Can a Dark Inferno Melt Earth's Core?

Christopher Cappiello; Tansu Daylan

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Can a Dark Inferno Melt Earth's Core?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that if dark matter annihilates inside Earth, it would melt a large part of the inner core, giving a new way to constrain dark matter scattering.

desk verdict Takes the heat equation seriously instead of assuming instantaneous surface equilibrium, and the inner-core melting probe is genuinely more sensitive; main gap is an unquantified thermalization timescale. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24070 v1 pith:2YZUFXLM submitted 2025-05-29 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.EP

Christopher Cappiello , Tansu Daylan This is my paper

classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.EP

keywords darkmattercaptureEarth'sinnercoreannihilationheatingheatflowlimitsseismicconstraintsexoplanetspin-independentscatteringthermalconduction

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

Earlier work compared dark-matter heat with Earth's total heat flow at the surface; this paper instead asks what that heat does to the interior, solving the spherically symmetric heat equation with dark matter energy deposition concentrated near the center. It finds that for TeV-mass dark matter with spin-independent cross sections near $10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, annihilation would push the central core above $10^4$ K and melt the inner 400 km, in conflict with seismic observations that the inner core is solid. The new limiting heat injection is 3.4 TW, six to thirteen times smaller than the 20--44 TW used in earlier work, so the constraint on dark matter-proton scattering is correspondingly stronger. If correct, this turns the state of Earth's core into a dark matter observatory and shows that planetary interior structure must be included in dark matter heating arguments.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the isothermal dark matter density profile $n_\chi(r) \propto e^{-r^2/r_\chi^2}$ with scale radius $r_\chi = \sqrt{3k_BT_c/(2\pi G\rho_c m_\chi)}$, which concentrates heavy dark matter deep in the core, and on the spherical heat equation $\frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial r^2} + \frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{k}\dot q$ with volumetric heating $\dot q \propto n_\chi^2$. Heat deposition is normalized by the capture rate, and the temperature profile is evolved until it reaches steady state; varying the uncertain conductivity (20--224 W/m/K) and initial core temperature (4000--7000 K) shifts the resulting cross-section limit by less than about 30%.

What would settle it

Compute the dark-matter thermalization time for $\sigma_{\chi N}\sim10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ and $m_\chi\sim1$ TeV; if it is longer than Earth's age, or if seismic data ever show solid material within 400 km of the center for parameters above the quoted limit, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the existence of Earth's solid inner core is a dark matter observatory. For masses above roughly 100 GeV, essentially all annihilation heat is dumped within the innermost 400 km, and the steady-state temperature there exceeds the conservative $10^4$ K melting threshold before the total heat flow reaches the levels allowed by previous bounds. Therefore any model with capture--annihilation equilibrium and a spin-independent cross section at the level of a few times $10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ for TeV-scale masses would melt a substantial fraction of the inner core, which seismic data rule out. The paper also shows that the time for this heat to conduct outward is about $10^9$ years, comparable to the age of the core, so thermal equilibrium assumptions must be checked when applying the argument to younger planets.

Load-bearing premise

The limit assumes captured dark matter quickly settles into a compact Gaussian cloud centered on Earth, so all annihilation heat is deposited in the innermost core; if dark matter instead stayed on wide, slowly shrinking orbits over Earth's age, the melt region would be smaller and the bound weaker.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The spin-independent dark-matter-proton cross-section limit for TeV-scale dark matter improves by a factor of 6--13 relative to previous Earth heat-flow limits.
Any planet-based dark matter search must account for internal heat transport: heat deposited in a core takes of order $10^9$ years to reach the outer core, so young planets may not yet show the steady-state signal.
The constraint applies to dark matter that annihilates locally into photons or charged particles; models with long-lived mediators that escape the planet evade this particular melt test.
The same calculation, applied to exoplanets near the Galactic Center, predicts melted cores and could serve as a new observable for dark matter capture in planetary populations.

