Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Probing Memory-Burdened Primordial Black Holes with High-Energy Neutrinos

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A log-normal spread of black-hole masses can strengthen neutrino-telescope limits on memory-burdened primordial black holes by up to $10^{-9}$ at fixed median mass.

desk verdict A careful, honest phenomenology paper whose headline R90 mass-function comparison says more about the low-mass tail of extended distributions than about memory burden—still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08144 v1 pith:NXSNWF3U submitted 2026-08-08 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Arian Moradi Asl , Sandhya Choubey , Andreas Lund This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords primordialblackholesmemoryburdenHawkingradiationhigh-energyneutrinosIceCubeCube-Gen2radioGRAND200klog-normalmassfunction
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

Primordial black holes whose evaporation is slowed by the memory-burden effect can survive to the present at masses below the usual Hawking threshold and emit TeV-to-EeV neutrinos. This paper asks how strongly current and planned neutrino telescopes can constrain such black holes, and whether the answer depends on whether the black-hole masses are all equal or spread out. It finds that a log-normal spread can make the neutrino abundance limits several orders of magnitude stronger than the monochromatic approximation at the same median mass, sometimes by a factor of $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-9}$. The reason is the low-mass tail of the distribution: lighter black holes are hotter, so the tail dominates the high-energy neutrino flux. If true, this means that monochromatic studies of memory-burdened black holes can understate the discovery reach by many orders of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage evaporation prescription: a black hole evaporates by standard Hawking physics until its mass falls to $M_q=qM_i$ with $q=1/2$, then enters a memory-burdened phase in which both neutrino emission and mass loss are suppressed by the entropy factor $S[M]^{-k}$, where $S(M)=4\pi G M^2$ and $k$ measures the memory-burden strength. This factor lets lighter black holes survive to the present and gives the burdened population its high-energy neutrino spectrum. Superimposed on it is the initial mass function: a monochromatic delta function versus a log-normal distribution. The log-normal's low-mass tail, containing lighter surviving black holes with higher Hawking temperatures, is what produces the stronger limits and the broader, higher-energy flux.

