New Venues in Formation and Detection for Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter

Volodymyr Takhistov

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

New Venues in Formation and Detection for Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that scalar field fragmentation into Q-balls or oscillons forms primordial black holes without inflaton fine-tuning, and that asteroid-mass PBHs captured by neutron stars can explain r-process elements, orphan…

desk verdict A competent proceedings summary of the author's own PBH program, not a new research claim; the gating Q-ball lifetime is parameterized but neither estimated nor compared with t_Q, so the formation channel rests on prior work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01464 v1 pith:F7E4C6WN submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Volodymyr Takhistov This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ph

keywords primordialblackholesdarkmatterscalarfieldfragmentationQ-ballsoscillonsneutronstarcapturer-processnucleosynthesis511keVemission

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that primordial black holes can form through the fragmentation of a self-interacting scalar field into solitonic clumps, Q-balls or oscillons, in the early Universe. Because the overdense clumps are unrelated to inflationary perturbations, this formation route avoids the severe fine-tuning of the inflaton potential that many standard PBH models require. The paper then argues that asteroid-mass PBHs in the open $10^{17}$ to $10^{22}$ gram mass window, where PBHs can still be all of dark matter, would be gravitationally captured by neutron stars and white dwarfs and consume them from within. The resulting destruction would produce orphan kilonovae and gamma-ray bursts without gravitational-wave counterparts, r-process heavy elements, 511 keV positron-annihilation emission, and solar-mass black hole remnants. If correct, a single mechanism could make PBHs the whole of dark matter and connect several currently unexplained astrophysical observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the solitonic lump, a Q-ball or oscillon produced when a scalar condensate is unstable to fragmentation. Q-balls are stable, spherical lumps of scalar field held together by a conserved charge; oscillons are their long-lived real-field counterparts. The instability condition is $V''(R) - \dot{\Omega} < 0$, where $R$ and $\Omega$ are the radial amplitude and rotating phase of the complex field, and it generalises tachyonic resonance. The lumps form a matter-like gas that comes to dominate the energy density, and the paper's formation estimate counts how often a Poisson fluctuation in the lump distribution exceeds the critical collapse overdensity $\delta_c \sim O(1)$ during that matter-dominated era. On the detection side, the key mechanism is capture: a PBH passing through a neutron star or white dwarf loses energy through dynamical friction and accretion, settles inside, and consumes the star on timescales that depend on $M_{\rm PBH}$. The consumption of the neutron star ejects neutron-rich material, enabling r-process nucleosynthesis, and powers the various electromagnetic signatures described in the paper.

