Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Simulation of thermal conduction by asymmetric dark matter in realistic stars and planets

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a two-parameter corrected Spergel-Press formula describes dark-matter heat transport in the Sun, a brown dwarf, and the Earth.

desk verdict Useful extension of the authors' own MC framework to realistic potentials and multi-species SI scattering, but the central validation is weakened by fitting A and K0 to the same data; deserves a serious referee with demands for out-of-sample tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14342 v1 pith:K65IJTJC submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.SR

Hannah Banks , Stephanie Beram , Rashaad Reid , Aaron C. Vincent This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.SR
keywords darkmatterheattransportSpergel-PressformalismMonteCarlosimulationKnudsenregimeevaporationspin-independentscatteringcosmion
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper claims that a two-parameter corrected version of the Spergel-Press formula describes the heat transported by dark matter in three very different astrophysical bodies: the Sun, a brown dwarf, and the Earth. The correction rescales the Spergel-Press luminosity by A divided by (1 plus (K0/K)^2), with A near 0.5 and K0 around 0.4, and it holds for both spin-dependent scattering on hydrogen and spin-independent scattering on multiple nuclear species. The paper validates this form against Monte Carlo simulations that track a dark matter particle through millions of collisions in each body's realistic gravitational potential, temperature, and density. It also reports that simulated evaporation rates from the Sun match earlier analytic estimates. The public code cosmion is released with the paper.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (7): L(r) = A/(1+(K0/K)^2) * L_SP(r), a two-parameter interpolation between the isothermal (Spergel-Press, K >> 1) and local-thermal-equilibrium regimes. Here L_SP is the Spergel-Press luminosity from Eqs. (2) and (5), K = l_chi(r=0)/r_chi is the Knudsen number, A tunes the overall normalization (the Spergel-Press form overpredicts by about a factor of two, so A approx 1/2), and K0 sets the cross section where transport switches regimes. The supporting machinery is the Monte Carlo random walk itself: trajectories integrated in the real potential $\varphi$(r) with an RKF45 solver using optical depth as the dependent variable, collision rates summed over nuclear isotopes, and a species-selection truncation that keeps spin-independent simulations tractable.

What would settle it

Run the public cosmion code on a red-giant model at the same dark matter masses and cross sections used for the Sun, and compare the fitted A and K0 in Eq. (7) with Table I; if either parameter moves outside the quoted uncertainties, the claimed universality of the calibrated form is falsified. A cheaper check within the present data is to verify convergence of the 20 GeV solar spin-independent point, since the paper states that converged values could not be obtained at higher masses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the calibrated Spergel-Press formalism, Eq. (7), reproduces the dark-matter heat-transport luminosity obtained from direct Monte Carlo integration of the Boltzmann collision equation in realistic gravitational potentials of the Sun, a 0.01 solar-mass brown dwarf, and the Earth. The two fitted parameters—the prefactor A, around 0.43 for spin-dependent scattering and up to 0.53 for spin-independent, and the Knudsen transition location K0, between roughly 0.27 and 0.48—capture departures from the idealized isothermal and local-thermal-equilibrium limits. The fit targets the maximum luminosity across roughly five orders of magnitude in cross section, covering the transition from the long-mean-free-path Knudsen regime to the local-thermal-equilibrium regime, for dark matter masses from 1 to 200 GeV depending on the body. The paper argues that the commonly used Gould-Raffelt LTE approach mismodels the shape of the heat transport profile near that transition, and that the corrected Spergel-Press form is the more reliable parameterization.

