pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10017 · v2 · pith:7DGSATJ7new · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.GA· hep-ph

Refined anti-proton and anti-deuteron fluxes from weak-scale Dark Matter

Marco Cirelli , Mattia Di Mauro , Arpan Kar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords dark matterantiprotonsantideuteronscosmic raysgalactic propagationindirect detectiondark matter annihilation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Updated propagation models make dark matter antiproton and antideuteron fluxes far less sensitive to uncertainties than prior calculations.

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

The paper computes the interstellar fluxes of antiprotons and antideuterons produced by annihilation or decay of weak-scale dark matter particles with masses from a few GeV to 100 TeV. It employs semi-analytic galactic propagation that incorporates spatial diffusion, energy losses, convection and diffusive reacceleration, using the MIN/MED/MAX sets under the new SLIM/BIG/QUAINT schemes together with NFW, Einasto and Burkert halo profiles. Updated particle spectra from CosmiXs and inelastic cross sections based on ALICE data are included. The central finding is that the resulting fluxes vary much less between the minimum and maximum cases than the older fluxes from PPPC4DMID. This robustness matters because it allows more reliable use of cosmic-ray data to search for dark matter signals in existing and future observations, with all results tabulated for direct application.

Core claim

The cosmic-ray fluxes of antiprotons and antideuterons from weak-scale dark matter, obtained with the MIN/MED/MAX parameter sets under the SLIM/BIG/QUAINT propagation schemes and the NFW/Einasto/Burkert halo profiles, are considerably more robust under variation of the propagation and halo uncertainties than the fluxes previously provided by PPPC4DMID. The calculations incorporate the latest inelastic cross sections and are validated against literature results and other numerical packages.

What carries the argument

The MIN/MED/MAX parameter sets under the SLIM/BIG/QUAINT galactic propagation schemes, together with NFW, Einasto and Burkert dark matter halo profiles.

If this is right

  • The tabulated fluxes allow direct application in dark matter indirect searches with reduced propagation uncertainty bands.
  • Discovery potential for a dark matter signal in antiproton and antideuteron data improves because the uncertainty ranges are narrower.
  • Constraints on dark matter mass and annihilation cross section from cosmic-ray observations become more reliable across the few GeV to 100 TeV range.
  • The same framework can be used to assess the impact of the updated models on present and upcoming cosmic-ray experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reduced uncertainty bands may tighten the parameter space still allowed for weak-scale dark matter when the new fluxes are combined with gamma-ray or neutrino limits.
  • The approach of updating propagation schemes could be applied to other cosmic-ray species to create a more consistent multi-messenger picture of dark matter signals.
  • If the robustness persists under further refinements, older propagation-based limits on dark matter may need systematic re-evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The MIN/MED/MAX parameter sets under the SLIM/BIG/QUAINT schemes together with the NFW/Einasto/Burkert halo profiles adequately bracket the true range of galactic propagation and dark matter distribution uncertainties.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the interstellar antiproton flux between 0.1 GeV and 100 TeV that falls outside the MIN-to-MAX band computed with the new propagation models would show the claimed robustness does not hold.

read the original abstract

We provide the cosmic-ray (CR) fluxes of antiprotons and antideuterons produced by the Galactic annihilation or decay of weak-scale dark matter (DM) particles of masses in the range from a few GeV to 100 TeV. We estimate these fluxes based on the updated models for the propagation of charged particles in the Galaxy and using the improved $\bar{p}$ and $\bar{d}$ spectra provided by $\texttt{CosmiXs}$. For the updated propagation models we consider the MIN/MED/MAX sets under the new SLIM/BIG/QUAINT schemes. We treat the Galactic propagation in a semi-analytic way including different possible effects such as spatial diffusion, energy-losses, convection and diffusive reacceleration. For the DM distribution in the Galactic halo we consider NFW, Einasto and Burkert profiles with the most updated parameters. Moreover, we also incorporate the latest models for the inelastic cross-sections of $\bar{p}$ and $\bar{d}$ based on ALICE data. We validate our calculations with those available in the literature or those obtained from other publicly available numerical packages. We compare the CR fluxes obtained in this work with those provided previously by $\texttt{PPPC4DMID}$ which were based on old propagation scenarios. We find that the CR fluxes obtained here with the new propagation models are much more robust (compared to the older ones) under the variation MIN - MAX. We also discuss the impact of this in the improvement of the discovery potential of a possible DM signal in the light of the present and upcoming CR observations. We provide all our results for the DM-induced interstellar CR fluxes in a tabulated format (for the kinetic energy range 0.1 GeV - 100 TeV) in the $\texttt{GitHub}$ repository of the newly created $\texttt{CosmiXsPPPC}$ project. The results are ready to be used for studies related to DM indirect searches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper computes interstellar antiproton and antideuteron fluxes from weak-scale DM annihilation or decay (masses ~few GeV to 100 TeV) using a semi-analytic propagation treatment that includes diffusion, energy losses, convection, and reacceleration. It adopts the MIN/MED/MAX parameter sets under the SLIM/BIG/QUAINT schemes, NFW/Einasto/Burkert halo profiles with updated parameters, and ALICE-based inelastic cross sections. Fluxes are validated against literature and other codes, compared to PPPC4DMID, shown to have reduced spread under MIN-MAX variation, and released as tabulated data (0.1 GeV–100 TeV) via the CosmiXsPPPC GitHub repository.

