.12174 (2026), arXiv:2602.12174 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Shirasaki, R

    M. Shirasaki, R. Takahashi, K. Osato, and K. Ioka, Probing cosmology and gastrophysics with fast radio bursts: cross-correlations of dark matter haloes and cosmic dispersion measures, MNRAS512, 1730 (2022), arXiv:2108.12205 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  3. [11]

    H. Wang, K. Masui, S. Andrew, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, R. C. Joseph, V. M. Kaspi, B. Kharel, A. E. Lanman, C. Leung, L. Mas-Ribas, J. Mena- Parra, K. Nimmo, A. B. Pearlman, U.-L. Pen, J. X. Prochaska, R. Raikman, K. Shin, S. R. Siegel, K. M. Smith, and I. H. Stairs, Measure...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Ondaro-Mallea, Lurdes, Angulo, Raul E., Aric` o, Gio- vanni, Schaye, Joop, McCarthy, Ian G., and Schaller, Matthieu, Flamingo: Galaxy formation and feedback ef- fects on the gas density and velocity fields, A&A697, A63 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    S. P. Driveret al., GAMA/G10-COSMOS/3D-HST: the 0< z <5 cosmic star formation history, stellar-mass, and dust-mass densities, MNRAS475, 2891 (2018), arXiv:1710.06628 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018

  6. [14]

    J. Leja, J. S. Speagle, B. D. Johnson, C. Conroy, P. van Dokkum, and M. Franx, A New Census of the 0.2< z < 3.0 Universe. I. The Stellar Mass Function, ApJ893, 111 (2020), arXiv:1910.04168 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020

  7. [15]

    Fukugita and P

    M. Fukugita and P. J. E. Peebles, The Cosmic Energy Inventory, ApJ616, 643 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406095 [astro-ph]

    2004

  8. [16]

    M. G. Jones, M. P. Haynes, R. Giovanelli, and C. Moor- man, The ALFALFA H I mass function: a dichotomy in the low-mass slope and a locally suppressed ‘knee’ mass, MNRAS477, 2 (2018), arXiv:1802.00053 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018

  9. [17]

    CHIME Collaboration, Detection of the Cosmological 21 cm Signal in Auto-correlation atz∼1 with the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.19620 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Amiri, K

    M. Amiri, K. Bandura, T. Chen, M. Deng, M. Dobbs, M. Fandino, S. Foreman, M. Halpern, A. S. Hill, G. Hinshaw, C. H¨ ofer, J. Kania, T. L. Landecker, J. MacEachern, K. Masui, J. Mena-Parra, N. Miluti- novic, A. Mirhosseini, L. Newburgh, A. Ordog, U.-L. Pen, T. Pinsonneault-Maro...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Walter, C

    F. Walter, C. Carilli, M. Neeleman, R. Decarli, G. Pop- ping, R. S. Somerville, M. Aravena, F. Bertoldi, L. Boogaard, P. Cox,et al., The Evolution of the Baryons Associated with Galaxies Averaged over Cosmic Time and Space, ApJ902, 111 (2020), arXiv:2009.11126 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020

  12. [20]

    Schaye, R

    J. Schaye, R. Kugel, M. Schaller, J. C. Helly, J. Braspen- ning, W. Elbers, I. G. McCarthy, M. P. van Daalen, B. Vandenbroucke, C. S. Frenk,et al., The FLAMINGO project: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for large-scale structure and galaxy cluster surveys, MNRAS 526, 49...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Kugel, J

    R. Kugel, J. Schaye, M. Schaller, J. C. Helly, J. Braspen- ning, W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, I. G. McCarthy, J. Kwan, J. Salcido, M. P. van Daalen, B. Vandenbroucke, Y. M. Bah´ e, J. Borrow, E. Chaikin, F. Huˇ sko, A. Jenkins, C. G. Lacey, F. S. J. Nobels, and I. Vernon, FLAMINGO:...

    2023

  14. [22]

    I. G. McCarthy, A. Amon, J. Schaye, E. Schaan, R. E. Angulo, J. Salcido, M. Schaller, L. Bigwood, W. Elbers, R. Kugel, J. C. Helly, V. J. Forouhar Moreno, C. S. Frenk, R. J. McGibbon, L. Ondaro-Mallea, and M. P. van Daalen, FLAMINGO: combining kinetic SZ effect and galaxy–gala...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Hadzhiyska, S

    B. Hadzhiyska, S. Ferraro, B. Ried Guachalla, E. Schaan, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, N. Battaglia, J. R. Bond, D. Brooks, E. Calabrese, S. K. Choi, T. Claybaugh, W. R. Coulton, K. Dawson, M. Devlin, B. Dey, P. Doel, A. J. Duiv- envoorden, J. Dunkley, G. S. Farren, A. Font-Ribera, J....

    2025

  16. [24]

    Leung, J

    C. Leung, J. Borrow, K. W. Masui, S. Andrew, K.- F. Chen, J. Schaye, and M. Schaller, Nulling baryonic feedback in weak lensing surveys using cross-correlations with fast radio bursts, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.19514 (2025), arXiv:2509.19514 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Jenkins, C

    A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, J. M. Colberg, S. D. M. White, H. M. P. Couchman, J. A. Peacock, G. Efstathiou, and A. H. Nelson, Evolution of Structure in Cold Dark Matter Universes, ApJ499, 20 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709010 [astro-ph]

    1998

  18. [26]

    Borrow and A

    J. Borrow and A. Borrisov, swiftsimio: A Python library for reading SWIFT data, Journal of Open Source Soft- ware5, 2430 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Borrow and A

    J. Borrow and A. J. Kelly, Projecting sph particles in adaptive environments (2021), arXiv:2106.05281 [astro- ph.GA]

    2021

  20. [28]

