Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Long-term 3+1 simulations of primordial black hole formation during radiation domination

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rescaled gauge condition lets 3D primordial black hole simulations run up to 94 times faster.

desk verdict A genuinely useful numerical-gauge advance that makes long 3D PBH formation runs tractable, with the main open question being how far the scaled driver extends beyond spherical symmetric tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13206 v1 pith:Z57IR4WN submitted 2026-08-13 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

Zhuan Ning , Rong-Gen Cai , Shao-Jiang Wang , Chul-Moon Yoo This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph MSC 83-0883C5783C05
keywords primordialblackholesnumericalrelativityradiationdominationGamma-drivergaugecriticalcollapseadaptivemeshrefinementapparenthorizonaccretionlaw
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper develops a three-dimensional numerical-relativity method for simulating primordial black hole formation from superhorizon curvature perturbations in a radiation-dominated universe, and demonstrates that the same code can follow both near-critical collapse and long post-formation evolution. The central move is a cosmologically scaled Gamma-driver whose response and damping coefficients shrink with the expanding scale factor, allowing the cosmic-time step to grow as $\Delta t \propto a\,\Delta x$ while keeping the physical Courant number fixed. For a representative run this cuts the number of coarse-level time steps by a factor of about 94 without changing apparent-horizon masses or constraint histories. Applied to a spherical Gaussian curvature profile, the simulations bracket the collapse threshold in $0.79578<\mu_c<0.79580$ and yield a critical exponent $\gamma\simeq0.3559$, matching spherically symmetric and radiation-fluid benchmarks, and the late-time black-hole mass growth fits the standard accretion law. If the method holds for general profiles, fully three-dimensional surveys of nonspherical primordial black hole formation become practical.

What carries the argument

The cosmologically scaled Gamma-driver is the load-bearing object: in the moving-puncture shift condition, the response coefficient is set to $b=b_0(a_i/a)^2$ and the damping coefficient to $\eta_{\mathrm{GD}}=\eta_{\mathrm{GD},0}(a_i/a)$, evaluated from the background scale factor at every Runge-Kutta substep. On the expanding background, the driver's fastest gauge mode otherwise keeps unit coordinate speed and the damping term imposes a $\eta_{\mathrm{GD}}\Delta t$ stability bound independent of resolution, both of which would forbid $\Delta t\propto a\,\Delta x$; the scaling keeps the corresponding CFL numbers constant so the time step can grow with the scale factor. A conformal-time version of the moving-puncture gauge, obtained by reparametrizing the lapse and shift, is used as an independent check that the long-term horizon-mass evolution is not an artifact of the rescaling.

