Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 110 references

Black Holes and Baryon Number Violation: Unveiling the Origins of Early Galaxies and the Low-Mass Gap

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gravitational shift in the Higgs potential near a black hole's horizon makes sphaleron transitions unsuppressed, generating baryons that can grow early galaxies and erase the low-mass gap.

desk verdict Novel packaging of black-hole-catalyzed sphalerons for JWST and the low-mass gap, but the mechanism rests on an unproved, non-covariant ψ³/N factor and the numbers are tuned consistency conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10847 v2 pith:TU25AD25 submitted 2024-11-16 hep-ph astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th

Merab Gogberashvili , Alexander S. Sakharov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th PACS 04.70.-s11.30.Fs98.54.Aj
keywords baryogenesissphalerontransitionsblackholehorizonHiggseffectivepotentialChern-Simonsnumbersupermassiveholeslow-massgapearlygalaxies
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

The paper proposes that the Standard Model's sphaleron transitions, normally frozen out at low temperatures, become unsuppressed in a thin atmospheric layer just outside a black hole's event horizon. The engine is a gravitational modification of the one-loop Higgs effective potential: near the horizon the radiative correction is multiplied by $\psi^3/N$, and as the lapse $N$ goes to zero the potential turns negative, collapsing the sphaleron energy barrier. The same horizon boundary conditions make the Chern-Simons number a dynamical variable, so each transition can change baryon number by many units rather than one. If this is right, black holes gain baryon-generating atmospheres that can grow early galaxies and lift stellar black holes out of the low-mass gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sphaleron barrier of the electroweak Higgs potential evaluated in a regularized Schwarzschild background. The paper combines two mechanisms: first, the one-loop radiative correction $U_1$ is multiplied by $\psi^3/N$, so as the lapse function $N \to 0$ at the horizon the effective potential drops below zero and the barrier disappears; second, the brick-wall cutoff at $r = 2M_{\rm BH} + \epsilon$ turns the Chern-Simons number into a dynamical variable whose near-horizon value can be large. The transition rate is then taken as $\Gamma_{\rm sph} = M^4 e^{-B(M_{\rm BH}, d_H)}$, with $B$ falling steeply as the distance $d_H$ from the horizon shrinks, and the generated mass is estimated by multiplying the rate by the layer volume and a Standard-Model CP-violating factor.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop Higgs effective potential in a self-consistent regularized Schwarzschild background without assuming the $\psi^3/N$ factor: if the potential stays positive at the horizon, or if a full non-perturbative calculation shows no negative region, then the claimed unsuppressed sphaleron rate is absent. Observationally, the model predicts a persistent baryon-generating shell around otherwise quiescent black holes, so a null detection of matter outflows or jets from isolated black holes would count against it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that baryon-number violation through sphaleron transitions near a Schwarzschild horizon is neither exponentially suppressed nor limited to one unit of baryon number per event. The paper argues that the one-loop radiative correction to the Higgs potential, modified by the universal factor $\psi^3/N$, drives the effective potential negative when the lapse function vanishes at the horizon, so the bounce action $B$ in the rate $\Gamma \sim M^4 e^{-B}$ goes to zero. With brick-wall boundary conditions at $r = 2M_{\rm BH} + \epsilon$, the Chern-Simons number grows as $n_{\rm cs} \simeq (\sqrt{2}\mu/\pi)\, d_H^{k-1/2}$ for $k \le 1/2$, where $d_H = \epsilon/R_S$, so each sphaleron crossing produces many baryon units. On this basis the paper estimates that a $10^9\,M_\odot$ black hole can generate about $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ of matter within a billion years, and a $3\,M_\odot$ black hole can grow to $\sim 5\,M_\odot$ over ten billion years.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one-loop correction to the Higgs potential near a horizon is multiplied by the universal factor $\psi^3/N$ taken from an earlier paper, and that this factor makes the effective potential negative when the lapse $N$ is small; if that factor is not physically real, the sphaleron barrier is not removed and the mechanism collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, sphaleron transitions in the layer at $r = 2M_{\rm BH} + \epsilon$ proceed without exponential suppression, so baryon-number violation can be efficient at zero temperature around any astrophysical black hole.
  • A supermassive black hole of $10^9\,M_\odot$ can generate roughly $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ of baryonic matter within about a billion years, offering an alternative explanation for the massive compact galaxies JWST sees at early times.
  • A stellar-mass black hole starting near $3\,M_\odot$ can grow to about $5\,M_\odot$ over a ten-billion-year galactic age by accreting baryons generated at its horizon, explaining the scarcity of black holes in the low-mass gap.
  • Because the generated mass scales with the horizon-layer volume and the rate is exponentially peaked at the horizon, baryogenesis is confined to a shell of width $\epsilon \sim 10^{-16}$ cm, leaving the exterior geometry largely unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\psi^3/N$ enhancement is physical, the same mechanism should also enhance other horizon-scale electroweak processes, such as electroweak vacuum decay or monopole pair production; the paper does not extend the calculation to those processes.
  • The estimate leans on Standard Model CP violation ($\delta_{\rm CP}\sim 10^{-25}$), which makes the net baryon yield per sphaleron extremely small; a testable consequence would be a need for either new CP-violating physics or much longer growth times, a tension the paper leaves implicit.
