Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

The fast, the slow and the merging: probes of evaporating memory burdened PBHs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Memory-burdened black holes can make all of the dark matter, and current data already constrain the parameters that decide it.

desk verdict A careful, genuinely useful constraint map for memory-burdened PBHs, provided you accept the paper's stated SM-democracy assumption; the p≤4 conclusion is conditional, but this is the first broad multi-experiment treatment and deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13861 v1 pith:SE5RJMXC submitted 2025-06-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th

Alessandro Dondarini , Giulio Marino , Paolo Panci , Michael Zantedeschi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th
keywords primordialblackholesmemoryburdendarkmatterHawkingevaporationgamma-rayconstraintsneutrinoCMBanisotropycriticalexponent
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

The paper sets out to show that the memory-burden effect -- the tendency of a system saturated with stored information to resist its own decay -- can keep primordial black holes (PBHs) alive long enough to be dark matter, and that the resulting evaporation is already being probed by existing telescopes. It treats the evaporation as proceeding through three distinguishable channels: a fast phase in which PBHs sit on the memory-burden floor with emission suppressed by $S^{-k}$; a slow transition of width $\delta$ during which some PBHs are still transitioning today; and mergers that create 'young' black holes evaporating at the full Hawking rate for a duration set by $q$. The central result is a set of constraints on $k$, $q$, and $\delta$ across the mass range $10$ g to $10^{15}$ g from gamma-ray, neutrino, and CMB data, leaving a viable dark-matter window below $10^{15}$ g. If the parameters are tied to the critical exponent $p$ of the underlying Hamiltonian, the constraints imply viable dark matter only for $p\lesssim 4$, with $p=2$ opening the full window $10^5$ g $\lesssim M_{\rm PBH}\lesssim 10^{23}$ g.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless mass-loss rate $\kappa(t)$ of the evaporating black hole, equal to the actual rate divided by the semiclassical Hawking rate. Its evolution is controlled by three parameters: $q$ (the fraction of mass emitted before memory burden sets in), $\delta$ (the width of the transition, which enters as $\kappa\simeq \delta\,\tau_{\rm SC}/(2t)$ during the slow phase), and $k$ (the entropy-power suppression $S^{-k}$ of the full burdened phase). The argument maps these parameters onto a prototype Hamiltonian with critical exponent $p$, so that $q\simeq S^{1/(2-2p)}$ and $\delta\simeq S^{1/(2-2p)}/\ln S$ up to logarithmic factors. The machinery then converts $\kappa(t)$ into particle fluxes for photons and neutrinos, using a code that computes the Hawking spectra and secondary cascades, and rescales CMB bounds on decaying dark matter to obtain cosmological constraints.