What would settle it

Take the benchmark log-normal point ($M_c=3.16\times10^{5}$ g, $\sigma=1$, $k=2$, $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}=8.22\times10^{-8}$) that is predicted to yield 30 events in ten years of combined IceCube-Gen2 radio and GRAND200k; if the combined observed count is below the background-free 90% upper limit of 2.44 events, that benchmark and the suppression law underlying it are excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, within the memory-burden evaporation model, the initial black-hole mass function is not a detail: it changes the neutrino-based constraints on the present-day black-hole abundance by orders of magnitude. Treating the population as log-normal with width $\sigma=0.5$ or $1$ strengthens the strongest 90% confidence abundance limit relative to a monochromatic population at equal characteristic mass, with the ratio $R_{90}$ dropping to roughly $10^{-6}$ for $\sigma=0.5$ and $10^{-9}$ for $\sigma=1$ over the masses considered. Current IceCube data give the leading limits for weak memory burden ($k=1$), reaching $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}\simeq10^{-9}$ for the monochromatic case and $9\times10^{-11}$ for the log-normal case near $3\times10^{7}$ g, while projected IceCube-Gen2 radio and GRAND200k become the strongest probes for stronger burden ($k=2,4$), with the best projected limit $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}\simeq3\times10^{-12}$ for a log-normal population near $10^{4}$ g. A simulated 30-event signal would distinguish a broad log-normal distribution from a monochromatic one with very strong evidence for $k_{\mathrm{true}}=2$ under the baseline prior, but not reliably for $k_{\mathrm{true}}=4$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the two-stage memory-burden prescription: a black hole evaporates normally until it loses half its mass, then emission is suddenly suppressed by the entropy factor $S[M]^{-k}$ with $k$ fixed; if the real transition is gradual or the suppression follows a different law, every limit and forecast shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current IceCube HESE, MESE, and EHE data already set the leading PBH abundance limits for $k=1$, and projected radio detectors do not improve on them in this regime.
  • For $k=2$ and $k=4$, the projected IceCube-Gen2 radio and GRAND200k exposures give substantially stronger limits than current IceCube data, because surviving black holes are lighter and emit at higher energies.
  • Evaluating a monochromatic constraint at the median mass of a log-normal population underestimates the true limit by up to several orders of magnitude, so monochromatic-only studies should be read with caution.
  • A future 30-event signal from combined IceCube-Gen2 radio and GRAND200k would likely identify a broad log-normal distribution as the source for $k_{\mathrm{true}}=2$, but would not reliably distinguish mass functions for $k_{\mathrm{true}}=4$.
  • Parameter reconstruction works well for a monochromatic population at $k=2$ ($M_0$ and $k$ to roughly ten percent) but degrades for log-normal populations, especially at higher $k$, where $M_c$, $k$, and $\sigma$ trade off against one another.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same low-mass-tail mechanism should also enhance gamma-ray and cosmic-ray constraints on memory-burdened PBHs, so extended-mass limits in other channels may be similarly stronger than monochromatic estimates.
  • Beyond the paper, one testable extension is to fold the flux predictions into a combined multi-detector likelihood: because each detector probes a different energy slice, a single log-normal population with fixed $(M_c,\sigma,k)$ predicts a specific pattern of detections and non-detections across IceCube, IceCube-Gen2 radio, and GRAND200k that the paper does not explicitly combine.
  • Beyond the paper, the reported sensitivity of the Bayesian discrimination to the prior width, especially the reduction of the $k_{\mathrm{true}}=2$ log-normal Bayes factor from 6.60 to 1.42 under a wider mass prior, suggests that a data-driven prior anchored to a specific formation model would be needed before a real detection could be claimed as evidence for a broad mass function.
  • Beyond the paper, if the memory-burden transition is smooth rather than instantaneous, the effective suppression starts earlier and the surviving mass window changes; applying the same analysis with the smooth-transition models cited in the paper would likely shift the strongest mass ranges by a non-negligible amount.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies high- and ultra-high-energy neutrino signals from memory-burdened primordial black holes (PBHs), extending previous work by including IceCube MESE data and comparing monochromatic and log-normal initial mass functions. Using a two-stage Hawking-evaporation prescription with a memory-burden suppression factor S(M)^-k, the authors derive 90% CL upper limits on the present-day PBH abundance from current IceCube HESE, MESE, and EHE data, and projected limits for IceCube-Gen2 radio and GRAND200k. They define a ratio R90 comparing log-normal and monochromatic limits at equal characteristic mass and find that the log-normal limits can be stronger by several orders of magnitude. They then run Bayesian 30-event forecasts for combined future detectors, computing Bayes factors between the two mass-function hypotheses and posterior parameter reconstructions, with prior-sensitivity tests in Appendix C.

