Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 80 references

In f(R)=R+αR² gravity with α>0, collapsing dust and radiation patches shrink faster than in general relativity, shifting horizon formation earlier and lowering the critical overdensity threshold at which primordial black holes form.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:55 UTC pith:RKIWER3X

load-bearing objection The dust-collapse correction is real and checkable, but the radiation-era analysis contradicts the paper's own equations, and the δc shift and α bound are not derived; the useful residue is much smaller than the headline. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02416 v2 pith:RKIWER3X submitted 2026-01-03 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Primordial Black Hole Formation in f(R)=R+α R² Gravity: Perturbative and Non-Perturbative Analysis

G.G.L. Nashed , A. Eid This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th MSC 83C5783D0583F05 PACS 04.20.-q04.50.Kd04.70.-s98.80.-k
keywords primordial black holesf(R) gravityStarobinsky modelgravitational collapsecritical overdensityscalaronEinstein framedust collapse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to show that in the Starobinsky model of gravity, f(R)=R+αR², the R² term makes gravitational collapse more efficient, and therefore primordial black holes should form more easily than in general relativity. Working to first order in the small parameter α, the authors find that a collapsing flat dust universe has scale factor a(t)=Au^(2/3)(1−αu⁻²) with u=t0−t, so the region shrinks faster and its horizon forms earlier; the same mechanism operates for radiation with a larger shift. From the earlier horizon time they infer that the critical overdensity δc(α) falls below the GR value, making PBH production easier, and they translate PBH abundance constraints into an upper bound α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻². The authors emphasize that the perturbative part is a qualitative trend, because the expansion breaks down near collapse; for quantitative predictions they reformulate the theory in the Einstein frame and give an ODE system for the scalaron in an overdense closed patch.

Core claim

The central discovery is a concrete mechanism by which an R² curvature term lowers the barrier to black-hole formation. In a collapsing flat FLRW dust interior, the first-order curvature source K^(0)_00 = −8u⁻⁴ drives the linearized Friedmann equation to H₁ = −2u⁻³, so the corrected scale factor is a(t)=Au^(2/3)(1−αu⁻²). At fixed time the radius is smaller for α>0, the stellar surface reaches its Schwarzschild radius sooner (δt_h = −3/(2u_h0)), and the threshold condition t_coll(δc(α),α)=t_max then yields δc(α)<δc^(GR). The radiation case gives an even larger horizon-time shift. The authors use the standard exponential abundance estimate to turn this into the parameter bound α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻²,

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the first-order curvature correction K^(0)_μν evaluated on the GR background, whose 00-component for the collapsing dust FLRW metric is K^(0)_00 = −8u⁻⁴. Inserting it into the linearized Friedmann constraint 6H₀H₁ + K^(0)_00 = 0 gives the first-order Hubble shift H₁ = −2u⁻³ and the corrected scale factor a(t)=Au^(2/3)(1−αu⁻²); this explicit solution carries the whole perturbative argument, producing the horizon-time shift δt_h and the sign of Δδc. In the non-perturbative half, the central object is the Einstein-frame representation of the model: f(R)=R+αR² becomes general relativity plus a canonical scalar field φ (the scalaron) with potential V(φ)=(1/8α)(1−e^{−√(2

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative reduction of the collapse threshold rests entirely on the first-order expansion in α remaining valid up to the moment of horizon formation; the corrected scale factor’s relative deviation −αu⁻² diverges as t→t₀, and the paper itself notes the expansion breaks down, so if the first-order premise fails the sign and size of the δc shift are unsupported.