Significance. If the reduced MIN-MAX spread holds, the work strengthens the reliability of DM indirect-detection predictions for charged cosmic rays, directly aiding interpretation of AMS-02 and future data. Public release of validated, tabulated results is a clear strength for reproducibility and follow-up studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results section: the central claim that new-model fluxes are 'much more robust' under MIN-MAX variation (and thereby improve discovery potential) is load-bearing yet rests on the discrete MIN/MED/MAX sets under SLIM/BIG/QUAINT faithfully sampling propagation uncertainties; the manuscript should quantify the spread reduction (e.g., max/min flux ratio or variance per energy bin) relative to PPPC4DMID and discuss whether unaccounted parameter correlations or omitted physics could change the observed smaller spread.
  2. [Propagation and halo sections] Propagation and halo sections: while the semi-analytic treatment and ALICE cross sections are standard and validated, the robustness conclusion depends on the chosen parameter brackets being adequate; the paper should explicitly test sensitivity to alternative definitions of MIN/MAX or additional effects (e.g., beyond the included convection/reacceleration) to confirm the spread reduction is not an artifact of the specific scheme choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2 or §3] Notation for the three propagation schemes (SLIM/BIG/QUAINT) and their relation to the older PPPC4DMID scenarios should be clarified in a dedicated table or paragraph for readers unfamiliar with the updates.
  2. [Figures in results section] Figure captions comparing fluxes should state the exact energy range and DM mass/channel used for the MIN-MAX bands to allow direct visual assessment of the robustness claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will update the paper accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results section: the central claim that new-model fluxes are 'much more robust' under MIN-MAX variation (and thereby improve discovery potential) is load-bearing yet rests on the discrete MIN/MED/MAX sets under SLIM/BIG/QUAINT faithfully sampling propagation uncertainties; the manuscript should quantify the spread reduction (e.g., max/min flux ratio or variance per energy bin) relative to PPPC4DMID and discuss whether unaccounted parameter correlations or omitted physics could change the observed smaller spread.

    Authors: We agree that quantifying the spread would make the robustness claim more precise. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit measures of the MIN-MAX spread (maximum-to-minimum flux ratios and relative variance per energy bin) for representative energies, directly comparing our new results to the corresponding PPPC4DMID fluxes. We will also insert a short discussion paragraph noting that while the SLIM/BIG/QUAINT brackets are the current standard sets, unaccounted correlations or additional physics (e.g., spatially dependent diffusion) remain possible limitations; we reference recent literature on these topics and state that the observed reduction is consistent with the updated propagation and cross-section inputs. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Propagation and halo sections] Propagation and halo sections: while the semi-analytic treatment and ALICE cross sections are standard and validated, the robustness conclusion depends on the chosen parameter brackets being adequate; the paper should explicitly test sensitivity to alternative definitions of MIN/MAX or additional effects (e.g., beyond the included convection/reacceleration) to confirm the spread reduction is not an artifact of the specific scheme choices.

    Authors: The SLIM/BIG/QUAINT MIN/MED/MAX sets are the updated, data-calibrated brackets adopted in recent AMS-02 analyses; we will expand the propagation section to state this rationale more explicitly and to note that our validation against independent codes already probes some variation in propagation treatments. Explicit re-derivation of alternative MIN/MAX brackets or additional parameter scans would require a separate global fit to cosmic-ray data, which lies outside the scope of the present work. We will therefore add a limitations paragraph acknowledging this point while arguing that the reduced spread is not an artifact, as it arises from the improved inelastic cross sections and halo parameters that are independent of the propagation bracketing scheme. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: fluxes computed forward from external literature inputs

full rationale

The paper adopts MIN/MED/MAX propagation parameter sets under SLIM/BIG/QUAINT schemes and NFW/Einasto/Burkert halo profiles directly from prior literature, then computes DM-induced antiproton and antideuteron fluxes semi-analytically using diffusion, energy losses, convection, reacceleration and updated inelastic cross sections. The tabulated results and robustness comparison to PPPC4DMID are forward calculations from these independent inputs; no equation or result is defined in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation chain. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard cosmic-ray propagation assumptions and parameter sets taken from earlier literature; no new free parameters are introduced or fitted in this work, and no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • MIN/MED/MAX propagation parameter sets
    Bracket uncertainties in diffusion, convection and reacceleration; taken from prior fits to cosmic-ray data.
  • NFW/Einasto/Burkert halo profile parameters
    Dark matter density distributions with parameters from observational literature.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Semi-analytic treatment of spatial diffusion, energy losses, convection and diffusive reacceleration suffices to model charged-particle propagation in the Galaxy.
    Invoked when describing the propagation modeling approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5905 in / 1260 out tokens · 25264 ms · 2026-06-27T15:21:36.903903+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan,Dark Matter,2406.01705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Cuoco, M