Significance. If the adopted memory-burden prescription is correct, the paper provides new leading abundance constraints (especially through the first inclusion of MESE data) and makes a useful cautionary point: extended mass functions, not just monochromatic ones, should be used when interpreting PBH limits. The analysis is transparent: flux formulas, likelihood constructions, exposure treatments, and priors are stated explicitly; the Bayesian forecasts are clearly signal-only, and the prior dependence of the model-comparison evidence is tested and reported. The derivations are checkable, and the paper does not overclaim beyond its stated assumptions. The main limitations (instantaneous transition at q = 1/2, signal-only forecasts, no energy-resolution smearing) are acknowledged in the text.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (47)] The headline R90 values are strongly shaped by the normalization in Eq. (28) and by the steep mass dependence of the emission rate in the burdened phase. Because the limits are normalized to the present-day DM density of surviving PBHs, a log-normal population with the same median mass and the same fPBH automatically contains more low-mass, high-temperature PBHs than a monochromatic population, and the per-PBH emission in the burdened phase scales roughly as M^{-(2+2k)}. The paper states this mechanism correctly, but the headline factors (R90 ~ 10^-6 for sigma = 0.5 and 10^-9 for sigma = 1) are therefore a property of the chosen comparison baseline rather than a model-independent measure of the constraining power of extended mass functions. To make this central quantitative claim robust, please add a k = 0 control case or a matched-initial-abundance comparison (e.g., equal total initial PBH mass density), and explicitly discuss in Sec. IV B how much of the enhancement is specific to memory burden rather than a generic consequence of the log-normal tail.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II A] The text contains the typos "tentalizing" (abstract) and "instanateous" (Sec. II A); these should read "tantalizing" and "instantaneous".
  2. [Sec. IV A] In the first paragraph, "The strongest upper limit is obtained for k = 1 near a characteristic mass of 3e7 g and are approximately" has a subject-verb mismatch; it should read "is approximately".
  3. [Sec. IV C] The sentence "these results significantly depends on the choice of prior" should read "depend".
  4. [Sec. III B, Eq. (37)] Please define the units of n_N explicitly (cm^-3) and state that the effective volumes of Ref. [53] are in cm^3, so that A_eff in Eq. (37) is obtained in cm^2; this will improve reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 3 and Sec. IV B] The quoted R90 minima (10^-6 for sigma = 0.5 and 10^-9 for sigma = 1) correspond to the upper ends of the displayed mass ranges; the figure caption or text should state the exact characteristic masses at which these minima occur.
  6. [Appendix C] The reduction of the combined median lnB from 6.60 to 1.42 under the wider mass prior is an important result; consider showing the distribution of lnB for the widened prior alongside the baseline in a figure or table to make the prior sensitivity more transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constraints use external IceCube data and published exposures, and the forecasts are explicitly signal-injection exercises with stated priors.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are all model-conditional calculations rather than first-principles derivations. The abundance limits are obtained by comparing the PBH neutrino flux, computed from Eqs. (16)-(24) and (29), to published IceCube HESE, MESE, and EHE measurements and to public detector exposures, with f_PBH as the only fitted parameter. The memory-burden prescription in Eqs. (8)-(13) is a stated phenomenological input adopted from Refs. [27,36], not a result derived in this paper, and there is no self-citation chain: the authors do not cite their own prior work as load-bearing evidence. The headline ratio R90 in Eq. (47) is explicitly defined as the ratio of two independently computed upper limits at equal characteristic mass, and the paper transparently attributes the enhancement to the low-mass tail of the log-normal distribution; it is a property of the model comparison, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The Bayesian forecasts are simulated-signal exercises with explicitly stated priors and detector-dependent mass windows, and the paper states that the 30-event benchmarks 'are not predictions of the event rate expected in the future experiments.' The prior-sensitivity check in Appendix C further shows that the model-comparison evidence is conditional on the chosen priors rather than being presented as an unconditional empirical finding. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, so the analysis is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on adopted inputs: the memory-burden suppression ansatz, the Hawking emission spectra, the halo model, and a signal-only forecast setup. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or mediators; memory burden itself is a prior proposal cited from the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Memory-burden exponent k = scanned values 1, 2, 4; priors k in [1.5,2.5] and [3.5,4.5]
    Controls the entropy suppression factor S[M]^{-k} in Eq. (10). No first-principles value is derived, and the limits and forecasts depend strongly on it.
  • Transition fraction q = 1/2
    Memory-burdened phase begins when M=q M_i in Eq. (8). The value q=1/2 is adopted following prior studies, not derived.
  • Log-normal width sigma = 0.5 and 1.0 for limits; priors sigma in [0.5,1.5]
    Width of the initial mass function in Eq. (27). It controls the low-mass tail that drives the main order-of-magnitude enhancement.
  • Benchmark masses and abundances for 30-event forecasts = Table I values, e.g. log10(M0/g)=4.75, f_PBH=7.54e-5 for monochromatic k=2
    Masses are selected in detector-sensitive windows and abundances are tuned to give 30 expected events. These are illustrative benchmark choices, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Semiclassical Hawking emission Eq. (2) and mass-loss Eq. (4) describe the first evaporation phase.
    Invoked in Sec. II A as the baseline spectrum before memory burden turns on.
  • ad hoc to paper Memory-burden suppression has the form S[M]^{-k} with instantaneous onset at M=q M_i.
    Eqs. (8)-(13) are adopted from Refs. [27,36] without derivation. All results are conditional on this ansatz, and the authors note that smooth transitions could alter evolution.
  • domain assumption BlackHawk v2.3 with HDMSpectra correctly computes primary and secondary neutrino spectra from neutral non-rotating black holes.
    Used throughout Sec. II B as the emission model; no independent validation is given in the paper.
  • domain assumption The Galactic dark matter halo follows an NFW profile with the adopted parameters and full-sky J-factor.
    Eqs. (17)-(21) define the Galactic contribution to the diffuse neutrino flux.
  • ad hoc to paper Future event forecasts are signal-only with zero background and no energy-resolution smearing.
    Sec. III C explicitly treats the forecasts as ideal information; the authors state that adding backgrounds would weaken discrimination and reconstruction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Memory-Burdened Primordial Black Holes with High-Energy Neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXSNWF3U

