Micro Black Hole Dark Matter

Florian Kuhnel; Manuel Ettengruber

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Micro Black Hole Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that memory-burden suppression of black hole evaporation is stronger, earlier, and sharper in low-scale gravity models, allowing micro black holes down to 10^-5 Planck masses to survive as dark matter.

desk verdict The direction is right, but the headline 10^-5 M_P mass window is not supported by the text as written: the transition parameter q is ambiguous and the lifetime bounds are stated without derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14871 v2 pith:QNCYUJVY submitted 2025-06-17 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

Manuel Ettengruber , Florian Kuhnel This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thastro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

keywords primordialblackholesdarkmattermemoryburdenlow-scalegravityextradimensionsparticlespeciesholeevaporationhierarchyproblem

topics Dark Matter The Hierarchy Problem

open problems Dark Matter

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 argues that if gravity becomes strong well below the Planck scale, the memory-burden effect suppresses micro black hole evaporation more strongly, starts earlier, and switches on more sharply than in the standard Planck-scale picture. In extra-dimensional and many-species theories the entropy of a micro black hole is larger than in ordinary four dimensions, which amplifies the $1/S^k$ suppression of the semiclassical evaporation rate. As a result, primordial black holes could survive to the present day at masses far below the old semiclassical bounds: about $10^{-5}$ Planck masses (roughly $10^{-10}$ g) in the extra-dimensional case, and about $10^5$ g in the many-species case. That would put dark matter in the mass range of heavy elementary particles, a window previously thought closed. The size of the window depends on a memory-burden exponent $k$ that the paper takes to be $2$ while noting it remains to be determined.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the memory-burden suppression formula $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}t = (1/S^k)\,\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}t|_{\mathrm{SC}}$, which encodes the idea that a black hole carrying a large amount of stored information evaporates at a rate suppressed by the $k$-th power of its entropy $S$. Into this formula the paper feeds two low-scale-gravity entropy enhancements: $S_{\text{extra dim}} \propto \left(M_P^{2n+2}/(M_f^{n+2} M^n)\right)^{1/(n+1)}$ for extra dimensions, and $S_{\text{species}} \propto (M_P/M)^{2\tilde n/(\tilde n+1)} N^{1/(\tilde n+1)}$ for many species. It also imports the smooth-transition parameters $q$ (the mass fraction remaining when memory burden turns on) and $\delta$ (the width of that transition) from Eq. (20), and combines them with these entropies to show that $q$ decreases and $\delta$ narrows.

What would settle it

A direct computation of the memory-burden exponent $k$ in a microscopic model that yields $k<2$ would shorten the lifetimes in Eqs. (22) and (24) below the age of the Universe at the claimed masses, falsifying the $10^{-5}\,M_P$ dark-matter window; observationally, detecting semiclassical evaporation products from a primordial black hole population near $10^{-10}$ g would equally contradict the long-lived-relict picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in theories where the strong-gravity scale $M_f$ lies far below the Planck mass $M_P$, the memory-burden effect suppresses black hole evaporation much more effectively than in the canonical Planck-scale picture. The suppression is parameterized by $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}t = S^{-k}\,\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}t|_{\mathrm{SC}}$, with the entropy $S$ enlarged by extra dimensions or by many particle species; the black hole leaves the semiclassical regime at a smaller remaining-mass fraction $q$ and over a narrower width $\delta$, with $q$ and $\delta$ given by Eqs. (20a,b) and their entropic scalings in Eqs. (21a,b). Consequently, large-extra-dimension scenarios could keep primordial black holes alive to the present day down to about $10^{14}$ GeV $\approx 10^{-10}$ g, i.e. $10^{-5}\,M_P$, while many-species scenarios allow survival down to about $10^5$ g only when memory burden is included.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results hinge on taking the memory-burden exponent to be $k=2$, a number the paper says remains to be determined; if $k$ is smaller, the quoted lifetimes and the dark-matter mass windows shrink and could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In large-extra-dimension models with $n=2$ and $k=2$, a primordial black hole of mass about $10^{14}$ GeV survives longer than the age of the Universe, putting the lightest surviving dark-matter black holes near $10^{-10}$ g, in the heavy-particle regime.
In many-species models with $\tilde n=3$ and $k=2$, memory burden is essential: semiclassical lifetimes are shorter than the age of the Universe, while memory-burdened lifetimes reach it at a threshold near $10^5$ g, on the edge of the standard light-PBH window.
Because a larger entropy makes the onset of memory burden earlier (smaller $q$) and sharper (smaller $\delta$), evaporation-based abundance constraints are weakened in extra-dimensional scenarios and can vanish in many-species scenarios, where most radiation goes to invisible species.
The quoted mass thresholds are tied to $k=2$; a future determination of $k$ would rescale the lifetimes in Eqs. (22) and (24) and with them the boundaries of the dark-matter window.