What would settle it

Take the inner-Galaxy region of LHAASO and accumulate 100 TeV--1 PeV photons until the bound on the integrated flux improves tenfold below current values: for a PBH mass around $10^7$ g, the predicted merger flux for $q=0.5$, $f_{\rm PBH}=1$ lies at current sensitivity, so a clear excess would support the optimistic benchmark while a tenfold-better upper limit would exclude it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the memory-burden effect, applied to evaporating PBHs, does not merely extend their lifetime but reshapes the observational landscape: the full-burden 'fast' decay, the cosmological-timescale 'slow' onset, and the 'merger' channel that restarts Hawking evaporation are all independently constrained by current data. It argues that previous analyses overestimated the semiclassical phase by assuming instantaneous mass tracking, and that the correct treatment fixes the emission rate by the initial mass and radius. The resulting bounds rule out PBHs lighter than about $10^{10}$ g as the entirety of dark matter unless $q\lesssim 10^{-2}$--$10^{-3}$; for the fast phase, $k=2$ requires $M_{\rm PBH}\gtrsim 10^5$ g; and for the slow phase, $f_{\rm PBH}\,\delta\lesssim 10^{-10}$--$10^{-13}$ across the window. When $q$ and $\delta$ are both expressed through the critical exponent $p$, the combined constraints allow PBHs to constitute all of the dark matter for $p\lesssim 4$, with the $p=2$ benchmark opening the mass range $10^5$ g to $10^{23}$ g.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's flux predictions and bounds rest on the stated assumption (Sec. 2.6) that a memory-burdened black hole keeps emitting democratically into Standard Model species, an assumption that is modelling input rather than a derived result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If memory burden is real, the old floor of $10^{15}$ g for PBH dark matter is replaced: for $p=2$ and $k=2$, PBHs can be all the dark matter in the range $10^5$ g $\lesssim M_{\rm PBH}\lesssim 10^{23}$ g.
  • The slow-transition channel usually gives the leading constraint, because most PBHs in the window are still transitioning today; the memory-burden floor itself is reached only in a corner of parameter space.
  • Independent of $\delta$ and $k$, merger-induced Hawking re-emission forces $q\lesssim 10^{-2}$--$10^{-3}$ for PBHs below $10^{10}$ g, using only the semiclassical phase.
  • Gamma-ray data from high-energy observatories are generally stronger than neutrino and CMB probes, except for a small mass range around $10^5$--$10^7$ g where neutrinos compete.
  • The viable $p=3$ window is narrow, around $10^{11}$--$10^{12}$ g, so a non-detection across most of the mass range would push the critical exponent toward $p=2$ or lower.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the stated democracy assumption (Sec. 2.6) is untested; if memory-burdened black holes emit preferentially into a hidden sector, the gamma-ray and neutrino bounds weaken and the excluded window could reopen.
  • Editorial inference: a dedicated calculation of merger rates for ultra-light PBHs (below about $10^{10}$ g) would directly test the merger constraint, since the paper notes the rates are extrapolated from heavier-mass studies.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted electromagnetic-cascade plateau just below 100 GeV for low masses gives a sharp, background-discriminating target for future MeV--GeV gamma-ray surveys.
  • Editorial inference: the KM3NeT 220 PeV event is not used as a constraint; if it were PBH-related, the implied flux would exceed IceCube's diffuse limits, so the paper implicitly favors an astrophysical or rare-fluctuation origin.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reconsiders observational constraints on primordial black holes (PBHs) that are stabilized by the memory-burden effect. The authors analyze three emission channels: the fully memory-burdened "fast" phase with suppression S^{-k}, the "slow" cosmological transition characterized by the width parameter δ, and the "merger" scenario in which PBH binaries formed in the early Universe merge today and produce young semiclassical black holes that evaporate at unsuppressed rates. Using BlackHawk for primary and secondary spectra, a Galactic plus extragalactic propagation treatment, and a semi-analytic rescaling of Planck CMB bounds, they derive 95% CL constraints in the planes (M_PBH, f_PBH), (M_PBH, q), (M_PBH, f_PBH δ), and (M_PBH, k). They conclude that, if q and δ are identified with the critical exponent p through Eqs. (2.12) and (2.16), the reopened memory-burden dark-matter window is viable only for p ≲ 4, with p = 2 opening the mass range 10^5 g ≲ M_PBH ≲ 10^23 g.

