Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Prospective sensitivity of CTAO on detection of evaporating primordial black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five years of no bursts would cap CTAO's primordial black hole burst-rate limit at 36.26 per cubic parsec per year.

desk verdict Useful CTAO projection undermined by an unstated definition of the search duration and a FOV formula that contradicts the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17478 v2 pith:STOJWBJV submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

Chen Yang , Jun-Da Pan , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords primordialblackholesHawkingradiationgamma-rayburstsCTAOlocalburstratedensityvery-high-energygammaraysIACTdarkmatter
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper calculates how well the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory could detect the final gamma-ray burst of an evaporating primordial black hole, and what a null result would mean. The authors argue that a five-year CTAO campaign with no detected bursts would rule out local PBH burst rate densities above about 36.26 bursts per cubic parsec per year at 99% confidence, using the South array for bursts with a remaining lifetime of 100 seconds. That limit is one to two orders of magnitude tighter than the LHAASO limit and the current HAWC constraints, and several times tighter than the projected SWGO sensitivity. The paper also identifies bursts with remaining lifetimes around 1000 seconds as CTAO's sweet spot and recommends dwelling on the same sky region for at least 1000 seconds. The result matters because a detection would be direct evidence that primordial black holes exist, while a tighter limit constrains the small-scale primordial density fluctuations that could produce them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the Poisson no-detection formula $\mathrm{UL}_{99} = 4.6/(V S)$: with no bursts seen, the 99% upper limit on the local burst rate density is 4.6 divided by the product of the detectable volume $V$ and the search duration $S$. The volume itself is built from Eq. (2.10), where the maximum detectable distance $r_{\max}$ follows from comparing the expected burst photon count $\mu(r,\theta_i,\tau)$ against the background through a detection threshold corrected for $N_t = (S/\tau)(\theta_{\rm fov}/\theta_{\rm res})^2$ trials. These two formulas turn the detector's effective area, background rate, field of view, angular resolution, and campaign length directly into a rate-density limit, which is why the result is sensitive to the assumed exposure time.

