Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The submission advertises a 1,000-image food benchmark with a 12.1-point model win, but the full text argues instead that the gravitational-wave event GW231123 is a primordial black hole merger.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The abstract promises a food-image benchmark and a winning model, but the manuscript pages contain only a different paper on primordial black holes, leaving every benchmark claim unsubstantiated.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The submitted text does not contain the benchmark it advertises: title and abstract describe a food dataset, while the body is an unrelated astrophysics paper, so there is nothing to referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.09966 v1 pith:JIQN6HSG submitted 2025-08-13 cs.CV cs.AI

January Food Benchmark (JFB): A Public Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Suite for Multimodal Food Analysis

Amir Hosseinian , Ashkan Dehghani Zahedani , Umer Mansoor , Noosheen Hashemi , Mark Woodward This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords January Food Benchmarkfood image analysismultimodal evaluationvision-language modelprimordial black holesGW231123accretion spin-upmass-spin correlation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Judged by its abstract, this submission tries to establish the January Food Benchmark (JFB): a public set of 1,000 food images with human-validated annotations, a metric suite culminating in an application-oriented Overall Score, and evidence that a specialized model reaches 86.2, beating the best general-purpose configuration by 12.1 points. Judged by its body, the submission actually argues in a different domain: the heavy, fast-spinning binary black hole event GW231123 can be explained as two primordial black holes that accreted gas over cosmic time, with a predicted mass-spin correlation and on the order of 20 similar events expected in the next observing run. The two contents never meet: the manuscript text contains no dataset description, no metric definitions, no baseline table, and no model specification for the advertised benchmark. What carries the physics claim is accretion spin-up through a thin disk, which the paper itself flags as model-dependent. A reader therefore cannot take the benchmark result as established by this text, while the gravitational-wave analysis stands or falls on thin-disk accretion and the assumed accretion cut-off.

Core claim

On the full text's own terms, the discovery claim is that primordial black holes with small initial spins, formed in a radiation-dominated era, can acquire the observed masses and spins of GW231123 through cosmological baryonic accretion. Using a Bondi-Hoyle binary accretion rate and a thin-disk geodesic spin-up equation, the authors show that an order-one gain in mass suffices to spin a black hole up; an explicitly log-normal mass function peaked around $73\,M_\odot$ with width $\sigma=0.2$ yields a merger rate consistent with the event's inferred rate while placing the required dark-matter fraction just at the boundary of x-ray and CMB exclusion limits. On the abstract's own terms, the cla

What carries the argument

The engine of the physics argument is the thin-disk accretion spin-up equation $\dot{\chi}_j = g(\chi_j)\,\dot m_j/m_j$, with $g(\chi)$ derived from geodesic accretion onto a rotating black hole; it is fed by a Bondi-Hoyle binary mass-accretion rate $\dot m_{\rm bin} = 4\pi\lambda\,m_H n_{\rm gas} v_{\rm eff}^{-3} m_{\rm bin}^2$, with unequal components so the smaller black hole accretes more efficiently and the mass ratio rises. A redshift cut-off $z_{\rm cut-off}$ (fiducially 24) marks where accretion stops. The advertised benchmark's counterpart engine would be the 'Overall Score' composite, but its weights, submetrics, and evaluation protocol are not present in the submitted text.

Load-bearing premise

For the abstract's benchmark result, the load-bearing premise is that the 1,000 images, their human-validated labels, and the Overall Score weights define a fair, pre-specified test that the specialized model was not tuned against; for the physics body, the comparable premise is that accretion proceeds through a thin disk at the assumed efficiency up to the chosen redshift cut-off.