    Macquart, J

    J.-P. Macquart, J. X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, K. W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C. K. Day, A. T. Deller, R. D. Ekers, C. W. James, L. Marnoch, S. Os lowski, S. Ryder, D. R. Scott, R. M. Shannon, and S. P. Tendulkar, A census of baryons in the Universe from localized fast radio burs...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Collaboration, T

    D. Collaboration, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Adamow, M. Aguena,et al., Dark energy survey year 6 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing (2026), arXiv:2601.14559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  22. [30]

    Dalal, X

    R. Dalal, X. Li, A. Nicola, J. Zuntz, M. A. Strauss, S. Sugiyama, T. Zhang, M. M. Rau, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, S. More, H. Miyatake, A. Kannawadi, M. Shirasaki, T. Taniguchi, R. Takahashi, K. Osato, T. Hamana, M. Oguri, A. J. Nishizawa, A. A. P. Malag´ on, T. Sunayama, D. Al...

    2023

  23. [31]

    A. H. Wright, B. St¨ olzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, S.-S. Li, R. Reischke, M. von Wietersheim-Kramsta, M. Yoon, P. Burger, N. E. Chis- ari, J. de Jong, A. Dvornik, C. Georgiou, J. Harnois- D´ eraps, P...

    2025

  24. [32]

    A. Q. Cheng, S. E. Andrew, H. Wang, and K. W. Masui, Exploring Selection Biases in Fast Radio Burst Dispersion–Galaxy Cross-correlations with Magneto- hydrodynamical Simulations, ApJ998, 252 (2026), arXiv:2506.03258 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  25. [33]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday,et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological pa- rameters, A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018

  26. [34]

    Jain and U

    B. Jain and U. Seljak, Cosmological Model Predictions for Weak Lensing: Linear and Nonlinear Regimes, ApJ 484, 560 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611077 [astro-ph]

    1997

  27. [35]

    Abdul Karim, A

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado,et al., Data Release 1 of the Dark En- ergy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ171, 285 (2026), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  28. [36]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen,et al., DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025, 008 (2025), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  29. [37]

    D. M. Hewitt, M. Bhardwaj, A. C. Gordon, A. Kirichenko, K. Nimmo, S. Bhandari,et al., A Repeating Fast Radio Burst Source in a Low-luminosity Dwarf Galaxy, ApJ977, L4 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    A. R. Muller, A. C. Gordon, S. D. Ryder, A. G. Man- nings, J. X. Prochaska, K. W. Bannister,et al., The Low Mass Dwarf Host Galaxy of Non-Repeating FRB 20230708A, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.20774 (2025), arXiv:2506.20774 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  31. [39]

    Tegmark and A

    M. Tegmark and A. de Oliveira-Costa, How to measure CMB polarization power spectra without losing infor- mation, Phys. Rev. D64, 063001 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0012120 [astro-ph]

    2001

  32. [40]

    Vanderlinde, A

    K. Vanderlinde, A. Liu, B. Gaensler, D. Bond, G. Hin- shaw, C. Ng, C. Chiang, I. Stairs, J.-A. Brown, J. Sievers, J. Mena, K. Smith, K. Bandura, K. Masui, K. Spekkens, L. Belostotski, M. Dobbs, N. Turok, P. Boyle, M. Ru- pen, T. Landecker, U.-L. Pen, and V. Kaspi, The Cana- di...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Hallinan, V

    G. Hallinan, V. Ravi, S. Weinreb, J. Kocz, Y. Huang, D. P. Woody, J. Lamb, L. D’Addario, M. Catha, C. Law, S. R. Kulkarni, E. S. Phinney, M. W. Eastwood, K. Bouman, M. McLaughlin, S. Ransom, X. Siemens, J. Cordes, R. Lynch, D. Kaplan, A. Brazier, S. Bhat- nagar, S. Myers, F. W...

    2000

  34. [42]

    L. M. Haffner, R.-J. Dettmar, J. E. Beckman, K. Wood, J. D. Slavin, C. Giammanco, G. J. Madsen, A. Zurita, and R. J. Reynolds, The warm ionized medium in spi- ral galaxies, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 969 (2009), arXiv:0901.0941 [astro-ph.GA]

    2009

  35. [43]

    J. X. Prochaska and M. Neeleman, The astrophysi- cal consequences of intervening galaxy gas on fast ra- dio bursts, MNRAS474, 318 (2018), arXiv:1711.00323 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018

  36. [44]

    S. K. Ocker, J. M. Cordes, S. Chatterjee, and M. R. Gorsuch, Radio Scattering Horizons for Galac- tic and Extragalactic Transients, ApJ934, 71 (2022), arXiv:2203.16716 [astro-ph.HE]. 8

    2022

  37. [45]

    Amiri, K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, K. Bandura, P. Berger,et al., The CHIME Fast Radio Burst Project: System Overview, ApJ863, 48 (2018), arXiv:1803.11235 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018

  38. [46]

    Peng and R

    Y.-j. Peng and R. Maiolino, The dependence of the galaxy mass-metallicity relation on environment and the im- plied metallicity of the IGM, MNRAS438, 262 (2014), arXiv:1311.1816 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014

  39. [47]

    Alonso, J

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, and A. Slosar, A unified pseudo-cl framework, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484, 4127–4151 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Baleato Lizancos and M

    A. Baleato Lizancos and M. White, Harmonic analysis of discrete tracers of large-scale structure, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2024(05), 010

  41. [49]

    K. Wolz, D. Alonso, and A. Nicola, Catalog-based pseudo-cls, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(01), 028. The Baryon Correction Terms:Here we survey the present observational constraints on the correction terms f∗b∗ andf nbn appearing in Eq. (3), which determin...

Pith tools

Reviewed May 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.