Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Baryogenesis via Asymmetric Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Evaporating primordial black holes can generate the observed matter–antimatter asymmetry.

desk verdict The cosmological machinery is solid, but the μ-dependent greybody factors — the linchpin of the asymmetry — look like an artifact of truncating a pure-gradient vector potential. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21011 v1 pith:3BPZGQ5N submitted 2025-08-28 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Joaquim Iguaz Juan , Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez , Jessica Turner This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords primordialblackholesbaryogenesisHawkingradiationchemicalpotentialKretschmannscalarbaryonasymmetrygreybodyfactorsentropydilution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that evaporating primordial black holes can explain why the universe contains more matter than antimatter. The mechanism is a higher-dimensional, CP-violating operator that couples the changing curvature (the time derivative of the Kretschmann scalar) to a baryon- or lepton-number-violating current, producing an effective chemical potential at the black-hole horizon. That chemical potential biases Hawking radiation toward emitting more baryons (or leptons) than antibaryons (or antileptons). The authors' advance is to compute this effect with chemical-potential-dependent greybody factors, to include entropy dilution from the photons the black holes also emit, and to solve the full coupled evolution of a black-hole population and the radiation bath numerically. They find that the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio of about 9 × 10^-11 is reproduced for monochromatic, log-normal, critical-collapse, and power-law mass spectra within a viable region of parameter space.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimension-eight, CP-violating operator (1.1), (∂_αK)J^α/M⋆^4, where K is the Kretschmann scalar, the square of the Riemann curvature tensor, and J^α is a baryon/lepton-number-violating current. Because K depends on the black-hole mass, an evaporating hole has ∂_0K ≠ 0, which generates the effective chemical potential µ = ∂_0K/M⋆^4 at the horizon. That chemical potential biases the Hawking spectrum; the paper computes the bias with greybody factors—the factors that account for the gravitational and centrifugal barriers modifying the Hawking spectrum—that depend on µ, and feeds it into coupled Boltzmann equations for the PBH population and radiation bath.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is to recompute the asymmetric emission with the chemical potential evolved self-consistently inside the greybody factors instead of treated as a constant background during a given mode; if the resulting nL/s moved below roughly 9 × 10^-11 across the whole (M⋆, M) plane, the central claim would fail. Observationally, tightening PBH-abundance bounds β so that the band where nL/s ≃ 9 × 10^-11 is excluded for every M⋆ would also settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the observed baryon asymmetry can be produced without new CP-violating particle decays: gravity itself, through the time-varying Kretschmann scalar of an evaporating black hole, can supply the necessary bias. As a Schwarzschild black hole loses mass, the curvature invariant K = 3M(t)^2/(4π^2 M_pl^2 r^6) changes, so ∂_0K ≠ 0, and the dimension-eight operator (∂_αK)J^α/M⋆^4 becomes active, generating a chemical potential µ = ∂_0K/M⋆^4 at the horizon. The chemical potential grows as the black hole shrinks, making Hawking emission increasingly asymmetric. Solving the coupled Friedmann–Boltzmann system with full greybody factors, including p