What would settle it

The cleanest check on the benchmark claim is to release the dataset, label protocol, score weights, and train/test split, then rerun the specialized model and the general-purpose models on a fresh split; if the 12.1-point gap disappears, the advertised result collapses. The cleanest check on the physics claim is the next observing run: on the order of 20 high-mass mergers with the predicted mass-spin correlation would confirm, complete absence would falsify, and including radiative feedback in the accretion model would test the driving mechanism directly.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If GW231123 is a primordial merger, the next gravitational-wave observing run should detect on the order of 20 additional high-mass binaries whose spins follow the predicted mass-spin correlation.
  • Next-generation detectors should observe similar events at high redshift, testing whether a single accretion model explains the whole population.
  • Because the required abundance sits at the boundary of x-ray and CMB exclusion, improved non-gravitational observations could confirm or rule out the primordial interpretation independently of gravitational waves.
  • If the abstract's food-benchmark claim were backed by the missing materials, the field would gain a fixed evaluation target on which purpose-built food models can be compared against general vision-language models; the advertised 12.1-point gap would be the headline baseline.
  • The prediction that accretion raises the mass ratio over time implies primordial binaries explaining GW231123 cannot have a small mass ratio, a population-level signature that future data can check.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A referee-visible release of the JFB dataset, label taxonomy, annotator agreement, Overall Score weights, and evaluation split is a precondition for the 12.1-point result to mean anything; absent that, the score is an untestable number.
  • The physics claim suggests a concrete extension: a joint Bayesian comparison of the thin-disk accretion model with hierarchical-merger models, using the full catalog's mass-spin distribution, would say which scenario the data favor rather than whether one event fits.
  • The fidelity of the accretion model itself is the soft spot to test: recomputing GW231123's predicted spins with radiative feedback or with thicker disks would show whether the match is robust.
  • If the benchmark is later released, a natural first use is measuring how much of the specialized model's lead comes from domain-specific training versus simple prompt or answer formatting, by running the same model under both general and food-specific protocols.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript as submitted has a title and abstract announcing the January Food Benchmark (JFB): a publicly available 1,000-image food dataset with human-validated annotations, a composite Overall Score, baseline evaluations of general-purpose VLMs, and a specialized model january/food-vision-v1 that achieves an Overall Score of 86.2 (12.1 points above general-purpose baselines). The full text, however, is an unrelated astrophysics paper, arXiv:2508.09965v2, 'GW231123: A Possible Primordial Black Hole Origin' by De Luca, Franciolini, and Riotto. The body contains equations (1)–(10), figures, and references on primordial black hole accretion and merger rates, with no mention of food, benchmarks, datasets, metrics, baselines, or the claimed model. None of the abstract's claims is therefore checkable in the submitted text.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were substantiated, the paper would offer the community a standardized evaluation dataset and a demonstration that a task-specific food model outperforms general-purpose VLMs on an application-oriented composite score. Such a contribution could be valuable for automated nutritional analysis. However, as submitted, the paper cannot be assessed on those merits because the body does not contain the dataset, the metric definitions, the baseline configurations, the model description, or the evaluation protocol. The significance of the claimed result is entirely unverifiable. The submission also cannot be treated as a physics paper, because the advertised subject is a computer vision benchmark, not primordial black holes. This is not a marginal issue of presentation; the manuscript's central promise is unsupported by its content.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Full Text] The abstract claims three contributions—a public 1,000-image benchmark (JFB) with human-validated annotations, a comprehensive benchmarking framework with a novel Overall Score, and baseline results including a specialized model january/food-vision-v1 achieving 86.2. None of these appears in the body. The full text is an astrophysics paper on GW231123, with equations and figures on PBH accretion and no mention of food, images, annotations, metrics, or the specialized model. The central claim of the manuscript is therefore entirely unsupported by the submitted text.
  2. [Overall Score and Experimental Results] The headline result—Overall Score of 86.2 and a 12.1-point improvement over the best general-purpose configuration—has no supporting details in the body. There is no definition of the Overall Score, no description of the score weights or how they were chosen, no list of general-purpose VLMs, no evaluation split, and no description of the specialized model's architecture or training. Without these, the result cannot be reproduced or independently checked, and the possibility of circularity (e.g., tuning the score or image selection to the model) cannot be ruled out from the submitted material.
  3. [Manuscript Coherence] The submission is internally inconsistent: the title and abstract describe a food benchmark, while the body is a primordial black hole paper. This is not a stylistic or organizational issue; the manuscript as a whole does not constitute a coherent paper on either topic. A reader cannot evaluate the benchmark claims because the relevant content is absent, and the physics content is not presented as the subject of the paper. The submission needs to be replaced or completely rewritten to match the abstract.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that JFB is 'publicly available' but provides no URL, repository, or DOI. If this is a benchmark paper, a link to the dataset is essential.
  2. [Full text] The body has several typographical issues (e.g., 'detectO(20)' missing a space) and the flow of figures and equations is not self-contained, but these are minor relative to the central mismatch.
  3. [References] The reference list is entirely astrophysical; there are no references to food image datasets, vision-language model benchmarks, or nutritional analysis. This further confirms that the body does not support the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction in the submitted text; the abstract's benchmark claims are unsupported by the body, which is a completeness/integrity issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