What would settle it

Integrate the paper’s Einstein-frame ODE system for an overdense closed patch with fixed α and varying initial density contrast, locate the critical δc at which a trapping surface forms, and compare with the perturbative prediction δc(α)<δc^(GR); if the numerically determined threshold is not lower than GR for the α values of interest, the central claim fails. A simpler diagnostic is to check whether |α|u_h⁻² is small at the unperturbed horizon time; if it is not, the linear shift δt_h in Eq. (44) is not a trustworthy basis for the threshold shift.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For α>0, a collapsing dust or radiation patch shrinks faster than in GR, with horizon formation earlier by δt_h = −3/(2u_h0) (dust) and δt_h = −1/u_h0 (radiation), so the effect is larger for radiation.
  • The critical overdensity threshold is reduced, δc(α)<δc^(GR), meaning primordial black holes form from smaller initial density fluctuations; the paper presents this as the expected trend from the perturbative analysis.
  • Because PBH abundance depends exponentially on δ²c, the lower threshold produces an exponential enhancement of the mass fraction, and requiring that this does not overproduce PBHs gives α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻².
  • In the deep radiation era the first-order correction to the background is absent, so significant PBH modifications there must be non-perturbative; the paper supplies the Einstein-frame ODE system intended for computing δc(k) near the end of inflation.
  • The provided closed-FLRW scalaron system, with trapping-surface or turnaround diagnostics, offers a route to numerical δc(α) across all comoving scales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: A numerical scan of the supplied Einstein-frame ODEs, varying α and the initial overdensity δ_H, is the decisive check: if the nonlinear dynamics do not reproduce a monotonic lowering of δc with α, the perturbative sign argument should be treated as qualitative only.
  • Inference: The same earlier-horizon mechanism implies the critical-scaling exponent γ in the PBH mass formula should shrink with α; the paper states this as γ(α)≃γ_GR[1−4αR⁰], which would make near-threshold PBHs lighter and concentrate the mass function toward low masses — an effect that is not derived to the same perturbative order as the threshold shift.
  • Inference: Because the flat radiation background receives no first-order correction, any PBH change in the deep radiation era must come from nonlinear scalaron dynamics; the closed-patch equations allow one to separate linear and non-perturbative contributions by comparing against pure radiation collapse runs.
  • Inference: The bound α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻² could be sharpened using observed PBH mass functions, since the enhancement factor is exponential in δ²c,GR − δ²c(α); a measured upper limit on β(M) across mass windows would give a complementary, scale-dependent bound.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies primordial black hole (PBH) formation in f(R) = R + αR² gravity. It derives first-order-in-α corrections to a collapsing flat FLRW dust interior, obtains a shift in the horizon formation time, infers a reduction of the critical overdensity δc, and uses this to place an upper bound α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻² from PBH abundance constraints. It also presents an Einstein-frame ODE system for a scalaron field in a closed FLRW patch, intended for non-perturbative PBH calculations near the end of Starobinsky inflation.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would provide an analytic handle on modified-gravity PBH thresholds and a new observational constraint on the R² coupling. The dust calculation leading to Eq. (27) is algebraically self-contained, and the Einstein-frame ODE system is a useful starting point for numerical work. However, the radiation-era first-order derivation—which is essential for PBH masses of observational interest and for the bound Eq. (72)—is inconsistent with the paper's own definition of K^(0)_μν in Eq. (9). The threshold shift and the bound are asserted rather than computed. The strengths of the dust algebra and ODE formulation do not compensate for the failure of the load-bearing radiation-era step.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (48)–(51); Eq. (9)] The radiation-era first-order calculation is inconsistent with the paper's own definition of K^(0)_μν. Equation (9) makes K^(0) proportional to R^(0), (R^(0))², and derivatives of R^(0); for the radiation background a0 = A u^(1/2), R^(0) = 0 identically, as the text states. Hence K^(0)_00 = 0 and H1 = 0. The assertion K^(0)_00 = −6u⁻⁴ in Eq. (50) cannot follow from Eq. (9); the phrase “once curvature corrections are included” mixes O(α) corrections into a background quantity. Consequently Eq. (51), the shift δt_h in Eq. (52), and the radiation-era component of δc(α) < δc^GR are unsupported. This also contradicts the abstract's statement that the flat radiation background receives no first-order correction.