Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Corrections to Hawking radiation from asteroid-mass primordial black holes: analytic and numerical evaluation of the stochastic charge effect

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the stochastic charge effect—how a Hawking-emitting black hole's fluctuating charge perturbs its own electron and positron emission—follows from quantum electrodynamics on a Schwarzschild spacetime, and that the net…

desk verdict A careful QED derivation of the stochastic charge effect that likely proves Conjecture #2, but the regulator-order and analyticity issues near h=μ deserve referee scrutiny before the <2% headline is used. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04346 v1 pith:DKQGCYJN submitted 2026-08-05 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Gabriel Vasquez , Bowen Chen , Cara Nel , Emily Koivu , Makana Silva , Christopher M. Hirata This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO
keywords stochasticchargeeffectHawkingradiationprimordialblackholesquantumelectrodynamicsoncurvedspacetimeSchwarzschildholeelectronemissionspectrumtransmissionprobabilityasteroid-mass
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's aim is to show that a 1977 semi-classical prediction by Page, the stochastic charge effect, is not an artifact of the semi-classical picture but emerges from first-principles QED on curved spacetime. The authors derive the O(α) correction to the electron and positron emission spectra from the long-range monopole part of the interaction Hamiltonian, and prove that one piece of that correction (B1) is identical to Page's semi-classical result. A second piece (B0) contains the semi-classical terms plus additional terms that only exist in a full quantum treatment. Computed numerically over the mass range 2.2×$10^{16}$ to 1.7×$10^{17}$ g, the net correction to the emission rate is below 2%, smaller than the up-to-5% suppression found by Page's semi-classical argument. The result matters because these spectra are the observable signatures used to constrain primordial black holes as dark matter.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the long-range monopole interaction Hamiltonian H_int,0L = (e²/16πM) Ẑ², where Ẑ is the effective charge operator that weights the black hole charge and the surrounding e± plasma by 2M/r. The correction to the emission spectrum splits into B0(k,h), the self-interaction of the electron field, and B1(k,h), the stochastic charge term proportional to ⟨Ẑ²⟩. The proof that B1 reproduces Page's result relies on showing that all singular contributions to B0 and B1 cancel (Eqs. 14–19), leaving the non-singular integrals (20) and (21); B1 then collapses to derivatives of the transmission probability T_{1/2,kh} with respect to the black hole charge Z and of the Fermi-Dirac phase space density f_up(h).

What would settle it

Compute the original singular integrals of Eqs. (11)–(12) numerically without applying the Appendix B analytic continuation and the ϵ-before-η limit order; a nonzero singular part for B1 at order $η^{{-1}}$ or $ϵ^{{-1}}$$η^{{-1}}$, or a mismatch between ∂²_Z T computed from Eq. (C28) and a finite-difference derivative of the transmission probability, would refute the claimed equality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the stochastic charge correction in QED is exactly the semi-classical result of Page: equation (34) expresses B1(k,h) as (1/4)|T_{1/2,kh}|² d²f_up/dh² + (M/α) ∂_Z T_{1/2,kh}(0) df_up/dh + (1/2)[∂²_Z T_{1/2,kh}(0)] f_up(h), with ⟨Ẑ²⟩ ~ O($α^{{-1}}$). This proves Conjecture #2 from the authors' first paper: the stochastic charge effect first predicted semi-classically arises in QED on Schwarzschild spacetime. In the QED picture the fluctuating charge is not on the horizon but in the electron-positron plasma outside it, and all the semi-classical terms reappear with the same coefficients. Numerically, the total O(α) correction to the electron emission rate is a percent-level effect, with a maximum net decrease of about 1.75% at the largest mass considered, rather than the ~5% suppression of the semi-classical calculation, because terms of opposite sign cancel.