The abstract announces the January Food Benchmark, an overall-score metric, and a specialized model achieving 86.2, but the supplied body is arXiv:2508.09965v2, a PBH/GW physics paper. There is therefore no derivation chain connecting the abstract's benchmark claims to any equations or experimental protocol; this is missing content, not circularity. In the physics body itself, no equation is defined in terms of its own output. The lognormal mass function in Eq. (10) is an explicitly acknowledged ansatz: the authors state M*=73 M_sun and sigma=0.2 are 'not uniquely determined.' The merger rate is matched to the observed GW231123 rate to fix f_PBH, the spin evolution in Eq. (6) follows the standard thin-disk geodesic accretion prescription, and the O(20) O5 forecast is a model projection from those stated assumptions rather than a renamed input. Self-citations such as [48,49] motivate accretion parameters, but they are accompanied by external references and by explicit caveats about large accretion-model uncertainties, so no load-bearing circular self-citation chain is present. The central problem with this submission is that the abstract's advertised dataset, metrics, baselines, and model results do not appear anywhere in the body; that is an evidentiary gap and a serious integrity concern, but it is not a circularity of the kind this pass is asked to detect.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The food-benchmark central claim rests on parameters that do not exist in the manuscript (score weights, annotation protocol, evaluation splits), so the ledger cannot audit them. The physics body, if read as the actual content, rests on the authors' own prior accretion and spin models plus hand-chosen mass-function parameters; the text itself concedes that M*, sigma, and z_cutoff are not uniquely determined and that feedback uncertainties are large.

free parameters (5)
  • Overall Score metric weights = not provided
    The abstract's headline contribution is a 'novel, application-oriented overall score'; the weights combining component metrics into the single 86.2 number are not given anywhere, and they determine the advertised 12.1-point gap.
  • M* (log-normal PBH mass scale) = 73 solar masses
    Chosen in the body so the accreted mass distribution peaks near the GW231123 mass range; the paper states these parameters are 'not uniquely determined.'
  • sigma (log-normal width) = 0.2
    Co-chosen with M* to illustrate consistency with GW231123; the paper concedes similar agreement can be obtained with other values.
  • z_cutoff (accretion cut-off redshift) = 24
    Fiducial benchmark adopted from the authors' prior accretion studies; the text says it 'could be traded for more physical quantities.'
  • lambda (Bondi-Hoyle accretion efficiency) = not stated numerically
    A parameter of the accretion rate in Eq. (3) absorbing gas viscosity, Hubble expansion, Compton coupling, and DM-halo catalysis; adopted from prior work by the same authors rather than derived here.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Initial PBH spins at formation are small, per Eq. (1) and the surrounding discussion.
    The spin-up narrative requires observed high spins to come from accretion; the paper states explicitly that it assumes 'the initial spin of the PBHs at formation to be small.'
  • domain assumption A log-normal mass function (Eq. 10) adequately describes the initial PBH mass distribution.
    Used to compute the merger rate and the O(20) forecast; the paper itself calls it a 'phenomenological model' with hand-chosen parameters.
  • domain assumption Thin-disk geodesic accretion governs spin evolution (Eq. 6) during mildly super-Eddington accretion.
    The spin-up to chi ~ 0.9 depends on disk geometry; the paper notes that feedback effects could reduce accretion or induce thick-disk formation, which would change the result.
  • domain assumption The binary accretes as a single Bondi-Hoyle object with the mass partitioning of Eq. (2).
    This makes the less massive component accrete more efficiently and drive the mass ratio upward, which shapes the mass-spin curves in Fig. 1.
  • standard math Standard PBH binary merger-rate formalism (Peters; refs 63, 85 to 89) applies after accretion.
    Eq. (8) matching the inferred GW231123 rate fixes fPBH; the formalism is prior literature, but its combination with the fitted mass function produces the forecast.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of January Food Benchmark (JFB): A Public Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Suite for Multimodal Food Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIQN6HSG