What would settle it

A simulation or analytic calculation showing that Q-balls or oscillons decay before the matter-dominated era begins (that their lifetime is shorter than the time of matter domination) would kill the formation mechanism; on the observational side, a sensitive all-sky search that finds no orphan kilonovae or gamma-ray bursts without gravitational-wave counterparts in the relevant mass window would rule out asteroid-mass PBHs as all of dark matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that primordial black holes arise generically from scalar field fragmentation: a light complex scalar field with self-interactions, displaced during inflation, develops growing oscillation instabilities and breaks up into solitonic lumps; the stochastic collapse of overdense clumps of those lumps then makes black holes during a temporary matter-dominated era. This is claimed to work whether the scalar is the inflaton fragmenting into oscillons or a spectator field fragmenting into Q-balls, and to avoid the inflaton-potential fine-tuning common to curvature-perturbation PBH models. The paper further claims that PBHs in the unconstrained sub-lunar/asteroid mass range around $10^{17}$ to $10^{22}$ g can be all of dark matter, and that their capture by neutron stars and white dwarfs in dark-matter-rich environments leads to destruction of the host stars with a distinctive set of signals: orphan kilonovae and short gamma-ray bursts with no gravitational-wave counterpart, non-repeating fast radio bursts, 511 keV emission consistent with the Galactic Center excess, r-process nucleosynthesis matching Milky Way and ultra-faint dwarf abundances, and solar-mass black hole remnants from transmuted binaries. Getting any one of these channels right would open a new observational window on PBH dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The creation of black holes requires that the clumps of scalar field survive long enough to take over the universe's energy and collapse; the paper assumes this lifetime but does not show it holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If PBHs fill the open 10^17 to 10^22 g window, neutron-star captures in the Galactic Center would consume about 10 percent of millisecond pulsars, matching the missing-pulsar problem.
The neutron-rich ejecta from a PBH-destroyed neutron star can account for r-process abundances in both the Milky Way and ultra-faint dwarf galaxies at once.
PBH-neutron-star systems would produce kilonovae and short gamma-ray bursts with no gravitational-wave counterpart, giving a clean electromagnetic-only signature.
The 511 keV line from positron annihilation is naturally produced in these events and can explain the Galactic Center excess.
Some compact stars consumed by PBHs leave solar-mass black holes, a population not expected from stellar evolution and possibly distinguishable by future higher-order gravitational-wave observations.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same stochastic-collapse logic could be applied to other long-lived soliton-like objects, such as axion stars, provided they survive long enough to dominate the energy density.
Because PBHs formed in a matter-dominated era can carry large spins, future gravitational-wave measurements of merging PBH binaries could test the formation route independently of the compact-star signals.
Deep searches for orphan kilonovae in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, where the capture rate is highest, could directly test the scenario: a handful of events with no associated gravitational-wave signal would support asteroid-mass PBH dark matter.
Neutron-star disruption by PBHs and by binary neutron-star mergers may produce distinguishable r-process abundance patterns and timing, so abundance ratios in a galaxy like Reticulum II could discriminate between the two sources.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know: this is an ICRC proceedings write-up, not a new research claim. It summarizes the author's and collaborators' earlier work on PBH formation from scalar field fragmentation into Q-balls/oscillons and on compact-star signatures of asteroid-mass PBHs. Read as a talk record, it is useful and candid. Read as a primary paper, it contains no new result.

Credit where due. The author explains the fragmentation idea compactly, lists the conditions needed, and—importantly—labels the Fig. 2 curves as maximum reach for the most optimistic parameter choices. The text also openly notes that old constraints (femtolensing, neutron-star capture in globular clusters, WD heating) are not as strong as often claimed, with references. That transparency is real and helps the reader.

The soft spots are real but need to be kept in scale. The central formation channel for the spectator-field case requires Q-balls to survive from fragmentation until they dominate the energy density and then collapse; if tau_Q < t_Q, there is no matter-dominated era and Eq. (2.6) gives zero PBH abundance. The paper only writes tau_Q = 1/Gamma_Q and says U(1)-breaking operators could cause decay; it does not estimate Gamma_Q or compare tau_Q with t_Q. Maybe the calculation is in the cited Refs. [24-27], but it is not in this text, so a reader cannot tell whether the mechanism is alive. For a proceedings this is acceptable—one expects to be sent to the original papers—but for a standalone claim it is a gap. Likewise, Eq. (2.4) depends on a phenomenological B(M,V) ~ K theta[delta0 - delta_c] with free K and delta_c; the text tells you what K represents but gives no values, so the mass function cannot be reproduced from this paper alone.

The detection-signal part is broader and less risky: orphan kilonovae, GRBs without mergers, r-process yields, and 511 keV emission are legitimate signatures to list, and the author correctly draws them as maximum-reach curves rather than definite predictions. The citation pattern is self-heavy but that is expected for a self-summary; the external literature is engaged.

Who is this for? Someone at ICRC who wants the highlights and references of this program, or a newcomer to PBH DM looking for a compact bibliography. Not for someone who wants a derivation or a critical comparison of competing formation models.