What would settle it

Evolve a strongly nonspherical superhorizon perturbation with the scaled driver through horizon formation and compare the $L^2$ norm of the Hamiltonian constraint and the apparent-horizon mass against a standard-driver run at the same resolution: sustained constraint growth or a horizon-mass disagreement before the horizon forms would falsify the claim that the speedup is generic. A lighter check is to repeat the factor-94 comparison at a different amplitude or with a different window function and see whether the step-count reduction and mass agreement survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the standard Gamma-driver shift condition is the obstruction to long cosmological black-hole evolutions in cosmic time, and that a simple rescaling removes it. On an expanding background the shift gauge mode propagates at a fixed coordinate speed rather than the $a^{-1}$ speed of physical modes, and its damping term imposes a resolution-independent time-step bound; scaling the driver coefficients as $b(t)=b_0(a_i/a)^2$ and $\eta_{\mathrm{GD}}(t)=\eta_{\mathrm{GD},0}(a_i/a)$ keeps both dimensionless stability parameters constant while taking $\Delta t\propto a\,\Delta x$. The paper shows empirically that this scaled driver reproduces the standard driver's central lapse, apparent-horizon masses, and constraint norms for spherical amplitudes across the threshold, while reducing coarse-level advances by a factor of approximately 94. It further reports, from the same three-dimensional framework, a collapse threshold $0.79578<\mu_c<0.79580$ and a near-critical exponent $\gamma\simeq0.3559$ consistent with the radiation-fluid value, and a late-time accretion fit with efficiencies $F\simeq2.96$ to $3.61$ that is broadly consistent with earlier spherically symmetric results.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the time-dependent driver coefficients, fixed by the background scale factor, remain stable and singularity-avoiding in the strong-field region near a newly formed black hole, so the enlarged time step is safe there; the paper validates this for a handful of spherical amplitudes rather than proving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long post-formation runs that previously needed more than a hundred thousand coarse-level steps can be done with about a thousand, so multi-Hubble-time three-dimensional evolutions become routine.
  • The same framework can be pointed at nonspherical initial data, where the collapse threshold, critical exponent, and black-hole spin have not yet been measured in three dimensions.
  • The threshold interval $0.79578<\mu_c<0.79580$ and $\gamma\simeq0.3559$ give a three-dimensional confirmation that spherical critical collapse behavior survives in a full 3+1 treatment.
  • Post-formation black-hole masses can be compared with the analytic accretion formula over many Hubble times, giving an efficiency parameter that is foliation-dependent but useful for abundance estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the scaling only relies on the background expansion rate, it should transfer to other barotropic fluids, massless scalar collapse, and kination-type cosmologies; the paper itself notes that an oscillating massive scalar field breaks the scaling because its intrinsic frequency sets an expansion-independent time step.
  • A direct test of the method's reach is to repeat the threshold scan for ellipsoidal profiles and check whether the factor-of-94 step reduction survives when the collapse is no longer reflection-symmetric; the paper's full-box runs suggest the main risk is interior, not exterior, behavior.
  • The interior regularization used to keep full-periodic-box runs alive is a pragmatic device whose exterior invariance is verified empirically; a stronger validation would vary the regularization strength in a spinning collapse and confirm that exterior fields and horizon mass remain unchanged.
  • If the fitted accretion efficiencies cluster near a narrow range, late-time mass growth may admit a simple universal prescription that abundance calculations could adopt without rerunning full 3D evolutions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a three-dimensional numerical-relativity framework for primordial black hole (PBH) formation in a radiation-dominated universe, implemented in GRChombo with flux-conservative relativistic hydrodynamics. The central methodological development is a cosmologically scaled Gamma-driver with b proportional to a^{-2} and eta_GD proportional to a^{-1}, which allows the cosmic-time step to grow as Delta t proportional to a Delta x while keeping the shift-gauge and physical CFL numbers approximately constant. For a representative spherical run, the authors report a factor-approximately-94 reduction in coarse-level steps compared to the standard driver, with matching apparent-horizon mass and constraint behavior; a conformal-time moving-puncture gauge provides an independent check. For a spherical Gaussian curvature profile, the code locates the threshold 0.79578 < mu_c < 0.79580 and a critical exponent gamma approximately 0.3559, consistent with the radiation-fluid value 0.3558. Late-time mass growth is fit to the Zel'dovich-Novikov accretion law with fitted efficiencies F approximately 2.96-3.61.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a substantial methodological advance for cosmological numerical relativity. The scaled Gamma-driver attacks the temporal bottleneck of long PBH evolutions and, together with AMR, makes multi-Hubble-time three-dimensional runs feasible at roughly two orders of magnitude lower cost. The conformal-time gauge, boundary-condition tests, full-periodic-box regularization tests, and a three-level resolution study provide strong internal evidence that the spherical results are robust. The threshold and critical-exponent values agree with independent spherically symmetric calculations, and the step-count comparison is algorithmic rather than wall-clock dependent, which lends credibility to the efficiency gain. The main limitations are that the scaled driver is validated only for spherical data, and the critical-scaling fit is reported without uncertainty quantification; both need attention before the framework can be used as advertised for nonspherical collapse.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV C / Fig. 4] The critical-scaling result is one of the two main physical validations, but the paper reports only point estimates (K approximately 3.624, mu_c approximately 0.7957813, gamma approximately 0.3559) with no error bars, no table of the ten fitted amplitudes and first-detection masses, no residuals, and no stated fit range. In addition, the threshold classification criterion (maximum evolution time used to decide dispersal, and the minimum apparent-horizon size detected) is not given. Without these details, the four-significant-digit agreement with gamma = 0.3558 cannot be evaluated or reproduced. Please provide the fit data, parameter covariances, a sensitivity test to the number of fitted points and to the choice of mass diagnostic, and a statement of the classification protocol.
  2. [Sec. III A / Sec. V] The scaled Gamma-driver is justified by a frozen-coefficient FLRW analysis and by empirical tests on spherical octant-symmetric data (Fig. 1), and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the far-field argument does not guarantee strong-field behavior near a newly formed black hole. The conclusion nevertheless states that the framework 'can be extended to nonspherical profiles' and provides a 'foundation' for such studies. No genuinely nonspherical initial data are tested; the full periodic-box test of Sec. IV B is still spherical and in fact requires an ad hoc interior regularization to survive past t/t_H approximately 45.3. To support the advertised applicability, the authors should either present a nontrivial nonspherical (or at least non-octant) test with the scaled driver, or explicitly restrict the validation claim to spherical configurations and mark the nonspherical extension as an open problem.
  3. [Sec. IV D / Table I] The accretion-law fit for the near-threshold run mu = 0.805 returns F = 2.958, well outside the quoted consistency range 3.5 <= F <= 3.75 from Ref. [35], while the three larger amplitudes cluster near 3.5-3.6. Because all four runs use the same foliation, the blanket attribution to foliation dependence is insufficient. Please quantify the fit uncertainties for F and M_infty, and provide evidence (e.g., longer runs or a different fitting start time) that the mu = 0.805 fit is indeed in the Zel'dovich-Novikov regime rather than an artifact of an early or short fitting interval.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV C] Please report the actual evolution times at which the nearest supercritical runs form an apparent horizon, since near-critical classification depends on the total simulated time.
  2. [Sec. IV D / Table I] Please give standard errors for the fitted F and M_infty values and show the fit residuals in Fig. 5.
  3. [Sec. II D] Please state whether the simulation code and input parameter files will be released, which would greatly aid reproducibility of the threshold and exponent fits.
  4. [Sec. III A / Eq. (38)] The statement that the effective damping is eta_GD + 2H follows from the time-dependent b, but the derivation is compressed; one sentence showing the algebra would remove ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. IV C / Ref. [12]] The Misner-Sharp benchmark cited in Sec. IV C is a preprint by the same group; please also cite an independent published calculation if available, or clarify the provenance of this benchmark.
  6. [Fig. 1] The early-time constraint transients saturate the lower-right panel; consider using a logarithmic vertical axis or starting the plot after the transient has relaxed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the speedup is a gauge prescription tested in code, and the threshold, critical exponent, and accretion fits are measurements benchmarked against independent or separately checkable results.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The cosmologically scaled Gamma-driver in Sec. III A is derived as a sufficient gauge choice: Eqs. (33) and (35) define the shift wave-CFL and damping bounds, and Eqs. (36) set b(t) and eta_GD(t) so that C_beta and C_eta stay constant when dt scales with a dx. The paper explicitly states that this choice is 'a sufficient gauge prescription... rather than a unique consequence of the Einstein equations' and then validates it against the standard driver in Sec. IV A, so no prediction is being repackaged as an input. The collapse threshold in Sec. IV C is a direct apparent-horizon existence scan; the interval 0.79578 < mu_c < 0.79580 is not imposed by the cited Misner-Sharp value, and the comparison includes external reference [45] and the COSMOS interval [41]. The critical exponent gamma ~ 0.3559 is a free fit to the simulated horizon masses, checked against the literature value 0.3558; the fit is not constructed from that literature value. The post-formation accretion efficiencies F in Sec. IV D are fitted parameters in an explicitly foliation-dependent prescription, not claimed as predictions. Self-citations (Refs. 12, 41, 47, 71) appear as methodology references or as validation sources whose values are separately checkable and do not enter the evolution equations as inputs. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The physical content rests on standard general relativity plus a phenomenological radiation fluid and long-wavelength initial data. The numerical claims rest on empirically validated stability assumptions. The fitted quantities (gamma, K, mu_c, F, M_infty) are outputs of the pipeline rather than external inputs, and they are compared against independent spherical benchmarks.

