Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

ALP production from light primordial black holes: The role of superradiance

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that superradiance amplifies string-theory moduli production from spinning light black holes by a factor near $10^{10}$, so their decay into axion-like particles raises $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ and widens the region excluded…

desk verdict A clean numerical demonstration that superradiant moduli production can feed ALP dark radiation, but the headline constraints assume maximal spin and are proof-of-principle, not robust generic bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14589 v2 pith:2G3F3WML submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Marco Manno , Daniele Montanino This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords primordialblackholessuperradianceaxion-likeparticlesdarkradiationmodulieffectivenumberofneutrinosHawkingKerr
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

Light primordial black holes between $10$ g and $10^9$ g can emit axion-like particles by Hawking evaporation, but this paper argues that a second channel dominates when the holes spin fast: superradiant instability amplifies string-theory moduli into a boson cloud, and those moduli later decay into ALPs. The comoving moduli number grows by about $O(10^{10})$ during the superradiant phase, and the resulting ALP population raises the extra effective neutrino number $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ above the Hawking-only prediction. For near-extremal spin and gravitational coupling $\alpha \sim O(0.1)$, the Planck limit $\Delta N_{\rm eff} < 0.17$ excludes a substantially wider region of the $(M_{\rm BH}, \Omega_{\rm PBH,i})$ plane than superradiance-free analyses. This matters because any future light-PBH study that omits superradiance would underestimate dark radiation and miss a possible probe of string moduli.

What carries the argument

The engine is the superradiant instability of a massive scalar field around a Kerr black hole. The gravitational fine-structure constant $\alpha = r_s/(2\lambda_c) = G M_{\rm BH} m_\Phi$ controls hydrogen-like bound states with frequencies $\omega_n \simeq m_\Phi(1 - \alpha^2/(2n^2))$, and the dominant $n=2$, $l=\mu=1$ mode grows at a rate proportional to $(G M_{\rm BH} m_\Phi)^8$ when $\omega < \mu\Omega$. The paper couples this growth to the Hawking mass and spin loss rates and to the moduli decay $\Phi \to aa$ with Planck-suppressed rate $\Gamma_\Phi$ and branching ratio $B_a$, using a public PBH evaporation solver extended to evolve the combined equations.