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the semiclassical Hawking emission law and the effective field theory describing the chemical potential both remain valid up to the cutoff scale and near the Planck mass; if either breaks down before the chemical potential becomes large, the reproduced asymmetry would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the observed baryon asymmetry can be produced with no new CP-violating particle decays; the emission bias comes from gravity through a single higher-dimension operator.
  • Entropy dilution from photon evaporation is a controlling effect: it shrinks the viable (M⋆, M) region compared with earlier analytic estimates, especially for heavier PBHs.
  • The claim holds across four mass spectra, so the conclusion does not depend on a single PBH formation mechanism.
  • Because sphalerons convert the lepton asymmetry to a baryon asymmetry before electroweak symmetry breaking, the mechanism is also a leptogenesis scenario; washout bounds require the asymmetry to be produced below T ~ 5 × 10^11 GeV.
  • The results are conservative in the paper's own reading: stopping the effective field theory at M⋆ omits asymmetry that would be generated beyond the cutoff, so a UV completion could widen the viable region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not discuss what a fully time-dependent treatment of the chemical potential during emission would do; recomputing the greybody factors with A0(t) evolving inside them is the minimal next calculation that could shift the quoted yields.
  • Because the operator couples to a generic baryon/lepton-number-violating current, the same machinery could yield model-independent lower bounds on the cutoff M⋆ once PBH abundance constraints tighten.
  • The early PBH-dominated epochs shown in the paper modify the expansion history, so gravitational-wave and CMB spectral-distortion searches could indirectly probe the viable parameter region.
  • The analysis is restricted to non-rotating black holes; extending it to Kerr black holes would change both the Kretschmann scalar and the greybody factors and could plausibly enhance or suppress the asymmetry.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits baryogenesis from primordial black hole evaporation, assuming a dimension-eight CP-violating operator (1.1) that couples the derivative of the Kretschmann scalar to a baryon/lepton-number-violating current. The authors argue that the time dependence of the black-hole mass generates a chemical potential at the horizon, biasing Hawking radiation. They solve the coupled Friedmann/Boltzmann equations for the PBH population and radiation bath, include entropy dilution from photon emission, and compute greybody factors with a chemical-potential dependence in Appendix A. They scan monochromatic, log-normal, critical-collapse, power-law and generalized-critical-collapse mass distributions and claim that the observed baryon asymmetry, n_B/s ~ 9 x 10^-11, can be reproduced in a viable parameter region.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper would be a useful quantitative update of PBH baryogenesis, improving on Ref. [19] by treating entropy dilution, extended mass spectra, and the full coupled evolution. The authors are appropriately conservative in stopping the evolution before the EFT breaks down and at masses near the Planck scale, and they disclose the numerical zigzag artifact in Fig. 6. However, the central new ingredient—the chemical-potential-dependent greybody factors—is undermined by the treatment of the operator as a truncated vector potential in Appendix A. Until that issue is resolved, the quantitative results, including the claimed parameter regions and the enhancement factors in Fig. 2, are not supported by the calculation as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.13) and Fig. 2] The implementation of operator (1.1) as A_0 = -alpha (r_S/r)^6 is incomplete. The operator gives A_mu = M_*^{-4} partial_mu K, which has a radial component A_r = M_*^{-4} partial_r K. At the horizon, r_S A_r / A_0 ~ (3/(64 pi^2 epsilon))(M/M_pl)^3, which is large for the masses considered. Dropping A_r while keeping A_0 produces a nonzero F_{0r}, i.e., a spurious electric field. Because the full A_mu is a pure gradient, the bulk Dirac equation is equivalent to the free equation under psi -> exp(i c K/M_*^4) psi; for the static background used in a greybody calculation this phase is regular at the horizon and tends to 1 at infinity, so the greybody factors must coincide with the mu=0 case. The differences shown in Fig. 2 (a factor 1.15 and up to 15) are therefore artifacts of the truncation, and the yields in Figs. 5-8 obtained through Eq. (4.13) are not consequences of Eq. (1.1). The aut
  2. [Section 1, Eq. (1.3)] The central physical input—that the operator (1.1) generates the chemical potential of Eq. (1.3) at the horizon—is imported from Ref. [19] without a derivation. This is load-bearing: the asymmetry rate in Eq. (3.1), the cutoff conditions in Eq. (4.4), and all numerical results depend on it. Please provide a self-contained derivation, or at least state the thermodynamic/boundary assumptions under which a pure-gradient bulk coupling yields a non-zero chemical potential. Without this, it is difficult to distinguish the mechanism from a gauge artifact.
  3. [Section 5 and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion state that the observed asymmetry is reproduced for power-law mass spectra, but the results section only says 'We also observe the same qualitative features with a power-law mass distribution' without showing a figure or giving a quantitative statement. If this claim is retained, the corresponding result should be presented or quantified; otherwise the claim should be softened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.10)] The quantities Delta and Sigma in Eq. (4.11) are introduced with little motivation. A short explanation of the terms in the radiation-energy equation would improve readability.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.15)] The sentence 'The large suppression at large values of omega comes from the exponential function' is only true for moderate mu/T_BH. For large positive mu/T_BH the exponential can become less suppressing for some momenta, as the text later notes. Consider rephrasing.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor notation inconsistencies: 'F riedmann' in the Section 4 header, 't e pseudo-Riemannian' in Appendix A, and 'MP' instead of 'M_pl' in the Fig. 6 caption.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.7)] The transition from Eq. (4.6) to Eq. (4.7) is terse; spelling out the definition of T0/Tev and the origin of the (1+beta T0/Tev)^{-3/4} factor would help the reader follow the analytic approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed baryon asymmetry is an external target, and the model’s free parameters are scanned rather than fitted to a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is an existence proof: for some choices of the free parameters (M*, beta, and PBH mass-distribution parameters) the computed lepton/baryon yield matches the measured n_B/s ~ 9e-11. This target is external to the model, not an output of the equations, so the matching is not a self-definitional reduction. The chemical potential in Eq. (1.3) is imported from Ref. [19] (Hamada and Iso), which is not by the present authors; it is an external input, and the present paper explicitly builds on it rather than re-deriving it from its own conclusions. The numerical evolution framework in Sec. 4.2 follows the authors’ own previous work [12,77], but that framework is parameter-free and supplies only the standard coupled PBH–radiation Boltzmann equations; it does not contain the baryon asymmetry as an input. The conclusions in Sec. 5 are obtained by scanning M*, beta, and the mass-distribution parameters, not by fitting a parameter to the asymmetry and then calling that fit a prediction. There is a separate correctness concern, not a circularity one, in Appendix A: the paper replaces the pure-gradient coupling A_mu = c/M*^4 partial_mu K by A_mu = -(A0,0,0,0), thereby dropping the nonzero radial component (Eq. A.13 and surrounding text). If the dropped component is physically relevant, the greybody-factor computation may be inconsistent with the operator (1.1); however, this is an approximation/validity issue, not an equation that makes the final asymmetry equal to the input by construction. The paper also flags its own limitations (semiclassical evaporation until near the Planck scale, neglect of memory burden, conservative EFT cutoff at M_min), which are stated assumptions rather than circular steps. Therefore, no load-bearing step reduces the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main model inputs are the EFT cutoff M_star, the PBH initial mass distribution parameters, and the initial abundance beta; all are scanned to match the observed baryon asymmetry. The underlying mechanism, the dimension-8 operator, and the validity of semiclassical Hawking radiation are assumed from prior work.