If it came to me as a research submission, I would desk-reject on novelty grounds, because the content is from prior papers. As a proceedings contribution, I would accept after minor edits—chiefly adding a sentence that makes clear this is a summary of prior work and pointing to where tau_Q and the collapse probability are actually derived. It deserves one careful referee only if the venue wants to ensure the proceedings text does not overclaim; otherwise it is a serviceable record of a talk.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper summarizes a proposal in which primordial black holes (PBHs) form from scalar-field fragmentation into solitonic lumps (Q-balls or oscillons), with collapse occurring during a matter-dominated era. The formation mechanism is presented as a way to avoid the inflaton-potential fine-tuning typical of standard PBH scenarios, and the paper then reviews how PBHs in the sub-lunar/asteroid-mass window (roughly 10^17 to 10^22 g) could be captured by neutron stars and white dwarfs, producing orphan kilonovae, gamma-ray bursts, r-process nucleosynthesis, 511 keV emission, and solar-mass black holes. The formation discussion follows Refs. [24-27] and the detection discussion follows Refs. [35-37]; the paper does not present new derivations or a new quantitative analysis.

Significance. If the proposed formation mechanism works, it would provide a viable route to PBH dark matter in the open mass window and predict a distinctive set of multimessenger signatures. The paper is clearly written and gives a useful, honest overview of a research program, including a fair summary of existing constraints. Its main value is as a conference proceedings contribution that consolidates prior work; it does not itself establish the central formation claim, and the detection discussion is qualitative. The manuscript would be strengthened by making the key timescale condition (Q-ball lifetime versus matter-domination time) explicit and by presenting at least one concrete benchmark that yields f_DM ≈ 1.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2.2, Fig. 1] The formation scenario requires Q-balls produced at t_f to survive past t_Q, when they come to dominate the energy density, and to collapse into PBHs before decaying at τ_Q. However, τ_Q is introduced in Sec. 2.1 only as a phenomenological parameter τ_Q = 1/Γ_Q, and the paper provides no calculation or citation for Γ_Q in the models discussed, nor any comparison of τ_Q with t_Q. If τ_Q ≲ t_Q, the Q-ball gas never dominates, Eq. (2.6) gives a vanishing PBH abundance, and the compact-star signals of Sec. 3 cannot rescue the formation claim because they presuppose that the PBHs exist. Please add an explicit decay-rate estimate (or a reference to a concrete calculation for a specific model, e.g., gauge-mediated SUSY) and state the condition τ_Q > t_Q as a requirement.
[Eqs. (2.4)-(2.6), Sec. 2.2] The central abundance calculation is not performed in this paper; Eq. (2.4) is taken from Refs. [24-27], with P(M|V) assumed to be Poisson and B(M,V) ∼ K θ[δ0 − δ_c] containing two free parameters, K and δ_c. As written, the claim that PBHs from scalar-field fragmentation can constitute all of dark matter is parametric rather than predictive: no ranges for K and δ_c are given, and no demonstration is provided that the resulting mass function peaks in the 10^17–10^22 g window. Please summarize the key steps of the derivation from Refs. [24-27] and provide benchmark parameter values that yield f_DM ≈ 1.
[Sec. 3, Fig. 2] The detection section is largely qualitative. Figure 2 displays 'maximum reach' regions that assume 'the most optimistic input parameter choice', and several statements rely on 'crude estimates' (e.g., the expected 511 keV signal). To make the claimed new astrophysical signatures falsifiable, the paper should state at least one quantitative prediction per signal (e.g., event rates, flux ranges, or abundance limits) and identify the key assumptions (DM density in the Galactic Center and UFDs, capture-rate normalization, ejected mass, and jet efficiency). Without such numbers, the reader cannot assess whether the proposed channels are distinguishable from standard astrophysical explanations.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 3] In the paragraph on millisecond pulsars, 'consistent with our the scenario' should read 'consistent with the scenario'.
[Sec. 3] 'the time for BH to consume the star form the inside' should be 'from the inside'.
[Fig. 2 caption] 'along with experimental constrains' should be 'constraints'.
[Sec. 2.1] The number density estimate 'n ∼ (k_nl/2π)^3 ∼ 10−10^6' is ambiguous; please write '10 to 10^6' or use superscripts consistently.
[Sec. 2.2, Fig. 1] Eq. (2.5) uses t_R for the end of the matter-dominated era, while Fig. 1 and the text describe the Q-ball era as lasting until τ_Q; please align the notation and clarify whether t_R = τ_Q or t_R is determined by something else.
[Abstract] The abstract says 'We present a novel general PBH formation mechanism', but the mechanism is largely a summary of Refs. [24-27]; consider rephrasing to 'We review' or 'We discuss' to avoid overclaiming novelty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Heavy transparent self-citation in both formation and detection threads, but no step reduces a prediction to its input by construction; the Q-ball lifetime concern is an unverified condition, not a circularity.

