Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

New bounds on Memory Burdened Primordial Black Holes from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors show that memory-burdened primordial black holes that fully evaporate are tightly constrained by BBN, with a single open window at 10^0–10^2 g for k=2 and an upper bound k ≲ 3 on the memory-burden index.

desk verdict The BBN rescaling uses inverted energy fractions, so the new bounds and the unconstrained window don't hold as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20717 v1 pith:3KQXAD4V submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Arnab Chaudhuri , Kazunori Kohri , Valentin Thoss This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k04.70.Dy
keywords primordialblackholesmemoryburdenHawkingradiationBigBangnucleosynthesisultralightearlyuniverseconstraintsdarkmattertensor-to-scalarratio
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

Ultralight primordial black holes (PBHs) with initial masses below $10^9\,\mathrm{g}$ are normally thought to evaporate via Hawking radiation before they can affect the early Universe. This paper argues that the 'memory burden'—a quantum backreaction that suppresses Hawking emission once a black hole has lost about half its mass—strongly prolongs their lives, so these PBHs can survive into the epoch of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and inject energy that alters light-element abundances. The authors convert the established BBN bound on the dark-matter fraction $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}$ into a bound on the evaporation time, then rescale it by the energy fractions released in the two evaporation phases. They find that memory-burdened PBHs are strongly constrained for $k=1$, with initial masses bounded by $M_0 \lesssim 10^4\,\mathrm{g}$, but that the window $M_0 \in [10^0, 10^2]\,\mathrm{g}$ for $k=2$ is completely unconstrained by observations. If correct, this reshapes which ultralight PBH scenarios are viable and tightens the link between quantum gravity and early-Universe cosmology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parametrized memory-burden emission rate, in which Hawking's semiclassical rate at mass $qM_0$ is divided by $S(qM_0)^k$, where $S \simeq 2.6\times 10^{10}(M/1\,\mathrm{g})^2$ is the black hole entropy. Because the entropy is enormous, even modest $k$ suppresses emission by many orders of magnitude, making the black hole lose mass linearly over a lifetime $t_{\mathrm{MB}} \approx (qM_0)^3 S(qM_0)^k/F(qM_0)$. The BBN analysis then rests on a conversion rule: the published bound $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}(M)$ is reinterpreted as a bound on the evaporation time $t_{\mathrm{ev}}$, multiplied by $(1-q)$ for the early semiclassical phase and by $q$ for the memory-burdened phase, yielding the new exclusion curves displayed in Figures 1 and 2.