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (72)] The headline bound α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻² is not derived. Equation (46) gives Δδc in terms of the derivative ∂t_coll/∂δ, which is never computed; Eq. (47) only fixes the sign. No explicit δc(α) expression is provided anywhere, and the Press–Schechter enhancement in Eqs. (63)–(64) depends on σ(M), which is not specified. The step from β(M,α) ≤ β_obs to a numerical bound on α is therefore missing. Eq. (72) is an assertion, not a result of the calculation.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (39)–(44)] The perturbative expansion is used outside its domain of validity. The paper acknowledges δa/a0 = −αu⁻² diverges as u → 0 and that perturbation theory eventually breaks down. Near the horizon the expansion parameter is αR ≃ (4/3)αu⁻², which is not small. Yet H1 = −2u⁻³ is evaluated at u_h0 to obtain δt_h and the sign of Δδc. A consistent treatment would require either a non-perturbative calculation at u_h0 or a validity condition αu_h0⁻² ≪ 1, neither of which is given. Thus the quantitative prediction of earlier horizon formation is not established.
  4. [Sec. V, Eqs. (56)–(69) and Sec. VII] The non-perturbative section provides an ODE system but no numerical solutions. The abstract and conclusion state that δc(k) can be obtained by integrating the system, and the conclusion asserts that scalaron dynamics near the end of inflation can substantially lower the critical overdensity; however no numerical results, initial conditions, or δc(k) values are presented. Equation (69) for the critical exponent γ(α) is stated without derivation. As it stands, the non-perturbative part is a framework, not an analysis, and cannot support the paper's concluding claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B] The master equation is numbered (1), duplicating the action equation number in Sec. II.A; renumber.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract block preceding the full text says the perturbative analysis gives only a trend, that the flat radiation background receives no first-order correction, and that radiation-era modifications must be non-perturbative. This directly contradicts the full-text abstract and the radiation-era derivation in Sec. IV and Sec. VI. Please reconcile.
  3. [Fig. 1(b)] Panel (b) of Figure 1 is based on the erroneous Eq. (50); if the calculation is corrected, this panel must be removed or recalculated. The caption says 'schematic', so the figure should not be cited as quantitative evidence.
  4. [Sec. VI, paragraph before Eq. (74)] References [64] and [65], cited for scalaron stability and high-frequency oscillation constraints, concern 3-form-field inflation and massive gravity, respectively. Replace with appropriate f(R) stability references.
  5. [Sec. VII, Table I] The sentence introducing Table I contains a duplicated 'provides ... provides' typo. Also, the table's claim that radiation-era effects are small is in tension with the use of the radiation-era shift to derive Eq. (72).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the dust perturbative chain is self-contained; the radiation subsection and the alpha bound contain internal errors/omissions, but no result reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The dust-collapse derivation is not circular. K(0)_00 in Eq. (27) is computed from the background R(0)=4/3 u^{-2} using the definition in Eq. (9); Eq. (29) then determines H1=-2u^{-3}; Eqs. (31) and (44) follow by integration and the horizon condition. The inequality delta_c(alpha)<delta_c^GR is a sign argument from Eq. (46), not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the cited PBH/inflation literature (e.g. Motohashi & Hu 2017; Ozsoy & Tasinato 2023) is external to the authors. Two non-circular defects should be flagged per the reviewing rule. First, the radiation case is internally inconsistent: Eq. (50) assigns K(0)_00=-6u^{-4} to a background with R0=0, whereas Eq. (9) makes every term of K(0)_00 proportional to R0 or its derivatives, so K(0)_00=0 and H1=0 at first order; the abstract itself states that the flat radiation background does not receive a nontrivial correction at the same order. This invalidates the radiation-era first-order horizon shift, but it is a self-inconsistency rather than a circular reduction. Second, Section VI asserts alpha <~ 10^{-2} M_Pl^{-2} 'using our perturbative expression for delta_c(alpha)', but no explicit delta_c(alpha) expression is derived; Eq. (46) leaves derivative d t_coll/d delta uncomputed, so the quantitative bound is unsupported. This is an omitted derivation, not a circular definition or fitted prediction. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, mediators, or conserved quantities are postulated. The scalaron φ of Eqs. (53)–(55) is the standard, well-established extra scalar degree of freedom of metric f(R) gravity, and the interpretation of K_μν as an effective curvature energy–momentum tensor (Sec. IV) is bookkeeping, not a new entity. The ledger's real content is assumptions: the unexamined validity of the α-expansion at horizon formation, an internal contradiction in the radiation case, the uncomputed derivative in Eq. (46), and the omitted matter–scalaron coupling in the Einstein-frame radiation system. The three free parameters listed are a symbolic theory coupling (no fit), a boundary-constant choice, and an unset dissipation rate; none are fitted to data, but all control claimed quantitative outcomes.