Significance. If the underlying modeling assumptions hold, this is a valuable and fairly complete phenomenological study. It provides the first systematic comparison of gamma-ray, neutrino, and CMB constraints across the fast, slow, and merger scenarios, and it improves on previous analyses by avoiding semiclassical mass tracking, by performing background-inclusive gamma-ray likelihood analyses for Fermi and LHAASO, and by flagging a potentially important BlackHawk HDM output issue. The paper is unusually transparent about its caveats, including the unknown spin effects, the extrapolated merger rate, and the toy-model origin of the q–δ–p mapping. The main results, however, are conditional on a set of modeling assumptions that are not derived from first principles, and the headline conclusion about p is more model-dependent than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.6, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.3)] The opening sentence of §2.6 states that the final constraints rely on the assumption of democracy of gravitational emission into SM species, yet no independent evidence or derivation is provided for this assumption. The prototype Hamiltonian (2.4) contains no SM couplings, and the solitonic-bubble analogue discussed in §2.3 does not include SM fields. If the memory-burdened phase emits preferentially into hidden-sector states, or if the hair-modified matrix elements change the relative SM branching ratios, then the flux normalization in Eqs. (3.1)–(3.3) and every constraint in Figs. 4–6 is multiplied by an unknown species-dependent factor. This is a load-bearing modeling assumption rather than a minor caveat. The authors should either provide a microscopic argument for SM democracy in the burdened phase, or recast all bounds as explicitly conditional and quantify how they scale with a non-democratic branching fraction.
  2. [§4.1.1, Eq. (4.1), Figs. 4–5] The background-inclusive analyses for Fermi and LHAASO, which drive many of the strongest constraints in Figs. 4 and 5, fix the background model to its best-fit parameters and do not propagate systematic uncertainties or marginalize over background normalization and spectral shape. For example, the slow-decay limit f_PBH δ ≃ 4×10^-11 at M_PBH ≃ 10^10 g in Fig. 5 is quoted at 95% CL without an error budget for the background model. Since the Gaussian likelihood in Eq. (4.1) is evaluated with fixed background parameters, the reported exclusions may be overconfident. Please add a treatment of background systematics, or at least demonstrate that the bounds are stable under plausible variations of the background parameters.
  3. [§4.3, Eqs. (2.12), (2.16)] The headline statement that memory-burdened PBHs are viable dark matter only for p ≲ 4 depends on identifying the phenomenological parameters q and δ with the critical exponent p through Eqs. (2.12) and (2.16), which are derived from the prototype Hamiltonian (2.4) under the assumptions of a single master mode and no additional interaction terms. The authors themselves caution in §2.5 that additional terms could modify these conclusions. As written, the abstract and conclusion present the p≲4 bound as a direct result, even though p itself is not constrained by data; only q and δ are constrained, and the mapping to p is a toy-model interpretation. This is not an error in the flux calculation, but the framing should be corrected so that the direct constraints on k, q, and δ are cleanly separated from the model-dependent translation into p.
  4. [§2.6, Eq. (2.18)] The merger rate used to derive the q constraints is extrapolated from studies of solar-mass and asteroid-mass PBHs down to masses as low as 1 g, with suppression factors S1 and S2. The authors acknowledge the rate is an estimate and note that local non-Gaussianity could enhance it by up to O(10^7), yet the quoted q limits in Fig. 4 scale linearly with R_PBH and no uncertainty band is assigned to the extrapolation. Given that the merger scenario is one of the three central pillars of the paper, the q constraints should be accompanied by a quantitative discussion of their dependence on the assumed merger rate, or at least by an explicit statement of how the excluded region would shift under the known theoretical uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A] Please state explicitly that all numerical results in this work already incorporate the HDM rescaling of Eq. (A.1), so that the unverified BlackHawk HDM issue does not affect the constraints presented here.
  2. [Figure 1] The solid cyan, solid blue, and dashed curves in Fig. 1 are difficult to distinguish in grayscale printing; please improve the contrast or add direct labels to the curves.
  3. [§2.4] The phrase 'the extended lifetime must be analytic in S' is imprecise, since no microscopic derivation of Eq. (1.6) is available; consider replacing 'analytic' with 'a smooth function of S' or similar wording.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (4.6)] The CMB rescaling procedure assumes that the maximum of the visibility function captures the full constraint and is validated only against annihilating-DM and semiclassical-PBH benchmarks; a brief sentence acknowledging the limitation of this approximation would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exclusion curves are anchored to external data, and the p≲4 statement is a conditional reparametrization of the independently constrained q and δ bounds under the stated prototype-Hamiltonian mapping.

full rationale

The paper's constraints are data-anchored, not self-referential. In Secs. 4.1–4.2, the fluxes are computed with BlackHawk 2.3 spectra multiplied by the suppression factors in Eq. (3.3) and compared with external measurements from Fermi-LAT, LHAASO, Tibet ASγ, KASCADE, Auger, IceCube, and CMB anisotropy data. The parameters f_PBH, k, δ, and q are directly bounded by these data; no parameter is fitted to a subset of observations and then presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The headline claim 'p is at most 4' is explicitly conditional: Sec. 4.3 says 'if we insist on the parametrization in terms of the critical exponent which relates the parameters q and δ, the obtained constraints imply...'. Equations (2.12) and (2.16) are theoretical inputs from the prototype Hamiltonian, not quantities inferred from the same data and renamed as results; altering that mapping would change the p-interpretation but not the underlying exclusions. The paper also flags the two main model-dependence points. In Sec. 2.6 it states that 'the final constraints rely on the assumption of democracy of the gravitational emission in the SM species even though the BHs posses macroscopic quantum hair,' and in Sec. 2.5 it cautions that Eq. (2.16) 'is based on a toy model analysis.' These are admitted modeling limitations that could rescale the fluxes, but they are not circular reductions of the derivation. The self-citations to Refs. [33] and [41] provide the merger and slow-transition formulas, but those formulas are restated in the text with stated assumptions and do not incorporate the present data, so the dependence is a normal theory-input chain rather than a circular one. The BlackHawk HDM clarification in Appendix A is an independent technical cross-check. Overall, no specific equation or prediction reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or interactions; its parameters are the memory-burden model's free parameters. The central claim rests on the prototype Hamiltonian and on extrapolation of merger rates to ultralight masses, both of which are inputs rather than results established here.