free parameters (14)
  • b_0 (initial Gamma-driver coefficient) = 3/4
    Chosen so the longitudinal shift gauge mode has unit coordinate speed in the asymptotically flat standard gauge; not fitted to the target result.
  • eta_GD,0 (initial Gamma-driver damping) = 1
    Chosen to match the standard driver damping timescale; in the scaled driver it decays as 1/a.
  • C_CFL, C_H (time-step safety factors) = 0.25, 0.02
    Hand-chosen limits in the coarse-step prescriptions (Eqs. 39 and 43); they affect stability and temporal truncation error.
  • K (critical scaling amplitude) = 3.624 (free fit), 3.621 (fixed gamma)
    Fitted in M_BH = K (mu - mu_c)^gamma; depends on the initial profile family, so it is not universal.
  • mu_c (collapse threshold in scaling fit) = 0.7957813 (fit); bracket 0.79578-0.79580
    Appears as a fit parameter in Eq. (45); also bracketed directly by the amplitude scan, so it is both measured and fitted.
  • gamma (critical exponent in free fit) = 0.3559
    Fitted from the ten nearest supercritical points; agreement with the known 0.3558 is the validation claim, so the value itself is data-dependent.
  • F (accretion efficiency, mu=0.805) = 2.958
    Fitted from the late-time M_BH(t) history for this amplitude using Eq. (47).
  • F (accretion efficiency, mu=0.825) = 3.581
    Fitted from the late-time M_BH(t) history for this amplitude.
  • F (accretion efficiency, mu=0.85) = 3.532
    Fitted from the late-time M_BH(t) history for this amplitude.
  • F (accretion efficiency, mu=0.9) = 3.613
    Fitted from the late-time M_BH(t) history for this amplitude.
  • M_infty/M_H (mu=0.805) = 0.9584
    Extrapolated asymptotic horizon mass from the same Zel'dovich-Novikov fit.
  • M_infty/M_H (mu=0.825) = 1.5201
    Extrapolated asymptotic horizon mass from the same Zel'dovich-Novikov fit.
  • M_infty/M_H (mu=0.85) = 2.0035
    Extrapolated asymptotic horizon mass from the same Zel'dovich-Novikov fit.
  • M_infty/M_H (mu=0.9) = 2.7651
    Extrapolated asymptotic horizon mass from the same Zel'dovich-Novikov fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The long-wavelength gradient-expansion solution to O(epsilon^2) of Harada et al. provides valid superhorizon initial data for the subsequent nonlinear collapse.
    Invoked in Sec. II C; the simulations rely on these initial conditions being the growing mode to sufficient accuracy.
  • domain assumption The matter is a perfect fluid with the linear barotropic equation of state p = omega rho and omega = 1/3.
    Sec. II B; the analytic conserved-to-primitive recovery and the radiation background depend on this equation of state.
  • domain assumption The frozen-coefficient dispersion analysis of the Gamma-driver on a homogeneous FLRW background controls the stability of the full nonlinear BSSN system.
    Sec. III A, Eqs. (31)-(37); the paper explicitly notes that this is not a strong-field guarantee and relies on numerical tests.
  • domain assumption The Zel'dovich-Novikov accretion formula with a constant efficiency F describes late-time PBH mass growth in a radiation background.
    Sec. IV D, Eq. (46); the fit quality and the comparison to prior F values depend on this phenomenological law.
  • domain assumption Suppressing the evolution inside the apparent horizon with the regularization factor does not contaminate exterior physics or horizon-mass measurements.
    Sec. IV B, Eq. (44); physical signals cannot escape the horizon, but gauge and constraint modes need not obey the physical light cone, so the paper validates this empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-term 3+1 simulations of primordial black hole formation during radiation domination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z57IR4WN

