Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Black Hole Explosions as Probes of New Physics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 black hole's final gamma-ray flash can reveal hidden particle species and test a quantum 'memory burden' that slows evaporation.

desk verdict Useful analytic scalings for PBH evaporation diagnostics, but the central tau_crit formula is a calibrated fit presented as a derivation, and a few typos undermine readability. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17038 v1 pith:P7NJEPZX submitted 2024-11-26 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th

Kevin Federico , Stefano Profumo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th
keywords primordialblackholesHawkingradiationdarksectorsmemoryburdengamma-raylightcurveHAWCFermi-LATholeevaporation
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 the last seconds of a primordial black hole's evaporation carry enough information to count how many new, invisible particle species exist, how heavy they are, and whether a quantum-gravity 'memory burden' slows evaporation. It derives analytic formulas connecting observable features of the gamma-ray lightcurve to those quantities, including the time-to-explosion when new species switch on and the peak time of the photon flash. The payoff, if the formulas hold, is a way to map particle physics at mass scales far beyond accelerator reach using gamma-ray telescopes such as HAWC and Fermi-LAT.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Page factor $\alpha(M)$ in the mass-loss equation $dM/dt=-\alpha(M)/M^2$: it is the evaporation-weighted sum over every emitted species, so turning on $n$ hidden species at temperature $T\sim M$ changes it and all subsequent lightcurves. The paper couples this to the standard scaling $T\simeq 7.8\times10^{3}\,\mathrm{GeV}\,(\tau/1\,\mathrm{s})^{-1/3}$ and to two greybody asymptotics, $\Gamma\sim M^2E^2$ in geometric optics and $\Gamma\sim (ME)^{2s+1}$ at low energy, to derive the $dN/dt\sim T$ and $dN/dt\sim T^{-3}$ limits that determine where the flash peaks. For memory burden, the machinery is the power-law mass-loss ansatz indexed by $n_{\mathrm{MB}}$, which changes the temperature-lifetime exponent from $1/3$ to $1/(3+2n_{\mathrm{MB}})$.

What would settle it

Recompute $\tau_{\mathrm{crit}}$ using the paper's own conditions, $T\sim M/\ln n$ and $T\simeq 7.8\times10^{3}\,\mathrm{GeV}\,(\tau/1\,\mathrm{s})^{-1/3}$; the coefficient should be $(7.8\times10^{3})^3$, about a factor of 15 smaller than $0.07\,(4.68\times10^{4})^3$, so checking which coefficient reproduces the numerically simulated onset time of the lightcurve deviation would settle whether Eq. (8) is calibrated correctly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the final evaporation lightcurve contains three extractable signatures. First, the temperature-to-remaining-lifetime relation bends away from the Standard-Model-only curve at a critical time $\tau_{\mathrm{crit}}(n,M) \simeq 0.07\,\mathrm{s}\,(\ln(n)\,4.68\times10^{4}\,\mathrm{GeV}/M)^3$ set by the number $n$ and mass scale $M$ of hidden degrees of freedom. Second, because the band-integrated photon flux grows as $T$ when the black hole temperature is far below the detector's maximum energy and falls as $T^{-3}$ when it is far above, the lightcurve peak moves as $\tau_{\mathrm{peak}}\sim n^{-1/3}\ln n / M^{1/4}$, separating $n$ from $M$. Third, if the 'memory burden' effect slows mass loss as $dM/dt \sim -M_p^2(M_p/M)^{2+2n_{\mathrm{MB}}}$, then the ratio of photon counts accumulated in an early bin to a late bin gives $n_{\mathrm{MB}}=(3-3R)/R$ with $R=3/(3+2n_{\mathrm{MB}})$. A measurement of these features would determine the dark-sector particle count and mass scale, and the memory-burden index, from burst observations alone.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration constant $0.07\,\mathrm{s}$ in the critical-time formula is asserted rather than derived, so the paper's mapping from dark-sector particle count and mass to observable lightcurve times stands or falls with that number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single burst observed in two energy bands could determine both $n$ and $M$: the HAWC-to-Fermi-LAT flux ratio's time-dependent plateau fixes $n$, while the peak position's $M^{-1/4}$ scaling constrains $M$.
  • Dark sectors with mass scale below about $0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}$ have $\tau_{\mathrm{crit}}$ longer than the age of the universe, so all such models yield the same lightcurve and only $n$ is observable.
  • A nonzero memory-burden index shifts the exploding-today black hole mass from $5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{g}$ down to $\sim10^7\,\mathrm{g}$ for $n_{\mathrm{MB}}=1$ and $\sim5\times10^3\,\mathrm{g}$ for $n_{\mathrm{MB}}=2$, opening a new mass window for primordial black holes.
  • Measuring the early-to-late photon-count ratio reconstructs the memory-burden index through $n_{\mathrm{MB}}=(3-3R)/R$, so a ratio $R=3/5$ would indicate $n_{\mathrm{MB}}=2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper: a direct re-derivation of $\tau_{\mathrm{crit}}$ from the stated temperature-time relation, without the inserted calibration factor, would shift the formula by an order of magnitude, so the quoted reach bounds for $n$ and $M$ should be re-checked before searches are interpreted.
  • Extending beyond the paper: the same early/late photon-count ratio that extracts $n_{\mathrm{MB}}$ should work in any energy band whose coverage straddles the burst peak, so future MeV gamma-ray telescopes could independently confirm or rule out the memory-burden signature.
  • Extending beyond the paper: the memory-burden mass window connects these burst diagnostics to dark matter; a detected $n_{\mathrm{MB}}>0$ would place evaporating primordial black hole dark matter at sub-asteroid masses and sharpen the allowed mass range.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the final gamma-ray burst from an evaporating primordial black hole can serve as a probe of new physics, specifically of additional dark degrees of freedom (characterized by a mass scale M and a number n) and of memory-burden effects (characterized by an index nMB). The authors derive analytic scalings for the time-to-expiration at which dark degrees of freedom begin to affect the lightcurve (Eq. 8), for the photon flux asymptotics in the high- and low-temperature limits (Eqs. 16-18 and 19), and for an estimator of nMB from early/late photon count ratios (Eqs. 20-22). They validate these scalings against modified BlackHawk simulations and illustrate detectability with HAWC and Fermi-LAT energy ranges.