free parameters (3)
  • α (R² coupling)
    Theory parameter of f(R) = R + αR²; carried symbolically in the perturbative expansion; no fit is performed. The claimed observational bound α ≲ 10⁻² M_Pl⁻² (Eq. 72) is asserted without derivation, so it provides no independent determination.
  • Integration constant C in a₁/a₀ = C = 0
    Chosen 'to preserve the same initial normalization as the GR solution' (Sec. IV, Eq. 31). This choice fixes the magnitude of the horizon-time shift δt_h and hence the size/sign of Δδc; an alternative C would change the claimed δc result.
  • Dissipation rate Γ
    Kept as an unspecified input in the Einstein-frame ODE system (Eq. 57). The 'ready-to-use' framework for computing δc(k) depends on Γ, whose value is never set; no calculation uses a concrete value.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The linearized perturbation is sourced by K⁰ evaluated on the GR background, and matter perturbations are set to zero (δT_μν = 0, Eq. 11).
    Assumes the dust does not respond to the α-order metric perturbation. This closure is standard for a first-order treatment but is not justified for collapse where the density contrast is precisely the quantity whose threshold is being sought.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in α remains valid up to the horizon-formation time.
    The correction δa/a₀ = −αu⁻² diverges as u→0 (Eqs. 39–40) and αR ≃ (4/3)αu⁻² exceeds unity before collapse completes unless α is extremely small. The text concedes the breakdown and then uses this regime for δt_h (Eq. 44) and the sign of Δδc (Eqs. 45–47).
  • ad hoc to paper For the radiation-dominated background, K⁰_μν ≠ 0 despite R⁰ = 0.
    Sec. IV (Eqs. 48–51) asserts K⁰₀₀ = −6u⁻⁴ while noting R⁰ = 0; by Eq. (9) every term of K⁰ is proportional to R⁰ or its derivatives, so K⁰ should vanish identically. This contradicts the arXiv abstract's statement that the radiation background receives no first-order correction.
  • domain assumption The sign of the threshold shift follows from ∂t_coll/∂δ < 0, with both numerator and denominator in Eq. (46) evaluated at the GR threshold.
    Eq. (46) gives Δδc = −δt_h/(∂t_coll/∂δ) but the functional t_coll(δ) is never specified; the conclusion δc(α) < δc^(GR) rests entirely on an uncomputed derivative.
  • domain assumption Radiation in the Einstein frame evolves as a minimally coupled fluid with ρ_r ∝ a⁻⁴ (Eq. 57).
    The action (54) couples matter through e^{−√(2/3)φ}g^E_μν, so ρ_r should see the conformal factor; the ODE system omits this coupling, and the same omission appears in the closed-patch equations (Eqs. 58–59).
  • standard math Standard linearized curvature identities for δR_μν, δR (Eqs. 17–18) and the Friedmann background relations.
    The linearized Ricci variation formulas are standard and correctly applied in the dust case (verified independently: K⁰₀₀ = −8u⁻⁴ reproduces Eq. 27).