Load-bearing premise

The single-particle Monte Carlo tracks one dark matter particle through $10^{6}$ to $10^{9}$ collisions and relies on ergodicity to represent the steady-state ensemble; finite simulation time is known to suppress recorded evaporation rates and prevented converged results at higher dark matter masses in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-parameter form of Eq. (7) can replace the Gould-Raffelt LTE treatment in stellar and planetary modeling, because the paper finds that the LTE form mismodels the heat transport shape near the Knudsen transition.
  • Predictions of fusion-rate modifications and asteroseismological signatures in the Sun can be computed with the corrected Spergel-Press form using the fitted A and K0 values from Table I.
  • Spin-independent scattering with multiple nuclear species is validated in the same framework, so heat transport in hydrogen-poor bodies such as the Earth is covered by the same calibrated form.
  • Evaporation rates from the Sun computed with the interpolation of Ref. [29] are consistent with the simulations, supporting the use of those rates in capture-evaporation equilibrium calculations.
  • The public cosmion code allows the same test to be run on other astrophysical bodies, extending the verified domain beyond the three objects considered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because A and K0 show only weak mass and species dependence, Eq. (7) may serve as a universal interpolant for any spherically symmetric body; a testable extension is to run cosmion on a red giant or white dwarf and check whether the fitted parameters stay in the same ranges.
  • Inference: the paper's finite-time suppression of recorded evaporation rates implies that the true evaporation floor for low-mass dark matter in the Sun could be higher than the simulation records; rare-event resampling or longer runs would give a sharper comparison to analytic evaporation rates.
  • Inference: the explicit Keplerian treatment of bound orbits outside the star is the time-reverse of halo capture, so the same code could be extended to compute capture rates from unbound orbits and verify them against standard capture formalisms, which the paper leaves to future work.
  • Inference: the claimed accuracy applies only to mass ranges where converged simulations were obtained; for the Sun these stop near 20 GeV, so the universality statement should not be read as covering the higher-mass regime where the paper reports non-convergence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Monte Carlo framework of Banks et al. (2022) to simulate heat transport by asymmetric dark matter in realistic gravitational potentials and density/temperature/composition profiles of the Sun, a 0.01 solar-mass brown dwarf, and the Earth. The authors include both spin-dependent scattering on hydrogen and spin-independent scattering on multiple nuclear species, and they compare the simulated luminosity profiles and maximum luminosities with the corrected Spergel and Press formula, Eq. (7), using values of A and K0 fitted to the simulations and reported in Table I. They also compute solar dark-matter evaporation rates and compare them with analytic estimates from the literature, concluding that previous evaporation calculations appear robust. The Cosmion code is made publicly available.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this work is a valuable step for the dark-matter-in-stars community: it provides an open-source Monte Carlo tool, extends validation of heat-transport formalisms to realistic potentials and to spin-independent multi-isotope scattering, and gives concrete values for the effective parameters A and K0. The comparison in Fig. 2 of full radial luminosity profiles not directly used in the fitting provides some independent shape evidence for the corrected Spergel and Press form. However, because the maximum-luminosity agreement in Fig. 3 is obtained by fitting both parameters to the same simulation points, and because the paper explicitly reports convergence difficulties in parts of the parameter space, the headline claim that Eq. (7) 'remains accurate across all celestial objects considered' is not yet established as strongly as the text suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (7), Table I, Fig. 3] The central accuracy claim rests on a two-parameter fit of A and K0 to the same Monte Carlo maximum luminosities shown in Fig. 3. The text states in