What would settle it

Run the same memory-burdened evaporation history through a full BBN code that includes the time-dependent electromagnetic and hadronic showers, and compare the resulting light-element abundances; if the resulting bound on $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}$ differs by more than the paper's stated factor of about two from the rescaled total-energy bound, the conversion procedure is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the memory-burden effect, parametrized by the suppression index $k$ and the half-decay fraction $q$, fundamentally changes the BBN constraints on fully evaporating PBHs. Because the evaporation rate in the memory-burdened phase is suppressed by $1/S(qM_0)^k$ with $S$ the black hole entropy, the lifetime becomes $t_{\mathrm{MB}} \sim (qM_0)^3 S(qM_0)^k / F(qM_0)$, so very light PBHs can outlive their semiclassical lifetimes and decay during or after BBN. Assuming BBN depends only on the total injected energy and the evaporation time, the authors map the existing bound $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}(M)$ onto $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}(t_{\mathrm{ev}})$ and rescale the two phases by $(1-q)$ and $q$. The result is a set of exclusion curves that constrain $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}$ down to masses as low as $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{g}$ for $k=3$, while leaving the range $10^0$–$10^2\,\mathrm{g}$ for $k=2$ free of any observational bound. Combining their BBN limits with the inflationary lower bound $M_0 \sim 1\,\mathrm{g}$ from the tensor-to-scalar ratio, the paper concludes that fully evaporating memory-burdened PBHs require $k \lesssim 3$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything follows from assuming that BBN is sensitive only to the evaporation time and the total energy injected, so the published bound $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}(M)$ can be recast as $f_{\mathrm{PBH},0}(t_{\mathrm{ev}})$ and rescaled by the mass fractions $(1-q)$ and $q$; if the time profile of energy injection actually matters, the computed exclusion curves do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $k=1$, BBN plus existing gamma-ray and CMB limits force fully evaporating memory-burdened PBHs to have initial masses below about $10^4\,\mathrm{g}$.
  • For $k=2$, PBHs in the mass range $10^0$–$10^2\,\mathrm{g}$ evade all current BBN, gamma-ray, CMB, and neutrino constraints, leaving a genuinely open window for ultralight PBH cosmology.
  • Requiring PBHs to form from inflationary fluctuations (which sets $M_0 \gtrsim 1\,\mathrm{g}$) and to evaporate fully by today bounds the memory-burden index to $k \lesssim 3$.
  • The BBN constraints now reach PBH masses far below $10^{10}\,\mathrm{g}$, closing the assumption that such light holes have negligible cosmological impact and limiting their role in dark-matter production, baryogenesis, and gravitational-wave sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's assumption that BBN depends only on total energy could be tested by implementing the same memory-burdened mass-loss history in a full time-resolved BBN network; if the injection profile matters, the reported $k\lesssim3$ bound and the open $k=2$ window would shift.
  • The open window for $k=2$ suggests an observational target: future CMB spectral-distortion or neutrino experiments sensitive to energy injected between BBN and recombination could close or confirm the window.
  • Because the bound on $k$ uses the inflationary lower bound $M_0\sim1\,\mathrm{g}$, improved measurements of the tensor-to-scalar ratio would directly translate into a tighter or looser statement about the allowed memory-burden index.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the cosmological constraints on ultralight primordial black holes whose evaporation is modified by the memory burden effect. After introducing a parametrized model in which Hawking emission is standard until the mass falls to qM0 and is suppressed by S(qM0)^k thereafter, it converts existing BBN constraints on f_PBH,0(M) into constraints on the memory-burdened scenario by associating each evaporation phase with a lifetime and a fraction of the total mass released. It reports BBN bounds for k=1,2,3 and various q, and concludes that for k=1 PBHs must be lighter than about 10^4 g and that the tensor-to-scalar ratio implies k≲3 for fully evaporating PBHs. The abstract highlights a window 10^0-10^2 g for k=2 that is unconstrained by observations.