free parameters (5)
  • k = scanned, k = 1, 2, 3; benchmark k = 2
    Integer exponent controlling the memory-burden floor emission rate kappa = S^{-k}; no first-principles value for black holes, so it is scanned.
  • delta = constrained, f_PBH*delta below about 1e-10 for f_PBH = 1
    Fraction of mass emitted during the transition into the memory-burdened phase; tied to p via Eq. (2.16) but treated as a free parameter.
  • q = constrained, q below about 1e-2 to 1e-3 for f_PBH = 1
    Fraction of the PBH mass emitted in the semiclassical phase before memory burden kicks in; constrained mainly by the merger channel.
  • f_PBH = scanned, f_PBH = 1 in benchmark plots
    Dark matter fraction composed of PBHs; degenerates with delta and q in the combination f_PBH*delta.
  • p = constrained, p at most about 4
    Critical exponent in the prototype Hamiltonian; not independently measured, inferred from the q and delta relations.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Memory burden halts Hawking evaporation after a fraction q of the mass is emitted, with the system described by Hamiltonian (2.4).
    Foundational hypothesis from Dvali et al.; no direct black hole measurement establishes it.
  • domain assumption Gravitational emission by PBHs is democratic across SM species even in the memory-burdened phase.
    Stated in Sec. 2.6 before deriving all fluxes; if false, the gamma-ray and neutrino constraints change.
  • domain assumption The early-universe binary merger rate of Eq. (2.18) applies to PBH masses down to 10 g.
    Authors note this is extrapolated from heavier PBHs and say they plan to study ultralight rates in the future.
  • domain assumption The slow transition is approximated by kappa = delta tau_SC / (2 t) for t > tau_SC/2, Eq. (2.15).
    Adopted from Ref. [41] and asserted to match numerics, but the comparison is not shown in this paper.
  • domain assumption CMB bounds can be rescaled by matching visibility-function peaks at a single characteristic redshift per scenario, Eq. (4.6).
    Approximate procedure, validated against semiclassical PBH bounds but not exact.
  • domain assumption NFW profile with r_s = 25 kpc and local DM density 0.4 GeV/cm^3 for Galactic J-factors.
    Standard choice, but J-factor uncertainties are not propagated into the final bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fast, the slow and the merging: probes of evaporating memory burdened PBHs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SE5RJMXC

@misc{pith2026250613861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fast, the slow and the merging: probes of evaporating memory burdened PBHs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SE5RJMXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13861}
}
abstract

The so-called memory-burden effect implies that evaporating Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) inevitably stabilize before complete decay. This stabilization opens a new mass window for PBH Dark Matter below $10^{15}\,$g. The transition to the memory-burdened phase is not instantaneous but unfolds over cosmological timescales, with some PBHs entering this phase in the present epoch. Additionally, a fraction of PBHs undergo mergers today, forming ''young'' semiclassical black holes that evaporate at unsuppressed rates. Both processes generate fluxes of stable astrophysical particles, which are constrained by current measurements of high-energy $\gamma$-rays and neutrinos. Moreover, the steep increase in energy injection at higher redshifts perturbs the ionization history of the Universe, leading to complementary bounds from observations of the CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies. We find that the reopened window enabled by the memory-burden effect is largely within reach of detection, both locally and across cosmological distances. We further describe how our findings restrict the values of the critical exponent characterizing the memory burden phenomenon.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

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

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For memory-burdened primordial black holes, a log-normal mass function can produce neutrino abundance limits several orders of magnitude stronger than a monochromatic population with the same median mass, with current...

  2. Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    If a black hole's mass grows with cosmic expansion, Hawking evaporation is slowed or reversed, weakening gamma-ray bounds on primordial black holes.

  3. Black Hole Memory Burden and its Signatures in Gravitational Waves from Mergers

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Swift memory burden shifts black-hole quasinormal-mode frequencies by an amount set by the memory-load parameter μ and critical exponent p, with μ able to exceed the progenitor's information content.