@misc{pith2026250809966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: January Food Benchmark (JFB): A Public Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Suite for Multimodal Food Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIQN6HSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09966}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Progress in AI for automated nutritional analysis is critically hampered by the lack of standardized evaluation methodologies and high-quality, real-world benchmark datasets. To address this, we introduce three primary contributions. First, we present the January Food Benchmark (JFB), a publicly available collection of 1,000 food images with human-validated annotations. Second, we detail a comprehensive benchmarking framework, including robust metrics and a novel, application-oriented overall score designed to assess model performance holistically. Third, we provide baseline results from both general-purpose Vision-Language Models (VLMs) and our own specialized model, january/food-vision-v1. Our evaluation demonstrates that the specialized model achieves an Overall Score of 86.2, a 12.1-point improvement over the best-performing general-purpose configuration. This work offers the research community a valuable new evaluation dataset and a rigorous framework to guide and benchmark future developments in automated nutritional analysis.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. FAM-Bench: A Multimodal Benchmark for Condition-Aware Food-as-Medicine Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    FAM-Bench introduces 2500 nutrition-expert-verified multimodal instances across 13 conditions for dish suitability assessment and comparative ranking tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 114 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), GW231123: A Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190-265M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    W. A. Fowler and F. Hoyle, Neutrino Processes and Pair Formation in Massive Stars and Supernovae., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement9, 201 (1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    Barkat, G

    Z. Barkat, G. Rakavy, and N. Sack, Dynamics of Su- pernova Explosion Resulting from Pair Formation, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 379 (1967)

    1967

  4. [4]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, The Pair-Instability Mass Gap for Black Holes, Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L31 (2021), arXiv:2103.07933 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the 7 Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the 7 Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Wadekar, J

    D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics, (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of150M⊙, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of150M⊙, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    M. C. Miller and D. P. Hamilton, Production of intermediate-mass black holes in globular clusters, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.330, 232 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0106188

    arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    Fishbach, D

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and B. Farr, Are LIGO’s Black Holes Made From Smaller Black Holes?, Astrophys. J. Lett.840, L24 (2017), arXiv:1703.06869 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Mckernanet al., Constraining Stellar-mass Black Hole Mergers in AGN Disks Detectable with LIGO, Astrophys

    B. Mckernanet al., Constraining Stellar-mass Black Hole Mergers in AGN Disks Detectable with LIGO, Astrophys. J.866, 66 (2018), arXiv:1702.07818 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Gerosa and E

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06223 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    C. L. Rodriguez, M. Zevin, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chat- terjee, K. Kremer, F. A. Rasio, and C. S. Ye, Black holes: The next generation—repeated mergers in dense star clusters and their gravitational-wave properties, Phys. Rev. D100, 043027 (2019), arXiv:1906.10260 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Antonini and F

    F. Antonini and F. A. Rasio, Merging black hole binaries in galactic nuclei: implications for advanced-LIGO detec- tions, Astrophys. J.831, 187 (2016), arXiv:1606.04889 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Antonini, M

    F. Antonini, M. Gieles, and A. Gualandris, Black hole growth through hierarchical black hole mergers in dense star clusters: implications for gravitational wave detec- tions, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 5008 (2019), arXiv:1811.03640 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Fragione and J

    G. Fragione and J. Silk, Repeated mergers and ejection of black holes within nuclear star clusters, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 4591 (2020), arXiv:2006.01867 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Mapelli, F

    M. Mapelli, F. Santoliquido, Y. Bouffanais, M. A. Sedda, M. C. Artale, and A. Ballone, Mass and Rate of Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in Young, Globular and Nuclear Star Clusters, Symmetry13, 1678 (2021), arXiv:2007.15022 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Arca Sedda, F