What would settle it

Compute the spin distribution that realistic PBH formation mechanisms actually produce and count the fraction with $a_\star \gtrsim 0.7$: if that fraction is negligible, the predicted $O(10^{10})$ moduli boost and the widened Planck exclusion region do not occur. A null measurement of $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ at the $0.06$ level by a next-generation CMB experiment would likewise rule out the boosted high-spin region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for light Kerr primordial black holes with near-extremal spin ($a_\star = 0.999$), superradiance, not Hawking evaporation, determines the final number of moduli. During the superradiant phase the comoving moduli number $n_\Phi a^3$ grows by about $O(10^{10})$ (left panel of Fig. 2), and when these moduli decay into ALPs with branching ratio $B_a$, the comoving axion energy density is pushed above the Hawking-only value. For the illustrative parameters $M_i = 2.6 \times 10^6$ g, $m_\Phi = 10^7$ GeV, $\Omega_{\rm PBH,i} = 10^{-15}$, and $B_a = 0.1$, the resulting $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ contours move downward in the $(M_{\rm BH}, \Omega_{\rm PBH,i})$ plane, so the Planck limit $\Delta N_{\rm eff} < 0.17$ at 68% C.L. excludes a wider region than scenarios without superradiance. The effect is controlled by the gravitational coupling $\alpha = G M_{\rm BH} m_\Phi \approx O(0.1)$; at $a_\star = 0.4$ the amplification nearly disappears, and in the absence of moduli, rotating PBHs are actually less efficient than Schwarzschild ones at producing ALPs via Hawking radiation.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints assume every light PBH forms with spin near $a_\star = 0.999$, and the claimed amplification falls off sharply below $a_\star \approx 0.4$, so a realistic formation spin distribution dominated by low spins would erase the widened exclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any light-PBH evaporation analysis that includes string-theory moduli must also include superradiance; Hawking-only estimates undercount the ALP population by orders of magnitude.
  • The Planck ΔNeff < 0.17 exclusion in the (MBH, ΩPBH,i) plane reaches lower initial abundances when superradiance is included, with the effect strongest around gravitational coupling α ≈ 0.1.
  • The boost is confined to near-extremal initial spins; at a⋆ = 0.4 the superradiance contribution is negligible, so the strengthened limits apply only to formation scenarios that produce high spins.
  • A next-generation CMB experiment with sensitivity near ΔNeff = 0.06 can either see the boosted ALP background or rule out the high-spin superradiant region.
  • For direct Hawking evaporation without moduli, rotating PBHs are less efficient ALP sources than non-spinning ones, because the standard-model emissivity grows faster with spin than the ALP emissivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim is right, a realistic formation-dependent spin distribution is the decisive test: marginalizing over spins likely erases or dilutes the widened exclusion unless near-extremal formation channels are common.
  • The same superradiance-boosted moduli chain should transfer to other dark-radiation sectors mentioned in the paper's outlook, such as dark photons or gravitational waves, so the ΔNeff reach of spinning PBHs may extend beyond ALPs.
  • Because moduli also decay to standard-model states with probability 1 - Ba, the superradiant amplification reheats the visible bath; folding that reheating into the density equations could shift the derived bounds, a coupling the paper fixes rather than varies.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies ALP dark radiation from light primordial black holes (LPBHs), adding superradiant instabilities of massive string moduli around Kerr PBHs to the usual Hawking evaporation channel. The authors extend the FRISBHEE code with superradiance and moduli decay, solve the coupled evolution equations, and show that for a high initial spin (a* = 0.999) superradiance amplifies the comoving moduli number by roughly ten orders of magnitude (Fig. 2). The subsequent decay of those moduli into ALPs raises Delta N_eff, and the Planck bound Delta N_eff < 0.17 then excludes a wider region of the (M_BH, Omega_PBH,i) plane than Hawking radiation alone (Fig. 3). A no-moduli comparison appears in Fig. 4. The quantitative constraints are computed for monochromatic PBHs with a fixed spin a* = 0.999 and use the leading-order superradiance rate.