  • standard math The Starobinsky scalaron potential V(φ) = (1/8α)(1−e^{−√(2/3)φ})² and the Einstein-frame dictionary (Eqs. 53–55).
    Standard result of the conformal transformation of f(R); correct but not novel.
  • domain assumption Press–Schechter theory and Gaussian statistics for PBH abundance (Eq. 63), and GR critical-collapse exponents γ ≈ 0.2/0.36.
    Borrowed from GR literature (Carr, Musco, Niemeyer–Jedamzik) with no f(R)-specific justification; the paper then proposes a modified exponent (Eq. 69) without derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18001 in / 32515 out tokens · 257812 ms · 2026-08-03T12:55:03.980075+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a complete analytic and semi-analytic study of gravitational collapse and primordial black hole (PBH) formation in the quadratic $f(R)$ model $f(R)=R+\alpha R^2$. We first derive the perturbative expansion around General Relativity (GR), working to first order in the small parameter $\alpha$. For a collapsing flat FLRW dust interior we compute the explicit first-order corrections to the scale factor, the stellar radius, and the horizon formation time. { We then use these results to infer the expected trend in the PBH formation threshold $\delta_c$, rather than a direct quantitative determination. Within this perturbative framework, the quadratic correction modifies the dust collapse dynamics at first order, while the flat radiation-dominated background does not receive a nontrivial correction at the same order. As result, any modification of PBH formation in the radiation era must arise from nonlinear or non-perturbative effects. The perturbative analysis therefore provides qualitative insight into how curvature corrections influence collapse, particularly in high-curvature regimes.} To access this regime we reformulate the theory in the Einstein frame, where the model becomes GR plus the scalaron field $\phi$ with the Starobinsky potential. We provide the complete ODE system governing both the cosmological background and the evolution of an overdense closed FLRW patch. This system can be numerically integrated to obtain the critical overdensity $\delta_c(k)$ for PBH formation near the end of inflation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02416 by A. Eid, G.G.L. Nashed.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic behaviour of the collapsing scale facto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    is valid for any GR background g(0) µν . IV. COLLAPSING FLAT FLR W INTERIOR To investigate the effect of the R2 correction on gravitational collapse, we consider a spatially flat FLR W interior metric of the form ds2 = −dt2 + a2(t) ( dr2 + r2dΩ2) , (20) filled with comoving dust ( p = 0). This metric describes the interior region of a spherically symmet ric ...