Significance. If the analytic scalings are correct, the paper offers a concrete observational program to extract both the number and mass scale of hidden degrees of freedom and the memory-burden index from the final phase of PBH evaporation. The asymptotic flux relations (Eqs. 16-18) are cleanly derived from greybody factors and are a useful contribution. The use of the public BlackHawk code makes the numerical results reproducible, and the paper makes falsifiable predictions for lightcurve shapes and peak positions. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that Eq. (8), a central diagnostic formula, is presented as derived but is effectively calibrated to the same simulations used for validation, and by several internal inconsistencies that need to be resolved before the predictive claims are fully credible.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (8)] The derivation of τ_crit is not self-consistent. Substituting T = M/ln n into the temperature-lifetime relation T ≃ 7.8×10^3 GeV (τ/1 s)^{-1/3} gives τ = (7.8×10^3 ln n / M)^3 s, whereas Eq. (8) has the form 0.07 s (4.68×10^4 ln n / M)^3. The coefficient 0.07 s is not derived, and the appearance of 4.68×10^4 GeV (which is 6×7.8×10^3 GeV, corresponding to x = E/T = 6 for the photon peak) is not explained for a temperature-based onset criterion. The numerical agreement with BlackHawk in Table I suggests Eq. (8) is a calibrated fit rather than a first-principles result. The paper should either derive the coefficient including the SM background and greybody factors, or explicitly state that Eq. (8) is an empirical fit, and quantify the resulting uncertainty in the (n, M) extraction.
  2. [§VII, Eq. (23)] The summary equation τ_crit(n, M) ∼ ln(n)/M contradicts Eq. (8), which has τ_crit ∝ (ln n)^3 / M^3. As written, Eq. (23) would imply a completely different dependence on M and n. This inconsistency must be corrected, and the summary should match the formula that is actually used in the analysis.
  3. [§VI, after Fig. 5] The claim that the peak of the photon lightcurve scales as τ_peak ∼ n^{-1/3} ln n / M^{1/4} is asserted without a derivation. The text says 'we find' and refers to the intercept of the asymptotic T and T^{-3} behaviors, but the explicit calculation is not shown. Since this scaling is used to argue that n and M can be extracted from the peak position, it is load-bearing and should be derived or at least demonstrated in an appendix with the asymptotic matching calculation.
  4. [Eq. (20)] The denominator of the ratio R is printed as ln((Δt)_early/(Δt)_early), which is identically ln(1) = 0, making the formula undefined. The intended expression, based on Eq. (25) and the numerical example in Eq. (22), is ln((Δt)_early/(Δt)_late). This error must be fixed because Eq. (20) is the central estimator for nMB.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'evaporateinto' in the introduction and 'grebody' in Section VI. The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The units of E in τ_peak ≃ (4.68×10^4 / E)^3 s should be stated explicitly (GeV), since the numerical factor only makes sense with that convention.
  3. [Table I] For M = 10^{-4} GeV, the BlackHawk values of τ_crit are larger than the Eq. (8) values by a factor of about 2.5-3, while the other rows agree to within about 30%. This discrepancy is not discussed; given that the low-M regime is used to argue that M < 0.1 GeV is unobservable, the discrepancy should be addressed.
  4. [Section VI.A, Figure 6 discussion] The sentence 'it decreases, because of the short time scale, near the end of evaporation' is unclear; the decrease is due to the short remaining lifetime (small τ) suppressing the integrated flux, but the wording could be more precise.
  5. [Section V, Eq. (14)] The memory-burden mass-loss rate in Eq. (14) is an order-of-magnitude ansatz, as the authors acknowledge. It would be helpful to state explicitly that the resulting predictions for nMB are therefore only indicative, not precise, in the conclusions as well as in the body.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. (8)'s 0.07 s coefficient is not obtained from the stated T∼M/ln n substitution; it is effectively calibrated to BlackHawk's τcrit and then Table I is presented as validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eq. (8) and Table I]
    "The equation above is derived as follows. The logarithmic dependence on n stems from the contribution to the Page factor of the additional degrees of freedom, which is approximately ∼ n exp(−M/T ); τcrit corresponds to the temperature at which that contribution is of order 1, or T ∼ M/(ln n); since T ∼ τ −1/3 the formula in (8) follows."