Reading between the lines

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

If the inner core's melting point is closer to the reported $7600\pm500$ K baseline than to the paper's conservative $10^4$ K threshold, the true exclusion region would extend to somewhat lower cross sections than plotted.
A decisive extension would be a dedicated calculation of the dark-matter thermalization time in Earth for $\sigma\sim10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$; if that time exceeds Earth's age, the melt region would be smaller and the limit weaker.
Applying the melt criterion to planets with independent age and composition measurements, especially dense rocky exoplanets near the Galactic Center, could convert a single-planet bound into a population-level search.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real advance here is the shift from instantaneous surface heat-flow limits to a time-dependent treatment of the inner core. The authors show that prior limits based on 20-44 TW surface flow are too weak by about an order of magnitude: if dark matter deposits its heat deep inside, the inner core melts long before the surface notices. That is a clean, physical insight, and the paper supports it with a transparent finite-difference solution, a released code, and a robustness scan over k and T0 that shifts the limit by only about 1.6. The seismic comparison is also conservative: they allow melting out to 400 km, where data lose sensitivity. Credit where due: this is a solid application of standard heat transport, not a contrived fit.

The soft spots are real but not showstoppers. The load-bearing assumption is that captured dark matter thermalizes into the compact isothermal profile of Eq. (1). The paper neither computes nor cites a thermalization timescale. The stress-test estimate suggests it is short (years to 10^4 yr), but that estimate is not in the paper, and the melting limit depends directly on the heat being concentrated in the innermost 400 km. If thermalization were slower, the profile would broaden and the 3.4 TW limit would weaken. This needs to be addressed, ideally with an explicit timescale calculation or a parameterized broader profile. The other gaps, such as ignoring latent heat, holding the inner-core boundary at T0, and neglecting phase-change dynamics, are likely order-unity effects and the authors are upfront about them; the melt threshold itself is chosen conservatively.

The exoplanet angle is the most interesting part. The finding that the core takes around 1 Gyr to reach thermal equilibrium is directly relevant to young exoplanet constraints and to using planet formation to set dark matter limits. The authors acknowledge that the Earth parameter space is already closed by direct detection, which dampens the significance for actual dark matter, but the observable is novel and the code makes it easy to apply elsewhere.

This is a well-built paper with one genuine hole and several conservative approximations. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to peer review, with a request that the authors add an estimate or citation for the thermalization timescale and show how the limit shifts if the profile is broadened. Conditional acceptance after such a revision is reasonable.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the thermal effect of dark matter annihilation inside the Earth's inner core. The authors model captured dark matter with an isothermal Gaussian density profile and solve the spherically symmetric heat equation in the inner core with a fixed temperature at the inner-core boundary. After checking that the core comes to thermal equilibrium on a timescale of about a gigayear, they use the steady-state temperature profile to ask whether dark matter heating would melt the innermost 400 km of the inner core. For TeV-scale dark matter they find that annihilation power of about 3.4 TW is sufficient, which is a factor of 6-13 smaller than previous Earth heat-flow limits; this is converted into limits on the spin-independent dark matter-proton cross section. They also discuss implications for exoplanet heating and provide a public code, DarkInferno.