free parameters (7)
  • M_star (EFT cutoff scale) = scanned over ~10^-6 to 1 M_pl; results shown for 10^-4 and 10^-3 M_pl
    Sets the strength of the CP-violating operator (1.1); the baryon asymmetry contours in Figs. 5-8 select a range of this scale. It is a free parameter of the new physics, not determined by data.
  • PBH initial mass M (monochromatic) / M_scl (extended) = scanned; examples M_scl = 0.235 g (log-normal), 3.125 g (critical collapse)
    PBHs are assumed to form with these masses; the Hawking temperature and evaporation time depend on M. The observed asymmetry can be reproduced along a line in the (M_star, M) plane.
  • beta (initial PBH energy fraction) = values 10^-3 and 10^-5 used in main scans; also scanned in Fig. 6
    Determines PBH abundance and the extent of entropy dilution; a free cosmological parameter.
  • sigma (log-normal width) = 1 (Fig. 7)
    Width of the log-normal mass distribution; chosen as a representative example.
  • kappa, eta (generalized critical collapse parameters) = kappa=2.001, eta=1000 (Fig. 8)
    Shape parameters of the GCC mass distribution; chosen to represent a peaked distribution.
  • alpha (power-law exponent) = range 1 < alpha <= 3
    Slope of the power-law mass distribution tied to the equation of state parameter w; not fixed.
  • c (dimensionless coefficient of the operator) = 1 (implicit)
    In Appendix A, the coefficient c enters Eq. (A.14); the main text effectively sets c=1. Scaling c can be absorbed into M_star, so it is degenerate with the cutoff scale.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Semiclassical Hawking radiation remains valid throughout the PBH lifetime down to M ~ M_pl (Eq. 2.17).
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2 to integrate the mass loss and compute emission rates; the paper explicitly neglects memory burden and information-loss corrections because no established framework exists.
  • ad hoc to paper A dimension-eight CP-violating operator (1.1) exists and generates the chemical potential (1.3) at a Schwarzschild horizon.
    Postulated new physics taken from Ref [19]; the chemical potential formula is imported, not re-derived. The sign and coefficient are chosen to yield the observed baryon asymmetry.
  • domain assumption The evaporation rate into particles is governed by the standard Fermi-Dirac/Bose-Einstein distributions with the chemical potential inserted as in Eq. (2.15).
    Standard Hawking radiation spectrum; the mu-dependence of the greybody factors is computed in Appendix A following Page (1977).
  • domain assumption The early universe is described by a flat Friedmann universe with only radiation and matter-like PBHs (Eqs. 4.10 and 4.12).
    Standard cosmology; no additional components such as dark energy or extra radiation are considered.
  • domain assumption Electroweak sphalerons fully convert the lepton asymmetry to a baryon asymmetry, and Delta L = 2 washout is negligible for T below about 5e11 GeV.
    Assumed in Sec. 4.2; the washout estimate uses m_nu = 0.1 eV and the stated temperature condition.
  • domain assumption Only Standard Model degrees of freedom contribute to evaporation and to entropy dilution.
    In Sec. 4.2, epsilon_SM is used for the radiation injection; any BSM particles would modify the dilution and the asymmetry yield.
invented entities (1)
  • CP-violating operator (d_alpha R_mu nu rho sigma R^mu nu rho sigma) J^alpha / M_star^4
    purpose: Generate a time-dependent chemical potential at the black hole horizon that biases Hawking emission toward baryons and leptons.
    No UV completion is given; the operator is taken from Ref [19] and its cutoff M_star is scanned. It currently has no observable handle beyond the baryon asymmetry itself, so it is an unverified tree-level assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baryogenesis via Asymmetric Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BPZGQ5N