Significance. If correct, the paper would extend existing constraints to a previously less-studied mass range and sharpen the phenomenological consequences of the memory burden hypothesis. Its strengths are that it uses an explicit and transparent parametrization (Eq. 2.10), makes the mapping from the standard bound explicit, and compares with existing gamma-ray, CMB, and neutrino constraints. The paper is concise and cites the relevant recent literature. However, the propagation of the BBN bound contains a factor-direction error that affects all of the quantitative results, and the method is a rescaling of published limits rather than a full BBN calculation. The qualitative idea remains interesting, but the numerical claims in the abstract and conclusion are not supported as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'For the reasons explained above'] The rescaling factors for the two evaporation stages are inverted. Let f_ref(M) denote the standard BBN bound on f_PBH,0 for a semiclassical PBH of mass M, corresponding to total injected energy E=M at t_ev≈t_SC(M). For a modified stage that injects energy αM at the same evaporation time, the same energy budget is reached at abundance f_PBH,0 = f_ref(M)/α, because the constraint is on the product of abundance and injected energy per PBH. In the first phase α=1−q, so the bound should be f_ref(qM0)/(1−q); in the second phase α=q, so it should be f_ref(M(t_MB))/q. The text instead multiplies by (1−q) and q, which tightens both bounds and is the opposite of the 'relaxation' described. This error enters the curves in Figs. 1 and 2 and the conclusion k≲3, so the central quantitative claims are not supported as written. The relationship between the quoted factor 0.55 from [60] and the factor 1−q is also not explained and does not validate the direction of the rescaling.
  2. [Section 3, model assumption before the mapping to t_ev] The paper's new bounds are not obtained from a BBN calculation but from rescaling the published constraint of Ref. [6] under the assumption that BBN depends only on t_ev and the total injected energy. This assumption is not tested. In the memory-burdened second phase, the energy qM0 is released over a duration t_MB that can be many orders of magnitude longer than the semiclassical evaporation time; during that interval the background temperature and the efficiencies of photodissociation and hadrodissociation change, so an instantaneous-injection mapping is not self-evidently valid. The authors should validate the mapping against a standard BBN code (e.g., the code behind Refs. [79,80]) or explicitly quantify the resulting uncertainty. Without this, the word 'new bounds' overstates what is actually derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.12) and surrounding text] The text refers to S0 as the initial entropy, while the equation uses S(qM0); please define the entropy argument explicitly and use consistent notation.
  2. [Reference list] The reference list contains a duplicated entry for [31]: the line appears as '[31] [31] K. Inomata ...'.
  3. [Section 3] The notation f_PBH,0(tev = tMB) mixes a mass-domain function with a time argument; write f_PBH,0(M(t_MB)) or define a separate converted function to avoid confusion.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract uses '10^0-10^2' while the body uses '100–102 g'; please unify the notation.
  5. [Section 2] There is a typo 'BlackHa wk' in the text describing the BlackHawk code; also, the function F(M) in Eq. (2.8) is used before its meaning is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the BBN limits are obtained by propagating published standard BBN constraints through the memory-burden ansatz, and the self-citations that appear are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation in Sec. 3 starts from the published standard BBN constraint f_PBH,0(M) (ref. [6]) and maps it to the memory-burdened scenario through an explicit assumption that BBN depends on t_ev and total injected energy. The paper then rescales by the energy fractions (1-q) and q, and translates masses via the semiclassical and memory-burden lifetimes (Eqs. 2.9 and 2.12). No parameter is fitted to the target result; q and k are scanned as model parameters. The suppression parametrization in Eq. 2.10 is attributed to ref. [59], not to the present authors. The cited inputs [4,6,60] do involve co-authors (Kohri and Thoss), but they are used as externally published bounds or as a numerical cross-check, not as a uniqueness argument that forces the conclusion. The possible factor-direction error in the (1-q)/q rescaling is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: the output would still be a re-derivation of input bounds under a different mapping. I therefore find no circular step; the score of 2 reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations rather than any reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical output depends on two adjustable memory burden parameters (q and k), the adopted formation efficiency gamma, and three unproven modeling assumptions: the 1/S^k suppression law, the constancy of the emission rate in the memory burden regime, and the reduction of BBN sensitivity to total injected energy. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • q = 0.5 default; scanned 0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0
    Fraction of the initial PBH mass at which memory burden turns on. Not derived; it controls the duration and energy release of both evaporation stages and directly sets the BBN bound rescaling.
  • k = 1, 2, 3
    Exponent in the memory burden suppression factor 1/S^k. Introduced by the parametrization of ref. [59], not derived here; the main conclusions depend strongly on its value.
  • gamma = 1
    Efficiency factor for PBH formation, adopted from the literature. It sets the relation between M0 and the formation time and temperature, which feeds into the lifetime and hence the BBN epoch.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Memory burden suppresses particle emission after M = qM0 by a factor 1/S(qM0)^k, with temperature and emission rate held constant in that regime (Eq. 2.10 and following text).
    This parametrization is taken from refs. [58,59] and is not derived or tested in the present paper. It is the central physical input for the prolonged evaporation lifetimes.
  • domain assumption BBN constraints depend only on the evaporation time t_ev and the total injected energy, so existing bounds can be rescaled by the mass fractions (1-q) and q.
    Stated in Section 3, paragraph beginning 'For the reasons explained above'. This assumption is what allows the authors to avoid a full BBN calculation, and it is the load-bearing premise for the plotted exclusion curves.
  • domain assumption Standard Hawking semiclassical evaporation holds until the PBH reaches mass qM0.
    Invoked in the setup of Section 2; the first phase is treated with the usual dM/dt = -F(M)/M^2. Any earlier modification of Hawking evaporation would change the mass at which memory burden acts.
  • domain assumption The early Universe is standard radiation-dominated with g*=106.75, h=0.67 and PBH formation efficiency gamma=1.
    Adopted in Section 2. Non-standard expansion or different g* would shift the mass-lifetime relation and the BBN epoch mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New bounds on Memory Burdened Primordial Black Holes from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KQXAD4V

@misc{pith2026250620717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New bounds on Memory Burdened Primordial Black Holes from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KQXAD4V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20717}
}
abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) with masses below $10^9\,\rm{g}$ are typically assumed to have negligible cosmological impact due to their rapid evaporation via Hawking radiation. However, the 'memory burden' effect, which is a quantum suppression of PBH evaporation, can dramatically alter their decay dynamics. In this work, we revisit early-Universe constraints on ultralight PBHs in this mass range, demonstrating that memory burden significantly alters previous constraints. We compute new cosmological bounds from BBN that strongly limit the presence of ultralight PBHs in the early Universe. We report that the PBHs in the mass range $10^0$-$10^2\,\rm{g}$ for $k=2$ are unconstrained by observations.