Load-bearing premise

The equality with Page's result depends on the prescription that all singular integrals are evaluated by taking ϵ→0 before η→0 and by analytically continuing the A-functions to complex energies; if that prescription is wrong, the cancellation of the singular parts fails and the correction could differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conjecture #2 is established: the stochastic charge effect is a genuine consequence of QED on curved spacetime, not a semi-classical artifact.
  • The fluctuating charge lives in the exterior plasma of electron-positron pairs, so the black hole horizon itself need not carry a time-varying charge.
  • The net correction to the electron/positron emission rate is under 2% in the 2.2×10^16–1.7×10^17 g mass window, changing the expected spectra used in PBH dark-matter constraints.
  • Terms that only exist in the quantum treatment (electron self-energy and exchange terms) are finite and dominant near the electron mass threshold, so a full O(α) spectrum calculation must retain them.
  • The same approach is a template for treating charge-fluctuation effects from other gauge forces, such as the SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) random walk expected for smaller black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the <2% result holds, existing PBH bounds in this mass window that assume Page's ~5% semi-classical suppression will need only mild revision; the larger corrections may come from the still-uncomputed short-range and vector sectors.
  • The order-of-limits regularization (ϵ→0 before η→0) could be checked independently by brute-force numerical contour integration of the original singular integrals; agreement would remove any doubt about the analytic-continuation prescription.
  • The identification of the semi-classical charge fluctuation with the exterior plasma suggests a general correspondence: any gauge charge whose stochastic fluctuation modifies Hawking emission should be reproducible by exterior interactions alone, which is testable for non-Abelian groups where no semi-classical calculation exists.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the O(alpha) correction to the electron/positron Hawking emission spectrum from the long-range monopole of the electrostatic sector in QED on a Schwarzschild spacetime, continuing the program of Vasquez et al. [1]. The correction is split into a self-interaction term B0 and a term B1 associated with the charge-squared operator. The authors show that all singular parts cancel, express B1 in terms of derivatives of the transmission probability with respect to the black-hole charge Z, and conclude that B1 is identical to Page's semiclassical stochastic-charge result (Eq. 34 vs Eq. E3), thereby claiming a proof of Conjecture #2. Numerical evaluation for masses 2.2e16-1.7e17 g gives a net correction below 2%, smaller than the up-to-5% suppression found semiclassically.

Significance. If the central identity (34) is established, this is a significant result: it would show that the stochastic charge effect is a genuine QED effect mediated by the plasma outside the horizon, and it would provide concrete corrections relevant to PBH dark-matter constraints. The paper's strengths are its detailed analytic treatment of the pole structure, explicit cancellation of divergent contributions (Eqs. 14-19), the derivation of relations between QFT quantities and semiclassical derivatives (Appendices C-D), and a nontrivial numerical implementation with a useful large-mass consistency check (Fig. 3). However, the proof as written rests on an order-of-limits prescription that appears to conflict with the appendix used to identify the semiclassical derivatives; this issue must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B vs Appendix C; Sec. III.A] The central manipulation of B1 uses the V-operator with the explicit rule 'epsilon -> 0+ first; then eta -> 0+' (Appendix B, Eqs. B8-B16). The same appendix's Eq. (B11) contains a term -iUpsilon(h)/(2 epsilon eta) that has no finite eta -> 0 limit at fixed epsilon, so the two orders are not interchangeable. Appendix C, however, performs the transmission-coefficient perturbation theory with eta -> 0 first, and it explicitly states that this is opposite to the order in Vasquez et al. [1] where 'the physical limit was achieved by taking epsilon -> 0+ first' (text after Eq. C6). The equality of B1 with the semiclassical result, Eq. (34), uses Eq. (C14) and Eq. (C28) from Appendix C after the singular parts of B1 were removed using the epsilon-first rules of Appendix B (Eqs. 14-21). The manuscript provides no argument that the two orders give the same final result. Thus the cancellations in Eqs. (14)-(19) and the identification in Eq. (34) are not established as written.
  2. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C20)-(C28)] The residue calculation for the second derivative of the transmission probability requires that A_{XX'k}(h,h') be analytic in h' at the points h'=h +/- i epsilon, where the Taylor expansion of Eq. (C24) is used. However, the radial momentum p = sqrt(h'^2 - mu^2) appearing in Eq. (C8) has a branch point at h' = mu. For h near mu, where the numerical corrections are largest, the analyticity of A in the relevant neighborhood is not established and no branch-cut prescription is given. A missed branch-cut contribution would survive the 1/epsilon^2 and 1/epsilon cancellations and would change the relation (C28), and hence Eq. (34).
  3. [Table II and Sec. IV.D] No uncertainties or error bars are reported for the integrated number and energy emission rate corrections. The near-cancellation between large positive and negative contributions (e.g., t01 versus t03 and t11 versus t12 in Fig. 1) makes the net values delicate. Appendix F quantifies only the rmax and |k| truncation errors, not the finite-grid principal-value integration at the boundaries, the propagation of finite-difference errors, or the sensitivity to the epsilon = 10^-5 T_H regularization parameter. Without an error budget, the quantitative claim in the abstract and Table II of a net correction below 2%, and the contrast with Page's 5% suppression, are not fully audited.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The last term inside the imaginary part, A^*_{in,up,k}(h,h'), contains an unspecified h' that should presumably be evaluated at h'=h.
  2. [Sec. IV.B and Introduction] There are typographical issues: 'the integrand in Eq. (3) is does not converge' should read 'does not converge', and 'BlackHa wk' should be 'BlackHawk'.
  3. [Eq. (18)] The bracket labels such as '[1 in,up,in]' are not explained; please define them or remove them for readability.
  4. [Appendix B] The generic functions are denoted with Cyrillic characters (Upsilon, Ya, Zhe); using standard Latin letters would improve clarity.
  5. [Table II] The table would benefit from a clear statement of how the Planck-mass values convert to grams and from an explicit indication of whether the 'absolute' corrections include both electron helicities; the footnote says electrons only, but the abstract refers to e±.
  6. [References] Reference [1] is cited as arXiv:2407.09724 in the bibliography but as Phys. Rev. D 112:063002 (2025) in the abstract; these should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the B1 equality is derived from QED correlators and matched to an independent semi-classical benchmark; self-citations to [1] supply inputs but do not force the result.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (34), is not obtained by defining B1 to equal the semi-classical formula. It is reduced from the QED correlator expression in Eq. (4) using the singular-integral results of Appendix B, and the resulting combinations are identified with transmission-probability derivatives through the independent first-quantized perturbation calculation in Appendix C (Eqs. C6-C12) and a separate numerical transmission integrator with an explicit Z-dependent potential (Sec. IVC2-C3). The comparison to Eq. (E3) is therefore a benchmark rather than an input. The paper does rely on the same authors' prior work for the starting Hamiltonian Eq. (1), for the correlation functions, and for the numerical value of <Z-hat^2> from Conjecture #1; these are self-citations, but they are derived results in [1] and do not already contain the B1 equality, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The regulator-order concern raised by the skeptic (epsilon-to-0 before eta-to-0 in Appendix B versus eta-to-0 first in Appendix C) is a potential correctness or consistency defect, but it is not a circularity: a wrong order of limits would make Eq. (34) fail for physical reasons, not because the result was assumed. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, since all transmission derivatives are additionally computed from a separate first-principles integrator. The score of 2 reflects the substantial but non-circular self-citation chain for inputs and benchmarks.