  2. [2]

    Reissner, Ann

    H. Reissner, Ann. Phys. 355, 106 (1916)

    1916

  3. [3]

    Nordstr¨ om, Proc

    G. Nordstr¨ om, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet.20, 1238 (1918)

    1918

  4. [4]

    Schwarzschild, ‘On the gravitational field of a point m ass,” Sitzungsber

    K. Schwarzschild, ‘On the gravitational field of a point m ass,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. (1916)

    1916

  5. [5]

    is already multiplied by an explicit factor of α, its contribution at order α comes purely from evaluating Kµν on the background metric: Kµν = K (0) µν + O(α), K (0) µν ≡ 2R(0)R(0) µν − 1 2 (R(0))2g(0) µν + 2 ( g(0) µν ✷(0)R(0) − ∇(0) µ ∇(0) ν R(0)) . (9) Any corrections to Kµν that are linear in hµν would appear multiplied by α from the expansion of Kµν ...

  6. [6]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity, Chicago Univ. Press (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  8. [8]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time , Cambridge Univ. Press (1973)

    1973

  9. [9]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. P hys. 31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  10. [10]

    Robinson, Phys

    D. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905 (1975)

    1975

  11. [11]

    Heusler, Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems , Cambridge Univ

    M. Heusler, Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems , Cambridge Univ. Press (1996)

    1996

  12. [12]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO/Virgo Collaboration), Phys. R ev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  14. [14]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  15. [15]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA), arXiv:2111.0360 6

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Astrophys. J. 875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    M. Kh. Ali, A. H. Aly, S. H. Hendi, et al., ‘Early and late t ime cosmology: the f(R) gravity perspective”, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1204 (2022), doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03418-8

    doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03418-8 2022

  19. [19]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, ‘f(R) theories”, Living Reviews in Relativity 13, 3 (2010), doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3 2010

  20. [20]

    C. A. Sporea, ‘Notes on f(R) Theories of Gravity”, arXiv:1403.3852 [gr-qc] (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010)

    2010

  22. [22]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A. C. Davis, and D. J. Shaw, ‘ f(R) Gravity and Chameleon Theories”, Phys. Rev. D 78, 104021 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.104021, arXiv:0806.3415 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    more substant ial reduction of the PBH threshold

    and K (0) 00 from ( 27), we find: 6 ( − 2 3 u−1 ) H1 − 8u−4 = 0, which yields H1 = −2u−3. (29) We write the perturbed scale factor in the form a(t) = a0(t) [ 1 + α a1(t) a0(t) ] , where a1/a0 satisfies H1 = d dt ( a1 a0 ) . (30) Using H1 from ( 29) and dt = −du, we integrate: d dt ( a1 a0 ) = −2u−3 =⇒ a1 a0 = −u−2 + C. Choosing C = 0 to preserve the same in...

    2017

  24. [24]

    C. M. Scalisi, et al., ‘ f(R) Gravity: Gravitational Waves Tests”, (2025), arXiv:2502 .17519 [gr-qc]

    2025

  25. [25]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    Cognola et al., JCAP 0502, 010 (2005)

    G. Cognola et al., JCAP 0502, 010 (2005). 16

    2005

  28. [28]

    Briscese et al., Phys

    F. Briscese et al., Phys. Lett. B 646, 105 (2007)

    2007

  29. [29]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  30. [30]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  31. [31]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  32. [33]

    Harada et al., Phys

    T. Harada et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 084051 (2013)

    2013

  33. [34]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 231, 237 (1989)

    1989

  34. [35]

    S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2681 (1982)

    1982

  35. [36]

    Jedamzik, Phys

    K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rept. 307, 155 (1998)

    1998

  36. [37]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G 48, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  37. [38]

    Motohashi and W

    H. Motohashi and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 063503 (2017)

    2017

  38. [39]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, Universe 9, 203 (2023)

    2023

  39. [40]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Pr og. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021)

    2021

  40. [41]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123532 (2018)

    2018

  41. [42]

    Fujita et al., Phys

    T. Fujita et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 103501 (2014)

    2014

  42. [43]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, ‘Relativistic equations for adiabatic, spherically symmetric gravitational collapse,” Phys. Rev. 136, B571-B576 (1964) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.136.B571

    doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b571 1964

  43. [44]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, On Continued gravitati onal contraction,” Phys. Rev. 56, 455-459 (1939) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56.455

    doi:10.1103/physrev.56.455 1939

  44. [47]

    B. J. Carr, The Primordial black hole mass spectrum,” As trophys. J. 201, 1-19 (1975) doi:10.1086/153853

    doi:10.1086/153853 1975

  45. [48]

    Harada, C

    T. Harada, C. M. Yoo and K. Kohri, Threshold of primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D88, no.8, 084051 (2013) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 89, no.2, 029903 (2014)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.084051 [a rXiv:1309.4201 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [49]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, ‘f(R) Theories Of Gravity ,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451-497 (2010) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451 [arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc ]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [50]

    f(R) theories,

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, “f(R) theories,” Living R ev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010) doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3 [arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  48. [52]

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter, ‘Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational conden- sation,” Astrophys. J. 187, 425-438 (1974) doi:10.1086/152650

    doi:10.1086/152650 1974

  49. [55]

    Primor dial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational- Wave Event GW150914,