    The stated derivation inserts T ∼ M/ln n into T = 7.8×10^3 (τ/1s)^{-1/3} (Eq. 3), which gives τ = (7.8×10^3 ln n / M)^3 s, i.e. a coefficient (7.8×10^3)^3 ≈ 4.7×10^11 s. Eq. (8) instead has 0.07×(4.68×10^4)^3 ≈ 7.2×10^12 s, a factor ≈15 larger. No step producing this factor is given; the only support offered is Table I, where Eq. (8) is compared with the very same BlackHawk numerical 'onset' values (defined as where the slope of the temperature-time relation diverges) that would have to supply the missing calibration. Thus the analytic 'prediction' of τcrit is not derived from the stated first principles: its normalization is fitted to the numerical model and then the table is presented as validation. The (n, M) extraction and mass-scale bounds of Sec. VI inherit this calibrated constant.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained: the asymptotic photon-flux behaviors (dN/dt ~ T and dN/dt ~ T^{-3}) follow from the greybody-factor limits in Eqs. (16)-(18); the A(n) rescaling follows from Eq. (7) with nSM ≈ 70; the memory-burden lightcurve scalings are explicitly labeled an order-of-magnitude ansatz taken from Ref. [14]; and the numerical results are benchmarked against the public BlackHawk, HAZMA, and PYTHIA codes. The one substantive circular episode is Eq. (8). The text says τcrit follows from T ∼ M/ln n and T ∼ τ^{-1/3}; those two relations give coefficient (7.8×10^3)^3 ≈ 4.7×10^11 s, not the 0.07×(4.68×10^4)^3 ≈ 7.2×10^12 s printed in Eq. (8). The missing factor ≈15 is not derived; the only evidence offered is agreement with the BlackHawk numerical 'onset' points in Table I, so the normalization is effectively calibrated to the same simulation used for validation. Consequently, the absolute τcrit values, and the mass-scale bounds built on them in Sec. VI, are retrospective rather than predictive; the relative scalings with n and M and the independent asymptotic results are not affected. The concluding Eq. (23) also drops the cube present in Eq. (8), a consistency issue that reinforces that Eq. (8) is a fitted relation rather than a derived one.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Hawking radiation theory, the BlackHawk code, the assumed decoupling of dark dof, and the memory burden framework borrowed from Dvali et al. The main ad hoc element is the unexplained 0.07 s coefficient in Eq. (8), which functions as a fitted constant. No new fundamental entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Eq. (8) calibration coefficient = 0.07 s
    The text's derivation (T ~ M/ln n with T = 7.8e3 tau^{-1/3} GeV) yields a coefficient ~ (7.8e3)^3 = 4.7e11 for tau(M/ln n), whereas Eq. (8) uses 0.07*(4.68e4)^3 = 7.2e12. The 0.07 factor is not derived and appears calibrated to the BlackHawk tau_crit values in Table I.
  • nSM effective degrees of freedom = ~70
    Used in Eq. (11) to relate A(n) to nSM. This is a standard approximate count of Standard Model degrees of freedom weighted by emission suppression, not fitted to new data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The black hole is uncharged, non-rotating Schwarzschild with Hawking temperature T = 1/(8pi M).
    Section II Eq. (1); the paper explicitly excludes charged and rotating cases.
  • standard math Emission rates follow Eq. (2) with greybody factors from BlackHawk/Page.
    Section II Eq. (2); relies on established Hawking radiation results.
  • domain assumption Additional dark degrees of freedom are decoupled from the SM, affecting only the Page factor alpha and not producing photons directly.
    Section IV: 'We assume there is negligible coupling between the extra degrees of freedom and the standard model.'
  • domain assumption The memory burden effect modifies the black hole lifetime as t ~ S^{1+nMB} r_BH, with mass-loss rate dM/dt ~ -M_p^2 (M_p/M)^{2+2nMB}.
    Section V Eqs. (12) and (14); adopted from Dvali et al. [12-14], not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray detectors HAWC and Fermi-LAT have the effective areas and energy ranges quoted in Refs. [27-30].
    Section III; detector response taken from literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black Hole Explosions as Probes of New Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7NJEPZX