full rationale

This ICRC proceedings paper is essentially a summary of the author's prior work: the PBH-from-fragmentation mass function is imported from Refs. [24-27] ('At fragmentation time t_f, the resulting PBH-mass function can be obtained via [24, 25, 26, 27]'), and the compact-star signals follow Refs. [35-37]. That is extensive self-citation, but it is transparent attribution to peer-reviewed derivations, not a definitional loop. Eq. (2.4) is not defined in terms of its own output; it is an analytic model with explicit assumptions (Poisson P(M|V), step-function collapse criterion B(M,V) ~ K theta[delta0 - delta_c]), and the free parameters K and delta_c are not fitted to the quantities being predicted. The Q-ball lifetime tau_Q is introduced phenomenologically and the paper does not provide a calculation showing tau_Q > t_Q; however, that is a missing calculation or an unverified assumption, not a circular reduction. The astrophysical 'signals' are presented as conditional consistency statements ('can account for', 'consistent with') against external observations such as r-process abundances, the 511 keV excess, and the missing pulsar problem, so they are not forced by construction from the model assumptions. The main caveat is that the novelty of the 'mechanism' rests on self-citations, but because those citations point to prior work with independent simulation support for Q-ball/oscillon formation and to external observational comparisons, the circularity score remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; PBHs, Q-balls, and oscillons are known objects. The central claim rests on several free parameters (K, delta_c, f_Q, alpha, beta, Lambda, tau_Q) and on domain assumptions about the existence of suitable scalar fields, the fragmentation criterion, the Poisson distribution of lumps, the lifetime of the lumps, and the openness of the constraint window. These are not derived in this paper but imported from the author's prior works and other cited literature.

free parameters (6)

K = unconstrained
Phenomenological prefactor in the collapse probability B ~ K theta[delta0 - delta_c] (Eq. 2.4); parametrizes angular momentum, anisotropy, and other effects. No value is given in this paper.
delta_c = O(1)
Critical overdensity for collapse of soliton clusters to black holes in Eq. (2.4); assumed ~O(1) but not derived.
f_Q = 10^-1 to 10^-2
Ratio of fragment size to horizon size in Eq. (2.2), taken from simulations; the range spans an order of magnitude and directly affects the lump mass scale.
alpha, beta = model-dependent (e.g., 3/4, 1/4 for gauge-mediated SUSY)
Exponents in the Q-ball mass-radius relation Eq. (2.3); they determine how Q-ball mass and radius scale with charge and are model-dependent.
Lambda (e.g., M_SUSY) = unspecified
Scale in the Q-ball mass-radius relation Eq. (2.3); a free parameter of the particle physics model.
tau_Q (or Gamma_Q) = unspecified
Q-ball lifetime used in the formation timeline (Section 2.2 and Fig. 1). The mechanism requires tau_Q to be long enough for matter domination and collapse, but no value or bound is given.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption A light complex scalar field with a flat direction and self-interactions exists generically in BSM models (SUSY, string theory).
Section 1 states that moduli, axions, and SUSY flat directions provide such scalars; this is assumed rather than demonstrated for the early universe.
domain assumption The instability condition V''(R) - Omega_dot < 0 (Eq. 2.1) is a sufficient and general criterion for fragmentation into Q-balls or oscillons.
Section 2.1 presents this as 'simple and very general' from Ref. [39]; no proof is given in this paper, and its generality across potentials is assumed.
domain assumption Fragmentation produces a Poisson-distributed, uncorrelated population of soliton lumps at fragmentation time.
Section 2.2 states 'Assuming the most general model-independent and uncorrelated distribution of soliton lumps, we take P(M|V) to be Poisson.' Correlations or non-Poisson statistics would change the mass function.
domain assumption Q-balls and oscillons are stable long enough to dominate the energy density and collapse to PBHs before decaying.
Section 2.2 and Fig. 1 require matter domination lasting from t_Q to t_R; this requires tau_Q to exceed t_Q, which is not justified quantitatively.
domain assumption The mass window ~10^17-10^22 g is truly open, based on reanalyses of femtolensing, microlensing, and neutron-star capture constraints.
Section 3 adopts the conclusions of Refs. [48-54] that previous constraints are not effective; if those reanalyses are wrong, the all-dark-matter scenario is invalidated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Venues in Formation and Detection for Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7E4C6WN