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

The calculation introduces no new free parameters fitted to data; all numerical parameters are grid resolutions or regularization choices. The main assumptions are the fixed background, the restriction to the long-range monopole interaction, the regularization prescription, and the use of the prior paper's ⟨Ẑ²⟩. No new particles or forces are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fixed Schwarzschild background spacetime with QED on curved spacetime, neglecting backreaction.
    The entire calculation treats the black hole spacetime as classical and fixed, with no backreaction from the emitted particles. This is stated in the introduction and used throughout.
  • domain assumption The long-range monopole Hamiltonian H_int,0L+bdy = e²/(16πM) Ẑ² is the relevant interaction for the stochastic charge effect.
    Introduced in the companion paper [1] and used as the starting point in Eq. (1). Other electrostatic and electrodynamic sectors are explicitly deferred to future work in the discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper The singular integrals are regularized with the order of limits ϵ→0 first, then η→0.
    Appendix B defines the V and U operators and the regularization prescription. The equality of B1 with the semi-classical result depends on this specific order of limits and analytic continuation of the A-functions.
  • domain assumption The variance ⟨Ẑ²⟩ is O(α^{-1}) and its numerical values are taken from the companion paper's proof of Conjecture #1.
    Used in Eq. (10) to make both B0 and B1 terms O(α). The numerical values of ⟨Ẑ²⟩ are inputs from [1], and the high-mass limit ⟨Ẑ²⟩ → 1/(8πα) is used in the verification in Sec. IVD2.
  • standard math The unperturbed electron phase space density is f_up(h) = (e^{8πM h} + 1)^{-1}, the standard Fermi-Dirac Hawking distribution.
    This is the standard result for a Schwarzschild black hole at Hawking temperature 1/(8πM), used throughout the derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Corrections to Hawking radiation from asteroid-mass primordial black holes: analytic and numerical evaluation of the stochastic charge effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKQGCYJN

@misc{pith2026260804346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Corrections to Hawking radiation from asteroid-mass primordial black holes: analytic and numerical evaluation of the stochastic charge effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKQGCYJN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04346}
}
abstract