  • A concrete observational test is to look for baryon-loaded outflows or jets from isolated black holes that have no accretion disk; if such outflows are absent in gravitational-wave and X-ray follow-up, the atmospheric baryogenesis picture would be difficult to sustain.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that near a black hole horizon the Higgs effective potential is multiplied by a universal factor ψ³/N, which can turn the one-loop correction negative and remove the sphaleron barrier. This would allow unsuppressed sphaleron transitions and, through a divergent Chern-Simons boundary term, generate a large baryon number per transition in a thin atmospheric layer around the horizon. The authors then use order-of-magnitude estimates to argue that this mechanism explains the rapid growth of supermassive black holes and early galaxies observed by JWST, as well as the low-mass gap in the black hole mass distribution. The paper is a speculative proposal built on heuristic derivations; the key input, Eq. (25), is imported from a same-author reference without derivation, and the numerical estimates involve several free parameters.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism were correct, it would connect electroweak baryon number violation to black hole physics and offer a novel explanation for astrophysical observations. However, the central ingredient (Eq. (25)) is not independently derived and appears to conflict with standard covariant effective-action methods; the Chern-Simons divergence in Eq. (31) is likely a coordinate artifact; and the apparent agreement with JWST and low-mass-gap data is obtained by adjusting free parameters. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, and the predictions are not presented in a falsifiable form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (25)] The central claim that the sphaleron barrier disappears near the horizon rests entirely on Eq. (25), where the entire one-loop radiative correction is multiplied by ψ³/N. This factor is imported from ref. [83], coauthored by two of the present authors, and no derivation or independent check is provided here. Moreover, the factor is not a scalar under diffeomorphisms; a physical effective potential should be built from covariant quantities such as curvature invariants, which are finite at the Schwarzschild horizon (see Eq. (8)). Standard heat-kernel methods do not produce a 1/N divergence. Without a derivation, the mechanism of unsuppressed sphaleron transitions is unsupported.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (31)] The second term in Eq. (31) diverges as 1/√ε when f(2M+ε) ~ ε^k with k<1/2, as assumed in Eq. (38). This divergence originates from the factor √(r_ε/(r_ε−2M)) in the normal vector (27), which remains singular at the cut-off distance r=2M+ε even after the regularization (9). A topological quantity such as n_cs should be gauge-invariant and finite; the divergence signals a coordinate artifact rather than a physical enhancement of baryon number. The paper does not explain why the divergent part should be kept in the baryon number calculation.
  3. [Section 6, Eq. (42)] The effective action B(M_BH,d_H) is written in Eq. (36) as B_1(M_BH) d_H^b, with a free exponent b>0. In Eq. (42) the paper suddenly sets b=1 and B_1 = 8πG E_sph M_BH, citing ref. [83], but provides no derivation. This is a load-bearing step because the numerical estimates of E_sph in Eqs. (43)–(47) follow from equating (42) with the conditions (41), (44), and (46). Changing b or the prefactor would completely alter the conclusions.
  4. [Section 6, Eqs. (41)–(47)] The conditions (41), (44), and (46) are obtained by requiring that M_gen, as computed from Eq. (37), reproduces the observed masses of early galaxies, SMBHs, and low-mass-gap BHs. The subsequent estimates of the sphaleron energy are therefore reverse-engineered from observations, not independent predictions. The calculation contains several free parameters—the brick-wall width ε, the exponent k in Eq. (38), the exponent b in Eq. (36), and δ_CP—and the paper gives no constraints on their values. The claimed consistency with the EW scale is a consequence of the imposed conditions, not a prediction of the model.
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (10)] The regularization (9) is introduced ad hoc, and the resulting δ-function-like Ricci scalar in Eq. (10) is presented as a fact. This is not a standard result: for a macroscopic Schwarzschild black hole the Kretschmann invariant (8) is finite and small at the horizon, and the known coordinate transformations are smooth in the exterior region. The paper's assertion that Kruskal-Szekeres and similar coordinates produce delta functions in the second derivatives relies on refs. [60,61] by one of the present authors, and is not generally accepted. Since the existence of the atmospheric layer and the boundary conditions (28) depend on this singular structure, this point needs an independent derivation or at least an explicit statement of the assumptions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The bounce formula in Eq. (5) is rigorously justified only in flat spacetime, as the paper itself notes after Eq. (6); using the same prefactor near a black hole should be justified or replaced by a derivation.
  2. [Section 6, Eq. (43)] Equation (43), (E_sph/M_Pl) 10^9 M_⊙ ≈ 10^{-17}(1−1.4k), is dimensionally inconsistent as written: the left-hand side has units of mass while the right-hand side is dimensionless. The same issue affects Eqs. (45) and (47).
  3. [Section 5, after Eq. (31)] The sentence 'This indicates a rapid increase of the B-number (3) near the BH horizon' contains a typo: 'in the in the baryon number' appears in the text.
  4. [Section 2, after Eq. (6)] The phrase 'Similar to (5)expression have been proposed' should read 'Similar to (5), expressions have been proposed'.
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (18)] The cubic term λvh³ in the Higgs potential (18) is gauge-dependent and typically appears only in a specific gauge; the paper does not specify the gauge or justify its presence.
  6. [Section 6, Eq. (33)] The CP violation factor δ_CP is included as a simple multiplier with value 10^{-25}, but in the Standard Model CP violation is controlled by the Jarlskog determinant; the choice of δ_CP as a constant factor is an oversimplification that should be justified.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central mechanism depends on the self-cited ψ^3/N factor of Eq. (25), and the quantitative estimates are backward-solved to match observed masses, recovering the 100 GeV scale already assumed as input.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Eq. (25)]
    "In isotropic coordinates, the entire radiative corrections term in (21) will be modified by the universal factor [83]: U1 → ψ^3/N * 3/(64π^2) (3λ^2 − Y_t^4) ln(h^2/v^2) h^4. Sufficiently close to the BH horizon, the lapse function N(R) → 0, and the negative one-loop correction term in (25) will reduce the value of the Higgs effective potential (23), potentially even pushing it into the negative region. As a result, the bounce action B approaches zero, implying that the baryon number violation rate (5) can increase."

