Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Fully relativistic accretion onto Kerr primordial black holes roughly quadruples their masses and spins every hole down to Schwarzschild before evaporation.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:59 UTC pith:R6WR4AA4

load-bearing objection A serious but uneven paper: the spin-dilution picture is likely right, but the factor-4.5 mass growth rests on a boundary condition the paper states inconsistently, and the authors' own numbers contradict each other. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2512.07291 v2 pith:R6WR4AA4 submitted 2025-12-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

Revisiting PBH accretion, evaporation and their cosmological consequences

Jitumani Kalita , Debaprasad Maity This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th PACS 04.70.-s98.80.-k
keywords primordial black holesrelativistic accretionKerr black holeHawking evaporationspin-downBig Bang nucleosynthesis boundsdark matterstochastic gravitational wave background
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 paper sets out to replace the Newtonian Bondi formula used in nearly all PBH evolution studies with a fully relativistic accretion rate for spinning (Kerr) black holes in a radiation-dominated universe, and to couple that rate to spin-dependent Hawking evaporation. It derives a spin-dependent efficiency factor λ_Kerr(a*) and shows that accretion makes a PBH grow to about 4.5 times its initial mass before evaporation takes over. Because the accreting cosmic fluid is assumed to carry no angular momentum, the growth dilutes spin so strongly that even a maximal-spin PBH becomes effectively Schwarzschild early on. If this is right, PBHs of a given initial mass live 4–5 times longer than previous analyses implied, so Big Bang nucleosynthesis bounds tighten by that factor, the survival threshold drops to about 2.7×10^14 g, and the predicted high-frequency spin feature in the gravitational-wave background disappears.

Core claim

The central claim is that the correct evolution of a primordial black hole in the radiation era is governed by a competition between relativistic accretion, whose rate for a Kerr hole is Mdot = 4π λ_Kerr(a*) G^2 M^2 ρ∞ with λ_Kerr(a*) ≈ 10.389 − a*²(0.255 a* + 0.645), and spin-dependent Hawking evaporation. Integrating the coupled mass-spin equations, the mass first climbs to M_acc = M_in / [1 − λ_Kerr γ/(2(1+ω))] ≈ 4.5 M_in, and the spin is diluted to a*_acc ≈ a*_in (M_in/M_acc)². The paper concludes that every accreting PBH, regardless of initial spin, evaporates as a Schwarzschild hole. A direct corollary is that all evaporation constraints shift: BBN forbids initial masses down to about

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a new dimensionless accretion efficiency λ_Kerr(a*), defined through Mdot = 4π λ_Kerr G² M² ρ∞, and computed by solving the relativistic Euler and continuity equations for a steady, purely radial, zero-angular-momentum ideal fluid in Kerr spacetime, with the sonic point fixed by maximizing the flux. It plays the role of the Bondi constant, reducing to about 10.4 for a Schwarzschild hole and decreasing by about 9 percent at maximal spin in a radiation-dominated fluid. The companion spin-evolution equation da*/dt = −(2a*/M) dM/dt (from accretion, before evaporation) encodes the spin-dilution mechanism that drives a* to roughly 0.03–0.08 for initially maximal spin, an

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the cosmic fluid falling onto each PBH is steady, purely radial, and carries zero net angular momentum, and that at large radius it is at rest with respect to the black hole (total radial velocity tending to zero), rather than following the Hubble flow; if the ambient plasma instead retains angular momentum or is comoving with the expansion, the factor-4.5 mass growth and all bounds built on it weaken.

What would settle it

A reader could run a fully relativistic numerical simulation of accretion onto a near-extremal Kerr hole in a radiation-dominated expanding background with a fluid carrying a small but nonzero angular momentum, and compare the location of the sonic point and the resulting λ_Kerr(a*) with the fit in the paper; a disagreement beyond the quoted spin suppression, or a spin-up instead of spin-down, would show that the central mechanism does not hold.

