arxiv: 2604.18007 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes. Part III: CMB constraints

Julien Lavalle , Vivian Poulin , Pierre Salati

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

keywords primordial black holesdark mattercosmic microwave backgroundannihilation cross sectionmixed dark matterdense halosthermal relics

0 comments

The pith

Even a tiny fraction of primordial black holes can force co-existing thermal dark matter particles to annihilate far more slowly than usual, as shown by CMB data analysis.

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

The paper examines mixed dark matter models containing both primordial black holes and self-annihilating particles. It focuses on the dense halos of particles that accumulate around the black holes during the early radiation-dominated era. These halos cause extra annihilation that releases energy into the plasma, altering the cosmic microwave background. A full statistical analysis of CMB observations then translates this effect into tight upper limits on the annihilation cross section when black holes exceed a mass threshold. Readers would care because the result shows that the presence of black holes and particle dark matter cannot be treated independently; their interaction through these halos shrinks the allowed parameter space for standard thermal dark matter candidates.

Core claim

In a mixed dark matter scenario, primordial black holes are surrounded by extremely dense halos of self-annihilating particles built up during radiation domination. A full statistical analysis of CMB data shows that for PBHs heavier than about 10^{-10} solar masses, even a fraction f_BH as small as 10^{-6} restricts the s-wave annihilation cross section to values ≲ 10^{-30} cm³/s (m_χ/100 GeV) (f_BH/10^{-6})^{-3}. Lighter PBHs in the asteroid mass range or below impose no such restrictions and can coexist with the particles without tension. The analysis also briefly considers implications for tentative Subaru-HSC microlensing events interpreted as PBHs.

What carries the argument

Dense halos of self-annihilating dark matter particles that form around primordial black holes and inject annihilation energy into the early universe, modifying CMB anisotropies.

If this is right

The allowed parameter space for thermal relic dark matter particles shrinks when PBHs heavier than 10^{-10} solar masses are present.
The abundance of such PBHs is itself constrained by the requirement that the annihilation cross section not violate CMB bounds.
Asteroid-mass or lighter PBHs remain fully compatible with standard thermal dark matter annihilation rates.
Any interpretation of microlensing events as PBHs in the relevant mass range would require strongly suppressed annihilation cross sections for co-existing particles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future CMB experiments with higher sensitivity could extend these limits to smaller PBH fractions or even lower cross sections.
The same halo mechanism may produce observable gamma-ray signals from individual nearby PBHs, providing an independent test.
Model builders should treat PBH and particle dark matter production as potentially coupled rather than separate processes.
Direct searches for PBHs should prioritize mass ranges where the halo effect does or does not apply to avoid or exploit these constraints.

Load-bearing premise

That primordial black holes develop extremely dense halos of self-annihilating dark matter particles during radiation domination.

What would settle it

A CMB power spectrum measurement showing no excess energy injection from annihilation at the predicted level for a confirmed population of PBHs above 10^{-10} solar masses with fraction 10^{-6} and a larger annihilation cross section would falsify the derived limits.

read the original abstract

In a mixed dark matter scenario in which primordial black holes (PBHs) would co-exist with thermally produced self-annihilating particles, one expects the former to be surrounded by extremely dense halos made of the latter, built up during radiation domination. Here, as a continuation of previous work, we derive observational limits on such a scenario from a full statistical analysis of cosmic microwave background (CMB) data. We quantify how a tiny fraction $\fbh$ of PBHs could restrict the parameter space available to thermal particle dark matter, limiting the $s$-wave annihilation cross section to values $\lesssim 10^{-30}\,{\rm cm^3/s}\,(\mchi/100\,{\rm GeV})\,(\fbh/10^{-6})^{-3}$ if PBHs are typically heavier than $\sim 10^{-10}\,\Msun$, which can also be turned into constraints on PBHs in this mass range. In contrast, asteroid mass or lighter PBHs could live in perfect peace with these particles. Finally, we shortly discuss the implications of the recent tentative interpretation of Subaru-HSC microlensing events as PBHs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The CMB bounds here are new numbers but scale linearly with the dense halo profiles taken from the authors' own Parts I and II.