    This is the load-bearing step: it is the only mechanism making the effective potential negative as N→0 and hence making the sphaleron rate unsuppressed. The factor is imported from ref. [83], authored by Chitishvili, Gogberashvili, Konoplich, and Sakharov, i.e., two of the present authors. No derivation is provided in this paper, and the coordinate-dependent 1/N factor is not obtained from covariant heat-kernel/effective-action methods, whose invariants are finite at the horizon. If Eq. (25) is absent or different, U_eff stays positive, B in Eqs. (5)-(6) remains large, and the unsuppressed rate feeding Eqs. (33)-(37) disappears. The central claim therefore reduces to a self-citation rather than to an independently derived first-principles result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Eqs. (35), (41)-(43)]
    "If the mass generated in the proximity of a SMBH with mass 10^9 M⊙, as estimated from (37), reaches 10^10 M⊙ within a timescale of ≲ 1 billion years, then the following condition must hold: B(MBH = 10^9 M⊙, dH) ≈ 50 − 70k ... This result is obtained by setting M ≈ 10 GeV, as inferred from (35), with ϵ ≃ 10^-16 cm (dH ≃ 10^-30). This length scale corresponds to the energy level EEW ≈ 100 GeV ... indicating that the sphaleron energy may correspond to the EW scale, Esph ≈ 100 GeV."

    Conditions (41), (44), and (46) are obtained by setting the mass-generation formula (37) equal to the observed target masses (10^10 M⊙, 10^7 M⊙, and 3→5 M⊙) and solving backwards for B and Esph. The generated masses are therefore inputs, not predictions. The recovered value Esph≈100 GeV is already in the inputs: Eq. (35) sets EEW≈100 GeV, and ϵ≈10^-16 cm is chosen to correspond to that same scale. The free parameters k, ϵ, b, and B1 are adjusted so that the consistency check closes. Thus the agreement with JWST masses and the low-mass gap is a calibration that returns the assumed scale, not an independent numerical prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 6, Eq. (36)]
    "For estimation purposes, following [83], the distance dependence of the effective action can be modeled as: B(MBH, dH) = B1(MBH) db_H, where B1(MBH) is a factor that depends on the BH mass ... The parameter b > 0 is an exponent that reflects the gravitational corrections to the Higgs potential, allowing the effective action to vary with distance from the BH horizon [83]."

    The distance dependence used in the quantitative estimates is itself imported from the same self-cited ref. [83], with free parameters b and B1. In the subsequent numerical comparison this model is converted into Eq. (42), B ≈ 8πG Esph MBH dH, i.e., b = 1, which is the expression that yields Esph ≈ 100 GeV. No derivation of this scaling from the field equations, the sphaleron action, or the effective potential is given; its support is a citation to the authors' own prior paper. The numerical conclusions for JWST growth and the low-mass gap therefore rest on this ansatz.

full rationale

The paper concedes that the exponential-suppression estimate (5) is rigorously justified only in flat spacetime and that ϵ is somewhat arbitrary, yet those estimates are then used to build the baryogenesis numbers. More importantly, the derivation chain exhibits two genuine reductions. First, the unsuppressed sphaleron rate is produced by the ψ^3/N factor in Eq. (25), which is taken from ref. [83] co-authored by two of the present authors; no independent derivation or observational handle is given, so the central mechanism is a load-bearing self-citation. Second, the phenomenological action B(MBH,dH)=B1 d_H^b is also 'following [83]', and the numerical section solves formula (37) backwards for B so that Mgen equals the observed JWST masses and the assumed 3→5 M⊙ gap evolution; the recovered Esph≈100 GeV is the same scale already assumed in Eq. (35) and used to fix ϵ. These are circular steps, not merely self-citation or absence of consensus. Independent ingredients exist (lattice sphaleron rate, external JWST data as target values), but they do not break the loop: the targets are fit inputs, and the unsuppressed rate is an input from the self-cited prior work. The large-ncs claim additionally depends on an unproved profile ansatz f∼ϵ^k with k<1/2, which is an unsupported assumption rather than a circular step. Overall score 7 reflects a partially circular derivation whose central claim is forced by a self-citation chain and whose numerical 'predictions' reduce by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a few adjustable parameters (epsilon, k, b) and on several unproven or same-authored inputs. The most important input is the assumed universal factor psi^3/N modifying the Higgs potential near the horizon, taken from ref [83] by two of the present authors. The only new entity beyond the atmospheric shell is the shell itself, which has no independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (brick-wall width) = 10^-16 cm in all numerical estimates, giving dH ~ 10^-30 for 10^9 M_sun, 10^-27 for 10^6 M_sun, and 10^-22 for 3 M_sun
    The cutoff distance from the horizon; the paper states the choice is 'somewhat arbitrary' in Section 5 and all estimates in Section 6 depend on it.
  • k = assumed < 1/2, with no specified numerical value
    Exponent in the sphaleron profile boundary behavior f ~ (epsilon/RS)^k; it controls the Chern-Simons number per transition through n_cs ~ dH^(k-1/2), so the produced baryon number depends directly on this hand-chosen exponent.
  • b = b > 0, not numerically specified
    Exponent in the effective action B = B1 dH^b from ref [83]; it controls how quickly the sphaleron barrier reappears away from the horizon.
  • delta_CP = 10^-25
    Standard Model CP violation suppression taken from ref [110]; it enters linearly in the mass generation formula (Eq. 33).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Schwarzschild spacetime can be regularized with r_epsilon = 2M + sqrt((r-2M)^2 + epsilon^2), producing a delta-function-like Ricci scalar at the horizon (Eq. 10).
    This distributional regularization is used to justify a physical boundary layer at the horizon; no independent evidence is supplied.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-loop Higgs effective potential acquires a universal factor psi^3/N near the horizon (Eq. 25), taken from ref [83] whose authors include two of the present authors.
    The sign flip and amplification of the radiative correction are the entire source of the unsuppressed sphaleron rate; the factor is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Matter field wavefunctions vanish at r=2M and r=2M+epsilon, and particles cannot cross the horizon.
    Adopted from 't Hooft's brick-wall model and the authors' reflective-horizon program (refs [12,75-77]); this makes the horizon a physical boundary rather than a coordinate artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper The sphaleron bounce action near a black hole is approximately B = 8*pi*G*E_sph*M_BH*dH (Eq. 42).
    Asserted without derivation by combining Eq. (6) and Eq. (36); all numerical consistency conditions in Eqs. (41)-(47) rest on this form.
  • standard math The standard chiral anomaly relation (Eq. 1) and the sphaleron ansatz (Eq. 26) connect Chern-Simons number changes to baryon number changes.
    Background Standard Model results used throughout the paper; they are standard but are still unproved assumptions in the specific curved-space context near the horizon.
invented entities (1)
  • Atmospheric shell around the black hole horizon
    purpose: A thin layer between r=2M and r=2M+epsilon where the Higgs potential is modified and sphalerons are unsuppressed; the site of baryogenesis.
    The shell is generated by a delta-like source and brick-wall boundary conditions rather than by a known physical mechanism; no observable signature is proposed that would test the shell independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black Holes and Baryon Number Violation: Unveiling the Origins of Early Galaxies and the Low-Mass Gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TU25AD25