@misc{pith2026190801464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Venues in Formation and Detection for Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7E4C6WN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01464}
}

read the original abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) are not as exotic as once thought and constitute a compelling non-particle dark matter (DM) candidate. We present a novel general PBH formation mechanism from scalar field fragmentation, which does not suffer from the inflaton potential fine-tuning that plagues many of the standard PBH formation models. We discuss how interactions of compact stars with very small sub-lunar/asteroid-size PBHs, which reside in the open window of parameter space where PBHs can constitute all of DM, allow for a slew of new astrophysical signatures that could shed light on PBH DM and are particularly interesting in the era of multi-messenger astronomy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01464 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Two examples of a typical timeline. [left panel] In the model from Ref. [26], oscillon scalar lumps formed directly from the inflaton dominate the energy density for a limited time creating a temporary matter-dominated era, during which PBHs form. [right panel] In the case of a spectator field [24, 25], it can fragment into Q-balls during the radiation-dominated era. Since the gas of Q-balls has the energy density t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Signals from PBH-compact star interactions along with experimental constrains. [blue dashed] Allowed parameter space for PBH-NS gamma-ray bursts to significantly contribute to the observed positron excess at high energies [37]. [black dashed] Allowed parameter space where heavy element nucleosynthesis associated with PBH-NS systems can account for all of r-process element abundance in Milky Way as well as UFDs simul… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

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

work page 1967
[2]

Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Mon

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

1971
[3]

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

work page 1974
[4]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel and M. Sandstad, Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 083504 [1607.06077]

arXiv 2016
[5]

Sasaki, T

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Primordial black holes-perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 063001 [1801.05235]

arXiv 2018
[6]

M. Yu. Khlopov, Primordial Black Holes, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10 (2010) 495 [0801.0116]

arXiv 2010
[7]

J. Liu, X. Chen and X. Ji, Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 212 [1709.00688]

arXiv 2017
[8]

V IRGO , LIGO collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 061102 [1602.03837]

arXiv 2016

Show all 71 references

[9]

V IRGO , LIGO collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 241103 [1606.04855]

2016 arXiv
[10]

V IRGO , LIGO collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., GW170104: Observation of a 50-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at Redshift 0.2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 221101 [1706.01812]

2017 arXiv
[11]

Nakamura, M

T. Nakamura, M. Sasaki, T. Tanaka and K. S. Thorne, Gravitational waves from coalescing black hole MACHO binaries, Astrophys. J. 487 (1997) L139 [astro-ph/9708060]

1997 arXiv
[12]

Clesse and J

S. Clesse and J. Garcia-Bellido, Massive Primordial Black Holes from Hybrid Inﬂation as Dark Matter and the seeds of Galaxies, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 023524 [1501.07565]

2015 arXiv
[13]

Bird et al., Did LIGO detect dark matter?, Phys

S. Bird et al., Did LIGO detect dark matter?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 201301 [1603.00464]

2016 arXiv
[14]

Sasaki, T

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 061101 [1603.08338]

2016 arXiv
[15]