  4. Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observatories

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DECIGO could detect compact dark matter objects with masses 10^7 to 10^11 g flying through the solar system via their gravitational perturbation of the detector test masses.

  5. Micro Black Hole Dark Matter

    hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Micro black holes could survive as dark matter down to 10^{-5} Planck masses if extra dimensions or many species strengthen the memory-burden suppression of their evaporation.

  6. Relativistic accretion and burdened primordial black holes

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Combining relativistic accretion with memory-burdened evaporation widens the parameter space for primordial black holes as dark matter and changes dark matter and dark radiation emission predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. NovikovSov. Astron.10(1967) 602

    1967

  2. [2]

    HawkingMon

    S. HawkingMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152(1971) 75

    1971

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. HawkingMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168(1974) 399–415

    1974

  4. [4]

    G. F. ChaplineNature253(1975), no. 5489 251–252

    1975

  5. [5]

    B. J. CarrAstrophys. J.201(1975) 1–19

    1975

  6. [6]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. KuhnelAnn. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70(2020) 355–394, [arXiv:2006.02838]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    A. M. Green and B. J. KavanaghJ. Phys. G48(2021), no. 4 043001, [arXiv:2007.10722]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Escrivà, F

    A. Escrivà, F. Kuhnel, and Y. TadaarXiv:2211.05767

    arXiv

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    S. W. HawkingCommun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  2. [10]

    J. D. BekensteinPhys. Rev. D7(1973) 2333–2346

    1973

  3. [11]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. YokoyamaPhys. Rev. D81(2010) 104019, [arXiv:0912.5297]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. YokoyamaPhys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 4 044029, [arXiv:1604.05349]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. YokoyamaRept. Prog. Phys.84(2021), no. 11 116902, [arXiv:2002.12778]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, and J. SilkPhys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 2 023010, [arXiv:1906.04750]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Boccia, F

    A. Boccia, F. Iocco, and L. VisinelliarXiv:2405.18493

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    DvaliarXiv:1810.02336

    G. DvaliarXiv:1810.02336

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. ZellJCAP03(2019) 010, [arXiv:1812.08749]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. ZellPhys. Rev. D102(2020), no. 10 103523, [arXiv:2006.00011]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alexandre, G

    A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. KoutsangelasPhys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3 036004, [arXiv:2402.14069]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dvali, J

    G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Bermúdez, and M. ZantedeschiPhys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 5 056029, [arXiv:2405.13117]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dvali, O

    G. Dvali, O. Kaikov, and J. S. V. BermúdezPhys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 5 056013, [arXiv:2112.00551]. – 35 –

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    DvaliarXiv:2103.15668

    G. DvaliarXiv:2103.15668

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dvali, O

    G. Dvali, O. Kaikov, F. Kühnel, J. S. Valbuena-Bermudez, and M. ZantedeschiPhys. Rev. Lett.132(2024), no. 15 151402, [arXiv:2310.02288]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    DvaliJHEP03(2021) 126, [arXiv:2003.05546]

    G. DvaliJHEP03(2021) 126, [arXiv:2003.05546]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    DvaliFortsch

    G. DvaliFortsch. Phys.69(2021), no. 1 2000090, [arXiv:1906.03530]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    DvaliFortsch

    G. DvaliFortsch. Phys.69(2021), no. 1 2000091, [arXiv:1907.07332]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    DvaliPhil

    G. DvaliPhil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.380(2021), no. 2216 20210071, [arXiv:2107.10616]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dvali and R

    G. Dvali and R. VenugopalanPhys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 5 056026, [arXiv:2106.11989]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dvali and O

    G. Dvali and O. SakhelashviliPhys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 6 065014, [arXiv:2111.03620]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dvali, F

    G. Dvali, F. Kühnel, and M. ZantedeschiPhys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 6 061302, [arXiv:2112.08354]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zantedeschi,On structure and primordial origin of black holes

    M. Zantedeschi,On structure and primordial origin of black holes. PhD thesis, Munich U., 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Thoss, A

    V. Thoss, A. Burkert, and K. KohriMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532(2024), no. 1 451–459, [arXiv:2402.17823]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zantedeschi and L