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

If this is right

  • The BBN upper bound on initial PBH mass tightens by a factor of 4–5, from about 3.3×10^8 g to about 7.3×10^7 g for low-spin PBHs.
  • The critical initial mass for a PBH to survive to today falls from about 1.2×10^15 g to about 2.7×10^14 g, shifting the f_PBH parameter space.
  • Evaporating PBHs that would have shown a high-frequency spin-related bump in the stochastic gravitational-wave background instead produce a smooth, single-peaked spectrum because spin is diluted before evaporation.
  • Constraints on the initial abundance β from dark-matter production strengthen, since each PBH emits more DM particles after accreting to a larger mass.
  • Observational bounds on present-day PBH mass—from lensing, evaporation, and gravitational-wave mergers—must be remapped onto a smaller range of initial masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the zero-angular-momentum assumption is relaxed, a fraction of the accreted fluid's angular momentum will be captured and the dilution formula a*_acc ≈ a*_in (M_in/M_acc)^2 would be modified; a natural extension is to add a small rotation parameter and see whether the 'all Schwarzschild before evaporation' conclusion survives.
  • The same spin-dilution mechanism should apply to any black hole accreting from a homogeneous, non-rotating medium at early times, not just PBHs; the mass-spin mapping M0 ≈ 4.5 M_in could be tested by matching merger-rate constraints to formation-rate predictions.
  • The derived λ_Kerr(a*) fit is specific to ω=1/3; for stiffer equations of state the sonic point shifts toward the horizon and accretion is far weaker, so the conclusions may not carry over unchanged to a matter-dominated era—a concrete extension is to redo the fit for general ω.
  • If the SGWB from light PBHs is observed with no high-frequency bump, that absence could be read as evidence for a zero-angular-momentum accretion phase; conversely, a measured bump would falsify the assumption that the early-universe fluid around PBHs is irrotational.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-derives the accretion and evaporation history of spinning primordial black holes (PBHs) in a radiation-dominated universe. The authors derive a relativistic, spin-dependent accretion efficiency λ_Kerr(a*) from a steady-state radial Bondi-type flow on a Kerr background, embed it in an FRW cosmology, and couple the resulting accretion rate (Eq. 3.9) with spin-dependent Hawking evaporation rates computed with BlackHawk and FRISBHEE into ODEs for M(t) and a*(t) (Eqs. 5.1–5.2). The main claims are: relativistic accretion increases PBH mass by a factor M_acc/M_in ≈ 4.5 (Eq. 3.15); zero-angular-momentum accretion rapidly spins PBHs down, so all PBHs evaporate as near-Schwarzschild BHs (Eq. 5.4); the BBN mass bound strengthens by a factor 4–5 (§6); the survival threshold drops from ~1.2×10^15 g to ~2.7×10^14 g (§8); and the high-frequency SGWB spin bump is erased (§9). The cosmological constraints are re-derived self-consistently with analytical formulas and numerical integration.