Kawasaki, A

M. Kawasaki, A. Kusenko and T. T. Yanagida, Primordial seeds of supermassive black holes, Phys. Lett. B711 (2012) 1 [1202.3848]

2012 arXiv
[16]

Kawasaki, N

M. Kawasaki, N. Kitajima and T. T. Yanagida, Primordial black hole formation from an axionlike curvaton model, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 063519 [1207.2550]. 8 New Venues for Primordial Black Holes V olodymyr Takhistov

2013 arXiv
[17]

Kawasaki and K

M. Kawasaki and K. Murai, Formation of supermassive primordial black holes by Afﬂeck-Dine mechanism, 1907.02273

1907 arXiv
[18]

Polnarev and R

A. Polnarev and R. Zembowicz, Formation of Primordial Black Holes by Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 1106

1991
[19]

Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

P LANCK collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, 1807.06209

2018 arXiv
[20]

Kawasaki and V

M. Kawasaki and V . Takhistov,Primordial Black Holes and the String Swampland, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 123514 [1810.02547]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Germani and I

C. Germani and I. Musco, The abundance of primordial black holes depends on the shape of the inﬂationary power spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 141302 [1805.04087]

2019 arXiv
[22]

J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco and A. Riotto, Cosmological Signature of the Standard Model Higgs Vacuum Instability: Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 121301 [1710.11196]

2018 arXiv
[23]

Ali-Haimoud, Correlation Function of High-Threshold Regions and Application to the Initial Small-Scale Clustering of Primordial Black Holes, Phys

Y . Ali-Haimoud, Correlation Function of High-Threshold Regions and Application to the Initial Small-Scale Clustering of Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 081304 [1805.05912]

2018 arXiv
[24]

Cotner and A

E. Cotner and A. Kusenko, Primordial black holes from supersymmetry in the early universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 031103 [1612.02529]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Cotner and A

E. Cotner and A. Kusenko, Primordial black holes from scalar ﬁeld evolution in the early universe, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 103002 [1706.09003]

2017 arXiv
[26]

Cotner, A

E. Cotner, A. Kusenko and V . Takhistov,Primordial Black Holes from Inﬂaton Fragmentation into Oscillons, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 083513 [1801.03321]

2018 arXiv
[27]

Cotner, A

E. Cotner, A. Kusenko, M. Sasaki and V . Takhistov,Analytic Description of Primordial Black Hole Formation from Scalar Field Fragmentation, 1907.10613

1907 arXiv
[28]

Arvanitaki, S

A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, String Axiverse, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 123530 [0905.4720]

2010 arXiv
[29]

Gherghetta, C

T. Gherghetta, C. F. Kolda and S. P. Martin, Flat directions in the scalar potential of the supersymmetric standard model, Nucl. Phys. B468 (1996) 37 [hep-ph/9510370]

1996 arXiv
[30]

S. R. Coleman, Q Balls, Nucl. Phys. B262 (1985) 263

1985
[31]

Kasuya, M

S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and F. Takahashi, I-balls, Phys. Lett. B559 (2003) 99 [hep-ph/0209358]

2003 arXiv
[32]

DeRocco and P

W. DeRocco and P. W. Graham, Constraining primordial black hole abundance with the Galactic 511 keV line, 1906.07740

1906 arXiv
[33]

Laha, Primordial black holes as dark matter candidate are severely constrained by the Galactic Center 511 keV gamma-ray line, 1906.09994

R. Laha, Primordial black holes as dark matter candidate are severely constrained by the Galactic Center 511 keV gamma-ray line, 1906.09994

1906 arXiv
[34]

Capela, M

F. Capela, M. Pshirkov and P. Tinyakov, Constraints on primordial black holes as dark matter candidates from capture by neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 123524 [1301.4984]

2013 arXiv
[35]

G. M. Fuller, A. Kusenko and V . Takhistov,Primordial Black Holes and r-Process Nucleosynthesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 061101 [1704.01129]

2017 arXiv
[36]

Takhistov,Transmuted Gravity Wave Signals from Primordial Black Holes, Phys

V . Takhistov,Transmuted Gravity Wave Signals from Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 77 [1707.05849]