@misc{pith2026260808144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Memory-Burdened Primordial Black Holes with High-Energy Neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXSNWF3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08144}
}
abstract

The memory-burden effect can suppress the late-time evaporation of primordial black holes (PBHs), allowing those below the standard Hawking evaporation threshold to survive until the present epoch. These lighter PBHs emit high and ultra-high-energy neutrinos, opening the tentalizing possibility of discovery via neutrino telescopes. We study the constraints on memory-burdened PBHs from current IceCube HESE, MESE, and EHE data; and forecast the sensitivity reach of IceCube-Gen2 radio and GRAND200k. In particular, we study how this signal depends on whether the surviving population is described by a log-normal mass function or by a monochromatic one. We find that log-normal distributed populations can be more strongly constrained than monochromatic populations with the same median mass primarily because their low-mass tails enhance the high-energy neutrino flux. We show that current IceCube data provide the leading limits for a lower memory burden parameter $k$, whereas the projected radio detectors become substantially more sensitive for higher values of $k$. We also study a scenario where future experiments would see a positive signal coming from PBHs. We consider a representative 30-event signal in IceCube-Gen2 and GRAND200k and study how well one could distinguish the two mass-function hypotheses. We find that it is easier to disfavor the monochromatic distribution when the log-normal distribution is assumed to be true. Finally, we study how well the parameters of the memory-burdened PBHs can be estimated in these future experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustrative sky-averaged all-flavor diffuse neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. 90% CL upper limits on the present-day PBH abundance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Bayesian model comparison of the monochromatic and log-normal mass-function hypotheses for simulated IceCube [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior reconstruction for the monochromatic benchmark with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior reconstruction for the log-normal benchmark with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Posterior reconstruction for the monochromatic benchmark with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Posterior reconstruction for the log-normal benchmark with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1967

  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, 75 (1971)

    1971

  3. [3]

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

    1975

  4. [4]

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

    1974

  5. [5]

    Carr and F

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

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    A. M. Green, Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate - a brief overview, Nucl. Phys. B1003, 116494 (2024), arXiv:2402.15211 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    S. W. Hawking, Black hole explosions, Nature248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  8. [8]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, Com- mun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Com- mun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

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

    1976

  2. [10]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    De la Torre Luque, J

    P. De la Torre Luque, J. Koechler, and S. Balaji, Refining Galactic primordial black hole evaporation constraints, Phys. Rev. D110, 123022 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 112, 109904 (2025)], arXiv:2406.11949 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  4. [12]

    Bernal, V

    N. Bernal, V. Mu˜ noz-Albornoz, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and P. Villanueva-Domingo, Current and future neutrino lim- its on the abundance of primordial black holes, JCAP10, 068, arXiv:2203.14979 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, Ultrahigh-Energy Neutri- nos from Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121003 (2025), arXiv:2503.19227 [hep-ph]

    2025

  6. [14]

    M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan, A. Symons, and A. Thamm, Explaining the PeV Neutrino Fluxes at KM3NeT and IceCube with Quasiextremal Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 061002 (2026), arXiv:2505.22722 [hep-ph]

    2026

  7. [15]

    S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of Predictability in Gravita- tional Collapse, Phys. Rev. D14, 2460 (1976)

    1976

  8. [16]

    Raju, Lessons from the information paradox, Phys

    S. Raju, Lessons from the information paradox, Phys. Rept.943, 1 (2022), arXiv:2012.05770 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. Zell, Black hole metamorphosis and stabilization by memory burden, Phys. Rev. D102, 103523 (2020), arXiv:2006.00011 [hep- th]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dvali, J