Significance. If correct, the paper identifies a new and substantially more sensitive observable for dark matter annihilation in terrestrial planets, improving on existing Earth heat-flow limits by roughly an order of magnitude. The numerical setup is clearly specified, the uncertainty scan over thermal conductivity and initial temperature gives only a factor of about 1.6 variation in the limit, and the public code makes the results reproducible. The main caveat is that the isothermal dark matter profile that concentrates all heating in the innermost core is assumed without a quantitative thermalization timescale; this is the step on which the quantitative limit most directly depends.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II.C, Eq. (1)] The isothermal Gaussian profile in Eq. (1) concentrates essentially all annihilation heat within the innermost few hundred km for mχ ≳ 100 GeV, and the derived 3.4 TW limit depends on this concentration. The paper states that 'given enough time' captured dark matter thermalizes, but it does not compute or cite a thermalization timescale. For the benchmark mχ = 1 TeV, σχN = 10^-36.9 cm2, an order-of-magnitude estimate from the local scattering rate gives a collision timescale of about a year and an energy-loss timescale of order 10^2-10^4 years, so the assumption is plausible; however, this estimate should appear in the text, together with a statement of how it scales over the mass and cross-section range of the limit. Without it, the central claim rests on an unverified step.
[Sec. II.E and Fig. 4] The steady-state limit is justified by showing that equilibrium is reached after about 1 Gyr for the single benchmark of mχ = 1 TeV (Fig. 4). Because the equilibration time depends on the spatial distribution of the heat source and on the thermal conductivity, the paper should demonstrate that the time-independent solution is valid across the mass range and k range used in Figs. 5-6, or explain why the 1 TeV case is the slowest one. If equilibrium has not been reached for some part of the parameter space, the derived limits would need to be weakened.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II.C, Eq. (3)] The dependent variable u in Eq. (3) is never defined; it should be identified as the temperature (or the thermal energy density) entering the subsequent plots.
[Sec. II.D] The melt criterion uses a pure-conduction model and does not include the latent heat of fusion or the possibility that a molten inner core would convect. The chosen 10^4 K threshold is conservative relative to reported iron melting points, but the authors should state explicitly why these simplifications do not break the limit (e.g., a rough latent-heat energy budget) and whether a phase-boundary treatment would strengthen or weaken the constraint.
[Sec. II.D] The text refers to seismic 'porosity' measurements, whereas Ref. [51] constrains small-scale heterogeneity from scattered waves; the wording should be aligned with the cited measurement.
[Sec. III.A / Fig. 6] Since the conclusion notes that the constrained parameter space is already ruled out by direct detection, showing a representative direct-detection exclusion curve in Fig. 6 would make the comparison transparent for the reader.
[Sec. II.C] The limit assumes Γcap = Q̇χ, which requires a sufficiently large annihilation cross section; the paper should state the assumed annihilation cross section (or note that the limit applies only to models in which equilibrium is reached) so that the σχN–mχ exclusion is not misinterpreted as applying to models with arbitrarily small ⟨σv⟩.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the melt limit is derived from external capture-rate inputs, a standard isothermal profile, and independent seismic data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the capture rate is taken from the external Asteria package, the dark-matter density profile in Eq. (1) with scale radius Eq. (2) is adopted from prior literature (Refs. [72,73]), the volumetric heat injection is set proportional to n_chi^2 and normalized by the capture rate, and the heat equation Eq. (3) is solved with independently chosen parameters k, alpha, and T0. The melting criterion uses seismic measurements of inner-core heterogeneity [51] and conservative thresholds (rmelt = 400 km, T = 10^4 K) that are not fitted to produce the limit; the resulting limiting heat injection is then compared with earlier heat-flow limits [41,43,61]. No equation reduces by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation in the paper, Ref. [80] by one of the authors, appears in the conclusions as a pointer for future work on attenuation in the Earth and is not load-bearing for the central result. The unverified thermalization timescale behind the isothermal profile is a physical assumption and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity because it is not defined in terms of the target limit. Overall, the analysis is an honest forward calculation against external data.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard diffusion of heat in the inner core, an assumed isothermal dark matter density profile, and a conservative melting criterion. The free parameters are geophysical inputs and threshold choices, all openly varied or justified from literature. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Inner core thermal conductivity k = 100 W/m/K (fiducial); varied 20 to 224
Adopted intermediate literature value; affects steady-state temperature and the limit. Appendix A shows the limit varies by factor ~1.6 over the scanned range.
Inner core initial/boundary temperature T0 = 5500 K (fiducial); varied 4000 to 7000 K
Inner core boundary temperature is uncertain at O(10%); the scan shows the limit shifts by less than about 30 percent.
Thermal diffusivity alpha = 24e-6 m^2/s
From Ref. [74]; sets the equilibration timescale but not the steady-state melt limit.
Melt threshold T_melt = 10^4 K
Chosen conservatively as a full-melting temperature; actual melting point at ICB conditions is about 7600 K (Ref. [68]). This threshold sets the melt criterion.
Melted radius threshold rmelt = 400 km
Set by the seismic sensitivity limit from Ref. [51] (800 km below the inner-core boundary); used to define the ruled-out region.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Heat conduction in the inner core is spherically symmetric and obeys Eq. (3), with no convection inside the inner core.
The inner core is treated as a solid conductive sphere; convection in the molten outer core is not modeled for the inner-core temperature profile.
domain assumption The captured dark matter density follows the isothermal Gaussian profile of Eq. (1) with scale radius Eq. (2), assuming thermalization to the core temperature.
This is the standard isothermal regime assumption from Ref. [72], but the paper does not demonstrate that thermalization occurs within Earth's age.
domain assumption Capture and annihilation are in equilibrium, so the total heat injection equals the mass capture rate.
Requires a sufficiently large annihilation cross section; the authors argue this holds for weak-scale s-wave annihilation, citing Refs. [41,43].
domain assumption All dark matter mass energy is converted into heat.
Justified for dark matter masses above 10 GeV with annihilation to photons or charged particles that remain trapped in the core.
domain assumption The inner-core boundary temperature is fixed at T0 for all times.
Assumes the outer core and mantle remove heat efficiently enough to keep the boundary at 5500 K; a rising boundary temperature would strengthen the melt limit.
domain assumption Seismic observations reliably constrain inner-core heterogeneity down to a radius of 400 km.
This is the observational basis for choosing rmelt=400 km, from Ref. [51].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can a Dark Inferno Melt Earth's Core?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YZUFXLM