2018 arXiv
[37]

Takhistov,Positrons from Primordial Black Hole Microquasars and Gamma-ray Bursts, Phys

V . Takhistov,Positrons from Primordial Black Hole Microquasars and Gamma-ray Bursts, Phys. Lett. B789 (2019) 538 [1710.09458]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Enqvist, T

K. Enqvist, T. Meriniemi and S. Nurmi, Generation of the Higgs Condensate and Its Decay after Inﬂation, JCAP 1310 (2013) 057 [1306.4511]. 9 New Venues for Primordial Black Holes V olodymyr Takhistov

2013 arXiv
[39]

Kusenko and M

A. Kusenko and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Supersymmetric Q balls as dark matter, Phys. Lett. B418 (1998) 46 [hep-ph/9709492]

1998 arXiv
[40]

M. S. Turner, Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 1243

1983
[41]

Kasuya and M

S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Q Ball formation in the gravity mediated SUSY breaking scenario, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 023512 [hep-ph/0002285]

2000 arXiv
[42]

Multamaki and I

T. Multamaki and I. Vilja, Simulations of Q ball formation, Phys. Lett. B535 (2002) 170 [hep-ph/0203195]

2002 arXiv
[43]

Mukaida and M

K. Mukaida and M. Takimoto, Correspondence of I- and Q-balls as Non-relativistic Condensates, JCAP 1408 (2014) 051 [1405.3233]

2014 arXiv
[44]

A. G. Polnarev and M. Yu. Khlopov, Cosmology, Primordial Black Holes and Supermassive Particles, Sov. Phys. Usp. 28 (1985) 213

1985
[45]

Harada, C.-M

T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, K. Kohri, K.-i. Nakao and S. Jhingan, Primordial black hole formation in the matter-dominated phase of the Universe, Astrophys. J. 833 (2016) 61 [1609.01588]

2016 arXiv
[46]

Harada, C.-M

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 (2017) 083517 [1707.03595]

2017 arXiv
[47]

K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, Gravitational perturbations from oscillons and transients after inﬂation, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 123504 [1902.06736]

2019 arXiv
[48]

Barnacka, J

A. Barnacka, J. F. Glicenstein and R. Moderski, New constraints on primordial black holes abundance from femtolensing of gamma-ray bursts, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 043001 [1204.2056]

2012 arXiv
[49]

P. W. Graham, S. Rajendran and J. Varela, Dark Matter Triggers of Supernovae, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 063007 [1505.04444]

2015 arXiv
[50]

A. Katz, J. Kopp, S. Sibiryakov and W. Xue, Femtolensing by Dark Matter Revisited, JCAP 1812 (2018) 005 [1807.11495]

2018 arXiv
[51]

Niikura et al., Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations, Nat

H. Niikura et al., Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations, Nat. Astron. 3 (2019) 524 [1701.02151]

2019 arXiv
[52]

J. D. Bradford, M. Geha, R. Munoz, F. A. Santana, J. D. Simon, P. Cote et al., Structure and Dynamics of the Globular Cluster Palomar 13, Astrophys. J. 743 (2011) 167 [1110.0484]

2011 arXiv
[53]

Sollima, C

A. Sollima, C. Nipoti, A. M. Battisti, M. Montuori and R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, A Monte Carlo analysis of the velocity dispersion of the globular cluster Palomar 14, Astrophys. J. 744 (2012) 196 [1111.1689]

2012 arXiv
[54]

Montero-Camacho, X

P. Montero-Camacho, X. Fang, G. Vasquez, M. Silva and C. M. Hirata, Revisiting constraints on asteroid-mass primordial black holes as dark matter candidates, 1906.05950

1906 arXiv
[55]

Kouvaris and P

C. Kouvaris and P. Tinyakov, Growth of Black Holes in the interior of Rotating Neutron Stars, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 043512 [1312.3764]

2014 arXiv
[56]