Reading between the lines

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

If a future computation fixed the memory-burden exponent at $k=1$ rather than $k=2$, the lifetimes in Eqs. (22) and (24) would shorten by many orders of magnitude and the $10^{-5}\,M_P$ window would most likely close; the paper itself flags $k$ as undetermined.
The same entropy-enhanced memory-burden logic should apply to other high-capacity gravitational systems, such as compact objects in warped geometries or near the species scale, potentially yielding analogous dark-matter windows at different masses.
A concrete follow-up would be to compute gravitational-wave and microlensing signatures of black holes at the surviving masses; this paper stops at lifetime and mass-threshold estimates and leaves detectable signals to later work.
Because the transition parameters $q$ and $\delta$ come from a prototype model with parameter $p$, other realizations of low-scale gravity could shift the thresholds even if the qualitative conclusion that stronger memory burden operates at a low gravity scale remains.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper has a real effect, but the headline number isn't yet supported. Low-scale gravity increases micro black hole entropy, so memory-burden suppression should be stronger and start earlier; that qualitative point is credible. What's not credible is the specific 10^-5 M_P dark-matter window, because the text leaves the transition parameter q ambiguous and gives the lifetime bounds without derivation.

The new content is legitimate: Eqs. (21a,b) give explicit scalings of q and δ in ADD and many-species models, which don't appear in Refs. [32] or [47]. The logic is transparent—plug the entropy formulas (12,13) into the transition parameters (20)—and the authors are honest that the full abundance calculation is deferred to a follow-up. The citation pattern is fine; they clearly build on prior work, including the papers that already noted the species effect.

The soft spot is the central quantitative claim. Eqs. (22) and (24) are presented without derivation, so the reader cannot see where the integral starts or which mass is inserted. The stress-test note is right: Eq. (19) says MB applies after losing a fraction 1−q, while the footnote to Eq. (20a) calls q ~ 1/√S 'extremely early.' Those two statements point in opposite directions. If q is the remaining mass fraction, the transition occurs at Mc = qMi and the lifetime carries a factor q^(λ+1) with λ+1 = 13/3 for n=2, k=2—roughly 10^-29 for the fiducial parameters, which would push the threshold far above the Planck mass and destroy the window. If q is the already-evaporated fraction, then Eq. (19) is mis-stated. The lifetime formulas (22) and (24) are only consistent with the second reading, effectively q ≈ 1, but the text never says so. This is a load-bearing ambiguity, not a typo.

Secondary concern: the bound depends on k=2, which the paper admits is undetermined. Since the threshold scales sensitively with k, the abstract's specific number is fragile. And the title overclaims slightly—these are lifetime bounds, not a demonstrated dark-matter abundance.

Who should read it: people working on PBH dark matter, memory burden, and low-scale gravity. The scaling insight is worth having, and the follow-up paper may deliver the real constraints. It deserves a serious referee, but only with major revision: clarify q, show the lifetime integrals, state the k dependence, and temper the abstract. I would not desk-reject it, but I also wouldn't accept it as-is.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The Letter studies how a low fundamental gravity scale, realised through extra compact dimensions or a large number of particle species, modifies the memory-burden suppression of micro black hole evaporation. It argues that the enlarged black-hole entropy in such theories makes the memory-burden suppression stronger, earlier, and sharper than in the standard Planck-scale case, and it uses this to derive lower bounds on primordial black hole masses that could constitute dark matter: about 10^14 GeV in the ADD-like extra-dimensional case (Eq. 23) and about 10^30 GeV in the many-species case (Eq. 25). The qualitative mechanism is the scaling of the entropy, Eqs. (12) and (13), inserted into the memory-burden decay law, Eq. (19).