    A. Cuoco, M. Kraemer and M. Korsmeier,Novel dark matter constraints from antiprotons in light of ams-02,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 191102, [1610.03071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    De la Torre Luque, M

    P. De la Torre Luque, M. W. Winkler and T. Linden,Antiproton bounds on dark matter annihilation from a combined analysis using the dragon2 code,JCAP05(2024) 104, [2401.10329]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Donato, N

    F. Donato, N. Fornengo and P. Salati,Antideuterons as a signature of supersymmetric dark matter,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 043003, [hep-ph/9904481]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Donato, N

    F. Donato, N. Fornengo and D. Maurin,Antideuteron fluxes from dark matter annihilation in diffusion models,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 043506, [0803.2640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Stefanuto, M

    L. Stefanuto, M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, N. Fornengo, J. Koechler and D. Maurin,Revisiting predictions for cosmic-ray antinucleon fluxes from Galactic Dark Matter,2605.08338

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Giesen, M

    G. Giesen, M. Boudaud, Y. Génolini, V. Poulin, M. Cirelli, P. Salati et al.,Ams-02 antiprotons, at last! secondary astrophysical component and immediate implications for dark matter,JCAP09(2015) 023, [1504.04276]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Boudaud, Y

    M. Boudaud, Y. Génolini, L. Derome, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin, P. Salati et al.,Ams-02 antiprotons are consistent with a secondary astrophysical origin,Phys. Rev. Research2 (2020) 023022, [1906.07119]

    arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Di Mauro, M

    M. Di Mauro, M. Korsmeier and A. Cuoco,Data-driven constraints on cosmic-ray diffusion: Probing self-generated turbulence in the Milky Way,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 123003, [2311.17150]

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hütsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci et al.,PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection,JCAP03(2011) 051, [1012.4515]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands,A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852–867, [0710.3820]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159–177, [1410.3012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Arina, M

    C. Arina, M. Di Mauro, N. Fornengo, J. Heisig, A. Jueid and R. R. de Austri,CosmiXs: cosmic messenger spectra for indirect dark matter searches,JCAP03(2024) 035, [2312.01153]

    arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Donato, N

    F. Donato, N. Fornengo, D. Maurin, P. Salati and R. Taillet,Antiprotons in cosmic rays from neutralino annihilation,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 063501, [astro-ph/0306207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    Delahaye, R

    T. Delahaye, R. Lineros, F. Donato, N. Fornengo and P. Salati,Positrons from dark matter annihilation in the galactic halo: theoretical uncertainties,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 063527, [0712.2312]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Boudaud, M

    M. Boudaud, M. Cirelli, G. Giesen and P. Salati,A fussy revisitation of antiprotons as a tool for dark matter searches,JCAP05(2015) 013, [1412.5696]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Génolini et al.,Cosmic-ray transport from ams-02 boron to carbon ratio data: benchmark models and interpretation,Phys

    Y. Génolini et al.,Cosmic-ray transport from ams-02 boron to carbon ratio data: benchmark models and interpretation,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 123028, [1904.08917]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Génolini, M

    Y. Génolini, M. Boudaud, M. Cirelli, L. Derome, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin et al.,New minimal, median, and maximal propagation models for dark matter searches with galactic cosmic rays, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 083005, [2103.04108]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Calore, M

    F. Calore, M. Cirelli, L. Derome, Y. Genolini, D. Maurin, P. Salati et al.,AMS-02 antiprotons and dark matter: Trimmed hints and robust bounds,SciPost Phys.12(2022) 163, [2202.03076]

    arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Fornengo, L

    N. Fornengo, L. Maccione and A. Vittino,Constraints on particle dark matter from cosmic-ray antiprotons,JCAP04(2014) 003, [1312.3579]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Maurin, R

    D. Maurin, R. Taillet, F. Donato, P. Salati, A. Barrau and G. Boudoul,Galactic cosmic ray nuclei as a tool for astroparticle physics,astro-ph/0212111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Génolini et al.,Indications for a high-rigidity break in the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient, Phys

    Y. Génolini et al.,Indications for a high-rigidity break in the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 241101, [1706.09812]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Mannheim and R