@misc{pith2026250524070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can a Dark Inferno Melt Earth's Core?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YZUFXLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24070}
}

read the original abstract

The search for dark matter is one of the crucial open problems in both particle physics and cosmology. If dark matter scatters with Standard Model particles, it could accumulate inside the Earth and begin to annihilate, producing heat within the Earth's core. While past work has been done on the effect that this heat would have once it reached the surface, we model the flow of heat through the Earth's core by numerically solving the heat equation to model dark matter's effect on the interior of the planet. We compute how long it takes for the core to come into thermal equilibrium and show that for a wide range of dark matter parameters, a substantial fraction of the inner core would be melted by dark matter annihilation. Our analysis produces new limits on dark matter annihilating in the Earth, points out important new effects that must be considered when studying planetary heating by dark matter, and suggests new dark matter observables that could be searched for in exoplanet populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24070 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Steady-state temperature (solid blue) and heat injec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Temperature at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. DM power injection required to set a limit, as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Our limit from the existence of a solid inner core [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Radius out to which the inner core is melted, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Histogram of values obtained for the limit at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

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. Full citation record

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

83 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Cosmic Frontier Indirect Dark Matter Detection Working Group Summary

J. Buckley et al., in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013) arXiv:1310.7040 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[2]

Hooper and L

D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B 697, 412 (2011), arXiv:1010.2752 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2011
[3]

Daylan, D

T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Physics of the Dark Universe 12, 1 (2016)

2016
[4]

Search for dark matter towards the Galactic Centre with 11 years of ANTARES data

A. Albert et al.(ANTARES), Phys. Lett. B 805, 135439 (2020), arXiv:1912.05296 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[5]

Abe et al

H. Abe et al. (MAGIC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 061002 (2023), arXiv:2212.10527 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2023
[6]

Abdalla et al.(H.E.S.S.), Phys

H. Abdalla et al.(H.E.S.S.), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 111101 (2022), arXiv:2207.10471 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2022
[7]

J. L. Ryan (VERITAS), PoS ICRC2023, 794 (2023), arXiv:2309.12403 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[8]

J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, Y. Soreq, and W. L. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103047 (2023), arXiv:2212.07435 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023