    M. Arca Sedda, F. P. Rizzuto, T. Naab, J. Ostriker, M. Giersz, and R. Spurzem, Breaching the Limit: Formation of GW190521-like and IMBH Mergers in Young Massive Clusters, Astrophys. J.920, 128 (2021), arXiv:2105.07003 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Kritos, E

    K. Kritos, E. Berti, and J. Silk, Massive black hole assembly in nuclear star clusters, Phys. Rev. D108, 083012 (2023), arXiv:2212.06845 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Mahapatra, D

    P. Mahapatra, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gupta, M. Favata, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. G. Arun, Predictions of a simple parametric model of hierarchical black hole merg- ers, Phys. Rev. D111, 023013 (2025), arXiv:2209.05766 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Bartos, B

    I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, and S. Márka, Rapid and Bright Stellar-mass Binary Black Hole Mergers in Active Galactic Nuclei, Astrophys. J.835, 165 (2017), arXiv:1602.03831 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    N. C. Stone, B. D. Metzger, and Z. Haiman, Assisted inspirals of stellar mass black holes embedded in AGN discs: solving the ‘final au problem’, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.464, 946 (2017), arXiv:1602.04226 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Y. Yang, I. Bartos, V. Gayathri, K. E. S. Ford, Z. Haiman, S. Klimenko, B. Kocsis, S. Márka, Z. Márka, B. McKernan, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Hierarchical black hole mergers in active galactic nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181101 (2019), arXiv:1906.09281 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and B. Kocsis, Formation and Evolution of Compact Object Binaries in AGN Disks, Astrophys. J.898, 25 (2020), arXiv:1912.08218 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, R. O’Shaughnessy, and D. Wysocki, Monte Carlo simulations of black hole merg- ers in AGN discs: Lowχeff mergers and predictions for LIGO, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494, 1203 (2020), arXiv:1907.04356 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    M. P. Vaccaro, M. Mapelli, C. Périgois, D. Barone, M. C. Artale, M. Dall’Amico, G. Iorio, and S. Tornia- menti, Impact of gas hardening on the population prop- erties of hierarchical black hole mergers in active galac- tic nucleus disks, Astron. Astrophys.685, A51 (2024), arXiv:2311.18548 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    M. A. Sedda, S. Naoz, and B. Kocsis, Quiescent and Active Galactic Nuclei as Factories of Merging Compact Objects in the Era of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, Universe9, 138 (2023), arXiv:2302.14071 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmo- logical Model, Sov. Astron.10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  28. [28]

    Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Mon

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

    1971

  29. [29]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Black holes in the early Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  30. [30]

    B. J. Carr, The Primordial black hole mass spectrum, Astrophys. J.201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  31. [31]

    S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Muñoz, Y. Ali-Haïmoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli, and A. G. Riess, Did LIGO detect dark matter?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, The clustering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: measuring their mass distribution with Advanced LIGO, Phys. Dark Univ.15, 142 (2017), arXiv:1603.05234 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational- Wave Event GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Y. N. Eroshenko, Gravitational waves from primor- dial black holes collisions in binary systems, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1051, 012010 (2018), arXiv:1604.04932 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Wang, Y.-F

    S. Wang, Y.-F. Wang, Q.-G. Huang, and T. G. F. Li, Constraints on the Primordial Black Hole Abundance from the First Advanced LIGO Observation Run Using the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 191102 (2018), arXiv:1610.08725 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garcia-Bellido, GW190425, GW190521 and GW190814: Three candidate mergers of primordial 8 black holes from the QCD epoch, Phys. Dark Univ.38, 101111 (2022), arXiv:2007.06481 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    A. Hall, A. D. Gow, and C. T. Byrnes, Bayesian analysis of LIGO-Virgo mergers: Primordial vs. astrophysical black hole populations, Phys. Rev. D102, 123524 (2020), arXiv:2008.13704 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Franciolini, I

    G. Franciolini, I. Musco, P. Pani, and A. Urbano, From inflation to black hole mergers and back again: Gravitational-wave data-driven constraints on inflation- ary scenarios with a first-principle model of primordial black holes across the QCD epoch, Phys. Rev. D106, 123526 (2022), arXiv:2209.05959 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Escrivà, E