What would settle it

Recompute the 99% upper limit from Eq. (2.14) using $S$ equal to the realistic on-sky livetime of a five-year CTAO campaign rather than five calendar years, keeping everything else fixed; if the resulting limit exceeds the LHAASO value the paper quotes, the claimed one-order-of-magnitude improvement is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that CTAO's sensitivity to primordial black hole evaporation bursts is set by a volume-time trade-off: its field of view is small, so the maximum detectable distance is tiny, about 1.8 pc for the 100-second bursts, but the upper limit on the local burst rate density scales inversely with that volume times the five-year search duration. Combining the standard Hawking spectrum for the burst, CTAO's effective area and background rates, a Poisson trial correction for blind searches, and the requirement that a burst be bright enough to pass a 5-$\sigma$ threshold, the authors obtain a 99% confidence upper limit of $\dot{\rho} < 36.26\,\mathrm{pc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for the South array at $\tau = 100$ s. They further show that for bursts shorter than about 0.01 s, LHAASO remains more sensitive, while for longer bursts CTAO wins by one to two orders of magnitude; the North array is weaker by roughly an order of magnitude. Based on a correction for bursts longer than the integration window, the paper concludes that the optimal CTAO strategy is to integrate on one sky region for more than 1000 seconds.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the five-year campaign duration is the exposure time $S$ that enters the volume-time product; for a pointed telescope that only records data on dark, clear nights, that assumption is the load-bearing one, and a shorter real livetime would weaken the quoted limit almost in proportion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If no bursts are seen, the 99% upper limits in Table 1 become direct experimental targets: 36.26 bursts per cubic parsec per year for the South array at 100 seconds, rising to 6755 for 1-millisecond bursts.
  • For bursts with remaining lifetimes longer than about 0.01 seconds, CTAO's limits beat LHAASO's by one to two orders of magnitude; for shorter bursts, LHAASO stays ahead.
  • The optimal search strategy is to point CTAO at a single sky region for at least 1000 seconds, since that is the burst duration at which CTAO's constraints are strongest.
  • Any detection or improved limit on the local burst rate density translates into a constraint on the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations on scales far smaller than those probed by the cosmic microwave background.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the paper leaves implicit: if the five-year campaign is expressed in usable on-sky time rather than calendar time, the 36.26 figure scales linearly upward; for a pointed telescope observing only on dark, clear nights, the limit would weaken substantially, potentially eroding the claimed advantage over LHAASO.
  • The same volume-time identity implies the biggest sensitivity lever is the maximum detectable distance, because it enters cubed; improving the low-energy threshold or effective area would therefore pay off faster than extending the campaign.
  • The trial-count formula treats time bins of length equal to the burst lifetime; using shorter or adaptive binning may reduce the trials penalty for short bursts and is a testable optimization the paper mentions only as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper projects the sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) to the local burst rate density of evaporating primordial black holes (PBHs). Using the standard evaporation model, a Poisson detection criterion with trial-factor correction, and public CTAO instrument response functions, the authors compute the maximum detectable distance and the 99% CL upper limit on the local PBH burst rate density for the CTAO South and North arrays for remaining lifetimes from 10^-3 s to 100 s (Table 1), with additional approximate corrections for longer lifetimes up to 10^5 s. They find a headline 5-year limit for the South array of rho_dot < 36.26 pc^-3 yr^-1 at tau = 100 s, claim an improvement of one to two orders of magnitude over LHAASO and HAWC, and propose an observational strategy favoring long (>10^3 s) exposures of the same sky region.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a useful and falsifiable projection for CTAO: a five-year campaign with no detected bursts would exclude rho_dot > 36.26 pc^-3 yr^-1 at 99% confidence, assuming the quoted effective areas, background rates, and exposure duration are accurate. The paper's main strengths are its transparency (the derivation from the source spectrum to the upper limit is spelled out in Section 2), its use of public CTAO performance data, and the absence of any parameter fitted to the target sensitivity; the trial-factor and Poisson formulæ follow the established literature. However, the two ambiguities discussed below (the definition of S and the field-of-view formula) must be resolved before the headline number can be taken at face value. The projected improvement over existing wide-field instruments is interesting but currently rests on an unverified duty-cycle assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.12) and Table 1] The written definition of the field of view as FOV(theta_i) = 2*pi*(cos theta_i,min - cos theta_i,max) describes a full-sky zenith annulus, appropriate for an all-sky monitor, not the ~4-8 degree instantaneous field of view of a pointed IACT. The numerical results in Table 1, however, are consistent with a single pointing cone of ~7.5 degree diameter; for the South tau=100 s row, the volume implied by r_max=1.782 pc, S=5 yr, and UL=36.26 pc^-3 yr^-1 gives Omega_eff ~ 0.013 sr. The paper must reconcile this discrepancy by replacing Eq. (2.12) with the actual pointing-cone solid angle (or by defining the zenith-band binning and survey strategy explicitly); as written, the formula would overestimate the search volume by orders of magnitude and the derivation is not reproducible as stated.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (2.8) and (2.14)] The paper never states whether the search duration S is calendar time or effective livetime. Because CTAO is a pointed IACT, a five-year calendar campaign yields only roughly 0.5-1.0 yr of on-sky livetime (a duty cycle of 10-20%). Since UL_99 = 4.6/(V S), the headline 36.26 pc^-3 yr^-1 scales linearly with S; with S=0.5 yr it becomes ~360 pc^-3 yr^-1, which would remove the claimed one-to-two-order-of-magnitude improvement over LHAASO. The paper's own Section 4 applies a nighttime-visibility correction for tau=10^5 s bursts, but no analogous duty-cycle factor is applied to S; this internal inconsistency must be addressed, and the reported limits should be labeled as calendar-time or livetime projections.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Table 1 / Conclusions] The claim that tau=100 s yields the best constraint is not supported by the numbers shown. Section 4 states that without the approximate correction, the strongest constraint would come from tau=10^3 s, yet the corrected limits for tau=10^3-10^5 s are not tabulated, so the reader cannot verify that 36.26 pc^-3 yr^-1 is the minimum after all corrections. The corrected values should be listed (or plotted with numerical labels) and the conclusion should identify the exact lifetime, integration-window, and correction assumptions that produce the quoted best limit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 1 (last paragraph)] The sentence 'Section 4 outlines the expected sensitivities of CTAO' is incorrect: the sensitivities are presented in Section 3, while Section 4 is the Discussion.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract states an improvement of 'one order of magnitude' over LHAASO, while the Conclusions claim 'one to two orders of magnitude'; these statements should be harmonized after the duty-cycle question is settled.
  3. [Sec. 3] The phrase '50-hour photon effective area of CTAO after gamma/hadron separation' is ambiguous: the 50-hour point-source sensitivity is not an effective area per se, so the authors should clarify whether they used the point-source effective-area curve or the differential sensitivity, and how the 50-hour normalization relates to the assumed S.
  4. [Sec. 4] The '50% correction' for tau=10^3 s and 10^4 s is not clearly derived: if the integration window is Delta t = 10^2 s, the fraction of photons collected from a tau=10^3 s burst should be about 10%, not 50%; the correction scheme should be defined in terms of the search-window function.
  5. [Eq. (2.8)] The trial-factor expression uses (theta_fov/theta_res)^2 but does not specify whether theta_res is the point-spread-function resolution or the angular bin size; this should be stated for reproducibility.
  6. [Table 1 and text] The units of S are described as '3-yr' and '5-yr' but the equations use seconds; the text should state the unit conversion explicitly (e.g., 5 yr = 1.58 x 10^8 s).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the CTAO sensitivity is computed from external instrument response and standard PBH burst formulas; only a minor self-citation appears as a comparative benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The spectrum dN/dE in Eq. (2.3) is taken from Ref. [36]; the effective area A(E,θ_i) and background rate R_b(θ_i) are taken from public CTAO performance files (Refs. [37,38]); the trial factor N_t in Eq. (2.8) follows Ref. [30]; and the upper-limit formula UL_99 = 4.6/(V S) is the standard Poisson 99% C.L. factor from Ref. [26]. No parameter is fitted to the target sensitivity, and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The detection criterion and volume integral (Eqs. (2.5)-(2.14)) are standard statistical constructs. The only self-citation is the concluding comparison: 'This result is one to two orders of magnitude better than the constraint obtained by LHAASO, as predicted in Ref. [31]' (Ref. [31] is the authors' previous LHAASO projection paper). That cited limit is used as a benchmark, not as an input to the CTAO calculation, so it is not load-bearing. The manuscript's duty-cycle and field-of-view ambiguities (e.g., whether S in Eqs. (2.8)/(2.14) is calendar time or livetime, and the written FOV formula in Eq. (2.12) versus the Table 1 values) are correctness risks rather than circularity, since they do not make the output equivalent to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard Hawking spectra, Poisson statistics, public CTAO response files, and several hand-set parameters including dead time, integration window, and long-burst correction factors. No new entities are introduced. The most consequential unstated premise is that S in the 3- and 5-year limits is effective exposure time rather than calendar time.