    M. Zantedeschi and L. VisinelliarXiv:2410.07037

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. GomezFortsch. Phys.61(2013) 742–767, [arXiv:1112.3359]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. GomezPhys. Lett. B719(2013) 419–423, [arXiv:1203.6575]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. GomezEur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2752, [arXiv:1207.4059]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. GomezarXiv:1212.0765

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dvali, D

    G. Dvali, D. Flassig, C. Gomez, A. Pritzel, and N. WintergerstPhys. Rev. D88(2013), no. 12 124041, [arXiv:1307.3458]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dvali and M

    G. Dvali and M. PanchenkoarXiv:1507.08952

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Michel and S

    M. Michel and S. ZellFortsch. Phys.71(2023) 2300163, [arXiv:2306.09410]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dvali, M

    G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. ZellarXiv:2503.21740

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Montefalcone, D

    G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. Kuhnel, and P. Sandick arXiv:2503.21005. [43]IceCubeCollaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al.Phys. Rev. D98(2018), no. 6 062003, [arXiv:1807.01820]. [44]IceCubeCollaboration, R. Abbasi et al.Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 022002, [arXiv:201...

    2018

  35. [46]

    L. F. T. Airoldi, G. F. S. Alves, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, G. M. Salla, and R. Z. Funchal arXiv:2505.24652

  36. [47]

    L. F. T. Airoldi, G. F. S. Alves, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, G. M. Salla, and R. Z. Funchal arXiv:2505.24666

  37. [48]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, F. Halzen, and D. LustarXiv:2505.23414

  38. [49]

    M. J. Baker, J. Iguaz Juan, A. Symons, and A. ThammarXiv:2505.22722

  39. [50]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. KaiserarXiv:2503.19227

  40. [51]

    Jiang and F

    S. Jiang and F. P. HuangarXiv:2503.14332. – 36 –

    arXiv

  41. [52]

    Boccia and F

    A. Boccia and F. IoccoarXiv:2502.19245

    arXiv

  42. [53]

    Chianese, A

    M. Chianese, A. Boccia, F. Iocco, G. Miele, and N. SavianoarXiv:2410.07604

    arXiv

  43. [54]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. AuffingerEur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 8 693, [arXiv:1905.04268]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. AuffingerEur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 910, [arXiv:2108.02737]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [56]

    Bernal, V

    N. Bernal, V. Muñoz Albornoz, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and P. Villanueva-DomingoJCAP10 (2022) 068, [arXiv:2203.14979]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [57]

    C. W. Bauer, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. WebberJHEP06(2021) 121, [arXiv:2007.15001]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [58]

    De Romeri, Y

    V. De Romeri, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and A. TolinoJCAP04(2025) 018, [arXiv:2405.00124]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Liu, B.-Y

    T.-C. Liu, B.-Y. Zhu, Y.-F. Liang, X.-S. Hu, and E.-W. LiangarXiv:2503.13192

    arXiv

  49. [60]

    ChianesearXiv:2504.03838

    M. ChianesearXiv:2504.03838

  50. [61]

    Chaudhuri, K

    A. Chaudhuri, K. Pal, and R. MohantaarXiv:2505.09153

  51. [62]

    Tan and Y.-f

    X.-h. Tan and Y.-f. ZhouarXiv:2505.19857

    arXiv

  52. [63]

    Dvali, F

    G. Dvali, F. Kühnel, and M. ZantedeschiPhys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 12 123507, [arXiv:2108.09471]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [64]

    Franciolini and P

    G. Franciolini and P. PaniPhys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 8 083527, [arXiv:2304.13576]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [65]

    Balaji, G

    S. Balaji, G. Domènech, G. Franciolini, A. Ganz, and J. TränkleJCAP11(2024) 026, [arXiv:2403.14309]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [66]

    M. R. Haque, S. Maity, D. Maity, and Y. MambriniJCAP07(2024) 002, [arXiv:2404.16815]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Barman, M

    B. Barman, M. R. Haque, and O. ZapataJCAP09(2024) 020, [arXiv:2405.15858]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [68]

    Bhaumik, M

    N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, R. K. Jain, and M. LewickiJHEP10(2024) 142, [arXiv:2409.04436]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Barman, K

    B. Barman, K. Loho, and O. ZapataJCAP10(2024) 065, [arXiv:2409.05953]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Kohri, T

    K. Kohri, T. Terada, and T. T. YanagidaarXiv:2409.06365

    arXiv

  60. [71]