Sec. IV A that A is left as a free parameter 'that we fit based on simulation results', and Table I reports these fitted values, so the agreement between the solid curves and the data points in Fig. 3 is in-sample rather than an independent test of Eq. (7). The radial profiles in Fig. 2 are not directly used in the fitting and provide some independent shape support, but the conclusion in Sec. V that Eq. (7) 'provides a good parametrization in all the regimes that we have tested' requires either an explicit out-of-sample test (for example, reserving a subset of mass/cross-section grid points for validation) or a goodness-of-fit statistic that accounts for the two fitted parameters.
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. IV A] The steady-state assumption is load-bearing but not demonstrated. Section II asserts that a single trajectory traces out the full steady-state phase-space distribution by ergodicity, yet Sec. IV A reports that converged numerical values could not be obtained at higher DM masses and that the LTE regime requires exponentially more collisions. Since Table I and Fig. 3 are calibrated on runs with 10^6 to 10^9 collisions, any residual finite-time bias can be absorbed into A and K0. I ask for explicit convergence diagnostics at representative calibration points, e.g., the maximum luminosity as a function of the number of collisions or a comparison of independent random seeds, and for a statement of the resulting systematic uncertainty on A and K0.
  3. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 5] The evaporation comparison is weakened by the acknowledged finite-time suppression. The text says that particles caught in long orbits 'will artificially extend the time recorded during which no evaporation has taken place, and thus artificially suppress the recorded rate', and that the quoted error bars only reflect sqrt(N_evap)/t_sim. The concluding sentence in Sec. V that previous evaporation rates are 'consistent with our simulation results' is therefore stronger than the evidence shown. Please quantify the suppression, for example with longer runs at one or two representative masses or with an analytic bound on the one-sided bias, or soften the conclusion to a consistency check that explicitly accounts for this systematic.
  4. [Table I] The claim in Sec. IV A that K0 is 'robustly found to be between 0.4 and 0.5' is not supported by the table values for the Sun, where K0 ranges from 0.271(12) at 20 GeV spin-dependent to 0.480(2) at 3 GeV spin-dependent, and the 3 GeV spin-independent entry is 0.271(2). Because K0 controls the position of the Knudsen transition and is used for the interpolated maps in Fig. 4, the mass and interaction-type dependence should either be discussed and explained or the 'robustly' wording should be revised.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are typos in the abstract ('asteroseismoloigcal') and in the Introduction ('upmost'), which should read 'asteroseismological' and 'utmost', respectively.
  2. [Section I] The Introduction lists a red giant star among the astrophysical bodies to be studied, but no red-giant results appear in the paper; either add such a simulation or remove the mention.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption refers to shaded regions from the Monte Carlo simulations, but the legend does not explicitly label the shaded band; please clarify the legend so the reader knows which entry corresponds to the shaded region.
  4. [Footnote 1] The footnote about the missing square root in Algorithm 1 of Ref. [11] is useful, but it should specify which equation or algorithm line in that reference is being corrected so that readers can verify the implementation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's headline agreement is in-sample: A and K0 are fitted to the simulated maximum luminosities that are then displayed as calibrated-SP 'predictions'.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV A (Heat transport), text preceding Table I and Fig. 3 caption]
    "We perform a fit to the values of K0 and A in Eq. (7) that best fit the maximum luminosity: we first find the value of A that matches simulations in the isothermal regime, and then find the turnaround value of K0 to cover the Knudsen transition. ... The data points with error bars represent the results of our Monte Carlo simulations ... The solid curves represent the analytic predictions made by our calibrated Spergel & Press model (7)."