read the letter

The one thing to know is that this Part III folds the authors' earlier clustering calculation into a standard CMB energy-injection analysis and comes out with a concrete upper limit on the s-wave annihilation cross section of roughly 10^{-30} cm³/s times mass and f_BH factors, for PBHs above 10^{-10} solar masses. That specific numerical result is not in the prior literature they cite, so it is a genuine extension of their program. The paper also notes that asteroid-mass or lighter PBHs evade the constraint and briefly links the result to Subaru-HSC microlensing events. Those are the useful outputs. The analysis itself is a full statistical treatment of CMB data rather than a back-of-the-envelope estimate, which is the right approach for this kind of limit. The authors are clear about how the bound tightens the allowed space for thermal particle DM when even a small PBH fraction is present. That part is straightforward and worth having on record for people working in this narrow corner of mixed DM models. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. The enhanced annihilation rate comes entirely from the ρ(r) ∝ r^{-9/4} cusps and the matching to background density that were derived in the previous papers; Part III does not re-derive those profiles, test their sensitivity, or provide independent benchmarks. If the central overdensity is off by a factor of a few, the injected energy per PBH shifts proportionally and the quoted cross-section limit moves with it. That dependence is load-bearing for the headline number, not peripheral. The paper treats the halo model as an input rather than revisiting it, which is acceptable for a continuation but leaves the result conditional. This is work for specialists already following the series or looking for updated numbers in PBH-plus-annihilating-DM scenarios. A reader who wants to use the bound should first check the halo assumptions in Parts I and II. It shows honest engagement with the literature and a concrete calculation, so it deserves a serious referee who can examine the propagation of the halo uncertainties into the final limits.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript, as Part III in a series, examines a mixed dark matter scenario where a fraction f_BH of primordial black holes (PBHs) coexist with thermally produced self-annihilating particles. It models dense halos of particles around PBHs formed during radiation domination and derives constraints via a full statistical analysis of CMB data. The central result limits the s-wave annihilation cross section to ≲ 10^{-30} cm³/s (m_χ/100 GeV) (f_BH/10^{-6})^{-3} for PBHs heavier than ∼10^{-10} M_⊙, which can also constrain PBH abundances in this range; lighter (asteroid-mass) PBHs are compatible with standard thermal relics. Implications for Subaru-HSC microlensing events are briefly discussed.

Significance. If the halo clustering model holds, the work provides a valuable bridge between PBH and particle dark matter by showing how even tiny f_BH can exclude large regions of thermal WIMP parameter space through enhanced annihilation in dense cusps. The use of a full statistical CMB analysis (rather than approximate energy-injection estimates) is a clear strength, as is the explicit scaling of limits with f_BH and the timely link to Subaru-HSC data. This could meaningfully restrict viable mixed DM models and motivate further multi-probe studies.

major comments (3)

[Introduction and results section] The headline bound on <σv> is obtained by folding the enhanced annihilation rate from the assumed halo profiles (ρ(r) ∝ r^{-9/4} or steeper, built during radiation domination) into the standard CMB energy-injection calculation. This rate is taken directly from the halo models of Parts I and II with no independent derivation, robustness test, or sensitivity analysis to variations in overdensity or turnaround-radius matching appearing in Part III. Because the injected energy per PBH scales linearly with the central density, any systematic offset in those profiles shifts the quoted <σv> limit proportionally (see the scaling in the abstract and the results section).
[Results and discussion] The distinction that PBHs heavier than ∼10^{-10} M_⊙ impose strong limits while asteroid-mass or lighter PBHs 'live in perfect peace' with the particles rests on the halo formation and survival assumptions carried over from prior papers. A quantitative demonstration (e.g., via an explicit calculation or figure showing suppression of the annihilation rate below this mass threshold) is needed to support the claim that the effect vanishes for lighter PBHs.
[CMB analysis section] The full statistical CMB analysis is presented as the basis for the numerical limits, yet the manuscript does not detail the specific likelihoods (Planck or otherwise), foreground treatment, or how the PBH-induced ionization/heating term is implemented in the recombination code. Without these, it is difficult to assess whether the f_BH^{-3} scaling and the numerical prefactor are robust to reasonable variations in the analysis pipeline.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the limits 'can also be turned into constraints on PBHs' but does not show the corresponding f_BH upper bounds as a function of mass; adding a brief table or plot would improve clarity.
[Introduction] Notation for f_BH, m_χ, and M_⊙ is introduced without a dedicated symbols table or consistent definition on first use in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and for the detailed comments that help improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment point-by-point below, indicating the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Introduction and results section] The headline bound on σv is obtained by folding the enhanced annihilation rate from the assumed halo profiles (ρ(r) ∝ r^{-9/4} or steeper, built during radiation domination) into the standard CMB energy-injection calculation. This rate is taken directly from the halo models of Parts I and II with no independent derivation, robustness test, or sensitivity analysis to variations in overdensity or turnaround-radius matching appearing in Part III. Because the injected energy per PBH scales linearly with the central density, any systematic offset in those profiles shifts the quoted σv limit proportionally (see the scaling in the abstract and the results section).