@misc{pith2026260813206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-term 3+1 simulations of primordial black hole formation during radiation domination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z57IR4WN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13206}
}
abstract

We develop an efficient three-dimensional numerical-relativity framework for primordial black-hole (PBH) formation from superhorizon curvature perturbations in a radiation-dominated Universe. We implement flux-conservative relativistic hydrodynamics in the adaptive-mesh-refinement code \textsc{GRChombo} and introduce a cosmologically scaled Gamma-driver that allows the cosmic-time step to grow in proportion to the scale factor. For a representative long-term simulation, the scaled driver preserves the apparent-horizon mass evolution and constraint behavior while reducing the number of coarse-level advances by a factor of approximately $94$ relative to the standard driver. We also construct a conformal-time version of the moving-puncture gauge as an independent check. Applying the framework to a spherical Gaussian curvature profile, we find a collapse threshold $0.79578 < \mu_c < 0.79580$ and a critical exponent $\gamma \simeq 0.3559$, consistent with previous spherically symmetric results. We further fit the late-time PBH mass growth to the Zel'dovich--Novikov accretion law, demonstrating that the code can follow both near-critical collapse and long-term post-formation evolution in three dimensions. The framework provides a foundation for future studies of PBH formation beyond spherical symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Gauge comparison. The upper-left panel shows the central lapse for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the cosmologically scaled cosmic-time gauge and the conformal-time gauge with the standard Gamma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Boundary-condition and black-hole-interior regularization tests for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Apparent-horizon mass at first detection as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Post-formation black-hole mass growth and late-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: compares the L 2 norm of the Hamiltonian con￾straint and the apparent-horizon mass. The constraint norm decreases systematically with increasing resolution over the evolution; in particular, the late growth visible at low resolution is strongly suppressed at medium res…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Computations of primordial black hole formation,

    Ilia Musco, John C. Miller, and Luciano Rezzolla, “Computations of primordial black hole formation,” Class. Quant. Grav.22, 1405–1424 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0412063

    arXiv 2005

  2. [1]

    (9) impliesS 2 = (E+p) 2v2

    Conserved-to-primitive recovery After each time-integration substep, we first recover the Eulerian variables from their densitized counterparts as E= E√γ, S i = Si √γ.(A1) DefiningS 2≡γ ijSiSj, Eq. (9) impliesS 2 = (E+p) 2v2. For the linear barotropic equation of statep=ωρ, elim- inating the Lorentz factor gives ωρ2 + (1−ω)Eρ−(E 2−S 2) = 0.(A2) Forω >0, t...

  3. [2]

    The coarsest conformal-time step is chosen as ∆η0 = min CCFL∆x0, CH H(η) ,(43) with the sameC CFL = 0.25 andC H = 0.02 as in the cosmic-time runs

    We can con- sequently use the standard Gamma-driver with constant coefficients, ∂ηβi η =bB i η,(42a) ∂ηBi η =∂ η˜Γi−η GDBi η.(42b) We useb= 3/4 andη GD = 1, so that the fastest lon- gitudinal shift mode has unit coordinate speed and the damping timescale is constant in conformal time. The coarsest conformal-time step is chosen as ∆η0 = min CCFL∆x0, CH H(η...

    2025

  4. [3]

    Black holes in the early Universe,

    Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399– 415 (1974)

    1974

  5. [4]

    Consider one coordinate direction and suppress the transverse grid indices

    MUSCL reconstruction and numerical flux We reconstruct the primitive variables component by component using the monotonic upstream-centered scheme for conservation laws (MUSCL) with a general- ized minmod limiter [60, 61]. Consider one coordinate direction and suppress the transverse grid indices. For any primitive variableq∈{ρ,v 1,v 2,v 3}, we define the...