    A and K0 are fitted to the simulated maximum luminosity Lmax for each body, mass, and interaction type, with Table I explicitly labeled 'computed to fit our simulation data.' The curves in Fig. 3 are therefore Eq. (7) evaluated with parameters calibrated on those same data points, so reproducing Lmax(σ) is enforced by construction. The claim that the 'calibrated Spergel & Press model' predicts the simulated peak luminosities is an in-sample fit; the only independent content is the assumed functional form and the unfitted radial shape, not the peak-luminosity agreement.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 4 caption and accompanying text]
    "The colour map here is made using Eq. (7), with values of A and K0 from Tab. I. The circles in each plot show the grid of simulations performed. ... The black rings represent the simulation data points that were used to calibrate the parameters for the formalism."

    The σ–m heat map is constructed from A and K0 values that were themselves calibrated using the simulation grid points overlaid as 'black rings.' Agreement between the color surface and the rings is therefore built into the map by construction. Presenting this overlay as evidence that Eq. (7) 'summarises' the simulation results conflates calibration with validation: the surface is an interpolation of the calibration points, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central verification claim is partially circular. Eq. (7) is imported from the authors' previous work (Ref. [1]) and then re-calibrated here: A and K0 are fitted to the simulated maximum luminosity for each celestial body, mass, and interaction channel. Consequently, the Fig. 3 curves of Lmax versus cross section and the Fig. 4 σ–m heat maps are in-sample fits, not out-of-sample predictions. What preserves some independent content is the radial luminosity profile L(r) and dL/dr in Fig. 2, whose shape is set by the unfitted L_SP(r) rather than by A and K0; the parameters only set the overall normalization, so matching the radial profile is a non-trivial test of the functional form. The paper is transparent about the calibration step ('calibrated Spergel & Press model', 'computed to fit our simulation data'), which reduces the severity of the circularity but does not remove it. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or hidden ansatz is imported through self-citation; the evaporation section is weakened by the admitted finite-time suppression of recorded rates but is not circular in structure. Overall, the peak-luminosity 'predictions' reduce by construction, giving partial circularity and a score of 6 rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central parametrization relies on two fitted parameters (A and K0) per scenario; the background physics is standard and taken from prior literature; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • A (prefactor in Eq. 7) = 0.394 to 0.527 depending on scenario (Table I)
    Fitted to match the simulated maximum luminosity in the isothermal regime for each body, DM mass, and interaction type. Not derived from first principles; central to the claimed accuracy of Eq. (7).
  • K0 (Knudsen transition parameter in Eq. 7) = 0.271 to 0.482 depending on scenario (Table I)
    Fitted to the location of the transition where the luminosity peaks as a function of cross section. Varies with body, mass, and interaction type, so the previously quoted K0 about 0.4 is not universal.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dark matter is sufficiently diffuse that DM-DM scattering is negligible
    Stated in Sec. II; justifies a linear collision operator and single-particle simulation.
  • domain assumption The system reaches steady state on timescales short compared to stellar evolution
    Used in Sec. II to set dF/dt = 0 and treat the collision operator as time-independent.
  • domain assumption Particles leaving the star follow Keplerian orbits outside the stellar surface
    Used in Appendix A to compute re-entry time and to classify evaporation; treats the star as a point mass outside its radius.
  • domain assumption The Monte Carlo random walk of a single particle samples the steady-state distribution by ergodicity
    Justifies the single-particle simulation in Sec. III; the paper notes convergence was not achieved for higher DM masses and that finite-time bias affects evaporation rates.
  • domain assumption Realistic stellar models provide the correct background density, temperature, and composition
    The Sun, brown dwarf, and Earth profiles are taken from Refs. [12, 13-18, 19-26] as described in Sec. IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation of thermal conduction by asymmetric dark matter in realistic stars and planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K65IJTJC

@misc{pith2026241214342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation of thermal conduction by asymmetric dark matter in realistic stars and planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K65IJTJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14342}
}
read the original abstract

Dark matter captured in stars can act as an additional heat transport mechanism, modifying fusion rates and asteroseismoloigcal observables. Calculations of heat transport rates rely on approximate solutions to the Boltzmann equation, which have never been verified in realistic stars. Here, we simulate heat transport in the Sun, the Earth, and a brown dwarf model, using realistic radial temperature, density, composition and gravitational potential profiles. We show that the formalism developed in arXiv:2111.06895 remains accurate across all celestial objects considered, across a wide range of kinematic regimes, for both spin-dependent and spin-independent interactions where scattering with multiple species becomes important. We further investigate evaporation rates of dark matter from the Sun, finding that previous calculations appear robust. Our Monte Carlo simulation software Cosmion is publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Radial distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Maximum transported luminosities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Peak luminosities of a dark matter distribution in the Sun (top), brown dwarf (middle) and Earth (bottom), as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evaporation rate of dark matter from the Sun, as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The fraction of collisions of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The fraction of collisions of the DM particle with the most impactful of the 29 most abundant nuclear species in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Complementary Planetary Spectroscopy Probes of Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dark matter annihilation energy deposited in planetary atmospheres and interiors, compared against existing UV airglow and heat flow measurements, yields new sub-GeV scattering constraints and long-lived mediator reach.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The DM temperature Tχ in this case is the average of the nucleon temperatures with which the DM is in thermal contact with, weighted by the local inter- action rate

    Spergel & Press (SP): In the weakly-interacting (K ≫ 1) regime (the so-called Knudsen limit), the DM is effectively isothermal and heat trans- port can be modeled as the interaction between two heat baths at different temperatures. The DM temperature Tχ in this case is the average of the nucleon temperatures with which the DM is in thermal contact with, w...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Knudsen correction