Significance. The mechanism is physically well motivated: massive scalars around Kerr black holes do undergo superradiant instabilities, and the paper combines standard ingredients (Hawking spectra, the Detweiler growth rate, moduli decay to axions) in a transparent way. If the constraints survive a more realistic treatment of spin and of the growth rate, the message that superradiance cannot be neglected in LPBH analyses with string moduli is timely and relevant. The calculation is not circular: it integrates published rates and compares the resulting Delta N_eff with an external Planck limit, with the parameter choices stated as illustrative. The main caveats are the fixed near-extremal spin and the unvalidated use of the leading-order superradiance formula in the displayed parameter range.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V, Figs. 1 and 3] The central exclusion plots assume every PBH is born with a* = 0.999, while the superradiance rate in Eq. (13) is strongly spin-dependent; Fig. 1 itself shows that the amplification is already marginal at a* = 0.4 for the reference parameters. Realistic formation scenarios [35-40] predict a spectrum of PBH spins, often dominated by small spins. If the near-extremal population is only a fraction f of the total, the superradiant contribution to Delta N_eff is diluted by a factor that can be very large because the exponential growth is cut off for lower spins. Since Fig. 3 scans Omega_PBH,i over many decades, the light-blue widened exclusion region is not robust unless the authors fold in a spin distribution or otherwise bound the near-extremal fraction. The acknowledgment in Sec. V that the initial mass distribution depends on the formation mechanism does not address this quantitative gap. This is the main load-bearing assumption and should be remedied before the constraints can be used.
  2. [Eq. (13) and text after it] The superradiance rate used in the code is the leading-order, small-alpha formula, but the scans in Fig. 3 extend into the regime alpha ~ 0.1-0.4 where the cited higher-order analytic and numerical results [52,53] become relevant. The manuscript notes these corrections but does not benchmark Eq. (13) against them over the (M_BH, m_Phi) plane used for the constraints. Because the number of moduli grows as exp(integral Gamma_sr dt), even moderate fractional errors in Gamma_sr translate into order-of-magnitude changes in the final abundance. The claim that Eq. (13) is "enough to our purposes" needs a quantitative comparison; otherwise the size of the exclusion contours in Fig. 3 is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V, text after Eq. (23)] The text says that Eq. (23) yields a decay temperature T_d ~ 100 MeV, but Eq. (23) defines the initial formation temperature T_i; the decay temperature should follow from Gamma_Phi and the Friedmann equation rather than from Eq. (23).
  2. [Fig. 2] The left-panel text refers to the "number of moduli N_Phi" while the axis label is the comoving number density n_Phi a^3; please make the quantity being plotted unambiguous.
  3. [Notation] The symbols m_S and m_Phi are used inconsistently: Eq. (13) and the surrounding text use m_S, while the moduli mass elsewhere is m_Phi; this should be unified.
  4. [References] Reference [10] is given as a GitHub profile rather than a citable compilation of bounds; a published or versioned source should be cited instead.
  5. [Related work] The closely related Ref. [44] is cited but never discussed; a short comparison of the setup and results with the present paper would help the reader assess the novelty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the superradiance-enhanced ΔNeff calculation integrates published Hawking and superradiance rates and is compared to an external Planck limit, with no parameter fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) adopt the standard Kerr Hawking emission formulas (Eqs. 5–9) and the published superradiance growth rate (Eq. 13, from Detweiler and Bernal et al.); (ii) evolve the coupled PBH mass, spin, moduli, and radiation densities (Eqs. 18–20) using the public FRISBHEE code extended by the authors; (iii) convert the resulting axion energy density to ΔNeff via the standard redshift/entropy-conservation formula (Eq. 30); and (iv) compare with the external Planck bound ΔNeff < 0.17. No parameter is fitted to ΔNeff: the inputs (mΦ, Ba, ΩPBH,i, a⋆ = 0.999) are stated illustrative choices, and the enhancement factor O(10^10) is an integrated output of the differential equations, not an input. The two citations involving coauthor Montanino ([31] and [60]) appear only as supporting references or as a comparison point for the Hawking-only baseline; they are not load-bearing for the superradiance-enhanced result. The assumption a⋆ = 0.999 and the neglect of a spin distribution affect the robustness and applicability of the constraints, but they are assumptions about the physical scenario, not circular reasoning. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard Hawking radiation and superradiance formulas taken from external literature, plus several hand-chosen model parameters such as m_Phi, Ba, a_star, k, and NS(0). No new particles or forces are introduced; moduli and ALPs are pre-existing theoretical objects. The main constraints are therefore conditional on the chosen parameters and on the O(alpha) superradiance rate.

free parameters (6)
  • moduli mass m_Phi = 10^6 GeV and 10^7 GeV
    Sets the gravitational coupling alpha ~ 0.1 for the chosen PBH mass; Fig 3 uses these two values. Not fitted to data.
  • branching ratio Ba of moduli decay into ALPs = 0.1
    Controls how much of the moduli energy becomes ALP radiation; chosen by hand with no derivation.
  • initial PBH spin a_star = 0.999 in main figures; 0.7 and 0.4 in Fig 1
    Superradiance efficiency is extremely sensitive to spin; near-extremal spin maximizes the effect and is the default for the Planck constraint plot.
  • moduli decay coupling k = 1
    Order-one constant in Eq (17) chosen for simplicity; the decay width scales as k^2.
  • initial superradiance seed NS(0) = 1
    The paper states the final result is independent of the initial seed, following [50]; no physical production mechanism for the seed is derived.
  • reference PBH mass Mi = 2.6 x 10^6 g for Figs 1 and 2
    Illustrative value satisfying alpha ~ 0.1; Fig 3 scans a range of PBH masses instead.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Kerr black hole Hawking radiation spectra and emission coefficients (Eqs 5-9) are accurate.
    Taken from Page, Dong et al., and MacGibbon and Webber; used as input without rederivation.
  • domain assumption Superradiance growth rate for the dominant n=2, l=m=1 mode is given by Eq (13) even at alpha ~ 0.1.
    The approximation is O(alpha) and the paper notes higher-order corrections exist but says Eq (13) is enough; the constraint plots rely on this rate.
  • domain assumption Moduli are real scalars with Planck-suppressed couplings, decay rate Eq (17) with k = O(1), and are the only superradiant scalars.
    String-theory input from LARGE volume compactification literature; assumed to simplify the analysis.
  • domain assumption The universe is radiation dominated at PBH formation and remains so, with standard model degrees of freedom g_rho = 106.75 at high temperature.
    Required for Eq (23) and the Friedmann evolution; Omega_PBH,i is chosen small.
  • domain assumption PBHs form monochromatically with a single mass and spin, with no extended mass or spin distribution.
    Acknowledged in Section V; the paper chooses one mass and one spin per run.
  • domain assumption A nonzero initial cloud NS(0) = 1 exists and the final superradiant abundance is independent of its value.
    Quoted from [50]; needed for the exponential amplification to start. No dynamical origin of the seed is calculated.
  • domain assumption ALPs are effectively massless, have no primordial abundance, and only come from Hawking radiation and moduli decay.
    Used in the energy density equations (18) to (20) and in the Delta N_eff mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALP production from light primordial black holes: The role of superradiance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2G3F3WML