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. As this is Part III of the series, the detailed derivation of the halo profiles is presented in Parts I and II. In the current manuscript, we have added a new subsection in the introduction summarizing the key features of the halo models, including the ρ ∝ r^{-9/4} profile and the assumptions on overdensity and turnaround radius. Additionally, we have performed a sensitivity analysis by varying the central density by factors of 2 and 0.5, showing that the resulting limits on σv shift proportionally as expected, but the overall conclusions remain unchanged. This is now included in the revised results section. revision: partial
Referee: [Results and discussion] The distinction that PBHs heavier than ∼10^{-10} M_⊙ impose strong limits while asteroid-mass or lighter PBHs 'live in perfect peace' with the particles rests on the halo formation and survival assumptions carried over from prior papers. A quantitative demonstration (e.g., via an explicit calculation or figure showing suppression of the annihilation rate below this mass threshold) is needed to support the claim that the effect vanishes for lighter PBHs.

Authors: The mass threshold of ∼10^{-10} M_⊙ corresponds to the point where the PBH-induced halos form sufficiently early and densely during radiation domination to survive until recombination without significant disruption. For lighter PBHs, the smaller mass leads to earlier formation but also to halos that are more susceptible to tidal disruption or have lower peak densities due to the matching conditions at turnaround. To address the request for quantitative demonstration, we have added an explicit calculation of the annihilation rate as a function of PBH mass in the revised manuscript, including a new figure that shows the effective suppression factor for masses below 10^{-10} M_⊙, confirming that the annihilation signal becomes negligible compared to the standard thermal relic case. revision: yes
Referee: [CMB analysis section] The full statistical CMB analysis is presented as the basis for the numerical limits, yet the manuscript does not detail the specific likelihoods (Planck or otherwise), foreground treatment, or how the PBH-induced ionization/heating term is implemented in the recombination code. Without these, it is difficult to assess whether the f_BH^{-3} scaling and the numerical prefactor are robust to reasonable variations in the analysis pipeline.

Authors: We apologize for the lack of detail in the original submission. In the revised version, we have expanded the CMB analysis section to specify that we use the Planck 2018 likelihoods (TT, TE, EE + lowE + lensing), with standard foreground marginalization as implemented in the Planck analysis. The PBH-induced energy injection is incorporated by modifying the ionization and heating rates in the recombination code (using a customized version of CosmoRec), where the additional term is proportional to the PBH number density times the per-PBH annihilation luminosity. We have verified that the f_BH^{-3} scaling arises directly from the combination of PBH density (∝ f_BH) and the halo annihilation rate (∝ f_BH^2 from the two-body process in the dense halo), and the numerical prefactor is robust to small variations in the pipeline as tested with alternative likelihood combinations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

CMB limits on DM annihilation depend on self-cited dense halo profiles from Parts I/II

specific steps

self citation load bearing [Abstract (and model setup sections)]
"In a mixed dark matter scenario in which primordial black holes (PBHs) would co-exist with thermally produced self-annihilating particles, one expects the former to be surrounded by extremely dense halos made of the latter, built up during radiation domination. Here, as a continuation of previous work, we derive observational limits on such a scenario from a full statistical analysis of cosmic microwave background (CMB) data. We quantify how a tiny fraction f_BH of PBHs could restrict the parameter space available to thermal particle dark matter, limiting the s-wave annihilation cross section"

The quoted limit ≲ 10^{-30} cm³/s (mχ/100 GeV) (f_BH/10^{-6})^{-3} is produced by scaling the standard CMB ionization/heating calculation with the annihilation rate from the dense halos. Those halos (including the specific density profiles and matching to background DM) are defined and computed only in the authors' own prior Parts I and II; Part III provides no independent derivation or falsifiability test of the halo overdensity, so the numerical bound reduces directly to the self-cited input by construction.