@misc{pith2026241110847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black Holes and Baryon Number Violation: Unveiling the Origins of Early Galaxies and the Low-Mass Gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TU25AD25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10847}
}
read the original abstract

We propose that modifications to the Higgs potential within a narrow atmospheric layer near the event horizon of an astrophysical black hole could significantly enhance the rate of sphaleron transitions, as well as transform the Chern-Simons number into a dynamic variable. As a result, sphaleron transitions in this region occur without suppression, in contrast to low-temperature conditions, and each transition may generate a substantially greater baryon number than would be produced by winding around the Higgs potential in Minkowski spacetime. This effect amplifies baryon number violation near the black hole horizon, potentially leading to a considerable generation of matter. Given the possibility of a departure from equilibrium during the absorption of matter and the formation of relativistic jets in supermassive black holes, we conjecture that this process could contribute to the creation of a significant amount of matter around such black holes. This phenomenon may offer an alternative explanation for the rapid growth of supermassive black holes and their surrounding galaxies in the early Universe, as suggested by recent observations from the JWST. Furthermore, this mechanism may provide insights into the low-mass gap puzzle, addressing the observed scarcity of black holes with masses near the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [83]

    Higgs Field-Induced Triboluminescence in Binary Black Hole Mergers

    M. Chitishvili, M. Gogberashvili, R. Konoplich and A. S. Sakharov, “Higgs field-induced triboluminescence in binary black hole mergers,” Universe 9 (2023) 301, doi: 10.3390/u- niverse9070301 [arXiv: 2111.07178 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Recent progress in baryogenesis,

    A. Riotto and M. Trodden, “Recent progress in baryogenesis,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49 (1999) 35, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.35 [arXiv: hep-ph/9901362]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [2]

    Symmetries and strings in field theory and gravity,

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, “Symmetries and strings in field theory and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 084019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084019 [arXiv: 1011.5120 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [3]

    Gravitational baryogenesis without CPT vio- lation,

    V. Antunes, I. Bediaga and M. Novello, “Gravitational baryogenesis without CPT vio- lation,” JCAP 10 (2019) 076, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/076 [arXiv: 1909.03034 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Gravity and the stability of the Higgs vacuum,

    P. Burda, R. Gregory and I. Moss, “Gravity and the stability of the Higgs vacuum,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 071303, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.071303 [arXiv: 1501.04937 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    Vacuum metastability with black holes,

    P. Burda, R. Gregory and I. Moss, “Vacuum metastability with black holes,” JHEP 08 (2015) 114, doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)114 [arXiv: 1503.07331 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    Black holes and Higgs stability,

    N. Tetradis, “Black holes and Higgs stability,” JCAP 09 (2016) 036, doi: 10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/09/036 [arXiv: 1606.04018 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    Fatal youth of the Universe: black hole threat for the electroweak vacuum during preheating,

    D. Gorbunov, D. Levkov and A. Panin, “Fatal youth of the Universe: black hole threat for the electroweak vacuum during preheating,” JCAP 10 (2017) 016, doi: 10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/10/016 [arXiv: 1704.05399 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 110 references
  1. [8]

    On the catalysis of the electroweak vacuum decay by black holes at high temperature,

    D. Canko, I. Gialamas, G. Jelic-Cizmek, A. Riotto and N. Tetradis, “On the catalysis of the electroweak vacuum decay by black holes at high temperature,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 328, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5808-y [arXiv: 1706.01364 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    False vacuum decay catalyzed by black holes,

    K. Mukaida and M. Yamada, “False vacuum decay catalyzed by black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 103514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103514 [arXiv: 1706.04523 [hep-th]]. 17

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Electroweak vacuum collapse induced by vacuum fluctuations of the Higgs field around evaporating black holes,

    K. Kohri and H. Matsui, “Electroweak vacuum collapse induced by vacuum fluctuations of the Higgs field around evaporating black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 123509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123509 [arXiv: 1708.02138 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Connecting the Higgs potential and primor- dial black holes,

    D. C. Dai, R. Gregory and D. Stojkovic, “Connecting the Higgs potential and primor- dial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 125012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.125012 [arXiv: 1909.00773 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    On the quantum structure of a black hole,