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, “Primor dial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational- Wave Event GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.6, 061101 (2016) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.5, 059901 (2018)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.061101 [arX iv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [56]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, ‘Primordial Black Holes a s a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G 48, no.4, 043001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 [arXiv:2007 .10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 2021

  51. [57]

    Motohashi and W

    H. Motohashi and W. Hu, ‘Primordial Black Holes and Slow -Roll Violation,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no.6, 063503 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063503 [arXiv:1706.06784 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [58]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, ‘Inflation and Primordial Black Holes ,” Universe 9, no.5, 203 (2023) doi:10.3390/universe9050203 [arXiv:2301.03600 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [59]

    Sasaki, ‘Large Scale Quantum Fluctuations in the Infl ationary Universe,” Prog

    M. Sasaki, ‘Large Scale Quantum Fluctuations in the Infl ationary Universe,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 76, 1036 (1986) doi:10.1143/PTP.76.1036

    doi:10.1143/ptp.76.1036 1986

  54. [60]

    A. M. Green, A. R. Liddle, K. A. Malik and M. Sasaki, ‘A Newcalculation of the mass fraction of primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 041502 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.041502 [arXiv:a stro-ph/0403181 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2004

  55. [61]

    Primordial Black Ho les as Dark Matter,

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel and M. Sandstad, “Primordial Black Ho les as Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no.8, 083504 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083504 [arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [62]

    Primordial black holes in non -Gaussian regimes,

    S. Young and C. T. Byrnes, “Primordial black holes in non -Gaussian regimes,” JCAP 08, 052 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/052 [arXiv:1307.4995 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [63]

    Dynamics of primordial black hole formation,

    J. C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, “Dynamics of primordial black hole formation,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 124013 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.124013 [arXiv:astro-ph/9901292 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  58. [64]

    Computations of primordial black hole formation,

    I. Musco, J. C. Miller and L. Rezzolla, “Computations of primordial black hole formation,” Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 1405-1424 (2005) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/7/013 [arXi v:gr-qc/0412063 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  59. [65]

    Threshold for primordial black holes: Depen dence on the shape of the cosmological perturbations,

    I. Musco, “Threshold for primordial black holes: Depen dence on the shape of the cosmological perturbations,” 17 Phys. Rev. D 100, no.12, 123524 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123524 [ arXiv:1809.02127 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [66]

    Observational signatures of f(R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gra vity constraints,

    S. Tsujikawa, “Observational signatures of f(R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gra vity constraints,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 023507 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023507 [arXiv:0 709.1391 [astro-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.023507 2008

  61. [67]

    Stability of the 3-form field during inflation,

    A. De Felice, K. Karwan and P. Wongjun, “Stability of the 3-form field during inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 123545 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.123545 [arXiv:12 02.0896 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.123545 2012

  62. [68]

    Self-accelerating Soluti ons in Massive Gravity on Isotropic Reference Metric,

    H. Motohashi and T. Suyama, “Self-accelerating Soluti ons in Massive Gravity on Isotropic Reference Metric,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 081502 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.081502 [arXiv:1 208.3019 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.081502 2012

  63. [69]

    1/R gravity and scalar - tensor gravity,

    T. Chiba, “1/R gravity and scalar - tensor gravity,” Phy s. Lett. B 575, 1-3 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.09.033 [arXiv:astro-ph/0307338 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  64. [70]

    Limit to general relativity in f(R) theorie s of gravity,

    G. J. Olmo, “Limit to general relativity in f(R) theorie s of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 023511 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.023511 [arXiv:gr-qc/0612047 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  65. [71]

    Extended Theories of Gravity,

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Extended Theories of Gravity,” Phys. Rept. 509, 167-321 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 [arXiv:1108.6266 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [72]

    Binary Black Hole Mergers in th e first Advanced LIGO Observing Run,

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], “Binary Black Hole Mergers in th e first Advanced LIGO Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X 6, no.4, 041015 (2016) [erratum: Phys. Rev. X 8, no.3, 039903 (2018)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041015 [arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [73]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observin g Run,