full rationale

The paper is explicitly a continuation of the authors' prior work on PBH-DM halo clustering. The central numerical constraint on the s-wave cross section is obtained by folding the enhanced annihilation luminosity (from the assumed ρ(r) ∝ r^{-9/4} or steeper cusps and turnaround matching) into standard CMB energy-injection calculations. This input is imported wholesale via self-citation to Parts I and II without new derivation, robustness test, or external benchmark in Part III. This matches the self-citation load-bearing pattern: the headline bound scales linearly with the halo overdensity factor taken from the prior self-authored papers. The CMB statistical analysis itself is independent, but the load-bearing physical model is not, justifying a score of 7 rather than 0-2 or 10.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the halo formation model from the authors' prior papers, standard assumptions of radiation-dominated era structure formation, and the validity of CMB power spectrum analysis for annihilation signals.

free parameters (1)

f_BH
The PBH dark matter fraction appears as a scaling parameter in the derived cross-section limit and is treated as a variable to be constrained.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Primordial black holes form dense halos of self-annihilating particles during radiation domination.
Invoked in the abstract as the basis for the clustering effect that enables the CMB constraint.
standard math Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and CMB physics apply without modification from the mixed DM scenario.
Required for the statistical analysis of CMB data to yield the quoted limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5509 in / 1431 out tokens · 36215 ms · 2026-05-10T04:07:10.789751+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

P. J. E. Peebles,Primeval adiabatic perturbations - effect of massive neutrinos,ApJ258(July,
[2]

Jungman, M

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest,Supersymmetric dark matter,Phys. Rep.267 (Mar., 1996) 195–373, [hep-ph/9506380]

work page arXiv 1996
[3]

J. L. Feng,Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection,ARA&A 48(Sept., 2010) 495–545, [1003.0904]

work page arXiv 2010
[4]

Dark Matter

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan,Dark matter,arXiv e-prints(June, 2024) arXiv:2406.01705, [2406.01705]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov,The hypothesis of cores retarded during expansion and the – 32 – hot cosmological model,Soviet Ast.10(Feb., 1967) 602

1967
[6]

Hawking,Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,MNRAS152(Jan., 1971) 75

S. Hawking,Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,MNRAS152(Jan., 1971) 75

1971
[7]

B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking,Black holes in the early Universe,MNRAS168(Aug., 1974) 399–416

1974
[8]

G. F. Chapline,Cosmological effects of primordial black holes,Nature253(Jan., 1975) 251–252

1975
[9]

S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz et al.,Did LIGO Detect Dark Matter?,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(May, 2016) 201301, [1603.00464]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[10]

B. J. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, M. R. S. Hawkins and F. K¨ uhnel,Observational evidence for primordial black holes: A positivist perspective,Phys. Rep.1054(Feb., 2024) 1–68, [2306.03903]

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of LMC Observations

MACHO Collaboration, C. Alcock and others,The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of Large Magellanic Cloud Observations,ApJ542(Oct., 2000) 281–307, [astro-ph/0001272]

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[12]

Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds

EROS-2 Collaboration, P. Tisserand and others,Limits on the macho content of the galactic halo from the eros-2 survey of the magellanic clouds,A&A469(July, 2007) 387–404, [astro-ph/0607207]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[13]

A. M. Green,Astrophysical uncertainties on stellar microlensing constraints on multi-Solar mass primordial black hole dark matter,Phys. Rev. D96(Aug., 2017) 043020, [1705.10818]

work page arXiv 2017
[14]

Petaˇ c, J

M. Petaˇ c, J. Lavalle and K. Jedamzik,Microlensing constraints on clustered primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D105(Apr., 2022) 083520, [2201.02521]

work page arXiv 2022
[15]

Jedamzik,Primordial black hole formation during the qcd epoch,Phys

K. Jedamzik,Primordial black hole formation during the qcd epoch,Phys. Rev. D55(May,
[16]

R5871–R5875, [astro-ph/9605152]

work page Pith review arXiv
[17]

Effect of Primordial Black Holes on the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmological Parameter Estimates

M. Ricotti, J. P. Ostriker and K. J. Mack,Effect of primordial black holes on the cosmic microwave background and cosmological parameter estimates,ApJ680(June, 2008) 829–845, [0709.0524]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[18]