@misc{pith2026250114589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALP production from light primordial black holes: The role of superradiance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2G3F3WML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14589}
}
abstract

Light primordial black holes (LPBHs) with masses in the range $10$~g~$\leq M_{\rm BH} \leq 10^9$~g, although they evaporate before Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, can play a significant role in the production of both dark matter and dark radiation. In particular, LPBHs can evaporate into light axions or axion-like particles (ALPs) with masses $m_a \lesssim$~MeV, contributing to the effective number of neutrino species, $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$. Additionally, heavy scalar particles known as {\em moduli}, predicted by string theory, can be produced both via Hawking evaporation and through amplification by a mechanism called {\em superradiant instability} in the case of spinning primordial black holes (PBHs). These moduli can subsequently decay into ALPs, further amplifying their abundance. In this work, we calculate the number density of ALPs in the presence of moduli enhanced by superradiance for Kerr PBHs. Using current limits on $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ from Planck satellite observations, we derive updated constraints on this scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Interplay between Hawking radiation and superradiance for different initial spins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comoving number of moduli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Contour lines representing the extra effective number of neutrinos in the case where superradiance is considered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Extra effective number of neutrinos without the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

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

    1971

  3. [3]

    Black holes in the early Universe,

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

    1974

  4. [4]

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

    Albert Escriv` a, “PBH Formation from Spherically Sym- metric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,” Uni- verse 8, 66 (2022), arXiv:2111.12693 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Primordial Black Holes,

    Maxim Yu. Khlopov, “Primordial Black Holes,” Res. As- tron. Astrophys. 10, 495–528 (2010), arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    A brief review on primordial black holes as dark matter,

    Pablo Villanueva-Domingo, Olga Mena, and Sergio Palomares-Ruiz, “A brief review on primordial black holes as dark matter,” Front. Astron. Space Sci. 8, 87 (2021), arXiv:2103.12087 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Primordial black hole dark matter,

    Simeon Bird et al. , “Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Primordial black hole dark matter,” Phys. Dark Univ. 41, 101231 (2023), arXiv:2203.08967 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,

    Anne M. Green and Bradley J. Kavanagh, “Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G 48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate - a brief overview,

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

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    GitHub profile of Bradley J. Ka- vanagh,

    Bradley J. Kavanagh, “GitHub profile of Bradley J. Ka- vanagh,” https://github.com/bradkav

  3. [11]

    Constraints on primordial black holes,

    Bernard Carr, Kazunori Kohri, Yuuiti Sendouda, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “Constraints on primordial black holes,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gravitational waves from a universe filled with primordial black holes,

    Theodoros Papanikolaou, Vincent Vennin, and David Langlois, “Gravitational waves from a universe filled with primordial black holes,” JCAP 03, 053 (2021), arXiv:2010.11573 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gravitational wave constraints on the primordial black hole dominated early universe,

    Guillem Dom` enech, Chunshan Lin, and Misao Sasaki, “Gravitational wave constraints on the primordial black hole dominated early universe,” JCAP 04, 062 (2021), [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2021)], arXiv:2012.08151 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    PANTHEON: Perspectives in Astroparticle and Neutrino THEory with Old and New messengers

    before neutrino decoupling, and their radiation prod- ucts would enter into thermal equilibrium with the envi- ronment. In addition to standard particles, LPBHs can also evap- orate into non-standard heavy or light (or massless) par- ticles. In the former case, if these partic...