    Gould and Raffelt (GR): In the Local Thermal Equilibrium (LTE, K ≪ 1) limit, stronger interac- tions may lead to more scattering, but as a conse- quence heat transport generally remains “local” as DM will typically not travel far before depositing or gaining kinetic energy. The standard treatment of this regime as implemented in modern works, was develope...

    work page

  3. [3]

    [4, 8] ( mχ = 1 kg, R⋆ = 2.4 m), and a realistic solar model using temperature, density and composition data from the AGS05 Standard Solar Model

    were limited to the study of SD interactions in two specific scenarios: an ‘idealized’ toy stellar model match- ing Refs. [4, 8] ( mχ = 1 kg, R⋆ = 2.4 m), and a realistic solar model using temperature, density and composition data from the AGS05 Standard Solar Model. The latter formed the first numerical study of DM mediated ther- mal conduction in a real...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Po- sitions are drawn randomly from the radial distri- bution in Eq

    Select an initial position and velocity . Po- sitions are drawn randomly from the radial distri- bution in Eq. (4), and velocities are drawn from a three-dimensional Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at temperature Tχ

    work page

  5. [5]

    This is achieved by randomly choosing an optical depth τ , where dτ = X i ωi(⃗ v)dt

    Determine the next point of collision. This is achieved by randomly choosing an optical depth τ , where dτ = X i ωi(⃗ v)dt. (8) The collision probability per unit time is ωi = Z d3⃗ uσi(|⃗ v− ⃗ u|)ni(r)|⃗ v− ⃗ u|f (⃗ u; r), (9) where the sum is over isotopes i. The result- ing value of t(τ ) determines the location of the next collision. For a constant cr...

    work page

  6. [6]

    In our previous work [1], as per Refs

    Integrate the particle’s trajectory to the col- lision point. In our previous work [1], as per Refs. [4, 8], we assumed a simple harmonic potential ϕ(r) = Ω 2r2/2, with Ω = p 4πGN ρc/3, such that the trajectories could be determined analytically. Here, we instead use the full, real potential of an arbitrary star ϕ(r) and thus explicitly need to inte- grat...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Whereas our previous work in Ref

    (For spin-independent scattering) Select a nu- clear species with which to scatter . Whereas our previous work in Ref. [1] only considered spin- dependent collisions with hydrogen, the present simulation allows for the investigation of both spin- dependent and spin-independent interactions. Ow- ing to the much lower abundance of other nuclear species with...

    work page

  8. [8]

    (19) To do this we implement the sampling algorithm outlined in Ref

    Draw a nuclear velocity, sampling a speed u and scattering angle ϑ from the distribution v2 + u2 − 2uv cos ϑ 1/2 e−miu2/2kB T . (19) To do this we implement the sampling algorithm outlined in Ref. [11]. 1

    work page

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    1 Noting a missing square root in the conditional expression of Algorithm 1: ξ6 < p y2 + z − 2xyµ/(y + x)

    Perform the collision in the centre-of- momentum frame, and randomly assign new velocities to the dark matter particle according to the differential cross section. 1 Noting a missing square root in the conditional expression of Algorithm 1: ξ6 < p y2 + z − 2xyµ/(y + x). 7 Step...

  2. [10]

    Simulation of energy transport by dark matter scattering in stars,

    Hannah Banks, Siyam Ansari, Aaron C. Vincent, and Pat Scott, “Simulation of energy transport by dark matter scattering in stars,” JCAP 04, 002 (2022), arXiv:2111.06895 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experi- ment,

    J. Aalbers et al. (LUX-ZEPLIN), “First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experi- ment,” (2022), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Effect of hypo- thetical, weakly interacting, massive particles on energy transport in the solar interior,

    David N Spergel and William H Press, “Effect of hypo- thetical, weakly interacting, massive particles on energy transport in the solar interior,” ApJ294, 663–673 (1985)

    1985

  5. [13]

    Thermal conduction by massive particles,

    Andrew Gould and Georg Raffelt, “Thermal conduction by massive particles,” ApJ 352, 654–668 (1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    Non- relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detec- tion,