Significance. If the accretion model is correct, this is a substantial revision of PBH phenomenology: the mass-growth factor ~4.5 and the universal spin-down alter all light-PBH constraints and make the SGWB spin-feature erasure a distinctive, falsifiable prediction. The paper has real strengths: λ_Kerr is derived from the fluid equations by locating the sonic point rather than fitted to the constraint outputs; the evaporation side uses the public codes BlackHawk and FRISBHEE with full greybody factors; and the transparent analytic formulas (3.15), (5.4), (6.4) make the parameter sensitivity visible. The central caveat is that the mass growth and spin-down both inherit a single, unvalidated assumption — the large-distance boundary condition of the accretion flow — and the near-critical denominator 1 − 3λγ/8 ≈ 0.22 makes the headline factor 4.5 fragile; the conclusions thus stand or fall on that boundary condition.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.4)] Eq. (3.4) is integrated with v_p ≈ −Hr at large distance, so v = Hr + v_p → 0 at infinity: the fluid is at rest in the BH frame, not in the Hubble flow. This contradicts the stated program of Sec. 3. For γ=0.2 the sonic point sits at r_c ≈ 3GM = 0.3H^{-1} (Fig. 2), where Hr_c ≈ 0.3 is a sizable fraction of the sound speed 1/√3 ≈ 0.58, so cosmic expansion is not a negligible correction. Since λ_Kerr (Eq. 3.10) is computed from this boundary condition and 1−3λγ/8 ≈ 0.22 in Eq. (3.15) is near zero, a moderate reduction of λ from proper Hubble matching would reduce M_acc/M_in from ~4.5 to ~2, weakening all downstream constraints (§6, §8, §9) and the spin-down (Eq. 5.4). Please redo the accretion calculation with Hubble-flow matching, or justify why the static boundary condition is valid at r_c ~ 0.3H^{-1}.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 and Sec. 10] The paper's own formula (3.15) gives M_acc/M_in = 4.53 (a 353% increase) for a* = 0.01, but Sec. 3.4 states 'close to 40−50% increase of PBH mass due to relativistic accretion', and Sec. 10 repeats 'mass to grow 40−50% from its initial formation mass (M_acc ≃ 5M_in)'. A 40–50% growth would give M_acc ≃ 1.4–1.5 M_in, not ≃ 4.5–5 M_in. This internal inconsistency in the headline quantitative claim needs to be fixed and a consistent description used throughout.
  3. [Sec. 3.3–3.4, Eq. (3.16)] The flow is treated as steady-state (∂t = 0 in Sec. 2) while ρ∞(t), H(t) and M(t) evolve, i.e., a quasi-static Bondi flow is assumed. The validity condition is that the flow crossing time (r_B/c_s ≈ 0.5 H^{−1}) be much shorter than both the Hubble time and the mass-doubling time. From Eq. (3.16) the accretion timescale is τ_acc ≈ 6 t_in for a 10 g PBH (and in Eq. (3.14) the mass approaches M_acc over ~1/H), so the quasi-static assumption is marginal. The authors should provide a quantitative estimate of the error incurred, preferably by comparing with a time-dependent solution.
  4. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.7)] Eq. (2.7) is the foundation of the entire accretion computation, but the reduction from Eq. (2.6) to the radial momentum equation with Φ_eff = ½ ln(g_tφ²/g_φφ − g_tt) is asserted without showing the algebra. Since equations of this type are easy to get wrong near the horizon and the reference [46] is a companion paper by the same group, please include the derivation in an appendix or at least show the Christoffel-symbol step explicitly.
  5. [Eqs. (3.11), (3.15); Sec. 6] The factor-4.5 mass growth is highly sensitive to the combination λγ: with 3λγ/8 ≈ 0.78 the denominator in (3.15) is 0.22. Varying γ from 0.2 to 0.15 (or λ from 10.4 to 8.5, well within the range of plausible accretion efficiencies) changes M_acc/M_in from 4.5 to ≈2.2–2.5, and the BBN/survival bounds shift accordingly. The paper treats γ = 0.2 and the fitted λ_Kerr as fixed inputs; a short sensitivity analysis (M_acc/M_in and the BBN bound vs. γ and λ) is needed to establish how robust the conclusions are.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption reads 'Our model (solid, a* = 0.99 and dotted lines, a* = 0.99)' — both entries are labeled 0.99; presumably the dotted line refers to a* = 0.01 (as in Figs. 11 and 14).
  2. [Abstract and throughout] Grammar and typos: 'the details impact of accretion' (abstract), 'Schwzschild' (Sec. 3.3), 'critial' (Sec. 8), 'noticable' (Sec. 8), 'monotonicallydecreases' (Sec. 3.3).
  3. [Sec. 3.3, near Fig. 1] The text says frame-dragging 'enhances the effective gravitational pull', but Fig. 1 shows the effective potential becomes less negative with spin (a stronger repulsive barrier). This wording is misleading and should be reconciled with the potential plot.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The angle-averaging approximation v(r,θ) ≃ v(r) is introduced without justification, even though λ_Kerr in Eq. (3.10) uses the θ-dependent critical point. Please clarify the accuracy of this approximation.
  5. [Eqs. (3.8)–(3.11)] Please provide a table of y_c(a*, θ) and λ_Kerr(a*) (or the code used to generate Fig. 3), so that the fit (3.11) and the central value λ_Kerr(0) ≈ 10.4 can be independently checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: λ_Kerr is derived in-paper from hydrodynamics; self-citations are ancillary, not the source of predictions.