@misc{pith2026250821011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baryogenesis via Asymmetric Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BPZGQ5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21011}
}
read the original abstract

We revisit baryogenesis from the asymmetric evaporation of light primordial black holes, focusing on scenarios where gravitational effects induce a matter antimatter asymmetry. In particular, we consider a higher-dimension operator coupling the Kretschmann scalar to a baryon-number-violating current which generates an effective chemical potential at the black hole horizon and leads to asymmetric Hawking radiation. Relative to earlier studies, we account for entropy dilution from evaporation, incorporate chemical potential dependent greybody factors and numerically track the fully coupled evolution of a PBH population in an expanding universe. We show that the observed baryon asymmetry can be reproduced within a viable region of parameter space for several PBH mass spectra including log-normal, critical-collapse, and power-law distributions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Reheating: The Scalar-Induced Component

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Accounting for the minimal mass spread of primordial black holes from gravitational collapse suppresses the Poltergeist GW background to the level of generic scalar-induced signals and reopens ultra-light PBH parameter space.

  2. $\tt BlackHawk$ $\tt v3.0$: Hawking Radiation from Regular Black Holes

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    BlackHawk v3.0 adds Hawking temperatures and greybody factors for multiple regular black hole metrics to an existing public code via numerical routines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [19]

    Hamada and S

    Y. Hamada and S. Iso, Baryon asymmetry from primordial black holes, PTEP2017 (2017) 033B02 [1610.02586]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Riotto and M

    A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Recent progress in baryogenesis, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.49 (1999) 35 [hep-ph/9901362]

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    Dine and A

    M. Dine and A. Kusenko, The Origin of the matter - antimatter asymmetry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 (2003) 1 [hep-ph/0303065]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [4]

    Cline, Baryogenesis, in Les Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Spacetime, 9, 2006 [hep-ph/0609145]

    J.M. Cline, Baryogenesis, in Les Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Spacetime, 9, 2006 [hep-ph/0609145]

    arXiv 2006

  6. [5]

    Canetti, M

    L. Canetti, M. Drewes and M. Shaposhnikov, Matter and Antimatter in the Universe, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 095012 [1204.4186]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [6]

    Kuzmin, V.A

    V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov, On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe, Phys. Lett. B155 (1985) 36

    1985

  8. [7]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification, Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

    1986

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Sakharov, Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh

    A.D. Sakharov, Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5 (1967) 32

    1967

  2. [9]

    Hawking, Black hole explosions, Nature248 (1974) 30

    S.W. Hawking, Black hole explosions, Nature248 (1974) 30

    1974

  3. [10]

    Carr, Some cosmological consequences of primordial black-hole evaporations, Astrophys