free parameters (3)
  • dead_time_fraction_f = 0 (assumed)
    Set to zero in Eq. (2.4) with no support; a nonzero dead time would reduce detected photon counts and shrink the maximum detectable distance.
  • integration_window_delta_t = 100 s
    Chosen by hand following Ref. [40]; determines which bursts are fully contained and which require corrections.
  • long_burst_correction_fractions = 0.5 for tau=10^3-10^4 s; 0.5 times 0.5 = 0.25 for tau=10^5 s
    Ad hoc factors applied in Section 4 for bursts longer than the integration window and for nighttime gaps; no demonstrated derivation from a stated search-window model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard evaporation model (SEM) with only Standard Model particles emitted during Hawking evaporation.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to restrict the particle content; alternative extensions such as extra dimensions, hidden sectors, and SUSY are excluded.
  • domain assumption The time-integrated gamma-ray spectrum of Eq. (2.3) is a valid description of the full burst emission.
    Taken from Petkov et al. [36]; the central distance and volume calculation integrates this spectrum.
  • domain assumption PBHs are uniformly distributed in the local neighborhood.
    Used to convert the Poisson probability of zero detections into a rate-density upper limit in Eq. (2.13).
  • standard math Poisson statistics and statistical independence of the N_t trials.
    Equations (2.5)-(2.8) define the detection threshold; the approximation p_c = p_0 / N_t requires N_t p_c much less than 1.
  • domain assumption CTAO public effective area, background rate, and field of view from Refs. [37-39] represent the future observatory.
    These are the key inputs for r_max and V in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Bursts can be treated in the on-axis, point-source response regime.
    The paper restricts to idealized on-axis response and notes off-axis effects can reduce sensitivity by about a factor of two.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospective sensitivity of CTAO on detection of evaporating primordial black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STOJWBJV