  6. [5]

    We then convert the reconstructed primitive states to the densitized conserved statesU L,R = (E,S 1,S 2,S 3)T L,R using the common face-centered geometry

    The geometric and gauge variables are interpolated to the same face using fourth-order midpoint interpolation. We then convert the reconstructed primitive states to the densitized conserved statesU L,R = (E,S 1,S 2,S 3)T L,R using the common face-centered geometry. For a face normal to thex k direction, the components of the physical fluxF (k) = (F (k) E ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Yoo et al. use 1/k Y oo as the character- istic scale, whereas our compaction-maximum definition gives rm = √ 6/kY oo = 1/k; the corresponding horizon-entry time and horizon-mass normalizations therefore differ. 4 where∂ 2≡δ ij∂i∂j and (∂ζ) 2≡δ ij∂iζ∂jζ. In our BSSN variables, the growing-mode solution throughO(ϵ 2) is χ=a −2 i e−2ζ 1 + 2f 3(1 +ω) 1 (aiHi...

  8. [7]

    The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmo- logical Model,

    Ya. 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

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Gravitationally collapsed objects of 15 very low mass,

    Stephen Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of 15 very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  2. [9]

    The Primordial black hole mass spec- trum,

    Bernard J. Carr, “The Primordial black hole mass spec- trum,” Astrophys. J.201, 1–19 (1975)

    1975

  3. [10]

    Cosmological effects of primordial black holes,

    George F. Chapline, “Cosmological effects of primordial black holes,” Nature253, 251–252 (1975)

    1975

  4. [11]

    Constraints on the induced gravitational wave background from primor- dial black holes,

    Edgar Bugaev and Peter Klimai, “Constraints on the induced gravitational wave background from primor- dial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D83, 083521 (2011), arXiv:1012.4697 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Primor- dial black holes and induced gravitational waves from logarithmic non-Gaussianity,

    Ryoto Inui, Cristian Joana, Hayato Motohashi, Shi Pi, Yuichiro Tada, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primor- dial black holes and induced gravitational waves from logarithmic non-Gaussianity,” JCAP03, 021 (2025), arXiv:2411.07647 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Sound waves from primordial black hole formations,

    Zhuan Ning, Xiang-Xi Zeng, Zi-Yan Yuwen, Shao-Jiang Wang, Heling Deng, and Rong-Gen Cai, “Sound waves from primordial black hole formations,” Phys. Rev. D 113, 024020 (2026), arXiv:2504.12243 [gr-qc]

    2026

  7. [14]

    Relic gravi- tational waves from primordial gravitational collapses,

    Xiang-Xi Zeng, Zhuan Ning, Zi-Yan Yuwen, Shao-Jiang Wang, Heling Deng, and Rong-Gen Cai, “Relic gravi- tational waves from primordial gravitational collapses,” (2025), arXiv:2504.11275 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Scalar-induced gravitational waves with non-Gaussianity up to all orders,

    Xiang-Xi Zeng, Zhuan Ning, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “Scalar-induced gravitational waves with non-Gaussianity up to all orders,” (2025), arXiv:2508.10812 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) and The Signatures of Cosmic Non-Gaussianity,

    Owais Farooq, Romana Zahoor, and Balungi Francis, “Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) and The Signatures of Cosmic Non-Gaussianity,” (2025), arXiv:2509.10851 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Acoustic gravitational waves from primordial curvature perturbations,

    Zhuan Ning, Zi-Yan Yuwen, Xiang-Xi Zeng, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “Acoustic gravitational waves from primordial curvature perturbations,” (2025), arXiv:2512.21151 [gr-qc]

    2025

  11. [18]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,

    Bernard Carr, Florian Kuhnel, and Marit Sandstad, “Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,

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

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,

    Anne M. Green and Bradley J. Kavanagh, “Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Primordial black holes: constraints, potential evidence and prospects,

    Bernard Carr, Antonio J. Iovino, Gabriele Perna, Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi Veerm¨ ae, “Primordial black holes: constraints, potential evidence and prospects,” Riv. Nuovo Cim.49, 225–274 (2026), arXiv:2601.06024 [astro- ph.CO]

    2026

  15. [22]

    Did LIGO detect dark matter?

    Simeon Bird, Ilias Cholis, Julian B. Mu˜ noz, Yacine Ali- Ha¨ ımoud, Marc Kamionkowski, Ely D. Kovetz, Alvise Raccanelli, and Adam G. Riess, “Did LIGO detect dark matter?” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

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

    Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro 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]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,

    Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,” Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Could supermassive black holes be quintessential primordial black holes?