    G. ’t Hooft, “On the quantum structure of a black hole,” Nucl. Phys. B 256 (1985) 727, doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(85)90418-3

    1985 doi

  6. [13]

    Near-horizon geometry and the entropy of a minimally coupled scalar field in the Schwarzschild black hole,

    K. Ghosh, “Near-horizon geometry and the entropy of a minimally coupled scalar field in the Schwarzschild black hole,” J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 85 (2016) 014101, doi: 10.7566/JPSJ.85.014101 [arXiv: 0902.1601 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Black holes, brick walls and the Boulware state,

    S. Mukohyama and W. Israel, “Black holes, brick walls and the Boulware state,” Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 104005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.104005 [arXiv: gr-qc/9806012 [gr- qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Brickwall, normal modes, and emerging thermality,

    S. Banerjee, S. Das, M. Dorband and A. Kundu, “Brickwall, normal modes, and emerging thermality,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 126020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.126020 [arXiv: 2401.01417 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Intermediate-mass black holes,

    J. E. Greene, J. Strader and L. C. Ho, “Intermediate-mass black holes,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58 (2020) 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 [arXiv: 1911.09678 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei: Past, present and future research,

    L. Ferrarese and H. Ford, “Supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei: Past, present and future research,” Space Sci. Rev. 116 (2005) 523, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-3947-6 [arXiv: astro-ph/0411247 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [18]

    The M-sigma and M-L relations in galactic bulges and determi- nations of their intrinsic scatter,

    K. Gultekin, et al. “The M-sigma and M-L relations in galactic bulges and determi- nations of their intrinsic scatter,” Astrophys. J. 698 (2009) 198, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/698/1/198 [arXiv: 0903.4897 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Coevolution (or not) of supermassive black holes and host galaxies,

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, “Coevolution (or not) of supermassive black holes and host galaxies,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 51 (2013) 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro- 082708-101811 [arXiv: 1304.7762 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Relativistic jets from active galactic nuclei,

    R. Blandford, D. Meier and A. Readhead, “Relativistic jets from active galactic nuclei,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57 (2019) 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 [arXiv: 1812.06025 [astro-ph.HE]]. 18

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Numerical simulations of jets,

    S. Komissarov and O. Porth, “Numerical simulations of jets,” New. Astr. Rev. 92 (2021) 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

    2021

  15. [22]

    A population of red candidate massive galaxies ˜600 Myr after the big bang,

    I. Labbe, et al. “A population of red candidate massive galaxies ˜600 Myr after the big bang,” Nature 616 (2023) 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2 [arXiv: 2207.12446 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A Comprehensive study of galaxies at z ∼ 9–16 found in the early JWST data: Ultraviolet luminosity functions and cosmic star formation history at the pre- reionization epoch,

    Y. Harikane, et al. “A Comprehensive study of galaxies at z ∼ 9–16 found in the early JWST data: Ultraviolet luminosity functions and cosmic star formation history at the pre- reionization epoch,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 265 (2023) 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 [arXiv: 2208.01...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    JADES. The diverse population of infant black holes at 4 <z<11: Merging, tiny, poor, but mighty,

    R. Maiolino, et al. “JADES. The diverse population of infant black holes at 4 <z<11: Merging, tiny, poor, but mighty,” [arXiv: 2308.01230 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    UNCOVER spectroscopy confirms the surprising ubiquity of active galactic nuclei in red sources at z > 5,

    J. E. Greene, et al. “UNCOVER spectroscopy confirms the surprising ubiquity of active galactic nuclei in red sources at z > 5,” Astrophys. J. 941 (2022) 106, doi: 10.3847/1538- 4357/ad1e5f

    2022 doi

  19. [26]

    Accelerating early massive galaxy formation with primordial black holes,

    B. Liu and V. Bromm, “Accelerating early massive galaxy formation with primordial black holes,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 937 (2022) L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac927f [arXiv: 2208.13178 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Quasars and the intergalactic medium at cosmic dawn,

    X. Fan, E. Banados and R. A. Simcoe, “Quasars and the intergalactic medium at cosmic dawn,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.61 (2023) 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920- 102455 [arXiv: 2212.06907 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A CEERS discovery of an accreting supermassive black hole 570 Myr after the big bang: Identifying a progenitor of massive z > 6 quasars,

    R. L. Larson et al. [CEERS Team], “A CEERS discovery of an accreting supermassive black hole 570 Myr after the big bang: Identifying a progenitor of massive z > 6 quasars,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 953 (2023) L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 [arXiv: 2303.08918 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    GA-NIFS: JWST discovers an offset AGN 740 million years after the big bang,

    H. ¨Ubler, et al.“GA-NIFS: JWST discovers an offset AGN 740 million years after the big bang,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531 (2024) 355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae943 [arXiv: 2312.03589 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    A Candidate for the least-massive black hole in the first 1.1 billion years of the universe,

    M. Onoue, et al.“A Candidate for the least-massive black hole in the first 1.1 billion years of the universe,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 942 (2023) L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d3 [arXiv: 2209.07325 [astro-ph.GA]]. 19

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe,

    R. Maiolino, et al. “A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe,” Nature 627 (2024) 59, [erratum: Nature 630 (2024) E2] doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07494-x [arXiv: 2305.12492 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Accelerated formation of ultra-massive galaxies in the first billion years,

    M. Xiao, et al.“Accelerated formation of ultra-massive galaxies in the first billion years,” Nature 635 (2024) 311, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08094-5

    2024 doi

  26. [33]

    Evidence for heavy-seed origin of early supermassive black holes from a z ≈ 10 X-ray quasar,

    A. Bogdan, et al. “Evidence for heavy-seed origin of early supermassive black holes from a z ≈ 10 X-ray quasar,” Nature Astron. 8 (2024) 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 [arXiv: 2305.15458 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    A high black hole to host mass ratio in a lensed AGN in the early Universe,