    G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Berm´ udez, and M. Zantedeschi, Memory burden effect in black holes and solitons: Im- plications for PBH, Phys. Rev. D110, 056029 (2024), arXiv:2405.13117 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alexandre, G

    A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. Koutsangelas, New mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter from the memory burden effect, Phys. Rev. D110, 036004 (2024), arXiv:2402.14069 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Thoss, A

    V. Thoss, A. Burkert, and K. Kohri, Breakdown of hawk- ing evaporation opens new mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter candidate, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532, 451 (2024), arXiv:2402.17823 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), The IceCube Neu- trino Observatory: Instrumentation and Online Systems, JINST12(03), P03012, [Erratum: JINST 19, E05001 (2024)], arXiv:1612.05093 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    and proposed IceCube-Gen2 [23] and GRAND200k

  15. [23]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Neutrino astronomy with the next generation IceCube Neutrino Observatory (2019), arXiv:1911.02561 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  16. [24]

    Since the Hawking temperature is inversely propor- tional to the PBH mass, lighter PBHs correspond to higher characteristic emission energies

    to be sensitive to PBHs. Since the Hawking temperature is inversely propor- tional to the PBH mass, lighter PBHs correspond to higher characteristic emission energies. Larger values of the memory-burden parameterkcan allow lighter PBHs to survive until the present epoch, there...

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), Letter of in- tent for KM3NeT 2.0, J

    S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), Letter of in- tent for KM3NeT 2.0, J. Phys. G43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ´Alvarez-Mu˜ nizet al.(GRAND), The Giant Radio Ar- ray for Neutrino Detection (GRAND): Science and De- sign, Sci

    J. ´Alvarez-Mu˜ nizet al.(GRAND), The Giant Radio Ar- ray for Neutrino Detection (GRAND): Science and De- sign, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.63, 219501 (2020), arXiv:1810.09994 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Constraints on Ultrahigh- Energy Cosmic-Ray Sources from a Search for Neutri- nos above 10 PeV with IceCube, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 241101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 259902 (2017)], arXiv:1607.05886 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), The IceCube high-energy starting event sample: Description and flux characteri- zation with 7.5 years of data, Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), The IceCube high-energy starting event sample: Description and flux characteri- zation with 7.5 years of data, Phys. Rev. D104, 022002 (2021), arXiv:2011.03545 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  21. [29]

    Chianese, A

    M. Chianese, A. Boccia, F. Iocco, G. Miele, and N. Sa- viano, Light burden of memory: Constraining primordial black holes with high-energy neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063036 (2025), arXiv:2410.07604 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Improved measurements of the TeV-PeV extragalactic neutrino spectrum from joint analyses of IceCube tracks and cascades, Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Improved measurements of the TeV-PeV extragalactic neutrino spectrum from joint analyses of IceCube tracks and cascades, Phys. Rev. D 113, 062002 (2026), arXiv:2507.22234 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chianese, High-energy gamma-ray emission from memory-burdened primordial black holes, Phys

    M. Chianese, High-energy gamma-ray emission from memory-burdened primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023043 (2025), arXiv:2504.03838 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Dvali, M

    G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, Transitioning to Memory Burden: Detectable Small Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter (2025), arXiv:2503.21740 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Liu, B.-Y

    T.-C. Liu, B.-Y. Zhu, Y.-F. Liang, X.-S. Hu, and E.- W. Liang, Constraining the parameters of heavy dark matter and memory-burdened primordial black holes with DAMPE electron measurements, JHEAp47, 100375 (2025), arXiv:2503.13192 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Chaudhuri, K

    A. Chaudhuri, K. Kohri, and V. Thoss, New bounds on memory burdened primordial black holes from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, JCAP11, 057, arXiv:2506.20717 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    K¨ uhnel and K

    F. K¨ uhnel and K. Freese, Constraints on Primordial Black Holes with Extended Mass Functions, Phys. Rev. D95, 083508 (2017), arXiv:1701.07223 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    B. Carr, M. Raidal, T. Tenkanen, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Primordial black hole constraints for ex- tended mass functions, Phys. Rev. D96, 023514 (2017), arXiv:1705.05567 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mazde and L