full rationale

The core accretion efficiency λ_Kerr(a*) is not fitted to any downstream constraint. It is obtained in Sec. 3 by solving the stationary axisymmetric hydrodynamic equations (Eqs. 2.7–2.11), imposing the critical-point conditions (Eqs. 3.7–3.10), and numerically evaluating the integral in Eq. (3.10). Eq. (3.11) is only an interpolation of those in-paper numerical results. The mass-growth factor (3.15), the spin-dilution formula (5.4), and the BBN/DM/SGWB outputs in Secs. 6–9 all follow from substituting λ into the coupled ODEs (5.1)–(5.2); none of these outputs is used to fix λ or any other central parameter. Self-citations ([45], [46], [53], [63]) appear for standard fluid equations, standard abundance relations, and asides; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work to make the central claim, and the Euler equation cited is standard textbook material. The cosmological boundary condition v_p ≈ -H r in Sec. 3.2 is a substantive physical assumption that may bias the value of λ, but it is not a definitional identity with the predicted mass growth; that concern is a robustness/correctness risk, not circularity. The internal numerical mismatch between '40–50% increase' and M_acc ≈ 4.53 M_in is an inconsistency, not an input-output equivalence. No specific circular reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction) can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the fitted lambda_Kerr coefficients and the adopted collapse efficiency gamma, both of which feed directly into the highly sensitive mass-growth factor 1/(1 - 3 lambda gamma / 8). The load-bearing assumptions are the zero-angular-momentum, purely radial flow; the rest-frame-at-infinity boundary condition; the pointwise critical-point maximization; and the monochromatic mass function. These are structural inputs, not outputs of the calculation.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_Kerr fit coefficients = lambda(a*) = -a*^2 (0.255 a* + 0.645) + 10.389
    These coefficients are fitted to the numerically computed critical accretion rate for omega=1/3 (Eq. 3.11, Fig. 3). All analytic BBN, survival-threshold, DM, and SGWB calculations use this fit, and the mass-growth factor 1/(1 - 3 lambda gamma / 8) is highly sensitive to it.
  • collapse efficiency gamma = 0.2
    The initial PBH mass is set to gamma times the horizon mass with gamma=0.2, taken from Carr-Hawking (ref [54]). It is an external input rather than a fit in this paper, but the central mass-growth denominator 1 - 3 lambda gamma / 8 depends sensitively on gamma, so it acts as a de facto free parameter for the magnitude of the claimed effect.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The accreting fluid is a perfect barotropic fluid with p = omega rho and omega = 1/3 throughout the radiation-dominated era.
    Used in Sec. 3.1 to derive the density-velocity relation and the critical-point solution. Any deviation from radiation-like equation of state changes the sound speed and hence lambda_Kerr.
  • ad hoc to paper The accretion flow is steady, axisymmetric, purely radial (u^theta = 0), and has zero angular momentum in the sense u_phi = 0.
    Stated in Sec. 2 and used to reduce the Euler equation to a single radial equation. This is a strong simplification for a Kerr geometry, where imposing u^theta = 0 at all polar angles is not a general solution of the full fluid equations.
  • domain assumption At large radius the fluid is at rest in the black hole rest frame, enforced by v_p ~ -H r so total v -> 0 at infinity.
    Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.3)-(3.4). This boundary condition is the standard Bondi condition for an isolated BH in a non-expanding medium, not obviously the correct matching to a Hubble flow. Since the Bondi radius is ~0.3 H^-1 for gamma=0.2, this assumption is load-bearing for the mass-growth factor.
  • standard math The unique physical accretion rate is found by maximizing the mass flux with respect to velocity and radius (critical/sonic-point condition).
    Sec. 3.3. This is the standard Bondi critical-point selection; however, the maximization is performed pointwise in theta, which presumes a critical surface of constant accretion rate per angle rather than a fully coupled two-dimensional critical solution.
  • domain assumption The Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates describes the PBH throughout its evolution, with no backreaction from accretion onto the spacetime.
    Sec. 2.1 and the evolution equations in Sec. 5. The mass and spin parameters evolve, but at each instant the spacetime is taken to be Kerr. This is the standard adiabatic approximation and is not validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Hawking evaporation rates and greybody factors are accurately given by the public codes BlackHawk and FRISBHEE.
    Sec. 4 and Secs. 7-9. The paper relies on these codes for epsilon_i, gamma_i, and psi_i, including the spin-dependent greybody factors; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption The PBH mass function is monochromatic.
    Acknowledged at the end of Sec. 9. The SGWB and constraint calculations integrate a single initial mass M_in; an extended mass function would broaden spectral features and may change the constraints.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29793 in / 24729 out tokens · 229344 ms · 2026-08-03T17:59:34.776619+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) provide a unique probe of the early Universe. Their cosmological evolution is governed by the competition between mass accretion and Hawking evaporation. In this paper we look into the details impact of accretion. Most of the earlier analysis relied on non-relativistic accretion models. In this work, we reinvestigate this in a fully relativistic framework for Kerr PBHs in the radiation-dominated era. We derive relativistic accretion rate and compute spin-dependent efficiency $\lambda_{\text{Kerr}}(a_*)$. Using this result, we construct coupled evolution equations for the PBH mass and spin that include both relativistic accretion and spin-dependent evaporation. Our analysis shows that relativistic accretion significantly increases PBH masses and consequently suppresses their spins, causing all PBHs to become effectively Schwarzschild well before evaporation. These effects strengthen the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) bound on the initial PBH mass by a factor of $\sim 4$--$5$, reduce the mass required for survival to the present epoch to $\sim 2.7\times 10^{14}\,\mathrm{g}$, and shift the viable particle like DM parameter space. Notably the early accretion induced spin-down effect further washes out the well known high-frequency, spin-induced feature in the high frequency stochastic gravitational-wave background, modifying predictions for future detectors.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Inflaton Accretion onto Primordial Black Holes During Reheating