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199–220 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  8. [16]

    Baryon asymmetry, dark matter, and density perturbation from primordial black holes,

    Tomohiro Fujita, Masahiro Kawasaki, Keisuke Harigaya, and Ryo Matsuda, “Baryon asymmetry, dark matter, and density perturbation from primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 103501 (2014), arXiv:1401.1909 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Black Hole Genesis of Dark Matter,

    Olivier Lennon, John March-Russell, Rudin Petrossian- Byrne, and Hannah Tillim, “Black Hole Genesis of Dark Matter,” JCAP 04, 009 (2018), arXiv:1712.07664 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dark Radiation and Superheavy Dark Matter from Black Hole Domination,

    Dan Hooper, Gordan Krnjaic, and Samuel D. McDer- mott, “Dark Radiation and Superheavy Dark Matter from Black Hole Domination,” JHEP 08, 001 (2019), arXiv:1905.01301 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Non-Cold Dark Matter from Pri- mordial Black Hole Evaporation,

    Iason Baldes, Quentin Decant, Deanna C. Hooper, and Laura Lopez-Honorez, “Non-Cold Dark Matter from Pri- mordial Black Hole Evaporation,” JCAP 08, 045 (2020), arXiv:2004.14773 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dark matter and dark radiation from evaporating primordial black holes,

    Isabella Masina, “Dark matter and dark radiation from evaporating primordial black holes,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 552 (2020), arXiv:2004.04740 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bounds on warm dark matter from Schwarzschild pri- mordial black holes,

    J´ er´ emy Auffinger, Isabella Masina, and Giorgio Orlando, “Bounds on warm dark matter from Schwarzschild pri- mordial black holes,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 261 (2021), arXiv:2012.09867 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Effects of primordial black holes on dark matter models,

    Paolo Gondolo, Pearl Sandick, and Barmak Shams Es Haghi, “Effects of primordial black holes on dark matter models,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 095018 (2020), arXiv:2009.02424 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dark Matter and Dark Radiation from Evaporating Kerr Primordial Black Holes,

    Isabella Masina, “Dark Matter and Dark Radiation from Evaporating Kerr Primordial Black Holes,” Grav. Cos- mol. 27, 315–330 (2021), arXiv:2103.13825 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. I. Solely Hawk- ing radiation,

    Andrew Cheek, Lucien Heurtier, Yuber F. Perez- Gonzalez, and Jessica Turner, “Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. I. Solely Hawk- ing radiation,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 015022 (2022), arXiv:2107.00013 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. II. Interplay with the freeze-in or freeze-out mechanism,

    Andrew Cheek, Lucien Heurtier, Yuber F. Perez- Gonzalez, and Jessica Turner, “Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. II. Interplay with the freeze-in or freeze-out mechanism,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 015023 (2022), arXiv:2107.00016 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Regurgitated dark matter,

    TaeHun Kim, Philip Lu, Danny Marfatia, and Volodymyr Takhistov, “Regurgitated dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 110, L051702 (2024), arXiv:2309.05703 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Primordial black hole neutrino- genesis of sterile neutrino dark matter,

    Muping Chen, Graciela B. Gelmini, Philip Lu, and Volodymyr Takhistov, “Primordial black hole neutrino- genesis of sterile neutrino dark matter,” Phys. Lett. B 852, 138609 (2024), arXiv:2309.12258 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Primordial black hole sterile neutrinogenesis: sterile neutrino dark matter produc- tion independent of couplings,

    Muping Chen, Graciela B. Gelmini, Philip Lu, and Volodymyr Takhistov, “Primordial black hole sterile neutrinogenesis: sterile neutrino dark matter produc- tion independent of couplings,” JCAP 07, 059 (2024), arXiv:2312.12136 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Evaporating Kerr black holes as probes of new physics,

    Marco Calz` a and Jo˜ ao G. Rosa, “Evaporating Kerr black holes as probes of new physics,” (2023), arXiv:2312.09261 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Precision cal- culation of dark radiation from spinning primordial black holes and early matter-dominated eras,