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. Full citation record

  1. Black Hole Memory Burden and its Signatures in Gravitational Waves from Mergers

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Swift memory burden shifts black-hole quasinormal-mode frequencies by an amount set by the memory-load parameter μ and critical exponent p, with μ able to exceed the progenitor's information content.

  2. Relativistic accretion and burdened primordial black holes

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Combining relativistic accretion with memory-burdened evaporation widens the parameter space for primordial black holes as dark matter and changes dark matter and dark radiation emission predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [60]

    Thoss, A

    V. Thoss, A. Burkert and K. Kohri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532, no.1, 451-459 (2024) doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1098 [arXiv:2402.17823 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [6]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, no.11, 116902 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 [arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399-415 (1974) doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399

    doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974

  4. [2]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 75 (1971) doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

    doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 1971

  5. [3]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky and I. Novikov, Phys. Rev. D50, 7173-7178 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7173

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.7173 1994

  6. [4]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104019 [arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [5]

    Bartolo, V

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Lewis, M. Peloso and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.21, 211301 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.211301 [arXiv:1810.12218 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 355-394 (2020) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 [arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 101 references
  1. [8]

    Jedamzik, JCAP09, 022 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/022 [arXiv:2006.11172 [astro-ph.CO]]

    K. Jedamzik, JCAP09, 022 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/022 [arXiv:2006.11172 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Jedamzik, Phys

    K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.5, 051302 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.051302 [arXiv:2007.03565 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, no.4, 043001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Villanueva-Domingo, O

    P. Villanueva-Domingo, O. Mena and S. Palomares-Ruiz, Front. Astron. Space Sci.8, 87 (2021) doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.681084 [arXiv:2103.12087 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021

  5. [12]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48, 1 (2022) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.48 [arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Baumann, P

    D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D76, 084019 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084019 [arXiv:hep-th/0703290 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco and A. Riotto, JCAP09, 012 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/012 [arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D97, no.12, 123532 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123532 [arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    R. g. Cai, S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.20, 201101 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.201101 [arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    S. Wang, T. Terada and K. Kohri, Phys. Rev. D99, no.10, 103531 (2019) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 101, no.6, 069901 (2020)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103531 [arXiv:1903.05924 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 8 –

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Domènech, Int

    G. Domènech, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, no.03, 2050028 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0218271820500285 [arXiv:1912.05583 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    H. V. Ragavendra, P. Saha, L. Sriramkumar and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D103, no.8, 083510 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083510 [arXiv:2008.12202 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D109, no.6, 063506 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063506 [arXiv:2306.17834 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., V. Vaskonen and H. Veermae, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.20, 201401 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.201401 [arXiv:2306.17149 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Talebian, JCAP10, 032 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/032 [arXiv:2307.03164 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Maity, N

    S. Maity, N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, D. Maity and L. Sriramkumar, [arXiv:2403.16963 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248, 30-31 (1974) doi:10.1038/248030a0

    1974 doi

  18. [25]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199-220 (1975) [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)] doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    1975 doi

  19. [26]

    M. He, K. Kohri, K. Mukaida and M. Yamada, JCAP01, 027 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/027 [arXiv:2210.06238 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Riajul Haque, E

    M. Riajul Haque, E. Kpatcha, D. Maity and Y. Mambrini, Phys. Rev. D108, no.6, 063523 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063523 [arXiv:2305.10518 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    M. He, K. Kohri, K. Mukaida and M. Yamada, JCAP10, 080 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/080 [arXiv:2407.15926 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, J. Gunn, G. Miele, S. Morisi and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D107, no.12, 123537 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123537 [arXiv:2305.13369 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. Gunn, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, JCAP02, 040 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/040 [arXiv:2409.02173 [hep-ph]]. [31]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri, T. Nakama and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D100, 043532 (2019) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D108, no.4, 049901 (2023)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.049901 [arXiv:1904.12879 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Sugiyama, V

    S. Sugiyama, V. Takhistov, E. Vitagliano, A. Kusenko, M. Sasaki and M. Takada, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136097 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136097 [arXiv:2010.02189 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021

  26. [33]

    Inomata, M

    K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, T. Terada and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D101, no.12, 123533 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123533 [arXiv:2003.10455 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Domènech, C

    G. Domènech, C. Lin and M. Sasaki, JCAP04, 062 (2021) [erratum: JCAP11, E01 (2021)] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/E01 [arXiv:2012.08151 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Papanikolaou, V