Significance. If the quantitative steps are completed, the paper would provide a timely and falsifiable extension of the memory-burden programme to low-scale gravity, with concrete consequences for primordial black hole dark matter. The qualitative direction—larger entropy gives earlier and stronger suppression—follows directly from Eq. (19) and the entropy scaling, and this part is a useful conceptual contribution. The advertised quantitative window, however, rests on lifetime formulas that are asserted without derivation and on an undetermined exponent k, so the central numerical claims are not yet supported at the level needed for a journal publication.

major comments (3)

[Memory Burden, Eq. (19) and Eq. (20a), and footnote 64] The parameter q is used with two incompatible conventions. The text states that Eq. (19) applies 'after the evaporation of a fraction 1−q of the initial black hole mass', which makes q the remaining mass fraction; footnote 64 then describes the same q as 'extremely early' for q ≃ 1/Sqrt(S), which is only true if q is the fraction of the initial mass that has already evaporated before the transition. This distinction is load-bearing for the central results: if q is the surviving fraction, the memory-burden phase starts at M_c = q M_i and the integrated lifetime acquires additional q-dependent factors that can shift the threshold (23) by many orders of magnitude; if q is the evaporated fraction, then Eq. (19) is misworded and should say 'after the evaporation of a fraction q'. The authors must disambiguate the convention and then show how the transition parameter enters the lifetime integrals.
[Micro Primordial Black Holes Dark Matter, Eqs. (22) and (24)] The lifetime formulas (22) and (24), and therefore the mass thresholds (23) and (25), are stated without derivation. The text does not show how Eq. (19) is integrated together with the mass-dependent entropy of Eq. (12) or Eq. (13), nor does it specify the initial mass, the mass at which the memory-burden transition begins, or the final remnant mass that enter the integrals. Since these formulas carry the paper's headline quantitative claims, the missing derivation—or at least an explicit statement of the integrals and their limits—is necessary before the claimed 10^-5 M_P window can be considered supported.
[Memory Burden, after Eq. (19), and Eqs. (23) and (25)] The quantitative bounds depend on the exponent k introduced in Eq. (19), which the paper itself says 'remains to be determined' and then sets to k = 2. This is not a harmless choice: in the four-dimensional case, integrating the memory-burden law gives a lifetime scaling τ ∝ (M_c/M_P)^{2k+3}/M_P, so changing k from 2 to 1 or 3 shifts the threshold by many orders of magnitude; the extra-dimensional case in Eq. (22) is likewise k-sensitive because the entropy in Eq. (12) is mass-dependent. The paper should either present the bounds as functions of (k, p, M_f) or justify the specific choice of k with a quantitative argument, rather than fixing it by fiat.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The phrase 'our usual description brakes down' should read 'breaks down', and 'looses' later in the Letter should be 'loses'.
[Eq. (9) and surrounding text] The statement that α_gravitons = 0.1, ..., 14.4% for n = 0, ..., 6 is unclear as printed; it should specify whether these are percentages of the total emission and what the entries for n = 0 and n = 6 are.
[Eq. (12)] The exponent expression 'M^{2n+2}_P / M^{n+2}_f M^n' is hard to parse; it should be written with explicit parentheses and brackets so that the mass powers are unambiguous.
[Many-species discussion, near Eq. (10)] The sentence 'In the case of many species, the situation inverted in a sense' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten.
[References [53] and [75]] Two references that are cited for quantitative or conceptual content are marked 'To appear'; these should be replaced by published versions or the dependence on them should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's lifetime and mass-window results follow algebraically from externally sourced memory-burden and entropy formulas, with no fitted data and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: import the memory-burden suppression formula dM/dt|_MB = (1/S^k) dM/dt|_SC from Ref. [10]; import the transition parameters q and delta from Ref. [47]; insert the low-scale-gravity entropy expressions Eqs. (12) and (13) from Refs. [58] and [54]; then integrate to obtain the lifetime estimates (22) and (24) and the mass thresholds (23) and (25). None of these inputs is defined in terms of the paper's output, and no parameter in the paper is fitted to the consequences it reports. The mass thresholds are algebraic consequences of the assumed scaling laws, which is a standard derivation rather than a circular one. The cited sources for the central ingredients (Refs. [10,47,58]) have no author overlap with the present paper; the only self-citations (e.g., Refs. [31,46]) are used for context, reviews, and the smoothness of the transition, not to justify the core 'prediction.' There is an ambiguity in the text about the meaning of q in Eq. (19) versus the footnote to Eq. (20a), and the lifetime integrals (22) and (24) are not shown; however, an inconsistency or a gap in derivation is a correctness concern, not evidence that the claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Accordingly no circularity step meets the evidentiary bar set by the review rules.