    JiJi Fan, Matthew Reece, and Lian-Tao Wang, “Non- relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detec- tion,” JCAP 2010, 042 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    The effective field theory of dark matter direct detection,

    A. Liam Fitzpatrick, Wick Haxton, Emanuel Katz, Nicholas Lubbers, and Yiming Xu, “The effective field theory of dark matter direct detection,” JCAP 2013, 004 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Form factors for dark matter capture by the Sun in effective theories,

    R. Catena and B. Schwabe, “Form factors for dark matter capture by the Sun in effective theories,” JCAP 4, 042 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Cosmion energy transfer in stars - The Knudsen limit,

    Andrew Gould and Georg Raffelt, “Cosmion energy transfer in stars - The Knudsen limit,” ApJ 352, 669 (1990)

    1990

  10. [18]

    Dark stars at the Galactic Centre - The main sequence,

    Pat Scott, Malcolm Fairbairn, and Joakim Edsj¨ o, “Dark stars at the Galactic Centre - The main sequence,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 394, 82–104 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Energy transport and Evaporation of weakly interacting particles in the sun,

    Michael Nauenberg, “Energy transport and Evaporation of weakly interacting particles in the sun,” Phys. Rev. D 36, 1080–1087 (1987)

    1987

  12. [20]

    An improved target velocity sampling algorithm for free gas elastic scattering,

    Paul K Romano and Jonathan A Walsh, “An improved target velocity sampling algorithm for free gas elastic scattering,” Annals of Nuclear Energy 114, 318–324 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    A new generation of stan- dard solar models,

    N. Vinyoles et al. , “A new generation of stan- dard solar models,” Astrophys. J. 835, 202 (2017), arXiv:1611.09867v4 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA),

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaf- fre, and F. Timmes, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA),” ApJS 192, 3 (2011), 11 Body Interaction Mass (GeV) A K0 3 0.427(3) 0.480(2) spin- 5 0.418(5) 0.441(3) dependent 10 0.412(11) 0.350(6) Sun 20 0....

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars,

    B. Paxton, M. Cantiello, P. Arras, L. Bildsten, E. F. Brown, A. Dotter, C. Mankovich, M. H. Montgomery, D. Stello, F. X. Timmes, and R. Townsend, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars,” ApJS 208, 4 (2013), a...

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar As- trophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explo- sions,

    B. Paxton, P. Marchant, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bild- sten, M. Cantiello, L. Dessart, R. Farmer, H. Hu, N. Langer, R. H. D. Townsend, D. M. Townsley, and F. X. Timmes, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar As- trophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explo- sions,” ApJS 2...

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and Massive Star Explosions,

    B. Paxton, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, S. Blinnikov, P. Duffell, R. Farmer, J. A. Goldberg, P. Marchant, E. Sorokina, A. Thoul, R. H. D. Townsend, and F. X. Timmes, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and ...

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Pulsating Variable Stars, Rota- tion, Convective Boundaries, and Energy Conservation,

    Bill Paxton, R. Smolec, Josiah Schwab, A. Gautschy, Lars Bildsten, Matteo Cantiello, Aaron Dotter, R. Farmer, Jared A. Goldberg, Adam S. Jermyn, S. M. Kanbur, Pablo Marchant, Anne Thoul, Richard H. D. Townsend, William M. Wolf, Michael Zhang, and F. X. Timmes, “Modules for Exp...

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mod- ules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Time-dependent Convection, Energy Conservation, Au- tomatic Differentiation, and Infrastructure,

    Adam S. Jermyn, Evan B. Bauer, Josiah Schwab, R. Farmer, Warrick H. Ball, Earl P. Bellinger, Aaron Dot- ter, Meridith Joyce, Pablo Marchant, Joey S. G. Mom- barg, William M. Wolf, Tin Long Sunny Wong, Giulia C. Cinquegrana, Eoin Farrell, R. Smolec, Anne Thoul, Mat- teo Cantiel...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Preliminary ref- erence Earth model,

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson, “Preliminary ref- erence Earth model,” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25, 297– 356 (1981)