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Inflaton accretion during reheating drives non-linear PBH mass growth that extends lifetimes and amplifies emitted SGWB by multiple orders of magnitude.

  2. Dynamical black holes in the inflationary epoch

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Only black holes with initial masses in a narrow range formed during inflation survive to the present day, reaching a maximum mass of approximately 1.043 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses.

  3. Accretion Effects on Primordial Black Hole Reheating Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Accretion on primordial black holes prolongs matter domination and shifts reheating constraints from isocurvature gravitational waves and mergers toward smaller formation masses and initial abundances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Black holes in the early Universe,

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399-415 (1974) [INSPIRE]

    1974

  2. [2]

    Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

    S. W. Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 152, p. 75, 1971

    1971

  3. [3]

    The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmological Model,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, “The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmological Model,” Sov. Astron.10, 602 (1967) [INSPIRE]

    1967

  4. [4]

    Primordial Black Holes: sirens of the early Universe,

    A. M. Green, “Primordial Black Holes: sirens of the early Universe,” Fundam. Theor. Phys. 178, 129-149 (2015) [arXiv:1403.1198 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Primordial black hole formation and abundance: contribution from the non-linear relation between the density and curvature perturbation,

    S. Young, I. Musco and C. T. Byrnes, “Primordial black hole formation and abundance: contribution from the non-linear relation between the density and curvature perturbation,” JCAP11, 012 (2019) [arXiv:1904.00984 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Primordial black hole formation during the QCD epoch,

    K. Jedamzik, “Primordial black hole formation during the QCD epoch,” Phys. Rev. D55, 5871-5875 (1997) [arXiv:astro-ph/9605152 [astro-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Formation of intermediate-mass black holes as primordial black holes in the inflationary cosmology with running spectral index,

    T. Kawaguchi, M. Kawasaki, T. Takayama, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, “Formation of intermediate-mass black holes as primordial black holes in the inflationary cosmology with running spectral index,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.388, 1426-1432 (2008) [arXiv:0711.3886 [astro-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Primordial black holes under the double inflationary power spectrum,

    H. I. Kim, “Primordial black holes under the double inflationary power spectrum,” Phys. Rev. D62, 063504 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/9907372 [astro-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  9. [9]

    Primordial black hole formation from a nonspherical density profile with a misaligned deformation tensor,

    C. M. Yoo, “Primordial black hole formation from a nonspherical density profile with a misaligned deformation tensor,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.4, 043526 (2024) [arXiv:2403.11147 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    The Basics of Primordial Black Hole Formation and Abundance Estimation,

    C. M. Yoo, “The Basics of Primordial Black Hole Formation and Abundance Estimation,” Galaxies10, no.6, 112 (2022) [arXiv:2211.13512 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    PBH Formation from Spherically Symmetric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,

    A. Escrivà, “PBH Formation from Spherically Symmetric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,” Universe8, no.2, 66 (2022) [arXiv:2111.12693 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,” Class. Quant. Grav.35, no.6, 063001 (2018) [arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Constraints on primordial black holes,

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, “Constraints on primordial black holes,” Rept. Prog. Phys.84, no.11, 116902 (2021) [arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes,

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, “New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010) [arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]. – 30 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914,

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, “Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.6, 061101 (2016) [arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    The clustering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: measuring their mass distribution with Advanced LIGO,

    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, 142-147 (2017) [arXiv:1603.05234 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    The Primordial Black Hole Mass Range,

    P. H. Frampton, “The Primordial Black Hole Mass Range,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A31, no.12, 1650064 (2016) [arXiv:1511.08801 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    On Mass Spectra of Primordial Black Holes,