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

The paper's conclusions flow from substituting prior entropy formulas into the memory-burden framework. The only new elements are the explicit scaling relations for q and delta and their consequences for lifetime bounds. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)

k = 2
Exponent in the memory-burden suppression Eq. (19). The paper states 'The exponent k remains to be determined' then uses k=2 for the lifetime bounds (22)-(25). The bounds shift with k.
p
Integer model parameter in the smooth-transition formulas (20a,b) from Ref. [47]. Appears in the exponents of q and delta scalings (21a,b); no specific value is fixed in the paper.
M_f = 10 TeV (example)
The low gravity scale in the ADD scenario, chosen as 10 TeV in examples. The mass bound (23) depends on M_f through Eq. (22).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Memory-burden suppression rate dM/dt|_MB = (1/S^k) dM/dt|_SC (Eq. 19)
The central mechanism is imported from Ref. [10]; not derived in this paper. The entire analysis rests on this suppression law.
domain assumption Entropy formulas S_extra dims and S_species (Eqs. 12, 13)
Taken from Refs. [58] and [54]; used to convert the memory-burden formula into scalings for low-scale gravity.
domain assumption Smooth transition formulas q and delta (Eqs. 20a,b) from Ref. [47]
The paper uses these expressions for the onset q of the memory-burden phase and width delta; they set q and delta as functions of entropy and model parameter p.
standard math Standard semiclassical black hole thermodynamics (Hawking temperature, mass-loss rate)
Equations (5)-(7) are standard results assumed without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Micro Black Hole Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNCYUJVY

@misc{pith2026250614871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Micro Black Hole Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNCYUJVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14871}
}

abstract

The influence of a possible low gravity scale, concretely through the presence of extra dimensions or additional species, on radiation properties of micro black holes is investigated. In particular, the suppression of evaporation through the so-called memory-burden effect is shown to be stronger, occurs earlier and with sharper transition compared to the canonical Planck-scale regime. It is furthermore shown how this affects the possibility of light primordial black hole dark matter, constraints on which may weaken substantially and allow them to be as light as $10^{-5}\,M_{\rm P}$, thereby lying in the particle regime.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Searching for the $N$-naturalness tower of neutrinos
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Neutrino data rule out the Majorana realization of N-naturalness with up to 10^4 sectors and fine-tuning r ≥ 0.1, including the no-fine-tuning GUT benchmark.
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.
Breaking Free from the Swampland of Impossible Universes through the DESI Portal
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

DESI data indicating evolving dark energy may allow string theory to describe observed universes without violating swampland constraints on constant dark energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[32]

Alexandre, G

A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. Koutsangelas, Phys. Rev. D 110, 036004 (2024), arXiv:2402.14069 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[47]

Dvali, M

G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, (2025), arXiv:2503.21740 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025
[1]

Dvali, Fortsch

G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys. 58, 528 (2010), arXiv:0706.2050 [hep-th]

arXiv 2010
[2]

Dvali and M

G. Dvali and M. Redi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 045027 (2008), arXiv:0710.4344 [hep-th]

arXiv 2008
[3]

In the Standard Model, the number of particle species is around 100, and therefore MP and Mf only differ by an order of magnitude

work page
[4]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

arXiv 1998
[5]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D 59, 086004 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807344

arXiv 1999
[6]

Antoniadis, N

I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9804398

arXiv 1998

Show all 75 references

[7]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

1975
[8]

Dvali, Fortsch

G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys.64, 106 (2016), arXiv:1509.04645 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[9]

Dvali, (2018), arXiv:1810.02336 [hep-th]

G. Dvali, (2018), arXiv:1810.02336 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[10]

Dvali, L

G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel, and S. Zell, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103523 (2020), arXiv:2006.00011 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Dvali, Fortsch

G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys. 69, 2000090 (2021), arXiv:1906.03530 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Dvali, Fortsch

G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys. 69, 2000091 (2021), arXiv:1907.07332 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Dvali, JHEP 03, 126 (2021), arXiv:2003.05546 [hep- th]