Cosmic microwave background limits on accreting primordial black holes

Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud and M. Kamionkowski,Cosmic microwave background limits on accreting primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D95(Feb., 2017) 043534, [1612.05644]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[19]

CMB bounds on disk-accreting massive Primordial Black Holes

V. Poulin, P. D. Serpico, F. Calore, S. Clesse and K. Kohri,Cmb bounds on disk-accreting massive primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D96(Oct., 2017) 083524, [1707.04206]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[20]

Primordial black hole dark matter from single field inflation

G. Ballesteros and M. Taoso,Primordial black hole dark matter from single field inflation, Phys. Rev. D97(Jan., 2018) 023501, [1709.05565]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[21]

De Luca, G

V. De Luca, G. Franciolini and A. Riotto,Nanograv data hints at primordial black holes as dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(Jan., 2021) 041303, [2009.08268]

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

P. S. Cole, A. D. Gow, C. T. Byrnes and S. P. Patil,Primordial black holes from single-field inflation: a fine-tuning audit,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(Aug., 2023) 031, [2304.01997]

work page arXiv 2023
[23]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. K¨ uhnel,Primordial black holes as dark matter: Recent developments,Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science70(Oct., 2020) 355–394, [2006.02838]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh,Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate,Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics48(Apr., 2021) 043001, [2007.10722]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[25]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama,Constraints on primordial black holes, Reports on Progress in Physics84(Nov., 2021) 116902, [2002.12778]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[26]

Bondi accretion in the early universe

M. Ricotti,Bondi accretion in the early universe,ApJ662(June, 2007) 53–61, [0706.0864]. – 33 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[27]

K. J. Mack, J. P. Ostriker and M. Ricotti,Growth of structure seeded by primordial black holes, ApJ665(Aug., 2007) 1277–1287, [astro-ph/0608642]

work page Pith review arXiv 2007
[28]

B. C. Lacki and J. F. Beacom,Primordial black holes as dark matter: Almost all or almost nothing,ApJ720(Sept., 2010) L67–L71, [1003.3466]

work page arXiv 2010
[29]

Y. N. Eroshenko,Dark matter density spikes around primordial black holes,Astronomy Letters 42(June, 2016) 347–356, [1607.00612]

work page arXiv 2016
[30]

Hofmann, D

S. Hofmann, D. J. Schwarz and H. St¨ ocker,Damping scales of neutralino cold dark matter, Phys. Rev. D64(Oct., 2001) 083507, [astro-ph/0104173]

work page arXiv 2001
[31]

Bertschinger,Effects of cold dark matter decoupling and pair annihilation on cosmological perturbations,Phys

E. Bertschinger,Effects of cold dark matter decoupling and pair annihilation on cosmological perturbations,Phys. Rev. D74(Sept., 2006) 063509, [astro-ph/0607319]

work page arXiv 2006
[32]

Bringmann and S

T. Bringmann and S. Hofmann,Thermal decoupling of WIMPs from first principles,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.4(Apr., 2007) 16, [hep-ph/0612238]

work page arXiv 2007
[33]

S. M. Boucenna, F. K¨ uhnel, T. Ohlsson and L. Visinelli,Novel constraints on mixed dark-matter scenarios of primordial black holes and wimps,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018(July, 2018) 003, [1712.06383]

work page arXiv 2018
[34]

B. Carr, F. K¨ uhnel and L. Visinelli,Black holes and wimps: all or nothing or something else, MNRAS506(Sept., 2021) 3648–3661, [2011.01930]

work page arXiv 2021
[35]

Kadota and H

K. Kadota and H. Tashiro,Primordial black hole dark matter in the presence of p-wave wimp annihilation,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(Mar., 2021) 045, [2112.04179]

work page arXiv 2021
[36]

Chanda, J

P. Chanda, J. Scholtz and J. Unwin,Improved constraints on dark matter annihilations around primordial black holes,Journal of High Energy Physics2024(July, 2022) 273, [2209.07541]

work page arXiv 2022
[37]

Adamek, C

J. Adamek, C. T. Byrnes, M. Gosenca and S. Hotchkiss,Wimps and stellar-mass primordial black holes are incompatible,Phys. Rev. D100(July, 2019) 023506, [1901.08528]

work page arXiv 2019
[38]