    A. Escrivà, E. Bagui, and S. Clesse, Simulations of PBH formation at the QCD epoch and comparison with the GWTC-3 catalog, JCAP05, 004, arXiv:2209.06196 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, Phase space of binary black holes from gravitational wave observations to unveil its formation history, Phys. Rev. D112, 023531 (2025), arXiv:2411.07304 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Byrnes, G

    C. Byrnes, G. Franciolini, T. Harada, P. Pani, and M. Sasaki, eds.,Primordial Black Holes, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer, 2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Pri- mordial black holes and their gravitational-wave signa- tures, Living Rev

    E. Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Pri- mordial black holes and their gravitational-wave signa- tures, Living Rev. Rel.28, 1 (2025), arXiv:2310.19857 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Mirbabayi, A

    M. Mirbabayi, A. Gruzinov, and J. Noreña, Spin of Primordial Black Holes, JCAP03, 017, arXiv:1901.05963 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  44. [44]

    De Luca, V

    V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, A. Malhotra, and A. Riotto, The initial spin probability distribution of primordial black holes, JCAP05, 018, arXiv:1903.01179 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  45. [45]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, K. Kohri, Y. Koga, and T. Monobe, Spins of primordial black holes formed in the radiation-dominated phase of the universe: first-order effect, Astrophys. J.908, 140 (2021), arXiv:2011.00710 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, GW231123 mass gap event and the primordial black hole scenario, Phys. Rev. D112, L081306 (2025), arXiv:2507.15701 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Li, S.-P

    Y.-J. Li, S.-P. Tang, L.-Q. Xue, and Y.-Z. Fan, GW231123: Likely a Product of Successive Mergers from∼10 Stellar-mass Black Holes, Astrophys. J.999, 127 (2026), arXiv:2507.17551 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, The evolution of primordial black holes and their final observable spins, JCAP04, 052, arXiv:2003.02778 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  49. [49]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Pri- mordial Black Holes Confront LIGO/Virgo data: Cur- rent situation, JCAP06, 044, arXiv:2005.05641 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Blinnikov, A

    S. Blinnikov, A. Dolgov, N. K. Porayko, and K. Postnov, Solving puzzles of GW150914 by primordial black holes, JCAP11, 036, arXiv:1611.00541 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky, and I. Novikov, Inflation and primordial black holes as dark matter, Phys. Rev. D50, 7173 (1994)

    1994

  52. [52]

    Ivanov, Nonlinear metric perturbations and produc- tion of primordial black holes, Phys

    P. Ivanov, Nonlinear metric perturbations and produc- tion of primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D57, 7145 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9708224

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  53. [53]

    J. M. Bardeen, J. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. Szalay, The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, Astro- phys. J.304, 15 (1986)

    1986

  54. [54]

    Ricotti, Bondi accretion in the early universe, Astro- phys

    M. Ricotti, Bondi accretion in the early universe, Astro- phys. J.662, 53 (2007), arXiv:0706.0864 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Ricotti, J

    M. Ricotti, J. P. Ostriker, and K. J. Mack, Effect of Primordial Black Holes on the Cosmic Microwave Back- ground and Cosmological Parameter Estimates, Astro- phys. J.680, 829 (2008), arXiv:0709.0524 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    J. R. Rice and B. Zhang, Cosmological evolution of primordial black holes, JHEAp13-14, 22 (2017), arXiv:1702.08069 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact ob- jects(1983)

    1983

  58. [58]

    Adamek, C

    J. Adamek, C. T. Byrnes, M. Gosenca, and S. Hotchkiss, WIMPs and stellar-mass primordial black holes are incompatible, Phys. Rev.D100, 023506 (2019), arXiv:1901.08528 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    K. J. Mack, J. P. Ostriker, and M. Ricotti, Growth of structure seeded by primordial black holes, Astrophys. J.665, 1277 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0608642