G. Dvali, JHEP 03, 126 (2021), arXiv:2003.05546 [hep- th]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Dvali, O

G. Dvali, O. Kaikov, and J. S. V. Berm´ udez, Phys. Rev. D 105, 056013 (2022), arXiv:2112.00551 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[15]

Dvali and O

G. Dvali and O. Sakhelashvili, Phys. Rev. D 105, 065014 (2022), arXiv:2111.03620 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Dvali, J

G. Dvali, J. S. Valbuena-Berm´ udez, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056029 (2024), arXiv:2405.13117 [hep- th]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Sov. Astron. 10, 602 (1967)

1967
[18]

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

1974
[19]

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

1975
[20]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[21]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 355 (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[22]

Escriv` a, F

A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel, and Y. Tada, (2022), 10.1016/B978-0-32-395636-9.00012-8, arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[23]

G. F. Chapline, Nature 253, 251 (1975)

1975
[24]

C. T. Donnan, R. J. McLure, J. S. Dunlop, D. J. McLeod, D. Magee, K. Z. Arellano-C´ ordova, L. Barrufet, R. Be- gley, R. A. A. Bowler, A. C. Carnall, F. Cullen, R. S. Ellis, A. Fontana, G. D. Illingworth, N. A. Grogin, M. L. Hamadouche, A. M. Koekemoer, F. Y. Liu, C. Mason, P....

2024 arXiv
[25]

Niikura et al

H. Niikura et al. , Nature Astron. 3, 524 (2019), arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Niikura, M

H. Niikura, M. Takada, S. Yokoyama, T. Sumi, and S. Masaki, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083503 (2019), arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[27]

M. R. S. Hawkins, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 5706 (2022), arXiv:2204.09143 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[28]

M. R. S. Hawkins, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 2393 (2023), arXiv:2311.08915 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Cappelluti, A

N. Cappelluti, A. Kashlinsky, R. G. Arendt, A. Comastri, G. G. Fazio, A. Finoguenov, G. Hasinger, J. C. Mather, T. Miyaji, and S. H. Moseley, Astrophys. J. 769, 68 (2013), arXiv:1210.5302 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[30]

Kashlinsky, R

A. Kashlinsky, R. G. Arendt, M. L. N. Ashby, J. Kruk, and N. Odegard, Astrophys. J. Lett. 980, L12 (2025), arXiv:2501.17751 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[31]

B. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Hawkins, and F. Kuhnel, Phys. Rept. 1054, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.03903 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Thoss, A

V. Thoss, A. Burkert, and K. Kohri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 532, 451 (2024), arXiv:2402.17823 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Boccia and F

A. Boccia and F. Iocco, (2025), arXiv:2502.19245 [astro- ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[35]

Chianese, A

M. Chianese, A. Boccia, F. Iocco, G. Miele, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063036 (2025), arXiv:2410.07604 [astro-ph.HE]. 6

2025 arXiv
[36]

Chianese, (2025), arXiv:2504.03838 [astro-ph.HE]

M. Chianese, (2025), arXiv:2504.03838 [astro-ph.HE]

2025
[37]

Calabrese, M

R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083008 (2025), arXiv:2501.06298 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Athron, M

P. Athron, M. Chianese, S. Datta, R. Samanta, and N. Saviano, JCAP 05, 005 (2025), arXiv:2411.19286 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[39]

Kohri, T

K. Kohri, T. Terada, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063543 (2025), arXiv:2409.06365 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[40]

Bhaumik, M

N. Bhaumik, M. R. Haque, R. K. Jain, and M. Lewicki, JHEP 10, 142 (2024), arXiv:2409.04436 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Barman, K

B. Barman, K. Loho, and O. Zapata, JCAP 10, 065 (2024), arXiv:2409.05953 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Barman, M

B. Barman, M. R. Haque, and O. Zapata, JCAP 09, 020 (2024), arXiv:2405.15858 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Zantedeschi and L

M. Zantedeschi and L. Visinelli, (2024), arXiv:2410.07037 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Dondarini, G

A. Dondarini, G. Marino, P. Panci, and M. Zantedeschi, (2025), arXiv:2506.13861 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[45]

Tan and Y.-f

X.-h. Tan and Y.-f. Zhou, (2025), arXiv:2505.19857 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[46]

Montefalcone, D

G. Montefalcone, D. Hooper, K. Freese, C. Kelso, F. Kuh- nel, and P. Sandick, (2025), arXiv:2503.21005 [astro- ph.CO]

2025
[48]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, JCAP 01, 023 (2014), arXiv:1312.4795 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[49]