    L. J. Furtak, et al. “A high black hole to host mass ratio in a lensed AGN in the early Universe,” Nature 628 (2024) 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8 [arXiv: 2308.05735 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    A Candidate supermassive black hole in a gravitationally lensed galaxy at z ≈ 10,

    O. E. Kovacs, et al. “A Candidate supermassive black hole in a gravitationally lensed galaxy at z ≈ 10,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 965 (2024) L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f [arXiv: 2403.14745 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    The Mass distribution of stellar black holes,

    C. D. Bailyn, R. K. Jain, P. Coppi and J. A. Orosz, “The Mass distribution of stellar black holes,” Astrophys. J.499 (1998) 367, doi: 10.1086/305614 [arXiv: astro-ph/9708032 [astro-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  30. [37]

    The Black hole mass distribu- tion in the galaxy,

    F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan and J. E. McClintock, “The Black hole mass distribu- tion in the galaxy,” Astrophys. J. 725 (2010) 1918, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1918 [arXiv: 1006.2834 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [38]

    The Mass distribution of stellar-mass black holes,

    W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel and V. Kalogera, “The Mass distribution of stellar-mass black holes,” Astrophys. J. 741 (2011) 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/103 [arXiv: 1011.1459 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Missing Black Holes unveil the supernova explosion mechanism,

    K. Belczynski, G. Wiktorowicz, C. Fryer, D. Holz and V. Kalogera, “Missing Black Holes unveil the supernova explosion mechanism,” Astrophys. J. 757 (2012) 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/91 [arXiv: 1110.1635 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,

    S. L. Adler, “Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2426, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.177.2426

    1969 doi

  34. [41]

    A PCAC puzzle: π0 → γγ in the σ model,

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, “A PCAC puzzle: π0 → γγ in the σ model,” Nuovo Cim. A 60 (1969) 47, doi: 10.1007/BF02823296. 20

    1969 doi

  35. [42]

    Symmetry breaking through Bell-Jackiw anomalies,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Symmetry breaking through Bell-Jackiw anomalies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 8, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.8

    1976 doi

  36. [43]

    On the anomalous electroweak baryon number nonconservation in the early universe,

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On the anomalous electroweak baryon number nonconservation in the early universe,” Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985) 36, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(85)91028-7

    1985 doi

  37. [44]

    Baryogenesis without grand unification,

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis without grand unification,” Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 45, doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)91126-3

    1986 doi

  38. [45]

    Baryon asymmetry of the universe in standard electroweak theory,

    M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Baryon asymmetry of the universe in standard electroweak theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 287 (1987) 757, doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(87)90127-1

    1987 doi

  39. [46]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (Pergamon Press, Oxford 1975)

    1975

  40. [47]

    Topology in the Weinberg-Salam theory,

    N. S. Manton, “Topology in the Weinberg-Salam theory,” Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2019

    1983 doi

  41. [48]

    A Saddle point solution in the Weinberg-Salam theory,

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, “A Saddle point solution in the Weinberg-Salam theory,” Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 2212, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2212

    1984 doi

  42. [49]

    Standard model baryon number violation seeded by black holes,

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, “Standard model baryon number violation seeded by black holes,” Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021) 136454, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136454 [arXiv: 2102.07408 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021

  43. [50]

    Black holes as bubble nucleation sites,

    R. Gregory, I. G. Moss and B. Withers, “Black holes as bubble nucleation sites,” JHEP 03 (2014) 081, doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)081 [arXiv: 1401.0017 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay,

    S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, “Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay,” Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 3305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305

    1980 doi

  45. [52]

    Black holes and gravitational instantons,

    F. Mellor and I. Moss, “Black holes and gravitational instantons,” Class. Quant. Grav. 6 (1989) 1379, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/6/10/008

    1989 doi

  46. [53]

    Pair creation of dilaton black holes,

    F. Dowker, J. P. Gauntlett, D. A. Kastor and J. H. Traschen, “Pair creation of dilaton black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2909, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2909 [arXiv: hep- th/9309075 [hep-th]]

    1994

  47. [54]

    Open inflation without false vacua,

    S. W. Hawking and N. Turok, “Open inflation without false vacua,” Phys. Lett. B 425 (1998) 25, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00234-2 [arXiv: hep-th/9802030 [hep-th]]. 21

    1998 arXiv

  48. [55]

    The Fate of the false cacuum. 1. Semiclassical theory,

    S. R. Coleman, “The Fate of the false cacuum. 1. Semiclassical theory,” Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2929, [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1248] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1248

    1977 doi

  49. [56]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Springer, Clarendon, New York 1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Springer, Clarendon, New York 1983)

    1983

  50. [57]

    Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity(Addison- Wesley, San Francisco 2004)

    S. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity(Addison- Wesley, San Francisco 2004)

    2004

  51. [58]

    Poisson, A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004)

    E. Poisson, A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004)

    2004

  52. [59]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity(University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1984)

    1984

  53. [60]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco 1973)

    1973

  54. [61]

    Einstein’s hole argument and Schwarzschild singularities,

    M. Gogberashvili, “Einstein’s hole argument and Schwarzschild singularities,” Annals Phys. 452 (2023) 169274, doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2023.169274 [arXiv: 2303.10348 [gr-qc]]

    2023

  55. [62]

    J. F. Colombeau, New Generalized Functions and Multiplication of Distributions((Eslse- vier, North Holland, Amsterdam 1984)

    1984

  56. [63]

    J. F. Colombeau, Elementary Introduction to New Generalized Functions (Eslsevier, North Holland, Amsterdam 1985)

    1985

  57. [64]