    R. Abbott et al. [KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Scientific], “GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observin g Run,” Phys. Rev. X 13, no.4, 041039 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 [arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [74]

    Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo f rom the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds,

    P. Tisserand et al. [EROS-2], “Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo f rom the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds,” Astron. Astrophys. 469, 387-404 (2007) doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066017 [arXiv: astro- ph/0607207 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  69. [75]

    The MACHO project: Microlensing results from 5.7 years of LMC observations,

    C. Alcock et al. [MACHO], “The MACHO project: Microlensing results from 5.7 years of LMC observations,” Astrophys. J. 542, 281-307 (2000) doi:10.1086/309512 [arXiv:astro-ph/000 1272 [astro-ph]]

    doi:10.1086/309512 2000

  70. [79]

    Effect of Primordial Black Holes on the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmological Parameter Estimates,

    M. Ricotti, J. P. Ostriker and K. J. Mack, “Effect of Primordial Black Holes on the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmological Parameter Estimates,” Astrophys. J. 680, 829 (2008) doi:10.1086/587831 [arXiv:0709.0524 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  71. [81]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Comm un. Math. Phys. 43, 199-220 (1975) [erratum: Com- mun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)] doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  72. [83]

    New co smological constraints on primordial black holes,

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, “New co smological constraints on primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104019 [arXiv:0 912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.104019 2010

  73. [84]

    Primordial black holes and primordial nucleosynthesis. 1. Effects of hadron injection from low mass holes,

    K. Kohri and J. Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes and primordial nucleosynthesis. 1. Effects of hadron injection from low mass holes,” Phys. Rev. D61, 023501 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.023501 [arXiv:astro-ph/9908160 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  74. [85]

    Black Hole, Neutron Star and White Dwarf Candidates from Microlensing with OGLE-III,

    /suppress L. Wyrzykowski, Z. Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, J. Skowron,K. A. Rybicki, P. Mr´ oz, S. Koz/suppress lowski, A. Udal- ski, M. K. Szyma´ nski, G. Pietrzy´ nski and I. Soszy´ nski,et al. “Black Hole, Neutron Star and White Dwarf Candidates from Microlensing with OGLE-III,” Mon. Not. Roy . Astron. Soc. 458, no.3, 3012-3026 (2016) doi:10.1093/mnras/stw426 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  75. [86]

    Investigation of the γ-ray spectrum of CTA 102 during the exceptional flaring statein 2016–2017,

    N. Sahakyan, “Investigation of the γ-ray spectrum of CTA 102 during the exceptional flaring statein 2016–2017,” Astron. Astrophys. 635, A25 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936715 [arXiv:191 1.12087 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936715 2016

  76. [87]

    Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations,

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, R. H. Lupton, T. Sumi, S . More, T. Kurita, S. Sugiyama, A. More and M. Oguri, et al. “Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations,” Nature Astron. 3, no.6, 524-534 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1 [ar Xiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [88]

    Cosmic microwav e background limits on accreting primordial black holes,

    Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud and M. Kamionkowski, “Cosmic microwav e background limits on accreting primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.4, 043534 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043534 [arXiv:1612.05644 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [89]

    Cosmic m icrowave background bounds on pri- mordial black holes including dark matter halo accretion,

    P. D. Serpico, V. Poulin, D. Inman and K. Kohri, “Cosmic m icrowave background bounds on pri- mordial black holes including dark matter halo accretion,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, no.2, 023204 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023204 [arXiv:2002.10771 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [90]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmologica l Models Without Singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmologica l Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B 91, 18 99-102 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-x 1980

  80. [91]

    Bubble Universes With Di fferent Gravitational Constants,

    Y. i. Takamizu and K. i. Maeda, “Bubble Universes With Di fferent Gravitational Constants,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no.2, 023514 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023514 [arX iv:1504.05788 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015