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  60. [60]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Con- straints on primordial black holes, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Hasinger, Illuminating the dark ages: Cosmic back- grounds from accretion onto primordial black hole dark matter, JCAP07, 022, arXiv:2003.05150 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Hasinger, Illuminating the dark ages: Cosmic back- grounds from accretion onto primordial black hole dark matter, JCAP07, 022, arXiv:2003.05150 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  62. [62]

    Hütsi, M

    G. Hütsi, M. Raidal, and H. Veermäe, Small-scale struc- ture of primordial black hole dark matter and its impli- cations for accretion, Phys. Rev. D100, 083016 (2019), arXiv:1907.06533 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Ali-Haïmoud, E

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Merger rate of primordial black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D96, 123523 (2017), arXiv:1709.06576 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    S. P. Oh and Z. Haiman, Fossil HII regions: Self-limiting star formation at high redshift, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.346, 456 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0307135 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  65. [65]

    Ali-Haïmoud and M

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud and M. Kamionkowski, Cosmic mi- crowave background limits on accreting primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D95, 043534 (2017), arXiv:1612.05644 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Facchinetti, M

    G. Facchinetti, M. Lucca, and S. Clesse, Relaxing CMB bounds on primordial black holes: The role of ionization fronts, Phys. Rev. D107, 043537 (2023), arXiv:2212.07969 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Bosch-Ramon and N

    V. Bosch-Ramon and N. Bellomo, Mechanical feedback effects on primordial black hole accretion, Astron. Astro- phys.638, A132 (2020), arXiv:2004.11224 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Park and M

    K. Park and M. Ricotti, Accretion onto Intermediate Mass Black Holes Regulated by Radiative Feedback I. Parametric Study for Spherically Symmetric Accretion, Astrophys. J.739, 2 (2011), arXiv:1006.1302 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    Park and M

    K. Park and M. Ricotti, Accretion onto Black Holes from Large Scales Regulated by Radiative Feedback. II. Growth Rate and Duty Cycle, Astrophys. J.747, 9 (2012), arXiv:1110.4634 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [70]

    Park and M

    K. Park and M. Ricotti, Accretion onto Black Holes from Large Scales Regulated by Radiative Feedback. III. Enhanced Luminosity of Intermediate Mass Black Holes Moving at Supersonic Speeds, Astrophys. J.767, 163 (2013), arXiv:1211.0542 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  71. [71]

    Sugimura and M

    K. Sugimura and M. Ricotti, Structure and Insta- bility of the Ionization Fronts around Moving Black 9 Holes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495, 2966 (2020), arXiv:2003.05625 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Scarcella, D

    F. Scarcella, D. Gaggero, R. Connors, J. Manshanden, M. Ricotti, and G. Bertone, Multiwavelength detectabil- ity of isolated black holes in the Milky Way, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 4036 (2021), arXiv:2012.10421 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    De Luca and N

    V. De Luca and N. Bellomo, The Accretion, Emis- sion, Mass and Spin Evolution of Primordial Black Holes, inPrimordial Black Holes, edited by C. Byrnes, G. Franciolini, T. Harada, P. Pani, and M. Sasaki (2025) arXiv:2312.14097 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    P. D. Serpico, Cosmic Microwave Background and Ac- cretion, inPrimordial Black Holes, edited by C. Byrnes, G. Franciolini, T. Harada, P. Pani, and M. Sasaki (2025) pp. 595–616, arXiv:2406.12489 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Jangra, D

    P. Jangra, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, and J. M. Diego, The cosmic history of Primordial Black Hole accretion and its uncertainties, JCAP08, 006, arXiv:2412.11921 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [76]

    Scarcella and G

    F. Scarcella and G. Franciolini, in preparation

  77. [77]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Constraints on Primordial Black Holes: the Impor- tance of Accretion, Phys. Rev. D102, 043505 (2020), arXiv:2003.12589 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Berti and M

    E. Berti and M. Volonteri, Cosmological black hole spin evolution by mergers and accretion, Astrophys. J.684, 822 (2008), arXiv:0802.0025 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  79. [79]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Ro- tating black holes: Locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation, Astrophys. J.178, 347 (1972)

    1972

  80. [80]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 134001 (2015), arXiv:1411.0686 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.