@misc{pith2026241117038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black Hole Explosions as Probes of New Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7NJEPZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17038}
}
read the original abstract

The final stage of black hole evaporation is a potent probe of physics beyond the Standard Model: Hawking-Bekenstein radiation may be affected by quantum gravity "memory burden effects", or by the presence of "dark", beyond-the-Standard-Model degrees of freedom in ways that are testable with high-energy gamma-ray observations. We argue that information on either scenario can best be inferred from measurements of the evaporation's lightcurve and by correlating observations at complementary energies. We offer several new analytical insights in how such observations map on the fundamental properties of the evaporating black holes and of the possible exotic particles they can evaporate into.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The page factor α(MBH), for the standard case (nSM) and for a variety of choices of number n and mass scale M of additional degrees of freedom. of the additional degrees of freedom on the evaporation rate for a given “dark sector” (M, n). As stated above, this occurs at a time-to-expiration, which we call τcrit, around a mass corresponding to the temperature of the black hole becoming greater than the mass scale of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relation between black hole temperature and remaining lifetime in the presence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Final photon burst of black hole evaporation integrated over the HAWC energy range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final photon burst of black hole evaporation integrated over the Fermi-LAT energy range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of integrated photon fluxes in the HAWC over Fermi energy ranges, for varying mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The quantity τ dN/dt HAWC would observe during the last ∼ hour of an evaporating black hole’s lifetime from a distance of 1 AU. the fact that the peak corresponds to T ∼ Emax, we find that the position of the peak scales as n −1/3 ln n; the scaling with M is reflective…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final photon burst, integrated over the HAWC energy range, for an evaporating black hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Black hole emission rate integrated over the HAWC energy range for black holes exploding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Black hole remaining lifetime-temperature relation in the HAWC range for black holes exploding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Hawking emission of massive vector fields by Kerr black holes

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First computation of massive vector (Proca) Hawking emission spectra from Kerr black holes, including polarization-dependent greybody factors, Page functions, and mass-enhanced superradiance up to ~7%.

  2. 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.

  3. $\tt GrayHawk$: A public code for calculating the Gray Body Factors of massless fields around spherically symmetric Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new public Mathematica tool, GrayHawk, computes gray-body factors for massless spin 0, 1/2, 1, and 2 fields around seven spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat black hole metrics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Baker and A

    M.J. Baker and A. Thamm,Probing the particle spectrum of nature with evaporating black holes, SciPost Physics 12 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Baker and A

    M.J. Baker and A. Thamm,Black hole evaporation beyond the standard model of particle physics, Journal of High Energy Physics2023 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Boluna, S

    X. Boluna, S. Profumo, J. Blé and D. Hennings,Searching for Exploding black holes, JCAP 04 (2024) 024 [2307.06467]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Hawking,Black hole explosions, Nature 248 (1974) 30

    S.W. Hawking,Black hole explosions, Nature 248 (1974) 30

    1974

  5. [5]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel,Primordial black holes as dark matter candidates, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 48 (2022) 1 [2110.02821]. 21