Show all 83 references

[9]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. D 108, 102004 (2023), arXiv:2303.13663 [astro-ph.HE]

2023
[10]

Kerszberg (Fermi-LAT, HA WC, H.E.S.S., MAGIC, VERITAS), PoS ICRC2023, 1426 (2023)

D. Kerszberg (Fermi-LAT, HA WC, H.E.S.S., MAGIC, VERITAS), PoS ICRC2023, 1426 (2023)

2023
[11]

McGrath (VERITAS), PoS ICRC2023, 1395 (2023)

C. McGrath (VERITAS), PoS ICRC2023, 1395 (2023)

2023
[12]

Albert et al.(HA WC), Astrophys

A. Albert et al.(HA WC), Astrophys. J.853, 154 (2018), arXiv:1706.01277 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Geringer-Sameth, S

A. Geringer-Sameth, S. M. Koushiappas, and M. G. 8 Walker, Phys. Rev. D91, 083535 (2015), arXiv:1410.2242 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[14]

Ackermann et al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys

M. Ackermann et al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 241302 (2011), arXiv:1108.3546 [astro-ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[15]

Geringer-Sameth and S

A. Geringer-Sameth and S. M. Koushiappas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 241303 (2011), arXiv:1108.2914 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[16]

A. A. Abdo et al. (Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J. 712, 147 (2010), arXiv:1001.4531 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[17]

L. E. Strigari, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056901 (2018), arXiv:1805.05883 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[18]

Freese, Phys

K. Freese, Phys. Lett. B 167, 295 (1986)

1986
[19]

J. Silk, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 257 (1985)

1985
[20]

T. K. Gaisser, G. Steigman, and S. Tilav, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2206 (1986)

1986
[21]

Griest and D

K. Griest and D. Seckel, Nucl. Phys. B 283, 681 (1987), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 296, 1034–1036 (1988)]

1987
[22]

Srednicki, K

M. Srednicki, K. A. Olive, and J. Silk, Nucl. Phys. B 279, 804 (1987)

1987
[23]

Desai et al

S. Desai et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D 70, 083523 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 70, 109901 (2004)], arXiv:hep-ex/0404025

2004 arXiv
[24]

Tanaka et al.(Super-Kamiokande), Astrophys

T. Tanaka et al.(Super-Kamiokande), Astrophys. J. 742, 78 (2011), arXiv:1108.3384 [astro-ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[25]

Adrian-Martinez et al

S. Adrian-Martinez et al. (ANTARES), Phys. Lett. B 759, 69 (2016), arXiv:1603.02228 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[26]

Choi et al

K. Choi et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141301 (2015), arXiv:1503.04858 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[27]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 146 (2017), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 214 (2019)], arXiv:1612.05949 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Q. Liu, J. Lazar, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, and A. Kheirandish, JCAP 10, 043 (2020), arXiv:2007.15010 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[29]

T. N. Maity, A. K. Saha, S. Mondal, and R. Laha, (2023), arXiv:2308.12336 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. D 105, 062004 (2022), arXiv:2111.09970 [astro-ph.HE]

2022
[31]

Batell, M

B. Batell, M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and Y. Shang, Phys. Rev. D 81, 075004 (2010), arXiv:0910.1567 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[32]

Schuster, N

P. Schuster, N. Toro, N. Weiner, and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D 82, 115012 (2010), arXiv:0910.1839 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[33]

N. F. Bell and K. Petraki, JCAP 04, 003 (2011), arXiv:1102.2958 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[34]

J. L. Feng, J. Smolinsky, and P. Tanedo, Phys. Rev. D 93, 115036 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 099903 (2017)], arXiv:1602.01465 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[35]

Adri´ an-Mart ´ ınezet al

S. Adri´ an-Mart ´ ınezet al. (ANTARES), JCAP 05, 016 (2016), arXiv:1602.07000 [hep-ex]

2016 arXiv
[36]