    Rachel Bean and Joao Magueijo, “Could supermassive black holes be quintessential primordial black holes?” Phys. Rev. D66, 063505 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0204486

    2002 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Supermassive black holes from pri- mordial black hole seeds,

    Norbert Duechting, “Supermassive black holes from pri- mordial black hole seeds,” Phys. Rev. D70, 064015 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406260

    2004 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Primordial seeds of supermas- sive black holes,

    Masahiro Kawasaki, Alexander Kusenko, and Tsu- tomu T. Yanagida, “Primordial seeds of supermas- sive black holes,” Phys. Lett. B711, 1–5 (2012), arXiv:1202.3848 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Primordial Black Holes as Generators of Cosmic Structures,

    Bernard Carr and Joseph Silk, “Primordial Black Holes as Generators of Cosmic Structures,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 3756–3775 (2018), arXiv:1801.00672 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Threshold of primordial black hole formation,

    Tomohiro Harada, Chul-Moon Yoo, and Kazunori Kohri, “Threshold of primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D88, 084051 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 029903 (2014)], arXiv:1309.4201 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Analytical thresholds for black hole formation in gen- eral cosmological backgrounds,

    Albert Escriv` a, Cristiano Germani, and Ravi K. Sheth, “Analytical thresholds for black hole formation in gen- eral cosmological backgrounds,” JCAP01, 030 (2021), arXiv:2007.05564 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Threshold for primordial black holes: Dependence on the shape of the cosmological per- turbations,

    Ilia Musco, “Threshold for primordial black holes: Dependence on the shape of the cosmological per- turbations,” Phys. Rev. D100, 123524 (2019), arXiv:1809.02127 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Universal threshold for primordial black hole formation,

    Albert Escriv` a, Cristiano Germani, and Ravi K. Sheth, “Universal threshold for primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D101, 044022 (2020), arXiv:1907.13311 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Dynamics of pri- mordial black hole formation,

    Jens C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, “Dynamics of pri- mordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D59, 124013 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901292

    1999 arXiv

  27. [34]

    The dynamics of primor- dial black hole formation,

    I. Hawke and J. M. Stewart, “The dynamics of primor- dial black hole formation,” Class. Quant. Grav.19, 3687– 3707 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Primordial black hole formation in the radiative era: Investigation of the critical nature of the collapse,

    Ilia Musco, John C. Miller, and Alexander G. Polnarev, “Primordial black hole formation in the radiative era: Investigation of the critical nature of the collapse,” Class. Quant. Grav.26, 235001 (2009), arXiv:0811.1452 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Primordial black hole formation in the early universe: critical behaviour and self-similarity,

    Ilia Musco and John C. Miller, “Primordial black hole formation in the early universe: critical behaviour and self-similarity,” Class. Quant. Grav.30, 145009 (2013), arXiv:1201.2379 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Black hole formation in the Friedmann universe: Formulation and computa- tion in numerical relativity,

    Masaru Shibata and Misao Sasaki, “Black hole formation in the Friedmann universe: Formulation and computa- tion in numerical relativity,” Phys. Rev. D60, 084002 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9905064

    1999 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Primordial black hole and wormhole formation by do- main walls,

    Heling Deng, Jaume Garriga, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Primordial black hole and wormhole formation by do- main walls,” JCAP04, 050 (2017), arXiv:1612.03753 [gr- qc]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Simulation of primordial black hole formation using pseudo-spectral methods,

    Albert Escriv` a, “Simulation of primordial black hole formation using pseudo-spectral methods,” Phys. Dark Univ.27, 100466 (2020), arXiv:1907.13065 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Primordial black 16 holes from primordial voids,

    Cristian Joana and Zi-Yan Yuwen, “Primordial black 16 holes from primordial voids,” Phys. Rev. D113, 023518 (2026), arXiv:2510.11611 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  34. [42]

    Numerical simulations of primordial black hole formation via delayed first-order phase transitions,

    Zhuan Ning, Xiang-Xi Zeng, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao- Jiang Wang, “Numerical simulations of primordial black hole formation via delayed first-order phase transitions,” JCAP07, 073 (2026), arXiv:2601.21878 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Primordial black hole formation in bulk- viscous cosmology,

    Zi-Yan Yuwen, Cristian Joana, Shao-Jiang Wang, and Rong-Gen Cai, “Primordial black hole formation in bulk- viscous cosmology,” (2026), arXiv:2606.26532 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The statistics of curvature-profile dis- persion in primordial black hole formation,

    Albert Escriv` a, “The statistics of curvature-profile dis- persion in primordial black hole formation,” (2026), arXiv:2607.08738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    PBH Formation from Spherically Sym- metric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,

    Albert Escriv` a, “PBH Formation from Spherically Sym- metric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,” Uni- verse8, 66 (2022), arXiv:2111.12693 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Threshold of Primordial Black Hole Formation in Nonspherical Collapse,

    Chul-Moon Yoo, Tomohiro Harada, and Hirotada Okawa, “Threshold of Primordial Black Hole Formation in Nonspherical Collapse,” Phys. Rev. D102, 043526 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 049901 (2023)], arXiv:2004.01042 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    Chul-Moon Yoo, “Primordial black hole formation from a nonspherical density profile with a misaligned de- formation tensor,” Phys. Rev. D110, 043526 (2024), arXiv:2403.11147 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Simulations of el- lipsoidal primordial black hole formation,