    1981

  21. [29]

    7.06 - temperatures, heat, and energy in the mantle of the Earth,

    C. Jaupart, S. Labrosse, F. Lacuzeau, and J.-C. Mareschal, “7.06 - temperatures, heat, and energy in the mantle of the Earth,” in Treatise on Geophysics, edited by G. Schubert (Elsevier, Oxford, 2015) pp. 223–270, 2nd ed

    2015

  22. [30]

    The K/U ratio of the silicate Earth: Insights into mantle com- position, structure and thermal evolution,

    R. Arevalo Jr, W. F. McDonough, and M. Luong, “The K/U ratio of the silicate Earth: Insights into mantle com- position, structure and thermal evolution,” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 278, 361–369 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Earle, Physical Geology(BCcampus, 2015)

    S. Earle, Physical Geology(BCcampus, 2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Dark matter, de- stroyer of worlds: neutrino, thermal, and existential sig- natures from black holes in the sun and earth,

    Javier F. Acevedo, Joseph Bramante, Alan Goodman, Joachim Kopp, and Toby Opferkuch, “Dark matter, de- stroyer of worlds: neutrino, thermal, and existential sig- natures from black holes in the sun and earth,” JCAP 04, 026 (2021), arXiv:2012.09176 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Temperature and composition of the earth’s core,

    D. Alf` e, M. J. Gillan, and G. D. Price, “Temperature and composition of the earth’s core,” Contemp. Phys. 48, 63–80 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Major and trace element composition of the depleted morb mantle (dmm),

    Rhea K. Workman and Stanley R. Hart, “Major and trace element composition of the depleted morb mantle (dmm),” EPSL 231, 53–72 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    The elementary composition of the earth’s crust,

    Isaac Asimov, “The elementary composition of the earth’s crust,” J. Chem. Educ. 31, 70–72 (1954)

    1954

  28. [36]

    Evaporation of WIMPs with arbitrary cross sections,

    Andrew Gould, “Evaporation of WIMPs with arbitrary cross sections,” ApJ 356, 302–309 (1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    Floating dark matter in celestial bodies,

    Rebecca K. Leane and Juri Smirnov, “Floating dark matter in celestial bodies,” JCAP 10, 057 (2023), arXiv:2209.09834 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Evaporation and scattering of momentum- and velocity-dependent dark matter in the Sun,

    G. Busoni, A. De Simone, P. Scott, and A. C. Vin- cent, “Evaporation and scattering of momentum- and velocity-dependent dark matter in the Sun,” JCAP 10, 037 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Dark matter in the Sun: scattering off electrons vs nucleons,

    Raghuveer Garani and Sergio Palomares-Ruiz, “Dark matter in the Sun: scattering off electrons vs nucleons,” JCAP 05, 007 (2017), arXiv:1702.02768 [hep-ph]. Appendix A: T reatment of particles leaving the star If at any point the RKF45 integrator notes that the DM particle has ...

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    This guide assumes the GNU Fortran compiler (gfortran)

    First, ensure you have a Fortran compiler installed on your system. This guide assumes the GNU Fortran compiler (gfortran). Fortran compilers can be specified in the Makefile

  33. [41]

    s o make cosmion

    Compile the shared library and the program using the provided Makefile with the commands: make c s h a r e d l i b . s o make cosmion . x This creates a shared library named csharedlib.so and an executable named cosmion.x

  34. [42]

    nucleonSI

    Run the program with the command: . / cosmion . x <massin > <s i g m a i n> <N s t e p s i n> <FileNameIn > <SpinDepIn > <vdepin > where: 14 • <massin>: The mass input, in GeV. • <sigmain>: Cross-section in cm 2. • <Nstepsin>: The number of requested collisions. • <FileNameIn>...

  35. [43]

    The program will print its progress to the console and write its output to the file specified by <FileNameIn>

  36. [44]

    The output file contains the simulation results. Each line in the file corresponds to a single step of the simulation and contains: • Positions (x, y, z) in cm • Velocities (v x, v y, v z) in cm/s • Time in s • The flag that indicates the current state of the particle • The we...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.