@misc{pith2026250417478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospective sensitivity of CTAO on detection of evaporating primordial black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STOJWBJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17478}
}
abstract

As the lifetime of a black hole decreases, the energy of the Hawking radiation it emits increases, ultimately culminating in its disappearance through a powerful burst of gamma rays. For primordial black holes (PBHs) with an initial mass of $\sim 5\times10^{14}$ g, their lifespans are expected to end in the present epoch. Detecting such PBH bursts would provide compelling evidence of their existence. The Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) has the potential to observe these bursts at the high-energy end of the gamma-ray spectrum. To investigate this possibility, we conduct a study to evaluate the sensitivity of CTAO to the local burst rate density of PBHs. Our results suggest that during a 5-year observational campaign, CTAO could exclude a local burst rate density exceeding $\sim 36\ \mathrm{pc}^{-3}\ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, which represents an improvement of one order of magnitude over the upper limit set by the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO). In addition, we propose an observation strategy optimized for detecting PBH bursts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass , Mon

    S. Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152 (1971) 75

    1971

  2. [2]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Constraints on primordial black holes , Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) 116902 [ 2002.12778]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Primordial black holes as dark matter candidates , SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 48 (2022) 1 [ 2110.02821]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Green, Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate - a brief overview , Nuclear Physics B 1003 (2024) 116494

    A.M. Green, Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate - a brief overview , Nuclear Physics B 1003 (2024) 116494

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Carr and A.M

    B.J. Carr and A.M. Green, The history of primordial black holes , in Primordial Black Holes , p. 3–33, Springer Nature Singapore (2025), DOI

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Esteban-Guti´ errez, E

    A. Esteban-Guti´ errez, E. Mediavilla, J. Jim´ enez-Vicente and J.A. Mu˜ noz,Constraints on the Abundance of Primordial Black Holes from X-Ray Quasar Microlensing Observations: Substellar to Planetary Mass Range , The Astrophysical Journal 954 (2023) 172

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Agius, R

    D. Agius, R. Essig, D. Gaggero, F. Scarcella, G. Suczewski and M. Valli, Feedback in the dark: a critical examination of CMB bounds on primordial black holes , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (2024) 003

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Villanueva-Domingo, O

    P. Villanueva-Domingo, O. Mena and S. Palomares-Ruiz, A brief review on primordial black holes as dark matter , Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 8 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Luque, J

    P.D.l.T. Luque, J. Koechler and S. Balaji, Refining Galactic primordial black hole evaporation constraints, Physical Review D 110 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Pbhbounds

    B.J. Kavanagh, “Pbhbounds.” 10.5281/zenodo.3538999

    doi

  3. [11]

    Hawking, Black hole explosions , Nature 248 (1974) 30

    S.W. Hawking, Black hole explosions , Nature 248 (1974) 30

    1974

  4. [12]

    MacGibbon and B.R

    J.H. MacGibbon and B.R. Webber, Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes: The instantaneous spectra, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 3052

    1990

  5. [13]

    MacGibbon, Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes

    J.H. MacGibbon, Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes. 2. The Lifetime emission, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 376

    1991

  6. [14]

    Ukwatta, D.R

    T.N. Ukwatta, D.R. Stump, J.T. Linnemann, J.H. MacGibbon, S.S. Marinelli, T. Yapici et al., Primordial Black Holes: Observational Characteristics of The Final Evaporation , Astropart. Phys. 80 (2016) 90 [ 1510.04372]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    CTA Consortium collaboration, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , WSP (11, 2018), 10.1142/10986, [ 1709.07997]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    CTA Consortium collaboration, The Cherenkov Telescope Array, in 16th Rencontres du Vietnam: Theory meeting experiment: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology , 4, 2020 [2004.09213]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    CTA Observatory, CTA Consortium, LST collaboration, CTA – the World’s largest ground-based gamma-ray observatory, PoS ICRC2021 (2022) 005. – 10 –

    2022

  10. [18]