Hawking radiation sets stringent constraints on Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) as a dark matter candidate in the $M\sim 10^{16}$ g regime based on the evaporation products produced by the black hole, motivating the need to rigorously model the photon, electron, and positron emission spectra. This manuscript is the second in a series of two papers (see Vasquez et al. [Phys. Rev. D, 112:063002 (2025)] for the first paper in the series) with the goal of proving the stochastic emission of electrons and positrons, known as the "stochastic charge effect" and first predicted by Page [Phys. Rev. D, 16:2402 (1977)] using semi-classical arguments, arises from quantum electrodynamics (QED) on a Schwarzschild spacetime. We derive the corrections to the $e^\pm$ from the relevant term in the Hamiltonian (the long-range monopole: $H_{\rm int,0L}$) to first order in the fine structure constant ($\alpha$), and show that the semi-classical terms are also present in the QED calculation. We also highlight which terms in our analysis only appear within our quantum mechanical approach and cannot be explained otherwise. We find that due to some cancellation of terms, over the range of $2.2\times 10^{16}$ - $1.7\times 10^{17}$ g, the net correction to the $e^\pm$ emission rate is less than 2%, versus the suppression of up to 5% previously found by semi-classical arguments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. This figure shows the contribution of each term to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. This figure shows the electron energy spectrum contribution from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. This figure shows the total contribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. This figure shows the contributions to the stochastic charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. This figure shows the unperturbed electron energy spectrum in cyan, total stochastic charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phase space density derivatives With fup(h) defined as in Table I, we can determine its first and second derivatives analytically: fup(h) = 1 e8πM h+ 1 → f ′ up(h) = − 2πM cosh2(4πM h) → f ′′ up(h) = 16π2M 2 tanh(4πM h) cosh2(4πM h) ; (39) these are then implemented numerically with theNumPy exp, tanh and cosh functions [36]

    work page

  2. [2]

    Transmission probability integrator The next ingredient we need is to numerically compute the first quantized transmission probabilityT 1 2 kh through the angular momentum barrier as a function of the chargeZ on the black hole and the amplitudeY of the 1/r2 term in the potential. This is calculated through the radial equation (equation 39) from Brill and ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Since all derivatives are to be evaluated whereZ, Y = 0, we calculated the values of the transmission probabilities at Y, Z∈ {−2, −1, 0, 1, 2}

    Transmission Probability Derivatives The numerical derivatives of the transmission probabilityT 1 2 kh(Z, Y) are calculated using the five point finite dif- ference method. Since all derivatives are to be evaluated whereZ, Y = 0, we calculated the values of the transmission probabilities at Y, Z∈ {−2, −1, 0, 1, 2}. The first derivative with respect toZ is...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (25) and Eq

    Breakdown of Terms Related toB0 and B1 The terms that constituteB0 and B1 are labeled in the order that they appear in Eq. (25) and Eq. (34). Relevant coefficients and summations overk are computed and included in all figures. The collection of terms contained within B0 are labeled as t01 = X k 2j + 1 2π ∂ZT 1 2 kh(0)fup(h) t02 = − X k 2j + 1 2π 1 2 ∂Y T ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Upon promotingZ to an operator ˆZ, we can determine the expectation value of the particle number emission per unit time through Taylor expansion

    Verification of the Limit of B1 for Large Black Hole Masses When introducing the stochastic charge effect, we suppose that the particle number emission per unit time (˙N±) in the high mass, low Hawking temperature limit (TH << µ) is ˙N± = Ce ±4παZ (47) where C is some proportionality constant. Upon promotingZ to an operator ˆZ, we can determine the expect...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Absolute

    Electron Spectrum Corrections The contributions from B0 and B1 to the full stochastic chargeO(α) correction to the electron energy spectrum are of similar magnitude. Fig. 4 shows that for the three lower masses (top two panels and bottom left panel), the B0 correction to the energy spectrum is positive at low energies (nearh = µ), negative at intermediate...

    work page

  7. [7]

    (C11) from Vasquezet al.[1] for δϵ(h − h′) which resembles that of a Dirac delta function in the limit whereϵ is small