    A. A. Kirillov and S. G. Rubin, “On Mass Spectra of Primordial Black Holes,” Front. Astron. Space Sci.8, 777661 (2021) [arXiv:2109.02446 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Primordial Black Holes,

    M. Y. Khlopov, “Primordial Black Holes,” Res. Astron. Astrophys.10, 495-528 (2010) [arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    On the primordial black hole mass function for broad spectra,

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini and A. Riotto, “On the primordial black hole mass function for broad spectra,” Phys. Lett. B807, 135550 (2020) [arXiv:2001.04371 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel and M. Sandstad, “Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no.8, 083504 (2016) [arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Did LIGO detect dark matter?,

    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, no.20, 201301 (2016) [arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    S. W. Hawking,Particle Creation by Black Holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199

    1975

  24. [24]

    Constraints on Primordial Black Holes From Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Revisited,

    C. Keith, D. Hooper, N. Blinov and S. D. McDermott, “Constraints on Primordial Black Holes From Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Revisited,” Phys. Rev. D102, no.10, 103512 (2020) [arXiv:2006.03608 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Effects of primordial black holes on dark matter models,

    P. Gondolo, P. Sandick and B. Shams Es Haghi, “Effects of primordial black holes on dark matter models,” Phys. Rev. D102, no.9, 095018 (2020) [arXiv:2009.02424 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Gravitational wave signatures of cogenesis from a burdened PBH,

    B. Barman, M. R. Haque and Ó. Zapata, “Gravitational wave signatures of cogenesis from a burdened PBH,” JCAP09, 020 (2024) [arXiv:2405.15858 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    D. N. Page,Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole: Massless Particles from an Uncharged, Nonrotating Hole,Phys. Rev. D13(1976) 198 [INSPIRE]

    1976

  28. [28]

    Grey body factors for rotating black holes in four-dimensions,

    M. Cvetic and F. Larsen, “Grey body factors for rotating black holes in four-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B506, 107-120 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9706071 [hep-th]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  29. [29]

    Greybody factors for rotating black holes in higher dimensions,

    R. Jorge, E. S. de Oliveira and J. V. Rocha, “Greybody factors for rotating black holes in higher dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, no.6, 065008 (2015) [arXiv:1410.4590 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    Correspondence between grey-body factors and quasinormal frequencies for rotating black holes,

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, “Correspondence between grey-body factors and quasinormal frequencies for rotating black holes,” Phys. Lett. B861, 139288 (2025) [arXiv:2408.11162 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Spectroscopy of Kerr-AdS5 spacetime with the Heun function: Quasinormal modes, greybody factor, and evaporation,

    S. Noda and H. Motohashi, “Spectroscopy of Kerr-AdS5 spacetime with the Heun function: Quasinormal modes, greybody factor, and evaporation,” Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 064025 (2022) [arXiv:2206.07721 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    On spherically symmetrical accretion,

    H. Bondi, “On spherically symmetrical accretion,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.112, 195 (1952)

    1952

  33. [33]

    Some cosmological consequences of primordial black-hole evaporations,

    B. J. Carr, “Some cosmological consequences of primordial black-hole evaporations,” Astrophys. J.206, 8-25 (1976) [INSPIRE]

    1976

  34. [34]

    Spin of Primordial Black Holes,

    M. Mirbabayi, A. Gruzinov and J. Noreña, “Spin of Primordial Black Holes,” JCAP03, 017 (2020) [arXiv:1901.05963 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Spins of primordial black holes formed in the matter-dominated phase of the Universe,

    T. Harada, C. M. Yoo, K. Kohri and K. I. Nakao, “Spins of primordial black holes formed in the matter-dominated phase of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D96, no.8, 083517 (2017) [arXiv:1707.03595 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    BlackHawk: A public code for calculating the Hawking evaporation spectra of any black hole distribution,

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, “BlackHawk: A public code for calculating the Hawking evaporation spectra of any black hole distribution,” Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.8, 693 (2019) [arXiv:1905.04268 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Physics Beyond the Standard Model with BlackHawk v2.0,

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, “Physics Beyond the Standard Model with BlackHawk v2.0,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 10 (2021) [arXiv:2108.02737 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. I. Solely Hawking radiation,

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, “Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. I. Solely Hawking radiation,” Phys. Rev. D105, no.1, 015022 (2022) [arXiv:2107.00013 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. II. Interplay with the freeze-in or freeze-out mechanism,