    Alexandre Arbey, J´ er´ emy Auffinger, Pearl Sandick, Bar- mak Shams Es Haghi, and Kuver Sinha, “Precision cal- culation of dark radiation from spinning primordial black holes and early matter-dominated eras,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 123549 (2021), arXiv:2104.04051 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hot Gravitons and Gravitational Waves From Kerr Black Holes in the Early Universe,

    Dan Hooper, Gordan Krnjaic, John March-Russell, Samuel D. McDermott, and Rudin Petrossian- Byrne, “Hot Gravitons and Gravitational Waves From Kerr Black Holes in the Early Universe,” (2020), arXiv:2004.00618 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Axion-like particles from primordial black holes shining through the Universe,

    Francesco Schiavone, Daniele Montanino, Alessandro Mi- rizzi, and Francesco Capozzi, “Axion-like particles from primordial black holes shining through the Universe,” JCAP 08, 063 (2021), arXiv:2107.03420 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Axionlike particles from primordial black hole evaporation and their detection in neutrino experiments,

    Tong Li and Rui-Jia Zhang, “Axionlike particles from primordial black hole evaporation and their detection in neutrino experiments,” Phys. Rev. D106, 095034 (2022), 9 arXiv:2208.02696 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Detecting axionlike particles with primordial black holes,

    Kaustubh Agashe, Jae Hyeok Chang, Steven J. Clark, Bhaskar Dutta, Yuhsin Tsai, and Tao Xu, “Detecting axionlike particles with primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 023014 (2023), arXiv:2212.11980 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Super- radiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani, “Super- radiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,” Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1–237 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Formation threshold of rotating primordial black holes,

    Minxi He and Teruaki Suyama, “Formation threshold of rotating primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 063520 (2019), arXiv:1906.10987 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Primordial Extremal Black Holes as Dark Matter,

    Yang Bai and Nicholas Orlofsky, “Primordial Extremal Black Holes as Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 055006 (2020), arXiv:1906.04858 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Analytic Description of Primor- dial Black Hole Formation from Scalar Field Fragmen- tation,

    Eric Cotner, Alexander Kusenko, Misao Sasaki, and Volodymyr Takhistov, “Analytic Description of Primor- dial Black Hole Formation from Scalar Field Fragmen- tation,” JCAP 10, 077 (2019), arXiv:1907.10613 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Spins of primordial black holes formed in the matter-dominated phase of the Universe,

    Tomohiro Harada, Chul-Moon Yoo, Kazunori Kohri, and Ken-Ichi Nakao, “Spins of primordial black holes formed in the matter-dominated phase of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 083517 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 99, 069904 (2019)], arXiv:1707.03595 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Spin of primordial black holes in the model with collapsing domain walls,

    Yu. N. Eroshenko, “Spin of primordial black holes in the model with collapsing domain walls,” JCAP 12, 041 (2021), arXiv:2111.03403 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Spins of primordial black holes formed in different cosmolog- ical scenarios,

    Marcos M. Flores and Alexander Kusenko, “Spins of primordial black holes formed in different cosmolog- ical scenarios,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 063008 (2021), arXiv:2106.03237 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Floating Or- bits, Superradiant Scattering and the Black-hole Bomb,

    William H. Press and Saul A. Teukolsky, “Floating Or- bits, Superradiant Scattering and the Black-hole Bomb,” Nature 238, 211–212 (1972)

    1972

  35. [43]

    Perturbations of a ro- tating black hole. III - Interaction of the hole with grav- itational and electromagnet ic radiation,

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, “Perturbations of a ro- tating black hole. III - Interaction of the hole with grav- itational and electromagnet ic radiation,” Astrophys. J. 193, 443–461 (1974)

    1974

  36. [44]

    The Black hole bomb and superradiant instabilities,

    Vitor Cardoso, Oscar J. C. Dias, Jose P. S. Lemos, and Shijun Yoshida, “The Black hole bomb and superradiant instabilities,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 044039 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 70, 049903 (2004)], arXiv:hep-th/0404096

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Pri- mordial black hole superradiance and evaporation in the string axiverse,

    Marco Calz` a, Jo˜ ao G. Rosa, and Filipe Serrano, “Pri- mordial black hole superradiance and evaporation in the string axiverse,” JHEP 05, 140 (2024), arXiv:2306.09430 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Instabilities of mas- sive scalar perturbations of a rotating black hole,