    Albert Escriv` a and Chul-Moon Yoo, “Simulations of el- lipsoidal primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D 112, 083518 (2025), arXiv:2410.03452 [gr-qc]

    2025

  41. [49]

    Nonspherical ef- fects on the mass function of primordial black holes,

    Albert Escriv` a and Chul-Moon Yoo, “Nonspherical ef- fects on the mass function of primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D112, L081304 (2025), arXiv:2410.03451 [gr- qc]

    2025

  42. [50]

    Primor- dial Black Holes in a Radiation-Dominated Universe,

    Thomas W. Baumgarte, Katy Clough, Mary Ger- hardinger, John T. Giblin, and Amanda Miller, “Primor- dial Black Holes in a Radiation-Dominated Universe,” (2026), arXiv:2606.30641 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gravitational Collapse of a Massless Scalar Field in a Periodic Box,

    Chul-Moon Yoo, Taishi Ikeda, and Hirotada Okawa, “Gravitational Collapse of a Massless Scalar Field in a Periodic Box,” Class. Quant. Grav.36, 075004 (2019), arXiv:1811.00762 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    COSMOS: A numerical relativity code specialized for PBH formation,

    Chul-Moon Yoo, Hirotada Okawa, Albert Escriv` a, To- mohiro Harada, Hayami Iizuka, Taishi Ikeda, Yasutaka Koga, Daiki Saito, Masaaki Shimada, and Koichiro Ue- hara, “COSMOS: A numerical relativity code specialized for PBH formation,” J. Open Source Softw.11, 9570 (2026), arXiv...

    2026 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gauge conditions for long term numerical black hole evolutions without excision,

    Miguel Alcubierre, Bernd Bruegmann, Peter Diener, Michael Koppitz, Denis Pollney, Edward Seidel, and Ry- oji Takahashi, “Gauge conditions for long term numerical black hole evolutions without excision,” Phys. Rev. D67, 084023 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0206072

    2003 arXiv

  46. [54]

    How to move a black hole without excision: Gauge conditions for the numerical evolution of a moving puncture,

    James R. van Meter, John G. Baker, Michael Koppitz, and Dae-Il Choi, “How to move a black hole without excision: Gauge conditions for the numerical evolution of a moving puncture,” Phys. Rev. D73, 124011 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0605030

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Boson star-black hole binaries: initial data and head-on collisions,

    Zhuan Ning, “Boson star-black hole binaries: initial data and head-on collisions,” (2026), arXiv:2604.15240 [gr- qc]

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

    GRChombo : Numerical Relativity with Adaptive Mesh Refinement,

    Katy Clough, Pau Figueras, Hal Finkel, Markus Kunesch, Eugene A. Lim, and Saran Tunyasuvunakool, “GRChombo : Numerical Relativity with Adaptive Mesh Refinement,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 245011 (2015), arXiv:1503.03436 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lessons for adaptive mesh refinement in numer- ical relativity,

    Miren Radia, Ulrich Sperhake, Amelia Drew, Katy Clough, Pau Figueras, Eugene A. Lim, Justin L. Rip- ley, Josu C. Aurrekoetxea, Tiago Fran¸ ca, and Thomas Helfer, “Lessons for adaptive mesh refinement in numer- ical relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav.39, 135006 (2022), arXiv:2112....

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    GRChombo: An adaptable nu- merical relativity code for fundamental physics,

    Tomas Andradeet al., “GRChombo: An adaptable nu- merical relativity code for fundamental physics,” J. Open Source Softw.6, 3703 (2021), arXiv:2201.03458 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    3+1 formalism and bases of numer- ical relativity,

    Eric Gourgoulhon, “3+1 formalism and bases of numer- ical relativity,” (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0703035

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Miguel Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Rela- tivity(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  53. [61]

    Masaru Shibata,Numerical Relativity(World Scientific, 2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    General Rel- ativistic Collapse to Black Holes and Gravitational Waves from Black Holes,

    T. Nakamura, K. Oohara, and Y. Kojima, “General Rel- ativistic Collapse to Black Holes and Gravitational Waves from Black Holes,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.90, 1–218 (1987)

    1987

  55. [63]

    Evolution of three-dimensional gravitational waves: Harmonic slicing case,

    Masaru Shibata and Takashi Nakamura, “Evolution of three-dimensional gravitational waves: Harmonic slicing case,” Phys. Rev. D52, 5428–5444 (1995)

    1995

  56. [64]

    On the numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations,

    Thomas W. Baumgarte and Stuart L. Shapiro, “On the numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations,” Phys. Rev. D59, 024007 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9810065

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    New High- Resolution Central Schemes for Nonlinear Conservation Laws and Convection–Diffusion Equations,

    Alexander Kurganov and Eitan Tadmor, “New High- Resolution Central Schemes for Nonlinear Conservation Laws and Convection–Diffusion Equations,” J. Comput. Phys.160, 241–282 (2000)

    2000

  58. [66]