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, “Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. II. Interplay with the freeze-in or freeze-out mechanism,” Phys. Rev. D105, no.1, 015023 (2022) [arXiv:2107.00016 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    What is the lowest possible reheating temperature?,

    S. Hannestad, “What is the lowest possible reheating temperature?,” Phys. Rev. D70, 043506 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0403291 [astro-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  41. [41]

    Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment,

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, “Detection methods for stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds: a unified treatment,” Living Rev. Rel.20, no.1, 2 (2017) [arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, “Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,” Class. Quant. Grav.35, no.16, 163001 (2018) [arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    General parametrization of axisymmetric black holes in metric theories of gravity,

    R. Konoplya, L. Rezzolla and A. Zhidenko, “General parametrization of axisymmetric black holes in metric theories of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.6, 064015 (2016) [arXiv:1602.02378 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    On the structure of stationary and axisymmetric metrics,

    T. Harmark and P. Olesen, “On the structure of stationary and axisymmetric metrics,” Phys. Rev. D72, 124017 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0508208 [hep-th]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    I. K. Dihingia, S. Das, D. Maity and S. Chakrabarti,Limitations of the pseudo-Newtonian approach in studying the accretion flow around a Kerr black hole, Phys. Rev. D98, no.8, 083004 (2018) [arXiv:1806.08481 [astro-ph.HE]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Impact of general relativistic accretion on primordial black holes,

    S. Das, M. R. Haque, J. Kalita, R. Karmakar and D. Maity, “Impact of general relativistic accretion on primordial black holes,” [arXiv:2505.15419 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    arXiv

  47. [47]

    R. P. Kerr,Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics,Phys. Rev. Lett.11(1963) 237 [INSPIRE]

    1963

  48. [48]

    R. H. Boyer and R. W. Lindquist,Maximal analytic extension of the Kerr metric,J. Math. Phys.8(1967) 265 [INSPIRE]

    1967

  49. [49]

    Equation of State and Duration to Radiation Domination after Inflation,

    K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, “Equation of State and Duration to Radiation Domination after Inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.6, 061301 (2017) [arXiv:1608.01213 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Formation of hot spots around small primordial black holes,

    M. He, K. Kohri, K. Mukaida and M. Yamada, “Formation of hot spots around small primordial black holes,” JCAP01, 027 (2023) [arXiv:2210.06238 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Primordial black holes are true vacuum nurseries,

    L. Hamaide, L. Heurtier, S. Q. Hu and A. Cheek, “Primordial black holes are true vacuum nurseries,” Phys. Lett. B856, 138895 (2024) [arXiv:2311.01869 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Primordial black hole hot spots and out-of-equilibrium dynamics,

    J. Gunn, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, “Primordial black hole hot spots and out-of-equilibrium dynamics,” JCAP02, 040 (2025) [arXiv:2409.02173 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Black holes in thermal bath live shorter: implications for primordial black holes,

    J. Kalita, D. Maity and A. Chatterjee, “Black holes in thermal bath live shorter: implications for primordial black holes,” [arXiv:2501.11925] [INSPIRE]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Black holes in the early Universe,

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399–416 (1974)

    1974

  55. [55]

    Auffinger,Primordial black hole constraints with Hawking radiation—A review,Prog

    J. Auffinger,Primordial black hole constraints with Hawking radiation—A review,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.131(2023) 104040 [arXiv:2206.02672] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger and J. Silk,Evolution of primordial black hole spin due to Hawking radiation,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494(2020) 1257 [arXiv:1906.04196] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Evolution of Mass, Charge, and Angular Momentum in Black Hole Evaporation: a Comparative Analysis,

    C. Ewasiuk and S. Profumo, “Evolution of Mass, Charge, and Angular Momentum in Black Hole Evaporation: a Comparative Analysis,” [arXiv:2505.04812 [gr-qc]] [INSPIRE]

    arXiv

  58. [58]

    Primordial Black Holes: Observational Characteristics of The Final Evaporation,

    T. N. Ukwatta, D. R. Stump, J. T. Linnemann, J. H. MacGibbon, S. S. Marinelli, T. Yapici and K. Tollefson, “Primordial Black Holes: Observational Characteristics of The Final Evaporation,” Astropart. Phys.80, 90-114 (2016) [arXiv:1510.04372 [astro-ph.HE]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Constraining the primordial black hole abundance through big-bang nucleosynthesis,