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    MacGibbon, B.J

    J.H. MacGibbon, B.J. Carr and D.N. Page,Do evaporating black holes form photospheres?, Physical Review D78 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Ukwatta, D.R

    T.N. Ukwatta, D.R. Stump, J.T. Linnemann, J.H. MacGibbon, S.S. Marinelli, T. Yapici et al., Primordial Black Holes: Observational characteristics of the final evaporation, Astroparticle Physics 80 (2016) 90 [1510.04372]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Ukwatta and et al.,Investigation of primordial black hole bursts using interplanetary network gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal826 (2016) 98

    T.N. Ukwatta and et al.,Investigation of primordial black hole bursts using interplanetary network gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal826 (2016) 98

    work page 2016

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Agrawal et al.,Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur

    P. Agrawal et al.,Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 1015 [2102.12143]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bilal,Introduction to supersymmetry, 2001

    A. Bilal,Introduction to supersymmetry, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Arkani-Hamed, T

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Cohen, R.T. D’Agnolo, A. Hook, H.D. Kim and D. Pinner,Solving the hierarchy problem at reheating with a large number of degrees of freedom, Physical Review Letters 117 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Dvali, J.S

    G. Dvali, J.S. Valbuena-Bermúdez and M. Zantedeschi,Memory burden effect in black holes and solitons: Implications for pbh, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel and S. Zell,Black hole metamorphosis and stabilization by memory burden, Physical Review D102 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Alexandre, G

    A. Alexandre, G. Dvali and E. Koutsangelas,New mass window for primordial black holes as dark matter from memory burden effect, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger,Blackhawk: a public code for calculating the hawking evaporation spectra of any black hole distribution, The European Physical Journal C79 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger,Physics beyond the standard model with blackhawk v2.0, The European Physical Journal C 81 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Page,Particle emission rates from a black hole: Massless particles from an uncharged, nonrotating hole, Phys

    D.N. Page,Particle emission rates from a black hole: Massless particles from an uncharged, nonrotating hole, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 198

    1976

  10. [18]

    Page,Particle emission rates from a black hole

    D.N. Page,Particle emission rates from a black hole. ii. massless particles from a rotating hole, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 3260

    1976

  11. [19]

    Page,Particle emission rates from a black hole

    D.N. Page,Particle emission rates from a black hole. iii. charged leptons from a nonrotating hole, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 2402. 22

    1977

  12. [20]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison and S. Profumo,Hazma: A Python Toolkit for Studying Indirect Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter, JCAP 01 (2020) 056 [1907.11846]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison and S. Profumo,Direct Detection of Hawking Radiation from Asteroid-Mass Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 171101 [2010.04797]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison, T. Plehn, S. Profumo and P. Reimitz,Hazma meets HERWIG4DM: precision gamma-ray, neutrino, and positron spectra for light dark matter, JCAP 11 (2022) 033 [2207.07634]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Koivu, J

    E. Koivu, J. Kushan, M. Silva, G. Vasquez, A. Das and C.M. Hirata,Corrections to Hawking radiation from asteroid-mass primordial black holes: Numerical evaluation of dissipative effects, 2408.17423

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison and S. Profumo,Hazma: a python toolkit for studying indirect detection of sub-gev dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020 (2020) 056–056

    2020

  17. [25]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to pythia 8.2, Computer Physics Communications191 (2015) 159–177

    2015

  18. [26]

    Korwar and S

    M. Korwar and S. Profumo,Late-forming black holes and the antiproton, gamma-ray, and anti-helium excesses, 2403.18656

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lennarz and I

    D. Lennarz and I. Taboada,First results from HAWC on GRBs, PoS ICRC2015 (2016) 715

    2016

  20. [28]

    Collaboration and A.U.A

    H. Collaboration and A.U.A. et al.,The hawc gamma-ray observatory: Dark matter, cosmology, and fundamental physics, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Fermi-LATcollaboration, The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope Mission, Astrophys. J. 697 (2009) 1071 [0902.1089]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Atwood, A.A

    W.B. Atwood, A.A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, W. Althouse, B. Anderson, M. Axelsson et al.,The large area telescope on thefermi gamma-ray space telescopemission, The Astrophysical Journal697 (2009) 1071–1102

    2009

  23. [31]

    Dvali,A microscopic model of holography: Survival by the burden of memory, 2018

    G. Dvali,A microscopic model of holography: Survival by the burden of memory, 2018. 23

    2018

Pith tools

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