    K. Mazde and L. Visinelli, The interplay between the dark matter axion and primordial black holes, JCAP01, 021, arXiv:2209.14307 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. R. Haque, S. Maity, D. Maity, and Y. Mambrini, Quantum effects on the evaporation of PBHs: contribu- tions to dark matter, JCAP07, 002, arXiv:2404.16815 19 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Montefalcone, D

    G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. Kuh- nel, and P. Sandick, Can a breakdown of Hawking evap- oration open a new mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D113, 023524 (2026), arXiv:2503.21005 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  32. [40]

    Dondarini, G

    A. Dondarini, G. Marino, P. Panci, and M. Zant- edeschi, The fast, the slow and the merging: probes of evaporating memory burdened PBHs, JCAP11, 006, arXiv:2506.13861 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, BlackHawk: A public code for calculating the Hawking evaporation spectra of any black hole distribution, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 693 (2019), arXiv:1905.04268 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Physics Beyond the Standard Model with BlackHawk v2.0, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 910 (2021), arXiv:2108.02737 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Webber, Dark matter spectra from the electroweak to the Planck scale, JHEP 06, 121, arXiv:2007.15001 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lunardini and Y

    C. Lunardini and Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Dirac and Majo- rana neutrino signatures of primordial black holes, JCAP 08, 014, arXiv:1910.07864 [hep-ph]

    1910 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, A Uni- versal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Liu and K

    Q. Liu and K. C. Y. Ng, Sensitivity floor for primor- dial black holes in neutrino searches, Phys. Rev. D110, 063024 (2024), arXiv:2312.06108 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

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

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gorton and A

    M. Gorton and A. M. Green, How open is the asteroid- mass primordial black hole window?, SciPost Phys.17, 032 (2024), arXiv:2403.03839 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. D. Gow, C. T. Byrnes, and A. Hall, Accurate model for the primordial black hole mass distribution from a peak in the power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D105, 023503 (2022), arXiv:2009.03204 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Musco, K

    I. Musco, K. Jedamzik, and S. Young, Primordial black hole formation during the QCD phase transition: Thresh- old, mass distribution, and abundance, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083506 (2024), arXiv:2303.07980 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. A. Aguilaret al.(RNO-G), Design and Sensitivity of the Radio Neutrino Observatory in Greenland (RNO-G), JINST16(03), P03025, [Erratum: JINST 18, E03001 (2023)], arXiv:2010.12279 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. V. Olintoet al.(POEMMA), The POEMMA (Probe of Extreme Multi-Messenger Astrophysics) observatory, JCAP06, 007, arXiv:2012.07945 [astro-ph.IM]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. M. Brown, M. Bagheri, M. Doro, E. Gazda, D. Kieda, C. Lin, N. Otte, I. Taboada, and A. Wang, Trinity: an imaging air Cherenkov telescope to search for Ultra-High- Energy neutrinos, PoSICRC2021, 1179 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Schl¨ uteret al.(IceCube-Gen2), Estimating the coincidence rate between the optical and radio ar- ray of IceCube-Gen2, PoSICRC2023, 1022 (2023), arXiv:2308.00961 [astro-ph.HE]

    F. Schl¨ uteret al.(IceCube-Gen2), Estimating the coincidence rate between the optical and radio ar- ray of IceCube-Gen2, PoSICRC2023, 1022 (2023), arXiv:2308.00961 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Connolly, R

    A. Connolly, R. S. Thorne, and D. Waters, Calculation of High Energy Neutrino-Nucleon Cross Sections and Un- certainties Using the MSTW Parton Distribution Func- tions and Implications for Future Experiments, Phys. Rev. D83, 113009 (2011), arXiv:1102.0691 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D57, 3873 (1998), arXiv:physics/9711021

    1998 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemp

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemp. Phys.49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Skilling, Nested sampling for general Bayesian compu- tation, Bayesian Analysis1, 833 (2006)

    J. Skilling, Nested sampling for general Bayesian compu- tation, Bayesian Analysis1, 833 (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    Buchner, UltraNest - a robust, general purpose Bayesian inference engine, J

    J. Buchner, UltraNest - a robust, general purpose Bayesian inference engine, J. Open Source Softw.6, 3001 (2021), arXiv:2101.09604 [stat.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, Bayes Factors, J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90, 773 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.