    T. Papanikolaou, V. Vennin and D. Langlois, JCAP03, 053 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/053 [arXiv:2010.11573 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Domènech, V

    G. Domènech, V. Takhistov and M. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B823, 136722 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136722 [arXiv:2105.06816 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021

  30. [37]

    Papanikolaou, JCAP10, 089 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/089 [arXiv:2207.11041 [astro-ph.CO]]

    T. Papanikolaou, JCAP10, 089 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/089 [arXiv:2207.11041 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Bhaumik, A

    N. Bhaumik, A. Ghoshal and M. Lewicki, JHEP07, 130 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)130 [arXiv:2205.06260 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bhaumik, A

    N. Bhaumik, A. Ghoshal, R. K. Jain and M. Lewicki, JHEP05, 169 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)169 [arXiv:2212.00775 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 9 –

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Balaji, G

    S. Balaji, G. Domènech, G. Franciolini, A. Ganz and J. Tränkle, JCAP11, 026 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/026 [arXiv:2403.14309 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    X. Wang, Y. l. Zhang, R. Kimura and M. Yamaguchi, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, no.6, 260462 (2023) doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2091-x [arXiv:2209.12911 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Kohri and H

    K. Kohri and H. Matsui, Phys. Rev. D98, no.12, 123509 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123509 [arXiv:1708.02138 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Hayashi, K

    T. Hayashi, K. Kamada, N. Oshita and J. Yokoyama, JHEP08, 088 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2020)088 [arXiv:2005.12808 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Chaudhuri, B

    A. Chaudhuri, B. Coleppa and K. Loho, Phys. Rev. D108, no.3, 035040 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.035040 [arXiv:2301.08588 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D60, 063516 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.063516 [arXiv:astro-ph/9903484 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Lennon, J

    O. Lennon, J. March-Russell, R. Petrossian-Byrne and H. Tillim, JCAP04, 009 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/009 [arXiv:1712.07664 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Cheek, L

    A. Cheek, L. Heurtier, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D105, no.1, 015022 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.015022 [arXiv:2107.00013 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bernal, Y

    N. Bernal, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. D106, no.1, 015020 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.015020 [arXiv:2205.11522 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    D. N. Page and S. W. Hawking, Astrophys. J.206, 1-7 (1976) doi:10.1086/154350

    1976 doi

  43. [50]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.371, 447-469 (1991) doi:10.1086/169909

    1991 doi

  44. [51]

    Kohri and J

    K. Kohri and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D61, 023501 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.023501 [arXiv:astro-ph/9908160 [astro-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Clark, B

    S. Clark, B. Dutta, Y. Gao, L. E. Strigari and S. Watson, Phys. Rev. D95, no.8, 083006 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083006 [arXiv:1612.07738 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. Lesgourgues and P. D. Serpico, JCAP03, 043 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/03/043 [arXiv:1610.10051 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Niikura, M

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Yasuda, R. H. Lupton, T. Sumi, S. More, T. Kurita, S. Sugiyama, A. More and M. Oguri,et al. Nature Astron. 3, no.6, 524-534 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1 [arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Croon, D

    D. Croon, D. McKeen, N. Raj and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, no.8, 083021 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083021 [arXiv:2007.12697 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Griest, A

    K. Griest, A. M. Cieplak and M. J. Lehner, Astrophys. J.786, no.2, 158 (2014) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/158 [arXiv:1307.5798 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Auffinger, Prog

    J. Auffinger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.131, 104040 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104040 [arXiv:2206.02672 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023

  51. [58]

    Dvali, [arXiv:1810.02336 [hep-th]]

    G. Dvali, [arXiv:1810.02336 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  52. [59]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel and S. Zell, Phys. Rev. D102, no.10, 103523 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103523 [arXiv:2006.00011 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Barman, K

    B. Barman, K. Loho and Ó. Zapata, JCAP10, 065 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/065 [arXiv:2409.05953 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Barman, K

    B. Barman, K. Loho and Ó. Zapata, JCAP02, 052 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/052 [arXiv:2412.13254 [hep-ph]]. – 10 –

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Basumatary, N

    U. Basumatary, N. Raj and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. D111, no.4, L041306 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L041306 [arXiv:2410.22702 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Chianese, A

    M. Chianese, A. Boccia, F. Iocco, G. Miele and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D111, no.6, 6 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063036 [arXiv:2410.07604 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Boccia and F

    A. Boccia and F. Iocco, [arXiv:2502.19245 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chianese, [arXiv:2504.03838 [astro-ph.HE]]