    B.J. Carr, Some cosmological consequences of primordial black-hole evaporations, Astrophys. J. 206 (1976) 8

    1976

  4. [11]

    Fujita, M

    T. Fujita, M. Kawasaki, K. Harigaya and R. Matsuda, Baryon asymmetry, dark matter, and density perturbation from primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 103501 [1401.1909]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Perez-Gonzalez and J

    Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, Assessing the tension between a black hole dominated early universe and leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 103021 [2010.03565]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bernal, C.S

    N. Bernal, C.S. Fong, Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, Rescuing high-scale leptogenesis using primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 035019 [2203.08823]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hooper and G

    D. Hooper and G. Krnjaic, GUT Baryogenesis With Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 043504 [2010.01134]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Shams Es Haghi, Baryogenesis and primordial black hole dark matter from heavy metastable particles, Phys

    B. Shams Es Haghi, Baryogenesis and primordial black hole dark matter from heavy metastable particles, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 083507 [2212.11308]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Gehrman, B

    T.C. Gehrman, B. Shams Es Haghi, K. Sinha and T. Xu, Baryogenesis, primordial black holes and MHz–GHz gravitational waves, JCAP02 (2023) 062 [2211.08431]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Datta, A

    S. Datta, A. Ghosal and R. Samanta, Baryogenesis from ultralight primordial black holes and strong gravitational waves from cosmic strings, JCAP08 (2021) 021 [2012.14981]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Hook, Baryogenesis from Hawking Radiation, Phys

    A. Hook, Baryogenesis from Hawking Radiation, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 083535 [1404.0113]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Boudon, B

    A. Boudon, B. Bose, H. Huang and L. Lombriser, Baryogenesis through asymmetric Hawking radiation from primordial black holes as dark matter, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 083504 [2010.14426]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Smyth, L

    N. Smyth, L. Santos-Olmsted and S. Profumo, Gravitational baryogenesis and dark matter from light black holes, JCAP03 (2022) 013 [2110.14660]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cohen and D.B

    A.G. Cohen and D.B. Kaplan, Thermodynamic generation of the baryon asymmetry, Physics Letters B 199 (1987) 251. – 20 –

    1987

  15. [23]

    Cohen and D.B

    A.G. Cohen and D.B. Kaplan, SPONTANEOUS BARYOGENESIS, Nucl. Phys. B308 (1988) 913

    1988

  16. [24]

    Alexander, M.E

    S.H.-S. Alexander, M.E. Peskin and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Leptogenesis from gravity waves in models of inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006) 081301 [hep-th/0403069]

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cheek, L

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. I. Solely Hawking radiation, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 015022 [2107.00013]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky and I. Novikov, Inflation and primordial black holes as dark matter, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 7173

    1994

  19. [27]

    Randall, M

    L. Randall, M. Soljacic and A.H. Guth, Supernatural inflation: Inflation from supersymmetry with no (very) small parameters, Nucl. Phys. B472 (1996) 377 [hep-ph/9512439]

    1996 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Garcia-Bellido, A.D

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A.D. Linde and D. Wands, Density perturbations and black hole formation in hybrid inflation, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6040 [astro-ph/9605094]

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Baker, M

    M.J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp and L. Mittnacht, Detailed calculation of primordial black hole formation during first-order cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 063544 [2110.00005]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gross, G

    C. Gross, G. Landini, A. Strumia and D. Teresi, Dark Matter as dark dwarfs and other macroscopic objects: multiverse relics?, JHEP09 (2021) 033 [2105.02840]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kawana and K.-P

    K. Kawana and K.-P. Xie, Primordial black holes from a cosmic phase transition: The collapse of Fermi-balls, Phys. Lett. B824 (2022) 136791 [2106.00111]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Liu, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo and S.-J. Wang, Primordial black hole production during first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) L021303 [2106.05637]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Baldes and M.O

    I. Baldes and M.O. Olea-Romacho, Primordial black holes as dark matter: interferometric tests of phase transition origin, JHEP01 (2024) 133 [2307.11639]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Flores, A

    M.M. Flores, A. Kusenko and M. Sasaki, Revisiting formation of primordial black holes in a supercooled first-order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 015005 [2402.13341]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky, Primordial black holes from supercooled phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 043514 [2305.04942]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek and V. Vaskonen, Primordial black holes from strong first-order phase transitions, JHEP 09 (2023) 092 [2305.04924]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hawking, Black Holes From Cosmic Strings, Phys