    Double pole integrals with one small parameter We begin with the integrals of the form: Z ∞ 0 dh′ 2π 2πδϵ(h − h′) h − h′ + iϵ Φ(h′) = i Z ∞ 0 dh′ 2π 1 h − h′ + iϵ − 1 h − h′ − iϵ Φ(h′) h − h′ + iϵ , (B1) where we substituted Eq. (C11) from Vasquezet al.[1] for δϵ(h − h′) which resembles that of a Dirac delta function in the limit whereϵ is small. We make ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    We are interested in taking the limit as ϵ → 0+ first; andthen we take the limit asη → 0+ (if η appears in the problem) which is the physical limit

    Double and triple poles with two small parameters Here we address integrals that contain poles ath′ = h ± iϵ and h′ = h + iη where the location of these poles on the complex plane and the order of which quantity approaches zero first matters. We are interested in taking the limit as ϵ → 0+ first; andthen we take the limit asη → 0+ (if η appears in the pro...

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Then we have the familiar rule lim υ→0+ ℑ Z ∞ 0 dh′ 2π Ж(h′) (h − h′ + iυ) = − 1 2Ж(h)

    Imaginary parts We now consider cases with functions Ж that are real for real arguments. Then we have the familiar rule lim υ→0+ ℑ Z ∞ 0 dh′ 2π Ж(h′) (h − h′ + iυ) = − 1 2Ж(h). (B17) Integration by parts gives the sequence of rules: lim υ→0+ ℑ Z ∞ 0 dh′ 2π Ж(h′) (h − h′ + iυ)2...

  2. [10]

    in” first, then “up

    Simplifying the second derivative If the integrand in Eq. (C12) is analytically continued, it has poles ath′ = h + iϵ, h + iη, and h − iϵ. The equation for ∂2 ZT 1 2 kh(0) in Eq. (C12) can thus be broken into 3 terms: ∂2 ZT 1 2 kh(0) = ∂2 ZT 1 2 kh(0) int,NS + ∂2 ZT 1 2 kh(0) ...

  3. [11]

    Vasquez, J

    G. Vasquez, J. Kushan, M. Silva, E. Koivu, A. Das, and C. M. Hirata, Corrections to Hawking radiation from asteroid- mass primordial black holes: description of the stochastic charge effect in quantum electrodynamics, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.09724 (2024), arXiv:2407.09724 ...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    R. S. Hanni and R. Ruffini, Lines of force of a point charge near a schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D8, 3259 (1973)

    1973

  5. [13]

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

    1977

  6. [14]

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

    1975

  7. [15]

    Yokoyama, Formation of MACHO-primordial black holes in inflationary cosmology., Astron

    J. Yokoyama, Formation of MACHO-primordial black holes in inflationary cosmology., Astron. Astrophys.318, 673 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9509027 [astro-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. Y. Khlopov and A. G. Polnarev, Primordial black holes as a cosmological test of grand unification, Physics Letters B 97, 383 (1980)

    1980

  9. [17]

    Harada, C.-m

    T. Harada, C.-m. Yoo, K. Kohri, K.-i. Nakao, and S. Jhingan, Primordial Black Hole Formation in the Matter-dominated Phase of the Universe, Astrophys. J.833, 61 (2016), arXiv:1609.01588 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jedamzik and J

    K. Jedamzik and J. C. Niemeyer, Primordial black hole formation during first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D59, 124014 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901293 [astro-ph]. 31

    1999 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Primordial black holes: constraints, potential evidence and prospects (2026), arXiv:2601.06024 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  12. [20]

    A. Katz, J. Kopp, S. Sibiryakov, and W. Xue, Femtolensing by dark matter revisited, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2018 (12), 005–005

  13. [21]

    Montero-Camacho, X

    P. Montero-Camacho, X. Fang, G. Vasquez, M. Silva, and C. M. Hirata, Revisiting constraints on asteroid-mass primordial black holes as dark matter candidates, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019 (08), 031–031

  14. [22]

    Sugiyama, T

    S. Sugiyama, T. Kurita, and M. Takada, On the wave optics effect on primordial black hole constraints from optical microlensing search, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493, 3632–3641 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Esser, C

    N. Esser, C. Filion, S. De Rijcke, N. Kallivayalil, H. Richstein, P. Tinyakov, and R. F. G. Wyse, Constraints on asteroid- mass primordial black holes in dwarf galaxies using hubble space telescope photometry, Astronomy & Astrophysics698, A290 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes, Physical Review D81, 10.1103/physrevd.81.104019 (2010)

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    R. Laha, J. B. Mu˜ noz, and T. R. Slatyer, Integral constraints on primordial black holes and particle dark matter, Physical Review D101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.123514 (2020)