R. K. Leane, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123016 (2017), arXiv:1703.04629 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[37]

Albert et al

A. Albert et al. (HA WC), Phys. Rev. D 98, 123012 (2018), arXiv:1808.05624 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[38]

N. F. Bell, J. B. Dent, and I. W. Sanderson, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023024 (2021), arXiv:2103.16794 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[39]

T. T. Q. Nguyen and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 107, 115016 (2023), arXiv:2212.12547 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Linden, T

T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait, (2024), arXiv:2402.01839 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[41]

G. D. Mack, J. F. Beacom, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D 76, 043523 (2007), arXiv:0705.4298 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[42]

G. D. Mack and A. Manohar, Journal of Physics G Nu- clear Physics 40, 115202 (2013), arXiv:1211.1951 [astro- ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[43]

Bramante, A

J. Bramante, A. Buchanan, A. Goodman, and E. Lodhi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043001 (2020), arXiv:1909.11683 [hep- ph]

2020 arXiv
[44]

R. K. Leane and J. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 161101 (2021), arXiv:2010.00015 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[45]

J. F. Acevedo, R. K. Leane, and A. J. Reilly, (2024), arXiv:2405.02393 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[46]

Benito, K

M. Benito, K. Karchev, R. K. Leane, S. P˜ oder, J. Smirnov, and R. Trotta, (2024), arXiv:2405.09578 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[47]

Blanco and R

C. Blanco and R. K. Leane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 261002 (2024), arXiv:2312.06758 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[48]

Blanco, R

C. Blanco, R. K. Leane, M. Moore, and J. Tong, (2024), arXiv:2408.15318 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[49]

Croon and J

D. Croon and J. Smirnov, (2023), arXiv:2309.02495 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[50]

I. John, R. K. Leane, and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123041 (2024), arXiv:2311.16228 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[51]

G. Pang, K. Koper, S.-M. Wu, W. Wang, M. Lasbleis, and G. Euler, Nature 620, 1 (2023)

2023
[52]

W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 296, 679 (1985)

1985
[53]

Faulkner and R

J. Faulkner and R. L. Gilliland, Astrophys. J. 299, 994 (1985)

1985
[54]

Gould, Astrophys

A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 321, 571 (1987)

1987
[55]

Bramante, A

J. Bramante, A. Delgado, and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 96, 063002 (2017), arXiv:1703.04043 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[56]

Garani and S

R. Garani and S. Palomares-Ruiz, JCAP 05, 042 (2022), arXiv:2104.12757 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[57]

J. F. Acevedo, R. K. Leane, and J. Smirnov, JCAP 04, 038 (2024), arXiv:2303.01516 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Asteria: A package for dark matter capture in celestial objects,

R. K. Leane and J. Smirnov, “Asteria: A package for dark matter capture in celestial objects,” (2023)

2023
[59]

R. K. Leane and J. Smirnov, JCAP 12, 040 (2023), arXiv:2309.00669 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[60]

Ilie and J

C. Ilie and J. Paulin, Astrophys. J. 932, 46 (2022), arXiv:2107.00675 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[61]

Bramante, J

J. Bramante, J. Kumar, G. Mohlabeng, N. Raj, and N. Song, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063022 (2023), arXiv:2210.01812 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[62]

Ilie, Astrophys

C. Ilie, Astrophys. J. 970, 159 (2024), arXiv:2402.07713 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Konˆ opkov´ a, R

Z. Konˆ opkov´ a, R. Mcwilliams, N. Gomez Perez, and A. Goncharov, Nature 534, 99 (2016)

2016
[64]

Pozzo, C

M. Pozzo, C. Davies, D. Gubbins, and D. Alf` e, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 393, 159–164 (2014)

2014
[65]

K. Ohta, Y. Kuwayama, K. Hirose, K. Shimizu, and Y. Ohishi, Nature 534, 95 (2016)

2016
[66]

De Koker, G

N. De Koker, G. Steinle-Neumann, and V. Vlcek, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 4070 (2012)

2012
[67]