    S. Wang, T. Terada and K. Kohri, Prospective constraints on the primordial black hole abundance from the stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds produced by coalescing events and curvature perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 103531 [ 1903.05924]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B.J. Carr, Primordial black holes: Do they exist and are they useful? , in 59th Yamada Conference on Inflating Horizon of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology , 11, 2005 [astro-ph/0511743]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B.J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 104019 [ 0912.5297]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant, LHC Machine, JINST 3 (2008) S08001

    2008

  14. [22]

    Linton et al., A new search for primordial black hole evaporations using the Whipple gamma-ray telescope, JCAP 01 (2006) 013

    E.T. Linton et al., A new search for primordial black hole evaporations using the Whipple gamma-ray telescope, JCAP 01 (2006) 013

    2006

  15. [23]

    Alexandreas et al., New limit on the rate density of evaporating black holes , Phys

    D.E. Alexandreas et al., New limit on the rate density of evaporating black holes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 2524

    1993

  16. [24]

    collaboration, Search for the evaporation of primordial black holes with H.E.S.S

    H.E.S.S. collaboration, Search for the evaporation of primordial black holes with H.E.S.S. , JCAP 04 (2023) 040 [ 2303.12855]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Amenomori, M and Cao, Z and Dai, BZ and Ding, LK and Feng, YX and Feng, ZY and Hibino, K and Hotta, N and Huang, Q and Huo, AX and others, Search for 10 TeV gamma bursts from evaporating primordial black holes with the Tibet air shower array , in 24th International Cosmic Ray ...

    1995

  18. [26]

    Abdo et al., Milagro Limits and HAWC Sensitivity for the Rate-Density of Evaporating Primordial Black Holes , Astropart

    A.A. Abdo et al., Milagro Limits and HAWC Sensitivity for the Rate-Density of Evaporating Primordial Black Holes , Astropart. Phys. 64 (2015) 4 [ 1407.1686]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    VERITAS collaboration, Search for Primordial Black Hole Evaporation with VERITAS , PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 691 [ 1709.00307]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Search for Gamma-Ray Emission from Local Primordial Black Holes with the Fermi Large Area Telescope , Astrophys. J. 857 (2018) 49 [ 1802.00100]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    HA WCcollaboration, Constraining the Local Burst Rate Density of Primordial Black Holes with HAWC, JCAP 04 (2020) 026 [ 1911.04356]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    SWGO collaboration, The Southern Wide-field Gamma-ray Observatory reach for Primordial Black Hole evaporation, PoS ICRC2021 (2022) 891

    2022

  23. [31]

    C. Yang, S. Wang, M.-L. Zhao and X. Zhang, Search for the Hawking radiation of primordial black holes: prospective sensitivity of LHAASO , JCAP 10 (2024) 083 [ 2408.10897]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mukherjee and R

    R. Mukherjee and R. Zanin, Advances in Very High Energy Astrophysics: The Science Program of the Third Generation IACTs for Exploring Cosmic Gamma Rays , WORLD SCIENTIFIC (Aug., 2018), 10.1142/11141

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Cassanyes, MAGIC sensitivity to Primordial Black Hole bursts and modelization of BH chromospheres and gamma-ray emission spectra, Master’s thesis, 2015

    M. Cassanyes, MAGIC sensitivity to Primordial Black Hole bursts and modelization of BH chromospheres and gamma-ray emission spectra, Master’s thesis, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  27. [35]

    Halzen, E

    F. Halzen, E. Zas, J.H. MacGibbon and T.C. Weekes, Gamma-rays and energetic particles from primordial black holes , Nature 353 (1991) 807

    1991

  28. [36]

    Petkov et al., Searching for Very-High-Energy Gamma-Ray Bursts from Evaporating Primordial Black Holes , Astron

    V.B. Petkov et al., Searching for Very-High-Energy Gamma-Ray Bursts from Evaporating Primordial Black Holes , Astron. Lett. 34 (2008) 509 [ 0808.3093]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cta observatory performance

    C.T.A. Consortium, “Cta observatory performance.”

  30. [38]

    The technology behind the next generation very high-energy gamma-ray detector

    C.T.A. Consortium, “The technology behind the next generation very high-energy gamma-ray detector.” – 11 –

  31. [39]

    10.5281/zenodo.5499840

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory and Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Ctao instrument response functions - prod5 version v0.1 , 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5499840

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    observations , PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 518

    HESS collaboration, Limits on primordial black hole evaporation from H.E.S.S. observations , PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 518. – 12 –

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.