The BINGO/ABDUS Project: Forecast for cosmological parameters from a mock Fast Radio Bursts survey

TL;DR

The paper investigates how a mock BINGO/ABDUS survey of localized FRBs can constrain cosmology by linking dispersion-measure observations to redshift via $DM_E = DM_{IGM} + DM_{HG}/(1+z)$. It develops a forward model for FRB DM including a log-normal host-DM distribution and an IGM scatter term, and evaluates three dark-energy scenarios ($\Lambda$CDM, $w$CDM, CPL) using CosmoMC with Planck, BAO, and SN Ia priors. Results show FRB data alone constrain the $\Omega_b H_0$ product and, with sufficient samples, $\Omega_m$, while providing complementary, geometry-based constraints that help break degeneracies when combined with CMB and distance probes; FRB data are especially informative for evolving dark-energy models. The study also highlights sensitivity to astrophysical modeling of host DM and IGM scatter, indicating that more compact host-DM distributions or improved characterization of electron power spectra would enhance FRB cosmology, making BINGO/ABDUS a promising future probe for the Hubble constant and dark-energy equation of state.

Abstract

There are various surveys that will provide excellent data to search for and localize Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs). The BINGO project will be one such survey, and this collaboration has already estimated a FRB detection rate that the project will yield. We present a forecast of the future constraints on our current cosmological model that the BINGO FRB detections and localizations will have when added to other current cosmological datasets. We quantify the dispersion measure (DM) as a function of redshift ($z$) for the BINGO FRB mock sample. Furthermore, we use current datasets (Supernovae, Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations, and Cosmic Microwave Background data) prior to assessing the efficacy of constraining dark energy models using Monte Carlo methods. Our results show that spatially localized BINGO FRB dataset will provide promising constraints on the population of host galaxies intrinsic DM and be able to measure the nuisance parameters present within a FRB cosmological analysis. They will also provide alternative estimates on other parameters such as the Hubble constant and the dark energy equation of state. In particular, we should see that BINGO FRB data can put constraints on the degenerate $w-H_0$ plane, which the CMB is incapable of measuring, allowing FRBs to be a viable alternative to BAO to constrain the dark energy equation of state. We conclude that FRBs remain a promising future probe for cosmology and that the FRBs localized by the BINGO project will contribute significantly to our knowledge of the current cosmological model.

Figures (10)

• Figure 1: The mock redshift distribution of the FRB localized by BINGO. The different colors represent different cases for a mock observation with different number of outriggers and outrigger configurations as described in the text, observed over 5 years.
• Figure 2: The simulated FRB data for a 5-year observation of BINGO. The mock data for different cases corresponds to Case 1 ($N_{\rm FRB}=110$), Case 2 ($N_{\rm FRB}=451$), Case 3 ($N_{\rm FRB}=878$), respectively. The shadows represent the error intervals for the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence levels. The red dots in the third column indicate that ${\rm DM_E}$ is negative, which is non-physical. Therefore, we removed these points from our later analysis.
• Figure 3: Constraints of cosmological parameters in $\Lambda$CDM model from various scenarios described in the text for BINGO varying the number of horns. The purple contour, green contour and yellow contour correspond to Case 1 ($N_{\rm FRB}=110$), Case 2 ($N_{\rm FRB}=451$) and Case 3 ($N_{\rm FRB}=878$), respectively. The unit of $H_0$ is km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, and the units of $e^\mu$ is pc/cm${^3}$. The dashed line stands for the fiducial values we use in this work.
• Figure 4: Constraints ($1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence level) on $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\Omega_{\rm b}$, $H_0$ and $\Omega_{\rm b} H_0$ for $\Lambda$CDM model using the SN, BAO, FRB and their combined dataset. The dashed lines in the three panels indicate the fiducial value chosen for the FRB simulated data, which is consistent with and the same as the Planck best-fit values for $\Lambda$CDM parameters.
• Figure 5: Constraints ($1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence level) on $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\Omega_{\rm b}$, $H_0$ (in unit of km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$) and $\Omega_{\rm b} H_0$ for $\Lambda$CDM model using the CMB, CMB+FRB, CMB+SN and CMB+BAO data. Here "BINGO" denote the Case 3 ($N_{\rm FRB}=878$)