    S.W. Hawking, Black Holes From Cosmic Strings, Phys. Lett. B231 (1989) 237

    1989

  30. [38]

    Polnarev and R

    A. Polnarev and R. Zembowicz, Formation of Primordial Black Holes by Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 1106

    1991

  31. [39]

    Brandenberger, B

    R. Brandenberger, B. Cyr and H. Jiao, Intermediate mass black hole seeds from cosmic string loops, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 123501 [2103.14057]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ipser and P

    J. Ipser and P. Sikivie, The Gravitationally Repulsive Domain Wall, Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 712

    1984

  33. [41]

    Ferrer, E

    F. Ferrer, E. Masso, G. Panico, O. Pujolas and F. Rompineve, Primordial Black Holes from the QCD axion, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) 101301 [1807.01707]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Liu, Z.-K

    J. Liu, Z.-K. Guo and R.-G. Cai, Primordial Black Holes from Cosmic Domain Walls, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 023513 [1908.02662]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gouttenoire and E

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, Primordial black holes and wormholes from domain wall networks, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 123507 [2311.07670]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. Ge, J. Guo and J. Liu, New mechanism for primordial black hole formation from the QCD axion, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 123030 [2309.01739]. – 21 –

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Lu, C.-W

    B.-Q. Lu, C.-W. Chiang and T. Li, Primordial black hole from domain wall fluctuations, 2409.09986

  38. [46]

    Ballesteros and M

    G. Ballesteros and M. Taoso, Primordial black hole dark matter from single field inflation, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 023501 [1709.05565]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Karam, N

    A. Karam, N. Koivunen, E. Tomberg, V. Vaskonen and H. Veermäe, Anatomy of single-field inflationary models for primordial black holes,2205.13540

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dalianis, A

    I. Dalianis, A. Kehagias and G. Tringas, Primordial black holes fromα-attractors, JCAP 01 (2019) 037 [1805.09483]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Heurtier, A

    L. Heurtier, A. Moursy and L. Wacquez, Cosmological Imprints of SUSY Breaking in Models of Sgoldstinoless Non-Oscillatory Inflation,2207.11502

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dolgov and J

    A. Dolgov and J. Silk, Baryon isocurvature fluctuations at small scales and baryonic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 4244

    1993

  43. [51]

    Dolgov, M

    A.D. Dolgov, M. Kawasaki and N. Kevlishvili, Inhomogeneous baryogenesis, cosmic antimatter, and dark matter, Nucl. Phys. B807 (2009) 229 [0806.2986]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Green, Microlensing and dynamical constraints on primordial black hole dark matter with an extended mass function, Phys

    A.M. Green, Microlensing and dynamical constraints on primordial black hole dark matter with an extended mass function, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 063530 [1609.01143]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Carr, The Primordial black hole mass spectrum, Astrophys

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

    1975

  46. [54]

    Choptuik, Universality and scaling in gravitational collapse of a massless scalar field, Phys

    M.W. Choptuik, Universality and scaling in gravitational collapse of a massless scalar field, Phys. Rev. Lett.70 (1993) 9

    1993

  47. [55]

    Yokoyama, Formation of primordial black holes in the inflationary universe, Phys

    J. Yokoyama, Formation of primordial black holes in the inflationary universe, Phys. Rept.307 (1998) 133

    1998

  48. [56]

    Yokoyama, Cosmological constraints on primordial black holes produced in the near critical gravitational collapse, Phys

    J. Yokoyama, Cosmological constraints on primordial black holes produced in the near critical gravitational collapse, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 107502 [gr-qc/9804041]

    1998 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kühnel, C

    F. Kühnel, C. Rampf and M. Sandstad, Effects of Critical Collapse on Primordial Black-Hole Mass Spectra, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 93 [1512.00488]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gow, C.T

    A.D. Gow, C.T. Byrnes and A. Hall, Accurate model for the primordial black hole mass distribution from a peak in the power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 023503 [2009.03204]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Klipfel and D.I

    A.P. Klipfel and D.I. Kaiser, Ultra-High-Energy Neutrinos from Primordial Black Holes, 2503.19227