    Robustness of a high-resolution central scheme for hydrodynamic simula- tions in full general relativity,

    Masaru Shibata and Jose A. Font, “Robustness of a high-resolution central scheme for hydrodynamic simula- tions in full general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D72, 047501 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507099

    2005 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cosmological long-wavelength so- lutions and primordial black hole formation,

    Tomohiro Harada, Chul-Moon Yoo, Tomohiro Nakama, and Yasutaka Koga, “Cosmological long-wavelength so- lutions and primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D91, 084057 (2015), arXiv:1503.03934 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Chombo software package for AMR applications - design document,

    M. Adamset al., “Chombo software package for AMR applications - design document,” (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Dynamics of black holes in de Sitter spacetimes,

    Miguel Zilhao, Vitor Cardoso, Leonardo Gualtieri, Carlos Herdeiro, Ulrich Sperhake, and Helvi Witek, “Dynamics of black holes in de Sitter spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D85, 104039 (2012), arXiv:1204.2019 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Black Hole Universe: Time Evolution,

    Chul-Moon Yoo, Hirotada Okawa, and Ken-ichi Nakao, “Black Hole Universe: Time Evolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 161102 (2013), arXiv:1306.1389 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Preheating in Full General Relativity,

    John T. Giblin and Avery J. Tishue, “Preheating in Full General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. D100, 063543 (2019), arXiv:1907.10601 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Well- posedness of formulations of the Einstein equations with dynamical lapse and shift conditions,

    Carsten Gundlach and Jose M. Martin-Garcia, “Well- posedness of formulations of the Einstein equations with dynamical lapse and shift conditions,” Phys. Rev. D74, 024016 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604035

    2006 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Time Step Size Limitation Introduced by the BSSN Gamma Driver,

    Erik Schnetter, “Time Step Size Limitation Introduced by the BSSN Gamma Driver,” Class. Quant. Grav.27, 167001 (2010), arXiv:1003.0859 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    General relativistic cosmological N-body simulations. Part I. Time integration,

    David Daverio, Yves Dirian, and Ermis Mitsou, “General relativistic cosmological N-body simulations. Part I. Time integration,” JCAP10, 065 (2019), arXiv:1904.07841 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chul-Moon Yoo, Albert Escriv` a, Tomohiro Harada, and Kazunori Kohri, In preparation

  68. [76]

    Primordial black hole formation from massless scalar isocurvature,

    Chul-Moon Yoo, Tomohiro Harada, Shin’ichi Hirano, Hi- rotada Okawa, and Misao Sasaki, “Primordial black hole formation from massless scalar isocurvature,” Phys. Rev. 17 D105, 103538 (2022), arXiv:2112.12335 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Observation of critical phenomena and selfsimilarity in the gravitational collapse of radiation fluid,

    Charles R. Evans and Jason S. Coleman, “Observation of critical phenomena and selfsimilarity in the gravitational collapse of radiation fluid,” Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1782– 1785 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402041

    1994 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Critical behavior in gravitational collapse of radia- tion fluid: A Renormalization group (linear perturba- tion) analysis,

    Tatsuhiko Koike, Takashi Hara, and Satoshi Adachi, “Critical behavior in gravitational collapse of radia- tion fluid: A Renormalization group (linear perturba- tion) analysis,” Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 5170–5173 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9503007

    1995 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Critical phenomena in perfect fluids,

    David W. Neilsen and Matthew W. Choptuik, “Critical phenomena in perfect fluids,” Class. Quant. Grav.17, 761–782 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9812053

    2000 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Cosmological discrete self- similarity in primordial black hole formation,

    Luis E. Padilla, Tomohiro Harada, Ethan Milli- gan, and David Mulryne, “Cosmological discrete self- similarity in primordial black hole formation,” (2026), arXiv:2604.21520 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Non-linear dynamics and primor- dial black hole formation during kination,

    Cheng Cheng, Panagiotis Giannadakis, Lucien Heurtier, and Eugene A. Lim, “Non-linear dynamics and primor- dial black hole formation during kination,” JCAP07, 048 (2026), arXiv:2507.19166 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Primordial black holes forming during kination: the trapped, the overdense, and the void,

    Cristian Joana, “Primordial black holes forming during kination: the trapped, the overdense, and the void,” (2026), arXiv:2607.20423 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Primordial black hole formation in a scalar field dominated universe,

    Ethan Milligan, Luis E. Padilla, David J. Mulryne, and Juan Carlos Hidalgo, “Primordial black hole formation in a scalar field dominated universe,” JCAP10, 025 (2025), arXiv:2504.02600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Primordial Black Hole formation in a scalar field dominated Universe: Investigation of the critical nature of the collapse,

    Luis E. Padilla, Ethan Milligan, David J. Mulryne, and Juan Carlos Hidalgo, “Primordial Black Hole formation in a scalar field dominated Universe: Investigation of the critical nature of the collapse,” JCAP04, 049 (2026), arXiv:2509.10431 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.