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    R. Laha, Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate are severely constrained by the galactic center 511 kevγ-ray line, Physical Review Letters123, 10.1103/physrevlett.123.251101 (2019)

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Boudaud and M

    M. Boudaud and M. Cirelli, Voyager 1e± further constrain primordial black holes as dark matter, Physical Review Letters 122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.041104 (2019)

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Yang, Impact of radiation from primordial black holes on the 21-cm angular-power spectrum in the dark ages, Physical Review D106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.123508 (2022)

    Y. Yang, Impact of radiation from primordial black holes on the 21-cm angular-power spectrum in the dark ages, Physical Review D106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.123508 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Koivu, N

    E. Koivu, N. Y. Gnedin, and C. M. Hirata, Effects of primordial black holes on igm history (2025), arXiv:2510.00246 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  22. [30]

    Tomsick, S

    J. Tomsick, S. Boggs, A. Zoglauer, D. H. Hartmann, M. Ajello, E. Burns, C. Fryer, C. Karwin, C. Kierans, A. Lowell, J. Malzac, J. Roberts, P. Saint-Hilaire, A. Shih, T. Siegert, C. Sleator, T. Takahashi, F. Tavecchio, E. Wulf, J. Beechert, H. Gulick, A. Joens, H. Lazar, E. Nei...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison, and S. Profumo, Direct detection of hawking radiation from asteroid-mass primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171101 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Caputo, M

    A. Caputo, M. Negro, M. Regis, and M. Taoso, Dark matter prospects with COSI: ALPs, PBHs and sub-GeV dark matter, J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys.2023, 006 (2023), arXiv:2210.09310 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    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, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7161-1 (2019)

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine, and F. Sartini, Hawking radiation by spherically-symmetric static black holes for all spins: Teukolsky equations and potentials, Physical Review D103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.104010 (2021)

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Physics beyond the standard model with blackhawk v2.0, The European Physical Journal C 81, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09702-8 (2021)

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    S. B. Giddings, Hawking radiation, the stefan–boltzmann law, and unitarization, Physics Letters B754, 39–42 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    S. B. Giddings, Quantum mechanics of black holes (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9412138 [hep-th]

    1994 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. D. Mathur, The information paradox: a pedagogical introduction, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 224001 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    S. L. Braunstein, H.-J. Sommers, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Entangled black holes as ciphers of hidden information (2009), arXiv:0907.0739 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013, 10.1007/jhep02(2013)062 (2013)

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Hod, Hawking radiation and the stefan–boltzmann law: The effective radius of the black-hole quantum atmosphere, Physics Letters B757, 121–124 (2016)

    S. Hod, Hawking radiation and the stefan–boltzmann law: The effective radius of the black-hole quantum atmosphere, Physics Letters B757, 121–124 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    R. Dey, S. Liberati, and D. Pranzetti, The black hole quantum atmosphere, Physics Letters B774, 308–316 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Silva, G

    M. Silva, G. Vasquez, E. Koivu, A. Das, and C. M. Hirata, Corrections to hawking radiation from asteroid mass primordial black holes: Formalism of dissipative interactions in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D107, 045004 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    D. R. Brill and J. A. Wheeler, Interaction of Neutrinos and Gravitational Fields, Reviews of Modern Physics29, 465 (1957)

    1957

  37. [45]

    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, Phys. Rev. D111, 045011 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Sheppard...

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P. J. Channell and C. Scovel, Symplectic integration of Hamiltonian systems, Nonlinearity3, 231 (1990)

    1990

  40. [48]

    J. H. MacGibbon, Quark- and gluon-jet emission from primordial black holes. II. The emission over the black-hole lifetime, Phys. Rev. D44, 376 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Bai and N.Orlofsky, Primordial extremalblack holesas dark matter,Phys

    Y. Bai and N.Orlofsky, Primordial extremalblack holesas dark matter,Phys. Rev.D101, 055006(2020), arXiv:1906.04858 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ewasiuk and S

    C. Ewasiuk and S. Profumo, Dark-sector modifications to Kerr and Reissner-Nordstr¨ om black hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 113, 044038 (2026), arXiv:2505.04812 [gr-qc]

    2026

  43. [51]

    Friedlander, K

    A. Friedlander, K. J. Mack, S. Schon, N. Song, and A. C. Vincent, Primordial black hole dark matter in the context of extra dimensions, Phys. Rev. D105, 103508 (2022), arXiv:2201.11761 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.