Dvali, C

G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and S. Zell, JCAP 06, 028 (2017), arXiv:1701.08776 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[50]

Dvali, Symmetry 13, 3 (2020), arXiv:2012.02133 [hep- th]

G. Dvali, Symmetry 13, 3 (2020), arXiv:2012.02133 [hep- th]

2020 arXiv
[51]

Dvali, (2021), arXiv:2103.15668 [hep-th]

G. Dvali, (2021), arXiv:2103.15668 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[52]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 61, 742 (2013), arXiv:1112.3359 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[53]

Detectable mass range of primordial black holes with memory burden for theories with a large number of species,

A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, C. J. Turan, and M. Zant- edeschi, “Detectable mass range of primordial black holes with memory burden for theories with a large number of species,” To appear
[54]

Dvali, Int

G. Dvali, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 602 (2010), arXiv:0806.3801 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[55]

Dvali and O

G. Dvali and O. Pujolas, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064032 (2009), arXiv:0812.3442 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[56]

[54], exceeding the conserva- tive upper bound in Eq

The transition length scale for the many-copies model discussed below has been argued to be R = (M 2 P/M2 f )1/n M−1 f in Ref. [54], exceeding the conserva- tive upper bound in Eq. (2)
[57]

Dvali and M

G. Dvali and M. Redi, Phys. Rev. D 80, 055001 (2009), arXiv:0905.1709 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[58]

P. C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B 441, 96 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9808138

1998 arXiv
[59]

R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Annals Phys. 172, 304 (1986)

1986
[60]

R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 35, 455 (1987)

1987
[61]

Friedlander, K

A. Friedlander, K. J. Mack, S. Schon, N. Song, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103508 (2022), arXiv:2201.11761 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[62]

Cardoso, M

V. Cardoso, M. Cavaglia, and L. Gualtieri, JHEP 02, 021 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0512116

2006 arXiv
[63]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, (2010), arXiv:1004.3744 [hep- th]

2010 arXiv
[64]

The transition occurs essentially instantly for p = 1, but also for p = 2, one has q(p = 2) ≃ 1/ √ S , which is extremely early, given that S ≃ 1030 (M/1010 g)2
[65]

J. A. Conley and T. Wizansky, Phys. Rev. D 75, 044006 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611091

2007 arXiv
[66]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Rev. D 106, 086001 (2022), arXiv:2206.07071 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[67]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Lett. B 840, 137844 (2023), arXiv:2210.02475 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[68]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095008 (2024), arXiv:2401.09087 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[69]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, Phys. Rev. D 110, 015004 (2024), arXiv:2403.19604 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[70]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Lust, and K. P. n. Castillo, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101714 (2024), arXiv:2407.21031 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[71]

L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Lust, and K. P. n. Castillo, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101681 (2024), arXiv:2409.12904 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[72]

Anchordoqui, I

L. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, and D. Lust, (2025), arXiv:2501.11690 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[73]

L. A. Anchordoqui, A. Bedroya, and D. L¨ ust, (2025), arXiv:2506.14874 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[74]

L. A. Anchordoqui, F. Halzen, and D. Lust, (2025), arXiv:2505.23414 [hep-ph]

2025
[75]

Ettengruber, F

M. Ettengruber, F. K¨ uhnel, and G. Montefalcone, To appear

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Alexandre, G

A. Alexandre, G. Dvali, and E. Koutsangelas, Phys. Rev. D 110, 036004 (2024), arXiv:2402.14069 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[2] [47]

Dvali, M

G. Dvali, M. Zantedeschi, and S. Zell, (2025), arXiv:2503.21740 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

Dvali, Fortsch

G. Dvali, Fortsch. Phys. 58, 528 (2010), arXiv:0706.2050 [hep-th]

arXiv 2010

[4] [2]

Dvali and M

G. Dvali and M. Redi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 045027 (2008), arXiv:0710.4344 [hep-th]

arXiv 2008

[5] [3]

In the Standard Model, the number of particle species is around 100, and therefore MP and Mf only differ by an order of magnitude

work page

[6] [4]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

arXiv 1998

[7] [5]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D 59, 086004 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807344

arXiv 1999

[8] [6]

Antoniadis, N

I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9804398

arXiv 1998