Dexter and R

J. Dexter and R. M. O’Leary, The Peculiar Pulsar Population of the Central Parsec, Astrophys. J. 783 (2014) L7 [1310.7022]

2014 arXiv
[57]

F. C. Zelati et al., The X-ray outburst of the Galactic Centre magnetar SGR J1745-2900 during the ﬁrst 1.5 year, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449 (2015) 2685 [1503.01307]

2015 arXiv
[58]

Eichler, M

D. Eichler, M. Livio, T. Piran and D. N. Schramm, Nucleosynthesis, Neutrino Bursts and Gamma-Rays from Coalescing Neutron Stars, Nature 340 (1989) 126

1989
[59]

A. P. Ji, A. Frebel, A. Chiti and J. D. Simon, R-process enrichment from a single event in an ancient dwarf galaxy, Nature 531 (2016) 610 [1512.01558]. 10 New Venues for Primordial Black Holes V olodymyr Takhistov

2016 arXiv
[60]

B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y . Sendouda and J. Yokoyama,New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 104019 [0912.5297]

2010 arXiv
[61]

Griest, A

K. Griest, A. M. Cieplak and M. J. Lehner, Experimental Limits on Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter from the First 2 yr of Kepler Data, Astrophys. J. 786 (2014) 158 [1307.5798]

2014 arXiv
[62]

Tisserand et al., Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds, Astron

EROS-2 collaboration, P. Tisserand et al., Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds, Astron. Astrophys. 469 (2007) 387 [astro-ph/0607207]

2007 arXiv
[63]

Bramante, T

J. Bramante, T. Linden and Y .-D. Tsai,Searching for dark matter with neutron star mergers and quiet kilonovae, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 055016 [1706.00001]

2018 arXiv
[64]

J. I. Katz, Fast Radio Bursts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.103 (2018) 1 [1804.09092]

2018 arXiv
[65]

Fuller and C

J. Fuller and C. Ott, Dark Matter-induced Collapse of Neutron Stars: A Possible Link Between Fast Radio Bursts and the Missing Pulsar Problem, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450 (2015) L71 [1412.6119]

2015 arXiv
[66]

Prantzos et al., The 511 keV emission from positron annihilation in the Galaxy, Rev

N. Prantzos et al., The 511 keV emission from positron annihilation in the Galaxy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 1001 [1009.4620]

2011 arXiv
[67]

Siegert, R

T. Siegert, R. Diehl, A. C. Vincent, F. Guglielmetti, M. G. H. Krause and C. Boehm, Search for 511 keV Emission in Satellite Galaxies of the Milky Way with INTEGRAL/SPI, Astron. Astrophys. 595 (2016) A25 [1608.00393]

2016 arXiv
[68]

G. M. Fuller, A. Kusenko, D. Radice and V . Takhistov,Positrons and 511 keV Radiation as Tracers of Recent Binary Neutron Star Mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 121101 [1811.00133]

2019 arXiv
[69]

Adriani et al., Cosmic-Ray Positron Energy Spectrum Measured by PAMELA, Phys

PAMELA collaboration, O. Adriani et al., Cosmic-Ray Positron Energy Spectrum Measured by PAMELA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 081102 [1308.0133]

2013 arXiv
[70]

Ackermann et al., Measurement of separate cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys

F ERMI -LAT collaboration, M. Ackermann et al., Measurement of separate cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 011103 [1109.0521]

2012 arXiv
[71]

AMS collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5-350 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 141102. 11

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

work page 1967

[2] [2]

Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Mon

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

1971

[3] [3]

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

work page 1974

[4] [4]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel and M. Sandstad, Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 083504 [1607.06077]

arXiv 2016

[5] [5]

Sasaki, T

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Primordial black holes-perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 063001 [1801.05235]

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

M. Yu. Khlopov, Primordial Black Holes, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10 (2010) 495 [0801.0116]

arXiv 2010

[7] [7]

J. Liu, X. Chen and X. Ji, Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 212 [1709.00688]

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

V IRGO , LIGO collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 061102 [1602.03837]

arXiv 2016