    A. Boccia, F. Iocco and L. Visinelli, “Constraining the primordial black hole abundance through big-bang nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.6, 063508 (2025) [arXiv:2405.18493 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Primordial Black Holes Evaporating before Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,

    Q. f. Wu and X. J. Xu, “Primordial Black Holes Evaporating before Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,” [arXiv:2509.05618 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe,

    L. Husdal, “On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe,” Galaxies4, no.4, 78 (2016) [arXiv:1609.04979 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    Quantum effects on the evaporation of PBHs: contributions to dark matter,

    M. R. Haque, S. Maity, D. Maity and Y. Mambrini, “Quantum effects on the evaporation of PBHs: contributions to dark matter,” JCAP07, 002 (2024) [arXiv:2404.16815 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Lyman-αForest Constraints on Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,

    R. Murgia, G. Scelfo, M. Viel and A. Raccanelli, “Lyman-αForest Constraints on Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.7, 071102 (2019) [arXiv:1903.10509 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Hunting primordial black hole dark matter in the Lyman-αforest,

    A. K. Saha, A. Singh, P. Parashari and R. Laha, “Hunting primordial black hole dark matter in the Lyman-αforest,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.10, 1117 (2025) [arXiv:2409.10617 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    New constraints on warm dark matter from the Lyman-αforest power spectrum,

    B. Villasenor, B. Robertson, P. Madau and E. Schneider, “New constraints on warm dark matter from the Lyman-αforest power spectrum,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.2, 023502 (2023) [arXiv:2209.14220 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Primordial black hole versus inflaton,

    M. R. Haque, E. Kpatcha, D. Maity and Y. Mambrini, “Primordial black hole versus inflaton,” Phys. Rev. D109, no.2, 023521 (2024) [arXiv:2309.06505 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Halo formation in warm dark matter models,

    P. Bode, J. P. Ostriker and N. Turok, “Halo formation in warm dark matter models,” Astrophys. J.556, 93-107 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0010389 [astro-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  69. [69]

    Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-αforest data,

    M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton and M. G. Haehnelt, “Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-αforest data,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 043502 (2013) [arXiv:1306.2314 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

    Redshift effects in particle production from Kerr primordial black holes,

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, “Redshift effects in particle production from Kerr primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D106, no.10, 103012 (2022) [arXiv:2207.09462 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Evaporation of primordial black holes in the early Universe: Mass and spin distributions,

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, “Evaporation of primordial black holes in the early Universe: Mass and spin distributions,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.1, 015005 (2023) [arXiv:2212.03878 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, “Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 355-394 (2020) [arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Constraints on PBH as dark matter from observations: a review,

    M. Oncins, “Constraints on PBH as dark matter from observations: a review,” [arXiv:2205.14722 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, “Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G48, no.4, 043001 (2021) [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Breakdown of hawking evaporation opens new mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter candidate,

    V. Thoss, A. Burkert and K. Kohri, “Breakdown of hawking evaporation opens new mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter candidate,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 532, no.1, 451-459 (2024) [arXiv:2402.17823 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Constraints on primordial black holes from the Galactic gamma-ray background,

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, “Constraints on primordial black holes from the Galactic gamma-ray background,” Phys. Rev. D94, no.4, 044029 (2016) [arXiv:1604.05349 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    Updated constraints on primordial black hole evaporation,

    M. Korwar and S. Profumo, “Updated constraints on primordial black hole evaporation,” JCAP 05, 054 (2023) [arXiv:2302.04408 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Constraints on evaporating primordial black holes from the AMS-02 positron data,

    J. Z. Huang and Y. F. Zhou, “Constraints on evaporating primordial black holes from the AMS-02 positron data,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.8, 083525 (2025) [arXiv:2403.04987 [hep-ph]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Constraints on Earth-mass primordial black holes from OGLE 5-year microlensing events,

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, S. Yokoyama, T. Sumi and S. Masaki, “Constraints on Earth-mass primordial black holes from OGLE 5-year microlensing events,” Phys. Rev. D99, no.8, 083503 (2019) [arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations,

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, R. H. Lupton, T. Sumi, S. More, T. Kurita, S. Sugiyama, A. More and M. Oguri,et al.“Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations,” Nature Astron.3, no.6, 524-534 (2019) [arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]] [INSPIRE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.