    K. Mannheim and R. Schlickeiser,Interactions of Cosmic Ray Nuclei,Astron. Astrophys. 286(1994) 983–996, [astro-ph/9402042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  24. [24]

    A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko,Propagation of cosmic-ray nucleons in the galaxy, Astrophys. J.509(1998) 212–228, [astro-ph/9807150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Krakau and R

    S. Krakau and R. Schlickeiser,Pion Production Momentum Loss of Cosmic ray Hadrons, Astrophys. J.802(2015) 114

    2015

  26. [26]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, G. Di Bernardo, M. Di Mauro, A. Ligorini et al., Cosmic-ray propagation withDRAGON2: I. numerical solver and astrophysical ingredients, JCAP02(2017) 015, [1607.07886]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Maurin, F

    D. Maurin, F. Donato, R. Taillet and P. Salati,Cosmic rays below z = 30 in a diffusion model: New constraints on propagation parameters,The Astrophysical Journal555(jul,

  28. [28]

    Donato, D

    F. Donato, D. Maurin, P. Salati, A. Barrau, G. Boudoul and R. Taillet,Anti-protons from – 24 – spallations of cosmic rays on interstellar matter,Astrophys. J.563(2001) 172–184, [astro-ph/0103150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    Derome, D

    L. Derome, D. Maurin, P. Salati, M. Boudaud, Y. Génolini and P. Kunzé,Fitting B/C cosmic-ray data in the AMS-02 era: A cookbook,Astron. Astrophys.627(2019) A158, [1904.08210]

    arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    L. J. Gleeson and W. I. Axford,Cosmic Rays in the Interplanetary Medium,Astrophys. J. Lett.149(1967) L115–L118

    1967

  31. [31]

    L. J. Gleeson and W. I. Axford,Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays,Astrophys. J. 154(1968) 1011

    1968

  32. [32]

    Maurin,USINE: semi-analytical models for Galactic cosmic-ray propagation,Comput

    D. Maurin,USINE: semi-analytical models for Galactic cosmic-ray propagation,Comput. Phys. Commun.247(2020) 106942, [1807.02968]

    arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, M. Di Mauro, D. Grasso and M. N. Mazziotta,Cosmic-ray propagation with DRAGON2: II. Nuclear interactions with the interstellar gas,JCAP07 (2018) 006, [1711.09616]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    R. J. Glauber,Cross-sections in deuterium at high-energies,Phys. Rev.100(1955) 242–248

    1955

  35. [35]

    R. J. Glauber and G. Matthiae,High-energy scattering of protons by nuclei,Nucl. Phys. B 21(1970) 135–157

    1970

  36. [36]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders and P. Steinberg,Glauber modeling in high-energy nuclear collisions,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57(2007) 205–243, [nucl-ex/0701025]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [38]

    Di Mauro, N

    M. Di Mauro, N. Fornengo, A. Jueid, R. R. de Austri and F. Bellini,Nailing Down the Theoretical Uncertainties ofDSpectrum Produced from Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (2025) 131002, [2411.04815]. [40]https://www.marcocirelli.net/PPPC4DMID.html. [41]https://www.ssdc.asi.it/. [42]GAPScollaboration, F. Rogers et al.,Sensitivity of the GAPS experiment to low...

    arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    Tiberio and for the GAPS collaboration,Indirect search for dark matter with cosmic-ray antinuclei: the gaps experiment,Journal of Physics: Conference Series3053(jul, 2025) 012002

    A. Tiberio and for the GAPS collaboration,Indirect search for dark matter with cosmic-ray antinuclei: the gaps experiment,Journal of Physics: Conference Series3053(jul, 2025) 012002. [44]https://github.com/cosmicrays/DRAGON2-Beta_version

    2025

  39. [40]

    R. J. Glauber,Cross sections in deuterium at high energies,Phys. Rev.100(1955) 242–248

    1955

  40. [41]

    Shukla,The glauber model and the heavy-ion reaction cross section,Phys

    P. Shukla,The glauber model and the heavy-ion reaction cross section,Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 054607, [nucl-th/0302030]. [47]ALICEcollaboration, S. Acharya et al.,Measurement of anti-3He nuclei absorption in matter and impact on their propagation in the Galaxy,Nature Phys.19(2023) 61–71, [2202.01549]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  41. [42]

    L. C. Tan and L. K. Ng,Calculation of the equilibrium anti-proton spectrum,J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys.9(1983) 227–242. – 25 –

    1983

  42. [43]

    Korsmeier, F

    M. Korsmeier, F. Donato and M. Di Mauro,Production cross sections of cosmic antiprotons in the light of new data from the NA61 and LHCb experiments,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 103019, [1802.03030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [44]

    di Mauro, F

    M. di Mauro, F. Donato, A. Goudelis and P. D. Serpico,New evaluation of the antiproton production cross section for cosmic ray studies,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 085017, [1408.0288]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014