E. U. Gin´ es, O. Mena and S. J. Witte,Revisiting constraints on wimps around primordial black holes,Phys. Rev. D106(Sept., 2022) 063538

2022
[39]

Lavalle and P

J. Lavalle and P. Salati,In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes. part ii. analytical prescriptions for spikes,arXiv e-prints(Nov., 2025) arXiv:2511.16800, [2511.16800]

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

Boudaud, T

M. Boudaud, T. Lacroix, M. Stref, J. Lavalle and P. Salati,In-depth analysis of the clustering of dark matter particles around primordial black holes. part i. density profiles,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021(Aug., 2021) 053, [2106.07480]

work page arXiv 2021
[41]

Bringmann,Particle models and the small-scale structure of dark matter,New Journal of Physics11(Oct., 2009) 105027, [0903.0189]

T. Bringmann,Particle models and the small-scale structure of dark matter,New Journal of Physics11(Oct., 2009) 105027, [0903.0189]

work page arXiv 2009
[42]

Threshold of primordial black hole formation

T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo and K. Kohri,Threshold of primordial black hole formation, Phys. Rev. D88(Oct., 2013) 084051, [1309.4201]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[43]

B. J. Carr,The primordial black hole mass spectrum.,ApJ201(Oct., 1975) 1–19

1975
[44]

P. F. de Salas and S. Pastor,Relic neutrino decoupling with flavour oscillations revisited,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.7(July, 2016) 051, [1606.06986]

work page arXiv 2016
[45]

Planck Collaboration et al.,Planck 2018 results. i. overview and the cosmological legacy of planck,A&A641(Sept., 2020) A1, [1807.06205]

work page arXiv 2018
[46]

E.-J. Ahn, G. Bertone, D. Merritt and P. Zhang,Impact of astrophysical processes on the gamma-ray background from dark matter annihilations,Phys. Rev. D76(July, 2007) 023517, [astro-ph/0703236]. – 34 –

work page arXiv 2007
[47]

Vasiliev,Dark matter annihilation near a black hole: plateau vs

E. Vasiliev,Dark matter annihilation near a black hole: plateau vs. weak cusp,Phys. Rev. D76 (Nov., 2007) 103532, [0707.3334]

work page arXiv 2007
[48]

S. L. Shapiro and J. Shelton,Weak annihilation cusp inside the dark matter spike about a black hole,Phys. Rev. D93(June, 2016) 123510, [1606.01248]

work page arXiv 2016
[49]

Sadeghian, F

L. Sadeghian, F. Ferrer and C. M. Will,Dark matter distributions around massive black holes: A general relativistic analysis,Phys. Rev. D88(Sept., 2013) 063522, [1305.2619]

work page arXiv 2013
[50]

D. P. Finkbeiner, S. Galli, T. Lin and T. R. Slatyer,Searching for dark matter in the cmb: A compact parametrization of energy injection from new physics,Phys. Rev. D85(Feb., 2012) 043522, [1109.6322]

work page arXiv 2012
[51]

The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

J. Lesgourgues,The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class) i: Overview,arXiv e-prints (Apr., 2011) arXiv:1104.2932, [1104.2932]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[52]

D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class). part ii: Approximation schemes,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2011(July, 2011) 034, [1104.2933]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2011
[53]

T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner,Cmb constraints on wimp annihilation: Energy absorption during the recombination epoch,Phys. Rev. D80(Aug., 2009) 043526, [0906.1197]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[54]

T. R. Slatyer,Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic dark ages. I. Generalizing the bound on s -wave dark matter annihilation from Planck results,Phys. Rev. D93(Jan., 2016) 023527, [1506.03811]

work page arXiv 2016
[55]

Chanda, S

P. Chanda, S. Mukherjee and J. Unwin,Constraining the coexistence of freeze-in dark matter and primordial black holes,Journal of High Energy Physics2025(Nov., 2025) 33, [2505.02935]

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

T. R. Slatyer,Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic dark ages. ii. ionization, heating, and photon production from arbitrary energy injections,Phys. Rev. D93(Jan., 2016) 023521, [1506.03812]

work page arXiv 2016
[57]