H. Gomi, K. Ohta, K. Hirose, S. Labrosse, R. Caracas, M. J. Verstraete, and J. W. Hernlund, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 224, 88 (2013)

2013
[68]

Williams, R

Q. Williams, R. Jeanloz, J. Bass, B. Svendsen, and T. J. Ahrens, Science 236, 181 (1987)

1987
[69]

Steinle-Neumann, L

G. Steinle-Neumann, L. Stixrude, and R. E. Cohen, arXiv e-prints , physics/0204055 (2002), arXiv:physics/0204055 [physics.geo-ph]

2002 arXiv
[70]

Anzellini, A

S. Anzellini, A. Dewaele, M. Mezouar, P. Loubeyre, and G. Morard, Science 340, 464 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1233514

2013 doi
[71]

Gould and G

A. Gould and G. Raffelt, Astrophys. J. 352, 654 (1990)

1990
[72]

D. N. Spergel and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. 294, 663 (1985). 9

1985
[73]

A. C. Vincent, A. Serenelli, and P. Scott, JCAP 08, 040 (2015), arXiv:1504.04378 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[74]

Tkalˇ ci´ c, A

H. Tkalˇ ci´ c, A. Belonoshko, J. Muir, M. Mattesini, L. Moresi, and L. Waszek, Scientific Reports 14 (2024), 10.1038/s41598-024-59520-7

2024 doi
[75]

Zhang, M

Y. Zhang, M. Hou, G. Liu, C. Zhang, V. B. Prakapenka, E. Greenberg, Y. Fei, R. E. Cohen, and J.-F. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 078501 (2020)

2020
[76]

Astromusers/darkinferno: Darkinferno,

C. Cappiello and T. Daylan, “Astromusers/darkinferno: Darkinferno,” (2025)

2025
[77]

R. K. Leane and J. Tong, (2024), arXiv:2405.05312 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[78]

B. J. Kavanagh, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123013 (2018), arXiv:1712.04901 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[79]

Emken and C

T. Emken and C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115047 (2018), arXiv:1802.04764 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[80]

C. V. Cappiello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 221001 (2023), arXiv:2301.07728 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[81]

Christensen-Dalsgaard and V

J. Christensen-Dalsgaard and V. S. Aguirre, in Handbook of Exoplanets, edited by H. J. Deeg and J. A. Belmonte (2018) p. 184

2018
[82]

Gaidos, Z

E. Gaidos, Z. Claytor, R. Dungee, A. Ali, and G. A. Fei- den, MNRAS 520, 5283 (2023), arXiv:2301.12109 [astro- ph.EP]

2023 arXiv
[83]

L. G. Bouma, L. A. Hillenbrand, A. W. Howard, H. Isaac- son, K. Masuda, and E. K. Palumbo, Astrophys. J. 976, 234 (2024), arXiv:2410.06246 [astro-ph.SR]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Cosmic Frontier Indirect Dark Matter Detection Working Group Summary

J. Buckley et al., in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013) arXiv:1310.7040 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[2] [2]

Hooper and L

D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B 697, 412 (2011), arXiv:1010.2752 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2011

[3] [3]

Daylan, D

T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Physics of the Dark Universe 12, 1 (2016)

2016

[4] [4]

Search for dark matter towards the Galactic Centre with 11 years of ANTARES data

A. Albert et al.(ANTARES), Phys. Lett. B 805, 135439 (2020), arXiv:1912.05296 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

Abe et al

H. Abe et al. (MAGIC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 061002 (2023), arXiv:2212.10527 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Abdalla et al.(H.E.S.S.), Phys

H. Abdalla et al.(H.E.S.S.), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 111101 (2022), arXiv:2207.10471 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

J. L. Ryan (VERITAS), PoS ICRC2023, 794 (2023), arXiv:2309.12403 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, Y. Soreq, and W. L. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103047 (2023), arXiv:2212.07435 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023