Benchmarking the Calculation of Stochastic Heating and Emissivity of Dust Grains in the Context of Radiative Transfer Simulations
Peter Camps, Karl Misselt, Simone Bianchi, Tuomas Lunttila, Christophe, Pinte, Giovanni Natale, Mika Juvela, Joerg Fischera, Michael P. Fitzgerald,, Karl Gordon, Maarten Baes, Juergen Steinacker

TL;DR
This paper establishes a benchmark for calculating dust grain emissivity in radiative transfer simulations, comparing multiple codes and analyzing the impact of various approximations to ensure consistent results within 10%.
Contribution
It provides a standardized benchmark problem and compares different RT codes' approaches to modeling stochastic dust heating and emissivity.
Findings
Codes agree within 10% for most input fields
Different heuristics impact calculation speed and accuracy
RT modules produce consistent emissivity spectra results
Abstract
We define an appropriate problem for benchmarking dust emissivity calculations in the context of radiative transfer (RT) simulations, specifically including the emission from stochastically heated dust grains. Our aim is to provide a self-contained guide for implementors of such functionality, and to offer insights in the effects of the various approximations and heuristics implemented by the participating codes to accelerate the calculations. The benchmark problem definition includes the optical and calorimetric material properties, and the grain size distributions, for a typical astronomical dust mixture with silicate, graphite and PAH components; a series of analytically defined radiation fields to which the dust population is to be exposed; and instructions for the desired output. We process this problem using six RT codes participating in this benchmark effort, and compare the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