  52. [61]

    Page, Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole: Massless Particles from an Uncharged, Nonrotating Hole, Phys

    D.N. Page, Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole: Massless Particles from an Uncharged, Nonrotating Hole, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 198

    1976

  53. [62]

    Page, Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole

    D.N. Page, Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole. 3. Charged Leptons from a Nonrotating Hole, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 2402

    1977

  54. [63]

    Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, Commun

    S.W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, Commun. Math. Phys.43 (1975) 199

    1975

  55. [64]

    MacGibbon and B.R

    J.H. MacGibbon and B.R. Webber, Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes: The instantaneous spectra, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 3052

    1990

  56. [65]

    MacGibbon, Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes

    J.H. MacGibbon, Quark and gluon jet emission from primordial black holes. 2. The Lifetime emission, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 376

    1991

  57. [66]

    Dvali, J.S

    G. Dvali, J.S. Valbuena-Bermúdez and M. Zantedeschi, Memory burden effect in black holes and solitons: Implications for PBH, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 056029 [2405.13117]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Barcelo, S

    C. Barcelo, S. Liberati, S. Sonego and M. Visser, Minimal conditions for the existence of a Hawking-like flux, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 041501 [1011.5593]. – 22 –

    2011 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Page, Information in black hole radiation, Phys

    D.N. Page, Information in black hole radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.71 (1993) 3743 [hep-th/9306083]

    1993 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Page, Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy, JCAP09 (2013) 028 [1301.4995]

    D.N. Page, Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy, JCAP09 (2013) 028 [1301.4995]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Perez-Gonzalez, Page time of primordial black holes in the Standard Model and beyond, Phys

    Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez, Page time of primordial black holes in the Standard Model and beyond, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 083015 [2502.04430]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Buoninfante, F

    L. Buoninfante, F. Di Filippo and S. Mukohyama, On the assumptions leading to the information loss paradox, JHEP10 (2021) 081 [2107.05662]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Buoninfante and F

    L. Buoninfante and F. Di Filippo, Is the information loss problem a paradox?, 4, 2025 [2504.00516]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Cheek, L

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, Primordial black hole evaporation and dark matter production. II. Interplay with the freeze-in or freeze-out mechanism, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 015023 [2107.00016]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, J. Gunn, G. Miele, S. Morisi and N. Saviano, Limits on light primordial black holes from high-scale leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 123537 [2305.13369]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Masina, Dark matter and dark radiation from evaporating primordial black holes, Eur

    I. Masina, Dark matter and dark radiation from evaporating primordial black holes, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (2020) 552 [2004.04740]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Baldes, Q

    I. Baldes, Q. Decant, D.C. Hooper and L. Lopez-Honorez, Non-Cold Dark Matter from Primordial Black Hole Evaporation, JCAP08 (2020) 045 [2004.14773]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Cheek, L

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, Evaporation of primordial black holes in the early Universe: Mass and spin distributions, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 015005 [2212.03878]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Mosbech and Z.S.C

    M.R. Mosbech and Z.S.C. Picker, Effects of Hawking evaporation on PBH distributions, SciPost Phys. 13 (2022) 100 [2203.05743]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Lunardini and Y.F

    C. Lunardini and Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez, Dirac and Majorana neutrino signatures of primordial black holes, JCAP08 (2020) 014 [1910.07864]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Bernal and F

    N. Bernal and F. Hajkarim, Primordial Gravitational Waves in Nonstandard Cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 063502 [1905.10410]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Arias, N

    P. Arias, N. Bernal, A. Herrera and C. Maldonado, Reconstructing Non-standard Cosmologies with Dark Matter, JCAP10 (2019) 047 [1906.04183]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Page, Dirac Equation Around a Charged, Rotating Black Hole, Phys

    D.N. Page, Dirac Equation Around a Charged, Rotating Black Hole, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 1509

    1976

  74. [83]

    Doran, A

    C. Doran, A. Lasenby, S. Dolan and I. Hinder, Fermion absorption cross section of a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 124020 [gr-qc/0503019]

    2005 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Dolan, C

    S. Dolan, C. Doran and A. Lasenby, Fermion scattering by a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 064005 [gr-qc/0605031]. – 23 –

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.