    I. M. Gelfand and G. E. Schilov, Generalized Functions. Vol. I: Properties and Operations (Academic Press, New York - London 1964)

    1964

  58. [65]

    Energy-momentum tensor valued distributions for the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom geometries,

    N. R. Pantoja and H. Rago, “Energy-momentum tensor valued distributions for the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom geometries,” [arXiv: gr-qc/9710072 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  59. [66]

    Remarks on the distributional Schwarzschild geometry,

    J. M. Heinzle and R. Steinbauer, “Remarks on the distributional Schwarzschild geometry,” J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 1493, doi: 10.1063/1.1448684 [arXiv: gr-qc/0112047 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Was Polchinski wrong? Colombeau distributional Rindler space-time with distributional Levi-Civit´ a connection in- duced vacuum dominance. Unruh effect revisited,

    J. Foukzon, A. Potapov and E. Menkova, “Was Polchinski wrong? Colombeau distributional Rindler space-time with distributional Levi-Civit´ a connection in- duced vacuum dominance. Unruh effect revisited,” JHEPGC 4 (2018) 361, doi: 10.4236/jhepgc.2018.42023

    2018

  61. [68]

    Was Polchinski wrong? Colombeau distributional Rindler space-time with distributional Levi-Civit` a connection induced vacuum dominance. Unruh effect revisited,

    J. Foukzon, E. R. Men’kova, A. A. Potapov and S. A. Podosenov, “Was Polchinski wrong? Colombeau distributional Rindler space-time with distributional Levi-Civit` a connection induced vacuum dominance. Unruh effect revisited,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1141 (2018) 012100, doi: 10.108...

    2018 doi

  62. [69]

    Black hole information, unitarity, and nonlocality,

    S. B. Giddings, “Black hole information, unitarity, and nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 106005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.106005 [arXiv: hep-th/0605196 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Cool horizons for entangled black holes,

    J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “Cool horizons for entangled black holes,” Fortsch. Phys. 61 (2013) 781, doi: 10.1002/prop.201300020 [arXiv: 1306.0533 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Do black holes have singularities?,

    R. P. Kerr, “Do black holes have singularities?,” [arXiv: 2312.00841 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  65. [72]

    Testing the nature of dark compact objects: a status report,

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “Testing the nature of dark compact objects: a status report,” Living Rev. Rel. 22 (2019) 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0020-4 [arXiv: 1904.05363 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Spherical black holes with regular center: A Review of existing models including a recent realization with Gaussian sources,

    S. Ansoldi, “Spherical black holes with regular center: A Review of existing models including a recent realization with Gaussian sources,” [arXiv: 0802.0330 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  67. [74]

    Classical collapse to black holes and quantum bounces: A review,

    D. Malafarina, “Classical collapse to black holes and quantum bounces: A review,” Uni- verse 3 (2017) 48, doi: 10.3390/universe3020048 [arXiv: 1703.04138 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Black hole information problem and wave bursts,

    M. Gogberashvili and L. Pantskhava, “Black hole information problem and wave bursts,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 57 (2018) 1763, doi: 10.1007/s10773-018-3702-x [arXiv: 1608.04595 [physics.gen-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Can quantum particles cross a horizon?,

    M. Gogberashvili, “Can quantum particles cross a horizon?,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 58 (2019) 3711, doi: 10.1007/s10773-019-04242-0 [arXiv: 1712.02637 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Reflective black holes,

    R. Beradze, M. Gogberashvili and L. Pantskhava, “Reflective black holes,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36 (2021) 2150200, doi: 10.1142/S021773232150200X

    2021 doi

  71. [78]

    Quantum stress tensor in Schwarzschild space-time,

    K. W. Howard and P. Candelas, “Quantum stress tensor in Schwarzschild space-time,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.403

    1984 doi

  72. [79]

    The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,

    S. D. Mathur, “The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,” Fortsch. Phys. 53 (2005) 793, doi: 10.1002/prop.200410203 [arXiv: hep-th/0502050 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Black holes: Complementarity or firewalls?,

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, “Black holes: Complementarity or firewalls?,” JHEP 02 (2013) 062, doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062 [arXiv: 1207.3123 [hep- th]]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [81]

    On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravi- tating masses,

    A. Einstein, “On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravi- tating masses,” Ann. Math. 40 (1939) 922

    1939

  75. [82]

    On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory,

    K. Schwarzschild, “On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Kl. (1916) 189. 23

    1916

  76. [84]

    Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    1973 doi

  77. [85]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Perseus Books, Reading 1995)

    1995

  78. [86]

    M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014)

    2014

  79. [87]

    The Chern-Simons number as a dynamical vari- able,

    S. H. H. Tye and S. S. C. Wong, “The Chern-Simons number as a dynamical vari- able,” Ann. Math. Sci. Appl. 01 (2016) 123, doi: 10.4310/amsa.2016.v1.n1.a3 [arXiv: 1601.00418 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Evolutionary paths of active galactic nuclei and their host galaxies,

    M.-Y. Zhuang and L. C. Ho, “Evolutionary paths of active galactic nuclei and their host galaxies,” Nature Astronomy 7 (2023) 1376, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02051-4 [arXiv: 2308.08603 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Recipes for jet feedback and spin evolution of black holes with strongly magnetized super-Eddington accretion disks,

    A. Ricarte, R. Narayan and B. Curd, “Recipes for jet feedback and spin evolution of black holes with strongly magnetized super-Eddington accretion disks,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 954 (2023) L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5 [arXiv: 2307.04621 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Physical interpretation of the polarized ring,

    K. Akiyama, et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration], “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Physical interpretation of the polarized ring,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 964 (2024) L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    The assembly of the first massive black holes,