    M. Chianese, [arXiv:2504.03838 [astro-ph.HE]]

  59. [67]

    Athron, M

    P. Athron, M. Chianese, S. Datta, R. Samanta and N. Saviano, JCAP05, 005 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/005 [arXiv:2411.19286 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D111, no.8, 8 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083008 [arXiv:2501.06298 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Montefalcone, D

    G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. Kuhnel and P. Sandick, [arXiv:2503.21005 [astro-ph.CO]]

  62. [70]

    X. h. Tan and Y. f. Zhou, [arXiv:2505.19857 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Dvali, J

    G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Bermúdez and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D110, no.5, 056029 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.056029 [arXiv:2405.13117 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Zantedeschi and L

    M. Zantedeschi and L. Visinelli, [arXiv:2410.07037 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Datta and R

    S. Datta and R. Samanta, Phys. Rev. D108, no.9, L091706 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L091706 [arXiv:2307.00646 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bandyopadhyay, D

    D. Bandyopadhyay, D. Borah and N. Das, JCAP04, 039 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/039 [arXiv:2501.04076 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Alexandre, G

    A. Alexandre, G. Dvali and E. Koutsangelas, Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 036004 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.036004 [arXiv:2402.14069 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Fujita, M

    T. Fujita, M. Kawasaki, K. Harigaya and R. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. D89, no.10, 103501 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103501 [arXiv:1401.1909 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Masina, Eur

    I. Masina, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135, no.7, 552 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00564-9 [arXiv:2004.04740 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.8, 693 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7161-1 [arXiv:1905.04268 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D71, 083502 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.083502 [arXiv:astro-ph/0408426 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) no.2, 023502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023502 [arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4168 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4168 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811437 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D62, 023506 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023506 [arXiv:astro-ph/0002127 [astro-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Hasegawa, N

    T. Hasegawa, N. Hiroshima, K. Kohri, R. S. L. Hansen, T. Tram and S. Hannestad, JCAP12 (2019), 012 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/012 [arXiv:1908.10189 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. D. Dolgov, P. D. Naselsky and I. D. Novikov, [arXiv:astro-ph/0009407 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Fujita, M

    T. Fujita, M. Kawasaki and S. Yokoyama, JCAP09, 015 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/015 [arXiv:1404.0951 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Allahverdi, J

    R. Allahverdi, J. Dent and J. Osinski, Phys. Rev. D97, no.5, 055013 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.055013 [arXiv:1711.10511 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 11 –

    2018 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Keith, D

    C. Keith, D. Hooper, N. Blinov and S. D. McDermott, Phys. Rev. D102, no.10, 103512 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103512 [arXiv:2006.03608 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison and S. Profumo, JCAP01, 056 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/056 [arXiv:1907.11846 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Baldes, Q

    I. Baldes, Q. Decant, D. C. Hooper and L. Lopez-Honorez, JCAP08, 045 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/045 [arXiv:2004.14773 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, JCAP06, 018 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/018 [arXiv:2002.00898 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Masina, Grav

    I. Masina, Grav. Cosmol.27, no.4, 315-330 (2021) doi:10.1134/S0202289321040101 [arXiv:2103.13825 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Papanikolaou and K

    T. Papanikolaou and K. N. Gourgouliatos, Phys. Rev. D108, no.6, 063532 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063532 [arXiv:2306.05473 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Bhaumik, M

    N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, R. K. Jain and M. Lewicki, JHEP10, 142 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)142 [arXiv:2409.04436 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Barman, M

    B. Barman, M. R. Haque and Ó. Zapata, JCAP09, 020 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/020 [arXiv:2405.15858 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    M. R. Haque, S. Maity, D. Maity and Y. Mambrini, JCAP07, 002 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/002 [arXiv:2404.16815 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Kohri, T

    K. Kohri, T. Terada and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D111, no.6, 063543 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063543 [arXiv:2409.06365 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  89. [97]

    N. P. D. Loc, Phys. Rev. D111, no.2, 023509 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023509 [arXiv:2410.17544 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Borah and N

    D. Borah and N. Das, JCAP02, 031 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/031 [arXiv:2410.16403 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Barker, B

    W. Barker, B. Gladwyn and S. Zell, [arXiv:2410.11948 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    Jiang, C

    Y. Jiang, C. Yuan, C. Z. Li and Q. G. Huang, JCAP12, 016 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/016 [arXiv:2409.07976 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020), A10 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 12 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.