    Borah and N

    D. Borah and N. DasJCAP02(2025) 031, [arXiv:2410.16403]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Barker, B

    W. Barker, B. Gladwyn, and S. ZellarXiv:2410.11948

    arXiv

  62. [73]

    Jiang, C

    Y. Jiang, C. Yuan, C.-Z. Li, and Q.-G. HuangarXiv:2409.07976

    arXiv

  63. [74]

    N. P. D. LocPhys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 2 023509, [arXiv:2410.17544]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [75]

    Basumatary, N

    U. Basumatary, N. Raj, and A. RayPhys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 4 L041306, [arXiv:2410.22702]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Federico and S

    K. Federico and S. ProfumoPhys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 6 063006, [arXiv:2411.17038]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [77]

    Athron, M

    P. Athron, M. Chianese, S. Datta, R. Samanta, and N. SavianoarXiv:2411.19286

    arXiv

  67. [78]

    Barman, K

    B. Barman, K. Loho, and O. ZapataJCAP02(2025) 052, [arXiv:2412.13254]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [79]

    Bandyopadhyay, D

    D. Bandyopadhyay, D. Borah, and N. DasarXiv:2501.04076

    arXiv

  69. [80]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, and N. SavianoarXiv:2501.06298

    arXiv

  70. [81]

    DvaliPhys

    G. DvaliPhys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 10 105005, [arXiv:1712.02233]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [82]

    DvaliFortsch

    G. DvaliFortsch. Phys.66(2018), no. 4 1800007, [arXiv:1801.03918]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [83]

    Dvali, M

    G. Dvali, M. Michel, and S. ZellEPJ Quant. Technol.6(2019) 1, [arXiv:1805.10292]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [84]

    Averin, G

    A. Averin, G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and D. LustJHEP06(2016) 088, [arXiv:1601.03725]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [85]

    Averin, G

    A. Averin, G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and D. LustMod. Phys. Lett. A31(2016), no. 39 1630045, [arXiv:1606.06260]. – 37 –

    2016 arXiv

  75. [86]

    Friedberg, T

    R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, and A. SirlinPhys. Rev. D13(1976) 2739–2761

    1976

  76. [87]

    S. R. ColemanNucl. Phys. B262(1985), no. 2 263. [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 269, 744 (1986)]

    1985

  77. [88]

    Kusenko, M

    A. Kusenko, M. E. Shaposhnikov, and P. G. TinyakovPisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67(1998) 229, [hep-th/9801041]

    1998 arXiv

  78. [89]

    Ali-Haïmoud, E

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. KamionkowskiPhys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 12 123523, [arXiv:1709.06576]

    2017 arXiv

  79. [90]

    Raidal, C

    M. Raidal, C. Spethmann, V. Vaskonen, and H. VeermäeJCAP02(2019) 018, [arXiv:1812.01930]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [91]

    Liu, Z.-K

    L. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. CaiPhys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 6 063523, [arXiv:1812.05376]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [92]

    Vaskonen and H

    V. Vaskonen and H. VeermäePhys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 4 043015, [arXiv:1908.09752]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [93]

    Hütsi, M

    G. Hütsi, M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. VeermäeJCAP03(2021) 068, [arXiv:2012.02786]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [94]

    JedamzikJCAP09(2020) 022, [arXiv:2006.11172]

    K. JedamzikJCAP09(2020) 022, [arXiv:2006.11172]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [95]

    Young and A

    S. Young and A. S. HamersJCAP10(2020) 036, [arXiv:2006.15023]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [96]

    JedamzikPhys

    K. JedamzikPhys. Rev. Lett.126(2021), no. 5 051302, [arXiv:2007.03565]

    2021 arXiv

  86. [97]

    Raidal, V

    M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe,Formation of Primordial Black Hole Binaries and Their Merger Rates. 2025.arXiv:2404.08416

    2025 arXiv

  87. [98]

    Inman and Y

    D. Inman and Y. Ali-HaïmoudPhys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 8 083528, [arXiv:1907.08129]

    2019 arXiv

  88. [99]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Maharana, and F. MuiaPhys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 10 103520, [arXiv:2205.02153]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [100]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. YokoyamaClass. Quant. Grav.35(2018), no. 6 063001, [arXiv:1801.05235]

    2018 arXiv

  90. [101]