    K. Inayoshi, E. Visbal and Z. Haiman, “The assembly of the first massive black holes,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 58 (2020) 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 [arXiv: 1911.05791 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    The origins of massive black holes,

    M. Volonteri, M. Habouzit and M. Colpi, “The origins of massive black holes,” Nature Rev. Phys. 3 (2021) 732, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9 [arXiv: 2110.10175 [astro- ph.GA]]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    The evolution of massive black hole seeds,

    M. Volonteri, G. Lodato and P. Natarajan, “The evolution of massive black hole seeds,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 383 (2008) 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x [arXiv: 0709.0529 [astro-ph]]. 24

    2008

  86. [94]

    Modeling the cos- mological co-evolution of supermassive black holes and galaxies. 1. BH scaling relations and the AGN luminosity function,

    F. Marulli, S. Bonoli, E. Branchini, L. Moscardini and V. Springel, “Modeling the cos- mological co-evolution of supermassive black holes and galaxies. 1. BH scaling relations and the AGN luminosity function,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 385 (2008) 1846, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-29...

    2008

  87. [95]

    The hierarchical assembly of galaxies and black holes in the first billion years: predictions for the era of gravitational wave astronomy,

    P. Dayal, E. M. Rossi, B. Shiralilou, O. Piana, T. R. Choudhury and M. Volonteri, “The hierarchical assembly of galaxies and black holes in the first billion years: predictions for the era of gravitational wave astronomy,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486 (2019) 2336, doi: 10.1...

    2019 arXiv

  88. [96]

    The mass assembly of high- redshift black holes,

    O. Piana, P. Dayal, M. Volonteri and T. R. Choudhury, “The mass assembly of high- redshift black holes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500 (2020) 2146, doi: 10.1093/mn- ras/staa3363 [arXiv: 2009.13505 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    The low-end of the black hole mass function at cosmic dawn,

    A. Trinca, R. Schneider, R. Valiante, L. Graziani, L. Zappacosta and F. Shankar, “The low-end of the black hole mass function at cosmic dawn,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511 (2022) 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac062 [arXiv: 2201.02630 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Reconciling PTA and JWST and preparing for LISA with POM- POCO: a Parametrisation Of the Massive black hole POpulation for Comparison to Ob- servations,

    A. Toubiana, et al. “Reconciling PTA and JWST and preparing for LISA with POM- POCO: a Parametrisation Of the Massive black hole POpulation for Comparison to Ob- servations,” [arXiv: 2410.17916 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    The Many lives of AGN: Cooling flows, black holes and the luminosi- ties and colours of galaxies,

    D. J. Croton, et al.“The Many lives of AGN: Cooling flows, black holes and the luminosi- ties and colours of galaxies,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 365 (2006) 11, [erratum: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 367 (2006) 864] doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09994.x [arXiv: astro-ph/06020...

    2006

  92. [100]

    The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments,

    J. Schaye, et al.“The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 446 (2015) 521, doi: 10.1093/m- nras/stu2058 [arXiv: 1407.7040 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2015 arXiv

  93. [101]

    The Illustris simulation: the evolving population of black holes across cosmic time,

    D. Sijacki, et al. “The Illustris simulation: the evolving population of black holes across cosmic time,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 452 (2015) 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340 [arXiv: 1408.6842 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    What is the origin of the JWST SMBHs?,

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, J. Urrutia and V. Vaskonen, “What is the origin of the JWST SMBHs?,” [arXiv: 2410.24224 [astro-ph.CO]]

  95. [103]

    JWST CEERS and JADES active galaxies at z = 4–7 violate the local M • - M ⋆ relation at >3σ: Impli- 25 cations for low-mass black holes and seeding models,

    F. Pacucci, B. Nguyen, S. Carniani, R. Maiolino and X. Fan, “JWST CEERS and JADES active galaxies at z = 4–7 violate the local M • - M ⋆ relation at >3σ: Impli- 25 cations for low-mass black holes and seeding models,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 957 (2023) L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/a...

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    The Host galaxy of a dormant, overmassive black hole at z = 6.7 may be restarting star formation,

    F. Pacucci, A. Loeb and I. Juodˇ zbalis, “The Host galaxy of a dormant, overmassive black hole at z = 6.7 may be restarting star formation,” Res. Notes AAS 8 (2024) 105, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad3fb8 [arXiv: 2404.11643 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Late reheating, hadronic jets and baryogenesis,

    T. Asaka, D. Grigoriev, V. Kuzmin and M. Shaposhnikov, “Late reheating, hadronic jets and baryogenesis,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 101303, doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.92.101303 [arXiv: hep-ph/0310100 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Sphalerons, small fluctuations and baryon number vio- lation in electroweak theory,

    P. B. Arnold and L. D. McLerran, “Sphalerons, small fluctuations and baryon number vio- lation in electroweak theory,” Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 581, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.36.581

    1987 doi

  99. [107]

    The Hot baryon violation rate is O (alpha-w**5 T**4),

    P. B. Arnold, D. Son and L. G. Yaffe, “The Hot baryon violation rate is O (alpha-w**5 T**4),” Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 6264, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6264 [arXiv: hep- ph/9609481 [hep-ph]]

    1997

  100. [108]

    Sphaleron rate in the symmetric electroweak phase,

    G. D. Moore, “Sphaleron rate in the symmetric electroweak phase,” Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 085011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.085011 [arXiv: hep-ph/0001216 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Sphaleron rate in the minimal stan- dard model,

    M. D’Onofrio, K. Rummukainen and A. Tranberg, “Sphaleron rate in the minimal stan- dard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 141602, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.141602 [arXiv: 1404.3565 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff and O. Pene, “Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9 (1994) 795, doi: 10.1142/S0217732394000629 [arXiv: hep-ph/9312215 [hep-ph]]. 26

    1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.