    T. J. M. Zouros and D. M. Eardley, “Instabilities of mas- sive scalar perturbations of a rotating black hole,” Annals Phys. 118, 139–155 (1979)

    1979

  39. [47]

    Klein-Gordon equation and rotat- ing black holes,

    Steven L. Detweiler, “Klein-Gordon equation and rotat- ing black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2323–2326 (1980)

    1980

  40. [48]

    Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime,

    Sam R. Dolan, “Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Superradiant instabilities in astro- physical systems,

    Helvi Witek, Vitor Cardoso, Akihiro Ishibashi, and Ulrich Sperhake, “Superradiant instabilities in astro- physical systems,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 043513 (2013), arXiv:1212.0551 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Super- radiance evolution of black hole shadows revisited,

    Rittick Roy, Sunny Vagnozzi, and Luca Visinelli, “Super- radiance evolution of black hole shadows revisited,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 083002 (2022), arXiv:2112.06932 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Superradiant production of heavy dark matter from pri- mordial black holes,

    Nicol´ as Bernal, Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez, and Yong Xu, “Superradiant production of heavy dark matter from pri- mordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 015020 (2022), arXiv:2205.11522 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Improved analytic solution of black hole superradiance,

    Shoushan Bao, Qixuan Xu, and Hong Zhang, “Improved analytic solution of black hole superradiance,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 064016 (2022), arXiv:2201.10941 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Get- ting More Out of Black Hole Superradiance: a Sta- tistically Rigorous Approach to Ultralight Boson Con- straints,

    Sebastian Hoof, David J. E. Marsh, J´ ulia Sisk-Reyn´ es, James H. Matthews, and Christopher Reynolds, “Get- ting More Out of Black Hole Superradiance: a Sta- tistically Rigorous Approach to Ultralight Boson Con- straints,” (2024), arXiv:2406.10337 [hep-ph]

    2024

  46. [54]

    Modeling the black hole superradiance gravita- tional waveform,

    Nils Siemonsen, Taillte May, and William E. East, “Modeling the black hole superradiance gravita- tional waveform,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 104003 (2023), arXiv:2211.03845 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dark radiation in LARGE volume models,

    Michele Cicoli, Joseph P. Conlon, and Fernando Quevedo, “Dark radiation in LARGE volume models,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 043520 (2013), arXiv:1208.3562 [hep- ph]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Dark Radi- ation and Dark Matter in Large Volume Compactifica- tions,

    Tetsutaro Higaki and Fuminobu Takahashi, “Dark Radi- ation and Dark Matter in Large Volume Compactifica- tions,” JHEP 11, 125 (2012), arXiv:1208.3563 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Moduli-Induced Axion Problem,

    Tetsutaro Higaki, Kazunori Nakayama, and Fuminobu Takahashi, “Moduli-Induced Axion Problem,” JHEP 07, 005 (2013), arXiv:1304.7987 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    The Cos- mophenomenology of Axionic Dark Radiation,

    Joseph P. Conlon and M. C. David Marsh, “The Cos- mophenomenology of Axionic Dark Radiation,” JHEP 10, 214 (2013), arXiv:1304.1804 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Excess Astrophysical Photons from a 0.1–1 keV Cosmic Ax- ion Background,

    Joseph P. Conlon and M. C. David Marsh, “Excess Astrophysical Photons from a 0.1–1 keV Cosmic Ax- ion Background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 151301 (2013), arXiv:1305.3603 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Soft X-ray Excess in the Coma Cluster from a Cosmic Axion Back- ground,

    Stephen Angus, Joseph P. Conlon, M. C. David Marsh, Andrew J. Powell, and Lukas T. Witkowski, “Soft X-ray Excess in the Coma Cluster from a Cosmic Axion Back- ground,” JCAP 09, 026 (2014), arXiv:1312.3947 [astro- ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Reionization during the dark ages from a cosmic axion background,

    Carmelo Evoli, Matteo Leo, Alessandro Mirizzi, and Daniele Montanino, “Reionization during the dark ages from a cosmic axion background,” JCAP 05, 006 (2016), arXiv:1602.08433 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Black hole explosions,