    Raidal, V

    M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. VeermäeJCAP09(2017) 037, [arXiv:1707.01480]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [102]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. RiottoJCAP11(2021) 039, [arXiv:2106.13769]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [103]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. RiottoJCAP04(2020) 052, [arXiv:2003.02778]

    2020 arXiv

  93. [104]

    D. N. PagePhys. Rev. D14(1976) 3260–3273

    1976

  94. [105]

    D. N. PagePhys. Rev. D13(1976) 198–206

    1976

  95. [106]

    Arbey, M

    A. Arbey, M. Calzà, and Y. F. Perez-GonzalezPhys. Dark Univ.48(2025) 101903, [arXiv:2502.17240]. [107]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2025 arXiv

  96. [108]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. WhiteAstrophys. J.490(1997) 493–508, [astro-ph/9611107]

    1997 arXiv

  97. [109]

    Catena and P

    R. Catena and P. UllioJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010(Aug., 2010) 004–004

    2010

  98. [110]

    Salucci, F

    P. Salucci, F. Nesti, G. Gentile, and C. Frigerio MartinsAstronomy & Astrophysics523 (Nov., 2010) A83

    2010

  99. [111]

    Iocco, M

    F. Iocco, M. Pato, and G. BertoneNature Physics11(Feb., 2015) 245–248

    2015

  100. [112]

    Esmaili and P

    A. Esmaili and P. D. SerpicoJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(Oct.,

  101. [113]

    BlancoJCAP01(2019) 013, [arXiv:1804.00005]

    C. BlancoJCAP01(2019) 013, [arXiv:1804.00005]

    2019 arXiv

  102. [114]

    Capanema and C

    A. Capanema and C. BlancoComput. Phys. Commun.307(2025) 109408, [arXiv:2408.03995]. – 38 –

    2025 arXiv

  103. [115]

    Saldana-Lopez, A

    A. Saldana-Lopez, A. Domínguez, P. G. Pérez-González, J. Finke, M. Ajello, J. R. Primack, V. S. Paliya, and A. DesaiMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507(2021), no. 4 5144–5160, [arXiv:2012.03035]

    2021 arXiv

  104. [116]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. StrumiaJCAP03(2011) 051, [arXiv:1012.4515]. [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2012)]

    2011 arXiv

  105. [117]

    T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, and D. P. FinkbeinerPhys. Rev. D80(2009) 043526, [arXiv:0906.1197]. [118]F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ackermann et al.Astrophys. J.799(2015) 86, [arXiv:1410.3696]

    2009 arXiv

  106. [119]

    Abbasi et al.Astrophys

    R. Abbasi et al.Astrophys. J.928(2022), no. 1 50, [arXiv:2111.10299]

    2022

  107. [120]

    C. A. Argüelles, A. Diaz, A. Kheirandish, A. Olivares-Del-Campo, I. Safa, and A. C. Vincent Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021), no. 3 035007, [arXiv:1912.09486]. [121]LHAASOCollaboration, Z. Cao et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023), no. 15 151001, [arXiv:2305.05372]. [122]Tibet ASgammaCollabo...

    2021 arXiv

  108. [127]

    Keith, D

    C. Keith, D. Hooper, N. Blinov, and S. D. McDermottPhys. Rev. D102(2020), no. 10 103512, [arXiv:2006.03608]

    2020 arXiv

  109. [128]

    T. R. SlatyerPhys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 2 023527, [arXiv:1506.03811]

    2016 arXiv

  110. [129]

    T. R. SlatyerPhys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 2 023521, [arXiv:1506.03812]

    2016 arXiv

  111. [130]

    D’Amico, P

    G. D’Amico, P. Panci, and A. StrumiaPhys. Rev. Lett.121(2018), no. 1 011103, [arXiv:1803.03629]

    2018 arXiv

  112. [131]

    Giesen, J

    G. Giesen, J. Lesgourgues, B. Audren, and Y. Ali-HaimoudJCAP12(2012) 008, [arXiv:1209.0247]

    2012 arXiv

  113. [132]

    T. R. Slatyer and C.-L. WuPhys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 2 023010, [arXiv:1610.06933]

    2017 arXiv

  114. [133]

    D. P. Finkbeiner, S. Galli, T. Lin, and T. R. SlatyerPhysical Review D85(Feb., 2012). – 39 –

    2012

Pith tools

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