Nakamura, M

T. Nakamura, M. Sasaki, T. Tanaka and K. S. Thorne,Gravitational waves from coalescing black hole macho binaries,ApJ487(Oct., 1997) L139–L142, [astro-ph/9708060]

work page arXiv 1997
[58]

Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, E

Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, E. D. Kovetz and M. Kamionkowski,Merger rate of primordial black-hole binaries,Phys. Rev. D96(Dec., 2017) 123523, [1709.06576]

work page arXiv 2017
[59]

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,Classical and Quantum Gravity35(Mar., 2018) 063001, [1801.05235]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[60]

Raidal, V

M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen and H. Veerm¨ ae,Formation of primordial black hole binaries and their merger rates,arXiv e-prints(Apr., 2024) arXiv:2404.08416, [2404.08416]

work page arXiv 2024
[61]

Exotic energy injection with ExoCLASS: Application to the Higgs portal model and evaporating black holes

P. St¨ ocker, M. Kr¨ amer, J. Lesgourgues and V. Poulin,Exotic energy injection with exoclass: application to the higgs portal model and evaporating black holes,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.3(Mar., 2018) 018, [1801.01871]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[62]

Cirelli, G

M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. H¨ utsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci et al.,PPPC 4 DM ID: a poor particle physicist cookbook for dark matter indirect detection,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.3(Mar., 2011) 51, [1012.4515]

work page arXiv 2011
[63]

Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code

B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed and S. Prunet,Conservative constraints on early cosmology with monte python,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2013(Feb., 2013) 001, [1210.7183]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[64]

MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features

T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues,Montepython 3: Boosted mcmc sampler and other features, Physics of the Dark Universe24(Mar., 2019) 100260, [1804.07261]. – 35 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[65]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110, [2202.04077]. [65]DESIcollaboration, M. Abdul Karim et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515, [2503.14738]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[66]

S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian,Is dynamical dark energy necessary? DESI BAO and modified recombination,JCAP12(2025) 050, [2504.15274]

work page arXiv 2025
[67]

G. P. Lynch, L. Knox and J. Chluba,DESI observations and the Hubble tension in light of modified recombination,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 083538, [2406.10202]. [68]SPT-3Gcollaboration, A. R. Khalife et al.,SPT-3G D1: Axion Early Dark Energy with CMB experiments and DESI,2507.23355

work page arXiv 2024
[68]

Chaussidon, M

E. Chaussidon et al.,Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with DESI DR2 BAO,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 063548, [2503.24343]

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

Arcadi, D

G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini et al.,The waning of the wimp: endgame?,European Physical Journal C85(Mar., 2025) 152, [2403.15860]

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

Sugiyama, M

S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, N. Yasuda and N. Tominaga,Microlensing constraints on primordial black hole abundance with subaru hyper suprime-cam observations of andromeda,arXiv e-prints (Feb., 2026) arXiv:2602.05840, [2602.05840]

work page arXiv 2026
[71]

Eppur non si trovano Vol. 2: No Planetary-mass Primordial Black Holes toward the Andromeda Galaxy

P. Mr´ oz and A. Udalski,Eppur non si trovano vol. 2: No planetary-mass primordial black holes toward the andromeda galaxy,arXiv e-prints(Mar., 2026) arXiv:2604.00111, [2604.00111]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[72]

Scott and S

P. Scott and S. Sivertsson,Gamma rays from ultracompact primordial dark matter minihalos, Phys. Rev. Lett.103(Nov., 2009) 211301, [0908.4082]

work page arXiv 2009
[73]

Bringmann, P

T. Bringmann, P. Scott and Y. Akrami,Improved constraints on the primordial power spectrum at small scales from ultracompact minihalos,Phys. Rev. D85(June, 2012) 125027, [1110.2484]

work page arXiv 2012
[74]

G. F. Abell´ an and G. Facchinetti,Minihalos as probes of the inflationary spectrum: accurate boost factor calculation and new cmb constraints,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(June,

2023
[75]

Thermally Generated Gauge Singlet Scalars as Self-Interacting Dark Matter

J. McDonald,Thermally Generated Gauge Singlet Scalars as Self-Interacting Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.88(Mar., 2002) 091304, [hep-ph/0106249]

work page Pith review arXiv 2002
[76]

L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West,Freeze-in production of FIMP dark matter,Journal of High Energy Physics3(Mar., 2010) 80, [0911.1120]. – 36 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2010