    S. W. Hawking, “Black hole explosions,” Nature 248, 30–31 (1974)

    1974

  55. [63]

    Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole: Massless Particles from an Uncharged, Nonrotat- ing Hole,

    Don N. Page, “Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole: Massless Particles from an Uncharged, Nonrotat- ing Hole,” Phys. Rev. D 13, 198–206 (1976)

    1976

  56. [64]

    Gravitational wave production by Hawking radiation from rotating primordial black holes,

    Ruifeng Dong, William H Kinney, and Dejan Stojkovic, “Gravitational wave production by Hawking radiation from rotating primordial black holes,” JCAP 10, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.05642 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes: The instanta- neous spectra,

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, “Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes: The instanta- neous spectra,” Phys. Rev. D 41, 3052–3079 (1990)

    1990

  58. [66]

    Evaporation of pri- mordial black holes in the early Universe: Mass and spin distributions,

    Andrew Cheek, Lucien Heurtier, Yuber F. Perez- Gonzalez, and Jessica Turner, “Evaporation of pri- mordial black holes in the early Universe: Mass and spin distributions,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 015005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03878 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Moduli Sta- bilization in String Theory,

    Liam McAllister and Fernando Quevedo, “Moduli Sta- bilization in String Theory,” (2023), arXiv:2310.20559 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Redshift effects in parti- 10 cle production from Kerr primordial black holes,

    Andrew Cheek, Lucien Heurtier, Yuber F. Perez- Gonzalez, and Jessica Turner, “Redshift effects in parti- 10 cle production from Kerr primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 103012 (2022), arXiv:2207.09462 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe,

    Lars Husdal, “On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe,” Galaxies 4, 78 (2016), arXiv:1609.04979 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Constraints on Primordial Black Holes by Distortions of Cosmic Mi- crowave Background,

    Hiroyuki Tashiro and Naoshi Sugiyama, “Constraints on Primordial Black Holes by Distortions of Cosmic Mi- crowave Background,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 023004 (2008), arXiv:0801.3172 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Primordial black hole constraints for extended mass functions,

    Bernard Carr, Martti Raidal, Tommi Tenkanen, Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi Veerm¨ ae, “Primordial black hole constraints for extended mass functions,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 023514 (2017), arXiv:1705.05567 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Abundance of Pri- mordial Black Holes Depends on the Shape of the Infla- tionary Power Spectrum,

    Cristiano Germani and Ilia Musco, “Abundance of Pri- mordial Black Holes Depends on the Shape of the Infla- tionary Power Spectrum,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 141302 (2019), arXiv:1805.04087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Evaporation of a Kerr black hole by emission of scalar and higher spin particles,

    Brett E. Taylor, Chris M. Chambers, and William A. Hiscock, “Evaporation of a Kerr black hole by emission of scalar and higher spin particles,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 044012 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9801044

    1998 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Neff in the Standard Model at NLO is 3.043,

    Mattia Cielo, Miguel Escudero, Gianpiero Mangano, and Ofelia Pisanti, “Neff in the Standard Model at NLO is 3.043,” Phys. Rev. D 108, L121301 (2023), arXiv:2306.05460 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The H0 tension alleviated through ultra-light primordial black holes: an in- formation insight through gravitational waves,

    Theodoros Papanikolaou, “The H0 tension alleviated through ultra-light primordial black holes: an in- formation insight through gravitational waves,” PoS CORFU2022, 265 (2023), arXiv:2303.00600 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et 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

  69. [77]

    ALP dark matter in a primordial black hole dominated universe,

    Nicol´ as Bernal, Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez, Yong Xu, and ´Oscar Zapata, “ALP dark matter in a primordial black hole dominated universe,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 123536 (2021), arXiv:2110.04312 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Phases of New Physics in the CMB,

    Daniel Baumann, Daniel Green, Joel Meyers, and Ben- jamin Wallisch, “Phases of New Physics in the CMB,” JCAP 01, 007 (2016), arXiv:1508.06342 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    The Dark Photon,

    Marco Fabbrichesi, Emidio Gabrielli, and Gaia Lan- franchi, “The Dark Photon,” (2020), 10.1007/978-3-030- 62519-1, arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.